Computer firm files suit against municipal court

The city has already paid Computer Access Group Inc. of Cincinnati $14,859.
By PETER H. MILLIKEN
VINDICATOR TRUMBULL STAFF
WARREN -- A trial is set for this month in a $27,951 lawsuit filed by a Cincinnati computer consulting firm against the city and its municipal court.
Trial will be Sept. 28 before Judge Andrew Logan of Trumbull County Common Pleas Court.
The suit by Computer Access Group Inc. stems from a project to convert the court's computer information system to new software in 2000 following the Y2K scare.
In addition to the money CAG says the municipal court owes it, CAG is seeking 10 percent interest from Feb. 18, 2003, and court costs.
The firm had initially quoted a $10,000 price tag for the conversion based on use of the software programs it had prepared for the Fairfield Municipal Court and told city officials costs would rise if additional features were to be added, CAG's lawyer, Marc N. Silberman of Cleveland, said in court papers. Fairfield is north of Cincinnati.
What plaintiffs contend
The cost escalated because the Warren court wanted more capabilities than the Fairfield court, requiring CAG to rewrite some software programs and write new ones to meet Warren's requirements, CAG said.
"Plaintiff charged defendant only for the time that its personnel spent in actually performing the software conversion, travel time and hotel and meal charges. These services should be paid for by the defendant from the statutorily established fund specifically designated for that purpose," Silberman wrote.
Silberman was referring to a municipal court computerization fund derived exclusively from court filing fees, from which he said a municipal judge could order that CAG be paid the additional $27,951.
"No written contracts were ever entered into by and between Computer Access Group Inc. or any of their other agents, or the Warren Municipal Court," James E. Sanders, assistant city law director, wrote in a motion to have the case dismissed.
"No bid process was initiated to allow a contract in excess of $15,000 to be entered into by the city and any vendor," Sanders wrote. Purchases above $15,000 need to be bid under state law with some exceptions.
The city paid $14,859 to CAG and an additional $4,970 to QSS Systems for work it did on the conversion program at CAG's direction, Sanders wrote.
In its court filing opposing dismissal of the case, CAG said there was "no need for a formal contract ... nor was competitive bidding required."
CAG argued that it was legally exempt from competitive bidding requirements because it provides specialized professional services.