Animal Services has put out a Request for Proposals (RFP) for vet contractors to run spay/neuter clinics at each shelter other than South LA where Eric Jones has his cushy set up. However, unlike with Jones, the City gets much more for its money this time.
The URL with all the request documents:
The main document outlining the request:
The interesting one: all about the Money. This is the one Porter Pet Hospital's Natalie might be most interested in, all about the money:
On the LAAS website it says:
"RFP to Operate one or more of the Department’s Spay/ Neuter Clinics.
"Animal Services is seeking veterinarians and/or other animal care professionals to operate, under contract, its spay/neuter clinics built into each of its Animal Care Centers. The RFP below provides information about the clinics, the scope of services, and instructions on how to submit a proposal."
In one of the other documents it says Eric Jones, who had everything supplied to him, made $330,000 under guaranteed contract last year at South LA.
However, the new guy is warned he can’t make over $500,000 from his shelter location. Oh dear.
These are the payment rules:
"If surgical exploration is needed to determine if an animal has already been spayed, surgery shall be deemed performed and the same fee shall apply as if the spay surgery was performed."
Hmmm. Bring any two cats you might think of to mind?
This sounds like a reward for incompetence. I think dropping this clause might prevent a lot of unneeded painful surgeries.
Further the RFP says:
"The Contractor shall provide appropriate medical treatment to animals in the event of medical emergencies for animals in the care and control of the Contractor. The Contractor will stabilize the animal in the event he or she needs to be transported to another private veterinary hospital, which will be at no additional cost to the City or the pet owner if the emergency is determined to be related to or caused by the sterilization surgery."
"All animals shall be released to pet owners or adopters with post-operative instructions, including emergency telephone numbers. Should complications occur, the Contractor shall retain responsibility and care for the animal until the complication is abated."
Could it be that Porter's current agreement with Animal Services does not have such a clause? Could it be if anything goes wrong, it is up to the owner to pay for it? The invoice I have from them said the amoxi had to be paid for, and before Mason's intervention, they wanted an additonal $42 for bandaging Simba.
Optional Services and Additional Fees to the Public:
"The Contractor may offer to the public additional services, provided that the written approval is received from the pet owner and the procedure is performed in conjunction with the surgical sterilization of the pet. Pricing of the services, and amounts of additional fees listed below, shall be at the Contractor’s discretion:
Price of Spay/ Neuter Surgeries
"Prices to be paid by Department to Contractor for spay/neuter surgeries on Care Center animals and animals adopted from the Care Centers are:
Male dog under 50 lbs.
So, if Porter plays under the same rules as this contract, they got $136 for the surgeries on Foxy and Simba.
WOULDN'T IT BE A GOOD IDEA NOT TO PAY THE VET FOR A SPAY THAT DID NOT HAVE TO BE DONE?
Wouldn't that make a doctor a little more careful and not open two cats with apparent hysterectomy scars? There is no clause in the RFP for letting a fecund cat or dog not be speutered. That is, there is no downside on being too cautious and not perform a speuter.
Would this have prevented Foxy's and Simba's recent surgeries? I don't know. But whatever protocol Porter plays by, both Simba and Foxy now have two hysterectomy scars.