Summary#

The Modification No. M003 to Contract No. DCRL-2026-C-0024 with Crawford Consulting and Mental Health Service, Inc. Approval and Payment Authorization Emergency Act of 2026 is a temporary, standalone approval act; it does not amend the procurement law. It would approve a contract modification for community-based residential and social services and authorize payment, notwithstanding specified procurement requirements. Its stated purpose is to approve the modification and payment; it does not promise a particular service outcome.

• The Council approves Proposed Modification No. M003 to the District’s contract with Crawford Consulting and Mental Health Service, Inc.
• The District may pay up to $1,774,850.84 for services already received and to be received under the modification.
• The act takes effect after mayoral approval, or after a Council override of a mayoral veto, and lasts no longer than 90 days.
• The supplied status says the bill passed the Council and was delivered to the Mayor. It does not say whether the Mayor approved or vetoed it.

What it means for you#

• District government: If the act takes effect, it can approve the modification and make payments up to the stated limit for the covered services.
• Crawford Consulting and Mental Health Service, Inc.: The act authorizes payment for services under the modification, but does not set out the contract’s rates or other terms.
• People using the services: The bill concerns a contract for community-based residential and social services. It does not set eligibility rules, create an application or review process, or change individual rights.
• District residents and taxpayers: The bill authorizes a limited payment amount. It does not create a tax or fee.

Money#

The bill authorizes payments of up to $1,774,850.84; the available material does not give a separate estimate of actual spending or total fiscal impact.

• The Council adopts a fiscal impact statement from the Chief Financial Officer, but that statement’s contents are not included in the supplied material.
• The authorization covers services both received and to be received under the modification. The bill does not say how much has already been spent or will be paid.

What is unclear#

• The contract modification’s detailed terms, dates, rates, and service volume are not included. No publicly available information.
• The material does not explain why emergency approval is needed.
• The bill refers to procurement requirements but does not describe them; the underlying procurement law was not supplied, so their exact effect cannot be verified.
• It does not explain what happens to the contract or payment authority after the act’s maximum 90-day period.
• The people served, service locations, and how the modification changes the services are not stated. No publicly available information.

Case for#

• The approval would let the District authorize payment for services already received as well as services to be provided under the modification.
• A possible argument for the bill is that approving this specific contract change could support continued delivery of the named residential and social services.
• The payment authorization has a stated upper limit, rather than an open-ended amount.

Case against#

• The bill approves the modification notwithstanding specified procurement requirements, but the supplied material does not explain those requirements or why an exception is appropriate.
• The contract details and the Chief Financial Officer’s fiscal impact statement are not available here, limiting public assessment of the cost and what the District receives.
• The bill gives no reason for emergency treatment, and its 90-day limit leaves unclear how the approval and payment authority relate to the contract after that period.