AMENDMENT NUMBER 5 WINSTON STRAWN FINAL.PDF

Serial 12081‐SS C‐19‐12‐050‐3‐06
AMENDMENT NUMBER 5
TO
CONTRACT PURSUANT TO SOLE SOURCE
BY AND BETWEEN
MARICOPA COUNTY
AND
WINSTON AND STRAWN, LLP
I. Maricopa County by and through the Maricopa County Attorney(collectively, “County”)
entered into a Contract Pursuant to Sole Source, Serial No. 12081-SS (“Contract”) with
Winston and Strawn, LLP (the “Firm” or “Counsel”) on or about May 30, 2012 with an
original expiration date of May 31, 2013. The purpose of the Contract was legal
representation of the County in the matter of United States of America vs. Maricopa,
County of, et al. case no. 12-cv-0981-PHX-ROS, in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona. The agreement has been amended previously to extend the expiration term, to
increase the budget for the extended representation periods and to redefine the purpose
and scope of work. Amendment 4 approved by the Board in December, 2015
mistakenly defined the scope of work. Collectively, the County and the Firm may be
referred to as “Parties” or individually, either may be referred to as “Party.”
II. The Parties mutually desire to amend the Contract so as to extend the terms and to
further clarify the purpose and scope of representation.
III. Pursuant to paragraph 5.11, the Parties agree to rescind Amendment Number 4 and to
amend the Contract as follows:
A. Retroactive to October 23, 2015, to amend the purpose of the Contract, Section
2.0 Intent, as follows:
“Maricopa County retains Contractor to represent the County in: 1) United States
of America vs. Maricopa, County of, et al., case no. CV12-0981-PHX-ROS, in
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona; and 2) Manuel de Jesus Ortega
Melendres et al. vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., case no. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, retroactive to April 16, 2015.
Work shall be assigned by the County based on the County’s needs.
CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL COUNTY POLICIES
UPON EXECUTION OF THIS CONTRACT.
B. Make corresponding changes to the first paragraph of Section 3.1 Scope
of Work, as follows:
“This is to formally engage your firm to represent the County in: 1) United
States of America vs. Maricopa, County of, case no. CV12-0981-PHX-ROS, in
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and 2) Manuel de Jesus Ortega
Melendres et al. vs. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., case no. CV07-02513-PHX-GMS,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, retroactive to April 16, 2015.”
IV. This amendment is subject to A.R.S. §38-511.