The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05252010 - SD.6RECOMMENDATION(S): APPROVE response to Civil Grand Jury Report No. 1004, entitled "County Cell Phones" and DIRECT the Clerk of the Board to forward response to the Superior Court no later than June 8, 2010. FISCAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2010, the 2009/10 Civil Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, which was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator who prepared the attached response that clearly specifies: A. Whether a finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented; B. If a recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will be responsible for implementation and by what definite target date; C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented within a six-month period; and APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 05/25/2010 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director (925) 335-1023 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: May 25, 2010 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: KATHERINE SINCLAIR, Deputy cc: Lisa Driscoll, County Finance Director, Theresa Speiker, Chief Assistant County Administrator, Edward Woo, Director of Department of Information Technology SD. 6 To:Board of Supervisors From:David Twa, County Administrator Date:May 25, 2010 Contra Costa County Subject:RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1004, ENTITLED "County Cell Phones" D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding or recommendation. BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO CIVILGRAND JURY REPORT NO. 1004: County Cell Phones FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Use of multiple providers results in higher costs and inhibits the ability to achieve and maintain optimal cost efficiency. Response: Agree. Grand Jury Recommendation: Within 90 days, the Board of Supervisors shall select one provider to reduce cost per minute for all users. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Coverage quality is an important factor in choosing a cellular provider. Due to the topographical make-up of Contra Costa County, there is not currently a single provider that is able to provide service to all areas of our County. Advances in cell phone technology may soon solve this problem and at that point, the County will seriously consider a single contract. 2. Individual departments manage and administer their own cell phone contracts, resulting in higher cost and inefficiency: i.e., tracking of minutes purchased vs. minutes used, equipment inventory control and simplified invoicing and payment. Response: Partially disagree. Although many individual departments do manage their own cell phone contracts, they are managing them through Government rate plans including California Multiple Award Schedules (CMAS). The CMAS contract, for instance, offers a wide variety of commodities, non-IT services, and information technology products and services at prices which have been assessed to be fair, reasonable, and competitive. The use of these contracts is optional and is available to both California State and Local Government agencies Grand Jury Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors shall centralize contract management and administration immediately upon conversion to a single provider contract. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. Although the County agrees that greater standardization of cell phone administration is needed, centralized administration of this function would require greater resources than are currently available. The County agrees that more thorough review of individual use and adjustment of plans can save money. The County Administrator's Office has surveyed other County governments and is in the process of developing an Administrative Bulletin on Cellular Phone and Smartphone Policy. The purpose of the policy is to standardize the guidelines for issuance and use of cellular phone and/or smart phones. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly the policy will describe the proper internal controls to use in review of rate plans and individual use. The policy will be forwarded to the Internal Operations Committee and issued this summer. 3. Multiple providers result in charges for cell to cell communication between provider networks. Response: Partially disagree. Some of the County’s plans are for unlimited minutes, therefore there are no additional charges for cell to cell communications between providers; however, it is true that the majority of County phones are on individual department, specific carrier, pooled minute plans. Grand Jury Recommendation: One provider shall be utilized unless required services are not available. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable (see response number one). Additionally, although Countywide pooled plans would save money over-all they would by definition include interdepartmental subsidies. These subsidies would likely cause federal and State claiming issues. 4. Push to talk, an essential no cost communication tool which includes group calling, is only possible within a single provider network. Response: Agree. Grand Jury Recommendation: Push to talk feature should be included in any service contract. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable. The push to talk feature is an added cost which is not always needed and therefore not currently included in all rate plans used by the County. As was pointed out in response number 2, all plans should be regularly reviewed and adjusted to ensure that the most cost effective rate plans are contracted. CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: CLERK'S ADDENDUM ATTACHMENTS Grand Jury Report 1004 - County Cell Phones Contact: Ron Tervelt Foreperson (925) 957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1004 COUNTY CELL PHONES Gain Without Pain TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County Administrator By simply reducing cell phone contracts from multiple providers to a single provider, Contni Costa County can save 25% or more of its current cell phone costs with no reduction in service. Cell phone rates are based upon contracts established for all government entities. All three major cell phone companies offer similar rates based upon price per minute. Savings can be achieved through ongoing management of minutes purchased and minutes used. Cell phone providers stated that the larger the pool of minutes purchased from one provider, the greater the opportunity for cost savings and effective management. Utilization of multiple providers severely limits the opportunity to optimize cost. Service and support levels of the three major providers are similar and all meet the County's wireless communication needs. BACKGROUND The Grand Jury's investigation of the County's cellular communication system determined that: There are approximately 2,500 cellular communication devices. The annual cellular bill is $900,000 to $1 million. Sprintmextel, Verizon and ATT are the County's current service providers. A large number of users in some departments use the push to talk function. Cell to cell calls outside a single provider network increase billed minutes and cost. (Cell calls within a single provider network are free.) Multiple providers and invoices create unnecessary costs and administrative inefficiencies: o Invoices are reviewed and authorized by multiple departments. o Corresponding checks are manually generated and mailed resulting in increased processing costs. o The County is paying for cell phones that are unassigned or unused, with little or no inventory control. Contra Costa County 2009-2010 Grand Jury Report 1004 Grand Jury reports are posted at http ' \i \i cc-courts oro/rrdndl~~~.\ Page 1 METHODOLOGY In November 2009, the Grand Jury began an inquiry into cell phone expenses to the County. The Grand Jury interviewed three major service providers to identify savings opportunities. The cost per minute fiom all three providers was similar. They also stated that ongoing and continuous analysis and management of cell minute usage is the key to overall cost savings. Based on information fiom the providers, and the City of San Jose, the Grand Jury determined that using a single provider reduced costs. (appendix) The Grand Jury reviewed the County's cell phone usage data and cost information. Subsequently the Grand Jury interviewed several department heads and analyzed cell phone data to determine opportunities for cost reduction. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Use of multiple providers results in higher costs and inhibits the ability to achieve and maintain optimal cost efficiency. Recommendation: Within 90 days, the Board of Supervisors shall select one provider to reduce cost per minute for all users. 2. Individual departments manage and administer their own cell phone contracts, resulting in higher cost and inefficiency: i.e., tracking of minutes purchased vs. minutes used, equipment inventory control and simplified invoicing and payment. Recommendation: The Board of Supervisors shall centralize contract management and administration immediately upon conversion to a single provider contract. 3. Multiple providers result in charges for cell to cell communication between provider networks. Recommendation: One provider shall be utilized unless required services are not available. 4. Push to talk, an essential no cost communication tool which includes group calling, is only possible within a single provider network. Recommendation: Push to talk feature should be included in any service contract. Contra Costa County 2009-2010 Grand Jury Report 1004 Grand Jury reports are posted at http:ii\v\v\v.cc-courts.ore/grdndium Page 2 Required Responses: Findings and Recommendations: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors: 1 through 4 Appendix: * Cell Phone Usage Comparison Contra Costa Countv Citv of San Jose Number of Phones Monthly Minutes Annual Minutes Cost per Minute 2,500 820.554 (~ultiple Provider Average) Current Annual Cost 1,344 302,269 9,846,648 $. 10 Cost per Minute Single Provider * ALL FIGURES ARE APPROXIMATE 3,627,228 $.I3 (current) $980.000 Annual Cost Annual Savings Contra Costa County 2009-2010 Grand Jury Report 1004 Grand Jury reports are posted at http:li\\\3 M .cc-conr~s.ore/.crand lurh (prior to rate change) $471.539 s.075 (projected) Page 3 s.077 (actual) $735,000 (projected) $245,000 (~roiected) $279,296 (actual) $192,243 (actual)