HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03152013 - D.1RECOMMENDATION(S):
CONSIDER the following actions:
ACCEPT update on establishing a Health Benefit Exchange Call Center in this County;1.
PROVIDE further direction regarding facility selection and lease negotiation;2.
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE execution of a contract with the State of California for call center
services; and
3.
ADOPT Personnel Resolution No. 21231, creating new classifications and adding positions at the
Health Benefit Exchange Call Center.
4.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 03/15/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
NO:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Contact: Dorothy Sansoe,
925-335-1009
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: March 15, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D. 1
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Kathy Gallagher, Employment & Human Services
Date:March 15, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Update on Progress on the Health Benefit Exchange Call Center Contract, Facility and Position Approval
FISCAL IMPACT:
100% of the cost of the Health Benefit Exchange Call Center will be covered by the State of California,
via Federal Funds, authorized under the Affordable Care Act. No County general purpose revenue will
be used to support the Call Center.
BACKGROUND:
CURRENT STATUS
On March 12, 2013 the Board considered the recommendations contained in the request. At that time,
the County did not have an agreement with AFSCME Local 512 with regard to the supervisors who
would staff the Call Center. The Board rejected the recommendations and directed staff to notify the
Health Benefits Exchange Commission/Covered California (HBEX) of the decision not to proceed with
partnering on the establishment of a call center in Contra Costa County.
On March 13, 2013, the County and AFSCME Local 512 settled the outstanding issues and reached an
agreement. The County has now reached agreement with all four unions who will represent employees
at the Call Center.
The County continues to negotiate a contract with the Health Benefits Exchange Commission/Covered
California (HBEX). The contract document has been substantially completed, but there are several
issues that remain outstanding. A draft of the contract as of March 11, 2013 is attached for informational
purposes. A finalized contract will be provided to the Chair of the Board for signature once the finalized
document is received from the HBEX.
Staff continues work on this project and process information as it becomes available. The information
included with this Board Order is the best available at this time. Any additional financial, contract or
lease information that becomes available will be provided at the meeting.
The Chair of the Board of Supervisor is requesting the Board of Supervisors reconsider this proposal
and determine any possible further actions and directions to staff.
INFORMATION PROVIDED PREVIOUSLY:
On January 18, 2013, the Health Benefits Exchange Commission/Covered California (HBEX)
announced their intent to award to Contra Costa County a contract to open and operate a call center
within the County.
On February 12, 2013 the Director of the Employment and Human Services Department provided the
fourth update on the progress made toward establishing this Call Center. At that time, the Board of
Supervisors provided direction on the selection of a facility to house the Call Center. This report
provides an update on the efforts since February 12th and requests further direction from the Board and
approval of the recommendations detailed above.
FACILITIES
The Public Works Real Estate Division was asked to identify possible sites in east, west and central
county, in areas of highest unemployment, that were large enough for 180-200 employees (mostly in
office cubicles) that would require the least cost, both in terms of rent and renovation costs necessary to
convert the space to a Call Center, provide access to public transportation and were in the vicinity of
other Employment and Human Services Department (EHSD) offices. These criteria were developed at
the request of the State and were included in the County's proposal. The criteria were approved by the
Exchange Board and considered in their decision to award the contract to Contra Costa County.
On February 12, 2013, the Board of Supervisors considered four possible facilities to house the Call
Center: 1450 Marina Way South, Richmond; 2500 Bates Avenue, Concord; 4041 Lone Tree Way,
Antioch; and 5065 Deer Valley Road, Antioch. After considering the four sites presented and accepting
public comment from members of the community, the Board directed staff to return with additional
information, including a comparison, of two of the four sites - the Richmond and Concord site. On
February 14, 2013 staff from EHSD, the State, the Department of Information Technology, and Public
Works Real Estate toured both sites.
Attached is new information. The first new document is a Question and Answer sheet that was not
included in the February 26, 2013 board Packet but addresses the questions that have risen since that
time. The second document is a revised spreadsheet that was originally part of the Facilities Report in
the February 26, 2013 agenda item. This new spreadsheet, "Side By Side Facilities Comparison," has
been updated with more recent information and attempts to provide an "apples to apples" comparison of
the two facilities in question.
A complete report, prepared by Public Works Real Estate staff is attached.
In addition, the attachment titled "Community Comparison" includes information on the following:
demographics, unemployment rates, CalWORKs clients, childcare sites, and public transportation.
CONTRACT APPROVAL
County staff, including EHSD administrative, fiscal, and program personnel; Human Resources
Department; County Counsel and the County Administrator's Office have concluded a number of
conference call meetings to discuss contract language and have come to agreement on the terms of the
contract and contract language. A draft copy of the contract is attached to this Board Order. Staff
recommends the Board approve the draft contract and authorize the Chair of the Board to sign the
agreement once it has been finalized to include any changes necessary due to the final selection of a
facility.
STAFFING/LABOR
Three new classifications and 204 positions are requested to be established for the operations of the
Call Center. Two of these positions, the Secretary-Journey Level and one of the EHSD Division
Managers will have their duties split between the Call Center and other programs within EHSD. The
balance of these positions, a net of 204, are 100% dedicated to the activities of the Call Center. Position
Adjustment Request No. 21231 is attached to this Board Order and requests the establishment of three
new classifications and the addition of the positions necessary to operate the call center.
The HBEX requires a certain staffing pattern at its service centers and this requirement also applies to
the County’s Call Center. The prescribed staffing pattern requires that EHSD hire and train employees
by July 1, 2013. This includes three managers (one half time), one trainer, 12 supervisors, 180
customer service Agents (both permanent full-time and permanent intermittent), and eight support
positions (e.g. Secretary (half time), Personnel Services Assistant, Clerical Supervisor, Exchange Call
Center Quality Assurance Monitor, and four Clerk-Experienced Level). While some of these positions
may be filled laterally, it is anticipated that the majority will be new hires.
The Call Center will be required to accept calls for 59 hours a week, Monday through Saturday. During
the Affordable Care Act’s annual enrollment period, the Call Center will extend its hours to 72 hours per
week Monday through Saturday. The plan and budget for the Call Center is to staff the core 40 hours
with permanent full time staff and the extended hours, i.e. those past 40, with permanent intermittent
employees. Permanent intermittent employees will also be used to ensure adequate coverage and to fill
in behind permanent staff during vacation, sick leave, etc.
The Call Center is to be operational by July 1, 2013, to begin the State required testing of the hardware,
software, and staff. That live testing and program refinements continue through September with open
enrollment commencing on October 1, 2013.
The majority of these new positions are entry level and will be attractive to our residents. EHSD will be
working with the County’s Workforce Development Board and Richmond’s Workforce Investment Board
to coordinate outreach and inform job seekers of these opportunities. EHSD will be informing
CalWORKs participants of these jobs and encouraging them to apply. Additionally, we will out-reach to
our non-profit partners in the community. It is anticipated that these outreach efforts will include group
presentations and job fairs.
To date, the State has been clear that we should enter into a three year lease and that their intent is to
continue this partnership for beyond that period. However, in the event that a reduction in force or layoff
of County employees at the Call Center becomes necessary, the Employment and Human Services
Department will follow normal County protocols, including notification of labor representatives, placing
individuals into other jobs for which they qualify and lay off of employees, if necessary. EHSD will be
notified by the State of the date whereby a decision will be made whether to reduce or phase out
operations at the Exchange Call Center or to continue as an independently sustainable operation under
HBEX after January of 2015. If it is determined that operations at the call center will be reduced or
terminated, the project management team will prepare a plan to phase out operations. There would be
an extensive internal communication plan in which employees would be notified ahead of time that the
center would be downsizing or closing down. Employees would have an opportunity to consider future
opportunities. The Workforce Development Board’s Rapid Response team would become engaged to
provide staff with information, job training, access to the One-Stop Career Centers, and employment
opportunities. The County Tactical Employment Team (TET) would assist employees by identifying
possible employment opportunities within other County Departments and assisting with placements.
Employees in jeopardy of being laid off would have first priority for position vacancies for which they
qualify. EHSD would hold appropriate positions vacant to backfill with call center employees who are
interested in maintaining employment within Contra Costa County.
LABOR RELATIONS
Over the last week, the Employment and Human Services Department, Human Resources Department
and County Administration have been meeting with the labor representatives from the impacted unions,
including:
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 2700
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 512
Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21
Service Employees International Union, Local 1021
The County representatives and representatives from Local 1021 reached a tentative agreement on
Marcy 1, 2013 and County staff continues to meet and confer with the other unions.
The labor representatives are as excited about this opportunity as County staff and are working closely
with us. they have expedited the scheduling of meet and confer sessions to come to agreement as
quickly as possible regarding the classifications and working conditions of these new employees.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
The Board of Supervisors and the public will not receive up-to-date information on the progress made in
negotiating a contract with the State of California, staff will not receive needed direction from the Board,
and over 200 well-paying potential County jobs will not be created.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Not applicable.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Wesley Ellis, resident of Richmond; Bill Lindsay, City of Richmond; Gayle
Speakers: Wesley Ellis, resident of Richmond; Bill Lindsay, City of Richmond; Gayle
McLaughlin, Mayor Richmond; Dan Helix, Mayor of Concord; Dan Romero, Hercules City
Council; Nancy Parent, City of Pittsburg and Opportunity Junction; Pete Murray, Pinole; Jael
Myrick, resident of Richmond; Jovanka Beckles; Kathleen Sullivan, Richmond City Council; Jim
Rogers, resident of Richmond; Bea Roberson, resident of Richmond; Chuck Carpenter, resident
of Concord; Richard Cabral, AFSCME Local 2700; Pamela Bilbo, Men and Women of Valor;
Steven Bates, NAACP; Texanita Bluitt, NAACP; Mike Bank, Novo Construction; Delon Jackson;
Antwon Cloird; Robert Hammons, 2500 Bates Avenue; Brooks Pedder, resident of Lafayette;
Mike Van Hotwegen, Michael Chance Center for Economic Opportunity; Otheree Christian,
NAACP; Mike Bonnifield, 2500 Bates Avenue; Paul Sannela, MWP; Sal Evola, 2500 Bates
Avenue. ADOPTED the recommendations; DIRECTED staff to enter into a facilities lease at the
2500 Bates Avenue, Concord site.
ATTACHMENTS
Side By Side Facility Comparison as of 3-7-13
State Contract as of 3-11-13
Position Adjustment Resolution
Questions and Answers
State Responses to Facility Questions
Facility Report
Community Comparison Charts
GIS Maps
HBEX 12 / EHSD CALL CENTER March 7, 20131450 MARINA WAY, 2500 BATES AVE.,RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS1LESSORMarina Business Partners, LLC88 / 122SQUARE FEET32,375 32,375Marina Way provided a space plan based on 206 single‐occupancy workstations as described in the Minimum Requirements of the County's RFP. Bates Ave. assumed using the existing double‐occupancy cubicles, and did not provide a space plan. Marina Way's space plan estimated an office size of 32,375 square feet. County staff assumed the same square footage for both buildings for direct comparison.3LEASE TERM36 mos. 36 mos.4OPTION PERIOD36 mos. 36 mos.5COSTS61) 3‐YEAR RENT$1,915,305 $1,741,451 Rent for each building is based on a rate per square foot per month proposed by each property owner. Both rents are based on 32,375 sf. Marina Way proposed rent starting at $1.60 per square foot, with annual increases, and including all occupancy expenses, except gas and electricity. Bates Ave. proposed 3 mos. of free rent, then a rate of $1.63 per square foot that included all expenses, and stayed flat for the remaining 33 months. The previous report erroneously did not include Bates Ave.'s 3 mos. of free rent. The 3 mos. free rent is valued at 158,314.72) 3‐YEAR OCCUPANCY EXPENSES$321,133 $0 Occupancy expenses include such things as utilities, janitorial, taxes, insurance, etc. The Marina Way occupancy expenses were estimated at $.25 psf w/ 3% annual increases. The Bates Ave. proposal included all occupancy expenses in the rent, with no additional expense to the County.1
RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS83) COST OF TENANT IMPROVEMENTS$210,913 $1,070,650 Marina Way proposed a Tenant Improvement Allowance of $960,566, and that the County/State pay for CAT 6 cabling, a "white noise" system, and additional security items (a total of $210,913). Bates Ave. initially proposed that the cost of any tenant improvements described in the County's Minimum Requirements, except for painting the entire suite and cleaning the carpet, would be an additional expense to County/State. On Mar 4, staff received an additional Bates Ave. proposal, which stated the County's cost of constructing the tenant improvements would be limited to $200,000, if the County agreed to use the workstations and cabling that existed in the suite. On Mar 6, staff received several other Bates Ave. proposals, which appeared to state the Lessor would pay for the installation of CAT 6 cabling to "each required workstation/office" if the County received written verification from the State that CAT 6 cabling is required, and other tenant improvements. The County has received that written verification from the State, and the cost of installing the new CAT 6 cabling, and the other work, which together is estimated to cost a total of $415,000, has been removed from the County's cost estimate. The Bates Ave. cost shown is the County's estimated cost of constructing the tenant improvements that were included in the County's Minimum Requirements, but were not included in the Bates proposal. The $415,000 of work included in the Bates Ave. proposals was removed from the County's total estimated cost.94) COST OF REPAIR / MAINTENANCE$0 $0Each property owner has proposed paying for the repair and maintenance of the Premises. 2
RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS105) COST OF FURNITURE$0 * $992,347 The furniture cost is based on County's estimate, and includes new tables, chairs, etc. for all Conference and Training Rooms in the premises, and all new single‐occupancy workstations as required by the State. The Bates Ave. proposal assumes using the workstations that already exist in their building. Based on the State's requirements, the workstations at Bates Ave. have been determined to not meet standard requirements for this project. Since new cubicles will be needed at either location, the same cost figure was used for each building for direct comparison. The cost figure was also reduced from the previous report due to an over‐estimate by the furniture vendor. * On Mar 6, staff received a secondary proposal from the Marina Way lessor stating the City of Richmond would loan him the money for him to buy the furniture for County's use, and the County/State would no longer have to pay for it.116) MINUS REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONS($37,500) $0 The Marina Way proposal stated the amount of the County's real estate commission in its proposal. The Bates Ave. proposal did not state an amount, but said whatever amount was paid to the County would have to be re‐paid to the lessor if the County terminated the lease early.12TOTAL COSTS DURING LEASE TERM$2,409,851 $3,804,448 The estimated Total Costs During the Lease Term for the Marina Way site is $1,394,597 less than that of the Bates Ave. site. Most of that difference is due to the approx. $1.95 million that the Marina Way lessor contributed to the cost of the tenant improvements and the furniture, including the workstations specified in the County's Minimum Requirements.13CONTRIBUTIONS BY LESSORS141) MONTHS OF FREE RENT03 mos. worth $158,314Marina Way did not propose any free rent; Bates Ave. proposed 3 mos. of free rent valued at $158,314.152) LESSOR'S TENANT IMPROVEMENT ALLOWANCE$960,566 $415,000 Marina Way proposed a TI Allowance of $29.67 per‐square‐foot, which meets the lessor's contractor's estimate for construction of the tenant improvements described in the County's Minimum Requirements. The Bates Ave. proposals included painting the entire suite, cleaning the carpet, removing the CAT 5E cable and installing CAT 6 cable throughout the premises, constructing a Main Point of Entry, and Training Rooms for the County.3
RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS163) LESSOR'S FURNITURE ALLOWANCE$992,347 $0 The Marina Way lessor proposes to buy all furniture specified by County. The Bates Ave. proposal included 6 private offices that are already furnished. All other furniture at the Bates Ave. site will have to be purchased at the County/State's expense.17TOTAL LESSOR CONTRIBUTIONS$1,952,913 $573,314 The difference is $1,379,599.18OTHER INFORMATION19RENT DURING 3‐YR. OPTION PERIOD$2,078,475 $2,016,048 Marina Way proposed rent during a renewal period with 3% annual increases in Rent. Bates Ave. proposed 3% annual increases during the option period.20CABLING / COSTNone CAT 5EThe State requires CAT 6 cabling in its Call Centers, including this one in Contra Costa County. Bates Ave. has CAT 5E cable in place. Marina Way does not have any cable in place. CAT 6 will have to be installed in either space, at additional expense. Bates Ave. has proposed installing CAT 6 cable and equipment to each workstation at a cost of $280,000. Marina Way proposed that the County/State would have to pay to install CAT 6 cabling, and estimated the cost to be $140,000.21CUBICLES INCLUDEDNo No ** There are 398 cubicles in place in the Bates Ave. premises. However, based upon the State's requirement, County has deemed them to be unacceptable for use in this Call Center. New cubicles will therefore be required in each space. Marina Way has proposed adding cubicles that are different than those included in the County's Minimum Requirements. That type and manufacture of workstation will have to be evaluated. However, the County's estimated furniture cost, of which the Marina Way lessor has agreed to pay, includes the type and style of workstations included in the County's Minimum requirements.22OFFICES, TRAINING/CONFERENCE ROOMSAlready constructed.There are 14 existing offices at Bates Ave.; 6 of those offices are furnished.The Marina Ave. space already has private offices, Training Rooms, and Conference Rooms that satisfy the County's Minimum Requirements. The Bates Ave. site has the 14 existing private offices, and one Conference Room that will need to be modified. The additional Training Rooms and a Conference Room described in the Minimum Requirements will have to be constructed. The Bates Ave. proposal includes that construction at the lessor's expense.4
RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS23GENERATOR OR UNINTERRUPTIBLE POWER SUPPLY (UPS)Neither * Both* At the Marina Way location, there is a generator that serves the adjacent bldg. owned by the Lessor. At his expense, the lessor will run conduit from that generator to exclusively serve the County's space. The Marina Way lessor will also add a UPS, at his expense. There is both a generator and a UPS already on site at the Bates Ave. location.24MAIN POINT OF ENTRY (MPOE)Yes NoA MPOE is in place at the Marina Way site. An MPOE exists at the Bates Ave. site, but it is located in the adjacent tenant's space, and the County would not have 24/7 unimpeded access to it. This is not acceptable to the County or to the State. A secondary proposal from the Bates Ave. lessor stated the lessor will construct a secondary MPOE in the County's suite for the County's exclusive use at his expense.25SOUND ATTENUATION SYSTEMNo YesA sound attenuation system will have to be added at the Marina Way premises at an additional expense. The cost of the sound attenuation system is estimated to cost $45,000, and is included in the County's Cost of TIs above. At the Bates Ave. location, the lessor has stated a sound attenuation system is in place.26SECURITYYes YesThere is 24/7 front entry security personnel in place at the Marina Way location. There is guard patrol after 6:00 PM at the Bates Ave. location.27CARPET / PAINTGood PoorCarpet and paint is "like new" at the Marina Way location. Some touch‐up painting may be needed. New carpet and paint is needed at the Bates Ave. location, although cleaning the carpets may be adequate.28AMBIENT LIGHTYes YesAccording to the State: Industry best practices for Call Centers include well designed spaces with natural lighting to promote employee satisfaction and retention. To maintain consistency and ensure the best possible work setting for all Call Center staff, the County site should have features that are very similar to other State Call Centers, including abundant natural lighting. Ambient light at the Marina Way site is considered to be more abundant than at the Bates Ave. site.5
RICHMOND CONCORDCOMMENTS29PARKING ( /1,000 SF)69At Marina Way, parking will be a combination of spaces in front of the building, and in parking lots nearby that are controlled by the Marina Way lessor. At Bates Ave., all parking will be in the parking lot in front of the suite.30NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES194 21631UNEMPLOYMENT RATE13.30% 8.90%Source: State of California Employment Development Department (EDD) for Dec. 2012 for each individual city.32NEAREST EHSD FACILITY1 block 1 block33ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIONApprox. .7 mi. fr. I‐580; Bus stop 1/8 mi.; Approx. 1.8 mi fr. Rich BART; City will extend shuttle service fr. the Richmond and El Cerrito BART stations to bldg.; Bike/pedestrian access to/from SF Bay Trail.1/2 mi fr Hwy 4; Approx. 1.5 mi fr Concord BART; Bus stop 1 blk.34PROXIMITY TO RESTAURANTS, CAFES, OR DELISAdequate Adequate35MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES NOTICED SINCE PREVIOUS REPORT1) Interior lightingExcellent Good2) Break areas / restroomsAdequate Adequate6
Questions Raised Following February 26, 2013 Board of Supervisors Update
Since the last update was made to the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 2013, there have
been many questions raised and information gathered that can clarify key issues surrounding
the two proposed locations. Much of the clarification has come directly from the State’s Health
Benefit Exchange staff. The questions and answers are grouped below by topic area; additional
questions are answered in the accompanying side‐by‐side analysis of the two facilities.
The information contained here is valid and up to date as of Thursday, March 7, 2013.
Additional updates will be provided in person on March 12, 2013.
Technology issues
Many questions have surrounded the type of voice and data cabling required for the Call
Center. Some have asked if what the County is requesting is actually required, or simply
desired. The State has provided clarity on this issue.
• The State Exchange requires Category 6 voice and data cabling.
An inquiry was made regarding the potential to use Comcast as an internet service provider for
one of the locations.
• The State Exchange will be using Level 3 voice and data service provider and will not use
Comcast.
Significant discussions have focused on the Main Point of Entry for the Concord location at
Bates Avenue. What are the issues and requirements?
• The Main Point of Entry is located (at Bates Avenue) in another tenant's suite which is
occupied by Comcast. If a secondary Main Point of Entry is to be built, the 75 day lead
time is an estimate and could go longer.
• The cost of the secondary Main Point of Entry is estimated at $50,000. It could be as
low as $35,000. Since this location (Bates Avenue) is not a facility that the County
Telecom/IT is familiar with, we estimated a maximum of $50,000 for unforeseen
challenges.
• The State has expressed serious control and security concerns if the Main Point of Entry
is in an area outside the state’s and County’s control.
Questions were raised about the readiness of the Concord location regarding its power
capability and availability of an uninterruptable power supply, or UPS.
• The Bates Avenue location has a Generator, UPS, and transfer switches that are in
operation.
Workplace issues (cubicles, lighting, white noise, etc.)
Questions raised relative to cubicles to be used by Call Center staff focused upon needed vs.
desired configurations. The issues discussed are important as part of our requirements to meet
certain legal, regulatory and contractual mandates.
• The Health Benefit Exchange (HBEX) provided drawings and specifications for single‐
occupant cubicles that meet the standards of the State Architect, and will be used in the
two State‐run call centers.
• Single‐occupancy is required in order to meet requirements of the 1996 Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, also known as HIPAA. Private health
information will be discussed with callers.
• HIPAA also requires that monitors be positioned to ensure privacy of information visible
on screens. The Bates cubicles would require the monitors be installed allowing
passers‐by to see private information on the screens.
• Using existing two person cubicles at Bates (11ftx5ft) for single‐occupancy will leave
significant unused space that is included in the lease costs.
• Cubicles at Bates are 10 years old and outdated compared with current standards,
which will increase costs over the life of the contract. They require complete
disassembly in order to move them, to lay or repair carpet, pull wiring, etc. Modern
standards for cubicles are single assembly allowing for a lift‐up of the entire unit.
• Cubicles at the Bates location are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
requirements, nor are they ergonomically efficient.
Other working condition questions pertained to not only the cubicles, but also carpet, white
noise generation, etc. Those have been addressed by County and State staff.
• Providing a safe and healthy work environment is required in order to meet various legal
and regulatory mandates, and will mitigate future ergonomic and Worker’s
Compensation claims. It is also essential for promoting good staff morale and optimum
levels of productivity.
• Both proposals outline a range of area amenities and current and/or future public
transportation options that would be suitable for the workforce. County analysis
showed what’s walkable and drivable nearby. The “within 8 minutes” criteria were
submitted by a bidder, not requested by the County.
• Carpet requirements, an adequate sound attenuation system (to provide white noise)
and sufficient lighting needs can be met at either facility through the proposals.
Training Needs
Questions were raised about the need for onsite or offsite training space.
• Training of the Call Center staff is required under the contract, and the facility must
have dedicated training rooms of sufficient size and capacity to hold computers,
monitors, connections for headsets, and also be able to support video “distance
learning” and online learning.
• Training will be ongoing for new employees, for mandated County and State trainings,
and for refresher trainings.
Process Issues
Multiple comments focused upon the Request for Proposals (RFP) and decision making by staff
during the development of the criteria and evaluation of proposals. There were also questions
regarding the quick turnaround for the RFP.
• In formulating our proposal to the state, we included the following as the rationale for
our submission with the focus on specific criteria:
o The Call Center will be a boost to our local economy.
o The associated good paying jobs are vital to supporting the well‐being of county
residents.
o Several cities in the County have been particularly affected by job losses,
foreclosures, and even higher unemployment rates than the overall County
unemployment rate.
o The Call Center will be located in an area of the County that is economically
challenged, with readily available and usable office space and with residents who
are ready to work.
o The focus is on an area with high, chronic and long‐term unemployment.
• With regard to the site, a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Request for Offers (RFO) is not
always a part of the process utilized to locate and lease new buildings. In this instance, a
search was initiated through the broker community to identify buildings in east, west and
central county that could be suitable for use as a call center. Based upon the criteria
identified, the focus fell on areas with high, chronic unemployment, with a significant base
of people to draw from to staff the Call Center, and an area with usable, available office
space. In attempting to compare locations, the differences in information received by the
lessors made it clear that a Request for Proposals (RFP) would be the best way to obtain
comparable information to analyze the sites. In order to meet deadlines for returning to
the Board of Supervisors with this additional information, a short turnaround time was
necessary.
Facilities Questions from Contra Costa County
3/6/13
Question from Contra Costa:
You will recall that at one site, the MPOE or Main Point of Entry was on the other side of the building and
in the control of the tenant, Comcast. We recall being told by the Exchange staff that this is an issue and
that we needed to have 24/7 access to the MPOE, the MPOE needed to be in county control versus in
the building but in a separate suite, and that there were security issues associated with the MPOE being
in space not under County control. Can you provide any definitive information on this issue?
Covered California Response:
Main Point of Entry is defined as the point to where the cables of
a telecommunications service carrier (i.e., a phone or cable
company) wiring enters a multi-unit building. From this location
telecommunication cables are extended to tenant’s main
distribution frame (MDF). The tenant’s MDF contains the
equipment to connect to the telecom wiring and access the
service being provided (private data circuits, internet, phone, etc).
Covered California has no contractual relationship with Comcast
and as such are not willing to accept the risk of having the
telecom (MPOE) in the control of a third party entity. With the
MPOE located in the Comcast server room, we are at their mercy
regarding general access, power, heating, security, and other
issues related to the MPOE without their permission. If issues
arise at Comcast, technical/legal/financial/business, it could
adversely impact Covered California’s ability to operate within our
required standards. Covered California is not willing to rely on an
organization we have no legal contract or other relationship with,
for access to such a critical component of our business operation.
Additionally this type of set up is not a general practice/standard
among businesses.
Question from Contra Costa:
Cat 6 cabling versus Cat 5 or 5E. You will recall that one site is not cabled and that Cat 6 will be
installed. The other site has Cat 5 or Cat 5E. Is Cat 6 a preference or is it an absolute requirement for
the exchange? What issues or systems degradation do you expect if Cat 5 or 5E is used? Was this
requirement spelled out somewhere?
Covered California Response:
Covered California expects to maintain consistency across all
service centers to ensure that there is no technological
degradation related to meeting the required performance
standards. We also anticipate that the sites will serve as backups
for each other and create a strong business continuity plan in
case of emergency. As such, per industry standards, and for our
ability to maintain and trouble shoot technical problems regarding
the infrastructure Cat6 is required.
Question from Contra Costa:
Single occupant cubicles. You will recall that one site has no OLP and the other has double occupant
work stations already installed. You provided drawings of the cubes the exchange will be using at its
locations and indicated that your design is consistent with the state requirements. You used the
standards set by the State Architect’s Office. What are the issues associated with the double occupant
work stations already in place? What is the benefit to installing new, single occupant work stations?
Covered California Response:
The Service Center worker is required to handle “individuals”
Personal Information. Personal information (state law) means any information that is
maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to:
his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone
number, education, financial matters, medical or employment history, statements made by, or
attributed to, the individual.
As a state agency, Covered California is required to implement
appropriate safeguards to ensure that Personal Identifiable
Information (PII) remains private and that access is held at the
minimum necessary requirements. As such Covered California
has designed the cube space to gain the maximum amount of
visual and audible privacy and limit viewing of information to only
the single Service Center worker who will be handling an
individual’s case. The cube drawings provided are based on
guidelines from the State Administrative Manual (space for group
environments).
The Service Center worker will have two (2) twenty (20) inch
monitors on their desk to perform work. The cubicles are 50
inches tall to promote visual privacy, with three (3) solid walls to
enhance audible privacy, with an outward facing window. The
cubicle are designed in a way to achieve the highest amount of
visual and audible privacy while still allowing Service Center
workers to have a positive work environment with natural light and
outward visibility.
Open double occupant cubes do not provide the level of privacy
that Covered California wants to achieve. Two Service Center
workers sharing a double occupant cube could easily see the
screen and hear the conversation of their cube mates; therefore
not achieving minimum necessary required privacy. This type of
cubicle layout creates a greater risk for compromising PII. This
type of cubicle layout is not industry best practice for health care
nor state government.
Covered California representatives requested the dimensions of
the cubicles to determine if the double occupant cube was large
enough to even accommodate four (4), twenty (20) inch monitors;
we have not received that information at this time.
The Contra Costa County Real Estate Representative measured
the aisles between the cubicles and advised that it was not ADA
compliant.
Question from Contra Costa:
Natural light. Is there an objective standard for natural light in a call center?
Covered California Response:
Industry best practices for call centers include well designed
spaces with natural lighting to promote employee satisfaction and
retention. As an industry practice and one of Covered California’s
documented principles for the Service Center sites is:
“Each site will be designed to promote an open and comfortable working environment with
special considerations to lighting, personal work space and floor plans designs will specifically
seek to assure the best possible quality of work setting for Service Center staff”
To ensure that the Service Center staff has the best possible work
setting, Covered California has sought out space that is open and
inviting with abundant natural lighting for the state operated site in
Sacramento. To maintain consistency and ensure the best
possible work setting for all Service Center staff, Covered
California expects that the County site will also have very similar
features that include abundant natural lighting.
Community Comparison
Demographic Profiles (2010/11)
Richmond Concord California
Population Estimate
105,380 124,055 37,683,933
White Population
31.4% 64.5% 57.6%
African American Population
26.6% 3.6% 6.2%
Asian Population
13.5% 11.1% 13%
High School Graduate or Higher (persons aged 25+)
78.4% 87.3% 80.8%
Education- Bachelor’s Degree or Higher (persons aged 25+)
26.6% 31% 30.2%
Median Household Income
$54,554 $65,769 $61,632
Persons Below Poverty Level
17.5% 11.2% 14.4%
Total Foreclosures from 2005-June 2012 within a 10 mile radius from proposed site
10,289 12,692 N/A
Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts
Unemployment Rates
Richmond Concord Contra Costa County
December 2012
13.3% 8.9% 8.2%
2012 Average
14.6% 9.8% 8.9%
2011 Average
16.8% 11.3% 10.5%
2010 Average
18.1% 12.3% 11.4%
Source: Workforce Development Board of Contra Costa County/December from EDD website
CalWORKs Clients
Richmond Concord
CalWORKs Approved and Pending Cases
875 580
Population Density Per Square Mile
6,304 3,587
Population Density : Number of CalWORKs Approved Clients
13.8% 16.1%
Clients Speaking English as a Primary Language
82% 57%
Clients Speaking Spanish as a Primary Language
17% 40%
Source: Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department
Childcare Sites
Richmond Concord
Total Slots
992 1,069
*84% of the slots in Richmond and 40% of slots in Concord are Head Start slots serving only
children 5 years of age and younger.
*Head Start slots are federally mandated to be 100% filled at all times. As a result of the
movement of the five (5) year old students into the formal education system, slot availability
does increase between the months of June and September yearly. There are waiting lists for Head
Start placements and immediate access is not typically available.
Richmond Area
Head Start Centers
Age
Groups
Served # of Slots
Concord Area
Head Start Centers
Age
Groups
Served
# of
Slots
Balboa 0 to 5 177 George Miller Concord 0 to 5 131
Brookside 3 to 5 128 Cambridge - Parkhaven 3 to 5 32
Crescent Park 3 to 5 84 Cambridge - Lacey Lane 3 to 5 40
GM III 3 to 5 200 Crossroads 0 to 3 20
Las Deltas 0 to 5 34 Concord Child Care 0 to 5 48
Verde 3 to 5 80 Martinez Early Childhood 0 to 5 64
Cameron 0 to 3 14 We Care 3 to 5 48
Richmond College Prep 3 to 5 48 Martinez Early Childhood 3 to 5 40
Lincoln 3 to 5 18
YMCA - Richmond CDC 3 to 5 20
YMCA - Richmond High 0 to 3 35
11 Centers 838 8 Centers 423
Child Care Council / PACE-App
Richmond Concord
Number of Centers
62 41
# that Serve Children Ages 0-2
9 22
# that Serve Children Ages 2-5
37 37
# that Serve Children 2-12
30 32
Source: Child Care Council of Contra Costa County and Community Service Bureau of the Department of
Employment and Human Services (Head Start Provider)
Public Transportation
1450 Marina Way, Richmond 2500 Bates Ave., Concord
Bus Agency
AC Transit County Connection
Route
74 28
Nearest Bart Station
Richmond North Concord/Martinez
Miles from Bart to Location
2.5 1.25
Walking time from Bart to Location
37 minutes 19 minutes
Frequency of Bus Agency to Bart- Weekdays
24 trips / every 43 minutes 12 trips / every 76 minutes
Frequency of Bus Agency to Bart- Weekends
22 trips / every 38 minutes No service
Miles from Location to Closest Bus Stop
1/2 mile 1/10 mile
Walking Time from Location to Closest Bus Stop
8 minutes 2 minutes
Frequency of Bus Agency to Closest Bus Stop Weekdays
24 trips / every 43 minutes 12 trips / every 76 minutes
Frequency of Bus Agency to Closest Bus Stop- Weekends
22 trips / every 38 minutes No service
Bus Agency Hours of Operation to Closest Bus Stop- Weekdays
6:54am – 10:15pm 6:47am – 8:46pm
Bus Agency Hours of Operation to Closest Bus Stop- Weekends
7:45am – 8:06pm No Service
Source: AC Transit, County Connection, and BART