HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05212013 - D.4RECOMMENDATION(S):
CONSIDER the contract award recommendations of the Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors
for the FY 2012-13 AB 109 Community Programs for the June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014 contract period and
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE resultant contracts:
1. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with Rubicon Programs Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $1,400,000, to provide employment support and placement services in West and East County
for the AB 109 population, for the period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
2. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with Goodwill Industries of the
Greater East Bay in an amount not to exceed $600,000, to provide employment support and placement services in
Central County for the AB 109 population, for the period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
3. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with Shelter Inc., in an amount not
to exceed $500,000, to provide short and long-term housing access countywide for the AB 109 population, for the
period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
4. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/21/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney, (925)
335-1097
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 21, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stacey M. Boyd, Deputy
cc:
D.4
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Public Protection Committee
Date:May 21, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:AB 109 Community Programs: Contract Award Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION(S): (CONT'D)
Contra Costa County Office of Education in an amount not to exceed $200,000, to provide peer and mentoring
services countywide for the AB 109 population, for the period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
5. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with Further The Work, LLC., in
an amount not to exceed $40,000, to provide planning services for a Reentry Resource Center for West County,
for the period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
6. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator to execute a contract with Emerald HPC, International
in an amount not to exceed $80,000, to provide planning services for a Reentry Resource Center for Central and
East County, for the period June 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$2,820,000 in AB 109 Public Safety Realignment funds for FY 2012-13 will be awarded in contracts.
BACKGROUND:
As directed by the Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors at their March 8, 2013 meeting, the
final RFPs for the AB 109 Community Programs were issued on March 15, 2013 for the following:
• Employment Support and Placement Services $2,000,000
• Short and Long-Term Housing Access $500,000
• Peer and Mentoring Support $200,000
• Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers $120,000
Subsequent to the issuance of the RFPs, a mandatory Bidders Conference was held on March 27, 2013 in three
locations in the County. There were 129 registered attendees of the Bidders Conference: 57 in Richmond, 51 in
Pittsburg, and 21 in Martinez. The Bidders Conference addressed AB 109 in Contra Costa County, the AB 109
Community Programs RFP process, the contents of the RFPs including the RFP Requirements and Instructions,
and questions related to the RFPs.
RFP Amendment & Addendum
The requirement for agencies to submit an audit or audited financial statements was a concern expressed by
several attendees of the bidders conference. The CAO’s office prepared an Amendment to the RFPs to address this
concern and to amend the timeline for the process, extending the deadline for proposal submittal to April 19,
nearly an additional week, in recognition of the collaboration efforts underway in West and Central County.
(Attachment A)
In lieu of including an audit, non-profit proposers could, instead, provide the following: the most recent unaudited
financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a
certification from the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant that the
information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. Non-profit proposers were also required to
submit a balance sheet, a profit and loss statement, bylaws of the Board of Directors, and additional information
about Board members. Similar requirements were provided for for-profit proposers and sole proprietorships.
The CAO’s office also prepared an Addendum to the RFPs to address all questions and answers posed at the
bidders conference, distributing the Addendum to all attendees and posting it on the webpage dedicated to the
program: www.cccounty.us/AB109CommunityPrograms. Staff also prepared “Q&A” documents addressing all
written questions and answers posed after the bidders conference, distributing these documents also by email and
the webpage.
RFP Review Panels
To conduct the proposal evaluation and vendor interview process, four Review Panels were established and
consisted of the following members:
1. Chief of Probation Philip Kader (serving on the Employment panel) and Todd Billeci, Director of Field
Operations, serving on all other panels.
2. Lara DeLaney representing the CAO’s office, serving on all review panels.
3. Stephan Betz, Assistant Director of Solano County Health and Social Services and founder of the Reentry
Council of Solano County.
4. Research professionals from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (3 professionals to address the
RFP subject areas of Employment, Mentoring, Planning), and
Criminal Justice Research Professional Ken Gallagher (serving on the Housing panel).
5. Jerry Elster from “All of Us or None,” LaVern Vaughn and Andres Abarra from “Safe Return Project,”
representing the formerly incarcerated.
6. Subject matter experts: for “Employment Support and Placement Services”: Bill Heiser, Director of California,
Center for Employment Opportunities; for “Short and Long-Term Housing Access”: Lavonna Martin, Acting
Director, Homeless Programs, Behavioral Health Division of Health Services, and Joseph Villareal, Executive
Director, Contra Costa Housing Authority; for “Peer and Mentoring Services”: Pat Mims, Manager at Bay Area
Women Against Rape (BAWAR); and for “Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers”: Charles Turner, Manager
of the Oakland Private Industry Council, and Wendy Therrian, Workforce Services Director for Contra Costa
County’s Employment and Human Services Department.
(See Attachment B .)
Nominations and recommendations for Review Panel members were solicited from the Community Advisory
Board, Board of Supervisors, and the Reentry Coordinator.
The Review Panel work sessions and interviews were facilitated by the County’s Reentry Coordinator, Jessie
Warner, though she did not participate in the scoring of proposals. The Review Panels were convened beginning
on April 23 and concluded on April 30, 2013. The Review Panels utilized a “Consensus Scoring Methodology”
for proposal evaluation and rating, and all members were required to return an Impartiality Statement before
serving in order to ensure there were no individuals with conflicts of interest. (See Attachment C.)
RFP Responses
The County received 18 proposals in total in response to the four RFPs. Eight proposals were submitted for
“Employment Support and Placement Services.” Five proposals were submitted for “Short and Long-Term
Housing Access,” though two were determined to be non compliant with technical and Minimum Organizational
Requirements and were not scored. Two proposals were submitted for “Peer and Mentoring Services,” though one
was determined to be non compliant. Three proposals were submitted for “Planning for (3) Reentry Resource
Centers.” (See Attachment D.)
The official Rating Sheets that provide the consensus scores and comments of the Review Panels for all proposals
are included in Attachment E.
The notification of award recommendations by the Review Panel was prepared and distributed by the County
Administrator's Office on May 2, 2013. (See Attachment F .) The County received one appeal regarding the RFP
for “Employment Support and Placement Services.” The County Administrator has denied the appeal.
The Community Corrections Partnership reviewed the RFP award recommendations from the Review Panels at
their May 10, 2013 meeting. Aside from questions asked about the nature of the employment related proposals
submitted by the City of San Pablo and the Contra Costa County Office of Education and one question related to
the housing services proposed in Shelter, Inc.’s proposal, the Partnership expressed no concerns about the
recommendations. Several members, however, expressed the desire to increase resources dedicated to housing
services in future budgets.
The Public Protection Committee reviewed the RFP award recommendation of the Review Panels at their meeting
on May 16, 2013. They received comments and input on the proposals, the process, and the award
recommendations. The Public Protection Committee directed the contract award recommendations be submitted
to the Board of Supervisors for action at its May 21, 2013 meeting with no changes.
Summaries of Proposals Recommended for Funding
EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES
1. Rubicon Programs Inc.: (West and East County) Collaborative partners include Bay Area Legal Aid, Literacy
for Every Adult Program (LEAP), and STAND! For Families Free of Violence.
The program design targets 280 participants (160 in East County and 120 in West County) and includes a full
range of grant funded and leveraged employment services, including work readiness, career coaching, vocational
training, transitional and subsidized employment, job placement and retention, employer engagement, and
assistance with legal barriers to employment, utilizing a “Jail to Community” model and an evidence-based
integrated services approach. The program also offers access to other Rubicon services, including housing,
substance abuse counseling, and financial stability services.
Other key services that will be provided by partners include domestic violence screening and counseling, as well
as anger management training by STAND!, legal services pertaining to housing, family and consumer law, and
public benefits provided by Bay Area Legal Aid, and computer literacy and GED classes and support offered by
LEAP. In addition, vocational training, housing, mentoring, substance abuse treatment, and other services will be
accessed through an extensive referral network that includes The Stride Center, RichmondBUILD, Opportunity
Junction, The Williams Group, The Bread Project, Future Build, and Henkels and McCoy.
Rubicon will offer Thinking for a Change classes in the evening, twice a week for 12 weeks at the Rubicon
offices in Richmond and Antioch, and its diverse program staff will provide services using a trauma-informed
approach and best practices.
Rubicon has a demonstrated history of employment services and supports for the formerly incarcerated, since its
inception 40 years ago, combined with a thorough quality assurance and program evaluation process, and solid
financial management as demonstrated by a recent audit with an unqualified opinion, no internal control issues,
and the completion of numerous successful State and County program and fiscal reviews.
The proposal utilizes a number of existing staff; six new staff will be hired (1 for the Richmond site/0.5FTE and 5
for the Antioch site/4.5 FTEs) which includes for East County, 2 Career Coaches, 1 Reentry Case Coordinator, 1
Financial Coach, and a 0.5 FTE Office Manager, and for West County, 0.5 FTE for a Site Manager. Total FTEs
dedicated to the project: 4.5 FTEs for West County and 6.7 FTEs for East County.
In West County, transitional employment will be provided by Rubicon in Richmond. In East County, the program
utilizes a partnership with Wolborg/Michelson (employer of record) to establish a scattered-site transitional
employment model, where participants work 15 hours/week for 12 weeks, earning minimum wage. Rubicon will
also administer wage subsidies to East Bay businesses, where employers are offered 50% reimbursement on
wages paid to AB 109 participants, up to $3,000, for jobs that are at least $9.00/hour and 32 hours per week. After
job placement, Rubicon will work with participants for up to one year. Services will be adapted to meet the
specific needs of women in reentry, including domestic violence support and counseling through STAND! and
family reunification legal services through Bay Area Legal Aid. The program proposes a goal (among others) of
60% of participants who obtain employment will retain the job for 90 days.
2. Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay: (Central County) Collaborative partner is New Horizons Career
Development Center, Inc. located in Rodeo. Goodwill has a 95 year history providing work preparation and
transitional employment services, with a diverse, professional staff, over half of which is formerly incarcerated.
Its Contra Costa office is located in Antioch.
A 5-step Career Development System will be employed, with services commencing pre-release through
engagement visits. Phases include: Intake & Admissions, Career Preparation, Career Development, Career
Transition, and Career/Placement. Assessment will be conducted with Career Cruising software; participants will
be assigned a Case Manager who develops an Individual Employment Plan and determines service referrals to a
vast network of community partners. Prescheduled workshops will include Job Readiness and Behavioral Life
Skills, cognitive behavioral based classes. After completion of the Career Preparation phase, participants will be
referred to either transitional employment or to a job developer. 90% of the transitional opportunities will be at
one of Goodwill’s employment worksites. Transitional job opportunities will last up to 90 days and participants
can earn $8.00/hr. stipend for up to 25 hours per week.
For this program, Goodwill will follow the participant for 30, 60 and 90 days post placement into a job or
educational opportunity, with incentivized benchmarks throughout the process which include certificates of
completion, up to $300 in stipends, and wages in transitional, subsidized employment through an electronic
PayCard system.
The program proposed staffing that represented 32% of the budget, with direct costs comprising the balance,
including 37% of the budget dedicated to participant wages and benefits for transitional employment. The
program will utilize an internal MIS system to monitor program outcome measures, which include goals of 70%
completion of transitional employment, 50% placement into unsubsidized employment, and 65% job retention
after 90 days.
Goodwill has a substantial track record of placing the formerly incarcerated into unsubsidized employment within
the Goodwill enterprise and beyond. The non-profit utilizes solid fiscal management practices and provided an
audit with an unqualified opinion.
SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS
Shelter Inc.: (Countywide ) Collaborative partner is Bay Area Legal Aid. Shelter Inc. has been providing
intensive case management for homeless individuals and families since 1989 and master leased properties
throughout Contra Costa County since 1997, with a history of extensive collaboration with over 60 partners.
The program proposal, which uses a Housing First model, includes housing search and placement assistance to
144 individuals, a room in a master leased shared housing for 12 individuals, and rental subsidies and/or
assistance with deposits or rent for 100 (70 with AB 109 funding and 30 through Shelter, Inc. leveraged
resources). Services will be offered at the Martinez office of Shelter Inc., and at the offices of SparkPoint in Bay
Point and in Richmond. The program will include 1 FTE Housing Specialist, 2.5 FTE Case Managers, 1 FTE
Program Coordinator, 1 FTE attorney (Bay Area Legal Aid), and referrals to SparkPoint for financial education
and credit counseling/repair services.
Clients in immediate need will be assisted by the Case Manager to find emergency shelter or motel vouchers.
Shelter Inc. has an emergency shelter for families with dependent children. Shelter Inc. also has transitional
housing for families in West and East County that may be utilized for temporary housing. The Housing Specialist
will master lease three units of housing (one in each region of the County) with four bedrooms. Shallow rental
assistance payments will also be available for multiple months.
Data will be tracked in the countywide system, Homeless Management Information System, with a goal of at least
70% obtaining or retaining permanent housing, and 80% of those maintaining housing for at least 6 months. Case
managers are trained in motivational interviewing, the stages of change, and harm reduction. Shelter Inc. provided
all required fiscal information, MOUs with partner agencies, and letters of support from agencies including
Rubicon Inc. and the Contra Costa County Office of Education.
PEER AND MENTORING SERVICES
Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE): (Countywide ) Collaborative partners include Men and
Women of Purpose, Brighter Beginnings, Child Abuse Prevention Council, Insight Prison Project, and Center for
Human Development. The Contra Costa Adult School (CCAS), established in 1982, is located in three County
jail facilities, and the CCCOE’s Parolee Education Programs have been ongoing at parole offices statewide since
1992.
CCCOE proposes to provide Peer and Mentoring services that leverage the CCAS existing pre-release programs in
the County jails with supports that carry into the community. CCAS will convene cross-agency meetings to plan
services and host training activities. CCAS will provide a common training program to program staff and mentors
from each agency, so they develop best practices and understand the program’s procedures and policies. Training
will utilize the evidence-based curriculum provided by Insight Prison Project and the Center for Public Policy’s
“Building Offenders’ Community Assets through Mentoring” coaching packet. Men and Women of Purpose,
Brighter Beginnings, and Center for Human Development will provide the Peer and Mentoring services.
Mentors will provide both one-on-one and group mentoring, as well as other services (service referrals and
navigation assistance, social events, celebration events, recruitment and training of mentees to become mentors).
Services will begin in jail and continue post-release. The program proposes a goal of providing services to up to
250 individuals by June 30, 2014. The program will start with 30 mentors and grow to 50 by June 2014. The
mentoring relationships are expected to last at least six months; 80% of those matched with a mentor are expected
to remain connected for at least three months post-release, and no more than 20% of participants will exit the
program prior to completion.
CCAS will help the mentoring agencies and mentors receive clearance from the Sheriff’s Office to provide
services in jails; co-lead training activities; conduct recruitment among its students; coordinate with the mentoring
agencies to match participants; provide a warm hand-off to the mentor; and establish pre-release classes for
participants. CCAS will also engage participants in its ongoing 6-hour school day, which will support the
effectiveness of Peer and Mentoring Services.
CCCOE provided all requested financial information, which included an audit, demonstrating excellent financial
management and fiscal controls.
PLANNING OF (3) REENTRY RESOURCE CENTERS
Further The Work : (West County) Collaborative partner is the Glen Price Group, providing as-needed advisory
services. A sole-proprietorship based in Richmond and founded by Rebecca Brown that provides
capacity-building services and resources, direct technical assistance, and process design and management, Further
The Work (FTW) offers subject-matter expertise on issues that disproportionately affect the formerly incarcerated.
In addition to the creation of a functional and actionable implementation plan for a West County Reentry
Resource Center, including vision, mission, organizational host, governance structures, operating principles, MOU
template, and a first-year work plan and budget, FTW identifies three additional process outcomes of the project:
1. Enhance community awareness, participation and ownership;
2. Strengthen relationships through increased trust and better understanding of common goals;
3. Encourage collective learning and technical capacity-building.
FTW will employ multiple mechanisms to foster inclusion, learning, shared decision-making, and relationship
building in the project, which include: community-engagement governance, positive group development,
collective learning, clear and inclusive decision-making, consistent group structure, visual timelines and
milestones, and graphic recording. The project will provide consistent communication via multiple methods,
including a webpage.
FTW has a history of successfully delivering similar collaborative multi-stakeholder project and provides a
leveraged proposal that includes in-kind donations, pro bono services, and additional revenue sources. Numerous
letters of support were provided.
Emerald HPC International: (Central and East County) Collaborative partners include Colin Craig of Different
Tracks Global, Jaap van der Sar of Stitching Oikos, Andrew Wong of AJW, Inc., and James Hyde of Hymark
Consulting. These services are consultative in nature and are not included in the program budget.
Managed by two principals, Iris and Keith Archuleta, Emerald HPC International is a comprehensive consulting
firm in business since 1992 that utilizes their High Performing Communities framework to guide clients through
the process of building and mobilizing a sustainable, outcomes-based team or collaborative effort. With more than
20 years of experience, Emerald HPC International has conducted large community outreach efforts such as the
Youth Intervention Network in Antioch and the Richmond/North Richmond Economic Revitalization Initiative for
the Chevron Corporation. Emerald HPC International has developed an award-winning process recognized by
both the federal government and the United Nations for engaging and retaining stakeholder and project recipient
voices.
They will facilitate the development of an effective collaboration using a systemic and inclusive approach that
involves three phases:
• Phase 1: Planning, Fact Finding, and Issue Identification
• Phase 2: Collaborative Building and System Design
• Phase 3: Implementation Planning
Emerald HPC International is headquartered in San Francisco, with a local office in Antioch. 21 letters of
recommendation were included from organizations and/or individuals based in Contra Costa County, several of
which are elected officials.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Speakers: Clarence Hunt, HR Management Co.; Rebecca Brown, Further the Work; Jane Fishchberg,
Rubicon Programs; Dr. Perez-Santiago, Reach Fellowship. APPROVED and AUTHORIZED the County
Administrator to execute a contracts with: Rubicon Programs Inc., Goodwill Industries of the Greater East
Bay, Shelter Inc., Contra Costa County Office of Education Further The Work, LLC., and Emerald HPC
International.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
AB 109 Community Programs RFPs: Amendment #1
April 2, 2013 Page 1
The Contra Costa County Administrator announces the following amendments to the AB 109
Community Programs Requests for Proposals.
Summary of amendments to the AB 109 Community Programs RFPs:
1. Timeline: Please note all changes to the Timeline that are indicated in red.
2. RFP Requirements and Instructions: Please note changes and additions to the
requirements and instructions that are highlighted.
3. Required Attachments & Respondent Checklist: Please note the changes to the Fiscal
Attachments enumerated in J.
4. Form 2: Amended to include contact information for Board members.
Attachment A
RFP TIMELINE
1. RFP announced: Friday, March 15, 2013
2. Written Questions Due from Bidders: 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 12, 2013
3. Mandatory Bidders Conference: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at:
8:00 a.m., Richmond City Council Chambers, 440
Civic Center Plaza, Richmond
OR
12:00 p.m., Pittsburg City Council Chambers, 65
Civic Avenue, Pittsburg
OR
4:00 p.m., Zoning Administrator’s Room, 30 Muir
Road, Martinez
4. Addendum Issued: April 1, 2013
5. Proposal Submission Deadline: 5:00 p.m., Friday, April 19, 2013
County Administrator’s Office
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
No proposal will be accepted after this date and time. Postmarked, facsimiled and e-
mail submissions will not be accepted.
6. Review and rating process: from April 22-May 1, 2013
7. Notification of award recommendations: May 2, 2013
8. Appeal period: May 3-8, 2013
Deadline to submit appeal letters: 5:00 PM, Wednesday, May 8, 2013.
9. Public Protection Committee Review: May 16, 2013
10. Board of Supervisors approval and authorization to award contracts is tentatively
scheduled for the May 21, 2013 Board of Supervisors’ agenda.
Attachment A
RFP REQUIREMENTS AND
INSTRUCTIONS FOR BIDDERS
The bidder requirements in this section are mandatory. Contra Costa County reserves the right to
waive any nonmaterial variation.
I. All bidders shall submit one original proposal package and eight (8) complete copies of
the proposal, under sealed cover, by mail or hand-delivery to the CAO at 651 Pine Street,
10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 to be received no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April
19, 2013. Each submission must be marked on the outside with the Agency's name and
RFP No. Any proposal received after the deadline will be rejected. Postmarks and faxed
submissions are not acceptable.
II. In response to this RFP, non-profit proposers must provide a copy of:
1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the
original copy of the proposal. If the organization has never had such an audit, please
submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of
reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from
the Chair of the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and the agency accountant
that the information accurately reflects the agency’s current financial status. Also
submit:
2. Current agency-wide Budget
3. Balance Sheet
4. Profit and Loss Statement
5. Manual of Fiscal Procedures and Policies, if available
6. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws
7. Roster of the organization’s Board of Directors including the directors’ names, titles,
phone numbers, and email addresses.
8. 501(c) 3 Letter.
III. For profit proposers must provide a copy of:
1. A recent audit (within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the
original copy of the proposal. If the company has never had such an audit, please
submit the most recent unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of
reasons for not ever having conducted an independent audit, and a certification from
the Chair of the Board of Directors, C.E.O., and the company accountant that the
information accurately reflects the company’s current financial status. Also submit:
2. Most recent company Annual Report
3. Current company Budget
4. Balance Sheet
5. Profit and Loss Statement
6. Manual of fiscal procedures and policies, if available
7. Current Board of Directors’ Bylaws
Attachment A
8. Roster of the company’s Board of Directors including the directors’ names, titles,
phone numbers, and email addresses
9. Most recently submitted federal tax returns
10. Articles of Incorporation.
IV. If the business is a sole proprietorship, proposers must provide a copy of: A recent audit
(within 12 months) or audited financial statement attached to the original copy of the
proposal. If the company has never had such an audit, please submit the most recent
unaudited financial statements, a brief statement of reasons for not ever having
conducted an independent audit, and certification from the owner and the accountant that
the information accurately reflects the business' current financial status. Also submit:
1. Schedule C of the Internal Revenue Service forms
2. Company Budget
3. Articles of Incorporation.
V. The CAO will review all received proposals to make sure they are technically compliant
with formatting and submission guidelines as per the RFP and will conduct a review of
the Minimum Organizational Requirements. Proposers that are non-compliant with
technical and Minimum Organizational Requirements will not move forward to the
Review Panel.
VI. Proposals and required attachments shall be submitted as specified and must be signed by
officials authorized to bind the bidder to the provisions of the RFP. All costs incurred in
the preparation of a proposal will be the responsibility of the bidder and will not be
reimbursed by the County.
VII. A proposal may be withdrawn in person by a bidder's authorized representative prior to
12:00 p.m. on April 23, 2013. If withdrawing a proposal, the bidder’s authorized
representative must provide appropriate identification (i.e. driver’s license) and sign a
receipt attesting to his/her withdrawal of the proposal.
VIII. A mandatory conference for prospective bidders will be held on March 27, 2013, at the
Richmond City Council Chambers at 8:00 a.m., at the Pittsburg City Council Chambers
at 12:00 p.m., and at the Zoning Administrator’s Room at 30 Muir Road in Martinez at
4:00 p.m., to answer questions about the RFP process. For a proposal to receive
consideration by the CAO, bidders must attend this conference—at any of the locations.
IX. Prospective proposers are requested to return the Bidders Conference RSVP.
X. Any questions regarding this RFP should be emailed to Lara.DeLaney@cao.cccounty.us
on or before 5:00 p.m. on April 12, 2013. Please include the RFP # in the subject line.
XI. The CAO may amend this RFP, if needed, to make changes or corrections to
specifications or provide additional data. Amendments will be posted at
http://www.cccounty.us/AB109CommunityPrograms or, if after the bidders conference,
emailed to all those attending. The CAO may extend the RFP submission date, if
Attachment A
necessary, to allow bidders adequate time to consider additional information and submit
required data.
XII. The RFP process may be canceled in writing by the CAO prior to awards if the Contra
Costa County Board of Supervisors determines that cancellation is in the best interest of
the County.
XIII. With respect to this RFP, the County reserves the right to reject any, some, or all bids and
proposals. The County reserves the right to negotiate separately in any manner to serve
the best interests of the County. All proposals become property of the County, without
obligation to any bidder.
XIV. Proposals will be judged on overall quality of content and responsiveness to the purpose
and specifications of this RFP. Proposals should be without expensive artwork, unusual
printing, or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the proposal.
Evaluation criteria and weight factors are described below.
XV. A Review Panel will evaluate all proposals received. The panel will be composed of the
Chief Probation Officer, CAO staff, a Reentry Coordinator, a criminal justice research
professional, a formerly incarcerated person, and a professional in the area of
employment, housing, mentoring or service centers (as applicable to the RFP). On the
basis of panel ratings recommendations, the Public Protection Committee will make
recommendations to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. Bidders will b e
notified of this recommendation in writing. Award of a contract by the Board of
Supervisors will constitute acceptance of a proposal.
XVI. Only bidders submitting a proposal in accordance with RFP No. 1302-xxx may appeal
the RFP process. Appeals must be submitted in writing and should be addressed to Lara
DeLaney, Interim Senior Deputy County Administrator; County Administrator’s Office
and received at 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor, Martinez, CA 94553 no later than 5:00 PM on
Wednesday, May 8, 2013. Notification of a final decision on the appeal shall be made in
writing to the bidder. When submitting, an appellant must clearly state the action
appealed, the harm to the appellant, and the action sought. Appeals shall be limited to the
following grounds:
Failure of the County to follow the selection procedures and adhere to
requirements specified in the RFP or any addenda or amendments.
There has been a violation of conflict of interest as provided by California
Government Code Section 87100 et seq.
A violation of State or Federal law.
Notification of a final decision on the appeal by the CAO shall be made in writing to the
bidder within five (5) days, and the decision of the CAO shall be final and not subject to
further review.
XV. Successful bidders will be expected to promptly enter contract negotiation with the
Attachment A
CAO. This may result in mutually agreed upon changes in plans or activities identified
in the proposal. As a result of this negotiation, actual contract(s) may include other
agreements and clarifications of activities, consistent with the intent of this RFP.
XVI. Services will begin upon the signing of a contract according to a mutually agreed upon
start-up schedule. The County is not liable for any cost incurred by the contractor prior
to the effective date of any contract.
XVII. Selected contractor(s) will be responsible for all services offered in their proposal,
whether or not contractor(s) perform them directly or through subcontractors in multiple
agency collaboration.
XVIII. The CAO will actively monitor service implementation and delivery and provide
contract monitoring. Any material breach of contract requirements will constitute
grounds for terminating the contract.
XIX. Contracts from this RFP will be for a 13-month period (June 1, 2013 through June 30,
2014) with satisfactory performance as a condition of any future contract renewal.
XX. All contracted parties must agree to implement the County's alcohol/drug abuse
prevention/treatment policy and comply with related monitoring and evaluation
procedures.
Attachment A
REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS & RESPONDENT CHECKLIST
Each respondent must submit a proposal in the following order with documents as described
(unless otherwise noted). Duplicate enclosed forms as necessary.
A. Proposal Cover Statement (Form #1) attached as cover to each proposal
B. Table of Contents
C. Program Narrative
D. Program Budget Information
E. List of Agency Board of Directors (Form #2--amended)
F. Agency Organizational Chart indicating how proposed project relates with other
agency projects and programs.
G. Job Descriptions and Resumes of Executive Director and key program staff
H. Bidder's Statement of Qualifications (Form #3), completed and signed by Agency
Executive Director and President of Agency Board of Directors. (Form #3 with original
signatures must accompany original proposal.)
I. Bidder's Contracts and Grants (Form #4), completed and signed by the Agency
Executive Director and the President of the Board of Directors. (Form #4 with original
signatures must accompany original proposal.)
J. Fiscal Attachments (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re-submit.)
a 1 copy of bidder's IRS 501(c)(3) determination letter attached to original proposal
copy. Or Articles of Incorporation.
b. 1 copy of bidder's manual of fiscal procedures and policies, if available,
attached to original proposal copy.
c. 1 copy of bidder's last audited financial statement attached to original proposal
copy or bidder’s most recent unaudited financial statement, with certification
statement
d. 1 copy of current Agency/Company Operating Budget with revenues and
expenses indicated.
e. 1 copy of Balance Sheet
f. 1 copy of Profit and Loss Statement
g. 1 copy of Current Board of Directors Bylaws, if applicable
h. 1 copy of Company Annual Report, if applicable
i. 1 copy of recently submitted federal tax returns, Schedule C if sole proprietor
K. Agency Brochure (as available) (If submitting additional proposals, no need to re-
submit.)
L. Other Relevant Attachments
Attachment A
FORM 2
CURRENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1. Number of Board members required by agency's bylaws: _____
2. Number of members on current Board: __________
3. When and how often does the Board meet: ____________________
4. List current Board members below (or attach Board List in this format):
Name of Member City of Residence Occupation Board Position Phone Email
5. Describe key roles and responsibilities of the Board:
Attachment A
AB 109 Community Programs RFPs Review Panel MembersEmployment Support & Placement Services Short and Long‐Term Housing AccessPeer and Mentoring Services Planning for 3 Reentry Resource Centers"Employment ""Housing""Mentoring""Planning"Phil Kader, ProbationTodd Billeci, ProbationTodd Billeci, ProbationTodd Billeci, ProbationLara DeLaney, CAOLara DeLaney, CAOLara DeLaney, CAOLara DeLaney, CAOStephan Betz, Solano Co.Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority Stephan Betz, Solano Co.Wendy Therrian, EHSDNCCD: Aishatu YusufHSD: Kenneth GallagherNCCD: Isami Arifuku NCCD: Jessica RoaJerry Elster, All of Us or NoneLaVern Vaughn, Safe Return Project LaVern Vaughn, Safe Return ProjectAndres Abarra, Safe Return ProjectBill Heiser, Ctr for Employment Opps. Lavonna Martin, Homeless Programs Patrick Mims, BAWARCharles Turner, Oakland PICAttachment B
Consensus Scoring 3/21/13
Consensus Scoring Methodology for Proposal Evaluation
For AB 109 Community Programs RFPs
Contra Costa County proposes to utilize a Consensus Scoring methodology for proposal
evaluation. A consensus rating arrived at by the Review Panel after consideration and discussion
of all information provided by a vendor will represent a more accurate assessment of the vendor's
offering than a mathematical averaging of individual evaluator’s scores.
In a consensus scoring approach, individual evaluators read the proposals prior to evaluation
work sessions and make notes of proposed scoring, observations of strengths and weaknesses,
and questions regarding the vendor's proposal. Once all proposals have been scored individually
(using the Rating Sheet in the RFP), the Review Panel will meet to develop consensus scores for
each vendor. This process may take a few hours or a few days, depending on the number and
length of proposals and the availability of those on the Review Panel.
During consensus scoring sessions, the Review Panel facilitator directs the team's attention to
each item in the specifications. The Review Panel considers one proposal at a time, comparing
the vendor's proposed offering against the specifications in the underlying RFP. Consensus
scoring sessions encourage open discussions and questions among members of the Review
Panel. Evaluators discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of a vendor's proposal in each
area. Open debate about a vendor's statement or response is encouraged to help ensure nothing
proposed by a vendor in response to a requirement is overlooked. This discussion may provide
additional insight into the vendor's offering and/or correct misperceptions of individual
evaluators, so that the consensus score arrived at by the Review Panel may differ from the initial
score of the majority of evaluators and from the mathematical average of the individual scores.
The most important factor in assigning a final consensus score to any item is that the score
accurately reflect the merits and value of the vendor's proposal for that item.
The top highest scoring vendors may be selected for presentations/interviews/site visits. After
presentations/interviews/site visits, the Review Panel meets again to select the highest scoring
vendor(s) recommended for contract negotiation to the Public Protection Committee.
Once the Review Panel has arrived at a consensus score for an item in the proposal, the Review
Panel facilitator captures the consensus score along with documentation of the Panel’s
observations of noted strengths and weaknesses of the vendor's proposal for that item. Narrative
documentation is required for items that either exceed the specification or do not meet the
specification in some manner.
The consensus score sheet and comments are official and become part of the project file.
Individual Review Panel member evaluation worksheets and notes are collected and
destroyed once the consensus scoring is completed.
Attachment C
Impartiality Statement Page 1
Impartiality Statement for Review Panel Members
For AB 109 Community Programs RFPs
Guiding Principles for Evaluation Process
Expert Assessment -- Collectively, reviewers should have the appropriate knowledge
and expertise to assess the proposal both at the level of the broad context of the goals of
the AB 109 program and with respect to the specific objectives of the services.
Transparency -- Decisions must be based on clearly described procedures and
evaluation criteria that are published a priori.
Impartiality -- Proposals must be assessed fairly and on their merit. Conflicts of interest
must be declared and managed according to defined, published processes.
Appropriateness -- The review process should be consistent with the nature of the
project and in proportion to the investment and complexity of the work.
Confidentiality -- All proposals, including related data, intellectual property and other
documents, must be treated in confidence by reviewers and organizations involved in the
review process. However, when the review process is over and a contract has been
awarded, all proposals, any communications between the County and persons and firms
submitting proposals, and any contract ultimately awarded by the County will become
public records under the Public Records Act and Better Government Ordinance.
Integrity and Ethical Consideration -- Ethics and integrity are paramount to the review
process.
Impartiality Statement
Contra Costa County has a policy that individuals with a conflict of interest cannot participate in
the review of procurement proposals. This policy is in addition to State laws and regulations
pertaining to conflicts of interest. In order to ensure that each reviewer understands the County’s
conflict of interest policy, this certification must be completed by individuals prior to their
participation in the proposal review processes.
1. I will not participate in the review of any proposal involving a particular matter that
would have a direct and predictable effect on any person, company or organization with
which I have a relationship, financial or otherwise. For purposes of this statement, the
interests of my spouse, my minor child, my general partner, any organization in which I
serve as officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee, and any person or
organization with whom I am negotiating employment, are attributed to me.
Attachment C
Impartiality Statement Page 2
2. Further, I will not participate in the review of any proposal involving a particular person
or a particular matter that I believe would cause a reasonable person with knowledge of
the relevant facts to question my impartiality, or to perceive a conflict of interest.
3. Prior to my participation as a reviewer, I agree that I will disclose any actual or perceived
conflicts of interest that I may have with such duties. In addition, I agree to disclose any
actual or perceived conflicts of interest as soon as I am aware of the conflict. I agree that,
after disclosure of the above, I will not participate in, influence, or attempt to influence
the outcome of the matter with which I have a conflict. I agree to leave the room while
the matter is discussed.
4. I certify that I will not disclose, except pursuant to the order of a court of competent
jurisdiction, or unless otherwise required by law, any information concerning the
evaluation or the content of proposals either during the proceedings of the review of
proposals or at any subsequent time, to anyone who is not authorized access to the
information by Contra Costa County or by law or regulation, and then only to the extent
that such information is required in connection with such person's official
responsibilities. Furthermore, I will report to the Contra Costa County official responsible
for the process (Lara DeLaney) any communication concerning the proposal evaluation
or the individuals involved in the evaluation process directed to me from any source
outside this process.
5. I understand that I may not retain copies of proposals I receive, draft score sheets, or my
personal notes. I certify that, after consensus scoring is complete, I will provide the
Contra Costa County Administrator’s Office all hard copies of proposals and draft
consensus score sheets I receive, and my personal notes, for appropriate destruction. I
certify that I also will remove all electronic copies of the proposals and draft consensus
score sheets from my electronic storage media. The Contra Costa County
Administrator’s Office will retain all original requests for proposals, all proposals, all
communications between the County and each firm or person submitting a proposal, and
all official consensus score sheets, official notes, and official comments.
__________________________
Panel Review Member Name (print)
____________________________ ____________________________
Panel Review Member Name (signature) Date
Attachment C
AB 109 Community Programs RFP Proposals and RecommendationsWest CountyCentral CountyEast CountyProposal Amount Amount$600,000$600,000$800,000Score Requested RecommendedEmployment2,000,000$ 1 City of San Pablo63 600,000 2Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.68 1,399,930 3CCC Office of EducationCCC Office of Education68 1,400,000 4 Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay Goodwill Industries 78 2,000,000 $600,0005 HealthRight360HealthRight360HealthRight36062 1,912,092 6 Henkels & McCoy Training Services Group Henkels & McCoy Training Services Group Henkels & McCoy 70 1,996,347 7HR Management, Inc.HR Management, Inc.HR Management, Inc.45 1,981,996 8 Rubicon Programs, Inc.Rubicon Progams, Inc.93 1,400,000 $1,400,00012,690,365 2,000,000$ West CountyCentral CountyEast County$150,000$150,000$200,000Housing500,000$ 1 Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.73 500,000 2 Greater Richmond Interfaith Program75 150,000 3 Shelter, Inc.Shelter, Inc.Shelter, Inc.88 500,000 500,000$ 4J Cole Recovery Homes, Inc.46,309 Not compliant5New Hope Transitional Housing, Inc.200,000 Not compliant1,396,309 500,000$ West CountyCentral CountyEast County$60,000$60,000$80,000Mentoring200,000$ 1 CCC Office of EducationCCC Office of EducationCCC Office of Education88 200,000 200,000$ 2 CCC Service Integration Team36,600 Not compliant236,600 200,000$ West CountyCentral CountyEast County$40,000$40,000$40,000Planning120,000$ 1 Further The Work, LLC8440,000 40,000$ 2 HealthRight360HealthRight360HealthRight36058.5 110,230 3Emerald HPC, InternationalEmerald HPC, International7280,000 80,000$ 230,230 120,000$ Attachment D
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1302-004
EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM
Proposal Rating Sheets
Attachment E
Page 1 of 44
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (15 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 2 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 3 of 44
RATING SHEET
Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
Locally based nonprofit with main office in Concord; program services located in Antioch
and Concord. History of operating more than 80 behavioral health programs for 40 years;
workforce development division, Phoenix Enterprises, providing employment related
services since 1984. Collaboration history not explicit/demonstrated.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (12 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (10 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (6 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partner: Inspire Learning Institute. (Inspire in partnership with Mongo
Works, though collaboration unclear.) Program targeted to Central and East County.
Proposal states an approach focused on transitional employment and vocational training,
but no description of that in program model. Proposal includes irrelevant references to
therapist/client relationship; unrelated to RFP. Program model focuses on Case Specialists
and the assessment and referral to services functions. Job placement objective of 20-25% is
too low. Collaborations/coordination with other agencies is in initial stages but intention is
strong. Program evaluation and outcome component of proposal is adequate but includes
erroneous information.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (4 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Pre-release assessment is a good component, but five assessments may be too many.
Employment Workshop phase includes start of traditional or transitional employment, but
does not provide much detailed information about this aspect. Timeline is not clear about
length of each phase. Case closed after 90 days on job; not as much follow-up as other
proposals. Too many new staff to be hired. 8.0 FTEs in East County; 6.0 FTEs in Central.
6
28
7
Attachment E
Page 4 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Experience does not discuss direct experience with formerly incarcerated though Panel
Members aware of applicant’s experience. Partners have history of serving clients, roughly
5% of which were formerly incarcerated.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
No discussion of cultural sensitivity of program or relevance of services to diverse client
populations. No evidence of utilization or understanding of evidence-based practices aside
from development of a “highly structured program.” Proposal then cites an in-house
transitional employment program, but no other description as to how this relates to
proposed program.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid fiscal mangement
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Insufficient information about cost of positions. Unclear allocation of costs to
collaborative partner. Basis of allocations not provided in narrative.
Total Score 68
11
5
6
5
Attachment E
Page 5 of 44
RATING SHEET
City of San Pablo, Community Services Department
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
City of San Pablo has provided a “host of services for offenders residing within city
boundaries” since incorporation, but no evidence of service provision to other West County
communities. Demonstrated collaboration focuses on organizations benefiting the San
Pablo community.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (8 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (10 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: 13 collaborative partners identified, primary and ancillary, which
include San Pablo Economic Development Center, City of Richmond, Lao Family
Community Development, Men & Women of Purpose, CCCOE, STRIDE Center, Moler
Barber College, New Skin Tattoo Removal, Wardrobe for Opportunity, ReliaTech, DP
Security Service, WDB, and Escalante Center. Program targeted to West County, 145
clients. City will hire 0.8 FTE Project Coordinator who will manage 2 case managers hired
by Lao Family CD and housed at One Stops. Proposal of “menu of employment services”
beginning pre-release through post-release job readiness, work experience and placement.
Direct placement component not detailed; focus on job readiness training; 58 will be
referred to other services not described, with only 9 of those moving into readiness &
training. Extensive collaborations. Completion rates prorated to sections completed in 20%
increments geared toward training phases; not applicable to all participants.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (0 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
No timeline provided for service delivery. No description of case manager positions in
proposal.
6
28
5
Attachment E
Page 6 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Proposal does not discuss direct experience with formerly incarcerated except for
experience of one staff person, and evidence of experience focused entirely on San Pablo
community.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
No discussion of cultural sensitivity of program or relevance of services to diverse client
populations. No evidence of utilization or understanding of evidence-based practices.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid fiscal mangement
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Excellent leveraging of resources. Inadequate information providing basis for
computations.
Total Score 63
10
6
5
3
Attachment E
Page 7 of 44
RATING SHEET
Contra Costa County Office of Education
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Administrative office in Pleasant Hill; program offices for CCAS (Adult School) at
detention facilities. Extensive history providing education services in jails and parole
education programs. Extensive history of collaboration with justice partners and service
providers. Project partner has “no direct experience with formerly incarcerated.”
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (11 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (7 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partner: Michael Chavez Center for Economic Opportunity. Proposal
identifies other CBOs involved and funded. Proposes service delivery in Central & East
County to 250. CCAS Centers targeted at adult schools in Central & East County, partner
site in Concord and Bay Point, counselors at One-Stops in Far East, East and Central.
Centers operable 9:00 to 3:00 M-F; Panel considered too limited. Educational and
prevocational programs provided by CCAS, in & out of custody. Only one Job Developer
identified; considered insufficient for 2 regions. Program centered on education, training,
case management. Limited employment subsidies for 40 for 4 weeks. Indicates supported
transitional employment as a component but doesn’t describe. Vendor partners include
SparkPoint for credit counseling and financial literacy, an attorney for legal services, and
training contractors. Concern that prime subcontractor has limited experience with job
placement services for the target population.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (4 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Timeline with action steps clear. Employment Centers not open until September (4 months
after project start); however, 50% participants enrolled in training, education or
employment by end of Sept.? Staffing not adequate for job development/placement.
7
28
8
Attachment E
Page 8 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Extensive experience delivering services to incarcerated is documented in proposal for
CCCOE, but no experience demonstrated with respect to employment placement services
for formerly incarcerated adults. Lead partner experience with formerly incarcerated is
described as “no direct experience;” only 190 indivduals served in vocational training
programs in 2012.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Spanish language capacity with Chavez Center; CCCOE teachers familiar with working
with the target population, but partners and community based job developers working with
youth did not demonstrate cultural competency for the target population.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid financial management
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Aggregates both regions into one budget but clearly presented. 62% of the budget in
personnel costs. $152k for supplies/expendable equipment with no cost basis provided.
Fringe benefits of 36% higher than other proposals though not unreasonable. Vendor
contract cost basis don’t look accurate: OJ $21,000 for 4 female clients @ $3,000 per
client. Stride Center $24,500 for 5 clients @ $3,500 per client. No cost basis provided for
training contractors.
Total Score 68
7
6
5
7
Attachment E
Page 9 of 44
RATING SHEET
Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Nonprofit based in Oakand, 95 years old, providing work preparation and transitional
employment for participants that “mirror” AB 109. Two local program offices identified:
Antioch and Rodeo (NHCDC). More than half the staff is formerly incarcerated. Proposal
documents collaboration with over 20 CBOs.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (11 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (8 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: New Horizons Career Development Center and GRIP (in kind).
Proposes service delivery in all regions of County, male and female participants. 5 phase
Career Development System. Incentivized benchmarks throughout process; strong
component. Pre-release engagement, 3 individual assessments with Career Cruising
software, barrier removal services, assignment to Case Manager, referrals to community
partners for other services (housing, mental health, substance abuse). Career preparation
workshops--job readiness and behavioral life skills. Proposal emphasis on providing
transitional employment. Central/East County, 90% of transitional at one of Goodwill’s
employment worksites. For West/Central, 50% of transitional will be at Goodwill; the
other 50% placed elsewhere. Wages paid via PayCard system, a feature the Panel liked.
While in transitional employment, client to continue workshops and work with Job
Developer. Outcomes clearly identified and reasonable; use of internal database.
Collaboration identified with several partners.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Timeline with action steps clear and reasonable. Staffing to cover all 3 regions is adequate.
Appears to be all new staff, however.
8
29
9
Attachment E
Page 10 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Extensive experience delivering services to formerly incarcerated is well documented in
proposal.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Will employ a diverse staff to meet the gender and language of participants. Current staff
includes numerous formerly incarcerated and is diverse. Proposal doesn’t address
knowledge of or commitment to specific evidence-based practices.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid financial management
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
All aggregated into one budget, so will need to break out for region. 8.5% administrative
fee is reasonable. Budget is clear and concise. Identifies leveraged resources, but doesn’t
fully describe how leverage is provided.
Total Score 78
13
7
5
7
Attachment E
Page 11 of 44
RATING SHEET
HealthRIGHT 360
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (0 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
San Francisco based non-profit with “letter of interest” to secure 3 local facilities.
Extensive services/history of service to uninsured, homeless, disenfranchised; the vast
majority involved in criminal justice system. Mostly behavioral health, primary health
sevices. Numerous collaborations with criminal justice agencies cited.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (12 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (1 pt.)
0-40
Comments:
No collaborative partners identified. Proposal states intent to establish “vocational
rehabilitation centers” in each region of County, to be co-located with One-Stops. Program
to serve 444 clients. Program will “combine quality in-house classes, workshops, and
counseling with community connections.” Assessment driven service delivery. Focus on
job readiness workshops, computer classes. Job seeking activities designed to transition
into job placement after 2-3 months. No transitional or subsidized employment provided in
proposal. No gender specific services identified. Job development in a community with no
prior experience may be difficult. Intent to collaborate and an extensive history of
collaboration in SF & LA, but no collaboration evident in CCC, no MOUs provided. Solid
program evaluation, data collection & reporting proposal.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (2 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Insufficient timeline to fully describe program and service delivery components. 22 FTEs
dedicated to program. 8 Employment Counselors distributed as 2.0 FTEs to East, 2.0 FTEs
in Central and 4.0 FTEs in West; doesn’t align with AB 109 population. 3 FTEs for
Housing & Community Services coordination seems excessive if co-located in One-Stops.
Description of use of local resources doesn’t address CCC in any manner.
4
23
5
Attachment E
Page 12 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Currently operates 10 community based case management & reentry based programs for
youth and adult offenders in SF and LA. Operates 14 jail and prison based programs.
Substantial demonstrated experience in delivering services to targeted communities;
nothing indicative of service delivery to targeted Contra Costa County communities.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Experience working with formerly incarcerated individuals, with appropriate capacity
around language. Concerned they will need to hire all new staff to serve clients in CCC.
Concerned about lack of knowledge about CCC communities. Good utilization of
evidence-based practices in service delivery.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid financial management
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
54% of the budget in personnel costs, which is reasonable. Salaries low for job developers
and computer lab instructors ($32k). Over $646k related to building and office equipment
rather than service provision. Considered weakness by Panel, especially relative to other
proposals. Seems more geared toward implementation of Reentry Resource Centers.
Total Score 62
12
6
5
7
Attachment E
Page 13 of 44
RATING SHEET
Henkels & McCoy Training Services Group
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (2 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
Pennsylvania based for-profit, part of family held construction company. “Project
management” locations in Pittsburg & Richmond. 30 years of employment & training to
multi-barrier clients, 20% with arrest records. Collaboration history with criminal justice
agencies.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (12 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (6 pt.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners identified: CCC WDB, Men & Women of Purpose, Reach
Fellowship. Intensive/active case management model with proposed 6 offices, mostly co-
located at exiting One-Stops, 8-5. Program to serve up to 500 clients. Pre-release by MWP
to develop Individual Employment Plan. Transition plan to identify needed support
services. Insufficient risk assessment or targeting of services to risk level. Proposal not
clear how criminogenic factors are identified or addressed. Staff not currently trained but
intention to offer T4C, though just bi-annually, considered insufficient by Panel. Proposal
not clear on offering transitional or subsidized employment. Centered on developing
employment plan and providing training, but falls short on how clients will obtain job
placement. Job development inadequately addressed. Not sure how collaboration with
WDB is integrated into program. Efforts to Outcomes tracking system a strong component.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Timeline begins May 1, which seemed premature. Timeline doesn’t fully describe the
action steps of the program and is unrealistic (Are locations operational June 1 if contract
begins then?). 1.86 FTEs for Job Development/Job Coaching may be insufficient. Not
clear whether new or existing staff for each identified position.
6
28
6
Attachment E
Page 14 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Unclear what experience company staff have with serving formerly incarcerated. Most
experience cited in resumes is at-risk youth oriented. Company may have experience with
populations with barriers to employment, but does staff assigned to project and are these
formerly incarcerated adults? Numerous letters of support included, however, from
potential employers and community organizations.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
No discussion in this section of the proposal of gender-specific services, despite the fact
that they have engaged a fee-for-service partner, RFI, that is oriented toward a female
clientele. No discussion of language-specific services. The commitment to have staff
certified in T4C is good, but no other demonstration of evidence-based practices such as
risk assessment, matching services/interventions to characteristics of individuals, or client
engagement strategies.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid financial management
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Buried in the budget is $240,000 for “Client Internships and WEP(?), described as “5
weeks x 20 hour/wk x $8/hr.” Also, “Staffing Company Fees” for $52,800. And “Forklift
(45 clients) for $21,000.” These components are not described in proposal. If this is
related to transitional employment, would have been helpful to describe. Cost basis for
partner agencies support not provided.
Total Score 70
11
7
5
7
Attachment E
Page 15 of 44
RATING SHEET
HR Management, Inc.
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (1 pt.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
For-profit firm based in Oakland, started in 2002 primarily offering payroll service
programs, and temporary and permanent staffing. Intent to open CCC offices (on “as
needed basis”) or share facilities, but no evidence of local presence. Limited history of
collaboration documented in proposal; one organization cited.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (7 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (1 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: Mothers Advocating Juvenile Justice, Reach Fellowship, Oakland
PIC, Stride Center, Michael Chavez Center, Urban University, Shelter Inc., Men & Women
of Purpose, Men of Valor, The Workforce Collaborative, The Veterans Resource Project.
Objective to serve formerly incarcerated African-American males, employing 100
candidates within 16 months. Neglects to serve the majority of AB 109 population (White
and Hispanic). Target population may include women, but no description of gender-based
services. Target population “will have high school diploma or GED.” No placement based
on risk/needs; instead chosen by “greatest chances of success.” No assessment tools
identified. No outcomes identified other than “place 100 candidates on full-time positions
within time limits.” No indication of collaborative case management or consideration of
additional support services except for housing (Shelter Inc.) and mental health (County
Behavioral Health). Numerous partners identified, though not funded in budget.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (3 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (0 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Condensed timeline doesn’t indicate primary roles and responsibilities. Program staffing
doesn’t indicate FT equivalencies or commitment of resources for all program staff. Use of
local resources consists of an invitation to “major public agencies” to “support our goals.”
4
18
6
Attachment E
Page 16 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Proposal does not provide demonstrated ability of firm to deliver services to the formerly
incarcerated or significant current or past experience delivering services to formerly
incarcerated. Cites experience with public and private sector entities in the provision of
temporary and permanent employment services. Partner agencies have experience with
service provision to formerly incarcerated, but not clear how they are utilized.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
No evidence in the proposal of firm’s utilization or understanding of evidence-based
practices. No evidence of cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to
diverse client populations, including gender specific services.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
No audit provided; no statement of reason for why no audit conducted or certification from
CEO that the information provided accurately reflects company’s current financial status.
Financial management practices adequate for size of firm.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Budget indicates funding of 19 FTEs, but narrative doesn’t include titles, rate of pay, time
allotted to program. No cost basis provided for budget line items. Additional budgets
provided for housing and mentoring services but no corresponding proposals submitted for
those RFPs. No cost basis information provided for those additional budgets either.
Total Score 45
7
4
1
5
Attachment E
Page 17 of 44
RATING SHEET
Rubicon Programs, Inc.
Employment Support and Placement Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Non-profit based in Richmond in operation since 1973 serving formerly incarcerated and
employment services/supports for 30 years. Antioch location for East County services.
Extensive demonstration of collaboration to deliver services.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (14 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (14 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: STAND! For Families Free of Violence, Bay Area Legal Aid, and
Literacy for Every Adult Program. Extensive referral network also identified. Program
offers full continuum of employment support and placement services to AB 109 population
in East and West County. “Jail to Community” model that includes access to other
Rubicon services, including housing, substance abuse counseling and financial stability
services. Other key services include domestic violence screening & counseling and anger
management training; legal services; computer literacy and GED classes. Incorporates
“Thinking for a Change” classes for clients, and staff will use trauma-informed approach.
Program design is clear and concise and includes vocational training, transitional
employment and subsidized employment. Collaboration roles clearly identified. Program
evaluation and outcomes overseen by Quality Assurance Manager. Clear outcome
measures and performance targets, managed by custom web-based database.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (4 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Timeline & responsible staff clearly identified and sufficient for program. Review Panel
questions necessity of 1.0 FTE for financial coach. Extensive use of local resources
including survey of service needs of adult reentry conducted by Safe Return.
8
38
11
Attachment E
Page 18 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Extensive demonstrated experience providing services to formerly incarcerated including
PAPAS and Second Chance programs. Staff experience with service delivery to target
population also identified. Not identified in proposal is staff with incarceration experience
though known to hire formerly incarcerated.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Proposal incorporates evidence-based, integrated services approach including “Thinking
for A Change,” cognitive behavioral therapy. Commitment to train all staff in trauma-
informed care strategies. Will tailor services to women and provide domestic violence
support and family reunification services through Bay Area Legal Aid. Diverse staffing
matches ethnicity of population, but doesn’t identify formerly incarcerated on staff.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Annual independent audits; all financial documents provided. Solid financial management
practices. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Thorough and extensive documentation of all costs related to program and cost basis
provided for all elements.
Total Score 93
14
9
5
8
Attachment E
Page 19 of 44
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1302-003
SHORT AND LONG-TERM HOUSING ACCESS FOR AB 109 PROGRAM
Proposal Rating Sheets
Attachment E
Page 20 of 44
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (15 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 21 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 22 of 44
RATING SHEET
Anka Behavioral Health, Inc.
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
Locally based nonprofit with main office in Concord; program services located in
Richmond, Antioch and Concord. History of operating more than 80 behavioral health
programs for 40 years; 20 years providing services to target population. Collaboration
history not provided in proposal but discussed in interview.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (9 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (10 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partner: none identified except informally—REACH, County Office of
Homeless Programs, Men &Women of Purpose, GRIP, Bay Legal, and Community
Housing Development Corporation. Services to be offered countywide. 2.0 FTE Housing
Specialists to staff program; $274k to provide financial assistance in the form of security
deposits, first/last rent. Offers housing placement/vouchers, financial assistance, intensive
services to 100 (pre-release assessment & planning, family reunification, emergency
housing plan, landlord services). Not clear on how clients obtain placement. Remainder to
receive access and referrals to services, Housing Resource Guide, Shared Housing
Directory, matching assistance, and individual/group sessions on housing issues. Unsure
what efforts will be made to ensure clients are put on eligibility lists for public housing.
Outcome data shows 20 individuals housed; 5 families housed. Outcomes not clearly
quantified. Data to be collected focused on employment. Collaboration not strong.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (4 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Start-up of program completed in 30 days, services beginning start of month 2. Only
describes roll-out for intensive services to 100. Program staff sufficient.
7
24
10
Attachment E
Page 23 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Housing & Homeless Services Department providing services for 20 years. Proposal
section on Bidder’s Experience doesn’t fully describe their experience serving formerly
incarcerated population.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Field-based services are good. Commitment to use of and understanding of evidence-based
practices is good. However, response doesn’t clearly highlight criminal justice experience
or language skills of staff.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Audit committee hires outside auditors for annual audit requirement. Excellent fiscal
system administration. No concerns expressed by Panel.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Budget not easy to read; no aggregate budget provided, and FTE count for each region not
accurate. Salary per FTE not provided. More resources dedicated for housing assistance
than staff, which is positive, but Review Panel had no clear understanding of how these
resources will be used for long-term access. Proposal was inadequate to answer questions
about role of specific funding requests; interview did not clarify.
Total Score 73
12
8
7
5
Attachment E
Page 24 of 44
RATING SHEET
Greater Richmond Interfaith Program
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
Richmond based nonprofit with 47 years of services to community. Homeless focus and
basic needs support. Proposal doesn’t mention their permanent supportive housing, funded
by HUD. Panel concerns about capacity issues. Demonstrated history of collaborations.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (10 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (9 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: Reach Fellowship for 7-bed shelter/transitional housing for female
ex-offenders and support services for males and females; Neighborhood House of North
Richmond for transitional and permanent housing through 25 project-based vouchers. Panel
concerned that 25 project based vouchers not actually available because no evidence
provided from Richmond Housing Authority. Proposes intensive housing services to 145,
with 1 FTE Housing Coordinator, 0.2 FTE Case Manager, 0.2 FTE Program Manager.
NHRN indicates 20 service-enriched transitional housing beds, 31 permanent housing units
available to AB 109 clients. Services to include centralized intake screening, intensive
housing assistance services, access to emergency financial assistance, transportation,
identification, other leveraged reentry services and referrals. Monthly follow-up for 12
months. Placement services not a strong component if housing with partners not readily
available. Goal of permanent housing placement within 90-120 days, 72% retain housing
for 1 year. 50% placed in transitional housing for 90-120 days. 40% immediately into
permanent housing. Data and evaluation plans didn’t include any quality assurance staff.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pt.)
0-12
Comments:
Timeline does not provide flow of services. Everything happens on one business day
except for follow-up. Programming staffing sufficient. Good use of local resources.
8
29
7
Attachment E
Page 25 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Proposal provides demonstrated ability of and past experience of applicant to deliver
services to formerly incarcerated. However, Review Panel concerned about capacity of
organization and quality and availability of transitional housing opportunities.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Thorough discussion of client responsivity, engagement and feedback. Use of evidence-
based and field-based practices in the West County community, including motivational
interviewing and Stages of Change training. Staff includes formerly incarcerated. Strong
reputation for delivering services in the community.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Solid financial management practices. Audit provided. All required documents submitted.
Concern that Comptroller/HR Director is apparently leaving the organization.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
65% of grant funding dedicated to Personnel. Budget provides $43k for
transitional/intermediate housing with partners at $500/month with estimated average stay
of 30 days. Not enough resources dedicated to assistance with permanent housing.
Total Score 75
12
5
4
10
Attachment E
Page 26 of 44
RATING SHEET
SHELTER, Inc.
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Locally based nonprofit with main office in Martinez; staff at sites in Antioch, Pittsburg,
One-stops in Concord and Richmond, and SparkPoint Bay Point. 26 years in operation
providing continuum of housing services to low-income. 60 agencies with referral
relationship; partnership with CCCOE, Leah’s Pantry, Rubicon and Bi-Bett Corporation.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (13 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (13 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partner: Bay Area Legal Aid (SparkPoint also cited in proposal as “vendor
relationship”). Services to be provided countywide. “Housing First” model to address
immediate housing needs then services. Targets 144 clients for housing search and
placement; 12 homeless clients for room in master leased facilities; 100 clients for rental
subsidies/assistance with deposits; 30 clients for legal assistance from Bay Legal; 40 clients
referred to SparkPoint for financial education. Staff additions: 1 FTE housing specialist;
2.5 FTE Case Managers; 1 Program Coordinator; 0.33 FTE attorney. Review Panel
suggested staffing may be too much unless providing search & placement services to more
clients. In interview, proposer suggested staffing would be reevaluated during
implementation. Clients may have access to SHELTER’s homeless programs or dedicated
AB 109 beds at adult shelters. Good continuum of housing services. Solid program
evaluation program and identification of outcomes. Demonstrated collaboration.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (4 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (2 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Realistic start-up. 15 to 20 clients for each case manager at a time. Doesn’t describe
service roll-out. Staffing fully described; may be too much. Good use of local resources in
program implementation and evaluation.
8
36
8
Attachment E
Page 27 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Lead agency and partners all with extensive experience providing services to formerly
incarcerated in all regions of County.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Thorough description of responsivity to client needs; good use of consumer feedback and
grievance process. Case Managers trained in evidence-based practices of motivational
interviewing, stages of change, harm reduction, and de-escalation techniques. Review
Panel members expressed concerns that SHELTER perceived as not as “welcoming” as
other agencies because staff not representative of client population.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Solid finacial management information. All required financial documentation provided,
including Combined Financial Statements with independent Auditor’s report. No concerns.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Thorough and easy to read. Doesn’t indicate any leveraged support. May be too heavy in
staffing for number of clients served. Reasonable benefits load of 24%.
Total Score 88
15
8
8
5
Attachment E
Page 28 of 44
RATING SHEET
J Cole Recovery Homes, Inc.
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Not submitted
The proposal was deemed to be not compliant with technical and Minimum Organizational
Requirements by the CAO’s office. The proposal was not scored.
Attachment E
Page 29 of 44
RATING SHEET
New Hope Transitional Housing
Short and Long-Term Housing Access
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Not submitted
The proposal was deemed to be not compliant with technical and Minimum Organizational
Requirements by the CAO’s office. The proposal was not scored.
Attachment E
Page 30 of 44
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1302-005
PEER AND MENTORING SERVICES FOR AB 109 PROGRAM
Proposal Rating Sheets
Attachment E
Page 31 of 44
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (15 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (15 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 32 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Attachment E
Page 33 of 44
RATING SHEET
Contra Costa County Office of Education
Peer & Mentoring Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Locally based administrative office in Pleasant Hill; program offices at detention facilities.
Extensive history providing education services in jails and parole education programs.
Extensive history of collaboration with justice partners and service providers. Multiple
partner agencies identified for project with reentry population experience.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (12 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (13 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Collaborative partners: Men & Women of Purpose, Brighter Beginnings, Insight Prison
Project, Center for Human Development. (Proposal cites Child Abuse Prevention Council
as service provider but no discussion of role.) Proposal cites intent of serving 250,
countywide, which is ambitious. Services begin pre-release. Weekly face-to-face meetings
not sufficient during first 4-8 weeks post-release. Program services matrix thorough.
Proposed model for services follows best-practices guided by “Building Offenders’
Community Assets through Mentoring.” Modified training curriculum provided by Insight
Prison Project. Extensive training component. Intention to establish mentor relationships
that last at least six months may not be sufficient; Review Panel members suggest serving
fewer with more intensive services. Excellent description of program evaluation and
commitment to specific outcomes.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (4 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Thorough description of action steps and timeline. Programming staffing is experienced
and sufficient. Excellent use of local resources.
8
35
11
Attachment E
Page 34 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Lead agency and partners with extensive experience providing services to incarcerated and
formerly incarcerated in all regions of County. Direct experience with
development/implementation of mentoring programs less evident.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Demonstrates good understanding and commitment to evidence-based practices. Excellent
commitment to providing services that are responsive to individuals and common issues.
Commitment to recruit mentors that mirror the community, but no explicit inclusion of
mentors sensitive to issues of sexual orientation.
III.1 Fiscal Management Information 0-5
Comments:
Solid finacial management information. Yearly audits. Extensive manual of fiscal
procedures and policies. Utilization of MUNIS.
III.2 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Thorough and easy to read. Includes leveraged support. Reasonable benefits load of 20-
24%.
Total Score 88
13
6
10
5
Attachment E
Page 35 of 44
RATING SHEET
Contra Costa County Service Integration Team
Peer & Mentoring Services
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted but incomplete
The proposal was deemed to be not compliant with technical and Minimum Organizational
Requirements by the CAO’s office. The proposal was not scored.
Attachment E
Page 36 of 44
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # 1302-007
PLANNING OF (3) ONE-STOP CENTERS
FOR AB 109 PROGRAM
Proposal Rating Sheets
Attachment E
Page 37 of 44
RATING SHEET
Program elements will be weighted as follows:
Program Elements and Possible Score
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted
II.1. Agency Overview/Components
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.) 0-8
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (20 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (10 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (10 pts.) 0-40
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
process will be complete (5pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (5pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents
in program planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.) 0-12
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities 0-15
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
III.1 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0 – 10
Total 95 pts.
Attachment E
Page 38 of 44
RATING SHEET
Emerald HPC International, LLC
Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 95:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (2.5 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1.5 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
Headquarters in SF but Antioch business address. Consulting firm with a focus on
sustainable communities. Proposal does not indicate a lot of adult reentry experience but
award-winning experience in public safety/violence mitigation, prisoner reentry in
Northern Ireland.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (14 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (8 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (7 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Proposal for both Central and East County planning but doesn’t distinguish planning
processes for both. Consultants confident planning for both regions can be done
simultaneously given experience. Retreat concept good; may be necessary for buy-in,
especially in politically sensitive context. Better explanation of High Performing
Communities framework in interview, which increased score. Development of asset map is
a unique component of proposal. Successful completion of projects. Numerous letters of
support demonstrating coordination/collaboration. Insufficient description of data
evaluation component. However, proposal suggests consultants understand and are
committed to data sharing.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (3.5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (1.5 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Insufficient information in timeline. No administrative support identified. Timeline seems
ambitious for the completion of both projects. Interview clarified implementation and
increased scored.
6
29
9
Attachment E
Page 39 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Excellent references but limited experience indicated in proposal with respect to Central
County reentry issues. In interview, expressed interest in partnering, collaborating with the
safety net collaborative process underway in Central County.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Proposal suggests extensive involvement in East and Central communities. Cultural
sensitivity/ responsivity seems to be a hallmark of the firm. No demonstrated knowledge
of evidence-based services.
III.1 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
More task-oriented budget needed, but operations costs are reasonable. Commitment made
during interview to complete projects successfully on budget.
Total score
12
8
8
72
Attachment E
Page 40 of 44
RATING SHEET
Further The Work, LLC
Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 95:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (2 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (3 pts.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (1 pt.)
0-8
Comments:
Richmond based with multi-stakeholder, place-based approach, focused on formerly
incarcerated issues. Incorporated in 2009; not an extensive history of collaboration with
partners, but experience directly related to reentry.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (18 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (7 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (9 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Clear and comprehensive project planning outline for West County, framed with
philosophy. Commitment to 3 additional project outcomes: to increase community
participation, increase trust, encourage collective learning and capacity building. Excellent
understanding of systems of care models. Extensive commitment to collaboration;
numerous letters of support. History of successful completion of community-driven
projects. Data evaluation/design discussion not as strong.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (5 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (4.5 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (2 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Extensive, thorough timeline with attention to detail. Ambitious schedule but reasonable.
Appropriate staffing with credentials and experience. Staff experience with data
evaluation/design not as extensively documented.
6
34
11.5
Attachment E
Page 41 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated ability
of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Demonstrated involvement in justice-related and reentry issues, with a focus on West
County. Successful completion of project to facilitate development of AB 109 Operations
Plan. Collaborators also have directly related experience in reentry issue projects and
extensive experience in project facilitation.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Excellent understanding of cultural competence, particularly with regard to West County
and formerly incarcerated populations. Good discussion of inclusive processes and
philosophy of “nothing about us without us.” Could have addressed the AB 109 population
more specifically.
III.1 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Excellent use of leveraged funding and intent to bring additional resources to the project.
Thorough, easy to understand budget and narrative.
Total score
13.5
9
10
84
Attachment E
Page 42 of 44
RATING SHEET
HealthRIGHT 360
Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 95:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II.1. Agency Overview
1. Organization’s overall services/history (3 pts.)
2. Administrative and program offices are locally based (1 pt.)
3. Demonstrated collaboration with partners to deliver services (2 pts.)
0-8
Comments:
San Francisco non-profit with “letter of interest” to secure 3 local facilities if awarded
contract. Extensive services/history of service to uninsured, homeless, socio-economically
disenfranchised, the vast majority involved in criminal justice system. Numerous
collaborations with partners.
II.2. Program Proposal
1. Program design/methodology (10 pts.)
2. Program evaluation/outcomes (9 pts.)
3 Collaboration with other organizations/Coordination (5 pts.)
0-40
Comments:
Proposed locations for “implementation” of service centers in “letter of interest” pre-
determines the outcome. Good explanation of planning process but must hire contract
planner. With no demonstrated CCC experience, not clear how outreach and community
engagement will be conducted or managed effectively. Local partners not identified in
proposal except by function. 3 subcommittees representing functional service areas all
focused on employment, an admitted mistake in interview. Proposal doesn’t indicate
distinct approaches to separate regions. Excellent response to issue of data systems and
evaluation; dedicated Department of Research and Evaluation.
II.3. Program Implementation and Oversight
1. Action-steps and timeline for implementation, including primary
roles and responsibilities, as well as a target date by which the
program will be operational (2 pts.)
2. Program staffing (FT equivalencies, responsibilities, experience)
and management (2 pts.)
3. Use of local resources, inclusion of local residents in program
planning, implementation and evaluation (0.5 pts.)
0-12
Comments:
Proposal anticipates planning process not starting until contract planner hired in month 2.
First stakeholder meetings in month 4 to explain goal and deliverables; too long of a
process. Timeline doesn’t include explicit development of Implementation Plan.
6
24
4.5
Attachment E
Page 43 of 44
II.4 Bidder’s Experience
Bidder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver services to the targeted communities
as specified. 0-15
Comments:
Project planning/facilitation experience not demonstrated. However, extensive experience
in delivery of reentry services and operation of a One-Stop/Day Reporting Center.
II.5 Responsivity
Cultural sensitivity of program and relevance of services to diverse
client populations, including gender specific services and delivery of
services in the clients’ primary language. 0-10
Comments:
Excellent understanding of cultural competence and community responsiveness. Excellent
understanding of evidence based practices to support successful outcomes. Does not
demonstrate or indicate particular knowledge about CCC or community characteristics.
III.1 Program Budget/Narrative
Program budget detailing the cost for program administration, salaries,
benefits and operation. 0-10
Comments:
Budget indicates Planning Consultant would work 20 hours week/43 weeks. For a project
this size (3 regions), not sufficient. Mileage of 65 miles per week may not be realistic, if
covering 3 areas. Budget clearly presented, however, with minimal operations costs.
Total score
8
9
7
58.5
Attachment E
Page 44 of 44
County Administrator
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez, California 94553-1229
(925) 335-1080
(925) 335-1098 FAX
David J. Twa
County Administrator
Board of Supervisors
John M. Gioia
1 st District
Candace Andersen
2 nd District
Mary N. Piepho
3 rd District
Karen Mitchoff
4 th District
Federal D. Glover
5 th District
Contra Costa County
May 2, 2013
Subject: AB 109 Community Programs: Review Panels’ Award Recommendations
Upon completion of the proposal review and evaluation process, the AB 109 Community Programs
Review Panels recommend the following contract awards to the Public Protection Committee of the
Board of Supervisors for consideration and action at their May 16, 2013 meeting:
RFP #1302-004 Employment Support and Placement Services: $2,000,000
West County: Rubicon Programs, Inc. $600,000
Central County: Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay $600,000
East County: Rubicon Programs, Inc. $800,000
RFP #1302-003 Short and Long-Term Housing Access: $500,000
West County: Shelter, Inc. $150,000
Central County: Shelter, Inc. $150,000
East County: Shelter, Inc. $200,000
RFP #1302-005 Peer and Mentoring Services: $200,000
West County: Contra Costa County Office of Education $60,000
Central County: Contra Costa County Office of Education $60,000
East County: Contra Costa County Office of Education $80,000
RFP #1302-007 Planning for (3) Reentry Resource Centers: $120,000
West County: Further The Work, LLC $40,000
Central County: Emerald HPC, Inc. $40,000
East County: Emerald HPC, Inc. $40,000
These results will be provided to the Community Corrections Partnership at their meeting on May
10, 2013 for review and input. The Public Protection Committee is expected to make final
recommendations on contract awards to the Board of Supervisors at their May 21, 2013 meeting.
DAVID TWA
County Administrator
Attachment F