HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09172013 - C.35RECOMMENDATION(S):
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County Administrator, or designee, to execute a contract with Bay Area Legal Aid
(BayLegal) in an amount not to exceed $80,000 for reentry legal services for the Central County AB 109 program,
for the period October 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. (100% AB 109 Public Safety Realignment)
FISCAL IMPACT:
The contract amount is $80,000 and will be paid for by FY 2013-14 AB 109 Public Safety Realignment funds, as
approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2013.
BACKGROUND:
As requested by the Community Corrections Partnership at its May 10, 2013 meeting and recommended by the
Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors at their May 16, 2013 meeting, the FY 2013-14 budget for
AB 109 Public Safety Realignment in Contra Costa County approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2013
included an allocation in the amount of $80,000 for reentry legal services for the Central County AB 109 program.
This budget allocation recognized that there were no reentry legal services provided in the “Employment Support and
Placement Services” contract for Central County (Goodwill, Inc. being the contractor), as was provided in the
contract developed for “Employment Support and Placement Services” for West and East County AB 109
populations. (Rubicon Programs, Inc. partnered with Bay Area Legal Aid for West and East County AB 109
Employment Support and Placement Services, providing $108,116 for legal services in the contract.)
Subsequent to the budget authorization, the County Administrator’s Office drafted a Request for Qualifications
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 09/17/2013 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: September 17, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Chris Heck, Deputy
cc:
C. 35
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Public Protection Committee
Date:September 17, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Contract for Reentry Legal Services for Central County AB 109 Program
(RFQ) in consultation with staff of County Counsel and the County’s Reentry Coordinator, Jessie Warner, who is
herself a licensed attorney. RFQ #1307-027 for Reentry Legal Services for Central County AB 109 Program was
issued on July 29, 2013. The RFQ was posted on BidSync, the website the County utilizes for contracting
opportunities, and distributed via email to the contacts in the CAO’s office for “realignment and reentry issues.” A
Press Release was issued on July 31, and a legal notice was posted in the Contra Costa Times regarding the RFQ
opportunity. Responses were due to the County on August 16, 2013.
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
RFQ Content
The RFQ was modeled largely on the RFPs the County issued for the AB 109 Community Programs in that it
contained background information about AB 109, the AB 109 service delivery model in Contra Costa County, the
overview of our AB 109 population, and response requirements and instructions. The description of the purpose
of the RFQ and the desired services is excerpted below (pp. 12-14):
VII. Purpose, Services, and Outcomes of RFQ
A. Purpose:
The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors has directed the County Administrator’s Office to issue this Request for
Qualifications to identify outstanding candidates to provide reentry legal services to AB 109 clients residing in
Central County in order to break the cycle of criminal recidivism, increase public safety, and help local
government better address the growing population of offenders who return to their communities.
Each firm, person, or not-for-profit entity that is awarded a contract under this RFQ shall agree to provide to AB
109 clients residing in Central County the scope of legal advice and only the limited legal representation outlined
in this RFQ. The contractor may not use funds under this RFQ: (1) to provide any advice not specified herein; or
(2) to provide any services to anyone other than the AB 109 population. All services must be provided at no
charge to the client. Also, any contractor should not use this program as a method to advertise, recruit, solicit, or in
any way seek paying clients. Each firm or person awarded a contract under this RFQ also shall agree not to
represent any reentrant in any administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial proceeding against Contra Costa County,
except as specified herein.
Legal issues faced by the formerly incarcerated cut across many different practice areas. For example, civil legal
issues, such as child support, fall within the practice of family law, while other issues, such as those relating to
occupational licensing, fall within the domain of employment law. Moreover, outstanding warrants for failure to
appear in court for traffic violations or unpaid fines have a quasi-criminal element to them due to the possible
existence of a warrant, the potential for arrest and a sentence of incarceration, and the same burden of proof
(reasonable doubt) that is employed in criminal cases. For this reason, legal services providers may find
themselves in a domain that is neither purely civil nor purely criminal. Because the legal issues faced by
ex-offenders require a level of expertise in many different types of law, legal commentators have argued that an
entity providing reentry legal services should eschew the legal practice paradigm of specialization in specific areas
and instead develop a broad range of expertise, much as a lawyer who considers himself a general practitioner.
Civil legal assistance can often play a critical role in addressing barriers to successful reintegration into the
community. Assistance in securing an occupational or driver’s license, expunging criminal records, resolving
inappropriate denials of housing or employment, resolving violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its
California law counterparts, and advising regarding creating and/or modifying child support orders are among the
legal services that can help stabilize the lives of individuals and families.
Who is eligible for services? The AB 109 population being served by CCC Probation is eligible for services.
These individuals can qualify regardless of how much time has passed since their release. The contractor can
provide services to other formerly incarcerated persons but shall not use AB 109 funds to provide services to those
other persons.
B. Services and Desired Outcomes:
The successful contractor will provide limited legal services beginning with a post-release legal check-up to
identify legal barriers that can be reduced or eliminated with limited legal interventions. These barriers include
barriers to employment due to criminal history; issues related to credit repair; fines and fees related to traffic and
quality of life citations; child support issues; and housing and public benefits issues.
Legal services may include assisting, advising, and limited representation of individual clients in the following
areas:
• How to seek early termination of probation;
• Criminal record remedies (“expungement”);
• Removing or minimizing barriers to obtaining professional licensing and other certifications, including
representation in administrative hearings;
• Assisting the client with obtaining driver’s licenses, child support modifications, employment or housing
applications and denials, and other matters directly impacting employment and housing opportunities;
• Providing full representation and assistance to obtain public benefits, but not representation in any litigation
against the County;
• Providing full representation and assistance to obtain or retain housing, but not representation in any litigation
against the County;
• Family law matters, including custody, visitation, minor guardianship, orders of protection, and divorce when
special circumstances are present;
• Providing full representation and assistance to re-claim forfeited property, but not representation in any litigation
against the County;
• Providing advice and/or representation on criminal record employment discrimination cases, other than any case
against the County;
• Challenges to State Department of Justice determinations that require persons to register as sex offenders;
• Determining a client’s outstanding debts (e.g. child support) or warrants and qualifications for a modification
that can reduce overall debt;
• Educating clients about their other rights and responsibilities.
Legal services funded by this RFQ may not include client representation in any administrative, quasi-judicial, or
judicial proceedings, other than those specifically identified above.”
RFQ Review Panel
To conduct the response evaluation, a Review Panel was established and consisted of the following members:
1. Chief of Probation Philip Kader
2. Lara DeLaney representing the CAO’s office
3. Lieutenant Dennis Kahane of the Sheriff’s Office, a licensed and practicing attorney
4. LaVern Vaughn from the “Safe Return Project,” representing the formerly incarcerated
5. Dr. Edwina Perez-Santiago, Reach Fellowship International, representing the Community Advisory Board.
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 session was facilitated by the County’s Reentry Coordinator, Jessie Warner, though she
did not participate in the scoring of responses. The Review Panel was convened on August 23, 2013. The Review
Panel utilized a “Consensus Scoring Methodology” for response 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.
RFP Responses
The County received 2 responses to the RFQ by the deadline of August 16, 2013. The responses were from the
following agencies:
• Bay Area Legal Aid
• Holden W. Green Esq./HWG Law Group
The official Rating Sheets that provide the consensus scores and comments of the Review Panel for all responses
are included in Attachment A. The Review Panel’s consensus score for the response from Bay Area Legal Aid was
88 out of 100. The consensus score for the response from Holden W. Green Esq./HWG Law Group was 47 out of
100.
The notification of award recommendation has been prepared and distributed. (See Attachment B.) The County
received no appeals.
The Public Protection Committee of the Board of Supervisors reviewed the award recommendation at its meeting
on September 9, 2013 and voted to recommend the Board of Supervisors authorize a contract with Bay Area
Legal Aid in the amount of $80,000 for the period October 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014.
The CAO’s office wishes to thank the members of the Review Panel for their service to the County and their
contributions to the success of the AB 109 program.
Attachments
Attachment A – Rating Sheets for Responses Received
Attachment B – Notification of Award Recommendations
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
There will be no provider for reentry legal services for Central County AB 109 program.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A--Rating Sheets
Attachment B--Announcement of Award Recommendation
1
RATING SHEET
Bay Area Legal Aid
Reentry Legal Services for Central County AB 109 Program
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II. Responder Overview
1. Relevancy of responder’s overall services/history (3 pts. Max.)
2. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work (3 pts. Max.)
3. Overall agency, specified staff with relevant experience and expertise (4 pts. Max.)
0-10
Comments:
47 years of experience providing legal services to low-income County residents. Bay Area
Legal Aid founded in 2000. 50 attorneys and 14 legal advocates on staff; 12 in Contra
Costa. 2.3 FTEs Staff Attorneys dedicated to reentry work. Excellent administrative
capacity including evaluation utilization. Poverty law experts with detailed staff
qualifications. Collaborating with Rubicon Programs, Inc.
III. Approach to the Scope
1. Service design/methodology (5 pts. Max.)
2. Cultural Competency/past experience with reentry population (5 pts. Max.)
3. Program action-steps and timeline for implementation (5 pts. Max.)
4. Collaboration with stakeholders, other organizations/Coordination (5 pts. Max.)
0-20
Comments:
Collaborative partner is Rubicon Programs; commonality of approach to West and East Co.
considered by Panel members to be beneficial. Local offices; accessible and culturally
diverse, multilingual staff. Good understanding of specific legal issue areas to be
addressed for clients. Excellent demonstration of collaborative work.
IV. Technical Expertise
Depth and relevance of subject-matter expertise (30 pts. Max.) 0-30
Comments:
Subcontract matters of criminal and employment law to Rubicon Programs as well as case
conflict matters in consumer and family law. Excellent demonstrated experience in housing
law, public benefits, health care access, consumer/financial health, family law and
experience with people with disabilities and transition age youth.
10
25
18
Item #6--Attachment A
2
V. Responder’s Experience with Similar Projects
Responder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver specified services. (20 pts. Max.) 0-20
Comments:
Extensive similar past and present work including central roles in Reentry Solutions Group,
West Contra Costa Family Justice Center, SparkPoint Centers.
VI. Cost Estimate
Project costs are reasonable for proposed scope of services. Cost
explanations are clear and demonstrate roles of proposed staffing. (20 pts. Max.) 0-20
Comments:
Confusing statements in response about the contract “will expand our capacity by adding
an additional 100% FTE Reentry Attorney,” and the cost estimate section which shows
partial FTEs to be funded by contract, totalling 1.023 FTE. Benefit level of 16.77%
considered low. Subcontracting $15k to Rubicon, 19% of contract. No basis provided for
allocation to subcontractor.
Total Score 88
15
20
Item #6--Attachment A
1
RATING SHEET
Holden W. Green Esq/HWG Law Group
Reentry Legal Services for Central County AB 109 Program
Program elements will be weighted as follows with a maximum score of 100:
I. Proposal Cover Statement - required but not weighted Submitted
II. Responder Overview
1. Relevancy of responder’s overall services/history (3 pts. Max.)
2. Responder’s qualifications as they relate to scope of work (3 pts. Max.)
3. Overall agency, specified staff with relevant experience and expertise (4 pts. Max.)
0-10
Comments:
Incorporated business since 2007. Owner/sole employee in practice since 2001 doing
criminal and family law. Specializes in post-conviction relief, factual innocence petitions,
probation violations, and Certificates of Rehabilitation/Governor Pardon Petitions. Staffing
is “myself.”
III. Approach to the Scope
1. Service design/methodology (5 pts. Max.)
2. Cultural Competency/past experience with reentry population (5 pts. Max.)
3. Program action-steps and timeline for implementation (5 pts. Max.)
4. Collaboration with stakeholders, other organizations/Coordination (5 pts. Max.)
0-20
Comments:
Reliance on templates and access to West Law, Lexis live chat feature and case law
researcher, as well as a listserve and a research portal. No local access. No clear
understanding of Contra Costa County. Didn’t address cultural competency. Over-reliance
on telephone, mail and email. No demonstrated collaboration with CCC stakeholders or
organizations.
IV. Technical Expertise
Depth and relevance of subject-matter expertise (30 pts. Max.) 0-30
Comments:
Experience not specifically identified in response as related to criminal law; instead a
referral to website. Limited experience identified in areas of civil, housing, public benefits,
and family law.
5
15
7
Item #6--Attachment A
2
V. Responder’s Experience with Similar Projects
Responder's current or past experience and demonstrated
ability of applicant to deliver specified services. (20 pts. Max.) 0-20
Comments:
Only similar project experience listed is CalPAP (parole advocacy program). Remainder of
legal experience is with privately retained clients.
VI. Cost Estimate
Project costs are reasonable for proposed scope of services. Cost
explanations are clear and demonstrate roles of proposed staffing. 0-20
Comments:
Response did not outline cost structure and how funds will be allocated to provide the
services under this RFQ. Response did not include the compensation rates and hours/FTEs
of proposed personnel. Responder did promise “meticulous record keeping with
catalogued receipts and invoices.”
Total Score 47
5
15
Item #6--Attachment A
Item #6--Attachment B