HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 10122015 - Internal Ops Cte Min
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
October 12, 2015
NOTE CHANGED MEETING TIME: 2:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the September 14, 2015 IOC
meeting. (Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC Staff)
4. ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and
provide policy direction to staff. (Marilyn Underwood, Environmental Health Director)
5. CONSIDER accepting annual report prepared by the Public Works Department on the
County's Local Bid Preference Program. (David Gould, Public Works Procurement
Services Manager)
6. ACCEPT follow-up report on efforts to "green" the County Fleet and CONSIDER
approving recommendations on modifying the County's Vehicle and Equipment
Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals. (Carlos
Velasquez, Fleet Services Manager)
7. CONSIDER accepting status report from the County Administrator on outstanding
issues and information requests stemming from Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body
Triennial Review and providing direction to staff. (Theresa Speiker, Chief Asst. County
Administrator)
8. ACCEPT report covering the period January - December 2014 and CONSIDER staff
recommendations on the Small Business Enterprise Program. (Vicky Mead, County
Administrator's Office)
9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 9, 2015.
10.Adjourn
1
The Internal Operations Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities planning to attend Internal Operations Committee meetings. Contact the staff person
listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Internal Operations Committee less than
96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours. Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also
accessible on line at www.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
2
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:RECORD OF ACTION FOR THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2015 IOC MEETING
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: RECORD OF ACTION
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea, IOC
Staff
Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925)
335-1077
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting.
Referral Update:
Attached is the Record of Action for the September 14, 2015 IOC meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the September 14, 2015 IOC meeting.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
DRAFT Record of Action for September 14, 2015 IOC Meeting
3
D R A F T
INTERNAL OPERATIONS
COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION FOR
SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor John Gioia, Vice Chair
Present: Karen Mitchoff, Chair
John Gioia, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Julie DiMaggio Enea, Staff
Attendees: John Kopchik, Conservation & Development Director
Jason Crapo, County Building Official
Tom Kelly, Alameda County Clean Energy
Jennifer Qualick, District II Supervisor's Office
Tom Geiger, Asst. County Counsel
Jeff Kurtz
Carol Weed, Climate Change Issues League
Charles Davidson
Ann Puntch
Eve Perez, HERO Program
Alex DiGiorgio, Marin Clean Energy
Jim Moita, Acorn Self Storage
Harry Thurston
Jack Cooper
Marie Cohn, Rossmoor
Nick Despota
Tyra Wright, CCC Association of Realtors
Heather Schiffman, CCC Association of Realtors
Peter Liddell
Pello Walker, Strategic Marketing Solutions
Timothy Ewell, Sr. Deputy County Administrator
Linda Lavender, District IV Supervisor's Office
Lisa Chow, District IV Supervisor's Office
Marcus Savage, Ygrene Energy Fund
Bryan Raymond, Diablo Solar Services
Bob Campbell, Auditor-Controller
Russell Watts, Treasurer-Tax Collector
Ed Diokno, District V Supervisor's Office
4
Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator
Mary Walker
Peter Waring
1.Introductions
Chair Mitchoff convened the meeting at 2:38 p.m.
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
Jim Moita requested to speak during the general public comment period but was
advised by the Chair that the matter about which he wished to speak was not under
the jurisdiction of the Internal Operations Committee.
3.RECEIVE and APPROVE the Record of Action for the special July 27, 2015 IOC
meeting.
The Record of Action for the Special July 27, 2015 Internal Operations Committee
meeting was approved as presented.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
4.APPROVE nomination to appoint Aaron Winer to the Business 1 Alternate seat on the
Hazardous Materials Commission to complete the unexpired term ending on December
31, 2018.
The Committee approved the nomination of Aaron Winer to the Business 1
Alternate seat on the Hazardous Materials Commission to complete the unexpired
term ending on December 31, 2018, and directed staff to forward the nomination to
the Board of Supervisors.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
5.APPROVE plan to transition the terms of office of the Public Member seats on the
Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee from two years to four years and to
stagger term expirations, and modifications to the IPM Advisory Committee Bylaws to
accord with the seat term transition and to update old references.
The Committee approved the proposed plan to transition the IPM Advisory
Committee seats from two to four years and stagger the seat terms, and also
approved the proposed changes to the bylaws to accord with the seat term changes,
and directed staff to forward the Committee's recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors.
5
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
6.ACCEPT report on the Animal Benefit Fund; and,1.
PROVIDE direction to staff regarding next steps.2.
The Committee accepted the staff report on the Animal Benefit Fund and requested
a follow-up report from the new Animal Services Director approximately 90 days
post-appointment on pending needs and possible one-time uses of the funds.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
7.ACCEPT this report and CONSIDER providing direction to staff regarding next steps
to further investigate potential Community Choice Aggregation (procurement of
consumer energy) implementation.
Jason Crapo presented the staff report, which provided background on CCA, its
potential benefits, costs, and risks, options for implementing CCA by the County,
and potential next steps should the Committee and Board of Supervisors wish to
pursue a CCA program.
Supervisor Gioia suggested the following steps to begin exploring the CCA in our
County:
Staff should reach out to Contra Costa mayors and city managers to explain
the CCA options and determine their interest in studying the formation of a
CCA partnership among the cities and the County, representing the
unincorporated areas.
1.
Staff should report back to IOC or the Board regarding the potential for
partnering with other Contra Costa governments and provide a suggested
scope and cost estimates for an RFP and eventual contract for a
load/feasibility study, guestimated to cost in the range of $300,000-$500,000.
2.
The Chair indicated that the Committee was interested in examining all three CCA
options described in the staff report, and invited Tom Kelly and Alex DiGiorgio to
describe their CCA programs, for Alameda County and Marin County, respectively.
Tom Kelly reported that Alameda County recently issued an RFP for a
load/feasibility study covering Alameda County and its cities. He added that the
technical study and county staff costs represented the most significant project costs
so far and that consultant costs were modest. He said that in response to stakeholder
interest in how CCA would impact the local economy, the scope of the study will
include a labor/job creation component. He expects to have a consultant hired
within six weeks and for his County to be in a position to make a decision by the end
of the year regarding whether or not to move forward. He noted that San Mateo
County is in much the same place as Alameda County, and each county has created
a large steering committee of stakeholders to inform the process. He said the Santa
Clara County decided to not form a stakeholder steering committee. Tom indicated
that the process to establish CCA in his county has been daunting and the idea of
6
partnering with another county at this point seemed overwhelming but might be a
possibility at some future point. He said that due to each county's uniqueness,
Contra Costa may prefer to establish its own CCA program.
Alex DiGiorgio stated that Marin Clean Energy supports Contra Costa County in
whatever manner it may choose to offer CCA to its constituents. He reported that it
took two years, from 2008 to 2010, to begin serving customers, and the program has
been serving customers for five years now. He clarified that Marin Clean Energy
(MCE) energy rates are about one dollar less than PG&E and are billed on the
PG&E bill. He described how a CCA is both a partner and competitor with PG&E --
partners in the maintenance, delivery, and billing of energy, and competitors in the
sourcing (generating or procuring) of energy. Every MCE customer is still a PG&E
customer, and ratepayers are free to choose which energy supply portfolio from
which to purchase. Ratepayers can opt out at any time, however, there is a one-year
waiting period to opt back in to the CCA.
Supervisor Gioia clarified that under the legislation, once a CCA is created,
ratepayers are automatically placed within the CCA unless they opt out. Alex said
that the opt out rate varies by area; in Richmond it is 15-20%. Richmond, El Cerrito
and San Pablo are current members of MCE, and Lafayette and Walnut Creek have
expressed interest in joining MCE. Chevron is constructing a 10½ MW solar project
on a remediated brownfield site that it is leasing to MCE for $1/year. This project
has a 50% minimum local hiring requirement and is funded with "Deep Green"
option funding. "Deep Green" funding comes from one of two 100% renewable
energy sourcing options offered by MCE. The Deep Green option costs ratepayers
one cent/KW or about $5/month per resident more but helps to build a fund for
renewable energy infrastructure. The Deep Green option gives ratepayers a choice
regarding where their energy dollars are spent.
The Chair invited members of the public to comment. The following individuals
spoke in favor of CCA in Contra Costa County:
Harry Thurston, Antioch; Carol Weed, Walnut Creek; Charles Davidson; Marie
Cohn, Sustainable Rossmoor; Marcus Savage, Ygrene; Jim Moita; Bryan Raymond,
Diablo Solar Services; Nick Despota, Sunflower Alliance; Pello Walker, Pleasant
Hill; Peter Waring. Jim Moita submitted an aerial photo of his self-storage facility
in Brentwood that has been fitted with solar panels. He stated that in California,
there are two million sq ft of self storage and two billion sq ft nationally. This is a
potential source of renewable energy. One MW of energy supplies 1,200-1,500
homes.
The City of Walnut Creek sent a letter of support for CCA, attached hereto; and the
Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance provided a brochure, attached hereto.
Supervisor Mitchoff asked Alex DiGiorgio how MCE manages Deep Green
proceeds that are generated from non-Marin County jurisdictions and DiGiorgio
clarified that the funds are currently pooled and managed as one fund by MCE but
that segregated funds for geographical areas might be an option for consideration
by the MCE board of directors. DiGiorgio mentioned that MCE might soon be
making changes to its requirements to join MCE.
7
The Committee directed IOC staff to prepare a Board Order for October 6
recommending that authority be granted to DCD staff to conduct outreach to Contra
Costa cities to determine their interest in studying the formation of a CCA, and to
begin identify costs for a load and feasibility study, with the goal of having a report
back to IOC in December on the status of the outreach to cities with a full report on
outreach at the first 2016 IOC meeting.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
8.CONSIDER concerns raised by PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) providers
regarding the form of the County's operating agreement and related PACE policies.
↵In response to concerns that County staff were not moving fast enough to approve PACE provider
applications, Jason Crapo explained that final review and approval could not occur on the two
applications received until issues raised by the PACE providers regarding the County's PACE
Operating Agreement and related policies were decided by the IOC and the Board of Supervisors.
The following individuals commented and/or provided clarification on the issues: Eve Perez,
Jonathan Kevles, Russell Watts, Bob Campbell, Marcus Savage. Eve Perez submitted an article
entitled, "AVM Secrets and Lies", attached hereto.
The Committee discussed and accepted public comment on the eight issues outlined in the staff
report and made the determinations summarized below. The Committee directed staff to prepare a
Board Order for Board discussion in October, recommending the Committee's determinations and,
concurrently, transmitting staff's recommendations on the PACE applications submitted by Renew
Financial and HERO.
Assessed vs. Fair Market Value1.
The Committee decided to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that fair market value be
determined using automated valuation supplied to the PACE providers through a third party
vendor, or using a certified appraisal if preferred by the property owner.
Contractors Indemnifying the County2.
The Committee decided to remove the requirement that contractors indemnify the County,
and that the County instead recognize the contractor indemnification language in the
Contractor Participation Agreement, to which all participating contractors have agreed.
Contractor General Liability Insurance & Additional Insured Requirements3.
The Committee decided to require contractors to carry the industry standard amount of $1M
(vs. $2M) per occurrence for commercial general liability insurance, strike the requirement
for a Builder's Risk policy, and strike the requirement for contractors to add the County as an
additional insured.
Lender Consent4.
The Committee decided to require Program Participants who own non-residential properties
to obtain written consent to participate in the PACE Program from lenders who have made
loans to the Program Participant only where the property in question serves as security for
the loan.
8
Loan Limits for Residential Properties over $700,000 and for Non-Residential Properties5.
The Committee decided to mirror the loan limits provided in the States PACE Loss Reserve
regulations: "The Financing is for less than fifteen percent (15%) of the value of the
property, up to the first seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) of the value of the
property, and is for less than ten percent (10%) of the remaining value of the property above
seven hundred thousand dollars ($700,000)." The Committee also decided to remove the 20%
of value cap on non-residential PACE loans, modify the limitation in the County's Operating
Agreement that a PACE assessment cannot result in property taxes exceeding 5% of market
(vs. assessed) value, and stipulate in the Operating Agreement that the PACE assessment plus
the mortgage related debt on a residential property must not exceed 95% of market value of
the property.
Definition of Residential vs. Non-Residential Properties6.
The Committee agreed to add the following definition to the Operating Agreement:
“Non-residential property” is any property that is a multi-family property containing five or
more units of housing, or any commercial, agricultural, or industrial property that would
otherwise be eligible for PACE financing. It was acknowledged that there is a discrepancy
between the State's definition of residential property and the PACE law definition of
residential property as "one to three units" and multi-family as "five or more units", leaving
properties of four or more units in limbo. The Committee preferred to treat properties of four
or less units as residential property for the purpose of the County's PACE Operating
Agreement.
Tax Deductibility Disclaimer7.
The Committee decided to provide in the County's Operating Agreement that PACE providers
may recommend that property owners consult with a tax professional prior to claiming any
tax deductions associated with the project, and shall not recommend or indicate that
homeowners take any particular filing position regarding their annual or semi-annual PACE
assessment payments.
Processing Fee8.
The Committee decided to uphold the one-time $5,000 County application fee to cover
anticipated review and processing costs.
AYE: Chair Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair John Gioia
Passed
9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for October 12, 2015.
10.Adjourn
Chair Mitchoff adjourned the meeting at approximately 4:45 p.m.
For Additional Information Contact:
Julie DiMaggio Enea, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1077, Fax (925) 646-1353
julie.enea@cao.cccounty.us
9
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:WASTE HAULER ORDINANCE
Submitted For: William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director
Department:Health Services
Referral No.: IOC 15/8
Referral Name: Waste Hauler Ordinance
Presenter: Marilyn Underwood Contact: Marilyn Underwood (925) 692-2521
Referral History:
On May 8, 2012, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee a review
of the Waster Hauler Ordinance in order to address a number of problems with illegal haulers
including:
complaints that illegal haulers have been hired by private parties to remove refuse, and some of these
companies have subsequently dumped the collected material along roadways and on vacant lots.
incidents in which the Sheriff's Department found refuse haulers with improperly secured loads, which pose
a hazard to motorists if items fall onto roadways.
haulers that have been found transporting the collected materials to illegal transfer stations that have not
undergone the required zoning, environmental, and permitting review, and pose significant threats to public
health and the environment.
haulers that have been found collecting residential or commercial garbage in violation of local franchise
agreements.
haulers that are not posting the bond required by Contra Costa County Ordinance Section 418-2.006. This
bond is intended to ensure compliance with applicable laws. It is questionable if illegal haulers carry liability
insurance, and they may not be in compliance with tax or labor laws.
The Internal Operations Committee held several discussions on this matter over the last three
years, during which substantial work and progress were noted. The IOC requested Environmental
Health staff to work with the County Counsel to develop a final draft ordinance for circulation to
stakeholders for comment, and then for consideration by the IOC. Work on the ordinance was
suspended for several months in 2014 but resumed in early 2015.
County staff studied existing agreements with franchise waste haulers to determine the extent to
which they might conflict with the County's proposal. This examination necessitated meetings
with the franchisees and the waste authorities to clarify and resolve any such conflicts. In July
2015, Environmental Health presented a conceptual draft of the waste hauler ordinance and ten
key issues on which policy direction was needed before further work on the ordinance could
proceed. The ten issues were discussed and the IOC provided direction to EH to return with a
revised draft ordinance in October.
Referral Update:
10
Referral Update:
Attached is an update from Environmental Health on the status of the development of a waste
hauler ordinance.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report on the status of the development of a waste hauler ordinance and provide policy
direction to staff.
Attachments
Environmental Health Status Report on Development of Waste Hauler Ordinance_October 2015
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Contra Costa County Internal Operations Committee
October 5, 2015
Page 11 of 35
Exhibits Index
Exhibit A Proposed Revision to Contra Costa County Ordinance 418-2 (October 5, 2015)
Exhibit B CIWMB 61- Waste Tire Hauler Bond
Exhibit C Debris Recovery Plan (DCD Form)
Exhibit D Debris Recovery Report (DCD Form)
Exhibit E How and Where to Dispose of Construction & Demolition Debris
Exhibit F How and Where to Dispose of Green Waste
Exhibits G-K Photos from September 6, 2015 Inspections of Illegal Solid Waste Facilities
Exhibit L Contra Costa Times Article (September 11, 2015)
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:ANNUAL REPORT ON THE LOCAL BID PREFERENCE PROGRAM
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: IOC 15/4
Referral Name: LOCAL BID PREFERENCE PROGRAM
Presenter: David Gould, Procurement Services
Manager
Contact: David Gould (925)
313-2151
Referral History:
On August 10, 2004, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee
(IOC) the creation of a policy to grant a five percent preference to Contra Costa County vendors
on all sealed bids or proposals, except with respect to those contracts which state law requires to
be granted to the lowest bidder, and review of an ordinance to be drafted by County Counsel to
enact this policy. The 2005 IOC proposed a new ordinance to the Board of Supervisors, and the
Board adopted the local bid preference ordinance to support small local business and stimulate the
local economy at no additional cost to the County. The ordinance provides that if the low bid in a
commodities purchase is not a local vendor, any responsive local vendor who submitted a bid
over $25,000 that was within 5% percent of the lowest bid has the option to submit a new bid.
The local vendor will be awarded if the new bid is in an amount less than or equal to the lowest
responsive bid, allowing the County to favor the local vendor but not at the expense of obtaining
the lowest offered price.
The ordinance defines a local vendor as any business that has its headquarters, distribution point,
or locally-owned franchise located within the county for at least six months immediately prior to
the issuance of the request for bids, and holds a valid business license by a jurisdiction in Contra
Costa County.
Since adoption, the IOC has continued to monitor the effects of the program through annual
reports prepared and presented by the Purchasing Agent or designee. The Public Works
Department made its last status report in September 2014 and also made a presentation to the
Board of Supervisors in November 2014 regarding how County dollars spent locally have a
positive impact on the local economy in terms of small business support, job creation, new
spending and additional tax revenue. The department had set a goal to utilize available technology
to increase the visibility of local businesses that offer services needed by County departments.
Referral Update:
Attached is the FY 2014/15 Local Bid Preference Program report prepared by the Procurement
47
Attached is the FY 2014/15 Local Bid Preference Program report prepared by the Procurement
Services Manager. Six bids met the program criteria in 2014/15 and awards were made under the
program to local bidders in four of the six cases. This experience demonstrates that the program
works for procurements that meet the program criteria. The challenge remains for local businesses
become more competitive with out-of-county businesses.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT annual report prepared by the Public Works Department on the County's Local Bid
Preference Program.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact, as this is only an informational report. The program itself results in no financial
loss to the County because purchase orders are still awarded to the lowest bidder. The program
merely gives a second opportunity for local bidders who are within 5% of the lowest bid to meet
or beat the lowest bid. The objective of the program is to stimulate the local economy and job
creation.
Attachments
FY 2014/15 Local Bid Preference Program Annual Report
48
49
50
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISPOSITION OF LOW MILEAGE FLEET
VEHICLES
Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: IOC 15/3
Referral Name: Review of Annual Master Vehicle Replacement List and Disposition of
Low-Use Vehicles
Presenter: Joe Yee, Deputy Public Works Director Contact: Carlos Velasquez 925....
Referral History:
Each year, the Public Works Department Fleet Services Manager has analyzed the fleet and
annual vehicle usage and made recommendations to the IOC on the budget year vehicle
replacements and on the intra-County reassignment of underutilized vehicles, in accordance with
County policy. In FY 2008/09, the Board approved the establishment of an Internal Services
Fund (ISF) for the County Fleet, to be administered by Public Works (formerly by the General
Services Department). The Board requested the IOC to review annually the Public Works
department report on the fleet and on low-mileage vehicles.
On September 9, 2013, the IOC accepted a preliminary annual report from the Public Works
department and requested the Fleet Manager to return in March 2014 with final recommendations
on the disposition of low mileage vehicles. The Fleet Manager, in March 2014, identified 44 low
mileage vehicles out of 893 vehicles in the Internal Services Fund Fleet and consulted with each
department in the formulation of recommendations. The Committee approved the Fleet Manager's
recommendation to install GPS telemetrics devices on 12 of the 44 low mileage vehicles, and also
asked the Auditor's Office to examine the extent to which the County's Clean Air Vehicles Policy
was being observed.
The Chief Auditor, in July 2015, reported that as of February 28, 2015, 18% of the fleet were
clean air vehicles, 36.2% were not clean air vehicles but were exempted by the policy or by the
Fleet Manager, and 45.8% were not exempt and not in compliance with the clean air vehicle
policy. The Fleet Manager emphasized his commitment to downsizing the fleet and right-sizing
County vehicles. The Committee asked the Fleet Manager to update the 2008 County Clean Air
Vehicle Policy to also to reflect current technology such as electric and hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles, and current funding incentives, and to segregate large construction vehicles from regular
trucks and sedans in future reports to make the statistical reporting more meaningful.
Referral Update:
51
In follow-up to the Committee's direction in July, the Public Works Department has prepared the
attached report and recommendations for modifying the County's Vehicle and Equipment
Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT follow-up report from the Fleet Services Manager on efforts to "green" the County Fleet
and CONSIDER approving recommendations on modifying the County's Vehicle and Equipment
Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Reassigning underutilized vehicles would increase cost efficiency but the fiscal impact was not
estimated.
Attachments
Public Works Report on Greening the County Fleet
Proposed/Modified Vehicle-Equip Acquisition-Replacement Policy_Clean Version
Proposed/Modified Vehicle-Equip Acquisition-Replacement Policy_Marked-up Version
52
"Accredited by the American Public Works Association"
255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825
TEL: (925) 313-2000 FAX: (925) 313-2333
www.cccpublicworks.org
Julia R. Bueren , Director
Deputy Directors
R. Mitch Avalon
Brian M. Balbas
Stephen Kowalewski
Joe Yee
DATE: October 5, 2015
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Carlos Velasquez, Fleet Manager, Fleet Services
SUBJECT: Internal Operations Committee’s request for recommended revisions to
Administrative Bulletin 508.4 County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisiton and
Replacement Policy, and Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals and to break out
large construction vehicles from Clean Air Vehicle report.
The attached document contains revisions to Administrative Bulletin 508.4 which includes
administrative changes to update the Bulletin to reflect the merger of the General Services
Department into the Public Works Department and suggestions to expand the definition of Clean
Air Vehicles to include electric and fuel cell technology.
In order to better illustrate the County’s progress toward a cleaner and greener fleet, we have
reformatted the information below to only include light, on-highway vehicles in the statistical
information since these are the vehicle types that have the greatest opportunity for alternative
fuel power plants.
Fiscal Year
Total # of Vehicles in
County Fleet (Light
On-Highway)
# of Vehicles Exempt
from Clean Air
Vehicle Policy
(Patrol, Fire,
Paramedic, etc.)
# of Clean Air
Vehicles (electric,
CNG, hybrid)
2012-13 726 290 165
2013-14 865 380 183
2014-15 919 398 191
Public Works Fleet Services has been proactively working under the County’s Clean Air Vehicle
Policy guidelines with the intent of achieving a greener fleet. Fleet Services continues to educate
our customer departments regarding the advantages and benefits of downsizing and right-sizing
the Fleet. This includes the practice of replacing unleaded fueled vehicles with Hybrid, Electric
or Compressed Natural Gas units where applicable. Hydrogen fuel cell technology will also be
considered in the future as the hydrogen fueling infrastructure grows and units become more
affordable. A blended, standardized Fleet is the ideal combination we are striving to achieve.
53
Internal Operations Committee
October 5, 2015
Page 2 of 2
CV:ck
C:\Users\jyee\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\ZZ3G55IG\FINAL
Green Vehicle Report Memo - IOC 10.5.15.doc
Attachment
c: J. Bueren, Public Works Director
J. Yee, Deputy Public Director
Fleet Services is committed to supplying our customer departments with alternative fueled
vehicles and equipment whenever possible, while also maintaining operational needs and cost
effectiveness. This commitment to lower our carbon footprint on our planet includes providing or
sourcing alternative fuels for use in County vehicles in place of fossil fuels whenever possible.
For example, Fleet Services is no longer purchasing bio-diesel and has switched over to 10%
renewable diesel at 5 cents less per gallon.
Fleet Services currently supplies gasoline, 10% renewable diesel, and compressed natural gas
fuels for all County units at the County Fueling Station located at 2471Waterbird Way. Fuel
products are available to our customers 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Electric vehicle
charging stations are available at the 651 Pine Street rear parking lot and at the Fleet Service
Center at 2467 Waterbird Way for the County’s electric vehicles. We are looking at expanding
the number of charging stations to service County electric vehicles at department sites as well as
providing some available to the public and employees for their private vehicles.
Alternative fuel products dispensed to county vehicles (FY 14/15)
Compressed Natural Gas Bio-Diesel (5%)
Transactions: 1,493 Transactions: 5,365
Avg unit Price: $3.10 Avg unit Price: $3.29
Quantity of Product: 8,237 GGE Quantity of Product: 111,713 gal
During the previous fiscal year (FY 2014-15) Fleet Service purchased more hybrid, CNG, and
100% electric vehicles then any prior years.
3 Year Purchase cycle (ISF) Hybrid, CNG, Electric
Units
Purchased Vehicle Fuel Type Model YR
15 HYBRID 2013
5 HYBRID 2014
11 COMPRESSED
NATURAL GAS
2015
9 ELECTRIC 2015
31 HYBRID 2015
1 HYBRID 2016
72
54
Page 1 of 5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Office of the County Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN
Number: 508.4
Date: October 24, 2015
Section: Property and Equipment
SUBJECT: County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and
Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals
This bulletin sets forth County policy and guidelines for department requests for
acquisition and replacement of County vehicles and equipment.
I. APPLICABILITY. This bulletin is applicable to addition and replacement vehicles
and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase,
lease purchase or donation.
II. AUTHORITY. By Board Order, Item C.162, July 18, 2000, proposed County
Vehicle/Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy
III. POLICY GUIDELINES
Additional and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County
departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation must be appropriate
for the intended use, within the approved budget, safe to operate, and cost efficient both
to operate and maintain. The expected annual use of any vehicle should be in excess of
3,000 miles. Dedicated Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and battery electric vehicles
with frequent and demonstrated short trip usage patterns may be exempted from the
County minimum mileage requirement. Replacement priority will be given to vehicles
and/or equipment that are determined by the Public Works Department Fleet Manager
(Fleet Manager) to be unsafe, in the poorest condition, uneconomical to operate or
maintain, or have the highest program need.
A. ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT The acquisition
of “replacement” vehicles or equipment may be approved by the Fleet Manager
and County Administrator, provided that the vehicle being replaced meets or
exceeds the minimum mileage criterion and/or the vehicle/equipment is
damaged beyond economical repair as determined by the Fleet Manager.
Vehicles and equipment will be considered for replacement or, in the case of
low utilization, reassignment to another function or department, when one or
more of the following conditions exist as determined by the Fleet Manager.
1. Replacement parts are no longer available to make repairs
2. Continued use is unsafe
3. Damage has made continued use infeasible
4. Cost of repair exceeds the remaining value
55
Page 2 of 5
5. Low utilization (usage does not exceed 3,000 miles per year) cannot
justify ongoing maintenance and insurance costs
B. MILEAGE EVALUATION INTERVALS At the mileage intervals specified
below, vehicles will be evaluated to determine their condition and expected life.
The Fleet Manager is to make such evaluations in accordance with the
following schedule. Evaluations may be conducted sooner under certain
conditions, such as when a vehicle needs repairs more often than other
vehicles of the same class and age, or when a vehicle has been damaged.
After initial evaluations, a vehicle will be re-evaluated every 12,000 miles or
until it reaches the end of its life, at which time it will be declared surplus.
VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION INTERVAL
Sedans 90,000 miles
Sheriff Patrol Sedans 90,000 miles
Passenger Vans 90,000 miles
Cargo Vans 90,000 miles
Sports Utility Truck 100,000 miles
Pickups and 4x4 100,000 miles
Medium/Heavy Duty Trucks 120,000 miles
Buses 180,000 miles
School Buses 8 years/(inspect every 45 days by law)
Miscellaneous Equipment Depends on Condition
C. EQUIPMENT ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE, AND MISUSE Departments utilizing
County equipment shall be responsible for all costs associated with driver
abuse, negligence, or misuse of County equipment. Determination of abuse,
negligence, or misuse will be at the discretion of the Fleet Manager. The
Fleet Manager shall notify the department using the equipment of any charges
covered under this section.
D. VEHICLE CITATIONS, PARKING TICKETS, AND TOLL EVASION NOTICES
The department utilizing the equipment shall be responsible for ensuring
payment of all citations, parking tickets, and toll evasion notices attributed to
any equipment. Citations or tickets attributed to equipment due to
administrative reasons (license, titling, registration, etc.) will be the
responsibility of the Fleet Manager to resolve, with the exception of expired
registration tabs on undercover vehicles. The department utilizing the
equipment is responsible for ensuring undercover plated vehicles display a
current registration tab.
56
Page 3 of 5
E. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Departments
requesting acquisition of an additional vehicle or piece of equipment must
demonstrate the need and identify the source of funding for the acquisition
and its ongoing maintenance. Funds for the acquisition of additional or
replacement vehicles/equipment must be appropriated in the County budget
before such acquisition can occur. This appropriation may be included in the
annual County Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors or may occur via a
budget appropriation adjustment approved by the Board during the fiscal year.
The attached form shall be used for each Vehicle and Equipment Request
Form and forwarded to the County Administrator’s Office, Budget Division,
upon whose approval the request will be sent to the Fleet Manager for technical
recommendations.
Any vehicle and/or equipment that is offered as a donation to the County must
be inspected by the Fleet Manager and determined to be in good operating
condition, safe, and efficient to operate and maintain prior to acceptance. If the
vehicle does not meet these criteria, the donation is not to be accepted.
Donated vehicles and equipment require a signed Board Order before the
donated equipment may be accepted.
IV. CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY AND GOALS
It is the intent of the County to procure the most fuel efficient and lowest emission
vehicles and reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Vehicle and equipment purchases
shall be operable on available County alternate fuel sources to the greatest extent
practicable and must comply with all applicable clean air and vehicle emission
regulations.
A. VEHICLE PURCHASES Alternate fuel (electric, Compressed Natural Gas
(CNG), fuel cell, etc.) vehicles shall be procured to the greatest extent
practicable. If an alternate fuel vehicle is not operationally feasible, a hybrid
electric vehicle shall be the next type considered for procurement. Vehicle
purchases other than alternate fuel or hybrid electric require specific
justification and approval by the Fleet Manager and shall be rated no lower
than Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) by the California Air Resources
Board when possible.
57
Page 4 of 5
B. EXEMPTION FROM CLEAN AIR VEHICLES POLICY Marked emergency
response vehicles (e.g. police patrol, fire, paramedic, and other Code 3
equipped units), may be exempt from the Clean Air Vehicle Policy. The Fleet
Manager may also grant exemptions for vehicles used primarily for prisoner
transport or when no alternate fuel or low emission vehicle is available
that meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. The intended
use of the vehicle shall be the determining criteria for granting a Clean Air
Vehicle Policy exemption.
V. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. Department Head or Designee assigned vehicles
1. Designate a department staff person to serve as the departments point of
contact for all fleet related issues
2. Ensure safe operation of all vehicles and bringing in vehicles to the Fleet
Services Center for scheduled preventative maintenance and safety
inspection when requested by the Fleet Manager
3. Budget appropriately for all expenses
4. Prepare and submit Vehicle and Equipment Request Form to the County
Administrator’s Office, Budget Division for approval of replacement and/or
addition of vehicles
5. Enter correct mileage when purchasing fuel
6. Ensure vehicle meets minimum use guidelines
7. Notify Fleet Manager of any vehicle assignment changes
B. County Administrator’s Office
1. Review requests for purchase of vehicles for operational need, compliance
with County policy, and budgetary impact.
C. Public Works Department – Fleet Services Division
1. Administer and oversee the County Fleet including providing regular
preventative maintenance and repairs.
2. Budget for the acquisition and replacement of vehicles and/or equipment
3. Prepare annual report and summary of the distribution of light vehicles and
heavy equipment by department for the current fiscal year, the two prior
fiscal years, and the recommended distribution for the new fiscal year.
58
Page 5 of 5
4. Develop light duty vehicle and equipment specifications to increase
alternate fuel (CNG, electric, fuel cell, etc.) hybrid electric, and partial zero
or less emission vehicle purchases.
5. Identify and procure suitable alternate fuels for use in County vehicles
6. Monitor and identify non-County alternate fuel locations for use by County
vehicles
Originating Department(s):
County Administrator’s Office
Public Works Department
Information Contacts:
County Administrator’s Office –Management Analyst Liaison
County Fleet Manager at 925.313.7072
Update Contact:
County Administrator Senior Deputy, Municipal Services
/s/
David Twa
County Administrator
59
Page 1 of 5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Office of the County Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN
Number: 508.4
Date: October 24, 20082015
Section: Property and Equipment
SUBJECT: County Vehicle and Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy, and
Clean Air Vehicle Policy and Goals
This bulletin sets forth County policy and guidelines for department requests for
acquisition and replacement of County vehicles and equipment.
I. APPLICABILITY. This bulletin is applicable to addition and replacement vehicles
and equipment to be acquired by County departments either through purchase,
lease purchase or donation.
II. AUTHORITY. By Board Order, Item C.162, July 18, 2000, proposed County
Vehicle/Equipment Acquisition and Replacement Policy
III. POLICY GUIDELINES
Additional and replacement vehicles and equipment to be acquired by County
departments either through purchase, lease purchase or donation must be appropriate
for the intended use, within the approved budget, safe to operate, and cost efficient both
to operate and maintain. The expected annual use of any vehicle should be in excess of
3,000 miles. Dedicated Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and battery electric vehicles
with frequent and demonstrated short trip usage patterns may be exempted from the
County minimum mileage requirement. Replacement priority will be given to vehicles
and/or equipment that are determined by the Public Works Department Fleet Manager
(Fleet Manager) to be unsafe, in the poorest condition, uneconomical to operate or
maintain, or have the highest program need.
A. ACQUISITION OF REPLACEMENT VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT The acquisition
of “replacement” vehicles or equipment may be approved by the Fleet Manager
and County Administrator, provided that the vehicle being replaced meets or
exceeds the minimum mileage criterion and/or the vehicle/equipment is
damaged beyond economical repair as determined by the Fleet Manager.
Vehicles and equipment will be considered for replacement or, in the case of
low utilization, reassignment to another function or department, when one or
more of the following conditions exist as determined by the Fleet Manager.
1. Replacement parts are no longer available to make repairs
2. Continued use is unsafe
3. Damage has made continued use infeasible
4. Cost of repair exceeds the remaining value
60
Page 2 of 5
5. Low utilization (usage does not exceed 3,000 miles per year) cannot
justify ongoing maintenance and insurance costs
B. MILEAGE EVALUATION INTERVALS A t the mileage intervals specified
below, vehicles will be evaluated to determine their condition and expected life.
The General Services Fleet Management DivisionFleet Manager is to make
such evaluations in accordance with the following schedule. Evaluations may
be conducted sooner under certain conditions, such as when a vehicle needs
repairs more often than other vehicles of the same class and age, or when a
vehicle has been damaged. After initial evaluations, a vehicle will be re-
evaluated every 12,000 miles or until it reaches the end of its life, at which time
it will be declared surplus.
VEHICLE TYPE EVALUATION INTERVAL
Sedans 90,000 miles
Sheriff Patrol Sedans 90,000 miles
Passenger Vans 90,000 miles
Cargo Vans 90,000 miles
Sports Utility Truck 100,000 miles
Pickups and 4x4 100,000 miles
Medium/Heavy Duty Trucks 120,000 miles
Buses 180,000 miles
School Buses 8 years/(inspect every 45 days by
law)
Miscellaneous Equipment Depends on Condition
C. EQUIPMENT ABUSE, NEGLIGENCE, AND MISUSE Departments utilizing
County equipment shall be responsible for all costs associated with driver
abuse, negligence, or misuse of County equipment. Determination of abuse,
negligence, or misuse will be at the discretion of the GSD Fleet Manager.
The GSD Fleet Manager shall notify the department using the equipment of
any charges covered under this section.
D. VEHICLE CITATIONS, PARKING TICKETS, AND TOLL EVASION NOTICES
The department utilizing the equipment shall be responsible for ensuring
payment of all citations, parking tickets, and toll evasion notices attributed to
any equipment. Citations or tickets attributed to equipment due to
administrative reasons (license, titling, registration, etcetc.) will be the
responsibility of GSD the Fleet Manager to resolve, with the exception of
expired registration tabs on undercover vehicles. The department utilizing the
equipment is responsible for ensuring undercover plated vehicles display a
current registration tab.
61
Page 3 of 5
E. ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Departments
requesting acquisition of an additional vehicle or piece of equipment must
demonstrate the need and identify the source of funding for the acquisition
and its ongoing maintenance. Funds for the acquisition of additional or
replacement vehicles/equipment must be appropriated in the County budget
before such acquisition can occur. This appropriation may be included in the
annual County Budget adopted by the Board of Supervisors or may occur via a
budget appropriation adjustment approved by the Board during the fiscal year.
The attached form shall be used for each vehicle/equipment acquisition
request Vehicle and Equipment Request Form and forwarded to the County
Administrator’s Office, Budget Division, upon whose approval the request will
be sent to the General Services Fleet Management ManagerDivision for
technical recommendations.
Any vehicle and/or equipment that is offered as a donation to the County must
be inspected by the GSD Fleet Management DivisionFleet Manager and
determined to be in good operating condition, safe, and efficient to operate
and maintain prior to acceptance. If the vehicle does not meet these criteria,
the donation is not to be accepted. Donated vehicles and equipment require a
signed Board Order before the donated equipment may be accepted.
IV. CLEAN AIR VEHICLE POLICY AND GOALS
It is the intent of the County to procure the most fuel efficient and lowest emission
vehicles and reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Vehicle and equipment purchases
shall be operable on available County alternate fuel sources to the greatest extent
practicable and must comply with all applicable clean air and vehicle emission
regulations.
A. EXEMPTION FROM CLEAN AIR VEHICLES POLICY Marked emergency
response vehicles (e.g. police patrol, fire, paramedic, and other Code 3
equipped units), are exempt from the Clean Air Vehicle Policy. The GSD Fleet
Manager may also grant exemptions for vehicles used primarily for prisoner
transport or when no alternate fuel or low emission vehicle is available that
meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. The intended use of
the vehicle shall be the determining criteria for granting a Clean Air Vehicle
Policy exemption.
A. BSEDAN VEHICLE PURCHASES Alternate fuel (electric, Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG), fuel cell, etc.) and hybrid electric sedans vehicles shall be
procured to the greatest extent practicable. If an alternate fuel CNG
sedanvehicle is not operationally feasible, a hybrid electric sedan vehicle shall
be the next vehicle type considered for procurement. Sedan Vehicle
purchases other than alternate fuel CNG or hybrid electric require specific
justification and approval by the GSD Fleet Manager and shall be rated no
lower than Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) by the California Air
Resources Board when possible. All County sedan purchases shall be
alternate fuel, hybrid electric, or rated as PZEV or greater by the California Air
62
Page 4 of 5
Resources Board.
63
Page 5 of 5
B. C. VAN/LIGHT TRUCK PURCHASES Vans and light truck shall be alternate
fuel or
C. hybrid electric to the greatest extent practicable.
D.
E. D. SPORT UTILITY VEHICLE (SUV) PURCHASES Sport Utility Vehicles
(SUVs) will not be purchased unless justified based on specific and verified
work assignment and approved by the GSD Fleet Manager. When such
vehicles are a necessity every effort should be made to purchase hybrid or
alternative fuel vehicles. Any SUV purchases which are not for marked law
enforcement or Code 3 emergency response shall be hybrid electric.
F.B. EXEMPTION FROM CLEAN AIR VEHICLES POLICY Marked emergency
response vehicles (e.g. police patrol, fire, paramedic, and other Code 3
equipped units), are may be exempt from the Clean Air Vehicle Policy. The
Fleet Manager may also grant exemptions for vehicles used primarily for
prisoner transport or when no alternate fuel or low emission vehicle is
available that meets the essential vehicle requirements or specifications. The
intended use of the vehicle shall be the determining criteria for granting a
Clean Air Vehicle Policy exemption.
V. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITY
A. Department Head or Designee assigned vehicles
1. Designate a department staff person to serve as the departments point of
contact for all fleet related issues
2. Ensure safe operation of all vehicles and bringing in vehicles to the Fleet
Services Center for scheduled preventative maintenance and safety
inspection when requested by the Fleet Manager
3. Budget appropriately for all expenses
4. Prepare and submit Vehicle and Equipment Request Form to the County
Administrator’s Office, Budget Division for approval of replacement and/or
addition of vehicles
5. Enter correct mileage when purchasing fuel
6. Ensure vehicle meets minimum use guidelines
7. Notify GSD Fleet Manager of any vehicle assignment changes
B. County Administrator’s Office
1. Review requests for purchase of vehicles for operational need, compliance
with County policy, and budgetary impact.
64
Page 6 of 5
C. General ServicesPublic Works Department – Fleet Services Division
1. Administer and oversee the County Fleet including providing regular
preventative maintenance and repairs.
2. Budget for the acquisition and replacement of vehicles and/or equipment
3. Prepare annual report and summary of the distribution of light vehicles and
heavy equipment by department for the current fiscal year, the two prior
fiscal years, and the recommended distribution for the new fiscal year.
4. Develop light duty vehicle and equipment specifications to increase
alternate fuel (CNG, electric, fuel cell, etc.) hybrid electric, and partial zero
or less emission vehicle purchases.
5. Identify and procure suitable alternate fuels for use in County vehicles
6. Monitor and identify non-County alternate fuel locations for use by County
vehicles
Originating Department(s):
County Administrator’s Office
General ServicesPublic
Works Department
Information Contacts:
County Administrator’s Office –Management Analyst Liaison
County Fleet Manager at 925.313.7072
Update Contact:
County Administrator Senior Deputy, Municipal Services
/s/
David Twa
County Administrator
65
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:TRIENNIAL REVIEW OF BOARD ADVISORY BODIES - PHASE I
UPDATE
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: IOC 15/13
Referral Name: Advisory Body Triennial Review
Presenter: Terry Speiker, Chief Assistant CAO Contact: Theresa Speiker (925) 335-1096
Referral History:
The Board of Supervisors has asked a number of county residents, members of businesses located
in the county and/or county staff to serve on appointed bodies that provide advice to the Board on
matters of county or other governmental business. Members provide a resident’s, business or
county staff perspective on a wide variety of policy issues or programs that the BOS oversees.
Their efforts can directly affect the quality of life in Contra Costa County and they provide
countless hours in this public service.
Appointees begin their official advisory body involvement through BOS action and serve for a
specified term. Each body has an enabling charge and bylaws, which spell out structure, work
processes and the expectations of members. Although bodies do not have the authority to hire
employees, most bodies have been assigned county or contracted staff to assist the Chair, Vice
Chair and the members with conducting the business of each body and providing regular reports,
recommendations and advice to the BOS or other units of government. The business of each body
is public and governed by all the applicable state and local laws about transparency and
availability of the body’s records to the members of the public. Some bodies are required to adopt
a conflict of interest code, although the Fair Political Practices Commission asked us in 2014 that
we review all bodies with these code requirements to see if they are legally necessary, according
to State Law. Bodies are expected to file an annual work plan with the BOS and a list of goals and
priorities that will guide their work for that year. They also are asked to submit an annual report
that summarizes their accomplishments and activities.
Periodically the BOS evaluates and examines the advisory bodies to determine if any changes are
needed in the structure, composition, Board charge, enabling mandate, assignments or the inner
workings of the bodies. Some of these reviews have led to changes in bylaws, membership
requirements, structure, enabling charges, assignments/duties or sun-setting of the body.
66
Beginning in 2010 and concluding in 2011/2012, the BOS conducted an extensive review of
advisory body policies, makeup and structures and passed Resolution Nos. 2011/497 and
2011/498, which revised and restated the Board’s governing principles for the bodies. The
Resolutions dealt with all bodies, whether created by the BOS as discretionary or those that the
BOS is mandated to create by state or federal rules, laws or regulations. The Resolutions directed
the CAO/COB’s Office to institute a method to conduct a rotating triennial review of each body
and to report on the results of that review and any resulting staff recommendations to the BOS,
through the IOC, on a regular basis.
The Resolutions laid out the questions and issues on which the Supervisors wanted the report to
be based and directed that the information be requested from and submitted by each advisory
body once every three years. Board members were particularly interested information concerning
whether or not advisory bodies should continue in their existing forms or structures or if their
duties, or membership should be changed. They also asked for staff comments on the possibility
to sunset committees or to merge bodies together for more efficiencies, greater productivity or
better service to the public.
The first phase report of the current Triennial Review Cycle was considered by the IO Committee
on April 13, 2015. At that time, the Supervisors approved many of the recommendations in the
report. However, they also asked the CAO’s Office to return with additional information about a
number of the advisory bodies.
Referral Update:
This memo contains information addressing issues raised during the April IOC meeting about the
bodies listed below. A summary of each response follows, along with reports that have been
received to date:
Agricultural Task Force: Questions were referred to the Agriculture/Weights and
Measures Department following the April IOC meeting, requesting a review of the Task
Force’s charge, work efforts and structure. The Department Head is working on this project
and can present an update and recommendations at a future meeting.
Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board: The Health Services Department staff has
conducted an extensive review of this advisory body and its work and structure. The
Department is recommending a modification of the committee structure and meeting
schedules that will allow the advisory body members to continue conducting valuable
outreach and policy research but will not be as labor intensive or staff dependent as the
current structure. A copy of the structure as modified is attached. If the IOC and BOS agree
with the department’s recommendations, Health Services staff will work with advisory body
leadership to rewrite the committee bylaws for BOS approval.
Arts and Culture Commission: The Commission has considered the question of whether or
not they wish to/or the time is right for them to spin off as a non-profit. For the present time,
they request continuation as an advisory body to the BOS with the same level of staff
support. They will consider the possibility of becoming a non-profit at some future time.
Contra Costa County Advisory Council on Aging: EHSD has been without a permanent
Bureau Chief for the Aging and Adult Services for the past six months. CAO staff
recommends that the review of the duties and functions of this Committee be continued
until a new Bureau Chief can have sufficient time to understand and respond to the issues
67
and questions laid out in the Triennial Review report. Another item concerning this advisory
body was researched by CAO staff. The matter is whether or not Advisory Council members
should to continue to fill out the Form 700. Based on CAO staff review, the recommendation
is to continue having advisory committee members fill out the Conflict of Interest Form 700
because their recommendations appear to be routinely implemented by the Department’s
administration and approved by the BOS.
Countywide Bicycle Committee and CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Committee : The Public Works Department and the Department of Conservation and
Development have reviewed both bodies and are recommending no change in or expansion
of the charges, work duties or structure of either body at this time.
Commission for Women: Questions were raised during the IOC meeting about staff
support and the number of members on the Commission; responses follow, summarized in a
report from the Commission Chair. The advisory body members have reviewed their work
and structure and recommend that either a small (no more than 5 members) or no reduction
in membership occur at this time. They view larger membership as necessary to get the
Commission work done without additional staff support from the county. Current
membership is at 14, with full membership currently set at 25. The Senior Deputy CAO
who works with this advisory body has conducted a review of the possibility of finding
county funds to provide additional staff support and indicates that no funds for expanded
staff support are available at this time.
Economic Opportunity Council: The IOC asked for a report on how Community Services
Block Grant funds are spent, specifically the percentage being spent for employee salary
costs versus what is spent on programs and programming. Other questions that were raised
had to do with the structure and work load of the Economic Opportunity Council. Attached
is a response from Departmental and program staff to the questions raised by IOC members.
EHSD/CSB staff will attend the IOC to answer any additional questions or concerns raised
by Supervisors.
Emergency Medical Care Committee: The Senior CAO Deputy who works with the EMS
program and the EMS Director laid out a plan with the committee to review their by-laws
and rewrite them, especially as it relates to membership and size of the committee. The full
Committee will review the proposed by-law changes at their September meeting and will
come to the BOS for review and approval. At this same meeting, the membership will
review and discuss their role so that members clearly understand that they serve in an
advisory role to the BOS. The EMCC Executive Committee has offered to attend a future
IOC meeting to discuss these items further or in more detail.
Historical Landmarks Committee: The Department of Conservation and Development has
reviewed the work of this committee and requests that the BOS continue it as an advisory
body to both the Department and the Supervisors, with the same structure, duties and
membership as currently exists.
Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board and Hazardous Materials
Commission: At the IOC meeting, the Health Services Department was asked to review the
work of these bodies and determine if they could/should be merged or other changes made.
The Department has asked for some additional time to complete this review, since the new
Public Health Director has just begun his job. A return to the IO Committee with a response
from the department could occur within the next 60-90 days.
68
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT status report from the County Administrator on outstanding issues and information
requests stemming from Phase 1 of the Board Advisory Body Triennial Review provide provide
direction to staff on further action, if any.
Attachments
Alcohol & Other Drugs Advisory Board Follow-up
Economic Opportunity Council Follow-up
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:10/12/2015
Subject:July-December 2013 Semi-Annual Small Business Enterprise and Outreach
Report
Submitted For: David Twa, County Administrator
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: IOC 15/1
Referral Name: SBE/Outreach Program Oversight
Presenter: Vicky Mead, County Administrator's Office Contact:
Referral History:
On December 13, 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved the Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
Program for the purpose of providing small businesses a fair share of County business. The
Outreach Program had previously been adopted by the Board of Supervisors in August 1998 to
promote broad outreach to all businesses, including minority-owned, women-owned, small, and
local businesses. The IOC has provided policy oversight on these programs since inception,
including surveying County departments on the implementation of the SBE and Outreach
Programs. In December 2004, the Internal Operations Committee directed the Affirmative Action
Officer to make status reports to the Committee on a semi-annual basis.
The IOC received the last report in August 2014, which covered the period July - December 2013.
In August, the IOC directed CAO staff to continue working towards getting all departments to use
the new reporting format and rules so that the data is complete, consistent and reliable.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee’s review and approval is a report concerning SBE program awards
made during calendar year 2014. During 2014 and 2015, new data collection procedures were
recommended by CAO -- and have been implemented by most departments -- to increase
efficiency of data collection and program administration. The current report is the first SBE
Report to review the status of the new data collection procedures. The Outreach Program is not
addressed in the attached report.
Senior Management Analyst Vicky Mead and Affirmative Action Officer Antoine Wilson will be
present to discuss the report and respond to questions.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT report covering the period January - December 2014 and CONSIDER staff
recommendations on the Small Business Enterprise Program.
113
Fiscal Impact (if any):
Increasing the participation of small businesses, especially local businesses, in contracting
opportunities may directly stimulate local economic activity and therefore potentially increase
County tax revenues.
Attachments
Staff Report on Small Business Enterprise Program_October 2015
114
BACKGROUND
1. Implementation of new data collection procedures and clarification of "rules"
Most departments have implemented the new standardized procedures, which are designed to
capture all the relevant data concerning contract or purchase awards that fall within the
program.!
However, It continues to be necessary for remaining departments to adopt the standard
SBE reporting format which will now capture the details of all the SBE baseline
transactions.
The data collection techniques that have been implemented in 2014 and 2015 are more
comprehensive and easier to use than the formats that were put in place in 2007. The forms that
were developed in 2007 did not capture effectively all of the relevant transactions, namely, all of
the baseline transactions constituting the "pool" of SBE program awards. This data is essential
for the effective operation of the SBE program.
Over time, some departments have become accustomed to reporting only a list of "SBE
transactions," without also reporting their overall pool of eligible transactions. The underlying
pool of transactions is important to examine in order to both (1) correctly determine the
department's SBE participation rate, as a percentage of all awards that qualify for the program,
and (2) identify any awards made in the past (including renewals and amendments) that could be
subject to SBE outreach in the future.
2. Proposal to ratifv and re-issue existing Board Order. including List of Exemptions
The SBE program was approved by Board Order in 1999. Since that time, additional directives
and guidelines have been issued (see, e.g. CAO Memoranda of 12/29/2006 and 1/29/2007 -
Attachments 1 and 2). The 1999 Board Order included specific program criteria that have since
been modified, and established roles for the CAO, Purchasing Director, and Affirmative Action
Officer that may have changed over time. For these reasons, CAO staff recommends that the
Board Order be updated and re-issued to reflect current program operations.
Among the items to be updated is the list of "exemptions". Exemptions are certain types of
contracts (or purchase order awards), as listed in the SBE Board Order approved in 1999, that are
1 The SBE data collection fonnula is:
All qualifying SBE program transactions, net of all exempt (types of) transactions, sorted by the vendor's SBE
status. Based on this fonnula, total awards made to SBE vendors and non-SBE vendors, respectively, are then
calculated to determine the SBE participation rate.
115
considered outside the scope or purpose of the SBE program and are therefore excluded from
program statistics.2
The 1999 Board Order also authorized the CAO to approve new exemptions under certain
circumstances. Nonetheless, some departments are reluctant to modify the scope of exempt
transactions they are currently using without a specific directive from the Board of Supervisors.
Therefore, a new Board Order should update and ratify the list of exemptions.
3. Recommendation to Prepare an SBE Administrative Bulletin
The Purchasing Division's "County Purchasing Guide" (which describes County-wide
procurement policies and procedures) incorporates references to SBE outreach requirements. ;
However there is not a central source of current information concerning SBE program
requirements. The SBE program requirements should be incorporated into formal operating
procedures for easier reference and to increase compliance.
Because of the specificity of SBE administrative requirements, it would b e helpful if the program
requirements were included in an Administrative Bulletin3. This would serve as an authoritative
source of information across departments, create long-term institutional history, and would be
the most appropriate tool for implementing and communicating systematic program changes in
the future.
4. Greater SBE Outreach focus needed by procurement agents and/or fiscal officers.
The purpose of the semi-a"lllual SBE program report is to evaluate each department's past
"success or failure" to meet the County's SBE program participation goal [namely, that 50
percent of all (new or renewed) eligible, non-exempt awards should be awarded to SBE
contractors].4
Each department is --more importantly --also responsible for an SBE outreach effort to
increase the number of qualified firms that are contacted in the initial stages of vendor
identification or solicitation, to increase the SBE participation rate for future awards, in order to
meet the Board of Supervisor's stated goal of 50 percent participation by SBEs.
2 The correct identification of "SBE contracts" (those to be included for outreach or reporting) by departments
depends heavily on correctly sorting out 'exemptions;" therefore , updating and re-issuing the policy on exemptions
will greatly improve data collection and data quality.
3 This suggestion was previously made by a former Assistant County Administrator in a memo dated 12/2912006
(attachment 2).
4 Until very recently, detailed information was included in the Semi Annual SBE reports to describe outreach that
was conducted in connection with new, amended, or renewed contracts. Since the departure of the County's long
term Affirmative Action Officer in 2010, the CAO has not conducted intensive oversight of SBE outreach by the
departments, but has focused primarily on correctly identifying the "baseline" awards and standardizing data
collection to increase ease of administration. A renewed focus on SBE outreach by departments is now needed.
116
Over the last several years, relatively few of the departments have achieved the 50 percent
participation rate goal. The continued success of the Health Services Department in meeting the
goal has been due primarily to the inclusion of a large number of individual physicians and other
health care practitioners (serving the Regional Medical Center) as "contractors" in the SBE
program.
In order for the SBE program to operate effectively, each department's contract and fiscal
'officers must actively incorporate the SBE outreach requirements prospectively (based on
Purchasing Division guidelines) for new, amended, and renewed contracts and purchase orders
(as well as single purchases) in their procurement activities --and not merely report
retrospectively in the Semi-Annual report on the percentage of these awards that have been made
to SBEs.
5. Proposal to clarifv "set-aside" provision
Clarify whether the Board's policy shall continue to be, as stated in the Board Order and County
Purchasing Manual, whether departments shall "set aside contracts [under the threshold] for only
SBEs to submit bids, proposals, or enter into negotiated contracts" (emphasis added). If a set-
aside program for SBE contractors is not currently desired, amendment to the Board Order
should be made accordingly.
6. _Measurements of Department Performance
With the recent expansion of data collection to require ( and facilitate) identification of all
eligible/potential SBE transactions, and to capture the level of activity for individual vendors, a
more intensive focus on departmental performance will be possible.
Department data that is submitted in the future should reflect:
(a) Whether all "SBE-eligible" transactions (under $100,000; not exempt) are included in
the "pool" of potential SBE awards.
lfthe total number and amount of "eligible" transactions is not provided, the department's
SBE participation rate will not be accurate
(b) Whether individual vendor payments have been "double-counted".
Frequently, departments report individual payments to SBE vendors, in addition to the
initial (underlying) Blanket Purchase Order or contract award that was awarded. This
problem of counting both awards and payments (in connection with a single contract or
purchase order, when only the "award" is relevant) is thought to have been a source of
substantial error in prior reports.
117
( c) Whether all exempt transactions are excluded.
Including exempt transactions in the baseline will adversely affect the department's SBE
participation rate; these need not be a focus of the program.
(d) Whether renewals and amendments that were executed during the period have been
reported.
( e) Whether the department has performed the required outreach to SBE firms in
connection with new, amended, or renewed contracts or blanket purchase orders.
7. Results for Calendar Year 2014
The attached tables evaluate the departments' performance in meeting a 50 percent target SBE
participation rate for contracts and purchases that were awarded or renewed during 2014
(January to December). Table 1 reflects total expenditures made to SBE and non-SBE firms,
Table 2 reflects the number of awards made to SBE and non-SBE firms, and Table 3 presents
information (for the first time) on the average size ofSBE and non-SBE awards that were
reported.
RECOMMENDATION(S)INEXT STEPS
1. CONTINUE the enclosed SBE report (for the 2014 Calendar year) for additional IOC
review in the Spring of 20 16, in order to address the quality and sufficiency of data that is
being submitted by departments.
2. REQUEST that prior to the next review in Spring 2016, the SBE Coordinators, working
with their departmental fiscal and or procurement officers, should verify that the data meets
the specifications described above; or, if necessary, submit additional data to conform to the
stated data requirements.
3. DIRECT CAO and County Departments also to compile SBE program and outreach data for
calendar year 2015 during the first quarter (January to March) of2016.
4. CALENDAR a simultaneous review of2014 and 2015 data by department for the second
quarter of2016, as a basis for ongoing future review ofSBE outreach and SBE program
participation rates.
5. DIRECT CAO to draft a proposed Administrative Bulletin for the SBE program, to take
effect 1-1-2017 if possible, reflecting guidelines as well as further program direction
provided by lOC and BOS.
118
TABLE 1: SBE and Non-SBE Awards by Departments in CY2014
($ Amounts)
Sum of Amount
Non SSE
awards SSE Awards Grand Total*
._._~ _,,,_,.,~_,,,_," ... __ ._._ .• _. ____ ••. __ .......... , __ ~~ .• _ ............... __ •. -.. •• _~.,~.~_ .... --"-.,._~~, __ ... _ ._~ .. __ ~~,. ___ .~ •. ~.",~-..,_ ..... "'"T ... -.~ .~ .......... ,,_. ___ • _~'~"_'-"-~_~'''_''_ . __ --"-_ .• ,_~. _
_ ~~ricul~~,~~, __ . __ ... _. 221 !.~2 _. ____ ~?,02.~._~ ___ 3.18.!..654
purchasing 143,602 70,522 214,124
svcs contract 78,030 26,500 104,530
Animal Services --_.-,-_.
purchasing
svcs contract 161,962 15,250 177,212
. __ ~~~~s~~!." _______ . ___ ... _ ... _;~2~_ .. ______ .. 5,38 ~ __ . ____ .?~~~1 .
credit card 2,070 5,385 7,455
warrant request 356 356
.. , _C:~O-~~~_ .. __ .. _ .... , ___ ...... ___ .. ___ !~~!.~~~. __ . ..___ 1,5~.Q.._ 125,125
purchasing 62,145 1,500 63,645
svcs contract 61,480 61,480
_~~~!!~_, ___ "._.. 1,2T!2-.1]~ __ . ____ ...... ~5,!~~ ______ .. __ ._.~!.85~~~~
purchasing
svcs contract
Clerk Recorder Admin
792,170
480,008
---~,--~ .. ---.. ---' "-" ----------
216,933 1,009,102
368,209 848,216
51,467 51,467
_'~'_' __ ~~_'_'· __ ~~'C _" .. ____ ~·T __ ·"_'_' .......
purchasing 51,390 51,390
77
192,681
svcs contract 77
Clerk-Recorder Elections 192,681
._.~_~_., ______ ,.w~ __ .~_~_"""" __ , ___ ~y. ____ ",_·_·"".· __ ·_",,,_'_,-' ___ ""~ ___ -~, __ ,w_-___ ~_, __ ,~_,~ ___ ,, '_~'"" ____ ''''_''''"''''. ___ ~..,,~_~'
personal services 52,675 52,675
purchasing 97,355 97,355
svcs contract 42,651 42,651
__ ~~~ .. ~!y~~o~!,sel._ ..... ____ . ___ .. ______ . ____ ... ___ ~~,.!~~ .. _. _____ '"_ 16,330 .
purchasing 1,844 1,844
svcs contract 14,486 14,486
_ Dis.!!,ict .~tt~':..'!.ey _______ ... _!3,4~~ ____ .,_!Q,15~ ________ l:.~~!.~_~_.
purchase order -blanket 44,900 44,900
purchase order -one sh 33,450 45,253 78,703
Library 56,484 104,320 160,804 .-----
personal services 4,425 59,050 63,475
purchasing 52,059 45,270 97,329
Probation 323,342 151,110 474,452 .. -----~.---.------,-_._----.--
purchasing 176,656 135,928 312,584
svcs contract 146,686 15,182 161,868
Public Works 1,914,433 4,359,592 6,274,025
construction 161,551 130,854 292,405
purchase order -blanke 214,899 50,855 265,754
purchase order -one sh 33,364 2,919 36,283
purchasing 548,489 293,348 841,837
svcs contract 737,000 3,261,416 3,998,416
Pct. of $
Awarded to
SSE firms
30.4%
32.9%
25.4%
5.6%
0.4%
8.6%
68.9%
72.2%
0.0%
1.2%
2.4%
0.0%
31.5%
21.5%
43.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
72.9%
100.0%
57.5%
64.9%
93.0%
46.5%
31.8%
43.5%
9.4%
69.5%
44.8%
19.1%
8.0%
34.8%
81.6%
119
Sum of Amount
Non SBE
awards SBE Awards Grand Total* --_ ..... -._._ .. ----_._._-------------_.-... _.-_._ ... _--..... -.-.. ,,------
svcs contract amended
svcs contract new 218,500
26,200 26,200
594,000 812,500
warrant request 630 630
. _.~She_rif!. _____ ... ____ .. _ ... ______ s.'~!.~'_~6~ ... __ . __ ~,55!_~~~~. _____ 2~.370~.~~._
CONTRACT 2,703,500 2,703,500
Grand Total* $ 10,030,917 $ 7,222,299 $ 17,253,216
*exclusive of Health Services Department
Health Services Department statistics are reported separately
Pct. of $
Awarded to
SBE firms
100.0%
73.1%
0.0%
21.1%
0.0%
33.3%
41.9%
120
TABLE 2: Number (Count) of SBE and Non-SBE Awards
by Departments in CY2014
Non_SBE SBE Pet. of No. of All
awards Awards Grand Awards,
Total* -No. Awarded to SSE
of Awa l'ds __ ......... _.--....,.~~."""'._, ..... ___ ". __ ............ "' .•....... '._~."""-''''"'''_ .... ,.". " ....... ~_ ..... ___ ._. ___ . ...,.-..,. . .__ .. ____ "··"'_',"·£"'-·.-__ ·<~","~",C". _-..
_ Ag ~lt ~E~. ____ . __ <_., .• __ . ___ . __ ,,_._ ... _. __ ,!? __ ... ___ ._~_5 ___ . ____ !~0_
purchasing 64 41 105
svcs contract 11 4 15
Animal Services 55 3 58
-,~,----,~~,,,--,.-",_.----.-.----.----~-------_.,--'--'.'-.'-_._-
purchasing 40 1 41
svcs contract 15 2 17
Assessor 7 1 8
_~" ___ ~~_"' __ " __ " ,"", •. ~' ___ -_A __ r_ ._ .. ~., .... __ , __ .. _~>._.,_._~.,._~~ __ , __ ._-_~""' ___ .-" ....... ,._. ____ --__ .. _._
credit card 5 1 6
warrant request 2 2
CAO-CCTV 29 1 30
_'. __ ...-•• n.', __ ' __ , ___ ._.~._._,,, _,. _~ .......... ,, _____ • ___ ._ .•• ~ _~~~. __ ~~~ ___ ~_, ..•• _ .. ,. __ ,. ___ ~ ..... "'_' ____ '_"' ___ '""-'"". __
purchasing 24 1 25
svcs contract 5 5
CCC Fire ___ ._ ... _ .... _._. ____ ._. ___ .. ;}~? ...... _._. 56 ~ __ . ____ !..~~.~_
purchasing
svcs contract
Clerk Recorder Admin
purchasing
svcs contract
Clerk-Recorder Elections
818
565
326
237
45
44
1
25
1,144
802
45
44
1
25
personal services 11 11
purchasing 5 5
svcs contract 9 9
____ Co ~.!:'.!r~~~n.~~ __ ,,. _____ ., __ ._, __ . ___ .. _____ . ___ .. ~.<c ___ • .?4 ._ .. __ ._..!.~_
purchasing 5 5
svcs contract 69 69
._ District A~orn~ __ ._. ___ . ____ ~~ ___ 15 29
purchase order -blanket 2
purchase order -one shot 14 13
Library 44 20
--'----... --.. ---~-.------.---
personal services 5 4
purchasing 39 16
Probation ._--
purchasing
svcs contract
Public Works
construction
purchase order -blanket
purchase order -one shot
purchasing
svcs contract
24 21
11 15
13 6
81 119
2 2
8 6
4 2
46 30
14 62
2
27
64
9
55
45
26
19
200
4
14
6
76
76
firms
37.5%
39.0%
26.7%
5.2%
2.4%
11.8%
12.5%
16.7%
0.0%
3.3%
4.0%
0.0%
28.9%
28.5%
29.6%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
51.7%
100.0%
48.1%
31.3%
44.4%
29.1%
46.7%
57 .7%
31.6%
59.5%
50.0%
42.9%
33.3%
39.5%
81.6%
121
awards Awards
svcs contract amended 2
Grand
Total* -No.
of Awards
2
svcs contract new 5 15 20
warrant request 2 2
Sheriff 105 16 121
--,-.-->---~.---.,.---.,.----',_._----_._._--'-_._---------
CONTRACT 9 9
Grand Total* -No. of Awards 1817 948 2765
*exclusive of Health Services Department
Health Services Department statistics are reported separately
Pet. of No. of All
Awards,
Awarded to SSE
firms
100.0%
75 .0%
0.0%
13.2%
0.0%
14.3%
34.3%
122
TABLE 3: Average SBE and Non -SBE Awards by Departments in eY2014
Average of Amount
Non_SBE SBE
.. _ . __ ._ .......... _ .. ____ ... _ ........ ____ . __ .~._ ._~~~!~S._ .. _ .... __ Awa.~~~ __ .~r~~~_~()~~I .~~':~~J~~ ... __ '.'
Agri.~~ltu~ ___ . ___ . __ . __ .. _.~~~~ __ ~.,.!?~._. ____ . ___ ~,6~~
purchasing 2,244 1,720 2,039
svcs contract 7,094 6,625 6,969
Animal ~~~~c .. ~ _______ ... ___ . __ ~!.~.~~ ____ ~,224_ ... __ ... _._. _____ ._~~~~_.
purchasing 2,575 421 2,523
svcs contract 10,797 7,625 10,424
___ A~~~~s..~r:. ____ . __ ,. __ ._ .... ___ .. ____ 34 ~ __ ._~~~5 __ .. _. __ .. __ .. _._,, __ 9.76 ._
credit card 414 5,385 1,243
warrant request 178 178
_CA <:?::~eT~. _____ .. ___ .. _ .. ____ .. __ .. ___ ~,263 _____ 1,5~~ ... _______ .... ______ ~17 ~
purchasing 2,589 1,500 2,546
svcs contract 12,296 12,296
eee Fire 920 1,039 954 __ '_'''~ __ '' __ ' ____ ~' __ '_' ___ -_''~'---'_~_,""_''''"_'_' __ '''' ___ , ... ·' __ ·_' __ .. __ .. -~ .. ·--...·~ .... · ___ ~ .. _ ....... _____ ._~_ ... A_._ ..
purchasing 968 665 882
svcs contract 850 1 ,554 1,058
_.E~~,,-~_!~~~~,:~~d m.i.~._ .. ____ . ___ .... ,_ .... _. ___ ._,_._ .... _!!!.~4 .. _. ___ ._ ... _~!..~4~
purchasing 1,168 1,168
svcs contract 77 77
Clerk-Recorder .Ele.-c.!ic:ms ..... __ ... __ ...... _ ... " .. _____ J,~,!7 __ .. _._ .. __ ~_._.!,7 ~7
personal services 4,789 4,789
purchasing 19,471 19,471
svcs contract 4,739 4,739
__ ... s.~~!:,!y~_~~.~sel .. ____ -----..... __ .. ___ .~ ..... __ .. __ .... ~._._~~~._ .. __ .... ___ ... _____ ..... _~,~!_
purchasing 369 369
svcs contract 210 210
_?istrict .~~~!~ey __ .. ___ . _______ ~,~~~ ___ ._~~.!O ,, ________ . __ . ___ 4,2 ~~.
purchase order -blanket 22,450 22,450
purchase order -one shot 2,389 3,481 2,915
library _________ . ___ ._._1,2 ~~_._~,2 !~ ___ . ___ ._. __ 2,5~!..
personal services 885 14,763 7,053
purchasing 1,335 2,829 1,770
Probation 13,473 7,196 10,543
purchasing 16,060 9,062 12,022
svcs contract 11,284 2,530 8,519
Public Works 23,635 36,635 31,370
.~---~--.--.. ---,~,---.~~-'~-
construction 80,776 65,427 73,101
purchase order -blanket 26,862 8,476 18,982
purchase order -one shot 8,341 1,460 6,047
purchasing 11,924 9,778 11,077
svcs contract 52,643 52,603 52,611
svcs contract amended 13,100 13,100
svcs contract new 43,700 39,600 40,625
123
Average of Amount
Non_SSE SSE
.. _~ .. _._ .... ~ __ .. _. ____ ._, ________ a_w_~r~~ ______ A~~rds Grand T~~_~U~~~_~~~! ... _
warrant request 315 315
Sheriff 55,413 96,995 60,912 ___ , •• ' ___ •• __ '______ ._ •• ___ ' _____ • _______ • '0, __ --__ -
CONTRACT 300,389 300,389
purchasing 32,447 96,995 41,668 -=-___ ~ _______ .,_ ... ___ ~._, .. _._'" .. _~. __ .. " __ ."_, __ .. _______ . __ .. _' .. _,,~ __ ,_._'_W.··
Grand Total Average $ 5,521 $ 7,618 $ 6,240
124
DATE:
To:
cc:
FROM:
January 29, 2007
Department Heads
Department SBE and Outreach Liaisons
Emma Kuevor, Affirmative Action Officer
Kevin Berenson, Purchasing Manager
David Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel
Sara Hoffman, Assistant County Administrator
\
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES ON REPORTING PROCESS FOR SSE & OUTREACH
PROGRAMS
This directive details changes to the reporting process for the SSE and Outreach Programs that
Departments must follow when submitting information regarding their professional/ personal
services contracts, construction contracts, and purchasing transactions. These changes
have been made in order to streamline the data submitted by the Departments, consistent with
Board-directed program parameters. The changes relate to the following areas:
1) Reporting frequency and deadlines;
2) Report format; and
3) Method used to submit report data.
Reporting Frequency and Deadlines -Departments are no longer required to submit their
SSE and Outreach reports quarterly. Departments will submit SBE and Outreach data to the
Affirmative Action Office and Purchasing Division semi-annually. The deadline for submitting -
the data will be 10 business days following the last day of the reporting period (Le., June 30 and
December 31).
Recognizing that a Department's internal process for authorizing the SBE and Outreach reports
may require more than ten days, Departments must submit at least a draft report by the 10-day
deadline and a finalized report no later than 15 business days following the last day of the
reporting period.
SSE Report Format -Departments are no longer required to: 1) submit SBE award data using
the existing SBE report format or award forms; or 2) report amounts paid to SBEs. Instead,
Departments will provide information regarding their contract activity and transactions on one
consolidated form that details:
125
• Date (or Month) of Transaction
• Contract or Transaction Number
• Firm Name
• Dollar Amount of Contract/Transaction
Departments will provide this information for each of their contracts and transactions and
identify which of the contracts/tra~sactions were awarded to County-or State-certified SBEs.
In lieu of requiring and reviewing separate award forms, the County Administrator's Office
(CAO) will verify information reported by the Departments using contract/transaction records.
As such, Departments must be prepared to demonstrate at a later time that the information
provided in the . Department report corresponds with its records.
Outreach _Reoort Format -Departments are no longer required to submit Outreach data for
their urchas",gfrclrlsdcllons:-ince transactions within program thresholds are now handled
throug e e-utreach system administered by the General Services Department (Purchasing
Division). Departments, however, will provide information regarding their outreach activity for
construction and professional/personal services on a consolidated form that details:
• Number of Contracts/Transactions
• Dollar Amount of All ContractslTransactions
• Total Number of Business Contacts
• Number of Contacts by type of business (MBE, WBE, SBE, LBE, DVBE, and etc.)
Method of Submitting Information -Using the attached excel templates, Departments will
submit their SBE and Outreach reports electronically to the following individuals:
• Nina Bodway, Affirmative Action Office -Nbodw@cao.cccounty.us
• Kevin Berenson, Purchasing Division -Kberenson@gsd.cccounty.us
Additional instructions on using the SBE and Outreach report templates are contained within
those forms.
Directive Effective Date -This directive is effective retroactively to January 1! 2007. (These
changes do not impact the 4th quarter report for 2006. That report was due to the CAO by
January 12, 2007, using the existing report format and process.) The changes outlined in this
directive will be implemented as a 6-month pilot, after which the reporting process will be .
evaluated.
The participation of all Departments is critical to ensure a thorough evaluation of the pilot and
accurate measure of the County's progress toward its SBE goals and Outreach requirements.
In the event reports are not submitted within the established timeframes, the CAO may
discontinue the new reporting frequency and instead reinstate the prior requirement of quarterly
reports.
If you have any questions regarding the use of the templates, please contact Celia Pedroza at
335-1037.
126
DATE:
To:
cc:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 29, 2006
Department Heads
Department SBE and Outreach Uaisons
Emma Kuevor, Affirmative Action Officer
Kevin Berenson, Purchasing Manager
David Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel
Sara Hoffman, Assistant County Administrator
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES ON OUTREACH AND SBE PROGRAMS
Thank you for commenting on the draft e-Outreach implementation issues paper. All comments were
considered in formulating this administrative directive.
In addition to administrative implementation issues, the paper identified a policy issue which will be
presented to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at the January 9, 2007 Board meeting.
The Internal Operations Committee will be recommending that the Board of Supervisors accept State
certified SBEs and well as County certified SBEs in assessing compliance with County SBE goals and
Outreach requirements. This recommendation was also unanimously endorsed by the Advisory
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
Duplicative Databases -Effective immediately, all departments should send their databases of County
certified "BEs" (SBE, MBE, WBE, etc) to Purchasing for integration into a single database. All Self
Certification Forms should be sent to Purchasing as well.
Effective January 1, 2007, only the firms identified as County-certified SBEs in the Purchasing Vendor
Database will count toward the SBE program. Thus, it is critical that the Departments forward their
databases and Self Certification Forms to Prrrchasing to ensure u full count of qualified SBE awards. In
addition, assuming the Board of Supervisors approves use of State-certified SBEs, state-certified SBEs
will also be accepted when assessing SBE program compliance. The RFP Depot database will be used
. to verify state-certified SBEs.
Community Development has expressed concern that some of their professional services contractors
may not be covered by the NIGP coding system. Purchasing will be contacting them to resolve this
issue. If other departments have similar concerns, they should contact Kevin Berenson, Purchasing
Manager, 313-7326 kberenson@gsd.cccounty.us.
Please note that the RFP Depot system automaticallY sends out bid opportunity notices for transactions
initiated by the Purchasing Division on a department's behalf. That function is not available through
the Purchasing Vendor Database, which is hosted on the County's Intranet. Instead, the Department
1 127
itself must identify qualified vendors and send out notices of bid opportunities when choosing to
initiate their own contracts/transactions. Remember that all County-certified BE vendors listed in RFP
Depot's database are listed in the Purchasing Vendor Database, but not all County-certified BE vendors
in the Purchasing Vendor Database will be in the RFP Depot database (County-certified BEs who
chose not to register with RFP Depot will be listed in the Purchasing Vendor Database only).
SBE and Outreach Program Reports -Effective January 1, 2007, departments should send the Purchasing
Division their Purchasing SBE and Outreach program reports on commodity purchases that are not
handled on their behalf by Purchasing (such as Procurement Card and warrant request purchases).
Reports should be submitted semi-annually, no later than 10 business days following the end of
reporting period Gune 30th and December 31 s). Reports will be presented to the Advisory Council on
Equal Employment Opportunity prior to submittal to the Internal Operations Committee. SBE
reports on commodity purchases will continue to report department level data. Outreach reports will
be by type of commodity, not by department.
For professional/personal services and construction contracts, departments should continue to
submit their SBE and Outreach program reports to Affirmative Action. For the 4th Quarter of 2006,
please submit your quarterly report no later than January 12, 2007.
S ole Source Justifications and Exemption Requests -For commodity purchases, departments will continue to
be responsible for preparing sole source justifications. If t.."'-1e department is handling the purchase, then
the department should prepare the exemption request and submit it to the County Administrator's
Office. If Purchasing makes the purchase decision, then Purchasing is responsible for the exemption
request to the County Administrator's Office.
No changes are being made for professional/personal services or construction contract sole source
justifications or exemption requests.
Access to RFP Depot Database -Purchasing will be providing access codes so the departments can access
the RFP Depot Database to confirm that their vendors have successfully completed the enrollment
process and for other purposes. Access will be provided as soon as possible. Please contact Kevin
Berenson, Purchasing Manager, with the name, telephone number and email address of the individual(s)
who should get access.
In addition, several issues arose during review of the issues paper:
IT Standards and S ecutity Requirements -Purchasing will be working with DolT to ensure that
commodities purchased by the County comply with County IT standards and security best practices.
Reporting transactions in both SBE and Outreach Programs -Effective January 1, 2007, transactions that
qualify for both SBE and Outreach programs should be counted in each program. This directive applies
to all transactions: purchase of commodities, professional/personal services and construction contracts.
(For the 4th quarter report ending December 31, 2006, continue the current practice of counting
transactions that qualify for the SBE and Outreach programs in only one program area.)
Future directions for the SBE and Outreach Programs -It is our intent to streamlirie the SBE and Outreach
reporting requirements, consistent with Board-directed program parameters. We are particularly
interested in developing an on-line reporting system for SBE awards, which would be submitted semi-
annually. The new reporting system would replace the current quarterly report summary sheet and
individual award fOnTIs. We also intend to memorialize requirements and responsibilities through the
2 128
promulgation of new Administrative Bulletins, so that information is readily accessible through the
County's Intranet. Celia Pedroza, Management Analyst, is taking the lead on this effort. Please contact
her at 335-1037 if you have ideas or suggestions.
Also, if you have any questions regarding these administrative directives, please contact me at 335-1090,
Kevin Berenson at 313-7326 or Emma Kuevor at 335-1045.
Thank you for your cooperation.
3 129
Attachment 3: Prior SBE Board Orders
130
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Jfo, ........ ,
DATE: December 19, 2000
SUBJECT: CLARifiCATION Of REPORTING REQUIREMENTS UNDER
THE COUNTY'S OUTREACH PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUESI(5) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTlFICATION
RECOMMENDATION S:
.Contra
Costa
County
1. APPROVE recommendations for reporting under the County's Outreach Program .. and SBE
Program, as detailed in Background below.
2. DIRECT the County Administrator to adjust the program language and forms, as necessary, to
implement the recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
As directed by the Board, the Internal Operations Committee continues to maintain policy oversight
for the Small Business Enterprise and Outreach Programs. Our Committee receives periodic reports
from the County Administrator and Affirmative Action Officer on the status of the programs, and also
has requested and received input from the AdviSOry Council on Equal Employment Opportunity,
which is responsible for advising the Board on affirmative action programs.
Occasionally, our Committee has been asked to provide guidance to staff on issues that have arisen
in the implementation of the programs. One such issue is the reporting requirement under the
Outreach Program and SBE Program. This was addressed in the December 1,2000 report received
by our Committee.
Reporting under the Outreach Program logically should relate to the goal of the program, which is
to provide an equal opportunity for vendors, service providers, and contractors to compete for
business with the County. Thus, the reporting requirement should focus on outreach or solicitation
CONTINUED ON ATIACHMENT:_X_YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _X_RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE ' _OTHER
ACTION OF BOARD ON De cemher 1 9 , 2000
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
..xL. UNANIMOUS (ABSENT.....::.,,**"--__ -..,..J
AVES: NOES:
ABSEN-=T:-: -----ABSTAI''''N;-: -----
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA (925) 335-1077 = INTERNAl. OPERATIONS COMMlmE STAFF
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION OFFICER.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
GENERAl. SERVICES DEPARTMENT
COUNTY COUNSel
** Supervisor seat V is vacant at this time
MARK DeSAULNIER
APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED...xx.. OTHER _
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OnHE
SOARD Of SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
AnESTED December 19, 2000
PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
v ~ ..
131
CLARifiCATION Of OUTREACH REPORTING -'
DECEMBER 19,2000
PAGE 2
efforts, which are the main focus of the Outreach Program. Our C9mmittee recommends, therefore,
that staff establish a procedure to compile and report the number of vendors, service providers, and
contractors contacted under the program by the followi ng categories: MBE, WBE, 0 BE, SSE, and LBE.
Another issue discussed by our Committee was the reporting of those firms that choose not to identify
themselves as MBE, WBE, or SBE or whose status is otherwise unknown. In the past, such
undesignated firms presumably have been included under the aBE (Other Business Enterprise)
category. To accommodate such firms and to ensure that they are properly reported, our Committee
recommends that staff be directed to adjust the categories or definitions, as necessary.
The Purchasing Outreach Program presently requires periodic reports listing "the number and dollar
value of all contracts, including those contracts given to identified MBE, WBE, SBE, and LBE vendors."
Our Committee recommends against compiling and reporting statistics of contract awards and
purchases by those categories, especially since the Outreach Program does not include specific goals
or requirements for contract award by category.
To implement the above-described requirements, staff should be directed to adjust the program
language and forms, as necessary.
132
\,.../VllllGt
FROM: Costa
County 1999 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
December 13.1999
SUilJECT:
SMAll BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REOUESTISI OR IIECOMhlEN1)ATIONIS) & UCKC;1I0llNO AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS;
1. APPROVE the attached Small Business Enterprise Program.
2. DIRECT the County Administrator to provide appropriate instructions to
County Departments on the implementation of the Small Business Enterprise
Program.
3. REMOVE this subject as a referral to the 19991ntemaJ Operations Commfttee
and instead REFER it to the 2000 Internal Operations Committee for
contlnu!ng policy oversight, as is provided for on the last page of the attached.
BACKGROUND:
This subject was referred to our Committee neaJly a year ago and we have met on
it with staff on several occasions throughout the year. Our goal was to put together
a program that would provide small businesses with a fair share of the County's
businesses. We befieve we have done that "To" briefly summariZe f:h~ content of the
attached report:
• The program covers construction contracts of $25,000 or less and purchasing
transactions of $50,000 or Jess and professlanal/personal servic~s contracts
af $50,000 or less.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES , "~~~HA..TURE:
_1I£COMMENo~Tf()HOfCOUNT't ADMlNlGTllo\rOIl F=III!COMMENPATION Oi: aDAII"
_APPAOV~ ~~~. • "
SfGNATUIIE{SI: GNrLE B. UIL EMA
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 25, 2000 APPROVED ASIIECOMMENDED xx: OTHe~_
The following people offered public conuncnt on this matter:
Oren Sellshom. 301 Mission Street, #400, Lawyer's Committee for
Civil Rights; and Jonothan Dumas. 41 Carter Court.. Equal Employment Opportunity
Advisory. EI Sobrante;
The Board discussed the issues and took the following action:
ACCEPTED staff's Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2; and DIRECTED No.3 include the
language "and for potential broadening of the Program as the Committee determines".
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
, HEREBY CERnFY THAT TiiiS is A Ti1UE
..= UNAl'llhlOUS (ABSENT --- ------) AND CORRECT COpy OF MI ACTION TAKEN
AND EIflERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE 60.5.110
OF SUPERVISORS ON TNE DATE SHOWN.
AYES: I, IV,V &-III NOES: ______ _
ASSENT: ---J1u..T _____ ABSTAIN: _____ _
ATTESTED .TmUaI:Y 25. 2JX1J
Contact: PHIl BA1CHElOJ:l. CLERI< OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SV"£IW.SOJ:lS AND COUNTY AD""NISTRATOR
Julie Enea. Staff to the Internal opefati~S~~. V"
Affirmative Action Officer ~ BY t __ ~L "DEPUTY \r-="><"'::""'_-
133
-'
,. to:' ,,'.i'''', .
.~ ....... . .'-:. _.
IOC-01
• For those contracts and transactions that are not exempt from the program,
50% of the dollar amount will be awarded to small businesses. as a small
business is defined, Businesses which do not qualify as a small business wilf
not be able to bid on the contract or transaction,
• All other factors being substantially the same. contracts are to be awarded to
a local small business.
• The County Administrator is to make a report to the Board annually by March
30 on the success of the program.
" . ,'I ,.
-2-
, ,
. '.,1
:~. ~', ,:~ . ,
134
Contra Costa County
Small Business Enterprise Program
I. Scope of Program
"
A. Contra Costa County values the contributions of small businesses in County
contracting and will assist in the development, solicitation, and contract awards to
small businesses.
B.' The Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Pro~ applies to:
construction contracts of $25.000 or less;
purchasing transactions of$50,000 or less;
professional/personal service contracts of $50,000 or less;
'. , , ......... :._ ':'i .. ,' .. F:.., .. 1 •• . ~ .. '~';"':f': '. -.. at the time of contract award.
C. The program would not apply to any contracts or purchasing funded in whole or
in part by the federal government to which Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
(DBE) requirements apply as a condition of federal funding.
D. The County Administrator may exempt emergency construction projects,
purchasing transactions. professional/personal service contracts, and other
135
particular projects or conlrac{s. such as !';o/c source contracts, from the SHE
Program requiremenls, where the County Administrator is satisfied thal: (I) the
exemption is required to avoid unreasonable expense or delay to the County; (2)
the project(s). transaction(s), or contract(s) in question cannot reasonably be
perfonned by an SBE; (3) no valid purpose would be served by applying the SBE
Program requirements; or (4) the exemption is justified by special or unique
circumstances. Whenever the County Administrator decides to exempt a project
or class of projects, that decision shall be reported to the Board of Supervisors'
Internal Operations Committee or, if appropriate, to the Board.
E. Departments with purchasing source discretion ("PSD") will:
identify those contracts under the threshold amount for each Si3E~ J;>rogram
." . -.... ;~ .. :.~', . . .
area ( i.e., construction, purchasing transactions, and professioQ.aloand
personal service contracts) and set-aside contracts for only SBEs to submit
bids, proposals or enter into negotiated contracts;
o 0
•• ,I • .'·.
000
r; ;·';";~·1;"·1:.fr . . ::..a:";~ .. ~: ... :~, ... ;1:~~.::.,. '. '.' " ; ,. ,"'r",:;; "':'~"':' , detennine'if6kk~~ts will be infonnaI bi~1¥~6p~~~is:;ofortn~{bidSi···:j7~:f4t.-:~::-;o
. " ..... _ .. --00
. -t:::' .; proposals, or negotiated contracts; . ~ '.,
will review all construction contracts, purchasing transactions, and
professional and personal services contracts under the threshold amounts
2
136
lor the SBE program on a reasonable basis to ensure thaI the County meets
the goal of this program; and
make every effort to maintain a large base for SBE contracting.
F. The SBE Program does not apply to the following, which are exempt from the
SBE Program base amount:
Association dues and membership fees;
Postage, Federal Express, and UPS;
Lodging;
Registration and conference booths;
.. Bus fares, Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) tickets, fares for other
forms of public transportation, and bridge tolls;
Permits, fees, and licenses paid to governmental agencies;
Utility installation fees;
Pre-employment screening and fitness for duty exams;
.. -,,;.~~ •. .i ... .:! ..• ,' • • ,,f : ,"
. Legal notices;
.. . :~
• ~ • ,'j,' •
. " . ~ t~~~~:';l~:':~ ':... .
Purchases or contracts with other public (local, state, or federal) agencies
such as the State of California and the Los Angeles County Joint
Purchasing C-rroup;
3
137
.' Contracts between division::; in a department or contracts between Iwo
different departments;
Contract consultants who answer "yes" to any of the questions on the
Questionnaire for Determining Independent Contractor Payment Method
form; unless it is determined and certified that they are SBEs, as defined
in Section D of Part III of this Program; and
Contracts with private non profit organizations and agencies.
G. The program will be implemented and monitore-d by the General Services
Director (purchasing Agent), Department Heads with purchasing source
discretion C·PSD"). and the County's Affirmative Action Officer. Departments
with "PSD" will submit quarterly reports of their "PSD" transactib,D.s in a timely
manner to the County Administrator or designee, and a draft annual report
prepared by the Affirmative Action Officer will be submitted to the County
Administrator. On or before March 30 of each year, a final annual report by the
·:-·~!J.:~lJ;;·I.'· .. . . . ,:,:":,,,
will be"submitted to the Board of Supervisors 0
, : ·~~!·:~:~;i:··t;~;
''''IY'~"''S SSE Program. Departments with "PSD" who do not meet a '50~rS~E' .
participation in the "PSD" transactions applicable to their departments shall
report to the County Administrator on this area.
4
138
II. I\n SBE contractor may appeal [0 [he DCPaJil11CTlI I lead or designee within 10
days oflhc award of a contract. [rlhc complaint is not resolved within the
department, the SBE firm may file a complaint with the County's Affirmative
Action Officer. If it is not resolved with the Affirmative Action Officer, the
County Administrator will review the complaint and take appropriate actions.
II. Program Requirements
A. The total dollar base amount is the number of non-exempt contracts under the
SBE Program threshold for construction (total contracts at $25,000 or less).
purchasing (total contracts at ~50.000 or less). professionaVpersonaI services
(total contracts at $50,000 or less).
B. At least fifty percent (50%) or more of the total dollar base amount for the
calendar year of :
, ....
• ' '.. ..: .. ;. " • 'j cons"iructlon' conti-acts;
: .' :', "
purchasing transactions; and . ,:~ .. ~ .. "', .
professional/personal services contracts
5
139
availahlc to the program should be awnrded [0 SHI':s, as provided in Sectio!) I\.
above.
C. Where the purchasing and professional/personal services SBE Program overlap
with the purchasing and professional/personal services Outreach Program, the
50% non SBE purchasing transactions and professional/personal services
contracts should meet the Outreach Program requirements.
D. To the extent allowed by iaw, the General Services Director (Purchasing Agent)
and County departments with PSD shall maxjmize business opportuIiities for
local SBEs to compete and shall give a contracting priority to such local SBEs for
County construction contracts. professional/person",I service contracts. and
purchasing transactions covered by the SBE Program where there is no significant
difference between the local SBE's bid, proposal, or price and other bids,
proposals, or prices for the contract Of purchasing transaction,
III. Program Responsibility
6
140
/\. Board of" Supervisors: The Board or SUptTvi$or.r.; has adopted a S B E Program to
assist in (he solicitatioll and award of contracts to small businesses (particularly
those localed in Contra Costa County).
B. County Administrator: The County Administrator is responsible for the
development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the SBE Program
and may delegate responsibility to the Affirmative Action Officer or other
designee.
C. Department Heads:
1. 'The County Administrator, General Services Department, Building
Inspection Department. Community Dev~lopment Dep~el1:t, Public
Works Department, and any other Department that enters into construction
contracts (not performed by another County Department):
are responsible for implementing the SBE Program for
... construction contracts in their i~sbe~ti've departrneriJ~~:'''·. ~~)~'~fl;!,;;:
. .' " ':-:~/'~'~f~!:~ .
2. The General Services Director (Purchasing Agent)
7
141
I~ rcsponslhlc for rcpol1ing on all purchasing lramiaclions
processed and the sourcc(s) determined by that department, as
provided in Section B of Part [V of this Program.
3. All Department Heads
Are responsible for implementipg the SBE Program for "PSD"
purchasing transactions of the department and "PSD"
professional/personal service contracts for their respective
departments.
D. Program Definitions
I. Small Business Enterprise (SBE):
a. An eligible Small Business Enterprise, as defined by the California
. :.:::',.,: {\:;:', !;:·;~:,:",,:~.:!l~: •.... .. . '~.. ',' . .: ....... ~ .. -", '. ;:'~~::~\¥ .. RY~~W.r2~P:q~F'. Sectton 148 37, C.~~l?ter ~.5, .~ :i:~,:~-;~-\;;;-~~FI' -:.: .. -..
•• '''h'' ~ '~""'.' .•• ~.j.,,.1.,.; •• :~. )i" . ~ :;;(.4, • t. • " ' •
.. . , >\~'~ri independently owned-and operated business, which is
not dominant in its field of operation;
the principal office of which is located in California;
8
142
lhe nllict:rs of which arc domiciled ill Caftf"orl1la, and
which. together with affiliates. has 100 Of fewer
employees; and
average annual gross receipts often million dollars
($10,000,000) or' less over the previous three y~ars, or
is a manufacturer with 100 or fewer employees.
2. SBEs certified by the state would qualify for participation in the County's
SBE Program. An SBE that is ~elf-certified and claims its status under
penalty of perjury. and such self-certification is concurred in by the
department, also would qualifY.
3. Th.e base for the total dollar amount is the total number of contracts
under the SBE Program threshold for constrtlction (total contracts at
$25,000 or less), purchasing (total contracts at $50,000 or less), and
pr<~fessiQl1a.Ypersonal services (total contril?~f?·at $50,000 or,Iess)
contracts.
9
143
4 . A local SBI·: is an SHE whose main onict.: IS iqcatcd in ('onlra Costa
County.
5. An SBE Directory of Self-Certified finns will be developed and
maintained by the Affirmative Action Office.
6. Purchasing Source Discretion ("PSD") means those transactions where a
department has sole discretion to determine the source of goods, services
or construction without limitation to those vendors or contractors
approved by the Purchasing Agent and where the Purchasing Agent
processes the transaction without exercising any discretion.
IV. Program Procedures and Implementation .
"
A. Department Heads with "PSD" are responsible for administration and
• • .,. ~~"I: •• ':::~ ;. :" ~"\':'''''~''''' • .': t ; .•.• -t " .". • ~.--...lL\.~': .. ~.
implementation of fue'::Sl3 E 'Program (constructioM',ppr(Shaslng transac~~C>ii,. .~b:Q%Q.t:t;::i;~.
• • ........ :. ~ 0:--: • ~ .', " •• ,:. ..... '._
professional and pers~~~i i"ervice contracts) ror their «pS.OH transa~tions alld :: .,' .
shaH submit quarterly reports to the County Administrator or designee in a timely
manner.
10
144
... ........ ~ .. ~ .
n. The (ienerai Services Ikpartmcnl (Pun.:hasing Agent) is rcspol1sihk /()f reporting
on and implementing tht! SHE Program ()r all purchaslIlg transaclions and
contracts thal are processed by that department, except for those transactions
where another department exercises "PSD," as defined in Section D. 6 of Part HI
of this Program. Such reporting will be done on a quarterly basis in a timely
manner to the County Administrator or designee by the General Services
Department (Purchasing Agent).
V . Conclusion
A. County Administrator will
On or before March 30 of each year, submit a final annual report to the
Board of Supervisors indicating the total dollar amount of qualified
contracts and SBE contracts ($25,000 and less for construction; $50,000
. " h::~'~::'~~;~' ani less for purchasing; '~d $50,000 and Iess'f~r professional/per;~~~W:~~M~;':'>' .
services contracts) for the County.
Submit SBE recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
1 !
145
a:sbe3
!~, The 101<.:rnal ( 'ralion, Committec oflllc noard of Surer visors will have:
continuing po: ~'()ver~ight and develop any recommendations for program
changes.
. : :~.~:.\'" '.
12
146
Attachments 4 throu2h 7
Examples of Department Data Submitted
147
,oc I
)O-1 2 ·)S ~~¥ e "~~cW'\ At
Org Obj
1013 2000
1025 2000
1000 2000
1019 2000
1019 2000
1000 2000
1025 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1015 2000
1000 2000
1015 2000
1018 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1000 2000
1010 2000
1010 2000
1000 2000
Sub
Obj
2251
2467
2102
2467
2467
2467
2467
2303
2102
2251
2102
2102
2150
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2310
2303
2303
2132
2316
2270
2102
Description
96196644/R265590
REG RULLODA M 9/11-9/12
2014 FLSA POCKET GUIDE
REG GARVEY L 9/11-9/12
REG W£BI3ER J 9/11-9/12
REG B CAMPBELL 10/6-7
REG M RULLODA 10/6-7
80201448 VERIGIN 11/4-6
92871 SUBSC 2015
0001629466/131559
4801322908/4001035600
4801322908/4001035600
TICKET 77'9123
7/1-7/11/14 CY B DRAPER
7/14-7/25/14 B DRAPER
7/28-8/8/14 B DRAPER
8/11-8/22/14 B DRAPER
8/25-9/5/14 B DRAPER
9/8-9/19/14 B DRAPER
9/22-10/3/14 B DRAPER
10/6-10/17/4 B DRAPER
10/20-10/31/14 B DRAPER
11/3-11/14/14 B DRAPER
REG E VERIGIN 11/4-11/7
REG B CAMPBELL 11/4-11/7
501753/CCCACD
SINV1500068 BOTTOMUNE C
MINV1500430 TROY 601 NBD
1003616 RENEWAL
1000 2000 246Z_~EG#6798 R CAMPBELL
TC Refenmce
52 G-378:766
52 G-379790
52 G-38U88
52 G-38J:786
52 G-38J:786
52 G-391S08
52 G-391S08
52 G-400140
52 G-414334
52 G-385C146
52 G-388~144
52 G-388~144
52 G-380268
52 G-373802
52 G-376453
52 G-379715
52 G-384062
52 G-388175
52 G-393161
52 G-396S;65
52 G-402585
52 G-406714
52 G-410161
52 G-400137
52 G-400137
52 G-402595
52 G-380302
52 G-392239
52 G-389946
52 G-410837
Date
Posted
8/6/2014
8/12/2014
8/15/2014
9/8/2014
9/8/2014
9/18/2014
9/18/2014
10/16/2014
12/1/2014
8/29/2014
9/10/201.4
9/10/2014
8/13/2014
7/23/2014
7/31/2014
8/12/2014
8/27/2014
9/10/2014
9/25/2014
10/8/2014
10/24/2014
11/6/2014
11/18/2014
10/16/2014
10/16/2014
10/24/2014
8/13/201.4
9/23/2014
9/12/2014
11/18/2014
Amount
$126.00
$75.00
$30.33
$75.00
$75.00
$150.00
$150.00
$400.09
$225.00
$1,994.25
$325.45
$32545
$30.43
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$613.44
$325.00
$325.00
$3,633 .82
$1,940.28
$298.00
$429 .00
$99.00
PO#
FW238710
FW238711
FW238712
FW238713
FW238713
FW238717
FW238717
FW238720
FW238723
F5311501
FW238714
FW238714
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
F4543604
FW238719
FW238719
F5388801
F5098801
F5299001
FW238715
FW238722
Vendor
#
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
00001
01271
01271
01271
01296
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02399
02459
02459
03147
05483
05483
05605
05831
A·s [e~,5 OV-< '5 () E Aa-fc:: (t
Z-o/i
MkroFocus Maint-Support Rumba Software
CAACC Exempt -Registration
UC Reg-CPER FLSA Pocket Guide
CAACC Exempt -Registration
CAACC Exempt -Registration
SACA Exempt -Registration
SACA Exempt -Registration
Embassy Suites Exempt -Lodging
GASB GASB Subscription
CCHlnc Check Cancelled Wrong Vendor#
CCH Inc GAAP 2015 GUide
CCH Inc GAM 2015 Guide
Copper Skillet Exempt -Human Resources
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -CAO Contract
Draper, Brett Exempt -Registration
Draper, Brett Exempt -Registration
R-Computer APC, Systems
Bottom Line Exempt-DOlT
Bottom Line Exempt-DOlT
Thompson Publ FLS Handbook
ALGA Exempt -Registration
148
\Oc. 'o~,z.. ·,t
A J.w\It ( ~I\..H 'P ; Amendment Reporting Page ( (CT V) p. \
Select Department
Select Period
TOTALS:
Proprams
SBE
1 -------------2
3
4'
5
6 .------------7
8
9
10 .------------
o
Outreach
x
Name of
Vendor/Contractor/Consultant
1~!!'2!_~~~P.!!:i~_~~1!!~9..!!.r!111 ________ _
::~~~~~~~~~~~~F~~~~~~~~~~:~~~:~~::~~:~:::~~~:~::~:::~:
------------i----------------------.. ------------------
1 T
ItoTALAMENDMENTS: 11
2014 Jan-June Amend_Renew_Report 101514
Type of Contract
Standard $-1
Term of Current
Contract
1 Yr 2 Yrsl3 Yrs+
x
1------------------.--------
o o 1
Date of Initial
Contract
4/1/14
3 149
,u ~g ~\I~ 'IS-A '-'It, -9 p~
Term of Current
,-~"
',I Contract , Employment & Hum, . '-"'r"'''' . ',J .
1-------11···'
{g,s~~"M~~~;!!~fil!; V!3{1c!~r/eo~~;;~~o~l6C1nsiJltant '~~~~~f :c~~~r~:ci~ I 1 Yr 2 Yrs 13 Yrs+
~ :-~~::~5C~·~": ~i_-~~-~~: ~~~~~,-iii~~-----~~:~-~"~-~-~----~· ~l~~7~~~~~l~'~----~--
3 ~-:!-~X--:~ -----~~~-~; RobeitLa!le---·--------~-~:------~--~ Cc!~s(jH~j)r_~~---~7: ---x---
4 ~:~:~~E~~ ,~~~:~~~::€1 M~!KI~I!~~K~~:~~~W.!.~~=~~~~=;~:~~ Qy~y~~g~:H~~Q9~~~ ~~~~C
5 • ~2::2<~::___ ~ ___ ~~~___ ~~~_~~_~_f.!~_ii.<.?P1~_t~~ _________ ~_=~_~" !tlX(;?~Jl~i!ljpJ;L~"~IT12~ ___ ~ __ _
6 ~~~~2S:c"__ L ____ c" __ " e[£:§~~:~~:..:.. __ :_: __________ ~_~ ______ ~ £~1t~U':!B!.~r::~Ll?~~~ ___ ~ ___ ~ __ _
7 L::.~~~~'.._ __~dL_~ ~_~~~!~_§~l~_'!l_<.?L __ "_-___ ~ __ ~ __ .~:~: s!:iJ~_TP_D.~(;?_?_g!).~~j.i_:_ __2.<.._
8.:.:"X !: ," . -: x '. Titi Ikhi le .. .' ,... SaE)CAd~is0r ,. X
9 :~~i~~~E~~~. ;~~~:~::~~~ 8J~W!~:J~6I[~[~[~::~~~~:~~~~~~~:~~~~~ ~~g:9:~~yl~:q{!::~:::=-::X:
TOTALS:
,~~~"_~2~_~' __ ~_~" __ "'__ <.;:J!1J:!y.I\![!1~~:--------~------'..c-----~" §!?-'1<';:~t1~~i~9L-~~:--__ "~ __
~:,_,:_:2.~_c"~c_2b_" ~;.~!1!lL~~~~[~l!,!l-:--.--"'--------~~----~-§!?It<.;:~~~Y..i~<.?! ___ ~~:__ _ __ 0 __ _
'X :.1 ' X ; Bashir Shah . -_ ' .' SBOC'AdvjSOf ....,. X . -. -.. 12
11 6 o o
'TOTAL RENEWALS: 12'
Date of Initial
Contract
CSB contact ----i:Mar--1T--------------------1-Jan-13 ----T·:"jui=1o----
------j:jui:=jo----
----i:Feb:07----
---3"1-:Eiec:'1T--
----f:Feb:T3----
----f=Jan-"1-§----
---TTaii:"1Y--
;~:" .. "
is-Pi
'al
=.': 3tcOec;-14 .
-:~1EQ~s;I~C:
(3,,-DEiCc 1.4 ':"
----~:5~~:~-~----F~,~~s§~~~~~~~~ ,. " ... -, "
------------------
fH5D-2f)/Lj
Ex~
150
,~c. i o~ '1 ., r
DEPARTMENT: EHSD
CALENDAR YEAR:
REPORT PERIOD: Jan-Jun
Department Contact: Elaine Burres
Date Report Completed:
Contra Costa County
Outreach Report Summary
~c..~"'~;f 7
Is Thi s Your Draf t or Final?
Final
23-0ct-14
Distribution of Business Contacts By Category5
Number of
# County
& State #Federal
Contracts or Dollar Amount of All T otal Number of Certified #DBEs SBEs
Categories Transactions2 Contract /Transaction3 Business Contacts4 #MBEs #WBEs SBEs #LBEs #DVBEs (Optional) (Optional)
Professional/Personal Services 13 $437,700.00 13 5 7 12 5 1 0 0
Construction
JOC (General Services Only)
Commodities (General Svs Only)6
Commodities (Departmen ts Onlyf , _________ 1 ____ ~~_ ----------
Notes:
1. Enter report data in the fields that are highlighted in blue.
2. Enter the number of all contracts/transactions within program thresholds during this reporting period.
3. Enter the dollar amount of all contracts/transactions within program thresholds during this reporting period.
4. Enter the total number of business contacts during this reporting period (ie., t he number of individual businesses contacted).
5. Of the total businesses contacted, indicate the number that were MBEs, WBEs, SBEs, LBEs, DVBEs or DBEs. A business may be counted in more than one category, if applicable.
6 . For commodity contracts over $1O,OOO--For use by Purchasi~g/General Services Department only .
7. For commodity contracts under $1O,OOO--For use by Departments other than Purchasing/General Services. Outreach is optional (not required); however Departments that outreach should complete this section.
This report is due to both AAO & Purchasing Division no more than 10 business days following the last day of the reporting period (June 30th or December 31st).
Please email tonbodw@cao.cccounty.us&Kberenson@9sd.cccounty.us .
For technical questions, please call Nina Bodway at 335-1006.
I
Version 11/16/07 151