Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10201987 - I.O.4 T TO .BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: '. INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE. COtlt!'a October 12; 1987 C sta DATE: CN r/ Policy for Award of Contracts for ".J SUBJECT: Temporary Help SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Request the Director of Personnel to survey other urban counties in California and/or CSAC to identify what criteria they use 'for awarding contracts . for temporary help, including Alameda County, and report back to our Committee. on November. 23 ,. 19.87 with the ,results of his survey. 2 . Request the Director .of Personnel to evaluate the comments . .made to our Committee by Bruce .Klimoski of Diablo Personnel Services and report to our Committee November 23 with his response. BACKGROUND: On September 22, 1987; the Board of Supervisors approved the recommendation of the Director of Personnel that a contract for temporary help be awarded to Diversified Personnel Services, Inc. However, because of . objections voiced by Miles Miller of Bay Temporary, Inc. .and Bruce Klimoski of Diablo Personnel Services about the criteria which were apparently used in awarding the contract, the Board of Supervisors requested our Committee to review the policy used to select and award. the contracts for temporary help. Our , Committee met with Suzanne Beadle, representing the Director of Personnel, and. Bruce Klimoski of Diablo Personnel Services, on October,' 12 . . Mrs. Beadle filed the attached report with our. Committee outlining. the criteria used to select a contractor for . temporary. help. Mrs. Beadle noted that while the cost of services is one . criterion used, it is not the only one, or even necessarily . 'the most . important one. Of more concern to the Personnel Department and County departments who must use temporary help is the ability of the contractor' to supply the particular skills that are needed, in the quantity needed, on demand. In the.'.past,. some contractors who provided .low bids were not able to respond quickly enough or with individuals meeting the necessary qualifications. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES ySIGNATURE: _y RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _-.•� RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _X_ APPROVE,. OTHER SIGNATURE s .Nancy C Fandeh Tom .Torlakson . ACTION OF BOARD ON ___ C toY2r APPROVED, AS RFCOMMENDED X_ OTHER APPROVED as recommended above with . the report dates for the Director of Personnel to report to the Internal Operations Committee changed to November 9 , 1987 . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS t .HEREBY CERTIFY THAT- THIS 1S'A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ? AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: _ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: i ABSTAIN:. OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. County -AdministratorOctober 20 1987 cc: Director of Personnel ATTESTED _ , County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Bruce Klimoski , Diablo Personnel Svcs. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR. Miles Killer:. Bay Temporaries BY M382/7-83 DEPUTY. — Page 2 Mr. Klimoski asked that the County spell out its pre-bid qualifications so potential bidders will understand what is expected of them and on what basis they will be judged. He also suggested that County staff be required to judge bids without being able to identify the name of the firm doing the bidding so the evaluation is completely objective. Our Committee recognizes that a contractor for temporary help must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently to the County' s needs for temporary staff . We are, however, concerned at the potential cost of $50,000 to the County by not always taking the lowest bidder who meets the County' s expressed qualifications. In order to further evaluate the criteria which should control the awarding of temporary help contracts, we are asking that the Director of Personnel survey what other counties use as criteria for the award of similar contracts. We are also asking that the Director of Personnel respond to the comments made by Mr. Klimoski and return reports on these recommendations to our Committee next month. We will then make a further report to. the Board following that meeting. Contra Personnel Department Costa Administration Bldg. County Pine Street Martinez, California 94553=1292 DATE: October 12, 1987 TO: Internal Operations Committee FROM: Harry D. Cisterman, Director of Personnel . BY: Sue Beadle, Administrative Services Officer SUBJ: Contracted Temporary Help Bid Process During the Board of Supervisors meeting on September 22, 1987, there was a discussion of the contracted temporary help bid process and a suggestion by one of the bidders not selected that the Board should adopt a policy of always selecting the "low bidder" thereby "saving" the County $50,000. This short report summarizes the bid and selection process used, comments on the low bidder requirement and possible savings for the County. The Process: All temporary help agencies which had previously indicated an interest in supplying temporary help to the County, along with all others listed separately in the telephone book yellow pages for Contra Costa County locations were sent letters advising them of the "bid process, including materials about our job description requirements and a "sample" contract. Of the approximately 75 letters sent out, 29 bidders responded with proposals. The bid proposals were reviewed by Personnel Department staff to assess how well that particular bidder might be able to meet the County's needs. The first review involved removing from consideration all agencies with a general "mark-up" percentage (pay rate x markup percentage = County bill rate) of greater than 30%, leaving for review a number of agencies in the 20-30% markup range. Each remaining contractor's proposal was then evaluated for their ability to fill the County's needs on the basis of the following criteria: 1) Ability to provide contracted temporary help in all County job classes 2) Ability to service all County work locations 3) Ability to provide skilled, qualified help on each request based on their testing and other employee assessments 4) Ability to fill both large and small orders on an intermittent, non-guaranteed basis 5) Quality of their "inventory" recruiting and hiring plans 6) Ability to rapidly respond to both large and small "orders" for temporary help 7) Recognition of County's "slow payment" process (60-90 days) and ability to carry that "float" 8) Agency payroll , invoicing, office procedures, recognition of "differences" between a contract with the County and other private businesses, and plans for office procedures which will smooth out those difficulties and result in a good relationship with the County on an administrative basis. 9) Assessment of whether the County business would seem to be an inordinately large part of their business, and thus potentially, Internal Operations -2- October 12, 1987 either overburdening the agency or resulting in the agency relying in large part on County business to operate with potential problems should the business not materialize as expected or disappear if a contract was not renewed. 10) Experience with various contracted temporary help agencies in the past. After a "paper" assessment of these factors a number of the better qualified contract bidders were invited to an interview process in which we could delve in greater detail into their ability to provide services for the County. The interview panel consisted of Sue Beadle, Personnel Department; Julie DiMaggio, then representing the County Administrator's office; and Lois Ellison, representing Health Services Department, one of our largest and most diverse users, of Contracted temporary help. On the basis of those discussions, some contract bidders appeared better able to provide the services needed by the County and they were the ones recommended to the Board for approval . Low Bid "Savings" : As discussed above. and in my September 17 memo to the Board, although cost is of concern to us in assessing which contract bidders to recommend to the Board for approval , our experience with using "cost" as the major, almost exclusive factor in choosing temporary help contractors has been poor. In most instances where we chose a low bidder on the basis of cost alone, we have experienced problems ranging from the agency wishing to raise their rates mid-contract to being unable or unwilling to supply contracted temporary help on "orders" called in by the County to supplying unqualified employees or insisting on a higher job classification for more pay, a better markup and thus greater profit to actually terminating the Contract with the County. Based on our experiences, we feel it not only makes good "business-sense" to consider an agency's ability to provide the kind of services we need in addition to the quoted "cost", but additionally, the quoted "markup" is only one part of the cost. There is also a "cost" to the County, potentially difficult to put a hard "dollar value" on, of orders not being filled timely or with poorly qualified staff who either cannot perform the work required or who actually create further problems for the County in the performance of their assignments. By limiting those potential difficulties in choosing contractors who convince us of their ability to meet all of our needs within a "reasonable cost", we feel we are better meeting the needs of the County. Although a cost saving of $50,000. in choosing low bidder was mentioned at the Board meeting, there is no accurate way to assess such a savings. Although a savings of approximately $50,000. might be projected with a 5% lower markup on all orders filled, there is tremendous inaccuracy in such a figure because it doesn't reflect the potential increased cost of job orders filled at higher paid classifications, or filled with unqualified staff resulting in work task accomplishment problems for the County. Rather than locking itself into a "low bid policy", we believe that the County should consider all factors needed in meeting our service needs for a contracted temporary help at a reasonable cost after a careful review of bid proposals. HDC:SB/jl