Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05161989 - IO.7 I.O. 7 s-------- TO: ---TO: Board of Supervisors -- - FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Sp` DATE: May 8, 1989 ...... SUBJECT: REPORT ON PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL'S CONTRACT WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR THE WEST COUNTY PIC PROGRAM Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Acknowledge receipt of the attached report to our Committee from the Executive Director, Private Industry Council,indicating that the Superintendent of Schools was successful in achieving the placement goals specified by the Board of Supervisors,eliminating the need to cancel the County's contract with the Superintendent for the West County PIC Program. 2. Remove this item as a referral to our Committee. BACKGROUND: On March 7, 1989 the Board of Supervisors set a goal for the contract with the Superintendent of Schools which required that the Superintendent achieve 65 positive terminations for the West County PIC Program by April 12, 1989 in order to avoid having the County's contract with the Superintendent cancelled. On May 8, 1989 the Executive Director of the Private Industry Council reported to our Committee that the Superintendent of Schools had achieved 75 positive terminations and that therefore cancellation of the contract was unnecessary. In view of the fact that the Superintendent of Schools has achieved the goals which the Board of Supervisors had agreed to there is no longer any need for this item to be on referral to our Committee. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: SIGNA Recommen tion f unt Ad ator Recommendation of Board Committee Appr Other: SjAA 4Sietion e(s): TOOWERS SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK of Boar on: May 16,1989 Approved as Recommended x Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X Unanimous(Absent 1 CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED /3Z*,V— /G, /9 8 9 Auditor-Controller PHIL BAT, OR,CLERK OF THE BOARD County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Executive Director,Private Industry Council Superintendent of Schools BY: Ude, .1� � _,Deputy Clerk clvm:eh(io7.bo) MAY —+ 4 $ 9 THIJ 1 4 = 3G CCC PR I vATE I ND CNCL P ONTRA COSTA OOUM VIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL 425 BISSO LANE, SUITE 100 ONCORD, CA 94520 646-5239 TATE May 3, 1989 cc: C. L. VanMarter, CAO C. Priest, ROP O Internal Operations Committee (Sup visors Tom Powers & Sunne Wright McPeak) ROS! A �er�Executive Director VT=CT WEST COUNTY REGIONAL OFFICE STATUS REPORT As a result of the 27 February Internal Operations Committee meeting, the Board on 7 March authorized staff to notify the Superintendent of Schools Regional Occupational Program (ROP) that the contract to operate a PIC West County Regional Office would be cancelled for non-performance unless ROP obtained not less than 65 placements by 12 April. Staff was requested to report back to your committee on whether actual contract cancellation took place. We were also requested to consult with the PIC to, devise strategies designed to prevent sintilar under-performance in the future. ROP Contract Not Cancelled ROP did obtain the placements; their contract was not cancelled and they will continue to serve the West County area for the balance of the year. As of 12 April, our records show ROP had placed 75 participants in jobs. Their total enrollments were 184. ROP's obligations were 118 positive terminations and approximately a 72% positive termination rate. This generates a target enrollment of 158 participants. Since ROP is now over-enrolled at 186, they will need at least 134 placements to make their positive termination goal. Attached is a schedule that compares ROP actual enrollments and placements against the original plan and the corrective action plan. They have exceeded the enrollment targets and are well on their way to meeting the placement goals. The majority of the placements to date, 58 of 75 (or 77%), have been direct placements, only 23% of the ROP"placements have followed skill training. For our program as a whole this year, 61% of the placements have followed skill training. Due to their initially unsuccessful start up, the ROP skills placement figures may be delayed due to training time; the rate should come up but probably will not reach the contract goal of 87 training related placements. Prevent Re-Occurrence The second issue your committee raised was how to prevent a re-occurrence. That appears to have two elements, not displacing existing service providers when they are performing adequately and how to ensure that a Contractor will provide the service for which contracted. M A Y — 4 — E3 9 T H U 1 4 : 25. 7 C C C P R I V A T E I N D C N C L P _ Q 2 Displacement - Federal and State regulations require open and competitive competition. Sole source contracting is strictly limited. Performance based contracts need a competitive process to support the reasonableness of the cost. The Regional Office contracts are RFPed at the beginning of a two year planning cycle. The RFP is issued for the first program year, with the published information that it may be used as authority for the issuance of a prospectus the second year. In the case of the West County Regional Office, we did RFP for the second year. There were two applicants, ROP and Worldwide. Both received passing scores, but Worldwide had a higher score and was awarded the contract. ROP did not appeal the result. The other Regional Office Contractors are being continued by prospectus. So there will not be another round of RFPs until next year. In response to the Board's concern, the PIC is reviewing our RFP criteria. At the time of transition from CETA to DTPA, we did allow existing service providers to receive a bonus for satisfactory performance - which was applied as a percentage to their earned score. Other things being equal, this meant the existing service providers would be maintained. This practice was challenged by a losing party and could be construed as restraining competition. However, it was consistent with a special provision in the legislation for transition from CETA to JTPA. It might be possible to reinstate this practice, but further review of its legality and impact would be required. Extending the maximum life of the RFP authorization from two years also has hazards. We operate on a two year planning cycle. Major changes in programs tend to be timed to the initiation of a two year cycle. To RFP for longer than two years could entail commitments we are unable to keep. It also probably would not pass State and Federal monitoring/audit standards. It has to be remembered that these are faderal funds. The procurement of performance based contracts, which pay a fixed fee for units of successful work, requires an open competitive process. To not do so would expose the County to significant liability. Of course, an open and competitive process means existing service providers will sometimes be displaced. Non-Performance - The second issue is how to quickly replace a non-performing service provider. Our standard contract conditions contain language for the cancellation of a contract after notice of non-performance. That trigger was squeezed for this contract, and the results certainly followed. Perhaps action should have been taken earlier, but after the first quarter of slow start up, ROP's October performance was solid. Unfortunately the momentum was not sustained in November or December, leading to the 30 day notice of cancellation if placement levels did not exceed 64 as of 12 April. Since ROP enrollment and placement figures have come up, it can be argued that the current policy ultimately worked. However, we will explore the possibility of establishing intermediate contract performance levels that when included in the contract would be requirements to prevent the contract from automatically terminating. Such requirements should be identified up front in the RFP package. To the extent bidders identified such provisions as increasing their risk, . it could be expected to increase the per unit bid quote. MAY -.. 4 -; 8 9 T H U 1 4 _- Z ,9 C C C PR I V A T S I ND C N CL P _ 0 3 Conclusion In summary, the current system has not been unsuccessful. This is the only major contract problem in over five years. And it does appear that ROP will now meet - if not exceed - the minimum expectations. We certainly expect ROP will again compete for PIC contracts, and if so they can be expected to win some future contracts. However, like all systems our current practices can be improved. The PIC understands the Board's concerns and will address them in the next RFP cycle. The factors in the equation of how to get the most bang for the buck require balancing the procurement requirement for an open competitive process with the practicality of not unnecessarily displacing a satisfactory service provider, but recognizing that satisfactory past performance is not necessarily a good indicator of future performance in a changing environment. ACM:kw Attachment MAY �i 4 89 � THU 1 4 50 CGC PFS I SATE I NIl CFJCL P 0 1 ENROLLMENTS TOTAL PRGE . 002 ** ACTUAL PERCENT OF PERCENT OF MONTHLY CUMULATIVE ORGINAL PLAN CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN JUL 2 2 6% 100'x. AUG 12 14 27% 100% SEF 12 26 40'%. 100% OCT 23 49 63 100% NO! 10 59 66% 100% DEC 7 66 65% 92Y. iAtq 28 Q4 83% 51?% FEE 39 133 108N 116% MAF 51 184 13911: i 42': kPP x 2 186 PLACEMENTS ACTUAL PERCENT OF PERCENT OF MONTHLY CUMULATIVE ORDINAL PLAN CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN JUL 0 0 0% 100:: AUG 2 2 29': 100X SEP 0 2 1 100% OCT 1 3 15% 1001/1. NOV 3 6 21%' 100;: DEC 3 9 224% 90.'/. JAN 4 13 27%, 65% FEB 14. 29 48% 64% MAR 39 68 92. 105:: APR 7 75 * Final April figures not available until May 15th.