HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06192001 - C.131 -iii►
C. 131
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on June 19, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Gerber, Glover and Uilkema
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor DeSaulnier
ABSTAIN: None
ACCEPTED the Grand Jury report, No. 0106, "County Use of Contractors
and Consultants" and REFERRED to the County Administrator.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Attested: June 19.2001
John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By: � LIWA��::
Deputy Clerk
f
r end juryCourt reet
Contra C/31 725 0.Box911
Costa Martinez, CA 94553-0091
County
E .
June 7, 2001 °. `f' `
RECEIVED
�'4 COUNS
JUN 0 7 2001
Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
651 Pine Street, 1st Floor CONTRA COSTA Co.
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Board of Supervisors:
Attached is a copy of Grand Jury Report No. 0106, "County Use of Contractors and Consultants"
prepared by the 2000-2001 Contra Costa Grand Jury.
In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933.05, this report is being provided to you at
least two working days before it is released publicly.
Section 933.5(a) of the California Government Code requires that (the responding person or
entity shall report one of the following actions) in respect to each finding:
(1) "The respondent agrees with the finding."
(2) "The respondent disagrees with the finding."
(3) "The respondent partially disagrees with the finding."
In the cases of both (2) and (3) above, the respondent shall specify the portion of the finding that
is disputed, and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
In addition, Section 933.05(b) requires that the respondent reply to each recommendation by
stating one of the following actions:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary describing the
implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the
future, with a time frame for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis. This response should explain the scope
and parameters of the analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for
discussion. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of the publication
of the Grand Jury Report.
Board of Directors
June 7, 2001
Page 2
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not
reasonable, with an explanation thereof.
Please be reminded that Section 933.05 specifies that no officer, agency, department or
governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to its public
release. Please insure that your response to the above noted Grand Jury report includes the
mandated items. We will expect your response, using the form described by the quoted
Government Code, no later than September 5, 2001.
To aid you in responding to this report, we have attached a copy of "Guidelines for Responding
to a Grand Jury Report." Failure to conform to these requirements could result in your having to
resubmit your response. You are also advised that your response becomes a public record-upon
receipt by the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court.
Sincerely,
CAROL THEWS, Foreman
2000-2001 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
CW:
Enclosures
A REPORT BY
THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Report No. 0106
i.
COUNTY USE OF CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
Date: , AOD
CAROL THEWS
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
Dater
MICHAEL R. COLEMAN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SECTION 933.(C)& 933.05 STANDARD CALIFORNIA CODE.
Section 933. Comments and Reports on Grand Jury (4)The recommendation will not be implemented
iRecommendations because it is not warranted or is not reasonable,with an
' explanation therefor.
(c)No later than 90 days after the grand jury
submits a final report on the operations of any public (c)However,if a finding or recommendation of
agency subject to its reviewing authority,the governing the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of
body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding a county agency or department headed by an elected
judge of the superior court on the findings and officer,both the agency or department head and the board
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury,
the governing body,and every elected county officer or. but the re,ponse of the board of supervisors shall address
agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has
pursuant to Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to some decision making authority. The response of the
the presiding judge of the superior court,with an elected agency or department head shall address all aspects
information copy sent to the board of supervisors,on the of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her
findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under agency or department.
the control of that county officer or agency head and any "b>
agency or agencies which that officer or agency had ;d)A grand jury may request a subject person or
supervises or controls. In any city and county,the mayor entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of
shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. reading ani discussing the findings of the grand jury report
All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the
submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the (c)During an investigation,the grand jury shall
public agency and the office of the county clerk,or the meet with�:he subject of that investigation regarding the
mayor when applicable,and shall remain on file in those investigation,unless the court,either on its own
I
offices. One copy shall be placed ori file with the determinat on or upon request of the foreperson of the
applicable grand jury final report by,and in the control of grand jury,determines that such a meeting would be
the currently impaneled grand jury,where it shall be detrimental..
maintained for a minimum of five years.Leg.H.1961 ch.
1284,1963 ch.674. 1974 chs.393,1396, 1977 ch,;. 107, (Q A grand jury shall provide to the affected
187, 1980 ch.543, 1981 ch.203,1982 ch. 1408, 1985 ch. agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report
221,1987 ch.690,1988 ch. 1297, 1997 ch.443,1988 ch. relating to that person or entity two working days prior to
230. its public release arid after the approval of the presiding
judge. No officer,agency,department,or governing body
Section 933.05(Partial)Response to Grand Jury of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report
I Recommendations-Content Requirements... prior to the public release of the final report.
I
(a)For purposes of subdivision(b)of Section
933,as to each grand jury finding,the responding person or
entity shall indicate one of the following:
I
i (1)The respondent agrees with the finding.
I (2)The respondent disagrees wholly or partially
j with.the finding,in which case the response shall specify
the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include
an explanation of the reasons therefor.
I
(b)For purposes of subdivision(b)of Section
933,as to each grand jury recommendation,the responding
person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
i
(1)The recommendation has been implemented,
with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2)The recommendation has not yet been
implemented,but will be implemented in the future,with a
timeframe for implementation.
(3)The recommendations requires further
analysis,with an explanation and the scope and parameters
of an analysis or study,and a timeframe for the matter to
be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the
agency or department being investigated or reviewed,
including the governing body of the public agency when
t applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months
from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
{
j
I
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0106
County Use of Contractors and Consultants
BACKGROUND
County Departments employ significant numbers of Contractor/Consultants to fill positions
involving supervision of County employees and/or the performance of managerial functions.
Some of these Contractor/Consultants are of long tenure.
FINDINGS
1. In the year 2001, approximately 30 Contractors and Consultants are performing
supervisory and managerial roles in County government. The fiscal year 2000-
2001 cost to the County for these Contractor/Consultants is estimated to be nearly
$4 Million.
2. The County has placed some Contractor/Consultants in positions of key
responsibility for, what could be described as, excessively long periods. It was
found that one has been employed for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen years,
three for five years, and eight for two to three years.
3. The County has no policy statements, directives, regulations or other written
material providing guidance concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants in
positions involving supervision of County employees; the furnishing of services
which would customarily be provided by County employees; or the supervision of
other contractor's work on behalf of the County.
4. Department heads may, and do, contract with Contractor/Consultants for varying
periods of time subject only to County payment approval levels typical in County
contracts.
5. The County's selection process requirement for Contractor/Consultants covers
programs such as the Small Business Enterprise Program and Outreach Program
but does not call for competitive selection.
-6. The County has no guidelines covering qualitative (subjective and judgmental)
review of Contractor/Consultant performance. Quantitative (numerical)
measurements are normally included in contracts.
7. The County maintains no summary records which would indicate the number of
outside Contractor/Consultants who are performing work of a supervisory nature
or work customarily provided by County employees; annual contract costs;
employing department; position held; total cumulative length of time under
contract with the County; and the supervising County employee.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The lack of County directives, regulations, policies, and guidelines concerning the
use of Contractor/Consultants condones a lack of uniformity in application and
control. As Department Heads have total discretion in hiring
Contractor/Consultants (pursuant to monetary approvals) to perform these tasks,
the motivation is that of expediency rather than internal long-term management
stability.
2. In at least thirty cases, the use of Contractor/Consultants to perform County
supervisory or managerial functions in lieu of County employees is not of short
duration or occasional use. This number of long duration Contractor/Consultants
is of concern to the Grand Jury. Twenty-five Contractor/Consultants have been
employed in excess of one year, one for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen
years, three for five years, etc. Of the thirty Contractor/Consultants, the average
cumulative contract length with the County is seven years.
3. Cost studies to justify hiring Contractors/Consultants vs. utilizing and/or hiring
County employees would reveal the true cost of this alternative.
Contractor/Consultants charge competitive rates prevalent at the time and most
"load" their rates charging for: full benefits (secured in most cases at higher
premium than the County can obtain at a Group rate); social security taxes (both
employer and employee portions); federal and state taxes required of the self-
employed; and in many cases, pension accrual. Therefore, only by a detailed
comparative cost study can it be determined whether a Contractor/Consultant or a
County employee would be cost effective.
4. The measurement of long-term Contractor/Consultant performance by
quantitative benchmarks specified in a contract does not adequately measure
qualitative skills such as supervisory capabilities or management judgment.
5. The lack of County oversight on the hiring, and cost of duration of services
provided by Contractor/Consultants hired by Departments, is not appropriate.
This lack of oversight also places the County at risk of Contractor/Consultant
nonfeasance.
6. The use of long duration Contractor/Consultants to provide specialized services in
lieu of hiring employees to perform these tasks can extend the time before these
skills must be obtained through the regular employment of qualified people at
competitive salary rates. Long-term use of Contractor/Consultants may prevent
upward movement of qualified employees. It may also discourage employees
from seeking advanced education to qualify for higher rated positions requiring
specialized skills.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Direct the County Administrator to promulgate policies and guidelines for the
selection and hiring of Contractor/Consultants to perform work of a supervisory
nature or to provide services that customarily would be provided by County
employees. The determination of whether services would customarily be
provided by a County employee should be based on who would perform the task
if a Contractor/Consultant were unavailable.
2. Direct the'County Administrator to establish an on-going tracking procedure to
identify the number of Contractor/ Consultants performing work of a supervisory
nature or furnishing services which customarily County employees would be
providing. This tracking information should show:
a) Annual contract cost;
b) Employing department;
C) Total cumulative length of time under contract by the County;
d) The Contractor's supervisor.
Said report should be the subject of annual review by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator to develop a
process and assure that a cost analysis is made comparing the cost of hiring a
Contractor/Consultant for a long duration vs. utilizing or hiring a County
employee. This study should include County employee pension and benefit costs.
There should be an appropriate management review of this study prior to the
issuance of an initial or renewal contract for a Contractor/Consultant.
4. Establish a policy specifying that all Contractor/Consultants providing
supervisory or management services do so under a contract with a term not to
exceed two years.
5. Establish a policy that Contractor/Consultant performance should be evaluated
annually and require that results be submitted with the application for approval of
contract renewal. Performance should be measured by detailed work
specifications and/or quantitative benchmarks as specified in a contract. In
addition, any Contractor/Consultant performing supervisory or managerial duties
involving the exercise of management judgment should be measured on their
qualitative performance using standards applied to a County employee holding
the same or similar position.
3
GUIDELINES FOR RESPONDING TO A GRAND JURY REPORT
Penal Code section 933.05 governs how to respond to a Grand Jury Report. Any response not in
compliance with section 933.05 will be returned by the Grand Jury for revision. To help you
avoid having to revise your response to comply with section 933.05, the Grand Jury provides the
following guidelines.
Grand Jury reports include Findings and the Recommendations. Penal Code section 933.05
requires you to respond to each Finding and each Recommendation.
1. You are required to respond to each FINDING in one of the following three ways:
1) Agree with the finding. No further explanation is required.
2) Wholly disagree with the finding. The reasons for your dispute must be
explained.
3) Partially disagree with the finding. The portion disputed must be specified.
The reasons for your dispute must be explained.
Note the following examples of acceptable responses:
Example 1:
Finding: The [agency] employs 208 workers and has offices in
three areas of Contra Costa County.
Response: Agree.
Example 2:
Finding: The [agency] owns the building and the surrounding
land.
Response: Wholly disagree. The [agency] leases the building
and the surrounding land. [Another entity] owns the
building and surrounding land.
Example 3:
Finding: All employees are required to attend training
seminars every year to keep current on changing
laws.
Response. Partially disagree. All employees but supervisors are
. required to attend training seminars every year.
Supervisors are required to attend training seminars
once every two years.
2. You are required to respond to each RECOMMENDATION in one of the
following four ways:
1) The recommendation has been implemented. A summary of the implemented
action must be stated.
2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented
in the future. A time frame for implementation must be stated.
3) The recommendation requires further analysis. An explanation, the scope,
and the parameters of the future analysis or study must be set forth. The time
frame for preparation of the matter for discussion (including by applicable
governing bodies) must be stated. The time frame may not exceed six months
from the date of the publication of the Grand Jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted
and/or not reasonable. The reasons for not implementing the recommendation
must be explained.
Note the following examples of acceptable responses:
Example 1:
Recommendation: Yearly training should be made mandatory for
all employees.
Response: The recommendation has been implemented.
Last month, this [agency] adopted and
distributed new written policy requiring yearly
training for all employees.
Example 2:
Recommendation: The [agency] should hire additional bilingual
employees.
Response: The recommendation has not yet been
implemented, but will be implemented. The
[agency] is currently interviewing employment
applicants who are bilingual. We expect to
extend employment offers to two such
f
applicants by the end of the current month.
Assuming the employment offers will be
accepted, this will bring the total of bilingual
employees to seven.
Example 3:
Recommendation: The [agency] should implement security
measures for the protection of staff and clients
during nighttime hours.
Response: The recommendation requires further analysis.
The [agency] has begun a study of the
feasibility of providing nighttime security. The
study is analyzing our security needs, the use
of security guards versus security systems, the
costs involved, and the potential sources of
funding. We will complete the study by the end
of this month and it will be discussed and acted
upon by the end of next month.
Example 4:
Recommendation: The [agency] should acquire the property north
of the current parking lot to provide additional
parking for staff and clients.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented
because it is not warranted or reasonable. The
property north of the current parking lot is not
for sale. The property is owned by [another
agency] that plans to begin construction of an
office building on the site in the next two
months. However, we are currently negotiating
our purchase of the property east of the current
parking lot to provide additional parking for
staff and clients.
A REPORT BY
THE 2000-01 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
725 Court Street
Martinez,California 94553
Report No. 0106
COUNTY USE OF CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS
APPROVED BY THIS GRAND JURY:
Date:
CAROL THEWS
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING:
Date: 7 �
MICHAEL R. COLEMAN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0106
County Use of Contractors and Consultants
BACKGROUND
County Departments employ significant numbers of Contractor/Consultants to fill positions
involving supervision of County employees and/or the performance of managerial functions.
Some of these Contractor/Consultants are of long tenure.
FINDINGS
1. In the year 2001, approximately 30 Contractors and Consultants are performing
supervisory and managerial roles in County government. The fiscal year 2000-
2001 cost to the County for these Contractor/Consultants is estimated to be nearly
$4 Million.
2. The County has placed some Contractor/Consultants in positions of key
responsibility for, what could be described as, excessively long periods. It was
found that one has been employed for twenty-seven years, two for fourteen years,
three for five years, and eight for two to three years.
3. The County has no policy statements, directives, regulations or other written
material providing guidance concerning the use of Contractor/Consultants in
positions involving supervision of County employees; the furnishing of services
which would customarily be provided by County employees; or the supervision of
other contractor's work on behalf of the County.
4. Department heads may, and do, contract with Contractor/Consultants for varying
periods of time subject only to County payment approval levels typical in County
contracts.
S. The County's selection process requirement for Contractor/Consultants covers
programs such as the Small Business Enterprise Program and Outreach Program
but does not call for competitive selection.
6. The County has no guidelines covering qualitative (subjective and judgmental)
review of Contractor/Consultant performance. Quantitative (numerical)
measurements are normally included in contracts.
7. The County maintains no summary records which would indicate the number of
outside Contractor/Consultants who are performing work of a supervisory nature
or work customarily provided by County employees; annual contract costs;
employing department; position held; total cumulative length of time under
contract with the County; and the supervising County employee.
y r r
r
CONCLUSIONS
1. The lack of County directives, regulations, policies, and guidelines concerning the
use of Contractor/Consultants condones a lack of uniformity in application and
control. As Department Heads have total discretion in hiring
Contractor/Consultants (pursuant to monetary approvals) to perform these tasks,
the motivation is that of expediency rather than internal long-term management
stability.
2. In at least thirty cases, the use of Contractor/Consultants to perform County
supervisory or managerial functions in lieu of County employees is not of short
duration or occasional use. This number of long duration Contractor/Consultants
is of concern to the Grand Jury. Twenty-five Contractor/Consultants have been
employed in excess of one year, one for twenty-seven years,two for fourteen
years, three for five years, etc. Of the thirty Contractor/Consultants, the average
cumulative contract length with the County is seven years.
3. Cost studies to justify hiring Contractors/Consultants vs. utilizing and/or hiring
County employees would reveal the true cost of this alternative.
Contractor/Consultants charge competitive rates prevalent at the time and most
"load" their rates charging for- full benefits (secured in most cases at higher _
premium than the County can obtain at a Group rate); social security taxes (both
employer and employee portions); federal and state taxes required of the self-
employed; and in many cases, pension accrual. Therefore, only by a detailed
comparative cost study can it be determined whether a Contractor/Consultant or a
County employee would be cost effective.
4. The measurement of long-term Contractor/Consultant performance by
quantitative benchmarks specified in a contract does not adequately measure
qualitative skills such as supervisory capabilities or management judgment.
5. The lack of County oversight on the hiring, and cost of duration of services
provided by Contractor/Consultants hired by Departments, is not appropriate.
This lack of oversight also places the County at risk of Contractor/Consultant
nonfeasance.
6. The use of long duration Contractor/Consultants to provide specialized services in
lieu of hiring employees to perform these tasks can extend the time before these
skills must be obtained through the regular employment of qualified people at
competitive salary rates. Long-term use of Contractor/C'onsultants may prevent
upward movement of qualified employees. It may also discourage employees
from seeking advanced education to qualify for higher rated positions requiring
specialized skills.
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2000-2001 Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Direct the County Administrator to promulgate policies and guidelines for the
selection and hiring of Contractor/ Consultants to perform work of a supervisory
nature or to provide services that customarily would be provided by County
employees. The determination of whether services would customarily be
provided by a County employee should be based on who would perform the task
if a Contractor/Consultant were unavailable.
2. Direct the'County Administrator to establish an on-going tracking procedure to
identify the number of Contractor/Consultants performing work of a supervisory
nature or furnishing services which customarily County employees would be
providing. This tracking information should show:
a) Annual contract cost;
b) Employing department;
C) Total cumulative length of time under contract by the County;
d) The Contractor's supervisor.
Said report should be the subject of annual review by the Board of Supervisors.
3. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrator to develop a
process and assure that a cost analysis is made comparing the cost of hiring a.
Contractor/Consultant for a long duration vs. utilizing or hiring a County
employee. This study should include County employee pension and benefit costs.
There should be an appropriate management review of this study prior to the
issuance of an initial or renewal contract for a Contractor/Consultant.
4. Establish a policy specifying that all Contractor/Consultants providing
supervisory or management services do so under a contract with a term not to
exceed two years.
5. Establish a policy that Contractor/Consultant performance should be evaluated
annually and require that results be submitted with the application for approval of
contract renewal. Performance should be measured by detailed work
specifications and/or quantitative benchmarks as specified in a contract. In
addition, any Contractor/Consultant performing supervisory or managerial duties
involving the exercise of management judgment should be measured on their
qualitative performance using standards applied to a County employee holding
the same or similar position.
3