A short-term contract with Nielsen Merksamer for state legislative advocacy services for the period of August 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019 has been executed and services are being provided by a team of advocates that also includes water policy specialists from Cruz Strategies.
In response to the Board's direction to conduct another procurement process for state legislative advocacy services beyond Dec. 31, 2019, staff has developed a procurement process timeline and requests input and direction from the Committee.
|
Proposed State Legislative Advocacy Contract RFP Timeline |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Event |
Date |
|
RFP Issued |
September 16, 2019 |
|
Written Questions Due from bidders |
Sept. 30, 2019 |
|
Addendum Issued |
Oct. 4, 2019 |
|
Responses Due |
October 30, 2019 |
|
Evaluation Period |
Oct. 31--Nov. 15 |
|
Vendor Interviews |
week of Nov. 11, 2019 |
|
Results Letter Issued |
Nov. 15, 2019 |
|
Appeal Period |
Nov. 15-22 |
|
Legislation Committee Reviews Results |
December 9, 2019 |
|
Board Award Date |
December 17, 2019 |
|
Contract Start Date |
Jan. 1, 2020 |
The proposed timeline provides for a longer response period for bidders, which will allow for additional vendor outreach and greater opportunity notification. The timeline also provides for a longer evaluation period than the procurement process conducted in spring 2019, which will facilitate greater bidder vetting by the Review Panel, the Legislation Committee, and the full Board.
In addition to input on the proposed timeline, staff requests Legislation Committee input on the following aspects of the procurement process:
1. The contract period: Should the solicitation be for a calendar year contract for multiple years? The prior solicitation was for a three-year contract with 2 one-year renewal options based on a fiscal year start.
2. The process for outreach or notification of the contracting opportunity. Staff has utilized email notification and BidSync posting for prior processes. Emails have been sent to lobbyists who regularly communicate with CSAC and UCC.
3. The composition of the Review Panel: The spring 2019 "County Selection Committee" was comprised of 5 individuals: Legislation Committee Chair Burgis, staff of the CAO's office, staff of Health Services, staff of Department of Conservation and Development, and the director of EHSD. Should the Review Panel include additional or different representatives? Review Panels from the 2012 process included legislative staff from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Requests for Review Panel participation could be made to other agencies such as the East Bay Regional Park District, BART, etc., which have legislative staff.
4. Amendments to the solicitation document to address conflicts of interest. Amendments for consideration of the Committee could include the following language:
1. The County recognizes and acknowledges that the Contractor may represent clients other than the County of Contra Costa and may render services as a registered lobbyist for other organizations, individuals and entities; However, Contractor’s other clients should not pose conflict of interest issues for the County, nor should their interest be in direct conflict with the County and its mission.
2. The County’s current and long-standing policy, which Contractor agrees to follow, is that a contractor does not undertake representation of any organization, individual or entity whose interests are in conflict with the interest of the County.
3. In the event that the Contractor desires to undertake advocacy on behalf of another organization, individual or entity, the Contractor shall give the County written notice of the proposed arrangement, for the purpose of determining potential conflicts of interest. The notice shall specify the name and address of the party to be represented, and the scope of work to be undertaken on their behalf. As long as the information is sent in single hardcopy, clearly marked “Confidential for Limited Use, Return to Sender After Conflicts Check” all information received shall be treated in confidence, and shall be returned to the Contractor upon the County making a determination as to the presence or absence of a conflict.
4. If the County determines that a conflict exists because of the new representation, the Contractor shall not represent the subject organization, individual or entity with respect to those issues or interests as determined by the County.
5. Contractor, at the time of execution of the contract by Contractor, shall provide a list of all currently represented clients, including the name and address of the party being represented, and the scope of work. In the event of an issue where specific interests from an existing client and County might conflict with each other, the Contractor shall give both clients written notice of such conflict, for the purpose of full disclosure. In the event a conflict is determined to exist, the Contractor, on a case-by-case basis after discussion with both clients, will remain neutral on the issue that is in conflict and shall arrange for other representation of the clients on that issue. If both clients consent, Contractor may subcontract for the client to be represented with other representation, however, in no event shall Contractor be informed of the details and work related to the issue by or advise the subcontractor in any manner.
6. The bidder must address how they will meet or exceed these requirements.
7. The bidder must also identify any limitations or restrictions in providing services that the County should be aware of in evaluating its response to the solicitation.
The Request for Qualifications issued on March 27, 2019 for State Legislative Advocacy Services is Attachment A.
|