Jackson County legislators on the Finance and Audit Committee put Resolution 21992 on hold after extended questioning about an amendment that increases the contract cap to cover a comprehensive compensation study.

Resolution 21992 would award a 12‑month contract with two 12‑month renewal options to CBIZ Benefits Insurance Inc. for county employee group health, life and dental consulting. The amended resolution increases the county’s not‑to‑exceed amount to $250,000 and adds explicit human‑capital services including compensation guidance and pay‑structure development. Chief Administrative Officer Sylvia Stevenson told the committee that “the cost did get increased on the amendment by 70,000 to account for the compensation study.”

Committee members, several of whom served on the evaluation panel, said they had not understood the RFP response or the procurement evaluation to include a full, county‑wide compensation study. Legislator Payton and others said bidders and some evaluators did not treat the item as a comprehensive study; Payton said CBIZ did not bid the $70,000 study as part of its core contract but had identified additional fee‑for‑service work. CBIZ’s representative described the contract proposal as three buckets: core benefits consulting, MBE/WBE partner fees, and an allowance for additional human‑capital services.

Whitney Miller of the counselor’s office said the counselor’s office had originally drafted the award language for benefits consulting and had not included explicit human‑capital services until the amendment; she read aloud the RFP section obligating respondents to provide human‑capital services, including compensation guidance and “develop a pay structure.” Miller read committee language into the record: “the successful respondent will provide their full range of services including but not limited to the following 5 2 2.1, human capital services… 5222 compensation service, compensation guidance, relevant market data develop a pay structure.”

Legislators asked for several items before they will proceed: a clear timeline and rationale for upgrading the scope from a directors‑level study to a county‑wide study, documentation showing when the legislature was informed of that scope change, the second bidder’s pricing for comparison, and whether the county clerk or contracting procedures constrain adding scope to a new contract versus creating a standalone procurement. Several legislators recommended that the compensation study be put in a separate ordinance or procurement so its cost and scope would be explicit.

Chair Sean Smith closed the discussion by putting the matter on hold; he said, “Without objection, we're gonna put this on hold.” Members noted open‑enrollment and other operational timelines and asked staff to return in two weeks with answers to the committee’s questions and confirmation that delaying action would not disrupt benefits implementation.

Next steps: procurement and administration to provide the selection‑committee documentation, explanation of when and why the scope expanded, the competing bidder’s cost, and whether the compensation study may be procured separately; staff to confirm any schedule risks for open enrollment.