Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Response topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outline opioid RFP timeline; $900,000 in funds and questions over vendor admin fees
Summary
County staff presented an RFP roster for opioid program spending, said roughly $900,000 is available, proposed a scoring timetable and raised questions about an invoice from a fiscal agent and about standard contract terms and disbarment checks.
A county staff member briefed the commissioners on the opioid-response request-for-proposals process, presenting a list of seven bidders and asking commissioners to appoint reviewers and agree a timetable for scoring and selection.
The staff member told the board the county currently holds roughly "$900,000 or so in the bank or more," and that the board had signaled $300,000 as a planning figure for the next fiscal year; staff said the RFP process will determine how much of that total is awarded and recommended a scoring committee of five reviewers per proposal with two alternates. The staff member also urged commissioners to decide whether a single commissioner or multiple commissioners should serve on the review panels; commissioners asked staff to convene an initial committee Q&A session and allow reviewers two weeks to score proposals before reconvening.
Staff raised an administrative question about invoices and a vendor charge: the county received an invoice for about $29,079.40 from the fiscal partner and expects that administrative costs are capped at about 10 percent of funds collected. The presenter said the county will confirm whether Chelan County (the fiscal agent) is charging for coordinating work in addition to an agreed administrative percentage, and recommended staff get a boilerplate contract from Caroline (the chest) and route it to county legal for review. "We have money in hand, so it's not like it's a long drawn out process," the staff member said; they asked commissioners for dates to conduct Q&A and scoring sessions to meet the county's timeline for allocation before the new fiscal year.
Why it matters: Opioid-response funds are time-sensitive and require a transparent scoring and contracting process; commissioners must balance prompt awards with solicitor review and federal/state compliance checks (staff recommended standard exclusion/disbarment checks such as SAM.gov).
Next steps: Staff will circulate the RFP list and scoring sheet, schedule a Q&A for reviewers, obtain and circulate the proposed contract language and clarify the $29,079 invoice with the fiscal agent; commissioners agreed to a scoring timetable that would allow selections before the end of May.
Ending: Staff asked for permission to proceed with committee scheduling, legal review of boilerplate contract language and standard exclusions/disbarment checks prior to awarding funds.
