Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rfps Selection Committee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Okanogan County discusses RFP selection committee membership, scoring and logistics
Summary
County staff and prospective committee members discussed a proposed 5–7 person RFP selection panel, scoring criteria borrowed from a neighboring county, concerns about Zoom security and public-meeting rules, and payment/budget questions for a roughly $300,000 RFP pool.
Okanogan County staff and prospective selection-panel members met virtually to discuss membership, scoring and logistical steps for an upcoming request-for-proposals process to award funds for prevention and recovery services.
Participants said the selection committee should be a “robust” group of community members, generally proposing five to seven scorers, and the group discussed conflict-of-interest limits, how proposals will be scored, whether scoring and deliberations will be remote or in-person, and how payment and budgeting for awards would be handled.
The meeting opened with a staff overview that the county had met previously with the commissioners to define the RFP selection process and that Melissa had requested to serve on the RFP selection committee. Staff described a scoring template “borrowed from Caroline” and adapted for local use that allocates points across scoring categories; committee members will rate each proposal against those criteria and submit scores to staff for tallying. Participants agreed the selection process would include a remote scoring phase followed by a convened meeting to review tallies and select finalist proposals once scores are collected.
Committee size and conflict-of-interest. Participants repeatedly said five to seven community scorers would be appropriate so that people or organizations that may apply would not unduly influence selection. One participant noted several potential scorers had lived experience relevant to the RFP and urged their inclusion to ensure community knowledge informs evaluation. Several participants said applicants should not serve on panels that will review their own proposals.
Scoring and process logistics. A scoring sheet was shown and discussed; staff said it lists minimum location requirements and point allocations for multiple criteria. The proposed workflow is: committee members score proposals remotely, return scores to staff, and then the committee meets (remotely or in person) to review tallies and decide which proposals will move forward. Staff and at least one participant said they would share the scoring sheet and related materials with committee members in advance.
Privacy and public-meeting issues. Participants raised two operational concerns. First, several attendees reported unfamiliar Zoom participants had previously appeared during meetings; one attendee described seeing suspicious or unfamiliar names and said that experience made them “leery.” Second, a speaker who identified themself as Lanny reminded the group that county meetings open to the public cannot be password-locked if a quorum of commissioners will participate; the county’s meeting hosting rules therefore limit how the county can lock or otherwise restrict a session. Staff said they would consult with Esther (staff counsel or related staff) about privacy and file-sharing before distributing proposals to scorers.
Budget and payment processing. Staff discussed payment-processing and budget questions for the RFP awards. One staff member said the county may have roughly $300,000 available for the RFP process but cautioned the amount and the mechanism were not finalized. The group discussed whether a budget supplemental would be required or whether the county could transfer funds from other lines; staff said they would check RS codes and the county’s obligations and return with clarification.
Next steps. Staff encouraged more community members to join the pool of potential scorers; one participant said they would contact additional candidates over the weekend. The group agreed to proceed with remote scoring once proposals are available, then hold a follow-up meeting to review scoring tallies and make selections. A meeting time mentioned in the discussion was Monday at 1:30 p.m.; staff said the agenda and meeting link would appear on the county commissioners’ website.
Ending: Staff committed to follow up with legal/privacy counsel about distributing proposals, to confirm available funding and budget treatment, and to circulate the scoring sheet and meeting details to confirmed committee members.
