City manager search subcommittee finalizes RFP draft, sets timeline and confidentiality rules

The Independence City Council city manager recruitment subcommittee met Sept. 3 to finish revisions to a request for proposals for an executive search firm and to set a timeline for advertising, review and finalist presentations. The subcommittee agreed on a tentative public schedule, clarified scope and reporting lines in the RFP, and directed staff to work with the city attorney to add reciprocal nondisclosure and noncompete language to the contract.

The subcommittee’s work matters because the RFP will shape how the city attracts and screens candidates who may be actively employed elsewhere, and the schedule will determine when the council receives finalist candidates for interviews. The city’s approach aims to balance candidate confidentiality with public transparency for finalist interviews.

The committee settled a tentative public timetable and related deadlines. If the full council signs off, the RFP will be released in early September (the group discussed Sept. 3 and Sept. 5 as release options). The subcommittee set a tentative pre-proposal conference for Sept. 12, a deadline for questions on Sept. 17 and a proposals-due date of Sept. 24 (close of business). The subcommittee will begin paper review Oct. 6, submit individual scoring by Oct. 7, hold a final paper review on Oct. 8 to select three finalists, and hold finalist presentations on Oct. 14 with the full council invited.

On scope and reporting, the RFP will require the selected firm to update the city manager recruitment subcommittee and the human resources director on a biweekly or otherwise agreed schedule. The subcommittee removed any fixed “time-to-fill” target from the scope and asked that the RFP leave timing guidance open so the search firm can advise on realistic targets.

The subcommittee asked that the RFP allow the panel the option to conduct screening interviews for a shortlist of five to 10 candidates (conducted privately) before the committee receives a final three for public interviews. Rich, the staff presenter, said the RFP text will state: “City management selection subcommittee has the option to perform screening interviews.”

Respondent requirements and evaluation criteria were clarified. Firms will be asked to provide examples of relevant work performed within the last three to five years, resumes for team members, and three to five government references. The RFP will limit narrative responses to about 30 pages (with appendices such as résumés, charts and affidavits excluded from that page limit). The evaluation matrix in the RFP keeps a first-round score totaling 100 points (qualifications/experience 25, past performance/references 10, project team 10, organization/completeness 15, methodology 15, time required 15, cost 10). The finalist round adds 50 points (presentation/communications 10, understanding community and organizational needs 10, recruitment strategy/sourcing 10, and evaluation/screening approach 20) for a possible combined total of 150.

Contract and procurement details: the RFP will require standard submission documents (affidavit of noncollusion, Missouri immigration affidavit, Israel-related affidavit where required by state law), a certificate of insurance and a business license before work begins. The subcommittee discussed an explicit provision requiring a reciprocal confidentiality and noncompete-type agreement covering both the city and the selected firm to protect candidate confidentiality and the city’s interests. Jeremy (the city attorney) will review and draft appropriate contract language; the subcommittee heard legal counsel’s suggested time-bound prohibition language that would bar a firm from recruiting or contacting a successfully placed candidate for outside positions for a five-year window.

Posting and cost context: members said the RFP will be posted on ICMA’s job board and that the city will notify the Missouri Municipal League and other relevant networks. Rich reported that Columbia used CPS HR Consulting and paid a fixed fee of $17,000 for a similar recruitment; the group also noted the city previously paid about $27,000 for a finance-director recruitment.

Next steps and public process: staff will clean up formatting, incorporate the subcommittee’s edits and circulate a clean RFP to the full council. The item will appear on the consent agenda for council review; the subcommittee asked staff to invite the full council to the Oct. 14 finalist presentations and to circulate the schedule and instructions so council members can reserve time. Legal will draft the reciprocal nondisclosure/noncompete language for committee review before the contract stage.

Discussion versus decisions: most changes made at the meeting were edits to the RFP text and agreement on dates (direction to staff). The only formal votes recorded were approval of minutes at the start of the meeting and the motion to adjourn at the end; no procurement award or contract was approved at this meeting.

Ending note: staff said they will post responses to vendor questions after the Sept. 17 cutoff so all respondents receive the same information, and the subcommittee will work with legal and procurement to finalize the RFP and supporting contract forms before the advertised release.