Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Analyst Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board votes to extend budget-analyst contract and start RFP process; split vote on open-competitive option
Summary
Supervisors approved a two-year extension of the city's budget-analyst contract and directed a request-for-proposals (RFP) process to consider options; the measures passed on separate roll calls with different majorities.
The Board of Supervisors approved a two-year extension of the city's professional budget analyst services contract while also voting to initiate a competitive request-for-proposals (RFP) process for those services.
On item 21 the board approved exercising the final option to extend existing contracts for professional budget-analyst services from Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2009. That motion passed unanimously in roll call (11 ayes). The extension continues service from current contractors while the board considers longer-term options.
On item 22 the board directed the clerk to initiate a competitive RFP process for budget-analyst services. The RFP motion passed in a separate roll call by 8 ayes and 3 noes. Supervisor McGoldrick and others voiced concern that the resolution’s language should be more precise about sole-source exceptions; he offered an amendment to add qualifying language that sole-source awards must be explicitly authorized. The deputy city attorney advised the board the amendment was broad enough and could be taken without citing a specific code section.
Members of the board and staff discussed cost comparisons between contracting out and providing services through civil service. Monique from the Controller's Office told the board that a recent annual comparison showed contracting the current scope of services cost between about $103,000 and $550,000 less than performing the same work with civil-service staff under existing assumptions; Controller staff said those figures could change if the scope of services were expanded. Supervisors said they supported a public discussion of options and competitive bidding in principle, while some said they favored continuing the current out-of-house contractors under a competitive process.
The board asked the clerk to ensure continuity of services while launching a competitive procurement and directed that the RFP consider whether to incorporate legislative-analysis tasks into the contract scope.
(Notes: Item 21 (contract extension) passed 11–0; item 22 (initiate RFP) passed 8–3. The board discussed the controller's cost comparisons and sole-source language.)
