Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press Public Works for details on use of on‑call contracts and higher caps
Summary
Supervisors questioned a proposed increase in on‑call testing and inspection contract capacity from $1 million to $1.2 million, asking staff for historical spend data and a policy clarifying when on‑call vendors are used versus formal project bids. Public Works agreed to provide three years of procurement and budget history and a synopsis of how on‑call task orders translate into full solicitations.
The Board of Supervisors spent substantial time scrutinizing a proposed amendment under OC Public Works that would raise the capacity limits for on‑call construction testing and inspection contracts from $1,000,000 to $1,200,000.
Supervisor Don Wagner questioned why the county would rely on large on‑call contracts for projects the board had already approved in concept instead of bidding those projects separately. Wagner said on‑call agreements “are supposed to be for emergencies and one‑offs,” and he objected to the prospect that staff could assign a large, project‑specific task order from an existing on‑call slate without returning to the board for project‑level approval.
Kevin Onuma of Orange County Public Works explained the practice: two of six existing contracts had been increased during the contract term to roughly $1.2 million and were nearly fully used (one at $1,191,000, another at $1,026,000). Onuma said the on‑call firms are used to develop scopes, bridging documents and technical requirements that are later bid for full project execution and that the larger capacity is intended to allow timely responses for both planned CIP work and emergency needs.
Supervisors asked for clearer documentation. The CEO’s office and Public Works agreed to provide aggregated procurement usage over the last three years, project lists tied to those task orders, and a synopsis of how deliverables from on‑call contracts feed into full solicitations. Staff estimated that a procurement history and synopsis could be ready in about two weeks and the board set a date to continue the item to allow review of the additional materials.
Clarifying numbers provided in discussion included historical task‑order utilizations of $1,191,000, $1,026,000, $790,000 and $102,000 for a subset of the contracts discussed. Supervisors asked staff also to deliver the county’s policy on when an on‑call task order is appropriate versus when a discrete project should be bid.
Outcome: Supervisors agreed to continue the item to a later meeting (board directed staff to return with procurement and budget history and a synopsis linking on‑call deliverables to solicitation packages).
