Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bond Management Rfp Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft RFP for program manager and Key Analytics' Measure ABC financials showing $32.9M spent
Summary
Staff presented a draft RFP for a program manager for the Measure ABC bond and Key Analytics gave a financial report showing approximately $32.9 million spent from the first bond series; members debated scope, procurement approach, costs and transparency of staff-charged labor.
The Measure ABC oversight committee reviewed a draft request for proposals to hire a bond program manager and received a financial briefing from Key Analytics that reconciled bond receipts and expenditures.
Staff outlined the proposed RFP scope for program-management services—project coordination, regular newsletters, website content, project Gantt charts and monthly board presentations—and said they plan an invite-only RFP to three to five firms with a 10-day response window, interviews and a staff scoring process. The staff presenter described typical practice for large bond programs and recommended a third-party program manager to provide expertise and accountability.
Committee members pressed several points: whether the RFP pool should be broader to avoid audit questions, whether finalists should present to the committee, and how much of the bond's soft costs would be allocated to a program manager. One member warned against "gold-plating" support services and urged caution in committing high dollars from the bond fund; another said the district previously had an in-house program manager for Measure S but removed the role for cost reasons.
Key Analytics' managing director presented the financial reconciliation for Measure ABC. The presenter said the bond was approved Nov. 5, 2024, with an authorization of about $458,000,002.05 and that the first series (issued May 28, 2025) provided roughly $79.6 million net after issuance costs. The report showed approximately $32,900,000 spent to date and that encumbrances represent contractual obligations (purchase orders) while expenditures reflect payments; staff committed to provide contract-level backup and to correct campus naming inconsistencies in the report.
Members asked for additional deliverables language in the RFP (close-out documents and defined deliverables) and asked that the committee be able to review finalists as part of the procurement process. Staff said they would update the draft to include those expectations and to note which services the district will cover.
