Skip to content

Library Outsourcing RFP: A Fair Process?

Library Outsourcing RFP: A Fair Process?

November 7, 2009 SVadmin Comments 0 Comment

helling_libraryI recommend reading the Library Outsourcing FAQ (Frequently-Asked Questions) document. It’s constantly growing with the addition of new questions from the citizens of Nevada County. Today, when I read it, it was about eleven pages long, and reading it prompted me to send an email with these new questions to the county:

In response to a previous question in the FAQ, you said:

“The content of the proposals will not be made public until the evaluation committee has completed its evaluation and made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. If that recommendation is to enter into a contract with one of the responding firms, the content of the proposals will not be disclosed until negotiations are complete, but prior to action by the Board of Supervisors.” (FAQ, p. 9).

NEW QUESTION #1:
Why won’t the general public be given an opportunity to evaluate the content of competing proposals and make comments to the “evaluation committee” about the relative merits of each, prior to the final recommendation of that committee? Isn’t this more in keeping with the spirit of open government?

NEW QUESTION #2:
If the recommendation of the evaluation committee is to enter into a contract with one of the responding firms, will there be an opportunity — after the negotiations are complete, but before action is taken by the Board of Supervisors — for the public to review the complete proposal and then to make public comments to the Board?

I’m troubled by how late in the process the public will be allowed to see the contents of the proposals, as opposed to seeing merely the names of the responders, which will “be posted on the county’s website at www.mynevadacounty.com/purchasing on November 19, the day the proposals are received.”

Other questions occurred to me as I read the FAQ.

First, I had previously asked whether the clear requirement for contractor financial openness specified in section 5.6.6 of the RFP would automatically disqualify LSSI from consideration, since LSSI is reputed to keep that information secret. My question was sensibly and properly converted to a more generic form (without singling out LSSI) before it was posted and answered in the FAQ (emphasis mine):

QUESTION: Since Section 5.6.6 of Nevada County’s RFP for Library Services states that ”Contractor will provide the County with annual audited financial statements of the Company to demonstrate fiscal soundness,” will bids be rejected if they do not meet the requirement specified in Section 5.6.6?

ANSWER: Section 5 of the RFP lists all those services being requested by the County and the criteria that we would expect a service provider to meet. It is common in a process such as this to receive proposals that meet most, but not all, of the criteria, in which case the County would take that into consideration in evaluating the proposal. If that proposal was determined to be the best of those received, the County would negotiate with the provider, depending on how critical the unsatisfied criteria are to the County’s overall objectives. Section 3.7 of the RFP elaborates on this process.” (FAQ, p. 9)

This answer seems to imply that Nevada County might be willing to relax — or even drop? — the RFP section 5.6.6 requirement  for financial openness. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. I would expect that this requirement — alone among all the others contained in the RFP — would never be abandoned or even relaxed. This was near the top on the list of reasons that the town of Dartmouth, Massachusettes, decided to not contract with LSSI.

The Dartmouth report determined that “LSSI is a privately-held company and does not disclose earnings. We have no way of knowing how solvent they are, how much profit they make or how long they will be in business.”

Now, keep in mind the suggestion to treat the RFP Section 5.6.6 requirement for financial transparency as negotiable, while you read the answers to these other questions in the FAQ:

QUESTION: Does a contractor have an obligation to be transparent? Will it have to disclose to the Board or to county citizens its budget or how it’s using the County’s money?

ANSWER: The County would not be selling or giving the library system to a contractor. See FAQ on “Is the County proposing to sell the Libraries to a private company?” If the Board of Supervisors decides to enter into a contract for library services, the contract will be very detailed and spell out what services the contractor will perform, and for what costs. There would be very clear accountability for payments and services rendered, and the contract would be available for the public to inspect. The request for proposals (RFP) section 5.6, Budget and Finance, specifically requires the contractor to provide monthly and annual financial and performance reports, and allows the County to audit their company financial statements and files. In addition to this, the County-employed County Librarian would be continuously overseeing the contractor’s performance, and the current Citizen’s Oversight Committee will be monitoring sales tax revenue and inspecting the Library’s overall budget. Many items in the Library’s annual budget would not be under the control of the contractor at all, such as the materials budget which the County Librarian would be managing and approving all purchases. Read the RFP document for a deeper understanding of how a contract for library services would work. (FAQ, p. 8).

QUESTION: How will a contractor be monitored to ensure good service?

ANSWER: The County-employed County Librarian would be continuously overseeing the contractor’s performance and contract, and the current Citizen’s Oversight Committee would be monitoring sales tax revenue and inspecting the Library’s overall budget. The RFP section 5.6, Budget and Finance, specifically requires that the contractor provide monthly and annual financial and performance reports, and allows the County to audit their company financial statements and files. (FAQ, p.8).

Is it possible that the RFP Section 5.6.6 financial transparency requirement will be depicted as strict for the purpose of reassuring citizens about the ongoing outsourcing process, in advance of negotiating the actual contract, but will be construed as loose for the purpose of actually selecting a contractor?

This is worrisome. There do seem to be — in the FAQ — at least two contradictory characterizations of the RFP Section 5.6.6 financial transparency requirement, one loose and one strict.

When it comes down to negotiating the actual contract, that requirement will have to be included or abandoned.

Which will it be?

To be part of the discussion and submit your own questions to the FAQ, send email to LibraryDiscussion@co.nevada.ca.us.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Blog, Local
Library_Outsourcing, LocalJournalism

Post navigation

PREVIOUS
Science of H1N1 Flu (UC Panel Discussion)
NEXT
Where You Can Still See Wild Salmon Spawning

Join Our Mailing List

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

“Everlasting Arms”

Subscribe to Sierra Voices Journal

DONATE TO THE FOOD BANK OF NEVADA COUNTY

(CLICK IMAGE)

DONATE TO NEVADA COUNTY RELIEF FUND (click image below)

Jack Kornfield: A Steady Heart in Time of Corona Virus (Part I)

Erika Lewis, Shaye Cohn, Craig Flory – Got A Mind To Ramble

Tara Brach: A Steady Heart in Time of Corona Virus (Part II)

Recent Posts

  • Playing for Change
  • Like the Nazis & Fascists, the Republican Party Must Be Purged
  • “Blues Jam From Around the World” (Wonderful Six-Country Musical Collaboration)
  • What is mRNA? The messenger molecule that’s been in every living cell for billions of years is the key ingredient in some COVID-19 vaccines
  • How worried should you be about coronavirus variants? A virologist explains his concerns

Recent Comments

  • Hannah Flack on Is The Internet An Amplifier Of Crackpottery (Anti-Agenda 21, UN World Domination, Chemtrails …)?
  • STASIA KENNEDY on Have You Done the “Great Thing” You Dreamed of Doing With Your Life?
  • Board of Supervisors Tables COVID-19 Resolution Widely Misunderstood By Nevada County Residents on Comments by Eric Robins to Board of Supervisors Concerning “Open Nevada County” Resolution
  • Douglas Keachie on The Most Urgent Issue in U.S. Politics is Not Biden or Trump, Not Who is President This Time
  • The Most Important Issue in US Politics is Not Biden or Trump, or Even Who is President This Time on How to stop an Insurrection Caucus: These reforms could reduce GOP extremism and save our democracy

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009

Categories

  • Aging
  • Anti-Depressant
  • Articles
  • Atlas Obscura
  • Authoritarianism
  • Black Lives
  • Black Lives Matter
  • Blog
  • Buddhism
  • Buskers
  • Capitalism
  • Cartoon
  • China
  • Climate Change
  • Constitution
  • Corona Virus
  • Corruption
  • Cosmology
  • COVID-19
  • Democracy
  • Depression
  • Disenfranchisement
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Election Fraud
  • Environment
  • Extinction
  • Farming
  • Fascism
  • Filibuster
  • Fire!
  • Food Insecurity
  • Foreign Policy
  • Forest Management
  • Fracking
  • Gardening
  • Gender
  • GOP
  • Health Care
  • High Country News
  • History
  • Humor
  • Hunger
  • Ignorance
  • Immigration
  • Insects
  • Labor
  • Local
  • Masks
  • Medical Care
  • Men
  • Mental Health
  • Middle Class
  • Mining
  • MMT
  • Modern Monetary Theory
  • Music
  • Native Americans
  • New Cold War
  • Nutrition
  • Oligarchy
  • Pandemic
  • Parenting
  • Physics
  • Poetry
  • Police
  • Politics
  • Populism
  • Press
  • Race
  • Reviews
  • Revolution
  • Right-wing terrorism
  • Rise Gold
  • Rivers
  • Romance
  • Russiagate
  • Science
  • Summer
  • Technology
  • Trump Virus
  • Tuba Skinny
  • Tyranny
  • Uncategorized
  • Vaccine Refusal
  • Vaccine Safety
  • Voting
  • War
  • War on Government
  • Water
  • Watersheds
  • Wildfires
  • Winter
  • Work

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
© 2021   All Rights Reserved.