Board delays decision on $7.5 million workforce contract after protest

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17 did not approve a recommended three‑year service agreement (PC 9133) with the Oakland Private Industry Council and instead continued the item to a future meeting after a protest and appeal by a rival bidder.

At issue is a contract the board letter described as a three‑year procurement that would pass through an estimated $7,500,000 for training and related workforce services across multiple East Bay Workforce Investment Boards. HR Management, represented by Stephen Copeland and Clarence Hunt, told the board the contract should be split into two awards to increase contracting opportunities for small, local firms and to ensure greater vendor diversity. Copeland said HR Management is a locally owned certified small business and that the current award process favored a single incumbent.

Clarence Hunt urged the board to instruct staff to break the contract into two pieces, saying the bid covers services for both Alameda and Contra Costa counties and that two vendors could jointly provide roughly $7.5 million in services to Alameda County and about $3 million to Contra Costa County.

Richard de Hauregui, director of planning and program oversight for the Oakland Private Industry Council, defended his organization’s record. He said the majority of the $7.5 million are pass‑through training dollars — on‑the‑job training, individual training accounts and vocational training — and described performance monitoring conducted by East Bay Works and the WIBs over the prior 12 years.

County staff and a Workforce Investment Board representative (presenting the item) told supervisors this was the first time the contract had been put out to competitive RFP. The auditor’s office reported it reviewed nine issues raised in HR Management’s appeal and did not substantiate any of them, according to an auditor’s representative who read the appeal findings into the record.

Supervisors pressed staff for more documentation. Several members said they had not seen the RFP or the auditor’s written findings before the meeting and asked for copies. One supervisor said he was not prepared to vote today and would want to review the RFP, the auditor’s report, any performance measures and options for breaking the contract into multiple awards.

Given the pending protest and the county’s need to avoid a lapse in vendor pay‑agent services after Sept. 30, staff said it could potentially extend the current contract for 30–60 days if necessary. The board agreed to continue the item to the next meeting so members could review the RFP and the auditor’s findings and consider options.

The board took no final vote on the contract at the Sept. 17 meeting; the item was continued.