Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2000-162 RHW Consulting Services AgreementRESOLUTION NO. R-2000- 162 A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager of the City of Yakima to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with RHW Consulting Services, for the purpose of obtaining classification/reclassification services and studies. WHEARAS, the City of Yakima employs a work force of over 600 people; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the Yakima Municipal Code, the City requires that classification/reclassification services and studies be preformed and conducted for certain employment positions; and WHEREAS, the City does not have the staffing levels or specialized expertise necessary to provide said classification/reclassification services and studies; and WHEARAS, in early 1999, the City requested proposals from interested parties to provide said classification/reclassification services and studies; and WHEREAS, RHW Consulting Services, submitted a proposal to the City on March 24, 1999 and was selected as one of the successful proposers; and, WHEREAS, RHW Consulting Services is willing to provide the required classification/reclassification services and studies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Yakima to authorize execution of the attached agreement with RHW Consulting Services, for the purpose of obtaining classification/reclassification services and studies, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The City Manager of the City of Yakima is hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached and incorporated Consulting Services Agreement with RHW Consulting Services, for the purpose of obtaining classification/reclassification services and studies. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 19th day of December, 2000. ATTEST: Karen S. Roberts, City Clerk f.ZGe Marl lace, Mayor CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT, hereinafter the "Agreement", is made and entered by and between the City of Yakima, a Washington municipal corporation, hereinafter the "City", and RHW Consulting Services, a Washington limited liability corporation, hereinafter the "Consultant." WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter Civil Service Rules and Regulations and the Yakima Municipal Code, the City requires that classification/reclassification services and studies be performed and conducted for certain employment positions; and WHEREAS, in early 1999, the City requested proposals from interested parties to provide said classification/reclassification services and studies (hereinafter "RFP"); and WHEREAS, Prism Works, LLC, submitted a proposal and was selected by the City to provide said classification/reclassification services and studies; and WHEREAS, the City and Prism Works executed a contract for said services in 1999 but that contract has been terminated and the City still requires performance of the classification/reclassification services and studies; and WHEREAS, Consultant also submitted a proposal (hereinafter the "Proposal") to the City in response to the RFP; and WHEREAS, Consultant is willing to provide the classification/reclassification services and studies in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and conditions set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the City and Consultant as follows: 1. Professional Services. Consultant shall provide the City with the classification/reclassification services and studies described in the RFP and in the Consultant's Proposal. A copy of the RFP and the Proposal are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Resolution of Conflicting Language. Any inconsistencies or conflicts between the language of this Agreement, the RFP, and the Proposal shall be resolved in the following order: the language of the Agreement shall prevail over the language of the RFP and the Proposal; and the language of the RFP shall prevail over the language of the Proposal. Page 1 of 7 Ok)agr/avd service -prism works 99 pm 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of three (3) years, commencing upon full execution of this Agreement by the parties. The Agreement shall terminate on midnight, December 31, 2003, unless sooner terminated by either party in accordance with Section 20 of this Agreement. 4. Compensation. a. Compensation for Services. As consideration for the professional services performed pursuant to this Agreement, the City agrees to compensate the Consultant the flat rate of $875 (Eight hundred seventy-five dollars) per classification/reclassification study, including all costs and expenses. b. Payment for Compensation. The Consultant shall provide the City with an itemized invoice/billing no later than thirty (30) calendar days after services are provided. The City shall make payment to the Consultant within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of each invoice/billing All payments are expressly conditioned upon the Consultant providing professional services hereunder which are satisfactory to the City. c. Payment in the Event of Termination. In the event that either party terminates this Agreement under Section 20, the Consultant shall be compensated in accordance with the above terms for all satisfactory services provided to the City under this Agreement up to the effective termination date. d. Maintenance of Financial Records/Documents. When requested to do so by City representatives, the Consultant shall make the cost records, accounts and related financial documents pertaining to this Agreement available for inspection by City representatives during the term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3) years following the final payment to the Consultant by the City. In the event that any audit or inspection identifies any discrepancy in such financial records, the Consultant shall provide the City with appropriate clarification and/or financial adjustments within thirty (30) calendar days of notification of the discrepancy. 5. Status of Consultant. Consultant and the City understand and expressly agree that Consultant is an independent Consultant in the performance of each and every part of this Agreement. Consultant and its employees shall make no claim of City employment nor shall claim against the City any related employment benefits, social security, and/or retirement. 6. Taxes and Assessments. Consultant shall be solely responsible for compensating its employees and for paying all related taxes, deductions, and Page 2 of 7 assessments, including but not limited to, federal income tax, FICA, social security tax, assessments for unemployment and industrial injury, and other deductions from income which may be required by law or assessed against either party as a result of this Agreement. In the event the City is assessed a tax or assessment as a result of this Agreement, Consultant shall pay the same before it becomes due. 7. Nondiscrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, political affiliation, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in violation of any applicable federal, state and/or local law and/or regulation. This provision shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, and the provision of services under this Agreement. 8. The Americans with Disabilities Act. The Consultant shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA), and its implementing regulations, and Washington State's anti -discrimination law as contained in RCW Chapter 49.60 and its implementing regulations, with regard to the activities and services provided pursuant to this Agreement. The ADA provides comprehensive civil rights to individuals with disabilities in the area of employment, public accommodations, public transportation, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 9. Compliance with Law. Consultant agrees to perform all services under and pursuant to this Agreement in full compliance with any and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations adopted or promulgated by any governmental agency or regulatory body, whether federal, state, local, or otherwise. 10. No Conflict of Interest. Contractor represents that it or its employees do not have any interest and shall not hereafter acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of this Agreement. Contractor further covenants that it will not hire anyone or any entity having such a conflict of interest during the performance of this Agreement. 11. No Insurance. It is understood that the City does not maintain liability insurance on Consultant and/or its employees. 12. Hold Harmless and Indemnity. a. Consultant agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, Page 3 of 7 (Ik)agr/civil service -prism work 99 -pm demands, losses, liens, liabilities, penalties, fines, lawsuits, and other proceedings and all judgments, awards, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and disbursements) caused by or occurring by reason of any negligent act, error and/or omission of the Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and/or subcontractors, arising out of or in connection with the performance or non-performance of the services, duties, and obligations required of the Consultant under this Agreement. b. In the event that the Consultant and the City are both negligent, the Consultant's liability for indemnification of the City shall be limited to the contributory negligence for any resulting suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees and disbursements) that can be apportioned to the Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and/or subcontractors. c. Nothing contained in this Section or this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability or a right of indemnification in any third party. 13. Insurance provided by Consultant. a. Commercial Liability Insurance. On or before the date this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, the Consultant shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance as proof of commercial liability insurance with a minimum liability limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit bodily injury and property damage. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the amount of coverage, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in effect (any statement in the certificate to the effect of "this certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no right upon the certificate holder" shall be deleted). Said policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, and shall contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the City thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice (any language in the clause to the effect of "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company" shall be crossed out and initialed by the insurance agent). The insurance shall be with an insurance company or companies rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in the State of Washington. b. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. On or before the date this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, the Consultant shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance as proof of commercial automobile liability insurance with minimum liability limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit bodily injury and property damage. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the amount of coverage, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in effect (any statement in the certificate to the effect of "this certificate is Page 4 of 7 issued as a matter of information only and confers no right upon the certificate holder" shall be deleted). Said policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, and shall contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the City thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice (any language in the clause to the effect of "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company" shall be crossed out and initialed by the insurance agent). The insurance shall be with an insurance company or companies rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in the State of Washington. c. Insurance provided by Subcontractors. The Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors it utilizes for work/services required under this Agreement shall comply with all of the above insurance requirements. 14. Delegation of Professional Services. The services provided for herein shall be performed by Consultant, and no person other than regular associates or employees of Consultant shall be engaged upon such work or services except upon written approval of the City. 15. No Assignment. This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be assigned or transferred in whole or in part by Consultant to any other person or entity without the prior written consent of the City. In the event that such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the assignee shall assume all duties, obligations, and liabilities of Consultant stated herein. 16. Damages. If for any reason Consultant fails to provide the services specified in this Agreement and the City is forced to secure such services from another person or entity, Consultant shall be liable for any and all additional expenses to fulfill their obligation to the City under this Agreement. This provision shall not serve as a limitation upon other damages that may be available to the City pursuant to statutory and/or common law. 17. Integration and Modification. This Agreement sets forth all of the terms, conditions, and agreements of the parties relative to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all such former agreements which are hereby declared terminated and of no further force and effect upon the execution and delivery hereof. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in writing and executed by both parties. Page 5 of 7 (lk)agricivil service-pnsm works 99 -pm 18. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is changed per mutual agreement or any portion is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 19. Non -Waiver. The waiver of either the City or Consultant of the breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other party shall not operate and/or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter enforcing such provision. 20. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving the other party sixty (60) calendar days prior written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the City shall compensate Consultant for the services rendered through the termination date. 21. Notices. Unless stated otherwise herein, all notices and demands shall be in writing and sent or hand delivered to the parties to their addresses as follows: TO CITY: TO CONSULTANT: Chief Examiner Civil Service Commission City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Robert H. Weaver RHW Consulting Services 4704 Grandview Drive W University Place, WA 98466 or to such other addresses as the parties may hereafter designate in writing. Notices and/or demands shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or hand delivered. Such notices shall be deemed effective when mailed or hand delivered at the addresses specified above. 22. Survival. Any provision of this Agreement which imposes an obligation after termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the term or expiration of this agreement and shall be binding on the parties to this Agreement. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. Page 6 of 7 (Ik)ag/ci.'il urvoce prism works 99 -pm 24. Venue. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Yakima County, Washington. CITY OF YAKIMA By: Dated: Dick Zais, City Manager ATTEST: RHW CO ULTIN ERVICES By: . 1, L00 0 Dated: By: jG-w J City Clerk Dated: r °+ a 1, 000 City Contract No. 2000-105 Resolution No. R-2000-16 2 Page 7 of 7 (1k)ag/a vil emico-pnam woks 99 -pm Robert H. Weaver EXHIBIT A CITY OF YAKIMA REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR CHARTER CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATION/RECLASSIFICATION SERVICES 1. PURPOSE The City of Yakima Charter Civil Service requires classification and reclassification services regarding various employment positions. This document is intended to provide qualified firms with sufficient information to allow preparation and submission of a written proposal to the City of Yakima for consideration to provide these classification and reclassification services. Interested firms are hereby requested to submit a written proposal (Proposal") to the City of Yakima in accordance with the requirements, terms and conditions of this Request for Proposals ("RFP"). 2. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR SELECTION A firm submitting a successful Proposal should have substantial experience performing classification/reclassification services of the type described in this RFP. 3. COSTS A firm submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP is solely responsible for all costs and expenses associated with preparation and submission of such Proposal. 4. RESPONSE DATE In order to be considered for selection, a Proposal must be delivered to the City of Yakima, Carol Bates, Chief Examiner, Charter Civil Service Commission, 129 North 2nd Street, Yakima, WA 98901, on or before 5:00 p.m., Friday, March 26, 1999. All Proposals that are not received/delivered by said time shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected by the City. 5. ORAL PRESENTATION Any firm that submits a Proposal that is selected for final evaluation may be requested to make an oral presentation regarding the Proposal to appropriate City representatives. Such presentation will provide an opportunity for the firm to clarify and answer questions concerning the Proposal. 6. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE All material submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to public disclosure in accordance with the Washington State Public Disclosure Act, RCW Chapter 42.17, and all other applicable state and federal disclosure laws and regulations. 7. ADDENDUM TO THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS In the event that it becomes necessary for the City to revise any part of this RFP, the addendum to the RFP will be published and provided to interested firms in the same manner that this RFP is published and provided to interested firms. 8. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND RECLASSIFICATION CONSULTANT a. Conduct approximately 10-25 reclassifications of City employment positions per year. b. Provide fair and objective classification/reclassification services in accordance with the Charter Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Yakima, specifically Chapter IV, Classification Plan. Any interested firm may request a copy of said Rules and Regulations from the Chief Examiner. c. Provide classification/reclassification services in a manner consistent with the standard compensation/classification methodologies as established by the American Compensation Association. d. Review documents submitted regarding establishment of new job classification or reclassification of current position. e. Conduct on site job audit interviews with the job incumbents and supervisor. f. Conduct a salary survey of local public and private jurisdictions and/or regional public agencies, as appropriate to proposed new classification or a classification under review and as appropriate to the recruiting base, to measure external market equity and to appropriately reflect local labor market conditions. g. Develop class specification for new positions and update class specifications under review for reclassification, including ensuring that class specifications are consistent and in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, RCW Chapter 49.60, and other applicable state and/or federal law and regulations. h. Conduct a comparison of new classifications and classifications under review for reclassification with other City positions to evaluate internal equity. i. Prepare a comprehensive allocation and classification report and recommendations for each new classification or classification under review for reclassification. Such report shall include a description of job duties and responsibilities; if, applicable, primary changes in position; description of comparison with similar City positions; salary survey analysis; proposed class specification; and salary recommendation. When requested, prepare necessary agenda statement and ordinance for City Council consideration in order to implement classification and/or reclassification recommendations. k. When directed by the Chief Examiner, attend meetings of the Charter Civil Service Commission and/or the City Council in order to make a presentation and answer questions concerning any recommendations for a new classification or classification under review for reclassification. 1. When directed by the Chief Examiner, report to the City Council regarding consultant's overall observations and recommendations concerning the existing classification plan for City employees. 9. INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROPOSALS Proposals should address the following subjects and questions: a. Provide firm name, business address, date established and description of historical business background, including prior classification/reclassification experiences and services. b. List the volume of classifications/reclassifications provided during the previous five (5) years. c. Costs of classification/reclassification services. Itemize approximation by hours, average hours, number, and fees regarding the following items: i. Review of documents submitted in support of reclassification of current position or new job classification. ii. Job audit interview with incumbent and supervisor. iii. Salary survey(per position). iv. Preparation of comprehensive of allocation and classification report. v. Presentation of report to Charter Civil Service Commission. vi. Presentation of report to City Council. vii. Total fees on annual basis. viii. Estimated annual expenses (travel, lodging as necessary). ix. Total annual fees and expenses (maximum). d. Attach a list of current clients and former clients, which are public entities, political subdivisions or private clients similar to the City of Yakima, serviced during the last five (5) years. With respect to each client, list the person with the public entity, political subdivision or account, who was responsible for meeting with your principals in dealing with the classification and reclassification needs of the entity. e. Specify the name of the person in your firm who may be contacted directly to discuss the Proposal. f. Include the type of report that your office would provide on classification and/or reclassification activities beyond what has earlier been described as duties and responsibilities of the consultant. g. Include the local services your firm will or could provide in overseeing the City's classification and reclassification needs. h. Based on the aforementioned requirements set forth by the City, describe in a detailed statement the services which you feel would be needed by the City and how your firm would meet those needs. Set forth any other information you deem necessary to make a complete Proposal. Proposals must be effective for a period of 90 days from date of submission to permit review by City staff and award by the City Council. Cost quotes contained in Proposal should be verified before submission. The City will not be responsible for errors or omissions in Proposals nor will corrections be permitted subsequent to RFP opening. 10. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL a. The City reserves the right to determine which classification and/or reclassifications will be assigned to the consultant. b. Evaluation of Proposals. The City reserves the right to make an award directly based on the Proposals or to negotiate further with one or more of the firms. The firm selected for the award will be chosen on the basis of the greatest benefit to the City of Yakima. c. Rejection of Proposals. The City of Yakima reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals and to waive informalities. Any information obtained by the City from any sources may be utilized in determining the suitability of the consultant firm. d. Notification of Unsuccessful Proposals. Any Firm whose Proposal is rejected will be notified in writing. e. Contractual Obligations. The contents of the selected Proposal, together with this request, shall be considered as an irrevocable offer to contract and may be incorporated by reference into any final negotiated contract. Firms are invited to submit a contract document as part of the Proposal. The successful firm must be willing to incorporate all the results of contract negotiations into a final contract. f. Contract Term. The City expects to retain the selected consulting firm for a period of three years; provided, however, that either party shall have the right to terminate the contract with or without cause upon sixty (60) calendar days written notice. g. Communications. All communications with the City of Yakima concerning this RFP can be accomplished through Carol Bates, Chief Examiner (509-575-6090). h. Contact point. Each consulting firm submitting a Proposal should identify a single point of communication. The identified individual must be a person authorized to negotiate a contract on behalf of the firm submitting the Proposal. The submitting firm must also specify a person who will act as a contract administrator should an award be made, who will have full authority to resolve any dispute which may arise with the City concerning the performance contract. 11. SELECTION CRITERIA Final selection and recommendation to the City Council will be based on the following criteria: a. Responsiveness of Proposal to this R.F.P.; b. The demonstrated ability and capacity of the firm to provide services requested; c. The experience of the firm; and d. Costs of services offered by the firm. EXHIBIT B RHW CONSULTING SERVICES 4704 GRANDVIEW DRIVE WEST UNIVERSITY PLACE, WA 98466 (253)564-2477 March 21, 1999 Ms. Carol Bates, Chief Examiner City of Yakima 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Ms. Bates: Attached is my response to your Request for Proposals for reclassification and/or classification for the City of Yakima which I received March 11, 1999 I appreciate the opportunity to showcase the services 1 can provide for you. Even though I have not provided services as a consultant previously, I believe my 24 years in the field of human resource management which has include extensive involvement in classification and reclassification activities has well prepared me to meet your needs. Currently, I serve as the D rector of Personnel for Pierce County, Washington where we provide services for approximately 2,800 employees and I supervise a staff of 21 and manage a budget of nearly $2 million. If selected as your consulting contractor, Iwill provide services to you as an ancillary to my primary duties for Pierce County. My plans currently to retire from the public service at the end of next year and return to the Yakima Valley where I will reside and from which I will operate my consulting services. At that time I will be able to offer expanded services to the City of Yakima depending on your needs, if I can clarify my proposal in any way, please contact me at the above telephone number and I will return your call as soon as possible. Robert H. Weaver RHW CONSULTING SERVICES RHW CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSAL 1. NA ME: RHW CONSULTING SERVICES BUSINESS ADDRESS: 4704 Grandview Drive W., University Place, WA 98466 E STA B L 1 S H E D: February, 1999 with over 24 years of prior human resource management experience with public sector employers including Pierce County, WA; City of Yakima, WA; Yakima County, WA; and, Greater Anchorage Area Borough, AK (now consolidated as the Municipality of Yakima). The most significant prior experience in classification and reclassification services includes 8.5 years with the City of Yakima which included the phase 4 oversight review of the last major classification review conducted there, and, currently nearly 12 years with Pierce County which includes responsibility for classification and reclassification services. 2. Volume of classifications/reclassifications during the last five years My staff currently includes 3 Personnel Analysts and the Civil Service Chief Examiner who perform all of our classification/reclassification studies. During the past 5 years, we have performed between 60 and 80 studies each year in addition to advertising 250-350 position vacancies or register creations. Our system at Pierce County is significantly less formal than that of the City of Yakima. Currently, my staff determines the appropriate pay rate of new classifications and reclassified positions and reviews their determinations with users and also with organized labor as may be required. If collective or impact bargaining is necessary, then that is also done before the process continues. Whether the determination is bargained or not, the result is then recommended to the County Executive whose acceptance is final without appeal. Because of the nature of our process, we do not prepare formal reports and any discussions are usually conducted using notes and other work papers. We also may make salary range adjustments for existing classifications if I, as Personnel Director, determine that the existing pay range is insufficient to enable the County to attract and retain well qualified employees. Usually those recommendations are made with a more extensive written report. On occasion I have prepared those reports and I have attached a coy of a report I did several years ago when we had difficulty attracting and retaining Planners. The result was an increase in both the pay range for Planners and the number of hours they were compensated in a week. I have also attached a copy of a new class description I wrote in December, 1998 based on consultations with the appointing authority. 3. Itemized cost of service a. Review of documents: 1 hr per document b. Job audit interview: 3 hrs, employee/supervisor combined c. Salary Survey: d. Report Preparation: e. Report to CCSC: f. Report to Council: g. Total annual fees: h. Estimated expenses: Total fees and expenses: $250 per classification flat rate 3 hrs per report hrs. included in d. hrs. included in d $17,875 based on 25 studies conducted $4,175 based on 25 studies conducted $22,050 Alternative funding proposal: The above proposal is based on a high of 25 classification studies and would average $882 per study all costs included. While there is a potential that fewer studies will be required, most recent history suggests that the higher trend will probably continue. If 15 studies were conducted, the total fees and expenses would be $13,965. I would offer the City of Yakima a flat -rate contract to conduct as many as 25 classification and/or reclassification studies for S15,000 per year including fees and expenses. Any classification or reclassification studies beyond 25 would be an additional expense outside of the contract amount and charged a flat rate of $750 each including all fees and expenses. These rates would be satisfactory for the three years advertised for the initial contract. 4. List of Clients in Last 5 Years: Pierce County: Major departmental users John Trent, Director of Public Works and Utilities Mark French, Sheriff 5. Contact for Proposal Clarification: Robert H. (Bob) Weaver 6. Description of Report: If desired, a report similar to that provided in the RFP would be acceptable. However, I would recommend placing a greater emphasis on describing how and why the duties of the position changed beyond the scope of the existing class specification and chronicle the importance of the change. I believe emphasis must also be directed to the analysis of the added duties which, although not specifically delineated in the class specification, may well be duties related to the initial class and accordingly, included in the class specification by reference. It is not uncommon for employees not to perform the full scope of duties of a classification when initially hired or for a position not to be assigned the full scope of the duties of the classification. It is also common, and indeed that it is the case with the City of Yakima, that the class specification is set forth in general terms and the duties cited therein are examples only and are not intended to fully describe the class as a whole and do not prescribe exact duties (Civil Service Rules, Chapter IV.C). I think, unless required locally, that the currently used report could be amended so that (t did not give the impression that it is a copy of the class specification segmented into areas of duties. That could be handled with an expanded summary of the duties and ..mplified by the expansion of the explanation of changes suggested above. Finally, 1 think the factoring analysis should be considered only as one of the tools used in reaching a salary recommendation and not as an absolute indicator of salary placement. Other factors such as internal and external comparisons to similar positions, turnover rate in related classifications, and ease/difficulty in attracting sufficient numbers of well skilled workers must also be given extensive consideration. The discussion of the comparison to similar City classifications is important but it must be extensively chronicled as it can also cause additional reclassification requests to be submitted in subsequent years because the studied classification was reclassified. Care must be taken in the discussion of the comparatives to clearly delineate the similarities and the differences as well so that future employee concerns can be addressed at the onset rather than through the reclassification review request process. 7 Local Services to be provided: This proposal only responds to the specific classification/reclassification services requested of the consultant in item 8 of the RFP. However, it is expected that there may be times when clarification of the language of the class specification work product may be necessary. The services included in this proposal would include telephone conferences with City of Yakima officials including the Chief Examiner, Appointing Authority or Human Resources Department. They do not include conferences with individual employees or their representatives after the proposals have been submitted to the Civil Service Commission. Beginning in the year 2001 and after relocating to Yakima, additional services may be made available either under separate contract or as an addendum to the contract for classification/reclassification services. Those would include screening applications, developing oral examination questions, assisting the appointing authority in generating behaviorally oriented job interview questions. Services could also be provided to provide training to managers in conducting job interviews which would also include developing job interview questions. 8. STATEMENT OF SERVICES NEEDED: Chapter IV of the Civil Service Rules contemplates a systematic and timely reclassification process. That requires a prompt response by the consultant. Interviews with employees and supervisors will begin not less than 30 days after receipt of reclassification requests approved for study by the Chief Examiner with completion within 90 days of receipt. The studies will include on-site visits with employees and supervisors to fully understand the job and the changes. Draft class specification revisions or new class specifications in the event of a new classification will be provided to employees and supervisors to ensure that no significant job duties are missed. Care will be taken to identify those job duties which are essential functions of the job under the ADA. Not included in the materials I received was any indication that the appointing ,authority may remove duties from a position in order to restrict the employee to performing the duties of the original classification. My years of dealing with assification issues has taught me that often employees assume duties because they *Neve they are necessary and that the supervisor or appointing authority may not know or realize that the duties have been assumed. I believe that only assigned duties should be considered for reclassification which prevents employees from creating their own position. All reclassifications should be the result of assigned duties rather than assumed duties. One of the things I would do is ensure that the duties have been assigned to the employee via questions during employee and supervisor meetings. The RFP suggests that 15-25 classification studies are done annually. This seems high in light of approximately 700 City employees. That may indicate ineffective management supervisions and assignment of tasks. It may also indicate a need to consider broad -banding certain classifications as was done in the last comprehensive study conducted at the City. Over years, there is a tendency to create new classifications because a few duties are not referenced in the initial class specification. 1 would take care to review the current class specification and others in related classification series to determine if a totally new class specification is necessary or if an existing classification in its broad definition would meet the City 's needs. 9. Effectiveness of proposal: This proposal is effective for 90 days or until the conclusion of your RFP process if it extends beyond that date. BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.' For Meeting Of December 19, 2000 ITEM TITLE: A resolution authorizing the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement for Conducting Classification/Reclassification Studies. SUBMITTED BY: Carol Bates, Chief Examiner CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Carol Bates, x6090 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: This resolution authorizes the execution of a Professional Services Agreement with RHW Consulting Services for conducting annual recurring classification/reclassification studies in compliance with Chapter IV, Section D, of the Charter Civil Service Rules and Regulations. This agreement will assist with alleviating the backlog of reclassifications, which currently exists Citywide. The estimated total cost for a three-year period is approximately $22,000.00 The cost is not to exceed $875.00 per classification. The cost may be accommodated within existing budget appropriations of the various divisions involved. Resolution Ordinance X Contract Other (Specify) Personal Services Contract Contract Mail to (name and address) Phone Funding Source Operating Budgets of the affected Divisions APPROVED FOR SUBMIT], AL: City Manager BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Recommend Approval Recommend Approval Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NCL, R-2000-162 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: