City Non-Profit Contracting Task Force
May 21, 2003
10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Minutes
Present:
Representing Non-Profit Community:
Bruce Rice, Huckleberry Youth (representing Jim Illig, Project Open Hand)
Merrill Buice, Huckleberry Youth (representing Salvador Menjvar, Hamilton Family Center)
Tony Michelini, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco
Tiffany Mock-Goeman, Continuum
Sandy Mori, Kimochi, Inc.
Nancy Rubin, Edgewood Center
Representing City Departments:
Judith Blackwell, Office of Contract Administration
Gene Coleman, Mayor’s Office of Community Development
David Curto, Dept. of Human Services
John Haskell (representing Ed Harrington, Controller)
Anne Okubo, Dept. of Public Health
Larry Ross, Dept of Aging & Adult Services
Others:
Winnie Xie, Dept. on the Status of Women
Staff:
Bob Davis, Dept. of Administrative Services
Henny Lee, Dept. of Administrative Services
Co-Chair Rubin called the meeting to order at 10:10 a.m.
Consent Calendar:
Motioned, seconded, and approved the May 14 Meeting Minutes.
Report of the Co-Chairs:
The Co-Chair had nothing to report.
The Co-Chair asked that the Task Force review the discussions that occurred at the last meeting since a number of Task Force members were absent and sent alternates instead.
Discussion & Possible Action Items:
Agenda Item 5, Recommendation #1: Implementation Plan – Report to the Board of Supervisors, Report from the Implementation Plan Report Committee:
The Committee did not meet on Thursday, May 15. However, the Committee Chair outlined some ideas regarding Recommendation #9, and asked the Task Force to provide guidance. The discussion is summarized in Agenda Item 7.6 below.
Agenda Item 6.1, Recommendation #11: Whenever possible, coordinate one joint program monitoring visit per year per contract by a lead City department. Departments will provide timely written notice of 14 days as well as a timely written report back within 30 days, if possible, but not beyond 90 days. Fiscal site visits should utilize other City department visits within a twelve-month period.
- Dept of Aging and Adult Services to review and report on their practice of auditing non-profit contractors who have completed a recent independent audit as being duplicative or unnecessary.
The Department of Aging and Services representative distributed the following in an e-mail to the Task Force in advance for discussion at the meeting:
“The Aging contract funding source, the California Department of Aging, will accept independent audits as a starting point, then proceed to require a specific audit of the revenues and expenditures related to the individual programs (eg case management, congregate nutrition, community services) funded by their grants.
As the Department (and the City) no longer has sufficient resources to procure these audits, DAAS will attempt to negotiate a less expensive alternative with CDA.
OMB 133A audits with an additional schedule of functional expenses which includes individual columns for individual DAAS programs may work for certain contractors, however most DAAS contractors are not required to obtain an OMB 133A audit. Neither the department nor the City has the resources (typically $7,500-$15,000) to pay for each independent OMB 133A audit for all its contractors.”
The following summarizes the Task Force’s discussion at the meeting:
The Dept. of Aging and Adult Services will no longer have outside auditors conduct audits of their non-profit contractors.
Non-profit contractors should acquire their own independent outside audit. However, not every non-profit contractor can afford such an audit.
The Dept. of Human Service conducts a spot check (financial assessment) of the non-profit contractors if they have not completed a A133 audit.
Controller’s Office to develop standards for auditing non-profits not requiring a OMB 133A audit.
7.6 Recommendation #9: Create a review/appellate process for substantive changes to standardized requirements.
The following summarizes the discussions regarding this recommendation:
- The recommendation originated from non-profit contractors having issues with certain individuals and departments imposing additional services and/or reporting requirements beyond the contract’s scope of work without a formal process and/or additional compensation.
- Some contractors perform the additional requirements for fear of jeopardizing their contracts.
- These additional requirements are then carried over to subsequent contracts.
- There three levels of concern:
- At the highest level is additions/changes to existing policies imposed by funders and commissions to departments.
- The mid level is departmental managers not implementing uniform systems, processes and procedures and training staff consistent with the additional/changed policies and resolving any issues that contractors may have as a result.
- At the lowest level is the additions/changes to existing procedures imposed inconsistently by departmental staff on their contractors to perform the work as amended.
- Contractors do not necessarily know of or utilize the current appeal/grievance process, i.e. department heads, commissions, City Administrator, and the Mayor’s Office.
- Each department should have a formalized appeals/grievance process, departmental staff trained, and contractors informed.
- Add appeals language to the City’s Administrative Code.
- What goes to the appellate body?
- Departments wanting to change something outside of the new standards.
- Work in advance when changes are to be made.
- Not a forum to contest the awarding of contracts.
Agenda Item 8.4, Recommendation #18. Create a standard and simplified set of forms that: a) do not duplicate data from one section to another; b) are consistent, simplified, and non-duplicative; c) allows contractors to provide all needed data in a standardized format for all departments; and d) reflects the minimum requirements of the funding source.
The following summarizes the discussions of the Task Force regarding this recommendation:
- The Dept. of Public Health will complete their forms consolidation work and other departments will review the forms for their own use.
- Consolidating and standardizing forms within departments make sense but across departments may be impractical.
- Standardized forms across departments however will be required in order to conduct joint monitoring.
- Implementing standardized forms across departments reflects a standardized process or established guidelines for contracting and monitoring.
- Appendix (Exhibit) A of the P-500 Professional Services Contract form will be discussed at the next meeting.
Agenda Items: See May 28 Agenda
Public Comment: None
Adjournment: 12:05 p.m.
