Active SLED Opportunity · CALIFORNIA · COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CA
AI Summary
County of Alameda seeks a contractor for a comprehensive classification and compensation study for the District Attorney's Office. The study includes job classification review, labor market analysis, and compensation assessment to ensure internal equity and external competitiveness. The contract is for three years with an option to renew.
It is the intent of these specifications, terms, and conditions to describe classification and compensation study services for the District Attorney’s Office being requested by the County Human Resource Services.
The County intends to award a three-year contract (with the option to renew for two years) to the Bidder selected as the most responsive, responsible Bidder whose response conforms to the RFP and meets the County’s requirements.
The classification and compensation study will be a comprehensive review and analysis of the current classification structure and compensation practices within the District Attorney’s (DA) Office. The study will evaluate the appropriateness, consistency, and competitiveness of classifications and salaries to ensure they align with the County’s organizational needs, labor market standards, and strategic goals. The labor market analysis should include comparisons with San Mateo County, Contra Costa County, Santa Clara County, City and County of San Francisco, and Marin County.
The classification study will involve a thorough examination of existing job classifications to determine their accuracy, relevance, and alignment with actual duties performed. In the DA’s office, there are 557 total allocated positions of which 411 are currently filled. There are 58 different classifications used in the DA’s Office, including the DA. The table below is a report that shows the job classifications to be studied, and the number of employees assigned to each position:
Job Classification | Employee Count |
Account Clerk II | 1 |
Accounting Technician | 1 |
Admin Assistant | 1 |
Admin Services Assistant | 7 |
Admin Services Officer | 3 |
Admin Specialist II | 3 |
Application Systems Engineer I | 1 |
Assist Chief of Inspectors | 1 |
Asst DA II-Senior Deputy DA II | 3 |
Asst DA I-Senior Deputy DA I | 28 |
Audio Visual Specialist | 1 |
Captain of Inspectors | 1 |
Chief Asst District Attorney | 1 |
Child Support Supervisor I | 1 |
Clerk I | 2 |
Clerk II | 7 |
Collection Enforcement Deputy I | 1 |
Collection Enforcement Deputy II | 2 |
Crime Analyst | 1 |
Data Input Clerk | 1 |
Departmental HR Officer | 1 |
Deputy District Attorney | 118 |
District Attorney | 1 |
Eligibility Support Clerk | 1 |
Financial Services Officer | 2 |
Forensic Auditor | 1 |
Fund Deve and Grant Specialist | 1 |
Human Resources Technician | 2 |
Info Systems Coordinator | 1 |
Info Systems Manager | 1 |
Info Systems Specialist | 1 |
Info Systems Tech II | 2 |
Inspector I | 2 |
Inspector II | 46 |
Inspector III | 7 |
Investigative Assistant | 1 |
Legal Assistant SAN | 10 |
Legal Secretary | 14 |
Legal Stenographer | 7 |
Lieutenant of Inspectors | 4 |
Management Specialist | 4 |
Mental Health Specialist II | 2 |
Mental Health Specialist III | 23 |
Policy Director | 1 |
Program Administrator II | 1 |
Program Services Coordinator | 1 |
Program Specialist | 13 |
Property and Salv Supervisor | 1 |
Public Assistance Investigator | 5 |
Rehabilitation Counselor I | 7 |
Rehabilitation Counselor II | 1 |
Retired Annuitants | 9 |
Senior Program Specialist | 8 |
Stenographer I | 23 |
Stenographer II | 12 |
Supervising Clerk I | 3 |
Supervising Clerk II | 4 |
Supervising Clerk III | 3 |
Total | 411 |
The compensation study will assess both internal equity and external market competitiveness. The County has not had any prior internal or external compensation studies within the last five years.
The Contractor is expected to deliver a comprehensive, data-driven classification and compensation framework for the DA’s Office that ensures roles are accurately defined, internally equitable, and externally competitive with comparable Bay Area jurisdictions, supported by actionable recommendations and stakeholder-validated findings.
Attendee List for 902714 Classification and Compensation for District Attorney's Office
Please review all questions and answers while preparing for your submission in order to submit a qualified bid submission.
A. Completeness of Response
Responses to this RFP must be complete. Responses must address all the requirements identified within this RFP and all related documents, including any Addenda. Failure to meet the Bidder Minimum Qualifications may also be considered an incomplete response and may result in the disqualification of the Bidder.
A. Debarment and Suspension
Bidders, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM.
The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest responsive and responsible bid received by each Bidder’s total proposed cost.
Cost evaluation points may be adjusted by considering:
Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP specifications, bid response, and the questions below:
1. How well does the Bidder’s cost capture all activities needed to meet the deliverables requested?
2. How well is the proposed cost based on the nature of the services to be provided?
3. How well does the Cost Narrative detail how Bidder arrived at the calculations?
Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:
1. How well has Bidder demonstrated a clear, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to conducting both the classification and compensation study?
2. How robust and well-defined is the proposed methodology for reviewing and validating classifications, including PDQs, interviews, and FLSA considerations?
3. How effective is the proposed approach to evaluating internal equity and external competitiveness, including benchmarking against comparable Bay Area jurisdictions?
4. How clear, realistic, and well-structured are the proposed project timeline, milestones, and deliverables (including reports and presentations)?
5. How well does the Bidder outline strategies for engaging employees, management, and stakeholders to ensure accurate data collection and acceptable results?
Proposals will be evaluated, including considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:
1. How relevant and extensive is the Bidder’s experience conducting classification and compensation studies of similar size, scope, and complexity?
2. How strong is the Bidder’s experience working with public sector agencies, particularly California counties or similar labor markets?
3. To what extent does the Bidder demonstrate expertise in classification analysis, compensation design, and compliance (e.g., FLSA)?
4. How strong is Bidder’s track record of successful project outcomes, including implementation of recommendations and client satisfaction?
5. How qualified and experienced are the proposed project team members, and do they meet or exceed the minimum requirements outlined in the RFP?
Services or goods provided by Bidders to the references should have similar scope, volume, and requirements to those outlined in these specifications, terms, and conditions.
Bidder must currently be providing goods and/or services for at least two of the references or have done so within the last five years.
Bidders should verify that the contact information for all references provided is current and valid. If a reference cannot be contacted, it may affect the qualification and scoring of the Bidders’ bid proposals.
Bidders are strongly encouraged to notify all references that the County may be contacting them to obtain a reference.
The County may contact some or all the references provided in order to determine items such as Bidders’ years of experience and performance records on work similar to that described in this request.
The County reserves the right to contact individuals/entities for references other than those provided in the Response and to use any information obtained in the evaluation process.
NOTE: Bidders should not list the County department requesting services/goods as part of the references.
Please confirm that both your response and the Bid Form have been uploaded here.
Please confirm that your RFP Exhibit A response has been uploaded here.
Will there be an evaluation committee to review the proposals and score them based on weights and multiple criteria?
Select the information you would like display.
Q (No subject): The Statement of Work states that the consultant is to work with HRS to determine the specific classifications included in the classification review. Does the DA’s Office anticipate that not all 58 classification will be reviewed for classification purposes? If not, which ones? It will be important to know the number of classifications and the number of allocated positions to ensure our proposal reflects these two variables accurately in our cost. Or should we assume that all 58 classifications and 411 incumbents will be included in the classification phase of the study?
A: All classifications within the District Attorney (DA)’s office at the time of the study will be included. At this time, that includes 58 classifications occupied by 411 incumbents. Contractor will work with HRS to examine what those 58 classifications are, what their job descriptions indicate they should be doing; then the Contractor will study what employees in those classes in the DA’s office are doing.
Q (No subject): The RFP refers to the inclusion of vacant classifications. Can you please provide a list of these so that we can see the number of vacant classifications?
A: The County is interested in the Contractor studying the individuals currently employed at the DA’s office and using that information to determine the appropriate classifications and compensation. This may require the creation of new classifications. There are currently 58 total classifications in use in the DA’s Office; the County would like all classifications to be studied. Please review the Scope on page 5 and 6 of the RFP for the list of classifications.
Q (No subject): As part of the classification recommendations, does the DA’s Office want the consultant to include individual allocation recommendations for each incumbent included in the study, or is the main focus of the study the updating of classification descriptions? Is the DA’s Office concerned about many employees currently being misclassified?
A: Both. The County requests the Contractor to study individual employees, and as a result, it may require the establishment of new classes. The County anticipates that many new classes will need to be established. The County requires the work of everyone to be studied so that each employee can be properly classified.
Q (No subject): Many of the classifications on the DA’s Office’s list appear broad and are most likely used by other departments across the County. What is the DA’s Office’s expectation that County HR will be open to any significant changes to the County-wide classifications? Can you please identify which of your 58 classifications are indeed County-wide?
A: The intent is to establish unique classifications for the DA’s Office, rather than to continue using Countywide classes. As such, no changes to the Countywide classes should be necessary. 48 of the 58 classes currently used by the DA’s Office are Countywide classes.
Q (No subject): Regarding the compensation phase of the project, the RFP lists 5 Bay Area counties as comparisons. Is this a predetermined fixed list or is the DA’s Office open to adding additional comparison agencies? We typically recommend surveying 10-12, and no fewer than 8. Is this approach acceptable? Does the DA’s Office have a preference on which number you prefer?
A: The County’s preference is for the study to focus on the 5 Bay Area Counties as those are the closest market match. This is a pre-determined, fixed list. Surveys of 8, 10 to 12 are not acceptable.
Q (No subject): The RFP indicates that the compensation survey is to include base salary ranges. Please confirm that the DA’s Office is not interested in any benefits data or additional compensation elements to be included in the survey.
A: Correct. The study should be based on base pay rate only, and not on benefits.
Q (No subject): Is registration on SAM.gov a requirement for participation in the selection process?
A: No, SAM.gov registration is not a requirement for participation in the selection process. However, per page 13 of the RFP, Section H. (EVALUATION CRITERIA/SELECTION COMMITTEE) Item 14. A. states: Bidders, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM.
Q (No subject): Is the County comfortable with the study being conducted virtually with no on-site visits?
A: Bidders should describe their proposed methodology within the bid response. Per page 9 of the RFP, Section D. (SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS) Item 6 states: Contractor must present results to HRS management and other stakeholders as requested. Bidders must be open to either remote or in-person presentation at the County’s discretion.
Q (No subject): Please provide more information regarding the County’s Small and Emerging Locally Owned Business requirements, especially the requirement to subcontract with one or more County certified small and/or emerging local businesses for at least twenty percent (20%) of the total bid amount in order to be considered for contract award. Is there a cap or maximum amount, or is it 20%, no matter what the bid amount is?
A: There is no cap or maximum amount, and it is a minimum of 20% of the total estimated bid amount. Page 6 of the Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet states: Bidders that are not certified SLEBS (for the definition of a SLEB, see Alameda County SLEB Program Overview; [http://acgov.org/auditor/sleb/overview.htm]) are required to subcontract with a SLEB for at least 20% of the total estimated bid amount in order to be eligible for contract award. SLEB subcontractors must be independently owned and operated from the prime Contractor with no employees of either entity working for the other. A copy of this form must be submitted for each SLEB that the Bidder will subcontract with as evidence of a firm contractual commitment to meeting the SLEB participation requirement.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.