RFP 902732 County of Alameda Treasury Pool Evaluation Services

It is the intent of these specifications, terms, and conditions to describe the County of Alameda Treasury Pool evaluation services being requested by the County.

The County intends to award a one-year contract (with the option to renew for one year) to the Bidder selected as the most responsive and responsible Bidder whose response conforms to the RFP and meets the County’s requirements.

Background

The County of Alameda (“County”), through the County Administrator’s Finance Advisory Ad Hoc Committee, seeks to procure an independent consultant to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the County Treasurer’s Investment Pool (“Pool”). The evaluation must cover at least the previous five (5) years.

The evaluation will assess the Pool’s historical performance, governance practices, benchmarking methodologies, and reporting practices, and identify opportunities for improvement consistent with industry best practices.

The evaluation must include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

• Investment decisions and historical performance of the Pool, including peer review comparisons with public investment pools and simulations of Pool performance using alternative or best-practice investment strategies or models.

• Performance benchmarks, including an assessment of the current and prior benchmarks currently used by the County Treasurer and recommendations regarding industry best practices for benchmarking public investment pools.

• Reporting practices, including a review of the County Treasurer’s historical reporting on the Pool, any changes to reporting methodologies or benchmarks over time, and the effectiveness and transparency of such reporting.

• Investment advisory structures used by peer groups, including governance models and the use of third-party investment advisors among peer public investment pools.

• The potential impacts of the County’s recently adopted Ethical Investment Policy (“EIP”), which has not yet been implemented, including a review of similar ethical investment policies implemented by other public entities and their potential impacts on investment performance, risk management, and portfolio composition.

The selected consultant will prepare a written report summarizing the findings of the evaluation and providing recommendations, if any, for consideration by the County. The consultant will also provide an oral presentation of the findings and recommendations to County staff and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.

Beyond considerations related to the EIP, the consultant will also review and evaluate current investment management practices associated with the Pool, including the reporting of investment performance, the use of benchmarks, and the rate of return of the Pool, and provide observations or recommendations as appropriate.

In addition, the selected consultant will provide advice related to the Ethical Investment Policy (EIP) and other practices raised in connection with that policy. This review will include consideration of the proposed EIP criteria, including the definition and interpretation of the criteria, the potential impact of such criteria on investment decisions and portfolio returns, and the methodologies that may be used to identify, screen (in or out), distinguish, and monitor investments to ensure compliance with the policy’s goals and standards.

Project Details

• Reference ID: 902732
• Department: General Services Agency-Procurement
• Department Head: Detra Dillon (Purchasing Administrator)

Important Dates

• Questions Due: 2026-05-06T00:00:00.000Z
• Pre-Proposal Meeting: 2026-05-04T16:00:00.000Z — https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/284516000738633?p=FGAqkAVBbW7z0vdy6o

Evaluation Criteria

• Completeness of Response (1 pts) —

  Responses to this solicitation must be complete.  Responses must address all the requirements identified within this solicitation 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.

• Debarment and Suspension (1 pts) —

  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.

• Cost and Cost Narrative (100 pts) —

  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:

  1. Reasonableness (i.e., how well does the proposed pricing accurately reflect the Bidder’s effort to meet requirements and objectives?).
  2. Realism (i.e., is the proposed cost appropriate to the nature of the products and/or services to be provided?).
• Description of Proposed Services and Technical Approach (100 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications, Bidder’s response submitted in the corresponding section of Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet, and the questions below:

  1. How complete and well-aligned are Bidder’s proposed services with the Scope of Work, including evaluation of investment performance, benchmarking, reporting, governance, and the Ethical Investment Policy (EIP)?
  2. How clearly and comprehensively does Bidder define the specific services, tasks, deliverables, and project schedule for the engagement?
  3. How thorough and well-structured is Bidder’s technical approach to project initiation, data collection, validation, and evaluation of investment-related information?
  4. How robust and appropriate is Bidder’s approach to evaluate investment performance, including benchmarking, peer comparisons, and risk, return, and liquidity analysis?
  5. How well does Bidder’s approach incorporate industry best practices and demonstrate an understanding of current trends in public sector investment management and ethical investing?
• Description of Relevant Experiences (100 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications, Bidder’s response submitted in the corresponding section of Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet, and the questions below:

  1. How extensive and relevant is Bidder’s experience in providing portfolio management, asset management, or investment advisory services for public entities, particularly treasury investment pools?
  2. How strong is Bidder’s expertise in fixed income investments, public funds investing, and portfolio performance analysis?
  3. How knowledgeable is Bidder regarding applicable laws and regulations, including California Government Code Section 53601 et seq., as demonstrated through prior work?
  4. How strong is Bidder’s demonstrated track record of achieving successful outcomes or measurable results in similar engagements?
• Analytical Capabilities and Reporting (75 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications, Bidder’s response submitted in the corresponding section of Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet, and the questions below:

  1. How strong are Bidder’s analytical capabilities in evaluating portfolio performance, benchmarking, and simulation of alternative or best-practice investment strategies?
  2. How effective is Bidder’s approach to review and enhance reporting practices, including clarity, transparency, and methodologies for Book Yield, Book Return, and Market Yield?
  3. How well does Bidder demonstrate the ability to assess governance structures, advisory frameworks, and industry best practices for public investment pools?
  4. How clear, organized, and effective is Bidder’s approach to deliver written reports and presentations to County staff and governing bodies?
• Project Management and Independence (75 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications, Bidder’s response submitted in the corresponding section of Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet, and the questions below:

  1. How clear, feasible, and well-coordinated is Bidder’s proposed project schedule, milestones, and overall project management approach?
  2. How effective is Bidder’s approach to coordination, communication, and ongoing engagement with County staff and stakeholders?
  3. How well does Bidder demonstrate independence and the ability to identify, disclose, and manage conflicts of interest?
  4. How well does Bidder demonstrate its ability to act in a fiduciary capacity and maintain confidentiality of County information?
  5. How well does Bidder identify potential project risks and propose strategies to mitigate those risks?
• Reference (50 pts)
• Small Local Emerging Business Preference (ADMIN SCORING) (25 pts) —

  Points equaling 5% of the Bidder’s total score for the above Evaluation Criteria will be added.  This will be the Bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation.

• Local Preference (ADMIN SCORING) (25 pts) —

  Points equaling 5% of the Bidder’s total score for the above Evaluation Criteria will be added.  This will be the Bidder’s final score for purposes of award evaluation.

Submission Requirements

• Submit Bid Response and Bid Form (required) —

  Please confirm that both your response and the Bid Form have been uploaded here.

• Submit Bid Response (required) —

  Please confirm that your response has been uploaded here.

• Has your response addressed all the requirements identified within the solicitation 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 your bid. (required)
• Your company, 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. (required)
• I certify that I have read, understood and agree to the terms in this solicitation, and that I am authorized to submit this response on behalf of my company. (required)
• Pricing (required) —
  • Choose Option 1 when you have set line items, for example:
    • This is a quote for goods or commodities.
    • This is a public works bid, with a pricing table that can be uploaded into OpenGov Procurement from an Excel spreadsheet.
    • Seeking services for hourly rate schedules.
  • Choose Option 2 when you need vendors to provide you with the line items. 
• Evaluation Committee? (required) —

  Will there be an evaluation committee to review the proposals and score them based on weights and multiple criteria?

• Procurement and/or Project Contact (required) —

  Select the information you would like display.