SOCIAL EQUITY COUNCIL – Policy Committee
September 9, 2021 Special Meeting 4 p.m.
virtual
AGENDA
I. Call to order and welcome
II. Discussion and Recommendations for Draft Study RFP
III. Adjourn
MINUTES
A special meeting of the Policy Committee of the Social Equity Council was held virtually on September 9, 2021.
1. Call to Order and Welcome:
Edwin Shirley, Chair of the Committee, noting the presence of a quorum, called the meeting to order.
Attendance
Committee members present:
Ojala Naeem
Ed Shirley
Joe Williams
Subira Gordon
Michael Jefferson (absent)
Mr. Shirley recognized the staff and other SEC councilmembers attending: Ginne-Rae Clay, Exec. Director, SEC, Andrea Comer, Chair SEC, Paige Rasid, administrator for SEC, Rob Marriot from Dept. of Consumer Protection, Patrick Hulin from the Office of the Governor, Kelli Vallieres and Marilyn Alverio, councilmembers of SEC.
2. Discussion and Recommendations for the Draft Study RFP
Edwin Shirley noted that there is one agenda item for consideration at this meeting, and that is the discussion of and recommendations for the RFP for the social equity study.
The draft of the study was shared along with the notice of this meeting and that there were a few concerns at the full SEC meeting.
• A question asked about the scope of services of the proposal. The scope of services, which begins on page 7 of the draft, outlines the service expectations, which include core components of service, vision for successful service, and major deliverables.
• A question was asked about the posting date and timeline of the RFP. While the draft document states that responses must be received on Sept 1, which would have been the appropriate date had the statutory charge been met, the RFP would be posted upon approval of the Social Equity Council, with a return date of 15 days later. Specifically, page 5 of the document provides a procurement schedule of 8/15/21, with a deadline for questions, and a proposal due date of 9/1/21. The contract term outlined in Section 5, and the proposal due date and time outlined in Section 8 will also need to be updated. The contract term would run roughly 9.5 months.
Councilmember Subira Gordon joined the meeting.
• The committee considered the timeline and whether the January 1, 2022 date is still appropriate given the shift in timeline. The date is also referenced in Section E on Page 9. A general consensus from the committee was to hold to that due date.
• A question was asked about the review process. Page 11, Section 2 of the document states that the Agency, meant to mean the Social Equity Council, will designate a review committee to evaluate proposals submitted, and will be composed of individuals, agency staff or other designees as deemed appropriate.
• Finally, a question was asked about the weights used to evaluate proposals as outlined on page 12. Currently, the evaluation criteria is broken down in the following percentages: 25% scope of services; 5% staffing plan; 15% data and technology; 20% work plan; 10% cultural competence; and 15% budget and budget narrative. The concern raised was regarding the 10% dedicated to cultural competence. There were a few examples online of cannabis social equity studies, including the city of Coachella, which evaluated qualifications at 25%, staffing at 35%, and work plan at 40%; the city of San Diego, which did not break down percentages but evaluated based on the project team’s connection to impacted communities, technical, approach, experience and qualifications, price, and terms and conditions; Massachusetts, which evaluated proposals based on past and present experience, curriculum framework, experience with impacted communities, key staff, timeline, budget and references; and the Canadian Center on Substance Abuse and Addiction, which evaluated proposals based upon, among other things intended impact, team qualifications, and budget. There were no RFPs found online that specifically weighted cultural competence.
A discussion ensued. Marilyn Alverio stressed the importance of cultural competency. Edwin Shirley suggested the budget and budget narrative drop in the evaluation criteria to 10% and increase cultural competency to 15%, and suggested adding communication to the description of cultural competency to “would include examples of the ability to interact and communicate…” Kelli Vallieres – suggested adding that info into page 14 area as well.
Motion: Councilmember Joe Williams moved to accept the amendment of the RFP with the conditions that were stated: regarding the percentage and language of communication to the description and that the RFP be recommended to be approved by the full council.
Ojala Naeem seconded the motion. Discussion included a friendly amendment by Kelli Vallieres to the motion to adjust the dates as discussed. The motion passed.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 4:31pm.
Minutes are a draft until approved at a subsequent meeting.