All right, so good afternoon.

We're gonna get started with the procurement and contracting committee meeting with the Board of Supervisors March 16th, 2026.

Our first item, general services update.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

That's loud.

Can we turn that role record?

Supervisor Miley.

Supervisor Mike web quorum.

Okay, first item.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Kimberly Gasway, Director of General Services Agency, and I'm here to present the procurement and contracting policy committee report for GSA activities October 1st, 2025 to December 31st, 2025.

So GSA procurement and ministered 46 formal procurements for goods and services, totaling 65.6 million dollars.

And certified slabs, there were 18 of 27.5 million or 42 percent of those procurements.

Non-certified local vendors, there were 12 of them for 14.8 million dollars or 23 percent of the procurements, and non-local were 16 contracts, 23.2 million or 35 percent of the procurements.

And the total value of those were 44.99 or almost 45 million dollars.

Nearly 8 million dollars or 35 percent of the waivers were issued to local businesses in Alameda County.

Soul source exceptions, exemptions, and piggybacks.

This quarter, GSA purchasing approved 59 sole source exceptions for 8.4 million dollars and 85 sole source exception exemptions for 6.2 million dollars for a total of 14.6 million.

Purchasing also approved 25 piggybacks for 4.6 million dollars.

The next set of information as requested gives the definitions for sole source exceptions, which are single sources supply, patent rights, absolute compatibility, equipment maintenance services, exemptions, ticket and procurements include computer software license renewals, educational services, commercial off-the-shelf, computer software packages, utility services, sponsorship of outreach-related events, security systems, ammunition, proprietary maintenance services, landlord-controlled services, and state or federal mandated products or services.

A piggyback is a process in which goods or services are procured from a competitive bidding process managed by another government entity.

GSA award a progressive design build contract during this period for the African American Wellness Hub project in the amount of 22.6 million and a design bid build contract for the Wiley Manual Underground Storage Tank Removal Project in the amount of three million dollars for a total value of 25.6 million for the um progressive design build contract.

For the Progressive Design Build Contract, the while those contractors, general contractors were non-local at 25 million.

The architect for the progressive design build contract was awarded to a local firm and who is a certified SLEB, so a million nearly a million dollars of the that project went to that contractor.

40% of the hour labor's.

Oh, I'm sorry, both projects are subject to the county's uh project stabilization and community benefits agreement, and therefore 40% of the labor hours must be performed by local Adameda County residents.

Our job order contracts, GSA building maintenance uh issued 21 job order contract task orders under existing contracts with a combined value of 6.5 million dollars during this period.

Of that 39% or 2.5 million dollars were to local um contractors, and 3.9 million were or 61% were to non-local.

The current job contracts are subject to the county's PSCBA, therefore 40% of the labor hours must be performed by local Alameda County residents.

And as you can see, each of the different um contracts.

We have a master contract with these job order contractors, and then underneath that is the task orders that were assigned to them around our facilities.

We can scroll down.

Next, I'll provide you the update on our projects.

Can you scroll down right there?

Project stabilization agreement.

So the current PSCBA applies to project bid and awarded on or after October 6, 2020.

This labor report includes payroll data available in our elation system through December 31st, 2025.

The results are summarized below.

So the countywide cumulative total, the total hours reported as of December 31st, 2025 is 522, 621 hours.

40 percent is the local uh area resident goal, uh labor hours on the project, and we achieved more higher than that goal at 47 percent.

Apprentice hours are a 20% state requirement, and uh 78 um.8,000 hours or 16 percent is what we have achieved so far.

The 40% disadvantaged resident apprentice goal is a county policy goal, is 31.2,000 hours, and 40% was achieved countywide.

GSA and public works are broken out separately.

So GSA right now for the local area resident labor hours, we've achieved 46% towards their apprenticeship uh state requirement 19%, and towards the disadvantaged workers, we've exceeded that goal also at 44%.

Next, you'll see a list of each of the projects and where they stand at the time.

Some of the projects are still at the beginning in design phase, so they may not quite be meeting the goals at this point.

You'll see the um fire department has the project for their fire station seven and 25, which are design build projects.

They're at 15% of construction, and right now their labor hours for local residents 76 percent.

Their um apprenticeship hours are 29 hours or 3%, likely because they're still in the beginning stages of the project, and there have been no hours yet reported for the last criteria.

CDA is managing the San Lorenzo Theater, and that project has achieved 33% of the goal for local um residents.

I can't see the header, and 23% of the goal for um the next criteria and no hours.

I believe that project is also because it's only at 15% is still at the beginning and design phase.

Scroll down.

Public works has 254,000 hours and change, and the goal of 40% they've exceeded at 49% for local area residents participating in the project, working on the project apprenticeship hours.

The state goal of 20%, they're at 14% right now.

That is the state requirement.

And for the 40% disadvantaged resident apprentice school, they're at 36%.

Again, some of the projects may be early stages, otherwise, you will be hearing a report soon from our contractor DSI on how we work with these contractors to make sure they meet the goals and objectives.

Excuse me, supervisor.

Can we take a moment and pause?

We are having some technical capabilities.

We'll explain to you.

Okay, but this is uh again, Kimberly Gasway, GSA director.

So now we're um sharing our bid conferences trainings and events and outreach that took place during the time period.

So our GSA purchasing held 17 big conferences with 104 attendees for procurement of goods and services, and hosted 14 vendor outreach events with a total of 34 attendees.

Our building maintenance department held six big conferences with a total of 18 attendees.

Our capital programs division held two big conferences with 14 attendees.

And for the latest event um information, please visit the county calendar of events at the GSA website.

The link is attached is highlighted or underlined there for your reference.

Our contractor technical assistance program.

I also encourage everyone to go on to LinkedIn and see that you can follow their newsletter when they tell about upcoming procurements, not just for the county, but in the East Bay Area altogether.

GSA also maintains memberships with the following organizations, which includes the American Contract Compliance Association, the Association of Public Procurement Officials, East Bay Interagency Alliance, and the Interagency Project Labor Agreement Working Group and the National Association of Minority Contractors, the National Institute of Government Purchasing Trade Women Incorporated, and several chambers of commerce, the list of which are out there.

And that concludes this report, supervisor.

Okay.

Let's first see.

Are there any public speakers on this item?

There are no public speakers on this item.

Okay.

Supervisor Marquez questions, comments.

Yes.

Oh, can we lower the volume?

It's really loud.

Sorry, startling myself up here.

Um thank you for the report.

Uh, just a couple clarifying questions.

With respect to uh the job order, the job task orders.

That's specific to kind of like an expected things, correct?

Happening within our buildings.

Job order contracts are for reoccurring um general construction.

So replacement of carpets, toilets, things like that.

It's routine maintenance, but they're reoccurring.

So it's not generally the emergency procurement.

Okay.

And then so can you help me understand why the percentage of non-local is so high, the 60 percent 61%?

So there are a few contract general contractors who perform this work, and they do also have subcontractors, but there um there is one contractor in Contra Costa County, Mark Scott, who uh was one of our general contractors.

So it's based on a price book, so it is a low bid.

So they did win um some of the work.

But they do subcontract, it's likely they subcontract with local.

Okay.

That could be the the what's happening.

I couldn't get more information on that.

Yeah, is there any way to kind of bifurcate to have a better understanding of what dollars are being reinvested in Alameda County?

Yes.

We'll see.

We'll look at what information we need for you.

Okay, and then um, with respect to the apprenticeship hours, I just recalling from the last time we met, they were also very close to the 20%, but not quite.

So, what are we doing differently to make sure that we're meeting that objective?

So and you will hear um some information from the Bay Sloan.

They're here, and they're um we have a joint advisory committee that meets with the contractors to help them meet those goals.

Sometimes they will use hours from a different job in the county that's not particularly a contract with us to get um the apprentice hours up.

But that is a state requirement.

So they have to meet that.

And that group meets monthly.

Yep.

Okay, so this is being closely monitored and tracked with our labor partners.

Okay, great.

And then um, I believe it was at the last meeting as well.

Um, or was it maybe the last maybe was a prior meeting previous meeting to that, but we received a presentation from Mary Weather and Williams.

And I know uh Director Gasway, you and I have spoken about the work that they uh promote out on LinkedIn, which I think is great, but what I'm looking for specifically is just a flyer, something that we could include in our district newsletters and on social media just to make sure the broader public is aware of this resource.

I was very impressed with their presentation and the type of technical support that they provide.

But again, I think we need to do a better job at promoting opportunities for local businesses.

So hopefully we can get those those numbers up.

Um, so if we could please receive that flyer.

Um, I know all of us have a different cadence, but I publish my flyer typically the last day of every month.

So happy to publish that in March, if not April.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Okay.

So can you refresh my memory?

What's the goal for goods and services and construction?

Is there any local or uh seleb goals?

So goods and services, all procurements have a seleb requirement.

If they're under a certain dollar threshold, then they are required to reach out to selebs first.

I believe it's under 25,000.

And then if they cannot find the slabs, then they can go to uh more of an open market.

But they are required, all procurements have a sled requirement.

If they are not a sled, they are required to do to subcontract 20% of the contract to a sled.

That's also true for professional services.

So you'll see many of the design companies and our design bid build contracts have that same requirement.

Then construction.

So construction, it's the professional services or the architects, engineers, they are to be slevs, or they are to sub uh subcontract 20%.

It's not the general contractor that the slev is not applied to a general contractor.

Okay.

And then with the 166 sled okay, those are slab waivers.

Yes.

166 contracts, sled waivers.

That's correct.

Let me let me go scroll up to that side.

Is that in the amendments?

When you say um amendments, what are you referring to?

They were originally not the originally non-slubs, and then we waived the slab or that's correct.

So and then when they come forward to amend the contract, often to extend the term, sometimes to increase the dollar value.

That generally, though, it's to extend the term, then they we reissue the slev waiver.

So just kind of we separated those so you'd understand because they used to be combined in the report, but this way you notice that that is already a seleb weight uh procurement.

So say it's a three-year contract with the option to renew for additional two years, then those that's where those would fall into place.

Okay.

So that number's not would you consider that number high?

I do not.

Um, I mean, it's we're always trying to improve and um get better numbers for us, but you can also see that of those um waivers, 35% of the waivers were to local business.

So they may not be a certified local business, but we look up and confirm that they are local.

So we're really trying to target the areas where we could improve.

Okay, and then with the piggybacks.

Let me see the piggy backs.

You had 25 piggybacks.

Is that is that number you know unusual too?

That number did seem a little bit unusual to me.

So I asked staff to provide so I have a list of all the piggybacks that we awarded.

So there are things uh like the golden state fire apparatus um that may be done by the state of California.

We have uh Pitney Bowes, which is a large contractor, that's also probably a larger resource done at as part of a consortium.

So it's typically those types of things where a large group of um maybe the state of California or a different county has gone out, but it did seem higher than normal for the uh that time period.

And then refresh my memory, because I don't recall with the progressive design bill.

Um I know you've explained that in the past, but explain that again.

So typically um, I don't know what year it was, but we have most of our construction procurements in the past well longer than I've been here, which is 15 years, were design build procurement.

That's where the architect or designer and the general contractor partner together to deliver a project, and what would happen is you'd or you would hire the architect, a bridging architect early, and they do the preliminary design, then you'd put that out to bid to the design builder, and so you have a new architect coming in the second round.

Progressive design build is a new procurement strategy.

The state of California allows us to do it's fairly new.

Um the state of California are doing some of these projects, we're doing several, and what that is is instead of that bridging design, you bring the um one architect and the design builder in early.

And what that is is instead of that bridging design, you bring the um one architect and the design builder in early.

You develop an operational plan and a vision for a project, but you don't do the preliminary design phase.

So the idea is that hopefully it saves you time and you're only dealing with one architect.

Otherwise, the user department often feels like, wait, I thought we answered all these questions.

We already did design, now we're designing again.

So that's the concept.

And on the African American wellness at the moment is there's uh there's only two.

Let me see here.

How much has been awarded on that contract or actually used for the contract?

How much is what has been expended on that contract?

Because I'm trying to understand, do we just expect only about a million dollars for local?

Yes, so the only the architect is subject to slev.

So the portion of the 20 something million dollar contract, only the architect's share is seleb, and it's a hundred percent the architect is a seleb vendor.

The general contractor is not subject to that.

However, they are required to do uh local hires, um, the PSCBA, um, all those requirements.

So we won't get any more SLEB contractors out of that, but um maybe local hires.

We will get local hires and disadvantaged workers.

That's correct.

Now the SLEB, they may have some of their work subcontracted out, the architect to other local businesses, but that they are 100% local.

There's one other uh caveat to progressive design bill, because you're bringing the designer on early with the general contractor, there's stage gates where you approve guaranteed maximum price based on uh the level of design.

So some of that will come to your board for approval.

So we're trying to stay within the budget that we believe it should cost, and we're working closely with Dr.

Trible on that project.

Good.

Um with the project stabilization community benefit.

I know we're gonna get a more detailed report on that, but at the moment the African American Wellness uh have they done any hiring on that yet?

No, they're still in design, sir.

Yeah, okay.

Because they're not on the list, so okay.

All right, so anything else.

I think that's all of my questions at the moment.

So you're gonna cover the 12-month book.

So Dietra Dylan, if she can be brought forward as a presenter, she's online, she'll be presenting.

That's our procurement uh administrator.

Please accept the invitation to join as a panelist.

She's telling me she raised her hand.

Can you see that?

Yeah, I sent a request to promote as panelists to her.

She says she does not have an invitation.

Can you bring her in just as speaker?

Sure, she's able to unmute.

Hello, supervisors.

Yes, we can hear you.

Great.

My name is Dietra Dillon, and I'm the procurement administrator for GSA, and I'm here to present the 12-month outlook report.

Please go to the next page.

So this report is going to go over all procurements that are awaiting completion for the next 12 months.

And as you can see from the first page, we have the end date.

That means when the contract is set to end, and you also have the begin date, which gives you the original term.

You have the master contract, the description, um, the vendor slept and awarded amount.

So I think what's important from what you said, Supervisor Miley, is that you really want the opportunity to potentially work with client departments.

And the update is going to be the best way for you to be able to do that.

So when you see something like goods and services are no longer needed on the first line item, that means there is no longer a need.

And so the opportunity to look for unbundling or rebid is not going to be there.

When you see rebid in process, as it says on the next line item, then that means we are already in the process, and there potentially could not be enough time to complete that solicitation if there was a spec change.

So you'll see extended for time.

That potentially could be an opportunity to look at a rebid or unbundling.

However, it might mean also that solicitation is coming to an end and it just needs a little bit more time.

Can you please go to the next slide?

And the next slide.

Actually, I believe it's on page six.

Can we go to page six, please?

Okay.

So when you see uh on the first line of page six, the end date is 630, 2026, and the update is awaiting department instructions.

So as you get longer down towards the end date where you have a little bit more time, that's where there could be a potential opportunity to say, can we work with the client to see if there's any opportunity to change the specification, which could include unbundling, it could include going out for rebid.

There's a host of things that that entails, but that means that we have not started the solicitation process yet.

And there's some opportunities to make changes if necessary.

You can go to the last page of this uh report.

I'm sorry, one page out.

Sorry.

So as you can see uh from the last page, the further away that we are from the end date.

So this end date, the very last one or second to last one is an end date of 331 2027.

So that's approximately one year out.

So it's awaiting of department instructions.

So there is the opportunity to potentially um request additional information from the client department so they can answer questions or make any changes, and we have enough time to have a scope change and also run the procurement process at the same time.

So it typically takes about six months to run a complete procurement process end to end if there's no protest, et cetera.

And um, that would be six months for to work with the department as well.

And that concludes my presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Let's see if there are any public speakers on the item.

Yes.

Kelly Abrew.

Give me just a moment to set up the timer.

All right, Kelly, you're able to unmute.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay chapter.

County voters approved Measure D in November 2000.

The same day that Supervisor Nate Miley was elected.

Measure D explicitly requires voter approval for amendments.

The Sierra Club led the campaign for Measure D and remains committed to its protection.

Your general services agency recently issued informal RFP number 902725, which seeks a political consultant to assess voter sentiment and recommend a quote, election strategy to water down measure D.

Using tax bearer funds to explore how to weaken a voter-approved initiative that by law requires voter approval is a misuse of public resources and a breach of voter trust.

Developers and industry groups seeking to change measure D are free to fund their own analyses, qualify initiatives, and persuade voters.

It is deeply troubling for your board to solicit election strategy without involving the community groups who led these protections.

We call on your board to withdraw IRFP 902725 immediately.

Stop using public funds to pursue overturning overturning measure D and uphold the clear will of Alameda County voters who overwhelmingly favor protecting open space and agricultural lands.

On behalf of the Sierra Club, I thank you.

Thank you.

There are no other public commenters on this item.

Okay.

I'll go supervisor first.

And then I'll ask questions and we get any comments.

Thank you, Chair Miley.

To follow up on the comments made by Mr.

Brew, I know my office has also been outreached too with respect to the RFP.

I know they're in contact with Director Sandy Reverend.

I don't think she's here or part of this meeting, but I will flag to see if we could um close the loop for the public.

But I'm just curious.

Um I don't know, Supervisor Miley, if you have any background as to why that request was made initially.

I don't know if it came to transportation and planning.

No.

No, it didn't come to translation and planning, I don't believe.

Okay.

I don't know if um the speaker said GSA.

Did GSA issue an informal bid?

I was just trying to find that, but it doesn't sound familiar to me.

So I think it might be this is Dylan again.

Yes.

Okay.

So we uh have received uh an informal request, and we are awaiting bids, and those bids are due in four days on the 20th.

Um and the informal request came from CDing.

Uh let me check on who the client department was.

But yes, it looks like I'm getting uh comments from my staff, that's correct.

Okay.

All right.

Um I will definitely reach out to Directory Vera and see if we could just um provide a public update if possible.

I know this is uh something of great concern.

I'm also just trying to figure out what the genesis was of behind this because it doesn't seem like it's come to a committee.

So just also want to get clarification.

Um, and then also just wanting to flag the item on 1231st, 2026.

This is with respect to the investment consulting services.

Um is this related to the EIP policy that we adopted back in October, but there was a request to undergo a peer review.

Is that question for me?

Yes.

And what page are you on on the report?

I'm on page uh 17, third column down, third row.

Let's see, page 17, third column down, investment.

Sorry.

Okay, third row.

You know, I can get back to you on that with the exact specifications.

I'm I'm naturally not sure.

Okay.

Okay, just wanted clarity.

Um then can you just kind of explain for the public?

I heard you mention once you get the request for an RFP that it does take up to six months typically to develop.

Can you elaborate on that process?

Sure.

So the client department uh when they submit a request for contract, has already completed a scope of work that they would like us to do.

So they submit that request to GSA procurement who helps them through the procurement process.

We don't actually um uh compile the scope of work.

So once we have that scope of work, we then begin on creating a bid form and tailoring it to make sure that it's available to be advertised to the public.

And once we put it up uh as an advertised solicitation, we are under uh laws and ordinances to post it for so long, um, to receive the bids, to review them if it's an RFP to have time for a committee to review proposals.

Um there's uh to negotiate the contract before it goes before the board, and then also enough time for the board to hear it and approve it.

So there are some timelines that we have to abide by, and there's also time needed in there for staff, uh, whether it's GSA procurement or the client department staff to uh review and move forward that procurement.

So from the time we receive that request and to the time it's approved by the board is uh typically about six months, as long as there is no protest.

If there is a protest to the procurement process, it can take significantly longer than that.

Okay, and then um is there a standard policy in terms of how long the bid has to be out?

Is it 30 days, 60 days, or does it depend on the bid?

So what we are mandated by law is 10 days, but we have found in our experience that 10 days is not a sufficient um time period to get the amount of interest that we would like.

So if we are under um a stressed timeline, we can do something close to 10 days.

We did um uh have done that in the past, but typically we like to leave the procurement out for a few weeks and then begin the um process of reaching out to people, um, people that we have sourced through open gov or through market research or our incumbent to not only give them enough time to uh look at the solicitation, but also respond.

So if we put the solicitation out and only gave 10 days, that 10 days would allow only allow them uh 10 days to review it and put their bid response together.

And due to the complexity of government procurements and some of the requirements, sometimes that is an impediment.

So we typically like to do it for a few weeks.

Okay, that makes sense.

And then um within the solicitation, does it also state well let help me understand the protest wouldn't come about until we've identified who the contract's gonna go to.

Is that correct?

I'm just trying to understand.

So once we complete a notice of intent to award, then that starts a seven-day period for anyone to come and protest the process, not necessarily who won or who didn't win, but um, if they think that the procurement process was completed unfairly, then that's the opportunity for them to say so at that point.

Okay, and then the notice to whom we're going to award the contract to, that is a touch point before it even comes to the board.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Okay.

And then does it depend on the RFP in terms of how many bids, like what satisfies a good pool of candidates?

Does it depend on the bid, whether it's two, three, five, is there like a minimum threshold?

Um, there's not a minimum threshold when you complete a formal uh solicitation process or a formal procurement, uh, as long as we follow the guidelines and then also do some market research afterwards to ensure that we are still getting the best price and we did enough outreach, et cetera.

Um, we can move forward with a single bid.

Um, however, you know, sometimes, depending on the procurement, it's not appropriate.

Uh, if we want, let's say to, you know, buy something that's very widely available in the marketplace.

Sometimes that we have gotten a very limited uh pool of bidders, we've decided, you know what, let's cancel this bid and let's start over again and let's do more uh outreach.

Let's do some training with our vendors so they know how to fill out the bid appropriately, or it could be that it is an extremely niche industry, and then we decide we're we're happy, we're lucky that we got one bid.

So we will move forward with that one bid, and we will also always, if there's only a single bid, document the file as to why moving forward with one bid is appropriate.

Okay.

Does that happen frequently where we have to extend the bid, the RFP process?

I I don't know if I can give out statistics, but I can say that completing uh a bid for any government entity is complicated in its nature.

So, you know, it just depends.

Okay.

Do we track that data though when you have to extend or go out to rebid?

Is that captured in any of these reports?

I don't think I've seen that.

No, I it's not captured in this report.

Uh I don't believe that we track that.

We track as uh director Gassaway said how many procurements we've completed in a certain time period, but not necessarily if it's a rebid.

However, on the report, it does say rebid, but we are um going into each solicitation and looking and seeing, but uh to be able to track that uh data, we're not doing at this point.

Okay, but it is on this chart.

I am seeing under update where it says rebid and process on some of these, so it is captured, it was just not quantifying it.

Right.

Uh, but a rebid could mean multiple things.

A rebid could mean that the term has ended and we've decided to rebid.

A rebid could mean that it ended with no bids, so we decided to rebid, or it could mean that there was one supplier and that wasn't sufficient for the client department, so we canceled and decided to rebid.

So rebid is under uh a pretty big umbrella as to why we title it as rebid.

Got it.

Okay.

So would it be possible in the next report to specify what type of rebid?

I will certainly work with staff, and we will come up with uh something to satisfy that request.

Okay, thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Okay, thanks for those questions.

So I have a few questions, kind of um piggybacking on the supervisor Marquez's.

So, first of all, back on the informal bid.

So what is an informal bid?

If there's an informal bid, what is that?

And what is the process for that?

So informal bid is oh the teacher knows these buyer, let's do the tests with teacher.

Oh, okay, let's see if my past.

So an informal bid is something for the county that is under a hundred thousand dollars.

So the county has its own informal uh requirements, the state has another threshold, so it's based on dollar amount, and the Fed, the federal government actually has an informal threshold uh for dollar value for what they do.

So in the county, we have said anything under 100,000 is an informal bid.

So that means that if if GSA procurement wanted um blankets, and we wanted 50 blankets, and we thought due to our independent cost estimate that the amount was going to be $50,000, then we could go and ask three bidders of our choosing to give us a quote.

We could receive those three bids and make an award off of that.

If you have something that's over 100,000, then you must publicly advertise as well as a host of other rules that you have to follow um to uh receive bids.

It's a closed sealed bid process versus an informal, you can go up for three bids.

You can advertise.

So GSA procurement always advertises, whether it's formally advertised, whether it's uh uh informal or not.

But the big difference is uh it's not a sealed bid process.

Does that answer your question?

I uh sure.

I'm just trying to provide some transparency around this, and then with an informal bid, uh once that's concluded uh for approval, does that come to the board?

So per uh our policy, uh anything over $5,000 that is a service goes before your board.

If it is not a service, it is a good only, then it does not go before your board currently.

Okay.

So that informal bid that is I guess raising some eyebrows for measure D that's under 100,000.

Uh and if the service uh is awarded for greater than 25,000, that would come to the board.

Correct.

Yes, okay.

All right.

And that wasn't a in that informal bid wasn't something that went through GSA.

It went through another county uh agency.

It it is going through GSA.

Um, and those bids are coming in uh on the 20th.

I would suspect, I don't know because we have not received bids, but we don't see a lot of bids for under 25,000.

So that's a little unusual.

Um so I would say in all likelihood for professional service, it would be over 25,000 and coming to your board.

Okay.

So the public and board members, because quite frankly, I don't know anything about it myself.

Um, I just want to make sure people are clear on that.

Um that ultimately won't get to the full board, and probably um uh both the public and board can weigh on it, weigh in on it.

Yeah, in terms of measure D.

Now, in terms of um the 12 month outlook.

Uh I've looked at a few of these.

So the food service um food delivery service contract airmark, that's for 56,000.

That's a rebid and process, but you don't once again talking to answering supervisors Marquez's questions.

You're not sure what the what the rebid is about.

Uh can you tell me which page you're on?

Uh let's see, that's on page five.

Okay, let's see.

That uh contract was just currently bid.

So this is Era Mark Food Services for our um detention facilities.

Right.

And um, so that procurement just completed.

And that is for 56 million.

Million.

Right, right.

56 million.

I think might say 50,000 six million.

So um, DJ, when you're going through this, and because my interest is in is um looking at opportunities for unbundling.

So is this too far down the road to have the client department look at that?

Yes, it's too far.

It would certainly uh we are currently um deep in the process, so would uh it would create a drastic shift in timelines, or we'd have to go out for rebid if there was any delay because contracts or the bid is only good per the solicitation for six months after receipt of the bid.

Okay, then on page nine, what is the contract dealing with the armed security guard services, Condor security?

That's extended for time and increase.

Do you know who the client department is on that one?

I don't uh I could certainly get you information on that as well.

But when you see a contract, just for uh informational purposes, when you see a contract that has a one-year term with one year extensions, that means there is some room if there was something that was found we could change or do better, do differently because it has a one-year term, you have the one year in between to kind of go out for rebid or change the specifications and potentially get a new supplier.

When you see a three-year term, that means we're locked in for well, essentially we the the county always has a way to terminate if necessary, but um there's room to do something different.

All right.

Well, if you could just let us know who the client department is.

It's GSA is the client department.

So it's GSA, social services, and probation that are the client departments.

Okay.

And presently Condor is a small, it's uh a slab.

So we it looks like they are a small, a small, yes.

Small means does that mean slab?

Okay.

All right.

Now let's see.

Then on page 11, uh, there's a procurement for PMCM.

What's what's that stand for?

Project management, contract management.

That is what our um capital programs team would most likely be using for their um as needed services for project management contract uh management.

Okay.

I'm just looking for unbundling opportunities.

Then we go to page 13 at the top.

There's a janitorial course paper for 4.4 million, and that's extended for time.

And that's local and slab.

What's that?

What's that one all about?

So when it says local, that means uh as Kimberly said in her report that it is uh local uh company within our county, but because they're not slev, they are slev subcontracting 20%.

Okay.

So is this would this be open for unbundling?

So it looks like at this one per the update that it was uh extended for time and an increase.

So that's where the department has decided to move forward with the uh two-year extension.

So when you see a three-year term with a two-year extension, um, that means that we're going to uh extend for two additional years, not one year at a time.

However, when you're extending for a two-year term, that's still a good time to look at it.

You just have uh ample amount of time to potentially investigate, see if there's opportunities, and then when it comes up for rebid um in the next year and a couple of months, then the specifications will already be there when we went out for rebid.

Okay, so I would respectfully ask the agency to take a look at that, and then on page 17 the countywide security guard services, so ABC security that's small, okay, and awaiting department instructions.

So what's going on with that one?

Page 17.

So when it says awaiting department instructions, that means the uh agency that uh is the lead agency for that service.

They have not quite yet instructed us how they would want to move forward.

And if you see the 1231 2026 date, um it's the perfect time if something were to be looked into to determine what's the next course of action.

Um, because they're they should be putting their spec together and providing it to us shortly to meet that in date.

So when there's an end date, that means that that's the end, and on one one of 2027, a new supplier or an incumbent or whoever won the bid would potentially be moving forward with that new solicitation.

And I suspect that's general services again.

Yeah, okay.

All right, but it's a slab, so okay.

Oh, yeah, there are two more.

Let's see.

On page 20, there's a contract for purchasing car program rebid and process US bank.

That's a 28 million almost 29 million dollar contract.

What's what's what's going on there?

So our PCART program, that uh looks as if it's at the end of its uh contract phase, and and that contract typically takes a while to complete.

So the P card that um our county departments use to procure services or goods or whatever that's uh in compliance with map and the PCART program, we would be um resoliciting for a new credit card provider to bid, and then we would look at um their terms and rates, etc.

Okay, and so then that's a non-local.

So I would once again ask is GSA the Yes D, I thought so.

So my team is the lead, so GSA procurement is going to be the lead on that, and I would say uh uh finding local in this category is um going to be uh interesting because it's gonna be a large financial institution that is going to be bidding on a project like this because it's uh it's gonna be a line of credit.

Great, okay, and then the final one is the shuttle bus service contract on page 21.

That's almost a six million dollar contract, awaiting department, and I'm pretty sure the department again is GSA.

Any any opportunities there for so on this particular on this particular solicitation, it is a local uh contractor, and they are SLEP subcontracting as well.

So you've answered my questions.

Just want to keep you on your toes.

You did.

But there's I think there's one or two I wanted you to follow up on with supervisor.

Well, you did great.

Um, Dee Trappy, I know it's um just kind of things that come to our head after hearing you present, but thank you.

Appreciate the hard work you're doing.

This is a lot of complex information.

So appreciate the responses.

Thank you very much.

I'm trying to recall Deidra.

Did we say we're gonna be doing six?

Okay, so no, we are doing 12 months outlook.

Okay, good.

So we're looking to because we're supervisor Mark Hes and I'm gonna be looking at these real carefully.

So well, we are prepared.

We're ready.

We're making adjustments every uh comment that you make.

We are going back over the report and putting in new information.

So we will take your comments and move forward and make it a better report for next time.

Oh that's it's a good report, and we appreciate seeing it at every committee meeting.

Supervisor Mark Hence.

Can I make a suggestion?

I definitely don't want to add more um, I don't want to say a necessary work because all this stuff is important, but want to be more focused and streamlined since the demands are so high for everyone.

So one suggestion I have, I know in the past I had asked for like tables in the past to do like a comparison and fully acknowledging that is more work, and that's adding more content to our packet.

But I'm wondering if perhaps we could just attach the previous reports to the agenda.

That way it's on us to do a compare contrast because we've already created the reports.

Is that something we can consider?

You can certainly do that, and and that is actually not any more uh work because we would just be seeing this report.

But the my only comment would be this is going to be a moving target.

So I would say the report that we give you is the report that's going to have the latest most updated information.

And if you you know look at an older report, I don't know if you would glean what you were uh looking for comparing the two reports when the current report is giving you the most updated information.

But it is uh we are at your disposal, and if you would like that, we are happy to provide it.

Okay.

Do you have a preference, Supervisor Miley?

We could also just become come prepared with their old report too.

So fully acknowledging that is an option as well.

I'm just trying to throw out some suggestions.

Yeah, I think if we come prepared with the old report, that would be helpful.

And if since this is a rolling, you know, we meet quarterly, and so it'll be every I think this committee gets this update, 12-month update every quarter.

So we'll be seeing things as they evolve.

So I think I think Deetra, um her suggestion or the information that it's rolling would be sufficient.

Yeah.

Okay.

So let's see.

Uh I think we've asked our questions, and we've heard from the public.

So before I go on, or are there any other public speakers on item one?

Um I think we've done all of item one.

Or did we?

No, we still have to.

C we haven't done C yet.

Okay.

Oh, yes, that's that's okay.

I thought it was its own item.

Okay, item C Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm happy to introduce Devai Sloan Incorporated.

They partnered with the county for many years on our project stabilization and community benefits agreement.

They bring more than 25 years of experience in project labor agreement and labor compliance administration, and they assisted in negotiating the current PSCBA for the East County Hall of Justice, as well as the county's first countywide agreement.

DSI, as they're also known, works closely with several county departments, including Alameda County Fire, Community Development Agency, Public Works Agency, and of course GSA's Office of Acquisition Policy.

Um let me let me look at anything else I'm supposed to say, scroll.

Um they also coordinated the monthly oversight meeting with the joint administrative committee, which includes GSA OAP staff along with representatives from the community and labor unions, and they have served as the county's PSCBA and labor compliance coordinators since 2014.

And I want to personally thank them for being here to present today.

Without further ado, I'd like to introduce Mr.

Jake Sloan, President and Program Lead, and Kitty Creech, one of DSI's labor compliance officers and program managers.

There you go.

Thank you, Supervisor Staff.

Thank you for the kind words.

Again, my name is Jake Sloan.

I'm the president of Villier Sloan, which is also known as DSI.

Working closely in association with Low Consulting Group or LCG.

We are the administrator for the PSCBA and labor compliance programs for Alameda County.

As was pointed out a little earlier, DSI and LCG bring a long history of experience to the table for this effort.

I'm proud of the work that we've done for the county over the years, and I will talk about it a little later in this presentation.

Right now, I'd like to introduce the team members present, beginning with Andrea Lowe.

Andrea was Andrea was here, who's the president and CEO of Low Consulting Group.

We also have here Kitty Creek, who is the program project manager.

Danielle Motley Lewis handles the community outreach and involvement.

They'll also be here to answer any questions after this presentation.

I want to start by talking about how the PSCBA program works and is organized.

Next slide, please.

The agreement is divided into two major parts, what we call the traditional and the non-traditional components of a PSCBA.

The traditional focuses on things like standard dispute resolution processes, project stability, which means no strikes, no lockouts, no slowdowns, and a qualified labor force.

The non-traditional focuses on community benefits like local hiring and the vehicles for compliance.

PSCBA was unique from the beginning and remains so as it revolves.

Next slide, please.

We started working with the county actually in 2010, while a PLA was only being considered.

After many meetings with county staff and the board of supervisors, the trades and the community, it was decided to move ahead.

And I know you remember all of that, thank.

We started by working with the staff and the board members to negotiate and then adopt an agreement with the following results.

First, in 2012, an agreement was adopted to cover only the East County Hall of Justice.

Then in 2013, a countywide agreement was adopted, which covered basically all GSA projects, a one million dollars or more in construction cost.

One important result was the changes in levels of coverage for the PWA projects.

In 2020, the amendments were adopted and became the basic agreement, which we are working under now.

Excuse me.

Through it all, first DSI and then DSI LCG were under contract.

In 2025, the DSILC contract was extended for three years.

At the same time, all trades for PWA projects for one million dollars or more became covered by the PSCBA.

Among the many unique features of the agreement were the goals for local hiring.

Next slide, please.

At the time the agreement was uh we were negotiating the agreement.

Only six percent of all the hours worked by construction workers were being worked by local residents.

As a result of initial negotiations, goals were established for the hiring of local residents and apprentices.

At the same time, the county wanted to assure that when local residents were hired, they would be paid the proper wage.

With that in mind, the labor compliance monitoring program became part of the responsibility administrator.

Now I will turn it over to Kitty to talk about the specifics of the goals, the compliance process, and the current status of compliance.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

And thank you, Supervisor Marquez and Amiley for this opportunity to present PSCBA and LC updates.

Thank you, Ms.

Gasway for those kind words.

Mr.

Sloan for that introduction.

For context, I'll review how the PSCBA and LC programs are implemented, the resources provided, and review the status.

If we could just go back a slide for just a second.

The heart of the POCBA, we've we've talked about it before, it's the local higher goals.

It's established to build the opportunities for Alameda County residents.

The overall goal is that 40% of all the hours worked on a craft by craft basis on all the construction projects should be worked by Alameda County residents.

And then of any apprentice hours, 40% of those apprentice hours should be worked by DRAs.

And we define DRAs as three things.

First, an Alameda County resident.

Number two, an apprentice less than two years into their apprenticeship training program.

And number three, unemployed at the commencement of work on that PSCBA covered project.

This policy or program really encourages opportunities for new apprentices, and it really helps the county build a pipeline for skilled workers for years to come.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

Now, how do we implement this?

So de Billier Sloan, we pride ourselves on strong partnerships with the county.

We believe that early and frequent education of contractors, even before the project begins in pre-bid and pre-construction, we meet with the contractors to review the goals and requirements.

And during construction, provide comprehensive monitoring that includes participation of the unions.

We track the contractors' local hiring and labor compliance with those goals.

We report and conduct monthly meetings with the joint administrative committee.

This is an oversight committee that includes county GSA and PWA staff, union business agents and community members, including Tradeswomen Inc.

and the pre-apprentip training programs such as Cypress Mandela and Rising Sun.

We also meet with contractors regularly during the construction.

We visit construction sites, we interview workers, we coordinate frequently with the unions and engage the community, not only as a source for Alameda County residents, but also so they may gain construction career training.

There's opportunities for them to join union apprenticeship programs and gain meaningful employment as job-ready DRAs on these projects.

Next slide.

Thank you.

Some of the resources.

So our team has created and maintained multiple resources for the contractors and DRAs alike.

For contractors, we have guidebooks that outline the PSCBA and LC requirements, which provide at the which we provide at the beginning of every project that explains the submittals and timelines.

We believe in early and frequent education, so we conduct kickoff meetings with the awarded general contractors to review requirements and answer their questions.

The DRA newsletter, as you see above, and our social media accounts.

We have a bi-monthly newsletter prepared by Danielle, chocked full of information and resources on upcoming training opportunities, tips on how to prepare for job interviews and more.

We engage our social media.

So I invite the supervisors and everyone on this call to please follow us at building underscore the underscore bay.

Become one of our over 2,000 views and a few hundred followers, please.

Help us go viral.

We're out screening for job ready candidates in collaboration with pre-apprenticeship training programs like Rising Sun, Laney Construction, Cypress Mandela, and others.

We're also helping DRAs prepare by conducting mock interviews.

We're aligning them with resources that they need because we believe community engagement efforts strengthen access and awareness and referral pathways countywide.

Next slide.

So how are we doing?

Well, fortunately, with the joint cooperation of county staff, contractors, unions, and community, I'm or we're pleased to report that the PSCBA has been a steady success, reaching or exceeding the local participation goals.

Spanning back to the PSCBA's inception in 2014 on over 65 projects and over the life of the PSCB, there have been 1.2 million hours worked.

But for this project, we're covering the data for active projects up to December 31st, 2025, as Ms.

Gasabay uh reported earlier.

I'm just going to go over some of the uh some of the highlights here.

As you can see, countywide, we have over a half a million hours and 33 active projects over the different departments.

So cumulatively, uh 522,621 hours and exceeding the goals.

Uh 47% towards the overall and 40% DRA.

The fire department has one project that's the design build fire station 7 and 25.

It's just getting underway with a little over a thousand hours.

It's uh doing very well towards the overall goal with 76%, not so well on the DRA goal, but that's understandable.

So we said it's a design build project with just a few hours just getting started.

We're already seeing these numbers are from uh December.

We're already seeing um increases in apprentices and such.

CDA has the San Lorenzo Theater, the fire rehab project, um, and it has 267 hours.

So, but still doing very well towards the overall goal with 33 percent, um zero towards the DRA goal.

But similarly, this project, uh I believe if my numbers aren't are accurate, had only 65 apprentice hours.

So we're going to see those numbers uh come up as well.

GSA, and this includes BMD's job order contracts has uh majority of the county's hours at 266,000, uh just under 800, with uh and they're exceeding the goal uh both goals 46 percent and 44 percent respectively on the 22 projects.

PWA, which is coming in in a close second, behind GSA, 254,000 uh and some change, uh, exceeding the overall goal at 48%, a slid just under the second goal with 36% on their nine active projects.

Additionally, I'd like to add that there are currently no grievances or major PSCBA issues.

So for the number of projects that we have, that uh that is an accomplishment.

Next slide.

Thank you.

Now uh for uh labor compliance.

Uh we're monitoring the contractor's performance towards the LC requirements.

Very importantly, the payment of prevailing wages and the utilization of apprentices, which uh we understand is uh it's important to us as well as to uh the supervisors.

On average, the county projects utilize apprentices at good ratios, and very importantly, workers are paid uh properly.

Um please note that the state goal is measured on a craft by craft basis and to simplify what we've done rather than show all 20 crafts, we've smooshed them all together and averaged across all the trades, you know, from A to Z and all of the projects.

So some crafts will be doing better, some may not, and they may have challenges for different reasons, which um I can get into in just a second.

So countywide, uh 16% of the hours worked are being worked by apprentices.

That's pretty good if you're looking at uh 522,000 hours.

Now, um, as mentioned before, the fire department has only 3% uh apprentices, but that's uh representing less than 30 apprentice hours.

Um CDA has I think it was less than 65 apprentice hours, that's 23 percent.

GSA and BMD projects have 19% uh utilization of apprentices towards journey persons, and PWA has 14%.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that Alameda County residents working on PSCBA projects are being paid properly.

Um that there are uh challenges on certain projects.

Um there's schedule, there's specialties, there's trades, there are other considerations, but we uh with our experience uh clearly understand when there's opportunities for apprentices uh to work, and then there are uh then there are some challenges, maybe at when there are smaller um cruise sizes, when there's only two or three uh people going to be out for two or three days because that's kind of the nature in some of these projects at the beginning.

Um it behooves someone to call the hall and ask for an apprentice for half a day or one day work.

You want to you want to give them a little bit more than that.

Um so um again.

Uh thank you for your time.

I'll turn it over uh back to Mr.

Slump uh to wrap up.

Thank you, Kitty.

We always believe that success in this business is tied to early education for participating contractors, the community, and indeed the trades that are signatory to the agreement, and that there needs to be a need flexible and a need for flexibility as problems develop.

With this approach, we've had many successes and very few failures, really.

There are always challenges, but this approach and being proactive has produced good results over the years, and we believe we'll continue to be so as we work closely with the county staff, others in the community for long-term sustainable program to benefit county residents and businesses.

We'll continue with this approach and working with the county staff, contractors, unions, and community partners in particular, uh, based on what Kitty reported.

We want to increase the success with DRAs as we go forward.

That completes our report.

Thank you for your attention.

Now I will field your questions.

Okay.

Let's first see if we have any public speakers on this item.

Any public speakers.

Yes, there is one public commenter online.

Let me set the timer up.

Meg Facy.

You may unmute.

Uh good afternoon, commissioners.

Um I am uh I have the privilege of serving on the Oversight Committee for the PSCBA, and um able to observe the uh community of partners that are putting together a sustained effort to um hire employee train and move uh county employ uh county residents into these uh high wage careers.

I myself um uh had 25 years in the field as an electrical apprentice, and um definitely feel the uh economic benefit of that.

I'm also a county resident, of course.

So I just wanted to commend the county for its efforts, and I wanted to commend the building trades, the county supervisor or staff that participates, as well as DSI and um local low group on the um ongoing effort to make this a success.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

I see no other public commenters on this item.

Right.

Okay, Supervisor Marquette.

Um thank you for that presentation and for the great work.

Um also want to acknowledge it was beautiful to see a photo of the late supervisor Wilma Chan.

So thank you for including that photo.

I'm sure it was um not easy to get to this place, but really impressed with this report.

Um, with respect to the apprenticeship hours, I know it was mentioned the 16% um cumulative is is good, we're close.

Are there any penalties if we don't meet the 20% and any idea suggestions on what we could be doing differently to try to meet that target?

I would like to give that question to both Kitty and Danielle.

Starting with you, Kitty.

Certainly, there are no penalties for that.

It's um honest, it's um like I said, it's a state goal and it's on a craft by craft basis.

So the contract the state would look at the contractor and say, over the term of a year of all your projects that you're working, um Alameda County or otherwise, are you using apprentices uh at an appropriate ratio?

And more often than not, because of our experience, we can see I was alluding to, we can see when a contractor may be just scheduled out there for a short period of time or has a specialty crew that they move from uh one site to another to do some work.

And there, if there are opportunities for apprentices, we're there, and we quickly Danielle can attest to that, we quickly respond to them.

Um the unions also have um they can reach out to the unions and request apprentices and get a response within 48 hours.

If the unions are unable to provide an apprentice, if they're in a position to sponsor someone, we have a list of job ready Alameda County residents.

We can say, okay, this is the trade that you're looking for here.

Um interview these candidates and see if there's a good fit for you.

You know, and sometimes with the scheduling, it's just like we need someone out there very quickly, or we're not going to need anyone for six months.

And how do we project something out for six months on some of these to you know longer term design bill or progressive design bill projects?

Okay.

And you mentioned that there's currently no grievances.

Do you know the last time there was?

Uh yeah, we just uh closed up a grievance uh just within the I guess within yeah, just within the within the last term.

Okay.

And um, I did follow you on social media, so follow me back.

Um do you have a flyer um similar to my comments earlier?

Uh I'm really big on social media on Instagram, mainly and newsletter.

But if you have something that you could share with the entire board so we can make sure to promote the good work as well.

Um I think you said there's a newsletter as well.

Yes.

Yeah, so if you could send us the link on how we subscribe to that and any outreach materials, I know I'm happy to share newsletter as well on social media.

We have a link tree that has all of those links.

Perfect.

Great to share with you.

Yeah, it's in the slide, but we'll make sure that it's highlighted.

I think it was slide okay something like that on the DRA resources.

Okay, perfect.

Anything to add on the utilization of apprentices on the no, Kitty and I um we have been meeting regularly to see how we can increase these numbers.

Um, she and I just visited a site uh a couple of weeks ago again, uh trying to strengthen the contractor engagement and um, you know, working with our pre-apprentiping, you know, graduates to ensure that they're on the list and that they're ready whenever uh a contractor calls.

Okay, and then are we tracking data?

How many female, how many men?

Oh, absolutely.

Okay, and we track we keep that the that information behind the scenes because it's not necessary, it's only a requirement that they're unemployed.

So we but we do track that behind the scenes.

Okay, and then are there any um kind of outreach partnership with Santa Rita jail and the Sheriff's Department to make sure we know that we have Iuna there doing an apprenticeship program, but are we coordinating efforts to give people a pathway once they um are released from Santa Rita Joe?

So I know that when my uh my colleagues do site visits, they share that information.

We do have an opportunity to strengthen that.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yeah, I don't think I have any questions because I'm quite familiar with uh DeVail Sloan.

I've known Jake for you know since my days on the Oakland City Council.

In fact, my former chief of operations actually worked for Jake back back in those days.

Um I'm really pleased the county's had a long history of partnering with uh De Valley or Sloan around the um project stabilization community benefit agreement.

And I was really pleased to see that picture of budget for Supervisor Will Chan, because I know she was very uh intimately involved in helping us to establish uh this this program back in the day, it's come a long way.

I was really pleased to hear the how many uh hours did you say since its inception?

You mentioned a figure.

1.2, sorry.

1.2 million.

Wow.

That's that's very nice.

Very nice.

So yeah, I'm glad we have an update on this for um uh uh the the board or for the public, because I do think it's been a great program and I'm glad Supervisor Marquez asks a bunch of questions.

I don't want you guys to get you know get lazy and just kind of sit back and you know think there's no more, you know, the bar's been raised, but we want the bar to continue to go even higher.

So thank you.

Uh I think we've always been pretty good, but I'm uh driven to be the best.

And if you have no questions after all easier than that, it's the highest compliment we can get.

Thank you.

Very good.

So let's go on to item number two.

All right.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is John Lowe, uh assistant deputy director with the housing and community development department within the community development agency.

Before we dive in to uh the report uh presented by Analyvia Eldred, I just wanted to set a bit of context for what you're about to hear today.

Um it was really informative the previous presentation by Devil A Sloan, but I just wanted to make sure we understand the differentiation, right?

For the uh the GSA projects, the the uh public works projects, the counties in the position of owner, right?

With measure A1, the counties in the position of a funder, a construction funder for affordable housing projects.

So the perspective is a little bit different.

There are some overlapping concepts, but just want to make sure we understand that difference.

Uh HCD, we aim to uh present to your committee uh about three times a year.

Uh two of those reports are um regular cycles, uh one reporting on the local contracting.

That's the um the businesses, whether they're local or not, how many contracts went to those businesses, whether they're small local or not, and uh things like that.

The second regular report is on local hire.

That's the um the individual people who are working on measure A1 funded projects, whether they're local or not, uh residing in the county, their demographics, their income levels if available.

And uh as you know, the board adopted several minimum requirements for the use of measure A1 rental development funds.

And uh over the life of the program, all those minimum requirements have been exceeded.

So today we're gonna be hearing a special report then on contractor utilization within the program.

So a bit of a deeper dive and uh specifically um how many of the contractors that we are used on these projects are union.

Um so you'll see in the project that is going to be um we'll take an overall look of the entire portfolio, then we'll dive into local contracts and then small local contracts.

We'll see how many contracts are awarded to union shops and the contract value.

So without further ado, uh Ann Olivia Eldred to present the meat and potatoes of the report.

Thank you.

Um if you could start the slideshow from the beginning again by gate.

Uh good afternoon, super advisor Marquez, Supervisor Miley.

My name is Ann Olivia Eldred.

I'm here today to present this special report on the Measure A1 labor and contract compliance pilot program.

Um you can go to the next slide.

This special report tracks union contractor participation in Measure A1 Affordable Rental Housing Construction.

It covers projects that had been completed or were in construction as of the end of the fiscal year, so June 30th, 2025, where union data is available.

Exhibit A at the end of your report does contain a complete list of all of the projects that are reporting in this um in this report.

This report is part of an ongoing series.

It's um tracking labor and contracting compliance under the Measure A1 new affordable housing construction development program and the next business contracting report, which will include all the information on goal attainment, um, contracting with minority-owned and women-owned businesses.

That will be presented in July of this year, and it will cover the same reporting period.

So we will be able to compare information.

Next slide.

Um the Alameda County businesses and residents to make sure that public bond dollars result in tangible concrete benefits for our businesses and our residents.

The board of supervisors adopted these goals to ensure that local businesses could compete for jobs and that construction contracts and workers were fairly compensated for both time and skills.

This report focused primarily on the business contracting portion of the program and the benefits that our union partners have seen thus far.

And um, to be clear, there are no goals for union participation, but we can report on contracting outcomes.

And so far, union contractors have received 1,674 construction contracts and nearly 2 billion in contract value from the Measure A1 program.

And next slide.

Hiring union contractors for affordable housing construction is regarded as an effective mechanism for ensuring high quality, safe and efficient projects through superior training and better worker retention while also supporting middle class jobs and economic stability.

Union involvement provides on the job training for apprentices with highly skilled journey persons.

Some preliminary data is available on the utilization of union labor on these projects.

It shows that 86% of construction hours on Measure A1 projects overall were performed by union employees.

Of the nearly 3 million hours performed, over 2.5 million of those hours were performed by union labor.

Approximately 412,000 hours were performed by non-unionized workers.

We will expect to present union labor statistics in the next jobs report.

Next slide.

Under the board adopted labor compliance implementation policies, new construction contracts, which have 80 or more units are required to enter into a private project labor agreement.

This agreement is not monitored by county staff, but it is it is monitored.

The entire Measure A1 rental development program was evaluated to determine union utilization across all projects, not just those subject to a PLA, but we did split those out so you could see how they are performing.

This microphone is quite hot.

Out of 37 completed and in construction projects for which we have data as of June 30th, 2025, five of those projects were subject to the PLA.

And all five PLA projects had completed construction, which means that we actually have all of the data for these projects, whereas some of the ones that are not subject to the PLA are still changing because they're still in construction.

Next slide.

Summary findings indicate that Measure A1 funded new affordable housing projects employ local and small local union contractors at high rates, regardless of PLA steps.

Small businesses, owner operators, and self-employed contractors can be less likely to have union contracts than larger companies.

Projects with PLAs employ a higher percentage of union contractors, while non-PLA projects award more very small contracts to small local non-union contracting businesses, owner operators, and self-employed contractors.

Overall, we see really high unionization rates across all projects.

Next slide.

Almost well, over 1,300 were awarded to union contractors on non-PLA projects.

This represents 74 and 70 percent of unionization rates among contractors.

Next slide.

So we'll get farther into that here.

This report again is focusing primarily on union contracting.

Next slide.

Measure A1 funded new affordable housing projects support union contractors on both smaller and larger scale construction projects with or without a PLA in place.

586 million was awarded to union businesses on PLA projects, which is 97% of their contracts supporting union contractors, and non-PLA projects awarded 1.7 um 1.4 billion to union contractors, which is 79% of their contracts.

Next slide.

So looking more closely at these local construction contracts, 701 construction contracts were awarded to local businesses overall.

Next slide.

Non-PLA projects awarded 434 contracts to local union businesses, with 17% supporting Alameda County local non-union contractors.

Next slide.

Of this amount, 112 billion, which is 94%, went to local businesses with union contracts.

46 million went to local businesses without union contracts.

Makes sense.

Okay.

Next slide, please.

395 million were awarded to local union contractors on PLA projects.

728 million were awarded to local union contractors on non-PLA projects, which is 99 and 93% respectively.

And I just the PLA projects are by definition our very largest projects.

So there's going to be a larger amount of money in those five projects because if they are 80 or more units, then they have they have a PLA.

All right, next slide.

And again, the others still support small local businesses.

Next slide.

So you'll see this a lot with on off haulers, um, truck drivers, uh people whose businesses are one and two people who are really very unlikely to be to be unionized.

Um thank you.

Um so during this reporting period, um, 30 million went to small local contractors on PLA projects and almost 84 million to small local um contractors on union contractors without a PLA.

Next slide.

With the small um the small local businesses, given how many of them are really very small businesses.

And this is accurate whether or not a PLA is in place.

Um this success is attributed to the prevailing wage requirement, technical training and support to understand the contracting outreach requirements as we have seen these numbers get better, and robust monitoring practices.

In all cases, the unionization rates are high, regardless.

Um, and if you take away the percentage that is unknown and we look just at what we do know, everything is over 80%.

It's it's really measure A1 is a union friendly program.

Um again, projects with PLAs do hire more union contractors, but not as very many, not as many very small local businesses, owner operators, or self-employed contractors as those without PLA.

And um, I am happy to take any questions that you have.

Okay, thanks for the report.

Let's see if there's any public speakers on this item.

There are no public speakers on this item.

Okay, so that's more case.

Thank you so much for the tremendous work.

This is um comprehensive and impressive.

So congratulations to you and all your hard work in um demonstrating the reinvestment of our local um dollars back into our community members.

Um really excited to read this positive news.

Um, just one point of clarification.

I see the list of projects um that are completed, and I should know this, but I am having difficulties tracking everything I've learned in the last year or so here.

Um, do you know how many units that is?

I know these are like projects, but are we like trying to remember if it's like 800 plus?

Like oh no, it's um I don't have the exact number for the projects we have in the pipeline right now.

It's 3,000 200 something.

Like it's it's a lot of units.

Okay, the ones that are included in this, because we don't have union information data for like the emergency funded programs because projects because those went into construction before we'd created the policies.

Okay.

So we just don't have some of the data for those early projects.

Um, but overall it is it's a lot, and with what we have in line, the goal is 4,000.

We we have more than that.

Okay.

So yeah.

Okay.

And then are we gonna in the next report?

Will the Broadway project be captured on here?

Because I know we use some measure A1.

So this is the the reporting deadlines, right?

So the next um the next contracting report is in the same period.

Okay.

So it will not have that.

If you want information on that, I can get that for you.

Okay, but the next scheduled um contract report goes through the end of the fiscal year.

And if if I said if uh if that project is not in construction yet, we won't have data.

Got it for that.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um I don't want to put you on the spot, but I'm just struggling with because I know the regional housing bond, you know, we really wanted that to come into fruition.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Um do we know if we anticipate kind of next step discussion at health committee in terms of exploring what options we have just because we've been able to demonstrate success here.

Just don't want it to be completely off the table, but know that we're also competing against the regional tax measure last week in our budget work session.

We got an update on cities are going out for tax measures, so it's just um getting to be a bit more complex of a conversation, but just wanting to put it out there in terms of what are the conversations look like with um people that care about affordable housing.

Right.

Uh hear you on that.

Um that's a little bit above our pay grade, just at the moment.

Um, but I do know that Michelle, our director, um has her finger on that pulse.

And uh I know she passes on whatever information she can at those various forums.

Um that's not exactly within the scope of what we've prepared for today, but yeah.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks for the report.

I just think it's great that um it's leveraged about 2.3 billion, and of that about one almost two billion has gone to uh to union contracts.

Yeah, uh 84%.

That's whether small, whether local, whether hey.

And this is and we know um, and it's good too to see that whether there was a PLA or not.

It didn't really matter, but that it does show uh some importance of a PLA, but in the grand scheme of things, it still worked out well.

Um, so I just think it's really really good.

So it's showing uh economic benefit back to the community, not just the fact that we're building housing and getting people housed, which was the primary objective, but there are a lot of spinoff effects.

Uh so I think everyone should be very proud of this.

So thanks.

Yeah.

Just the last report showed a one to 7.5 leveraging ratio off of measure $1, which is a massive reinvestment back into our community.

And then um her last jobs report showed local hire at 145% of our goal.

And it's um we exceeded the goal by 610,000 hours for local hire.

And those numbers, uh, it was 42% of the goal.

I think that's accurate.

Um for equity priority higher, which is 725,000 hours more than um than the goal that was set by the board, which is an ambitious goal.

So the program is is performing really well, and I just I need to give a shout out to our team who has really been creative and determined to work as closely with um with our small local businesses on how to get more of our businesses registered on how to improve recruitment practices so that these benefits are really felt by the people who live in this county.

Very good, very good.

And then to just to respond to Ms.

Marquez's question, yeah, the polling for a local bond, uh, even a citizens um initiated effort uh wasn't really adequate, let's put it that way.

And then at a uh the regional level, um, there's exploration of a possible housing bond in 2028, if everything works out.

Um but if it doesn't, uh I've also asked the staff at that level to look at other options so that if we get to 2028 and we can't move ahead with even a citizens as an initiated bond uh measure that we might have some other alternatives to pursue.

Um and there's some stuff that needs to be done, even if we want to do a regional measure at a citizen's level that we got to get legislation in Sacramento to authorize that.

But there's there's stuff afoot, but just don't want to get caught without being able to do something in the future.

Um, and we're gonna see if there's taxpayer fatigue come November.

Yeah, because all these you know, you heard it trying to um raise money through the ballot is yeah, I just think it's getting to be exhausting.

Yeah, but this really shows excellent work.

I just wish we if we hadn't waited for a regional measure a few years ago and gone up our own, you know, we could we could have a reauthorization that we'd be pursuing now, but we we tried to be good team players.

Okay, so we have one more report this afternoon, and that's our health care services Alameda County Health.

And that's our healthcare services.

Aluminum County Health.

I keep thinking of it as the Healthcare Services Agency, but they changed her name.

Thank you.

First my first time.

My name is Maria Smith.

I'm the director of the special projects office at Alameda County Health.

My team provides procurement and contracting services to Alameda County Health programs.

Today I'll be providing an update on CBO and non-CBO contracts for our agency for fiscal year 24-25.

BC Health's previous finance director, Christelle Ocasio used to represent our agency at this committee.

Given that position is currently in transition, I've been asked to present in the interim.

Please note that my team, the special projects office only holds a subset of Alameda County Health contracts, not the entire agency.

However, the info I'm presenting today does include data from the entire agency.

Next slide, please.

So just a bit of a background and history on our agency's presentations to this committee thus far.

We started in July 2022 when we presented to this committee discussing CBO contracts for FY2122 and returned in January 2023 to provide more comprehensive data for that same fiscal year, including an outline of 737 million of contracts under discretionary services and supplies, both CBO and non-CBO contracts, and the sub status of all contractors.

And then in the last two summers, EC Health has provided data on community-based organization and non-community-based organization contracts for FY2223 and 2324 respectively, and a breakdown of GSA versus AC Health conducted procurements.

Next, please.

Today I will provide an update on CBO and non-CBO contracts for FY2425 and a breakdown of GSA versus AC Health procurements.

At our next presentation, we'll provide additional data previously requested by both of you supervisors.

At the July 2025 committee meeting, Supervisor Marquez, you requested AC Health provide CBO contracts data by service delivery location.

We are actively working on gathering this data for a subset of CBO contracts for FY2526 to present at our next presentation.

AC Health manages many different types of service contracts across the agency's departments and programs, and service delivery location may not have been consistently included in reporting across contracts.

Therefore, we need more time to collect, analyze, and prepare the data.

Supervisor Miley, you've requested that we also provide another update on the estimated number of jobs, AC Health CBO contracts fund.

At our last presentation in July 2025, we provided this data for FY2526.

Given this information is part of our current FY2627 maintenance of effort budget development work.

They will not be available until after budget development season is complete.

Next.

Before presenting the contracts data for FY2425, I just wanted to take a moment to reshare the data AC Health previously presented on estimated number of jobs.

AC Health CBO contracts were planning to fund at the time of FY2526 MOE.

Even though it appears these are whole total numbers, in the majority of our contracts, we're not only in funding full-time FTE, but also partial FTE.

So this is the aggregate of full-time and part-time FTE, which was $634.1 million dollars providing funding for 4,233 FTEs.

Again, we'll be updating these numbers as part of our FY2627 MOE budget development process to share with this committee next time.

Now to jump into the contracts work.

CBO master contracts are issued to CBOs, usually through procurements and board approval.

There are some original CBO master contracts that were not selected through a standard GSA procurement process.

For example, the board has sometimes used its board allocated discretionary funds for some Measure A funded contracts.

These original CBO master contracts require board approval.

Once awarded, subsequent amendments to the CBO master contracts are often renewed on an annual basis, which is predicated on permanent ongoing funding, preventing disruption of direct services to the community.

Amendments also required your board's approval.

Standard services agreements consist of two kinds professional services and other services agreements.

Unlike the CBO master contracts, these contracts are time limited in terms and renewals.

This is often due to the funding source, which may be one time or due to program needs that do not require ongoing services.

While CBOs are the recipients of CBO master contracts, they can also receive standard services agreements.

And here we have just a few examples of the different standard services agreements types for professional services.

These are services that require like specialized license or certification, include medical related services, technology services, waste transportation, and professional consulting services, like for example, financial consulting.

These last three examples are often awarded to non-CBOs, but many of our medical related contracts are awarded to CBOs.

And then other services that are examples include research and evaluation, strategic planning, outreach and community engagement, and other consulting services.

And these contracts often go to CBO and non-CBO vendors.

Next.

This chart shows the kind of contract types awarded by AC Health in FY2425 by the dollar amount and number of total contracts.

For CBO master contracts, you'll see this category totals about 729 million or 82% of the total awarded.

In terms of the number of contracts, there were 503 contracts, which represents about 47% of the total number.

Next is standard services agreements for other services.

This is the smallest category with about 26 million awarded or 3% of the total.

There were 105 contracts in this category or 10% of the total number.

Finally, we see that for standard services agreements for professional services, AC Health awarded 137 million or 15% of the total, and 456 contracts, which is 43% of the total number.

Next, please.

Next, we'll look at contract types over four fiscal years.

The total number of contracts was relatively consistent between FY21 to F 2122 to FY2324.

CBO master contracts ranged from a low of 443 in FY2122 and a high of 616.

However, in FY2425, there was a significant increase in the total number of contracts awarded, mainly due to some small purchase orders within public health department in the social excuse me, standard services agreement professional services category.

However, the total number of CBO master contracts and standard services agreements for other services decreased.

Next slide, please.

CBO master contracts continue to increase its overall award amount steadily each year, whereas standard services agreements for other services and professional services categories fluctuate quite a bit year to year.

Next slide, please.

Here we have a visual representation of the same contracts data by type and amount for FY2425.

Again, we see the majority of the amount awarded in FY2425 was through CBO master contracts at 82% of the total.

CBO master contract amendments represent the largest number of contracts at 503 and close to half the total number of contracts at 47%.

Standard services agreements for professional services is second with 456 or 43% of the total.

And Standard Services Agreement for other services had a total of 105 contracts or 10% of the total.

Next slide, please.

Next, we'll look at the breakdown between community-based organizations and non-community-based organizations, contracts awarded for FY2425.

74% of all contracts awarded were to CBOs, with the remaining 26% awarded to non-CBOs.

Next slide, please.

In terms of the dollar amounts awarded in FY2425, the amount awarded to CBOs far exceeded that of non-CBOs.

93% of the amount awarded went to CBOs at $832 million versus only 7% to non-CBOs approximately $6 million.

Next slide, please.

Now we'll look at contract spending by AC Health Departments.

Jumping to the bottom line, we'll see that 67% of the amount awarded was by public health department, followed by 29% by the Office of the Agency Director, 3% by Public Health Department, and less than 1% for environmental health department.

You'll notice in the total column that the vast majority of the amount awarded in behavioral health, Office of the Agency Director, and Public Health Work to CBOs.

Environmental Health Department is the exception to that rule.

Next slide, please.

Next, we'll look at the number of contracts awarded in FY2425 for CBO versus non-CBO contracts by AC Health Department.

Behavioral Health Department awarded 244 contracts or 22.9% of the total.

Environmental Health Department awarded 9 contracts or 0.9% of the total.

Contracts representing about 46% of the total, and public health department awarded 301 contracts or 28.3% of the total.

Again, we see the vast majority of these contracts were awarded to CBOs.

Next slide.

Okay.

As supervisors, as you're aware, the county contracts must meet the requirements of the small local and emerging business program.

CBOs, nonprofit churches, or nonprofit religious organizations, public schools and universities, and government agencies are all exempt from the SLEB program per GSA's contracting policies and procedures manual for goods and services.

Next slide, please.

This pie chart shows the contracts amount awarded in FY2425 by SLEB status.

Out of the grand total of $891.7 million awarded, a majority of funds were awarded to SLEB exempt entities at $621 million, followed by GSA waiver at 158 million.

Certified SLEBs or primes with SLEB subcontractors were next at 73.6 million dollars.

Federal waivers made up 26.1 million dollars in contract award, and the remaining amount was awarded via board waiver of SLEB at 12.9 million dollars.

Next slide, please.

Here we're looking at the total number of contracts awarded in FY2425 by SLEB status.

Out of the grand total of 1,064 contracts, the largest category is SLEB exempt, totaling 601 contracts or 56% of the total.

155 contracts included federal slub waivers or 15% of the total.

138 contracts included GSA Slub waivers or 13% of the total.

133 contracts were certified SLEBs or primes with slub contractors, also at 13%.

And only 37 contracts had board approved sleb waivers or 3% of the total.

Finally, next slide, please.

Thank you.

Finally, to complete our procurement work to contract for services, AC Health runs our own formal RFPs and also partners with GSA for the ones we are not able to do ourselves.

We have specialized teams that are dedicated to RFP work that allow us to complete as many RFPs internally as possible.

Note that the GSA figures represent only those procurements they did on behalf of AC Health.

In calendar year 2022, there were 19 formal RFPs conducted by AC Health and none by GSA.

In calendar year 23, three by GSA and 24 by AC Health.

In calendar year 2024, seven by GSA and 14 by AC Health.

And these figures have been updated to show the full calendar year, as in the prior presentation.

We only had partial data for 2024.

And then in calendar year 25, seven were completed by GSA and nine by AC Health.

Next, please.

Thank you.

Well, thank you.

Let's see.

Do we have any public speakers on this item to be start to start with?

There are no public commenters on this.

Do you have any questions or comments?

No, thank you.

Great presentation.

Appreciate you being here.

Can you just elaborate a little bit more on the RFPs that GSA conducted?

Are they like what makes them distinct?

Why would those be ran through GSA and not within AC Health since the majority of them were through AC HELP?

It's usually a capacity issue.

If our team just various teams don't have the bandwidth to complete all of them internally, then we often turn to GSA to help us.

Okay.

And then I apologize.

But I believe correct me if I'm wrong.

Are most nonprofits slub exempt though?

Yes, nonprofits are slub exempt.

Some nonprofits are also slub certified.

Okay.

But most of them are just rely on the exemption.

But all eligible vendors are encouraged to become slub certified because that's how they get the additional preference points as part of the procurement.

Okay.

And then I think I've seen in some of our contracts where I'm trying to think of the language where I don't think it's disqualified, but I'm trying to think of the terminology that's I've seen where basically a nonprofit was a slub vendor, but they're no longer eligible.

Is that due like to the size of their organization, their budget?

I'm trying to remember.

I'm trying to give you a specific example, and I can't think of it right now, but I know I've seen that in some of our contracts.

It could be, I don't know the specific definitions off the top of my head.

I'd be happy to circle back.

But that sounds right.

Um, so in that case, they would just receive the exemption and not the preference points that they may have received in the past as a certified SLEB.

Okay, great.

And then um, is there coordination with the auditor's office in terms of directing people how to become a seleb vendor?

Yes, so the um GSA's um procurement templates that AC Health utilizes, links to all of the auditor information about how to become a certified slab, how vendors can also look for certified slabs to partner with in their bid applications.

Okay, great.

And when will be the next time um someone from AC Health presents to this committee?

Do you know?

Um I believe in the fall.

In the fall.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Maria.

Yes.

Yes.

Very good report.

Comprehensive.

I've seen these reports evolve over time.

How long have you been with the agency?

Um about about seven years now.

Seven years, okay.

So yes, I've seen his reports get better and better since the start of 2022.

Much more useful information.

It's getting to be very informative.

Um what I find, I'm gonna be going through a few slides here.

So 2526 MOU, uh, we're potentially projecting over 4,000 jobs.

Full-time jobs, that's that's nice.

A combination of full-time and part-time so yes.

That's that's still nice.

Um, and you know, at some point uh I'll be asking you if you can give us how many of those are local and how many are non-local.

You know, Alabama County very, but you know, I'm not gonna go to yet, I'm gonna throw too much at you because but this is this is good, it's getting us.

And then um, and then I also found it you know very interesting too to see um the fact that that's about 634 million dollars in contracting.

Um it's gonna really be interesting to see what the the spinoff effect of that is uh at some point, but I think this is a good a good beginning to show us because I think it's like with the A1 report, you know, with A1, we're all about building and providing affordable housing, and we've done a lot of that housing number of units, people housed, but there's been the spinoff effect in terms of jobs, union jobs, this, that, and the other, and how that's benefit the uh local economy.

So that's kind of what we're trying to track here as well.

Uh but I know at the beginning we're just um getting the foundation of how many contracts uh are coming through the uh Alameda County Health.

And I'm just amazed, a thousand contracts.

That's a lot of I'm looking at 2425, a thousand contracts.

No wonder you've got your own office of contracts, because that's a lot of contracts.

It is kind of evolving report.

I hadn't seen this before, but that's amazing.

I geez.

Um then it's almost 900 million dollars in contracting for 2425, which is pretty significant as well.

Um the contracts that are um non-CBO.

Are we talking about governmental entities, faith-based entities, any private sector organization?

So what is speci, you know, well, not specifically, but what's a non-CBO?

I know what a CBO is, but what does that include?

A non-CBO.

Um, non-CBO could be um a small consulting firm, a private company.

What about faith-based organizations?

Are they included here or with CBOs?

They're included in the CBO bucket.

Okay, and the non-CBOs would also be governmental entities.

No, we uh we include those under CBO because of their all under the list uh SLEB exempt.

So like Oakland or hey, we're at Fremont, if they're gonna something from the county, they'd be considered a CBO.

Interesting.

Okay, okay.

Another question I had was the slide slide um, this is slide eight.

Okay.

It shows that um the contracts for uh standard service agreement contracts professional.

And they've really gone up in 2425.

Do you know why what happened there?

Um this was due to some small purchase orders within public health in the professional services category.

Um so public health was the main driver of that increase.

Because I know in fiscal year 2122, it was like 131 million, 132 million.

Um, but then it was very small in 2223 and 2324, then it jumped back up.

So you so you're explaining it as basically public health.

Yes.

Okay.

Then I found it very fascinating that on slide 13 and slide 14.

The office of the agency director had 510 contracts and paper all the 244 contracts, but behavioral health, though it had fewer contracts, it was almost 600 million dollars in contracting, whereas the office of agency director was 259 million.

So even though it was more contracts in the office of the agency director, the amount was smaller than behavioral health.

Yes.

And then in the office of the agency director, um, I'm gonna ask you in the future too, if you can break that down, because I'd be interested in knowing, or hopefully we'd be interested in knowing with H H uh housing and homelessness.

Um if we can get a sense of what proportion of those contracts are from where now eventually uh housing and homelessness will probably become its own department, and we'll see a separate uh heading up here, I guess for them as that's their own department at some point, but because they are in a department, they're still in the office of the agent director.

So it'd be interesting to see what that breakdown is.

Sure.

Because I suspect a lot of that, a lot of the contracting might be uh from H maybe, but I don't know.

Got it.

We can do that in the future.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah, that's it, but I just I found this very very informative, very fascinating.

So I'm glad we're finally getting this.

Um we might have to ask social services to kind of mirror their reports after Alameda County Health, because this is I really like this information.

Very informative, yeah.

Yeah, yes.

Um just want to clarify under the CBO contracts.

Um there a distinction between so let me get to my question.

So um each office has the um envisioned 2036 funding, and that comes through AC Health as a board letter, it's a contract with a local CBO.

So that would be um categorized under the CBO master contract category under the CBO other services.

So can you point me to what slide that would be?

Yes, so um all of this data includes contracts from the enhancing vision 2036 fund.

A majority of the contracts are awarded to CBOs, so those are just built into all of the data that's presented today.

Um if memory serves me correctly, there are um just a few contractor contracts that go to non-CBOs, like one I can think of as a consulting firm that's like a local seleb.

So that data is also in the the SLEB.

Okay.

And then can you remind me I'm not recalling is the measure a not A1.

We've talked about A1 earlier, but measure A related to health care.

I don't think that's a contract, or is it um my understanding there are measure a discretionary funds that the board awards through the board letter process that AC Health Manages and that data is also included in this?

It would be captured in here as well.

Yes, okay, okay, got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just real quickly, it also does it capture how media health systems.

I don't know, but I'll find out.

Okay, that'd be interesting to know about that.

Okay.

Well, I said good reports, it's evolving and we're learning more.

Um, because prior to the reports coming here in 2022, we weren't getting any of this information.

Um, but now through this committee, we're beginning to get a little bit more transparency into the two big county agencies that do a lot of contracting.

So thank you.

So if we don't have any other questions or comments, can we see if there's any public comment on non-agendized items?

There is.

Okay.

Kelly, you're able to unmute.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I am a Fremont resident speaking on behalf of Mission Peak Conservancy.

I'm here to correct a public misstatement about poor maintenance on Morrison Canyon Road near Fremont.

You've seen a lot of pictures of that road.

Supervisor David Haubert told the Mercury News on February 13th, 2026.

That's last month, uh, that the city of Fremont quote, never paid one iota of attention to this road.

Quote, they've never chip sealed it.

They've never cleaned the gutters, they've never removed litter, end quote.

The Mercury News headline read, quote, county supervisor blasts Fremont, end quote.

That's inaccurate.

The city contracted with Frank Imhoff, a Synol-based contractor and a member of your East County Board of Zoning Adjustments to support the city's weast weed and waste contract, which requires a five-foot weed-free fire break, removal of debris, and disposal of garbage.

Ironically, the pothole portion of the road is divided 50-50 between Supervisor Elisa Marquez's and Supervisor Howbert's districts.

The potholes are not the city's responsibility.

They are your county public works agency's responsibility.

I'd ask your board to disavow Supervisor David Halvert's disrespect for our hardworking city and county laborers.

Please recognize the city's documented maintenance efforts and the city crews who do this labor.

I urge the board to rely on correct records before making public accusations against the city and to show respect and support for all the workers, city and county and independent contractors who keep our roads safe.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you.

So the Board of Supervisors and Contracting Committee meeting, policy meeting for March the 16th is adjourned until we meet again.