u~~~~ L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Richard L. Benbow, General Manager Community Development Department

Transcription

1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA Workforce Investment Board Charles Woo, Chair Workforce Investment Board Antonio R. Villaraigosa Mayor.~ s1rcnar,~..,./. \0 +Q.!() \ : ~~ t u~~~~ L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Richard L. Benbow, General Manager Community Development Department May 18, 2012 Council File: Council Districts: All Contact Person & Phone: Manny Chavez (213) The Honorable Antonio R. Vi llaraigosa Mayor, City of Los Angeles Room 303, City Hall Los Angeles City Council c/o City Clerk Room 395, City Hall Attention: Mandy Morales, Legislative Coordinator TRANSMITTAL: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING FROM A REVIEW OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) BEGINNING JULY 1, 2012 RECOMMENDATIONS The General Manager of the Community Development Department (COD) respectfully requests that the Mayor and City Council: 1. APPROVE the funding recommendations identified in Attachment A resulting from a review of proposals submitted in response to the WIA Youth WorkSource Center Operators RFP. 2. AUTHORIZE the COD General Manager to negotiate and execute agreements and or contract amendments with the organizations identified on Attachment A up to the amounts identified on Attachment A. 3. AUTHORIZE the COD General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Office of Pupil Services for an amount not to exceed $660,000, on a sole source basis and subject to City Attorney approval. 4. AUTHORIZE all proposers identified on Attachment A with a score of 70 points or greater to be eligible for the award of funds to support the City's HIRE LA's Youth for Summer Jobs Campaign.! Community Development Department 1200 West 7th Street, 6'h Floor, Los Angeles, California w11 ll~ wibla~it)', g_rg ~W\I.cdd.lacity.org

2 Youth WSC RFP 2 of 6 May 18, 2012 Funding Recommendations 5. AUTHORIZE all proposers identified on Attachment A with a score of70 points or greater to be placed on a "Replacement Operator List" to be eligible for consideration as a Youth Work Source Center operator in the event that a funded proposer is unable to successfully implement Youth WorkSource Center services. The Controller instructions will be transmitted under separate cover. FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT All actions requested herein relate to WIA grant funds. As such, there is no impact on the General Fund. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARD ACTION The Youth WorkSource Center Operators funding recommendations were approved by the WIB Executive Committee on May 3, BACKGROUND The Youth WorkSource (formerly OneSource) System was last procured in 2004 through a RFP process that resulted in the establishment of 13 Youth Centers in the seven City Planning Areas. The System was highly successful in providing services to youth and became a nationally recognized leader in implementing youth programs. The System consistently met all WIA federal performance standards. In addition, through its established infrastructure, the System managed non-wia funds for the City's summer jobs campaign and effectively managed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds. Anticipating the national trend toward focusing services on out-of-school youth, the OneSource System gradually increased its enrollment goals for this population. In consideration of the high school dropout crisis and the need to implement student recovery efforts, the Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and Youth Council made the policy decision to focus WIA funded services on out-of-school youth in In response, the Youth Council convened a task force. Over a series of meetings, this task force developed guiding principles that would serve as the foundation for the new Youth WorkSource System. The intent of the System will be to prepare young people to be college and career ready. It will re-engage out-of-school youth with school and/or work, improve student retention and bolster academic proficiency through effective case management. The System will also assist in preparing eligible youth to decide the next steps they need to take after high school by guiding them through an assessment and self-inventory process to help them identify their interests, preferences, motivations and options. After being better informed, youth will be better prepared to map out a path toward higher education and careers. Seventy percent of all enrollments in the new System are to be out-of-school youth and services will be targeted to areas of the City with schools that have the highest dropout rates. Partnerships that bring relevant expertise, reduced infrastructure costs and a sector focused approach are all priorities of the new System.

3 Youth WSC RFP 3 of 6 May 18, 2012 Funding Recommendations CDD subsequently incorporated these guiding principles into the Youth WorkSource RFP. RELEASE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The Youth WorkSource RFP was released on Friday, October 28, The RFP solicited proposals from organizations interested in managing a Youth WorkSource Center serving youth ages through a center-based service delivery model Proposals were initially due on Thursday, December 22, 2011 at 5:00 p.m., but the deadline was subsequently extended to Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. A Proposers' Conference was held at COD on Tuesday, November 15, 2011 and technical assistance was provided by posting answers on COD's website to questions submitted. PROPOSAlS SUBMISSION DEADLINE At the January 25, 2012 WIB Quarterly meeting, COD advised that 27 proposals were submitted by the established deadline and three proposals were submitted after the deadline and received by COD. The late proposals were submitted by Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. (dba) Archdiocese Youth Employment Services; the Los Angeles Urban League; and United Auto Workers Labor Employment and Training Corp. (UAW-LETC). All three proposals were submitted to provide services to the Region. APPEALS HEARING FOR late PROPOSAlS On February 23, 2012, the three late proposers were given an opportunity to appeal the tardiness of their proposal submissions. In accordance with the WI B/LEO 1 (Local Elected Official) agreement, these appeals were presented to an Appeals Board comprised of the President of the WIB; the COD General Manager; the President of the Youth Council; the Chair of the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee of the City Council; and the Deputy Mayor or their designees. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeals Board sustained all appeals and directed COD to review and evaluate all three proposals. PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS A total of 100 points, plus a potential 5 bonus points, was available for award: "" Demonstrated Ability (35 points)- Evaluation was based on the proposer's experience in providing the services solicited with an emphasis on youth and particularly out-of-school youth. "" Program Design (40 points)- Evaluation was based on the proposer's implementation strategy through their responses to a series of narrative questions that addressed the priorities established by the WI B. "" Cost Reasonableness (25 points)- Evaluation was based on the proposed facility costs, the amount allocated for participant related costs, leveraged resources, dedicated case management personnel and cost per case managed youth. "" System Objectives - Proposers were awarded 5 points for having submitted an application for a California Awards for Performance Excellence (CAPE) award or to any proposer that provided evidence of recognition as being an organization focused on performance excellence/total quality management.

4 Youth WSC RFP 4 of 6 May 18, 2012 Funding Recommendations Twenty-two evaluators, consisting of representatives from various Workforce Investment Boards and other outside entities, were recruited to review the narrative sections of the proposals. The evaluators participated in an orientation meeting, where they received an overview of the RFP, received training on the scoring criteria and tool, and were asked to review and sign the Conflict of Interest/Non-Disclosure Statement Each evaluator scored the proposals individually and met two weeks later to discuss their individual scores with their team partner to arrive at a final consensus score. Two of the proposals were submitted by the Youth Opportunity Movement (YOM) program, managed by CDD Operations staff. To ensure the integrity ofthe process, proposal review and scoring was managed entirely by the Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) Division of CDD. At the onset of proposal review, COD operations staff was instructed to refrain from involving themselves, discussing and/or otherwise attempting to influence the proposal review process. They were also instructed to refer any and all inquiries related to the Youth WorkSource RFP to the PRE staff. NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSAL REVIEW RESUlTS On April 13, 2012 proposers were notified of the proposal review results. The notification letter included the scores for all proposers, COO's funding recommendations and a discussion of the appeals process. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Given that this RFP represents CD D's first solicitation for youth proposals in several years, COD considered a number of factors in preparing funding recommendations and proposes to engage in extensive contract negotiations with the recommended proposers to ensure that the objectives of the new Youth WorkSource model are met. Attachment A identifies the list of proposers by region, score and funding recommendation. Additionally, Attachment A includes COD recommendations related to proposed subcontracts, FamilySource and WorkSource partners and high schools that proposers will be required to serve. Attachment B identifies LAUSD high schools with dropout rates of greater than 20 percent together with the proposer that is recommended to serve the areas in which those schools are located. 1. Funding Amounts The RFP anticipated that $1 0 million would be available for funding of 10 proposals up to $1 million per Youth WorkSource Center. The $1 million was based on COD's cost estimate of managing a Youth WorkSource Center and providing the menu of services as described in the RFP document. On April 8, 2012 the City was advised, by the State of California, of its youth allocation for PY While this allocation was issued for planning purposes only, it is anticipated that the final amount will remain unchanged. Combined with projected carryin revenue from PY and revenue thai will become available on April1, 2013, a total of $13,660,000 was made available for allocation to service providers. Given the increase in revenue available for allocation, COD recommends funding of 13 proposals at $900,000 per Youth Work Source Center. Thirteen service providers is the same number that constitutes the current OneSource System.

5 Youth WSC RFP 5 of 6 May 18, 2012 Funding Recommendations The recommendation to fund proposers at amounts equal to one another is based in part on the success of the FamilySource System in which a!l16 service providers are funded at the same level and with the same participant service level goals. Each Youth WorkSource Center will be required to case manage a minimum of 205 youth. This level of service is also based on COD's cost estimate of managing a Youth WorkSource Center and providing the menu of services as described in the RFP document 2. Funding of Subcontractors COD's funding recommendations specify that Youth WorkSource Centers may be required to subcontract with other proposers whether or not that relationship was identified in their proposal(s). The objective is to ensure service provision to all LAUSD high schools with dropout rates of greater than 20 percent and their surrounding areas. 3. Recommendations by Region COD's funding recommendations are based on proposer scores within the proposed service regions. However, if COD had recommended funding of the highest scoring proposals based solely on the contents of those proposals, there would have been an imbalance in high schools and areas served by those recommended for funding. This determination was made by COD's mapping of the proposed high schools and areas to be served. As such, the attached recommendations represent COD's best efforts to accept elements of the original proposals while promoting relationships as identified above. 4. FamilySource and WorkSource Partners To leverage its limited federal resources COD has promoted partnerships between its various systems of service delivery. Unfortunately, there has been limited success in this regard. To ensure that Youth WorkSource Centers partner with the FamilySource Center and WorkSource Center in their proposed area of service, COD's recommendations identify the F amilysource and WorkSource Centers that the proposer will be required to partner with, even if those centers were not identified in their proposal(s). 5. Required High Schools As identified on Attachment B, COD's recommendations ensure that Youth WorkSource Centers are assigned to serve most of the high schools with student dropout rates of 20 percent or greater, even if those high schools were not identified in their proposal(s). 6. Funding LAUSD Office of Pupil Services LAUSD was unsuccessful in applying to serve as a Youth WorkSource Center operator in the and Harbor regions. However, LAUSD's Office of Pupil Services is being recommended for $660,000 in funding on a sole source basis. In accordance with City and COD procurement guidelines, CDD will be soliciting City Attorney approval of the sole source funding prior to execution of an agreement. Funding of LAUSD was approved by the Youth Council's task force prior to issuance of the RFP. LAUSD's Dropout Prevention and Recovery Counselors will be assigned to all 13 Youth WorkSource Centers and will work with the Youth WorkSource Center staff to identify individuals for enrollment and to provide such individuals with access to all LAUSD educational programs, specialized educational activities and support programs. The value of these services will approximate $100,000 per Youth WorkSource Center.

6 -. Youth WSC RFP 6 of6 May 18, 2012 Funding Recommendations SUMMER JOBS The RFP stipulated that all proposers recommended for funding through this RFP will be eligible for the award of funds to support the City's HIRE LA's Youth for Summer Jobs campaign. COD recommends that this be expanded to include any proposer that was awarded a score of 70 points or greater, whether or not they are recommended for funding through this RFP. REPLACEMENT OPERA TOR LIST COD recommends that any proposer awarded a score of 70 points or greater be placed on a "Replacement Operator List." Inclusion on the list will make a proposer eligible for consideration as a Youth WorkSource Center operator in the unlikely event that a funded proposer is unable to successfully implement Youth WorkSource Center services. APPEALS HEARING RELATED TO RFP PROCESS Funding recommendation letters, released on April13, 2012, advised all proposers of their right to appeal. Proposers were advised that appeals must be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process was not followed in the review of proposals; a disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal; and that differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal were not grounds for submitting an appeal. On May 15, 2012, seven appeals (Attachment C) were considered by the Appeals Board. In accordance with the WI B)/LEO agreement, the Appeals Board was comprised bfthe President of the WIB; the COD General Manager; the President of the Youth Council; the Chair of the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee of the City Council; and the Deputy Mayor or their designees. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Appeals Board denied all seven appeals. In accordance with the WIB/LEO agreement, the Appeals Board decision shall be considered final. CONTRACT TERM Contract offers will be made to successful proposers upon City Council and Mayor approval. The initial contract term shall be from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 with the option to renew up to four additional, one-year program terms. RICHARD L. BENBOW General Manager CHARLES WOO Chair, Workforce Investment Board Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Youth WorkSource Center Operators RFP Applicant Scores and Funding Recommendations LAUSD High Schools with Dropout Rates of 20% or Greater and Proposed Youth WorkSource Operators Appeals Summary and City Response

7 ~ ATTACHMENT A YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS RFP APPLICANT SCORES FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 1 of3 A B c D E F G H J TOTAL REGION REF# AGENCY POINTS FUNDING AWARDED RECOMMENDATIONS (105 MAXIMUM) FUNDING NOTES FUNDED SUBCONTRACTORS REQUIRED FSC REQUIRED WSC REQUIRED HIGH SCHOOLS Catholic Charities of 1 Los Angeles, Inc. [dba) Archdiocese 92 $900, Youth Employment Services (AYE) Proposer will be requested to sub-contract Bresee Foundation Fairfax W1lshire FSC with AADAP for $100,000 to provide Covenant House California Hollywood WSC Hollywood 1736 FCC FSC services to Los Angeles High School & LAUSD Wilshire WSC Los Angeles (via AADAP) Tom Bradley FSC surrounding area. Marriott Bridges Marsha ll 2 Central City Neighborhood Partners SOS Mentoring Marriott Foundation Bridges Belmont Proposer will be requested to subcontract Inner Sight Bernstein (via YPI) The Regents of the University of with YPI for $100,000 to provide services to LA Gay & Lesbian Center Westlake Pico Union FSC Contreras 84 $900, PACEWSC California Bernstein High School and surrounding Salvadoran American Legal Educations (co-located) Roybal area. Fund (SALEF) Shakespeare Center of L.A. Sunrise Community Counseling Youth Policy Institute -' ~ 1- z w 3 Youth Policy Institute (YPI) 80 0 Proposer will be funded at$100,000 to provide services to Bernstein High School and surrounding area via subcontract with Regents of the University of California 4 Community Career Development, Inc Chinatown Service Center 72 Proposer will be funded at $100,000 to provide services to Uncoln High School and surrounding area via subcontract with Para Los Ninos. Proposer will be funded at $100,000 to provide services to Los Angeles High Asian-American Drug Abuse Program, 6 70 School and surrounding area via Inc. (AADAP) subcontract with Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. 7 Chicana Service Action Center Housing Authority (HACLA) 58 -= ~ 9 Youth Opportunity Movement Boyle Heights Aliso Pico Boyle Heights Mendez 91 $900, El Centro De Ayuda FSC Northeast WSC Ramona Boyle Heights FSC Roosevelt I- Proposer is recommended for funding to VJ c( serve North East Los Angeles. Proposer w will be requested to sub-conlfact with Alta Med Northeast LA wsc 10 Para Los Nlnos 84 $900, Lincoln Heights FSC Chinatown Service Center for $100,000 lo East Los Angeles Skills Center Metro North WSC provide services to Lincoln High School and surrounding area. - - ~ Franklin (R) Lincoln (via Chinatown Service Center) Wilson Banning Los Angeles Harbor College Proposer will be required to execute Carson Wilmington/San Pedro <>: 11 (Los Angeles Community College 73 $900, subcontracts as requested by COD through N/A Harbor WSC Gardena 0 FSC a) District) the contract negotiations process. Narbonne <>: < San Pedro ::r: 12 LAUSD City of Long Beach/Pacific Gateway ~

8 ATTACHMENT A YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS RFP APPLICANT SCORES FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Page 2 of 3 REGION REF# AGENCY TOTAL POINTS FUNDING AWARDED RECOMMENDATIONS (105 FUNDING NOTES FUNDED SUBCONTRACTORS REQUIRED FSC REQUIRED WSC REQUIRED HIGH SCHOOLS MAXIMUM) 14 YOM Valley Arleta(R) Youth Policy Institute, Inc. El Nido FSC 92 $900, Phoenix House Sun Valley WSC San Fernando (PACOIMA) Pacoima FSC Friends of tile Family Sylmar > ' --' Proposer is recommended for funding to Valley College ~ serve East Valley/Nortll Valley East Valley (via MCS) ::1: Mission College El Proyecto del Barrio, Inc. Adjacent. Proposer will be requested to sub Francis Polytechnic ~ $900, Valley College of Medical Career Soutll Valley FSC Van Nuys WSC 0 (VAN NUYS & NO HOLLYWOOD) contract with MCS for $100,000 to provide Fulton College Prep (R) z Cerritos College services to East Valley High School and Panorama City (R) YOM Valley surrounding area. 16 LA Mission College 62 - United Auto Workers- Labor Employment Proposer will be requested to subcontract Catholic Charities of Los Angeles, Inc. and Training Corp. Training (UAW- LETC) Foshay LC witll CRCD for $200,000 to provide services UAW-LETC/ East LA 17 (dba) Archdiocese Youth Employment 94 $900, Marriott Bridges 1736 FCC FSC Manual Arts (R) to Santee High School and surrounding Crenshaw WSC {co-located) Services 1736 Family Crisis Center Santee (via CRC D) area. LAUSO -,_ Community Build, Inc. 18 HAC LA Watts Labor Community Actlon 92 $900, Marriott Foundation Bridges Committee Maxine Waters Employment Prep Watts FSC west College :I: 19 Youth Opportunity-Watts 91 $900, ~ 0 U) 20 Coalition for Responsible Community Development (CRCD) Sou til East Los Angeles- WattsWSC Proposer will be requested to subcontract New Regal Health Center Bradley Milken FSC with CRCD for $200,000 to provide services L.A. Conservation Corps Coalition of Mental HACLA Portal to Jefferson High School and surrounding L.A. Soutllwest College Health Professionals CSAC Portal area. L.A. Trade Technical College FSC (CMHP) Proposer will be funded at $400,000 via 83 subcontracts with Youtll Opportunity-Watts and Catholic Charities oi Los Angeles, Inc. Jordan Locke (All Schools) (R) Fremont Huntington Park Jefferson (via CRCD) Riley Reaion #2 IRl 21 Los Angeles Brotllerhood Crusade, Inc. 22 UAW-LETC LAUSD Housing Autllority (HACLA) Los Angeles Urban League Chicana Service Action Center (CSAC) 63 Proposer will be required to execute 81 $900, subcontracts as requested by COD through N/A Community Build FSC the contract negotiations process. CCI/Soutll Los Angeles WSC (co-located) - - Crenshaw (R) Dorsey Washington

9 ATIACHMENTA TOTAL POINTS REGION REF# AGENCY AWARDED (105 MAXIMUM! >- w...j...j <( > :r: 1- ::::;) 0 <n en 29 w :: EJ Proyecto del Barrio, Inc. (CANOGA PARK) 28 Managed Career Solutions, Inc. (MCS) 80 The Regents of the University of California 30 Jewish Vocational Service 59 YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS RFP APPLICANT SCORES FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS 93 $900, $900, FUNDING NOTES FUNDED SUBCONTRACTORS REQUIRED FSC Proposer is recommended for fu nding to serve West Soutl1 Valley. Proposer will be funded at $100,000 to provide services to East Valley High School and surrounding area via subcontract with El Proyecto del Barno, Inc. Valley College Pierce College Valley College of Medical Career El Camino College YOM Valley - SOS Mentoring Marriott Bridges Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. (AADAP) lnnersight LLC 1736 Family Crisis Center LA Gay & Lesbian Center Shakespeare Center Los Anoeles NEW Canoga Park FSC West LA FSC REQUIRED WSC Canoga Park WSC Marina Del Rey WSC Page 3 of 3 REQUIRED HIGH SCHOOLS I Canoga Park Chatsworth Reseda Hamilton University Venice I Notations: (R): High Schools tl1at are not listed witl1in proposal but must be served as part of funding requirements (via... ]: High Schools will be served by COD-identified subcontractor.

10 Attachment B LAUSD HIGH SCHOOLS WITH DROPOUT RATES OF 20% OR GREATER AND PROPOSED YOUTH WORKSOURCE OPERATORS HIGH SCHOOL Year Dropout Rate PROPOSED YOUTH WORKSOURCE OPERATOR AREA NEW TECH SR. HIGH at JORDAN 67.7% Watts Labor Community Action Committee JORDAN SR. HIGH 40.4% Watts Labor Community Action Committee EAST VALLEY SR. HIGH 37.1% El Proyecto del Barrio (Van Nuys & No. Hollywood) ROYBAL LEARNING CTR. 34.8% Regents of the University of California MAYWOOD ACADEMY SR. HIGH 34.6% NOT IN CITY LIMITS SANTEE EDUCATION COMPLEX 33.2% Catholic Charities dba AYE CONTRERAS LEARNING CTR. 33.0% Regents of t he University of California WASHINGTON PREP SR. HIGH 32.1% Brotherhood Crusade LOS ANGELES SR. HIGH 32.0% Catholic Charities dba AYE GARDENA SR. HIGH 31.2% Los Angeles Harbor College ROOSEVELT SR. HIGH 30.7% LA YOM- Boyle Heights JEFFERSON SR. HIGH 29.5% LA YOM- Watts BELMONT SR. HIGH 28.8% Regents of t he University of California FREMONT SR. HIGH 28.4% LA YOM - Watts i CRENSHAW SR. HIGH 28.3% Brotherhood Crusade MANUAL ARTS SR. HIGH 26.6% Catholic Charities dba AYE PANORAMA SR. HIGH 26.6% El Proyecto del Barrio (Van Nuys & No. Hollywood) DORSEY SR. HIGH 25.7% Brotherhood Crusade BERNSTEIN SR. HIGH 24.5% Regents of the University of Cal ifornia FULTON COLLEGE PREP. 23.6% El Proyecto del Barrio (Van Nuys & No. Hollywood) HUNTINGTON PARK SR. HIGH 22.7% LA YOM - Watts FRANKLIN SR. HIGH 22.4% Para Los Ninos LINCOLN SR. HIGH 22.0% Para los Ninos via Chinatown Service Center VENICE SR. HIGH 21.9% Regents of the University of Cal ifornia HOLLYWOOD SR. HIGH 21.6% Catholic Charities dba AYE SOUTH EAST SR. HIGH 21.4% NOT IN CITY LIMITS WILSON SR. HIGH 21.4% Para Los Ninos BELL SR. HIGH 21.1% NOT IN CITY LIMITS ARLETA SR. HIGH 20.8% YPI - Pacoima SAN PEDRO SR. HIGH 20.6% Los Angeles Harbor College No. Valley Central Central Central Harbor East Central No. Valley Central No. Valley East East West Central East No. Valley Harbor

11 Page 1 of 9 :A~P~~~ANi YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAlS (RfP) APPEAlS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE ATTACHMENT C 1. I los Angeles Unified School District (I.AUSD) Los Angeles Unified School District (lausd) is basing its appeal on the I The City recommends that the appeal be denied based on the following points: following: 1. Disagreement with the point that LAUSD has no experience working with out-of-school. 2. Disagreement with the point that LAUSD's outreach needs to be more outreach oriented. 3. Disagreement with the point that LAUSD did not address page 13 in RFP Iength of participation. 4. Disagreement with the point that LAUSD did not allocate sufficient funding for a case manager in the budget narrative. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. Although, LAUSD disagrees with the opinion of the raters, that does not meet the criteria for an appeal '1''

12 Page 2 of YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAlS (RFP) ATTACHMENT C APPEAlS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE.. AP~~t~~'f crrv ~EsPoi\l$ri.<. 2. I los Angeles Unified School District (lausd) Harbor Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is basing its appeal on the following; 1. LAUSD asserts that nowhere in narrative #1 do the instructions ask about an out-of-school strategy. LAUSD states that their proposal does mention that they have worked with the out-of-school population, and it is clearly indicated on pages 28 and 29 of their proposal. The City recommends that the appeal be denied based on the following points: 1. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. However, to clarify the RFP, instructions for Narrative 1 in the RFP ask for a description of the proposer's demonstrated ability operating a workforce development program targeted at youth age 14-21, specifically addressing the program's experience serving out-of-school youth. 2. LAUSD disagrees with the comment that for the past two years, they served below 40% out-of-school youth. They also state that they have always exceeded the 40% requirement for out-of-school youth. They also state that the actual percentage is not mentioned in the proposal, because, per the RFP instructions on page 19, SOFA will serve as one of the sources for evaluation of the demonstrated ability category. 3. LAUSD states that they have been the lead for the Harbor area the last eight years. Moreover, there is no part in the RFP instructions in narrative #1 that indicates they needed to discuss future recruitment of out-of-school youth. Based on their reading of the RFP instructions, narrative #1 is to illustrate demonstrated ability, not what will be demonstrated. 2. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria process were not followed in the review of proposals. A disagreement with objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. However, to clarify for this RFP, a minimum of 70% of a!l youth enrollments shall be out-of-school youth who are years old. By the appellant's own admission, they served less than 70% of this targeted population Upon review of the raters' comments, the concerns stated by the appellant are not consistent with the comments shared with the proposer. Furthermore, the appellant is disputing the rating of its past contractor experience rather than basing its appeal upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals LAUSD contends that their proposal reflected the vision of the City, which includes having a youth re-entry plan to get youth re-engaged, among other proposed program elements, consistent with the City's vision for this program, and disagrees with the assessment that their proposal does not describe how the program design addressed the City vision. LAUSD states their proposal discusses a myriad of mentoring~ and business connections in which youth were connected to programs connected to their career pathways, which conflicts with the raters' comment on the proposal having weak mentoring and business connections. 6. LAUSD states that nowhere in the RFP instructions does it indicate to discuss community needs regarding hours of operation. 4. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting! an appeal. Although, LAUSD disagrees with the opinion of the raters, this does "~ i meet the criteria for an appeal. j i : i 5. Although LAUSD disagrees with the opinion of the raters, that does not meet the : criteria for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal Raters' comments applied to the proposer's narrative and flowchart of describing the i progression of services for participants and the comments indicated the "responses do i not explain services like mentoring or how business employers interact, vague, too i broad, lacks detail." l ----~ ~~ : 6. Narrative 2-Program Design of the RFP item Q. c {page 25) instructs the proposer to! "Discuss how you determine the most effective schedule of expanded hours of! operation and services to best meet the needs of your community." ~! : i i

13 Page 3 of9. Ap~eLtA~T.. 2. I los Angeles Unified School District!LAUSD) Harbor 2012 YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) APPEALS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE 7. LAUSD disagrees with the raters' comment that "Not enough money [was] allocated for a case manager in the budget narrative." LAUSD indicates that they explained in their proposal how all of their staff serves as case managers, and that this is a model they have used in the past, which has worked very well for them. ciyy R~s~QNSE ATTACHMENT C 7. Although LAUSD disagrees with the raters' opinion, that does not meet the criteria for i an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. Upon review of the raters' comments, the concerns stated by the appellant are not consistent with the comments shared with the proposer. The City identified the evaluation criteria for cost reasonableness on page 20 of the RFP and proposals were evaluated following this criterion: "Dedicated Case Management Staff - Proposed budget with the higher percentage allocated for Case Managers will receive greater number of points."

14 Page 4 of9 1.. P.:l'.i>ELLANt! YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAlS {RFP) ATTACHMENT C APPEAlS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE. b-& R~$PQNSE I los Angeles Urban league (laul) The los Angeles Urban league is basing its appeal on the following: 1. LAUL asserts that the City had inconsistencies in its process to ensure each agency complied with the mandated requirement to respond to the Youth WorkSource Center RFP. Initially all bidders and Proposers were to be registered in LABAVN (Page 6) no later than 5:00pm, 15 days prior RFP due date of As it turns out all bidders were not registered by deadline. The City recommends that the appeal be denied based on the following points: 1. The City requires that proposers conduct Business lndusion Program {BIP) outreach using the Los Angeles Business Assistance Virtual Network {LABAVN). A proposer's failure to utilize and complete their BIP outreach may result in their proposal being deemed nonresponsive. For those proposers who did not complete this requirement, the City chose not to exercise this option to find them nonresponsive, since there were technical problems with the LABAVN system, as noted in the December 8, 2011 Notice to Parties Interested in this RFP. 2. The rating process used to determine funding recommendations seems to be influenced by geographic location or other unknown factors and not solely on the merits of their total points awarded. Los Angeles Region: Coalition for Responsible Community Development was awarded 83 points and they were not recommended by THE CITY for funding, however Brotherhood Crusade received 81 points and was recommended for funding. This calls into serious question the fairness of process and rating system for determining awards for all involved. 2. The City followed the process identified in the RFP. The sole use of the total points awarded as a basis for funding recommendation was not specified in the RFP. The RFP stated "The City may fund more than one center in areas with high percentage poverty." The RFP also indicated that the proposer whi be evaluated against othl proposing to serve the same regional area and that the consideration of any or all of the criteria is the City's sole discretion. As the City reviewed the area and schools proposed for services in the regions, the City exercised its option (page 34) to add subcontractors for the betterment of service coverage to the residents. 3. LAUL is questioning the process THE CITY employed to assign subcontractors between the different proposers.. More specifically, LAUL asserts certain proposals were strengthened by THE CI1Y after submissions were made, including adding subcontractors to make some proposals more viable, and that it appears to have significantly changed outcomes. 3. As stated in the RFP on page 14, section C. "The City reserves the right to require any successful proposer to collocate with other City funded agencies or to occupy a facility identified by the City." The adding of subcontractors, which was done after the scoring of proposals was completed, did not affect the score or the process of the proposals. 4. LAUL states that it is not clear how cost reasonableness was determined. For example, it appears that inadequate standards or controls for cost reasonableness were applied, allowing new or existing applicants including those who had never run a WIA programs, to undercut fair and reasonable cost structure (as determined by THE CITY by annual budget and audit processes). 4. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. This appeal does not relate to the City not following its process. The City identified the Evaluation criteria for cost reasonableness on page 20 of the RFP (see below) and proposals were evaluated following these criteria. All proposed costs will be evaluated against the City's independent cost estimate and against the costs of other applicants. Costs will be evaluated on the following factors: " Accurate and Complete Budget- Proposed budget must be accurate and complete in order to get greater number of points.., Facility Costs - Proposed budget with lower percentage allocated for facilities will receive greater number of points. " Participant Related Costs - Proposed budget with the higher percentage allocated for participant related costs will receive greater number of points. 0 Dedicated Case Management Staff- Proposed budget with the higher percentage allocated for Case Managers will receive greater number of points. "' Leveraged Resources - Proposed budget with the higher percentage of leveraged resources will receive greater number of points. '" Cost Per Youth Served - Proposed budget with!ower cost per youth served will receive greater number of points.

15 Page 5 of YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST for PROPOSALS {RfP) APPEALS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE.. d+y R~SPONSE \ ).. ATTACHMENT C 4. I Jewish Vocational Service (JVS)-West The Jewish Vocational Servic:es (JVS) is basing its appeal on the following: 1. JVS asserts that its proposal contained multiple examples of its experience delivering youth services in al! 10 program elements, its ability and experience in serving diverse at-risk youth populations and, therefore, believes the raters' comments stating a "lack of depth or provision of examples" in JVS' response was unclear and blatantly wrong.! JVS asserts that the page limitation provided insufficient space for Narrative 1-Demonstrated Ability and Narrative 2-Program Design, to re-answer questions previously addressed. JVS contends that all charts and forms have been completed in full; all collaborations, both financial and non-financial were accounted for; letters of support, memorandums of understanding, and required Exhibit V signatures were included in its proposal JVS maintains that the reviewers' comments regarding lack of detail, missing responses or narrow/non-specific descriptions of services within each element of the program design were unclear. JVS asserts it is impossible for them to understand exactly where and how points were not awarded, because they lack sufficient feedback from the City on raters' scores. ~ JVS asserts that agency's submitting proposals to become a new Youth service provider are placed at an unfair disadvantage to those submitting applications for renewed services. Although the RFP makes mention of the City's independent cost estimate, it [the RFP] never states that this information will not be made available for review upon request, and when JVS inquired about the estimate it was not made available to them. JVS states that the criteria to judge cost reasonableness is flawed as they cannot determine what would be deemed reasonable or unreasonable without the cost estimate. The City recommends that the appeal be denied based on the following points: 1. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. Although, JVS disagrees with the opinion of the raters that does not meet the criteria for an appeal. 2. Proposer has not met the criteria for appeal. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. 3. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals and this comment does not meet the standard for appeal. The RFP does not mention that the cost estimate will be made available. As stated on page 20, Evaluation Criteria, "Ali proposed costs will be evaluated against the City's independent cost estimate and against the costs of other applicants." The five criteria included were Facility Costs, Participant Related Costs, Dedicated Case Management Staff, Leveraged Resources, and Cost per Youth Served. Since the RFP never indicated that the estimate would be made available to proposers, the City has not erred in its process and therefore the criteria for appeal has not be.,., met.

16 Page 6 of9, I :.A~~~l:LJ.\.1\Jr > 2012 YOUTH WORKSOURCE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) APPEAlS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE ~ c1n(~l:sp~ns~ ATTACHMENT C 5. I Community Career Development, Inc. -Central Community Career Development, Inc. (CCD) is basing its appeal on the I The City recommends that the appeal be denied based on the following points: following: 1. The acceptance and scoring of late proposals was considered and approved by the 1. CCD asserts that the City did not follow its process by accepting late I Appeals Board on February 23, This issue was previously resolved by the Board..P!..~!?osa Is CCD asserts that exclusion of their partners' expertise was improper and that the exclusion of their partners' expertise was improperly assessed. CCD believes that because some of the successful proposers had existing WJA youth contracts, the performance of their partners was reflected in the lead agency's WIA performance and thus included in their demonstrated ability. CCD states that this created an uneven playing field, violates the evaluation guidelines, and prejudices the existing worksource Centers that did not already have OneSource funding. 2. Although CCD disagrees with the opinion of the raters, this opinion does not meet the criteria for an appeal. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals. However, to inform the process regarding scoring, Narrative 1-Demonstrated Ability requested the proposer describe the demonstrated ability for the past two years, clearly articulating the measurable outcomes, including the roles of specific partners involved in achieving program goals. If CCD included the role of the partners in its narrative stated in the appeal, their experience was considered by the raters and the RFP proc was followed. 3. CCD contends that raters improperly indicated that CCD did not demonstrate the ability to place the required number of youth into employment or further education. ceo claims the RFP did not specifically ask for the number of previous placements, nor did the evaluation criteria mention this as an evaluation factor, CCD states that it did include the data necessary to demonstrate ability in this area. Additionally, CCD stated that it appears the raters incorrectly concluded that the number of out-of-school youths served over the last two years was below the performance levels needed for this program CCD states that the raters improperly imposed a criterion not listed in the proposal when the raters indicated that CCD lacked experience with LAUSO in-school youth. CCD maintains that this was not listed in the RFP as a criterion for evaluation under Demonstrated Effectiveness and that "the RFP included it only as one of 10 different types of entities when asking for experience in partnering, and the reference to LAUSD is not specific to in-school youth. Our relationships with LAUSO for inschool youth were reflected in the letters we had from =xxxxxx [sic]." 3. Although CCD disagrees with the raters' opinions on its limited demonstrated ability to place youth into employment or education, or meet the level of out-of-school youth needed, the raters apparently reached that conclusion based on the results of their evaluation. This difference in opinion does not meet the criteria for an appeal. The raters followed the process and used the scoring criteria established in the RFP to evaluate the proposals as submitted. Additionally, CCD's contention is incorrect that the RFP did not ask for previous placements into employment or education. The RFP stated "All proposers will be evaluated on documented performance for the two most recently completed program years in enrolling youth ages 14-21;... in assisting youth with returning to school, securing employment and securing diplomas and/or credentials that identify the youth as having vocational skills..." 4. Although CCD disagrees with the raters' opm1ons on its required partnerships, this difference in opinion does not meet the criteria for an appeal. The raters followed process and used the scoring criteria established in the RFP to evaluate the proposals as submitted. The RFP targeted both in-school and out-of school youth and further stated that "The LAUSD's Office of Pupil Services shall serve as a mandatory outreach partner for all Centers to identify and access potential youth participants, In-school outreach efforts are to be targeted to students of the LAUSD high schools in the proposed regional area l._j ~-~ ~~~-~-~~~~~~

17 Page 1 of YOUTH WORKSOUIKE CENTER OPERATORS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS {RFP) APPEAlS SUMMARY AND CITY RESPONSE..... (:ltv RESPONSE. i >. ATTACHMENT C s. Community Career Development, Inc.-Central 5. CCD contends that the use of SOFA data may have resulted in a prejudice against WorkSource Centers that did not have an existing OneSource contract with the City. 5. Appeals can only be based upon specific facts demonstrating that the RFP criteria or process were not followed in the review of proposals and this comment does not meet the standard for appeal. However, to inform the process regarding scoring, as stated in the RFP for existing WorkSource, OneSource and FamilySource contractors, SOFA performance for the two most recently completed program years served as one of the sources for evaluating this category. Additionally, the evaluation considered information provided by the proposer's experience in placement in employment and education, out-of-school youth ~~--~-~ ~ ~.5'~-~_9L~~f?~~~12.':::J.~su m!:!1.::!:1.~..0_2!..?..~~~~~-~~~-~~~-~!:!1.~~-~~~~i~~.!:.i..t?~~~---~ CCD contends that the evaluation did not take leveraged funds into consideration when evaluating specific expenditure categories, such as case management and participant related costs. 6. Although ceo disagrees with the raters' OpiniOns, differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. However, to inform the process regarding scoring the RFP lists the Evaluation criteria Participant Related Costs, dedicated Case Management Staff and Leveraged Resources: "' Participant Related Costs- Proposed budget with the higher percentage allocated for participant related costs will receive greater number of points. " Dedicated Case Management Staff- Proposed budget with the higher percentage allocated for Case Managers will receive greater number of points.,. Leveraged Resources - Proposed budget with the higher percentage of leveraged resources will receive greater number of points. 7. CCD asserts that the scoring for case management did not accurately reflect al! of CCD's case management costs. CCD contends that in order to evaluate the percent of the budget allocated for case management it was necessary to look at three places in the budget: I) personnel, 2) Bresee's subcontract costs, and 3) other costs which included a portion of the cost oft he MSW students. 7. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for submitting an appeal. CCD only listed case management staff in the personnel section of the budget. Under Breese's subcontract costs the only item that is listed is to serve 28 in-school youth at $2,500 and 12 out-of-school youth at $3,000/$87,301 in personnel. The budget did not mention case management. As for the MSW students, CCD listed the total value nf resources as $8,364. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CCD contends that their proposal emphasized the development of 8. A disagreement with or objection to the points awarded is not sufficient basis for an career pathway with "industry recognized credentials" and that~)he appeal. Differences of opinion about the merits of a proposal are not grounds for failure of the RFP to account for training costs in evaluating cost submitting an appeal reasonableness was thus biased against proposing occupational The RFP did not identify trammg costs as an element of the evaluation of Cost training. CCD contends that training cost should have been included in Reasonableness. Further, as stated in the Guidelines for Preparation of Budget Forms, the scoring of participant-related costs. "Participant Related Costs~this line-item is to identify funds that will be budgeted for the direct financial support of program participants. This may include, but not be limited to, transportation assistance, food, immunization and clothing. Direct financial support, or Supportive Services, may be provided only when necessary for enabling individual to participate in youth activities at OneSource Center." The RFP process was followed since training was not to be used in the participant related cost, and therefore was not used.