Contracting Working Group
Of the
Public Utilities Revenue Bond Oversight Committee

MINUTES

Friday February 8, 2008
9:00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
1155 Market Street (between 7 & 8th Streets)
11th Floor, Conf. A
San Francisco, CA  94103

1. Call to Order and Roll Call
 
Chair Patrick Sweetland called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m. and roll call was taken. Present: Patrick Sweetland, Stan Jones; Brian Browne was not present.  Mr. Sweetland noted that he received email communication from Mr. Browne explaining his absence and his objection to the short notice of the meeting. Mr. Sweetland asked that Mr. Brown’s objection be included in the meeting minutes.

2. Discussion and Possible Action Related  to the Review of Proposed Work Scope for Internal Charges

Mr. Sweetland stated that the draft work scope now includes the following sections: Introduction, General Project Overview, Project Background, Statement of Work and Consultants Qualification. He stated that this draft is open for discussion and editing purposes. He asked Committee and staff to review the draft so that a completed work scope can be presented to the full Committee at the February 11, 2008 meeting. Mr. Jones submitted edits under the General Project Overview, Project Background and Consultant Qualifications sections. Mr. Jones motioned to take the newly edited version of the work scope before the full Committee, Mr. Sweetland seconded. The proposed work scope was passed and will be presented to RBOC on February 11, 2008.

Mr. Jones stated that at the time of entering the contract the vendor should be HRC compliant vendors and should have experience including analyses of indirect costs. Mr. Jones and Mr. Sweetland confirmed that the Committee has the option of 1.) Getting a task change under the current Kuo contract, 2) Shopping the RFP through the Controller’s pool 3.) Sending out an RFP and receiving informal presentations from any and all auditors qualified through the City and County of SF. Mr. Jones noted that he is in favor of either the task change to Kuo’s contract, in order to see what kind of group Kuo can bring in, or sending out an RFP to all of the compliant auditors so they are not confined to the Controller’s pool. Mr. Jones continued that the Subcommittee could send a request for qualifications to the qualified pool, interview a minimum of three candidates and cap the budget between $25K- $50K. Staff will outline the different options and send to members by the next Subcommittee meeting.  Mr. Sweetland stated that he would make the proposed changes and email a revised draft of the work scope to Subcommittee members and staff.

Mr. Sweetland noted that he sent a request to staff to amend item 4 for the RBOC meeting to include “possible action”. Staff explained that the request was missed but because the agenda had been posted they would have to confirm with Ken Roux, Deputy City Attorney, on whether the item could be amended. If the verbiage stays as is, the full committee will only be allowed to discuss the proposed agenda and will be unable to vote for adoption.

3. Discussion and Possible Action Related to Scheduling of Next Meeting

Mr. Sweetland asked Subcommittee members to submit three or four possible meeting dates over the next two weeks in order to move the process along. He noted that committee action needs two out of three votes to pass and stated that attendance and participation is appreciated and helpful in maintaining the momentum. Mr. Sweetland asked staff to confirm the meeting date once the suggested times were submitted by fellow members.

4. Adjournment

Mr. Sweetland adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.