CC PACKET 12041984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- Associates, while providing a viable approach to job evaluation, did not present a system that would' fully satisfy the requirements of Minnesota law. Hal 1 cres t- Craver was eliminated because we felt .that with their staffing and current com- mitments, a timely product might be a problem. After that interview, the RFP committee developed a more detailed and specific RFP, copies of which were sent to all interested cities. The three consulting firms were asked to make a second presentation which took place on November 6 , 1984: Invited to that meeting were all the representatives of organized labor represented in the MAMA communities, representatives from private employee asso- ciations and any managers or administrators who wished to attend. At the conclusion of the interview, the selection committee was unanimously in favor of recommending the CDC system. The CDC proposal at $345,000 was, admittedly, the most expensive proposal we received; however, the unanimous feeling of the com- mittee was that it was the one proposal that we felt would provide the best and most legitimate results and would be the most easily maintained system over a period of years. RATIONALE FOR DECISION I would like to briefly discuss some of the thoughts of the committee regarding the selection of CDC which I hope will explain why that choice was made. First and foremost, the Control Data Corporation proposal offers to do job evaluations on all of a given city ' s positions. We originally thought the cost of doing such a study to be prohibitive, and had suggested in the RFP that an evaluation • study that included 25 benchmark jobs would be more appropriate. CDC bid that benchmark study but added that for a nominal additional charge , it would be a simple task to do all of the positions in all cities. CDC Business Advisors ' computer capability makes the extension of the study to all individual positions in each city, a relatively simple matter. The other consulting proposals did not offer that capability. A very strong argument for the selection of CDC was the extent of the data offered as an end product. First and foremost, after the study was completed, CDC would provide each city with an evaluation report ranking their specific employees based on a comparable worth scale. In addition, the MAMA cities would receive a composite benchmark study which would provide evaluations throughout the metro area for those jobs which were similar. An example would be that a city would be given a relative point value for the position of patrol officer within its own organization, and would also have the data to compare that point value to a metropolitan average and to specific patrol positions in neighboring cities,. This was felt to be a tremendous labor relation-personnel tool for all cities and something beyond what we thought we would receive from the comparable worth study. Another very attractive feature of the CDC proposal was its ability to be updated. Once the initial study was completed and in place, the system would be able to provide, at a very nominal cost, adjustments over the years. For example, if a city created a new position or added responsibilities to an existing -job, a new questionnaire could be filled out and submitted to CDC • outlining the tasks that position would perform. CDC Business Advisors would recompute the job evaluation rankings for that city and provide a new point value for the position.