SPECIAL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE July 22, 2026
PREPARED FOR Mayor and Town Council
PREPARED BY Heather Abrams, Town Manager
Michael Vivrette, Finance Director
SUBJECT Authorize the Town Manager to Execute an Agreement with Government Consulting Partners in an amount Not-to-Exceed $34,500 for Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Town Manager to execute an agreement with Government Consulting Partners in an amount not to exceed $34,500 for Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study.
BACKGROUND
The last time the Town conducted a user fee study and cost allocation plan was in 2019 which was an update to fees adopted in 2009. The Council engaged Revenue & Cost Specialist, LLC (RCS) with a notto-exceed contract for $25,000 to conduct a User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan. In the current FY 26/27 budget, the Council has allocated $25,000 for a similar fee study (see 01-715-881).
The Project
The purpose of a fee study is to identify the costs of all operational services that are either currently charged a fee or could be charged a fee. A cost allocation plan (CAP) identifies the indirect costs (e.g., departmental overhead, finance services) associated with the provision of the direct services (staff salary & benefits). The objective is to identify the “true or full” cost (direct and indirect costs) for staff to provide the services. While operational costs have increased since the 2019 fee schedule was adopted, other than increases to facility rental fees, almost all the Town fees have remained at the same level since 2019.
Outreach to Proposers
On June 11, 2026, the Town Manager issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Comprehensive Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study with a due date of July 12, 2026. Staff sent the RFP to over 5 possible prospers (including Matrixcg.net, Clearsourcefinancial.com, nbsgov.com, willdan.com, mgt.com). Staff also including notice of the RFP’s availability in the Town Newsletter, and on the Town website (which government contractors scan for RFP notices).
As of the closing date, one response was received, from Government Consulting Partners, Inc, (GCP).
The Town Manager emailed the potential proposers (who did not submit a proposal) for feedback on why they choose not to propose: two said Fairfax's budget was too low, one said they provide some but not all of the services requested in the RFP, and one said they were too busy. Given that Fairfax's budget and the potential proposers are unlikely to change, re-opening an RFP is not recommended.
Proposal Evaluation Process
The GCP proposal was reviewed by the Town Manager, Director of Finance, and Director of Planning and Building Services Director to ensure that it was complete, and that the proposer has the experience and skill needed to perform the project, and that the costs proposed are well supported and within reason.
Although the RFP has a clause which allows the Town to deem a “failure of completion” cancellation if only one response was received, after reviewing the submission by GCP staff has determined that the proposal is sufficient to recommend the awarding of the contract.
Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Town Manager to execute the standard consulting agreement with GCP now, so GCP can get started.
DISCUSSION
Highlights of the proposal submitted by GCP include:
• Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) is a California-based municipal finance and cost recovery consulting firm headquartered in Granite Bay, CA. GCP specializes in user fee studies, cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, internal service fund analysis, state-mandated cost claiming, and public agency cost documentation.
• Though incorporated in 2018, the principals cite 36+ years of California Cost Recovery experience including prior work involving Fairfax and Ross. They have prepared user fee studies and related cost recovery services across all 58 counties and 215+ cities including the County of Marin and several small cities such as the City of South Lake Tahoe. • For Fairfax, GCP will build the CAP as a full-cost allocation plan designed to support user fees, fully burdened hourly rates, and internal cost visibility. Applicable fee centers include Community Development Services, Police Services and Townwide/Administrative Services. • The base fixed fee is $34,500, not to exceed, and includes the User Fee Study ($23,500), Cost Allocation Study ($8,500), and focused Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit limited to review of staff provided data ($2,500).
• The proposal projects a target date for Council presentation of September 2, 2026, with timely award and prompt delivery of data by the Town.
Next Steps
If the Council authorizes the Town Manager today to execute the Town’s standard agreement with GCP, staff expect GCP to present its report at the September 2, 2026 Council Meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project was budgeted in 01-715-881 Non-Departmental for $25,000. The cost of the contract could exceed the budget by $9,500. This can be absorbed in the non-departmental budget. Town staff resources will be required to provide timely data to the consultants. More importantly, early implementation of an accurate fee schedule can ensure the Town recovers its costs of providing services to developers and the community.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution
B. Agreement with Government Consulting Partners, Inc, Proposal Town of Fairfax ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2026-
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF FAIRFAX AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT CONSULTING PARTNERS, INC.
FOR A COMPREHENSIVE COST OF SERVICES AND COST ALLOCATION STUDY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $34,500
WHEREAS, the Town of Fairfax last conducted a user fee study and cost allocation plan in 2019, which was an update to fees adopted in 2009, and, other than increases to facility rental fees, nearly all Town fees have remained at the same level since 2019 while the Town's operational costs have continued to increase; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive cost of services (user fee) study and cost allocation plan will identify the true and full cost, including direct and indirect costs, of providing Town services, so that the Town Council may adopt an accurate and up-to-date fee schedule that ensures the Town recovers its costs of providing services to developers and the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council allocated $25,000 in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026/27 budget (Account No. 01-715-881, Non-Departmental) for a fee study; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2026, the Town issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study with a due date of July 12, 2026, distributed the RFP to more than five qualified firms, and published notice of the RFP in the Town Newsletter and on the Town website; and
WHEREAS, as of the closing date, one responsive proposal was received, from Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP), and, based on feedback obtained from firms that declined to propose, staff determined that re-issuing the RFP would be unlikely to yield additional proposals and is not recommended; and
WHEREAS, the GCP proposal was reviewed by the Town Manager, Finance Director, and Director of Planning and Building Services, who determined that the proposal is complete, that GCP has the experience and skill needed to perform the project, including more than 36 years of California cost recovery experience by its principals, and that the proposed costs are well supported and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, GCP proposes to perform the work for a fixed fee not to exceed $34,500, consisting of a User Fee Study ($23,500), a Cost Allocation Study ($8,500), and a focused Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit ($2,500), with a target date of September 2, 2026 for presentation of its report to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the contract cost may exceed the $25,000 budgeted amount by $9,500, which can be absorbed within the Non-Departmental budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax hereby:
1. Authorizes the Town Manager to execute the Town's standard Professional Services Agreement with Government Consulting Partners, Inc. for the Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study, in substantially the form presented with the staff report, in an amount not to exceed $34,500; and
2. Directs the Town Manager to take all actions necessary to implement this resolution, including providing timely Town data to the consultant; and
Town of Fairfax ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2026-
3. Determines that this resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Fairfax at a duly noticed meeting held on the 22nd day of July, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________
STEPHANIE HELLMAN
MAYOR
ATTEST
_________________________________
CHRISTINE FOSTER
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF FAIRFAX
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of July 22, 2026 by and between the Town of Fairfax, a public agency organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 142 Bolinas Rd., Fairfax, CA 94930 (“Town”), and Government Consulting Partners, Inc., a California corporation with its principal place of business at 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). Town and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. Town is a public agency in the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project: Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).
B. Consultant has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.
C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for Town to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Services.
Consultant shall provide the Town with a Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study, consisting of a User Fee Study, a Cost Allocation Study, and a focused Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit, as described in Consultant’s proposal dated July 12, 2026 (the “Proposal”), which is incorporated herein by reference, and as requested by the Town Manager. In the event of any conflict between this Agreement and the Proposal, this Agreement shall govern.
2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the Town shall pay Consultant a fixed fee of $34,500 for the base scope of services, payable in accordance with the milestone payment schedule set forth in the Proposal, upon receipt of invoices from Consultant. Optional or additional services shall be performed only upon prior written authorization by the Town and shall be billed at the fixed fees or the hourly rate of $215 per hour set forth in the Proposal. b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of $34,500.
3. Compliance with Law.
Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements.
4. Standard of Care
Consultant’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.
5. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the Town, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.
6. Independent Contractor
Consultant is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of Town. No employee or agent of Consultant shall become an employee of Town. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from Town as herein provided.
7. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the Town until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Town it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section.
a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The Consultant shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Town. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent.
(iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted (7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents and Town designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage. (vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the Town, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the Town as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the Consultant shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Town.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
(iii) The policy shall give Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents and Town designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the Town, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the Town as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions)
At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement the Consultant shall maintain professional liability or Errors and Omissions insurance appropriate to its profession, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the Town and in an amount indicated herein. This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant. “Covered Professional Services” as designated in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement. The policy must “pay on behalf of” the insured and must include a provision establishing the insurer's duty to defend.
d. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:
Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 per occurrence/ $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage Automobile Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit
Professional Liability $1,000,000 per claim and aggregate (errors and omissions)
(ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. e. Policy Provisions Required
(i) Consultant shall provide the Town at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the Consultant shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to nonpayment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the Town at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that Consultant’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, selfinsurance or other coverage maintained by the Town or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. (iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow Consultant or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. Consultant hereby waives its own right of recovery against Town, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. (v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability. Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the Consultant from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the Consultant’s indemnification obligations to the Town and shall not preclude the Town from taking such other actions available to the Town under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
f. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the Town, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
(1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. g. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Consultant, and any approval of said insurance by the Town, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, Town has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by Town will be promptly reimbursed by Consultant or Town will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from Consultant payments. In the alternative, Town may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The Town may require the Consultant to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the Town nor any of its officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement.
8. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of Town’s choosing), indemnify and hold the Town, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the Town, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for
such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.
9. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:
TOWN:
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Rd.
Fairfax, CA 94930
Attn: Town Manager
CONSULTANT:
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
5016 Brower Court
Granite Bay, CA 95746
Attn: J. Bradley Burgess, Executive Vice
President
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.
10. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of Town and Consultant as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder.
Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void.
This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.
11. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.
12. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, Consultant shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of Town. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.
13. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
TOWN OF FAIRFAX
By:
Its: Town Manager
Printed Name: Heather Abrams
CONSULTANT
By:
Its: Executive Vice President
Printed Name: J. Bradley Burgess
ATTEST
______
Christine Foster
Deputy Town Clerk
ATTACHMENT B Continued
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 2 Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal
3 Executive Summary 5
Form A: Proposer Commitment and Information 7
Form B: Price Sheet 8
Form C: Questionnaire and Response to Scope of Services 10
1. General Company Information 10
2. Qualifications and Experience 10
3. Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Project Team 12
4. Response to Scope of Services 13
5. References 15
6. Implementation Schedule 16
Attachment A: RFP and Addenda Compliance Matrix 17
Attachment B: Cost Proposal Assumptions and Optional Services 18 Attachment C: Project Team Resumes 19
Attachment D: Required Disclosures and Agreement Compliance 26 Conclusion 27
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 3 Letter of Transmittal
July 12, 2026
Heather Abrams
Town Manager
Town of Fairfax
142 Bolinas Road
Fairfax, CA 94930
Re: Proposal for Comprehensive Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Dear Ms. Abrams and Evaluation Committee:
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) is pleased to submit this proposal to provide the Town of Fairfax with a Comprehensive Cost of Services and Cost Allocation Study. We understand that Fairfax is not seeking a static report. The Town is seeking a defensible, maintainable cost recovery framework that can support fee updates, budget planning, policy choices, public transparency, and Council adoption after a seven-year interval since the 2019 study.
Fairfax is a small town, but this project is not simple. The RFP and Addenda 1 through 3 call for an integrated user fee study, a cost allocation plan, and a focused review of townwide fee-based services.
The Town has also disclosed practical data constraints, including Excel, Tyler, and paper records, no online permit system, and no staff time tracking for permit processing. GCP has structured this proposal around that reality: a senior-led, right-sized scope that produces defensible results without overburdening Town staff or overbuilding the assignment.
GCP brings a distinctive combination of California user fee, cost allocation, indirect cost, SB 90, audit defense, and implementation experience. Brad Burgess has served Marin County continuously since 1990, GCP's longest-standing client relationship, including prior SB 90 work for Fairfax, Ross, and other small agencies in the county. We understand that local context matters. Fairfax residents and Council members will need more than a mathematical answer; they will need a clear explanation of what changed, why fee adjustments are recommended, and how the Town can phase or calibrate implementation to avoid unnecessary sticker shock.
Our approach is built around a simple principle: full cost is the accounting result; the adopted fee is the policy choice. GCP will calculate the cost of providing services, including direct labor, benefits, departmental overhead, and townwide overhead. We will then help Fairfax evaluate appropriate cost recovery levels, subsidy choices, fee structure changes, implementation timing, and public-facing explanations in a way that is transparent, practical, and defensible.
This proposal is submitted by Government Consulting Partners, Inc., 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746. The individual authorized to contractually bind and negotiate on behalf of GCP is J. Bradley Burgess, Executive Vice President, 916.595.2646, [email protected]. GCP has reviewed the RFP and Addenda 1, 2, and 3 and will comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, subject only to administrative details to be finalized at contract execution.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 4 We appreciate the opportunity to support Fairfax. We would be honored to help the Town move from outdated fees and fragmented data to Council-ready recommendations that are accurate, understandable, and implementable.
Respectfully submitted,
J. Bradley Burgess
Executive Vice President
Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 5 Executive Summary
A right-sized study for a small Marin town with high service expectations Fairfax has gone approximately seven years since its last full cost-of-services study. In a small-town environment, that passage of time matters. Labor costs, benefit costs, insurance costs, technology costs, development review expectations, recreation costs, public transparency standards, and Council adoption dynamics have all moved since 2019. A new study will likely reveal areas where current fees are below cost, and in some categories the difference may be significant.
GCP will help Fairfax manage that challenge responsibly. We will not simply calculate full cost and recommend a mechanical move to 100 percent recovery for every fee. Our role is to separate the accounting result from the policy decision, identify where full recovery is legally and operationally appropriate, identify where a subsidy may be reasonable, and provide an implementation path that Council and residents can understand.
The Town should receive three things from this engagement: an accurate model, a credible report, and an adoption strategy. GCP will deliver all three.
Why GCP is the right fit for Fairfax
GCP Advantage What it means for Fairfax
Fairfax-specific
understanding
GCP brings direct Marin County and small-town experience. Brad Burgess has served Marin County continuously since 1990, GCP's longest-standing client relationship, including prior work involving Fairfax, Ross, and other local agencies. The team understands the policy sensitivity of fees in small, engaged communities.
Cost recovery is our
core practice
GCP specializes in user fee studies, overhead cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, internal service fund analysis, and cost documentation. This is not a side practice within a general consulting firm.
Senior-only delivery
model
The named senior consultants will lead the interviews, build the models, review assumptions, prepare recommendations, and support Council adoption. Fairfax will not be handed off to junior analysts.
Adoption-ready
results
GCP will provide a fee shock review, subsidy and recovery policy framework, implementation recommendations, and Council-ready explanation materials.
Right-sized pricing
GCP proposes a fixed fee of $34,500, with optional services separated so the Town can control cost while still receiving the core work requested in the RFP and addenda.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 6 What Fairfax will receive
• A refined project scope and schedule aligned with the September 2026 implementation target. • A full-cost overhead cost allocation model and fully burdened hourly rates for fee costing. • A comprehensive review of current fees in the 2019 study scope and current Town fee categories identified by the RFP and addenda.
• A cost-of-service analysis for Community Development Services, Police Services, Recreation Services, and Townwide/Administration Services fee areas, as applicable to the current fee schedule and available data.
• A focused townwide fee-based services audit based on efficient review of staff-provided data, consistent with Addendum 1.
• Recommended fees, current cost recovery levels, proposed cost recovery levels, revenue impact, and implementation considerations.
• Peer and neighboring-jurisdiction fee comparison for information and policy context, not as a substitute for cost analysis.
• A final report and presentation materials designed to help management, Council, and residents understand the recommendations.
• Editable Word and Excel deliverables that Town staff can maintain and use for future updates.
Proposal highlights
FI XED FEE
$34,500
One price for the complete engagement — no hourly
surprises.
SERVI NG M A RI N COU N TY
36 Years
GCP’s longest-standing client relationship — we already know this region.
TEAM C AP AC ITY
Full Team, Day One
Senior staff engage immediately at award. The Town’s
aggressive timeline demands a full team of experts.
COUNCI L T A RGET
September 2
GCP can meet Fairfax’s target with a timely award and
prompt data delivery.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 7 Form A: Proposer Commitment and Information
Request for Proposal: Comprehensive Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Field Response
Company Name Government Consulting Partners, Inc.
Company Address 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746 City / State / Zip Code Granite Bay / CA / 95746
EIN 99-1737026
Website governmentconsultingpartners.com
Business Type Corporation - California S Corporation
Town of Fairfax Business
License #
To be obtained upon award, if selected
Proposer Contact Name J. Bradley Burgess
Proposer Contact Title Executive Vice President
Proposer Contact Email [email protected]
Proposer Contact Phone 916.595.2646
Proposer Contact Address 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746 Authorizing Official Name J. Bradley Burgess
Authorizing Official Title Executive Vice President
Authorizing Official Email [email protected]
Authorizing Official Phone 916.595.2646
By submitting this proposal, GCP acknowledges receipt and review of the RFP and Addenda 1, 2, and 3.
GCP certifies that the information provided is accurate and complete to the best of its knowledge, that the scope of work can be performed as presented in this proposal, and that this proposal is made without collusion or fraud.
Authorizing Official Signature: /s/ J. Bradley
Burgess
Date: July 12, 2026
Name: J. Bradley Burgess Title: Executive Vice President GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 8 Form B: Price Sheet
This price sheet provides a firm fixed, not-to-exceed fee for the base scope requested in the RFP and clarified by Addenda 1 through 3. The base fee includes the User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Study, and focused Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit. Optional services are listed separately and will be performed only if authorized by the Town.
Firm Name Total Fixed Price, Not to Exceed
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. $34,500
Task Breakdown
Deliverable Estimated
Hours
Cost
User Fee Study 115 $23,500
Cost Allocation Study 40 $8,500
Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit, limited to efficient review of staff-provided data
15 $2,500
Total Base Fixed Fee 170 $34,500
Milestone Payment Schedule
Milestone Amount Trigger
Project kickoff, refined scope, and
data request $6,900 Upon completion of kickoff and delivery of initial data request Cost allocation model and
preliminary fully burdened rates $8,625 Upon delivery of preliminary CAP schedules and rate framework Draft user fee analysis and focused
fee-based services audit findings $12,075
Upon delivery of draft fee schedules,
recovery analysis, and preliminary
recommendations
Draft report, management review,
and Council materials $5,175 Upon delivery of draft report and presentation materials Final report and final presentation
support
$1,725
Upon delivery of final report and
completion of final presentation
support
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 9 Additional Services (Optional)
Optional Deliverable Estimated
Hours
Cost / Rate
In-depth process, service-level, and staffing
evaluation 115 $25,000 fixed fee
Customer satisfaction survey 40 $8,500 fixed fee
Labor market / compensation survey 55 $12,500 fixed fee Legal challenge support after adoption As requested $215/hour Additional on-site meetings beyond two
included meetings As requested $215/hour plus travel at actual cost Additional special project support As requested $215/hour Authorizing Official Signature: /s/ J. Bradley Burgess Date: July 12, 2026 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 10 Form C: Questionnaire and Response to Scope of Services GCP has organized this section in the same order as Form C. Responses are tailored to the Town of Fairfax RFP and Addenda 1 through 3.
1. General Company Information
1(a). Company overview
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. (GCP) is a California-based municipal finance and cost recovery consulting firm headquartered at 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746. GCP specializes in user fee studies, cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, internal service fund analysis, state-mandated cost claiming, and public agency cost documentation.
GCP is structured as a boutique senior-consultant firm. Our model is intentionally different from larger national consulting firms that often assign senior personnel during the proposal stage and then delegate much of the work to junior staff. GCP assigns experienced directors and senior consultants to lead interviews, build models, perform quality control, prepare deliverables, and support adoption. 1(b). Letter of transmittal
A signed letter of transmittal is included near the beginning of this proposal. GCP has read and will comply with the terms and conditions of the RFP and Addenda 1, 2, and 3, subject only to administrative details to be confirmed at contract execution.
1(c). Primary contact
Field Response
Primary contact J. Bradley Burgess, Executive Vice President Phone 916.595.2646
Email [email protected]
Address 5016 Brower Court, Granite Bay, CA 95746
1(d). Subcontractors and subconsultants
GCP does not propose to use subcontractors or subconsultants for this engagement. The senior GCP personnel named in this proposal will perform the work.
2. Qualifications and Experience
2(a). Firm history and organizational structure
GCP was founded by J. Bradley Wilkes in March 2018 and later incorporated as a California S Corporation.
The firm currently operates as a boutique senior-consultant practice with an eight-person professional team focused on local government cost recovery. GCP has no formal board; leadership is provided by J.
Bradley Wilkes, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, and J. Bradley Burgess, Executive Vice President.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 11 GCP is intentionally specialized. The firm does not maintain unrelated management consulting, technology implementation, or staffing lines of business. Our work is concentrated in user fees, cost allocation, indirect cost, internal service funds, SB 90, and related municipal finance studies. 2(b). Primary business of parent company and affiliates GCP has no parent company or affiliate whose business would affect this engagement. GCP’s primary business is public agency cost recovery consulting.
2(c). Responsible office for the User Fee Study and Cost Allocation Plan GCP’s Granite Bay, California office will have primary responsibility for both the User Fee Study and the Cost Allocation Plan. All work will be managed from California, with on-site meetings in Fairfax as included in the fixed fee.
2(d). Experience with overhead cost allocation plans, user fee studies, organizational studies GCP’s principals and senior consultants have prepared user fee studies, cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, and related cost recovery analyses across all 58 California counties and more than 215 cities. The firm’s work includes comprehensive citywide user fee studies, selected-fee studies, development services fee studies, public works and recreation fee analyses, police and regulatory fee analyses, overhead cost allocation plans, internal service fund structures, and indirect cost rate proposals.
Agency Scope Period Relevance to Fairfax
Marin County CAP design and internal
service fund analysis
2025 to
present
Direct Marin County context,
current local cost allocation and
ISF work, and understanding of
countywide cost structures.
City of South
Lake Tahoe
User Fee Study + Cost
Allocation Plan 2025
Small-city environment with
user fee and CAP integration
and Council adoption
considerations.
City of Inglewood
Annual CAP, User Fee
Study, SB 90, ISF, and
special cost recovery
support
2024 to
present
Broad proof of GCP’s ability to
connect user fees, CAPs, special
studies, and implementation
support.
City of Santa Ana
Development Services
User Fee Study,
Planning, Building, and
Public Works
2024 to
present
Direct development services fee
analysis, service inventory
validation, staff time analysis,
and fee recommendations.
City of Chandler,
AZ
Comprehensive User
Fee Study
2025 to
present
Comprehensive cost recovery
and discount policy
considerations for a full-service
city.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 12 2(e). Full Cost and OMB-A-87 / 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation experience GCP prepares both full-cost cost allocation plans for internal cost recovery and federal indirect cost rate proposals under OMB A-87 / 2 CFR Part 200. For Fairfax, GCP will build the CAP as a full-cost allocation plan designed to support user fees, fully burdened hourly rates, and internal cost visibility. If the Town later determines that a federal cognizant agency submission or separate indirect cost rate proposal is required, GCP can assist under a separate authorization. 2(f). Differentiators
• Direct Marin and small-agency familiarity. Brad Burgess has served Marin County continuously since 1990, GCP's longest-standing client relationship that stretches back through five different consulting firms, including prior SB 90 work involving Fairfax, Ross, San Rafael and other small local agencies. • Full cost and policy judgment. GCP separates the cost calculation from the fee adoption decision, helping agencies understand both the math and the policy tradeoffs. • Fee shock management. A seven-year update cycle can produce large percentage changes. GCP will provide implementation options so Fairfax can avoid treating every calculated gap as an immediate fee increase.
• Maintainable models. GCP will provide editable Excel and Word files with clear assumptions and update logic so the Town is not dependent on a black-box consultant model. • Senior-only delivery. The named consultants will perform the engagement personally.
3. Qualifications and Experience of Proposed Project Team The Fairfax project will be staffed by senior GCP personnel with direct user fee, CAP, cost recovery, adoption support, and Bay Area experience. GCP will not substitute key personnel without prior Town approval. Patrick Dyer, a GCP Director with 25+ years of government financial strategy, cost-recovery, and federal audit-defense experience, is available to lead the optional in-depth process, service-level, and staffing evaluation described in Attachment B if the Town chooses to authorize that service.
Team Member Role Relevant Experience Fairfax Responsibilities J. Bradley
Burgess
Project Executive
and Primary
Contact
36+ years of California local
government consulting,
including user fees, CAPs,
ISFs, SB 90, and Marin
County/small-agency work.
Executive oversight,
client contact, adoption
strategy, Council
presentation support,
quality assurance.
Cindy Sconce Project Manager
Director-level experience
managing California cost
recovery, user fee, and SB 90
engagements with strong
staff interview and
implementation experience.
Day-to-day project
management, interview
coordination, fee
inventory, schedule
control, report
development.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 13 Team Member Role Relevant Experience Fairfax Responsibilities Jeff Wakefield Technical Lead
Senior technical lead for user
fee studies, cost models, staff
time analysis, and fully
burdened hourly rates.
Cost-of-service model,
staff time validation, fee
calculations, revenue
impact, QA of formulas.
Ruben Rivas
Benchmarking
and Senior
Analyst
Government finance
consultant with experience in
peer benchmarking, fee
comparison, and cost
analysis.
Peer comparison, fee
schedule review,
benchmark
classifications, data
support.
J. Bradley
Wilkes
CAP Lead and
Executive QA
Founder and CEO with 40+
years of cost allocation, user
fee, and public finance
experience.
CAP methodology,
allocation basis review,
senior quality assurance,
model defensibility.
Patrick Dyer
Audit &
Compliance
Support
(Optional Task 3)
25+ years in government
financial strategy, cost
recovery, and federal
compliance; built and led a
national cost-recovery
consulting practice; extensive
audit-defense and auditreadiness experience for
state, city, and county
governments.
Available to lead the
optional in-depth
process, service-level,
and staffing evaluation
(Attachment B) if
authorized by the Town.
4. Response to Scope of Services
GCP’s understanding of Fairfax’s scope
GCP understands that the Town seeks a comprehensive review of user fees, a cost allocation plan to support fully burdened rates and overhead recovery, and a focused audit of townwide fee-based services.
Addendum 1 clarifies that the base Task 3 effort should assume an efficient review of staff-provided data to audit the cost of each service, with any in-depth process, service-level, staffing evaluation, and customer satisfaction survey priced as optional services. GCP has followed that structure.
Addendum 3 further clarifies that the departments and fee categories generally fit into Community Development Services, Police Services, Recreation Services, and Townwide/Administration Services, and that the study should at a minimum recommend updates to all fees within the 2019 study. GCP has built its work plan around those categories and will confirm the final fee inventory at kickoff.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 14 Methodology by phase
Phase Approach and Deliverables
PHASE 1
Kickoff, scope refinement,
and data request
Confirm the fee inventory, departments, schedule, project contacts, available data, interview list, and Council timeline.
Deliver a focused data request aligned with Excel, Tyler, paper records, budget documents, staffing data, revenues, permit volumes, and current fee schedule information.
PHASE 2
Cost Allocation Plan and fully
burdened rates
Develop cost pools, identify central service functions, confirm allocation bases, calculate overhead rates, and develop fully burdened hourly rates for positions and departments used in the fee study.
PHASE 3
Fee inventory, staff
interviews, & service mapping
Conduct limited staff interviews to confirm service steps, review responsibilities, workload drivers, available volume data, and the practical differences between flat fees,
deposits, pass-through charges, and actual-cost services.
PHASE 4
Cost-of-service analysis and
recommended fees
Calculate the full cost of fee services using direct labor, benefits, non-labor costs, departmental overhead, and
townwide overhead. Compare current fees to full cost,
identify recovery levels, estimate revenue impact where data allows, and recommend fees or fee structures.
PHASE 5
Focused townwide fee-based
services audit
Review staff-provided data to identify fee-based services, cost drivers, recovery gaps, fee structure issues, missing fees, and transparency opportunities. This phase does not include a formal staffing study, customer survey, or in-depth permit process reengineering unless authorized as optional service.
PHASE 6
Draft report, fee shock
review, final report, and
presentations
Prepare a draft report and recommendations, review with management, refine based on consolidated comments,
prepare final editable files, and support Council adoption through two included on-site meetings or presentations.
User Fee Study methodology
GCP’s user fee methodology begins with the fee schedule and service inventory, not a generic template.
For each fee area, GCP will identify the service provided, responsible department, staff classifications involved, estimated staff time, applicable direct non-labor costs, departmental overhead, townwide overhead, current fee, calculated full cost, recommended fee, cost recovery percentage, and implementation considerations. Where services vary widely by complexity, GCP will recommend use of deposits or actual-cost billing rather than forcing an unstable flat fee.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 15 The peer comparison will be used as context only. Neighboring and comparable cities can help Fairfax understand market position and public-facing reasonableness, but cost-of-service analysis remains the legal and analytical foundation for recommendations.
Cost Allocation Plan methodology
GCP will build a practical full-cost allocation model for Fairfax. The model will identify central service cost pools, receiving departments, allocation bases, and cost flows. Allocation bases will be reasonable, measurable, and documented. The final model will support fully burdened hourly rates and the user fee cost calculations, while remaining understandable enough for Town staff to update in future years.
Fee shock and adoption strategy
Seven years is a long interval for a user fee study. GCP will include a fee shock review identifying fees with large percentage increases, high public sensitivity, or potential adoption risk. For those fees, GCP will help the Town evaluate alternatives such as phased implementation, partial cost recovery, clearer service descriptions, subsidy policy choices, consolidation of fee categories, or retention of deposit/actual-cost structures where appropriate.
This is where GCP’s adoption experience matters. The Council and residents need to understand that full cost is not an automatic policy mandate. It is the starting point for a transparent decision.
Council and public-facing support
The base fixed fee includes two on-site meetings or presentations. GCP expects these to include a kickoff/interview working session and a management/Council presentation, or two Council-facing meetings if the Town prefers. Additional on-site meetings will be billed on a time-and-expense basis only if authorized.
5. References
GCP provides the following references and recent comparable engagements. The list includes Marinspecific work, small-city work, Bay Area work, and comprehensive cost recovery work involving both user fees and cost allocation plans.
Agency Project / Scope Period Reference Contact Relevance Marin County CAP design and ISF
analysis
2025 to
current
Lisa DeCarlo, Division Chief,
Finance
415.473.6162
[email protected]
Direct Marin
County context and
current cost
allocation/ISF
methodology.
City of South
Lake Tahoe User Fee Study + CAP 2025
Olga Tikhomirova, CPA,
Director of Finance
530.542.6000
[email protected]
Small-city cost
recovery and
Council adoption
environment.
City of
Inglewood
CAP, User Fee Study,
SB 90, ISF,
2024 to
present
Sharon Koike, Finance Director
310.412.8724
Comprehensive
cost recovery, CAP,
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 16 Agency Project / Scope Period Reference Contact Relevance sports/entertainment
special studies
[email protected] user fees, audit
defense, and fee
implementation.
Implementation Schedule
GCP can support the Town’s desired September 2, 2026, Council target if award occurs by July 22 and the Town provides requested data within one week of kickoff. If award occurs on August 5, the September 2 target remains possible but will require compressed review cycles and prompt consolidated comments from Town staff.
Phase Target Timing Deliverables / Assumptions
Kickoff and data request Week 1
Kickoff, refined scope, data request,
interview schedule, fee inventory
confirmation.
CAP and fully burdened
rates
Weeks 1-2
Cost pools, allocation bases, preliminary
overhead and hourly rates.
Fee inventory and
interviews Weeks 2-3
Limited staff interviews, service mapping,
data gap resolution.
Cost-of-service analysis Weeks 3-4
Draft fee calculations, recovery analysis,
revenue impact where data allows.
Focused fee-based
services audit Weeks 4-5
Staff-provided data review and findings
integrated into recommendations.
Draft report and
management review Week 5 Draft report, fee shock review, management working session.
Final report and Council
support
Week 6 /
September
target
Final report, final fee schedule, presentation
materials, Council support.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 17 Attachment A: RFP and Addenda Compliance Matrix
Requirement / Clarification GCP Response Location
Proposal order: cover, table of
contents, executive summary, Form
A, Form B, Form C, attachments
GCP has followed this order and
included the required forms and
questionnaire responses.
Entire proposal
RFP scope: Cost Allocation Plan,
User Fee Study, and Townwide FeeBased Services Audit
Base fixed fee includes all three
workstreams.
Form B; Form C
Section 4
Addendum 1: Task 3 base work
should assume efficient review of
staff-provided data; deeper
process/staffing/service-level
review and customer survey
optional
GCP scopes Task 3 accordingly and
prices the deeper services as
optional.
Form B optional
services;
Attachment B
RFP Tasks 1(k) and 1(l):
compensation market position
benchmarking and compensation
implementation strategy
GCP has priced this work as a
clearly identified optional Labor
Market / Compensation Survey,
consistent with the optional
services structure established by
Addendum 1, and will perform it
only if authorized by the Town.
Form B optional
services;
Attachment B
Addendum 2 and Addendum 3: due
date July 12, 2026
GCP proposal is dated July 12,
2026 and acknowledges the due
date.
Cover; Letter
Addendum 3: departments
generally include Community
Development Services, Police
Services, Recreation Services, and
Townwide/Administration Services
GCP work plan and fee inventory
are structured around those
groupings.
Form C Section
4 Addendum 3: Town data available in
Excel, Tyler, and paper forms; no
online permit system; staff time not
tracked for permit processing
GCP will use available data and
limited staff interviews to develop
documented estimates where data
are not tracked.
Form C Section
4; Attachment B
Addendum 3: legal challenge
support optional
GCP prices legal challenge support
as optional at the hourly rate.
Form B optional
services
RFP requirement for editable
documents and cost documentation
GCP will provide editable Word
and Excel deliverables.
Form C Section
4 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 18 Requirement / Clarification GCP Response Location
RFP insurance requirements
GCP will provide required
certificates and endorsements
upon award.
Attachment D
No subcontractors GCP offers no subcontractors. Form C Section 1(d)
Attachment B: Cost Proposal Assumptions and Optional Services Base fixed fee assumptions
• The base fixed fee is $34,500, not to exceed, and includes the User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Study, and focused Townwide Fee-Based Services Audit.
• The base fee includes two on-site meetings or presentations. Additional on-site meetings will be billed at the hourly rate plus travel at actual cost if authorized by the Town. • The Town will provide a primary project contact to coordinate data requests, interviews, and consolidated comments.
• The Town will provide available data in its current format, including Excel, Tyler, paper files, budget documents, revenue records, fee schedule documents, staffing information, and other available workload information.
• Where staff time or permit processing data are not tracked, GCP will develop reasonable documented estimates through limited staff interviews and available records. • One consolidated management review cycle is included for the draft report and fee schedule.
Additional review cycles may affect the schedule or require additional authorization. • The base scope does not include a formal compensation/classification study, in-depth process reengineering, customer satisfaction survey, formal staffing analysis, legal challenge support, or more than two on-site meetings.
• Peer comparison work is included for fee context and policy discussion, but Fairfax’s cost-of-service analysis will remain the foundation for recommended fees. • The final deliverables will include editable Word and Excel files, a single PDF file suitable for public review, and seven unbound printed copies of each final report, consistent with RFP Tasks 1(j) and 2(m).
Optional services
Optional services are listed in Form B and will be performed only if authorized by the Town. This structure gives Fairfax the ability to procure the core study within a controlled fixed fee while preserving the option to expand the engagement if Town staff or Council want a deeper operational or policy review. If the Town authorizes the in-depth process, service-level, and staffing evaluation, GCP Director Patrick Dyer will lead that work, bringing 25+ years of cost-recovery, federal compliance, and audit-defense experience to the permit-processing and efficiency questions raised in the RFP.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 19 Attachment C: Project Team Resumes
The following resumes cover each team member assigned to the Fairfax engagement, consistent with Form C items 3(a) and 3(b), including municipal agencies served in the past three years and level of involvement, plus Patrick Dyer's resume for the performance audit, optional audit-defense and compliance service described in Section 3 and Attachment B. GCP will not substitute key personnel without prior Town approval.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 20 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 21 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 22 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 23 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 24 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 25 GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 26 Attachment D: Required Disclosures and Agreement Compliance Conflict of interest
GCP has reviewed the Town’s conflict of interest requirements and, to the best of our knowledge, has no conflicts that would impair our ability to perform the services described in this proposal. If a potential conflict is identified at any time, GCP will promptly disclose it to the Town for review and direction.
Litigation and terminated contracts
GCP has no pending litigation, no outstanding regulatory matters, no unresolved claims within the past five years, and no terminated public agency contracts for default or non-performance.
Insurance
GCP carries professional liability, commercial general liability, automobile liability, and workers’ compensation coverage and will provide certificates and endorsements meeting the Town’s requirements upon award.
Business license
GCP does not currently hold a Town of Fairfax business license. If selected, GCP will obtain the required license before contract execution, as required by the RFP.
Public records and confidentiality
GCP understands that proposals submitted in response to this RFP become public records subject to the California Public Records Act following contract award, except to the extent a valid exemption applies.
GCP is not marking this proposal as confidential or proprietary. If the Town receives a request for materials that GCP believes may contain protectable information, GCP respectfully requests reasonable notice consistent with the RFP.
No collusion
GCP certifies that this proposal is not the result of collusion or any activity that would tend to influence the selection process directly or indirectly. GCP has not coordinated with any other proposer regarding the amount, terms, or conditions of this proposal.
Proposal validity
This proposal, including the fee schedule and hourly rates, is valid for 90 days from the date of submission unless extended by mutual written agreement.
GCP | Town of Fairfax Proposal
Government Consulting Partners, Inc. | Fairfax Cost of Services & Cost Allocation Study Proposal | Page 27 Conclusion
Fairfax does not need an oversized or overly complicated study. It needs a clear, defensible, right-sized cost recovery framework that connects current costs to current fees, gives Council meaningful policy choices, and helps residents understand why updates are necessary after seven years.
GCP is built for that work. We bring the cost recovery methodology, Marin County context, small-town sensitivity, and adoption experience to help Fairfax move quickly, carefully, and confidently. Our proposed fixed fee of $34,500 gives the Town the core study it requested, while preserving optional services for deeper process understanding, staffing, additional surveys, compensation analysis, or legal support only if the Town wants them.
We would be honored to support Fairfax with a study that is technically sound, publicly understandable, and useful to Town staff long after adoption.