Proposal for City of Richmond, Auditing Services for the Port of Richmond February 27, 2023 GPP Analytics Inc. 2478 Tierra dr Los Osos, CA 93402 www.GPPAnalytics.com
A. Vendor Cover Letter
February 27, 2023 City of Richmond Thank you for the opportunity to submit a proposal for the auditing Services for the Port of Richmond. We founded GPP Analytics Inc. in 2022 to help state and local governments solve complex problems, improve operations, reduce risks, and deliver effective services to their communities. We are a team of experienced and dedicated performance auditors, analysts, and local government experts. Our team is dedicated solely to helping governments and combined, our team of three partners has over six decades of experience to draw from. Our audits adhere to the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book) from the federal Government Accountability Office and International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF) from the Institute of Internal Auditors.
Julian Metcalf, CIA, MPAPartnerMr . Metcalf has served the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, the Santa Clara County Management Audit Division, as a lead analyst at Moody's Investors Service, and has led numerous audits and studies for local governments.
Eric Spivak, CIA, CGAP , CRMA, MPAPartnerMr . Spivak has served as the County Auditor of Jackson County OR, Audit Manager in the Federated States of Micronesia, Auditor for the City of Scottsdale AZ, and has managed audits and studies for local governments and utility systems.
Mara Vejby, PhDPartnerDr . Vejby hasserved the Santa Clara County Management Audit Division, the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, and as a university lecturer with a deep understanding of the cultural impact on organizational performance and retention.
A. Vendor Cover Letter
• Our staff consists of three partner-level auditors. • We have office locations in California and Oregon. • The proposed audit would be managed from our main office at 2478 Tierra Dr, Los Osos, California with support from an additional partner located in San Mateo. • Recent clients of the firm include the Los Osos Community Services District, County of Monterey Auditor-Controller’s Office, the San Luis Obispo City Employee Association, and the City of Oxnard. • A highlighted selection of clients of our team’s recent experience include the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and Jackson County Oregon among many others. • We have reviewed and understand all elements of the RFP. • If selected, we intend to perform the services as outlined in the RFP, our proposal herein, and any resulting contract between the City and GPP Analytics Inc. • GPP Analytics Inc. is willing to enter into an agreement under the terms and conditions prescribed by this RFP, insurance requirements (Attachment A) and in the sample Service Agreement (Attachment B). • Each member of our proposed audit team has over three years of verifiable auditing experience. • The proposal price will be valid for at least 180 days. • The primary contact during the RFP is Julian Metcalf, who can be reached at: (415) 290-1032 [email protected] 2478 Tierra drive Los Osos, CA 93402 Please contact me if you have questions. Julian Metcalf, Partner B. Firm’s Experience and Technical Competence
Overview Our team has over six decades of combined experience auditing and analyzing organization with a similar complexity to the Port of Richmond. The majority of the team’s work has been conducting management and performance audits for local governments. At the start of our assessments, we invest time in meeting with various levels of staff and stakeholders, doing walkthroughs, site visits, reviewing policies and practices, and conducting document reviews to inform our understanding. Objectivity is at the core of our operations, and we begin all engagements with conflict-of-interest reviews and attestations of independence. Our team’s audit recommendations have been widely implemented with measurable performance improvements for local governments. The complexity of the proposed Port of Richmond audit is mirrored in several projects managed by our staff. The breadth of the proposed audit matches the annual risk assessment of Santa Clara County developed and implemented by Dr. Vejby. Several audits and studies conducted by Julian Metcalf such as ones covering the Santa Clara County real estate assets and the San Francisco vehicle fleet management have infrastructure, lease, and real estate aspects that compare similarly. Others such as the Management Audit of the Santa Clara County Procurement process looked at department’s organization-wide relationship and impact on overall performance. Mr. Spivak’s tenure as the audit manager for Jackson County has afforded him several audits that overlap such as those covering the Rogue Valley International Airport and Countywide Performance Measure Program among others. On the following pages are several examples of similar projects with reference and contact information available. San Francisco Fleet Management In 2019, Julian Metcalf managed an analysis of San Francisco fleet and its use of telematics systems. The study found significant opportunities to reduce costs, reduce vehicle emissions, and improve staff and community safety. The work included site visits, extensive data gathering, analysis, interviews, operational assessments, and recommendations related to use of industry best practices. See example of analysis below in Figure 1. Work performed for President Norman Yee’s Office, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, for the Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, Erica Maybaum, [email protected], 619-309-9310. Project budget was $75,000.
B. Firm’s Experience and Technical Competence
Figure 1: Excerpt from San Francisco Fleet Study
B. Firm’s Experience and Technical Competence
County of Santa Clara, In-Home Supportive Services In 20220, Julian Metcalf and Mara Vejby managed a performance audit of the county’s In-Home Supportive Services using generally accepted government auditing standards of the Yellow Book from the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The audit included a full staffing analysis, customer service analysis, facility analysis, financial review, and numerous field observations. The audit made several recommendations to improve operations, increase monitoring, and save costs. Audit contact Terri Possley, IHSS Director, (408) 792-1663. Project budget was $125,000. City of Oxnard, Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction Fee Study (current project) GPP Analytics is performing a rent stabilization and just cause eviction fee study for the City of Oxnard. The project includes process mapping, cost accounting analysis, best practice analysis, interviews with peer jurisdictions, and recommendations to implement proposed fees for a newly adopted ordinance. Contact Albert Rameriz, Housing Director, (805) 385-8096, [email protected]. Project budget is $30,000 Jackson County Audit of Airport Passenger Facility Charges In 2021, Eric Spivak managed an audit of Jackson County Audit of Airport Passenger Facility Charges. The audit assessed if the Airport maintained internal controls that reasonably ensured compliance with passenger facility charges (PFC) federal requirements; and the Airport complied with certain laws, regulations, and additional requirements issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that may have a direct and material effect on the PFC program. Santa Clara County Building and Real Estate Study In 2021, Julian Metcalf managed a study of Santa Clara County's building portfolio. It was the County’s first comprehensive understanding of its multi-billion-dollar real estate assets. The analysis blended several data sources, including financial (SAP), human resources (People Soft), multiple infrastructure maintenance systems, geospatial data, and more, see example diagram in Figure 2 below. The analysis considered the County’s owned property, its maintenance costs, utility costs, the optimization of its revenue leases, the management of its leased portfolio of properties, and its growing deferred maintenance liabilities. Contact Jeff Draper, Facility and Fleet Director, (408) 918-2700, [email protected]. Project budget was $150,000.
B. Firm’s Experience and Technical Competence
Figure 2: Excerpt from Santa Clara Property Study
C. Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work
Audit Standards Our approach to the audit is guided by our firm’s use of the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS or Yellow Book) and International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF) standards. These standards are internationally recognized, help ensure rigorous quality control, and provide an objective and independent framework for the audit. Our standards drive our work to identify the root cause of problems and does so using evidence-based methods as described below. Phase One: Interviews, Observations, Data Gathering and Risk Assessment Entrance Conference (April) At the start of the audit, GPP and the Port of Richmond will hold an entrance conference to initiate the audit. The meeting will provide an opportunity for the auditee to ask questions, discuss audit procedures, and discuss the initial request for information. Interviews and Initial Observations (April) At the start of our audits, we invest time in meeting with various levels of staff and stakeholders, doing walkthroughs, site visits, reviewing policies and practices, and conducting document reviews to inform our understanding. These interviews can be scheduled for the same week as the entrance conference, onsite, or remote depending on auditee’s preference. GPP will schedule time with the Port to conduct site walkthroughs and observe operations. Document and Data Review (April) GPP will make an initial data and document request based on the scope of the audit. We will review the materials and incorporate our initial observations into the audit’s risk assessment. Below is a list of materials we would initially request. • Port policies and procedures • Staffing roster and organizational chart • Port’s mission statement, goals, and other strategic documents • Real Estate inventory • Revenue lease inventory • Maintenance records and work order reports • Security incidents and logs • Sample lease agreements and records • Loan and debt agreements and records • List of delinquent tenants, agreements, and related records • Staffing analysis, plan, or other materials previously used to determine staffing levels • Budget planning documents C. Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work
• Sample procurement documents • Sample accounting transaction records • Financial oversight records Risk Assessment (April) Using the information from the interviews, observations, document review, and data review, we will produce a risk assessment for the audit. The risk assessment will highlight initial observations and preliminary issues and rank them by risk level including scale of potential impact and likelihood. Our risk assessment is then used to inform the following analysis phase by emphasizing analysis and fieldwork in the riskiest areas. The risk assessment also serves as an opportunity for GPP to work with City staff if any parts of the audit need additional consideration or different approaches in the subsequent analysis phase. Phase Two: Analysis The risk assessment at the end of the prior phase will help define our analysis. Our analysis will compile evidence to support our recommendations and solutions based on the problems we’ve identified. The tasks below are examples of what we expect to perform but can be refined with the City following the information observed in the risk assessment phase. Organizational Overview (April-May) The organizational review will look at the Port holistically starting with assessing the Port’s overall performance as it compares to stated goals, its mission, the City’s goals and mission, legal criteria governing operations of the Port, and industry best practices. This will set a foundation for determining if the Port is making the best use of public funds. We will conduct a review and survey of peer jurisdictions with similar size and complexity to the Port and perform a comparison to identify new solutions and opportunities for improvement. To assess the Port’s compliance with controls we will perform a series of transaction tests and samples across multiple processes and systems of varying risk and exposure levels. GPP will review the Port’s oversight structure, the performance metrics it reports, public access to information. Our review will make practical recommendations that address any problems identified in the overview. Operations and Maintenance (April-May) Our analysis of the Port’s operations and maintenance will include a variety of tests and analysis to determine if the Port is operating effectively and make recommendations to make any necessary improvements. This may include, but is not limited to, the following tasks. Develop process flow maps and perform sample transaction testing to determine adequacy of controls related to leases. Conduct a staffing analysis and workload analysis with peer benchmarking. Review alternative models and structures that may yield lower costs or more effective results. Provide cost estimates and strengths and weaknesses for C. Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work
alternatives considered. Assess the Port’s security practices, policies, and procedures, and compare with industry best practices and benchmarks. Analyze the Port’s infrastructure inventory, maintenance records, work orders, and operational metrics to determine if specific changes should be made to Port properties. Review the Port’s technology systems inventory, road map, and strategic plans to assess alignment with business needs and industry benchmarks. Analyze lease rates, rate schedule, and rate development to industry standards and the local market. Tenant Services (April-May) Our assessment will determine the effectiveness of the tenant services function and make recommendations to improve operations, costs, and correct any observed deficiencies. We will use interviews and focus groups to initially assess responsiveness to customers, city departments, council, the community and regulatory agencies. This will be paired with an analysis of any available data or records that reflect these areas to. We will develop a process map of lease monitoring and reporting and perform sample testing to assess the function’s adequacy. GPP will review tenant services’ policies and procedures and conduct a control analysis and make recommendations for improvement. Assess the Port’s delinquent tenants, the Port’s previous attempts to collect, its policies and procedures related to collection and recovery, and make recommendations to recover funds and modify policies for future delinquencies. Conduct conflict of interest review tests, assess the existing related policies and procedures, and make recommendations to improve controls related to conflict of interest. General Administration (April-May) The review of the Port’s general administration will consider if the Port is adequately managing public funds and resources effectively. This will include developing process maps of controls using interviews and policies and procedures documents. These maps will help identify areas of potential weakness for additional testing such as procurement, budget process, cash management, rent roll information for current and subleases, transfers, and loans and debt made to the Port. Our testing will be selected from transaction samples from high-risk areas and random samples to analyze overall adequacy. We will also consider the Port’s communication and feedback as it relates to council, tenants, management, staff, and costumers by using a variety of interviews, focus groups, and samples. Finally, we will consider the adequacy of financial oversight by assessing oversight records, communications, and any prior findings from internal or external audit activities.
C. Proposed Method to Accomplish the Work
Phase Three: Reporting Draft Report Development and Review (June) GPP will prepare a written report for the audit. The report will summarize the analysis, audit findings, and recommendations. The team will conduct an internal quality control review in compliance with professional standards and our firm’s policies. Exit Conference (June) Once a report is drafted, we’ll hold an exit conference with City staff to review the preliminary material and solicit feedback. Final Report and Presentation (June) We will provide a final report and be available to present the report and materials to staff, council, or others as requested. Project Communication and Monitoring We recommend that throughout the course of the audit that we have regular check-in meetings with the primary point(s) of contact. We’ve found that these meetings help ensure that any challenges with the project can be identified and resolved quickly, and we can discuss preliminary findings early. Project Communication and Monitoring Throughout the audit we will perform quality control reviews using our audit standards and firm’s policies and procedures. When drafting the report, we will perform an in-depth review of the adequacy of audit workpapers, which will be available to the City upon completion of the audit. Models for Future Use by the City and Port As requested, we will share any models and technical analysis developed during the audit with the City and Port. All models will include annotations and training for future use if appropriate. Such models are often helpful for organizations to perform follow-up reviews and self-assessments well after they have implemented an audit’s recommendations.
D. Project Team
Team Overview Our firm has three principal staff who will serve on the project team. Julian Metcalf will serve as the project manager. Eric Spivak will perform internal quality control and serve as an auditor. Dr. Vejby will serve as an auditor. All perform fieldwork, analysis, and project management.
Detailed resumes of the project team are on the following pages.
Julian Metcalf, CIA, MPAPartnerMr . Metcalf has served the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, the Santa Clara County Management Audit Division, as a lead analyst at Moody's Investors Service, and has led numerous audits and studies for local governments.
Eric Spivak, CIA, CGAP , CRMA, MPAPartnerMr . Spivak has served as the County Auditor of Jackson County OR, Audit Manager in the Federated States of Micronesia, Auditor for the City of Scottsdale AZ, and has managed audits and studies for local governments and utility systems.
Mara Vejby, PhDPartnerDr . Vejby hasserved the Santa Clara County Management Audit Division, the San Francisco Budget and Legislative Analyst Office, and as a university lecturer with a deep understanding of the cultural impact on organizational performance.
D. Project Team
Julian Metcalf, CIA Manages, performance audits, compliance audits, management, and special studies audits for counties, cities, and other governmental agencies. Sixteen years of public sector expertise in local government management, consulting, and financial analysis. This includes serving as the lead analyst for a $43 billion portfolio of local government bonds ratings at Moody’s Investors Service, conducting and managing audits and studies at Harvey M. Rose, special studies, revenue analysis, and implementing technology projects such as interactive dashboards and geospatial analysis. Finance and Government Operations • Audit of Tax and Fee Collection Processes and Information Sharing, City of Los Angeles • Management Audit of Claims Unit, City of Los Angeles • Management audit of Procurement Process, County of Santa Clara • Special Study of Analysis of Small Business Displacement, City and County of San Francisco • Management audit of Information Services Department, County of Santa Clara • Annual Review of Mayor’s Proposed $13 billion budget for the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors • Annual Review of County Executive’s Proposed $11.5 billion budget for the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors • Analysis of City of Phoenix’s financial condition and budgeting practices • Monitoring and analysis of a $43 billion portfolio of local government bond ratings at Moody’s Investors Service • Assessed the financial and economic condition, governance, and debt portfolio of hundreds of cities, counties, school districts, and enterprise districts across the western states for Moody’s Investors Service Public Safety and Justice • Management Audit of Sheriff’s Custody Bureau, County of Santa Clara • Management Audit Los Altos Hills County Fire District, County of Santa Clara • Audit of the Implementation of Recommendations for Custody Improvement, County of Santa Clara • Management Audit of the Juvenile Probation William F. James Ranch Facility, County of Santa Clara Building, Planning, Public Works, and Transportation • Special Study of Santa Clara County Property Owned and Leased by the General Fund and Roads and Airports Departments, County of Santa Clara • Performance Audit Evaluating the Assessment and Collection of Wastewater Fees, Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District • Policy Analysis of Vehicle Telematics for City Vehicles, City and County of San Francisco • Policy Analysis of Vehicle Telematics for City Vehicles Update, City and County of San Francisco • Policy Analysis of Public Art Programs, City and County of San Francisco D. Project Team
• Policy Analysis of Construction Noticing, City and County of San Francisco Health and Social Services • Management Audit of In-Home Supportive Services program, County of Santa Clara • Management audit of Valley Health Plan, County of Santa Clara • Special Study of In-Home Care for Seniors, City and County of San Francisco Technology and Geospatial • Financial and budget monitoring dashboard tool, Los Osos Community Services District • Digitized accounts payable processes, Los Osos Community Services District • Interactive dashboard of Annual Countywide Risk Assessment, County of Santa Clara • Interactive dashboard and map of City-owned vehicle use, telematics, and safety violation information, City and County of San Francisco • Interactive dashboard and map of public art programs, City and County of San Francisco • Interactive dashboard of construction noticing requirements, City and County of San Francisco • Interactive dashboard of County prison occupancy and staffing trends, County of Santa Clara • Information technology service catalog, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: GPP Analytics Inc., Partner, Partner, 2022- Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, Principal Analyst, 2017 - 2022 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, IT Business Operations Manager, 2016-2017 Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, Principal Analyst, 2014 - 2016 Moody’s Investors Service, San Francisco, CA, Analyst, 2010-2014 Empire State Development Corporation, New York, NY, Graduate Intern, 2009-2010 GCA Strategies, San Francisco, CA, Analyst, 2007-2008 UC Berkeley, Berkeley CA, Staff Research Associate, 2006-2007 EDUCATION: Master of Public Administration (MPA) Public and Nonprofit Management and Policy, New York University, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, 2010 Bachelor of Arts in Geography, San Francisco State University, 2006 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS: Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Institute of Internal Auditors Tableau Desktop Specialist, Tableau Software Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) Foundation, AXELOS Global Best Practice D. Project Team
Eric Spivak, CIA, CGAP, CRMA Manages compliance audits, performance audits, program audits, management audits, and special studies for counties, cities, and other governmental agencies. Twenty-eight years of public sector expertise, local government management, consulting, training, and analytical experience including nine years as the county auditor for a county with a $575 million annual budget, with additional years of experience as a staff auditor and manager at the local, state, and national levels of government. Finance and Government Operations • Audit of Finance and Treasury Functions, Jackson County, OR • Audit of Collection of Funds for and from Other Jurisdictions, County of Jackson, OR • Audit of Compliance with Federal Awards (Single Audit), Jackson County, OR • Audit of Performance Measurement Program, Jackson County, OR • Special Study of Marijuana Grow Sites Impact on County Operations, Jackson County, OR • Management Audit of HR Recruitment Processes, Jackson County, OR • Managed Jackson County’s Application for FEMA Assistance • Managed Jackson County’s Use of COVID-19 CARES Act Funding • Financial Compliance Audits of several Ohio municipalities • Risk Assessment and Cash Control Audit of Vendor Operations, Metro Gov, Oregon • Citywide Benchmarking Study, Spokane, WA Public Safety and Justice • Jail Demographic Study, Jackson County, OR • Management Audit of Search and Rescue Program, Jackson County, OR • Audit of Civil Records Division, Jackson County, OR • Management Audit of Juvenile Justice Program, Jackson County, OR • Audit of Alaska Department of Corrections Prison Construction Project, Anchorage, AK • Management Audits of Multiple Arizona County Juvenile Probation Offices • Training Program Evaluation, Adult Probation Department, Maricopa County, AZ • Special Study of Patrol Staffing, Sheriff’s Office, Jackson County, OR • Audit of Property Room Internal Controls, Sheriff’s Office, Jackson County, OR • Service Providers Compliance Audit, Juvenile Justice Program, Jackson County, OR Building, Planning, Public Works, and Transportation • Management Audit, Planning Department, Jackson County, OR • Management Audit, Code Enforcement Program, Jackson County, OR • Internal Controls Audit of Building Department Permit Fee Collections, City of Atherton • Audit of Passenger Facilities Charge Collection and Use, Rogue Valley International Airport • Internal Controls Audit of Parking Revenue, Rogue Valley International Airport D. Project Team
Health and Social Services • Management Audit of Community Partners Grant Program, Jackson County, OR • Contract Compliance Audit of Jail Healthcare Provider, Jackson County, OR • Management Audit of Developmental Disabilities Program, Jackson County, OR • Special Study of Restaurant Inspection Fees System • Process Improvement Study, Riverview Medical Center, Red Bank, NJ • Performance Audit of Arizona Foster Care Review Program, Phoenix, AZ Miscellaneous Government Operations • Management Audit of Assessor’s Office, Jackson County, OR • Risk Assessment and Internal Control Audit, Washington State Dept. of Financial Institutions • Management Audit of Municipal Golf Operations, Tempe, AZ Utility Audits • Affiliate Transactions Audit, San Diego Gas and Electric • Affiliate Transactions Audit, Southern California Gas • Original Cost of Plant Audit, Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, IL • Sarbanes-Oxley Audit, Chugach Electric Association, Anchorage, AK PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: GPP Analytics Inc., Medford, OR, Partner, 2023 - Jackson County, Medford, OR, County Auditor, 2013 - 2023 Self-employed, Cincinnati, Freelance Auditor, OH 2010-2013 Office of the National Public Auditor, Federated States of Micronesia, Audit Mgr., 2009-2010 Self-employed, Salem, OR, Freelance Auditor, 2005-2010 City of Scottsdale, Scottsdale, AZ, 2001-2005, Internal Auditor Administrative Office of the Courts, Phoenix, AZ, 1998-2005, Compliance and Program Auditor Self-employed, Tempe, AZ, freelance auditor, 1995-1998 Office of the Auditor General, Phoenix, AZ, Performance Auditor, 1994-1995 EDUCATION: Master of Public Administration (MPA) Program Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Arizona State University, School of Public Affairs, 1994 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, Arizona State University, 1990 PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS: Certified Internal Auditor (CIA), Institute of Internal Auditors Certified Government Auditing Professional, Institute of Internal Auditors Certification in Risk Management Assurance, Institute of Internal Auditors D. Project Team
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS: Towards a Healthier Relationship: Reflections on an Auditee’s Stress at Being Audited, Association of Local Government Auditors Quarterly, Fall 2020 When Supervisors Coach: A Best Practice for Staff Development, Association of Local Government Auditors Quarterly, Fall 2017 Ask Not What You Can Do for Others; Ask What A Mentor Can Do For You: The Benefits of Participating in the ALGA Mentoring Program, Local Government Auditors Quarterly, Winter 2016 Reflections On Becoming A Mentor: Minions, Karma, and Everything In Between, Local Government Auditors Quarterly, Fall 2016 SELECTED PRESENTATIONS: Cognitive Bias and Its Impact on Decision Making, Association of Local Government Auditors Annual Conference, May 2, 2022 Simple Steps to Reducing Fraud, International Association of Government Officials, Houston, TX, July 15, 2019 Fraud Prevention, Oregon Association of County Clerks, Ashland, OR August 9, 2018 Basic Statistical Tools Made Easy, Association of Local Government Auditors Regional Conference, Portland, OR October 5, 2017 Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders Today: How Supervising, Coaching, and Mentoring All Differ But All Contribute, Association of Local Government Auditors annual conference Atlanta, GA May 5, 2017 Not Bayonetting the Wounded: Achieving a Balanced Approach to the Internal Audit Function, Association of Local Government Auditors Annual Conference, Austin, TX May 23, 2016 Fundamental Principles of Effective Written Communication, Spokane Chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Spokane, WA May 13, 2016 Writing Effectively for a Busy Audience, Association of Local Government Auditors Regional Conference, Clearwater, FL April 3, 2015 Effective Audit Writing, Oregon Secretary of State’s Audits Division, Salem, Oregon February 25-26, 2013, and March 18-19, 2013 Implementing Program Evaluation Into the Internal Audit Function, Salem Chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditors, Salem, Oregon February 20, 2013 Performance Auditing: Moving Beyond Controls and Compliance, Indian Technical & Economic Cooperation Public Sector Expenditure Training Symposium, New Delhi, India February 28, 2012 D. Project Team
Mara Vejby, PhD Experience: Manages performance audits, compliance audits, program audits, management audits, and special studies for counties and other governmental agencies. Fourteen years research and data analysis experience with an additional five years of public sector expertise, community engagement, local government management, and consulting, including leading the annual budget analysis and county-wide risk assessment for a $11.5 billion budget county. Finance and Government Operations • Annual Review of County Executive’s Proposed $11.5 billion budget for the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors • Annual Countywide Risk Assessment. The risk index includes budget and staffing changes, vacancies, contract and asset values, County emergency preparedness and sustainability, legal risk, and work safety risks for the County of Santa Clara • Management Audit of the Employee Services Agency, County of Santa Clara Public Safety and Justice • Special study of Law Enforcement oversight in cities and counties in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Texas at the request of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors • Special Study of County contractors with inmate contact, County of Santa Clara • Management Audit of the Medical Examiner-Coroner, County of Santa Clara • Special Study of fatalities among 0–5-year-olds, County of Santa Clara • Management Audit of the Public Defender Office, County of Santa Clara • Management Audit of the District Attorney’s Consumer Protection Unit, County of Santa Clara Health and Social Services • Management Audit of In-Home Supportive Services program, County of Santa Clara • Management audit of Valley Health Plan, County of Santa Clara • Management audit of Community Health Services specialty clinics, County of Santa Clara • Management audit of Emergency Medical Services Agency, County of Santa Clara • Department of Employment and Benefit Services, County of Santa Clara Building, Planning, Public Works, and Transportation • Management Audit of the Capital Programs Division, County of Santa Clara • Board memo regarding Valley Transportation Authority services relative to County public services, County of Santa Clara • Special Study of the Housing Authority, County of Santa Clara D. Project Team
Miscellaneous Business Operations • Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis of firm-wide operations, Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC • Fundraising, financial, and perspective donor reports for development, Woodside Priory School • Community engagement with California Pomo tribes to foster tribal language preservation and revitalization PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: GPP Analytics Inc., San Mateo, Partner, 2023 - Harvey M. Rose Associates, LLC, San Jose, CA, Principal Analyst, 2017–2023 Locality Research & Preservation, LLC, Santa Rosa, CA, Founder and Director, 2015–2018 Woodside Priory School, Woodside, CA, Development Associate, 2017 College of Marin, Kentfield, CA, Lecturer of Anthropology, 2016–2017 Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, Sonoma State University, CA, Lecturer of Anthropology, 2014–2017 Santa Rosa Junior College, Santa Rosa, CA, Lecturer of Anthropology, 2013 - 2017 California Indian Museum & Cultural Center, Santa Rosa, CA, Project Manager, 2010–2012 Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman, Davis, CA, Office Manager and Legal Assistant, 2006–2007 EDUCATION: Doctor of Philosophy, Anthropology, University of Reading, England, 2012 Upgraded from Master to Doctor of Philosophy candidate, Anthropology, University College Cork, Ireland, 2009 Bachelor of Arts, Medieval and Early Modern Studies (emphasis on law), UC Davis, CA, 2007 Associate of Arts, Liberal Arts and Sciences General, Santa Rosa Junior College, CA, 2005 SELECTED PRESENTATIONS: Sufficient Evidence and the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, Harvey Rose, LLC, April 15, 2022. Process Mapping: different approaches and lessons learned, Harvey Rose, LLC, February 18, 2022. Interview Tools and Techniques, Harvey Rose, LLC, October 2, 2020.
E. Cost Information
2023 Rates Our rates are inclusive of all indirect costs such as administrative, travel, and other support costs. Julian Metcalf, Partner/Project Manager: $125 per hour Eric Spivak, Partner/Auditor: $125 per hour Dr. Mara Vejby, Partner/Auditor: $125 per hour Proposed Schedule and Costs Total estimated cost of audit is $81,750. Price valid for at least 180 days.
Phase Task Month Julian Metcalf (Hours) Eric Spivak (Hours) Mara Vejby (Hours) Total (Hours) Total Cost Phase One
Entrance Conference April 4 4 4 12 $ 1,500 Interviews and Observations April 20 10 20 50 $ 6,250 Document and Data Review April 20 20 20 60 $ 7,500 Risk Assessment April 20 20 20 60 $ 7,500 Phase Two
Organizational Overview April to May 30 10 50 90 $ 11,250 Operations and Maintenance April to May 50 30 10 90 $ 11,250 Tenant Services April to May 50 10 30 90 $ 11,250 General Administration April to May 30 50 20 100 $ 12,500 Phase Three
Draft Report Development and Review June 20 20 10 50 $ 6,250 Exit Conference June 4 4 4 12 $ 1,500 Final Report and Presentation June 20 10 10 40 $ 5,000 268 188 198 654 $ 81,750 F. Value Added Services
Optional Ongoing Monitoring If requested, GPP can implement ongoing or continuous monitoring tools for our clients. This can include monitoring and analysis activities staffed by GPP; automated and semi-automated tools such as machine learning to monitor for red flags of fraud, waste, and abuse; and ongoing performance monitoring, such as interactive data dashboards and performance reporting.
G. Contractor Assignment of Sub-Contract
The resulting contract shall not be assigned, transferred, or sublet, in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the City of Richmond. We have no intention of subcontracting all or part of the proposed audit.
H. Previous Contract with the City of Richmond
GPP Analytics Inc. or its staff have no previous contracts with the City of Richmond.
I. Exceptions to This Request for Proposal
GPP Analytics Inc. takes no exception to this RFP, including but not limited to the City of Richmond’s Standard Services Agreement – RFP (Attachment B).
J. Statement of Impartiality and Disclosure
GPP Analytics Inc. and its staff are not currently, and will not, during the performance of these services, participate in any other similar work involving a third-party with interests currently in conflict or likely to be in conflict with City of Richmond’s interests. GPP Analytics Inc. and its staff do not have any pending or active investigations or litigation that may affect the reputation or ability of the proposer to carry out the Project.
Disclosure Statement for Limited Liability Companies This Statement Shall be included with all Bid and Proposal Submissions Is your Business a Limited Liability Company (LLC)? pYES pNO If you answered YES, please provide the City with the names and business addresses of any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and “Beneficial Owners” of the applying LLC. A Beneficial Owner is any person or entity who: (1) exercises substantial control over the applying LLC; (2) owns 25% or more of the interest in the applying LLC; or (3) receives substantial economic benefits from the assets of the applying LLC. If any LLC shareholder, director, officer, member, manager, other authorized person, partner, or Beneficial Owner is itself an LLC or other business entity, the names and business addresses must also be provided for any and all shareholders, directors, officers, members, managers, other authorized persons, partners, and Beneficial Owners of that LLC or other business entity all the way up through each entity in the organizational chart until ultimate ownership by individual people is disclosed. Name: _____________________ Title: _____________________ Address:__________________________________________ Name: _____________________ Title: _____________________ Address:__________________________________________ Name: _____________________ Title: _____________________ Address:__________________________________________ ☐ Check this box if additional ownership information is attached to this Disclosure Statement. In signing this Disclosure Statement, I represent that the information submitted in this Disclosure Statement, and any attachments, is true and correct. Signature: _____________________ Printed Name: _Julian Metcalf____________________ Title: __Partner and Business Manager___________________ Date: __February 21, 2023___________________ CITY OF RICHMOND Sanctuary City Compliance Statement The undersigned, an authorized agent of GPP Analytics Inc. (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12-18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO: a. "Data Broker” means either of the following: i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies; ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used. b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services." Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE. Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination. By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if at any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $1,000 fine. Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California. Printed Name: Title: Signed: Date: Business Entity: Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020) Julian Metcalf Partner
February 21, 2023
GPP Analytics Inc.
21st February23 Los Osos