County of Santa Clara
Social Services Agency

1725 Technology Drive
San Jose. California 951 10-1360

ft

Prepared by

vm

Kim Chi Trieu

Reviewed by
Ofelia Armenta

Submitted by
Alette Lundeberg
May 19, 1997

TO:

Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Yolanda Lenier Rinaldo, Director

SUBJECT:

APPROVAL OF FUNDING RECOMMENDATION FOR A REFUGEE
EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER UTILIZING UNEXPENDED REFUGEE
EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES (RESS) FUNDS

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors take the following

action:

• Approve the attached funding recommendation for Catholic
Charities to provide a Refugee Employment Support Center
utilizing
unexpended
Refugee
Employment
Social
Services
(RESS)funds in the amount of $277,971. The service period is
July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.

• Authorize the Chairperson to execute a contract with Catholic
Charities for the aforementioned services in June 1997.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There is no impact on the General Fund, as the RESS program is 100
percent federally funded.

S-010

• (V :iu^uIqop:^c^v aes) saaoos Sux^-ej 0:;TSoduioD s,0e:;::;TuiuioD uoT:|BnxBA0
0q:} uo p0s-Bq p0pu0uimoD0x: seM a:0ppTq

XT^JSsaDons

aqjj

• 00:;:ixuiuioo

uoTCfBnx'BAa 0q:) uioag suoT:;sanb Aq paMoxxo? s'sm qoxqM uox:}B::^u0S©Jd
X^JO 0:inuxui-u00:ijxx -g 0ax5 o:i p0xnp0qDS sgM X0ppxq aAx:)O0dsoxd
qDg0
'uox:}xppg ui
•S0uxxepxn6 djjq aq::^ ux pauxx^ino gxxsrtxjo

P0qsxxq'etts0-0xd Buxzxxx^n p0:}gnx'eA0 ajaM sx'Bsodojid aqj, -00:1:1x11111100
uox:ignxeAa aq:i uo a:igdxox:iugd o:i pa:ixAux auaM uoxssxuiuioo AuosxApv
saoxAuas
I'bxoos 0q:i
pug Aum paiixufi aq:i uiouj S0Ax:ig:iuasaadau
pug

'550:13

AouaSv

'suaquiaui

aouojj

qsuj,

uox5ua5a-a

5uauiAoxduia

■ (ISa) aAX5gx5xui 5uoddns 5uauiAoxduia Aaxx^A

gugXO g5ugs aq5 5° 5J:^d g sg Suxqoungx sx AouaSv aq5 sxapoui Mau 0q5
50 auo sx ua5uao sxqj, • saafinxau U05 saoxAuas uox5U050u 5uauiAoxduia
0AX5gAouux

50

A50xxgA

g

apxAoud

XXT^

ua5U0O

pauoxsxAua

aqj,

•sx^sodoud (5) aAX5 paAxaoau AouaBv sqq

■daa aq5 05 puodsax
•ssax uo sq5uoui A^xxs 'STl

05 q^uoui auo pgq suappxq aAX5oadsoj:ci

aq5 ux SuxAxx saabnxau U05 saoxAuas uox5ua5au 5uauiAoxduia apxAoud
05

uappxq auo punx

suosxAuadns

05

(ddH)

sx^sodoua

U05

50 pugog A^unoo gugxD gxugg

psanbaq aqx paAouddg
'Leej 'T n^dv uo

aqx

NOiiYONawwooaH Hoa NosvaH/aNnoHOiiDve

• saxxxxxqgdgo x^osxx pug aAxxguxsxuxuipg buouxs
pug puooau qogu5 xuaxxsa^a ug sgq Aouabg sxqj,

’XSei aouxs Axunoo

qXXM Auoxsxq xogu^uoa snoxAaud puq sgq saxxxugqo oxxoqxgo
•uaxuao xuoddns xuauiAoxduig aabnxaH xoaCoud xoxxd g buxpxAOud U05
suappxq 5XOXXOS 05 paxonpuoo ssaooud

(ddH)

sx^sodoud U05 xsanbag

aqx IUOU5 buxxxT^ssu uoxoguxuoo papuauiuiooau aqx sx saxxxugqp oxxoqxgQ
AHOiSIH

iDVHiNOD

panuTXUOO SONTLS (SSHH) SaOIAHaS TVIDOS JUiaWAOIdWa
aaonaan aaoNaaxaNn ONizniJin naiNao iaoadns JiNapOAondwa
aaonaan y aoa NOiiYaNapiwoDaH ONioNna ao TYAOHddv

: liDarans

S abgd
L661

'61

May 19, 1997
Page 3

SUBJECT:

APPROVAL

OF

FUNDING

RECOMMENDATION

FOR

A

REFUGEE

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER UTILIZING UNEXPENDED REFUGEE
EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES (RESS) FUNDS continued

Program design, successful past performance in employment services
delivery, and administrative/fiscal capability were key evaluation
points.

A 30% match in funds was also required,

committee

reviewed

the

source(s)

of

the

match

The evaluation

and

considered

whether the prospective bidder could continue the project with
funding from other sources after the proposed service period
expired.

After careful review, preliminary funding recommendations were

hand-delivered to all bidders on May 12, 1997. On Friday May 16,
1997,
bidders
dissatisfied
with
the
preliminary
funding
recommendations were offered the opportunity to schedule an appeal
to

f

the

evaluation

committee,

Two bidders requested an appeal

hearing,

The evaluation committee reviewed the additional input

provided

at

the

appeal

hearings

and

then

finalized

the

recommendations. The attached final recommendation (Attachment A)
is to fund Catholic Charities in the amount of $277,971 to operate
the Refugee Employment Support Center in Santa Clara County.

CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION

If the RFP is not approved, the Agency will be unable to utilize
the unexpended RESS funds to provide the proposed services for
refugees.

STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL

Upon

receiving Board approval,

the

Agency will negotiate

the

contract with the recommended service provider, submit it to County
Counsel for approval as to form and legality, and then forward it
to the Chairperson for signature.

ATTACHMENT A

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

FFY 1996 REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FUND

Total funds available: $277,971

Proposal #

1

Agency Name

Southeast Asian

Amount

Amount

Requested

Recommended

$277,971

$0

Score

Rationale

67.25

Program design is not very clear. It does not fully address the
retention and skills upgrade components which are critical to the
success of this project. The agency has experienced a high turn
over of administrative officers. The agency’s current contracts are
on probation with Santa Clara County; in light of the situation, the
agency is not in a good position to undertake another major project.

Community Center

Program design addresses all critical aspects of the Refugee
employment Support center as stated in the RFP guidelines.
Currently operating a similar project. Agency has excellent track
3

6

Catholic Charities of
Santa Clara

Vietnamese Voluntary
Foundation

$277,971

$277,971

$277,971

$0

93.75

record. Agency has sufficient financial resource to deliver all the

required services. Good linkages with other service providers will
enable the project to provide needed support services to clients.
Agency can provide 30% matching funds.

85.5

Proposal is responsive to RFP guidelines; however, plans for
specific components are not yet fully in place. For example, plan
for staff is not very clear and the facility has not yet been secured.
Retention component does not fully address the entire needs of
under-employed refugees. Very good oral presentation. This
program may be considered if future funding becomes available.

Proposal#

12

Agency Name

Crosscultural Community
Services Center

18

Indochinese Resettlement
& Cultural Center

Amount

Amount

Requested

Recommended

$277,971

$277,971

$0

$0

Score

56

71

Rationale

Proposal does not show a thorough understanding of the target
group or the requirements stated in the RFP guidelines. Proposer
has limited experience with refugee clients. Proposed program does
not include strategies to assist under-employed refugees. Budget is
weak and does not specify source of matching funds.
Proposal does not have much substance to make this project
different from the existing ES/VESL program. Proposed program
design does not fully address the retention component of the
project. No new, innovative strategies to assist under-employed
refugees. Plan for computer lab is very vague and under
developed. Source of matching funds is unclear.

ressf

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES
FEY 1996 FUNDS

COMPONENT: REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

Proposal #

AGENCY NAME;

Southeast Asian Community Center

ADDRESS:

1415 Roll Circle, Suite 108, San Jose, CA

CONTACT PERSON:

Philip Nguyen

TELEPHONE;

1

(415)885-2743

AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION:
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS;
UNIT COST:

175

$L588

[ ] Fund entire program design as requested.
[ ] Fund part of program design as indicated.

[ ] Fund if further funds become available, with specified changes in program.
[X ]

Not recommended.

RATIONALE:

Composite REP Score (100 points maximum): 67.25

Program design is not very clear. It does not fully address the retention and skills upgrade
components which are critical to the success of this project. The agency has experienced a high
turn over of administrative officers. The agency’s current contracts are on probation with Santa
Clara County; in light of the situation, the agency is not in a good position to undertake another
major project.

resc

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES
FEY 1996 FUNDS

COMPONENT; REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

Proposal # 3

AGENCY NAME:

Catholic Charities

ADDRESS:

2625 Zanker Road, San Jose. CA 95134

CONTACT PERSON:

Coleen Culbraa

TELEPHONE:

AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION:
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
UNIT COST:

944-0284x159

$277.971
200

$1.389.86

[ X ] Fund entire program design as requested.
[ ] Fund part of program design as indicated.

[ ] Fund if further funds become available, with specified changes in program.
[

] Not recommended.

RATIONALE:

Composite REP Score (100 points maximum): 93.75

Program design addresses all critical aspects of the Refugee employment Support center as stated
in the REP guidelines. Currently operating a similar project. Agency has excellent track record.
Agency has sufficient financial resource to deliver all the required services. Good linkages with
other service providers will enable the project to provide needed support services to clients.
Agency can provide 30% matching funds.

resc

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES
FEY 1996 FUNDS

COMPONENT: REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER
Proposal #_6

AGENCY NAME:
ADDRESS:

Vietnamese Voluntary Foundation
180 E. Gish Road #A, San Jose. CA 951 12

CONTACT PERSON:

Trang Nguven

TELEPHONE:

453-3363

AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION:
NUMBER OF PARTICTPANTS-

170

UNIT COST:

$1.635

[ ] Fund entire program design as requested.
[ ] Fund part of program design as indicated.
[ X ] Fund if further funds become available.
[

]

Not recommended.

RATIONALE:

Composite RFP Score GOO points maximum): 85.5

Proposal IS responsive to RFP guidelines; however, plans for specific components are not yet
fully m place. For example, plan for staff is not very clear and the facility has not yet been
secured. Retention component does not fully address the entire needs of under-employed
refugees. Very good oral presentation. This program may be considered if future funding
becomes available.
resc

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES
FEY 1996 FUNDS

COMPONENT; REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

Proposal # 12

AGENCY NAME:

Crosscultural Community Services Center

ADDRESS;

2268 A Ouimby Road. San Jose. CA 95122

CONTACT PERSON;

Ray Valencia

AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION:
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS:
UNIT COST:

TELEPHONE;

223-6628

$0
150

$T853

[ ] Fund entire program design as requested.
[ ] Fund part of program design as indicated.

[ ] Fund if further funds become available, with specified changes in program.
[X]

Not recommended.

RATIONALE:

Composite RFP Score(100 points maximum): 56

Proposal does not show a thorough understanding of the target group or the requirements stated
in the RFP guidelines. Proposer has limited experience with refugee clients. Proposed program
does not include strategies to assist under-employed refugees. Budget is weak and does not
specify source of matching funds.

resc

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES
FEY 1996 FUNDS

COMPONENT: REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

Proposal # 18

AGENCY NAME;

Indochinese Resettlement & Cultural Center

ADDRESS;

399 W. San Carlos Street. San Jose. CA 95110

CONTACT PERSON;

Loc Vu

TELEPHONE:

AMOUNT OF RECOMMENDATION;
NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS;
UNIT COST:

971-7857

io
300

$927

[ ] Fund entire program design as requested.
[ ] Fund part of program design as indicated.

[ ] Fund if further funds become available, with specified changes in program.
[X ]

Not recommended.

RATIONALE:

Composite REP Score (100 points maximum): 71

Proposal does not have much substance to make this project different from the existing ESA/ESL
program. Proposed program design does not fully address the retention component of the

project. No new, innovative strategies to assist under-employed refugees. Plan for computer lab
IS

very vague and under-developed. Source of matching funds is unclear.

resc

Date Prepared

5/9/97

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SUPPORT CENTER

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FFY 1996 FUNDS
RFP EVALUATION

COMPOSITE OF COMMITTEE SCORES
AGENCY:

SEACC

PROPOSAL NO:

ADMINISTRATIVE
& FISCAL

EVALUATORS

CAPABILITY
PASS/FAIL

PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE
20

POINTS

1

KNOWLEDGE OF
TARGET
POPULATION NEEDS
20

POINTS

PROGRAM

BUDGET & COST

DESIGN

EFFECTIVENESS

50

POINTS

10

TOTAL

POINTS

100

1

P

15

15

25

5

60

2

P

15

15

45

6

81

3

P

14

14

45

5

78

?/P

10

10

25

5

50

4

5

TOTALS

269

AVERAGE SCORES

67.25

rfpeval

Date Prepared

5/9/97

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FFY 1996 FUNDS
RFP EVALUATION

COMPOSITE OF COMMITTEE SCORES
AGENCY:

Catholic Charities

PROPOSAL NO:

ADMINISTRATIVE
& FISCAL
EVALUATORS

CAPABILITY
PASS/FAIL

PREVIOUS

EXPERIENCE
20

POINTS

3

KNOWLEDGE OF
TARGET

POPULATION NEEDS
20

POINTS

PROGRAM

BUDGET & COST

DESIGN

EFFECTIVENESS

50

POINTS

10

TOTAL

POINTS

100

1

P

20

18

48

9

95

2

P

15

18

50

9

92

3

P

19

19

48

9

95

P

18

18

47

10

93

4

5

TOTALS

375

AVERAGE SCORES

93.75

rfpeval

Date Prepared

5/9/97

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FFY 1996 FUNDS
RFP EVALUATION

COMPOSITE OF COMMITTEE SCORES

AGENCY:

VIVO

PROPOSAL NO:

ADMINISTRATIVE
EVALUATORS

& FISCAL
CAPABILITY
PASS/FAIL

PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE
20

POINTS

6

KNOWLEDGE OF
TARGET

POPULATION NEEDS
20 POINTS

PROGRAM

BUDGET & COST

DESIGN

EFFECTIVENESS
10 POINTS

TOTAL

50

POINTS

100

1

P

18

18

35

8

79

2

P

15

17

48

8

88

3

P

17

18

49

8

92

P

15

17

42

9

83

4

5

TOTALS

342

AVERAGE SCORES

85.5

rfpeval

Date Prepared

5/9/97

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FFY 1996 FUNDS
RFP EVALUATION
COMPOSITE OF COMMITTEE SCORES

Crosscultural Community Services Center

AGENCY:

12

PROPOSAL NO:

ADMINISTRATIVE

KNOWLEDGE OF
PREVIOUS

EXPERIENCE
EVALUATORS

CAPABILITY
PASS/FAIL

PROGRAM

BUDGET & COST

DESIGN

EFFECTIVENESS

TARGET

& FISCAL

20

POINTS

POPULATION NEEDS
20

50

POINTS

POINTS

10

TOTAL

POINTS

100

1

P

15

18

35

5

73

2

P

10

10

35

5

60

3

P

9

10

32

6

57

P

3

7

20

4

34

4

5

TOTALS
AVERAGE SCORES

rfpeval

224

56

Date Prepared

5/9/97

REFUGEE EMPLOYMENT SOCIAL SERVICES FFY 1996 FUNDS
RFP EVALUATION

COMPOSITE OF COMMITTEE SCORES
AGENCY:
IRCC
PROPOSAL NO:

ADMINISTRATIVE

& FISCAL
EVALUATORS

CAPABILITY
PASS/FAIL

PREVIOUS
EXPERIENCE
20

POINTS

18

KNOWLEDGE OF
TARGET
POPULATION NEEDS
20

POINTS

PROGRAM

BUDGET & COST

DESIGN

EFFECTIVENESS

50 POINTS

10

TOTAL

POINTS

100

1

P

15

15

35

8

73

2

P

15

15

40

6

76

3

P

16

15

39

6

76

P

15

13

25

6

59

4

5

TOTALS

AVERAGE SCORES

rfpeval

284
71