Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Redistricting -- changes to mapping RFP

Hopefully, after reviewing the recording of Tuesday's public discussion of the legal questions posed by prospective mapping consultants, I will get more insight on the dynamics at play within the IRC, among commissioners and legal counsel.

For now, I have looked at the amended RFP and think I've identified the differences between it and the first version.   Those who want to look at the RFP themselves (by clicking on the link) may have to acknowledge a disclaimer before getting to the actual RFP.  If the link does not work, you can go to the public notices page on Procure AZ, click on the first link in the middle column, then look for RFP ADSPO11-00000704.

New language added to the RFP in the Statement of Work section includes:

The consultant shall be responsible for any verification that is necessary to ensure the accuracy of the census data, as well as, verifying that the election data is complete and advising the Commission if it is not.

At its discretion, the AIRC may require additional census, voting and/or elections information to be integrated into the redistricting database for analysis as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Such sources of information may include the Department of Justice’s tabulation of American Community Survey’s data regarding citizen voting-age population by race and ethnicity, as well as, precinct-level election data from the past decade that is available from the Arizona Secretary of State. Precinct-level data is available on the Secretary of State’s website ( Estimated costs for these items are to be provided as separate line items on the Attachment “3” - Pricing.
Further, evaluation criteria to determine who gets a contract is modified to read (new language in bold):

3.5 Evaluation. Offers shall be evaluated based on the following evaluation criteria, listed in their relative order of importance.
3.5.1 Methodology for Performance of Work; Statement of Work Requirements 2.1 through 2.16
3.5.2 Capacity of Offeror; Breadth of Services, Firm’s Experience/Political and Financial Backgrounds, Key Personnel Experience
3.5.3 Cost; and
3.5.4 Conformance to Terms and Conditions and Instructions.
Thus, while those trying to observe the process closely may experience frustration at the seemingly painstaking pace at this point, it is clear to me that the most recent amendment (which does, in fact, extend the close to June 9 at 3pm and shows a new expected award date of July 1) was necessary to address potentially material gaps in expectations.  If those gaps had gone unaddressed, it no doubt would have introduced more frustration and certain chaos further on in the process.

So, kudos to the bidders who raised the questions.


UPDATE 10:30pm Thursday evening (6/2)

I now see that the video recording of the May 31 public meeting of the IRC has been posted.  It's 2 hours long.  Therefore, I will see about viewing it in the morning and will report in a new post to this blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment