KernGRIT’s Proposed $235,000 Study Uses Nearly 96% of the City’s Subaward

Nearly all of the subaward is allocated to a study

A proposed $235,000 Newmark consulting agreement accounts for 95.9 percent of Bakersfield’s $245,000 KernGRIT subaward, according to a comparison of documents in the September 16 council packet. The $10,000 difference is arithmetic between two funding ceilings, not proof of cash left in a bank account or a forecast of a cost overrun.

The project is funded through the California Jobs First Catalyst program, with Kern Community College District serving as fiscal agent. Staff anticipates no General Fund impact. The accompanying amendment would move the city’s deadline from September 30, 2026 to April 30, 2027, a seven-month extension.

What the money is supposed to produce

The scope is organized around project kickoff, land and manufacturing strategy, workforce assessment and an implementation roadmap. The attached work plan supplies measurable outputs that are more useful for oversight than a general promise of economic development.

Competition and payment conditions matter

The staff report says the city issued its request for proposals on April 10 and received three proposals. Staff recommended Newmark as the best-qualified respondent. That record does not support describing the proposed award as an uncontested or sole-source selection.

The agreement caps compensation at $235,000, including out-of-pocket expenses and taxes. Payment is based on time and materials through itemized invoices subject to city approval. The attached terms also make prepared project documents city property and provide for record retention. These mechanisms create records that can be examined after work is billed. The consultant’s attached proposal also describes a fixed-fee estimate; the agreement’s payment clause specifies time-and-material invoicing within the same ceiling. Final execution and billing records would show how the city applied those terms.

A roadmap needs a public scorecard

Our accountability question is whether the city will publish the site-screening criteria, the reasons finalists were selected and the recommendations it accepts or rejects. Counting 20 opportunities is a study output; it is not evidence that 20 businesses located in Bakersfield. Likewise, naming industrial sites does not establish that utilities, financing or development approvals are secured.

This report independently compares the subaward, consultant ceiling, extension and deliverable schedule in the council packet. It does not establish that the agreement was executed, that an invoice was paid or that a milestone is complete. No job-creation total can be calculated from these documents. Later invoices and accepted work products are the records needed to determine what the public bought.