Read the attachment before interpreting the exemption
An October 13 Kern County agenda item asks for a one-year exemption from the county’s request-for-proposals process for workforce services. Read alone, that description could suggest a retreat from competitive selection. The supporting letter instead proposes that Employers’ Training Resource develop and administer its own program-specific RFPs.
What’s the Scoop With Broach compared item 27 with the department’s signed request. The distinction is consequential: the requested exception is from the standard county procedure, not a stated authorization to award every workforce contract without competition. It is a proposal awaiting board action.
One program year, three counties, several oversight layers
The letter defines the period as July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2028. It covers Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act services and other workforce-related programs. It says procurements may extend beyond Kern into Inyo and Mono counties, which is one reason offered for a department-specific process.
The department also cites California Employment Development Department and U.S. Department of Labor guidelines, a Local Workforce Development Board that approves RFP issuance and funding recommendations, and more than 40 years of experience administering grant-specific procurements. These are the department’s stated justifications. We have not independently evaluated that performance history or the handling of previous awards.
The controls named in the letter need an observable record
The request says County Counsel reviewed and concurred. It seeks an alternative to the standard RFP procedures in Chapter 5 of the county’s Administrative Policy and Procedures Manual. It does not attach a new scoring rubric, planned vendor list, award calendar or contract amounts.
Those omissions do not establish that the eventual competitions will lack safeguards. They mean this authorization alone will not let the public compare vendors or determine value. A meaningful follow-through record would identify each solicitation, published evaluation criteria, proposals received, documented scoring, the workforce board’s recommendation and the resulting agreement.
“No fiscal impact” is not a promise of free services
The agenda and letter classify this procedural request as having no fiscal impact. That description should not be converted into a claim that subsequent training services cost nothing. The item changes the procurement process; it does not supply a combined dollar value for future program awards.
Our original finding is the gap between the compressed agenda label and the more specific attachment: a one-year exception to the county-administered process, coupled with continued department-administered RFPs and named oversight. The accountability question is whether later awards make those steps verifiable. This review did not audit a completed procurement, find favoritism or verify approval of the requested exception.
Sources and further reading
October 13, 2026 Board of Supervisors agenda — proposed action ↗
County staff report and supporting documents, independently reviewed October 12 ↗