2026-03PC Addendum 1 042126.pdf
PDF 265 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PORTAGE COUNTY-WIDE SALARY STUDY
- Solicitation number
- 2026-03PC
- Issued by
- Portage County, Wisconsin
About this file
This Addendum 1 to RFP #2026-03PC clarifies and revises the requirements for Portage County, Wisconsin's comprehensive classification and compensation study. The study will cover approximately 240 job titles and 545 employees, excluding sworn public safety positions. Key deliverables include job analysis and classification reviews, FLSA compliance assessments, recommended classifications, identification of comparable counties for benchmarking, and internal maintenance process recommendations, with results to be presented to both the Human Resources Committee and County Board. The county is open to employee questionnaire processes and recognizes that job descriptions are currently being reviewed internally for accuracy; however, editing job descriptions to a new format is explicitly excluded from the consultant's scope of work. Proposals must be submitted electronically by April 30, 2026, with interviews and presentations scheduled for May 20, 2026, contract award anticipated in mid-June 2026, and project commencement in late June 2026, with final deliverables estimated for late third or early fourth quarter 2026. The county has established a budget based on previous pricing and recent comparable entity information but will not disclose the specific budget amount to prospective bidders.
The county utilizes a combination of point factor job evaluation, market pricing, and internal comparability methodology to place jobs in pay grades and requests that consultants provide recommended FLSA classifications as part of their analysis. The previous 2022 market update was conducted by McGrath Consulting as a continuation of the 2015 salary study. Regarding employee interviews, the county is interested in the consultant's recommendations on interview scope; the previous study included interviews with one employee per job title. Virtual meetings and presentations are acceptable, though in-person attendance is expected for Human Resources Committee and County Board presentations. Cost proposals may include anticipated hourly rates for the five-year maintenance contract period if proposers elect to provide such information. Proposers must indicate their preferred format for meetings (virtual or in-person) in their response to Section 5.3.2. No restrictions on bidder categories, set-asides, or incumbent protections are noted in this addendum.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-03PC RFP Proposal Document.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP #2026- 03PC-WIDE SALARY STUDY
ADDENDUM 1
4/21/2026
The following changes are hereby added to and made part of Proposal #2026-
03PC:
Clarifications and Revisions:
Questions & Answers:
1. Can you confirm the number of job titles and number of employees who will be covered by this study?
A. Approximately 240 job titles and 545 employees
2. As part of the job analysis and classification work, does the County wish the Consultant to provide a recommended FLSA classification (exempt or non-exempt)?
A. Yes, See also Section 1.3.2 #5
3. What system or methodology does the County utilize to place jobs in pay grades (e.g., point factor job evaluation, market pricing, whole job slotting, combination of point factor and market pricing)?
A. Point factor job evaluation, market pricing, internal comparability.
4. Is the County satisfied with the format of the job descriptions, or rather is the County anticipating all job descriptions will need to be edited for a new format (as well as any content changes that are warranted from the job analysis phase)?
A. The County internally is working on the format of the position descriptions. Editing a new format for position descriptions is not part of the scope of the salary study.
5. To what degree does the County wish the Consultant to interview employees? Along with offering employees to complete thorough job analysis questionnaires, we typically also interview each department head (and their direct reports) but are happy to extend that more broadly if the County believes that is important.
A. See Section 1.3.2 #4. Additional information=the County is interested in the Consultant’s recommendation regarding interviewing employees. In the previous salary study, one employee per job title was interviewed by the Consultant.
6. With regard to section 1.5 – Contract Term and Funding, is the County wanting to see our anticipated hourly rates for the next five years (from date of implementation) as part of the cost proposal?
A. You may do this as further clarification of your Cost Proposal.
7. Are we correct that an electronic submission is acceptable in lieu of printed copies (despite the reference to
“print their submission” in the second paragraph of section 2.1 – General Instructions)?
A. One Electronic Copy submitted using the instructions in Section 2.3 is what is intended. Note
Copies of your submissions may be printed by staff so it would be helpful if your submission prints well on 8.5” x 11” paper.
8. How many employees are to be included in the study?
A. See answer to Question 1.
9. Does the study include sworn public safety?
A. No
10. How many unique job titles/classifications are included in the study?
A. See answer to Question 1.
11. Has the County established a budget for this project? If so, will that information be shared with prospective bidders?
A. Yes, the county was able to establish a budget using previous pricing and information gathered from like entities going through the process recently.
B. No
12. Did the County use an outside vendor to conduct the 2022 compensation study? Can the County share who the vendor was?
A. The 2022 market update was conducted by McGrath Consulting as part of the 2015 salary study.
13. Does the County use a formal job evaluation methodology to establish and maintain internal equity? If yes, what methodology?
A. See response to Question 3.
14. Are the current job descriptions accurate from the perspective of employees, supervisors, and human resources? If not, is the County open to employee questionnaire process to update the current classification structure and descriptions?
A. The County has asked all departments to review job descriptions for accuracy. The County is open to employee questionnaires.
15. Page 5 of the RFP mentions the award consultant recommending changes to job descriptions. What is the current state of job descriptions? How many job descriptions does the County anticipate needing to be rewritten?
A. The County internally is working on the format of the position descriptions. The County will look for the Consultant for High Level recommendations.
16. Can the County accommodate virtual meetings and presentations? Are there any presentations that the County would prefer to have in person?
A. Yes the County can accommodate virtual meetings and presentations. The County would expect in person meetings for Human Resource Committee and County Board Presentations. The County would be expecting the Proposer to indicate Virtual or In Person style meetings in their response to Section 5.3 specifically Section 5.3.2.
17. How many unique jobs are included in this analysis?
A. See Response to Question #1
18. How many employees will be part of the study?
A. See Response to Question #1
19. Can you confirm that you have approximately 214 classifications that will be part of the study?
A. See Response to Questions #1
*******End of Addendum 1********
| 1. Can you confirm the number of job titles and number of employees who will be covered by this study? |
| 2. As part of the job analysis and classification work, does the County wish the Consultant to provide a recommended FLSA classification (exempt or non-exempt)? |
| 3. What system or methodology does the County utilize to place jobs in pay grades (e.g., point factor job evaluation, market pricing, whole job slotting, combination of point factor and market pricing)? |
| 4. Is the County satisfied with the format of the job descriptions, or rather is the County anticipating all job descriptions will need to be edited for a new format (as well as any content changes that are warranted from the job analysis phase)? |
| 5. To what degree does the County wish the Consultant to interview employees? Along with offering employees to complete thorough job analysis questionnaires, we typically also interview each department head (and their direct reports) but are happy to ... |
| 6. With regard to section 1.5 – Contract Term and Funding, is the County wanting to see our anticipated hourly rates for the next five years (from date of implementation) as part of the cost proposal? |
| 7. Are we correct that an electronic submission is acceptable in lieu of printed copies (despite the reference to “print their submission” in the second paragraph of section 2.1 – General Instructions)? |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .