Public Notice Detail
Request for Proposals: Classification and Compensation Study and Analysis
Posted: Tuesday, December 3, 2024
Read the Request for Proposals.
12/5/2024: This RFP has been amended. Reason for the amendment: There were two scope sections listed on the RFP (Section IID “Scope” and Section IV “PROJECT SCOPE”). Section IID is not a part of this request. The amended RFP removes Section IID and retains Section IV, thus defining the project scope.
Answers to Questions: Request for Proposals: Classification and Compensation Study and Analysis
Please see answers to the submitted questions below.
Can you please provide a full list of HR and IT titles to be included in this analysis?
The following is a list of Information Technology (IT) and Human Resources & Development (HRD) job classifications for inclusion in this analysis. Some incumbents use working titles that vary from these job classification titles.
1. IT Specialist I
2. IT Specialist II
3. IT Specialist III
4. IT Specialist IV
5. IT Specialist V
6. IT Supervisor I
7. IT Supervisor II
8. IT Project Manager
9. IT Senior Project Manager
10. IT Manager
11. IT Senior Manager
12. Chief Information Security Officer
13. Human Resources Assistant
14. Human Resources Coordinator
15. Human Resources Generalist
16. Human Resources Specialist
17. Human Resources Manager I
18. Human Resources Manager II
19. Human Resources Program Manager
20. Education Program Manager
21. Education & Development Program Specialist
Note: *Some positions within the IT and HRD functions are classified using job classifications from other job families; these positions will also be included if most of the work is similar.
How many of the roughly 250 incumbents would MJB like to collect position description questionnaire data from?
As many as possible. We’ll ask all incumbents to submit a PDQ and plan to collect them over the next several weeks using the MJB’s PDQ system and provide them as PDFs to the vendor.
Is it MJB's goal to develop job classifications with greater specificity? By way of example, if you currently have an IT Technician" and the position description questionnaire process suggests those incumbents should be reclassified to an IT Security Analyst, Database Administrator, Helpdesk Technician, and Application Developer, would MJB be in support of the creation of additional job titles to more accurately reflect the work being performed by incumbents (knowing that those jobs are likely to carry measurably different market values)?
Our Position Classification Policy defines a “classification” as “a single position or a group of positions sufficiently similar in duties, authority, and responsibilities that the same descriptive title may be used; the same qualifications for appointment may be required; the same aptitude or proficiency tests may be used; and the same pay band may be applied with equity.”
The MJB is open to creating more specific job classifications when the nature of the work clearly supports it, and we have some indications that may be the case. One way we’ve considered increasing specificity within our IT classifications is by creating sub-families for specific functions like security, software engineering, infrastructure, database, and architecture. We would be interested in this if each classification’s duties, qualifications, and responsibilities are sufficiently distinct and the resulting structure supports fair, transparent, and equitable pay while remaining practical for our workforce.
How many staff interviews/focus groups would MJB like to include in the assessment? Or are these only on an as-needed basis since there will be a position description questionnaire process?
At least two, with one for each job family (IT and HRD) to include pre-determined subject-matter experts. The variety of work within each job family may lead the vendor to seek additional staff interviews and focus groups.
Given that the RFP indicates that the vendor will complete its work with the Branch's existing job evaluation point factor analysis framework - Can you specify what framework is used?
The branch uses a customized point factor method called "Position Allocation Method (PAM)" that includes 11 compensable factors with varying levels and weighted scoring. This framework has been in use since the courts transitioned to a unified, statewide system (from the late 1990s to early 2000s).
Is that framework proprietary to a specific vendor, or is it open and accessible to anyone MJB may select to perform these services?
It is accessible to anyone MJB selects to perform these services.
Has MJB found that the existing job evaluation point factor analysis framework is responsive to market for positions such as IT (as some are not)? If not, does MJB have a preferred or desired approach?
So far, we have found it, along with our corresponding compensation structure, to be responsive to market. To date, we have not needed to make market adjustments to most IT classifications; only IT Project Manager and IT Senior Project Manager have been adjusted by one pay band.
The RFP alludes to collective bargaining agreements. How many of the job classifications are represented? How many unions and separate CBAs? What involvement does MJB expect from the unions?
Two classifications in the IT job family are included in collective bargaining agreements; however, due to statutory definitions of Courts Units, some positions in those classifications are represented and some are not. Specifically, five positions (of roughly 250) are represented under one CBA. The MJB Labor Relations Manager will inform the union of the classification assessment and any resulting changes to classifications impacting represented employees. No vendor interaction with unions anticipated.
Please confirm the number of job titles to be included is approximately 20, and not 70-85 benchmark jobs, as indicated on page 3.
Correct, the number of job titles to be included is approximately 20 (21 classifications are listed in answer to the first question). The 70-85 was accidentally included as a remnant of a former RFP used for a template and removed on 12/4/24.
The RFP indicates within the Compensation Structure Recommendations and Implementation" section that the deliverable is to include range spread and pay band design recommendations. Is MJB open to placing these positions in a separate pay structure, as needed, to support market and classification study findings?
No, MJB intends to continue to use the existing compensation structure for these positions. This wording was accidentally included as a remnant of a former RFP used for a template and removed on 12/4/24.
Can you please clarify what is requested in 6. Evidence of Financial Stability? This section reflects security measures in the RFP.
There is no contract requirement for evidence of financial stability or security stability. This is a requirement in the RFP that permits the Branch to evaluate a vendor’s financial stability (essentially is financially viable and able to perform the work they are doing, pay their employees, etc.) and their security viability (are they secure – think cybersecurity and physical security).
Number 6 is specific to financial measures, no security, but the language referencing what would qualify as “financial-related trade secret” inadvertently included “security” rather than “financial’ but those standards would be the same.