a new r.f.p. issued to anticipate the loss of a federal waiver, able-bodied adults eligible for cal fresh. >> supervisor cohen: when it was repurposed, was it repurposed through an r.f.p. and you applied for it? >> yes. and we were told that collaborative efforts would not be supported, nor was it designed for people that are currently homeless. that's all of us. people coming in -- the idea is to get people to come in. the idea is to get people to connect to organizations. it just doesn't make any sense on any level to exclude those people. >> supervisor cohen: for what reason were collaborative efforts excluded? i agree. it doesn't make sense. >> our understanding is that they didn't feel that the collaborative was the most cost-effective means of serving this population. we disagree. h.s.a. we've been disagreeing about this for about 20 years. the reality is we're paying in some way anyway and the fact is, if we look at our own data that shows us when we first survey the recent homeless populati

when you do a new r.f.p., there are some that get more and some less and some successful, some not. we have worked closely for parents with public schools over the past two years and will continue to work with them and attempt to address their concerns. >> supervisor sheehy: the cascade effect. because it can result in less people going to san francisco public schools. that's the way that many people have their first reaction was with the public school process. the lottery process is confusing. so the engagement is gone. saying you will fix it in the future, when you are stopping an ongoing program -- programs should not be falling through the cracks if it has that degree of effectiveness. because you have not let the r.f.p. for that service. >> you are not the only elected official that has brought this up to me and i did some research. they're on our qualified list for technical assistance and capacity building. what they provide is essentially that kind of service for a lot of individuals. so we are currently -- so the timeline on that process has been the current fiscal year. it

new voting system. the reason that the department issued the r.f.p. is the contract with the current voting system vendor terminates at the end of 2018 which means at the end of the year the city would have no voting system to use going forward. dmin nonwas the responsive bidder to the r.f.p. and the term will begin in january 2019. the first system had been used for the november 2019 election. >> regarding the current system, the city ruhr chased the federal grant fund. and the next contract, though, with dominion will be for a lease. the city will not purchase the equipment but will lease the equipment instead. a lease will also allow the city to upgrade the equipment during the term of the contract which would not be possible if there were the purchase of equipment. and there would be no additional cost under the terms of the contract if there were an upgrade during the term. with the current system, the city will expand $2.3 million for services and fees and i expect the city will expand $2 million a year for services and lease fees. again, the re

r.f.p. process, do they get cycled out for poor performance? >> that is one of the factors that we look at. every time we procure services it is a new procurement. we invite proposals from existing as well as new agencies as part of the scoring of those proposals. we look for every individual proposal. we look at the things like responsiveness to the strategy, the clarity of the plan, the goals associated with that, the cultural competent staff that are implementing the plan. we look at existing providers, what their track record has been, if they have been successful for us in meeting the goals that we set out for them and they negotiated and agreed to. >> is there a place to find a scorecard to reflect the evidence-based outcomes that is public? is it on the website does it exist? >> we don't publish the scores for all of the proposers. we can share that with you. >> i don't necessarily mean the proposers. the nonprofit organizations you are contracting with. i am sure you have an evaluation process. i suggest that should be made public like what dcyf has available. >> we don't have that on our website. we can take that and move f