by Gavin Prout, Special Benefits Insurance Services
This article outlines the importance of researching the areas you or your employees may plan to travel to. Whether it be political unrest or diseases in that area, this article provides statistics of beliefs vs truths and what is affected in your travel insurance policy with these uncertainties.
https://www.sbis.ca/travel-insurance-in-times-of-global-uncertainty.html
A Quick Tip for Finding Municipal Statistical Data
As municipal consultants we constantly have the need to research municipal operations and data. But have you ever had difficulty finding it all in one location?
My method of choice to research and collect such information for Ontario municipalities is to use the Ministry of Municipal Affairs Financial Information Return (FIR) site. There is a wealth of information available on this site: https://efis.fma.csc.gov.on.ca/fir/Welcome.htm
Here is what the site looks like.
Municipalities in Ontario are mandated to report their annual operations to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs by annually submitting a Financial Information Return (FIR).
You can search for information in a variety of ways – By Schedule, by Municipality, Provincial Summaries or Multi-Year Reports. I most frequently search Schedule 40 – Consolidated Statement of Operations – Expenses, of the municipalities I am needing to compare, because it contains their expenditures which are categorized into the nine (9) main municipal operations.
Others I typically frequently use are – the Municipal Data, Schedule 10 – Revenues, Schedule 20 – Taxation Information and Schedule 80 – Statistical Data, which includes staffing numbers. There are however, a number of other Schedules you can search to find the specific information you may need.
The one caveat I must mention though, is that although municipal operations can be similarly categorized, there is no way to ensure that a municipality is consistently reporting their information in the same category as another municipality. So, if you are comparing municipalities and a number seems too high or too low in comparison, you should always seek clarification from the municipality to be certain you’re comparing apples to apples.
I can only speak to what I’m familiar with here in Ontario, but I suspect a similar reporting requirement exists between all Canadian municipalities and their respective provinces.
If you’re a consultant or other professional in another province, does your province have a similar municipal database? I would be interested in learning about it so I can share it with our professional members.
Or if you use other methods to find municipal data, I’d love to hear about them too. We all need data – so why not help each other find it!
Susan Shannon – [email protected] Susan’s experiences as both a municipal Chief Administrative Officer, and now as a consultant, led to the development of muniSERV.ca . Her experiences have provided her with the insight she needs to help municipalities and professionals connect.
<a href=”http://www.freepik.com/free-vector/magnifying-glass-data-analysis_761448.htm”>Designed by Freepik</a>
by Gavin Prout, Special Benefits Insurance Services
This topic is a very popular one based on all the issues people have been having after they claim during travelling. These 5 points will help you or your employees understand what most don’t and the things to do or look for when purchasing a travel insurance plan. Even if you have group benefits with travel insurance it is important to understand the limitations of these plans.
https://www.sbis.ca/5-ways-avoid-problem-travel-insurance-claim.html
Case Study – Halton Cooperative Purchasing Group: Clearing Up Cutting-Edge Confusion
The Challenge
The Halton Cooperative Purchasing Group (HCPG) was established in 1974 and is comprised of various publicly funded agencies within the Region of Halton. Created to maximize value for all municipal ratepayers by working co-operatively to promote efficiency and economy in the areas of purchasing and materials management, the HCPG emphasizes communication, standardization and resource sharing. As a result of active member engagement and participation, considerable dollar savings have been realized, product standardization has occurred and a sharing of product knowledge and specifications freely takes place between agencies on a daily basis.
Like many procurement professionals across the country, HCPG members were wrestling with the strategies and complexities related to use of the Negotiable RFP process (NRFPs) within the Canadian legal environment. Having identified a need to provide leadership for their members as well as standardization across organizations on use of this important tool, the HCPG reached out to NECI to explore education possibilities for its members.
NECI’s Response
After an in-depth consultation with the HCPG lead, it was agreed that NECI would deliver two separate sessions of its newest Signature Seminar: Negotiable RFPs: Strategies for Successful Binding and Non-Binding Processes.
The Negotiable RFP training was facilitated for an enthusiastic crowd of more than 60 participants (both HCPG members and others invited through the Ontario Public Buyers Association) over two days in April 2016. During these highly interactive sessions, participants from municipal, academic and social services organizations as well as a variety of utility agencies, explored the differences between binding and non-binding procurement processes and analyzed the critical considerations to take into account when making this pivotal procurement decision. Through hands-on exercises, participants examined ways to structure a ‘best and final offer’ process that would maximize the value received from complex procurements, while remaining within the boundaries of legal, policy and trade agreement requirements for public sector organizations. In particular, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act and regulations in Ontario create a very tricky path to navigate when exploring non-binding processes.
Proven Value
HCPG members completed the training with a deep understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of non-binding RFPs, as well as the legal implications of each approach after examining sample contract and RFx language in use in Canada. Through exploration of different negotiation strategies, they returned to their respective organizations able to structure procurement processes that maximize leverage while preserving vendor and supplier relationships.
And the learning doesn’t end with this training. During these sessions it became clear that there were some inconsistent practices and approaches amongst member organizations with respect to use of the NRFP process. As a result, a strategy was discussed for HCGP to host future events where members could highlight their own experiences with this new tool and really tap into the wisdom of those more experienced with this approach.
Here are some participant comments:
“I attended this course as it is a new process that is trending and I need to understand the legalities. Thank you for keeping it relevant and upbeat!”
M.J. Bryant, Halton District School Board
“Great practical examples, up-to-date and current information. Knowledgeable instructor with various learning methods: collaboration, group work with case studies, discussion and questions – overall an excellent course that I will highly recommend!”
Shelley Darlington, Norfolk County
Helping organizations in Canada obtain maximum value from procurement and contracting
Contact Us
To learn more about what NECI could do for your organization,
please contact us:
National Education Consulting Inc.
975 B Alston St. Victoria, BC V9A 3S5
Phone: (250) 370-0041
Toll Free: (888) 990-7267
By Jim Clemmer
A long list of studies shows that 50 – 70% of leadership, culture, and organization change and development efforts fail. For example, a Harvard Business Review article by Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria on “Cracking the Code of Change” concludes, “the brutal fact is that about 70% of all change initiatives fail.”
These efforts typically include:
I have reviewed research and our experiences in helping dozens of organizations with their change initiatives. Success or failure ultimately rests with the organization’s senior leadership team. Here are the common problems that trap many leadership teams and become the root causes of their failed change and development efforts:
How many of these traps are snaring your senior leadership team? What are you doing to avoid falling into these sinkholes?
Taking the team offsite for a few days can have a major impact on avoiding these problems. An offsite retreat can also lay the foundation to become one of the 30 – 50% of organizations with a very high and lasting impact from their change and development work.
About Jim Clemmer
For over three decades Jim Clemmer’s keynote presentations, workshops, and management team retreats, and seven best-selling books translated into many languages, articles, blog, and newsletters have helped hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The CLEMMER Group is Zenger Folkman’s Canadian Strategic Partner. Zenger Folkman is an award-winning firm best known for its unique evidence-driven, strengths-based system for developing extraordinary leaders and demonstrating the performance impact they have on organizations.
Test your understanding of fairness in this recent case from Nova Scotia.
In 2012, the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) issued an RFP for the purchase and redevelopment of a surplus elementary school property. Jono Developments Ltd. and several community groups submitted proposals. There is evidence that the HRM closely followed the terms of the evaluation process laid out in the RFP, which allocated 20 percent of the weighting to the financial offer. Following evaluations, the HRM approved sale of the property to Jono.
Around the time the sale to Jono was approved, the community groups discovered that the HRM had passed a “Policy and Procedure for Disposal of Surplus Schools” in 2000. Among other steps, the HRM was required under the policy to first assess and evaluate any proposals from community groups or grant applications and, if none were received or none were supported by the Community Grants and Partnering Program under the HRM, then the HRM was to take steps to seek Council approval to put the property on the market.
Compelling evidence was presented that the HRM had not tested the policy since its inception, and in fact was not aware that it even existed until challenged by the community groups following the approval of the sale to Jono. When the HRM became aware of the policy, which clearly had not been followed in this instance (or in any of the previous disposals of 18 other surplus school properties), the HRM rescinded its decision to sell to Jono, made a motion to rescind the policy and, then, passed a third motion to sell the property to Jono.
The HRM was also enabled under its Municipal Charter to “sell property at market value when the property is no longer required.” The appraised value of the property was listed in the RFP as $4.3 million, based on a valuation report that provided three scenarios:
Jono had submitted an unconditional financial offer of $3 million for the property “as is,” to be increased by increments of $75,000 over the highest bid to a maximum of $4 million. In other words, Jono offered to pay $3 million if there were no competing bids, and up to $4 million if there were. Jono also provided a slightly higher option that was conditional on certain development approvals. 2 Several community groups also submitted proposals, each offering a purchase price of less than $3 million. The HRM approved the $3 million offer from Jono. As shown by the HRM’s evaluation process, Jono had received the highest score in the RFP process, in part because of its financial proposal.
What would you decide in this case?
Reprinted from The Legal Edge Issue 112, October – December 2015
Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.
National Education Consulting Inc.
975 B Alston Street, Victoria, BC V9”A 3S5
Phone: (250) 370-0041 Toll Free: (888) 990-7267
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Public-Sector Entities Sharing Bid Information, and When Does Contract A End?
Through our Signature Seminars, eSeminars, Public Sector Procurement Program (PSPP) and other courses, our NECI instructors regularly answer questions about procurement-related issues. Here are two recent questions.
What is the current thinking about public-sector entities sharing bid information? We are in the MASH sector (municipalities, academic institutions, school boards, and health and social service providers) and taking advantage of more and more provincial government tender contracts that are now available to us. We are conscious about bid-shopping, and always advise our users that once we go to RFx, we can’t go back to the government agreements. As the MASH and government collaborations increase, and we handle our own RFx’s, some government parties are curious about our experience in going to market, for when they go back out. We are cautious about the free flow of information, particularly from MASH to government, given that the current direction is the other way around. RFx strategies and the like don’t raise much concern, but sharing results makes us hesitate.
Generally speaking, bid-shopping has to do with using already submitted bid pricing as a negotiating tool with other suppliers. Typically, this relates to cancelling a tender process after closing, and then either going back out to market with the same scope, or using the pricing submitted in negotiations for a direct award of the work. Having said that, we know that the public sector is a lightning rod for challenges, and that the legal definitions of such terms are shaped, over time, by the various allegations that come before the courts.
Obtaining information on the lump-sum price of similar contracts with other public organizations is common practice, and indeed, it is public record, so probably couldn’t be considered improper. Going beyond that, however, and obtaining other pricing that perhaps did not result in an award, might be riskier territory. Using the lump-sum award pricing when shaping internal budgets is common, but if, for example, you were to use that information as justification for cancelling a tender process already underway, we could see some potential issues.
It would be prudent for you to raise this issue and get some legal advice on the implications. As always, this is not legal advice, just our take on the question, as educators. We have not heard this issue from any other organization, but as you say, the practice of sharing information among public-sector entities is becoming more common. While that is a good thing, you are entirely correct to be a little uncomfortable with the practice until you receive a legal opinion on how far you should go. The last thing you want, of course, is for the courts to make that determination for you.
At what point in the competitive bidding process does Contract A end?
Great question! From a legal perspective, Contract A expires when Contract B (the Performance Contract) is signed with the successful respondent. If there is unfairness, of course there can be a challenge after Contract B is signed, but the alleged unfairness must have taken place during the competition before Contract B was signed.
Do you have procurement-related questions that might be of broad interest (or additions to/rebuttals of our answers)? We invite you to send them to our Legal Editor and Publisher, Maureen Sullivan ([email protected]). We will publish questions of a general nature that we think are relevant and timely. We cannot address specific legal questions, provide legal advice, or guarantee that your question will be published.
Reprinted from The Legal Edge Issue 111, July – September 2015
“…At one point, I had an extraordinarily difficult boss, who could literally drive you into tears. And it was easy to convince yourself to allow the fear that naturally arose to, if not paralyze you, certainly greatly restrict what you did, and the risks you were willing to take. And I think coming to grips with that was not an easy one…I decided life was too short to hide in the corner and worry about this guy. And I also decided that I was right, and he wasn’t.” — John Kotter, leadership author and Harvard Business School professor
Strong leaders don’t allow themselves to be victims of a bad boss. Choosing to do that is like choosing to hang wallpaper with one arm tied behind our back. Many managers lose the “boss lottery” and, through no fault of their own, end up reporting to an ineffective executive. We may not be able to choose our boss, but we can choose how to respond to him or her. Good leaders refuse to be a victim of their boss’s weaknesses. They don’t let a dumb boss make them act dumb. They know that the worst thing they can do is to sabotage their careers just to spite the boss.
Unless the boss is so bad that a bigger career decision (i.e. looking for a new job) is called for, a strong leader tries to make the best of a difficult situation. What can I learn from this boss? Sometimes a bad example – of what not to do and how not to behave – is very instructive! Keep in mind, too, that your boss may not be as entirely bad as you might think. Ask yourself: What are the boss’s strengths that I could learn from? Am I allowing my own style or preferences to cloud my opinion and damage our relationship? For example, is he or she cold and analytical while I am more emotional and focused on people – or vice versa? (Typically the people we have the most problems with are those at the opposite end of our own behavioral style.)
Ask yourself, too, whether there are ways you can play to your boss’s strengths and preferences. Are there other people reporting to your boss who have a good relationship with him or her? If so, and assuming that these people aren’t simply sucking up to the boss, can I emulate some of what they are doing to build a better relationship with the boss? Do I know what work issues are keeping my boss awake at night? Can I link the changes I am trying to lead to those “hot button” issues? Could I more effectively partner with my boss to use his or her higher organizational position to leverage the larger change or leadership agenda I am trying to drive forward? Do I understand the bigger political picture of which my boss is a part? Am I “stage managing” my boss to help him or her look good and bring the additional weight of his or her office to our situations?
Many bad bosses do a poor job of planning, setting priorities, and following through. Sometimes that’s because he or she is being pulled in many directions by forces beyond his or her control. Do I know what those are? Other times bosses are just disorganized and undisciplined. But before I throw a Pity Party and complain about that, I need to take a look in the mirror. How’s my leadership example? Strong leaders take the initiative to regularly plan, set priorities, and follow through with his or her boss. Does my boss share the same sense of urgency I have about the changes that need to be made in our organization? Have I done enough to increase his or her understanding of the need for change?
Research indicates that effective middle leaders make valuable contributions to change in successful organizations. INSEAD professor Quy Nguyen Huy found that strong middle leaders have good entrepreneurial ideas. They are often better than executives at leveraging informal networks. The best ones stayed attuned to and meet the emotional needs of people throughout the organization during major change. Effective middle leaders also manage the ongoing tension between continuity and change.
There is a difference between middle managers and middle leaders. Both are needed. However, most organizations need stronger leadership to counter-balance years of focus on management systems, processes, and technology. The best middle leaders provide strong leadership up, down, and across the organization. They use influence, persuasion, “tempered radicalism” (change-leaders use their anger or energy to alternatively heat and cool their approaches as they become tougher and stronger), networking, and other skills to lead at the speed of change.
Reprinted with the permission of Jim Clemmer. For over three decades Jim Clemmer’s keynote presentations, workshops, and management team retreats, and seven best-selling books translated into many languages, articles, blog, and newsletters have helped hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. The CLEMMER Group is Zenger Folkman’s Canadian Strategic Partner, an award-winning firm best known for its unique evidence-driven, strengths-based system for developing extraordinary leaders and demonstrating the performance impact they have on organizations. http://www.clemmergroup.com
It is a known fact that all municipalities, particularly small municipalities, share success and horror stories about experiences they have had with a particular consultant or professional they used. They quite literally pick up the phone and ask other municipalities “who they used”. They do this because municipalities differ from the private sector in that they are not in competition with each other so they freely share their success stories/best practices, etc.
While this works very well for municipalities, this reliance on the word- of- mouth exchange of information can often make it difficult for consultants and professionals to find that first opportunity to work with a municipality to become part of one of those “who did you use” conversations.
Here are a few hints that may help.
Don’t limit yourself to trying to just get contracts with larger municipalities – Smaller municipalities need and use consultants and professionals too because they do not always have the in-house staff with the specialized expertise required to complete all projects. And, it’s often easier to secure some work with smaller municipalities and it’s a great stepping stone for finding larger projects with larger municipalities.
Procurement By-laws – Search the websites of municipalities you would like to work with and familiarize yourself with their procurement by-law or policies to learn their rules for engaging outside experts. While municipalities all must by law, have a procurement policy, their actual purchasing processes may differ slightly (i.e. they may have established different notice periods for those not otherwise mandated, or different advertising methods, etc.) Once you know their methods you can check those sources for work postings.
Search the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole (COW) or Council Meetings – Look for any council resolutions that indicate they will be engaging an outside consultant or professional for assistance. This will give you clues as to what work they will be posting soon and possibly how it will be posted. (i.e RFP, Tender, RFQ, etc) In smaller municipalities look for wording like, “be it resolved that staff is hereby authorized to call for quotes (or advertise by public tender, etc.) for the services of a consultant to undertake ……..”
Review Staff Reports Attached to Meeting Agendas or Minutes – It will most often be the department heads or staff members who have identified a need to bring in a third party professional to assist with a particular project and they will usually write the reasons why they need an outside expert in a report to council. Of course you’ll narrow your search to only the reports from the departments you want to offer your expertise to.
Search the Municipality’s Website to find the Member of Staff responsible for Purchasing – Small municipalities typically do not have Purchasing Officers or Procurement departments and quite often this responsibility lies with the CAO, Treasurer or with Accounts Payable .
Set up an Appointment – Once you’ve determined who is responsible for purchasing, set up an appointment to meet the individual face to face to introduce your services and tell them how you can help. Do keep your meeting brief though – these folks are busy and taking too much of their time may actually work against you and leave a negative impression.
If you can’t get an appointment to introduce yourself, consider personally dropping off information at the municipality. This may help separate you and your information from the other material they receive in the mail and if they’re looking for someone with your expertise, they are more apt to remember to include you in any calls for quotes, etc. In my years as a municipal CAO, I don’t ever recall having a consultant or professional come to my office to meet me or drop off information for me. If they had of they would have stood out in my mind for sure.
Some municipalities make it a practice to include anything addressed to Mayor and Councillors, in their Council agenda packages. So, if you have a brochure or newsletter about your services this may also be a way to broaden your reach to more of the decision-makers in the municipality.
Set up your profile on muniSERV.ca – The hints above will work but as you can see, they are very time-consuming and you will only be able to concentrate on just a few municipalities at a time due the amount of research and follow up that will be necessary. However, setting up a profile on muniSERV.ca and making it as robust and professional as possible, is the quickest and most cost-effective way for you to have the opportunity for direct visibility and exposure to municipal decision-makers.
By selecting the service categories of the services you provide, you’ll be part of the searchable database – and the more municipalities search, the more opportunity there is for you to get found and build your consultancy. You can also check the RFP section of the site to see if there are any RFPs looking for the services you provide.
Finally, once you’ve been successful getting work in a municipality you need to be acutely aware of the fact that if you do a poor job, you may have just ruined your opportunity of finding work elsewhere with a municipality, because the “word- of- mouth” about your performance will have already been spread through municipal networks by then!
Susan is the Principal of muniSERV.ca – Helping Municipalities & Professionals Connect!
She can be reached at [email protected] or 855.477.5095
** Note – This information is drawn from my own experience as a former municipal CAO in Ontario and processes may be somewhat different in other provinces in Canada
In February 2010, the Regional Municipality of Niagara created a shortlist of general contractors through a formal Request for Prequalification (RFQ) process, in accordance with its Purchasing Policies and Procedures Bylaw. The shortlisting process was for work related to two renovation projects at the Niagara District Airport: the “Groundside” project and the “Airside” project.
Weinmann Electric Ltd. acted as the electrical subcontractor for Dufferin Construction Company, the successful bidder on the Groundside project, which commenced in June 2010.
By way of letter dated April 21, 2010, the Region informed each of the five prequalified general contractors, including Dufferin, that they were eligible to submit written tender bids for the Airside project. On the advice of its consultant, the Region decided to specify minimum qualifications for the electrical subcontractors on the Airside project, due to the nature and complexity of the airfield lighting requirements.
In the April 21, 2010 letter, the Region advised the general contractors bidding on the Airside project that “… electrical subcontractors must have successfully completed at least two airfield lighting projects in Canada with a value of at least $750,000 each.” In the same letter, the Region set out the names of the four electrical contractors that its consultant had said would meet the minimum qualifications, with a stipulation that other subcontractors would be considered, provided they met the minimum qualifications. The requirement for minimum qualifications was subsequently incorporated into the tender document for the Airside project by addendum, without mention of the four named companies.
Although Weinmann was clearly a well-established electrical contractor, it was not one of the named companies, and did not meet the minimum qualification requirements, as its experience with airfield lighting work was limited. Weinmann contacted representatives of the Region and, through discussions, it became clear that Weinmann might have been able to meet the minimum requirements by partnering with another electrical contractor with suitable experience. On August 3, 2010, before such partnering arrangements could be formalized, and shortly before tender bids for the Airside project were due, the Region informed the bidders that they “may carry Weinmann as the airfield lighting/electric subcontractor for [their tender bids] pending receipt of the requested backup information.”
Dufferin’s bid for the Airside project named Weinmann as the electrical subcontractor, incorporating Weinmann’s pricing for that aspect of the work. By letter dated August 11, 2010, the Region requested, among other things, the documentation with respect to Weinmann’s qualification as the proposed subcontractor. Although Weinmann did provide the backup documentation to Dufferin on August 13, Dufferin by that point had decided to use another electrical subcontractor on the project, in part due to its concerns about whether Weinmann could meet the requirements, and in part due to concerns about the possibility that Weinmann would be overextended by taking on the Airside project.
Weinmann initiated litigation and sought damages from the Region, alleging that it lost the Airside electrical subcontracting job because of the unlawful actions of the Region. The Region’s bylaws prescribe the procedure for conducting prequalification processes, including prequalification of any subcontractors. Weinmann alleged that the Region had failed to follow the bylaw by not preparing and advertising a prequalification process for the electrical subcontractors on the Airside project – despite naming four “prequalified” companies in the letter of April 21. The Region denied that any prequalification was done for the electrical subcontractors, so there could have been no breach of the bylaw in question.
The matter was complicated by the fact that an email from the Region’s consultant referred to the “prequalified list of electrical subcontractors,” although the issue was clarified by a subsequent letter confirming that other subcontractors could qualify by meeting the stipulated minimum requirements.
What would you decide in this case?
Answer
In Weinmann Electric Ltd. v. The Regional Municipality of Niagara, 2016 ONSC 13, the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice concluded that the conduct of the Region was not intended to produce, and did not produce, an exclusive shortlist of electrical subcontractors. The April 21 letter was clear that other subcontractors would be considered if they could meet the requirements. The letter simply included a non-exclusive list of suggested electrical subcontractors, which the Court found to be entirely reasonable, given the non-routine nature of the project. This conclusion was supported by the fact that the tender document for the Airside project did not list these suggested subcontractors; rather, it specified the minimum requirements that had to be met by any electrical subcontractor to be used.
In concluding that the Region did not conduct a prequalification process for electrical subcontractors, the Court found that there could have been no breach of the cited bylaw. The Court also dismissed general allegations of breach of the duty of fairness. In the words of the Court, “If there has been no breach of the By-Law, and no other unlawful act, there can be no breach of a duty of fairness.”
In the alternative, the Court found that, even if the Region had conducted a prequalification process and had breached the bylaw in doing so, Weinmann failed to prove that it had suffered any damages as a result. A plaintiff must prove more than an unlawful act in order to recover damages: it must also prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it has suffered a loss as a consequence of the unlawful act. In this case, if the Region had conducted a prequalification process, Weinmann would not have met the requirements, and therefore would not have made the shortlist, rendering it ineligible for the subcontract work in any event.
Coupled with the vague calculation of the damages alleged by Weinmann – including the fact that the impact on profit margins of having to partner with another company for the electrical work was not reflected – the Court had no hesitation in dismissing Weinmann’s claim, leaving the parties to agree on the amount of costs payable by Weinmann.
Issue 113 | JAN – MAR 2016
Readers are cautioned not to rely upon this article as legal advice nor as an exhaustive discussion of the topic or case. For any particular legal problem, seek advice directly from your lawyer or in-house counsel. All dates, contact information and website addresses were current at the time of original publication.
I want to use muniSERV’s suite of tools to find services, post RFPs, find experienced CAOs, see and post events, find or sell surplus equipment, and learn about municipal innovations.
I want to reach municipalities to showcase my business to them. I'd like to find RFP's, post articles, see events, and advertise directly to municipalities.
I want municipalities to see my employment and CAO experience. I want to post my resume, see CAO job opportunities, read articles and see upcoming municipal events.
None of the above? Visit our About Us page to learn more or visit our Advertising page.
