The RFP's title says classification and compensation; its detailed task list is classification through and through. Rather than guess, we asked the Town through the Q&A process, and on August 12 the Town answered: proposals reflect the classification study only, with compensation to follow, and hourly rates requested so a later amendment can carry that work. Our proposal conforms exactly: the classification study is the base scope, and the market compensation module below is pre-priced and ready for the amendment the Town anticipates.
Objective G asks for a classification system that adapts to future operational needs. That means specifications HR can maintain in-house, families and levels with written distinctions, career pathways employees can see per Objective C, and an implementation plan that does not depend on the consultant sticking around. The Final Report is built as an operating manual rather than a shelf document.
The Town's Q&A names the agencies it typically uses: Belmont, Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz, subject to adjustment for similarly situated agencies. When the module is elected, that pool is our starting point, drawn from agency-published salary schedules with the match basis for every comparable-class decision documented, so HR can defend any single number a year later without us in the room.
Salary tells you who wins offers; total compensation tells you who keeps people. Where the module is elected we collect employer retirement contributions (including CalPERS classic versus PEPRA distinctions), health contributions, leave value, and special pays, and we show where the two measures disagree, because the disagreements are exactly where negotiation arguments start.
Every specification we touch carries an exempt/non-exempt designation with the analysis behind it (Objective F), ADA-conformant essential-function and physical-requirement language, and bargaining-unit alignment. Compliance is built into the drafting standard rather than delivered as a separate document.
A proposer who assumed the market survey was in scope priced high for work the Town had not asked for. A proposer who assumed it out risked a change order later. We priced the split, then asked, and the Town's August 12 answer confirmed the structure: classification study as the base, compensation to follow, hourly rates on file so an amendment can carry it. Nothing about our price moved when the answer came; that is what commitment to the project budget looks like in practice.