House Strategies Group built this site from the public record: the class list in Attachment 1, the salary table the Department of Human Resources publishes, and the published pay schedules of the thirteen counties named in the Statement of Work. It shows how we would run the survey, on the County’s own data.
RFP 13298 asks for a structured, benchmark-based salary survey of the County’s full classification structure, in two phases set by labor contract cycles. We read it as three jobs that have to agree with each other.
Benchmark classes chosen with the County, matched at Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Ventura, reported on the County’s Attachment 2 sheet: minimum, maximum, median, mean, and San Diego’s percent difference at the top of range. Pay premiums for classes the County selects, as an option.
Most of the 913 classes will not be benchmarked directly. Each one still gets a documented recommendation, tied to a surveyed class through its series, its supervisory relationship or its published specification, so the Board sees one consistent structure.
Unadjusted salaries, regional and geographic adjustments and other models used by California agencies, shown on the same benchmarks so the County can choose with the numbers in front of it. Every instrument, native spreadsheet, codebook and decision log is delivered to the County.
All thirteen comparator counties publish salary schedules and class specifications. We start from those documents, record the effective date of every range, and contact a county’s HR staff only where publication leaves a gap. The structure page already holds the County’s own ranges, dated June 26, 2026.
SOW 4.6 asks the consultant to explain how comparable classes were identified and to document why any source was set aside. Our match register stores, for each benchmark and county, the class matched, the level chosen, the reason, and any class rejected with its reason. It goes to the County in Excel with the final package.
The methods page runs the same benchmark three ways: unadjusted, adjusted for regional prices, and adjusted for regional wage levels. Each uses a published federal index with its release named. The County approves the method in writing before any work relies on it (SOW 2.3.1).
We use AI to draft first-pass matches from class specifications. A credentialed analyst accepts, changes or rejects each one, and the reviewer’s name and reason are logged. That is how we meet Board Policy A-140 and Section 10.13 of the Draft Agreement: human oversight, disclosure, and the prompts and outputs available to the County on request.
Our delivery platform is live today on demonstration jurisdictions built from public data, including Riverbend: comparator sources with provenance on every datapoint, stored market runs that state their basis and aging, and Excel exports. A County of San Diego workspace would be set up only after award, on data the County provides. Demonstrations are HSG-operated walkthroughs, arranged through the Contracting Officer.
Every pay figure here comes from a published source cited where it appears: the County’s salary table, the comparator counties’ own schedules and class specifications, and federal statistical releases. No figure on this site is a finding about the County’s market position. The benchmark sample is a demonstration of method on a handful of common classes; benchmark selection, matching and the final comparator list are decided with the County at kickoff and approved in writing (SOW 2.4.2).