Procurement Update Webinar January 6, 2012

1 TopicTime Introductions and Review Agenda1:00–1:10 Overview of SBACs Procurement Process1:10–1:30 Advice from SBAC Work Groups1:30–2:00 Questions and Answers2:00–2:30

2 The procurement schedule was developed to align with the Master Work Plan. The Master Work Plan was developed based on the USED grant proposal and feedback from SBAC members and service provider feedback. The procurement schedule has been updated with draft revisions and is available at An SBAC work group (composed of state subject matter experts, a Project Management Partner facilitator, and a member of the Executive Committee) is assigned as the lead for each Request for Proposal (RFP).

3 Lead work groups provide the initial guidance regarding criteria included in RFPs. Based on these requirements, RFPs are written by one or more combinations of people including work group members, PMP staff, and/or external consultants. RFPs are sent to all SBAC state leads and OSPI for review and comment. Final approval of RFPs is completed by the Executive Committee. The RFP development process follows best practices and is consistent with OSPI processes.

4 RFPs are released through the OSPI procurement office and are posted on the agency website ( with notification sent to vendors registered with Washingtons Electronic Business Solutions (WEBS). Service providers may register for notifications from WEBS at Service providers can also be placed on a contact list specific to SMARTER Balanced by notifying OSPI (Michael Middleton - or Debra Crawford -

5 Questions specific to SBAC RFPs must be directed to OSPI (Mike Middleton or Debra Crawford). Service provider questions are reviewed by OSPI and answered by a collaborative of SBAC work groups, OSPI procurement specialists, and SMARTER Balanced leadership.

6 Proposals are scored by SBAC evaluation committees. These committees are formed on an ad hoc basis and are specific to each RFP. The committees include several members from the lead work group and additional representatives from other work groups to ensure broad review among a number of state representatives with diverse expertise. Generally, representatives from 6–10 states are involved in the scoring of proposals. Proposal evaluations are sent to OSPI for review. Based on the scores, OSPI may recommend that additional information is required from the submitters. This may include oral presentations.

7 Once all of the evaluation information has been collected, the evaluation committee makes a recommendation as to which service provider SBAC should enter into negotiations with. The evaluation committees recommendation is reviewed by OSPI and presented to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee votes as to the dispensation of the recommendation. OSPI then enters into negotiations based on the vote of the Executive Committee.

8 Each RFP is unique, with mandatory requirements that must be explicitly met. Proposals that do not meet mandatory requirements will be deemed non-responsive by OSPI and will not be reviewed. OSPI follows statute RCW and SAAMs manual chapter 15. The following advice from SBAC work groups is not binding, and providers should continue to use the RFPs as the basis for the minimum response requirements.

9 Written well and uses plain language when possible that is effective for specialists and non- specialists (both will likely participate in the review). Easy for the reviewer to read and to compare response against the RFP (i.e., attempts to match the layout of the RFP). For example, if a requirement appears to be a duplicate, then duplicated responses are provided. Demonstrates an understanding of the unique dynamics involved in a multi-state consortium that has many high-stakes deliverables required on a short timeline.

10 Creative solutions that support the development and administration of an authentic set of measures of career and college readiness that address the SBAC Theory of Action and the principles of the Common Core. Description of project approaches and work plans that explicitly address the structures and procedures that will be put in place for iterative review and consensus-based decision-making. Clear explanation of procedures that will be put in place to mitigate risks and improve likelihood of success.

11 When subcontractors/partnering organizations are proposed, roles & responsibilities are clearly delineated as well as the internal decision- making processes and overall management strategy. Options are presented with pros and cons for consideration, written in the spirit of collaboration bringing expertise and sound advice, while recognizing that the ultimate decisions are those of the Consortium. Specifically describes how previous experience and capacity can be applied to the work.

12 Clear justification and alignment of dollars-to- tasks. Staffing plan that is consistent with the work required, including bringing A-team as necessary and appropriate. Demonstrates coordinated thinking in staff resourcing, accounting for the potential of staffing overlaps due to multiple awarded contracts.