Addemdum 1 - RFP 122964.pdf

Addendum No. 1 to RFP 122964

January 14, 2026

ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO ALL OFFERORS:

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL: RFP 122964

DESCRIPTION: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services

RFP DATED: June 25, 2026

RFP DUE: July 30, 2026, 12:00 PM EST

THE RFP IS HEREBY MODIFIED TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS:

1. Please confirm whether offerors should propose a single total fixed fee, inclusive of allservices, materials, training, travel, and other costs required to complete the evaluation scope defined in the RFP? If ACPS also wants pricing for optional future/additional services during the contract term, please clarify how that pricing should be presented. ANSWER: Yes. Offerors should propose a single, firm-fixed total fee that includes all costs necessary to complete the scope of work described in the RFP. This includes, but is not limited to, professional services, labor, materials, travel, meetings, reporting, and any other costs required to successfully perform the evaluation.

For evaluation purposes, offerors should also provide a pricing breakdown by major task or project phase (e.g., planning, data collection, analysis, reporting, presentations), with the sum of all line items equal to the proposed firm-fixed total fee.

2. Subsection 3.(F) of the RFP states that ACPS has the right to use any or all ideas presentedin response to the RFP. Could ACPS please confirm that this provision does not grant ACPS ownership or unrestricted use of an Offeror’s proprietary tools, copyrighted materials, software, templates, trade secrets, or methodologies that are specifically identified as proprietary in the proposal, except as incorporated into a contract with the awarded Offeror? ANSWER: ACPS confirms that this provision does not grant ACPS ownership or unrestricted use of an Offeror’s proprietary tools, copyrighted materials, software, templates, trade secrets, or methodologies that are specifically identified as proprietary in the proposal.

3. Subsection 3.(G) of the RFP states that ACPS reserves the right to make multiple awards. Could

ACPS please clarify whether it anticipates awarding the full evaluation scope to a single Offeror, or whether it may divide the work among multiple Offerors? If multiple awards are contemplated, please identify the anticipated work components or service areas that may be awarded separately and explain how Offerors should structure their technical and cost proposals to support that approach.

ANSWER: ACPS intends to award the full scope of work to one Offeror.

4. The RFP does not appear to identify an anticipated budget, award amount, ceiling, or funding range for this procurement. Please confirm whether there is an estimated budget or maximum amount available for the resulting contract. Providing a budget range would help Offerors appropriately scale their proposed methodology, level of effort, staffing, stakeholder engagement, and deliverables, resulting in more comparable and realistic proposals for ACPS to evaluate. ANSWER: Previous evaluation efforts of this scale have been scoped at around $100,000.

5. Please provide the anticipated contract start date, desired completion date for the initial evaluation, and any key interim milestone dates for major deliverables, presentations, or Board/cabinet decision points. ANSWER: ACPS is aiming for a September kick-off, preliminary results and findings in the Spring, a Board presentation in May, and action planning during the summer of 2027.

6. Please clarify the expected final and interim deliverables, including whether ACPS expects a written evaluation report, executive summary, presentation materials, data visualizations, dashboard files, implementation roadmap, training/capacity-building materials, and/or Board presentation. ANSWER:

The division expects a written evaluation report with a robust executive summary; presentation materials with embedded data visualizations and/or dashboard files; an implementation roadmap with training/capacity-building materials; and Board presentations.

7. Please clarify which activities, if any, must be conducted in person, including school visits, classroom observations, interviews, focus groups, workshops, and presentations, and which activities may be conducted virtually? ANSWER: Our experience suggests that in most cases, building rapport with stakeholder groups is best done in person. Some interviews and regular meetings may be conducted effectively virtually. School Board presentations are expected to be conducted in person.

8. Section 1 frames the evaluation as focused on secondary EL programming, but in Section 4's

Evaluation Methods - “Instructional & Implementation Review” the school visit sections explicitly mention visits across elementary, K–8, middle, and high schools. Please Clarify if the scope is division-wide with a secondary emphasis, or secondary-only? ANSWER: The intended scope is secondary only.

9. In the RFP – on p. 15 it says “Oral presentations are strictly at the option of ACPS and may or may not be conducted. It is anticipated these presentations, if scheduled, may occur the week of August 17, 2026.” on p. 2 it reads “Upon initial review of the proposals, ACPS reserves the right to down-select and schedule oral presentations with a short list of offerors. It is anticipated these presentations, if scheduled, may occur the week of August 26, 2026, via Zoom.” - Can you clarify whether these presentations will take place during the week of August 17 or August 26? ANSWER:

Presentations may occur on the week of August 26, 2026

10. Section 3, p.4 requests that offerors include a sample "Training/Professional Development Model."

Can ACPS clarify the purpose and expected scope of this component? Specifically, is the successful offeror expected to design and deliver professional development as part of the evaluation, or is this intended to describe capacity-building activities related to communicating findings and supporting implementation of recommendations? ANSWER: No. The reference to training/professional development was included in our standard solicitation template and does not apply to the scope of work for this program evaluation. Offerors are not required to provide a training/professional development plan in response to this RFP. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

11. Section 3 (p. 5) requests that the cost proposal include print resources, ancillary materials, trade books, and student workbooks. Can ACPS clarify whether these items are expected as part of this procurement? If so, should offerors identify potential resources in advance, or would recommendations regarding instructional materials be expected to emerge from the evaluation findings? ANSWER: No. The reference to include print resources was included as part of our standard solicitation template and does not apply to the scope of work for this program evaluation.

We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

12. Has EL programming been evaluated before, internally or externally, and can you share it? ANSWER: The last formal division EL evaluation was in 2011. As part of Title III requirements for biennial evaluations, annual internal program reviews have been conducted to comply with federal requirements and to inform programmatic decision-making.

14. Given interviews/focus groups with secondary EL students, what is ACPS's process for parental notification or consent? Is there an internal research review process? ANSWER: All instrumentation and communications to stakeholders will be reviewed through ACPS’ internal research review procedures as part of a parallel process.

15. Budget - Is there an anticipated budget range or not-to-exceed amount for this contract? ANSWER:

See response to question # 4.

16. Timeline:

a. What is the anticipated project start date? ANSWER: See response to question # 5

b. What is the expected completion date? ANSWER: See response to question # 5

c. Are there interim reporting milestones that ACPS expects? ANSWER: See response to question # 5

d. Does ACPS envision the contractor facilitating action planning after recommendations are delivered, or is the scope limited to the evaluation itself? ANSWER: ACPS is seeking support with action planning following the recommendations.

17. Existing documentation - Will prior evaluations, strategic planning documents, climate surveys, or EL program reviews be shared with the successful offeror? ANSWER: Strategic planning documents and climate surveys are publicly available. Additional student level data can be made available, subject to data privacy agreements and need. The last formal division EL evaluation was in 2011. As part of Title III requirements for biennial evaluations, annual internal program reviews have been conducted to comply with federal requirements and to inform programmatic decision-making.

18. Number of schools/site visits:

a. Approximately how many schools are expected to participate? ANSWER: The Offeror is free to propose different models with corresponding trade-offs. At least all middle and high schools should be represented (n=3). In addition, ACPS is willing to consider sampling inclusive of our two K-8 school programs.

b. Does ACPS expect observations in every school serving EL students, or a representative sample? ANSWER: At a minimum, the division intends to evaluate both the international academy and the traditional service models in the secondary programs.

19. Existing data availability:

a. Will the successful offeror be provided direct access to student- and school-level administrative data, or will ACPS provide analytic files and reports for the evaluation? ANSWER: ACPS can offer a combination of student- and school-level administrative data, as relevant and available.

Existing analytic files and reports can be shared.

b. What student- and school-level administrative data will be made available to support the evaluation (e.g., achievement, English language proficiency, attendance, discipline, course-taking, staffing, and program participation)? ANSWER: Achievement data can include any of our division or state assessment sources. WIDA ACCESS is the state’s EL proficiency assessment.

Attendance, discipline, course-taking, staffing, and program participation can be made available.

c. Will the administrative data provided by ACPS be cleaned and linked (e.g., longitudinal student records), or should the evaluator anticipate conducting data preparation as part of the project?

ANSWER: Depending on the data analysis to be conducted and whether these data have already been analyzed for other purposes, the data may be cleaned and linked. The evaluator should be prepared to do some data cleaning and linking to the extent that the analyses sought have not yet been completed prior to this project.

d. Does ACPS have existing classroom observation data that will be available for the evaluation, or is the successful offeror expected to conduct all classroom observations? ANSWER: Classroom observation data may be available, however it is unlikely that these observations align appropriately with the goals of this evaluation specifically. They may provide context on Tier 1 instruction but not necessarily EL services explicitly. There is an EL walkthrough instrument currently used by the division that was designed to reflect best practices. There may be value in exploring other protocols available.

20. Observations - Does ACPS expect offerors to propose their own classroom observation protocol/rubric, or is there an existing observation framework that should be used? ANSWER: There is an EL walkthrough instrument currently used by the division that was designed to reflect best practices. There may be value in exploring other available protocols.

21. Survey expectations:

a. Does ACPS expect the evaluator to develop new surveys? ANSWER: If the evaluator proposes using survey data not already captured in our annual climate survey, they would need to identify the appropriate items adapted to fit the local context.

b. Are there existing surveys that should be used? ANSWER: Existing surveys include our ACPS 2030 Climate Survey.

c. Will ACPS administer surveys, or is administration part of the contractor's scope? How will ACPS support survey distribution? ANSWER: There are benefits to having a third-party host and administer surveys which need to be considered and weighed against internal survey administration capacity. Depending on an agreed upon scope of work, survey design and internal capacity, ACPS has access to Qualtrics for survey administration.

22. Point of contact / School access and coordination:

a. Who will serve as the ACPS point of contact? ANSWER: Dr. Clinton Page and Dr. Bethany Nickerson are the points of contact.

b. Will ACPS coordinate school scheduling and stakeholder recruitment, or is that expected of the evaluator? ANSWER: The Department of Accountability and Research expects to work collaboratively with the Office of English Learner Services and school leaders to identify site-based liaisons for school-specific scheduling and stakeholder recruitment activities.

c. Even though this is an evaluation and contracted by the school – Does ACPS require any internal research review or approval process before data collection? ANSWER: All instrumentation will be reviewed through the ACPS’ internal research review procedures in a parallel process.

23. Capacity building - Beyond the training/professional development component, what level of capacity building does ACPS envision (e.g., coaching district staff, developing tools, train-the-trainer model, facilitating communities of practice)? ANSWER: Capacity building should support division and school leaders in maintaining self evaluation and improvement structures to support putting recommendations into action and self-monitor.

24. Language access:

a. Which languages should interview/focus group materials be available in? ANSWER: The primary languages spoken in the division include Spanish, Arabic, Amharic, Dari, and Pashto.

b. Will ACPS provide interpreters and translation support, or should those costs be included in proposals? ANSWER:There may be limited access to interpreters and translation support.

25. Deliverables:

a. What deliverables are expected (technical report, executive summary, presentation, dashboard, implementation roadmap, etc.)? ANSWER: The division expects a written evaluation report with robust executive summary; presentation materials with embedded data visualizations and/or dashboard files; implementation roadmap with training/capacity-building materials; and Board presentations.

b. Approximately how many presentations to leadership or the School Board are anticipated?

ANSWER: The evaluator should be prepared to keep the School Board and leadership apprised of their progress. This might include a kickoff presentation, mid-year update, formal presentation, and action planning work session.

26. The RFP delineates the lines of inquiry and Core Evaluation Question for item 3. Adult Capacity Building and Diffusion of Practice for evaluation purposes. Page 4 of the RFP, however, mentions a requirement for a sample professional development plan.

B. Prospective Offerors are to address the criteria below at a minimum as part of their submitted proposal. Each proposal should include a transmittal letter and a management overview of the proposal. Offerors must also clearly identify which Part(s) of “Section 4.

Project Description / Scope of Services” for which they are submitting a response. Proposals are to include and may be evaluated on the following factors, together with such other factors as will protect and preserve the interests of ACPS, which may also be considered.

a. Understanding of the RFP and Technical Approach: Each Offeror shall provide a statement and discussion of the requirements as they are analyzed by the Offeror. Each Offeror shall propose a definitive Scope of Work with an explanation of technical approaches and a detailed outline of the proposed process for executing the requirements of the scope and achieving the objectives of this Request for Proposal.

Training/Professional Development Model: Each Offeror shall provide details of a sample training/professional development plan. The training plan should address criteria in the Scope of Work with initial training to occur during designated professional development days as identified on the ACPS calendar.

Could you please clarify if in addition to evaluating existing professional development, the scope of work includes developing a plan delivery of professional development. If so, could you please point me to the text in the RFP that delineates this? ANSWER: See response to question #10.

27. What is the intended period of performance for the project? ANSWER: See response to question # 5

28. In Section 3.B-Instructions to Offerors, evaluated factors are outlined as 1. Understanding of the RFP and Technical Approach, 2. Training / Professional Development Model and 3. Cost Proposal. Should offerors address sections 1 and 2 in Tab II of the proposal or shall we address these factors in the Appendix or another section? ANSWER: Correct.

29. The RFP includes language about Training/Professional Development model on pages 4-5.

“Training/Professional Development Model: Each Offeror shall provide details of a sample training/professional development plan. The training plan should address criteria in the Scope 4 RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services of Work with initial training to occur during designated professional development days as identified on the ACPS calendar.” Given that this is a program evaluation, is there still an intent for training/PD to be included? ANSWER: See response to question #10.

30. Section 3B notes that Offerors must identify which "Part(s)" of Section 4 they're responding

to. Will ACPS accept proposals covering only some of the four evaluation domains (Governance, Strategy & System Coherence, Instructional Model Design & Implementation, Adult Capacity Building & Diffusion of Practice, Student Experience, Access & Pathways), or is a full-scope response required? ANSWER: ACPS is seeking proposals that address all four evaluation domains.

31. Section 3, Instructions to Offerors, Item 2 (Training/Professional Development Model): This item asks for a "sample training/professional development plan." Can ACPS clarify whether this requirement refers to trainings the Offeror would provide to school staff as part of the evaluation methodology (e.g., orienting staff on data collection tools, classroom observation protocols, and other activities as described in Section 4), or whether this item was carried over inadvertently from a different RFP template and does not apply here? ANSWER: See response to question #10.

32. Contract term: Is there a target start date for the evaluation, and can ACPS confirm that the initial contract will be for one year with the option of 6 one-year renewals as suggested in the ACPS Sample Contract: Section 6, Agreement Period. ANSWER: See response to question # 5 regarding timeline.

33. Budget guidance: Does ACPS have an anticipated budget ceiling for this evaluation, and should the

Offeror produce a budget for Year 1 only? ANSWER: See response to question # 4.

34. Page limits: Can ACPS confirm there is no page limit for the proposal? ANSWER: Responsive and concise proposals are appreciated.

35. Secondary Data access: Recognizing that contracted Offerors would not have direct or unrestricted access to ACPS's administrative data systems, can ACPS confirm the types of data that will be made available for the evaluation (e.g., Title III budget and staffing records, WIDA ACCESS, MAP Growth results)? ANSWER: Title III budget and staffing records and division assessment data are readily available.

36. Translation/Interpreter Services Is ACPS able to provide translation/interpretation support (e.g., for family focus groups, surveys), or should the Offeror plan to arrange this independently? We appreciate this guidance so we can budget accordingly. ANSWER: See response to question #23

37. Is there an incumbent for this work? ANSWER: No

38. Can ACPS provide the anticipated project timeline, including desired kickoff, fieldwork, draft report, and final report dates? ANSWER: See response to question # 5

39. Approximately how many schools and classrooms does ACPS anticipate will be included in observations and site visits? Should Offerors assume a district-wide review or propose a representative sample? ANSWER: At a minimum, offerors should assume that a representative number of classrooms in the two middle schools and comprehensive high school be included for observation and site visits. The two K-8 school secondary classrooms might also be appropriate for inclusion depending on the methodological approach.

40. Will ACPS provide existing student, staffing, and program data for analysis, or should Offerors include data collection and preparation as part of the proposed scope? ANSWER: ACPS can provide existing data including achievement, staffing, budget, and other program data. It is expected that additional data will need to be gathered to fully address the division evaluation.

The RFP indicates that stakeholder engagement may include surveys. Should the successful Offeror assume responsibility for developing the surveys, while ACPS administers them through existing district survey systems? Additionally, will ACPS provide translation services and distribution support for multilingual families and staff, or should Offerors include survey administration, translation, and related logistics as part of their proposed scope? ANSWER: See questions #20 and #23

41. Beyond the written evaluation report, what final deliverables does ACPS anticipate (e.g., executive summary, implementation roadmap, School Board presentation, Cabinet presentation)? ANSWER:

See question #6

42. RFP Section 3.B.3. Cost Proposal: What is the anticipated or estimated budget for this project? ANSWER: See response to question # 4

43. Do we need to submit Attachment E, insurance requirements, with our proposal? ANSWER:

No. Insurance requirements are only required of the awarded vendor.

44. Is there a specified budget amount or timeline for the work? ANSWER: See response to questions # 4 & # 5

45. Is there an established budget maximum or budget range for the contract? ANSWER: See response to question # 4

46. Does ACPS have a specific timeline for completion of the evaluation and delivery of the report and actionable recommendations, or should the proposer recommend a timeline for the requested program evaluation services based on their professional experience with similar evaluation projects?

ANSWER: See response to question # 5

47. The RFP says the proposer will collaborate to build capacity to monitor progress and support effective action planning and implementation. Is an implementation/strategic plan part of the expected services? ANSWER: See response to Q # 15d.

48. Is there a preference for the single-file, electronic format the proposal document should be submitted?

Section 6 of the RFP mentions tabs, so it wasn’t clear if a PDF, Word document, or some other format would be preferred. ANSWER: Proposals shall be formatted electronically in a single file PDF document.

49. If multiple firms or independent consultants partner to submit a single proposal, must each participating entity possess a Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) identification number, or is it sufficient for only the lead offeror to be registered and provide an SCC ID? ANSWER: It is sufficient for only the lead offeror to be registered.

50. The RFP notes that proposals are due July 30, 2026, and that oral presentations may occur in late

August. Does ACPS have a target timeline for contract award, project kickoff, completion of data collection, delivery of the draft report, presentation of findings, and submission of the final report?

ANSWER: See response to question # 5

51. The RFP notes that ACPS students speak over 127 languages. For student and family engagement activities (e.g., surveys, interviews, and focus groups), which languages does ACPS anticipate will require interpretation or translation support, and will ACPS provide language access services or should offerors include those costs in their proposals? ANSWER: The primary languages spoken in the division include Spanish, Arabic, Amharic, Dari, and Pashto. See answer provided for question #23.

52. The RFP requires classroom observations and school visits. Should offerors assume observations at every school serving English Learners, or should they propose a representative sampling strategy?

ANSWER: The division has one comprehensive high school and multiple campuses, two middle schools, and two K-8 model schools. The primary interest for this evaluation includes both international academy and traditional service models at both the middle schools and high school.

Sampling could take place within those schools.

53. Does ACPS have expectations regarding the minimum number of focus groups, interviews, or participants for each stakeholder group, or should offerors recommend an engagement plan appropriate to the proposed methodology? ANSWER: ACPS expects that offerors will present a recommended plan appropriate to the proposed methodology to address the research questions.

54. Beyond the translation needs for active data collection, does ACPS require final evaluation reports, executive summaries, or other key deliverables to be translated into specific languages for families and the community? If so, which languages should be accounted for in the cost proposal? ANSWER:

ACPS has not previously required evaluation reports or other key deliverables to be translated into specific languages.

55. Has ACPS previously conducted a formal English Learner program evaluation or internal self-study?

If a baseline report or recent historical evaluation data exists, will it be made available to the selected vendor to help build and right-size the evaluation work plan? ANSWER: See question #12

56. Is ACPS seeking for the selected vendor to develop an evaluation-based adult capacity and diffusion strategy (Section 4, list of services, #3; Section 4, A.5) that is implemented after project completion, OR is ACPS seeking for the selected vendor to deliver training/professional development (see Section 3, B.2)? ANSWER: See answer to question # 15.d.

57. There are discrepancies between the amount of insurance required in the sample contract versus what is required in Attachment E. Which document takes precedence? ANSWER: Attachment E.

takes precedence.

58. Can signatures on the required forms be submitted electronically, or are wet signatures required?

ANSWER: Electronic signatures are accepted.

59. The RFP states that subcontractors (subvendors/subconsultants) are subject to the insurance requirements of the contract. Can ACPS confirm whether all subcontractors must maintain the same insurance coverages and limits required of the prime contractor, or whether alternative arrangements (e.g., coverage under the prime contractor's policies) are acceptable? ANSWER: Coverage under the prime contractor’s policies is acceptable.

60. The evaluation criteria indicate that 10 points will be awarded for “Offeror’s financial viability and stability.” The Proposal Response Requirements do not appear to require submission of financial statements or other financial documentation. Should Offerors include any financial information with their proposal submission, or will such information only be requested from selected Offeror(s) during the evaluation or award process? ANSWER: Financial condition of the firm and ability to perform all obligations of any resultant contract. The sufficiency of the financial resources and the ability of the

Offeror to comply with the duties and responsibilities described in this RFP. Each Offeror shall provide a current annual financial report and the previous year’s report and a statement regarding any recent or foreseeable mergers or acquisitions.

61. In reference to Attachment F - Sample Terms of Use Agreement, Item P. Termination: As with most cloud storage systems, our cloud storage maintains a backup of our data. Within cloud platforms, we can isolate the specific data, move it to the recycle bin, and then delete it from the recycle bin within the five (5) business days required. Backup data will automatically be deleted 30 days after this. Is this acceptable, or would an alternative storage source that would allow all backup copies to be deleted within five (5) business days need to be provided? ANSWER: Please submit this as an exception to Attachment F with your proposal. If awarded, the terms and conditions can be negotiated at that time.

62. What is the intended period of performance for the project? ANSWER: See response to Question

#5.

All other items remain unchanged.

Note: A signed acknowledgment of this addendum should be received at the location indicated on the RFP either prior to the due date and or attached to your response. Signature on this addendum does not substitute for your signature on the original RFP document. The original RFP document must be signed.

Best Regards, Angela Queen Angela Queen, VCA Senior Buyer angela.queen@acps.k12.va.us

Name of Firm/Contractor

Signature/Title Date mailto:angela.queen@acps.k12.va.us