The New Hampshire Department of Education reserves the right to make necessary policy changes after applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

New Hampshire Department of Education ׀ Bureau of Instructional Support

Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) – School- Level Comprehensive Needs Assessment and School

Improvement Planning

Program Title I, Part A School Improvement

RFP NHED-BIS-2027-01

2026 RFP Frequently Asked Questions and Responses applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Are vendors expected to work with all CSI schools that elect to participate?

A: The selected/awarded vendor(s) would work with all CSI schools that elect to participate in vendor services. However, it is possible that one or more vendors will be selected/awarded to work with CSI schools based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years). ATSI subgroups include English learners, economically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups and students with disabilities.

Q: The RFP indicates that services may be delivered to up to 30 schools. Can the Department confirm the anticipated number of CSI schools that will receive vendor support under this contract?

A: Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, the number of schools identified for CSI status will not be known until fall 2026. The total number of CSI schools that will be eligible to opt-in to receive vendor support will include the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, high schools identified for low graduation rate, and any ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years. For historical context, in fall of 2023, 19 schools were identified as CSI for performance in the lowest 5% of Title I schools and/or high schools identified for low graduation rate, with 17 opting-in to vendor services and 2 opting-out of vendor services. Currently there are 7 ATSI Title I schools that have not exited their status within 5 years and will autonomically become CSI schools if they do not exit in fall 2026.

Q: The RFP states that eligible CSI schools may choose whether to use the selected vendor for needs assessment and CSI plan development support. Is there a minimum number of schools that must opt in for NHED to establish a contract, or will a contract be established regardless of participation level?

A: There is no minimum number of schools that must opt-in for NHED to establish a contract with the selected/awarded vendor(s). For context, in fall of 2023, 19 schools were identified as CSI for performance in the lowest 5% of Title I schools and/or high schools identified for low graduation rate, with 17 opting-in to vendor services and 2 opting-out of vendor services.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Should the vendor be working with schools who did not choose the vendor, so the vendor can report on the progress as part of Priority 4 - Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department? The RFP says, “The vendor must establish and maintain structured, ongoing communication and coordination with the Department to ensure fidelity of implementation, alignment with State expectations, transparency of progress, and timely completion of all required deliverables related to CSI services.“ Is this only for schools who choose to receive vendor services?

A: Proposals should focus on providing vendor services to only those CSI schools, and their LEAs, that opt-in to vendor support. Once LEAs opt-in to vendor support, the selected/awarded vendor(s) must establish and maintain structured, ongoing communication and coordination with the Department for those CSI schools to which they have been assigned by the Department.

Q: If multiple vendors are awarded, will schools select their provider, or are they assigned by the state? If schools select their provider, what does that process look like?

A: If multiple vendors are selected/awarded to work with CSI schools, NHED will assign vendors based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years). ATSI subgroups include English learners, economically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups and students with disabilities.

Q: If there's a possibility of selecting multiple vendors, can vendors submit for certain priority areas and not others? Or apply to support fewer than the maximum of 30 schools?

A: Vendors must meet all Priority areas within the RFP, however vendors can propose to support school-level comprehensive needs assessments and school improvement planning for one or more types of CSI school (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

Q: If a single vendor is selected, how many LEAs typically opt into vendor support? How many are expected to require Priority 3 Diagnostic Reviews?

A: In fall of 2023, 19 schools were identified as CSI, with 17 opting-in to vendor services and 2 opting-out of vendor services. Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, no more than 10 current CSI schools will be selected for more rigorous interventions as described in Priority 3.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Does the Department anticipate selecting a single vendor or making awards to multiple vendors? If multiple vendors are selected, how will participating schools, LEAs, services, or deliverables be allocated amongst the awarded vendors?

A: NHED may select/award one vendor to provide technical assistance and support to all CSI schools and their LEAs if the vendor demonstrates that they have the capacity and expertise to conduct school-level comprehensive needs assessments and school improvement planning for each type of CSI school (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

It is also possible that multiple vendors will be selected/awarded to work with CSI schools based on capacity and/or expertise in conducting school-level comprehensive needs assessments and school improvement planning for one or more types of CSI school (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

ATSI subgroups include English learners, economically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups and students with disabilities.

If multiple vendors are selected/awarded to work with CSI schools, NHED will assign vendors based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI. (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

Q: Is my company a qualified vendor? "Qualified" as written below does not have any specific technical requirements that would rule out my company. “The New Hampshire Department of Education (Department), through the Division of Learner Support, Bureau of Instructional Support is soliciting competitive sealed proposals from qualified Vendors to provide services for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools through contracted services with expertise in conducting school-level comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning.”

A: Qualified Vendors means both experienced/successful and also able to legally enter into a contract with the state of NH.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Scope of Work and Volume - The budget section states services "may need to be delivered for up to 30 schools," but participation is opt-in at the LEA level. Can the Department provide an estimate or range of how many LEAs/schools are expected to opt in for Year 1 based on previous experience, and when will that number be confirmed relative to the contract start date?

A: Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, the number of schools identified for CSI status will not be known until fall 2026. The total number of CSI schools that will be eligible to opt-in to receive vendor support will include the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, high schools identified for low graduation rate, and any ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years. For context, in fall of 2023, 19 schools were identified as CSI for performance in the lowest 5% of Title I schools and/or high schools identified for low graduation rate, with 17 opting-in to vendor services and 2 opting-out of vendor services. Currently there are 7 ATSI Title I schools that have not exited their status within 5 years and will autonomically become CSI schools if they do not exit in fall 2026.

Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, no more than 10 current CSI schools will be selected for more rigorous interventions as described in Priority 3.

The number of CSI schools will be confirmed in fall 2026.

Q: Volume and price. For scaling and staffing purposes, how many schools does the Department anticipate identifying for CSI in Fall 2026, how many does it anticipate electing vendor services based on past experience, and how many re-identified for the Priority 3 More Rigorous Diagnostic Review?

A: Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, the number of schools identified for CSI status will not be known until fall 2026. The total number of CSI schools that will be eligible to opt-in to receive vendor support will include the lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, high schools identified for low graduation rate, and any ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years. For context, in fall of 2023, 19 schools were identified as CSI for performance in the lowest 5% of Title I schools and/or high schools identified for low graduation rate, with 17 opting-in to vendor services and 2 opting-out of vendor services. Currently there are 7 ATSI Title I schools that have not exited their status within 5 years and will autonomically become CSI schools if they do not exit in fall 2026.

Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, no more than 10 current CSI schools will be selected for more rigorous interventions as described in Priority 3.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Priorities 1–3: Needs Assessment, SIP Planning, and Diagnostic Review - For Priority 3 (More Rigorous Diagnostic Review), how will the Department determine and communicate which "re-identified" CSI schools require this more rigorous review?

A: NHED will not know which schools have been re-identified until fall 2026 based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data. No more than 10 current CSI schools will be selected for more rigorous interventions as described in Priority 3.

The number and names of CSI schools will not be confirmed until fall of 2026 and will be communicated to the selected/awarded vendor(s) immediately to ensure that the vendor(s) is able to implement a comprehensive communication framework as described in Priority 4.

Q: Priorities 1–3: Needs Assessment, SIP Planning, and Diagnostic Review - What is the anticipated number (or range) of schools expected to require the More Rigorous Diagnostic Review process, separate from standard Priority 1/2 schools?

A: Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, no more than 10 current CSI schools will be selected for more rigorous interventions as described in Priority 3.

Q: Scope of Work and Volume - Given the Firm Fixed Price per Unit (School) structure, how will the "unit" be defined if a school's LEA opts in mid-process, or if an LEA that initially opts in later withdraws to retain its Title I 1003 funds instead?

A: LEAs will be given a single opportunity to opt-in for vendor services following identification. LEAs cannot opt-in mid-process and they cannot later withdraw to retain their Title I 1003 funds. Those funds will have been obligated to the vendor(s).

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Scope of Work and Volume - Section 2 states the Department "reserves the right to select multiple vendors to provide all or a portion of the services." How would work be allocated across multiple vendors — by region, by LEA, by priority area, or by some other method — and would a vendor be expected to coordinate directly with other awarded vendors?

A: If multiple vendors are selected/awarded to work with CSI schools, NHED will assign vendors based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI. (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years). ATSI subgroups include English learners, economically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups and students with disabilities.

As stated in Priority 4, The vendor(s) must establish and maintain structured, ongoing communication and coordination with the Department to ensure fidelity of implementation, alignment with State expectations, transparency of progress, and timely completion of all required deliverables related to CSI services. This would include coordination with other selected/awarded vendors if multiple vendors are selected/awarded. This would include participating in regular coordination meetings with the Department staff, participating in joint review sessions with the Department when requested, collaborating directly with the Department in the development of the More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report, and participating in briefings or presentations to the Department leadership and the State Board of Education, as requested.

Q: Scope of Work and Volume - Will vendors be told which specific LEAs/schools they'll be serving prior to proposal submission, or only after award?

A: Based upon school year 2025-2026 accountability data, the number and names of schools identified for CSI status will not be known until fall 2026, after proposals are due.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Award structure. Section 3.A reserves the Department's right to make an award "by item, part or portion of an item, group of items, or total Proposal." May a vendor propose to serve a defined number of schools, or to deliver certain Priorities only?

A: As stated in Section 2 of the RFP on page 7, vendors must clearly demonstrate compliance with each Priority in their submission. Failure to meet all Priorities will result in the proposal being deemed non-compliant and disqualified from further consideration. No exceptions or partial compliance will be accepted. The Department reserves the right to select/award multiple vendors to provide all or a portion of the services under this RFP.

It is also possible that multiple vendors will be selected/awarded to work with CSI schools based on capacity and/or expertise in conducting school-level comprehensive needs assessments and school improvement planning for one or more types of CSI school (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

ATSI subgroups include English learners, economically disadvantaged, racial/ethnic groups and students with disabilities.

If multiple vendors are selected/awarded to work with CSI schools, NHED will assign vendors based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI. (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

Q: Award structure. If multiple awards are made, how will schools be allocated among vendors?

A: If multiple vendors are selected/awarded to work with CSI schools, NHED will assign vendors based on the criteria used to identify that school as CSI. (e.g. lowest performing 5% of Title I schools, low graduation rate, ATSI Title I schools that do not exit their status within 6 years).

Q: Scope of Work and Volume - Is a single Firm Fixed Price per school expected regardless of school size, need level, or urban/rural location, or may the budget proposal include differentiated pricing tiers?

A: Yes.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Volume and price. If a firm fixed unit price exceeds what a school can relinquish while retaining sufficient funds to implement its plan, how does the Department intend to proceed?

A: LEAs will apply for Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement grant funding for Year 1 – Needs Assessment and Planning in February 2027. Per-school subawards/allocations will be based upon the total state allocation of Title I funds, the number of schools identified as CSI, and student enrollment data at each CSI school. LEAs that opt-in to vendor services will have relinquished all or some of their grant funding for Year 1 – Needs Assessment and Planning prior to this application process, from the state’s 2026-2027 Title I allocation.

In June 2027, the LEAs will apply for their second year of Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement grant funding to implement the school improvement plan.

Q: Volume and price. How and when is the relinquished portion of the Year 1 subaward determined and encumbered, given that the LEA's election occurs in Fall 2026 and the Year 1 subaward application is submitted in February 2027?

A: Following identification, as part of the process for inviting LEAs to opt-in to vendor services, LEAs will receive a formal letter giving them the option to relinquish all or some of their grant funding for Year 1 – Needs Assessment and Planning prior to the application process, from the state’s 2026- 2027 Title I allocation.

Q: Volume and price. The relinquishment mechanism is stated expressly only under Priority 1.

Does it also fund Priority 2 planning support and Priority 3 diagnostic review support?

Relatedly, the Executive Summary states that the Department "will issue subawards in years two (2) and three (3) to the CSI schools" — is Year 1 funded through a different mechanism?

A: Should a LEA elect to receive vendor support, by relinquishing all or a portion of their Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement subaward, it will fund Priority 1 – School-level Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Priority 2 – School Improvement Planning and Support, Priority 3 - More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report & Interventions, and Priority 4 – Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department for the vendor(s) to assist the school(s) identified for CSI.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Timeline. Given the interval between scoring and Governor and Executive Council approval on comparable contracts, how does the Department intend to reconcile the February 2027 needs assessment deadline with the anticipated Effective Date, and will deliverable dates shift if approval occurs later than anticipated?

A: LEAs that opt-in to vendor services will have relinquished all or some of their grant funding for Year 1 – Needs Assessment and Planning prior to the start of the needs assessment process, from the state’s 2026-2027 Title I allocation.

Deliverable dates will shift if approval occurs later than anticipated.

Q: Volume and price. Is an LEA's election all-or-nothing, or may an LEA elect certain services and decline others — for example, the comprehensive needs assessment without the monthly facilitated meetings, or Year 1 support without implementation support?

A: Should a LEA elect to receive vendor support, by relinquishing all or a portion of their Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement subaward, it will fund Priority 1 – School-level Comprehensive Needs Assessment, Priority 2 – School Improvement Planning and Support, Priority 3 - More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report & Interventions, and Priority 4 – Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department for the vendor(s) to assist the school(s) identified for CSI.

Q: If there are common areas of need across many of the CSI schools, can the vendor offer a webinar / workshop open to all CSI schools, beyond schools who “chose” the vendor.

Additionally, can these workshops be open to non-CSI schools: ATSI? TSI? Good Standing?

A: Proposals should focus on providing vendor services to only schools that are identified as CSI and their LEAs. Vendor services should be individualized, differentiated, and responsive to the local context at each CSI school.

LEAs that op-out of vendor services are still required to adhere to the NHED structured improvement process designed to help them exit CSI status within three (3) years, including conducting a school-level comprehensive needs assessment, developing a CSI school improvement plan for review and approval by NHED, participating in monitoring site visits, etc., but must do so using their own resources, tools, and funding.

Q: Volume and price. Given the Firm Fixed Price per Unit (School) structure, how should vendors price obligations that are not school-specific — Department coordination meetings, site visit participation, and briefings to Department leadership and the State Board? May these appear as a separate fixed line without being read as inconsistent with the required outcome-based payment model?

A: In the vendor’s proposal, the vendor’s price obligations that are not school-specific should appear as a separate fixed line.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Volume and price. What is the estimated per-school Title I, Part A 1003 subaward for Year 1, and is there a cap on the portion an LEA may relinquish for vendor support?

A: Historical per-school Title I, Part A 1003 subawards can be found on the NHED school improvement webpage under the heading Allocations. CSI schools will be informed how much of their allocation will need to be relinquished for vendor services, if not all of their first year allocation.

Q: Could the Department provide the anticipated total budget or funding range available for the services described in the Scope of Work?

A: NHED is unable to provide this information currently, per the following message from the United States Department of Education (USED) regarding Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2026 Title I, Part A funding:

‘The final allocations will be used to make Title I, Part A grant awards on July 1, 2026. Of the $18.4 billion appropriated for Title I, Part A, approximately $7.6 billion will become available on July 1, 2026, and the remainder will become available on October 1, 2026. As in prior years, if an SEA were to report revised SY 2023-2024 SPPE data after July 1, ED may need to revise the final allocations and would reflect those revisions in the FY 2026 Title I, Part A awards that it makes to SEAs on October 1, 2026.’

Q: Are you able to share if budget has been established for this work?

A: NHED is unable to provide this information currently, per the following message from the United States Department of Education (USED) regarding Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2026 Title I, Part A funding:

‘The final allocations will be used to make Title I, Part A grant awards on July 1, 2026. Of the $18.4 billion appropriated for Title I, Part A, approximately $7.6 billion will become available on July 1, 2026, and the remainder will become available on October 1, 2026. As in prior years, if an SEA were to report revised SY 2023-2024 SPPE data after July 1, ED may need to revise the final allocations and would reflect those revisions in the FY 2026 Title I, Part A awards that it makes to SEAs on October 1, 2026.’

https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-learner-support/bureau-of-instructional-support/office-esea-title-programs/title-i-part-school-improvement-1003 https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-learner-support/bureau-of-instructional-support/office-esea-title-programs/title-i-part-school-improvement-1003 applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Budget and Payment - What is your budget ceiling either at the fixed unit price level per school or overall for the 30 schools?

A: NHED is unable to provide this information currently, per the following message from the United States Department of Education (USED) regarding Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2026 Title I, Part A funding:

‘The final allocations will be used to make Title I, Part A grant awards on July 1, 2026. Of the $18.4 billion appropriated for Title I, Part A, approximately $7.6 billion will become available on July 1, 2026, and the remainder will become available on October 1, 2026. As in prior years, if an SEA were to report revised SY 2023-2024 SPPE data after July 1, ED may need to revise the final allocations and would reflect those revisions in the FY 2026 Title I, Part A awards that it makes to SEAs on October 1, 2026.’

Q: Will the selected vendor contract directly with the Department for all assigned work, or will individual LEAs or schools use their allocated funds to establish separate contracts with the awarded vendor(s)? Please also clarify the anticipated funding source for these services.

A: The selected/awarded vendor(s) will contract directly with NHED for all assigned work. As stated in the RFP on page 4 -

‘ESSA, Title I, Part A Section 1003(b)(1)(A), allows the State Educational Agency (SEA) to allocate … funds to serve schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities under ESSA Section 1111(d) on a formula basis. With the approval of the local educational agency (LEA), ESSA Section 1003(b)(B) allows the SEA to directly provide services for the CSI schools through contracted services with expertise in using evidence-based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, and school performance.’

Q: Submission requirements. Does the five-page limit apply only to Section II (Proposal Response to Scope of Work), exclusive of the Cover Page, Budget Proposal, and Supporting Documents? Are appendices or work samples permitted, and are they excluded from the count?

A: Examples may be referenced within the proposal response narrative five-page limit and then be provided in an appendix and included as ‘Supporting Documents - any evidence or product that may demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.’

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Submission requirements. Are there formatting specifications — font, point size, margins, line spacing — for the narrative?

A: As stated in SECTION 8 – Proposal Content and Requirements, on page 26, Proposals must be prepared and organized in a clear and concise manner that is easily understandable. The proposal shall address the tasks to be accomplished, processes to be undertaken to accomplish those tasks and a proposed timeline for completion. Examples of materials that demonstrate the quality of work completed by the vendor on similar projects should be included.

As such, font, point size, margins, line spacing — for the narrative should be organized in a clear and concise manner that is easily understandable

Q: The scoring rubric requests two to three examples for each Priority to receive the maximum score. May the same project examples be used across multiple Priorities when it demonstrates the relevant experience, or must vendors provide separate examples for each Priority? Additionally, must these examples be included within the five-page Proposal Response to Scope of Work, or may they be referenced in the response and provided in an appendix excluded from the page limit?

A: The examples provided for each Priority section as described in the scoring rubric can be taken from the same project and used across multiple Priorities to demonstrate relevant experience.

Examples may be referenced within the proposal response narrative five-page limit and then be provided as an appendix to be considered ‘Supporting Documents - Any evidence or product that may demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.’

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: There appear to be differences among the Scope of Work requirements in Section 2, the evaluation criteria and scoring rubric in Section 6, and the Proposal Content and Requirements in Section 8. Given the five-page limit for the Proposal Response to Scope of Work, can the Department clarify which requirements vendors should prioritize and address in their technical response? Specifically, should vendors organize their response around the five Priority Areas and associated deliverables in Sections 2 and 6, the requirements listed in Section 8, or both?

A: As stated in Section 2 of the RFP on page 7, vendors must clearly demonstrate compliance with each Priority in their submission. Failure to meet all Priorities will result in the proposal being deemed non-compliant and disqualified from further consideration. No exceptions or partial compliance will be accepted. The Department reserves the right to select/award multiple vendors to provide all or a portion of the services under this RFP.

To conserve space, the vendor can reference examples within the proposal response narrative five-page limit and then be provided as an appendix to be considered ‘Supporting Documents - Any evidence or product that may demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.’

Q: Proposal Format and Evaluation - The Scope of Work response is limited to five (5) pages.

Does this five-page limit include the required examples/evidence of similar past work (2–3 examples per priority area, per the scoring rubric), or may those examples be included as part of Section IV, "Supporting Documents," outside the five-page limit?

A: Examples may be referenced within the proposal response narrative five-page limit, and then be provided in an appendix and included as ‘Supporting Documents’, Any evidence or product that may demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.’

Q: Are links ok to include in the proposal?

A: Yes, functioning links can be included in the proposal. Please note that if examples are provided with non-functioning links, this could negatively affect the vendor’s score during the scoring process.

Q: Submission requirements. Section 7A specifies a proposal subject line of "RESPONSE TO RFP: NHED-BIS-2027-01," while the solicitation is identified as NHED-BIS-2027-08. Please confirm the correct RFP number for proposal submission.

A: The correct RFP number for proposal submission is NHED-BIS-2027-01 applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: The scoring rubric for Priority 5—Budget Proposal indicates that vendors must provide two to three examples of managing similar contracts to receive the maximum score. Can the Department confirm whether these examples are required as part of the Budget Proposal or whether this requirement was included in the rubric in error?

A: NHED seeks to understand each applicants’ capacity and experience in managing similar contracts, related to both the size of the contract and in contracting with a state-level education agency(ies), in addition to a detailed budget proposal that reflects a performance based, milestone-driven payment structure tied directly to the successful completion of defined services and deliverables.

Q: Is there a state directed Needs Assessment protocol and/or preferred school improvement plan template? Are those available prior to proposal submission?

A: NHED does not prescribe a specific Needs Assessment protocol and proposals submitted for consideration should thoroughly describe how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 2.1: Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School. NHED will partner with the selected/awarded vendor(s) to ensure that contractor-developed instruments are adequate and effective before use.

The LEA’s that opt-in to vendor services will be given support from the vendor(s) during the planning process, and all LEAs with CSI schools, are required to have a NHED-approved school-level CSI School Improvement Plan on file with the Department by June 2027, using the NHED CSI School Improvement Plan template (required).

Q: Method and roles. For the comprehensive needs assessment, does the Department require or prefer a particular instrument, survey, or report format? Are contractor-developed instruments subject to Department approval before use?

A: NHED does not prescribe a specific Needs Assessment protocol and proposals submitted for consideration should thoroughly describe how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 2.1: Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School. NHED will partner with the selected/awarded vendor(s) to ensure that contractor-developed instruments are adequate and effective before use.

The LEA’s that opt-in to vendor services will be given support from the vendor(s) during the planning process, and all LEAs with CSI schools, are required to have a NHED-approved school-level CSI School Improvement Plan on file with the Department by June 2027, using the NHED CSI School Improvement Plan template (required).

https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Priorities 1–3: Needs Assessment, SIP Planning, and Diagnostic Review - Is there a required or preferred template/format for the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report and the CSI School Improvement Plan (SIP), or is the vendor expected to propose its own format for Department approval? If yes, please provide files or links.

A: NHED does not prescribe a specific Needs Assessment protocol and proposals submitted for consideration should thoroughly describe how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 2.1: Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School. NHED will partner with the selected/awarded vendor(s) to ensure that contractor-developed instruments are adequate and effective before use.

The LEA’s that opt-in to vendor services will be given support from the vendor(s) during the planning process, and all LEAs with CSI schools, are required to have a NHED-approved school-level CSI School Improvement Plan on file with the Department by June 2027, using the NHED CSI School Improvement Plan template (required).

Q: The RFP describes a three-year CSI improvement cycle extending through School Year 2028-2029. However, the resulting contract is described as extending only through December 2027, with an optional one-year extension. Please confirm the intended period of performance and whether vendor services are expected beyond December 2027.

A: The resulting contract will be a Firm Fixed Price per Unit (School) performance-based contract through December 2027 of school year 2027-2028, from the date of approval of the Governor and Executive Council. The contract term may be extended by an additional term of one (1) year, through school year 2028-2029, at the sole option of the Department, in the case of unforeseen extenuating circumstances during the initial performance-based contract period such as a change in leadership at the LEA and/or school level(s), the LEA’s decision to close the school identified as CSI and reassign students to other schools within the LEA, a public health emergency or natural disaster that prevents the school and LEA from working with the vendor(s), etc.

https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt326/files/inline-documents/2026/2026-csi-sip-template.pdf applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Section 2 says “The selected Vendor will provide contracted services throughout Year 1 and during the first half of Year 2 of the Department’s three-year CSI school improvement cycle to LEAs that elect to opt-in to receive vendor support.” Just to clarify, the phrase “that elect to opt-in to receive vendor support” applies to year 1 and year 2 services. Correct? Or are there certain milestones / activities that all schools must work with the vendor to complete (regardless of the schools decision to work with the vendor)?

A: Proposals should focus on providing vendor services to only those CSI schools, and their LEAs, that opt-in to vendor support. Once LEAs opt-in to vendor support, the selected/awarded vendor(s) will provide contracted services throughout Year 1 and during the first half of Year 2 of the Department’s three-year CSI school improvement cycle.

LEAs that op-out of vendor services are still required to adhere to the NHED structured improvement process designed to help them exit CSI status within three (3) years, including conducting a school-level comprehensive needs assessment, developing a CSI school improvement plan for review and approval by NHED, participating in monitoring site visits, etc., but must do so using their own resources, tools, and funding.

Q: Method and roles. The scope is framed at the school level, yet the LEA is the electing party, the fiscal agent, the entity required to compile the Diagnostic Review Report, and a required partner in SIP development. What role does the Department anticipate for the district across the needs assessment, planning, and monitoring processes, and is district-level diagnostic work within scope? Will the Department assist in engaging LEAs?

A: Once the LEA has relinquished funds for vendor support, NHED becomes the fiscal agent.

To ensure that CSI school(s) and LEA leadership collaborate in the development and implementation of an improvement plan for the purpose of improving instruction and advancing student learning, the LEA in partnership with stakeholders (including principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents), shall be full participants in the needs assessment, planning, and monitoring processes.

District-level diagnostic work is within the scope of this RFP, and at minimum includes using the results of a Resource Allocation Review conducted by NHED as part of the comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning process.

NHED will assist the selected/awarded vendor(s) in engaging LEAs.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Method and roles. Priority 1 requires data elements that are largely state-held — educator certification and in-field placement, retention, chronic absenteeism, advanced coursework and CTE participation, preschool and full-day kindergarten access, school-based mental health staffing, and discipline. Will the Department provide these extracts, and on what timeline?

A: The Department will provide the data elements necessary for the vendor(s) to complete a comprehensive needs assessment. In addition, the vendor(s) must also work with the LEAs and CSI schools to analyze and interpret these data elements within the local context. This may include working with LEAs to access district-level assessment data.

Currently, this data is publicly available on NHED's iPlatform 9.75 for education data stories from schools/districts. This portal includes a broad and expanding range of information to create the opportunity for community conversations.

In addition, NHED is finalizing the development of a Resource Allocation Review (RAR) dashboard that will launch in fall of 2026 with these data elements for LEAs, CSI schools, and the selected/awarded vendor(s) to use the results of a RAR conducted by NHED as part of the comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning process.

https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-educator-and-analytic-resources/iplatform applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Priorities 1–3: Needs Assessment, SIP Planning, and Diagnostic Review - Section 2 mentions a "Resource Allocation Review" and an "LEA Self-Assessment Rubric" conducted by the Department — are these publicly posted or will these be shared with the vendor, and is the vendor expected to incorporate their results into the needs assessment or SIP? If links or files are available, please share them.

A: NHED is finalizing the development of a Resource Allocation Review (RAR) dashboard that will launch in fall of 2026 with the data elements for LEAs, CSI schools, and the selected/awarded vendor(s) to be able to use the results of a RAR conducted by NHED as part of the comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning process.

Whereas the “LEA Self-Assessment Rubric” mentioned on page 6, will be implemented in Year 3 of the NHED three-year structured improvement process, and the selected/awarded vendor(s) will provide contracted services throughout Year 1 and during the first half of Year 2 of the Department’s three-year CSI school improvement cycle to LEAs that elect to opt-in to receive vendor support, the implementation and collection of these LEA Self-Assessment Rubrics will not be within the scope of work for this RFP.

In July 2026, NHED generated CSI Summary Reports documenting the three-year CSI school improvement cycle, from Fall 2023 through Spring 2026, for all current CSI schools, which incorporate the results of the completed LEA Self-Assessment Rubrics.

For any CSI Schools failing to meet the State’s exit criteria during the fall 2026 identification process that are selected for more rigorous interventions, the selected/awarded vendor(s) will be expected to incorporate the results of the CSI Summary Report into the needs assessment, Diagnostic Review Report, and SIP. NHED will share the final CSI Summary Report with the selected/awarded vendor(s) for each CSI school selected for more rigorous interventions.

For more information regarding the “LEA Self-Assessment Rubric”, please see: New Hampshire Department of Education ESEA CSI Technical Assistance and Monitoring Protocol.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

Q: Data, Systems, and Confidentiality - What state data systems (e.g., a longitudinal data system, statewide assessment platform) will vendors need access to, and what is the process/timeline for obtaining that access?

A: The Department will provide the data elements necessary for the vendor(s) to complete a comprehensive needs assessment. In addition, the vendor(s) must also work with the LEAs and CSI schools to analyze and interpret these data elements within the local context. This may include working with LEAs to access district-level assessment data.

Currently, this statewide assessment data is publicly available on NHED's iPlatform 9.75 for education data stories from schools/districts. This portal includes a broad and expanding range of information to create the opportunity for community conversations.

NHED is finalizing the development of a Resource Allocation Review (RAR) dashboard that will launch in fall of 2026 with the data elements for LEAs, CSI schools, and the selected/awarded vendor(s) to be able to use the results of a RAR conducted by NHED as part of the comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning process.

Q: If vendors only support Year 1 and half of year 2, what components of Year 2 are they involved with? For example, are vendors part of the stakeholder engagement in the annual review during Year 2?

A: If the selected/awarded vendor(s) has successfully met each milestone and deliverable by the target due dates described on page 7 (e.g. Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School, Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school, Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review), the components of Year 2 will be focused on successful implementation of the approved SIP (e.g. to support the implementation of their established improvement plans, revise the SIP based upon lived experiences and lessons learned during first few weeks and months of the 2026-2027 school year, participate in Fall Site Visit and Joint Review Documentation).

The vendor(s) is not expected to be part of the stakeholder engagement in the annual review during Year 2, but should work with the CSI schools and LEAs to build the internal capacity to effectively engage with stakeholders through the Year 1 - Needs Assessment and Planning Year.

Q: Requested exception to the RFP and Appendix A, Form P-37

A: See attached FAQ addendum https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-are/division-of-educator-and-analytic-resources/iplatform applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

FAQ Addendum

Q: Requested exception to the RFP, Section 5 – RFP Terms and Conditions:

F. Property of the Department

All material received in response to this RFP shall become the property of the Department and will not be returned to the vendor. Upon contract award, the Department reserves the right to use any information presented in any Proposal solely for purposes of evaluating proposals. Nothing in this provision transfers ownership of Contractor's pre-existing intellectual property or materials developed during performance of any resulting contract.

Justification: Clarifies that proposal materials may be used for procurement purposes but does not transfer ownership of WestEd's intellectual property or future contract deliverable

A: NHED RESPONSE – Open to negotiation.

Q: Requested exception to Appendix A, Form P-37:

4. CONDITIONAL NATURE OF AGREEMENT.

Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, all obligations of the State hereunder, including, without limitation, the continuance of payments hereunder, are contingent upon the availability and continued appropriation of funds. In no event shall the State be liable for any payments hereunder in excess of such available appropriated funds.

In the event of a reduction or termination of appropriated funds by any state or federal legislative or executive action that reduces, eliminates or otherwise modifies the appropriation or availability of funding for this Agreement and the Scope for Services provided in EXHIBIT B, in whole or in part, the State shall have the right to withhold payment until such funds become available, if ever, and shall have the right to reduce or terminate the Services under this Agreement immediately upon giving the Contractor notice of such reduction or termination. In the event of such reduction or termination, the State shall pay Contractor for all Services satisfactorily performed through the effective date of termination and shall reimburse Contractor for any reasonable, noncancelable obligations incurred in reliance upon this Agreement prior to receipt of the notice of termination. The State shall not be required to transfer funds from any other account or source to the Account identified in block 1.6 in the event funds in that Account are reduced or unavailable.

Justification: Ensures WestEd is compensated for services already performed and unavoidable commitments if funding is reduced or eliminated.

A: NHED RESPONSE – REJECTED

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

6. COMPLIANCE BY CONTRACTOR WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS/EQUAL

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY.

6.4. The Contractor agrees to permit the State or United States access to any of the Contractor’s books, records and accounts directly relating to this Agreement for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this Agreement and all rules, regulations and orders pertaining to the covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Justification: Limits audit rights to records relevant to the Agreement while preserving the State's oversight rights.

applications are submitted. This guidance is subject to change as state and federal laws are updated.

8. EVENT OF DEFAULT/REMEDIES.

8.1 Any one or more of the following acts or omissions of the Contractor shall constitute an event of default hereunder (“Event of Default”):

8.1.1 failure to perform the Services satisfactorily or on schedule;

8.1.2 failure to submit any report required hereunder; and/or

8.1.3 failure to perform any other covenant, term or condition of this Agreement.

8.2 Upon the occurrence of any Event of Default, the State may take any one, or more, or all, of the following actions:

8.2.1 give the Contractor a written notice specifying the Event of Default and requiring it to be remedied within, in the absence of a greater or lesser specification of time, thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the notice; and if the Event of Default is not timely cured, terminate this Agreement, effective two (2) calendar days after giving the…