QA ED Evaluation Process Final.docx

Request for Proposal: Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District.

Executive Director Performance Evaluation Process Advertised starting Wednesday, June 25, 2025 Questions are due on Friday, July 11, 2025, answers posted by Thursday, July 17, 2025.

Budget Range Guidance While the RFP notes there is no set budget, does the District have a target investment range, historical precedent, or anticipated ceiling that would help guide proposal alignment and pricing tiers?

The District does not have a target investment range or comparable historical precedent for this work.

Optional Services Evaluation Will proposals that include second- and third-year administration support be evaluated more favorably, and how will these optional services influence overall scoring?

Proposals that include an estimate for second- and third-year administration support will be evaluated slightly more favorably. These optional services receive scoring consideration when evaluating the quality and appropriateness of the proposed methodology/ approach as well as the proposed budget. However, as an optional service they would not significantly affect overall scores.

Future Workday Integration Could the District clarify the intended scope and implementation timeline for the Workday Talent Optimization module, particularly as it relates to compatibility with the redesigned evaluation process?

The District is at the very beginning of its Workday project, with implementation for Talent Optimization happening long after this design process has concluded. For this reason, there is no expectation that the selected consultant would be involved in Workday integration or implementation. In the RFP, we recommend a meeting early in the project with the District’s project team leader (or their designee) to discuss some high-level considerations for the overall evaluation process. This is the anticipated extent of the scope.

Stakeholder Engagement Will access to key stakeholders (e.g., Executive Director, HR Director, ERP team, legal counsel) be coordinated by MMSD, or will the consultant be responsible for initiating and scheduling those interviews?

District staff can coordinate meeting scheduling. They would just need the consultant’s availability and scheduling preferences to initiate that process.

Public Meeting Considerations Which portions of the engagement (e.g., design sessions, debriefings) must be conducted as open meetings under Wisconsin law versus privately with the Subcommittee?

This would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In general, design sessions with Commissioners (including the subcommittee) are likely to be public meetings. Debriefs that include the Executive Director’s performance evaluation data are likely to be closed sessions.

Use of Proprietary Tools Does the District permit the use of proprietary leadership competency models, feedback tools, or evaluation templates, provided they are fully transferrable to the Commission for future independent administration?

Yes. Please include any licensing or other costs for use of proprietary tools and resources in the proposed project budget.

Preferred Format for References Would the District prefer full narrative case studies, or brief reference summaries with contact information and project highlights?

Please include enough information in the references to demonstrate relevance as well as success with similar process designs. Either of the formats you suggest could accomplish this; there is not a strong preference for one over the other.

Proposal Formatting Can the digital PDF version of the proposal contain hyperlinks to supplemental content (e.g., past performance samples), provided the proposal content remains within the stated 10-page limit?

Links can be included if they are truly supplemental. Linked information may not be reviewed by the scoring committee.

Have you or will you be updating your current Strategic Plan (approved August 2022)?

The Strategic Plan that was approved in 2022 is current. There are no immediate plans to change or update it.

Our resumes alone could take up most of the 10-page limit and reduce space available for detailing our methodology and prior experience. Would the District consider allowing resumes to be provided as an attachment outside of the page limit?

Please provide a summary of relevant qualifications and experience for proposed project team member(s) within your proposal. Proposals that exceed the page limit will be eliminated from consideration.

Links to employee bio or “Meet the Team” webpages can be included if they are truly supplemental. Linked information may not be reviewed by the scoring committee.

Can the District provide further guidance on the expected range or scale of investment for a project of this nature? What budget do you anticipate?

The District does not have a an expected range or anticipated budget for this work.

Can you provide examples or more details on what is envisioned as "more frequent than annual but no more than quarterly" performance touchpoints?

The current annual performance review is insufficient; the Commission is also not interested in conducting Executive Director performance evaluations more than once per quarter. Examples of frequencies the Commission would consider include twice a year, three times a year, or quarterly.

What is the Commission's current level of understanding and comfort with technology for potential future integration with Workday Talent Optimization (TLO) for performance evaluations?

The District is just kicking off its Workday implementation project. Commissioners have not been briefed on Workday TLO specifically and are unlikely to have any understanding or comfort with the technology.

To what extent are Commissioners willing to engage in training for a self-administered process, and what format would be most conducive for their participation (e.g., in-person, virtual, self-paced modules)?

The Commission would be open to training (within reason) that is specific and relevant to administering their evaluation process. In-person or virtual would likely be preferred over self-paced modules.

What is the anticipated number of Commissioners, Executive Director, Deputy Executive Director, and HR Director that would need to be interviewed during the assessment phase?

There are three Commissioners on the Executive Director Performance Evaluation subcommittee; they could be interviewed together rather than individually. There is only one Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director. The District’s HR Director position is currently vacant; someone else from the HR team will be recommended to be interviewed instead.

In the evaluation design, both the leadership competency framework and established goals should have enough specificity and detail to provide mutual clarity between the Commission and Executive Director on how his leadership is evaluated and the criteria for success.

Regarding "staff and other stakeholder performance feedback components," what specific groups or roles would the Commission consider as "other stakeholders" for feedback?

In the past, the Commission has considered feedback from staff, including direct reports, Directors, and members of the District’s Employee Leadership Council. They have also considered feedback from external partners and owner community representatives. The Commission would be open to guidance from the selected consultant on stakeholders to include in the process.

Are there any specific preferences or requirements for the format of the "implementation guide" (e.g., digital, hard copy, interactive)?

There is not a specific preference for this.

Given the "not-to-exceed" contract type, what is the process for negotiating the final contract amount if compensation cannot be agreed upon with the best-qualified consultant initially?

If compensation cannot be agreed upon with the best qualified consultant, negotiations may be conducted with other consultants in the order of their respective ranking. The contract may be awarded to the consultant then ranked as best qualified.

For the optional second and third-year administration support, is there an estimated volume of work or number of evaluations anticipated per year that would help in pricing these services?

Please base this on your own estimate of the volume of work and recommended number of evaluations and include this breakdown in your proposal. We understand that this pricing could change if the process as designed varies from the initial estimate.

What is the anticipated timeline for the "Commission Subcommittee Interviews with Candidates" during the week of August 11th, and how many individuals from The Cee Suite team should be prepared to attend?

The anticipated timeline is not currently known; the committee may also be able to identify the best qualified candidate without conducting interviews.

The interview could be done by one individual or a team; we do not have a preference and the number of team members attending is not a factor used to evaluate interviews.

Does MMSD intend for this process to remain entirely free of third-party consultants moving forward -- that is, outside of the first-year implementation and the optional years two and three administration?

This is to be determined in the future, based on the Commission’s experience with implementation.

Could you share how the current process was developed—was it created internally or with the assistance of an external consultant?

The current process was developed with the assistance of an external consultant.

The RFP notes that responses to submitted questions will be available on July 17, with proposals due on July 22. Given that the answers may significantly impact our approach, would the district consider granting a brief extension to allow sufficient time to thoughtfully incorporate the responses into our proposal?

The deadline for proposals is firm.

image1.png image2.png