RFP 122964 - English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services.pdf

ALEXANDRIA CITY SCHOOL BOARD

dba

ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ACPS)

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

FOR

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER PROGRAM EVALUATION SERVICES

RFP NUMBER 122964

CLOSING DATE: July 30, 2026

OPENING TIME: 12:00 PM EST

ONLY ELECTRONIC RESPONSES VIA eVA (Virginia’s eProcurement Portal) will be accepted. Vendor Registration is required to submit a response. Please use the following link to eVA: https://eva.virginia.gov/

All Proposals shall remain valid for a period of ninety (90) days.

ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Date of RFP – June 25, 2026 https://eva.virginia.gov/

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 2

Dated: June 25, 2026

RE: RFP NO. 122964- English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services

Commodity Codes: 91838, 92405, 92416, 92419, 92420, 92478, 95277, 95605, 96153, 96258

To Whom It May Concern:

Alexandria City School Board dba Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS) is seeking competitive responses from Offerors to establish a contract for English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services in accordance with all terms and conditions as set out in this Request for Proposal (RFP). This solicitation is open to all vendors, however all Offeror’s qualification(s) contained herein are required to be met in order to be considered for award of a Contract.

Each Offeror(s) is solely responsible for ensuring that they have the current, complete version of the RFP

122964 documents, including any addenda, before submitting a proposal.

PROPOSAL TIMELINE:

All questions must be submitted via email to angela.queen@acps.k12.va.us, with the notation, “RFP

122964: Evaluation Services Question” before or by 1:00 PM EST on July 7, 2026. ACPS endeavors to provide answers to questions via an addendum to this solicitation within three (3) business days. Should we be unable to do so, ACPS may extend the opening date for proposal responses.

Offeror(s) must be registered with eVA before the opening date and time, as specified in the cover page of this solicitation or subsequent addenda. The registration process must be completed before submitting any response to a solicitation; therefore, allow enough time to complete it. Proposals must be received electronically by or prior to 12:00 PM, July 30, 2026, for furnishing the goods and services described herein.

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.

Inquiries for information regarding this procurement, any procedures, and/or proposal submission shall be directed to the undersigned at Angela.Queen@acps.k12.va.us.

Sincerely, Angela Queen, VCA

Senior Buyer about:blank mailto:Angela.Queen@acps.k12.va.us

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) No. 122964

FOR

English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services

Purpose of this RFP…………………………………………………………………….4

Mission and Background……………………………………………………………….4

Instructions to Offerors…………………………………………………………………4

Project Description/Scope of Services……………………………………………….6

Proposal Response Requirements…………………………………………………...9

Technical Proposal Requirements……………………………………………………11

Submittal Procedures………………………………………………………………….10

Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………………………………...13

Information on Contract to be Awarded…………………………………………….. 14

Attachment A - Sample Contract……………………………………………………..18

Offeror’s Attestation…………………………………………………………………….31

Attachment B - Bid Proposal Forms………………………………………………….32

Attachment C - Conflict of Interest Statement……………………………………….35

Attachment D - Taxpayer Identification (W-9)……………………………………… 36

Attachment E - Insurance Requirements………………………………………….…37

Attachment F – Sample Terms of Use Agreement……………………………………39

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 4

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit sealed proposals to provide English Language

Learner Program Evaluation Services. ACPS wishes to take a more formal, in-depth look at English Learner programming provided globally and specifically to secondary students across the division. English learners comprise 38% of the total student population division-wide. Secondary EL students comprise approximately

40% of the total EL population. The final scope of services will be negotiated with the successful Offeror(s).

SECTION 2. MISSION / BACKGROUND

ACPS’s 2030 Strategic Plan outlines the Division’s mission to “nurture, educate and inspire each student for success” and its vision that “each student is prepared to thrive in college, career and community.” The plan emphasizes safe and inclusive learning environments, academic excellence, community engagement, and equitable access to opportunities and supports for all students.

ACPS serves a highly diverse student population, with students representing more than 118 countries and speaking over 127 languages. The Division’s Office of English Learner Services supports multilingual learners through programs and services designed to help students develop English language proficiency while meeting rigorous academic standards.

The English Learner (EL) program has expanded in response to the Division’s growing multilingual learner population and commitment to educational equity. The program oversees identification and assessment of

English learners, compliance with federal and state requirements, language access and dual language services, family engagement and outreach, and professional learning and instructional support for staff serving multilingual learners. ACPS also implements the International Academy (IA) model at one middle school and at Alexandria City High School to support newly arrived multilingual learners through specialized instruction, language development, and transition supports designed to promote academic success and school engagement.

EL programming across the Division emphasizes both academic achievement and inclusive practices that support students’ linguistic, cultural, and social-emotional development.

SECTION 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

A. Proposals must be submitted in accordance with the instructions and requirements contained in this

RFP, including the Introduction. Failure to do so may result in the proposal being considered non-responsive and it may be rejected. An offeror must promptly notify the Procurement office of any ambiguity, inconsistency, or error that may be discovered upon examination of the RFP. An Offeror requiring clarification or interpretation of this RFP should contact the Buyer, Angela Queen at angela.queen@acps.k12.va.us.

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.

1. 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.

2. 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 mailto:angela.queen@acps.k12.va.us

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 5 of Work with initial training to occur during designated professional development days as identified on the ACPS calendar.

3. Cost Proposal: The offeror should submit a cost proposal, which shall include any proposed fees for print resources, ancillary materials, and training offerings, including, but not limited to: trade books and student workbooks. Offerors should list areas of additional capabilities and services with rates for each service, if applicable.

Note: Textbooks Approved by the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE): If the Offeror is the publisher, then in accordance with the Code of Virginia 22.1-241, the price shall not exceed the lowest wholesale price at which the resource or resources are currently bid under contract anywhere in the United States. If, subsequent to the date of any contract entered into by ACPS, the prices of resources named in the agreement are reduced or the terms of the agreement are made more favorable to purchase anywhere in the United States or a special or other edition of any book named in the agreement is sold outside of Virginia at a lower price than contracted in the commonwealth, the publisher shall grant the same reduction or terms to

ACPS and give ACPS the option of using such special or other edition adapted for use in

Virginia and at the lowest price at which such special edition is sold elsewhere.

C. Also include any other materials you may want to submit as part of your proposal response.

D. Responses to this RFP must be in the prescribed format.

E. ACPS may request additional information, clarification or presentations from any of the Offerors after review of the proposals received.

F. APCS has the right to use any or all ideas presented in reply to this RFP and the right to select different materials for different grade levels if it is in the best interest of ACPS.

G. ACPS reserves the right to make multiple awards from this RFP in the best interest of ACPS.

H. ACPS is not liable for any costs incurred by any Offeror in connection with this RFP or any response by any Offeror to this RFP. The expenses incurred by the Offeror in the preparation, submission, and presentation of the proposal are the sole responsibility of the Offeror and may not be charged to ACPS.

I. Vendors requiring print resources and ancillary materials returned after evaluation should state that information on Attachment G and provide pre-paid shipping labels for those returns.

J. Each Offeror who is a stock or Non-stock Corporation, Limited Liability Company, business trust, or limited partnership or other business entity shall be authorized to transact business in the

Commonwealth of Virginia as a domestic or foreign business entity if required by law. Each such

Offeror shall include in its proposal response the Identification Number issued to it by the

Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC) and should list its business entity name as it is listed with the SCC. Any Offeror that is not required to be authorized to transact business in the

Commonwealth as a domestic or foreign business entity as required by law shall include in its proposal response a statement describing why the Offeror is not required to be so authorized. (See VA. Code

Section 2.2-4311.2).

K. Each Offeror is required to state if it has ever been debarred, fined, had a contract terminated, or found not to be a responsible bidder or Offeror by any federal, state, or local government, and/or private entity.

If so, please give the details of each such matter and include this information with the proposal response.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 6

SECTION 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SCOPE OF SERVICES

The Division seeks proposals to conduct a formative evaluation of English Learner (EL) programming and supports to better understand how English Learner (EL) services are implemented across schools, the extent to which services reach eligible students and families, and how consistently staff are prepared and supported to meet the needs of multilingual learners. Findings from the evaluation will help the Division identify strengths, opportunities for improvement, and areas where additional resources or supports may be needed to ensure equitable outcomes for English learners across the Division.

ACPS wishes to take a more formal, in-depth look at English Learner programming provided globally and specifically to secondary students across the division. English learners comprise 38% of the total student population division-wide. Secondary EL students comprise approximately 40% of the total EL population.

The successful Offeror shall provide comprehensive program evaluation services for the English Learner (EL) programs of Alexandria City Public Schools (ACPS). Offerors shall clearly describe their proposed methodology, approach, deliverables, timelines, staffing, and quality assurance measures for completing each component of the Scope of Work.

The Offeror shall perform, at a minimum, the following services:

1. A clear assessment of systemic alignment and resource coherence.

2. A district-wide definition of high-quality EL instruction and model clarity.

3. A strengthened adult capacity and diffusion strategy (means of ensuring effective practices spread).

4. Improved coherence of student experience and transitions.

5. Prioritized, research-based recommendations with fiscal and strategic implications.

6. Increased internal capacity for continuous improvement and data-informed decision-making.

Throughout the evaluation, the Offeror will collaborate with division staff to build their capacity to monitor progress and support effective action planning and implementation. The Offeror will also provide clear guidance on next steps to strengthen capacity where needed, address recommendations, and build on identified strengths. Findings from the evaluation will inform decision-making related to the division’s EL programs.

A. Desired Outcomes of the Program Evaluation Services - The evaluation will result in:

1. System Coherence & Strategic Alignment: A clear understanding of how governance structures, policies, funding, staffing, and strategic planning align with EL goals, including identification of structural barriers, resource gaps, and key leverage points.

2. Instructional Quality & Model Clarity: A district-wide definition of high-quality EL instruction and clarity regarding the design, implementation, and fidelity of instructional models (e.g., dual language, international academy, sheltered, co-teaching), including a defined set of high-leverage instructional strategies expected across classrooms.

3. Adult Capacity & Spread of Effective Practices: An assessment of professional learning quality, leadership support, implementation fidelity, and the spread of effective practices across schools, including the impact of staff turnover and a strategy to sustain capacity at scale.

4. Student Experience & Access: An evaluation of the consistency and equity of EL student experiences, including welcoming and placement practices, transitions between instructional models, and student access to academic pathways.

5. Actionable Recommendations - Prioritized, research-grounded recommendations that:

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 7

• Include short-, mid-, and long-term actions

• Provide tiered options with fiscal and staffing implications

• Identify strategic trade-offs and leverage points

• Support board- and cabinet-level decision-making

B. Key Program Evaluation Questions - To meet the desired outcomes, the evaluation must incorporate the following key questions:

1. Governance, Strategy & System Coherence

• Focus: The extent to which district-level structures, policies, and resource allocation create coherent conditions for EL success.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o How and where is EL success positioned as a shared district-wide responsibility or siloed within the EL program?

o How are EL goals aligned with board policy, strategic plans, and district improvement efforts?

o Where do district-level practices conflict with the pedagogical needs of EL students?

o How are staffing allocations and funding streams (e.g., Title III) leveraged?

o To what extent are resources supporting the core instructional model versus filling broader operational gaps?

o What is the impact of staff turnover on implementation stability and retraining demands?

o How are EL programming goals, key strategies, and expectations defined, understood, and upheld across the organization?

• Core Evaluation Question: Does the district’s organizational design create the enabling conditions for consistent, high-quality EL implementation across schools?

2. Instructional Model Design & Implementation

• Focus: Clarity, fidelity, and alignment of instructional models serving EL students.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o What are the explicit design features of each instructional model (e.g., dual language, international academy, sheltered classes)?

o How do these models vary in structure, goals, and implementation?

o How well is Tier 1 instruction aligned with EL needs across content areas?

o Are high-leverage strategies consistently used across grade levels?

o How do schools manage transitions between instructional models (e.g., Dual

Language to Sheltered)?

o Is the EL experience coherent across the district?

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 8

• Core Evaluation Question: Are instructional models, both EL and general education, clearly defined, consistently implemented, and aligned with EL student needs across settings?

3. Adult Capacity Building & Diffusion of Practice

• Focus: Professional learning, leadership support, and the spread of effective EL practices.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o Does PD provide practical, high-leverage EL strategies for Tier 1 instruction?

o Is PD differentiated for content-area teachers vs. EL specialists?

o How is capacity building measured beyond attendance or satisfaction?

o How do principals and school leadership and division teams reinforce implementation?

o Which schools demonstrate effective spread of EL best practices—and why?

o What roles (coaches, department heads, IA leaders, EL office) act as catalysts?

o Can we identify strong case examples of effective Tier 1 instruction in general education settings, in addition to the supplemental EL teacher services?

• Core Evaluation Question: How effectively does the district build and sustain adult capacity to implement EL-responsive instruction at scale?

4. Student Experience, Access & Pathways

• Focus: The lived experience of EL students and the equity of access to high-quality instruction and pathways.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o Is the experience of being an EL student consistent across schools?

o How are new arrivals welcomed, placed, and supported in transitions?

o What bridge supports exist when students move between instructional models?

o To what extent are secondary EL students engaged in course scheduling and pathway planning?

o How cohesive are student academic experiences across grade levels?

• Core Evaluation Question: Do EL students experience coherent, equitable, and empowering learning pathways across the district?

C. Required Evaluation Methodology - Offerors shall propose a rigorous mixed-methods evaluation approach that includes qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The proposed methodology shall clearly describe how findings from multiple data sources will be used to ensure validity and reliability and to produce actionable recommendations. At a minimum, the methodology shall include the following components:

1. Governance, Strategy & System Coherence

• Focus: The extent to which district-level structures, policies, and resource allocation create coherent conditions for EL success.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 9

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o How and where is EL success positioned as a shared district-wide responsibility or siloed within the EL program?

o How are EL goals aligned with board policy, strategic plans, and district improvement efforts?

o Where do district-level practices conflict with the pedagogical needs of EL students?

o How are staffing allocations and funding streams (e.g., Title III) leveraged?

o To what extent are resources supporting the core instructional model versus filling broader operational gaps?

o What is the impact of staff turnover on implementation stability and retraining demands?

o How are EL programming goals, key strategies, and expectations defined, understood, and upheld across the organization?

• Core Evaluation Question: Does the district’s organizational design create the enabling conditions for consistent, high-quality EL implementation across schools?

2. Instructional Model Design & Implementation

• Focus: Clarity, fidelity, and alignment of instructional models serving EL students.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o What are the explicit design features of each instructional model (e.g., dual language, international academy, sheltered classes)?

o How do these models vary in structure, goals, and implementation?

o How well is Tier 1 instruction aligned with EL needs across content areas?

o Are high-leverage strategies consistently used across grade levels?

o How do schools manage transitions between instructional models (e.g., Dual Language to Sheltered)?

o Is the EL experience coherent across the district?

• Core Evaluation Question: Are instructional models, both EL and general education, clearly defined, consistently implemented, and aligned with EL student needs across settings?

3. Adult Capacity Building & Diffusion of Practice

• Focus: Professional learning, leadership support, and the spread of effective EL practices.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o Does PD provide practical, high-leverage EL strategies for Tier 1 instruction?

o Is PD differentiated for content-area teachers vs. EL specialists?

o How is capacity building measured beyond attendance or satisfaction?

o How do principals and school leadership and division teams reinforce implementation?

o Which schools demonstrate effective spread of EL best practices—and why?

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 10 o What roles (coaches, department heads, IA leaders, EL office) act as catalysts?

o Can we identify strong case examples of effective Tier 1 instruction in general education settings, in addition to the supplemental EL teacher services?

• Core Evaluation Question: How effectively does the district build and sustain adult capacity to implement EL-responsive instruction at scale?

4. Student Experience, Access & Pathways

• Focus: The lived experience of EL students and the equity of access to high-quality instruction and pathways.

• Key Lines of Inquiry:

o Is the experience of being an EL student consistent across schools?

o How are new arrivals welcomed, placed, and supported in transitions?

o What bridge supports exist when students move between instructional models?

o To what extent are secondary EL students engaged in course scheduling and pathway planning?

o How cohesive are student academic experiences across grade levels?

• Core Evaluation Question: Do EL students experience coherent, equitable, and empowering learning pathways across the district?

D. Evaluation Methods - The vendor should propose a rigorous mixed-methods approach that includes, but is not limited to, the following components:

1. Quantitative Data Analysis:

• Analysis of student outcome data (e.g., achievement, growth, language proficiency progress, course completion, graduation indicators), including former ELs.

• Disaggregation by instructional model, school, grade band, years in program, newcomer status, and other relevant student characteristics.

• Analysis of attendance, discipline, course-taking patterns, and scheduling access.

• Resource allocation analysis (staffing ratios, Title III usage, budget alignment).

• Trend analysis over multiple years where available.

2. Instructional & Implementation Review:

• Structured classroom observations using a defined rubric aligned to high-leverage EL instructional practices in general education, sheltered, and English Language Development

(ELD) courses.

• Observation of co-teaching, sheltered instruction, dual language, and other program models.

• School visits (e.g., instructional rounds, teacher shadowing) across elementary, K–8, middle, and high schools.

• Assessment of implementation fidelity across instructional models.

3. Stakeholder Engagement:

• Focus groups, interviews, and/or surveys with:

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 11 o School board members o Division-level leaders o School administrators o EL/EL specialists o Content-area teachers o Instructional coaches o Support staff o Students (particularly secondary EL students) o Families o Community and city partners

• Collection of both qualitative insights and perception data tied to the evaluation questions.

4. Organizational & Systems Analysis:

• Barrier and root-cause analysis to identify structural impediments (e.g., scheduling constraints, staffing models, data system limitations).

• Review of governance structures, policy alignment, and strategic planning documents.

• Analysis of diffusion of practice (e.g., identification of schools/departments demonstrating strong spread of effective EL strategies).

• Examination of the impact of staff turnover on implementation stability.

5. Document & Artifact Review - Review of relevant materials, including but not limited to:

• Curriculum documents and pacing guides

• Professional learning materials and PD plans

• School improvement plans

• The ACPS strategic plan

• School board presentations and briefs

• Equity climate survey data

• Training artifacts

• Placement and onboarding procedures for new EL students

6. Case Studies of Promising Practice

• Development of in-depth case examples of high-performing schools, co-teaching models, or

International Academy models.

• Identification of enabling conditions contributing to success.

• The proposed methodology should clearly articulate how data from multiple sources will be triangulated to generate valid findings and actionable recommendations.

SECTION 5. PROPOSAL RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

In order to be deemed responsive, each Offeror’s proposal must include the following:

A. Letter of Transmittal/Executive Summary: Provide information related to the corporate and organizational experience of your organization completing the work defined in this RFP.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 12

B. Proposed Fee: Offeror shall provide a proposed total cost to complete the services defined in this RFP.

Include an itemized list of materials and services proposed and the Total Fee to complete the services defined in this RFP. Please include the shipping cost to the division warehouse address provided.

C. Executed Offeror’s Attestation: Offeror shall execute, include, and return the submittal page included herein, which details its legal name, authorization to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and its attestation that the Offeror’s has thoroughly reviewed this RFP and affirms its response is in accordance with the requirements defined herein.

D. Contract Review and Acceptance: By submitting this response, the offeror agrees that there are no exceptions to the sample contract included herein. If any exceptions are to be taken, they must be included with the bid response. The sample contract is a component of the RFP. As stated above, taking exception to the contract, like any other portion of the RFP may result in a conditional bid.

Conditional bids may be rejected in whole or in part.

Offeror further acknowledges that no exceptions to any component of this RFP are being taken, including, but not limited to the specifications, contract, and other attachments.

Upon award, the successful Offeror(s) will be required to register with the City of Alexandria’s Vendor Self

Service System at https://acps.munisselfservice.com

Upon execution of a contract for services, the Successful Offeror must submit to ACPS a copy of its certificate of insurance in a form acceptable to ACPS.

SECTION 6. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

All aspects of the technical proposal will be evaluated based on the project goals mentioned above. Offerors must demonstrate an understanding of each task as well as explain the approach to each task. Restatements of the tasks presented in the RFP are not acceptable, and will not be considered responsive.

Proposals should be as thorough and detailed as possible so that the Evaluation Committee may properly evaluate the Offeror’s capabilities to provide the required services. Proposals shall be formatted electronically in a single-file document, prepared simply and concisely. Each Offeror’s proposal shall be tabbed and organized in the sequence indicated below (failure to do so may result in a lower evaluation of the proposal).

TAB I

a. Letter of Transmittal: An executive summary of the Offeror’s understanding of the services sought through the RFP, and a description of the Offeror’s underlying philosophy in providing the services;

b. Offeror’s Attestation: Completely filled in and appropriately signed by authorized personnel, including a valid VA SCC ID Number, showing the firm in good standing.

c. Bid Forms: Completely filled in and appropriately signed by authorized personnel.

d. Exceptions and Proprietary Information: Offerors must specify in a cover sheet any sections containing trade secrets or proprietary information. Offerors must also specify any exceptions to the

Sample Contract or any terms and conditions of the RFP.

TAB II

e. Work Plan Methodology and Draft Project Schedule: Provide a Work Plan Methodology to include a plan to provide the English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services requested. The Work https://acps.munisselfservice.com/

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 13

Plan should also include a draft schedule with descriptions of activities (e.g., Prioritized, research-based recommendations with fiscal and strategic implications and anticipated deliverables).

TAB III

f. Cost Proposal: Provide a detailed cost proposal for the services and/or items described in this RFP.

SECTION 7. SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

Vendors must be registered with eVA before the opening date and time, as specified in the cover page of this solicitation or subsequent addenda. The registration process must be completed before submitting any response to a solicitation, so allow enough time to complete that process first.

Only electronic responses via eVA (Virginia’s eProcurement Portal) proposals will be accepted on or before the RFP closing date and time. No paper copies will be accepted.

EXCEPTION to the RFP requirements ARE NOT ALLOWED. Taking exception to the RFP requirements may result in a conditional proposal. Conditional proposals are not acceptable and may be rejected in whole or in part.

A proposal shall contain the original signature of an individual who is authorized to bind the Company. The original signature should be provided on the RFP Form and on all other proposal documents where a signature is required. REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL. ALLOW TIME FOR PROCESSING

AND ACTIVATION

SECTION 8. EVALUATION CRITERIA

ACPS uses the Adjective Rating System as the method of rating an Offeror’s Proposal, supported with narrative statements which describe strengths and weaknesses associated with each aspect of a proposal in relation to the evaluation criteria.

Offerors will be evaluated for selection on the basis of those most qualified to meet the requirements of this

RFP. Major criteria to be considered in the evaluation may include, but shall not necessarily be limited to, the items referred to in the Scope of Work above, and those criteria set forth below with a maximum of one hundred

(100) points:

Initial Evaluation Description Criteria

Point

Value

1.

Offer’s experience in performing methodologically rigorous evaluations of

Multilingual Learning programs, including documented experience in facilitating focus groups, leading classroom and school observations, leading empathy interviews, conducting and analyzing surveys, communicating with and engaging diverse stakeholder groups, including speakers of other languages, and delivering presentations to School Boards and committees.

2.

Proposal shows extensive depth of knowledge of MLL pedagogical techniques, curriculums, continuous improvement, and strategies to overcome systemic inequities within education as evidenced in documented experience evaluating MLL programs and activities, especially in diverse contexts where multiple models (like IA) are used.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 14

3.

Offer’s documented experience in providing quality data analysis and visualizations that synthesize multiple data sources in easily accessible formats, as shown in sample work such as reports and presentations.

4.

Documented experience building the capacity of district and school leaders to be able to replicate and extend methods to monitor program implementation as part of a continuous improvement cycle.

5.

Whether the Offeror can demonstrate effective project management skills in providing the services and/or deliver the items in a prompt and timely manner to meet deliverable dates.

6.

Offeror’s financial viability and stability

7. Cost Proposal 10

8. Key Personnel 10

The Offeror’s responsiveness and compliance with the RFP requirements and conditions

Pass/Fail

Determination that the selected Offeror has no contractual relationships that result in a conflict of interest with ACPS’s contract

Pass/Fail

Total

SECTION 9. SELECTION PROCESS.

A. Pursuant to Section 2.2-4301 (3)(b) of the Code of Virginia, selection shall be made of two or more Offerors, if there be that many, deemed to be fully qualified and best suited among those submitting proposals on the basis of the evaluation of factors included in this RFP, including price. Negotiations shall be conducted with the Offerors so selected. Price shall be considered, but need not be the sole determining factor. After negotiations have been conducted with each Offeror so selected, ACPS shall select the Offeror which has made the best proposal, and may make a recommendation of award of the contract to the ACPS School Board. ACPS may cancel this RFP or reject proposals at any time prior to an award, and is not required to furnish a statement of the reasons why a particular proposal was not deemed to be the most advantageous. Should ACPS determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one Offeror is fully qualified, or that one Offeror is clearly more highly qualified than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and a recommendation of award be made to the ACPS School Board for that Offeror.

B. All proposals submitted in response to this RFP will be reviewed by the Procurement Office for responsiveness prior to referral to a selection committee or person. Committees consisting of ACPS personnel and/or others will then evaluate all responsive proposals, conduct the negotiations, and make recommendations to the ACPS School Board, as appropriate. The award of a contract, if made, will be made to the Offeror whose proposal best furthers the interest of ACPS, as determined by the ACPS School Board. ACPS reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality or irregularity in the proposals received, and to make the award to the Offeror whose proposal is deemed to be in the best interest of ACPS.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 15

C. Oral Presentation: Offerors who submit a proposal in response to this RFP may be shortlisted and required to give an oral presentation of their proposal to the selection committee. This provides an opportunity for the

Offeror to clarify or elaborate on the proposal. The oral presentation is a fact finding and explanation session only and does not include negotiation. 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.

SECTION 10. COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT.

The procurement of goods and/or services provided for in this Contract is being conducted pursuant to Virginia

Code Section 2.2-4304 and on behalf of other public bodies in Virginia. Unless specifically prohibited by the

Awarded Offeror, any resultant contract may be used by other public bodies in Virginia as allowed by Section

2.2-4304. The Awarded Offeror shall deal directly with each public agency or body seeking to obtain any goods and/or services pursuant to this Contract or from this procurement and in accordance with Virginia Code

Section 2.2-4304. ACPS shall not be responsible or liable for any costs, expenses, or any other matters of any type to either the Contractor or the public agency or body seeking to obtain any goods and/or services pursuant to this cooperative procurement provision.

SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS.

1. Ownership of Material – Ownership of all data, materials, and documentation originated and prepared for ACPS pursuant to the RFP shall belong exclusively to ACPS and be subject to public inspection in accordance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Trade secrets or proprietary information submitted by the Offeror shall not be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information

Act, unless otherwise required by law or a court. However, the Offeror must invoke the protection of Section 2.24342(F) of the Code of Virginia, in writing, either before or at the time the data or other material is submitted. The written notice must SPECIFICALLY identify the data or materials to be protected and state the reason why protection is necessary. The proprietary or trade secret material submitted must be identified by some distinct method such as highlighting or underlining and must indicate only the specific words, figures, or paragraphs that constitute trade secret or proprietary information. The classification of an entire proposal document, line item prices, and/or total proposal prices as proprietary, or trade secrets, is NOT ACCEPTABLE and may result in REJECTION of the proposal.

2. As this is an RFP, no information regarding the proposal records or the contents of responses will be released except in accordance with Section 2.2-4342 of the Code of Virginia. Once an award has been made, all proposals will be open to public inspection subject to the provisions set forth above.

3. Any interpretation, correction, or change of the RFP will be made by an addendum. Interpretations, corrections or changes of this RFP made in any other manner will not be binding and Offerors must not rely upon such interpretations, corrections, or changes. The ACPS Procurement office will issue all

Addenda.

4. No Offeror shall confer on any School system employee having official responsibility for a procurement transaction, any payment, loan, subscription, advance, deposit or money, service, or anything of more than nominal value, present or promised, unless consideration of substantially equal or greater value is exchanged.

5. ACPS may make investigations to determine the ability of the Offeror to perform or supply the services and/or items as described in this RFP. ACPS reserves the right to reject any proposal if the Offeror fails to satisfy ACPS that it is qualified to carry out the obligations of the proposed contract.

6. The Successful Offeror must comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of Virginia Code Section

2.2-4311, which are incorporated herein by reference.

7. The Successful Offeror must comply with the drug-free workplace provisions of Virginia Code Section

2.2-4312, which are incorporated herein by reference.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 16

8. It is the policy of ACPS to maximize participation by minority and women owned business enterprises in all aspects of ACPS contracting opportunities.

9. The Successful Offeror shall comply with all applicable City, State, and Federal laws, codes, provisions, and regulations. The Successful Offeror shall not during the performance of any resultant contract knowingly employ an unauthorized alien as defined in the federal Immigration Reform and

Control Act of 1986.

10. Providers of any outside services shall be subject to the same conditions and requirements as the successful Offeror in regards to law, code, or regulation compliance. ACPS reserves the right of approval for any subcontract work, including costs thereof.

11. Ethics in Public Contracting. The provisions, requirements, and prohibitions as contained in Sections

2.2-4367 through 2.2-4377, of the Virginia Code, pertaining to bidders, offerors, vendors, and subvendors are applicable to this RFP.

12. Conflict of Interests Act. The provisions, requirements, and prohibitions as contained in Sections 2.2-

3100, et seq., of the Virginia Code are applicable to this RFP.

13. The procurement provisions of the Code of Virginia (1979), as amended, Sections 23.21, et seq., as well as the ACPS Procurement Manual, apply to this RFP, unless specifically modified herein. The

ACPS Procurement Manual can be reviewed at the Procurement office.

14. Insurance Requirements: Successful Offeror, and any of its subvendors, shall, at its sole expense, obtain and maintain during the life of the resulting Contract the insurance policies and/or bonds required. Any required insurance policies and/or bonds shall be effective prior to the beginning of any work or other performance by successful Offeror, or any of its subvendors, under any resultant Contract. All such insurance shall be primary and noncontributory to any insurance or self-insurance ACPS may have.

The policies and coverages required are those as may be referred to in the sample contract and/or the terms and conditions attached to this RFP.

SECTION 12. FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

Each Offeror may be asked to submit its most recent independent certified public accountant’s audit of its finances, including the management letter other ancillary audit components. In instances where a management letter was not prepared as an audit function the Offeror must submit a written statement with its response certifying its absence. Failure to submit a financial statement when requested by ACPS shall be grounds for immediate rejection of the response. If the financial statement is not for the identical organization submitting the proposal, a written explanation must be attached that explains the relationship and financial responsibility of the organization whose financial statement is provided (e.g., parent-subsidiary).

SECTION 13. QUALIFICATION OF OFFEROR.

Each Offeror may be required, before the award of any contract, to show to the complete satisfaction of the

Director of Procurement that it has the necessary facilities, ability, and financial resources to comply with the contract and furnish the service, material or goods specified herein in a satisfactory manner. Each Offeror may also be required to provide past history and references which will enable the Director of Procurement to be satisfied as to the Offeror’s qualifications, Failure to qualify according to the foregoing requirements will justify rejection by ACPS of a proposal of the respective Offeror.

SECTION 14. PROTESTS.

Any Offeror who wishes to protest or object to any award made or other decisions pursuant to this RFP may do so only in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2.2-4357, 4358, 4359, 4360, 4363, and 4364 of the Code of Virginia, and only if such is provided for in such Code section. Any such protest or objection must be in writing signed by a representative of the entity making the protest or objection and contain the information required by the applicable Code Sections set forth above. Such writing must be delivered to ACPS Director of

Procurement & General Services within the required time period.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 17

SECTION 15. INFORMATION ON CONTRACT TO BE AWARDED.

The Sample Contract marked as Attachment A to RFP No. 122964 contains terms and conditions that ACPS plans to include in any contract that may be awarded, but such terms and conditions may be changed, added to, deleted, or modified as may be agreed to between ACPS and the Offeror during negotiations. However, if an

Offeror has any objections to any of the terms or conditions set forth in the Sample Contract or any changes or additions thereto that the Offeror wants to discuss during negotiations, the Offeror should set forth such objections, changes, or additions in such Offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this RFP.

Otherwise, submission of a proposal by an Offeror will obligate such Offeror, if it is the Successful Offeror, to enter into a contract containing the same or substantially similar terms and conditions as contained in such

Sample Contract. Other terms and conditions, if necessary, will be negotiated with the Successful Offeror.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 18

ATTACHMENT A

ACPS Sample Contract

ALEXANDRIA CITY SCHOOL BOARD

dba ALEXANDRIA CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

And

FOR THE PROVISION OF

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER PROGRAM EVALUATION SERVICES

This Agreement (hereinafter “Agreement”) is made by and between the Alexandria City School Board dba

Alexandria City Public Schools (hereinafter referred to as “ACPS”), a public entity and/or political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia with offices located at 1340 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; and __________________________________ (hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”) with offices located at ______________________________. For the purposes of this Agreement, Alexandria

City School Board (“ACSB”) and Alexandria City Public Schools (“ACPS”) may be used interchangeably.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, ACPS Procurement Office through a Request for Proposal process, as defined and authorized in the Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA), Code of Virginia § 2.2-4300 et seq., solicited and received proposals from the offerors for English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services, RFP 122964(“Request for Proposals”);

WHEREAS, _____________, in response to the Request for Proposals, the Consultant submitted a proposal for the provision of English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services; and

WHEREAS, on ______________, the Consultant was selected by ACPS Literacy Department, subject to the terms and provisions in the Request for Proposals and this Agreement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing and the following covenants, warranties and agreements of the parties hereto, as are hereinafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged by each party hereto, the parties agree as follows:

RFP 122964: English Language Learner Program Evaluation Services 19

1. AGREEMENT DOCUMENTS

The Agreement Documents are comprised of the following:

a This Agreement;

b Exhibit A – Consultant’s Technical and Cost Proposal c Terms of Use Agreement d RFP No. 122964 is incorporated herein by reference;

Where the terms and provisions of this Contract vary from the terms and provisions of other Agreement

Documents, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall prevail over the other Agreement

Documents and the remaining Agreement Documents are complementary to each other and if there are any conflicts the most stringent term or provision shall prevail.

The Agreement Documents set forth the entire Contract between ACPS and the Consultant. ACPS and the Consultant agree that no representative or agent of them has made any representation or promise with respect to the parties’ agreement which is not contained in the Agreement Documents.

2. SCOPE OF WORK

The Consultant agrees to perform services described in the Agreement Documents (alternatively, the

“Work”). The primary purpose of the Work is to provide English Language Learner Program Evaluation

Services through an inquiry-based, hands-on approach, which is fully described in Exhibit A. The

Agreement Documents set forth the minimum Work estimated by ACPS and the Consultant shall be responsible, at the Consultant’s sole cost, to provide the specific services set forth in the Agreement

Documents and sufficient services to fulfill the purposes of the Work. ACPS shall contact the vendor and provide an overview of the services to be performed, in turn the Consultant shall provide ACPS with a detailed approach and pricing at the time of such request, based on services and scope of the RFP and the

Consultants response to the RFP. Nothing in the Agreement Documents shall be construed to limit the

Consultant’s responsibility to manage the details of its Work.

3. CONTRACTING OFFICER TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (COTR)

The performance of the Consultant is subject to the general review and approval of Contracting Officer

(“COTR”) who shall be appointed by the Alexandria City School Board. However, it shall be the responsibility of the Consultant to manage the details of the execution and performance of its work pursuant to the Agreement Documents.

4. STANDARD OF CARE

In the performance or furnishing of services hereunder, the Consultant and all its agents, shall exercise the degree of skills and care normally accepted as professional practices and procedures by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locality (“Customary Standards of Care”) of its Work under this Contract.

5. RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES

ACPS’s review, approval, or acceptance of, or payment for, any services required under this Agreement shall not be construed to operate as a waiver by ACPS of any rights or any cause of action arising out of the Agreement. The Consultant shall be and remains liable to ACPS for the professional quality of the services required under this Agreement within the Customary Standards of Care.

RFP 122964: English Language Learner…