rfp-nhed-bis-2027-01.pdf

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Division of Learner Support Bureau of Instructional Support

25 Hall Street

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

Comprehensive Support and Improvement - School-Level Comprehensive Needs Assessment and School Improvement

Planning

RFP NHED-BIS-2027-01

The New Hampshire Department of Education does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, marital status, national/ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or disability in its programs, activities and employment practices. This statement is a reflection of the Department of Education and refers to, but is not limited to, the provisions of the following laws: Title IV, VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-race color, national origin, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)-sex, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)-disability, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)-disability, and NH Law against discrimination (RSA 354-A).Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.

Auxiliary aids and services are available upon request to individuals with disabilities.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents SECTION 1 – Overview and Schedule

A. Executive Summary

B. Schedule

C. Description of Agency or Program issuing the Request for Proposals

D. Vendor Instructions

SECTION 2 – Requirements and Scope of Work

SECTION 3 -- Contract Terms and Conditions

A. Non-Exclusive Contract

B. Award

C. Standard Contract Terms

SECTION 4 –Request for Proposal Process

A. Department Point of Contact/Restriction of Contact with Department Employees

B. Vendor Inquiries

SECTION 5 – RFP Terms and Conditions

A. Debarment

B. Proposal Preparation Cost

C. Validity of Proposal

D. RFP Addendum

E. Non-Collusion

F. Property of the Department

G. Proposal Confidentiality

H. Public Disclosure

I. Electronic Posting of RFP Results and Resulting Contract

J. Non-Commitment

K. Ethical Requirements

L. Challenges to Identification of Selected Vendor

SECTION 6 – Evaluation of Proposals

A. Criteria for Evaluation and Scoring

B. Planned Evaluations Steps

Step 1: Initial Screening

Step 2: Preliminary Technical Scoring of Proposals

Step 3: Final Technical Scoring of Proposals

D. Final Selection

E. Rights of the Department in Accepting and Evaluating Proposals

SECTION 7 – Process for Submitting a Proposal

A. Proposal Submission, Deadline, and Location Instructions

SECTION 8 – Proposal Content and Requirements

SECTION 1 – Overview and Schedule

A. Executive Summary

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.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to implement a federal accountability system and identify schools needing the most support. Identification of CSI schools takes place once every three (3) years based on the following criteria:

• Lowest performing 5% of Title I, Part A schools (ESSA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I));

• High schools, regardless of Title I, Part A status, with graduation rates at or below

67% (ESSA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(II)); OR

• Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI) Title I, Part A schools that do not meet the statewide exit criteria for ATSI schools within six (6) years (ESSA section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(III)).

ESSA, Title I, Part A Section 1003(b)(1)(A), allows the State Educational Agency (SEA) to allocate not less than 95 percent of 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.

The Department will provide CSI schools with subawards for three (3) years in accordance with ESSA Section 1003(b) to carry out the below activities –

• Year 1 School-Level Comprehensive Needs Assessment and School Improvement Planning – School Year 2026-2027

• Year 2 Plan Implementation – School Year 2027-2028

• Year 3 Realign Improvement Plans and Assess Outcomes – School Year 2028-2029

The Department will issue subawards in years two (2) and three (3) to the CSI schools to carry out their responsibilities under ESSA Section 1111(d) to support the implementation of their established improvement plans.

The resulting contract will be a Firm Fixed Price per Unit (School) performance-based contract through December 2027, 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 at the sole option of the Department, subject to the parties’ prior written agreement and required governmental approvals including Governor and Executive Council.

B. Schedule

The following table provides a Schedule of Events for this RFP through contract finalization and approval. The Department reserves the right to amend this Schedule at its sole discretion and at any time through a published Addendum.

EVENT DATE LOCAL TIME

RFP Released (Advertisement) July 17, 2026 Vendor Inquiry Period Ends July 31, 2026 3:00 PM EST Final Department Responses to Inquiries August 5, 2026 3:00 PM EST Proposal Due September 4, 2026 2:30 PM EST Estimated Notification of Selection September 25, 2026

C. Description of Agency or Program issuing the Request for Proposals

The Department’s Federal Accountability system identifies CSI schools on a three-year cycle. After identification, the Department’s Division of Learner Support, Bureau of Instructional Support, begins supporting schools through a structured improvement process designed to help them exit CSI status within three (3) years. An overview of the Department’s three-year CSI school improvement cycle includes:

Year 1 - Needs Assessment and Planning Year - During Year 1, the Department, in partnership with the selected vendor, focuses on providing technical assistance and support related to:

• Conducting a school-level comprehensive needs assessment;

• Developing the CSI School Improvement Plan (SIP); and

• Supporting the application for Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement grant funding, if the LEA elects to apply.

The goal in Year 1 is to establish a clear, data-informed improvement plan aligned to identified needs and improvement priorities.

Year 2 – Implementation and Evaluation - During Year 2, the Department provides technical assistance and ongoing support to ensure successful implementation of the approved CSI SIP. The Department monitors:

• Implementation of strategies and action items outlined in the CSI SIP;

• Timely and appropriate use of Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement funds; and

• Stakeholder engagement in the annual review of the CSI SIP.

Efforts are designed to support and inform necessary revisions and updates to the CSI SIP, which are submitted to the Department for review and approval at the end of Year 2.

Year 3 – Assess Outcomes and Realign Plans as Needed - During Year 3, The Department continues to support and monitor implementation of the approved CSI SIP and use of Title I, Part A 1003 funds. The Department also:

• Debriefs with school and LEA leaders regarding implementation, outcomes, and use of grant funds; and

• Reviews the results of a LEA Self-Assessment Rubric;

• Assesses readiness to sustain strategies, action items, and academic gains beyond the three-year cycle.

The goal of these activities is to evaluate the effectiveness of CSI SIP implementation, inform sustainability planning, and determine readiness for exiting from CSI or continued improvement support statuses.

In this RFP, “Department” means the New Hampshire Department of Education. "Vendor" means a person or entity who offers products or services for sale. "Selected vendor" means the qualified Bidder which has been identified by the Department as having received the best score for its proposal according to the criteria set forth in this RFP.

D. Vendor Instructions

Interested vendors must read the entire RFP and submit the required documents in the manner specified in the RFP. Vendors are responsible for reviewing the most updated information related to this RFP before submitting proposals.

SECTION 2 – Requirements and Scope of Work

The selected Vendor shall provide the following services to support the New Hampshire Department of Education (Department), Bureau of Instructional Support (BIS), in providing services for Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) schools through contracted services with expertise in conducting school-level comprehensive needs assessment and school improvement planning. 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.

Master Deliverables and Milestones Table Phase / Priority

Milestone / Activity Specific Vendor Deliverable (Artifact)

Target Due Date

Phase 1:

Project Kickoff

Project Alignment and Planning

Deliverable 1.1: Comprehensive Project Schedule and Work Plan for each participating LEA

Within 15 days of contract approval

Phase 2:

Priority 1 and 3

School-Level Needs Assessments and Diagnostic Reviews

Deliverable 2.1: Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School

Deliverable 2.2: Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school (if applicable)

February 2027

Phase 3:

Priority 2

School Improvement Planning Support

Deliverable 3.1: Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review

Deliverable 3.2: Monthly Meeting Logs, Attendance Records, and Facilitation Artifacts.

June 2027 (SIPs due); Monthly (Logs)

Phase 4:

Priority 2 and 4

Implementation Monitoring and Reporting

Deliverable 4.1: Quarterly Implementation Status Reports

Deliverable 4.2: Fall Site Visit Participation Logs and Joint Review Documentation

July – December (Quarterly/Post-visits)

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 multiple vendors to provide all or a portion of the services under this RFP.

Priority 1 – School-level Comprehensive Needs Assessment

Deliverable 2.1: Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School

Should a LEA elect to receive vendor support, the vendor must assist the school(s) identified for CSI, by conducting a school-level comprehensive needs assessment to inform the selection of interventions, and the development and implementation of the CSI SIP tailored to the schools’ particular needs.

The school-level comprehensive needs assessment process will begin as soon as identification takes place in Fall 2026. Following identification of CSI schools, LEA’s will have an option to partake in the vendor’s school-level comprehensive needs assessment process by relinquishing a portion of their Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement subaward for vendor support or to retain their funds and conduct the school-level comprehensive needs assessment(s) on their own. Completed school-level comprehensive needs assessments will be due by February 2027 for the LEA to utilize the results when applying for year one (1) of their Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement subaward.

The school-level comprehensive needs assessment must be inclusive and representative of all students and for each student group, as appropriate:

1. Academic achievement and growth data from statewide assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, and any other subject the State includes in the statewide assessment system;

2. The school’s performance measured against the State’s long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for Academic Achievement, Graduation Rate, and Programs in Achieving English Language Proficiency (ELP);

3. Data from each indicator in the statewide accountability system;

4. The school’s needs, with respect to:

a. School leadership and instructional staff, such as:

i. Teacher and school leader certifications, licenses, student access to fully certified and in-field teachers;

ii. Teacher and school leader experience, including student access to experienced teacher and leaders;

iii. Educator and school staff retentions

iv. Time provided for evidence-based professional development, including principal and teacher opportunities for professional development, professional learning communities, access to math, literacy, or other coaches, support for and the percentage of teachers who are nationally board certified;

v. Working conditions, inducing planning time, career ladder and leadership opportunities;

b. Chronic absenteeism

c. Students access to high-quality, research-backed instructional practices

d. Breadth, quality, and rigor of the instructional program and access to well-rounded education, including student access to and completion of advanced coursework including Advanced Placement (AP), International Baccalaureate (IB), dual enrollment, and early college programs;

e. Students access to and participation in high-quality career and technical education (CTE), and work-based or service-learning programs;

f. Student access to afterschool, expanded, and summer learning and enrichment programs;

g. Student access to and participation in high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten programs;

h. Student access to school-based mental health professionals and other services provided to students and families;

i. School climate and environment, including school discipline policies; and

j. Distribution of resources (i.e. based on the States’s periodic review of resources under ESEA section 1 1 1 1; d);3);A);ii)).

5. A community’s needs and assets in a similar manner to a needs assessment for full-service community schools in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a school or LEA to inform improvement.

Priority 2 – School Improvement Planning and Support

Deliverable 3.1: Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review Deliverable 3.2: Monthly Meeting Logs, Attendance Records, and Facilitation Artifacts Deliverable 4.1: Quarterly Implementation Status Reports

Following the completion of the school’s comprehensive needs assessment, along with the results of the Department’s Resource Allocation Review, the vendor must assist the LEAs who have elected to participate in vendor services, with their improvement planning.

In February 2027, following the LEA’s application for year one (1) of their Title I, Part A 1003 school improvement grant subaward, LEAs are required to begin developing a CSI SIP. The LEA’s who opted-in to vendor services will also be given support from the vendor during the planning process. All LEAs with CSI schools, are required to have an approved school-level CSI SIP on file with the Department by June 2027, for implementation to begin in year two

(2) of the schools’ CSI designation starting July 2027.

Each LEA must use the results of the school-level comprehensive needs assessment, along with the Department’s Resource Allocation Review, to develop and implement a CSI SIP, in partnership with stakeholders (including principals and other school leaders, teachers, parents) to improve student outcomes that:

• Is informed by all indicators in the statewide accountability system, including student performance against State-determined long-term goals;

• Includes one or more evidence-based intervention(s);

• Is based on results of a school-level comprehensive needs assessment; and

• Identifies and addresses resource inequities, which may include a review of LEA and school-level budgeting, to be addressed through implementation of the plan.

CSI SIPs need to describe how the LEA and school will conduct periodic reviews of data, including student outcomes, student educational and other opportunities, funding and resources, community input, and other feedback, to continuously improve implementation of the CSI plan.

The vendor will facilitate structured, data-informed decision-making meetings with LEAs and schools monthly from November 2026 through June 2027, then shift to quarterly through December 2027. LEAs/schools requiring additional support may continue monthly meetings through Summer 2027 and into the start of the 2027–2028 school year, as determined in collaboration with the Department. The vendor will also participate in meetings with the Department and LEAs/schools, including participation in the Department monitoring site visits in Fall 2027.

Priority 3 - More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report & Interventions

Deliverable 2.2: Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school (if applicable)

Existing CSI Schools failing to meet the State’s exit criteria during the Fall 2026 identification process will be selected for more rigorous interventions. The LEA, on behalf of their re-identified school(s) must evaluate the implementation of the school’s past improvement plan(s) and compile a Diagnostic Review Report, by February 2027, to provide to the Commissioner of Education, which will then be delivered to the State Board of Education. This Diagnostic Review Report shall include evidence of satisfactory implementation and progress towards State performance targets, or lack thereof, and recommendations regarding future actions.

Should a LEA elect to receive vendor support, the vendor must assist the school(s) re-identified with the development of the Diagnostic Review Report. The vendor must also support the LEA and their CSI school(s) in revising and updating their most recently approved CSI SIP to reflect efforts to improve and/or implement the following:

a. A strategy designed to promote family and community involvement.

b. A school budget that reflects the goals of the improvement plan.

c. The school's curriculum including curricular priorities and instructional materials.

d. Instructional models that incorporate research-based practices that have been proven to be effective in improving student achievement.

e. Formal and informal opportunities to assess and monitor each child's progress.

f. Evidence of data-based decisions.

g. Structural reform strategies that may include schedule, organization, support mechanisms, and resources.

h. Shared leadership structure to support school improvement.

i. Professional development that is aligned with school improvement goals.

j. External support and resources based on their effectiveness and alignment with the school improvement plan.

k. Extended learning activities for students.

Priority 4 – Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department

Deliverable 1.1: Comprehensive Project Schedule and Work Plan for each participating LEA Deliverable 4.2: Fall Site Visit Participation Logs and Joint Review Documentation

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.

The vendor shall demonstrate the capacity to implement a comprehensive communication framework that includes, but is not limited to, the following requirements:

1. Governance and Coordination Structure The vendor must designate a primary project lead and point of contact responsible for coordination with the Department. The vendor shall:

o Participate in regular coordination meetings with the Department staff, at a minimum monthly during active phases of needs assessment and improvement planning, and quarterly during implementation phases unless otherwise directed by the Department;

o Attend additional meetings as requested by the Department, including meetings with LEAs, CSI schools, or State leadership;

o Collaborate with the Department to align vendor support with State guidance, accountability requirements, and timelines.

2. Communication during school-level Comprehensive Needs Assessment During the Fall 2026–February 2027 comprehensive needs assessment period, the vendor must:

o Provide the Department with a written project timeline for each participating

LEA;

o Submit periodic status updates outlining progress, emerging findings, risks, and mitigation strategies;

o Immediately notify the Department of any barriers that may affect timely completion or quality of deliverables;

o Provide a summary report of findings prior to finalization to ensure alignment with State accountability indicators and required data elements.

3. Communication during School Improvement Planning During the CSI School Improvement Plan (SIP) development period (February–June 2027), the vendor must:

o Provide structured planning updates to the Department at defined milestones;

o Ensure that draft CSI SIPs are reviewed internally for compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements prior to LEA submission;

o Participate in joint review sessions with the Department when requested;

o Provide documentation demonstrating that stakeholder engagement requirements have been met.

4. Ongoing Implementation Monitoring and Reporting During the Summer of 2027 through the Fall of 2027, for LEAs receiving vendor support during implementation:

o The vendor must provide periodic implementation status reports to the Department summarizing progress toward performance targets, fidelity of implementation of evidence-based interventions, resource alignment, and identified challenges;

o Reports must include both qualitative and quantitative data aligned to statewide accountability indicators;

o The vendor must support data-informed decision-making discussions with the Department and LEAs through structured review meetings, including but not limited to the Department monitoring site visits in Fall 2027.

5. More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Reporting and Intervention Coordination If a CSI school enters the More Rigorous Diagnostic Review process, during the Fall 2026–February 2027:

o The vendor must collaborate directly with the Department in the development of the More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report;

o Provide draft reports for the Department to review prior to submission to the Commissioner and State Board of Education;

o Participate in briefings or presentations to the Department leadership and the State Board of Education, as requested;

o Maintain documentation evidencing implementation, progress monitoring, and recommendations.

6. Documentation and Record Retention The vendor must maintain complete and organized documentation of:

o Meeting agendas and summaries, o Attendance records, o Deliverables submitted, o Data analyses conducted, o Recommendations provided to LEAs and the Department.

All documentation shall be made available to the Department upon request and retained in accordance with State and federal recordkeeping requirements.

7. Responsiveness and Timeliness The vendor must demonstrate the ability to respond to the Department communications within two (2) business days unless otherwise specified and adhere strictly to all established timelines. Failure to maintain consistent communication and reporting may result in corrective action or termination of services.

Priority 5 – Budget Proposal

The resulting contract will be a Firm Fixed Price per Unit (School) performance-based contract through December 2027, from the date of approval of the Governor and Executive Council. Vendors must submit a detailed budget proposal that reflects a performance-based, milestone-driven payment structure tied directly to the successful completion of defined services and deliverables. Proposals that do not include an outcome-based payment model as described below will be deemed non-compliant and disqualified from further consideration. Services may need to be delivered for up to 30 schools.

1. Milestone-Driven Payment Structure The vendor’s budget must clearly align payment requests to specific, measurable deliverables associated with each phase of service, including:

o Completion of school-level comprehensive needs assessments;

o Submission of finalized school-level comprehensive needs assessment reports;

o Development and submission of CSI SIPs;

o Completion of More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Reports, if applicable.

Payments shall be contingent upon the Department’s review and formal acceptance of each deliverable. All deliverables must be submitted to the Bureau of Instructional Support Point of Contact. Payments will only be issued upon formal written sign-off and technical acceptance of each deliverable by the Department, verifying compliance with ESSA and State accountability standards. Advance payments for services not yet rendered will not be permitted unless otherwise authorized by the Department.

2. Deliverable-Based Compensation The budget must:

o Clearly itemize each deliverable and its associated cost;

o Include a description of the methodology used to determine pricing;

o Identify the personnel roles and level of effort associated with each deliverable.

Costs must directly correspond to defined activities within the scope of work and reflect proportional payment for services successfully completed.

4. Fiscal Accountability and Documentation The vendor must maintain documentation sufficient to support all invoiced amounts, including:

o Evidence of completed services;

o Attendance logs and meeting documentation;

o Submitted reports and deliverables;

o Time and effort records for personnel charged to the contract.

Invoices must include a description of completed milestones and reference the associated deliverables. The Department reserves the right to withhold payment for incomplete, deficient, or late deliverables.

SECTION 3 -- Contract Terms and Conditions

A. Non-Exclusive Contract

Any resulting Contract from this RFP will be a non-exclusive Contract. The Department reserves the right, at its discretion, to retain other contractors to provide any of the services or deliverables identified in this RFP or make an award by item, part or portion of an item, group of items, or total Proposal.

B. Award

If the Department decides to award a contract as a result of this RFP process, any award is contingent upon approval of the contract by the Governor and Executive Council of the State of New Hampshire and upon continued appropriation of funding for the contract.

C. Standard Contract Terms

The Department will require the selected vendor to execute a contract using the Standard Terms and Conditions of the State of New Hampshire (Form P-37) which is attached as Appendix A. In no event is a vendor to submit its own standard contract terms and conditions as a replacement for the State’s terms in response to this solicitation.

The terms of this RFP and the selected vendor’s Proposal will be used to form the terms of any resulting contract. The resulting contract may incorporate some or all of the selected vendor’s Proposal. References in the P-37 to Exhibits A, B and C are references to the required structure of any resulting contract (Exhibit A – Special Provisions/Amendments to the P-37, Exhibit B – Scope of Services, and Exhibit C – Payment Terms) and are not references to sections of this RFP.

To the extent that a vendor believes that exceptions to the contract terms in Appendix A will be necessary for the vendor to enter into the contract, the vendor must note those issues during the Vendor Inquiry Period, as further described Section 4B.

SECTION 4 –Request for Proposal Process

A. Department Point of Contact/Restriction of Contact with Department Employees

The sole point of contact for this RFP, from the RFP issue date until the approval of the resulting contract by the Governor and Executive Council is:

Corbett Coutts, School Improvement Manager Mobile: 603-892-5743 Email: corbett.coutts@doe.nh.gov

From the date of release of this RFP until an award is made and announced regarding the selection of a vendor, all communication with personnel employed by or under contract with the Department regarding this RFP is prohibited unless first approved by the RFP Sole Point of Contact. Department employees have been directed not to hold conferences and/or discussions concerning this RFP with any potential contractor during the selection process, unless otherwise authorized by the RFP Sole Point of Contact. Vendors may be disqualified for violating this restriction on communications.

B. Vendor Inquiries

All inquiries concerning this RFP, including but not limited to, requests for clarifications, questions, any changes to the RFP, and any exceptions to the contract terms in Appendix A (Form P-37), shall be submitted via email to the Department Point of Contact specified above. Inquiries must be received by the end of vendor inquiry period (see Schedule of Events herein).

The vendor must identify the RFP name and the number and include the vendor’s name, telephone number, and e-mail address.

Responses to questions will be published in the form of an RFP Addendum that will be posted to the State and Department websites on or before the date specified in the Schedule of Events; however, this date is subject to change at the Department’s discretion. The Department may consolidate and/or paraphrase questions for sufficiency and clarity. The Department may, at its discretion, amend this RFP on its own initiative or in response to issues raised by inquiries, as it deems appropriate. In response to requested exceptions to P-37, the Department will review requested exceptions and accept, reject or note that it is open to negotiation of the proposed exception at its sole discretion. Questions about or requested exceptions to the RFP, Form P-37 and/or any relevant attachments not raised during the inquiry period are waived. Oral statements, representations, clarifications, or modifications concerning the RFP shall not be binding upon the Department. Official responses by the Department will be made only mailto:corbett.coutts@doe.nh.gov in writing by the process described above. Vendors shall be responsible for reviewing the most updated information related to this RFP before submitting a proposal.

SECTION 5 – RFP Terms and Conditions

A. Debarment

Vendors who are ineligible to bid on proposals, bids or quotes issued by the Department of Administrative Services, Division of Procurement and Support Services pursuant to the provisions of RSA 21-I:11-c shall not be considered eligible for an award under this RFP.

B. Proposal Preparation Cost

By submitting a proposal, a vendor agrees that in no event shall the Department be either responsible for or held liable for any costs incurred by a vendor in the preparation of or in connection with the Proposal, or for work performed prior to the Effective Date of a resulting Contract.

C. Validity of Proposal

Proposals must be valid for one hundred and eighty (180) days following the deadline for submission of Proposals in Schedule of Events, or until the Effective Date of any resulting Contract, whichever is later.

D. RFP Addendum

The Department reserves the right to amend this RFP at its discretion, prior to the Proposal submission deadline. In the event of an addendum to this RFP, the Department, at its sole discretion, may extend the Proposal submission deadline, as it deems appropriate.

E. Non-Collusion

The vendor’s signature on a Proposal submitted in response to this RFP guarantees that the prices, terms and conditions, and work quoted have been established without collusion with other Vendors and without effort to preclude the Department from obtaining the best possible competitive Proposal.

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.

G. Proposal Confidentiality

Unless necessary for the approval of a contract, the substance of a proposal must remain confidential until the Effective Date of any Contract resulting from this RFP. A vendor’s disclosure or distribution of Proposals other than to the Department may be grounds for disqualification.

H. Public Disclosure

The information submitted in response to this RFP (including all materials submitted in connection with it, such as attachments, exhibits, addenda, and presentations), any resulting contract, and information provided during the contractual relationship may be subject to public disclosure under Right-to-Know law, including RSA 91-A. In addition, in accordance with RSA 9-F:1, any contract entered into as a result of this RFP will be made accessible to the public online via the website Transparent NH (http://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/).

Confidential, commercial or financial information may be exempt from public disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV. If a vendor believes any information submitted in response to this RFP should be kept confidential, the vendor must specifically identify that information where it appears in the submission in a manner that draws attention to the designation and must mark/stamp each page of the materials that the vendor claims must be exempt from disclosure as “CONFIDENTIAL.” Vendors must also provide a letter to the person listed as the point of contact for this RFP, identifying the specific page number and section of the information you consider to be confidential, commercial or financial and providing your rationale for each designation. Marking or designating an entire proposal, attachment or section as confidential shall neither be accepted nor honored by the State. Vendors must also provide a separate copy of the full and complete document, fully redacting those portions and shall note on the applicable page or pages that the redacted portion or portions are “confidential.”

Submissions which do not conform to these instructions by failing to include a redacted copy (if necessary), by failing to include a letter specifying the rationale for each redaction, by failing to designate the redactions in the manner required by these instructions, or by including redactions which are contrary to these instructions or operative law may be rejected by the State as not conforming to the requirements of the proposal.

Pricing, which includes but is not limited to, the administrative costs and other performance guarantees in Proposals or any subsequently awarded contract shall be subject to public disclosure regardless of whether it is marked as confidential.

Notwithstanding a vendor’s designations, the State is obligated under the Right-to-Know law to conduct an independent analysis of the confidentiality of the information submitted in a proposal. If a request is made to the State to view or receive copies of any portion of the proposal, the State shall first assess what information it is obligated to release. The http://www.nh.gov/transparentnh/

State will then notify you that a request has been made, indicate what, if any, information the State has assessed is confidential and will not be released, and specify the planned release date of the remaining portions of the proposal. To halt the release of information by the State, a vendor must initiate and provide to the State, prior to the date specified in the notice, a court action in the Superior Court of the State of New Hampshire, at its sole expense, seeking to enjoin the release of the requested information.

By submitting a proposal, vendors acknowledge and agree that:

• The State may disclose any and all portions of the proposal or related materials which are not marked as confidential and/or which have not been specifically explained in the letter to the person identified as the point of contact for this RFP;

• The State is not obligated to comply with a vendor’s designations regarding confidentiality and must conduct an independent analysis to assess the confidentiality of the information submitted in your proposal; and

• The State may, unless otherwise prohibited by court order, release the information on the date specified in the notice described above without any liability to a vendor.

I. Electronic Posting of RFP Results and Resulting Contract

At the time of receipt of proposals, the Department will post the number of responses received with no further information. No later than five (5) business days prior to submission of a contract to the Department of Administrative Services, the Department will post the ranks or scores of each responding vendor. In the event that the contract does not require Governor & Executive Council approval, the Department will disclose the rank or score at least 5 business days before final approval of the contract.

Pursuant to RSA 91-A and RSA 9-F:1, the Secretary of State will post to the public any document submitted to G&C for approval, including contracts resulting from this RFP, and posts those documents on its website (https://sos.nh.gov/administration/miscellaneous/governor-executive-council/). By submitting a proposal, vendors acknowledge and agree that, in accordance with the above mentioned statutes and policies, (and regardless of whether any specific request is made to view any document relating to this RFP), any contract resulting from this RFP that is submitted to G&C for approval will be made accessible to the public online.

J. Non-Commitment

Notwithstanding any other provision of this RFP, this RFP does not commit the Department to award a contract. The Department reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to reject any and all proposals, or any portions thereof, at any time; to cancel this RFP; and to solicit new proposals under a new acquisition process.

K. Ethical Requirements https://sos.nh.gov/administration/miscellaneous/governor-executive-council/

From the time this RFP is published until a contract is awarded, no vendor shall offer or give, directly or indirectly, any gift, expense reimbursement, or honorarium, as defined by RSA 15-B, to any elected official, public official, public employee, constitutional official, or family member of any such official or employee who will or has selected, evaluated, or awarded an RFP, or similar submission. Any vendor that violates RSA 21-G:38 shall be subject to prosecution for an offense under RSA 640:2. Any vendor who has been convicted of an offense based on conduct in violation of this section, which has not been annulled, or who is subject to a pending criminal charge for such an offense, shall be disqualified from bidding on the RFP, or similar request for submission and every such vendor shall be disqualified from bidding on any RFP or similar request for submission issued by any state agency. A vendor that was disqualified under this section because of a pending criminal charge which is subsequently dismissed, results in an acquittal, or is annulled, may notify the department of administrative services, which shall note that information on the list maintained on the state’s internal intranet system, except in the case of annulment, the information, shall be deleted from the list.

L. Challenges to Identification of Selected Vendor

Within 5 business days of the Department’s posting of the rank or score on its website, vendors may, in accordance with RSA 21-G:37, request that the Department review its selection process. The request must be in writing and must specify all points on which the vendor believes the Department erred in its process and shall contain such argument in support of its position as the vendor seeks to present. In its request for review, a vendor shall not submit, and a Department will not accept nor consider, any substantive information that was not included in the original proposal. The Department will respond to the request within 5 business days of its receipt.

SECTION 6 – Evaluation of Proposals

A. Criteria for Evaluation and Scoring

The Department will evaluate each responsive Proposal using a scoring scale of 100 points, which will be distributed as set forth in the table below.

CATEGORIES POINTS

Priority 1 - School-Level Comprehensive Needs Assessment 25 Priority 2 - School Improvement Planning and Support 25 Priority 3 - More Rigorous Diagnostic Review & Intervention Support 25 Priority 4 - Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department 10 Priority 5 - Budget Proposal 15

PROPOSAL MAXIMUM POINTS 100

Scoring Rubric

Instructions: Reviewers scoring each proposal will use this rubric. You may use it as a checklist to assess your proposal prior to submitting it to the Department. The rubric is for your information only. Do not include it with your proposal submission.

Reviewer Name: _________________________________________________ Date Reviewed: _____________________________

Completeness of Proposal:

______Cover Page - Appendix A (P-37)

______ Proposal Response to Scope of Work

______ Budget Proposal

Incomplete proposals will not be scored.

RFP Scoring Rubric

Priority Areas

Priority 1 – School-level Comprehensive Needs Assessment

25 Points 15 Points 5 Points 0 Points Points Awarded

Proposal thoroughly describes 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, and provides 2-3 examples that demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work –

• Conduct school-level comprehensive needs assessments;

• Collect and analyze required data elements;

Proposal thoroughly describes 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, and provides one example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work –

• Conduct school-level comprehensive needs assessments;

• Collect and analyze required data elements;

Proposal does not address how the vendor will accomplish some or all required priority elements, Deliverable 2.1:

Completed Comprehensive Needs Assessment Report for each opting-in CSI School, and does not include an example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work.

Not addressed.

• Engage students, families, educators, LEAs, and community stakeholders;

• Produce reports and recommendations;

and

• Meet all required timelines.

• Engage students, families, educators, LEAs, and community stakeholders;

• Produce reports and recommendations;

and

• Meet all required timelines.

Priority 2 – School Improvement Planning and Support

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 3.1:

Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review, Deliverable 3.2: Monthly Meeting Logs, Attendance Records, and Facilitation Artifacts, Deliverable 4.1:

Quarterly Implementation Status Reports, and provides 2-3 examples that demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work -

• CSI SIP

development;

• Selection of evidence-based interventions;

• Resource inequity analysis;

• Continuous improvement processes; and

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 3.1:

Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review, Deliverable 3.2: Monthly Meeting Logs, Attendance Records, and Facilitation Artifacts, Deliverable 4.1:

Quarterly Implementation Status Reports, and provides one example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work -

• CSI SIP

development;

• Selection of evidence-based interventions;

• Resource inequity analysis;

• Continuous improvement processes; and

Proposal does not address how the vendor will accomplish some or all required priority elements, Deliverable 3.1:

Completed stakeholder-vetted School Improvement Plans (SIPs) ready for Department review, Deliverable 3.2:

Monthly Meeting Logs, Attendance Records, and Facilitation Artifacts, Deliverable 4.1:

Quarterly Implementation Status Reports, and does not include an example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience

• Coaching and technical assistance.

• Coaching and technical assistance.

to accomplish the scope of work.

Priority 3 - More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report & Interventions

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 2.2:

Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school (if applicable), and provides 2-3 examples that demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work –

• Diagnostic review methodology;

• Analysis of prior improvement efforts;

• CSI SIP revision support;

• Evidence-based interventions and structural reforms;

and

• Reporting and presentation of findings.

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 2.2:

Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school (if applicable), and provides one example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work –

• Diagnostic review methodology;

• Analysis of prior improvement efforts;

• CSI SIP revision support;

• Evidence-based interventions and structural reforms;

and

• Reporting and presentation of findings.

Proposal does not address how the vendor will accomplish some or all required priority elements, Deliverable 2.2:

Completed More Rigorous Diagnostic Review Report for each re-identified CSI school (if applicable), and does not include an example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish

Priority 4 – Communications, Coordination, and Reporting with the Department

10 Points 5 Points 2 Points 0 Points Points

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 1.1:

Comprehensive Project Schedule and Work Plan

Proposal thoroughly describes how the vendor will accomplish all required elements of the priority, Deliverable 1.1:

Comprehensive Project Schedule and Work Plan

Proposal does not address how the vendor will accomplish some or all required priority elements, for each participating LEA, Deliverable 4.2: Fall Site Visit Participation Logs and Joint Review Documentation, and provides 2-3 examples that demonstrate the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work-

• Governance structure;

• Communication protocols;

• Reporting framework;

• Coordination with SEA; and

• Documentation procedures.

for each participating LEA, Deliverable 4.2: Fall Site Visit Participation Logs and Joint Review Documentation, and provides one example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish the scope of work-

• Governance structure;

• Communication protocols;

• Reporting framework;

• Coordination with SEA; and

• Documentation procedures

Deliverable 1.1:

Comprehensive Project Schedule and Work Plan for each participating

LEA,

Deliverable 4.2:

Fall Site Visit Participation Logs and Joint Review Documentation, and does not include an example that demonstrates the vendor’s level of expertise and experience to accomplish

Priority 5 – Budget Proposal

15 Points 10 Points 5 Points 0 Points Points

Proposed budget includes

• Align costs to deliverables;

• Include milestone-based payments;

• Demonstrate fiscal accountability;

and

• Explain pricing methodology.

Provides 2–3 examples of managing similar contracts.

Proposed budget includes

• Align costs to deliverables;

• Include milestone-based payments;

• Demonstrate fiscal accountability;

and

• Explain pricing methodology.

Provides 1 example of managing a similar contract.

Limited budget detail/evidence.

Did not provide an example of managing a similar contract.

Budget not provided.

TOTAL [100 Possible Points]

B. Planned Evaluations Steps

The Department plans to use the following process:

• Step 1. Initial screening to ensure that the Proposals are in compliance with submission requirements;

• Step 2. Preliminary evaluation of the Technical Proposals;

• Step 3. Final Scoring of Technical Proposals; and

• Final Selection(s).

Step 1: Initial Screening

The Department will conduct an initial screening to verify vendor compliance with the proposal submission requirements set forth in Sections 4 and 7. The Department may waive or offer a limited opportunity to cure immaterial deviations from the RFP requirements if it is determined to be in the best interest of the State. Any incomplete proposals or proposals that do not meet the submission requirements will not be scored.

Step 2: Preliminary Technical Scoring of Proposals

The Department will establish an evaluation team to review for compliance of the minimum requirements as set forth in Section 2. This evaluation team will then review the technical proposals and give a preliminary score to the technical proposals under the guidelines set forth in Section 6. Should a vendor fail to achieve 45 Points in the preliminary technical scoring, it will receive no further consideration from the evaluation team and the vendor’s price proposal will be returned unopened. Price proposals will not be reviewed by the evaluation team during the preliminary technical review.

Step 3: Final Technical Scoring of Proposals

Following reference checks (if appropriate) and/or review of written clarifications of proposals requested by the Department, the evaluation team…