RFP25RFP14876_QA.pdf

Q&A Document Date: May 28, 2025

Subject: Questions & Answers, 25RFP14876

In accordance with the subject Request for Proposal (RFP), the following are answers to questions which have been submitted prior to 5PM, May 23, 2025. These questions are for informational purposes only; they do not alter the requirements specified within the RFP. Any changes to the RFP will be accomplished by the Office of Procurement Management through an addendum.

*The State's response will be in red font following the Vendor's question.

1. What’s the cadence of meetings with the various essential stakeholders named in the statement of work task 2.1

a. Number of design sessions with state leaders This deliverable would only be as needed at the request of the department.

b. Number of workshops planned none at this moment. This is determined based on need throughout the contract period.

c. Number of improvement reviews or other improvement cycle sessions with individual SSF facilitators Advisors have the autonomy to determine when additional support may be needed with SSFs.

All contracted SSFs have at least 2 years or more of experience so this may be mostly calls and emails with quick questions, brainstorming

2. How frequently should monitor and review sessions (2.2) be scheduled? - i.e., how often is new, actionable process or outcome data available at the SSF or state level? Generally we have reviewed and updated materials annually.

a. Have the SSF staff already engaged in regular improvement cycle reviews? If so, could you let me know how often this happens? Yes, all SSFs have at least 2 years experience or more.

3. Scope item 2.3 states that the consultant would provide direct coaching support to schools. Would this be in collaboration with SSF advisors or as embedded professional development for them? Or will the consultant be assigned to a set of schools or districts besides the coaching and monitoring roles? The Advisor would be assigned a set of schools as well as serving as an advisor.

4. Would the professional development described in scope item 2.4 be associated with workshops for CSI and/or TSI school teams as a part of the workshops named above or in other PD venues? Face to face? Online? Does the RFP expect differentiation in the professional development based on the various needs of schools and districts? - e.g., schools suffering from high staff turnover have different needs (additional root causes that need to be addressed) than those with high staff retention. This deliverable is an orientation/introduction to the School Support Framework and Process. Generally this is conducted in person with a school team. At this point, the school would not have completed a CNA process with the assigned SSF.

5. Is there any scope for creating network learning opportunities between schools with similar goals or those attempting to address similar root causes? If improvement networks are part of the implementation plan, the goals scope item 2.5 (and 2.4) might be more efficient and effective. The state hosts an annual “Boost” for schools in improvement with the intent to connect schools to each other as well as having access to state staff directly.

Deliverable 2.5 is monitoring the implementation of the action plan for each assigned school.

6. Does the financial review (scope item 2.6) engage the SSF advisors, or is this an operational task at the district or state level? With whom would the consultant partner to monitor the use of improvement funds? How often is data available, or is there a regular financial review practice one should align with? This would be applicable for any schools assigned to the Advisor as a Facilitator.

7. Concerning scope item 2.8, is there an existing statewide learning system or collaboration platform that supports stakeholder engagement, or should one expect to rely on email as the primary means of communication? This is at the discretion of the Facilitator. The state does not provide a system or platform at this time.

8. Regarding Items 2.3 and 2.4, could you please clarify whether the selected vendor is expected to directly conduct these activities with the identified schools, or if the expectation is to build the capacity of School Support Facilitators (SSFs) to lead this work? If both are expected, could you please specify the anticipated balance between direct school engagement and SSF capacity-building? The Advisors serve as both an advisor to the SSF and may also be assigned schools to work with as an SSF. The state will work with the consultant on the workload depending on the number of new schools identified for improvement and the availability of the consultant.

9. Is there a needs assessment that you are already using or is part of the RFP for companies to provide a needs assessment for the project? South Dakota has a Needs Assessment that is created as part of the Framework and Process. The materials can be found at https://doe.sd.gov/title/schoolimprovement.aspx https://doe.sd.gov/title/schoolimprovement.aspx

10. Is there a current vendor providing similar services to those described in this RFP? If so, what is the scope of their current work? We currently have 2 consultants that we contract with for this work. Their scope of work aligns directly with the scope included in this RFP.

11. What is the approximate dollar value of the current contract? We currently have 2 active contracts for this work.

One is for $86,150 and the other is $88,798. The amount varies depending on the number of schools the Advisor works with in addition to the work they do as an advisor.

12. How does the current vendor’s scope compare to the scope outlined in this RFP (e.g., broader, narrower, similar)? The current vendor’s scope of work is directly aligned with the scope within this RFP.

13. What is the ideal or anticipated budget range for this contract? The total budget range for this work would be approximately $200,000, depending on the number of schools assigned to support.

14. We noted 39 CSI, 89 TSI, and 5 ATSI schools. What level of support is expected for each designation type? (e.g., differentiated intensity, duration, or frequency) The Advisor would potentially be assigned to support CSI schools directly. The first year would be more intensive as the school completes the CNA. For schools in year 2-4 of designation, the facilitators ensure the created action plan is being implemented with fidelity. The Advisor(s) also support SSFs that support CSI as well as conduct regional CNA workshops throughout the states for TSI/ATSI schools.

15. For tasks outlined in the scope of work, which are expected to be delivered in person versus virtually? This is at the discretion of the parties. Much of the Advisor work may be done virtually. Any support provided to the schools may be more beneficial to be conducted on-site.

16. What support is the consultant expected to deliver directly to schools/school leadership teams vs. through SSFs and SD DOE staff? The Advisors generally support CSI schools as well as serving as an advisor to other SSFs.

You can find more about the roles in our School Success Framework found https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss- Handbook-24.pdf

17. For each task listed in Section 2.1 through 2.9, what role will the SD DOE play? You can find more about the roles in our School Success Framework found https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf

18. Who are the key staff members we would collaborate with on each? The key collaborators would be principals, federal program directors, school staff who serve on the school improvement team, school support facilitators, and DOE. You can find more about the roles in our School Success Framework found https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf

19. Are South Dakota-based staff required for this project? It isn’t a requirement, however we’ve found that work is best if the facilitators can be on-site as much as possible, particularly during the needs assessment work in year 1.

20. What types of data (e.g., SPI indicators, subgroup performance, prior CNA reports) will be made available to the vendor? The schools will give facilitators access to their school level data. The state can provide previous CNA reports.

21. How will this data be accessed or shared (e.g., secure portal, SD-STARS, district-provided)? The school will give facilitators access to their school level data through the state report cards.

22. What would success look like at the end of this contract—from the DOE’s perspective? The DOE would expect regular progress reports with quantitative and qualitative evidence showing movement on key indicators throughout the contract term.

23. Are there any cost parameters for this work that we should be aware of? Not necessarily. We will review each proposal for reasonable proposals.

24. Will the SSFs implement the CNA process in 2025-26? Will the SSFs implement the CNA process in 2026-27 and beyond, or is SD considering using a vendor to conduct the CNAs? SSFs will complete a CNA will any newly designated schools or schools that are redesignated rather than meeting the exit criteria. South Dakota designates CSI schools annually.

25. Do the SSFs support TSI and/or ATSI schools, or only CSI schools? Generally SSFs support CSI schools. We do have a couple SSFs that only facilitate by hosting regional CNA for designated and Title I schools.

26. For each school type (CSI, TSI, ATSI), do they receive only an initial CNA, in the year first identified, or repeated CNAs as long as they are identified? If repeated, do the schools receive a CNA each year or on some other schedule? CSI schools are required to conduct a CNA in the first year of designation as well as year 5 if they fail to exit.

27. Will the CNA process be implemented AS IS in 2025-26, or will work done under Task 2.2 impact the process for 2025-26? Any changes necessary to conduct the CNA in 2025-26 have already been completed.

https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf https://doe.sd.gov/title/documents/ss-Handbook-24.pdf

28. With regards to Tasks 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 how many schools are included in each of these tasks? The state will work with the consultant on the workload depending on the number of new schools identified for improvement and the availability of the consultant.

29. With regards to Tasks 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, will the vendor work directly with SSFs only, or will there be any work directly with schools/school teams? The Advisor would be assigned a set of schools as well as serving as an advisor.

30. With regards to all Tasks, are there specific expectations for providing services in person vs virtually? This is at the discretion of the parties. Much of the Advisor work may be done virtually. Any support provided to the schools may be more beneficial to be conducted on-site.

31. Could you kindly clarify whether the Cost Proposal should be submitted as a separate volume, or whether it may be included within the Technical Proposal? We would like to ensure full compliance with your submission requirements. The cost proposal should be submitted as a separate volume.