rfpaddendum_05092025.docx

Minnesota P-20 Education Partnership Strategic Planning RFP—Addendum #1 SWIFT Event #: 2000016955 Agency: Office of Higher Education Addendum Number: 1 Date of Addendum: 05/09/2025 Title: MNP20 Strategic Planning RFP

SCOPE OF ADDENDUM

The following are changes to the RFP: (1) Sharing vendor questions and State’s answers.

Vision and Strategic Purpose What does long-term success look like for the Minnesota P-20 Partnership by 2031 and how should the next strategy help MNP20 evolve or elevate its role?

The strategic planning process is intended to address this question.

Are there any recent reforms, political dynamics, or sensitivities that should be considered during strategy development?

There is nothing that should impede work in developing the strategic plan.

What major breakthroughs or shifts are needed in the next five years to better align education and workforce outcomes?

The strategic planning process is intended to address this question.

Stakeholder Alignment and Engagement What stakeholder groups will be essential in shaping, approving, and implementing this strategy?

See RFP section 2, number 1 (“summary of scope”).

Will MNP20 members facilitate additional stakeholder input, or will the contractor be responsible for identification and scheduling?

MNP20 staff and the Strategic Planning Task Force will be responsible for additional stakeholder identification. Scheduling of input sessions would be arranged by the MNP20 staff and the vendor jointly. The vendor will be responsible for facilitating input sessions.

How will each of the stakeholder groups mentioned (Executive Director, Executive Committee, Strategic Planning Task Force) be involved from a decision-making perspective? In other words, who will be the ultimate decision-makers on the contents of the plan? Are the others consulted, informed, or otherwise involved?

The Executive Committee will be responsible for approval of the final plan.

Do you already have a vision or estimate for how many stakeholders you hope to engage through stakeholder interviews (asking about the “Gather Input” bullet under Phase 2)?

This is to be determined.

Are there specific stakeholder groups (e.g., tribal nations, rural communities, workforce boards, students, families) that you want prioritized in the engagement activities beyond MNP20’s core membership? How many stakeholders (individuals or organizations) are we expected to engage during the information-gathering phase?

The membership of MNP20 are the primary stakeholders for this work. There are a handful of additional, specific stakeholders who are not MNP20 members that we may engage with as determined by the Executive Director or Executive Committee. The information-gathering phase will primarily consist of MNP20 voting and designee members (approximately 40 people).

How should equity and regional diversity be embedded in both the strategy process and its outcomes?

These are both critical considerations for the project, and this is part of what the strategic planning process is intended to focus on and address.

Priorities, Programs, and Data What measurable outcomes should define the next five years (e.g., student transitions, credential attainment, employer alignment)?

The strategic planning process is intended to address this question. See RFP section 2, number 3 (“deliverables”).

Regarding Phase 3 activities, "develop and draft the specific activities MNP20 will complete under each of the priorities" - will the contractor need to determine the specific activities each participating entity will undertake or only the activities that MNP20 as a whole will undertake?

The vendor will work with the MNP20 Strategic Planning Task Force to develop and draft the specific activities MNP20 as a whole will complete under each of the strategic plan priorities.

On page 6 of the RFP, a desired deliverable is to identify “current trends in P-20 strategic planning by reviewing strategic plans and current initiatives from four to five comparable P-20’s in other states.” Is the requested benchmarking exclusively trying to understand the specific work streams P-20’s are taking on across the country or is it also looking for information about the process P-20’s are using to set their annual implementation priorities?

A. Primarily we are interested in the priority areas of work being taken on in other states to help benchmark our work. MNP20 has relationships with all other existing statewide P-20s and can provide contacts for this work if needed.

On page 6 of the RFP, a desired deliverable is to develop “top-level success metrics that will be used to benchmark and monitor progress of the priorities.” Is it correct that these metrics are primarily internally-facing monitoring metrics that are distinct from (but obviously related to) the Partnership’s efforts to update Minnesota’s legislatively adopted educational attainment goal?

A. Primarily we are interested in the priority areas of work being taken on in other states to help benchmark our work. MNP20 has relationships with all other existing statewide P-20s and can provide contacts for this work if needed.

Do you have an expectation for or an example of the dashboard to detail your ultimate outcomes?

The strategic planning process is intended to address this question.

On page 6 of the RFP, a desired deliverable is to identify “high-impact practices for P-20-type partnerships based on current research and recommendations from the field.” Is this predominately synthesizing existing analyses or is it development of a new analysis from disparate sources of information (detailed report reviews, interviews, etc.)?

This deliverable is a synthesis of existing, publicly-available analyses, reports, or other summaries of high impact practices happening across the country.

For the benchmarking activity, will the State provide access to or facilitate introductions to P-20 entities in other states, or is the responder responsible for identifying contacts independently?

A. MNP20 has these existing relationships and will facilitate introductions.

What is the anticipated relationship between the “Core Activities” in the “MNP20 Theory of Change” and the “Priorities” that will be developed in the new strategic plan?

A. The priorities in the strategic plan should align with the “ultimate outcomes” identified in the Theory of Change. The specific activities that MNP20 will take on in the strategic plan should align with the “Core Activities” in the Theory of Change as well as the commitments on the “Mission, Vision, and Commitments” available on MNP20’s website.

On page 6 of the RFP, a desired deliverable is the development of “specific activities MNP20 will complete under each of the priorities over the five-year period of the plan.” Is it accurate that these “Activities” are a list of the major categories of implementation work that will be needed to achieve EACH priority goal? OR is it a five-year MNP20 implementation plan that prioritizes and sequences implementation work ACROSS the priority areas?

A. The activities are a list of the specific projects that MNP20 will take on over the five years of the plan in order to achieve each of the priorities.

Would the State be willing to consider approaches that complete the core deliverables in an accelerated timeline?

A. Yes.

Governance, Decision Making and Implementation Will the final full plan and summary document be intended primarily for internal use by MNP20 members, or will they be shared publicly with legislators, state agencies, and broader stakeholders?

Both documents may be shared publicly, however the full plan is intended more for internal use while the summary document is intended more for external use.

Participation Have you determined the approximate size of the Strategic Planning Task Force?

No, but it will likely to be a group of approximately 6-8 people.

Would you be interested to break some of the work down into sub-groups with work coming back to the larger group?

This will be determined as needed over the course of the project process.

Is it reasonable that these members will be willing and able to take on tasks in between the more formal strategic planning sessions?

The Task Force may be asked to conduct a minimal level of work outside of meetings, to be directed by the MNP20 staff, however the majority of their work will happen within formal meetings.

How will implementation responsibilities be distributed across member organizations and sectors?

The strategic planning process is intended to address this question.

Question 25. How are MNP20 members used to/comfortable engaging? For gathering feedback on a draft plan, do you anticipate engaging members via multiple methods/modalities or a simple survey?

A. Members are used to engaging in multiple ways, including roundtable discussions and surveys. There may be opportunities to use pre-scheduled partnership meetings for input gathering as well.

Question 26. How many meetings do you anticipate for the strategic planning process? Are there existing gatherings/convenings that a contractor would be able to build upon for meeting with stakeholders?

1. We are looking to the vendor to propose what they think is necessary for the process while attempting to minimize the number of meetings wherever possible. The partnership meets quarterly, and it may be possible to capitalize on those meetings for some of this work.

Budget Clarification & Planning Question 27. What is the total allocated budget range for this engagement?

The total allocated budget for this project is up to $150,000.

Question 28. What is the funding source for this work?

A. This project is fully funded by grant funds from private foundations.

Question 29. Should the proposal include travel, translation, printing, or facilitation costs?

A. See PTRFP attachments, attachment C, “Cost detail.”

Question 30. Do you have a timeline in mind for the planning?

A. The project is projected to take up to one year. The timing of this work will be coordinated between the Executive Director and the vendor with stakeholder availability and major scheduling conflicts in mind.

Question 31. Virtual meetings are referenced throughout. Is it accurate that no in-person meetings are desired or required?

A. We do not anticipate the need for any in-person meetings.

Strategic Risk Question 32. What internal or external risks (e.g., policy shifts, parallel initiatives, competing priorities) could delay or redirect this engagement?

A. We do not anticipate anything that would significantly delay or redirect this work.

Overall Process Question 33. What is the consultant selection and approval process, and what is the timeline for award and project delivery?

A. See RFP section 5, “Evaluation Procedure & Criteria” and section 3 (“Proposal Instructions and Additional Information”), number 1, “Anticipated Contract Term.” Once a vendor is awarded, the specific timeline for the project will be determined.

Question 34. What level of post-delivery support, if any, is expected from the consulting team (e.g. presentations, implementation support, staff training)?

A. There is nothing beyond the scope of the RFP expected after the completion of the final deliverables.

Question 35. Section 6 of the RFP notes that "Unless a greater preference is applicable and allowed by law, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 16C.16, businesses that are eligible and certified by the State as targeted group (TG) businesses, economically disadvantaged (ED) businesses, and veteran-owned businesses will receive points equal to 12% percent of the total points available as preference." Can the state confirm whether a TG, ED, or veteran-owned business must be the prime to receive those points, or if a bidder can receive those points if they have a TG, ED, or veteran-owned business serving as a subcontractor?

A. The TG Vendor must be the prime to receive the points.

Question 36. Can work samples be marked proprietary, considered as “Nonpublic Data”, and not subject to public dissemination?

A. Everything becomes public data after the selection process is complete and the contract is in place. Per the RFP, do not include Non-Public/Trade Secret data (as defined in this link to Minn. Stat. § 13.37).

Question 37. Do records, documents or data exist regarding the challenge you are working to address? Do you have the capacity to produce/provide these items as part of the discovery phase of a full strategic planning process? Are additional documents such as the Equity Assessment and Planning Tool available for referencing?

A. Documents will be provided once the selected vendor’s work begins.

Question 38. Will the contractor be responsible for the graphic design, layout, and production of the final document?

A. Yes.

Question 39. Can you summarize or share where we can find the state accessibility / ADA requirements for this document?

A. OHE follows guidelines set by Minnesota's Office of Accessibility. Detailed information about Minnesota's accessibility standards and guidance for creating accessible products is at Minnesota IT Services: Office of Accessibility. See the Accessibility Checklist (PDF) and State of Minnesota Expectations for Accessible Documents (PDF) for details and testing tools.

Question 40. Will consultants outside the state of Minnesota with other relevant education and planning experience be competitive for this RFP, or is there a strong preference for partners within the state?

A. We do not have a preference for a vendor’s location, as long as they can do the work. The only preference given is for TG/ED/VO vendors.

Question 41. Does the MNP20 group have a singular point of contact to assist with logistics such as scheduling, physical location needs, and communication needs? In what ways will staff be involved on the project?

A. Yes, the Executive Director (or designee) will be the point of contact. The Executive Director and Deputy Director of MNP20 will be actively involved in all aspects of the project including planning, communications with members, check-ins with the vendor, and management of the day-to-day work in collaboration with vendor.

Question 42. In addition to the meetings with stakeholders that you listed, are there other engagement / input activities you’d like to see such as focus groups, surveys, 1:1 meetings, etc.?

A. There are no specific expectations for additional engagement beyond what is described in RFP. However, see section 3 “Proposal Instructions and Additional Information.”

Question 43. What is the date of notification for the award for this contract?

A. We anticipate we will have a vendor selected by August 2025.

Question 44. Is there a preferred or required benchmarking framework for comparing Minnesota’s P-20 model to others?

A. No, we anticipate that the vendor would recommend an approach.

Question 45. Should benchmarking of other P-20 councils include a deeper dive into governance structures, funding models, or specific strategic priorities, in addition to overall plan structures?

A. No.

Question 46. As MNP20 anticipates alignment with a revised statewide attainment goal, is there an anticipated timeline for when that goal-setting process will be completed (and should we coordinate our planning timelines with that milestone)?

A. No action has been taken by the Legislature on the revision or renewal of the state attainment goal as of this time. As a result, MNP20’s strategic planning work will be used to inform and shape future discussions about the state educational attainment goal.

Question 47. We are noting from the RFP that you are seeking a vendor to support with the development of draft priorities, metrics, and activities for the new strategic plan. Would you also be looking for support with developing an implementation or action plan for carrying out the strategies/activities?

0. Ideally the final plan would include some identification of sequencing of the work that will take place over the five years of the plan. The implementation plan itself will be developed internally after the planning process concludes.

About Question 48. Can you describe in more detail the priority focus areas within equity for the OHE?

A. The Minnesota Office of Higher Education (OHE) is a member of the P-20 Education Partnership; the partnership itself is an independent entity. The partnership’s priority focus areas within equity are:

· Prioritizing and embedding efforts to strengthen equitable systems and outcomes across learning environments, in actionable and measurable ways

· Advocating for education and workforce development solutions that center historically excluded and marginalized populations Question 49. What is MNP20’s previous history with strategic planning?

A. This will be MNP20’s first strategic plan.

Technical Question 50. Is there a page limit, or formatting requirements?

A. Other than what is outlined in the RFP, there are no additional requirements.

Question 51. Are there any known challenges or barriers (e.g., political, structural, or stakeholder fatigue) that the selected consultant should be aware of when designing the process?

A. There is nothing we are aware of with regard to designing the strategic planning process.

Question 52. Are there other concurrent initiatives that this strategic planning effort must align with?

A. Yes, the partnership’s existing and ongoing projects will need to be incorporated into the plan and information about those efforts will be provided to the selected vendor at the onset of the project.

Question 53. Does the proposal portal allow for upload of the PDF (i.e. graphics, etc.)?

A. Yes, PDF files are allowed. However, uploading video files may present a challenge.

Question 54. Event Details, Appendix A – Line Specifications, Shipping Information lists a due date of 09/05/2025. under the description “Create 5-year strategic plan.” We were under the assumption that this engagement would span 12 months, which does not align with a September due date. Please clarify.

A. This is not applicable, as we do not anticipate a need for shipping.