The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Information Item No. 1 to RFQ 126295
August 24, 2026
INFORMATION ITEM NO. 1 TO ALL OFFERORS:
Request for Quotes: RFQ# 126295
Description: District Staffing Benchmarking Study
Quotes Due Date: August 27, 2026
THE RFQ IS HEREBY BEEN MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
Clarifications to RFQ 126295
Clarification No. 1 $30,000 is the not to exceed budget for this Benchmarking Study. ACPS has the option to extend the deadline of the study and to issue a renewal option year for additional work pertaining to this study.
| No. |
| Proposer’s Question |
| ACPS Response |
| 1 |
| The majority of the RFQ is for the benchmarking study, but several sections, including page 11 (Reference Contact Information) and page 16 (Attachment C - Quote), reference superintendent searches. |
| The reference sheet has been updated to remove superintendent searches. |
| 2 |
| Addendum No. 1 revises the compensation provision from a not to exceed amount of $30,000 to an estimated annual amount of $15,000. Does the $15,000 represent the total budget available for the benchmarking study described in the Scope of Work, or is it an annual figure applied across the two year contract term? Relatedly, the Scope of Work states that all deliverables are due no later than October 31, 2026, and we would appreciate clarification of what work ACPS anticipates during the balance of the two-year term. |
| See clarification No. 1 |
| 3 |
| The Minimum Requirements state that the offeror must demonstrate a credible track record and sufficient subject matter competence in K-12 education, and that the firm must have been in business for more than five years. Will ACPS consider demonstrated competence in job analysis, workforce structure analysis, and staffing methodology developed in other public sector settings, and the combined professional experience of the firm's principals, in evaluating these requirements? |
| K-12 is the subject that we prefer to have expertise. However, experience should at least be five years. |
| 4 |
| Several provisions appear to reference executive search services rather than a benchmarking study. These include the Minimum Requirement to demonstrate strategies to generate potential candidate pools, the Award criterion for Non-Traditional Candidate Searches, the Attachment A reference form requesting Executive Search Services, and the Percentage column on the Attachment C quote form. Do these provisions apply to this solicitation? If the candidate pool requirement does apply, how should an offeror address it given the scope of the study? |
| Attachments have been revised to remove references to Executive Searches |
| 5 |
| Attachment A requests three references from school districts or organizations with a similar scope of work. Will ACPS accept references from non K-12 public sector organizations for comparable staffing and workforce analysis engagements? |
| We will, but we prefer k-12 experience |
| 6 |
| The insurance requirements include a $4,000,000 excess liability and umbrella policy. Will ACPS consider reduced limits for an engagement performed remotely with no access to school property and no onsite work? We also note that professional liability coverage is not listed and ask whether it is required. |
| If you awarded this contract ACPS will consider this as an exception to the contract. |
| 7 |
| Will ACPS provide position level staffing data in a structured format, including headcount, FTE, job title, functional assignment, and compensation? If so, what turnaround should the offeror assume following award? |
| Yes, this will be determined during the planning meeting. |
| 8 |
| The Scope of Work directs the contractor to propose a set of national peer districts. Does ACPS expect the contractor to acquire licensed or proprietary national benchmarking data, or is publicly reported federal and state data sufficient? |
| The directions are clear, we are looking for national peer districts, and we anticipate the offeror to follow the necessary steps to obtain this information. |
| 9 |
| The Schedule of Events shows award recommendation August 31–September 4, 2026, with the School Board presentation "on or before October 31, 2026." Is the presentation tied to one of these posted specific Board meeting dates (October 8 (meeting), 15 (work session), 22 (meeting), 29 (work session), and if so, please confirm that meeting date and whether Board materials must be submitted in advance (and by how many days). |
| The dates will be confirmed after award with the board Chair. |
| 10 |
| How soon after the August 31–September 4 award recommendation does ACPS expect the contract to be executed and a purchase order issued, and may the Contractor begin work upon notice of intent to award? Additionally, how many rounds of ACPS draft review should the Contractor plan for, and what ACPS turnaround should be assumed for comments? |
| This will be determined by the response of the awarded vendor. We anticipate this taking a week. |
| 11 |
| Would ACPS consider a phased delivery in which the Virginia peer analysis, findings, and Board presentation are delivered by the October boarding meeting, with the national peer comparison delivered as a subsequent milestone under the two-year contract term? |
| ACPS requests the results of the study by Oct. 31, 2026. However, ACPS will factor in time for additional work over the course of 2 years should the need arise. |
| 12 |
| Attachment D (Sample Contract), "Agreement Period," states that performance shall "continue until September 1, 2026." This conflicts with the October 31, 2026 deliverable date and with the two-year contract term stated in the RFQ. Please confirm the governing dates, and whether ACPS anticipates additional work in the second year that should be reflected in pricing. |
| The start date is Sept. 1, 2026 with the renewal option of 1 additional year. Any additional work will be a separate price. |
| 13 |
| Will ACPS obtain, or authorize the Contractor to obtain, division-level staffing data for the peer set directly from the Virginia Department of Education — specifically an extract from the Positions and Exits Collection, which divisions submit annually but which is surfaced through a login-restricted portal rather than a public download? If VDOE will not provide a central extract, will ACPS issue a letter of introduction to the named peer divisions to support direct data requests? |
| Yes |
| 14 |
| The scope requires spans of control and a classification of FTE roles as fixed versus variable. Neither is derivable from any published state or federal dataset; both require organizational charts or position-control detail from each division. Does ACPS expect these metrics for all peer divisions, or for ACPS only, with peers benchmarked on staffing ratios, staff mix, and cost-per-pupil measures available from published sources? |
| ACPS, will provide the data for ACPS, consultant is expected to obtain the data independently to complete the study. |
| 15 |
| What is ACPS's expectation if fewer than ten peer divisions provide usable central office detail within the schedule? Is the "at least 10 divisions" minimum a floor for the full analysis, or a floor for ratio-level comparison, with a smaller subset receiving deeper central office analysis? |
| Consultant, can work with Chair to communicate the findings if the need to revise deliverable is needed. |
| 16 |
| Which data year should be used? The most recently published VDOE Superintendent's Annual Report reflects 2024–2025, and current-year division data will not be centrally published before October 31. Does ACPS accept the most recent published year for peers, with ACPS's own current-year data presented alongside and clearly labeled? |
| Consultant should use the most current complete data set and present this information in your study. |
| 17 |
| Will ACPS provide its position control file or staffing roster (title, FTE, department, assigned program, reporting relationship), current organizational charts, and its adopted budget with expenditures by function? Please identify the single point of contact for data requests and the turnaround the Contractor should assume, noting any periods of limited ACPS availability in September and October. |
| ACPS will provide to the awarded consultant |
| 18 |
| The district profile lists English Learners at 45.1%. Very few Virginia divisions approach this figure, which constrains a peer set matched simultaneously on enrollment, economic disadvantage, and EL concentration. How should the Contractor prioritize among these criteria when they conflict, and would ACPS accept a tiered peer set presenting size-matched Virginia peers, demographically matched Virginia peers, and national peers separately? |
| Consultant if selected should communicate this directly to the board Chair. |
| 19 |
| For the national peer set, does ACPS accept comparison based on federal sources (NCES Common Core of Data staff categories and F-33 fiscal data), which support broad staff categories and per-pupil expenditure but not department-level central office detail? If department-level national detail is expected, that would require primary collection from each district — please confirm. |
| Consultant if selected should communicate this directly to the board Chair. |
| 20 |
| Beyond the single Board presentation, how many meetings, working sessions, or check-ins does ACPS expect, and should the Contractor budget for in-person attendance and how many trips? Is stakeholder input (interviews with Board members, the incoming superintendent, or cabinet staff) expected, or is the study intended to be strictly quantitative? |
| Consultant should budget for in-person meetings. ACPS does expect interviews and would like for Consultant to propose how many of each are needed at a minimum to complete the study. |
| 21 |
| Attachment D (Sample Contract), "Agreement Rates," states that ACPS will pay "a not exceed amount of $30,000." Is this the actual budget ceiling for this engagement, or placeholder language carried over from the sample document? This materially affects the depth of peer data collection that can be proposed. |
| This is the budget for the engagement. Should your cost exceed this amount in detail describe what would be included in cost over $30K, just note the budget for the study. |
| 22 |
| Attachment C requests a single all-inclusive "Total Evaluated Price," while the Instructions to Offerors request an hourly rate per position. Please confirm whether ACPS intends a fixed-fee engagement with the hourly schedule provided for reference, or a time-and-materials engagement against a not-to-exceed amount — and whether travel and expenses should be included in the Total Evaluated Price or quoted separately as a GSA-per-diem-capped expense pool. |
| The budget is $30,000, any travel would be paid out of this budget at the GSA rates. |
| 23 |
| The insurance requirements include $4,000,000 excess/umbrella liability. For a professional services engagement involving no on-site construction, no student contact, and no operation of vehicles on ACPS property, would ACPS consider reducing or waiving the umbrella requirement? Would ACPS accept Professional Liability / Errors and Omissions coverage, which is not currently listed but is the coverage most relevant to this scope? |
| ACPS will meet with the Consultant awarded this project and consider exceptions to the insurance provisions. |
| 24 |
| Several provisions appear to be carryover language from a superintendent search solicitation, and we want to ensure our response is evaluated on the correct basis. Specifically: the Minimum Requirement to "demonstrate strategies, such as networking with diverse groups, to generate potential candidate pools"; the Instruction to describe a "plan for the search and selection of a Superintendent"; the Award criterion "Non-Traditional Candidates Searches"; the References form requiring experience in "Executive Searches Services for Superintendent Placement"; and Attachment C, titled "Superintendent Search Consultant Services," whose pricing line items reference "successful completion of superintendent search services." Please confirm which of these apply to this engagement, whether references for comparable staffing, benchmarking, or organizational analysis engagements will satisfy the reference requirement, and whether a corrected Attachment C will be issued by addendum |
| This is carryover language from another RFQ. All references to Superintendent Search are to be ignored. |
| 25 |
| Regarding submission mechanics: the introduction refers to "RFQ 125295" while the cover page and Sample Contract refer to "RFQ 126295" — please confirm 126295 is correct. Is there a page limit for the Technical Approach or the proposal overall (excluding required forms)? Should the response be submitted through eVA as a single consolidated PDF? Will interviews or oral presentations be held, and if so on what dates? |
RFQ 126295 is the correct number. The page limit is 85 pages. PDF submitted into eVA. Interview dates have not been confirmed, they are optional.
All other items remain unchanged.
Note: A signed acknowledgment of this addendum should be received at the location indicated on the RFP either prior to the due date and hour or attached to your response. Signature on this addendum does not substitute for your signature on the original RFP document. The original RFP document must be signed.
Best Regards,
| Dyanna S. McMullen, CPPB |
| Director of Procurement and |
| General Services | |
| Phone: 703-619-8343 |
Name of Firm/Contractor
| ___________________________________________ | __________ | |
| Signature/Title | | Date |
image1.jpg