RFP for Federal ESEA Implementation Support and Oversight OregonBuys Bid # S-58100-00017199

STATE OF OREGON

COVER PAGE

The Oregon Department of Education is issuing this Intermediate Request For Proposals under

OregonBuys Bid S-58100-00017199 for

FEDERAL ESEA IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT AND OVERSIGHT

Date of Issue: September 08, 2026

Opening Date: September 30, 2026

Single Point of Contact (SPC):

Joanne Edmondson, Procurement and Contracts Specialist Address: 255 Capitol Street NE City, State, Zip: Salem, Oregon 97310 Phone: (971) 240 – 1737 E-mail: joanne.edmondson@ode.oregon.gov

The State of Oregon promotes equal opportunity for all individuals without regard to age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or creed, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

mailto:joanne.edmondson@ode

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 SCHEDULE

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.3 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

3.3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS

3.4 SUBMISSION CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

3.5 EVALUATION PROCESS

3.6 NEXT STEP DETERMINATION

3.7 PREFERENCES

3.8 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONS

3.9 RANKING OF PROPOSERS

SECTION 4: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION

4.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS

4.2 SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

4.3 PRICE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATION

SECTION 5: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

5.1 COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

5.2 CERTIFIED FIRM PARTICIPATION

5.3 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

5.4 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS

5.5 CANCELLATION OF SOLICITATION; REJECTION OF PROPOSALS; NO DAMAGES

5.6 COST OF SUBMITTING A SUBMISSION

5.7 STATEWIDE E-WASTE/RECOVERY PROCEDURE

5.8 RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE PRICE AGREEMENT

ATTACHMENT B DISCLOSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT

ATTACHMENT C PROPOSER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT D COBID CERTIFICATION / OUTREACH PLAN

ATTACHMENT E RESPONSIBILITY INQUIRY

ATTACHMENT F PROPOSER RESPONSE TO AGENCY QUESTIONS

https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Tutorials/TOC.mp4 https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Tutorials/TOC.mp4

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The State of Oregon, acting by and through the Department of Education, (“Agency”), is issuing this Intermediate Procurement to enter into a Price Agreement (“PA”) to engage with Contractors to support ongoing support of federal programs. Contractor shall provide assistance to support the oversight and management of federal programs, such as but not limited to, Titles IA, ID, IIA, IVA, IVB, VB (REAP), McKinney-Vento, Foster-Care, and Equitable Services under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“ESEA”), authorized in December 2015.

The Agency is seeking qualified Proposers to deliver Services across four Domains: (1) Monitoring Support (Programmatic and Fiscal); (2) Technical Assistance and Professional Learning for Continuous Improvement; (3) Allocation Review and Support, and (4) Specialized and Emerging Needs (flexible task orders, available after award). Collectively, these are referred to as Services.

Proposers who are awarded a PA as a result of this Intermediate Solicitation are not guaranteed work or any specific amount of compensation under the PA. This Intermediate Procurement establishes a list of qualified Contractors from which the Agency will select by the process described in Section 3 to perform Services under one or more Service Order Contract(s) (“SOC”).

The resulting PA constitutes a firm offer by each Contractor, regardless of whether any SOC is issued to any Contractor under a PA. Any changes to the compensation and payment methodologies listed in the PA must be made following the requirements of the PA.

Any Services provided by a Contractor, under the PA, must be authorized by SOC issued by the Agency in accordance with the ordering procedures described in Attachment A- Sample Price Agreement. Notwithstanding the award of a PA, Agency may conduct separate solicitations, award project-specific contracts, or purchase orders, for services similar to what is described in this Intermediate Procurement, using any method allowed by law.

The initial term of the PA is anticipated to be two years, with options to renew annually up to a cumulative maximum of five years, contingent upon availability of funds and Agency need. The Agency intends to award multiple PAs to create a statewide cadre with sufficient capacity across the four service domains described in this solicitation.

Additional details on the Scope of the goods or services or both are included in the Scope of Work section.

1.2 SCHEDULE

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time.

All dates listed are subject to change. N/A denotes that event is not applicable to this solicitation.

Event Date Time

Pre-Proposal Conference N/A N/A

Questions / Requests for Clarification Due September 22, 2026 3:00 PM

Opening (Submission Due) September 30, 2026 3:00 PM

Issuance of Notice of Award (approx.) October 30, 2026

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

The SPC for this solicitation is identified on the Cover Page, along with the SPC’s contact information. Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the solicitation, whether about the technical requirements of the solicitation, contractual requirements, the solicitation process, or any other provision only to the SPC.

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

Agency is issuing this solicitation pursuant to its authority under ORS 279A.050 and ORS 279A.140.

Agency is using the Intermediate Procurement solicitation method set forth in ORS 279B.070 and OAR 125-247-0270.

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purposes of this solicitation, capitalized words will refer to the following definitions.

2.2.1 General Definitions

Capitalized terms not specifically defined in this document are defined in OAR 125-246-0110.

2.2.2 Project Specific Definitions

Elementary and Secondary Education Act- The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson. President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) law on December 10, 2015 reauthorizing ESEA.

ESSA includes provisions that enable success for students, families, districts, schools and communities

Evidence Based Practices – Section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA defines an evidence-based intervention as being supported by strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. All activities must be in alignment with the four tiers authorized in Section 8101(21)(A) of ESEA.

Federal Program Monitoring – Federal program monitoring means the process by which the Agency reviews and evaluates grantee programmatic and fiscal activities in alignment with the regulations outlined in the Uniform Grants Guidance as well as state rules and processes.

http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_100/oar_125/125_246.html

Foster Care – means 24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the child welfare agency has placement and care responsibility as defined in 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20(a). Under this definition, “foster care” includes, but is not limited to, placements in:

• Foster family homes;

• Foster homes of relatives (also known as “formal kinship care”);

• Group homes;

• Emergency shelters;

• Residential facilities;

Childcare institutions; and

• Pre adoptive homes.

This also includes children who are placed in trial reunifications with their parents while the child welfare agency retains placement and care responsibility.

McKinney Vento Homeless Education – refers to section 724(c) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015. This law reauthorizes the educational rights of homeless children and youths identified for services.

Title I, Part A (I-A)- Refers to section 1001 – section 1127 of the ESEA, titled “Supporting Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies” grant.

Title I, Part D (I-D) – Refers to section 1401 – Section 1431 of the ESEA, titled “Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent or At-Risk" program”.

Title II, Part A (II-A) - Refers to section 2101- section 2104 of the ESEA, titled “Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants” program.

Title IV, Part A (IV-A) - Refers to section 4001 – section 4121 of the ESEA, titled “Student Support and Academic Enrichment” grant program.

Title IV, Part B (IV-B) - refers to section 4202-4205 of the ESEA, titled “21st Century Community Learning Centers”

Title V- refers to section 5103 – section 5233 of the ESEA, titled “Rural Education Achievement Program"

2.3 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

2.3.1 Agency Overview and Background

The Agency oversees the education of over 550,000 students in Oregon’s public K-12 education system. The Agency encompasses early learning, public preschool programs, the Oregon School for the Deaf (“OSD”), regional programs for children with disabilities, and education programs in Oregon youth corrections facilities.

Oregon has more than 1,270 public K-12 schools organized into 197 school districts (“SD”) and 19 Education Service Districts (“ESD”). Over 130 of these schools are public charter schools. These SDs, schools, and ESDs employ over 86,000 teachers, administrators, and other school and district staff.

While the Agency is not in the classroom providing direct services, the Agency, along with Oregon’s State Board of Education (“SBE”), focus on helping SDs achieve both local, and statewide, goals and SD priorities through strategies such as:

• Developing policies and standards

• Providing accurate and timely data to inform instruction

• Training teachers on how to use data effectively

• Effectively administering numerous state and federal grant programs

• Sharing best practices with SDs as well as supporting the implementation of those best practices

Within the Agency, the Federal Systems Team (“FST”) manages multiple federal grant programs with the purpose of ensuring equitable access and participation for all students.

This is accomplished, in part, by increasing opportunities for all students to meet Oregon’s academic standards. These federal grant programs support a variety of strategies which help students be seen, supported, engaged, and have access to an academically enriching curriculum.

Additionally, the FST collects and reports data for programmatic, fiscal, demographic, and outcomes across the state. These data points are used to determine allocations for subrecipients and future awards, to determine impact data and program effectiveness, and other essential points for state and federal reporting.

2.3.2 Project Background

In December 2015, Congress reauthorized the ESEA, at which time revised and established multiple grant programs. The Agency serves as the pass-through entity between the U.S.

Department of Education (“USDE”), distributing funds authorized under ESEA to the Agency’s sub-recipients. These sub-recipients may include SDs, schools, charter schools, Community- Based Organizations (“CBO”), and ESDs.

Federal Code 2 CFR 200.332(e)2 requires all pass- through entities to:

“Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward.”

For the purposes of this Intermediate Solicitation, the Agency is the pass-through entity, and the entity receiving funds (i.e., the ESD, SD, etc.), is the subrecipient.

Additionally, The Uniform Grants Guidance (“UGG”), revised in 2024, changed the legal relationship to be exclusively between the USDE and the pass-through entity. As a result, the Agency is now legally responsible for ensuring that all subrecipients of federal funds under the ESEA are implementing their grant program(s) in compliance with state and federal rules.

The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Developing and administering a process to monitor and review subrecipient programmatic and fiscal activities throughout the performance period of any agreement.

• Developing and administering a process to evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with the federal award.

• Determining the appropriate level and type of monitoring, that must be enacted to mitigate the risks raised.

• When necessary, develop and implement a corrective action plan to ensure that subrecipients resolve findings that were identified in a review, including a monitoring finding or an audit finding.

• Providing subrecipients with training and TA on program-related matters as well as evidence-based practices that are aligned with the goals of the grant program(s).

• Conducting site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations.

2.3.3 Current State of the ESEA Consolidated Monitoring Process

The Agency is required to establish a process to assess subrecipient risk and determine which subrecipients meet the criteria that require monitoring for the upcoming school year (“SY”), or years. The Agency monitors the following federal grant programs as part of the FST’s Consolidated ESEA Monitoring process:

• Title I-A

• Title I-D

• Title II-A

• Title IV-A

• Title V-B

• Private Schools and Equitable Services

• McKinney-Vento

• Foster Care

• Common Compliance (Fiscal Review and Internal Controls)

While separate from the Consolidated ESEA monitoring process, the ODE also monitors Title IV-B, 21st Century and Community Learning Centers grant programs.

The Agency revised the tools used to determine which subrecipients are selected for monitoring, the process by which subrecipients are monitored, and the type of support provided to a subrecipient if the monitoring resulted in findings, or a corrective action plan

2.3.4 Purpose

To strengthen the Agency’s ability to ensure effective oversight and TA to subrecipients, the Agency is using this Intermediate Procurement to select qualified Proposers to enter into a PA to provide support to subrecipients. The PA holders will work with the Agency to enhance and expand the Agency’s efforts to effectively manage federal grants, monitor subrecipient activities, and provide TA to subrecipients on the federal and state requirements of each subrecipients respective federal programs.

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS

Agency intends to award multiple PAs across four Domains, collectively referred to as “Services”, as described below. Proposers must apply for at least one Domain but may apply for multiple Domains. The Agency may issue SOCs that span multiple titles and multiple Domains as needed to support Oregon’s risk-based monitoring and continuous improvement approach.

The Services are intended to assist the Agency in fulfilling its obligations as a pass-through entity under 2 CFR § 200.332, including but not limited to conducting risk assessments, monitoring subrecipient activities, following up and ensuring that subrecipients take timely and appropriate corrective action on all deficiencies, and verifying that subrecipients have audits as required by 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, as applicable. Services may also support Agency responsibilities under applicable ESEA requirements and federal grants administration rules, including EDGAR and the Uniform Grants Guidance.

2.4.1 Domain One: Monitoring Support (Programmatic and Fiscal)

Contractors supporting Domain One shall assist the Agency in conducting monitoring and oversight activities to ensure subrecipient compliance with applicable programmatic and fiscal requirements, including ESEA requirements and related federal and state rules and federal grants management requirements (including UGG and applicable EDGAR provisions). Domain One includes both programmatic monitoring and fiscal monitoring support risk assessment, desk and onsite reviews, internal controls and allowability analyses, development and resolution of findings, corrective action planning, and tracking of resolution timelines.

Monitoring activities that Proposer may be asked to support include, but are not limited to:

2.4.1.1 Application review: review applications and amendments for competition awards, programmatic completeness, alignment with allowable uses and purpose of the respective Title program, as well as compliance with statutory requirements (including, but not limited to, consultation, set-asides, and school improvement requirements), or any combination thereof.

2.4.1.2 Risk assessment support: assist with collecting data for, administering, analyzing, and refining annual risk assessment processes, tools, and matrices.

2.4.1.3 Desk and onsite monitoring: review of documentation (e.g., programmatic evidence, budgets, claims, time-and-effort records, procurement documentation, equipment/property records, expenditure reports) against Agency monitoring tools;

participation in interviews and visits as needed; preparation of draft monitoring summaries and findings.

2.4.1.4 Focused fiscal monitoring: conduct deeper reviews for higher-risk subrecipients, including internal controls, expenditure documents, and allowability analyses.

2.4.1.5 Findings and CAP development: develop findings of noncompliance, required corrective action plans (CAPs), and support tracking resolution timelines.

2.4.1.6 Equitable Services monitoring: review consultation documentation, affirmations, and equitable share calculations to ensure compliance with applicable ESEA requirements.

2.4.1.7 McKinney-Vento and Foster Care monitoring: targeted review of district policies and practices supporting these student groups.

2.4.1.8 Disproportionate impact compliance analysis: Analyze monitoring evidence using disaggregated data and inquiry designed to identify patterns of noncompliance or implementation barriers that may disproportionately affect student groups protected under federal civil rights laws, and summarize those patterns for Agency use in monitoring, TA planning, and corrective action support. Consider whether fiscal policies and practices may contribute to uneven resource distribution across schools or student groups and elevate patterns of concern to the Agency for consideration in findings, corrective action planning, or targeted technical assistance when appropriate.

2.4.2 Domain Two: Technical Assistance and Professional Learning for Continuous Improvement

Contractors supporting Domain Two shall provide technical assistance and professional learning that strengthens subrecipient capacity to implement federal programs effectively and sustain operational excellence through continuous improvement. TA may be universal, targeted, or intensive, depending on subrecipient needs and Agency direction.

2.4.2.1 Universal TA and information dissemination: develop and deliver webinars and meetings, written guidance, FAQs, and training materials on programmatic and fiscal requirements.

2.4.2.2 Targeted TA to monitored subrecipients: provide individualized support during and after monitoring to address identified concerns and strengthen systems.

2.4.2.3 Intensive TA for high need subrecipients: sustained engagement, coaching, and planning support to address patterns of concern.

2.4.2.4 Professional learning design and facilitation: design and facilitate meetings, convenings, workshops, and communities of practice for federal program staff.

2.4.2.5 School improvement and evidence-based practice support: provide resources and coaching aligned with evidence-based requirements, including the four tiers of evidence in ESEA § 8101(21), and support improvement cycles that strengthen implementation and outcomes.

2.4.2.6 Disproportionate Impact TA and Professional Learning: Design and deliver technical assistance and professional learning using student-centered practices and approaches that strengthen supportive learning environments and improve outcomes for all students, with explicit attention to identifying and removing systemic barriers experienced by impacted focal student groups and communities.

2.4.3 Domain Three: Allocation Review and Support:

Contractors supporting Domain Three shall provide support to the agency in their review of allocation practices, definitions of eligibility, and methodologies. This may include but is not limited to the following:

2.4.3.1 Conduct a review and comparison of state policies and practices with federal rules governing eligibility of subrecipients.

2.4.3.2 Make recommendations to agency leaders about what changes, if any, need to be made to mitigate risk and if necessary, develop a corrective action plan to support payment and reallocation of funds.

2.4.3.3 Conduct a review of allocation workbooks to ensure that workbooks are calculated effectively.

2.4.4 Domain Four: Specialized and Emerging Needs (Flexible Task Orders; Available After Award)

This Domain allows the Agency to issue SOCs for specialized work not included in Domains One, Two or Three. Work under this Domain will include the following but is not limited to:

2.4.4.1 Consultation on emerging legal requirements.

2.4.4.2 Targeted work on Special Populations requirements, and development, revision.

2.4.4.3 Review of agency tools, guidance, and procedures regarding oversight and administration of federal programs.

2.4.5 Compensation Rates

The Agency has established a fixed hourly rate of $150.00 per hour for all services performed under this Price Agreement, including Domain One: Monitoring Support (Programmatic and Fiscal); Domain Two: Technical Assistance and Professional Learning for Continuous Improvement; Domain Three: Allocation Review and Support;

and Domain Four: Specialized and Emerging Needs (Flexible Task Orders; Available After Award). All compensation for services performed under any resulting Service Order Contract shall be paid at this fixed hourly rate.

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND EVALUATION

3.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposer shall demonstrate how the Proposer and Key Personnel meet all the following general requirements:

• Minimum of three years of experience working with a(n), or combination of:

o State Education Agencies (“SEA”), o Education Service District (“ESD”), o School Districts, o Schools.

• Minimum of three years of experience working in ESEA federal programs.

Experience may be a combination of working directly for SEAs, ESDs, SDs, schools, or contracted work for those organizations.

• Knowledge of federal rules, and regulations such as EDGAR and UGG, for all federal programs the ODE is required to monitor.

• Knowledge of professional written, and verbal communication to SEAs, ESDs, SDs, schools, or a combination thereof, at both leadership and staff, level.

• Experience in the use of software programs, including, but not limited, to:

o Microsoft Office Products (for example: Outlook, Word, Excel).

o Google products (for example: Gmail, Docs, Sheets).

o Video conferencing software (for example: Teams, Zoom).

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENT

3.2.1 Submission Format and Quantity

The Proposer shall follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Submission Content Requirements section. Responses to each section and subsection should be labeled to indicate the item being addressed. The Proposer shall describe in detail how requirements of this solicitation will be met and may provide additional related information.

Proposer shall submit one electronic copy of its Submission. In addition, if Proposer believes any of its Submission is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B), and the Proposer shall submit a fully redacted version of its Submission, clearly identified as the redacted version.

3.2.2 Authorized Representative

A representative authorized to bind the Proposer shall sign the Submission. Failure of the authorized representative to sign the Submission may subject the Submission to rejection by Agency.

3.3 PROCUREMENT PROCESS

3.3.1 Public Notice

The solicitation, including all Amendments and attachments, are published in the OregonBuys e-procurement system Solicitation documents will not be mailed to prospective Proposers.

Agency shall advertise all Amendments on OregonBuys e-procurement system. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking OregonBuys to determine whether or not any Amendments have been issued. Amendments are incorporated into the solicitation by this reference.

https://oregonbuys.gov/bso

3.3.2 Questions / Requests for Clarification

All inquiries, whether relating to the solicitation process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the solicitation must:

• Be emailed to the SPC

• Reference the OregonBuys bid number

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information

• Be sent by an authorized representative

• Refer to the specific area of the solicitation being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number); and

• Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the Schedule

3.3.3 Pre-Submittal Conference

A pre-submittal conference will not be held for this solicitation.

3.3.4 Proposal Submission

The Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Submission is received by the SPC in accordance with the solicitation requirements before Opening. Agency is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays or mistaken delivery. Submissions submitted by any means not authorized will be rejected.

3.3.5 Submission Options

OregonBuys Electronic Response. The Proposer shall submit its Submission electronically through OregonBuys. The Proposer shall follow the procedures outlined in detailed instructions on how to submit a Submission can be found at OregonBuys Vendor Formal Solicitation Response.pdf

The Proposer shall submit one copy of its Submission and all other submittal requirements, with Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C) bearing the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature, in one of the following formats:

Adobe Acrobat (pdf), Microsoft Word (docx), or Microsoft Excel (xlsx). If Proposer believes any of its Submission is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B). Proposer shall also mark as “Confidential” in OregonBuys all attachments to its Submission that Proposer believes are exempt from disclosure.

The Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C) must bear the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature.

3.3.6 Modification or Withdrawal of Quotes or Submission

Any Proposer who wishes to make modifications to a Submission, already received by the Agency, shall submit its modification in one of the manners listed in the Submission Options section and must denote the specific change(s) to the submission.

If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a Submission, the Proposer shall do so prior to Opening.

The Proposer shall submit a Written notice Signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw its Submission in accordance with OAR 125-247-0440. The notice must include the OregonBuys Bid number and be submitted to the SPC.

3.3.7 Submission Opening Date

The Proper’s Submission, and all required submittal items, must be received by the SPC on or before Opening. All Submission modifications or withdrawals must be completed prior to Opening.

Submissions received after Opening are considered LATE and will NOT be accepted for evaluation. Late Submission will be returned to the respective Proposer or destroyed.

3.3.8 Submission Rejection

Agency may reject a Submission for any of the following reasons:

• Proposer fails to substantially comply with all prescribed solicitation procedures and requirements, including but not limited to the requirement that Proposer’s authorized representative sign the Submission.

• Proposer fails to meet the responsibility requirements of ORS 279B.110.

• Proposer has undisclosed liquidated and delinquent debt owed to the State of

Oregon or any of its agencies, boards, commissions, departments or divisions.

• Proposer makes any contact regarding this solicitation with State representatives such as State employees or officials other than the SPC or those the SPC authorizes, or inappropriate contact with the SPC.

• Proposer attempts to inappropriately influence a member of the Evaluation Committee.

• Submission is conditioned on Agency’s acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate any alternative terms and conditions that are not reasonably related to those expressly authorized for negotiation in the solicitation or Amendment.

3.3.9 Opening of Submissions

There will be no public Opening of Submissions. Submissions received will not be available for inspection until after the evaluation process has been completed and the Notice Award is issued. However, Agency will record and make available the identity of all Proposers after Opening.

3.4 SUBMISSION CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

Proposer shall address each of the items listed in this section and all other requirements set forth in this solicitation. Proposer shall describe the Services to be performed. A Submission that merely offers services as stated in this solicitation will be considered non-

Responsive to this solicitation and will not be considered further.

3.4.1 Cover Letter (Required)

Proposer shall submit a Cover Letter describing the project team which shall include the name(s) of all Key Personnel as well as their title(s), and the Domain(s) in which they will provide services under this PA.

3.4.2 Resume(s) (Required)

Proposer shall submit a Resume highlighting specific experience and skills showing qualifications relating to this solicitation. Resume must include experience in each Domain the Proposer is applying for. If more than one person from your organization is providing services, you must include a resume for each Key Person.

3.4.3 Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Required)

The Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C).

3.4.4 Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan (If Applicable)

Proposer shall complete and submit the Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan (Attachment D).

Submission is required if Proposer has a possibility of subcontracting opportunities.

3.4.5 Responsibility Inquiry (Required)

Proposer shall complete and submit the Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment E).

Proposer is required to be found Responsible in order to be awarded a PA. Agency may, at any time, find a Proposer to be not Responsible and excuse the Proposer from further participation in the solicitation process.

Failure to demonstrate compliance with Oregon Tax Laws and sign the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C) will also result in a finding non- Responsibility.

3.4.6 Proposer Response to Agency Questions (Required)

Proposer must answer questions for domains the Proposal is for. (Attachment F)

3.4.7 Public Record/Confidential or Proprietary Information (If Applicable)

All Submissions are public record and are subject to public inspection after Agency issues the Notice of the Intent to Award. If a Proposer believes that any portion of its Submission contains any information that is a trade secret under ORS Chapter 192.345(2) or otherwise is exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit

(Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Submission.

Proposer is cautioned that cost information generally is not considered a trade secret under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478) and identifying the Submission, in whole, as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. Agency advises each Proposer to consult with its own legal counsel regarding disclosure issues.

If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Submission that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, Proposer has waived any future claim of non-disclosure of that information.

3.4.8 Page Limits

Any pages exceeding the page limits below (including additional attachments) will not be provided to the Evaluation Committee or considered for evaluation. The following documents must be formatted using the standard 8 ½" x 11”-page size and a minimum 12-point font.

• Cover Letter - not to exceed three pages

• Resume - not exceed five pages per Key Person

• Proposer Response to Agency Questions (Attachment F)– not to exceed two pages per question within each Domain(s) Proposal is for.

The following items do not count toward the page limit:

• Affidavit of Exemption from Disclosure (Attachment B)

• Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C)

• Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan (Attachment D)

• Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment E)

3.5 EVALUATION PROCESS

3.5.1 Responsiveness and Responsibility Determination

Submissions received prior to Opening will be reviewed for Responsiveness to all solicitation requirements including compliance with Minimum Requirements section and Submission Content Requirements section. If the Proposal is unclear, the SPC may request clarification from Proposer. However, clarifications may not be used to rehabilitate a non- Responsive Submission. If the SPC finds the Proposal non-Responsive, the Proposal may be rejected, however, Agency may waive mistakes in accordance with OAR 125-247-0470.

In accordance with OAR 137-047-0261(6)(a)(A), Agency may establish a Competitive Range of all Proposers who have made a good faith effort in submitting a Proposal in response to this solicitation for the purpose of correcting deficiencies in Proposals for determining responsiveness during Round 1.

At any time prior to award, Agency may reject a Proposer found to be not Responsible.

3.5.2 Evaluation Criteria

Submissions meeting the requirements outlined in the Submission Content Requirements section will be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. Evaluators will assign a numerical value for each evaluation criterion listed below in this section.

SPC may request further clarification to assist the Evaluation Committee in gaining additional understanding of submissions. A response to a clarification request must be to clarify or explain portions of the already submitted Submission and may not contain new information not included in the original Submissions.

Pricing will not be evaluated under this Solicitation. Evaluation will be based solely on the qualifications, experience, demonstrated expertise, and responses submitted by the Proposer for the Domain(s) for which award is sought.

General Rating Descriptions:

Rating Level 5-Point Questions

10-Point Questions Overall Description

Outstanding

9-10

Excellent / highest-quality response. Fully addresses the question with clear evidence, specific examples, strong technical accuracy, and a defensible approach. No material weaknesses.

Very Good

6-8

Strong response. Addresses most required elements and demonstrates relevant experience and knowledge.

Minor omissions or limited depth may be present but do not significantly reduce confidence.

Adequate

Meets minimum expectations. Demonstrates basic ability to perform the work, but the response is general, descriptive, or limited in examples, methodology, or demonstrated results.

Fair

1-2

1-2

Below expectations. Response is partial, vague, weakly supported, or raises concerns about the Proposer’s ability to perform the work without substantial direction.

No Value

Nonresponsive, inaccurate, or insufficient. Does not demonstrate relevant experience or understanding of the subject matter.

Detailed ratings of all evaluated sections within this Solicitation:

3.5.2.1 Cover Letter: Evaluate the proposer’s understanding of the solicitation, staffing approach, organizational capacity, and alignment of Key Personnel with the requested Domain(s). (5 points)

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding

Clearly identifies all Key Personnel, titles, roles, responsibilities, and Domain assignments. Demonstrates strong organizational capacity and a clear understanding of the requested work. Provides a compelling explanation of why the proposed team is qualified for the selected Domain(s), including complementary expertise and relevant experience. No material gaps.

Very Good Identifies all Key Personnel, titles, and assigned Domain(s) and provides a clear explanation of team qualifications and organizational capacity. Minor gaps may exist in staffing details, role clarity, or the explanation of how the team’s experience aligns with the Domain(s).

Adequate

Meets the Cover Letter submission requirements and identifies the proposed team and Domain assignment(s). Demonstrates a general understanding of the work but provides limited detail regarding roles, staffing approach, capacity, or alignment with the selected Domain(s).

Fair Provides partial, vague, or weakly supported information regarding Key Personnel, roles, Domain assignments, or organizational capacity. The proposed staffing approach or ability to perform the work is unclear.

No Value The Cover Letter is missing, substantially incomplete, or does not identify Key Personnel, titles, or Domain assignments. It provides insufficient information to evaluate the proposed team or staffing approach.

3.5.2.2 Resume and General Qualifications: Evaluate the qualifications of each proposed Key Person and the extent to which the resume(s) align with and exceed the General Requirements and demonstrate experience in each selected Domain. (5 Points)

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding

Resume(s) clearly demonstrate qualifications that substantially exceed the minimum requirements. Key Personnel show extensive experience with SEAs, ESDs, school districts, or schools; substantial ESEA federal program experience; demonstrated knowledge of EDGAR, UGG, and applicable federal compliance requirements; professional written and verbal communication with education leaders and staff; proficiency with required software; and strong experience relevant to every Domain for which the individual is proposed. Qualifications inspire a high degree of confidence.

Very Good

Resume(s) clearly demonstrates all minimum requirements and provide strong evidence of relevant experience with educational organizations, ESEA federal programs, federal requirements, communication with leadership and staff, required software, and the selected Domain(s). Experience exceeds the minimum in one or more areas, with only minor gaps in breadth or depth.

Adequate

Resume(s) demonstrate the minimum qualifications, including at least three years of experience with SEAs, ESDs, school districts, or schools and at least three years of ESEA federal program experience. The resume(s) also indicate basic knowledge of federal requirements, communication skills, software proficiency, and experience in each selected Domain, but provide limited depth, specificity, or demonstrated results.

Fair

Resume(s) show only partial or unclear alignment with the General Requirements. Experience may be indirect, limited in duration, weakly documented, or not clearly connected to the selected Domain(s). The information raises concerns about readiness to perform the work without substantial Agency direction.

No Value

Resume(s) are missing, substantially incomplete, or do not demonstrate the minimum qualifications. Information is insufficient to assess experience with educational organizations, ESEA federal programs, federal requirements, communication, software, or the selected Domain(s).

3.5.2.3 Domain One: Monitoring Support (Programmatic and Fiscal) (35 Points)

3.5.2.3.1 Question 1: Overall ESEA / Federal Program Experience (5 points)

Describe your overall experience with ESEA or other federal programs, including roles held, organizations supported, and specific programs managed or overseen.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Has led or substantially supported ESEA program administration, monitoring, compliance, or oversight across multiple programs and organization types; identifies roles, years, responsibilities, and concrete outcomes.

Very Good Shows relevant ESEA or federal program experience with clear examples, though breadth across programs or leadership depth is more limited.

Adequate Meets minimum experience requirements but provides mostly general descriptions of roles or programs.

Fair Experience is limited, indirect, or not clearly tied to ESEA implementation or oversight.

No Value Does not demonstrate relevant federal program experience.

3.5.2.3.2 Question 2: Use of Federal Regulations for Compliance Reviews (5 points) Explain how you use federal regulations (EDGAR, UGG, federal cost principles) to determine program compliance and review fiscal documentation (e.g., budgets, time and effort, procurement practices).

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding

Accurately applies the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, Uniform Guidance, federal cost principles, procurement standards, compensation documentation requirements, and allowability rules; describes how requirements are translated into review steps and defensible determinations.

Very Good Demonstrates strong working knowledge of federal requirements and provides relevant examples of compliance or fiscal reviews.

Adequate Shows basic awareness of federal requirements and general review practices.

Fair Mentions federal rules but provides limited or unclear application to compliance review.

No Value Shows little or inaccurate understanding of federal requirements.

3.5.2.3.3 Question 3: Internal Controls Assessment (10 points) Describe your approach to assessing the effectiveness of a subrecipient’s internal controls over federal funds. In response, include:

a. The key control areas you review, such as approvals, segregation of duties, reconciliation, documentation, procurement controls, and fiscal oversight;

b. How you determine whether internal controls are functioning effectively in practice, not only whether they are documented;

c. Indicators you look for that may suggest weak or ineffective internal controls;

d. How you document internal control concerns; and

e. A specific example where you identified weak or ineffective internal controls and supported resolution.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding

Addresses approvals, segregation of duties, reconciliations, documentation, procurement controls, and oversight; explains how controls are tested in practice; identifies indicators of weakness; documents concerns; provides a detailed resolution example.

Very Good Addresses most required control areas and provides a relevant example but testing methods or resolution details are less developed.

Adequate Describes review of procedures and documentation but offers limited detail on testing operating effectiveness.

Fair Provides vague references to reviewing controls and corrective action; omits several required elements.

No Value Does not demonstrate meaningful internal control assessment experience.

3.5.2.3.4 Question 4: Monitoring Finding and Corrective Action Example (5 points) Provide a detailed example of a monitoring finding you developed or supported. The example may include noncompliance, questioned costs, internal control deficiencies, unsupported costs, or similar concerns. In response, include:

a. The issue identified;

b. The evidence used to support the finding;

c. How you determined the finding was defensible and aligned with federal requirements;

d. How you determined the severity or significance of the issue;

e. How the corrective action plan was developed;

f. How root cause was considered;

g. How progress was monitored; and

h. How resolution or closure was determined.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Example includes the issue, evidence, federal basis, severity, root cause, CAP development, progress monitoring, and closure determination; shows defensible documentation.

Very Good Provides a clear finding example and addresses most required elements, with minor gaps in root cause, severity, or closure details.

Adequate Provides an example but lacks sufficient detail to assess defensibility or corrective action quality.

Fair Example is incomplete, generic, or weakly connected to federal compliance requirements.

No Value No meaningful finding example is provided.

3.5.2.3.5 Question 5: Use of Data for Risk and Compliance Determinations (10 points) Describe how you use data to identify patterns of risk, implementation concern, fiscal concern, or noncompliance. Data may include, but is not limited to, fiscal data, programmatic data, audit findings, monitoring results, risk assessment data, improvement plan data, or student outcome data. In response, include:

a. The types of data you typically review;

b. How you analyze data to identify trends, outliers, patterns, or risk indicators;

c. How data informs monitoring, technical assistance, or corrective action planning;

d. How you communicate data findings to different audiences; and

e. A specific example where data analysis informed a monitoring decision, technical assistance strategy, or compliance determination.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Uses multiple data sources, explains trend/outlier analysis, connects data to monitoring and technical assistance decisions, communicates findings by audience, and provides a specific decision-making example.

Very Good Shows strong data use and a clear decision-making process, though methods or examples may be less comprehensive.

Adequate Uses data in a basic way to inform decisions but provides limited analytical detail.

Fair Mentions data but does not explain analysis, interpretation, or application to monitoring or technical assistance.

No Value No evidence of meaningful data use.

3.5.2.4 Domain Two: Technical Assistance and Professional Learning for

Continuous Improvement (20 Points)

3.5.2.4.1 Question 1: Technical Assistance Approach and Root Cause Analysis (5 points)

Describe your approach to providing technical assistance, including how you assess root causes of compliance challenges and enact changes for improved grant management practices.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Uses structured root-cause analysis to distinguish knowledge gaps, staffing capacity, system design, governance, and implementation barriers; establishes plans, milestones, and measures of improvement.

Very Good Provides a clear TA approach and relevant examples, with some attention to root causes and follow-up.

Adequate Describes general guidance or support but offers limited evidence of root-cause analysis or sustained improvement.

Fair TA appears reactive or limited to answering questions without a structured method.

No Value Does not demonstrate relevant TA experience.

3.5.2.4.2 Question 2: Use of Monitoring, Audit, and Risk Data for Technical Assistance (5 points)

Summarize how you use monitoring results, audit findings, and risk assessment data to prioritize and tailor technical assistance for districts, including support for corrective actions and building long-term organizational capacity.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Triangulates monitoring results, audit findings, risk data, and local context to prioritize TA; links support to CAPs, capacity building, and durable systems change.

Very Good Uses compliance data to target TA and support corrective action but with less detail on long-term capacity.

Adequate References using data or findings to inform TA in a general way.

Fair Provides limited connection between data and TA design.

No Value Does not explain how data inform TA.

3.5.2.4.3 Question 3: Adaptation for Under-Resourced, Rural, or Small

Organizations (5 points) Describe how you adapt technical assistance for under-resourced, rural, or small organizations with limited staffing or capacity.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Differentiates TA for staffing constraints, rural context, turnover, limited fiscal capacity, and operational realities; uses practical tools, phased implementation, and sustainable routines.

Very Good Demonstrates awareness of capacity constraints and offers practical adaptations.

Adequate States that TA is tailored to local needs but provides limited specificity.

Fair Limited evidence that TA can be adapted for small or under-resourced organizations.

No Value Does not address adaptation for limited-capacity organizations.

3.5.2.4.4 Question 4: Communication of Fiscal Findings and Compliance Determinations (5 points)

Explain your communication strategies for fiscal findings and required repayments to district leadership, and how you distinguish between technical assistance and compliance determinations.

Rating Level Description of Evidence Supporting Rating

Outstanding Clearly distinguishes TA from compliance determinations; explains communication with district leadership on findings, repayment obligations, evidence, authority, and next steps using clear, defensible language.

Very Good Shows strong communication practices and understands the TA/compliance distinction, with minor gaps.

Adequate Describes communicating findings and support but with limited nuance around repayment or authority.

Fair Communication strategy is vague or may blur TA with compliance determinations.

No Value Does not demonstrate ability to communicate fiscal findings.

3.5.2.5 Domain Three: Allocation Review and Support (25 Points)

3.5.2.5.1 Question 1: Allocation Policy and Methodology Review (5 points)

Exp…