El Paso Independent School District trustees on Sept. 3 heard presentations and questioned three finalist firms vying to run the district's superintendent search under RFP 26-001 as staff and board members prepared a second-round scoring process that will determine the award.

The interviews followed an Aug. 27 board motion to use the published evaluation matrix and add 40 points for interviews; that motion was approved 6-1. At the Sept. 3 special meeting, procurement staff said proposals were solicited in July, proposals were due Aug. 15 and board members had the opportunity to review and preliminarily score proposals before the interviews.

Haley Pena, executive director of procurement and school resources for El Paso Independent School District, summarized the solicitation timeline: "On 06/18, the board, approved the methodology and the procedure for this solicitation" and noted the district advertised the RFP on July 22 and July 28 to meet Texas Education Code requirements. Pena also reminded trustees that under district policy CHE (Local) bid information may not be released until evaluations conclude and a contract is finalized.

Three firms presented in the boardroom: the Texas Association of School Boards' executive search unit (TASB); JG Consulting (presented by Kent Paredes Scribner); and Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates (HYA). Ray and Associates declined to participate in the interview.

George Kazanis, division director of executive search services for TASB, told trustees TASB's search unit is focused on school boards and described an all-inclusive fee model and long placement tenure for the association's candidates: "This is all I do. I work full time. I work for TASB." Kazanis and field service representative Ruben Cervantes emphasized TASB's experience with Texas districts and community engagement, including bilingual outreach in border communities.

Kent Paredes Scribner, representing JG Consulting, described proprietary tools the firm uses to compare candidate districts and said the firm would absorb travel and related costs. Scribner stated an all-in fee in his presentation: "we'll be 50,000. No hidden cost, no bridal, that's the number." He also emphasized a data portal and career portal to create apples-to-apples comparisons of candidate outcomes.

The HYA presenter (an associate representing Hazard, Young and Attea) outlined a four-phase search process (engage, recruit, select, transition), emphasized a broad national network of associates and described a client portal for confidential board access to materials. HYA said most of its placed superintendents remain in their posts and offered a price-match and a fixed-price guarantee in the proposal materials.

Board Secretary Alex Webb told presenters the trustees would ask the same set of 16 questions of each firm "so that it's fair." Questions focused on experience with border communities, recruiting candidates who are not actively looking, verification of candidate records beyond references, community-engagement plans, confidentiality vs. transparency, and follow-up support after placement.

Procedural details for the interview phase were reiterated by procurement staff: each vendor received 10 minutes for a presentation and up to 30 minutes for Q&A with the board. Trustees may record scores in IonWave (the district's procurement system) or on the paper forms provided; staff will collect and file written notes into the bid file after the session.

Next steps: trustees will submit second-round scores in IonWave and staff will complete evaluation tallies. Procurement reiterated that, per CHE (Local), proposal information may only be publicly released after evaluations are complete and a contract is executed. The district did not take a contract award vote at the Sept. 3 session; the meeting recorded only the interviews and the prior 6-1 Aug. 27 motion to include interview points in the scoring matrix.

Votes at a glance

- Aug. 27 (preliminary special meeting): Motion to use the published evaluation matrix (1,135 points) and add 40 points for interviews — approved 6-1. (Mover/second not specified in the meeting record.)

(Details and sources: procurement presentation and vendor interviews, Sept. 3, 2025.)