Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consultant Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord subcommittee narrows schedule for consultant RFP interviews amid tight timeline
Summary
The MCI Advisory Board Land Use Subcommittee reviewed RFP responses, confirmed a 1–5 ranking system and a shortlisting timeline, and agreed to ask advisory board members to submit ranked evaluations ahead of a Thursday selection meeting and Monday interviews.
The MCI Advisory Board Land Use Subcommittee on Jan. 21 agreed on a compressed timeline to review proposals for the Town of Concord’s MCI planning contract and set a process for ranking, reference checks and interviews.
Subcommittee members said the town has received strong interest in the RFP: “I saw a list with close to 45 names on it,” said Linda Miller, a subcommittee member, “so there is a lot of interest in our proposal.” The group agreed that the full advisory board will receive proposals Monday, members will submit numeric rankings, and a smaller selection subcommittee will meet the following Thursday to produce a shortlist for interviews the next Monday.
The ranking method will use a 1–5 scale, with 5 being exemplary, based on a matrix Elizabeth Hughes drafted, subcommittee members said. Town staff will perform reference checks; the group discussed whether those checks should be performed for every respondent or only for finalists. Shannon (town staff) said counsel advised that reference checks may be unnecessary for proposals that are mathematically incapable of reaching the shortlist based on their point totals. “If we can mathematically eliminate them, then we don't have to do their reference checks,” Shannon said.
Members debated how much preparation time shortlisted teams should get. Scott Bates pressed for more lead time; he said most firms will not prepare full interview teams until notified. “If you have 20 responses … you're asking them to prepare over the weekend,” Bates said. Linda Miller and others acknowledged the time constraints; the group settled on asking firms to be available on the interview Monday and compressed the internal schedule so the selection subcommittee could identify finalists by Thursday.
The subcommittee agreed it will use three inputs to narrow candidates: (1) staff reference checks, (2) quantitative rankings submitted by the full advisory board, and (3) a smaller selection group that will do a deeper review. Members discussed using a digital spreadsheet or other tool so rankings can be totaled quickly; Shannon said she would distribute the standardized evaluation matrix used for similar projects and requested that advisory board members submit up to three proposed interview questions each before the Monday meeting.
On reference checks the group compiled a draft list of questions to standardize responses: timeliness in meeting deadlines; ability to engage diverse audiences; whether proposed team members actually perform the work; quality of presentation materials; strength of community engagement; and one open-ended catchall (“Is there anything I haven’t asked that I should?”). The subcommittee left flexibility to ask one firm-specific follow-up question during reference checks or interviews.
The subcommittee also agreed on next steps: the full advisory board will receive proposals Monday and submit rankings; Shannon will coordinate staff reference checks and block time Thursday afternoon for the small selection committee to meet in person; finalists will be notified Thursday night and interviewed the following Monday. The group emphasized speed because of the June 30 timeline for the broader project.
Votes and procedural actions recorded during the meeting included approval of the subcommittee’s Dec. 23, 2024 minutes before the RFP discussion.
