Town of Concord staff told the full advisory board on Jan. 6 that the request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant to support planning, outreach and zoning work is live and that the town is preparing a short, tightly scheduled selection process.

The RFP has been distributed to 35 firms, staff said, and the board set a timeline for questions, proposal reviews and interviews that staff said would move quickly toward a contract award in February. Board members discussed forming a noticed selection committee under Massachusetts open‑meeting rules to review proposals, conduct reference checks and attend finalist interviews.

Megan (staff member) said, “the RFP is live and 35 firms have received copies of it,” and outlined the near‑term schedule: the board will accept written questions from firms, review proposals immediately on receipt and aim to notify a subset of firms for interviews so the town can proceed to a contract award. Megan added the town is targeting Feb. 11 for a contract award. She also said staff will coordinate reference checks and that interview scheduling will aim to concentrate finalist presentations on a single day with a snow date.

The board spent substantial time on process details. Members agreed that any subcommittee or selection committee that includes two or more advisory‑board members must be noticed as an open meeting under the state’s open‑meeting requirements. Lee (advisory board member) reminded colleagues that “a multi member board . . . has to follow open meeting laws,” and the group discussed whether portions of vendor review or interviews could be handled in executive session when permitted. John (advisory board member) urged that at least some meetings be held in person: “Let’s just make it an in person meeting,” he said, arguing that in‑person deliberation and vendor presentations help the committee evaluate how teams perform under pressure.

Board members debated interview format and transparency. Some members urged sending a short list of questions or the interview agenda to shortlisted firms in advance so firms can prepare focused presentations. Others said on‑the‑spot follow‑ups tell more about a team’s ability to think on its feet. The group settled on a hybrid approach: give finalists a clear timetable and a small set of questions or presentation expectations in advance, but allow committee members to ask follow‑up questions during interviews.

The advisory board also discussed practical limits on review work. Staff said proposals would be provided in paper copies for committee members to read at the review meeting, and that the initial scoring pass would aim to rule out non‑responsive submissions and reduce the field to a manageable short list (board members repeatedly used 3–5 finalists as the target for interviews). Committee volunteers offered to do the first pass scoring, with staff performing the bulk of reference checks on the finalists.

Funding and contracting responsibilities were part of the discussion. Board members noted that the town manager’s office is the contracting authority; selection would be advisory to that office and to the select board where required. The group also discussed current funding: the municipal budget includes approximately $400,000 already set aside for this work, and several speakers said additional funding sources (including ARPA allocations and other town reserves) could be explored if consultant bids exceed the amount the town has earmarked.

Board members volunteered to serve on an initial selection committee and on a smaller interview panel; staff will finalize the names and post meeting notices to comply with open‑meeting law. Staff said they will post the question deadline and proposal due dates and will circulate the agenda and logistical instructions for finalist presentations once the short list is chosen.

Going forward, the advisory board expects to participate in scoring proposals, help prepare a written set of questions for finalists and sit in a noticed public meeting for the short‑listing step. Interview panels will include town staff and a small number of advisory‑board members so the contracting authority can make a selection informed by the committee’s evaluations.