Work group moves to finalize RFP to hire investigator for African Meeting House review

The African Meeting House Investigation Procurement Work Group directed town procurement staff to prepare a request for proposals and evaluative criteria to hire an external investigator to review a prior inquiry into the African Meeting House, the committee said during a recorded meeting.

The committee asked procurement staff to draft the RFP and circulating schedule, then return the document for the group to redline before public release. Cindy Hsu, the town’s deputy procurement officer, told the group, "I do have resources as well to reach out to to see if anybody else has done anything similar to this, which may help build that scope as well." Brian, a town staff member leading procurement logistics, said the town typically allows a 30-day response window and that for this procurement they would likely give "probably 45 days" to submit proposals and plan for a question-and-answer addendum process.

The work group’s discussion focused on three main choices: the scope of work the investigator should cover, minimum qualifications and conflict-of-interest exclusions. Committee members agreed the group will define the scope of work used in the RFP; one committee member summarized that the committee’s charge is "to find an investigator to investigate how the investigation went," and that the committee will write the scope. Members debated whether the RFP should include a minimum firm‑age or minimum law-enforcement experience requirement and whether firms that previously worked for the town or the district attorney should be disqualified.

Town procurement staff proposed standard evaluative criteria framed with tiered scoring: an approach/understanding of the scope (highly advantageous to unacceptable), experience with similar law-enforcement investigations (examples ranged from 6+ to none), staff experience within a firm and references plus a sample report. The staff presentation noted that proposals failing minimum criteria (for example, an unresolved tax-compliance form) could be ruled ineligible. On professional ties, procurement staff recommended a firm disclosure in the RFP and suggested making prior work for the town or DA a minimum disqualifier if the work group wanted the strictest conflict standard.

Committee members raised practical concerns about overly narrow minimums. One member said limiting eligibility too tightly — for example, requiring firms to be in business 10 years — might leave too few bidders; others suggested balancing years-in-business requirements with demonstrated law-enforcement experience so that a one-person firm with decades of police service would still be competitive.

Several members supported interviews as part of selection: procurement staff recommended reserving the right to interview the top-ranked firms and suggested interviews of up to three finalists. The staff also warned that if the group hired a consultant to help draft the scope, that consultant likely would be barred by the Massachusetts Inspector General’s office from bidding on the final contract because of inside knowledge.

On outreach, staff said they would advertise in regional police journals and broader outlets (for example, the Boston Globe) in addition to the town’s normal procurement posting. The draft schedule circulated verbally called for the committee to review an initial RFP draft the following week and for the public posting to include a period for questions and addenda.

Formal votes during the meeting were limited to procedural items. The group approved earlier meeting minutes, with a roll-call vote recorded as yes by Dr. Trent, Mr. Fox, Mr. Williams and the chair; the minutes motion was seconded by Rocky and subsequently approved. The meeting adjourned by recorded vote.

Public comment at the meeting included a resident who urged the group to prefer investigators from outside New England, saying, "I would prefer they were not in or from New England or anywhere North Of New York," to avoid perceived local connections.

Next steps: procurement staff will produce a redlineable RFP draft, circulate it to the work group for edits and return it to the committee for review. The group repeatedly signaled that interviews of top firms and a written sample report would be important components of the evaluation.

Discussion (not decisions) - Whether to make prior work for the town or the district attorney automatic grounds for disqualification; procurement staff recommended a disclosure requirement and suggested making prior work a minimum disqualifier if the committee preferred the strictest standard. - Appropriate minimums for years in business and staff law‑enforcement experience; members discussed trade-offs between excluding inexperienced firms and allowing small or one-person firms with substantial law enforcement backgrounds. - Whether to commission a consultant to help draft scope; staff cautioned that a consultant who helped draft the scope would typically be barred from bidding on the work.

Direction given to staff - Draft an RFP and front-end procurement file (scope narrative, evaluation criteria, rules for award) and circulate a redlineable draft to the committee for review. - Plan to advertise in specialized police journals and broader outlets and allow a question-and-answer period with addenda to all bidders. - Retain interview capacity for top-ranked proposals (suggested: up to three finalists).

Formal actions - Approval of meeting minutes (mover and some names on the record; second by Rocky; recorded yes votes: Dr. Trent, Mr. Fox, Mr. Williams, chair). Outcome: approved. - Motion to adjourn (second by Mr. Fox). Outcome: approved.

Why it matters The work group is executing the town-meeting directive embodied in the positive motion adopted as Article 36 at the 2024 Annual Town Meeting; the RFP and selection approach will determine who performs the independent review and how conflicts of interest are managed. That selection will shape public confidence in the review’s independence and the eventual scope of findings that the investigator may deliver.

Ending Procurement staff aims to deliver a draft RFP to the committee in the coming week for redlines. The work group plans to reconvene to review the draft and move toward issuing the public procurement notice.