Education committee invites two consultants to present after review of three proposals

The Education Committee (Senate) voted to invite two firms, APA Consulting and Schulz and Associates, to give oral presentations on Oct. 8 after reviewing responses to a request for proposals for an education adequacy study.

Jill Thayer of the Bureau of Legislative Research told the committee she "received 3 proposals, by that deadline" and that she had marked one firm, Total Employee Sourcing, as nonresponsive because the vendor did not submit the required original signed documents. Thayer summarized the two responsive bids and the committee’s packet, which included the RFP, a response checklist and a side-by-side price comparison.

Thayer gave the cost figures the committee was using for comparison: "APA ... total max bid is $659,580" and Schulz's max bid is "$499,236." She described differences in staffing, subcontractor listings, travel estimates and the handling of pricing sheets; she also said APA had removed one subcontractor who had been a concern in prior work.

Lori Bowen, who conducted reference checks, told the committee that states and organizations that had worked with APA and with Dr. James Schulz generally described the firms as responsive and recommended them for similar assignments, while noting some cautions. Bowen summarized that Wyoming and Kansas referenced APA’s work and raised that, in one case, a subcontractor’s supplemental materials were incomplete in an earlier report; she said the substance was not affected but it had given some people pause. References for Dr. Schulz described him as "thorough and careful," meeting deadlines and producing readable reports.

Committee members pressed several procedural and substantive questions. Members asked whether the committee could require that particular subcontractors not participate; Thayer said the RFP reserves final approval of personnel to the committees. Representative Lowery asked whether references reported measurable policy improvements after consultants’ recommendations; Bowen replied references were satisfied with the work but did not claim direct causal improvements in statewide education outcomes.

Representative Dela Rosa asked about the Office for Education Policy (OEP) partnership included in the Schulz bid and whether committee funds would effectively pay university employees. Thayer said OEP is part of the University of Arkansas system and that the bureau would provide additional documentation on OEP’s funding mechanism before the next meeting.

Members also questioned procurement process issues — for example, why the chairs had deemed Total Employee Sourcing nonresponsive while Schulz’s submission contained technical omissions. Thayer explained the chairs judged Total Employee Sourcing’s failure to provide original signed documents as a decisive nonresponse, whereas Schulz’s omissions were technical and presented to the committee for determination. The committee was advised that protests would be handled by the executive subcommittee of legislative council.

After discussion, Representative Dodson moved that the committees "extend an invitation to APA and Schulz, both consultants to appear here on, at the October 8 meeting of the education committees and give oral presentations and to request that they provide hourly rates for all subcontractors prior to that date." The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote; the chair said the committees will hear the adequacy topic on Oct. 7 and hear presentations from both consultants on Oct. 8.

Next procedural steps noted by staff included that the policy-making subcommittee of legislative council is scheduled to meet Oct. 16 to consider any contract recommendation, and that the full legislative council would act Oct. 18 if a contract is recommended.

The committee adjourned without objection.