Portland Public Schools ad hoc committee outlines RFP and timeline to hire equity investigation firm

Portland Public Schools’ ad hoc committee met remotely on Friday to draft the statement of work and procurement approach for hiring an external firm to conduct a districtwide equity investigation. Chair Mickey Bondo said the committee’s role is “to identify and hire an external firm or company to complete a districtwide investigation for equity practices,” and members moved to refine the RFP scope and evaluation criteria before staff publishes the solicitation.

Committee members directed staff to aim for an approximately five-year review window of existing qualitative and quantitative data so the selected vendor can spot trends across administrations. Sarah Bridal, a committee member, said the five-year period felt like a reasonable balance between historical continuity and data quality.

Lisa, district staff leading procurement, walked the committee through the RFP steps and timeline, explaining that the process begins with a finalized statement of work, proceeds to legal review and required publication, then opens a vendor submission window. “This whole process generally takes 10 to 12 weeks,” Lisa said. She described the standard RFP sections the district will include: vendor instructions, the statement of work (the committee’s draft), evaluation criteria, a vendor submission form and boilerplate terms and conditions (including FERPA and indemnification clauses). Staff said legal counsel (named in discussion as Jermaine/German Woodson) will review the document before publication.

Committee discussion addressed vendor qualifications and methodology. Members emphasized avoiding conflicts of interest, balancing experienced firms with credible newer teams, and requiring references—staff proposed two letters of reference and members discussed wording permitting one to three. Chair Bondo and others stressed that interviews of students should be trauma- and grammar-informed so young people are not retraumatized or put in uncomfortable positions during research interviews.

On scoring and cost disclosure, members asked how price and schedule would be weighted. Lisa said evaluators typically score on total price while noting that breaking out travel or printed-material costs can provide useful transparency; the draft scoring rubric included items such as demonstrated experience, approach, timeline and price (one example on the table showed 15 percent for project timeline).

The committee also discussed logistics for vendor work, favoring a hybrid model: in-person kickoff and closeout with a mix of remote and in-person interviews as appropriate. Members asked that vendors demonstrate a team model capable of local in-person work when needed rather than relying solely on distant staff.

Jane, who advised on equity-minded procurement, urged the committee to write the RFP with an outcome focus rather than a prescriptive list of required outputs. “If we really want to invite a firm that is doing this work and might be a firm that is led by Black, Indigenous, people of color…we want to do this process in the way that will support that,” she said, warning that standard RFP structures can be “very extractive” and risk reproducing white supremacy culture in procurement.

Next steps: staff committed to draft RFP language based on the committee’s feedback and send a draft to the committee by the end of next week for review; members agreed to circulate and consolidate wish lists into the statement of work. The group discussed meeting again on Feb. 27 (with an interim draft review planned for the week prior) and adjourned.

The committee’s immediate deliverables are the consolidated statement of work and a staff-drafted RFP template for committee review; no formal vendor selection or contract vote occurred at this meeting.