Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Rfp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Board directs changes to statewide assessment RFP; staff to seek vendor demos, concordance and alignment options
Summary
Following a presentation by assessment administrator Peter Zutz, the board instructed staff to add release materials, vendor demonstrations, concordance tables and language encouraging vendor approaches that enable better alignment between interim and summative assessments; the board also asked for rubric refinements and broader evaluation‑committee expertise.
The Nevada State Board of Education heard a presentation from Peter Zutz, administrator of the Office of Assessment, Data, and Accountability Management, on the proposed scope of work, evaluation criteria and evaluation committee for a statewide assessment request for proposals (RFP). The department seeks an online assessment solution (with paper/Braille options), adaptive/CAT design and robust reporting (individual student reports, Lexile/quantile, ADA compliance).
Zutz explained the difference between through‑year (interim) and summative assessments and noted federal reporting requirements for grades 3 and 8 plus science. He outlined a high‑level timeline the department proposed: approve scope/rubric in June, submit the final RFP to state purchasing for release on July 8, evaluate proposals and select a vendor on Sept. 16, and seek contract approval with implementation work to begin in early 2027.
Board members raised multiple concerns and edits. Questions included: how equity differs from inclusion in technical requirements, whether the evaluation committee can include more than five members, and whether the board can see top‑ranked proposals rather than a single recommendation. Zutz said committee size can vary and that the department will confirm with state purchasing the feasibility of vendor demonstrations for the committee.
The board requested several changes to the RFP scope and rubric. Vice President Hughes and others asked staff to add or strengthen: vendor demonstrations/presentations to the evaluation committee (with Q&A), released student practice materials, concordance or cross‑walk tables if a new vendor uses a different scoring system, and a description of options for more aligned through‑year or hybrid systems (without precluding vendors that do not offer them). Members also asked the rubric to require vendors to demonstrate longitudinal score comparability, describe how item development aligns to Nevada Academic Content Standards, and provide contingency and peak‑load stability plans for vendor platforms.
The board voted to direct the department to incorporate the suggested scope edits and to revise the rubric and evaluation criteria to emphasize standards alignment, longitudinal comparability and operational reliability. Members requested that the evaluation committee include a diversity of perspectives — non‑state participants, experts with experience across different vendor products, and content experts across grade spans (ELA, math, science). Zutz said he would incorporate the board’s guidance and confirm procurement details with state purchasing.
On timing: Zutz cautioned that truly innovative through‑year or hybrid state assessment designs require multi‑year development and federal peer review; the RFP process could, however, prioritize vendors that offer interim/progress‑monitoring tools aligned to the summative blueprint. The department will return with a near‑final RFP and revised rubric at the board’s next meeting.
Next steps: NDE will update the scope of work and rubric to reflect the board’s direction, confirm the evaluation committee structure with state purchasing, and post the RFP for proposals on the established timeline.
