Education Committee - Senate & House
Video
Transcript
11 documents
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
6:00
Good morning or afternoon, see
how far behind I am today.
I guess we're ready to get started. Everybody here knows what we're here for. This is going to be a presentation of the procurement of education adequacy consultant services, and we're going to let Ms. Thayer and Ms.
Speaker 4
6:47
Bowen tell us a little bit about what we have. You're recognized.
Speaker 6
6:55
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jill Thayer, Bureau of Legislative Research. You all have in front of you, or you
Speaker 7
7:01
should, a binder that has the two proposals that we received,
and I'm going to go over with you quickly. I'm going to go over with you the contents of these binders and then answer any questions you have. And Lori Bowen from our research division is also here. she checked all the references for these entities and we'll be able to talk to you about those so as you know on august 23rd the second rfp was released we published it on the osp website and
in addition to that i emailed it to the three entities that it was sent to with the first one as well as seven additional entities at the request of a member of this of these committees the deadline for proposals was September 20th and I received three proposals by that deadline and I'm going to go over those with you and today you're going to hear the summaries of what we received their references and then it's up to y'all to make the determination of who you want
to bring back for your October 8th meeting to give oral presentations to you whether it's all of them or none of them that's up to you so let me talk to you a little bit about what you have in your binder you all have a copy of the RFP that was released you also have the a response checklist which looks like
Speaker 11
8:35
this this is at the front of your binder and then you have a price comparison table up there also and then
Speaker 7
8:46
you have the two you have two of the three proposals the APA
proposal and the Schulz and Associates proposal and those are separated by tabs so that you can see what those are and the pricing proposal for each of those is at the very beginning of those tabs so I'm going to talk to you a little bit about this response checklist and this is my preliminary look the first thing I do when I get the proposals is I go through them to see if the bids are even responsive to the RFP and if they're not then I contact the chairs and let them know but that's what this first table is
and you can see on here that there was in addition to APA and shuls we received a third proposal from a company called total employee sourcing and I have indicated that that is a non-responsive bid the chairs have already permitted me to go ahead and let that company know that and the reason that it was non-responsive primarily is we did not receive an original bid from them at all they sent me an email I never received original documents the RFP requires that original
documents be submitted signed originals including original pricing and we just didn't get that In addition to that, there were some other issues with their bid. I went ahead and looked through it and indicated for you what else was missing from it. So today you're going to look at APA and Shulls and Associates. There are varying levels of what would cause a bid to be considered nonresponsive, and it's up to these two bodies, this committee, to make that determination.
You will see that the Shulls and Associates proposal had some red marked on here. I'm going to go over with you what was missing from their initial submission. The RFP has its first two pages look like this. And there are blanks they're supposed to fill out with their company information. and the second page requires them to give us their tax identification number and says in bold and caps that failure to submit a taxpayer identification number may result in
proposal rejection I did not get this from Shul's at all I have received it now because I asked them for it and I got it this past Friday so I got that one of the reasons that the taxpayer identification number is important before we even enter a contract with someone is that I use that number to search in the DFA website for whether or not they have certified that they won't contract with illegal immigrants which is one of the requirements under the law for any contract that we enter
and they've also submitted that certification to me so I do have that information now they did correct that but I needed to bring it to your attention because it wasn't submitted prior to the deadline the other issue with their bid is that section 1.3 of the RFP requires that all pricing information be submitted separately sealed from the proposal this is a technicality and it's something that's lived in this RFP since we started it six seven years ago but it is something that's in there what
they submitted to me was their proposal with no pricing information and then I also received a proposal that had pricing information so there was no just separate price but they did do two separate submissions so that's up to y'all whether or not that matters to you. APA did not have any initial issues with their with their proposal for the price comparison table on this I went
through they both use the same official price proposal sheet to fill this out and I just went through and pulled out for you so that you could see side by side the personnel that they're planning to use the hourly rates for that personnel the number of hours they anticipate they'll need for that and then also the travel costs that they anticipate that they will incur and finally on the back page both companies are planning to use not only a
partner but also subcontractors and they have listed here the the amounts that they would like to charge for those um i would ask with regard to this whoever you do decide to bring back in whereas apa did provide hourly rates for their west ed personnel which is their partner neither they nor shuls provided hourly rates for their other subcontractors they've just given us flat amount of their total fee that would go to those entities and for the
Bureau's purposes and for our auditing we need them to invoice us actual work that they performed actual hours that they worked and hourly rates so and I've asked the chairs of any motion that y'all do today would also ask them to provide that to you before the next meeting and then you'll have that to make your final decision. But you can see that APA, who is the company that submitted the previous bid to you, their total max bid is $659,580, which is
approximately $300,000 less than their bid that they gave you back in May. And And
Speaker 17
14:45
then Schul's max bid is $499,236. So now I would ask you to turn to
Speaker 7
14:57
the APA tab in your binder and you'll see some documents at the very front of your tab that Lori and I have created for you.
These proposals are long, and they're comprehensive, and so we've attempted to go through, and I have summarized some of the main points for you to pull that out, and then Lori has created reference tables for you where she went through and called the references for each of these entities, and she has summarized their answers so that you have that there. So APA Consulting, I'm just going to briefly go over with you some of the highlights for them.
You heard from them a couple of months ago, but they're a consulting firm based in Denver, Colorado. They have 36 years of experience in the area of education systems and policy consulting and analysis, and they state that they have worked with 23 different states in analyzing their education resources and adequacy needs. They did make a few changes from the proposal that you saw before, and in addition to their price, they acknowledge that they know that this study is not intended to produce specific adequacy numbers and don't plan to include that in their work.
and they did also mention that they have worked to diversify their project team in response to the committee's previous concerns and have a better understanding of the Lakeview decision and have also identified a local partner that they will work with on this project. So the main parts of their project plan begin on page 23 of their proposal.
And what they have done this time is go through the various parts of the scope of work in the RFP and have shown how they're going to tackle each part of it. They do mention that they plan to perform fiscal and performance data analysis, case studies, literature and document reviews, as well as working with educators personally and stakeholders. and they plan to do surveys of the school districts and then they do
mention that they plan to provide monthly updates and access to these committees so APA this time has changed the personnel that will work on this project a little bit they removed three of the subcontractors that they had previously and they're now planning to propose four primary staff from their own company three from West Ed who will be their partner and then they have three additional subcontractors listed
who are all in the field of education in addition and they spoke to you about this last time and some of their comparable work they've worked with the Maryland Department of Education conducting their adequacy study which legislation resulted from they've worked with the Wyoming legislature looking at their school finance system and educational programs and then they have worked with the Kansas state legislature and they also listed several additional states
they've worked with other general assemblies and departments of education and that's all throughout their bid. That's the summary. You've got all of this on the table to look over. Lori can go over the references for APA if you'd like to hear what she
Speaker 17
19:00
learned. If not, I'll go on to Schulz. You do.
Speaker 24
19:15
I did speak to three actually Nell Smith joined on these conversations and we talked with three references for APA I'll refer to them it's Augenblick, Palich and Associates I'll just kind of hit the high points on each one of the questions that we asked and then be happy to go further or deeper if there are questions. In response to the type of work that they had completed for these three references, Wyoming indicated that they had been engaging in an every five-year recalibration of
their education funding formula and that they found because of some unforeseen funding needs they had to do an additional one more quickly and in 2017 they contracted with APA to recalibrate their school funding. Maryland completes a statutorily required re-evaluation of educational adequacy and they completed one for them. Kansas contracted with West Ed which is the partner
group for with APA in 2017 to do a study on their k-12 finance system and they contracted with they had a subcontractor Dr. Lori Taylor that did a good bit of the work for them as well and they had them review their school finance system overall they did some econometric work to produce an education standards a system that would meet the rose standards which I understand is another education legal action that was taken in the state of Kentucky that
they were seeking to meet. And so that kind of concludes, just to give you an overview of what they were doing for these other states. Question two asked about their responsiveness, accessibility, and availability to these states. And all of them indicated that that had been find that they had done well and that they were very responsive under question three it asked about the satisfaction of the work that had been performed in Wyoming he said that he thought that
they had you know he was satisfied with the work that they did he did make one observation that there was some difficulty in pending down exact recommendations and he would just he said it could have been partially due to the fact that they have a very small student population, only 93,000 students, but that was something that he did point out. Maryland indicated that they were satisfied and did not really elaborate. Kansas said that on the contractual side they were very
pleased with WestEd. They did say there were some political issues they had encountered where there was not uniform agreement among all legislators in the work that was performed. There was also some concern about one of their subcontractors, Dr. Taylor, that had been secured to do some of the work. On question four, the question was about the strengths and weaknesses of APA. Wyoming indicated that their strengths were they conducted themselves very professionally,
They presented well to committees, interacted well with all those involved in the study, and were willing to get help from outside experts when they found that their expertise was not up to that whatever question had arisen. A weakness that they mentioned was that they would caution us not to allow them to just give us canned recommendations, but that whatever they provide to the committees would be meeting Arkansas-specific needs. for Maryland they indicated that the strengths of APA where they were very knowledgeable good
at data analysis they intersected the data with the research that that's available on education the weakness that they pointed out was not a substantive weakness but they said they do need to hire an editor that they did observe somewhat consistently some typographical type errors and reports but that the substance was not really impacted by that. Kansas indicated the strengths were communication abilities were very good they kept the interested parties informed and the
weaknesses they said primarily were related to the subcontractor Dr. Taylor because there was some concern about her selection and the work that she did but they there was another piece of this that involved peer review, and they were pleased with that. On question five, we asked specifically if any problems were encountered on more processed contractual issues or billing issues, and none of them had any issues with APA on that type of thing.
On question six, we asked if they would recommend APA to other entities for this work, and would they use them themselves again? They all responded that they would recommend them. these were primarily state government folks so there would be some process associated with selecting a vendor again so they could not really commit or say yes we would use them because of those procedural Maryland would have to have a that was the department of ed that was speaking and they would have to go through an RFP process similar to what we do and the others
would be legislative decisions but that they felt that there was overall a positive opinion um so um last we asked if they just had anything to add and um that for wyoming they said that we should not be terribly surprised if the results that came back would recommend additional resources additional funding for education that that had been their experience um and that he did recommend an in-depth review of arkansas specific data and information and relate that to
high-performing states, and he also recommended the use of an economist whereby we would look at competing states in our competitive market relating to teacher salaries. Maryland said there was nothing else they really wanted to add other than that APA was well aware of their strengths and weaknesses and that they were very, very good at this type of work. Kansas said they were pleased and just reiterated that I guess because of their recent experience that they
anticipated there might be some pro and anti-individuals and so dependent on where you sat as to how you would receive a report and that they had been very accessible. They reiterated that they had been accessible and had only had one time they had to have interaction with them by phone as opposed to in person. So it's kind of
Speaker 27
26:07
just an overview of what I learned from those three do you want questions on
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
26:18
that or you want to wait till the whole thing's over
you want to wait till it's all over okay
Speaker 7
26:31
continue on thank you mr chair um next we have shules and associates that's your next tab and again the first document is your summary of their proposal and then you have the references tables right behind that. Schultz and Associates stated in their cover letter that they are a new firm that was organized specifically for
the purpose of responding to this RFP and however Dr. James Schultz is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri St. Louis and as an individual has been used as an educational expert by many states for this type of work. He's proposing to partner with the Office for Education Policy which is part of the University of Arkansas system and then also has I believe three additional four additional
subcontractors listed that are experts in the field of education so dr. Schulz has taken the scope of work from the RFP and broken it into what he calls 14 different projects and he indicates which parts he will tackle and which parts OEP the office for education policy will tackle and he has them conducting parts one two six and seven which number one you'll see on the
timeline which begins on or which is on page 23 of
Speaker 11
28:06
his report is it looks like this number one was the funding formula
Speaker 7
28:14
analysis and recommendations that's the part that OEP will do. They will also do analysis of the relationship between funding and performance, poverty and proxies, and then evaluating assessment
and tax policies. So that's how he has broken that work up. With regard, we always ask them to list comparable work and the references that Laurie checked, Dr. Schulz did list that he has a current contract for his new firm, Schulz and Associates, with the Schindler Law Firm, which is based in Missouri, and that is to conduct an analysis of Missouri's funding formula for education. He also listed two previous projects that he had done
individually. The Maryland Public Policy Institute hired him as an individual education expert to conduct an independent analysis of Maryland's Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education, their recommendations that came out of the legislation that Maryland had passed regarding their adequacy for education. And then he also listed the Show Me Institute, which is an institute in Missouri that he provides public policy analysis for.
The bid for him, again, is $499,236. He proposes that the OEP will provide three personnel in addition to him himself, and then he has the four other subcontractors listed. And then Lori can go through what
Speaker 14
29:57
she found when she contacted his references. Thank you.
Speaker 24
30:07
In response to question one regarding the type of work that they had done, Jill's kind of covered a little bit of that. For the Show Me Institute, Dr. Shulz had actually been a former employee. He had been their education policy director. and when he left to go teaching full-time the director had asked that Dr. Schulz consider becoming a fellow for the institute which he agreed to do and so he continues to do research for them under that status and again as she mentioned he also has an ongoing he has provided
them a report according to Mr. Schindler who I spoke with but that he has been looking at the state's foundation formula in Missouri and specifically Mr. Schindler mentioned that the formula is based on a 2004 base tax rate and he had asked Dr. Schulz to evaluate the impact of that over time and the future potential impact of that. The Maryland Public Policy Institute indicated that he had done extensive research on reviewing the recommendations of the commission that Jill
made reference to it's the title or the name of that commission is the Kerwin Commission and he also asked them to do a historical analysis of k-12 funding and finance in Maryland in response to question two about responsiveness accessibility and availability all of them without exception were very favorable and said that he absolutely was responsive and available to them Under question three, regarding the satisfaction with the work performed, all of them were very satisfied with his work, one of which the Maryland respondent said that that would be an understatement, that he was, that found his work very helpful.
Under question four, under what the strengths are for Shulz and Associates, under the Show Me Institute, indicated that Dr. Shulz was very thorough and careful, an excellent writer, communicator, person of integrity, and follows through on commitments. She did not have any specific weaknesses to point out for Dr. Shulz. The Schindler law firm indicated that the strengths were, met all deadlines, was affable, a nice guy, said he did not really see any weaknesses either.
He said his reports are readable without grammar problems or glaring errors, and that he came in under budget, which he had found to be unusual in his line of work. For Maryland, the strengths mentioned were that he could only make comments about strengths. He said that this was not due to bias because it was his first encounter or opportunity to work with Dr. Schultz, but that Dr. Schultz had met every deadline, had engaged in good conversations with them, was accessible, nonpartisan, and he did a good job of showing the history of Maryland's investment in education.
Under question five, regarding problems with contract or billing issues, none of them had any issues to report. under question six regarding whether they would recommend Schultz and Associates for similar work they all indicated that they would and the Show Me Institute of course because they are still cooperating with him in this fellow status is continuing to work with him the Schindler law firm he's while
they're still in the mid process if they're nearing the completion of that work but he said there's possibility that he might need some supplemental help and that he would definitely use him and then Maryland said yes they would both recommend and that he would use him again in the last question regarding just any other observations only mr. Schindler from the Schindler law firm had any additional comments to add and he commented that he it was his
his recollection that Dr. Schulz had been an elementary school educator and that he had thought that that might have lended some human element to the report and work that Dr. Schulz had done for them and just generally observed that he was rock solid, he said, and that he would hire him and would recommend the state of Arkansas to do likewise. And that was a general
Speaker 11
34:42
summary of what we learned. I would just conclude my part by saying that there are a couple of things in both proposals one both entities state that they would like to have a November 2020
Speaker 7
34:54
date for a final report to these bodies and that's up to y'all to decide whether or not that works for you but that would leave only one month remaining on the contract with them to work with you on any proposed legislation or recommendations that you might come up with
Speaker 33
35:13
The other thing I would point out is that the RFP does state clearly in the scope of work that you would require any consultant that you hire to come to monthly meetings with you, provide you with monthly status updates, and to work with you on any additional research requests that members of these committees may have.
Speaker 7
35:30
there's not really much mention of that in either one of the proposals so that might be something you would want to know more about to make sure that that's included in the price that you've been quoted from each of them again the decision here and if any action is taken would be whether or not to bring anybody to your next meeting and then at that meeting is when you would determine whether or not you would award a contract right now the policy making subcommittee of legislative council is scheduled to meet on
october 16th and if there is a contract they would hear that and make a recommendation to the full legislative council at its october 18th meeting and if council approves a contract your consultant would then be ready to be in working as of that day we would sign the contract and move forward so i'll take
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
36:35
any questions thank you mr. chair for APA I was trying to I heard I think that they have hired a local
subcontractor now those folks that are listed under are they listed on here and I'm not finding them no and I actually did a
Speaker 7
36:52
document search to make sure I wasn't missing it but what they do state is that they plan to work
Speaker 14
36:58
with a local university but that uh entity is to be determined so they haven't chosen them yet they have allotted an amount in their price
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
37:07
though okay and do you know what uh dr shules is it shules
am i saying it correctly um what what do you know
what his um final findings were or some kind of snapshot of the maryland uh um innovation report at the current report I
Speaker 7
37:27
believe Appendix E to his proposal has his his findings his work samples
Speaker 11
37:32
and he I believe that's one of the ones that he did provide me okay
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
37:44
Dr. Schultz he and he is he's the one that is going to partner with OEP and okay and he's the
graduate of University of Arkansas. Do you happen to know or did it say, and I'll just have to find it later, if he's a graduate of the school, is he a graduate of the School of Education, OEP, blah, blah, blah, because that just almost sounds a
Speaker 11
38:09
little too incestuous for mine. I will have to look. His resume is included in here. I'll
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
38:14
go back. You just go ahead to the next question. I'll go back and look at it. I know
Speaker 7
38:23
we're just getting it. It looks like he got his Ph.D. from the University of Arkansas in 2013.
His elementary education master's was from Missouri State University in 2007, and his bachelor's in elementary education was Missouri Southern State University in 2004. Okay. All right. Thank you. thank you mr. chair
Speaker 56
38:52
in the process in this is that we these groups come up with a list of recommendations and then we as a political body decide which of
those did any of their the people that you talked to say that we we took eight of their recommendations and as a result of that we've seen great things happen I mean they say they're nice people and they work well and they attend meetings but I didn't hear anybody nor see anything in the reports that said as a result of their analysis and recommendations we follow the X recommendations and as a result of that things are a lot better I don't see that anywhere
Speaker 24
39:33
I don't think that we got that type of a comment from from them necessarily other than a couple of the remarks, they were pleased with the results, and they had thought that they had been helpful for the purposes that they had laid out in their individual request for help. But I don't know that any of them commented on how public education had either improved or been impacted by their work.
Speaker 62
40:19
Representative Lowry Thank you Mr. Chair I have two specific questions but the first one would be in looking at the references or reading out on the references on APA there were two different states that specifically mentioned and I thought it was unique that they would
mention a specific person that they had problems with this dr taylor would we if we were to choose apa would we have the flexibility the authority to be able to stipulate or to suggest to apa that they not use a particular i know i looked up dr taylor and he's part of west ed so he's part of their staff he's not a subcontractor would we have that flexibility to be able to say that based on
those previous recommendations we would ask that dr. Taylor not be part of this
Speaker 11
41:16
this process yes and it's stated in the RFP that the committees have final approval over
Speaker 33
41:22
any personnel used on the project including subcontractors
Speaker 62
41:30
question I have I know we referenced the submittal of the final report by November of 2020 and I've spoken with the chair about hoping that we would have the flexibility to be able to target some specific
areas that we as a committee have been talking about for some time so that whoever we hire might be able to prioritize looking at those areas would we have the flexibility of asking for preliminary reports on those targeted areas so that we would maybe have even more time to propose
Speaker 11
42:12
session yes what we usually do with our consultants is they
do come to whichever body they are
Speaker 33
42:18
working for every month and provide updates in the form of small reports but you can also ask them to come to you and give you information on specific topics that's what those additional requests are as long as it stays on topic with the scope of work and we're not going outside of that and we didn't put anything in there as far as a big preliminary formal type of report and it's possible that you could ask the entities that you bring back whether or
Speaker 17
42:47
not they feel that something that's included if not it's something we could probably negotiate with them before
Speaker 70
42:56
a contract's entered okay actually I'd like to be back in the queue
Speaker 62
43:01
of pardon do I have one more question okay would they have and I know we get a lot of the we get the matrix numbers from BLR of you know where recommendations might actually come up with a dollar figure will they have access to working with blr on providing those same for instance let
me just give a hypothetical if we were to make a recommendation of say pulling transportation out of the matrix and making it categorical would they would they have access to all of those numbers to be able to show us what the net effect would be dollar wise they
Speaker 33
43:45
would certainly have access to all past adequacy reports that have been done and adopted i i don't know that there would be the ability to work directly with our staff as they're
conducting your current adequacy um study they they could to a certain degree but as far as if that changed how you wanted it done that's already been set and scheduled out for this biennium That would definitely be something that we would have to look at. But Nell Smith would probably have more information about that. But that's not what we have in the RFP or the scope of work. But yes, all information that
Speaker 14
44:25
we have for all adequacy studies conducted previously
would be something that they could use and look
Speaker 70
44:30
at. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
44:38
Chesterfield. Thank You mr. Chair Jill did they say why should say why they wanted to create themselves to deal with this issue
That is not in their proposal So they just created themselves to deal with this issue
Speaker 7
44:53
is all you have is that right? That's what it is stated in their cover letter Yes
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
44:59
One of the things that we express dog and Blake was the fact that We wanted
them to deal with the Lakeview case Was that information shared with Schultz and what was their response to the importance of Lakeview? No,
Speaker 11
45:16
I have not. The only communication up to this point with these
Speaker 7
45:21
consultants is answering any questions that they had about the RFP, which I received no questions from any vendor about the RFP. And then since the proposals came in, gathering any information that was missing.
But I have not gotten into the meat of their proposal or their purpose or how they would handle that. That's for these committees to
Speaker 14
45:41
do. If you would like for us to do that before they come here, we can
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
45:46
certainly ask them. And my final question, Mr. Chair, is what is the ethnic makeup of these companies? That I do
Speaker 7
45:54
not know. It hasn't been stated, and that's not something that we looked into. APA was here previously, but as far as Shules and Associates, it's just dr. Schulz he's a one-man show yes ma'am and this is to go across this
state yes but he has partnered with OEP and has four additional subcontractors listed. Thank you Madam Chair. Representative Birch. Thank
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
46:35
you Mr. Chair. My memory is not the greatest so bear with me a second please. Under APA's proposal on page two it says when talking about their
weaknesses they need to hire an editor. One of the only frustrations that the department of ed in maryland had was that they needed better edited work it required more staff time to review their work before it came before the legislature i seem to recall that that was that complaint was in the earlier proposal or the earlier consideration whenever they had it so they must have been at least on notice that another department of ed in that was being considered had said that about them is that too much to assume that they knew that complaint
Speaker 11
47:18
um well the references that laurie presented today are the same ones that you had previously so they we didn't update those because they gave us the
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
47:30
same ones so with the understanding that they probably knew that the
department of ed said that they can't do work without having extra staff that had to be paid for by the department or the state apparently before it went before the legislature did they offer any explanation or in any way address that in this proposal
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
47:51
not that i saw no thank you um on the the apa contract under the references where they say there were differing opinions on whether Dr. Taylor was the best fit for the work. Can we find out something?
I would like to know if it's not, you know, I guess too much of a surgical move to understand that better because I don't know that that means that person wouldn't be a good fit for us. It's on page 2, number 4, under the weaknesses. Dr. Taylor made specific recommendations regarding K-12 adequacy funding using data provided
by the Kansas Department of Education for all of their school districts and their special needs. I don't assume it would be here, but I can't discern what the problem was other than to to say they had different views about subcontracting. So if it's possible to get some more information without getting into too much of a privacy issue, I'd like to understand that better because I don't want to assume this would be an issue
for us just because it would be for somebody else if we can find out. That's
Speaker 7
49:31
all, Mr. Chair. And I think Lori has some additional information on that. And I will point out, Dr. Lori Taylor was included the first bid by APA yeah as a subcontractor and has been removed for this one and would not be I'm a subcontractor this time I just looked back at their first proposal and yeah and she had dr. Taylor was listed there but is not now so we don't know that
Speaker 11
49:57
if that's in response to the questions that they received when they were here last time or not and
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
50:04
yeah I don't remember discussion about her okay all right well if she's not gonna be on there I just don't don't waste your
Speaker 98
50:24
time and so Rosen Murdoch thank you chair this may be a question for the chairs in terms of
Speaker 99
50:29
the disqualification of one company for being non-responsive but shows who also had some things they did not complete initially according to the RFP but were deemed responsive between I guess BLR and you guys can you tell me the determination that was made whereby one was sorry you missed that you were late No, I was listening to it, and I didn't hear it. I
Speaker 102
50:58
heard everything, but I didn't hear that.
I didn't hear that definition of why you determined one over
Speaker 11
51:06
the other. With regard to total employee sourcing, we did not even receive original documents from them at all. Which means they were non-responsive. In that sense, we didn't get
Speaker 33
51:16
their bid. We got an email, but we did not get original signed documents. Did
Speaker 98
51:22
the email include everything? No. I did
Speaker 7
51:25
go through the email, and so what you see here are the things that were missing from their email.
I just wanted to make sure that even with that, whether or not it was
Speaker 99
51:37
responsive. So they had several non-responsive items, including not sending an original document. So Shules and Associates, go ahead. And with Shules and Associates,
Speaker 11
51:47
there were a couple of technicality issues missing. I brought that
Speaker 7
51:52
here for the committees to determine because it wasn't a major. With the other one, it was as though we didn't receive it at all because we didn't get an original.
With these, we did, and it's up to you all to decide whether or not you feel that makes their bid nonresponsive or
Speaker 99
52:13
not. So you conferred with the committee chairs, and they made the determination that Shul's was okay. No, they have not made that
Speaker 100
52:23
of non-responsiveness is what I'm calling. Right. And they
Speaker 14
52:26
determined that that was something that needs to come in front of this body to decide. Who determined
Speaker 99
52:32
then that, this is what I'm trying to understand,
is if someone did not respond properly, then that can by itself be determined non-responsive, period. Yes, sir. So in this particular case, though, only one of the two that did not respond properly, one of those have already been determined non-responsive. Why wouldn't we have had both of these here to make the same decision or a different decision? That's my question.
Speaker 11
53:03
And if this body would like to, you can
Speaker 7
53:07
certainly consider the total employee sourcing bid as well.
But the chairs determined that because it was such a severe omission and that there was no original documentation submitted at all, that they would be considered non-responsive with regard to the Shul's bid because it was not as clear cut. It's here for this committee, these committees. Right, so that
Speaker 99
53:32
was my point, Jill, that the chairs made that decision because of the severity of the response or lack thereof.
They made a decision instead of the committee on one of them but not the other. So the chairs made the decision. So my question is to the chairs then. What was the reasoning for making that decision? Both of them were nonresponsive to some degree. Why did you all, versus just bringing them to us
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
54:03
and let us make that decision? Well, I'll answer first. The third bidder that really didn't send in anything hard copy at all as required. So that showed me that they really did not pay attention or did not want to bid this
job. They just threw a bid in. If they were the only bidder, then we might would pick them. And believe me, being a contractor, I know how that goes. So I was not, I didn't even know what their bid was but i just knew it was a low bid so i just i told jill i said i'll use your discretion but i believe if they did not even throw anything out there hard bid then we would have nothing to stand on now we didn't find out till just a little bit later that there was us some other
things on the other one but that's up to this committee today if which one you want to look at on the other two you can pick and choose or you can choose both to hear from us so that's up to you you will make that decision on
Senator Jane English
Unverified
55:08
the other ones I'm sure I think but what Bruce is saying is is is we have talked about this and we looked at this and because there really isn't a proposal that we have received so there's really
nothing for us to look at to say yay or nay we want them to come there is nothing no
Speaker 99
55:30
proposal right and again I'm certainly not saying that what they saying is adequate and would be would have made it past this committee at all but I just seen that with someone having a different level of lack of responsiveness that we made a decision and probably this committee decision would have been exactly what you've done but I just as a matter of process was
asking the question and now i have the answer thank
Speaker 125
55:54
you so the committee can vote to listen to one of them or both
Senator Jane English
Unverified
55:59
of them or none of them if that's that that's your choice if you feel
Speaker 99
56:04
that's an important issue um no ma'am that the question was about the process that you use to eliminate two non-respondent applicants that were different in their non-response the level of non-response that you made a determination versus the committee no i'm not that's all that's the end of that's all
Speaker 60
56:31
okay moving right along representative lowry thank you mr chair um let me
Speaker 62
56:35
follow up on that questioning uh i know we have had other contracts that have come before alc where and it may be a totally different process but two bidders the winning bidders ends up being thrown out
because the losing bidder says wait a minute there was a violation of the process there was information that came out later these specific areas where there may be a non-response from the second bidder is there latitude for them to correct that um correct those omissions or to supplement their information without us running into one of these
challenge type situations that is up to this
Speaker 11
57:30
committee to determine um the rfp does not state that those are automatic rejections of those bids so it's up for you to determine um i can't say whether
Speaker 33
57:40
or not another entity would protest on that basis they always have that ability under the rfp to do so and that
Speaker 14
57:49
protest would be filed with the executive subcommittee of legislative council okay would
Speaker 62
58:02
this is controlled by them okay And my follow-up question, I heard the tail end of the discussion about Dr. Lori Taylor. Are we certain that that is the Dr. Taylor that was negatively referenced in the APA references? Because there is a Dr. Taylor that is on staff with West Ed that's a different Taylor.
Pardon? I thought you said Lori. The staff member is Darius Taylor, and I'm wanting to find out which Taylor was the one that was negatively
Speaker 22
58:46
referenced. Do we know that? Dr. Taylor, that I understood, the Dr. Taylor that was
Speaker 24
58:53
referenced in the Kansas reference was from Texas A&M University and was a subcontractor.
And there were a couple of issues, one of which was, again, related back to more political rather than performance necessarily issues. Apparently a former member had helped with the selection of that individual, and that was not acceptable to all parties involved. But then there was another issue that related to some supplemental materials that were provided with the report that either due to a photocopying error or they're not sure what happened.
Some of the supplemental materials were not included in the final report, and it led some individuals to be concerned about the validity of the report because it made it appear as if some districts had been omitted. they went back and verified none of the substance was affected by that at all but just the fact that some of the supplementary information was incomplete gave some people pause okay and
Speaker 70
59:55
that was information tied to dr tia taylor no sir that
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:00:02
was dr lori it's on the kansas's report on the
number one question yes it does say
that it says dr lori taylor lori okay from texas
Speaker 70
1:00:14
a&m yes Where are we getting the Tia? Oh, okay. All right. That's clear as mud. Thank
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:00:29
you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Elliott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Shulson Associates. Did not
submitted one proposal without OPPS.
I don't know what OPPS is, so tell me
Speaker 11
1:00:42
what that is, please. Sorry, that's their official price proposal sheet, and that's where they submitted one proposal
Speaker 7
1:00:50
without it, and then a proposal with it, and the RFP asks for pricing information to be separately sealed. And did you say, or
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:01:00
cannot, that they don't have a tax ID number? They do have one, they
Speaker 14
1:01:06
just didn't submit it. They just didn't submit it.
I do have it now, I got it this
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:01:12
past Friday. morning okay so you've got everything there okay and that was a that was my only other question I just like you to ask APA if they can do this if they can tell us any reason that will not violate privacy is why they made that substitution and I guess I could go back by looking at last ones in this time but
who is the substitute person and why should that make us feel better because I really don't want to get us I don't know this person have no personal interest I don't want us to get bogged down in Kansas's politics that's the major thing that's their issue if they have it and I and I think that was it I had another
question, but I found the answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rep. De La Rosa.
Speaker 139
1:02:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a question. It's regarding the Schultz proposal. How do we fund or do
Speaker 140
1:02:18
we fund the Office of Education Policy? Because I'm kind of, it's kind of a weird thing that we would end up paying people that work at the OEP at the University of Arkansas, which we fund to then do something for us which we would also i feel like we're double paying but if they're not funded by us then i'd just like to know who they are where they come from
Speaker 11
1:02:43
and what do we pay towards them right and and i don't know the answer to that but can certainly get it for you and have it for this committee these committees
Speaker 140
1:02:55
before your next meeting the reason i ask that question because it's on page ii which i don't even know how to tell you where that is in the Schultz thing, but it just says the OEP's mission is to serve as a resource for Arkansas's lawmakers, educators, administrators. Well, I think that's us. So I'm just trying to figure out if we're already within their scope of practice here or if we're going outside of it.
Speaker 33
1:03:16
But I'd appreciate an answer to that. Absolutely. And I will tell you when I began gathering documentation on them, as I had for WestEd last time, and contacted them this last week to get their tax id number and check all and then was told well it's the same as the university of arkansas so they are part of the university of arkansas system but we will find out the funding thank you mechanism representative dodson
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:03:47
thank you mr chair excuse me so just so i'm clear as far as the the rfp if there is say we move forward to hear from both of these and there is a a challenge that doesn't go to anybody else other than to the legislature and then we would make that determination uh as far as the the legislative council executive subcommittee i'm assuming would
make that challenge that determination whether to uphold or dismiss that challenge yes
Speaker 15
1:04:24
sir and And then, of course, Legislative Council has to adopt any action of
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:04:29
that subcommittee. Okay. So, I mean, I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, if we're at the place where we're considering one thing or another. But just in the hope that we could hear from both of these, whenever the proper time is for motion, I'd make a motion that we hear from both of them.
Speaker 123
1:04:50
we'll hold off to all questions again we'll make a
Speaker 98
1:05:01
motion okay representative murdoch thank you uh again uh do you know i i was looking through the rfp
Speaker 99
1:05:08
for the um sometimes in contract uh solicitations there is a the owner has the right to waive any informalities as they make some decisions, final decisions, which would allow for
the flexibility that has been exercised to disqualify one, allow someone else to do something subsequent to a post-response type of activity. So what we have here, and I've dealt with a lot of state contracts, so I know what you subject yourself to when you're not consistent across the board whether you got a third party that's or a third bidder that's totally irrelevant and a second one that's better than that
third one still non-compliance is non-compliance sometimes there is a waving of formalities that is allowed for that will allow us to do that so as a matter of process is still where I am I'm not choosing I'm just a process now to make sure that we're doing it in a manner to prevent challenges we need to do a good job of making sure we're keeping our self consistent and we're doing it in a manner that it's not gonna cause us any future problems so on the informalities do you know if that's possible are you
Speaker 7
1:06:31
familiar with what I'm talking about and and I really all I can say is the the RFP there are a couple of things that say this is it this is if you don't do this you're rejected on other things it says that this may result in and that this the committees are the final determiner of that we don't have anything in here that says and it'll be applied the same every time that's you know usually implied but again it's just gonna be your discretion and and what
you feel comfortable with and if there were to be any kind of a protest in front of executive subcommittee you know the chairs would also appear to give
Speaker 99
1:07:19
and I think that this discussion would be a if there ever is a a protest to it I think someone I think this would be prudent to know that it was given some diligence in even in this forum to justify whatever decisions made my last question is can you again talk about the OPPS in the price sheet
that was not submitted was well let me ask this question prior to or or with their response was a price sheet submitted by Schultz Schultz yes there was and so it just was they didn't give you another go
Speaker 7
1:08:01
ahead i'm sorry well it's the the rfp says that pricing from the official proposal price sheet must be separately sealed and submitted from the proposal response and clearly marked as
pricing information and then it has to be done the same way for the electronic versions that they submit um in what most what every other time i've done this they submit their pricing sheet on its own sealed up separately and then also in a separate email or on a separate flash drive however they're electronically submitting for shuls they submitted a proposal that was just a proposal with no pricing information but then they also submitted the same proposal with pricing
information on the front of it so it wasn't separate from the proposal it was with it but there were two was the pricing
Speaker 100
1:08:54
sheet with the flash drive or was it with the written proposal It
Speaker 7
1:08:58
was with the written, and it was also with the e-mail. It's all one. In the e-mail, it was one big PDF. The pricing's on the front. And then with the hard copies, they submitted bound copies, and one of those bound copies had the price bound into the front of it. Thank you. And then I will also say I did find the language in here that says,
the committee's reserved to award a contract or reject a proposal for any or all line items of a proposal received if it is in the best interest of the committees to do so. So your best interest is what determines the basis
Speaker 14
1:09:32
for accepting or rejecting. Representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:09:46
Ms. Laurie, thank you very much for your diligence
in gathering all of the reference data. As we have learned through this process, there is a very small select number of companies that are out there that do this work. And because of that, I believe that parallels that there's only so much data that they can collect because there's only so many pools out there that are going to take this large step and use these services. So in looking at that and thinking through that, in your reference call to
Matt Wilmarth with from the Wyoming legislature he made a point to state that Arkansas should make sure that APA does not provide canned recommendation from reports so there was something triggered that response I didn't see anything else in any other responses from anyone else that pointed directly to that do you think that there was a triggering event that caused him in in their experience to state that or was that just
goodwill on his part to to let us be aware that that is a possibility with there only being so many
Speaker 24
1:11:09
sources available I'm not sure that I can address that fully but I do think he was he provided a few recommendations to us as we were just talking with him about things to keep in mind and that was one of them just that we encourage them to be very specific about Arkansas
educational needs and I'm not sure that I can comment beyond that there was no further elaboration I'm sorry I don't believe I don't believe that he did expound or say that we found in X you know that caught them that's causing me to make this comment I don't think he was that specific I can certainly go back and listen to we do have a tape of it listen to thank you thank you
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:12:05
mr. chair I wrote my questions down now I got to find it just to I think one was
did well one had to do with whether or not the the tax ID number did you say tax id number for oep is
the same as as university's arkansas's tax id
Speaker 12
1:12:33
number let me have their documentation here okay leave
Speaker 17
1:12:50
I know that, I believe it was, but I know that what they sent
Speaker 7
1:12:58
back to me was, U of A staff, let's see. Yes, because I asked them for, I wasn't sure who they were when I started out. I asked for a certificate of good standing showing they're certified to do business in the state, their illegal immigrant certification, the Israel boycott certification, their EEO policy,
in their executive order disclosure forms that shows whether or not they have any conflicts with any of you. And what I got back from them was all U of A information, the U of A's illegal immigrant certification, et cetera. And I don't... The illegal immigrant certification is in the vendor name of University of Arkansas. Okay. So and that that one you search by a tax ID number.
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:13:51
Okay, so do you know if if an
entity such as OEP is being paid by somebody other than University of Arkansas itself or public dollars, would they be allowed to still use, if they are being paid by somebody who's not a part of University of Arkansas funding, would they still be able to
use U of A tax ID number I do
not know the answer okay and my my last question is will you please ask be sure that APA I guess they will
tell us who their local contractors are yes thank you
Speaker 98
1:14:42
that's it mr. chair thank you um jill was was did sure was
Speaker 100
1:14:49
sure did sure um provide a response the initial time to this one out were they
Speaker 33
1:14:55
responding no sir the the first time we only received the apa west ed
Speaker 98
1:15:00
proposal do you know of any legislative member that may have encouraged sure to do this encourage no
Speaker 11
1:15:14
um i did receive a list of entities to email to
Speaker 33
1:15:17
but um i don't know that anybody was encouraged to respond or i don't know the answer
Speaker 100
1:15:24
to that sure was on a list that you received from a legislature a member of legislative body the chairs
Speaker 14
1:15:31
asked members to let me know if there was anybody that
they would like the RFP sent to and and Dr. Scholz was one of those yes my
Speaker 99
1:15:40
question is because with them not being an entity that does this so there's not a record of him doing this obviously so he put together a team for this so out of transparency I'm asking this question to know how did this where did this come from so my question to the chairs would be where did this come from how did how did you all know whomever recommended show how did you all know that they would do this or
wanted to do this usually when an rfp goes out people that respond to these are people first of all with experience at this because usually if i don't have any experience at this i i see no real opportunity that i'm going to be chosen for such a task when i've never done this before i have no experience as a team to do such a task so usually i may be encouraged or recommended by someone so my question for transparency is where did the show dr shaw's encouragement come
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:16:41
from reps and murdoch you'd have to i'd have to ask somebody to raise their hand that might have suggested them because i i have no clue who they are is anybody never heard their name until we got this back so so i mean somebody wants to say that they recommended them they could say that but
Speaker 151
1:17:00
i it was not from me and i'm sure do you understand that the
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:17:04
question i mean i think you're saying that somebody possibly recommended them or thinking they recommend them to bid on
Speaker 99
1:17:09
this project is i absolutely go put together a team because we need this done they don't do this
According to their submission, he hadn't done this in this manner. So they put together a team to come do this, APA and the others that obviously have years and years of experience at least at doing this. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm just asking for transparency. What are we working with?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:17:32
Can I ask, he has done this for other places, though, right? No, no. I'm
Speaker 176
1:17:38
sorry. You're not asking. Well, I mean, we've got people that they've worked for. Yes,
Speaker 11
1:17:43
sir. As an individual, he has performed this work for entities as listed in his proposal
Speaker 99
1:17:55
references for. So, again, I'm not disparaging this applicant in terms of their qualifications, their ability to do something individually and what they've contributed to a team or as an employee for another outfit, what I'm saying is this required generally an entity to respond to.
Inside of his proposal, his response, you'll see there are some things absent because there has not been a team. There has not been a history of this. so again I just want to make sure we're starting out the right way and that we just everything is on the table and again not that they can't come together if it meets all the other questions that have been asked about OEP and their relationships if all that meets out it's not a problem but let's just say what it is if it was Murdoch that did I would say yes I know Dr. Shaw I recommended that
because I thought it would be great for the need that we have. And I would say that. Somebody did that. And it's
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:19:02
okay to say that. I'm just asking the question. I don't know
who that would be, but, you know, I'll speak to, I guess, the way that it would be done. I mean, I know I'm a builder. I can't do everything. Sometimes I have to put together a team every time I build a house. So he may have done a lot of smaller things, but then come together for something larger like this, and this may be small to him. I don't know. like i said i don't know the company don't know them at all so uh but you've got to put a team
together and i think even the other people are putting a team together to make this work so uh i don't see a problem with him putting a team together and trying to do it i don't think you do either no it's not a problem i don't have a problem so i mean but i don't know uh i've never heard anybody recommended
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:19:48
so i i'm kind of uh that's the first time i've heard that so
Well, I think that Jill asked early on if anybody had any idea of somebody to send it to to let her know who that was.
So anybody could have sent her. That's why I asked her a
Speaker 182
1:20:06
question. Yeah. Anybody could have sent her something. She
Senator Jane English
Unverified
1:20:09
said nobody did. Nobody followed her. Right? Nobody
Speaker 33
1:20:11
could have come from anywhere. You're saying nobody
Speaker 14
1:20:15
did, right, Jill? I'm saying I can't talk to you about what other members have asked me to do without them
Speaker 99
1:20:22
allowing me to do that I'm sorry okay let me get back to that then so now you just did something else the question but was clearly asked and this is not this is not anything about legislation or anything that's
proprietary if someone came to you and asked you to possibly ask to invite him as a bidder I just don't think that that but yes you can yes you can no no there's nothing wrong with it it's
Speaker 178
1:20:47
just a discussion there's nothing wrong with you answering this question knows that's
Speaker 124
1:20:51
not it's not it's nothing wrong with you answer this question but I
Speaker 99
1:20:58
think that you're gonna be told you can't answer this question so let me let let me make it simple for you and let you don't
worry about answering that question you the question is really being answered right now thank
Speaker 187
1:21:11
you yeah confidentially why she can't answer
Speaker 188
1:21:13
it's not true we okay yeah that's fine representative Beck
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:21:20
thank you mr. chair um and this may be
we may have to answer this outside of this meeting but there's a significant difference in these these prices in the earlier one is there any way that you guys can uh or that you saw is there anything that you see
what's the big difference you know APA right bid with another group before and they were rounding it was like $300,000 more for the same job so it's almost like you're buying a car here it's like okay what's not in this car that was in that car so I'm curious as to what that's about I mean it does are there is there anything that jumps out like there's 500 less hours of supervision or something like that There are a couple of things.
Speaker 7
1:22:09
Schulz does not list any support staff, whereas APA does. So I imagine those are administrative assistants and people that are helping with the project that aren't the managing personnel. The travel expenses are very different. APA has $30,000 more listed than Schulz and Associates, who has $15,000 for the year of work. Now, again, I would point out both of them will be required
to be present at your meetings every month, so I don't know if they've taken those travel expenses into account or not, but it could be that APA is based in Denver, and Shulls and Associates is in Missouri and is using OEP who are based here, so that might cut that down some.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:23:02
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I apologize. I wasn't concerned about the two that we have in front of us. I was worried about the earlier bid that they were involved with is essentially less than the bid now.
So is there anything that jumps out between those
Speaker 7
1:23:18
two bids? I think part of it is that the time has been cut back severely. The original contract would have gone into place in June of this year. This one won't until October, so it cuts several months of work off. They've also eliminated three of their subcontractors that they had listed on the previous bid that are not listed on this one. Those are the two main ones that I know of. It could be that the change to the scope of work. Previously, they were going to look at three possible routes of adequacy studies, and now that has been removed.
But that's something you definitely need to ask them as far as the plan. But the personnel is something that's very
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:23:59
different. So apparently they took the leather off the seats, and we got
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
1:24:12
Thank you. I get it. I'm fine. This is a process question, Ms. Thayer. If I were to recommend Rick Beck to you as a person I want you to contact to bid on this contract, what would that look like?
would you just do you call that person say you should bid do you just put it out
Speaker 7
1:24:36
there and hope he bids what what actually happens my process is that on the day that this committee adopted in the timeline for the rfp to be released i actually start the day before contacting the office of state procurement to get all the paperwork done to have it put out on their website and with any additional people after it's been posted on the osp website i email them and i have a form email
just to let them know um you know it seems like this might be the type of work that you do here's the rfp
Speaker 14
1:25:05
please let me know if you're interested okay all
Speaker 4
1:25:15
right thank you all right seeing no more questions i have a motion you have
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:25:19
to make because it has come here if you want to make it i'll let you do it but you're going to have to read it because it has one request in there that has to be added to
their deal and you'll have to name both of the consultants but just make sure that they
have there the very bottom part of that
we just have to add something that was left off of a qualified thing not
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
1:25:57
really a qualified thing reps and Dotson you are recognized thank you mr. chair I move that for the
committees to extend an invitation to APA and Shoals, both consultants, to appear here at the October 8th meeting of the education committees and give oral presentations
and to request that they provide hourly rates for all subcontractors prior
to that date. That's a
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:26:30
proper motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. No discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed, no. Motion carries. Looks like we will be seeing them on the 8th, and we'll let you get a hold of them. Is there any other things to come before this committee? we will hear uh adequacy on the monday of the 7th is that correct yeah and we will hear this
proposal on the 8th from the consultants we'll hear from both of them thank you all for coming without objection we are adjourned Thank you.
Agenda
A. Call to Order
B. Remarks by the Chairs
C. Presentation on Procurement of Education Adequacy Consulting Services
D. Discussion by Members of the Senate and House Committees on Education
E. Other Business
F. Adjournment
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — EDUCATION COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE MEETING JOINTLY WITH ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, Sep 30, 2019 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
| APA Proposal Summary | Exhibit | 3 | Official source ↗ |
| APA WestEd RFP BLR-190003 Official Price Sheet | Exhibit | 1 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| APA WestEd RFP BLR-190003 Response Final | Exhibit | 192 | Official source ↗ |
| APA WestEd Reference Call Summaries | Exhibit | 7 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
| RFP 08-23-19 - RFP No BLR-190003 Final | Exhibit | 19 | Official source ↗ |
| RFP Price Comparison | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
| RFP Response Checklist_v1 | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
| Shuls OPPS Proposal BLR190003 | Exhibit | 158 | Official source ↗ |
| Shuls Proposal Summary | Exhibit | 2 | Official source ↗ |
| Shuls Reference Call Summaries | Exhibit | 6 needs OCR | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 4
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Speaker 11
Speaker 17
Speaker 22
Speaker 24
Speaker 27
Speaker 14
Speaker 33
Senator Joyce Elliott
Unverified
Speaker 48
Speaker 56
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 67
Speaker 68
Speaker 70
Senator Linda Chesterfield
Unverified
Representative LeAnne Burch
Unverified
Speaker 86
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Speaker 100
Senator Jane English
Unverified
Speaker 125
Speaker 57
Speaker 129
Speaker 38
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Representative Jim Dotson
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 123
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 118
Speaker 151
Speaker 176
Speaker 182
Speaker 178
Speaker 124
Speaker 187
Speaker 188
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 13