RFP 27-001 Legal Services Addendum 1

Vision
We strive to cultivate an educational foundation that empowers students to realize
their full potential, thrive as productive global citizens, ignite positive change, and
create a more just and equitable world.
Addendum 1
Date: October 9, 2026
To: All Offerors
From: Dr. Lonita S. Broome
Chief Financial Officer
RE: Addendum 1 - RFP 27-001 - Legal Services
Thank you for your interest in City Schools of Decatur's Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 27-001 - Legal
Services. This addendum provides revisions to the solicitation documents and responses to questions
submitted by prospective offerors.
An update regarding the Legal Services RFP will be presented to the Board of Education during its
October 13, 2026, Pre-Work Session at 11:30 a.m. Interested offerors are encouraged to attend in
person at the Elizabeth Wilson School Support Center, Board Room, 125 Electric Avenue, Decatur,
Georgia 30030, or observe the meeting virtually using the following Zoom link:
https://csdecatur.zoom.us/j/95614159391
Please note that any changes to the RFP resulting from Board discussion or direction will be
communicated through a formal written addendum. All existing terms, conditions, and submission
requirements remain in effect unless expressly modified by an official addendum issued by CSD.
A. The following pages have been revised:
Page 16 - M. Proposal Submission Checklist
Page 46 Conflict of Interest
Page 51 - Security and Immigration Compliance Annex
B. The following questions were received (responses are listed after each question):
Q1.Partial-scope proposals. May a firm propose District/Administrative Legal Counsel for only some of
the Section II service areas, as Section III.C appears to allow, and still be considered responsive? If so,
will the scoring cover only the proposed areas?
Dr. Carmen Sulton Hans Utz T r aceyH A n d e r s o n J a m es Herndon Lorraine IFrkiedrn k Zoe Smith
Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Student Representative
125 Electric Avenue Decatur, Georgia 30030 404-371-3601 www.csdecatur.net

A1. Yes. Offerors may submit proposals for some or all service areas identified in Section II and
will be considered responsive, provided all applicable RFP requirements are satisfied. All
proposals will be evaluated using the established criteria outlined in Section VI.B, with
consideration given to the firm's ability to provide the full scope of requested legal services.
Evaluation scores will reflect the firm's demonstrated qualifications, capabilities, and coverage
of the requested services, including any service areas not proposed. Contract award will be
based on the proposal that provides the best overall value to CSD.
Q2. Conflict disclosure. Section VIII, paragraph 12 requires disclosure of any representation "against
any school district." Does this mean only litigation, or does it also include negotiations, charter petitions,
and funding matters? Is there a time limit? May firms withhold client names or confidential details to
comply with Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6, since proposals maybe subject to the Georgia
Open Records Act?
A2. The disclosure requirement applies to representations involving matters adverse to a
school district, including litigation, negotiations, charter petitions, funding disputes, and other
legal proceedings or matters. CSD has revised Section VIII, Paragraph 12, to establish a ten-year
disclosure period.
Offerors must provide sufficient information regarding the nature of the representation and its
resolution to allow CSD to assess potential conflicts of interest. To protect client confidentiality
and comply with applicable Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, offerors may identify the
client by city and state rather than by name and omit privileged or confidential details. Such
disclosures must still provide sufficient nonconfidential information for CSD to evaluate
potential conflicts.
Q3. Insurance. Which of the Section VII, paragraph 5 coverages apply to a law firm? Those coverages
are general liability, automobile, umbrella, cyber, and additional-insured endorsements. May
professional liability and cyber coverage be written on a claims-made basis?
A3. Offerors are required to identify their existing insurance coverages and policy limits as
outlined in Section III.F of the RFP. Certificates of insurance will be required from the selected
offeror prior to contract execution.
CSD recognizes that certain insurance requirements may differ for professional legal services
providers. The applicability of specific coverages, including general liability, automobile
liability, umbrella liability, cyber liability, and additional-insured endorsements, will be reviewed
with the selected offeror prior to contract execution. Professional liability and cyber liability
policies written on a claims-made basis may be considered, subject to CSD's review and
approval.
Q4. Indemnification. Does the hold-harmless clause in Special Stipulation (e) apply to legal-services
providers? It covers any claim "related to services," including breach of fiduciary duty. If so, will claims

arising from legal advice be governed by the firm's professional-liability coverage and the Georgia
Rules of Professional Conduct?
A4. Yes. The indemnification provisions outlined in Special Stipulation (e) apply to legal-
services providers under this solicitation. Claims arising from the provision of professional
legal services are subject to applicable Georgia law, the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct,
and the terms and conditions of the firm's professional-liability insurance coverage. The RFP
expressly provides that the Offeror's indemnification obligations are not limited by available
insurance coverage. Accordingly, professional-liability insurance does not replace or otherwise
limit the contractual obligations established under Special Stipulation (e). CSD does not intend
for this provision to supersede applicable laws or professional ethical obligations governing the
practice of law.
Q5. Immigration forms. The Appendix C affidavits name the "Georgia Department of Human Services"
as the public employer and use "201__" date lines. Because missing forms make a proposal non-
responsive, will CSD issue corrected forms? If not, may offers write in "City Schools of Decatur" and
correct the dates?
A5. The Security and Immigration Compliance Annex form has been revised.
Q6. Form references. The Section III.M checklist calls the Exceptions and Modifications forms
Appendix D and Appendix E, but the forms are labeled Appendix E and Appendix F. Which forms
should offerors submit?
A6. The Checklist has been revised.
Q7. Evaluation of Board Counsel. Section VI.B states that an administrative evaluation committee will
evaluate proposals for both categories, including Board of Education Legal Counsel. Will Board
members serve on, or have input into, the evaluation of Board Counsel proposals? Will CSD identify
the positions or titles of committee members before evaluation begins?
A7. A designated administrative evaluation committee will evaluate all responsive proposals in
accordance with the criteria established in Section VI.B of the RFP. Board of Education
members will not serve on the evaluation committee. The committee's recommendation will be
presented to the Board of Education for final consideration and approval. The identities of
evaluation committee members will be disclosed following completion of the evaluation
process.
Q8. Evaluator conflicts. Will evaluation committee members be required to sign conflict-of-interest and
confidentiality certifications? Will a member with a prior professional or personal relationship with an
offeror be recused from evaluating that offeror?
A8. Yes. Evaluation committee members and Board of Education members will be required to
complete conflict-of-interest and confidentiality certifications.
A prior professional relationship with an offeror does not automatically require recusal.
However, all actual or potential conflicts of interest, including relevant personal or professional
relationships, must be disclosed and reviewed to determine whether recusal or other

appropriate measures are necessary to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the evaluation
process.
Q9. Debriefing and records. Will unsuccessful offerors receive a debriefing on their scores and the
committee's assessment of their proposals? Will individual evaluator score sheets and comments be
kept as part of the procurement record?
A9. No. CSD will not conduct formal debriefings for unsuccessful offerors. However, all
unsuccessful offerors will receive written notification that their proposals were not selected for
contract award. Evaluation score sheets and related documentation will be retained as part of
the official procurement record. If the evaluation committee utilizes a consensus-based
evaluation process, individual evaluator score sheets may not be generated. In such cases, the
committee's consensus scores and supporting documentation will be maintained as part of the
procurement record.
Q10. Historical spend. What has CSD spent on outside legal services in each of the last three fiscal
years, broken out by Board matters and District/Administrative matters if available? Which service
areas have generated the most legal work?
A10. CSD does not separately track legal expenditures by Board matters,
District/Administrative matters, or individual service areas. Total expenditures for outside legal
services for the three most recent fiscal years are as follows:
FY2024: $375,156.89
FY2025: $537,406.51
FY2026: $647,594.88
A breakdown of expenditures by specific legal service area is not available.
Q11. Role in drafting the RFP. Did CSD's current counsel, or any other outside firm or consultant, help
draft, review, or develop this RFP, its scope of services, or its evaluation criteria? If so, will that firm be
permitted to submit a proposal, and how will CSD address the resulting conflict?
A11. A legal firm, with no interest in responding to the legal service, provided an overview of the
RFP. This firm is not permitted to submit a proposal.
Q12. Incumbency in scoring. Will prior or current service to CSD be considered in scoring? If so, under
which Section VI.B criterion? Will references from CSD staff be weighted differently from references
from other public clients?
A12. All proposals will be evaluated consistently using the established criteria outlined in
Section VI.B of the RFP. Prior or current service to CSD will not receive preferential
consideration or additional scoring weight. All references, including those from CSD staff and
other public-sector clients, will be evaluated using the same standards and weighted equally.
Q13. Appendix A - Placement and Use: Appendix A states that offerors should include the completed
form "for that category before each response/narrative." Should Appendix A be included in the Service

Category Proposed section or placed immediately before the Response to Scope of Legal Services?
Additionally, where an offeror proposes several service areas listed on Appendix A (for example, Labor
and Employment Matters and Litigation and Hearings), should Appendix A precede the overall scope
response, or should Appendix A be repeated before the response to each service area being
proposed?
A13. Offerors should complete Appendix A and place it immediately before the Response to
Scope of Legal Services section of their proposal. Offerors proposing multiple service areas are
required to submit Appendix A only once, identifying all applicable service areas for which they
are submitting a proposal. It is not necessary to repeat Appendix A before each individual
service area response. The subsequent narrative should be organized according to the
applicable service areas outlined in Section II - Scope of Legal Services, clearly demonstrating
the firm's qualifications, experience, and capabilities for each proposed area.
Q14. Services Not Proposed: Section III(C) states that if an offeror "does not provide a particular
service identified in Section II," the offeror must identify the exception. Does this requirement apply to:
1. Individual services within a service area that the offeror is otherwise proposing.
2. Entire service areas that the offeror is not proposing at all.
A14. The requirement in Section III(C) applies to both circumstances.
1. Individual Services Within a Proposed Service Area: If an offeror proposes to provide
services within a particular service area but cannot provide one or more of the individual
services identified, the offeror must clearly identify those exceptions and explain
whether the services would be excluded or provided through outside or specialized
counsel.
2. Entire Service Areas Not Proposed: Offerors should clearly identify any service areas
listed in Section II that they are not proposing to provide. A detailed narrative or
explanation is not required for service areas that are not being proposed.
This clarification is intended to ensure that CSD can accurately assess each offeror's
capabilities, identify any limitations in service coverage, and evaluate proposals consistently.
The evaluation will consider the firm's ability to meet the full scope of services identified in
Section II.
Q15, For an entire service area marked "No" on Appendix A, is this designation sufficient, or should
the proposal also address that service area in the narrative response?
A15. Yes. Designating an entire service area as "No" on Appendix A is sufficient to indicate that
the offeror is not proposing to provide services in that area. A separate narrative response or
additional explanation is not required for service areas marked "No." However, offerors must
provide a narrative response for each service area marked "Yes," identifying their
qualifications, experience, capabilities, and any limitations or exceptions to the services
proposed, as required by Section III(C).

Q16. Proposal Organization: Section III provides an order for the proposal response, followed by
additional requirements under subsections A through L. Should the proposal be organized using the A-
L subsection headings, or should the A-L requirements be incorporated within the proposal sections
identified in the response format?
A16. Offerors should organize their proposals according to the response format outlined at the
beginning of Section III - Proposal Requirements and Response Format. The requirements
identified in subsections A through L should be incorporated into the applicable proposal
sections rather than presented as separate responses under each subsection heading. Offerors
are responsible for ensuring that all applicable requirements in subsections A through L are
fully addressed. Proposals should be clearly organized and labeled to facilitate a consistent and
efficient evaluation process.
Q17. Will CSD consider proposals that contemplate legal services being provided remotely? If so, are
there any in-person requirements (for example, attendance at Board meetings) that offerors should
account for in their proposals?
A17. Yes. CSD will consider proposals that include remote delivery of legal services, provided
the proposed arrangement meets the District's operational needs and responsiveness
expectations. However, certain services will require in-person attendance, including Board of
Education meetings, executive sessions, hearings, legal proceedings, and other meetings or
activities as requested by CSD. Offerors should clearly describe their proposed approach to
providing both remote and in-person services, including availability, response times, and any
associated travel costs. The ability to provide timely and effective legal representation, whether
remotely or in person, will be considered in the evaluation process.
C. All other terms and conditions remain the same

Page 16 Revised - M. Proposal Submission Checklist
Before sealing and submitting the proposal, Offerors should use the following checklist to confirm that
all applicable submission requirements have been addressed. This checklist is provided as an
administrative aid and does not replace or modify any requirement elsewhere in this RFP.
Executive Summary / Transmittal Letter signed by an authorized representative
Service category clearly identified: Board of Education Legal Counsel, District/Administrative
Legal Counsel, or Both
Firm Background and Qualifications
Response to the Section II Scope of Legal Services, organized by applicable scope area
Attorney and Project Team Qualifications, including lead and backup counsel and professional
biographies/resumes
Georgia school-law, charter-system, K-12, governmental, and public-sector experience
Service approach, responsiveness, after-hours availability, continuity of coverage, and matter-
management approach
Conflict-of-interest disclosure and conflict-management approach
Confidentiality, privilege, data-security, technology, and generative-AI safeguards/disclosures
At least three comparable references with requested contact information
Insurance coverage and policy limits identified as required by the RFP
Appendix B Pricing Proposal completed and placed in the separate sealed pricing envelope as
required
Appendix C Georgia Immigration and Security forms completed, signed/notarized where
applicable, or marked Not Applicable where permitted
Appendix D- Subcontractor affidavit and agreement
Appendix E Offeror's Exceptions completed, or clearly marked "No Exceptions"
Appendix F Offeror's Modifications completed, or clearly marked "No Modifications"
All issued addenda acknowledged
One original, six printed copies, and one electronic copy of the complete signed proposal package
on a USB drive, prepared in accordance with Section V
Outer envelope/container labeled with Offeror name, address, telephone number, RFP number, and
RFP title
Proposal delivery arranged to ensure receipt by CSD no later than Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at
1:30 p.m. EDT

Page 46 - Revised
12. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
As part of the negotiation process, the Offeror is required to disclose the name of any officer, director,
employee, agent or consultant who is also an employee of CSD and the name of any CSD employee
who owns, directly or indirectly, a stock interest in the Offeror's firm or any of
its branches. Offeror is also required to disclose whether they have represented any party against any
school district in or outside of Georgia within the last 10 years, along with context as to the matter and
how it was resolved.

Page 51 -Revised - SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION COMPLIANCE ANNEX
Subcontractor Affidavit under O.C.G.A. 13-10-91(b) (3)
By executing this affidavit, the undersigned subcontractor verifies its compliance with O.C.G.A. 13-10-91,
stating affirmatively that the individual, firm or corporation which is engaged in the physical performance of
services under a contract with _____________________________________________ on behalf of
CITY SCHOOLS OF DECATUR has registered with, is authorized to use and uses the federal work authorization program
commonly known as E-Verify, or any subsequent replacement program, in accordance with the applicable provisions and
deadlines established in O.C.G.A. 13-10-91. Furthermore, the undersigned subcontractor will continue to use the federal
work authorization program throughout the contract period and the undersigned subcontractor will contract for the physical
performance of services in satisfaction of such contract only with sub-subcontractors who present an affidavit to the
subcontractor with the information required by O.C.G.A. 13-10-91(b). Additionally, the undersigned subcontractor will
forward notice of the receipt of an affidavit from a sub-subcontractor to the contractor within five business days of receipt. If
the undersigned subcontractor receives notice that a sub-subcontractor has received an affidavit from any other contracted
sub-subcontractor, the undersigned subcontractor must forward, within five business days of receipt, a copy of the notice to
the contractor. Subcontractor hereby attests that its federal work authorization user identification number and date of
authorization are as follows:
_________________________________
Federal Work Authorization User Identification Number
_________________________________
Date of Authorization
__________________________________
Name of Subcontractor
_________________________________
Name of Project
_________________________________
Name of Public Employer
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___________________, 202_____ in _________________(city), __________________(state).
_________________________________
Signature of Authorized Officer or Agent
_______________________________
Printed Name and Title of Authorized Officer or Agent
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME ON THIS THE ________ DAY OF_____________, 202____.
_________________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
_________________________________