Consultant services for strategic planning 2025-2026

Location:	New York
Posted:	Mar 12, 2026
Due:	Mar 16, 2026
Agency:	Mount Vernon City School District
Type of Government:	State & Local
Category:	R - Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services
Publication URL:	To access bid details, please log in.

Attachment Preview

MOUNT VERNON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

165 NORTH COLUMBUS AVENUE

MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK 10553

E-MAIL: HTHOMPSON@MTVERNONCSD.ORG,

Fax: (914)665-3395, (914)665-1682

FROM:

Board of Education of the Mount Vernon City School District

DATE:

March 10, 2026

RE:

RFP for Consultant Services for Strategic Planning 2025-2026

_____________________________________________________________________

ADDENDUM # 1

Attached please find Addendum No. 1

PLEASE FAX OR EMAIL THIS COVER SHEET/S TOGETHER WITH YOUR COMPANY’S NAME TO OUR

OFFICE AS CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT.

Addendum No. 1- RFP for Consultant Services for Strategic Planning 2025-2026

ADDENDUM NO. 1

This Addendum contains clarifications and/or changes to the requirements of the contract and/or

RFP specifications. Such clarifications/changes shall be incorporated into the contract/RFP

documents and shall apply with the same meaning and force as if they had been included in the

original documents.

The conditions of the contract shall govern all work and services described in this Addendum.

Wherever the conditions of the work and the quality or quantity of materials/services are not

fully described in this Addendum, the conditions of the work, etc. included in the original contract

and/or RFP specifications shall apply to the work described in this Addendum.

The conditions of the contract, as enumerated in the contract documents and/or the

specifications apply to all work described in this Addendum.

The School District received the following inquiries from prospective proposers and provides

answers as follows:

1. Question: What is the District's anticipated start date for this project? Upon award of

the contract and once the contract agreement is signed.

2. Question: The RFP states an initial contract end date of June 30, 2026. Is it the District's

expectation that the core strategic planning work (excluding implementation support)

will be completed by that date? Please refer to the RFP’s Term of Engagement and the

detailed scope of services. After the completion of the initial term, the district

reserves the right to renew the resultant contract for an additional one (1) year term

upon approval of the Board.

3. Question: Out-of-State Firm Eligibility: our Consulting is a California-based

corporation with a California business license, and as such, we may conduct business

anywhere in the United States. We want to confirm whether out-of-state firms are

eligible and fully competitive under this RFP, and whether any local, regional, or New

York State preference provisions may apply to the evaluation of proposals. All

proposers must be licensed to provide the services contemplated in the RFP in

accordance with the laws of the State of New York and meet the requirements of

the RFP including the qualifications set forth for this engagement.

4. Question: Insurance Requirements — Carrier Domicile: The RFP specifies

coverage requirements, including Commercial General Liability, Professional Errors &

Omissions, Cyber Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and Excess/Umbrella

coverage. We wish to confirm whether the School District will accept certificates of

insurance issued by California-admitted carriers in good standing, or whether all policies

must be written by New York State-licensed insurers. No issues with the insurance,

noting it the carrier is California based. Please be advise the District requires

coverage of $5M/$5M in the aggregate, or a combination that equates to

substantially the same coverage (e.g., $1M/$3M with excess and/or umbrella

insurance of $3M–$5M), including SAM coverage with no sublimit.

5. Question: Budget Parameter or Not-to-Exceed Amount: To the extent permissible,

has the School District established an internal budget range or not-to-exceed threshold

for this engagement? Any guidance on the expected investment level would help

proposers develop cost proposals that are responsive and realistic for the scope of work

described. No, cost proposals should be developed based upon the terms and

conditions of the RFP.

6. Question: Travel, Lodging & Out-of-State Expense Treatment: Should the answer to

Question 1 be Yes, the RFP requests an all-inclusive lump sum cost proposal. our

Consulting is based in California, and this engagement will require travel to Mount

Vernon, New York, for stakeholder engagement sessions, public forums, and Board

presentations. We want to confirm how the School District expects proposers to handle

travel, lodging, and related out-of-state expenses. Specifically: (a) should all anticipated

travel and expense costs be included in the lump sum figure; (b) is there a preferred

method for estimating and reporting travel costs in the proposal; and (c) will the District

consider a cost structure that separates a fixed professional services fee from

reimbursable travel and expense costs at actuals, or is a fully bundled lump sum strictly

required? This is an item for the District. All fees should be broken down with a final

cost.

7. Question: Intellectual Property Rights — Proprietary Methodology: The RFP states

that the School District retains the right to use any ideas, concepts, or methodologies

submitted as part of a proposal. our Consulting’s Dynamic Management System (DMS)

is a proprietary methodology developed over nearly two decades of consulting practice

and protected as the exclusive intellectual property of our Consulting. We intend to

present this methodology in the proposal. We wish to clarify the scope of the School

District’s intended IP provision. Specifically: (a) does the School District’s IP retention

clause apply to the deliverables produced for the District — such as the final strategic

plan, reports, and frameworks developed specifically for Mount Vernon City School

District — as distinct from the underlying proprietary methodology used to produce

them; and (b) would the District be willing to include contract language that

distinguishes between District-owned deliverables and our Consulting’s proprietary

DMS methodology, which would remain the exclusive intellectual property of our

Consulting and be licensed, not assigned, for use in this engagement? Please refer to

the RFP concerning the District’s right to use any idea in a proposal regardless of

whether it is selected and the District’s ownership of the work created by the

engagement, the documentation and information provided by the District.

8. Question: In preparing my proposal for submission, I have conducted due diligence on

all insurance requirements specified in the RFP, including consulting a licensed

insurance professional. Through that process, I have identified a specific insurance

requirement that presents a significant and disproportionate financial burden for for-

profit firms like our Consulting. I am requesting that the School District consider a

waiver or modification of this requirement for this engagement.

The Insurance Requirement at Issue

The RFP requires Sexual Misconduct and Assault Liability Insurance with a limit of

$1,000,000. While our Consulting fully understands and respects the School District’s

obligation to protect its students, staff, and community, I respectfully bring the following

considerations to the School District’s attention:

Cost Disparity Between For-Profit and Non-Profit Entities

Sexual Misconduct and Assault Liability Insurance is priced very differently depending on the

nature of the insured entity. For non-profit organizations — including many vendors that school

Districts commonly engage — this coverage is readily available at reasonable premium levels.

For for-profit businesses, however, the same coverage carries substantially higher premiums. our

Consulting has been advised by a licensed insurance professional that this coverage for a for-

profit entity could carry an annual premium of $10,000 or more — a cost that is disproportionate

to the scope, duration, and risk profile of this engagement. To put this figure in perspective, a

$10,000 insurance premium for a short-term strategic planning consulting engagement would be

a significant financial burden that would materially affect the competitiveness and feasibility of

our Consulting’s proposal, without a commensurate reduction in risk to the School District.

Grounds for the Waiver Request

Our Consulting respectfully submits the following factors in support of this waiver request:

• Nature of Services: Our Consulting is engaged as a strategic planning consultant. Our

work is conducted with School District leadership, administrators, Board members, and

adult stakeholders. Our engagement does not involve direct, unsupervised contact with

minor students at any point during the project.

• Limited Duration of On-Site Presence: The scope of this engagement is defined and

time-limited. On-site presence in Mount Vernon will be confined to specific facilitated

sessions, public forums, and Board presentations — all of which take place in structured,

supervised settings with School District staff present.

• California-Based Operations: Our Consulting is headquartered in California. The

majority of the work product for this engagement will be developed remotely, further

limiting the need for physical presence at School District facilities.

• Existing Coverage: Our Consulting will carry Commercial General Liability,

Professional Errors & Omissions, Cyber Liability, Workers’ Compensation, and

Excess/Umbrella coverage at the limits specified in the RFP. These policies collectively

provide substantial protection for the School District across the full spectrum of

consulting-related risks.

• Disproportionate Financial Impact: Requiring Sexual Misconduct and Assault

Liability coverage from a for-profit consulting firm for a short-term, adult-facing

strategic planning engagement imposes a cost that is materially disproportionate to the

engagement’s actual risk profile.

Formal Request

Based on the foregoing, our Consulting respectfully requests one of the following remedies, at

the School District’s discretion:

• Option A — Full Waiver: That the Sexual Misconduct and Assault Liability Insurance

requirement be waived in its entirety for our Consulting, given the nature, scope, and

duration of this engagement.

• Option B — Reduced Limit: That the School District consider accepting a reduced

coverage limit that is proportionate to the actual risk profile of a short-term, adult-facing

consulting engagement.

• Option C — Contractual Substitution: That the School District consider accepting a

written contractual covenant from our Consulting, in lieu of this specific policy, affirming

that no unsupervised contact with minor students will occur at any point during the

engagement.

We are fully committed to meeting all reasonable insurance requirements and to protecting the

School District, its students, and its community. This request is not an attempt to circumvent the

School District’s risk management standards — it is a good-faith effort to identify a solution that

is both protective and proportionate. Any proposed change to the insurance requirements

must be reviewed with the District’s insurance consultant.

9 I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further at your convenience. I am happy

to provide any additional documentation or clarification that would be helpful to the

School District’s review. I appreciate your time and your thoughtful consideration of this

request.

9. Question: Our firm is interested in this opportunity but we wanted to double check with

you on the timeline. From our interpretation of the RFP document, it appears that the

work must be completed by June 2026. Is this correct and does this include all data

collection and a finalized strategic plan? Please refer to the RFP Term of Engagement

and the detailed scope of services. After the completion of the initial term. The

district reserves the right to renew the resultant contract for an additional one (1)

year term upon approval of the Board.

10 Question: Could the District please share the anticipated budget or budget range for the

strategic planning scope through June 30, 2026? Also, is there a budget or budget range

for the potential one-year extension? Does the District have an existing strategic plan or

prior planning documents that proposers could review to understand the starting point for

this work? If not, would they be available to the selected proposer for review to support

work execution? Proposers may request access to the District’s records in

accordance with the District’s records access policy.

11 Question: What level of stakeholder engagement does the District expect (e.g., number

of public forums, focus groups, surveys, or interviews)? All of these in order to support

a strong strategic plan. Mainly the first three (3).

12 Question: What data and information will the District make available to support the

needs assessment (e.g., student achievement data, climate surveys, enrollment trends,

This is the opportunity summary page. It provides an overview of this opportunity and a preview of the attached documentation.

Consultant services for strategic planning 2025-2026

Attachment Preview

See also