Active SLED Opportunity · OHIO · CITY OF CLEVELAND
AI Summary
The City of Cleveland seeks proposals for a comprehensive management training program to enhance leadership skills among city managers. The program aims to build organizational capability and foster a culture of learning through competency-based, cohort training. Proposals must include technical and price components and meet detailed submission requirements.
The City is requesting proposals from qualified providers to develop and deliver a Management Training Program for people leaders and executive leaders within the City. The City's management team, which is largely comprised of internally promoted managers, requires formal leadership training to improve team effectiveness and achieve expected results across a multi-generational workforce. The City of Cleveland is committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive, Citywide Management Training Program to build organizational capability and create a sustainable Culture of Learning for the City of Cleveland workforce. This program is based on a competency model that is designed to enhance leadership, communication, decision-making, and team-building skills for managers at various levels. The competency model designed for managers is necessary to identify the key skills and behaviors required for success across job families within the City. (A full description of the Management Competency Model is described in the Scope of Work).
The City of Cleveland seeks proposals from qualified vendors to design and deliver a competency-based, comprehensive management training program incorporating the curriculum tracks and training module outlines provided in the RFP.
Under the Bibb Administration, and through the work of the City’s Strategic Plan, the need for a Citywide, comprehensive management training program has been identified. This initiative will be a critical component in achieving a new culture of learning that creates conditions for managers and employees to thrive. Under this area of focus, the City desires that all managers receive training and professional development to keep their skills current and for all employees to receive regular performance feedback to aid in supporting the employee’s professional development plan.
The City will require the selected vendor for this RFP to provide services within the parameters set by this RFP. All pricing of services must be stated as cost per unit of service, if applicable. The Vendor must be able to meet, at minimum, the service requests outlined within this RFP. The City also recognizes that the scope and specificity of this work may require a cross-disciplinary team consisting of multiple Consultants. Therefore, if the Consultant believes their strength is to only complete one phase of the professional services (i.e., only the Content Development or Training Delivery), the City welcomes the partnerships and encourages Consultants to work with other Consultants with complementary skill-sets in their response.
OBJECTIVES
Quality of Proposal includes Organization of the Team, Specific Approach to this Project, Ability to Perform the Scope of Services, Capacity to Perform Work, including consideration for current City project workload, and Special Commendations as defined in the “Proposal Submission Requirements” section of this RFP.
Credentials of Key Personnel including qualifications and experience of the Project Team, particularly the project manager and construction general contractor who will be the lead person on this project, and their prior experience and demonstrated ability to perform the scope of work.
Demonstrated history of successful relevant projects to meet proposed schedules and budgets.
Proposed Schedule to complete the work.
This item will be reviewed after the evaluations of qualifications have been completed.
Please include the following information:
Please include the following information:
Please include the following information:
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
INSTRUCTIONS: Pursuant to Codified Ordinance Sec. 181.36, the information requested on this page must be supplied by all contractors and any subcontractors having more than a fifty percent (50%) interest in the proposed contract prior to any contract being awarded by the City of Cleveland. Any contractor or subcontractor who is deemed to have made a false statement shall be declared to have acted in default of its contract and shall be subject to the remedies for default contained in its contract. For failure to cure such a default, the contractor or subcontractor shall be automatically excluded from bidding for the supply of any goods or services for use by the City for a period of two (2) years.
Q (Cohorts with timelines): What is the timeline of the cohorts? OR expected days/months of delivery?
A: We are targeting a Start Date of no later than Q1 of 2027.
Q (No subject): How many cohorts are you expecting to have per year?
A: We will begin by requiring all existing Managers to complete management training. There are approximately 1,000 managers across the City. Once this phase is completed, we would look to the Sustainability Plan to address training for new manager and remedial management training.
Q (No subject): How many people in each cohort?
A: Ideally 20-25 people
Q (No subject): How long would you like each module to be (half-day/full-day)?
A: Half-day is what we had in mind, but we are open to what may be proposed.
Q (No subject): Is this an annual contract?
A: Contract terms will be negotiated with the successful vendor. Typically, professional services contracts can be one-year, with two one-year renewal options.
Q (No subject): Is there an anticipated budget for this request?
A: Bidders should provide their best competitive pricing based on the scope of work provided in the RFP.
Q (Paricipants): How many participants are anticipated for each learner group: people leaders, executive leaders, and emerging leaders?
A: The exact number of participants is currently being finalized. For the purposes of this proposal, we will be looking to train all of our managers here at the city, which is roughly ~1,000, with the vast majority falling into the People Leader categories.
Q (Provider): Is the City seeking one provider for both curriculum design and delivery, or may awards be split?
A: The City also recognizes that the scope and specificity of this work may require a cross-disciplinary team consisting of multiple Consultants. Therefore, if the Consultant believes their strength is to only complete one phase of the professional services (i.e., only the Content Development or Training Delivery), the City welcomes the partnerships and encourages Consultants to work with other Consultants with complementary skill sets in their response.
Q (Learning Experience): What does the City mean by “hybrid learning opportunities” for this engagement?
A: Primarily in-person learning, supplemented by online pre/post work for each module.
Q (LMS): What LMS platform does the City use, and what existing content library will be available to the selected provider?
A: The City utilizes OpenSesame Content within the Workday Learning Module.
Q (Deliverables): What final deliverables are required for each curriculum track?
A: The proposed cohort strategy should include: Detailed Curriculum Outline Program length and duration Optimal Class Size Pre-work Assignments Program Evaluation Program Follow-up
Q (Implementation/Contract Term): What is the desired implementation period and contract term?
A: Please refer to questions 1 & 5.
Q (Pricing Structure): Should pricing be structured by design phase, delivery phase, cohort, learner, or deliverable?
A: The City does not mandate a specific pricing structure; however, bidders should propose a model that best reflects their instructional design and delivery methodology. Bidders are encouraged to provide a structure that offers the best value and scalability for the City.
Q (Licensing Costs): Are assessment licensing costs expected to be included in the proposal?
A: Yes, we would expect licensing costs to be included in the cost of the proposal.
Q (Capstone): What are the City’s expectations for capstone projects in the People Leader and Executive Leader tracks?
A: "The City expects capstone projects to serve as a practical application of the program's learning objectives. Projects should address real-world organizational challenges or operational improvements within the City. Bidders should propose a capstone framework that demonstrates measurable impact, promotes cross-departmental collaboration, and provides participants with a platform to present actionable solutions to senior leadership.".
Q (Usage Rights): What usage rights will the City have for content developed under this contract?
A: The City understands that all content developed and presented is the Provider’s intellectual property and copyrighted materials. The City would like to own content designed for the sustainability plan, but that can be negotiated.
Q (Budget): Can the City provide guidance on the expected budget range, funding constraints, or preferred pricing structure to ensure proposals are aligned with available resources?
A: Reference Questions 6 & 13.
Q (Ohio Registration): Are companies required to be registered as businesses in Ohio to compete for this award or can they register upon award?
A: No, Vendors are not required to be registered as businesses in Ohio.
Q (Number of participants/cohorts): How many leaders are anticipated to attend each level of training? How many cohorts per year is the City of Cleveland intending to run?
A: Reference Questions 2 & 7.
Q (No subject): Can the City provide guidance on the intended cohort size for each leadership level? Does the City have a target number of cohorts per leadership level, or should respondents propose a cohort structure aligned with program outcomes and scalability goals? Can the City clarify expectations regarding Learning Management System (LMS) integration? Will the vendor be expected to bring their own LMS or does the city have its own for integration? If so, what is the city's LMS? Can the City clarify the expected depth of coverage for HR fundamentals and compliance? Specifically, whether these should be delivered as technical instruction aligned with City policies, or as leadership-focused applications of HR practices? Thank you
A: Cohort size: Ideally between 20-25 in each cohort, and will be training ~1,000 managers in this initial level setting. The city will provide our own LMS for this, and the vendor will be able to browse and select courses from that catalog. We will be using Workday Learning as our LMS, with content being provided by OpenSesame. For the HR Fundamentals, we will primarily focus on Leadership-focused applications of HR Practices, supplemented by our own HR Policies for reinforcement.
Q (City of Cleveland's Current LMS Content Library): The RFP notes "Curriculum design will include a selection of online courses from the City of Cleveland’s current LMS content library, in addition to the development of instructor-led training to be delivered in-person or virtually. The curriculum tracks for People Leaders and Executives leaders will culminate in capstone projects for the learning cohorts." Is further information available regarding the content of those courses and how instructor-led training should complement these courses?
A: The online courses have not been selected. The selected vendors will be able to, alongside the city, browse our current content library to help supplement in-the-classroom learning they will be leading.
Q (Learning Intiatives Option): Do we have to bid on all three or can we bid on one?
A: Reference Question #8
Q (No subject): Can the City provide the projected or maximum number of participants for each of the three Learning Initiatives (People Leader, Executive Leader, and Core Leadership) over the initial contract term?
A: Reference Question #2 & #7.
Q (number of participants): Please confirm the anticipated number of participants for each of the three curriculum tracks (People Leaders, Executive Leaders, and Core Leadership).
A: Reference Questions 2 & 7.
Q (Optimal Class Size): The RFP asks vendor to suggest an 'Optimal Class Size' for the cohorts. Does the City already have a preferred range or a maximum capacity in mind based on your internal training facilities or departmental scheduling needs?
A: Reference Question #3.
Q (LMS content library): The scope mentions that the new curriculum should include a selection of 'online courses from the City of Cleveland’s current LMS content library. Can the City provide a list or description of the specific "online courses" already in the LMS library that the vendor is expected to integrate into the new curriculum tracks.
A: There are not specific courses that we would like to be used, but rather that the chosen vendor would have access to our Content Library to make choices alongside city staff. We will be using OpenSesame Content within the Workday Learning Module.
Q (instructor-led sessions): When it comes to the instructor-led sessions (whether virtual or in-person), does the City have a preference for the session length? For example, are you leaning toward half-day or full-day workshops?
A: Reference Question #4.
Q (estimated budget): Kindly provide guidance on the estimated budget or pricing expectations for this RFP.
A: Reference Questions #4 and #5.
Q (timeframe): Does the City have a specific timeframe in mind for how long a single cohort should take to complete all modules and their final capstone project?
A: We do not have a specific time frame, but would be looking at something in the 6-8 week range. We are open to suggestions from the vendor.
Q (Program Design: Participant Volume and Cohort Size by Track (Section 2.1)): The RFP doesn’t disclose the anticipated number of participants for each Learning Initiative or the City’s preferred cohort size. Please provide approximate headcounts for the People Leader, Executive Leader, and Core/Emerging Leader populations expected to participate in this program, and confirm whether the City has a preferred cohort size or expects offerors to recommend one. Please also confirm whether multiple cohorts per track are expected to run concurrently, sequentially, or on a rolling basis. These figures directly drive facilitator staffing requirements, scheduling timelines, and per-participant pricing.
A: Reference Questions #2 and #7.
Q (Program Design: Badges, Certificates, and Completion Credentials (Section 2.1)): The RFP doesn’t address whether the City intends to award digital badges, certificates of completion, continuing education credits, or any other formal credentials to participants who complete each curriculum track or individual modules. Please confirm whether the City has an existing credentialing or recognition framework it expects to be integrated into the program design, or whether this is an area where vendor recommendations are welcome. Additionally, please confirm whether the City’s LMS platform supports digital badge issuance and whether the selected vendor would be responsible for designing and configuring a credentialing experience as part of this engagement.
A: We do not currently utilize any form of badges, certificates or credentialing framework, but we are open to any proposals that incorporate that. We will be moving to Workday Learning, and badging is supported.
Q (Technical Environment: Virtual Delivery Platform Requirements (Section 2.1)): The RFP authorizes virtual instructor-led delivery but doesn’t specify a required or preferred platform. Please confirm whether the City has an enterprise virtual meeting platform — such as Microsoft Teams or Zoom — that the vendor is expected to use for all virtual sessions, or whether the vendor may host sessions on their own platform. Please also confirm whether the City’s IT security policies impose any restrictions on third-party platforms, and whether participants will require IT-provisioned access to any vendor-hosted tools as part of the engagement.
A: While we expect the vast majority of coursework to be done in person, if any virtual sessions are done, it will be preferred to use Microsoft Teams. Any third-party platforms/sites would need to be white listed by the City's IT Department.
Q (Delivery: Content Review and Approval Process Before First Delivery (Section 2.1)): The RFP doesn’t describe a formal City approval process for curriculum content prior to delivery. Please confirm whether the City will designate a content reviewer or approval authority — such as the Learning and Development Specialist or a Department lead — who must review and sign off on each module’s content before the first cohort delivery. Please also describe the expected review timeline and the number of revision cycles the City anticipates, as these factors directly affect the vendor’s proposed development schedule and milestone structure.
A: The Talent Management team will provide the final sign-off on content before delivery. Final sign-off is given once content is approved.
Q (Contract: Intellectual Property and Post-Contract Use Rights (Section 11-F)): The RFP states that all content developed and presented is the Provider’s intellectual property and copyrighted materials but doesn’t address the scope of the City’s use rights following contract completion. Please confirm whether the City expects a perpetual, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, and adapt all training materials developed under this contract for internal use — including delivery by City-employed facilitators or future vendors — or whether the City’s use rights are limited to the contracted delivery period. This distinction significantly affects how vendors price curriculum development and structure their IP provisions.
A: Reference Question #16
Q (Evaluation: Definition and Scoring Weight of Public Sector Experience (Section 10.1, Criterion 3)): The RFP awards 30 points for Demonstrated Ability and references the City’s preference for providers with experience delivering leadership development for public sector organizations comparable in needs to the City of Cleveland. Please confirm whether prior public sector experience is a formally weighted subfactor within the Demonstrated Ability criterion, and if so, what scoring advantage — if any — is assigned to public sector work relative to private sector or nonprofit engagements of comparable scale and complexity. Additionally, please clarify whether municipal government experience is weighted more favorably than state, federal, or higher education experience.
A: Please refer back to the RFP.
Q (Evaluation: Local Presence — Definition and Scoring Impact (Section 11-B)): The RFP states it’s “highly desirable” for the Provider team to have a local component to facilitate on-site response time but doesn’t define what constitutes local presence or indicate whether it’s a scored factor. Please clarify how the City defines “local” for this purpose — specifically whether it requires a physical office in the Cleveland metropolitan area, or whether a designated local subcontractor or point of contact with a northeast Ohio presence satisfies this preference. Please also confirm whether local presence is a scored subfactor within any evaluation criterion or whether it’s treated solely as a tiebreaker or desirable attribute.
A: We expect the vast majority of this work to be completed through in-person trainings. We recognize the need to have staff here on site. Whether they travel or are local should be taken into consideration as part of the vendor's fee proposal.
Q (Evaluation: Finalist Interview Format and Scoring Criteria (Section 10.2)): The RFP describes a Phase 2 interview scored on Quality of Presentation (40%), Demonstrated Ability (40%), and Creativity and Personalization (20%) but doesn’t specify the interview format, duration, expected content, or whether proposals should be re-presented or whether the interview is a Q&A-based discussion. Please describe the anticipated interview format — including length, number of City evaluators present, whether a live demonstration or sample training activity is expected, and whether Key Personnel identified in the proposal are required to attend in person or may participate virtually.
A: Any vendor invited for Phase 2 interviews will be provided with the format ahead of time. Virtual Presentations are acceptable.
Q (Program Design: Participant Breakdown by Curriculum Track — People Leader vs. Executive Leader vs. Core/Emerging (Section 2.3)): The City confirmed in its April 13 responses that approximately 1,000 managers will be trained in the initial phase, with the vast majority falling into the People Leader category. However, the RFP defines three distinct curriculum tracks—each requiring separate design, separate cohort management, and significantly different facilitator expertise and content investment. Please confirm the approximate number of participants anticipated for each Learning Initiative separately: (1) People Leaders, (2) Executive Leaders at the Director/Commissioner level and above, and (3) Core/Emerging Leaders. Without this breakdown, offerors can't accurately scope facilitation staffing, development hours, or pricing for each track independently.
A: We do not have firm numbers at this time.
Q (Delivery: In-Person Facility Responsibilities, Audiovisual Support, and Travel Reimbursement (Section 2.1 and Appendix C)): The City confirmed that delivery will be primarily in-person. What the RFP doesn't address is who's responsible for making that happen logistically. Please confirm whether the City will provide training facilities equipped with standard audiovisual technology for all in-person sessions, or whether the vendor is expected to identify and arrange venues. Please also confirm whether vendor facilitator travel, lodging, and meal expenses incurred for in-person delivery in Cleveland are reimbursable under the City's Reimbursables Policy (Appendix C), and whether those costs should be included in the fee proposal or invoiced separately as approved reimbursable expenses.
A: The City will be responsible for all scheduling logistics. The estimated cost of any reimbursements should be included in the total fee proposal.
Q (Program Design: Participant Breakdown by Curriculum Track (Section 2.3 and Q&A #7)): The City confirmed approximately 1,000 managers will be trained in the initial phase but hasn't provided a breakdown by curriculum track. Because the three Learning Initiatives—People Leaders, Executive Leaders, and Core/Emerging Leaders—differ significantly in content depth, facilitation expertise, and development investment, the participant count for each track is a material pricing input. Please provide the approximate number of employees anticipated for each Learning Initiative separately, even if those figures are still being finalized. A range is acceptable and sufficient for proposal purposes.
A: Reference Question #38
Q (Technical Environment: Digital Badging, Certificates of Completion, and Credential Tracking (Section 2.1)): The RFP doesn't address whether the City expects the management training program to include digital badges, certificates of completion, continuing education credits, or other formal recognition for participants who complete individual modules or full curriculum tracks. Please confirm whether the City expects any form of credential or certificate to be issued upon module or program completion. If so, please confirm whether the City has a preferred badging platform—such as Credly or Badgr—or whether the vendor may propose a credentialing approach as part of their solution. Additionally, please confirm whether completion records are expected to be tracked and reportable within Workday Learning or through a separate system, and whether the vendor is responsible for configuring that tracking.
A: Reference Question #31
Q (RFP reference to "Learning Aids"): • Can you give a more in-depth description of Learning Aids? Students will have access to recorded classes of open enrollment and courseware materials in our LMS. Are you looking for additional Learning Aid
A: This would mean any additional aids, such as handouts, PowerPoint slides, worksheets etc.
Q (No subject): How many cohorts are expected to run per year, and can multiple cohorts run simultaneously?
A: We expect all managers to be trained during year 1 of this project. Based on ~1,000 managers, with a cohort size of 20-25. Multiple Cohorts can run simultaneously.
Q (No subject): Can the City provide any budget parameters or a per-participant or per-cohort ceiling to ensure proposals are fiscally responsive?
A: Reference Question #6
Q (No subject): What is the expected participant breakdown across the three Learning Initiatives?
A: Reference Question #38
Q (Evaluation: Subcontractor Credentials in Proposal Scoring (Sections 5, 10.1, and 11-B)): The RFP encourages vendors whose strength lies in only one phase — content development or training delivery — to partner with complementary firms and submit a joint proposal. Please confirm whether the credentials, references, and demonstrated project experience of a named subcontractor will be considered and scored alongside the prime vendor’s qualifications in the evaluation. Additionally, please clarify whether the City requires the prime vendor to be the party with demonstrated leadership development experience, or whether a proposal may be structured with a prime vendor leading contract administration and a subcontractor with the core training expertise serving as the delivery lead.
A: The prime contractor is responsible for any work delivered by the subcontractor(s).
Q (Program Design: Capstone Evaluation Ownership and Vendor Facilitation Role at Presentation (Section 2.1 and Q&A #15)): The City confirmed that capstone projects should address real-world organizational challenges and include a presentation of actionable solutions to senior leadership. What remains unclear is the vendor's role in that presentation event. Please confirm whether the vendor is expected to facilitate, moderate, or score the capstone presentations to senior leadership, or whether that responsibility transfers entirely to City staff following the completion of training. Please also confirm whether the capstone is a scored deliverable that affects participant completion status, and if so, who holds authority to evaluate submissions: the vendor, the City's HR team, or the relevant department leadership.
A: Vendor is responsible for providing facilitation and moderation of the Capstone project to participants. Presentations/scoring would be the responsibility of the City. Capstone scoring would not impact the vendor.
Q (Program Design: Year One Delivery Scope vs. Renewal Years Given Cohort Volume (Section 7.1 and Q&A #2, #3)): The City confirmed a contract structure of one year with two one-year renewal options and a target start of no later than Q1 2027. The City also confirmed approximately 1,000 managers in the initial phase with cohorts of 20–25 participants each. At that cohort size, training all 1,000 managers through a five-module People Leader track—delivered in half-day in-person sessions—requires 40 to 50 cohorts at minimum, before accounting for Executive Leader and Emerging Leader tracks. Please confirm the City's expectation for how many cohorts across all three tracks will be delivered within Year 1 of the contract, and how remaining cohorts are expected to be distributed across renewal years. This distinction materially affects how offerors structure their proposed schedule, staff the engagement, and differentiate Year 1 pricing from renewal-year pricing.
A: Reference Question #43
Q (Program Design: City HR Policies as Source Material for Learning Initiative III, Module 1 (Section 2.3 and Q&A #20)): The City confirmed that HR Fundamentals within Learning Initiative III will focus on leadership-focused applications of HR practices, supplemented by the City's own HR policies for reinforcement. Please confirm whether the vendor will be responsible for reviewing and incorporating the City's actual HR policy documentation into the curriculum for this module, and whether those policies will be provided to the selected vendor at contract mobilization. Additionally, please confirm whether a legal or compliance review of HR Fundamentals content by the City's Law Department or HR leadership will be required prior to delivery, and whether that review cycle is expected to occur within the vendor's proposed development timeline.
A: City policies are available to the vendor and the vendor may decide how they are utilized.
Q (Technical Environment: OpenSesame Course Selection—Vendor Recommendation Authority vs. City Final Approval (Section 2.1 and Q&A #21)): The City confirmed that online courses from the OpenSesame library haven't yet been selected and that the vendor will work alongside City staff to browse the catalog and identify courses that supplement instructor-led sessions. Please clarify the extent of the vendor's role in course curation—specifically whether the vendor is expected to recommend specific OpenSesame titles as a named curriculum design deliverable, or whether final course selection rests solely with City staff based on vendor input. Please also confirm whether the vendor will have direct browsing access to the full OpenSesame catalog during the design phase, or whether City staff will serve as the primary interface with Workday Learning throughout that process.
A: The vendor may have direct browsing access to the catalog during the design phase.
Q (No subject): What is the expected content development and approval timeline between contract award and the Q1 2027 training launch? Understood that contract award is projected for June 29, 2026. To clarify, when must curriculum be submitted for City approval, and how many revision cycles are anticipated?
A: Timelines and schedules will be negotiated following award.
Q (No subject): For the capstone projects, what is the time allocation within the program, who constitutes "senior leadership" for presentations, and what evaluation rubric will be used?
A: Vendors should outline time allocation recommendations within their proposal. See question #47.
Q (No subject): Regarding the Sustainability Plan content ownership: will the City expect to run the program independently after a defined period, and does the City intend to negotiate a buyout of that content prior to contract execution or at renewal?
A: This will be addressed during contract negotiations.
Q (Definition of Success): Before finalizing our program design, we want to ensure full alignment with the City's vision: how will the City define and measure the success of this Management Training Program? Are there specific outcomes, metrics, or behavioral changes that leadership is most focused on achieving — for example, reduced turnover, improved performance review scores, stronger cross-departmental collaboration, or improved resident service outcomes?
A: Please refer to RFP for details.
Q (Commander's Intent): Can the City identify the primary internal leader or office that is sponsoring and championing this initiative? Understanding who holds the vision and authority for this program will help us design for real-world sustainability, not just initial delivery.
A: Please refer to the RFP.
Q (Second and Third Order Outcomes — Long-Term Vision): Beyond the immediate deliverables of the training program, does the City have a longer-term vision for what this investment will produce — for example, a self-sustaining internal training capability, a leadership pipeline, or a measurable shift in organizational culture? Understanding the City's second and third order goals will help us design not just for program delivery, but for lasting organizational impact.
A: Goals and objectives have been stated in the RFP.
Q (Administrative Support from City ): Will the City provide a dedicate point of contact to assist in scheduling and managing the cohorts, managing participant communication, and tracking attendance and completion? If an admin contact is provided, what responsibilities and duties will the fulfill?
A: Yes an admin contact will be provided.
Q (Delivery Timeline): The program will start no later than Q1 2027, but by when do you want all 1,000 managers trained?
A: Please refer to question #43.
Q (Capstone): Will the recommended capstone projects require internal approval? or will this be up to the discretion of the facilitator/trainer?
A: We are open to the vendor's suggestions.
Q (KPI): How will the City determine whether the training is a success and has met your goals? What are the KPI's that will be used to determine success? Is there any data currently available to assist the instructional designer?
A: Please refer to RFP for Goals and Outcomes. Available data will be provided during the design process.
Q (Sustainability ): Should the proposed sustainability plan include train the trainer support? Will this be carried forward internally? Reference was made to licensing fees, does this include the cost to license the material for internal use with internal trainers?
A: The city is open to vendor's recommendations on these issues. Please refer to question #16.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.