Award Watch: Workforce Talent and Development Board CIC Assessment 2026 (Oregon HECC)

Executive takeaway

The Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC), through its Office of Workforce Investments and on behalf of the Oregon Workforce and Talent Development Board’s Continuous Improvement Committee, plans to award one contract for an assessment effort with an estimated 12-month term. The posting states an estimated cost of $200,000 and that travel expenses will not be an allowable cost. If you can deliver a credible, independent committee assessment with a practical continuous-improvement lens—without billing travel—this is a serious near-term consulting target.

What the buyer is trying to do

The Oregon Workforce and Talent Development Board (WTDB) describes a statewide mission focused on equitable prosperity and an inclusive, coordinated training and education system responsive to workforce and employer needs. The WTDB’s Continuous Improvement Committee (CIC) is positioned to support transparency, alignment to mission/vision, and continuous improvement across public workforce partners.

In this RFP, HECC intends to select a contractor to conduct the Workforce Talent and Development Board Continuous Improvement Committee Assessment 2026, supporting the CIC’s role in accountability, avoiding duplication, sharing scalable best practices, and promoting public-meeting transparency and continuous improvement.

What work is implied (bullets)

• Perform an assessment for the WTDB Continuous Improvement Committee (CIC) as described in the RFP (verify scope details in attachments).
• Support continuous improvement and mission/vision alignment objectives referenced in the solicitation narrative.
• Engage with a governance environment that includes public workforce partners and coordination with workforce/education/training stakeholders (verify specific stakeholder touchpoints in attachments).
• Deliver findings and recommendations suitable for a statewide board context, emphasizing accountability and avoidance of duplicated services (verify deliverables in attachments).
• Plan to execute without charging travel as an allowable cost.

Who should bid / who should pass (bullets)

• Bid if: you are a consulting firm or practice that conducts structured assessments for committees/boards and can translate observations into actionable continuous-improvement recommendations.
• Bid if: you can credibly work within a public-sector governance and transparency context (public meetings, accountability).
• Bid if: you can deliver the work within an estimated $200,000 budget and manage stakeholder engagement without billing travel.
• Pass if: your delivery model depends on reimbursable travel or frequent onsite work that cannot be absorbed or avoided.
• Pass if: you lack demonstrated assessment capability and would be guessing at an approach (this appears to be a single-award, best-value style selection).

Response package checklist (bullets; if unknown say “verify in attachments”)

• Complete proposal response to OregonBuys #S-52500-00016064 / HECC #25-194 (verify required forms and structure in attachments).
• Technical approach describing how you will conduct the CIC assessment (verify evaluation criteria in attachments).
• Project plan and schedule for an estimated 12-month term (verify milestones in attachments).
• Budget/pricing aligned to the estimated cost level and explicitly addressing that travel expenses are not allowable (verify pricing template in attachments).
• Evidence of relevant past performance for comparable assessments (verify reference requirements in attachments).
• Certifications/eligibility details aligned to the stated set-aside (Small Business, Minority-owned) if applicable (verify proof requirements in attachments).
• Any required attestations and procurement submissions via the OregonBuys process (verify submission instructions in attachments).

Pricing & strategy notes (how to research pricing; do not invent pricing numbers)

The solicitation includes an estimated cost of $200,000, which should be treated as a strong signal for scoping discipline. Build your pricing around a clear assessment methodology and discrete deliverables, then pressure-test level of effort against what can realistically be achieved over ~12 months.

• Use the RFP’s deliverable list and reporting cadence (verify in attachments) to build a deliverable-based budget rather than time-and-materials sprawl.
• Since travel is not allowable, plan staffing and stakeholder touchpoints accordingly (remote-first interviews, virtual workshops, document review).
• Research prior WTDB/HECC publicly available meeting materials and published outputs (where available) to anticipate the volume and complexity of committee artifacts you may need to review—then calibrate hours for document analysis, synthesis, and facilitation.
• Make cost realism easy to see: map major workstreams (discovery, analysis, validation, recommendations) to hours and outputs.

Subcontracting / teaming ideas (bullets)

• Team with a specialist in public-sector continuous improvement and governance assessments to strengthen the methodology (verify if subcontracting limits exist in attachments).
• Add a partner with facilitation capability for multi-stakeholder virtual sessions, especially if the assessment includes public-meeting or transparency considerations.
• If you qualify for the stated set-aside category, consider a prime/sub arrangement that aligns eligibility and execution capacity (verify eligibility rules in attachments).

Risks & watch-outs (bullets)

• Travel costs not allowable: failing to reflect this in your workplan/budget can make your offer noncompetitive or noncompliant.
• Single award: with one contract planned, differentiation in approach, credibility, and deliverable clarity matters.
• Scope ambiguity (from the snippet): the posting excerpt doesn’t show all required tasks/deliverables—confirm the full scope in the RFP attachments before finalizing pricing.
• Governance sensitivity: committee assessments can involve delicate feedback; propose a process for validation and factual grounding (ensure it aligns to RFP requirements).

Related opportunities

• Applegate Gravel Augmentation (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife)
• 2026 Pavement Management Project (Town of Belmont)
• Onsite Crushing Reclaim Material (asphalt and concrete) (Town of Medway)
• Lease of Educational and Office Space (North River Collaborative)

How to act on this

1. Open the BidPulsar notice and pull the full RFP package for OregonBuys #S-52500-00016064 / HECC #25-194.
2. Confirm submission instructions and required forms, then draft a deliverable-based assessment approach that fits within the estimated $200,000 and excludes travel costs.
3. Decide whether to prime or team based on assessment credentials and set-aside alignment.
4. Finalize compliance and submit by 03/19/2026 at 3:00 PM Pacific Time.

If you want a compliance-first review of your draft response package and a last-pass risk scan before submission, contact Federal Bid Partners LLC to support your proposal development.