Oregon WTDB Continuous Improvement Committee Assessment 2026: bid/no-bid notes for consulting firms

Executive takeaway

The Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC), through the Office of Workforce Investments, plans to award a single contract (estimated 12 months) for a consulting assessment of the Oregon Workforce Talent and Development Board’s (WTDB) Continuous Improvement Committee (CIC). The WTDB’s stated focus on equitable prosperity, coordinated statewide systems, and transparency in public meetings suggests an engagement that will need both practical assessment rigor and strong facilitation in a public-sector context. The opportunity is labeled Small Business and Minority-owned, and travel expenses are not allowable.

What the buyer is trying to do

WTDB positions itself as a statewide body that helps shape an inclusive, coordinated workforce training and education system responsive to Oregon’s workforce and employer needs. The CIC assessment appears intended to strengthen how the board promotes continuous improvement and alignment to mission/vision while maintaining transparency through public meetings.

From the solicitation snippet, WTDB’s operating intent includes:

• Anticipating and acting on future workforce needs via long-term visioning.
• Partnering with workforce, education, and training organizations, including Local Workforce Development Boards (LWDBs).
• Advising executive and legislative stakeholders on workforce policy and plans.
• Aligning workforce policy, resources, and services with employers, education, training, and economic development.
• Identifying barriers, providing solutions, and avoiding duplication of services.
• Providing accountability among public workforce partners.
• Sharing best practices and scalable innovations across regions statewide.
• Promoting transparency through public meetings.
• Promoting continuous improvement and mission/vision alignment.

What work is implied (bullets)

• Conduct an assessment of the WTDB Continuous Improvement Committee (CIC) in the context of the board’s statewide mission and operating model.
• Analyze how CIC practices support (or hinder) continuous improvement and mission/vision alignment.
• Review alignment across partners, including coordination with Local Workforce Development Boards (LWDBs) and other workforce/education/training organizations.
• Assess how the committee supports transparency expectations associated with public meetings.
• Identify barriers and opportunities to reduce duplication of services and improve accountability among public workforce partners.
• Provide recommendations that emphasize scalable best practices across multiple Oregon regions.
• Plan delivery in a way that does not rely on reimbursable travel (travel expenses not allowable).

Who should bid / who should pass (bullets)

Who should bid

• Consulting teams with demonstrated experience in continuous improvement assessments for public-sector boards, committees, or cross-agency governance groups.
• Firms comfortable working in environments that emphasize equity, statewide partner alignment, and public-meeting transparency.
• Teams that can execute largely remotely (or within a non-reimbursable travel model) while still facilitating effective stakeholder input.
• Qualified small businesses and minority-owned firms aligned to the set-aside label shown in the opportunity listing.

Who should pass

• Teams whose assessment approach depends on substantial onsite travel or travel reimbursement.
• Firms without experience navigating multi-stakeholder public workforce systems (workforce, education, training, and employer alignment).
• Vendors seeking staff augmentation-style work rather than an assessment with findings and recommendations.

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

• Completed proposal response as required by OregonBuys RFP verify in attachments.
• Scope and methodology for assessing the CIC and producing actionable recommendations verify in attachments.
• Project plan and timeline covering an estimated 12-month term verify in attachments.
• Approach to stakeholder engagement consistent with transparency/public meeting norms verify in attachments.
• Cost proposal acknowledging travel is not an allowable cost verify in attachments.
• Evidence of eligibility/representation consistent with the Small Business and Minority-owned labeling verify in attachments.
• Any required forms/certifications referenced in the solicitation package verify in attachments.

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

The notice snippet provides an estimated cost of $200,000 and states travel expenses will not be allowable. Use that as a forcing function for a lean delivery model: remote interviews/workshops, tightly scoped facilitation, and efficient analysis/reporting.

To ground your pricing strategy without guessing:

• Benchmark against comparable state-level governance or committee assessment engagements in Oregon procurement records (when available) and similar workforce-system advisory work.
• Map your level-of-effort to an assessment engagement over ~12 months (e.g., discovery, data gathering, synthesis, recommendations, readouts), then validate the resourcing mix against the $200,000 estimate.
• Build cost realism around non-travel execution: virtual facilitation tools, document review, and structured stakeholder input mechanisms.
• Confirm whether the RFP expects fixed price, not-to-exceed, or other structure (and any invoicing cadence) verify in attachments.

Subcontracting / teaming ideas (bullets)

• Team a continuous improvement / organizational assessment lead with a partner experienced in statewide workforce system stakeholder engagement (including LWDB-facing work).
• Add a specialist in public meeting processes and transparency expectations to strengthen facilitation and reporting alignment.
• Include an equity-informed evaluation partner to align with the WTDB vision of equitable prosperity and inclusive systems.
• Structure teaming to support remote delivery (since travel is not allowable) and to expand coverage across multiple regions through local capacity rather than reimbursable travel.

Risks & watch-outs (bullets)

• Travel is not allowable: proposals that implicitly assume onsite convenings may become noncompliant or financially infeasible.
• Governance dynamics: assessing a committee that operates in public and interfaces with multiple partners can create sensitivity around findings and recommendations.
• Scalability expectations: recommendations likely need to be usable statewide and across multiple regions, not tailored to a single locale.
• Scope clarity: the snippet references a 40-page document—confirm deliverables, data sources, and any required meeting participation verify in attachments.
• Single-award environment: with one contract planned, evaluation criteria and proposal discipline will matter; ensure you follow OregonBuys formatting and submission rules precisely verify in attachments.

Related opportunities

• Workforce Talent and Development Board Continuous Improvement Committee Assessment 2026 (BidPulsar listing)

How to act on this

1. Open the BidPulsar listing and pull the full solicitation package; confirm submission instructions and required forms verify in attachments.
2. Design a remote-first assessment approach that still supports transparent stakeholder engagement.
3. Build a level-of-effort model that fits the stated $200,000 estimate and excludes travel.
4. Decide whether to prime or team based on assessment depth, facilitation capacity, and eligibility alignment with the set-aside labeling.
5. If you want hands-on help shaping a compliant response and capture plan, contact Federal Bid Partners LLC.