Evaluator Integrity

Who scored these proposals — and how?

Six-year contracts running through 2032 turned on a scoring process the public has not seen. This page tracks the integrity questions DYCD has not yet answered.

Verification in progress. Direct quotes from the May 28 Council hearing and the underlying RFP text will be added only after we confirm transcripts against video and documents. Until then, items below are framed as questions, not findings.
  1. Question 1Verification in progress

    Who served on the evaluator panels, and how were they selected?

    What we know

    Per Chalkbeat (May 21, 2026), DYCD official Alba said principal preference had to be balanced with scoring, capacity, and provider diversity. DYCD has not separately published the panel-selection process.

    What we still need

    Panel composition, employer affiliations, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and the training materials evaluators received.

  2. Question 2Verification in progress

    What rubric was used, and what was each criterion weighted?

    What we know

    The RFP described scoring criteria categorically (organizational capacity, program design, fiscal, etc.) but did not publish per-criterion point weights at the award-decision level.

    What we still need

    The actual rubric used, with weights, and the per-proposal score sheets (redacted of evaluator names if needed).

  3. Question 3Verification in progress

    How was 'principal preference' represented in scoring?

    What we know

    Multiple principals — including The Computer School's Jessica Shalom — publicly identified an incumbent as best fit; a different provider was awarded.

    What we still need

    Documentation of how principal preference was solicited, recorded, and weighted relative to other criteria.

  4. Question 4Verification in progress

    Were there evaluator conflicts with incumbent or awarded providers?

    What we know

    DYCD has not released evaluator names, prior employment, or board affiliations.

    What we still need

    Conflict-of-interest attestations signed by each evaluator and the recusal log.

  5. Question 5Verification in progress

    How were ties or close scores broken?

    What we know

    DYCD has cited 'provider diversity' as a tie-breaking and balancing factor in public statements.

    What we still need

    The written tie-break procedure and the list of awards where it was invoked.

See also: the 13-document request and the FOIL Tracker for the formal records this page depends on.