What DYCD must release.

Without this, no one outside DYCD can confirm who was displaced where. Every other claim depends on it.

Principals were permitted to express preferences. DYCD has not shown which schools ranked the incumbent first.

When the awardee differs from the principal's ranking, the public record needs the written rationale.

PPB rules require competitive scoring. Categories, weights, and totals must be publicly inspectable.

DYCD's defense relied on this concept. The public has not seen how it was operationalized.

Procurement integrity is verifiable only when challenge outcomes are public.

Continuity of service depends on whether seats and dollars actually transfer.

Some awardees are smaller orgs. Capacity to run a city-funded program at scale must be documented before September.

Adult continuity is the difference between a program and a placeholder. Families need named transition leads.

DOE and DYCD share these buildings. Written agreements show whether the school actually consented.

Access is a federal civil-rights obligation, not an add-on. Plans must exist before transition, not after a complaint.

Working families need notice in writing, in their language, before the first day.

A six-year, hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars award cannot be audited from a press statement.

Who scored these proposals, what youth-development or school experience they had, and how DYCD chose them.

Including how reviewers were told to treat prior site-specific performance and whether incumbent experience was treated as bias.

Were substantially similar proposals scored differently by different readers? Without variance analysis, the rubric is unverifiable.

If parent or provider feedback shaped scoring, the public needs the instrument, the response rate, and the scoring methodology.

If awardees may subcontract a large share of programming, the public needs to see the rule and ask why a functioning integrated provider was removed at all.

This is the document that may explain how principal preference and provider diversity were actually used. The public deck does not show those as scored line items.

The list of schools each provider was eligible to apply for. Without it, the public cannot reconstruct who could have competed for each site.

Per-competition funding lines that explain how slots and dollars were allocated before negotiation. This is the document that would settle prior/new slot disputes site by site.

PPB rules require this register be available for public inspection after award. The public has not been given it.

PPB rules permit randomized assignment for high-volume evaluations but require documented approval and a record of who scored what.

PPB rules require preservation of signed/dated rating sheets, original and amended. These are the underlying scoring documents.

Aggregate technical scores per competition allow side-by-side comparison of how the same provider was scored at different sites.

The proposal section where applicants described their relationship with each school. Critical for understanding what providers represented about school fit.

Should contain the procurement method, the award basis, and a summary of the procurement record. Required by PPB rules.

Cost was 5 points of the rubric; without the price comparison there is no way to verify how it was applied.

Attendance rates, audit findings, and prior-performance assessments that DYCD weighed (or did not weigh) for displaced incumbents.

PPB requires a responsibility determination before award. The determinations and any associated documentation should be on file.

Multi-school competitions submitted only one budget narrative. Per-school final workscopes are where actual programming and dollars are nailed down.

DYCD acknowledged 12 schools still had no awarded provider. The public should know which 12, what is planned, and what happens if licensing is not complete by fall.

Selected for award is not registered. Until each award has a registration record on file, the public cannot tell which contracts are actually in effect.