[Mwa] BEST III RFP reissued

[MassWorkForce@aol.com]

The state’s BEST III Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on June 29th, 
then withdrawn and modified, and reissued on July 27th.   You can get a copy by 
going to www.commcorp.org.   The RFP was withdrawn and modified because several 
organizations, including MWA, raised concerns about the way it was 
structured.

The due date for BEST III proposals has been changed to September 30th; a 
Bidders Conference – TA Session will be scheduled soon.

The text below represents MWA’s review of the BEST III RFP.   Certainly we 
recommend that you attend the Bidders Conference to get answers to your 
questions.

The reissued RFP includes major changes which bring it more in line with the 
state’s Emerging Technology legislation, including:
•   there is a somewhat clearer priority on serving low income and low wage 
workers;
•   since the state felt it could not sufficiently amend the BEST III RFP, 
$1,000,000 legislatively targeted to community based non-profits and $500,000 
targeted to older workers was pulled from this RFP – and will be available 
through a “simplified Application for Funding process” at www.commcorp.org in the 
next 3 to 4 weeks;
•   proposals to educate/train health care professionals must “include a 
community based non-profit organization or an institution of higher learning as a 
required partner”;
•   required matching funds have been reduced from 100% to 30%.

The new BEST III RFP does not include other major changes requested by MWA 
and others:
•   the 16 Workforce Investment Boards remain the only eligible bidders under 
this RFP;
•   up to 1/3 of grant funds may be spent on project design, development, and 
implementation, including materials development, researching best practice, 
project management, marketing, travel, meetings, and administrative costs;
•   employers are no longer required to “provide no less than 50% paid 
release time” for participants, but now “are encouraged to provide paid release 
time;”
•   CBOs are not fully integrated into the BEST III RFP – as MWA has 
advocated for – and there is danger that service delivery strategies based in low 
income communities will be marginalized through this dual RFP process.

MWA will send out another email when the CBO Application for Funding process 
is released at www.commcorp.org.


Why we are concerned about the BEST III RFP approach

Some service providers and employers have already reported difficulties 
developing partnerships under the BEST III RFP.   We are concerned other 
organizations will experience hurdles and barriers to proposing and implementing 
effective programs.   Several service providers will be placed in difficult 
situations – because they do not know the connections and overlap between the BEST III 
RFP and the forthcoming CBO Application for Funding process.

Looking ahead and learning from this process, MWA believes:
•   A competitive, market-driven process is always a better approach than 
giving one set of organizations presumptive rights to funding.   Experience tells 
us that successful partnerships (such as those sought through BEST III) grow 
from leadership provided by a wide range of local stakeholders (CBOs, union 
programs, community colleges, employers, WIBs, and Career Centers); so allowing 
for a range of the most effective, locally based conveners will often be the 
more successful approach.
•   It is a mistake to issue a multi-million $ RFP and limit it to 16 
bidders.   Limiting BEST III bidders to our 16 WIBs will hamstring existing and new 
partnerships in some regions of the state, and potentially stifle creativity 
and entrepreneurial service providers and employers.
•   Massachusetts’ 16 WIBs vary a great deal in the quality, capacity, and 
focus of their work (as do service providers and other system stakeholders).
•   While WIB sign-off provides value to a local system, the BEST III RFP 
installs WIBs as the lead partner for every proposal – when WIBs are already 
invested in certain projects and partnerships.   

As we stated in MWA’s May, 2003 report, Workforce Development: A Diverse 
Provider Network Meets Diverse Workforce Needs, “a workforce development system is 
more effective when it is made up of diverse education and training 
organizations, located locally in the communities of greatest need, and when the 
service providers must both compete for funding and then work collaboratively to 
deliver services.”   

We urge employers, state agencies, WIBs, Career Centers, SDAs/WIAs, and 
service providers to continue talking and thinking about how we together can build 
a more integrated, coordinated, and effective workforce development system!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.literacytent.org/pipermail/mwa/attachments/20040803/39e051d1/attachment.htm