SPECIAL REPORT More Than a Letter Game
Successful student transportation procurement relies on a process of RFIs, RFPs, RFBs and resulting pilot programs Written by Carol Brzozowski
S
chool transportation departments navigate constrained budgets, staffing challenges and rapidly evolving technology that rely on pro- curement tools: Request for Information (RFI),
Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Bids (RFB) and pilot programs. Using those tools properly yields optimal results. RFIs help districts—particularly large ones—un-
derstand market capabilities before committing to specifications. RFPs allow districts to evaluate solutions based on expertise, implementation plans and long-term value utilizing a scale or scoring system for multiple com- panies offering similar products or services. Factors include sustainability, customer support and training. RFBs are critical for standardized purchases, ensuring transparency, fairness and fiscal accountability through objective competition. Bid specs yielding the most re- sults consider the operational needs and what problem needs resolution. Industry consultant Alexandra Robinson noted an
RFI is a fact-finding process to ask questions, research the product and conduct demonstrations. These find- ings result in writing the RFP or RFB. The proof is in the real-world pilot test of the solution. A School Transportation News reader survey last
year indicated 32 percent of transportation directors and supervisors engage in pilot programs. Thirty-five percent said they submit an RFI prior to submitting an RFP. Software provider Transfinder noted it participated in 217 percent more RFPs in 2025 than in 2024. Ashley Jones, assistant director of special projects for
26 School Transportation News • MARCH 2026
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) transportation department in North Carolina, noted challenges faced in preparing for an RFP process include the hurdle of balancing the wish list of operations and maintenance with budget restraints. “We also struggle with ensuring what we buy today
won’t be obsolete in two to three years,” she added. CMS released an RFP in December for transportation
telematics service and hardware, to improve upon GPS tracking, driver behavior metrics and on-time arrival rates. The district formed an RFP team including trans- portation operations, IT team members and finance. “This prevents us from buying a software solution we
can’t support or maintain,” Jones said. CMS utilizes a weighted scoring rubric that con-
siders pricing, experience, specific vendor offerings, and references. It holds a pre-bid meeting internally but not publicly for potential companies placing a bid, Jones noted. “This is included in the bid and part of our scope of
work,” she added. “Vendors can ask additional questions during the process if needed.” The decision to bid is based on several review meet-
ings involving the CMS internal transportation team to determine basic needs and potential operational gaps. “Before drafting the scope of work, the team collabo-
rated to categorize requirements into fundamental needs versus additional capabilities,” said Jones. “Key drivers identified for this included the benefit of an accurate telematics platform including the essential need for accurate reports for bus arrivals, the desire to improve transparency between parents and school transportation,
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
