McKinsey Response to RFP

8/18/2019 McKinsey Response to RFP

1/73

CITY OF BOSTON, OFFICE OF FINANCE AND BUDGET

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPERATIONAL

AUDIT / REVIEWVOLUME #1: Technical Proposal

Due: November 10, 2014, 12 PM EST

Submitted to:

Molly MurphyCity of Boston

Office of Finance and BudgetCity Hall, Room 608Boston City HallOne City Hall PlazaBoston, MA 02201

Submitted by:

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C.

Vivian Riefberg, Senior Partner

1200 19th

Street NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20036(202) [email protected] www.mckinsey.com

Navjot Singh, Managing Partner, Boston Office 280 Congress Street, Suite 1100Boston, MA 02210(617) [email protected]

This proposal is the property of McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. (“McKinsey”) and must not be disclosed outside theGovernment or be duplicated, used, or disclosed—in whole or in part—for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If acontract is awarded to McKinsey as a result of, or in connection with, the submission of this proposal, the Government shall havethe right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract and subject to the limitations of theFreedom of Information Act and/or the Massachusetts Freedom of Information Act. This proposal contains confidential andproprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under Section (b)(4) of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.and/or the Massachusetts Freedom of Information Act. Accordingly, no portion of this proposal should be released withoutconsulting McKinsey & Company. Accordingly, no portion of this proposal should be released without consulting McKinsey &Company. This proposal is contingent on the Parties reaching mutually agreeable terms and conditions and upon acceptance of anylimitations described herein.


2/73

1200 19th

Street NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 662-3300 | www.mckinsey.com

November 10, 2014

Molly MurphyCity of Boston

Office of Finance and BudgetCity Hall, Room 608Boston City HallOne City Hall PlazaBoston, MA 02201

Subject: Boston Public Schools Operational Audit/Review RFP Response

Dear Ms. Murphy:

Please find attached McKinsey & Company's (McKinsey) proposal response to the Boston Public SchoolsOperational Audit/Review Request for Proposal.

We look forward to the potential to serve the City of Boston, and specifically Boston Public Schools(BPS). We will help BPS conduct a comprehensive review of the operations of the Department andidentify opportunities to improve operations in both the short and the long-term. McKinsey has a deep,longstanding relationship with both the City and leading private, public, and nonprofit organizations inthe Boston community. As the world’s leading management consultancy, we have served thousands ofclients across the combination of economic development, infrastructure, and operational andorganizational transformation challenges. We believe that our extensive experience with large publicschool systems and numerous large U.S. cities (e.g., New York, Chicago, Detroit) – much of which wasled by Doug Scott, the proposed Project Leader for our team – is critical to this effort. In addition, we believe that our nuanced understanding of the City of Boston through Senior Partner Navjot Singh andPartner Jules Seeley (including our work with Mayor Walsh’s 2014 Transition Team) uniquely positionsus to help the City of Boston administration and BPS achieve the objectives it has laid out. These include:

Conducting a review of the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the 25 areas and disciplinesoutlined in Section 4.1.3 of the RFP; drawing on our Education Practice, which is focused on helpinglarge public school systems improve student outcomes while overcoming strategic and operationalchallenges; and our Corporate and Business Support Function Practice, which is focused on drivingadministrative and operational excellence and efficiency

Determining whether non-instructional functions are operating efficiently; assessing risks andidentifying short-term and long-term savings that can be gained through further adherence toregulations and implementation of best practices. Identifying gaps by comparing findings withregulations and best practices, supported by McKinsey’s extensive experience in having providedsimilar operational assessments to public school districts and other organizations across the publicand private sectors

Examining instructional services to determine whether educational dollars are being utilized to thefullest extent possible, and identifying opportunities to manage costs while improving the quality ofeducation, based on the extensive expertise of our Education Practice

Providing an overview of BPS’ fiscal and operational health for its next Superintendent

Reviewing BPS’ progress toward implementing the recommendations of previously issued reports,studies, audits, and reviews.


3/73

1200 19th

Street NW, Suite 1100 | Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 662-3300 | www.mckinsey.com

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is willing and able to perform the commitments containedin this proposal. If you have any questions about our technical proposal response, please contact NavjotSingh, the Managing Partner of McKinsey’s Boston Office. He can be reached at (617) 753-2146, or viaemail at [email protected]. For contractual questions, please contact Contracts Manager

Chuck Self at (202) 662-3300, or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Vivian Riefberg, Senior Partner1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20036

(202) [email protected]

Navjot Singh, Managing Partner, Boston Office280 Congress Street, Suite 1100Boston, MA 02210

(617) [email protected]


4/73

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPERATIONAL AUDIT / REVIEW RFP November 10, 2014

Table of Contents1.0 OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS (BPS) SYSTEM ....... 1

2.0 OFFEROR PROFILE ..................................................................................................... 2

McKinsey & Company Profile and Background ......................................................... 2

2.1 Brief Description of the Nature of the Company’s Business ...................................... 3 2.2

McKinsey's Industry Knowledge and Experience ...................................................... 3

2.3

Customer References ............................................................................................... 5

2.4

2.4.1

Reference 1: Rochester City School District's (RCSD) Spending MoneySmartly Engagement, Gates Foundation ........................................................ 6

2.4.2 Reference 2: Gates Foundation / Improving teacher effectiveness and studentachievement across several public school districts ......................................... 8

2.4.3 Reference 3: Denver Public Schools / Improving teacher effectiveness andstudent achievement ...................................................................................... 9

2.4.4

Reference 4: Mayor Walsh 2014 Transition Team Engagement ....................10

Offeror Litigation ......................................................................................................11

2.5

3.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THE SCOPE OF SERVICES ................12

“Day 1” Perspectives on Key Issues ........................................................................12

3.1

McKinsey's Technical Approach, Timeline, and Deliverables ...................................14

3.2

3.2.1 Audit Areas....................................................................................................17

Staffing Plan ............................................................................................................19 3.3

Regular Check-ins with the City of Boston ...............................................................23 3.4

Final Report .............................................................................................................23 3.5

Past Performance on Similar & Successful Projects, and Customer References .....23 3.6

3.6.1

Offeror Experience 1: Large Urban City Public School System, Department ofEducation organizational analysis .................................................................24

3.6.2

Offeror Experience 2: Milwaukee Public School System Assessment ..........24

3.6.3

Offeror Experience 3: Urban Midwestern School System .............................26

3.6.4

Offeror Experience 4: Gates Foundation/ Pittsburgh Public School System,Effective Teachers .........................................................................................27

3.6.5 Offeror Experience 5: Mayor Walsh 2014 Transition Team Engagement .....28

Additional Services ..................................................................................................29 3.7

APPENDIX A: RESUMES .................................................................................................. A-1

APPENDIX B: CORPORATE AND BUSINESS SUPPORT FUNCTIONS .......................... B-1

APPENDIX C:

MINIMUM EVALUATION CRITERIA .......................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: CITY OF BOSTON STANDARD CONTRACT FORMS ............................... D-1

McKinsey&Company Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject

to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal.i


5/73


Table of ExhibitsExhibit 1. Detailed Work Plan, Timeline, and Deliverables. .......................................................16

Exhibit 2: Proposed Team Organization. ...................................................................................19

Exhibit 3. McKinsey Key Personnel Skills Matrix. ......................................................................20

Exhibit 4. McKinsey’s CBF 360 Approach. .............................................................................. B-2

Exhibit 5. Focus on Effectiveness is Key to Creating Sustainable Value. ................................ B-3


to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal.ii


6/73


1.0 OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE BOSTON PUBLICSCHOOLS (BPS) SYSTEM

Boston Public Schools’ mission is to transform the lives of all children through exemplary teachingin a world-class system of innovative, welcoming schools. Boston has a rich history as the birthplace of

public education in the United States, and the district is seen as an exemplar among U.S. urban districts,recognized with the 2006 Broad Prize and in our 2010 analysis of the world’s most improved schoolsystems, How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. BPS is recognized for itsongoing innovations in improving outcomes for students, such as by instituting a common planning timefor teachers in the same subject or grade and establishing annual achievement targets for its students.

School systems around the country are under incredible pressure as students’ needs are increasing,funding is not keeping pace with costs, and expectations for performance are rising. Continuing to fulfillits mission will require that BPS make the most efficient and effective use of its resources, including its$900+ million budget, 4,500+ teachers, and 3,900+ additional staff. While its budget has increased overthe last 3 years, BPS projected a deficit for 2014-2015 due to increased costs and decreased state funding.This pressure provides the catalyst for BPS to drive improved outcomes for students if it can develop astronger understanding of its operations, identify opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness

while reducing cost, devise strategies for their implementation, and then reallocate realized gains intoareas that can make the most difference for students.

As it continues to serve the community of the City of Boston, BPS has to grapple with several internaland external forces affecting its operations. These include:

Wide variation in school performance. Overall academic performance has improved over the past3 years with improvements in the overall percentage of students who are proficient in ELA, math, andscience. However, elementary school literacy rates have not improved in the last 5 years andimprovements in graduation rates have plateaued in recent years. Performance varies widely acrossBPS’ 128 schools, as evidenced by Massachusetts’ Level 1-5 performance classifications (Level 1 ishighest performing, Level 5 is lowest performing). The State has designated nine of the district’sschools as Level 4 or 5 (lowest performing), and a further 54 schools as Level 3, suggesting asubstantial opportunity to improve performance.

Enrollment declines. Enrollment has declined modestly in the past 3 years, as we see in many urbandistricts around the country. These declines are difficult to manage because they are hard to predict,are spread across many schools and classrooms, and adjusting staffing to new enrollment is complex.There is also significant debate as to whether charter schools should be expanded in the City whichcould lead to further declines in enrollment, and what impact charter schools will have on traditional public schools.

Persistent budget gaps. Only 13 percent of the public school budget this year is covered by stateaid. Fifteen years ago, such aid covered 31 percent of the City's school budget. InterimSuperintendent John McDonough identified a $14 million deficit for the 2014-2015 school year dueto $60 million of increased costs and a $32 million decline in state and federal funds.1 Beyondaddressing the deficit, there are likely opportunities to improve performance that would require

further investments. As an example, BPS is appealing to business leaders and philanthropists tohelp underwrite a $25 million campaign to attract, retain, and improve the quality of its teachers and principals. BPS has already secured $3 million in commitments from donors.2

1 Source:, "School chief: ‘Too soon' to talk layoffs," February 6, 2014, Boston Herald 2 Source: "Charter schools achieving goals that have eluded Mass. for decades," March 20, 2014, The Boston Globe; "Mixed

results in Boston," October 6, 2014, Boston Herald


to the restrictions on the title page of this proposal.1


7/73


Increased need for teacher diversity.The school system’s largely white teaching force – instructinga student population that is 87 percent black, Latino, or Asian – has been a sensitive issue and subjectof litigation that dates back to the tumultuous days of desegregation in the 1970s. A decline in thenumber of black teachers in BPS has put the City in violation of a federal court order, promptingofficials to step up efforts to recruit and retain more ethnically diverse teachers.3

Challenges related to collective bargaining and union relationships.BPS has faced challenges inits union relationships and contract negotiations. The Boston Teachers Union has challenged the BPSAdministration on performance evaluation and the dismissal process for under-performing teachers.School bus drivers went on strike in October 2013 and at the start of the 2014-2015 school year, over labor disagreements with Veolia, the transportation contractor providing the bus service for the city.4

BPS is well aware of these challenges and opportunities, and this operational review is another practicalstep to proactively move forward and identify areas of improvement.

McKinsey would be honored to work with BPS to better understand its operations and the opportunitiesto improve its cost-efficiency and effectiveness to better serve the students of Boston. We will draw onour deep experience and expertise in both education and operations and use our rapid access to leadingexperts and insights in the fields of transportation, food service, HR, IT, finance, procurement, andfacilities to identify opportunities for BPS. Our proposed team members’ extensive experience in

education and operations, as well as our longstanding commitment and familiarity with Boston, make usexcited to partner with you on this effort.

2.0 OFFEROR PROFILE

McKinsey & Company Profile and Background2.1

Home office addressMcKinsey & Company, Inc. WashingtonD.C.1200 19th Street NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20036

Phone: (202) 662-3300Fax: (202) 662-3175

Boston Office address and contact person informationMcKinsey & Company, Boston Office Navjot Singh, Managing Partner, Boston Office280 Congress Street, Suite 1100Boston, MA 02210

Phone: (617) 753-2146Fax: (617) 753-2099Email: [email protected]

Federal Identification Number56-2405213

Type of business organizationMcKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. is aCorporation

Number of years company has

operated under this nameMcKinsey & Company: 88 yearsMcKinsey & Company, Inc. WashingtonDC: 11 years

Year company was foundedMcKinsey & Company: 1926Boston Office: 1987DC Office: 1962

Number of years company has been in present business

McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington D.C. was incorporated on October 9, 2003, in the State ofDelaware

3 Source: Boston seeks black teachers; More diversity is recruitment goal, Imbalance could bring litigation 20 January 2014, TheBoston Globe.

4 Source: BPS to expel more teachers; Poor performers plan appeal as firings expand," 24 November 2013, Boston Herald




8/73


Brief Description of the Nature of the Company’s Business2.2

McKinsey’s history and structure

McKinsey is the world’s leading management consulting firm, providing professional services toorganizations in the public and private sectors. The Firm was founded in 1926 by James McKinsey, andcurrently employs more than 9,000 professionals, located in more than 106 offices, in more than 62

countries. The services on this effort will be performed by staff from McKinsey’s Boston Office.McKinsey invented the science of management consulting, and our mission for the last 88 years has beento help our clients achieve distinctive, substantial, and lasting improvements in their performance.

We are a trusted advisor and counselor to many of the world’s most influential businesses and publicsector institutions. We serve more than 70 percent of Fortune magazine’s list of most admired companiesand 90 percent of the Fortune 100 companies.

Our Public Sector Practice has completed over 1,500 engagements in the past 5 years for local, provincial,state, national, and international government organizations. Our work spans a broad range of functionaltopics including strategy, operations, organization, and finance. In our public sector work, we havedistinctive expertise in economic development, education, healthcare, public finance, energy and theenvironment, and defense and security. McKinsey has received overwhelmingly positive reviews from previous government clients.

We do this by adhering to the following core principles:

Follow the top management approach, solving the most critical and challenging problems

Use our global network to deliver the best of the Firm to all clients

Bring innovations in management practice to clients

Build client capabilities to sustain improvement

Build enduring relationships based on trust.

McKinsey's Industry Knowledge and Experience2.3

1. We have deep experience serving K-12 public school districts and school systems across the

globe.

McKinsey brings perspectives on best practices and approaches from school systems across the globe. Wehave conducted 40+ school system reviews worldwide and compiled a database of ~600 successfuleducation reform interventions. Examples of past engagements include:

Rochester City School District’s (RCSD) Spending Money Smartly. Rapidly diagnosed andidentified improvement opportunities and priority gaps, and presented the RCSD with strong analysisto identify opportunities to allocate resources more effectively in line with the district priorities.RCSD was able to use our findings to close its ~$40 million deficit for the 2014-2015 school year andidentify an additional set of operational improvements that freed up ~$15 million to be reallocatedtoward core academic priorities.

Milwaukee Public School System (MPS) Assessment. Identified opportunities in the district’s non-instructional operations by comparing MPS’ budget, transportation, procurement, and performance

management systems against best practices in other districts and developed options for sustainedimprovements to enable MPS to better meet the needs of its students.

Pittsburgh Public School System. Supported Pittsburgh Public Schools in first year ofimplementation of teacher effectiveness strategies, including HR effectiveness and IT systems toimprove outcomes for students.

In addition to our on-the-ground experience, we produce ground-breaking research and publications thatare shaping the debate on education system improvement globally. Examples of our widely cited reportsinclude Education to Employment: Designing a System That Works (2012), How the World’s Most




9/73


Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better (2010), and Closing the Talent Gap: Attracting and Retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching (2010).

2. We have unparalleled experience diagnosing operations and support functions.

McKinsey has conducted over 2,000 engagements focusing on support functions (e.g. IT, HR, facilities,finance) in the last 10 years, serving over 1,600 individual organizations in the public and private sectors.

Across these functions, we have proprietary tools used to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of thefunctions and a database of over 500 levers for operational improvement. Our Corporate and BusinessSupport Functions (CBF) Practice, led by Jules Seeley in North America, specializes in driving efficiencyand effectiveness of these processes. Additional details on the CBF Practice are found in Appendix B. We have over 200 partners and function-by-function experts in this area. In supporting the City ofBoston, we will marry this deep functional knowledge with our understanding of major metropolitan public school systems and the City of Boston to deliver an objective perspective on BPS’ current performance and opportunities across the mission areas identified.

3. We bring deep expertise in public sector change management and stakeholder engagement.

Our change management approach is based on the largest research program conducted in the field withinput from over 1 million employees across 800 organizations and practical experience with more than1,500 client organizations. Our change management approach includes proprietary tools that are tailored

to the public sector. We have completed 600+ change management-focused engagements in the publicsector over the past 5 years, helping organizations think through how to realize opportunities identifiedand drive lasting change.

4. We have a strong record of successful partnerships with the City of Boston, the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, and related public sector stakeholders combined with the ability to bring an

independent, unbiased point of view.

Since 2009, we have served ~130 Massachusetts-based clients across a broad spectrum of industries andfunctions, within both the public and private sectors. Within Boston alone, our work has spanned ~260engagements for ~90 clients including the City of Boston, with the strongest presence in the banking,insurance, pharmaceuticals, medical products, and high-tech sectors.

Examples of our recent partnerships include:

Mayor Walsh’s 2014 Transition Team. We worked with Mayor Walsh’s team to develop a visionfor improving Boston’s Inspectional Services Department (ISD), and to set explicit goals and timingfor ISD’s permitting performance (e.g., 75 percent of basic permits approved in less than 20 days,which was a key component of Mayor Walsh’s 100-day address). We also identified and outlinedeight actions required to realize this vision, including specific operational improvements to the permitting process, as well as organizational and cultural changes for other City departments.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, IT Capital Investment Analysis and Monitoring. We workedwith the Commonwealth to develop a methodology and digital tool (CASE) for estimating the returnon investment (ROI) for existing and future IT programs. Since launching the tool in January 2014,the Commonwealth has seen a 2.8x increase in the percentage of projects that quantify ROI(85 percent of projects quantified benefits in 2014 versus less than 30 percent in 2013).

MassInsight. We served the regional advocacy and education organization by conducting anassessment of key industry sectors and their impact on the Boston metropolitan area, as well asoverall state growth.

We bring this deep commitment to and familiarity with the City as well as a truly independent, outside-inobjective view on the operational effectiveness and efficiency of the various departments and operationswithin BPS.




10/73


5. Deep commitment from Boston-based senior leadership combined with global reach to over

9,000 consultants.

Our partner to consultant ratio is 1:6, in contrast with ratios common in the industry from 1:50 up to1:200. Our partners are deeply involved in developing the deliverables and reviewing all the analysis sothat their expertise is applied throughout the effort.

McKinsey’s Boston Office was founded more than 25 years ago. Since the Office’s inception, itsleadership has made a priority of cultivating strong local ties and helping shape some of the area’s mostimportant organizations. Navjot Singh, the current Managing Partner of McKinsey’s Boston Office, is amember of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and serves on its Executive Committee.McKinsey’s other Boston leaders maintain a board presence at the YMCA of Greater Boston, theMassachusetts Audubon Society, the March of Dimes, and the Catholic Charities of New England.

McKinsey provides unbiased counsel to leadership of the world’s most influential organizations. Thisindependence, combined with our tools (which provide a factbase against which we identifyopportunities), enables us to provide guidance that is objective, trusted, practical, and holds up toorganizational realities. We operate as “One Firm” across 9,000+ consultants, 22 industry practices, eightfunctional disciplines, and offices in 62 countries. While other firms may have a global presence, theyoften are not able to leverage the same people across divisions, inhibiting true knowledge-sharing, and the

full deployment of firm networks. We will fully deploy this “One Firm” approach, for example, toidentify experts to interview during our investigation of global best practices in school system operations.

6. We have an impeccable track record of impact to help you with this high-profile engagement.

Of all the U.S. Government Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) received as of January2012, 100 percent of Contract Officers wrote that they would definitely work with McKinsey again.Across the six dimensions rated from exceptional to unsatisfactory, 50 percent of engagements wereranked “exceptional” across every dimension, and McKinsey has never received any score less than “verygood.” Our work scored above 95 percent in quality of product/service and in management of key personnel. In clients’ free-form responses, leaders typically describe our work as “incredible,”“exceptional,” “always professional,” and “exquisitely sensitive.”

Customer References2.4

Detailed below are short summaries of our references including client contact information. The fullwrite-ups of example McKinsey-led engagements similar in size and scope to the BPS RFP are in Section

3.6.




11/73


2.4.1 Reference 1: Rochester City School District's (RCSD)Spending Money Smartly Engagement, Gates Foundation

Rochester City School District's (RCSD) Spending Money Smartly Engagement

Proposer’s role: McKinsey served as the Prime Contractor with no Subcontractors

Client point of contact (POC)

Name PatriciaMalgieri

Client contact title Chief of Staff

Phone 585-262-8100 Email [email protected]

Period of performance Sept. 2013 –Sept. 2014

Number of employees 6,100

Relevance to the BPS Operational Audit Review RFP

Effective Resource Allocation has been a core priority of the Rochester City School District (RCSD) andSuperintendent Bolgen Vargas. The persistent achievement gap and academic challenges faced by thesystem, compounded by recurring deficits spurred the superintendent and his top team to commit to atransformed approach to resource allocation.As a result, the Gates Foundation selected RCSD to be one of seven potential systems to embark on a

“Spending Money Smartly” initiative over the past year to ensure that resources are aligned to thestrategic priorities of the system. Based on our track record and expertise, Rochester selected McKinsey& Company as their Technical Assistance provider from among a group of leading consultancies.McKinsey provided support to help identify savings opportunities and sharpen RCSD’s strategy toallocate resources more effectively in line with the district priorities. This effort is highly relevant to thegoals that BPS has to rapidly diagnose and identify improvement opportunities, understand priority gaps,and present the RCSD with strong analysis to make decisions toward forward progress.

Client background/challenge

In spring 2013, the RCSD was under significant budget pressures, declining enrollment, and struggling toget traction on its core strategic priorities. Left unchecked, the system was at risk of continuing to take areactive approach to budget management, making short-term cuts, and not being able to fund coreacademic priorities. In partnership with McKinsey, Rochester was able to use the analysis provided to

take positive action toward closing a significant deficit, sharpening their strategy, and allocating ameaningful amount of time and resources to the district’s strategic priorities.

Brief description of our solutionMcKinsey provided the fact base, diagnostic insights from other systems, and the problem-solvingstrategy for this project. We trained a newly formed, cross-functional team of high-performingindividuals from within the RCSD system. We also helped to build their capabilities in, and guide their process in identifying additional opportunities.

McKinsey's Direct observations and analyses

• Analyzed RCSD’s budget to identify core spending categories, trends over times, and drivers ofmajor costs

• Brought prior experience to bear in order to rapidly assess potential areas for improvement from

which system leadership selected areas for further pursuit in the near-term Trained up an RCSDteam and helped guide their problem solving process to conduct “deep dives” consisting offurther benchmarking, school visits, expert interviews, and analyses to help the RCSD teamidentify a set of potential next steps to realize identified improvements.

Scenario modeling

• Developed, in collaboration with the RCSD finance team, a rough five-year financial projectionfor RCSD in order to identify and prioritize additional levers required to reduce, and eventuallyeliminate the recurring budget deficit. Scenarios were critical to support conversations withsystem leadership and the Board.




12/73


Rochester City School District's (RCSD) Spending Money Smartly Engagement

• Developed, in partnership with RCSD system staff, multiple analytic models with regards toissues such as transportation and class fill-rates, to serve as a basis for discussions amongst seniorleadership

Benchmarking

• Benchmarked several areas of RCSD’s budget against other comparable peer districts based onsize and other demographics

• Benchmarked several areas of RCSD’s budget against other major NYC school systems

As part of this study, the McKinsey team also worked with system leadership to identify core cultural andorganizational changes required to improve performance and capture identified opportunities

Client benefit/impact of our work

RCSD was able to take McKinsey's analyses to:

• Close its deficit for the 2014-2015 school year (~$40 million)• Identify an additional set of operational improvements which freed up ~$15 million to be allocated

toward core academic priorities

• Sharpen their strategic priorities and identified fundable and sustainable rollout plans for the

upcoming academic years• Build long-term capabilities in the area of savings identification, problem-solving, strategy

refinement, and execution

• Develop an improved strategy development/budgeting process to integrate these two activities to truly“put their money where their strategy is”

• Begin a longer-term conversation internally and with the Board to ultimately address the core driversof the recurring deficit and focus more resources on the system’s priorities

• More information on RCSD’s joint effort with McKinsey, is on the websitehttp://smarterschoolspending.org/rochester-city-school-district-ny-

Timeliness of performance/services providedAll services and work products were of high quality, and were delivered on time and on budget.




13/73


2.4.2 Reference 2: Gates Foundation / Improving teachereffectiveness and student achievement across several publicschool districts

Gates Foundation + 5 Public School Districts (including Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Denver, Tulsa)

Public Schools Teacher effectiveness

Proposer’s Role: McKinsey served as the Prime Contractor with no Subcontractors

Client Point of Contact (POC)

Name John Deasy Client Contact Title Former Gates FoundationDeputy Director of EducationFormer Superintendent of LosAngeles Unified SchoolDistrict

Phone (310) 991-8201 Email [email protected]

Period of Performance 05/09 to 08/09,09/09 to 09/10

Number of employees at

the client organization

Gates:1,211Atlanta PS: 3,860Denver PS: 14,792Pittsburgh PS:5,180Tulsa PS: 6,500+


• Talent management assessment: Assessed current policies and procedures for distribution of teachersand end-to-end practices for managing teacher effectiveness

• Performance management assessment: Diagnosed current district data systems and ability to supportvalue-added measurement of teacher effectiveness

• Stakeholder management: Demonstrated ability to manage complex stakeholder relationships on politically sensitive issues (teacher performance)

• Cost analyses: Developed cost analyses of proposals across complex urban schools districtsClient background/challenge

• The goal of this engagement was to improve teacher effectiveness and student achievement

Brief description of McKinsey's solution/services provided• Supported 5 public school districts in developing fact-based, high impact strategies and proposals to

increase teacher effectiveness

• Worked in partnership with district leadership, principals and teachers to develop vision for teachereffectiveness, create strategies to improve effectiveness from preparation through retention, andcreated detailed implementation plans, cost analyses, and stakeholder communication plans.

• Supported Pittsburgh Public Schools in first year of implementation of teacher effectivenessstrategies, including HR effectiveness, IT systems, and teacher practice evaluation.


• Leveraged further philanthropic funding for districts through submission of clear proposals toimprove teacher effectiveness

• Helped district leadership, staff, teachers, and principals to set aspirations for teacher effectiveness• Developed detailed implementation plans, cost analyses, stakeholder communication plans, and final

proposals

Timeliness of performance/services provided

• All services and work products were of high quality, and were delivered on time and on budget.




14/73


2.4.3 Reference 3: Denver Public Schools / Improving teachereffectiveness and student achievement

Denver Public Schools / Improve teacher effectiveness and student achievement

Proposer’s Role: McKinsey served as the Prime Contractor with no Subcontractors

Client Point of Contact (POC)

Name Tom Boasberg Client Contact Title Superintendent of DenverPublic Schools


Period of Performance 05/09 to 08/09 Number of employees atthe client organization

Denver PS: 14,792


• Talent management assessment: Assessed current policies and procedures for distribution of teachersand end-to-end practices for managing teacher effectiveness

• Performance management assessment: Diagnosed current district data systems and ability to supportvalue-added measurement of teacher effectiveness

• Stakeholder management: Demonstrated ability to manage complex stakeholder relationships

Client background/challenge• The goal of this engagement was to support Denver Public Schools in developing proposals for

improving teacher effectiveness and student achievement, to be considered by the Gates Foundationfor funding

Brief description of McKinsey's solution/services provided

• Supported Denver Public Schools in developing fact-based, high impact strategies and proposals toincrease teacher effectiveness

• Worked in partnership with district leadership, principals and teachers to develop vision for teachereffectiveness, create strategies to improve effectiveness from preparation through retention, andcreated detailed implementation plans, cost analyses, and stakeholder communication plans


• Leveraged further philanthropic funding for DPS through submission of clear proposals to improve

teacher effectiveness• Helped DPS leadership, staff, teachers, and principals to set aspirations for teacher effectiveness• Developed detailed implementation plans, cost analyses, stakeholder communication plans, and final

proposals






15/73


2.4.4 Reference 4: Mayor Walsh 2014 Transition TeamEngagement

Mayor Walsh 2014 Transition Team

Proposer’s role: McKinsey served as the Prime Contractor with no Subcontractors

Client point of contact (POC)Name Daniel Koh Client contact title Chief of Staff


Period of performance Jan-Feb 2014 Number ofemployees

230


This project demonstrates McKinsey’s intimate familiarity with the City of Boston. It also gives usconsiderable context into why neighborhood development is such a critical topic for the City. We performed an as-is/to-be assessment and interviewed stakeholders to understand the key challenges andopportunities. We also performed benchmarking services to understand permitting best practices in othercities. We then synthesized our findings into a clear, recommended vision, and a set of eight actions for

the mayor and Inspectional Services Department team to take.Client background/challenge

In early 2014, the new Mayor of Boston, Marty Walsh, was transitioning into office. Mayor Walsh’sTransition Team tasked McKinsey with addressing and evaluating two key, front-line issues – 1) theCity’s approach to permitting; and 2) the potential consolidation of two major City departments. Theteam asked McKinsey to identify opportunities to improve a permitting process that constituents viewedas slow, complex, and burdensome, and then to create a clear and actionable plan for improvement. Allservices and work products were of high quality, and were delivered on time and on budget.

Brief description of our solutionWe conducted a diagnostic of permitting issues and developed recommendations for changes required inorder for the permitting process to be a faster, clearer, and easier experience. Our approach consisted ofthe following five steps:

1. Diagnose current performance. The McKinsey team built a clear baseline of current performance,including time to approval for different types of permits, causes of delays, and stakeholder perceptions, all while gathering insights on the experiences of both applicants and City employees.

2. Identify root causes of issues. To determine the root causes of performance issues, the McKinseyteam mapped each step of the permitting process, including the time and resources required at eachstep. This enabled the team to identify bottlenecks and key issues in the existing process.

3. Compare Boston’s permitting qualitatively to other U.S. cities. The team compared Boston’s permitting process to that of other cities, particularly those with an easy, clear experience. Thisenabled the team to expand on the potential opportunities for improvement.

4. Highlight potential innovations in government. The team also identified farther-reaching, cutting-edge technologies and approaches that might be applied to City permitting. The team presented theideas that were most relevant to Boston’s permitting process as long-term aspirational ideas.

5. Develop a perspective on how Boston and ISD should approach revising the permitting process.Finally, the McKinsey team synthesized the ideas for improvement into a set of eight discrete actionsand an action plan. Together, the execution of these actions will enable Boston to significantlyimprove its permitting process and realize the mayor’s vision.


• Developed a vision with explicit goals and timing for ISD’s permitting performance, underpinningthe mayor’s announcement of targets (e.g., 75 percent of basic permits approved in less than 20 days)

• Identified and outlined eight actions required to realize this vision, including specific operational




16/73


Mayor Walsh 2014 Transition Team

improvements to the permitting process, as well as organizational and cultural changes



Offeror Litigation2.5

McKinsey confirms that it is not and has not been a party to any litigation in the last 5 years where it wasalleged that McKinsey breached a contract with a client/customer for an operational audit or similarservices.

McKinsey confirms that no government entity has debarred or otherwise prohibited McKinsey fromresponding to its competitive solicitations within the last 5 years.




17/73


3.0 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL IN RESPONSE TO THESCOPE OF SERVICES

Based on our understanding of the context, objectives, and scope, we have assembled an approach that we believe will best position you to understand the current state of BPS’ operations, previous analyses, andopportunities for improving operations to better serve the students and staff of BPS. We believe thisapproach has the following characteristics:

Upfront identification of strengths and weaknesses relative to peer school districts, which willgreatly help in prioritization of opportunity areas. We will draw on our deep, on-the-groundexperience having conducted 40+ school system reviews and our proprietary knowledge and tools onsuccessful interventions in education operations. These findings will then each be considered in BPS’unique context and prioritized for further examination.

Unique set of tools, frameworks, expertise, and capabilities that have been tested acrossmultiple mission-critical applications in various private and public sector contexts. We willleverage our expertise in operations and serving public school systems to tailor existing tools to yourneeds (e.g., Excellence in Service Operations, Corporate and Business Support Functions 360 benchmarks).

“Day 1” perspective on the key issues. We come to you with a fundamental set of core beliefs and prior experiences that we will couple with your starting point to form early hypotheses. This willenable us to rapidly focus our effort and move quickly from the theoretical to the practical.

Emphasis on moving quickly by drawing on our deep roster of experts. We will leverage yearsof experience across 200+ functional experts across various disciplines (e.g., public safety, supportfunctions, finance/HR, change management, public sector, transportation, operations, IT), ourextensive Education Practice with experiences within K-12 systems, along with dedicated full-timeanalysts with backgrounds in operations research to conduct statistical analyses

Partnering and co-creating with you throughout the journey to ensure buy-in and buildcapabilities. We do not just draw up an answer and hand it over. We work with you to develop practical, reality-tested answers. We believe that a deep partnership between our consulting team

and your agency staff uncovers the best information and creates the best solutions that are mostlikely to be successfully implemented. Through this approach we foster internal ownership thatmakes the ideas “stick,” which is what ensures there is true impact. We anticipate working closelywith the BPS Interim Superintendent and top team, as well as senior City stakeholders throughoutthe project to get continual guidance and feedback.

Focus on pragmatic and rapid improvements. We work hard to develop improvements that areimplementable and impactful in the public school system and municipal government context.

Independent, senior management perspective. We work hard to make leaders and their teamssuccessful. We tell you the truth as we see it; and we offer advice and counsel completelyunburdened by incentives to offer you other services such as staff augmentation, IT systems, oroutsourced operations.

“ Day 1” Perspectives on Key Issues3.1As mentioned above, at the core of the approach is a belief that we should start with a strong “Day 1hypothesis,” given our understanding of the issues commonly affecting U.S. urban school systems as wellas our experience in the City of Boston. We find that developing an ingoing set of hypotheses allows usto more quickly “hit the ground running” and hone in on the key issues. These hypotheses are drawnfrom our experience performing similar exercises at other school systems and reflect an understanding ofthe typical challenges and opportunities faced by systems like BPS. We start with a hypothesis of placesto quickly dig deeply on, while doing a broad scan to test for other areas for prioritization. This approach




18/73


allows our team to quickly assess the current state and spend its time on fully understanding and detailing priority challenges, proposed solutions, and actions that will allow BPS to better meet the needs of itsstudents. Some of our Day 1 hypotheses include:

Talent management

There are often opportunities to increase equity and consistency in school staffing to ensure

students are receiving what they need. Within districts, staffing levels may vary widely and maynot be managed in a consistent, strategic way, even though school-based staff typically represent65 percent to80 percent of a district’s total budget and are the key determinant in student learning.

Talent management strategies can often be improved to enable the best development ofteachers, principals, and other staff and enhance the overall quality of instruction. In manydistricts there are opportunities to enhance the impact of training, coaching, and evaluation to increasethe effectiveness of teachers, principals, and non-instructional staff and provide more rewarding andmeaningful development.

Academic student support

Special education is often a significant part of a district’s budget (~25 percent), yet theseinvestments do not always yield the academic and social-emotional benefits intended forstudents with special needs. The achievement gap between students with disabilities and typicallydeveloping students is greater than any income or racial achievement gaps. Districts often facechallenges in making sure that all students are getting the education they need and deserve and thatthe entire process of identification, planning, and delivering special education services is aligned tothat goal.

ELL supports and staffing can be strengthened to better meet the needs of non-Englishspeaking students and parents. Districts often struggle to meet the needs of ELL studentseffectively and have opportunity to grow the skills of existing staff to serve ELLs and improve therecruitment of staff with specialization in serving ELLs.

Non-academic student support

Clear and measurable performance outcomes can drive greater efficiency and effectivenessimprovements in transportation, food service, security, and building maintenance functions.

School districts often struggle to deliver these services efficiently and effectively, with varying costs per pupil even across similar districts. Clearer performance measures and accountability to deliver onthose measures can drive both cost savings and improvement in service levels for students and staff.

Performance management

Improve performance objectives and measurement tools. There are often opportunities to collectand utilize data on key operational and academic indicators more systematically. Many schooldistricts have not developed robust performance management tools and have the opportunity toarticulate, track, report, and manage toward clear targets for academic progress and other performance measures.

Administrative services

Antiquated administrative processes and supporting systems can drive costs and inefficiencies.

Inefficient administrative processes, especially in HR and finance, create an additional burden onschool and central office staff. Given limited resources, patchwork solutions have often been addedon top of these antiquated processes and systems, leading to additional costs, paperwork, and stafftime. Furthermore, ineffective processes can be frustrating to teachers.




19/73


McKinsey's Technical Approach, Timeline, and Deliverables3.2

Our proposed approach consists of three phases conducted across 8 weeks, preceded by a “Phase 0” of preparation that will ensure we make the most efficient and effective use of our 8-week engagementonce the team begins in Phase 1. Phase 1 focuses on doing an overall assessment across all of the focusareas with a goal of identifying priority areas for deep-dives. Then in Phase 2 we will conduct

quantitative and qualitative deep-dives on the select priority areas to identify opportunities. Finally, inPhase 3 we will develop short-term and long-term actions for implementation and develop the high-level roadmap for a path forward.

Below is a summary of our approach and a realistic and detailed schedule to complete the tasks describedin the scope of services. Please note that these timelines are preliminary, and should contingencies arisethey can be adjusted.

Phase 0: Preparation and data collection: Before the formal engagement starts, we will submitour data request and interview request list to the City/BPS, so that beginning on Day 1 of Phase 1, wecan begin to conduct our analysis. During this time we will work with BPS stakeholders to:a) collect current documentation, prior reviews, and previous findings/recommendations across the25 focus areas; b) identify relevant benchmarks and best practices for comparison; and c) haveleadership review existing documentation, previous reports and performance reviews to refine our

ingoing hypotheses, and identify areas to probe with BPS leadership. Phase 1: High-level diagnostic (3 weeks). Given the scope of areas to be audited, we will use a

proven approach to identify the most important opportunities across each of the focus areas. We willconduct internal and external interviews and focus groups with top leaders and representativestakeholders on the 25 focus areas and disciplines. This will include: a) one-on-one interviews withselect leaders in BPS; b) focus groups with staff across instructional and non-instructional areas;c) interviews with the City Office of Finance and Budget and other senior City officials (e.g., SchoolCommittee, Office of the Mayor). These interviews and focus groups will be supplemented withfindings from the review of existing documentation, previous reports, and performance reviewssurfaced during the preparatory phase. In addition, we will analyze available data as needed to get a better understanding of the current operational health of BPS. The objective will be to build asynthesized factbase regarding strengths and opportunity areas, with a high -level list of opportunities

to pursue across the 25 functions identified in the RFP. We will then work with you to select a few priority areas to conduct deep-dives and develop opportunities. The deliverables from this phase will be:

– High-level diagnostic across each of the 25 areas including high-level risk assessment, gaps vs. best practice, and overview of BPS’ fiscal and operational health

– Identification of select areas for deep-dive and further opportunity identification

– Initial list of opportunities for BPS to pursue

Phase 2: Deep dive on priority areas (3 weeks). For the areas prioritized based on the potentialopportunity, we will conduct further analysis to better understand the issues facing BPS across asubset of the 25 focus areas. This deep dive – depending on topic – could include quantitativeanalysis of relevant information, process mapping, detailed cost breakdowns, additional interviewswith internal and external subject matter experts, department walk-throughs, and identification of best practices from other school districts to leverage. The deliverables from this phase will include:

– Detailed diagnostic findings in priority focus areas that further identifies the opportunity, costs,and challenges

– Prioritization of opportunity areas for further development

Phase 3: Opportunity Development (2 weeks). The final phase of work will build on the findingsfrom Phases 1 and 2 to identify a slate of potential opportunities to address and a high-level




20/73


implementation roadmap. Specifically, this will include identifying potential opportunities at both ahigh level across the 25 focus areas, and in-depth for select priority areas. For the priority areas, wewill evaluate high-level projected cost savings, identify cross-stakeholder actions required to movethe City toward its desired vision for success for all students, and create a list of “key success factors”for use by BPS leadership and the Mayor’s office in order to drive focus on the key opportunity areas.Deliverables for this phase will include:

– Prioritized list of short- and long-term options to address opportunities identified and high-levelview of projected impact

– Final Report including supporting rationales, comparison with best practices, and estimates ofcosts and cost savings associated with the opportunities in prioritized areas.

This “broad-then-deep” approach allows us to quickly identify high-level opportunities across the 25areas then flesh out higher-impact opportunities that present the greatest opportunity for achieving greatresults for students in more detail. Between each phase, a key checkpoint will occur with City of Bostonteam members and leadership to align on the priority areas of focus in the following phase. Throughoutthese phases we will work closely with City of Boston team members to discuss progress and direction.




21/73

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPERATIONAL AUDIT /REVIEW RFP November 10, 2014

Exhibit 1. Detailed Work Plan, Timeline, and Deliverables.

▪ Submit data request to BPSincluding basic data on BPS,

copies of policies,procedures, and othermaterials related to theareas and disciplines to beaudited, and copies ofprevious reports andrecommendations

▪ Identify appropriate internaland external stakeholders toparticipate in interviews andfocus groups to provide astakeholder perspective andprovide input on BPS’strengths and weaknesses

▪ Begin scheduling interviewsand focus groups

Phase 0:

Preparation and data

collection

Phase 3:

Opportunity development

Duration

Act ivi ties ▪ Conduct high-leveloperational effectiveness

and efficiency review of the25 areas of BPS and identifypriority areas for furtherdiagnosis

– Interview select schooland district leaders

– Facilitate internal andexternal focus groups

– Review previousreports, studies, audits,and reviews

– Review documentedpolicies andprocedures

– Conduct walk-throughsof select departments

– Analyze relevantavailable data

▪ For the priority areas, reviewdiagnostic findings and

identify short-term and long -term actions forimplementation

▪ Prioritize improvementopportunities based on theirability to improve BPSefficiency and effectivenessin delivering against itsmission and strategic goals.

▪ For priority opportunities,provide rationale, estimatesof costs and cost savings,and realistic and practicalimplementation guidance

▪ Produce Final Report thatsummarizes all findings,commendations, andopportunities

Before team starts 3 weeks 2 weeks

Team on the ground

Phase 1:

High-level d iagnostic

Phase 2:

Deep-dive on priority

areas

▪ For the priority areas,conduct quantitative and

qualitative analysis tounderstand gaps vs. bestpractices in BPS’ currentoperations, particularlycompared to other schoolsystems.

▪ Conduct additional deep-dive analysis to assessefficiency and effective-ness in priority areas

▪ Prioritize areas withgreatest opportunity todevelop initiatives forimplementation

3 weeks

Progress review

Deliverables ▪ Overview of BPS’ fiscal andoperational health, basedon high level diagnosticacross each of the 25 areasincluding high -evel riskassessment, gaps vs. bestpractice

▪ Identification of priorityareas for deep-divediagnostic

▪ Final Report includingsupporting rationales,comparison with bestpractices, and projectedcosts and cost savingsassociated with theopportunities in prioritizedareas

▪ Interim draft reports andpresentations asrequested by City

▪ Detailed diagnostic inpriority areas

▪ Prioritization of areas forpursuing opportunity

McKinsey&Company Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions on the

title page of this proposal.16


22/73

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPERATIONAL AUDIT/REVIEW RFP November 10, 2014

3.2.1 Audit Areas

The workplan will cover all 25 of the required areas and disciplines within BPS. As previously discussed,we will conduct a high-level assessment of each of the 25 focus areas, then prioritize a few areas fordeeper analysis based on opportunities identified in the initial diagnostic and our experience conductingsimilar engagements with other school districts.

The assessments will evaluate BPS’ instructional and non-instructional services along four dimensions ofoperational excellence, as follows:

Alignment with need. Do the services BPS provides drive toward better student outcomes and meetthe needs of students/parents/staff/external stakeholders?

Performance management. Are there clear metrics or performance targets in place to assess performance toward improving student outcomes and do staff at all levels regularly use these metricsto refine their efforts?

Process efficiency. Does the process address the student/teacher/staff need in a high-quality, timelymanner with minimal additional effort beyond that required to deliver on the need? Do processeswork in a manner that frees up teachers to focus on teaching and principals to focus on managingschools?

People and organization. Does BPS have the right structure, roles, and staff to deliver effectively onits services and mission?

Recognizing that there are important linkages across many of the 25 areas and disciplines, we proposegrouping the areas and disciplines to be addressed into six categories that reflect a related function withBPS. By analyzing the areas and disciplines in groups, we will be able to examine BPS’s current stateand opportunities in broad areas of the operation and then focus on specific areas or disciplines that haveopportunities for improvement. The proposed groups are:

Talent management. Areas and disciplines that affect how BPS recruits, manages, retains, anddevelops its teachers and staff

A. Personnel policies and procedures regarding compensation and benefits; maintenance of updated job descriptions, ongoing training, and performance evaluation process for all staff (teaching,

administrative, clerical, maintenance, and operational)

B. Negotiation, implementation and management of union contracts

C. Policies and procedures regarding: general staffing and recruiting (for teaching and other professional, clerical, and operational staff); dealing with excess central office and teachingstaff; hiring substitute teachers; hiring by principals of school staff; and maintenance of adiverse work force

D. Delineation of responsibilities and duties within and between BPS departments, and efficiencyof duty assignments

E. Policies and procedures regarding the number, allocation, and composition of all instructional-related staffing, including but not limited to student-staffing ratios

S. Procedures and policies concerning maintenance by all school staff of required licenses and

certifications

T. Procedures and policies addressing CORI and SORI checks

Academic student support. Areas and disciplines that shape BPS’ direct services to students:

I. Curriculum policies, procedures, management and controls (Pre K -12)

J. SPED (Special Ed.) policies, procedures, management, and controls

K. Student assignment policies, procedures, management, and controls

Q. Policies and procedures regarding parent engagement




23/73


R. Policies and procedures to address needs of non-English-speaking students and parents

Non-academic student support

L. Student transportation policies, procedures, and management, including the use of school busesand other means of student transportation

M. Food service management, cafeteria food delivery

P. Miscellaneous extracurricular programs: non-athletic staffing, management, controls, andfinancial reporting

U. Procedures and policies addressing general security matters, including lockdown and anti- bullying policies and procedures

Performance management. Areas and disciplines that enable BPS to understand the performanceof all programs and support operations and identify areas to commend and opportunities forimprovement

V. Performance and quality objectives and measurement tools (covering relevant items includinggeneral administrative operations, success in meeting early education goals, including ability ofstudents to read by 3rd grade, academic growth of students with disabilities, graduation rates,success in closing achievement gaps, college-readiness of graduates)

Leadership and governance. Areas and disciplines related to the leadership and governance ofBPS in serving the students of Boston

W. School Committee – administrative costs, expenses and financial reporting

Administrative services. Areas and disciplines that BPS uses to manage its finances, time, andattendance, IT, facilities operations, and spending for goods and services from external vendors:

F. Finance and accounting systems and related policies, practices, and procedures regarding: payroll, accounts payable and billing/accounts receivable; the overall operational and capital budget process and associated budget controls; capital/maintenance/facilities strategic planningand integration with finance operations

Y. Identification of, accounting for, and transparency of use of external funds (e.g., grants,

501(c)(3) contributions, and miscellaneous fees collected)G. Timekeeping policy, procedures, practices, and controls

H. Purchasing and contract management policy, procedures, practices, and controls

O. Technology (IT) systems, staffing, procedures and controls, and assessment of whethertechnology is being appropriately leveraged in the classroom, in the general administration andoperation of BPS, in the maintenance of a centralized records and documents managementdatabase

N. Building maintenance staffing, policies, procedures, and management, including heating, AC,electrical, plumbing, and routine maintenance

X. School building construction and renovation: planning process, including affordability andcomprehensiveness of facilities planning




24/73


Staffing Plan3.3

McKinsey will be a full and collaborative partner with the City and BPS throughout this effort.Exhibit 2 shows our proposed team structure for the BPS Audit Review effort, including involvementfrom key City and BPS stakeholders. Full resumes of commited and represenative McKinsey teammembers are available in Appendix A for your review.

Exhibit 2: Proposed Team Organization.

McKinsey City of Boston Leadership

Navjot Singh, Director of Client Service, Managing Partner ofMcKinsey's Boston Office

Jules Seeley, Director of Client Service, Partner, Boston

McKinsey Project Leadership

Doug Scott, Project Leader, Senior Expert

Project TeamMcKinsey Subject Matter Experts

(participating on an as-needed basis)

McKinsey Project Team

▪ Jake Bryant,Representative Associate,Boston

▪ Evan Smith,

Representative Associate

Boston Public Schools

Project Team

▪ Project Manager

▪ BPS/City Teammember(s)

▪ Other key stakeholders

▪ Research analysts▪ Graphics and editing resources▪ Other internal Firm services as needed

Addi tional McKinsey in ternal Fi rm

support and resources

▪ City of Boston Office of Finance and Budget▪

BPS Leadership Team▪ School Committee members▪ Community stakeholders

▪ David Fubini, Former Managing Partner ofMcKinsey’s Boston Office, serving the City ofBoston for 34 years

▪ Susan Colby, Expert Partner, leader ofMcKinsey’s Education Practice, K-12 education

and system operations expertise▪ Kartik Jayaram, Senior Partner, leader of

McKinsey’s Education Practice, K-12 expertise

▪ Julie Goran, Partner, Education and PublicSector Practice leader; organizationalimprovement and education expertise

▪ Jung Paik, Junior Partner, Education &operations and CBSF Practice expertise, Boston

City and BPS Subject Matter Experts

(participating on an as-needed basis)




25/73


Name and

McKinsey title

Project role

Y e a r s o f r e l a t e d e x p e r i e n c e

P u b l i c s e c t o r

e x p e r i e n c e

P u b l i c S c h o o l o p e r a t i o n s

e x p e r i e n c e

B u s i n e s s p r o c e s s

i m p r o v e m e n t

A r t i c u l a t i n g c o m p l e x

c o n c e p t s i n a

s i m p l e m a n n e r

O r g a n i z a t i o n a

l m a n a g e m e n t

P l a n n i n g a n d

g e n e r a l

g o v e r n m e n t p

r o c e s s e s

C o o r d i n a t i n g m u l t i -

d i s c i p l i n a r y p l a n n i n g t e a m s

S t a k e h o l d e r c

o l l a b o r a t i o n

McKinsey Project Leadership

Navjot Singh , Managing Partner ofMcKinsey’s BostonOffice

Director of ClientService for the City ofBoston

25

Jules Seeley, Partner Client Service Teamleader for City of

Boston

15

McKinsey Project Leader

Doug Scott, SeniorExpert

Project Leader 18

McKinsey Representative Project Team (sample biographies and experience)

Jacob Bryant, Senior Associate


3

Evan Smith, Associate


4

McKinsey Subject Matter Experts (participating on an as-needed basis)

David Fubini, FormerManaging Partner o fMcKinsey's Boston

office

SME, City of Boston 34

Kartik Jayaram, Senior Partner

SME, K-12 education 18

Susan Colby, SeniorExpert

SME, K-12 educationand system operations

14

Julie Goran, Partner SME, OrganizationalImprovement

10

Jung Paik, JuniorPartner

SME, Educationoperations

7

Exhibit 3. McKinsey Key Personnel Skills Matrix. The skills of each our key personnel directly support therequirements outlined in the RFP.

Consistent with each of our client engagements, we will bring the best of McKinsey’s expertise to

complete this work for the City of Boston. Each of the team members we have identified for this critical program has an exemplary track record of performance, and experience with work that is similar in scopeand size to the BPS effort. McKinsey recommends team structures based on the goal of providingmaximum value, delivering the end products needed, and driving to solutions on client-defined timelines.Based on BPS priorities and input, our team is flexible and can quickly and efficiently prioritize high-riskand high-priority work items. We have outlined these items in our proposed workplan and timeline in

Exhibit 1.




26/73


The on-the-ground team in Boston will be composed of an Associate working day-to-day with City ofBoston and BPS staff as the project team. A second Associate will supplement this team for a period oftime to help complete diagnostics and deep-dives. This team will be directed by a subject-matter expertas the project lead and our partners responsible for the overall relationship with the City of Boston. Theteam will have access to McKinsey subject-matter experts and administrative resources to maximize theireffectiveness on the ground. The team will be available on short notice for consultations, as they will be

working onsite closely with City and BPS team members.We will bring three categories of resources to serve BPS on this project, including:

a) Project Leadership b) Project Teamc) Subject Matter Experts, and additional support and resources.

The description of these groups is outlined below. Full resumes for proposed personnel can be found in

Appendix A.

a) Project Leadership. The overall client relationship will be overseen by Navjot Singh (ManagingPartner of McKinsey’s Boston Office) and Jules Seeley (Partner in Boston). They will serve as theoverall Director of Client Service for the City of Boston to ensure the team is engaging with theright stakeholders to inform the diagnostic and opportunity identification, and generate excitement

and support to lead the change effort required by the City. The Project Leader will manage theoverall project and this role will be filled by Expert Partner Doug Scott. He will participate inexecutive leadership meetings with the City of Boston leadership team, provide ongoing guidance anddirection, lead problem-solving with the team, draft documents, review analytics, and oversee theoverall quality of deliverables.

Name/title Experience and qualifications

Project Leadership

Directors of Client Services

Navjot Singh,Boston-basedManaging Partnerof McKinsey’sBoston Office

• Managing Partner of McKinsey’s Boston Office• Director of Client Service for McKinsey’s Commonwealth of Massachusetts

engagements, which includes the IT capital investment analysis andmonitoring effort, and design of the CASE digital tool

•

Worked with Mayor Walsh’s 2014 transition team on the audit of Boston’spermitting and licensing process• Board and Executive Committee member of the Greater Boston Chamber of

Commerce• Led the Kendall Square Association project (Cambridge, MA) helping

stakeholders understand and develop strategies to optimize KendallSquare’s distinct advantages as a place to work, live, and innovate

• Expert on innovation, corporate finance, and strategy• Expert on Six Sigma methodologies for process design

Jules Seeley,

Boston-basedPartner

• Leader in McKinsey’s Boston Office with deep knowledge and familiarity ofthe City’s management structure and processes

• Led work with Mayor Walsh’s transition team on the audit of Boston’spermitting and licensing processes

• Leads McKinsey Corporate and Business Support Function Practice,focusing on administrative and operational support

• Focuses on operational transformations and customer experience• Experience with public sector operations improvements• Formerly on Board of Governors for an elementary school in London




27/73


b) Project Team. Due to the nature of McKinsey’s staffing model, all Associate-level staff cannot be fully committed to any given project until the start date is determined. In order to provide the Cityof Boston and BPS with a clear picture of the level of support, experience, and the caliber of staff itwill receive for this effort, we have included Representative Associates for the Project Team: JacobBryant and Evan Smith.

The day-to-day work of the Project Team is managed by the Representative Associate. The Associatewill be co-located with the BPS Team and will participate in problem-solving sessions, drive themajority of research, interviews, and document creation, and be responsible for providing high-quality deliverables and results to BPS.

Name/title Experience and qualifications

McKinsey Representative Project Team

Jacob Bryant,Boston-basedRepresentativeSenior Associate

• Has worked with over 40 school districts including Boston, Newark, PrinceGeorge’s County (MD), Baltimore, and Pittsburgh in more than 10 stateson topics including operational, academic, and financial audits,strengthening support to struggling students, developing a strategic planand a system for performance management, and improving teacherhuman capital

• Led the planning and launch of a $20 million/year investment portfolio inattracting and developing new teachers and principals for low-incomeschools for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Evan Smith,


• Former Director of School Operations for District of Columbia Public

Schools• Former classroom teacher• Board member, Meridian Public Charter School (Washington, DC)

c) McKinsey Subject-Matter Experts and additional support and resources. The project teamwill be assisted by subject-matter experts, who will bring extensive experience in organizationaldesign, change management, and transformations in state and local governments. These expertsinclude David Fubini, former Managing Partner of the Boston Office and current Director Emeritus.He will draw upon perspectives from a rich set of connections across the Boston communityincluding BPS. He currently serves on the boards of key local organizations including the GreaterBoston Chamber of Commerce, the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, and the YMCA of GreaterBoston.

Name/title Experience and qualifi cations

Project Leadership

Project Leader

Doug Scott, SeniorExpert K-12education and

school systemoperations

• Leader in the North America Social Sector and Education Practices• 12 years of Education Sector-related experience• Led operations and strategy transformations for multiple major urban U.S.

school districts• Led programs across a wide range of high-needs school systems and states• Developed a state-level strategy for higher education

Name/title Experience and qualificationsSubject Matter Experts

David Fubini,Boston-basedformer ManagingPartner o f theBoston Office, andcurrently DirectorEmeritus

• Boston-based former Senior Partner of McKinsey, will provide guidance onthe focus of the effort and key priorities as needed

• Possesses deep expertise on working successfully with the City of Bostonand the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

• Possesses 34 years of public and private sector experience, including workas the Director of Client Service with some of the world’s largest companies

• Current member of several prominent Boston civic organizations




28/73


Additional support/resources and expert network. Our leadership and working teams have a vastarray of global resources at their fingertips. This includes a staff of 1,000+ researchers accessing public

and proprietary data sources to developing customized reports; technical and graphics support to develop presentations, models, and other tools; and administrative staff to assist with logistics, travel, and report production. This frees up our project team resources to spend more time with City of Boston leadershipand staff.

Regular Check-ins with the City of Boston3.4

In our approach, we will work closely with project leadership and representatives from Boston PublicSchools to generate hypotheses and test them to ensure the practicality of audit results and opportunitiesidentified. Particularly given the quick timeline and breadth of areas covered in this scope of work, we believe that a strong governance process composed of steering committees toward the end of each phaseshould help to set priorities for where to focus in the following phase and in the creation of the FinalReport. We will also have daily check-ins with the project team that will be critical to ensure alignment

and removal of any barriers to progress.Final Report3.5

As requested, McKinsey would be happy to share interim findings with the BPHC and the City of Boston by December 31, 2014. This would include emerging findings from the diagnostic activities and asummary view of the issues and topics we have been exploring. McKinsey will share its Final Report,including the findings and recommendations from this work, supporting rationales, comparisons with best practices, and projected impact of the recommendations at the conclusion of the engagement.

Past Performance on Similar & Successful Projects, and Customer3.6References

We have deep experience serving K-12 public school districts and school systems across the globe.

McKinsey brings perspectives on best practices and approaches from school systems across the globe. Wehave conducted 40+ school system reviews worldwide and compiled a database of ~600 successfuleducation reform interventions.

We have unparalleled experience diagnosing operations and support functions.

McKinsey has conducted over 2,000 engagements focusing on support functions (e.g. IT, HR, facilities,finance) in the last 10 years, serving over 1,600 individual organizations in the public and private sectors.Across these functions, we have proprietary tools used to assess the effectiveness and effi

Documents

McKinsey Response to RFP