How to Write an RFP for a Stakeholder Engagement Plan

When Philadelphia went to market in 2025 to update its citywide climate resilience plan, the RFP admitted that the city’s earlier resilience reports were completed without public engagement, and it capped the fix at $250,000. That candor is rare, and it is the right place to start.

A stakeholder engagement plan is the written agreement on which project decisions the public can influence, who is affected by each, how they will take part and how the agency will report back what changed. You need one before engineers draw alternatives. The RFP succeeds when it names the open decisions and the promise attached to each.

This guide draws on three published RFPs, from the East Bay Dischargers Authority, Central Pines Regional Council and Philadelphia, and on the federal rules that shape engagement on funded projects.

What this work should deliver

The outcome is a decision process that affected people can see into and trust enough to join, plus a record of how their input changed the project. The plan is the operating manual for that process. It holds a decision map, a stakeholder and barrier analysis, methods matched to each group, a schedule keyed to design milestones and the reporting that closes the loop.

Who this is for: public agencies, utilities, special districts, ports and nonprofits planning shoreline adaptation, flood control, stormwater, transit or energy projects that residents, businesses, tribes and other agencies will live with. It is less useful for a single hearing held to satisfy a notice rule, or for an awareness campaign whose goal is changed behavior, which calls for an environmental outreach campaign RFP. If your team needs the basics first, start with our how-to on building a stakeholder engagement plan.

Keep two things outside the scope unless you buy them on purpose: the technical analysis itself, and government-to-government consultation with tribes, which stays with the agency.

In our work as project manager and engagement partner on the Annapolis Maritime Resilience Initiative, residents identified 38 sites of concern over 18 months, and those sites became the starting list for the technical work. That sequence is the reason to buy the plan early.

Rules and standards to cite

Participation standard. The IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation (2018 version) defines five levels, from inform through consult, involve and collaborate to empower, and pairs each with a promise. At the top the promise is "We will implement what you decide." EPA’s Public Participation Guide, updated July 2026, makes the same point from the other end: meaningful participation takes more than holding hearings or collecting comments.

Program rules that already require engagement. Under 23 CFR 450.316, metropolitan planning organizations must keep a documented participation plan with procedures for "explicit consideration and response to public input," and must allow 45 calendar days of comment before adopting or revising it. Local hazard mitigation plans need a public comment opportunity during drafting and before approval under 44 CFR 201.6(b). HUD’s 24 CFR 91.105 sets a comment period of at least 30 days on consolidated plans and requires a plan for non-English-speaking residents at hearings.

Environmental review. The Council on Environmental Quality removed its NEPA regulations by final rule on January 8, 2026, adopting a February 2025 interim rule. Public involvement in federal reviews now follows each lead agency’s own NEPA procedures, so cite those.

Civil rights and language. Executive Order 14224 revoked the federal limited-English-proficiency order in March 2025, and the Department of Homeland Security rescinded its language-access guidance on July 14, 2026. The same notice says Title VI obligations continue and language assistance may still be required. The environmental justice order was revoked by Executive Order 14173, and Justice40’s parent order by Executive Order 14148, both in January 2025. Define the communities you most need to reach in the RFP itself, using local exposure and census data, instead of citing federal definitions that no longer exist.

Disability access. Under 28 CFR 35.160, public entities must make communication with people with disabilities as effective as with others, which means interpreters, captioning and accessible documents. For web content, a Department of Justice interim final rule of April 20, 2026 requires WCAG 2.1 AA by April 26, 2027 for governments of 50,000 or more people and by April 26, 2028 for smaller ones and special districts.

Tribes. Under 36 CFR 800.2, federal agencies remain responsible for their government-to-government relationships with tribes. A consultant can prepare materials and support meetings, and cannot take over that relationship.

Decisions to make before you write

Which decisions are open, and how far. Write a one-page decision map: each decision, who makes it, when, and the Spectrum level. If the site is already chosen, say so, and open the design, access and construction questions instead. Running a collaborative process on a decision already made is the fastest way to lose a community.

Plan only, or plan and implementation. Under 2 CFR 200.319, a contractor that drafts the statement of work for a federally funded procurement must be excluded from competing on it. If a planning-only consultant writes your implementation scope, that firm cannot bid on implementation. Most agencies do better buying both in one contract, with an off-ramp after the plan is accepted.

Inside the engineering contract, or separate. Bundled engagement is judged as part of the engineering team and is often the first line cut when design costs rise. A standalone contract lets you compare engagement teams on their own merits, and because engagement is not an architectural or engineering service, 2 CFR 200.320 makes price a factor under federal awards. The East Bay Dischargers Authority bought engagement separately and wrote the feedback loop to the design schedule into its RFP.

Who holds the community relationships. Central Pines Regional Council and Philadelphia both contracted community-based organizations separately from the lead consultant; Philadelphia planned to fund 18 of them at $10,000 each. Splitting work into smaller contracts is one of the affirmative steps for small and minority businesses in 2 CFR 200.321, and it pays the groups residents already trust. Our guide to cultural awareness in stakeholder engagement covers the working side of those partnerships.

Sample scope of work

Task 1. Decision map and project management. Fix the decisions before any public activity.

The Consultant shall prepare a decision map listing each project decision open to public influence, the decision-maker, the decision date and the proposed level of participation on the IAP2 Spectrum. The Agency shall approve the map before any public engagement activity begins.

Task 2. Stakeholder and barrier analysis. Find the people who are affected but not organized.

The Consultant shall identify residents, businesses, organizations and agencies affected by each decision, including groups affected but not organized. The analysis shall use American Community Survey data for the project area to document languages spoken, disability, age and household characteristics, and shall state the barriers to participation each group faces.

Task 3. Stakeholder engagement plan. The plan is the first formal deliverable.

Within 45 days of notice to proceed, the Consultant shall submit a draft Stakeholder Engagement Plan that includes the decision map, methods for each stakeholder group and decision point, a schedule tied to design milestones, the languages and accessibility services to be provided, community partner roles, and metrics for reach, representativeness and response. The Consultant shall revise the plan within 10 business days of receiving the Agency’s consolidated comments.

Task 4. Community partners. Budget partner work as real work.

The Consultant shall execute and manage subagreements with the community-based organizations named in its proposal, each stating scope, deliverables and compensation. Partner staff time and participant stipends shall appear as separate budget lines.

Task 5. Engagement rounds. Tie each round to a decision.

The Consultant shall plan and facilitate [number] rounds of engagement keyed to the decision map. Each round shall include in-person events in affected neighborhoods at varied times, an online option, and small-group conversations with groups unlikely to attend public meetings. Materials shall be produced in [languages] and reviewed by a community member fluent in each language before release.

Task 6. Agency and tribal coordination. Support the agency’s duties without taking them over.

The Consultant shall support the Agency’s consultation with tribes and with federal, state and local agencies by preparing materials, scheduling meetings and keeping a consultation log. The Agency retains responsibility for government-to-government consultation.

Task 7. Reporting and closing the loop. Show what changed.

After each round, the Consultant shall publish a summary of what was heard, organized by decision, with a response stating how each theme was used or why it was not. The final report shall include a comment-disposition table and a comparison of participants with the affected population.

Deliverables to require

• A one-page decision map, approved before public activity starts.
• A stakeholder and barrier analysis with a census-based profile of languages, disability and age.
• A draft and final stakeholder engagement plan with a schedule tied to design milestones.
• Community partner subagreements with scopes and compensation.
• Translated, accessible materials, with web content meeting WCAG 2.1 AA and a record of community review.
• Event summaries within 10 business days: agenda, attendance, photos and what was heard. The EBDA RFP required agendas, attendee lists, photos and memos for each forum.
• A "what we heard, what we did" report after every round.
• A comment database and disposition table in an open format, with consent records.
• A final engagement report with a participation analysis, lessons learned and recommendations for the next phase.

How to evaluate proposals

For a published benchmark, the EBDA RFP weighted project understanding and approach at 30%, team qualifications at 30%, project management at 15%, level of effort at 15% and responsiveness at 10%.

Interview the facilitators, not only the principals. Ask the proposed lead to handle a hostile question from your own project file, then ask for a past "what we heard" report and look for proof that input changed something. Score demonstrated relationships with the affected groups and partner commitments, which any qualified firm can bring. An office address proves neither.

With federal funds, 2 CFR 200.320 requires the RFP to state every evaluation factor and its relative importance, and the award goes to the most advantageous proposal considering price and other factors. Qualifications-based selection without price is limited to architectural and engineering services, so it does not fit a standalone engagement contract.

Timeline

Sources: the EBDA RFP, the Central Pines RFP and the Philadelphia RFP.

Outside deadlines compress the plan phase. In our work with Chesapeake Watershed Restoration Professionals, the assessment and strategy took four to eight weeks because the 2025 Maryland legislative session set the calendar. For flood and shoreline projects, align the rounds with the design milestones covered in our flooding and coastal resilience hub.

Budget and cost drivers

The published figures are specific. The East Bay Dischargers Authority allocated $100,000 in EPA grant funds for about 18 months of tribal engagement, interviews or focus groups, and two community forums. Central Pines Regional Council capped its contract at $145,000 for two years, including six in-person workshops across eight counties and a toolkit for community organizations, and said proposals above the cap would be rejected.

Philadelphia capped its update at $250,000, covering at least one in-person and one virtual event in each of 18 planning districts plus drafting the plan, with about $500 in materials for each of up to six frontline events. Its 18 community partners were to receive $10,000 each under a separate RFP.

What moves cost:

• Event count and spread. Eight counties or 18 districts means travel, venues and staff nights.
• Languages. Translation, interpretation and community review of each translated piece.
• Partner pay and participant support. Central Pines named childcare, travel costs and lost work time as barriers; stipends, meals and childcare reduce them.
• Accessibility services. Sign language interpreters, live captioning and accessible document remediation.
• Duration and cadence. Monthly check-ins and quarterly partner coordination add up over two years.
• Coordination load. EBDA’s consultant had to work across three projects and a separate youth facilitator.
• Reporting depth. Disposition tables and participation analysis take analyst time that tactic-heavy budgets leave out.

Red flags in proposals

• A list of tactics (open houses, surveys, social media) with no link to any decision or milestone.
• Participation targets stated only as counts, with no measure of who is missing.
• Principals in the proposal and unnamed staff in the room, with no facilitator hours shown.
• Translation priced by the word with no community review.
• Community partners named without letters of commitment or budgeted compensation.
• Promises of consensus or empowerment the governing body cannot honor.
• No plan to tell participants what happened to their input.

For more on building trust into the approach, see our municipal guide to engagement strategy, the stakeholder engagement guide and the stakeholder engagement topic hub. Buyers working on environmental justice goals can find related material in our equity and justice hub.

How we'd approach it

We would put listening ahead of engineering, as we did with the Resilience Authority of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County in Phase I, where bilingual materials and local partner organizations brought residents in long before the technical analysis was complete. Of the 38 sites residents identified, 10 advanced to preliminary concept design. Whoever you hire, ask them to show you, decision by decision, where public input can still change the answer.