# District AI Procurement: Evaluating Vendors and Contracts > K-12 · AI Course · K12-7 > Source: https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/district-ai-procurement > Last updated: 2026-08-25 **A procurement process a school board will approve and a privacy officer will sign — evaluation rubric, contract clauses, and the questions vendors dodge.** ## The Short Answer **District AI procurement fails when the rubric is written after the demo rather than before it. ibl.ai answers the eight questions vendors dodge directly: no per-seat pricing, model-agnostic, and you own all the code and the data — so the exit question that makes edtech contracts sticky has a concrete answer rather than a migration-services quote.** On ibl.ai you own all the code and the data, run it model-agnostic across any LLM, and pay with no per-seat pricing — so you can deploy anywhere, from your own cloud to a fully air-gapped network. [Request Access](https://ibl.ai/contact) · [Explore K-12](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12) ## Course facts - **Level:** Foundational - **Duration:** 5 hours across 8 modules - **Format:** Cohort workshop with vendor scoring labs - **Modules:** 8 - **Catalog code:** K12-7 - **Frameworks covered:** FERPA, COPPA, State procurement law, 1EdTech interoperability ## What is this course about? Districts buy AI tools the way they buy edtech, and the categories differ enough that the process fails. This course builds the evaluation rubric before the first demo, names the eight questions vendors consistently avoid, and designs a pilot that produces a decision rather than an automatic renewal — including what the district keeps when the contract ends. ## Who is this course for? - Purchasing and procurement officers - CTOs and directors of technology - Business officials and CFOs - Privacy officers and district counsel ### What do I need before starting? - Bring two real AI vendor proposals if available - No technical background required ## What will I be able to do afterwards? - Build an evaluation rubric before taking a vendor demo - Ask the eight questions vendors consistently avoid answering - Specify required data clauses covering training, retention, and deletion - Compare per-student licensing against usage-based and owned deployment - Design a pilot that produces a decision rather than a renewal ## What does each module cover? ### Module 1 — Why does the rubric have to come before the demo? How demo-driven evaluation reliably produces criteria shaped by the product you saw first. _(40 min)_ **Objectives** - Explain anchoring in vendor evaluation - Build criteria from district need rather than product features - Weight criteria before seeing any product **Topics:** Anchoring effects · Need-driven criteria · Weighting · Evaluation discipline **Activity:** Build and weight your evaluation rubric before any product is discussed. ### Module 2 — Which eight questions do vendors avoid? The questions that separate real answers from marketing, and how evasion is phrased. _(45 min)_ **Objectives** - Ask the eight diagnostic questions precisely - Recognize the standard evasive answers - Require written rather than verbal responses **Topics:** Diagnostic questions · Evasion patterns · Written response requirements · Follow-up technique **Activity:** Role-play the question set with a colleague playing an evasive vendor. ### Module 3 — What data clauses must the contract contain? Training rights, retention, subprocessors, deletion, and portability, stated as requirements. _(50 min)_ **Objectives** - Specify required data clauses as non-negotiable - Distinguish acceptable variations from dealbreakers - Draft fallback language for negotiation **Topics:** Training rights · Retention and deletion · Subprocessors · Portability **Activity:** Draft your required-clause list with fallback positions for each. ### Module 4 — How do per-student, usage, and owned pricing compare? Modeling the three shapes against real district enrollment and actual usage patterns. _(50 min)_ **Objectives** - Model all three pricing shapes on district enrollment - Compute effective cost per active user - Project cost across a three-year horizon **Topics:** Per-student licensing · Usage-based pricing · Owned deployment · Three-year projection **Activity:** Model all three shapes on your enrollment and compare three-year totals. ### Module 5 — How do you design a pilot that produces a decision? Pilot design with pre-set success criteria, so the outcome is not a default renewal. _(45 min)_ **Objectives** - Set success criteria before the pilot begins - Design for a genuine no-go option - Collect evidence rather than enthusiasm **Topics:** Pre-set criteria · No-go design · Evidence collection · Renewal default avoidance **Activity:** Design a pilot with explicit success thresholds and a defined stop condition. ### Module 6 — How do you avoid a second rostering nightmare? Interoperability and rostering requirements that prevent another parallel data sync. _(40 min)_ **Objectives** - Specify rostering and interoperability requirements - Assess integration burden realistically - Avoid creating another data synchronization path **Topics:** OneRoster and rostering · SSO requirements · Integration burden · Sync proliferation **Activity:** Write the interoperability requirements section for your RFP. ### Module 7 — What does the district keep when the contract ends? Exit planning treated as a procurement requirement rather than a future problem. _(40 min)_ **Objectives** - Specify what must be returned and in what format - Estimate switching cost before signing - Require exit assistance in the contract **Topics:** Data return · Format requirements · Switching cost · Exit assistance clauses **Activity:** Write the exit provisions and estimate switching cost for a current vendor. ### Module 8 — Scoring two real proposals The workshop module: applying the complete rubric to two live proposals. _(55 min)_ **Objectives** - Score two proposals against the weighted rubric - Document gaps requiring negotiation - Write a board-ready recommendation **Topics:** Comparative scoring · Gap documentation · Negotiation strategy · Board recommendation **Activity:** Score both proposals and write the board recommendation memo. ## What is the capstone project? **District AI procurement package.** Produce a complete procurement package: weighted evaluation rubric, diagnostic question set, required contract clauses with fallbacks, three-shape cost model, pilot design with stop conditions, and exit provisions. _Deliverable:_ A reusable procurement package the district applies to every AI purchase. ## How are learners assessed? - Rubric reviewed for whether criteria are genuinely need-driven - Vendor role-play assessed on follow-up when evaded - Cost model checked for arithmetic and stated assumptions ## What ships with the course? - **Facilitator guide.** Session-by-session running order, discussion prompts, and the questions that reliably derail a room. - **Learner workbook.** Exercises, checklists, and the templates each module's activity produces. - **Hands-on lab environment.** A sandboxed ibl.ai deployment so exercises run against real agents, not screenshots. - **Assessment bank.** Scenario questions and rubric criteria mapped to each stated learning outcome. - **Source bibliography.** Every primary regulation and standard cited on this page, linked and dated. ## Which AI agents does this course use? - [Administration Agent](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/agent/administration-agent) - [Curriculum Alignment Agent](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/agent/curriculum-alignment-agent) - [Professional Development Agent](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/agent/professional-development-agent) - [Student Safety Agent](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/agent/student-safety-agent) ## Where does the course material come from? Every module is grounded in primary sources — the regulation, standard, or research itself, not a summary of it. Each was resolved at authoring time. - [Student Privacy Compass](https://studentprivacycompass.org/) — Future of Privacy Forum. Contract clause guidance and state vendor requirements. - [CoSN](https://www.cosn.org/) — Consortium for School Networking. District technology procurement practice and interoperability guidance. - [1EdTech (IMS Global)](https://www.imsglobal.org/) — 1EdTech Consortium. Rostering and interoperability standards specified in Module 6. - [Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule](https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/rules/childrens-online-privacy-protection-rule-coppa) — Federal Trade Commission. Consent obligations that must be reflected in vendor contracts. ## Delivery notes Binding guidance for anyone preparing and delivering this course: - Module 2's eight questions are the course's most portable artifact. Ship them as a one-page card districts can carry into a demo. - Keep vendor examples composite and anonymized. Naming vendors turns a procurement course into a competitive attack and districts will discount the whole rubric. - The cost model must include ibl.ai's own pricing shape honestly alongside the others, including where per-student licensing would be cheaper at small enrollment. A rigged model destroys the course's credibility with purchasing officers. - State procurement law varies. Have the district's business official verify the process fits local requirements before adoption. - Module 5's stop condition is the part districts skip. Insist on a written no-go threshold signed before the pilot starts. ## Why run AI training on a platform you own? - **You own the course, not a licence to it.** Course content, learner data, and the platform run inside your perimeter — you own all the code and the data. - **Model-agnostic delivery.** Run the course's AI components on any LLM — Claude, GPT, Llama, Gemini, Command — and switch anytime. - **No per-seat training licences.** Usage-based or self-hosted, so cost tracks actual use rather than headcount. - **Deploy anywhere.** Cloud, private VPC, on-premise, or fully air-gapped — including for cohorts that cannot use public AI tools. ## Frequently asked questions ### What does the District AI Procurement: Evaluating Vendors and Contracts course cover? Districts buy AI tools the way they buy edtech, and the categories differ enough that the process fails. This course builds the evaluation rubric before the first demo, names the eight questions vendors consistently avoid, and designs a pilot that produces a decision rather than an automatic renewal — including what the district keeps when the contract ends. It runs 5 hours across 8 modules across 8 modules, at foundational level, and closes with a capstone: District AI procurement package. ### Who should take District AI Procurement: Evaluating Vendors and Contracts? It is written for Purchasing and procurement officers, CTOs and directors of technology, Business officials and CFOs, Privacy officers and district counsel. Prerequisites: Bring two real AI vendor proposals if available; No technical background required. ### Can we run this course on our own infrastructure? Yes. ibl.ai is model-agnostic and deploy-anywhere — cloud, private VPC, on-premise, or fully air-gapped — and you own all the code and the data. Cohort data, submissions, and any material learners upload stay inside your perimeter, which matters for k-12 teams that cannot send work to a public AI tool. ### How do we get access to District AI Procurement: Evaluating Vendors and Contracts? Request access and we will set it up for your cohort — hosted by ibl.ai, or running against your own deployment. Tell us the group size and timing you need, and whether it should run inside your own perimeter. ### How much does AI training for k-12 cost on ibl.ai? There is no per-seat pricing — you pay for usage or self-host and pay only for the infrastructure, so a 5,000-person rollout does not cost 5,000 licences. 1.6M+ users across 400+ organizations run the platform this way, including NVIDIA, MIT, and Syracuse University. ## More K-12 courses - [The K-12 AI Compliance Stack: FERPA, COPPA, and CIPA](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/k12-ai-compliance-stack): The three federal rules governing AI in a district, what each requires of a vendor, and the deployment architecture that satisfies all three at once. - [Safe AI Tutoring for Minors: Guardrails and Escalation](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/safe-ai-tutoring-for-minors): Building a tutoring agent for children — content moderation, self-harm escalation, grooming-pattern detection, and the mandatory-reporter workflow behind it. - [AI Lesson Planning Aligned to State Standards](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/ai-lesson-planning-standards-aligned): Generate standards-aligned lessons that survive a curriculum audit — grounded on your state's standards, your adopted materials, and your scope and sequence. - [AI in the IEP Process: Drafting, Compliance, and the Human Signature](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/ai-in-the-iep-process): Cut IEP paperwork without ceding a legally binding decision — drafting present levels, goal writing, and the IDEA requirements no agent can satisfy for you. - [Academic Integrity and Assessment in K-12](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/academic-integrity-and-assessment-k12): What to do when every student has a writing machine — grade-band policy, assessment redesign, and why detection tools create more problems than they solve. - [Teaching AI Literacy: A K-12 Scope and Sequence](https://ibl.ai/solutions/k-12/course/k12-ai-literacy-scope-and-sequence): A vertically-aligned AI literacy progression from elementary through high school — what to teach at each band, and the activities that make it concrete.