1-USBE-CC26335-RFP - Formative Writing Tool - Scope of Work and Specifications.pdf

FORMATIVE WRITING TOOL

DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK and SPECIFICATIONS

Solicitation #: USBE-CC26335-RFP

Introduction & Instructions:

The Utah State Board of Education (USBE) is interested in receiving proposals for a formative online writing system to allow the State to provide an integrated formative writing tool in an efficient and cost-effective manner for students in 3rd through 12th grade.

Describe how each of the following requirements would be implemented, performed, or otherwise accomplished under a contract written to fulfill the requirements of this RFP.

Please provide samples and/or examples where applicable. Sections below may contain mandatory and/or optional requirements.

Wherever possible in this RFP, the word "shall" is used to express mandatory proposal elements, and optional proposal elements are identified. Only those proposals that sufficiently address and comply with all mandatory elements will be deemed responsive.

Offerors further are encouraged to bid on and include optional elements. USBE is interested in proposals that demonstrate innovative approaches and solutions that provide value beyond the minimum specifications described in the RFP.

I. Formative Assessment Requirements A. Overview

The system acquired under this RFP process will be used by students and teachers throughout the school year for practice in writing and to inform instruction. This system will be implemented in the 2025-2026 school year.

There are approximately 50,000 students per grade level in grades 3-12. The offeror shall propose a system that is:

1. Inclusive of informative/explanatory, argumentative, and narrative formative student writing as found in the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language Arts;

2. Multi-disciplinary—accessible and usable by teachers and students in all content areas;

3. Accessible to students, teachers, and administrators on the school, local education agency (LEA), and state education agency (SEA) levels;

4. Available to all students in grades 3 through 12; and

5. Available during the school year on a 24-hour basis, reasonable and scheduled periods of system maintenance and/or upgrade excepted.

B. Timeline for delivery

The offeror shall propose an initial timeline for delivery that takes the following requirements into account:

1. The traditional school year begins in early-August. The statewide school year begins July 1st and ends June 30th.

2. USBE anticipates that students will begin using the system by August 15, 2026.

3. After the 2026-2027 school year, USBE anticipates that the system will be operational for each LEA on the first day of each school year.

II. Required System Components The offeror shall propose the licensing of a system that includes as many of the attributes as possible.

A. Immediate, Automated Machine Scoring Offerors system shall be fully machine scorable at an analytic level using rubrics.

1. Scores shall be reported at proficiency levels rather than an overall numeric score or percentage.

2. The offeror shall propose machine scoring of writing using the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language Arts, which include the following categories of writing:

a) Writing Standard 1: Argumentative

b) Writing Standard 2: Informative/Explanatory

c) Writing Standard 3: Narrative

3. The offeror shall demonstrate validity, reliability, and documented quality control mechanisms of scoring processes. The offeror shall describe at a minimum:

a) How scores will be determined using the offeror’s scoring algorithm.

b) How range finding and calibration activities are accomplished.

c) How scoring rubrics aligned to Utah State Standards for P-12

English Language Arts Writing Standards will be created and used.

d) What quality control procedures the offeror proposes to assure accurate, consistent, and reliable scoring.

4. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) Ability for teachers to upload and use their own classroom rubrics.

B. Prompts

Offeror-generated prompts shall meet at least the following requirements:

1. Age and grade appropriateness

2. Identifiable multiple levels of difficulty

3. Prompts include a variety of topics and genres, including but not limited to:

a) Argumentative writing

b) Informative writing

c) Narrative writing

d) Descriptive writing

e) Expository writing

f) Literary analysis writing

g) Business/technical writing

4. A sufficient number of prompts for practice in writing throughout the school year

5. The ability for teachers to input prompts for their students

6. Multi-disciplinary prompts that require integration of many content area skills and knowledge sets

7. Ability for teachers to share prompts with other teachers in the LEA

8. Alignment to the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language

Arts, which include the following categories of writing:

a) Writing Standard 1: Argument

b) Writing Standard 2: Informative/Explanatory https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/englishlanguagearts/ https://www.schools.utah.gov/curr/englishlanguagearts/

c) Writing Standard 3: Narrative

9. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) Prompts in languages other than English.

C. Stimulus materials

A significant percentage of the prompts shall be accompanied by stimulus materials and/or organizational tools, including:

1. Graphic organizers: Multiple rich, deep graphic organizers available to students. The system shall allow teachers to upload their own graphic organizers

2. Texts (e.g., articles, excerpts from longer pieces, etc.)

3. Ability for teachers to upload their own stimulus material, both for offeror-generated and teacher-generated prompts, and that can be added by a teacher to create a RAG database of sources that the AI pulls from for feedback, questions, and other materials

4. Ability to print stimulus materials

5. Infographics, maps, charts, diagrams, graphs

6. Multimedia (audio, video, PowerPoint presentations, etc.)

7. 21st century texts (websites—live and archived, hypertexts, etc.)

8. The offeror will provide all copyright, licensing, and permission fees associated with all provided stimulus materials

9. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) Discipline-specific passage sets for all content areas (e.g., health, pottery, AP biology, foods, social studies/history, etc.)

b) An online equation and/or formula editor built within program for student access that could be used for math and science prompts

c) Science-specific prompts that align to the Utah Science Core Standards: Utah Science with Engineering Education (SEEd) Standards Utah K-12 Science that include the three dimensions of science that will elicit responses based around 1 or more of the 3 dimensions. The ideal prompt will engage students in all three dimensions.

d) Provide level of difficulty for stimulus material e.g. Lexile, word count, etc.

e) Stimulus materials in languages other than English.

D. Collaborative Writing and Peer Review

Proposed system shall:

1. Support real-time co-authoring by multiple students on the same document.

2. Provide individual contribution tracking (e.g., a report of each author's edits and contributions) for group projects.

3. Allow teachers to easily create, assign, and manage groups.

4. Allow the teacher to define groups using Criteria-Based Grouping based on in-platform student data (e.g., proficiency level, completion rate).

5. Allow teachers to save and switch between different grouping configurations for one class.

6. Facilitate a structured peer review workflow (anonymous assignment of papers, submission of feedback).

7. Enforce the use of a custom rubric or checklist for all peer reviews.

8. Include AI assistance for evaluating the quality of peer feedback submitted by a student reviewer.

9. Provide an automated feature to synthesize and summarize the received peer feedback for the author, helping them prioritize revisions.

10. Include a Revision Reflection feature where the author formally records how they plan to use and did use the received feedback.

11. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) Ability for teachers to direct the format of peer responses, including, e.g.:

(1) Checklists

(2) Questionnaires

(3) Student-generated comments

b) Exemplars for the purposes of student training and as instructional/formative aids for teachers. Exemplars should:

(1) Represent a significant number of offeror-generated prompts

(2) Represent a range of proficiencies

(3) Include analytical descriptions of scores

E. Plagiarism and AI Content Detection

1. Built-in capabilities to detect plagiarism and identify content that may have been generated by a large language model (LLM) or AI tool (which is a growing concern for academic integrity).

F. Instruction

1. For instructional focus areas identified based on the system’s scoring of student writing, the system shall suggest targeted instructional activities, tools, tutorials, interventions, etc. which will provide individual student results for teachers.

2. Instruction should be accessible by teacher, student, parent, school/LEA level administrators.

G. Writing Process Tools

1. Built-in tools to support pre-writing (e.g., outlining, brainstorming) and revision (e.g., readability scores, sentence structure analysis).

2. Tools that encourage a drafting process (e.g., the ability for students to submit multiple drafts and track how their writing and scores improve).

H. Demo site

Offeror shall provide access to a demo site and/or account login. The account login shall provide:

a) System review for teachers

b) Ability to simulate a student experience

III. Feedback System Components

USBE is interested in a formative writing system that utilizes AI to provide feedback on students’ writing. Offeror shall provide the following information:

A. Generative AI Feedback

1. A system that provides Generative AI assistance in order to provide the student with scaffolding and instantaneous feedback throughout the writing process. The AI assistance shall be a feature which can be enabled or disabled by the teacher.

2. Specific Error Highlighting: The AI identifies and highlights specific phrases or sentences that contain errors or weaknesses (e.g., "This sentence structure is confusing," or "Weak transition here").

3. "Glows" and "Grows" Type Summary: Provides a structured, final summary of feedback identifying two or three clear strengths (Glows) and two or three clear areas for improvement (Grows) based on the highest- and lowest-scoring rubric traits.

a) AI Feedback Transparency. The Offeror shall provide comprehensive documentation detailing the specific rubric elements, scoring criteria, and natural language processing (NLP) rules used by the AI to generate the specific error highlighting and the "Glows and Grows" summaries.

4. If the AI feedback is confusing for the student, the system shall have an option for students to select an “I Don’t Understand" feature in which the teacher can then be notified to provide assistance or the AI feedback will reword the feedback.

5. Ethical AI Use Statement. The Offeror shall provide a formal statement confirming that the system's AI adheres to ethical guidelines, avoids bias in its feedback, and includes mechanisms to detect and flag responses that may contain harmful, nonsensical, or inappropriate content.

6. Ability for the feature to be disabled, based on potential Utah laws around AI usage with students.

B. Revision and Iteration Support

1. A clear mechanism for students to apply or dismiss AI-generated feedback and suggestions.

2. Differentiated Instruction & Scaffolding:

a) The ability for the AI to provide feedback that is adjusted to the student's current proficiency level (e.g., more basic grammar help for struggling writers; higher-order thinking feedback for advanced writers).

(1) Ability for a student to indicate that they did not understand the feedback and for feedback to be simplified

(2) Ability for students to receive personalized feedback throughout the writing process and after each section of writing (e.g., introduction, body paragraph).

b) AI-driven resources such as automatically generated examples, mini-lessons, or links to relevant instructional content based on the student's error pattern.

C. Teacher Selected and/or Directed Feedback

1. The ability for the teacher to identify areas of support for the AI feedback.

2. Offer the option for teachers to allow or not allow the AI to provide immediate, simple suggestions for correcting surface-level issues (like grammar and usage) that the student can accept or dismiss.

IV. Reporting Electronic reporting at all levels is required. For the purpose of scoring proposals in response to this RFP, the offeror shall provide examples of reports or a URL of a website where reports may be viewed. The offeror shall list the languages in which the score reports and score interpretation guides will be available. All final report designs must be reviewed and approved by USBE. In addition to online report viewing, LEAs must be able to download reports in PDF, Excel, and .CSV formats.

A. Reports shall include, at a minimum

1. Immediate reporting after submission completion

2. Data that is printable, exportable in multiple formats, and otherwise easy to manipulate including several graphic representations or use in other platforms.

B. Portfolio All scores and feedback shall be held in a writing portfolio that stores writing and other data throughout students’ use of the system. This writing portfolio shall move with the child from grade to grade, school to school, and LEA to

LEA.

1. Individual student progress tracking over time, showing growth across different writing skills using the rubrics, as aligned to the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language Arts Writing Standards and sub-standards.

2. Ability to export and download the student portfolios in multiple formats for potential use in other technology platforms.

a) In bulk or single-selection

b) By prompt selection or writing standard

3. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) An option for parent access to portfolio, controlled at school/LEA level C. Student and Parent Reports

1. A current proficiency level:

a) Per prompt

b) Overall per standard

2. All available student historical data

3. Individual student progress tracking over time, showing growth across different writing skills using the rubrics, as aligned to the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language Arts Writing Standards and sub-standards.

4. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to propose:

a) Student writing strengths and opportunities for growth and tips to improve writing D. Teacher reports

1. Average proficiency level by standard

2. Percent of students at each proficiency level by standard

3. Percent of students at each proficiency level by prompt

4. All available student historical data showing growth across different writing skills using the rubrics, as aligned to the Utah State Standards for P-12 English Language Arts Writing Standards and sub-standards.

5. AI Feedback

a) Number of AI feedback and suggestions given to the student per prompt

b) Based on AI feedback and suggestions, number of times each student clicked “I Don’t Understand” per prompt

c) Number of student attempts at editing/revisions based on AI feedback per prompt

6. Aggregated data that identifies common class-wide strengths and weaknesses

7. Date of submission per prompt

8. Frequency of submissions per prompt

9. Overall number of submissions per prompt

10. Aggregate and summary of all information per prompt

E. School reports

1. Classroom level reports

a) Average proficiency level by standard

b) Percent of students at each proficiency level by standard

c) Frequency of submission

d) Number of submissions per student per prompt

e) Historical information with ability to access previous year’s data that is printable, exportable in multiple formats, and otherwise easy to manipulate

2. Grade level reports

a) Average proficiency level by standard

b) Percent of students at each proficiency level by standard

c) Frequency of submission

d) Average number of submissions per student per prompt

e) Historical information with ability to access previous year’s data that is printable, exportable in multiple formats, and otherwise easy to manipulate

3. School level reports

a) Average proficiency level by standard

b) Percent of students at each proficiency level by standard

c) Frequency of submission

d) Average number of submissions per student per prompt

e) Historical information with ability to access previous year’s data that is printable, exportable in multiple formats, and otherwise easy to manipulate

f) Aggregate and summary of all information that is accessible by year

F. LEA Level Reports

1. Aggregate and summary of all information in the school level report

G. SEA Level Reports

1. Aggregate and summary of all information in the school level report

H. Score Interpretation Guides The offeror shall propose score reports and score interpretation guides at the student, parent, teacher, school, LEA, and SEA levels.

V. System Technical Specifications

A. System Characteristics The offeror shall propose integrating its system into the existing Utah public education technology infrastructure. Currently that infrastructure consists of a wide area educational network that covers all of the state; local Novell, Windows, and Apple OS X based LANs in each school or LEA; and central server facilities that support various types of servers (Web, database, file, print, backup, e-mail) on Unix, Windows, Novell, and Linux operating systems. The offeror shall propose administration via client/student workstation within multiple, industry-standard hardware and software environments that students and proctors/administrators interact with. The administration process shall be clear and able to be learned in no more than three hours of training. The system shall be supported in Windows, Chrome, Macintosh, and Linux environments. Both students and administrators shall have the opportunity to learn the system and its associated processes and systems, specific to role functionality, each year.

B. System Load and Scalability Testing The Offeror shall demonstrate the system's ability to handle the concurrent usage of all eligible students (approx. 500,000 in grades 3-12). This demonstration shall include data from previous clients or a proposed plan for a rigorous, USBE-witnessed load/stress test of the system prior to initial deployment in August 2026.

C. Software Installation and Upgrading/Updating Proposal shall include a description of the technical set-up required to administer the online writing system, including how much time each workstation requires, and typical processes required for set-up (network and workstation). Personnel from each LEA shall be able to prepare student workstations with limited resources.

D. Interfaces/Data Exchange Offeror shall send and/or receive assessment rostering and assessment results utilizing USBE specified data exchange and interface standards. Data Exchanges must be through an Application Programming Interface (API) One Roster version 1.1+ Standard or ED-FI Data standard 3.0+;

1. Roster files will be pulled from USBE’s APIs nightly.

2. USBE reserves the right to modify or make changes to data exchange and interface standards. USBE will provide awardees advanced notification and adequate time to implement any changes to data exchange and interface standards.

3. Roster data elements can be shared upon request.

4. Rostering must include:

a) Historic and current student data transfers when students move between schools and/or LEAs within the state.

b) State level rostering with LEAs, schools, and classes listed by teacher name that include teachers and students.

c) Rostering should be by state identification numbers including:

(1) LEAs by number

(2) Schools by number

(3) Students rostered with their state student ID number

(SSID).

(4) Teachers rostered by their Cactus ID number.

E. System Security and Data Integrity The offeror shall propose:

1. Data encryption at all levels of transmission.

a) There shall be a security plan and model for servers.

b) Loss of data must be prevented within all sessions. The offeror shall explain its failover capabilities for all data at the server level and for writing in progress so each student response is securely recorded as responses are made. Student response data should be securely buffered or temporarily stored locally then transmitted to the offeror.

2. Multiple restart points.

a) Students shall be returned to the prompt they were responding to in the case of an interruption. These restarts shall preserve data, including the prompt and partial response completed by the student prior to the interruption. Once the system confirms receipt of the data, the local data shall then be deleted from the local storage locations.

F. Protection of Student Level Data The offeror’s proposal shall contain a statement that if selected as a result of this RFP, it will protect all student level data as outlined in the standard terms and conditions, or as negotiated between the offerer and USBE. Upon USBE's decision, it will return or securely destroy any such data upon either the expiration or termination of any contract resulting from this RFP.

G. Client Hardware Requirements

1. The offeror shall indicate which operating systems and workstation specifications are currently supported by its system. The offeror’s system shall be minimally compatible with the Mac OS 10.5, Windows XP (SP3) operating systems, and Linux Ubuntu 9-12/Fedora Core 6+(K12LTSP 4.2+). Any workstation, regardless of operating system, shall require no more than a 500 MHZ processor, 256 MB total RAM, 1 gigabyte of hard drive space, and a resolution of 800 x 600. A procedure shall be in place for USBE to provide written approval for the selected offeror to cease supporting operating systems or browsers which the selected offeror has agreed to support at a prior time.

2. Preference will be given to proposals that provide the required functionality with the smallest footprint. Workstation setup should be limited to ensuring the browser is the correct version needed for the system.

H. Network Requirements Internet connectivity varies across LEAs and schools. Some schools have no more than a single T1 line, while most secondary schools and more than half of the elementary schools have at least 100 Mbps and up to 1 Gbps circuit connections. The proposed system shall administer writing prompts and receive student responses based on either 10BaseT or above Ethernet LANs with Internet/intranet based WAN requirements being no more than a single T1 line.

I. Technical Support The offeror shall propose a technical support plan outlining the support services that will be provided, beginning with implementation and continuing through the length of the contract resulting from this RFP, including but not limited to:

1. Support for USBE, LEAs, and schools, through all time periods of implementation.

2. A method for resolving LEA set up and system use problems prior to and during use.

3. Interactive and automated online help procedures for system users to access as a first “Help Desk” step.

4. Support during the school year for a minimum of eight hours a day, five days a week, Monday through Friday to troubleshoot technical issues and address user issues and questions. Federal holidays excepted.

5. Methods/protocols for receiving inquiries (e.g., a toll-free phone number, fax, e-mail, interactive online communication). USBE shall be provided with response scripts/decision trees used in these methods/protocols to allow for USBE oversight. Response times and methods shall also be specified.

6. Reports to USBE summarizing inquiries and resolutions bi-weekly.

VI. Scoring A. Technical Requirements of the System

The offeror shall document how its online writing system meets high technical standards. Specifically, the offeror shall demonstrate:

1. Its system meets technical requirements of validity, reliability, and freedom from bias.

2. Its system meets requirements of high technical quality of the prompts used as well as the technical quality of the scores given to students.

3. The process for training the offeror’s scoring algorithm (e.g., Is the system based on hand-scoring? How many student responses are used per prompt to train the system?).

4. Evidence that the scoring algorithm used to score the student responses yields comparable results as human scoring.

5. Evidence that the scoring algorithm analyzes student writing for nonsensical text, repeated phrases or text used to add length to responses, responses that overuse stimulus material, and/or responses that are off topic from the writing prompt.

6. Evidence that the offeror-generated prompts and stimulus material used are appropriate to the grade level.

7. A reporting system that facilitates appropriate, credible, and defensible interpretation and use of online writing data.

8. Interpretive guidance of online writing reports.

B. Technical Summary Report

The offeror shall propose the provision of an annual Technical Summary Report, specific to the Utah administration, delivered by July 1 each year, including, but not limited to:

1. Statistical and judgmental evidence of prompt and scoring quality on an annual basis

VII. Accessibility/Accommodations A. Universal Design

USBE requires an online formative writing system that is accessible to all students requiring Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Preference will be given to bids which demonstrate an innovative approach to accessibility which maximize the use of new technology in a cost-efficient manner. The offeror shall describe its system capability for providing online or computer-based accommodations. The offeror shall propose a plan for providing accommodations and accessibility tools to students with disabilities, students with Section 504 plans and English Learners, consistent with the Utah Participation and Accommodations Policy found at https://www.schools.utah.gov/specialeducation/resources/assessment

B. Accommodations The offerors shall explain how their systems are or will be compliant with, have applied, or will apply as many of the following principles as possible:

1. US Rehabilitation Action Section 508, which requires that all website content be equally accessible to people with disabilities

2. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 at minimum, which will make content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities, including blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these.

https://www.schools.utah.gov/specialeducation/resources/assessment

3. The system shall be updated to WCAG 3.0 standards once available.

4. Access by Design. Beyond accessibility, which is concerned with making the content and functionality of websites within reach to all users, universal usability strives to make the content and functionality accessible and usable by all. Usability principles should be applied to the areas of development, administration, and administration portals.

5. Accessibility for all students. Includes spell check; grammar check;

dictionary; thesaurus; color overlay; line reader; highlighter; increased font size; magnification; reverse contrast; fore & background color;

text-to-speech

6. Accessibility for some students. Includes text-to-speech which includes the description of all stimulus, prompts, graphics, etc.; speech-to-text (prefer an embedded option and also technical specifications for options for users to use third-party speech-to-text); refreshable braille devices; and braille/tactile graphics using an external embosser/printer;

other assistive technology devices; large-print options

VIII. Management and Personnel A. Project Management

1. The offeror shall propose a plan for managing the system and include a list of proposed personnel. At a minimum, the plan shall include:

a) Project Manager – The selected offeror shall appoint a project manager who oversees the management of the project. The offeror shall specify the percentage of this person’s time devoted to this project. The offeror also shall address how continuity in project management will be maintained over the life of a contract resulting from this RFP.

b) Content Specialist –The selected offeror shall appoint a writing content specialist who is responsible for the prompts associated in this project. The offeror shall specify the percentage of this person’s time devoted to this project.

c) Psychometrician – The selected offeror shall appoint a psychometrician who is responsible for ensuring the technical quality of the writing system. The offeror shall specify the percentage of this person’s time devoted to this project.

d) Support Staff – The selected offeror shall appoint support staff as appropriate to the successful completion of contract deliverables.

2. Rubrics - The selected offeror shall work with USBE staff on the creation or revision of the rubrics.

3. Management Meetings – The selected offeror shall support regular management meetings with USBE personnel as needed, all of which can, at the offeror’s option, be hosted remotely

a) The selected offeror shall conduct monthly status meetings with USBE personnel, preceded by a detailed agenda and followed by meeting minutes in a timely manner. Meetings shall be more frequent at the beginning of the project.

b) The selected offeror shall conduct a virtual kick-off meeting with USBE personnel within the first week of the contract, where USBE personnel are walked through the platform, including how to utilize the AI and reporting.

c) The selected offeror will conduct rostering meetings with USBE personnel as frequently as needed at the beginning of the project.

d) The selected offeror will manage expenses for all meetings required for the contract.

4. Management Reports – The selected offeror shall provide the following reports:

a) At least quarterly itemized invoice, and progress reports;

b) Annual project plan and schedule; and

c) Immediate (within 24 hours) reports of any unusual activities/events.

5. USBE personnel will have state level logins with access to the system and all reports preferably before and at a minimum at the contract start date.

6. Annual Product Roadmap and Feature Enhancement Report - Each spring, the Offeror shall provide a detailed report outlining all proposed system updates, new features, and changes to the AI/scoring algorithms planned for the upcoming contract year. This report shall include an impact analysis on current user workflows and a proposed timeline for implementation.

7. Optionally: The offeror is encouraged to provide the ability for state level users to view as individual users.

B. Company Qualifications

1. The offeror shall have demonstrated expertise in large-scale machine scoring of student writing responses, and have a record of accomplishment in the development and refinement of high-quality writing systems.

2. The offeror shall demonstrate a history of meeting deadlines and satisfying contract requirements.

3. Minimum required skills include subject area experience at target grade levels for individuals who will supervise item development;

expertise in advanced psychometrics and statistics; and the organizational capacity to manage large-scale writing systems.

4. The offeror shall submit resumes of all staff who will be involved in the project.

5. USBE reserves the right to approve or disapprove project management staff.

C. References The offeror shall provide at least five references who know the quality of its work in large-scale online writing systems. The references shall include names, titles, addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. USBE prefers that the references be limited to state-level area experts and personnel who have been personally and directly involved in large-scale online writing systems the offeror has developed and can speak to the requirements of this RFP.

IX. Optional Cost Proposal A. Training

The offeror may propose a cost- and time-effective, comprehensive training plan that will result in:

1. Initial training for successful statewide formative use.

2. Yearly training for new users.

3. Ability of LEAs to implement resulting data to inform instruction.

B. Parent/Guardian Accessibility and Interpretation Training The offeror may propose a training plan for parents/guardians. The plan shall include the provision of ready-to-use, multilingual training materials (e.g., short videos, FAQs) for parents/guardians, explaining how to access and accurately interpret the student portfolio and score reports.

C. Human Review and Audit of AI Scoring The Offeror may propose a Quality Control procedure that includes a mandatory annual human audit of the machine scoring accuracy. This audit must involve a random sample (minimum 2%) of student responses being scored by qualified human raters, and a report detailing the correlation coefficients and discrepancy rates between human and machine scores must be included in the annual Technical Summary Report.

X. Contract Award and Budget The contract resulting from this RFP will be for FIVE (5) years. However, USBE reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Utah State Board of Education Standard Terms and Conditions.

The maximum award for this contract will be $2,225,000 ($445,000 per year).

This is NOT a guaranteed total amount for each year. You are not required to expend the entire amount of funds when calculating your cost proposal. Cost proposals exceeding these identified amounts will be considered non-responsive and ineligible for contract award.

Note: Costs MUST be all-inclusive. If travel for meetings, trainings, or other engagements is required, you must arrange and pay for your own transportation, meals, and lodging. Travel time and travel expenses shall NOT be included in any invoice to USBE.

XI. Invoicing

Contractor shall submit quarterly invoices electronically to the USBE email account at accountspayable@schools.utah.gov and the USBE program manager identified in any contract resulting from the RFP for all goods and/or services provided in accordance with the terms on the agreement. Invoices will not be considered for payment if submitted by another method.

Invoices shall include the following:

a) Contractor Name

b) Uniquely identifiable invoice number

c) Invoice date

d) Contract Number

e) Recipient Entity’s contact information (phone number and email address)

f) Contractor’s authorized signature

g) Date(s) goods/services were provided

h) Description of goods and/or services for which payment is requested

i) Dollar amount requested.

Invoices submitted by Contractor to USBE without the required information will not be paid and shall be returned to the Contractor for completion.

All payments made to the Contractor under the agreement shall be made in the name of the Contractor, as it appears in the agreement. All payments will be sent to the Contractor to the address for the Contractor as it appears in the agreement. Changes to the information identified in this section must be requested in writing.

To obtain payment for the goods and/or services authorized by this agreement, Contractor shall submit the itemized invoice together with supporting documentation of work performed.

USBE reserves the right to question or seek clarification for any cost invoiced if the invoice is not supported by proper documentation.

Contractor may be required to repay USBE if, during or after the contract period, an audit or other review determines that payments made by USBE to Contractor were incorrectly paid or were based on incorrect information received from the Contractor. USBE reserves the right to withhold any or all subsequent payments to the Contractor until the incorrect amounts paid have been fully recovered.