Amendment_0001_(Responses_Attached).pdf

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30. (Rev. 10-83) Previous Edition unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Page of Pages AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code

2. AMENDMENT MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

(x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., Street, Country, State and ZIP Code)

CODE FACILITY CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ______ copies of amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OR OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

Check One

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______ copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Sadaf.Afkhami Stamp

Sadaf.Afkhami Text Box

Continuation Page

PAGE 2 OF 4 91990018R00040001

Continued from Block 14...

attachments for more details.

Attachment Page

PAGE 3 OF 4 91990018R00040001

Clarification Questions Solicitation Number 91990018R0004 "Comprehensive Literacy Program Evaluation"

1. Is it acceptable for the abstract and table of contents to be single-spaced?

Answer: The abstract must be double-spaced. The table of contents may be single-spaced.

2. P. 5 of the PWS says, “The Department is investing an additional $380 million in Fiscal Year 2017, which will support an estimated 5 SEAs over a three-year grant period,” and all discussion of data collection refers to 5 SEAs. The ED website indicates that 11 SEAs were awarded grants in 2017. Does ED expect the evaluation to include all 11 of those SEA grantees, or 5 SEAs (as described in the PWS)?

Answer: The PWS was written prior to the award of the Striving Readers grants and more grants were awarded than originally anticipated. The Department assumes inclusion of all the states that received grants in 2017 in the state-level data collection activities. However, offerors should feel free to propose (and justify) deviations from what is described in the PWS if they feel the deviations would best inform the program evaluation of Striving Readers described in the

PWS.

3. P. 5 of the PWS indicates that the Department estimates 150 as the number of “all funded LEAs” which will be included in the implementation evaluation. In the case that the Department plans for the evaluation to include 11 SEA grantees rather than 5, does the Department still expect to include 150 LEAs, or should this number increase as well to reflect the 11 SEA grantees?

Answer: The population of LEAs is not known at this time. Information on the numbers of funded LEAs per state in the prior cohort of Striving Readers grants is available here (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders-literacy/performance.html). The Department’s cost estimate is based on a sample of 150 LEAs. However, offerors should feel free to propose (and justify) deviations from the sample size described in the PWS if they feel the deviations would best meet the requirements described in the PWS, adequately represent funded LEAs, and be cost effective.

4. P. 4 of the PWS says to include surveys of principals and a sample of teachers in a representative sample of 500 funded schools. Depending on the response to questions 2 and 3 above, should we still assume a sample of 500 funded schools, or should this sample of schools also be larger to reflect larger numbers of SEA grantees and LEA sub-grantees?

Answer: The population of schools is not known at this time. Information on the numbers of funded schools in the prior cohort of Striving Readers grants is available here (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders-literacy/performance.html). The Department’s cost estimate is based on the sample size described in the PWS. However, offerors should feel free to propose (and justify) deviations from the sample size described in the PWS if they feel the deviations would best inform the program evaluation of Striving Readers described in the PWS, adequately represent funded schools, and be cost effective.

Attachment Page

PAGE 4 OF 4 91990018R00040001

5. P. 12 of the PWS under Task 5 says, “The contractor shall prepare an impact evaluation design options report for the CLD program that addresses the issues raised in Section C of the PWS, drawing in part on the results of implementing the feasibility plan and protocol (Subtask 2.2) and also in part on the results of LEA data collection in Fall 2018 for the implementation evaluation of SRCL (Task 7).” However, the draft impact evaluation design options report is due in August 2018, so it would not be possible to include the results from the fall 2018 data collection. Should the due date for the draft impact evaluation design options report come after the fall 2018 LEA data collection, or should the fall 2018 data collection be excluded from the impact evaluation design options report?

Answer: Results of the LEA data collection in fall 2018 were expected to inform the revised and final versions of the impact evaluation design options report. The timeline for the design options report in the PWS was intended to allow the options to be finalized prior to a possible FY18 CLD grant competition. However, if Congress appropriates funds for the new CLD program, the grant competition will likely take place in FY19 rather than FY18 (see the response to question 6).

Offerors should propose (and justify) the timing of activities and deliverables they feel would best inform a potential impact evaluation, reflecting updated information on CLD program timing (see the response to question 6).

6. Please clarify whether the Comprehensive Literacy State Development (CLD) grants (to be evaluated by the impact evaluation) are a continuation of the current Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) Program grants to 11 states, awarded in 2017. If ED expects to award new CLD grants that are distinct from the existing SRCL grants, when does ED expect that the grantees will begin implementation of the CLD grants?

Answer: The CLD grants would not be a continuation of the current Striving Readers grants awarded in 2017. If Congress appropriates funds for the CLD program, the Department would award new grants. The timing of this competition and grantee implementation is not known at this time, but the competition will likely take place sometime in FY19 and implementation is not likely to begin earlier than the 2019-2020 school year.

Washington DC 20065