Amendment_0001.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

This purpose of this amendment is to update the evaluation criteria (section M) and provide responses to offeror's questions.

1 8

91990019R00170001 APR 11, 2019

CAMPCP

US Dept of ED-550 12th Street SW - Room 7169 Washington DC 20065

See Block 6

91990019R0017

MAR 26, 2019

See Schedule

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 8 91990019R00170001

United States Department of Education National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Institute of Education Sciences

TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION OF TITLE I PILOTS THAT PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY UNDER THE EVERY

STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT

Solicitation No.: 91990019R0017

Proposal Evaluation Criteria

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Although price is an important factor, technical merit is significantly more important than price. For that reason the Government reserves the right to not consider for award, and not evaluate the business proposal of, any offeror whose technical proposal is rated “FAIR” or lower on Criteria A or B.

Best Value Methodology: A tradeoff methodology will be employed during the evaluation in order to identify the best value. Price/cost is significantly less important than technical merit. The Department will use the following factors to evaluate offers. Note that Criteria A and B are of equal importance to one another and are more important than criteria C, D, and E. Criteria C, D, and E are of equal importance to one another.

A. Soundness of the Technical Approach

The extent to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates understanding of the goals and context of the procurement, and provides a sound plan for executing the procurement. More specifically, the extent to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates:

Capability of achieving the goals of the procurement with minimal intervention by the Department as evidenced by the clarity, rigor, policy relevance, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness of the Offeror’s plan for addressing the key questions and conducting each task; identification of potential challenges and the quality of recommended solutions; and an appropriate balance between creativity and rigor, feasibility, and cost-effectiveness.

Knowledge of the context of the procurement as evidenced by attention to relevant prior research evidence, policy content, and program context throughout the technical approach.

The quality of the offeror’s writing and the extent to which the technical proposal is well-organized, clear, and concise while simultaneously providing an appropriate level of detail.

B. Quality of Staffing and Management Plan

The extent to which the Offeror’s staffing plan demonstrates:

Clarity of task and management roles for all proposed staff; proposed roles that are well-aligned to the level of effort and to clearly-identified staff experience, knowledge, and skills relevant to this procurement.

The leadership team (Project Director, Deputy Project Director, and/or Principal Investigator) and other key staff have experience and skill in leading, managing, designing, and conducting all aspects of evaluations in education that are similar to this procurement in content (assessment and weighted-student funding systems overall and preferably systems similar to pilot sites; accountability and Title I programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), methodology (mixed methods, descriptive implementation studies involving high-quality and systematic data collection and analysis;

PAGE 3 OF 8 91990019R00170001

analysis and interpretation of complex statistical assessment data), complexity (multi-year, multi-level data collection with pilot sites scaling up along the way, conducting evaluations of and within an existing federal education program), scope (multiple states and districts), sample size, and data collection modes (administrative data, extant document reviews, interviews, school and staff surveys).

Adequacy of time commitment of leadership team and key project staff.

Procedures for managing staff and controlling work performance efficiently and effectively, including clear lines of authority within and across tasks, assigning responsibilities and monitoring staff, promoting communication, resolving problems, overseeing and integrating work of subcontractors and/or consultants, and ensuring work quality and timeliness.

C. Relevant Corporate Experience

The extent to which the proposal demonstrates that the Offeror played a similar role in leading, managing, designing, and conducting previous evaluations in education that are similar to this procurement in content (assessment and weighted-student funding systems overall and preferably systems similar to pilot sites; accountability and Title I programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), methodology (mixed methods, descriptive implementation studies involving high-quality and systematic data collection and analysis; analysis and interpretation of complex statistical assessment data), complexity (multi-year, multi-level data collection with pilot sites scaling up along the way, conducting evaluations of and within an existing federal education program), scope (multiple states and districts), sample size, and data collection modes (administrative data, extant document reviews, interviews, school and staff surveys).

D. Vendor Past Performance

The extent to which past performance information is favorable for projects that are at least minimally relevant to the work outlined in the PWS. Past performance information that is more relevant will be weighted more heavily in the overall rating. Relevance is based on (but is not necessarily limited to) the extent to which projects are similar to this procurement in content, methodology, complexity, scope, sample size, data collection modes, and the Offeror’s role on the project. Note: the Department reserves the right to review external sources for past performance information (such as the Contract Performance Assessment Rating System or CPARS, contact with clients of cited relevant work, etc.). If there is no past performance information available that is at least minimally relevant to the procurement, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the basis of past performance.

E. Substantive Small Business Participation

Small business participation evaluation is a two-part process. First, the Department will review and consider the extent to which the Offeror proposes substantive work for small business participation in a meaningful capacity to fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Second, the Department will utilize a small business calculation tool. This tool will provide a number that the evaluation team will use to evaluate the small business subcontracting plan, and the Small Business Subcontracting Score is tied to thresholds described in the rating scale. It is possible to earn a score higher than 100, and exceeding this score does not represent a competitive advantage. Additionally, the Department may downgrade the Offeror’s score if it determines that the Offeror did not propose substantive and meaningful work for any small businesses.

Definitions and Process for Rating Scale

The adjectival rating scale for the technical evaluation criteria listed on the attached Technical Proposal Evaluation Forms is defined below. Panel Members shall cite specific proposal references and page numbers to support comments listed under the strength, weakness, significant weakness, or deficiency categories. The Department will use the following adjectival rating scales for the selected criteria:

PAGE 4 OF 8 91990019R00170001

EVALUATION SCALE 1:

CRITERIA A:TECHNICAL APPROACH AND B:STAFFING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXCELLENT

Identified strengths exceed the requirements in a way which yields significant benefits to the Department. The approach either contains no weaknesses or has very few weaknesses that are collectively of small impact. The approach does not contain significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The approach represents a very low risk to the Department.

VERY GOOD

Identified strengths exceed the requirements in a way which yields some benefits to the Department. The approach contains few weaknesses that are collectively of small impact. The proposal does not contain significant weakness or deficiencies. The approach represents a low risk to the Department.

GOOD

Identified strengths meet the minimum requirements of the Department. Weaknesses are present that are collectively of moderate impact. The approach does not contain significant weaknesses or deficiencies. The approach represents a moderate risk to the Department.

FAIR

Does not meet the minimum requirements because one or more significant weaknesses (or combination of weaknesses that rise to the level of a significant weakness) are present. The approach does not contain any deficiencies. The approach represents a high risk to the Department.

POOR

Falls far short of the minimum requirements because one or more deficiencies (or combination of significant weaknesses that rise to the level of a deficiency) are present.

The approach represents a very high risk to the Department.

EVALUATION SCALE 2:

CRITERION C: RELEVANT CORPORATE EXPERIENCE

EXCELLENT

Corporate experience includes at least one project that is highly relevant to the procurement and at least one additional project that is relevant on the factors listed in the criterion (all of which have been successfully completed or are nearly completed);

no weaknesses, or very few weaknesses that are collectively of small impact, are present. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies are present.

Corporate experience includes a single project that is highly relevant to the procurement or at least two projects that are each relevant on the factors listed in the criterion (all of which have been successfully completed or are nearly completed); few weaknesses are present that are collectively of small impact. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies are present.

PAGE 5 OF 8 91990019R00170001

Corporate experience includes a single project that is relevant on the factors listed in the criterion or at least two projects that are collectively relevant on the factors listed in the criterion (all of which have been successfully completed or are nearly completed);

weaknesses are present that are collectively of moderate impact. NO significant weaknesses or deficiencies are present.

Corporate experience is minimally relevant on the factors listed in the criterion; one or more significant weaknesses (or combination of weaknesses that rise to the level of a significant weakness) are present. NO deficiencies are present.

Corporate experience is deficient because demonstrated experience falls far short of being minimally relevant on the factors listed in the criterion.

EVALUATION SCALE 3:

CRITERION D: PAST PERFORMANCE

ADEQUATE

Performance ratings demonstrate a trend of “fair/satisfactory” or better for any experience that is at least minimally relevant to the procurement (more weight given to more relevant experience); any noted weaknesses in the narrative are of small to moderate impact which may not have required customer input.

NEUTRAL

No performance ratings are available for any experience that is at least minimally relevant to the procurement (any available performance ratings are for experiences not relevant to the procurement).

Performance ratings demonstrate a trend of “poor/marginal” or “unsatisfactory” performance for any experience that is at least minimally relevant to the procurement (more weight given to more relevant experience); weaknesses cited in the rating narratives are of significant impact and/or required significant customer input to mitigate.

EVALUATION SCALE 4:

CRITERION E: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

EXCELLENT An offeror may earn a rating of Excellent based on the extent to which an offeror proposes meaningful and substantive small business work and the offeror’s cumulative small business score is 80 or greater. A small business that proposes as a prime contractor may automatically earn an excellent rating for the small business element.

An offeror may earn a rating of Very Good based on the extent to which an offeror proposes meaningful and substantive small business work and the offeror’s cumulative small business score is between 61 and 80.

An offeror may earn a rating of Good based on the extent to which the offeror proposes meaningful and substantive small business work and the offeror’s cumulative small business score is between 41 and 60.

An offeror may earn a rating of Fair based on the extent to which the offeror proposes meaningful and substantive small business work and the offeror’s cumulative small business score is between 21 and 40.

An offeror may earn a rating of Poor based upon the extent to which the offeror proposes meaningful and substantive small business work and the offeror’s cumulative small business score is between 0 and 20.

PAGE 6 OF 8 91990019R00170001

The following definitions shall be applied appropriately by Panel Members when evaluating a proposal and documenting technical evaluation findings:

Strength – An attribute in the proposal that is beneficial and increases the probability of successful contract performance.

Weakness – An attribute in the proposal that is a flaw and increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness – An attribute in the proposal, or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal, that is a flaw and appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency – A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement, or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal, that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

PAGE 7 OF 8 91990019R00170001

Responses to Questions for the Evaluation of Title I Pilots That Provide Flexibility Under the Every Student Succeeds Act

1. Would the Department allow the timeline to be included as an appendix to allow more space in the technical proposal for the technical approach?

o Response: The timeline will count toward the 60-page limit for the technical proposal.

2. The proposal indicates that the SCF pilot evaluation will include up to five school districts.

However, currently only one district has been approved. Is there any more specificity regarding the number of districts that will be included in the evaluation? Should the technical proposal and budget be constructed under the assumption that five districts will be included?

o Response: Offerors should develop the technical approach and budget assuming that there will be five districts in the evaluation. As a supplement, the budget proposal should also separately propose costs under the alternative assumptions of 2 districts, 3 districts, and 4 districts. Assumptions about how costs would be affected by instead having only 2 districts, 3 districts, or 4 districts should be included in this supplement to the budget proposal. If the offeror proposes to do anything substantially different from a technical standpoint under the 5-district scenario vs. any of the other scenarios with fewer districts, then these differences should be described and justified in the technical proposal.

3. To keep their IADA waiver status, what data and/or documents are states required to submit to the Department of Education and/or NCEE? Similarly, what data and/or documents are districts required to submit to the Department of Education and/or NCEE to keep their waiver status?

o Response: Please consult the IADA program website (https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/iada/index.html) and the authorizing statue for the program in the Every Student Succeeds Act for information on required documentation.

4. What are the evaluation requirements for states that receive an IADA or SCF waiver? Are they required to participate in the evaluation, and if so, what are the expectations and how long do they last?

o Response: Please consult the respective program’s website (https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/iada/index.html, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/submissions.html) and the authorizing statue for the programs in the Every Student Succeeds Act for information on evaluation requirements. In general, under the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), grantees of the U.S. Department of Education are obligated to cooperate with Department evaluations of programs they participate in.

5. How does NCEE plan to address potential conflicts of interest with TWG members? For example, will NCEE consider allowing experts on the TWG who, in the past or through existing contracts, support participating IADA/SCF states/districts on their innovative assessment/student-centered

PAGE 8 OF 8 91990019R00170001

Responses to Questions for the Evaluation of Title I Pilots That Provide Flexibility Under the Every Student Succeeds Act funding pilot programs? Or, would a potential TWG member’s past, present, or potential future support to waiver states/districts be perceived as a conflict of interest and disqualify them from serving as a TWG member?

o Response: The Department will consider conflicts of interest on a case-by-case basis.

The onus for transparency is on the offeror. This means that the offeror must disclose any and all perceived or actual potential conflicts of interest (in the past, current, or reasonably foreseeable future) for proposed TWG members. The offeror must then also describe how they will avoid, eliminate, or mitigate such conflicts. The Department will then decide whether the offeror’s proposed approach is acceptable or not.

6. Is the offeror required to budget with GSA lodging rates? If so, is the offeror required to include lodging taxes?

o Response: All travel performed under this contract must comply with Federal Travel Regulations, which includes following GSA’s prescribed lodging rates. Updated rates are here: https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/per-diem-rates. GSA’s lodging rates are tax exclusive. However, estimated additional lodging taxes should be factored into the proposed budget.

7. In addition to the summary chart, what specific information would NCEE like to see in the Business Proposal Abstract?

o Response: Per the instructions to offerors on page 80 of the solicitation, a one-page summary is to be provided abstracting the proposal contents in language understandable to an informed layperson. The abstract shall indicate full acceptance of the solicitation requirements or note any offeror or assumptions justified. This last part means that if the offeror has objections to any of the solicitation requirements, the objections should be described in the abstract, along with a justification for rejecting the requirement. In addition, any key assumptions made in the accompanying budget materials that the offeror thinks is critical for the reviewer to be aware of should be described in the abstract.