91990019R0022_Response_to_questions.pdf

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Solicitation No. 91990019R0022

Evaluation of Transition Supports for Youth with Disabilities

The U.S. Department of Education provides the following responses to the clarification questions received by May 10, 2019.

General Questions

1. Will there be a main location for Place of Performance (Office or Contractor’s site).

Response: The Department expects that the Place of Performance (FAR 52.215-6) will be the offeror’s facility.

2. Will the Department accept searchable PDF files in lieu of both PDF and Word files of each proposal volume?

Response: Offerors are required to submit proposals in both PDF and Word files to ensure accessibility of the proposal file for review by the Department. Only those proposals submitted in both forms will be accepted as complete. When submitting, please keep in mind that the

Department may not receive attachments exceeding 20MB, so it is recommended that offerors break up large files (exceeding 20MB) into smaller attachments in separate emails.

3. Will the Department consider electronic submission only, rather than hardcopy submission and electronic?

Response: The Department requests hardcopy submission in addition to electronic submission to facilitate the source selection process. If hardcopy submission is not feasible, then it is expected that the technical and business proposal electronic files are formatted with appropriate page numbers and appendices included in correct sequence, such that hard copies will print in correct sequence and with appropriate formatting.

4. Page 1 of 99 Due Date Given this is a Draft Solicitation - , we request that the proposal due date be 30 days from the release of the Final RFP.

Response: There are no major revisions from the DRAFT solicitation or PWS, when compared to the Final Solicitation version. Also, the Government needs to allow for ample time to evaluate submitted proposals and conduct discussions (if necessary). As such, the due date of 31 May will not be changed.

Conflicts of Interest Questions

5. Page 88 of 99 Technical Volume, Technical Approach and Personnel - The RFP states, "An assurance includes affirming that the organizations involved in the bid are not working with any of the pilot sites on developing or implementing innovative assessment systems or student-centered funding systems." "Pilot sites," innovative assessment systems, and

"student-centered funding systems" are not terms in the performance work statement. Please clarify.

Response: Offerors are asked to address any conflicts of interest that might arise if any contractor, subcontractor, and/or organization involved in the proposed bid is a developer or training provider for transition support practices/strategies relevant to this study. The instructions

(p. 88) have been revised to the following: “An assurance includes affirming that the organizations involved in the bid are not working on developing or supporting implementation of transition supports/practices in district/school programs. If any of the proposed organizations are involved in such a capacity, the offeror shall present a mitigation plan and explain how it will ensure a sufficient firewall against actual or apparent conflicts.”

Business Proposal Questions

6. This Contract will be a Cost Reimbursement with a Fixed Fee. What is the Fixed Fee % percentage?

Response: Interested Offerors must propose their own Fixed Fee percentage/amount and provide the rationale behind the proposed fixed fee percentage/amount.

7. Are we providing a cost proposal for just the base period 32 months or the entire contract up

2027.

Response: The business proposal should cover all periods of the contract, including all the optional task periods. Failure to do so will prevent the Government from determining whether the proposed contract cost is realistic, reasonable, and fair. Business proposals not covering the entire contract period will be deemed noncompliant with the terms of the solicitation and will not be evaluated for award.

8. Page 92 of 99 Business Volume, Labor Rates - Is it acceptable for subcontractors to submit sealed cost proposals containing unloaded labor rates and detailed cost breakout directly to the government? Please provide clear guidance on how subcontractors should submit their sealed bids, if applicable.

Response: Subcontractors should work with their Primes to ensure the technical and business proposals are cohesive. However, yes, subcontractors can email/send their own individual breakdowns of their proposed costs directly to the Government.

Provider Costs Questions

9. Can the department provide guidance on assumptions on how to budget provider costs (e.g.

cost per school)?

Response: As noted on page 91 of the solicitation, offerors can assume that the cost of the transition strategy/program training will be $20,000 per year for each treatment school/site. Offerors can also assume that the training will include 3 days of summer training prior to the start of the school year, 1 day of support prior to starting implementation, and 3 to 4 site visits in each implementation year as part of on-going support, in addition to technical support and other interactions (e.g. webinars).

10. Page 27-99 under Task 12 first paragraph: Should we Incorporate in our proposal the cost of a subcontract training provider.

Response: Cost for the subcontractor training provider should be included in the business proposal per assumptions noted above under response to question 9.

11. Does the budget for the transition strategy/program training ($20,000 per treatment school/site per year) include reimbursement for school staffs’ time or travel (if needed)?

Response: No. The estimated $20,000 per treatment school/site does not include reimbursement for school staff’s time or travel. This estimate should be used to budget the training provider/developer costs only. All other expenses necessary to enable training and ongoing support, including contractor staff overseeing and logistically supporting training providers and school staff time in training and support activities outside staff contract time, should be budgeted separately.

12. Page 27-99 under Task 12 third paragraph: The Contractor shall arrange and pay for all expenses etc… (this would be a reimbursement cost…) Correct?

Response: The offeror should include in their business proposal costs for the subcontract with the training provider/developer and separately costs for all other expenses including training logistics (e.g., meeting/conference room), school staff time (including substitute teachers, if necessary), and contractor staff time to monitor and support the training provider/developers. All costs that offerors include for training and ongoing support must be explained in the budget narrative and justified in the proposal.

Past Performance Questions

13. The instructions for Past Performance state that, “In addition, offerors may submit information about three contracts, completed/ongoing provided it started within 5 years of the Solicitation release date which are of similar content, methodology, complexity, scope, sample size, and data collection modes to this solicitation.” Could ED provide more details about what information offerors should provide about these three contracts and whether it can be included in the appendix? Can ED also clarify whether and how this information differs from the past performance reference forms that bidders can submit if they have no

CPARS?

Response: Offerors are given the opportunity to provide details about three additional contracts beyond those for which CPARS are available. These additional contracts should have started within the last 5 years prior to this Solicitation being released. While the past performance form is an opportunity to include information from references about the work completed on specific contracts for which CPARS are not available, these additional contract descriptions are an opportunity for the offeror to describe the scope of the prior contract and offer details about how prior experiences may be similar to the work required for this solicitation – in terms of content, complexity, methodology, and/or data collection modes.

14. Page 68 of 99 Technical Volume, Past Performance - If a subcontractor intends to submit a

Past Performance Evaluation Form for a prime contractor proposal, the instructions state the form is to be submitted directly to Joseph Gibbs (Dept. of ED). How do subcontractors reference that they are part of the prime's proposal?

Response: When submitting electronically, the past performance forms should be attached to an email that refers to the solicitation number and notes the prime offeror.

15. The Past Performance requirement describes two lists of contract details: one containing all projects referenced in the Relevant Corporate Experience section, and another containing all projects for NCEE within the past 5 years. Can the Department please confirm that both lists may be included in a table in the appendix and will not count toward the page limit?

Response: Detailed lists of contracts pertaining to Relevant Corporate Experience and Past

Performance can be included in an appendix. Please include reference in the proposal text where additional details can be found in the appendix (section, page number).

Questions about Additional Data Source for Feasibility Study

16. The IDEA State and Local Implementation Study is a potentially useful source of information. Can the Department share the timing of data collection for these surveys?

Response: Data collection for the IDEA State and Local Implementation Study will occur across the 2019-2020 school year, and a report is planned for 2021.

17. Will the Department consider making these data available to contractor for analysis during the feasibility phase of the study, should the timing coincide?

Response: Data from the IDEA implementation study will not be made available to the study team. However, the Department may consider whether there are analyses the implementation study could conduct that would be beneficial to the transition study

Systematic Evidence Review Question

18. Can the Department provide additional guidance on the assumptions for number of studies to screen and code for the systematic evidence review in Task 3? In particular, does this assumption include studies that have already been reviewed by WWC and/or by Cobb and colleagues in Cobb et al. (2013) (NCEE 2013-4011)?

Response: As noted under PWS subtask 3.2 (p. 19 of solicitation), offerors can assume that a search of the literature will result in 12,000 studies to be screened and 50 studies to be fully coded. Assumptions do not include any studies that have already been reviewed by WWC or included in NCEE 2013-4011.

Site Recruitment Question

19. Page 26-99 under Task 11 first paragraph (The recruiting site): The site selected will be up to the contractor and that could be DC, MD or VA is that correct?

Response: Recruitment, as described under PWS Task 11 and 14, will focus on sites that are geographically dispersed across the U.S. Site selection will depend on the impact study design as well as the site’s interest in and appropriateness for participating in the impact study instead of contractor convenience. The contractor shall consult with the Department to finalize the sites for the study. For cost purposes, the Department assumes that 200 schools/sites will be recruited to participate in a two-arm study, of which half (100 schools) will receive training to implement the transition strategy. For a three-arm study, the Department assumes that an additional 100 schools/sites will need to be recruited and trained to implement a second transition strategy

(PWS Section E, p. 16 of solicitation).

Technical Evaluation Criteria Questions

20. Could ED please clarify the technical evaluation criteria in sections B and C on pages 95 and

96 of the RFP? They currently reference content expertise and corporate capabilities in

“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).”

21. Page 95 of 99 Evaluation Criteria - In the leadership team bullet near the bottom of the page, the following content does not seem to be relevant to this project: "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." Please clarify.

22. Page 96 of 99 Evaluation Criteria -In the relevant corporate experience bullet, the following content does not seem to be relevant to this project: "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" Please clarify.

Response: We appreciate the clarification questions concerning the Evaluation Criteria. The updated Evaluation Criteria are attached to the posting. Revised criteria are as follows:

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 -- has experience and skill in leading, managing, designing, and conducting all aspects of evaluations (preferably in education settings) that are similar to this procurement in content (e.g., special education and policy relevant to transition planning specifically; services and supports for transition from school to postsecondary education/training, employment, and independent living), methodology

(i.e., use of experimental design; descriptive), complexity (e.g., technical complexity, fidelity of implementation of an intervention, working within an existing federal program), national in scope, large sample sizes, and data collection modes (e.g., interviews, observations, surveys, collection of administrative data from districts and federal sources).

• 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 (preferably in education settings) that are similar to this procurement in content (e.g., special education and policy relevant to transition planning specifically; services and supports for transition from school to postsecondary education/training, employment, and independent living), methodology (i.e., use of experimental design; descriptive), complexity (e.g., technical complexity, fidelity of implementation of an intervention, working within an existing federal program), national in scope, large sample sizes, and data collection modes (e.g., interviews, observations, surveys, collection of administrative data from districts and federal sources).