Responses_to_Questions.pdf

Questions for the Feasibility and Conduct of An Impact Evaluation of Teacher Residency Programs or Professional Development for Classroom Teachers Solicitation 91990019R0033

1. Under which task should offerors budget and discuss random assignment for Study B?

ANSWER: Please include a Task 11B.1 to discuss plans in the technical proposal for conducting the random assignment activities for Study B. Analogously, include a Task 11B.1 for conducting random assignment for Study B in the business proposal. Consistent with the instructions to offerors, the offeror shall assume teachers will be randomly assigned to the PD or not.

2. Under which task should offerors budget and discuss development of monitoring protocols for Study B? Task 11B

ANSWER: Please include the development monitoring activities or tools in Task 11B. Please include the cost of collecting this information in Task 11B as well. NOTE: the offeror may use staff working on implementation support activities to collect monitoring data for efficiency, if the offeror justifies how such data will be credible.

3. Page 14 of the RFP says that the contractor should conduct 2 observations at the beginning and 2 observations at the end of each data collection year, for a total of 4 observations per teacher.

The text under Task 11B on page 25 says that the contractor should conduct 3 observations at the beginning and 3 at the end of the data collection year for Study B. Which number should offerors assume?

ANSWER: For both Study A and B, please include 4 observations per teacher. For Study A there are two cohorts of teachers. Please include 2 observations at the beginning of the school year and 2 observations at the end of the school year, for each cohort. For Study B, there is one year of data collection. Please include 2 observations at the beginning of the school year and 2 observations at the end of the school year, for all teachers in the study sample.

4. Could ED clarify the distinction between the fall 2021 classroom observations to be included in Task 8 (for either Study A or B), and those to be included in Task 11B for Study B?

ANSWER: Task 11B adds monitoring data collection. Inclusion of the observations is a mistake in the PWS, since it is already included in Task 8. Please only include the monitoring data collection activities in the Task 11B budget.

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

ANSWER: Per the instructions to offerors, studies used to justify corporate experience should be listed in the proposal (and are included in the 90-page limit). The offeror must also include a list of contracts with NCEE with information spelled out in the instructions to offerors. The list of contracts with NCEE may be included in the appendix and need not be included in the 90-page limit.

6. Does IES have parameters for the incentive amount we can offer to schools for participating in Study A? For Study B?

ANSWER: Please provide justification and incentive amounts that the offerer proposes as necessary to obtain study sample. Please clearly indicate the incentive payments in the business proposal.

7. In section F (Evaluation Approach) of the PWS, page 5, the second to last bullet specifies that for both Study A and Study B, the contractor shall collect 4 observations of instruction per teacher during the data collection year(s). In Task 11B, page 16, the first bullet specifies that for Study B the contractor shall collect 6 observations of instruction per impact study teacher during the data collection year. Can IES clarify whether there should be 4 or 6 total observations per teacher in Study B?

ANSWER: See the answer to question #4 above. This is a mistake in the PWS. Please include a total of 4 observations per teacher.

8. The Past Performance requirement describes two lists of required project details: one containing all projects cited in the proposal as relevant corporate and staff experience, and another containing all contracts with NCEE within the past 5 years. Can IES please confirm that both lists may be included as tables in the appendices and will not count toward the page limit?

ANSWER: See the answer to question #5 above. Please include the list of studies that are used to justify corporate experience in the 90-page limit part of the proposal. The list of studies conducted with NCEE may be included in the appendix (not counted in the 90-page limit.