FormSF30_ Amendment 0001.pdf

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

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER 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 NUMBER

IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

Table of Contents

SECTION J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

J.1 Evaluating Family emgagment Questions & Answers

J.2 Past Performance Attachment

J.3 PWS Family Engagement IDIQ and Task Order

J.4 Small Business Tool

J.5 Task Order Procedures

SECTION L INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.1 Instructions to Offerors

SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Technical Evaluation Criteria

PAGE 2 OF 73 91990020R00180001

SECTION J

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

J.1 Evaluating Family emgagment Questions & Answers

PAGE 3 OF 73 91990020R00180001

Responses to Questions About Draft RFP 91990020R0018 Evaluating Family Engagement

July 23, 2020

1. Given the pandemic, is the offeror required to submit hard copies of their response?

The offeror is not required to submit hard copies.

2. If an organization is a partner to one of the Statewide Family Engagement Centers, does that constitute a conflict of interest for the evaluation proposal?

It would constitute a conflict of interest if any organization is either a partner or technical assistance provider (whether as contractor or subcontractor to the SFEC Program) to one or more of the Statewide Family Engagement Centers. In such a case, the offeror would need to provide a Conflict of Interest Plan as part of its technical approach. That plan should detail how the offer will mitigate any "apparent" conflict of interest - organizational, personal, financial or otherwise

– and make a case for how their approach sufficiently addresses such conflicts during the performance of the eventual contract.

All offerors will be evaluated for the thoroughness, completeness, and effectiveness of their technical approach and the risk it presents to the Department.

3. Can the Department provide a list of current Department-funded programs and efforts to improve family engagement that would be considered part of this solicitation?

The Department prefers not to limit this solicitation to current Department-funded programs and efforts only, as it cannot predict what programs might emerge over the period of the IDIQ (i.e., through 2025). In addition, virtually all of the Department’s programs encourage family engagement in one form or other. However, a sample of current programs to improve family engagement is included in the PWS, including the Statewide Family Engagement Centers and the Parent Training and Information Centers (for parents of students with disabilities). Some other programs with family engagement components include Title I and Title VI (American Indian, , Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian education).

4. Will programs focused on special education be included in this solicitation?

As noted in the prior answer, at this time the Department is not ruling in or out a focus on other programs in additional task orders. Because of the wide potential scope of future tasks, the successful offeror will need to demonstrate the capacity to bring on expertise as needed.

5. What will the Department's role be in gaining cooperation of grantees to participate in evaluation activities under this solicitation? To what extent will the Department aid with recruiting grantees and other entities for tasks such as random assignment and study participation?

Under the Department’s rules and regulations, grantees are typically required to participate in federal evaluations involving interviews and administrative records collection. Therefore, for Task Order 001, the Department will communicate to grantees the importance of cooperating with the evaluation and that participation is required. For future task orders, the Department’s role will depend on the specific requirements of the task.

PAGE 4 OF 73 91990020R00180001

For impact studies, the Department provides support by communicating expectations and encouraging participation but cannot require it. The contractor, on the other hand, is responsible for identifying potential participants, communicating the benefits of participation, and providing appropriate incentives. Contractors should have prior experience and success with these recruitment activities.

6. What is the anticipated start date of the project?

The anticipated start date is October 1, 2020.

7. It appears that the Past Performance Evaluation form references a different RFP title and due date/time. Could the Department provide an updated Past Performance Evaluation form?

We observed that there is language in the current solicitation #91990020R0018 from a prior solicitation (page 79). Could the Department please provide updated instructions to reflect the current solicitation?

When is the Past Performance form due? Attachment A on page 79 (of the PDF) indicates the form was due on July 9, 2019.

The title and due date of the Past Performance form are in error. Please see revised Past Performance Evaluation Form in the Final RFP on this webpage for corrected title and due date.

8. Some of the staff and corporate experience qualifications listed on pages 111-112 (in the sections Quality of Staffing and Management Plan and Relevant Corporate Experience) do not seem directly relevant to this procurement. For example, “career and technical education programs and policy” are listed as an example as well as “extraction and use of the Department’s Federal Student Aid data and other federal agency data”, “matching with National Student Clearinghouse data” and “extraction and coding of districts’ or postsecondary institutions’ individual student records.” Could the Department confirm that offerors should demonstrate experience in skill in these areas? If not, could the Department provide updated areas in which offerors should demonstrate experience and skill?

Would IES please clarify the technical evaluation criteria for the quality of staffing and management plan (p. 111) and corporate experience (p. 112)? The criteria specified do not appear to be specific to family engagement.

Could ED please clarify the technical evaluation criteria in subsections B and C on pages 111 and 112 of the RFP? They currently reference content expertise and corporate capabilities in “career and technical education programs and policy), methodology (i.e., design and use of random assignment; survey and instrument design, descriptive analyses), complexity (e.g., technical complexity, potential for multiple evaluations to be conducted at the same time), scope (hundreds of school districts for the implementation study, potentially thousands of students for an effectiveness study), and data collection modes (e.g., extraction and use of the Department’s Federal Student Aid data and other federal agency data, matching with National Student Clearinghouse data, extraction and coding of districts’ or postsecondary institutions’ individual student records, and surveys).”

PAGE 5 OF 73 91990020R00180001

These qualifications are in error. Please see the revised sections “Quality of Staffing and Management Plan” and “Relevant Corporate Experience” in Task Order 001 in the Final RFP on this webpage.

9. Can the Department please clarify what type of contract (firm fixed price, Cost plus, T&M or other) T001 is?

The Department prefers a cost reimbursement contract for T001. However, if the offeror would like to propose and justify why it prefers a different type of contract they are encouraged to do so.

10. Can the Department specify the ceiling amount for each TO or the IDIQ altogether?

The maximum ordering ceiling for each individual order is $3 million. The IDIQ ceiling for all orders is $15 million.

11. The timeline listed for Task 3.1 (page 27) in the schedule of deliverables associated with Task Order 0001 does not align with the timeline indicated for the associated tasks in the IDIQ. When developing a budget for Task Order 0001, should the offeror assume the schedule of deliverables associated with the Task Order 0001 instead of the IDIQ?

Can the Department clarify whether subtask 3.1 (feasibility memo) in task order 0001 is an optional subtask?

The subtask number for the survey feasibility memo referenced in Task Order 001 is incorrect. It should be numbered 3.2, not 3.1, which aligns with the appropriate subtask description in the list of generic tasks and subtasks of the IDIQ.

This deliverable and the associated work leading up to it are optional; the Department may choose to include this work in Task Order 0001, in a later task order, or not to pursue this work.

Therefore, offerors should describe their approach to this subtask separately in their technical proposal and provide a separate budget for this subtask in the business proposal.

If the Department decides to fund the optional memo as part of Task Order 0001, the draft memo would be due 12 weeks after the COR assigns this subtask; the end of these 12 weeks would correspond to 15 months after award, not “12 weeks after award” as stated erroneously in the draft RFP. Please see the revised Task 3 and Schedule of Deliverables in Task Order 001 in the Final RFP on this webpage.

12. What is the security categorization level for Task Order 001?

As shown in the Security Clearance Spreadsheet in the ordering agreement, all Personnel Positions are classified as Medium Risk or “not applicable.” Therefore, the level for Task Order 001 is “Medium Risk.”

13. Will the contractor be required to submit a Privacy Impact Assessment?

PAGE 6 OF 73 91990020R00180001

The contractor will not be required to submit a Privacy Impact Assessment for Task Order 001.

However, they may be required to do so for future task orders depending on the requirements of the task.

14. The solicitation instructions to offerors indicate that the Task Order 0001 proposal can reference text in the IDIQ proposal. In the IDIQ proposal, can the offerors refer to text from the Task Order 0001 proposal?

Offerors should not refer ahead to text from the Task Order 001 proposal within the IDIQ (ordering agreement) proposal. The IDIQ is designed to describe generic tasks so referencing these to some extent in the Task Order 001 proposal can avoid unnecessary repetition. However, the Task Order 001 proposal should describe the specific tasks to meet the purposes of the task order; including specific language from TO001, therefore, would not be in keeping with the generic purpose of the IDIQ.

15. Page 22 of the document states: “The contractor shall only use Government IT equipment for purposes specifically tied to or authorized by the contract and in accordance with the Department’s policy.” Can the Department please confirm that we do not have to use Government IT equipment in fulfilling the provisions of this contract?

The contractor will not use Government IT equipment in fulfilling the contract.

16. Should our response to the PWS include options for virtual alternatives for in person events (e.g., meetings with ED, TWG meetings, interviews/focus) groups given current and anticipated travel restrictions and safety guidelines due to COVID 19?

This is a good question. While alternative proposals for such applicable subtasks would be appreciated, offerors who choose to do this must offer two proposals for such subtasks—one that addresses the specifications in the current PWS, and one that proposes options for virtual alternatives for in-person events. Since the Task Order performance period is estimated from October 2020 to September 2022, and it is possible in-person meetings will resume some time in 2021, the offeror must also propose costs that would allow for such an eventuality.

17. The Business Proposal instructions (page 107) state that the offeror must submit its cost price analyses of all subcontractor costs. Would the Department clarify what exactly the offeror will need to submit to satisfy this requirement?

For purposes of clarity, mirror breakdown of prime costs; itemize each task and subtask costs of subcontractor.

18. Can IES please clarify the small business goal? The stated goal on page 83 (of the PDF) is 31%;

however on page 109 (of the PDF) it is 29%.

The Small Business Goals are 16% for the Prime and 47% for the Sub.

19. The criteria for substantive small business participation indicate that the offeror should state “the percentage of work proposed to be performed by each small business concern” (p. 104). Does this

PAGE 7 OF 73 91990020R00180001

requirement pertain only to Task Order 0001? That is, because the IDIQ proposal does not require a specific budget, may we assume that it is not necessary to state the percentage of work to be performed by small businesses in the IDIQ section of the proposal?

Yes.

J.2 Past Performance Attachment

PAGE 8 OF 73 91990020R00180001

Attachment A-Past Performance Evaluation Form

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Contractor Name and Address (Identify Division)

1. Contract Number:

2. Type of Contract:

3. Contract Value (Current plus any unexercised options):

(Please correct the above as needed.)

4. Period of Performance (including any option periods):

5. Description of Requirement:

6. Ratings. Summarize contractor performance and circle or type in the number below that corresponds to the performance rating for each category. Please see the attachment, which explains the rating scale.

Quality:

Comments:

Problem Resolution:

Cost Control:

Timeliness:

Business Relations:

Customer Service:

7. Total score: ; Average:

PAGE 9 OF 73 91990020R00180001

U.S. Department of Education

Evaluated by:

Agency/Organization_____________________ Date ____________

(In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, the following information will not be released to the contractor.)

Name and Title ____________________________

Telephone number _________________________

Signature ______________________________

E-mail address __________________________

Please email this form to the following addresses:

E-mail to: michael.rivera@ed.gov and cc colin.alleyne@ed.gov

RFP: EVALUATING FAMILY

ENGAGEMENT

Forms are due by 2:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on August 13, 2020.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 3.104

Information entered on this form will be used in source selection decisions and is protected under subsection 3.104 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Do not disclose information entered on this form to the contractor or to any other person except as authorized by the Department of Education contracting officer.

Supplementary Questions

To assist the Department of Education contracting officer, we would greatly appreciate your taking the time to answer the following questions, if any, related to the contractor’s past performance: N/A

Contractor Performance Evaluation Instructions for Completing Contractor Performance Information Form

PAGE 10 OF 73 91990020R00180001

Based on the rating area elements presented below and the rating guidelines on the back of this sheet, please evaluate contractor performance in each of the rating areas. On the “Contractor Performance Information” form, circle (or type in the “Comments:” area) the rating from 0 to 4 that most closely matches your evaluation of the contractor’s performance. Please add written comments for each rating. If you wish, you may attach additional comments or information. We would also appreciate your answers to the specific questions, if any, on the back of the form.

Please return the form to the address indicated on the back of the form. Thank you for your time and your cooperation.

The Department of Education will use the information from this form to evaluate offerors competing for contract awards. We may release the information from this form to the contractor during negotiations or debriefings. If we release information from this form, we will not release your name to the contractor.

Elements within Each Rating Area

Quality of Product or Service

- Compliance with contract requirements

- Accuracy of reports

- Appropriateness of personnel

- Technical excellence

Problem Resolution

- Anticipates and avoids or mitigates problems

- Satisfactorily overcomes or resolves problems

- Prompt notification of problems

- Pro-active

- Effective contractor-recommended solutions

Cost Control

- Within budget

- Current, accurate and complete billings

- Costs properly allocated

- Unallowable costs not billed

- Relationship of negotiated costs to actual

- Cost efficiencies

Timeliness of Performance

- Meets interim milestones

- Reliable

- Stays on schedule despite problems

- Responsive to technical direction

- Completes work on time, including wrap-up and contract administration

- No liquidated damages assessed

Business Relations

- Effective management

- Use of performance-based management techniques

- Business-like concern for the customer's interests

- Effective management and selection of subcontractors

- Effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program

- Reasonable/cooperative behavior

- Effective use of technology in management and communication

- Flexible

- Minimal staff turnover

- Maintains high employee morale

- Resolves disagreements without being unnecessarily litigious.

Customer Service

- Understands and embraces service and program goals

- Team approach with the customer

- Satisfaction of end users with the contractor’s service

- Positive customer feedback

- Prompt responses

- Courteous interactions

- Effective escalations and referrals

- Initiative and proactive improvements

- Creative service strategies

PAGE 11 OF 73 91990020R00180001

Rating Guidelines

Quality of Product or Service

0 - Unsatisfactory Nonconformance jeopardizes the achievement of contract goals; default.

1 - Poor Nonconformance requires major agency intervention to ensure achievement of contract goals; show cause or cure notices.

2 - Fair Quality meets specifications in most cases, however, some agency intervention required to ensure achievement of contract requirements.

3 - Good Quality meets specifications in all cases.

4 - Excellent Quality exceeds specifications in some cases.

Problem Resolution

0 - Unsatisfactory Inadequately resolved problems jeopardize contract goals.

1 - Poor Significant agency intervention required to resolve problems jeopardizing contract goals.

2 - Fair Some agency intervention required to resolve problems jeopardizing contract goals.

3 - Good Successfully overcomes or resolves all problems and achieves contract goals with minimal agency intervention.

4 - Excellent Anticipates and avoids most problems and successfully overcomes all unforeseen problems.

Cost Control

0 - Unsatisfactory Cost increases jeopardize achievement of contract goals; or billings routinely include unallowable costs.

1 - Poor Significant cost increases; or some inaccurate billings including some with unallowable costs.

2 - Fair Minor cost increases; or some inaccurate billings, but a minimal (1-2) number with unallowable costs.

3 - Good Contractor performed within costs; but some late billings, none with unallowable costs.

4 - Excellent Costs were less than the amount cited in the contract; and billings accurate and timely.

Timeliness of Performance 0 - Unsatisfactory Delays jeopardize the achievement of contract goals.

1 - Poor Other significant delays.

2 - Fair Minor delays.

3 - Good All deliverables on time.

4 - Excellent All deliverables on time with some ahead of schedule; or stays on schedule despite unforeseen circumstances.

Business Relations

0 - Unsatisfactory Unethical or illegal business practices.

1 - Poor Business practices are not attuned to customer support.

2 - Fair Business practices are somewhat attuned to customer support.

3 - Good Business practices focus on customer support.

PAGE 12 OF 73 91990020R00180001

4 - Excellent

Customer Service

Highly effective, proactive business practices focused on customer support.

0 - Unsatisfactory Response to service requests is routinely late, ineffective, or rude; customers express frustration or anger about many interactions; complaints are unresolved; contractor seems unaware of service issues.

1 - Poor Response to service requests is often late, ineffective or rude; some complaints are resolved.

2 -Fair Response to service requests is uneven in timing or effectiveness; customer interactions are tenuous; contractor is trying hard and understands service issues.

3 - Good Response to service requests is timely, effective and courteous; customers express positive feedback; delivery of service is smooth and organized; collects customer feedback; customer problems are resolved well.

4 - Excellent Response to service requests is timely, effective and courteous; the contractor is proactive in building good relations with customers, proposing new service strategies, analyzing and reporting on service loads and collecting and using customer feedback.

J.3 PWS Family Engagement IDIQ and Task Order

PAGE 13 OF 73 91990020R00180001

SECTION J

DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Performance Work Statement

EVALUATING FAMILY ENGAGEMENT

(91990020R0018)

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) requires at least one contractor to assist IES in conducting evaluations of the Department’s efforts to improve families’ engagement in education. Family engagement is central to the Department’s mission, as signaled by the 2018-22 Strategic Plan1, introduction of new grant programs, and new priorities for existing programs.

This Indefinite Delivery-Indefinite Quantity contract (IDIQ) is intended to help IES efficiently describe the implementation of Department-funded programs and examine the effectiveness of strategies to improve them. By awarding a contract to at least one contractor with appropriate content knowledge, data collection experience, and methodological expertise to undertake all of the tasks described below, IES expects to maximize the benefits of what can be learned in a cost-effective manner. This will occur through developing and fielding surveys that gather consistent information across programs, identifying common engagement strategies, and further linking across studies to reduce the time and costs that would otherwise be involved in starting up individual contracts for evaluation of each program separately.

The IDIQ shall have an ordering period of 60 months, which will include a 12month base period and four 12 month option periods. All task orders shall begin within the 12- month ordering period but may have a duration that extends for up to 24 months beyond the end of the ordering period. Task orders may be issued as fixed price, Time and Materials, or cost reimbursement contracts. Each task order will include one or more tasks related to carrying out a specific evaluation or an aspect of an evaluation. The scope of each task order will depend on IES’ needs, including which activities are appropriate for each desired evaluation. For example, some task orders may include only design work and some task orders will include external data collection activities while others will not.

1 Objective 1.1: “Increase high-quality educational options and empower students and parents to choose an education that meets their needs”: https://www2.the Department .gov/about/reports/strat/plan2018-22/strategic-plan.pdf, PAGE 14 OF 73 91990020R00180001

II. THE EVALUATIONS

A. Legislative Authority

The Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 established IES as the unit within the Department to evaluate federal education programs and practices.

B. Background

Family engagement covers many kinds of family interaction with the education system and is a strong predictor of children’s success in school and beyond.2 According to a widely cited typology of family engagement3, the term can mean parenting, communicating, supporting school, learning at home, decision-making, and collaborating with the community. Prior research has linked engagement to higher student grade-point averages and scores on standardized tests;

enrollment in more challenging academic programs; passing more classes and earning more credits; better attendance; improved behavior at home and at school; and better social skills and adaptation to school.4 However, few studies have measured the effectiveness of specific engagement strategies using rigorous methods.

The Department has a strong interest in helping its family engagement programs improve and expand. While different programs -- e.g., Statewide Family Engagement Centers, Parent Training and Information Centers for families of students with disabilities -- share a focus on family engagement, they emphasize different approaches. Some programs prioritize dissemination of information meant to engage families in educational choice and others information or training related to education-related rights. Some programs emphasize building statewide capacity for promoting family engagement and others serve parents directly.

Therefore, it would be useful to better understand how the different programs carry out their work, the challenges faced by grantees, and the needs for rigorous and up-to-date evidence regarding effective strategies.

Task 1—Meetings with the Department

1.1 Initial Meeting. The contractor’s project director and two other key project staff members shall meet with the Contracting Officer (CO) and/or Contracting Specialist (CS), the IES Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and other appropriate Department staff within 10 business days after the effective date of the contract award or award of a task order to discuss details regarding the tasks, scheduling activities, and other issues related to the

2 Van Voorhies, F.L., Maier, M. F., Epstein, J. l., and Lloyd, C.M. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: a focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills.

New York: MDRC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED545474.pdf 3 Epstein, J. (2015) in REL Mid-Atlantic Educator Effectiveness Webinar Series. Engaging families in partnership programs to promote student success. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562603.pdf .

4 Henderson, A. T., and Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and community connections on student achievement. Austin: SEDL National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools. https://www.sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf .

PAGE 15 OF 73 91990020R00180001

contract or a particular task order. The meeting will be held in the Department’s office in Washington, DC. The contractor shall come prepared to identify any areas of concern and to suggest ways of responding to them. Within two weeks following the meeting, the contractor shall prepare a memo summarizing the key issues and concerns raised at the meeting, and how each shall be addressed as part of the contract.

1.2 Additional Meeting. The contractor shall meet with the COR in Washington, DC to discuss the progress of contract activities, including all current task orders, and any issues or anticipated problems and proposed solutions to those problems. Within two weeks following the meeting, the contractor shall prepare a memo summarizing the key issues and concerns raised at the meeting, and how each shall be addressed as part of the contract.

Deliverable: Memo summarizing meetings with the COR

Task 2—Technical Working Group (TWG)

2.1 Establish TWG. The role of the TWG will be to advise the contractor on an individual task order or collection of task orders that address a similar topic. Under this contract there may be a single TWG or multiple TWGs, depending on IES’ needs. Each TWG panel shall be comprised of up to eight individuals that have expertise in family engagement strategies and in the research methodologies relevant to the task order(s). The contractor shall evaluate the potential for conflicts of interest by assessing whether any individual considered for inclusion on the TWG has a bias or financial interest in the outcome of the study or study tasks. The contractor shall have TWG members complete conflict of interest forms before appointment to the TWG.

The contractor shall submit a list of potential TWG members to be reviewed and approved by the COR within eight weeks of task order award. The contractor shall contact each approved member and submit letters of commitment and documentation of consulting rates to the COR four weeks after COR approval of the TWG list.

2.2 Convene In-person TWG Meeting: The first meeting of a TWG shall be held in person in

Washington, DC within eight months of task award. The first TWG meeting will be an opportunity both for the panel members and the contractor team to get to know each other and for discussion of the design of the study or study tasks specified in the task order.

Subsequent meetings of a TWG can be in-person or virtual (see Task 2.3). Each in-person meeting will take place in Department facilities in Washington, DC. The contractor shall cover the travel, per diem, and honorarium expenses of the TWG members.

Four weeks prior to the meeting, the contractor shall provide to the COR a draft agenda, a draft slide deck, and a plan for a guided discussion of key topics and issues. Within two

PAGE 16 OF 73 91990020R00180001

weeks after the meeting, the contractor shall submit a brief but detailed summary of the key observations and recommendations provided by TWG members, along with the contractor’s proposed actions. The contractor shall not make any significant changes in the task order activities based solely upon the recommendation of TWG members without the written approval of the COR and CO.

2.3 Convene Virtual TWG Meeting. The contractor shall convene a 3-4-hour web-based meeting of a TWG. The date for the meeting shall be set in consultation with the COR. Four weeks prior to the meeting, the contractor shall provide the COR a draft agenda, a draft slide deck, and a plan for a guided discussion of key topics and issues. Within two weeks after the meeting, the contractor shall submit a brief but detailed summary of the key observations and recommendations provided by TWG members, along with the contractor’s proposed actions.

The contractor shall not make any significant changes in the task order activities based solely upon the recommendation of TWG members without the written approval of the COR and

CO.

Deliverable: List of potential TWG members

Letters of commitment and consulting rates Draft meeting materials Summaries of meetings

Task 3— Feasibility and Design

The contractor shall undertake activities to assist IES in determining the key parameters of an implementation or impact study that might be carried out under one or more task orders.

3.1 Feasibility Assessment for Effectiveness Studies. In consultation with the COR, the contractor shall identify or support development of one or more policy-relevant family engagement strategies. The contractor shall then assess the feasibility of examining the/those strategies through a random assignment or regression discontinuity design. These strategies shall be services or approaches to family engagement that are allowable under and potentially, widely used in, one or more of the studied grant programs and have some suggestive evidence of effectiveness. To conduct the feasibility assessment, the contractor may conduct telephone interviews with state or local grant coordinators as appropriate to obtain information about the prevalence of a strategy of interest and how it is implemented. If relevant, the contractor shall conduct telephone interviews with parents or other target recipients of the family engagement strategy to gather information on how the strategy is received and perceived. The contractor shall submit a list of proposed individuals for the interviews and a list of the questions that these individuals would be asked to the COR no more than 8 weeks after task order award. Once approved, the contractor shall carry out the interviews. As necessary, the contractor shall modify or develop variants of the strategy for

PAGE 17 OF 73 91990020R00180001

eventual testing. Within 16 weeks of task order award, the contractor shall prepare a memo up to 10 pages long summarizing the design options and the contractor’s recommendations

3.2 Survey Sample Design. As needed, the contractor shall assist the Department in determining design options for one or more surveys with representative or opportunistic samples. In consultation with the COR, the contractor shall identify feasible and policy relevant stratification approaches and the number of local school districts, trainers, teachers, service providers, families, or other type of respondent needed to fulfill the objective of the survey, as specified by the COR. Within 12 weeks of being assigned this task by the COR, the contractor shall prepare a memo up to 10 pages long summarizing the sample design options and the contractor’s recommendations.

3.3 Interview/Focus Group Sample Design. As needed to gain more in-depth descriptive data about how and why grantee projects were developed, the kinds of services offered, and families’ needs, the contractor shall assist the Department in determining design options for one or more sets of interviews or focus groups. In consultation with the COR, the contractor shall identify feasible and policy relevant purposive sampling or opportunistic approaches and the numbers of grant coordinators, SEAs, tribes, grant partners, subgrantees, contractors and/or recipients of program services including families needed to fulfill the objective of the interview, as specified by the COR. Interviews shall consist of pre-specified response categories that can be tabulated, as well as of probes for capturing idiosyncratic elaborations or examples. Within 12 weeks of being assigned this task by the COR, the contractor shall prepare a memo up to 10 pages long summarizing the sample design options and the contractor’s recommendations.

3.4 Study Design Plan. The contractor shall develop a data collection plan for addressing the research questions for one or more studies, as specified by the COR. A plan shall describe the information topics, domains, and constructs that are necessary to achieve the objectives of the study and how that information might be obtained and analyzed. It shall also clearly indicate whether the study is primarily to be an implementation or effectiveness study, and whether, if an implementation study, it is to be primarily quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Within 14 weeks of being assigned the task by the COR, the contractor shall submit a draft version of the plan called for. The COR will review and provide comments on the draft plan within 2 weeks. Within 4 weeks after receiving COR comments, the contractor shall make revisions and submit a final version of the plan that could be included in an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Forms Clearance package.

3.5 Data Collection Instruments. As needed, the contractor shall develop study intake forms, surveys, questionnaires to gather feedback on parent engagement strategies, interview protocols, data extraction forms or instructions, outreach or recruitment letters, or other instruments, as specified by the COR, to be used in conducting a study under one or more task orders in this contract. These instruments shall minimize burden on respondents while

PAGE 18 OF 73 91990020R00180001

ensuring that key data items are collected. Within 4 weeks of the COR approving the study plan under which data shall be collected, the contractor shall submit a draft version of the instruments called for. The COR will review and provide comments on the draft instruments within 2 weeks. The contractor shall make revisions and submit a final version ready for pre-testing and/or inclusion in an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Forms Clearance package within 4 weeks after receiving COR comments.

3.6 Selection of Service Provider. In consultation with the COR, the contractor shall prepare a request for proposals (RFP) from providers that provide parent engagement services or trainings. The RFP shall include the timelines for proposals, the specific services that the provider will be required to provide, and the criteria by which the proposals shall be evaluated. The RFP shall also specify the maximum amount of funding that will be available to support the provider’s work. The contractor shall propose an expert panel of three persons to help review RFPs and advise on the selection of a provider. Once approved by the COR, the contractor shall contact each proposed member and obtain commitment to serve on the provider selection panel. The contractor shall have each member of the expert panel review the provider proposals and write a brief review of each proposal, including each provider’s strengths and weaknesses. The contractor shall provide the reviews of these experts to the COR within 2 weeks after the provider proposal submission date. Expert panel members will participate in a one- or two-day meeting, organized by the contractor, with up to four providers in which each provider makes a short presentation of their services and responds to questions from expert panel members.

Deliverable: Feasibility assessment memo

Survey sample design options memo Interview sample design options memo Draft study plan Final study plan Draft instruments Revised instruments Proposed expert panel Summary of service provider strengths and weaknesses

Task 4—Systematic Evidence Review

The contractor shall conduct an evidence review following the procedures and standards used by the WWC, including the use of WWC-certified study reviewers. This shall include determining policy-relevant categories of family engagement strategies to examine; developing a review protocol, searching the literature to identify relevant studies; screening in eligible studies; coding eligible studies; assessing the methodological quality of each eligible study; analyzing the results

PAGE 19 OF 73 91990020R00180001

of eligible studies that meet WWC standards or meet standards with reservations; and synthesizing the results across studies.

The evidence report that is the culmination of this task shall address the question of what is known about the effectiveness of family engagement strategies – either in one topic area or many, as specified by the COR -- in improving key outcomes. The report shall include a description of the methodology of the review and the state of the literature on program strategies (number of studies identified in the scan for particular outcome measures, the number that meet WWC evidence standards). Most importantly, the report shall summarize the evidence from the studies meeting WWC standards and meeting WWC standards with reservations and identify gaps in the literature.

4.1 Create an Evidence Review Plan. Prior to conducting the review, the contractor shall submit a proposed plan for conducting the evidence review. The evidence review plan shall include parameters for the systematic evidence review, such as databases and other sources that the contractor will consult, search terms the contractor will use, and any limitations that will be imposed (e.g. in terms of publication years). The evidence review plan shall also include the contractor’s plans for systematically compiling the evidence base in an evidence report (e.g., report outline, proposed tables shells, strategies, summary sheets, appendices).

The contractor shall submit the draft evidence review plan to the COR on a timetable specified in the task order. The COR will provide comments on the draft evidence review plan within two weeks. The contractor shall make revisions and submit a final evidence review plan to the COR.

4.2 Conduct the Review. Using the final evidence review plan, the contractor shall conduct the review and submit a draft evidence review report. The report length is expected to be no more than 15 pages, with information on the technical aspects of the review and full documentation of the strategies, data, analytic methods, and results of studies included in appendices. The contractor shall also include a one-page summary of the evidence report that contains enough information to form the basis for a press release.

The COR will review the draft report within three weeks. The contractor shall incorporate revisions to address COR comments and submit a revised report fully responsive to COR comments within four weeks after receiving COR comments. The COR will submit the revised evidence review report to IES’ Standards and Review Office (SRO) for review. The COR will provide comments from peer review to the contractor within approximately two months. The contractor shall be responsive to SRO’s comments and make revisions to the report until it clears SRO. The contractor shall provide a web-ready (i.e. 508-compliant), final report to the COR within two weeks after the report is cleared by SRO.

Deliverables: Draft evidence review plan

Final evidence review plan

PAGE 20 OF 73 91990020R00180001

Draft evidence review report Revised evidence review report Final evidence review report, web-ready

Task 5 – Prepare OMB Forms Clearance Packages and Document Institutional Review Board Approval

The contractor shall prepare a forms-clearance package to receive approval from OMB for this effort. The contractor shall ensure that the clearance package follows the required OMB format, justifying the necessity for collecting data and comprehensively responding to each required item in the instructions, including: (1) the objectives of the study or collection of studies, (2) the research questions, (3) a crosswalk between the research questions and the information to be collected, (4) instructions to study participants, (5) description of and justification for incentives,

(6) discussion of questions likely to be deemed “sensitive” by OMB, (7) limitations of the study(ies) and their potential use for policy decisions, and (8) table shells indicating how data will be tabulated and analyzed.

All forms clearance packages shall be brief, clear, and well written. Each package shall include the forms and instructions that will be used to obtain data or recruit respondents. Within 6 weeks of having a study design plan approved by the COR, the contractor shall submit a draft OMB package. The COR shall review and provide comments within two weeks and the contractor shall have two weeks after receiving comments from the COR to submit the final OMB clearance package. The COR will then submit the package to begin the OMB approval process.

During the initial 60-day public comment period, the contractor shall pretest the data collection forms so that burden information can be updated in the final package. The contractor shall be prepared to make up to two revisions to forms and justification as required during the approval process.

The contractor shall obtain approval from its Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the evaluations conducted under any task order. The effort to obtain initial approval and to update approval as new task orders are issued should be conducted in conjunction with OMB clearance package efforts.

Deliverables: Draft forms clearance package

Final forms clearance package

Task 6 – Outreach and Recruitment

The contractor shall develop and implement a strategy for identifying and recruiting participants (e.g., grant coordinators, grantee partners, SEAs, tribes, districts, curriculum developers, service providers/contractors, parents, teachers, students or others) to meet the sample size or

PAGE 21 OF 73 91990020R00180001

comprehensiveness requirements specified in a task order. As part of the recruitment process, the contractor shall prepare notification letters and information packets for the prospective study participants. The notification packet shall include a non-technical brochure describing the study that is suitable for distribution to a broad audience of policy makers and educators. The contractor shall include in the letters and information packets general information on the study as well as specific information on the importance of the study, its purposes, products, timelines, and the expected benefits to be derived from participation in the study. Recruitment may occur through mailings, telephone calls, in-person visits, or discussion with potential participants at key conferences or meetings, as specified in the task order. If specified by the COR, recruitment may be conducted by a third-party that maintains opportunistic sets of survey respondents—e.g., standing panels of parents -- for the purpose of obtaining quick turn-around information on a key topic.

The contractor shall submit an outreach and/or recruitment plan, draft letters, and all other notification materials to the COR for review. Once approved by the COR, the contractor shall send the notification materials to potential participants and execute the recruitment plan. The contractor shall consult with the COR to finalize the list of participants for the study, and subsequently submit documentation of memoranda of understanding or other necessary participation agreements to the COR.

As part of the recruitment process, the contractor shall comply with: The Privacy Act of 1974, P.L. 93-579, 5 USC 552 a; the “Buckley Amendment,” Family Educational and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 USC 1232 g; The Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 522; and related regulations, including but not limited to: 41 CFR Part 1-1 and 45 CFR Part 5b and, as appropriate, the Federal common rule or the Department’s final regulations on the protection of human research participants.

During recruitment, the contractor shall submit to the COR progress reports on a biweekly basis.

Deliverables: Recruitment plan/materials

Progress reports on recruitment

Task 7— Intake, Random Assignment, and Monitoring for Effectiveness Studies

The contractor may need to set up a process for enrolling participants into a study (“intake,” including obtaining consent), for random assignment, and for monitoring implementation of a strategy.

7.1 Intake and Random Assignment. The contractor shall carry out intake at one or more specific points in time – e.g., at the beginning of each semester or of a school year -- or on a rolling basis over an extended period. Random assignment may be of families, students, PAGE 22 OF 73 91990020R00180001 teachers/classrooms, schools, or other units depending on the evaluation design and will be specified in the task order. Random assignment may be conducted by the contractor or in the field (at schools or other sites) to accommodate rolling intake. The contractor shall develop protocols and procedures to conduct intake and random assignment to be minimally disruptive to participants and program staff who may be involved in intake. During study intake and random assignment periods, the contractor shall provide biweekly progress updates to the

COR.

7.2 Monitoring Implementation of Strategy. The contractor shall develop processes and procedures to support and monitor implementation of the strategy. During implementation, the contractor shall follow the COR approved processes and procedures to support high quality implementation.