Offeror Questions and Answers.pdf

Question No. Question Category Question Answers

1 Business Proposal For any subtask that is labeled "not required" and cannot be described in the proposal narrative, should offerors include those subtasks in the budget?

If the offeror intends to propose work under the "not required" Subtasks during the contract period, that work should be included in the budget and Business Proposal. This work can be included in the budget at the subtask level (no need to budget at the project level). If no work is planned, then it does not need to be included in the budget.

2 Business Proposal How should offerors budget tasks that are not required if they don’t have any potential projects for those tasks in the first 18 months?

If the offeror intends to propose work under the "not required" Subtasks during the contract period, that work should be included in the budget and Business Proposal. This work can be included in the budget at the subtask level (no need to budget at the project level). If no work is planned, then it does not need to be included in the budget.

3 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm that vendors who choose not to respond to optional subtasks in the Technical Plan do not have to budget for those subtasks in the Business Proposal?

If the offeror intends to propose work under the "not required" Subtasks during the contract period, that work should be included in the budget and Business Proposal. This work can be included in the budget at the subtask level (no need to budget at the project level). If no work is planned, then it does not need to be included in the budget.

4 Instructions - Security On page 146 of 184 in the PDF, “Security Clearance Risk Levels by Position” is the same level header as other required sections of the technical proposal. However, it is not clear what is required in the narrative for this section. Can IES please clarify its expectations for the narrative for this section of the technical proposal?

For the “Security Clearance Risk Levels by Position” section of the proposal, please provide the names of proposed staff, the position title for each person, and the status of any current security clearance held. See Appendix F for the list of position titles to be used, along with descriptions and security risk levels for each.

5 Instructions - Security What documentation is required for the security clearance appendix? Should responses simply list a name for each corresponding job title?

For the “Security Clearance Risk Levels by Position” section of the proposal, please provide the names of proposed staff, the position title for each person, and the status of any current security clearance held. See Appendix F for the list of position titles to be used, along with descriptions and security risk levels for each.

6 Instructions - Security Can IES confirm if researchers who are accessing deidentified teacher level data need to have a moderate security clearance?

Yes, any staff with access to individual-level data, even if it is deidentified, will need to have a Moderate level security clearance.

7 Instructions - Toolkit Is it acceptable to compensate one or more practitioners at the partner institution who is working collaboratively on the toolkit development?

RELs may propose providing incentives to partners who are involved in the toolkit development. Incentives will have to be approved by IES.

8 Instructions - Toolkit The RFP indicates that the RELs "must evaluate the efficacy and implementation fidelity of the finished toolkit’s Professional Development Resources..." Efficacy studies often include some level of support for implementation of the intended intervention (in order to create a valid test of the intervention itself). As part of the toolkit evaluation, are the RELs allowed to provide any supports for the implementation of the toolkit's professional development resources? If so, must these supports be provided by individuals/entities that are not involved in conducting the evaluation itself?

The PWS and instructions have been revised to not require a formal evaluation of implementation "fidelity," although the efficacy study should include measures of and an assessment of how the toolkit was implemented during the study. As part of the toolkit evaluation, RELs will be allowed to provide implementation supports. These supports must be provided by individuals that are not involved in conducting the evaluation itself.

9 Instructions - Toolkit RELs must revise and resubmit their toolkit proposals at the outset of the REL Contract. Page 47 of the PWS indicates that the Toolkit Proposal will be NOT be reviewed by RPR, but will be reviewed by the "COR, the Associate Commissioner, and Commissioner." The RFP indicates 8 months for the Phase I review of research projects (which will include COR, RPR, Associate Commissioner, and Commissioner review) should take an estimated 8 months to complete.

How long should offerors assume for the IES' review of the Toolkit Proposal?

Offerors can assume that IES review of Toolkit proposals will take approximately 4 months.

10 Instructions - Toolkit Can Toolkit development activities begin while the Toolkit Development Proposal is under review with the COR, Associate Commissioner, and commissioner?

No, Toolkit development cannot begin until the Toolkit proposal is approved.

11 Instructions - Toolkit May usability testing of the Toolkit begin prior to the approval of the Toolkit by the COR, RPR, the Associate Commissioner, and Commissioner?

Yes. Usability testing must occur during the development of the toolkit and before the toolkit is submitted to IES for review by the COR, RPR, the Associate Commissioner and the Commissioner. The PWS states that the "RELs must formatively evaluate the usability of the tool with its intended audience during development." It also states that "The formative evaluation is a component of the toolkit development phase under Subtask 5.2."

12 Instructions - Toolkit Figure E.2 refers to the "Updated IES Review Process for Research Reports and Products." The footnote indicates a timeline of 8 months to completion of RPR review and 11 months for publication on the IES Website. What timeline should offerors assume for IES review of the Toolkit?

Offerors may assume that a draft Toolkit will take approximately 12 months to complete the review process and be approved. Toolkits that are very lengthy or include many components may take more time.

13 Task 5 When REL staff conduct data collection under task 5, is it permissible to provide compensation for participating schools, districts, and/or individuals?

RELs may propose providing incentives to partners who are involved in the toolkit development. Incentives will have to be approved by IES.

14 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm that the cover sheet may contain a second page that includes any restricted data information in accordance with FAR Clause 52.215-1 if an offeror does not wish to include this information as a disclaimer directly on the cover sheet?

The Department confirms that the cover sheet may contain a second page that will not count towards the page count.

15 Business Proposal The second paragraph of Cost Information concludes by stating that "[s]imilar business information shall also be submitted for subcontractors." Similarly, the Subcontractor Cost(s) section states that offerors must provide "cost analyses of all subcontractors...." For FFP and T&M subcontractors, will a price analysis be acceptable (as opposed to a cost analysis)?

The contract type for this procurement is Cost-Plus Fixed Fee. However, a price analysis will be acceptable for FFP and T&M subcontractors. Offerors must submit its cost analyses of all subcontractors proposed whose costs exceed the threshold for certified cost or pricing data, as applicable.

16 Business Proposal Would the Government please clarify the required presentation for the budget for the 6-month extension, as it seems to differ from that for the 5-year contract period?

Please price out/present the budget for the 6-month extension the same as the 5-year contract period providing labor hours and using Year 5 labor rates in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Additionally, please include a statement that the prevailing rates of the active period of performance shall remain in effect for the duration of any extension, should FAR 52.217-8 be exercised.

17 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm offeror should only propose hours for a possible 6-month extension, but not price out the 6-month extension?

Please price out/present the budget for the 6-month extension the same as the 5-year contract period providing labor hours and using Year 5 labor rates in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Additionally, please include a statement that the prevailing rates of the active period of performance shall remain in effect for the duration of any extension, should FAR 52.217-8 be exercised.

18 Business Proposal The bottom of page 151 states, “Labor hours shall be proposed for the development of costs, in the event that it becomes necessary to extend the period of performance for up to 6 months beyond the stated period of performance, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services. Labor hours information may be submitted in chart form.”

Please confirm and advise on the following:

(1) Whether contractors are to propose the hours to (a) develop a proposal for a 6-month extension, or (b) carry contract performance for an additional 6 months.

(2) Whether contractors are to propose a) only the number of labors hours, or b) the number of labor hours and associated cost estimate.

(3) The level of detail required (e.g. total hours vs hours by staff).

Please price out/present the budget for the 6-month extension the same as the 5-year contract period providing labor hours and using Year 5 labor rates in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Additionally, please include a statement that the prevailing rates of the active period of performance shall remain in effect for the duration of any extension, should FAR 52.217-8 be exercised.

19 Business Proposal Elsewhere in the solicitation, IES makes a distinction between consultants and subcontractors. However, may consultants (and consulting firms) be included in the small business subcontracting plan?

Yes

20 Business Proposal Section L.4 of the RFP (p. 125) includes 52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (FEB 1993) by reference, which requires "As a part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract." However, this requirement is not mentioned in the specific Instructions to Offerors (RFP pp. 129-154). (a) Please confirm if this plan is required to be included in the offerors proposal and, if so, into which volume of the proposal it should be incorporated. For example, is this information to incorporated as part of the labor rate information requested in Volume II (p. 151)? (b) if the plan is required and ED has a preferred format or template, please provide a copy.

As long as your labor rate information included in Volume II sufficiently addresses the requirements under FAR 52.222-46 and reflects compliance, no separate plan is required.

21 Business Proposal On p. 151, the RFP states "Offerors shall submit proposals with fully loaded labor rates. Additionally, offerors must submit data that shows how the fully loaded rates are developed (e.g., base rate and any additional costs that comprise the loaded rate). Offerors are permitted to propose discounted rates to improve the competitiveness of their proposal, and are not required to use their General Services Administration (GSA) rates. The labor mix and labor categories proposed must be consistent with the personnel proposed in the technical proposal." (a) As this is a CPFF contract, please confirm that "fully loaded labor rates" and "labor categories" in this context refers to the unique build-up of burdened rates from the direct labor cost of each proposed person and is not intended to establish fixed labor rates and/or labor categories (as would be the case in a Time & Materials contract) that would apply to as-yet named personnel who might work on the contract in the future. (b) As the RFP does not contain any defined "labor categories," only references to 12 key and named personnel (see, for example pp.

141-145), please confirm that "labor categories" here should be understood to refer to key/named/other personnel proposed.

Offerors shall submit proposals utilizing the provided Budget Template and in accordance with the Budget Template.

22 Business Proposal If ED has a preferred/required form of small business subcontracting plan to be utilized by offerors, please provide a copy.

Yes, template to be used will be provided with the posting of the revised RFP.

23 Business Proposal Given that the Department anticipates awarding a Cost Plus Fixed Fee Type (CPFF) contract, our organization will build its cost proposal using base/unloaded rates, not fully loaded rates. Will this be acceptable by the Department?

Please see updated instructions to offerors and use the Budget Template provided.

24 Business Proposal RFP page 127 states that the contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). However, the Labor Rates section on page 151 requests that “Offerors shall submit proposals with fully loaded labor rates. Additionally, offerors must submit data that shows how the fully loaded rates are developed…”. Please confirm whether submitting a CPFF-type budget, with line items for Indirect Rates and Fee, is a sufficient level of detail, and no further detail is required.

Please see updated instructions to offerors and use the Budget Template provided.

25 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm that you require fully burdened rates for this CPFF proposal?

Please see updated instructions to offerors and use the Budget Template provided.

26 Business Proposal The instructions state that “Offerors shall submit proposals with fully loaded labor rates. Additionally, offerors must submit data that shows how the fully loaded rates are developed.” Since the contract type for this proposal is CPFF, please confirm bidders should submit budgets presenting unloaded labor rates and separate line items for proposed indirect costs and fee rather than providing fully loaded labor rates.

Please see updated instructions to offerors and use the Budget Template provided.

27 Business Proposal The Business Proposal instructions state to include a chart of labor hours for a possible 6-month extension. Can the Department confirm the instruction to only include labor hours, or should labor costs also be included?

Please price out/present the budget for the 6-month extension the same as the 5-year contract period providing labor hours and using Year 5 labor rates in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Additionally, please include a statement that the prevailing rates of the active period of performance shall remain in effect for the duration of any extension, should FAR 52.217-8 be exercised.

28 Business Proposal The instructions in the "Breakdowns for Other Direct Costs and Other Resources" section suggest preparing a detailed line-item budget. The instructions in the "Labor Rates" section state to use fully loaded labor rates. These instructions are seemingly contradictory, so can the Department confirm that a "time & materials" budget format listing staff hours, fully loaded labor rates, and non-labor other direct costs is acceptable?

Please see updated instructions to offerors and use the Budget Template provided.

29 Business Proposal FAR 52.222-41 Service Contract Labor Standards does not appear in this solicitation. However, 52.222-43 is included. Could the Government please confirm whether the resultant award will be subject to Wage Determination? If so, could the Government please provide or identify all applicable Wage Determination Schedules?

Yes, FAR 52.222-41 has been incorporated into the solicitation. Please note that any individual engage in the performance under this contract falls under the aforementioned clause.

30 Source Selection Plan The RFP states that a tradeoff methodology will be employed during the evaluation to identify the best value, and that cost will be an important factor (though significantly less important than technical). Given that all vendors will be proposing the same cost, would the Government please explain what aspects of cost it plans to evaluate and how?

There are 6 technical evaluation factors that come into play before cost is evaluated. Since the Department does not believe there will be any variation in cost, we will look at the cost to see if what is being proposed makes sense, is feasible and aligns with what was demonstrated in the offerors technical proposal. The Department expects that each offeror will propose a budget that utilizes the maximum projected funding level for each region.

An offeror gains nothing by proposing a lower cost/price than the maximum amount provided. Each offeror is expected to use the maximum amount available to each region to provide the most benefit possible to each region. An offeror with an inferior technical proposal but lower proposed budget will not overtake an offeror with a technically excellent proposal and a budget that proposes to use the maximum regional allocation. As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be variation in price between each offeror in a region. For this reason, the Department will evaluate the component price and level of effort of each element.

31 Instructions Would the Government please confirm that this certification can be signed by the eventual awardee and is not required to be included in offerors' proposals.

Yes, the certification does not need to be included in the proposal and can be signed by the awardee at time of award.

32 Instructions Offerors are required to accept FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data--Special Works in the Cover Letter. However, will IES make a distinction such that Technical Assistance (TA) is considered to be outside the realm of scientific research (or “research-related products”) work, so that FAR 52.227-17 can be waived as to subcontractors and /consultants doing only TA work?

TA and research-related products are considered separate from research. For subcontractors and/or consultants only performing TA work, FAR 52.227-17 does not apply as long as no data is being produced. Created data being used remains subject to FAR 52.227-17. Please FAR 52.227-17(c) and (d).

33 Instructions Would the Government please confirm that offerors may also include past performance of its subcontractors?

Yes, offerors may include the past performance of its subcontractors. When in a teaming arrangement a subcontractors past performance information may also be submitted in addition to but not in substitution of the prime's work for technical evaluation purposes. It will not count towards technical evaluation.

34 Instructions Can one or more of the five past performances come from subcontractor(s) performing a substantive portion of the work?

Offerors must have performed the substantive amount of work for the up to five past performances submitted for technical evaluation regarding recent contracts. When in a teaming arrangement a subcontractors past performance information may also be submitted in addition to but not in substitution. Subcontractors work submitted will not be taken into consideration for evaluation purposes.

35 Source Selection Plan Who will serve on the Technical Evaluation Panel? Do the members include reviewers who are external to IES?

The Technical Evaluation Panel will be comprised of ED employees only.

36 Source Selection Plan On p. 149, the RFP states "The Department expects that each offeror will propose a budget that utilizes the maximum funding level for each region. An offeror gains nothing by proposing a lower cost than the projected funding level. Each offeror is expected to use the maximum amount available to each region to provide the most benefit possible to each region. An offeror with an inferior technical proposal but lower proposed budget will not overtake an offeror with a technically excellent proposal and a budget that proposes to use the maximum regional budget." However, on p. 174, the RFP states "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." and "A tradeoff methodology will be employed during the evaluation to identify the best value.

Cost will be an important factor; however, cost will be significantly less important than technical merit." Please confirm that offerors should be guided by the RFP text on p. 149 and that the text on p. 174 referring to price should be read in the context of maximizing value to the Government within the available funding and not in terms of a lower price.

There are 6 technical evaluation factors that come into play before cost is evaluated. Since the Department does not believe there will be any variation in cost, we will look at the cost to see if what is being proposed makes sense, is feasible and aligns with what was demonstrated in the offerors technical proposal. The Department expects that each offeror will propose a budget that utilizes the maximum projected funding level for each region.

An offeror gains nothing by proposing a lower cost/price than the maximum amount provided. Each offeror is expected to use the maximum amount available to each region to provide the most benefit possible to each region. An offeror with an inferior technical proposal but lower proposed budget will not overtake an offeror with a technically excellent proposal and a budget that proposes to use the maximum regional allocation. As a result, we do not anticipate that there will be variation in price between each offeror in a region. For this reason, the Department will evaluate the component price and level of effort of each element.

37 Source Selection Plan The evaluation criteria states “If a contractor’s past performance includes small business subcontracting, the Department will review the contractor’s past performance in complying with the subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business concerns” (emphasis added). Does this mean contractors compliance with goals for other small business concerns (e.g. women-owned, veteran-owned, etc.) won’t be evaluated?

No, this was corrected to "goals for small business concerns," please see revised RFP.

38 Source Selection Plan What is the process for review of the REL proposals? Please see the evaluation criteria provided in the RFP which will be used in ED's internal review process.

39 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm that vendors may include a separate task in the budget to show this 10-20% set-aside?

Offerors may not propose a separate Task to show the 10-20 percent set-aside. Successful offerors have the option to update their budgets as needed post-award. Successful offerors will have, at minimum, the straight-line budget amount for Year 1 available to them shortly after award, even if there are no specific projects attached to that 10-20% set-aside at the time of award. See response to Question #41 for additional information.

40 Business Proposal What is the base from which the 10-20% is calculated? Is the base the entire 18 month budget, or the budget for 2B for 18 months?

Offerors should use a base of their proposed Task 3 through 6 budget for the first 18 months of the contract, excluding travel, when calculating the 10 to 20 percent set aside for needs that may arise after award.

41 Business Proposal For comparability, would the Government consider setting a fixed percentage of the annual budget to respond to needs that may arise after award?

Given that the needs of each district, state, and REL region are distinct, IES prefers to allow offerors a limited amount of flexibility in budgeting with respect to this set aside. The number of projects proposed to begin in the first 18 months of the contract will not be a part of the evaluation criteria provided that offerors meet the requirements for projects outlined in the Instructions to Offerors under sections 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B of the Technical Plan.

42 Business Proposal Would the Government please confirm that the cover sheet content may be single spaced?

The cover sheet must be double spaced.

43 Business Proposal The RFP states, "The business proposal must also include costs itemized by project year." Please confirm that the dates for each “project year” align with the annual periods of performance outlined on pages 2 and 3 of the RFP, or advise otherwise.

For example Project Year 1 = 01/02/2022 to 01/01/23; Project Year 2 = 01/02/23 to 01/01/24, etc.

Project years will align to the Annual Period of Performance. However, there was a slight discrepancy between sections in what the Period of Performance will be. The period of performance will be 1/3/22 to 1/2/27. Therefore, the project years will be 1/3/22-1/2/23, 1/3/23-1/2/24, etc.

44 Evaluation Criteria Would the Government please confirm that the 3-page Introduction will be evaluated as part of the Quality and Credibility of the Technical Approach?

That is correct.

45 Evaluation Criteria Do each of the criteria under "Quality and credibility of the technical approach" relate to specific subsections of the Technical Plan (as they did in the draft RFP), and if so, would the Government please specify which criteria relate to which subsections?

The Technical Plan should be written in a way where each criterion under "Quality and Credibility of the Technical Approach" is addressed completely. There are criteria under this factor that may be addressed across multiple subsections; therefore, IES prefers not to link specific criteria to specific subsections.

46 Instructions The recommended page limits on page 131 of 184 add up to 155. We understand that these are just guidelines and not requirements, but would like to confirm that the required page limit is indeed 150 and not 155.

The page limit for the combined Introduction and Technical Plan is 150 pages. There was a typo in the third paragraph under "Volume I: Technical Proposal" in the Instructions to Offerors (see red text). The second to last sentence of that paragraph should read "ED recommends the following page limit guidelines for the Introduction and individual parts of the Technical Plan; however, these are just guidelines and not requirements. Individual parts of the Introduction and Technical Plan may be slightly longer or shorter than these recommendations so long as the Introduction and Technical Plan sections combined do not exceed 150 pages."

47 Instructions The RFP specifies that the combined Introduction and Technical Plan sections of the technical proposal must not exceed 150 double-spaced. However, when one adds up the pages specified for the Introduction and Technical Plan, they total 155 (allowing a much-needed 5 more pages for Part 1 than the draft did). Would the Government please confirm that the totals for the individual sections are correct, and the overall total is 155?

See response to question #46.

48 Instructions Is 155 pages the combined page limit for the Introduction and Technical Plan? The page totals for the individual sections add up to 155.

"The combined Introduction and Technical Plan sections of the technical proposal must not exceed 150 double-spaced pages..."

See response to question #46.

49 Instructions Can IES please confirm the overall page limitation? The instructions to offerors states that the introduction and technical plan sections must not exceed 150 double-spaced pages. However, the page limit guidance for the Introduction and individual parts of the technical plan totals 155 pages rather than 150 pages.

See response to question #46.

50 Instructions The instructions state that the Introduction and Technical Plan must not exceed 150 pages. On the same page, IES provides recommended guidance around page allocations for each section. The recommended page allocations sum to 155 pages. Does IES have a preference for which section is reduced by 5 pages?

See response to questions #46 and #51.

51 Instructions IES has provided recommended page lengths for each section and a total page length not to exceed. Can IES confirm that slight variation within the recommended section pages will be allowable?

Yes, slight variance between the recommended page lengths of individual sections is allowable so long as the total length of the Introduction and Technical Plan does not exceed 150 pages (see response to question #46).

52 Instructions Could ED clarify if the following sections of the technical proposal are subject to the 150 page double-spaced page limit of the Introduction and Technical Plan or if these pages would be counted separately from the 150 page limit but subject to specific page limits as noted on page 131?

• Key and Named Personnel – no more than 12 pages

• Time Commitments of Proposed Staff – no more than 5 pages

• Security Clearance Risk Levels by Position – no page limit

• Management Plan and Timelines – no page limit

• Organizational Capabilities, Experience & Resources – no more than 3 pages

The remaining sections of the Technical Proposal listed in this question are not included in the 150 page limit for the Introduction and Technical Plan.

53 Instructions The RFP specifies that footnotes shall be no smaller than size 10 font and single spaced. Given that footnotes can take up a lot of space in a double-spaced document, would the Government please permit vendors to use endnotes instead of footnotes, and to place the endnotes in an appendix that is not subject to page limits?

Offerors are not permitted to use endnotes.

54 Instructions The RFP states, "In Table B, the offeror must ... describe the specific responsibilities of each proposed staff person…." Would the Government please confirm that offers may include this information for all proposed staff (not just key and named personnel) in an added section at the end of Table B?

Yes, offerors are required to include this information for all staff, not just key and named personnel.

55 Instructions The RFP states that offerors shall submit narrative information about projects completed in the last three years. Would the Government please change this time limit to 5 years to allow companies that participated in the prior REL cycle to include those projects among its past performance citations?

The time limit will remain at three years. Past performance is not limited to work done through the REL program. As stated in the Instructions to Offerors, projects "of similar size, scope, complexity or, in any way, are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation" may be included.

56 Instructions Will the Government confirm that the cover sheets and tables of contents for the concept papers may be single-spaced and do not count towards the Technical Plan page limit?

Concept papers should be embedded within the text of the technical plan under Part 2A.

There is no need for concept papers to have a cover page or a table of contents.

57 Instructions Is it acceptable for a member of the Key Personnel to serve as the toolkit development lead?

"Additionally, one Named staff must serve as the lead for toolkit development under Subtask 5.2 and have experience producing tools for educators to improve practice."

It is acceptable to both be in a key personnel position and lead toolkit development under Subtask 5.2. However, offerors should keep in mind that serving both roles would entail a substantial time commitment. Offerors may not propose more than 1 FTE for any staff member, and staff serving multiple roles including a key personnel position must dedicate the minimum FTE for the key position(s) they are proposed to fill, other roles within or outside the REL contract notwithstanding.

58 Instructions Is it acceptable to include all references cited in the Technical Proposal, including the references for concept papers, in an appendix? "References should be included in an appendix and are not counted within the page limit."

"References. List works cited in Appendix C outside of the Practice Guide."

Yes, this is acceptable.

59 Instructions Can a Task 5.1 or Section 2A (featured project) be a toolkit evaluation as one of the applied research studies (non-WWC practice guide)?

An evaluation of a tool or toolkit not developed under Subtask 5.2 may be included as a Subtask 5.1 project, and may be included in section 2A of an offeror's Technical Plan.

However, should an offeror decide to do this, like any proposed project there must be a demonstration that there is a genuine need for the proposed work, and that it addresses a high-leverage problem of practice as discussed in the Expectations for the Implementation of the REL Program section of the PWS. Offerors choosing to propose a toolkit evaluation under section 2A of their Technical Plan must also discuss the extent of rigorous evidence behind the tool or toolkit that will be evaluated as part of their Concept Paper. Should an offeror choose to propose a tool or toolkit evaluation for a product not developed under Subtask 5.2, the offeror is still required to develop a toolkit based on their assigned WWC Practice Guide under Subtask 5.2, and are still required to evaluate that toolkit under Subtask 5.1.

60 Instructions Can we propose a 5.3, 5.4, or 5.6 study as one of the projects under section 2.B in the first 18 months?

As noted in the Instructions to Offerors, offerors may not include projects in the Technical Plan under Subtasks that are not required; this includes Subtasks 5.3, 5.4, and 5.6.

Therefore, these projects may not be included under section 2B of the Technical Plan.

However, if the offeror intends to propose work under these Subtasks during the contract period, it should be included in the Time Commitments of Proposed Staff appendix and the Business Proposal. Please keep in mind that projects under Subtasks that are not required will not be evaluated as part of the Technical Evaluation Criteria, and do not count towards other requirements of the Technical Plan, such as proposing at least one project sections 2A and 2B that will serve each jurisdiction in the REL region.

61 Instructions The RFP requires a "Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) .... The QASP has no page limitation. See Appendix G for the QASP template …." Since the QASP has no page limitation and the format is dictated by Appendix G, would the Government consider making it an appendix rather than a component of Part E Management Plan and Timelines?

After further consideration, we have determined that the QASP currently included in Appendix G will suffice for each REL during the upcoming cycle. Offerors need only copy this QASP into their Management Plan and Timeline section. Because the Management Plan and Timeline section has no page limit, the QASP should be included in this section, and not as a separate appendix.

62 Period of Performance Please confirm the period of performance. There is a one day difference from the dates listed on page 11 (1/3/22 to 1/2/27) and the CLIN schedule on pages 2-3 (1/2/22 to 1/1/27).

Thank you for catching this. The period of performance is 1/3/22 to 1/2/27.

63 Period of Performance The SF 33 shows a period of performance of 1/2/22 - 1/1/27 and Section F shows a period of performance of 1/3/22 - 1/2/27. Which is correct?

See response to Question #62.

64 Period of Performance What is the period of performance? On page 2 of the solicitation, it is 1/2/2022 to 1/1/2027; however, on page 11, it is 1/3/2022 to 1/2/2027.

See response to Question #62.

65 Period of Performance Page 2 of the solicitation states that the period of performance starts on January 2, 2022. Page 11 states the period of performance starts on January 3, 2022.

Should the period of performance on this new contract begin on January 3, 2022?

See response to Question #62.

66 Task 4 Please clarify whether or not a post-event summary of the activity is required for task 4 TCTS activities. In the table 4 deliverables for task 4 (p. 78 of 184), this requirement has been dropped; however, in the Appendix A Task 4 concept paper (page 155 of 184), the timeline requirements still include a post-event summary of the activity.

There is no longer a required deliverable for post-event summary of activity. See revision to Appendix A of the Instructions to Offerors. RELs will be expected to share post-event summaries of activities through their Monthly Progress Reports and through the course of their regular communication with IES under Subtask 1.2.

67 Business Proposal The RFP requires that all charts in the business proposal shall not be smaller than 10-point font. Due to the large number of tasks and subtasks and the size of the numbers involved, it’s probable that some of the tables and charts in the business proposal would require smaller text, landscape pages, and foldout pages in order to prevent splitting them. Would the Government consider relaxing its formatting requirements (e.g., font, margins, orientation, allowance for foldout pages) for the business volume to give vendors the maximum flexibility in presenting cost data tables?

The offeror shall use 10 point font so that it is readable. Offerors may submit charts in an Excel file.

68 Business Proposal On p. 150, first paragraph under "Cost Information," it states that the business proposal "shall also include a separate cost estimate for each of the Task 4 and Task 5 projects required in Part 2A of the Technical Proposal…." Should these costs be for the first 18 months, which is the timeframe in which these projects are being addressed in Part 2A, or does IES require an estimation of the full contract cost for these projects beyond the first 18 months?

Please see the newly attached budget template. While offerors are only required to describe proposed work that would begin within the first 18 months, the budget template requires cost information for all 5 years. Projects that will begin within the first 18 months should be named in the budget template, other projects should be listed as placeholders.

69 Business Proposal On p. 150, third paragraph under "Cost Information," it states that the Schedule of Deliverables should show all costs for the first 18 months of performance. At what level should the Deliverables Schedule show these costs: by task, subtask, or deliverable?

The reference to the Schedule of Deliverables in the Cost Volume section has been deleted;

the reference to the Schedule of Deliverables should not have been included there. See instructions for the Deliverables Schedule under Management Plans and Timelines.

70 Business Proposal Page 150 of the RFP states, “The business proposal shall also include a separate cost estimate for each of the Task 4 and Task 5 projects required in Part 2A of the Technical Proposal and the Task 5.2 project that involves the development of the Toolkit for a WWC Practice Guide and the Task 5.1 evaluation of the toolkit required in Part 3A and 3B of the Technical Proposal”.

Please confirm that a separate bottom line pricing table by project and year as a supplement to the “detailed cost breakdowns” by task and subtask for each of Task 4 and 5 will suffice to meet this requirement, or provide clarification as to what is meant by “provide a separate cost estimate." Additionally, do we need to provide cost estimates for projects listed in 2B?

See response to question #68.

71 Business Proposal On p. 150, the RFP states "The offeror shall also provide a Schedule of Deliverables (see the Performance Work Statement Schedule of Deliverables) showing all cost for the first 18 months of performance."

(a) Please clarify if this is a separate cost schedule that cross-walks the previously requested cost detail by task/subtask and year to show the estimated cost for each deliverable or some other presentation. (b) Please confirm that "showing all cost for the first 18 months of performance" implies that the Schedule of Deliverables cost presentation should reconcile to the fully-budgeted cost of the first 18 months of the contract. (c) Please confirm that the " Performance Work Statement Schedule of Deliverables" mentioned here refers to the six separate deliverables tables (one at the end of each task description) in the PWS.

For questions A and B, see response to question #68 and #69. IES is confirming your interpretation of question C.

72 Business Proposal Also on p. 150, with respect to Schedule of Deliverables cost breakdown, the RFP also states "The offeror shall submit supporting information documenting their cost build up by year." (a) Please clarify if this "supporting information" is intended to be a detailed budget presentation separate from the previously requested cost detail by task/subtask and year or narrative information that ties back to the cost detail by task/subtask and year. (b) Since the Schedule of Deliverables cost presentation only covers the first 18 months of the contract, please confirm that "by year" in this context refers to Year 1 and the first half of Year 2, not all contract years.

See response to question #68 and #69.

73 Business Proposal For the schedule of deliverables that shows all costs, should it be presented by subtask or by each deliverable?

See response to question #69.

74 Business Proposal The complexity of the REL project (e.g., number of tasks and subtasks, number of deliverables) will result in some business volume charts and tables with many more columns and rows than can fit on a reasonable number of pages in the Business Proposal. For those charts and tables that are so large that they cannot be displayed in a readable and easily understandable way within the text, may offerors instead refer reviewers to the specific location in the accompanying Excel spreadsheet?

Yes, offerors may instead refer reviewers to the specific location in the accompanying Excel spreadsheet.

75 Instructions May vendors photos/screenshots within the proposal text or appendices? Vendors may include photos/screenshots with the proposal If they are relevant. However, all images count towards the page limit and text must be large enough to be equivalent of 10pt font. Any images, tables, or graphics with font that is not readable will not be included.

76 Instructions Beyond organization charts and logic models, may offerors use landscape pages to improve readability of large graphics and wide tables?

Yes, offerors may use landscape pages to improve readability of large graphics and wide tables.

77 Instructions May Table A be presented on a landscape page? Yes, Table A may be presented in landscape.

78 Instructions Can Appendices be single spaced? Please see the updated Instructions to Offerors regarding which appendices may be single-spaced.

79 Task 1 On p. 60 under Subtask 6.1, the last sentence of the first paragraph states, “RELs will not propose new work in the Bi-annual Assessment of Progress, as RELs are permitted and encouraged to propose new projects throughout the year as needs in the region arise.” Yet, Item 8 in the second paragraph states that contractors are to include “the names [of] partnership leads and principal investigators for new research, training, coaching, and technical support projects” in the organization of the Bi-annual Assessment of Progress. In naming these individuals is the nature of new work (e.g., project name or general description) also being proposed?

The Bi-annual Assessment of Progress is actually Subtask 1.6 (and not Subtask 6.1). The PWS has been revised to remove the word "new" from the aforementioned sentence in question to make it more clear that RELs shall not propose new work in the Bi-Annual Assessment of Progress.

80 Task 6 Will there be one REL program blog where all the RELs posts their blogs or individual REL program blogs?

IES hasn't decided if there will be REL program blogs where all the RELs post or if there will be individual blogs.

Subtask 6.3

The PWS requires a 1-2 page summary for webinars. There is no similar requirement or deliverable listed for RELs attending and presenting at a conference. Should labor required to attend an in-person conference or event be included as part of the agenda & materials for 6.3, or is there another deliverable IES recommends?

The purpose of the 1-2 page summary for webinars is to provide attendees with a take-away from the webinar and not a vehicle for billing for labor associated with the webinar.

No such summary is required for in-person conference presentations. This is a cost plus fixed fee contract, so labor costs for attending a conference presentation should be documented in the MPR and billing.

82 Business Proposal Table A. Hour Allocations for Key and Named Personnel suggests staff time should be listed in hours and there is an accompanying note that percentages are not required for Table A. However, the instructions on pg. 143 states "Key and Named Personnel must be identified by name along with the percentage of their time allocated to those contractual obligations." Can the Department clarify whether the table should include hours, % FTE, or both?

The "Time Commitments of Proposed Staff," which includes Table A, Table B, and a plan to transition staff to the REL if they are committed to over 50%FTE on other projects shall be included in an appendix. There is no longer a page limit. Table A has been revised to include a column for %FTE. The note under Table B has also been revised.

83 Instructions On page 129 of 184 of the solicitation , there are four volumes listed for the proposal submission, with the past performance volume being volume 4.

However, later in the solicitation (p. 154 of 184 ), the past performance volume is listed as volume 3. Can IES please clarify theirs expectations regarding the volume numbering?

The Excel workbook of cost information contained in the narrative is Volume III. The Past Performance section is Volume IV. Please see revised (corrected) volume numbers.

84 Instructions The RFP states, "Letters of Commitment from all subcontractors are required.

Offerors must also submit Letters of Commitment from the proposed staff if they are not employed by the prime contractor: key staff, named staff, or PI on any project that requires a concept paper...." Would the Government please clarify whether individual key and named personnel currently employed by a subcontractor are required to provide letters of commitment?

If key staff, named staff, or PIs are employed by a subcontractor, their roles and responsibilities shall be described in the Letter of Commitment from the subcontractor.

85 Instructions The RFP references "teaming arrangements." Should actual teaming agreements (TAs) with subcontractors be attached to the Letters of Commitments, or should the teaming arrangements documented in the TAs be summarized in the Letters of Commitments?

Offerors shall submit letters of commitment from subcontractors that summarizes their teaming arrangements. The term "teaming arrangements" has been deleted from the RFP to avoid confusion.

86 Instructions Will the Government confirm that the content in Section 3 -- Timeline, Deliverables, and References -- may be single-spaced?

Timeline and Deliverables tables for Appendix C may be single spaced. The References may be single spaced as well.

87 Instructions Will the Government confirm that the Section 3 References do not count towards the Technical Plan page limit?

References for Section 3 do not count towards the Technical Plan page limit.

88 Instructions On p. 132, the second bullet under "Requirements for specific appendices..."

describes the stakeholder letters needed for the Part 2A partnerships and Part 3A toolkit development. With regard to these letters, two questions: (1) Can a district participate in a Part 2A partnership and with the Part 3A toolkit development and

(2) if allowed, can one letter be used to cover both the partnership work and toolkit development participation or would IES prefer for two separate letters to be obtained?

The work proposed in Part 2A should not overlap with the work proposed in 3A, therefore the offeror should submit two different letters from stakeholders that reflect partnership work in 2A and work proposed under 3A.

89 Instructions If the PI of the toolkit evaluation is an employee of a subcontractor, is a separate letter of commitment required for that individual? Or will the letter from the subcontractor, specifying the staff member's role, suffice?

"If this person is not currently employed by the offeror, a letter of commitment is required in a separate appendix. The letter must also delineate the nature of the agreement (i.e. the position and responsibilities that person will have under the REL contract should it be awarded to the offeror), and affirm their commitment to the project if the offeror is awarded the contract."

If the PI of the toolkit evaluation is an employee of a subcontractor the letter from the subcontractor specifying the staff member's role will be sufficient.

90 Instructions The instructions state that the resume appendix “shall contain letters of commitment from all Key or Named personnel or PIs for concept papers not currently employed by the offeror.”

1. If a key or named personnel is employed by a subcontractor does a letter from the subcontractor suffice or should a letter from the individual be included as well?

2. Should these letters go in the resume appendix or in the letters of commitment appendix?

If key or named personnel are employed by a subcontractor, the offeror may include a letter of commitment from the subcontractor that specifically addressed the key or named…