91990024R0002 - All Questions with Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 91990024R0002
About this file
This document is a compilation of questions and responses related to a federal contract opportunity for the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) Design and Coordination Team. The contract consists of three functional tasks: Program Operations Coordination (Task 1), Sampling and Weighting (Task 2), and Design Analysis and Reporting (Task 3). Key details include:
The solicitation defines the responsibilities of the NAEP Design and Coordination Team, such as developing contingency plans, innovative sampling and weighting approaches, and special studies. It also addresses technical requirements like data security, quality control, and coordination of technical documentation. Pricing templates are provided for each functional task. The anticipated award date is November 2024, with a one-year base period and four one-year option years. Proposals are due by August 19, 2024, and the government will accept clarification questions until July 1, 2024.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Number | Question | Response | Technical/Business | Reference to RFP | Page |
| 001 | Are summary reports required to be created for school or school district? What is the most granular level of analysis at which test score estimates are required to be computed? | No school-level or school district level report. | |||
| 002 | Are the primary sampling units (PSUs) the same for each survey (e.g., National surveys and state-level surveys)? Are these units legally or administratively determined? Is the contracting officer open to consideration of alternative sampling units in the sample design approach? | PSUs can change from data collection to data collection and are administratively determined. The NAEP program is open to alternative sampling designs. | |||
| 003 | Could the contracting officer clarify what is intended by ‘developing contingency plans’, and are such plans required to adhere to pre-existing NAEP processes or frameworks? | Contingency plans generally refer to plans for selecting substitute schools for non-mandated assessments and for private schools. These plans should mirror accepted NAEP processes in use at the time. | |||
| 004 | Is the sampling and weighting process required to adhere to a pre-existing decision tree to address considerations such as significant non-response or the decision process to oversample certain populations? Is the contractor required or permitted to articulate innovations to the sampling and weighting process to address these and other considerations? | Contractors do not have to adhere to pre-existing decision trees and can propose innovative approaches to NAEP sampling. | |||
| 005 | Does the contracting officer require contractors to utilize the NCES Private School Universe Survey exclusively to define the sampling frame, or is the contractor permitted to consider additional sources of information that may be useful for generation of the sampling frame? | Additional sources of information may be proposed. | |||
| 006 | Is contracting officer able to clarify or specify other major reporting groups of interest to NCES in addition to English Learners and Students with Disabilities? | From ESRA, PL 107-279, 303 (b) (2): (G) include information on special groups, including, whenever feasible, information collected, cross tabulated, compared, and reported by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability and limited English proficiency. Please refer to the NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web for more information about sampling and stratification (https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/analysis/summary_reporting_major.aspx). | |||
| 007 | We note that a non-response bias analysis is required when unweighted unit response rates fall below 85%. Is the contracting officer able to provide an estimate of the number of non-response bias analyses performed in a typical year? | For a typical NAEP student assessment, relatively few domains fail to meet this standard. To provide an extreme example: for the 2021 NAEP School/Teacher Questionnaire surveys a large number of domains failed to meet the 85 percent response rate threshold especially at the school level. For the School Questionnaire survey, 36 domains across the two grades (4th and 8th) had weighted school response rates that fell below 85 percent and hence required a school nonresponse bias analyses. | |||
| 008 | We note that the RFP indicates contractor shall develop a plan for the implementation of a special study or series of studies that target primary areas of responsibility. Is contracting officer able to specify the nature of these studies, including the scope, quantity, and expected timing? | These studies are unknown at this time as they are often the result of ongoing work, research, results, and/or reports | |||
| 009 | When performing the sampling and weighting task, is the contractor required to create a unique approach for each state and/or district? | No, seperate approaches for state/district are not required. | |||
| 010 | Is the sampling and weighting contractor required to coordinate any activities with state or district level specialists? | All state and district level sampling and weighting activities (e.g., release of samples, demographic data reviews) are coordinated with the NAEP NSSC contractor. Outside state and district level specialists are not required. | |||
| 011 | Are individual samples required for each subject (math, reading, etc.) or is the requirement to perform one representative sample per state/district? | Samples need to reflect DAR's design rquirements. Mulitple samples may be required (e.g., one for math/reading and one for science). For more information about NAEP's sampling design, please see this NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web site: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | |||
| 012 | On page 57 of attachment A there is a listing of example minority subgroups (Native Americans, Blacks, Hispanics). Is this list comprehensive, and if not, how many total subgroups are there? | The list provided is not a comprehensive list. Please refer to new regulations being implemented through Statistical Policy Directive-15 and be prepared to develop plans for designing and implementing sampling and reporting consistent with the new regulations. |
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/29/2024-06469/revisions-to-ombs-statistical-policy-directive-no-15-standards-for-maintaining-collecting-and
| 013 | When assessing subcontracting percentages, is the determination of subcontracting percentage made at the individual task level, or at an aggregate level across the full multi-firm design and coordination team? | The sub-contracting percentages will be assigned at each Functional Task contract award level. | ||||
| 014 | If a firm has the skills and competency to perform two of the three design and coordination tasks, would it be acceptable to the contracting officer to award the design and coordination contract to a team of two firms, or is there a strict requirement for a team of three firms for the design and coordination component? | To be eligible a team must apply to all task either as the sole member or partnered team member with one or two other team memebers who can fulfill all 3 tasks. | ||||
| 015 | Does the contracting officer have an estimate of hours required for the sampling and weighting portion? | Sampling activities run about 4 months (February-May). Weighting activities run about 3 months (April-June). | ||||
| 016 | Does the contracting officer have an estimate of the number of samples performed for a typical program in a given year? | Please refer to NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | ||||
| 017 | Does the contracting officer have an estimate of how many samples are typically provided for a state assessment in a given year? | Please see the assessment schedule and the NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | ||||
| 018 | Does the contracting officer require samples to be selected at the school district level when performing state assessments? | Please refer to the NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | ||||
| 019 | Does the contracting officer require samples for each unique combination of Grade/District/Subject? | Please refer to the NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | ||||
| 020 | What is the source of the information that contains the demographic and jurisdiction information of the students subject to sampling? | Please refer to the NAEP Technical Documentation on the Web: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/sample_design/ | ||||
| 021 | Is the data containing the demographic and jurisdiction information of the students subject to sampling provided in a standardized format for all states and jurisdictions? | Yes. | ||||
| 022 | On page 59 of Attachment A, the following was noted: “Substitute schools do not need to be selected for assessments where state and district participation is required (i.e., 4th and 8th grade mathematics and reading).” Do other grades or subjects also fall under the required participation? Are any grades and subjects are not covered by the participation requirements? | Grades 4 and 8 math and reading are the only "required" subjects (i.e., falling under Title 1 requirements). | ||||
| 023 | Does the contracting officer expect that the names of the selected contractors will be publicized within documentation associated with NAEP? | Yes, there will be a public record. | ||||
| 024 | Does the Department of Education have personnel with the skills/knowledge/experience to understand and interpret decisions made by the contractor related to their sampling methodology/selection? | Yes, this can be found in the Source Selection Plan Attachment A. | ||||
| 025 | Is the contractor required to utilize any specific tools or software? If so, is the contractor required to provide access to these tools to Department of Education personnel? | For any specific tools or software the Department will supply the access as needed. | ||||
| 026 | Do the instructions for Multi-contractor research studies apply to Task 1? In preparing a cost estimate, should Task 1 budget one small, one medium, and one large study? | Yes, the instructions for multi-contractor research studies apply to Task 1. Yes, Task 1 should budget one small, one medium and one large study. | Business | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 42 | |
| 027 | The General Proposal Instructions, Volume III - Business Proposal Overview, state the following: "Please verify that the contents of the business proposal | |||||
| (PDF & excel) are mathematically accurate (including rounding), and the supporting data reconcile in the proposal." Can the government please clarify any rounding requirements for the Pricing Templates? May we add a rounding formula to the Total Estimated Cost (row 37), or is the intention to round throughout the spreadsheet? If so, should offerors round to two decimal places? | Yes, please round throughout the spreadsheet to the second decimal place. | Business | Attachment A, SOO | Page 70 | ||
| 028 | The General Proposal Instructions, Volume III - Business Proposal Overview, state the following: "The business proposal must provide a complete price | |||||
| breakdown by task/subtask and by contract period." Is it acceptable for offerors to provide the complete price breakdown in Excel (via the pricing template with additional tabs as needed)? Or, does the government prefer to see the price breakdown included in the PDF/Word Business Proposal as well? | Yes, it's preferred that offerors use the excel template example listed as Attachments D-F, or something similar. Offerors can also use their own template as they perfer in the format PDF/Word/Excel. | Business | Attachment A, SOO | Page 71 | ||
| 029 | Can the government confirm that the Business Proposal should be named "Volume III - Business Proposal"? There is one discrepancy on page 63 which labels it as Volume II. | Yes, the business proposal should be Volume III. This was corrected with the Amendment 01 posted on 6/21/24. Please refer to the solicitation document "91990024R0002- NAEP Design and Coordination_V2_6.21.24" | Business | Attachment A, SOO | Page 63 | |
| 030 | We note that subtask 1.2.3 requires one project initiation meeting within thirty (30) days of the start of the contract; subtask 1.11.1.1 requires two project initiation meetings within the first two (2) weeks after the contract start date. Could you clarify whether these are, in fact, 3 separate project initiation meetings on their respective timelines, or if we should plan for the project initiation meeting specified in subtask 1.2.3 (and not subtask 1.11.1.1) or alternatively the two initiation meetings in subtask 1.11.1.1 (but not subtask 1.2.3)? | Subtask 1.2.3 is specific to the POC contractor setting up meetings with those that were awarded a contract to get the work started, and subtask 1.11.1.1 are meetings related to all of the contractors that were awarded a contract and includes CAM and other stakeholders. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 24 | |
| 031 | Our assumption is that Task 1 contractors should not include a budget for subask 1.11.2.1 Research and Special Studies which includes: Multi-contractor research studies, additional tasks, and quick turnaround requests to avoid double counting. Is this assumption correct? | 1.11.2.1 is part of General Activities and is applied to all Functional Tasks throughout, if deemed that your approach does not require this in the budget then list as zero charge or zero level of effort. | Business | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 42 | |
| 032 | There is a reference to a chart in the following bulleted item that is missing - please provide. "Establish baselines and set targets for performance metrics and performance measures utilizing the sample chart of performance metrics provided below:" | |||||
| utilizing the sample chart of performance metrics provided below: | The Department is still working to gather data to support this question and the resonse will be provided in an amendment to the RFP. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO | Page 68 | ||
| 033 | Section 1.11.1.1: Does the POC contractor summarize for task 1 and also synthesize each task’s summary? Or does each task contractor summarize and submit on its own? | Each contractor will summarize and submit on its own. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 27 | |
| 034 | Section 1.11.1.4: It appears that this section provides information that we must observe when developing and executing our data security plan but does not itself entail any deliverables. Please confirm. | This is correct, these are the parameters you must follow when putting together your proposal. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 29 | |
| 035 | When is the data security plan due to the government? | At time of proposal. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO | Page 30 | |
| 036 | Section 1.11.1.6: We understand that this section provides information that we must observe vis a vis information technology and security, e.g., in our data security plan. The section does not appear to entail any deliverables—is this correct? | This is correct, these are the parameters you must follow when putting together your proposal. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 35 | |
| 037 | Section 1.11.1.8: This section’s heading indicates it’s about FOIA requests, and the first paragraph is consistent with that. The remainder of the text in the section, however, concerns data security plans. What, if anything, is missing from 1.11.1.8? Where, presumably in section 1.11.1.5, 1.11.1.6, or 1.11.1.7 does this text on data security plans belong? | Nothing is missing. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 37 | |
| 038 | Section 1.11.1.10, Quality Control Measures Requirement, includes the subheading “Contractor Employee Vetting Security Requirements” and several paragraphs of text on that topic. Where does this text belong in section 11, and is anything missing from 1.11.1.10? | This is correct placement and nothing is missing. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 38 | |
| 039 | Section 1.11.2.1: R&D and conducting special studies occurs in all tasks: a. Task 1 describes the POC contractor’s role in developing and coordinating the research agenda and research studies related to NAEP; b. Task 2, subtask 2.3: Targeted Special Studies; c. Task 3, subtask 3.4: Research and Development; Without understanding which tasks are involved in the multi-contractor studies described in subtask 1.11.2.1, which we believe cannot be determined until the POC contractor establishes the NAEP Research Agenda in concert with NCES and other task staff, we do not know how to budget for this work. We will also need more explicit discussion of the tasks above and their relationship to subtask 11 in each of the tasks to make sure we do not budget twice for the same work (if there is overlap that we cannot detect). | Each Functional task is responsible for .11. This means that the General Activities found in .11 of each Functional Task is to be applied as it pertains to each task, so it will be different for each Task. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 42 | |
| 040 | Discussion of ICRs: We presume this section of the solicitation belongs under Section 1.11.1.13. The last paragraph of this discussion refers to Exhibits. Where may we find these exhibits? | These exhibits are listed on SAM.gov along with the solicitation as Attachment K-O | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 43-44 | |
| 041 | Section 1.11.2.3: This section describes the requirement that each contractor prepare technical documentation of the work conducted under its respective contract. We assume this work is distinct from the work described in subtask 1.2.5 (coordinating the production of this technical documentation) but the same as the work described in subtask 3.2.7. Please confirm. If we are correct, Task 3 will budget for this work in subtask 3.2.7, but Tasks 1 and 2 will budget for developing technical documentation in subtask 1.11.2.3 and 2.11.2.3, respectively. Is this the intent of the government? | Each Functional task is responsible for .11. This means that the General Activities found in .11 of each Functional Task is to be applied as it pertains to each task, so it will be different for each Task. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 44 | |
| 042 | Section 1.11.2.3: Which contractor is responsible for coordinating the production of the TDW? Task 1.11.2.3 states that all contractors will submit their TDW to the POC contractor, and on page 25 under task 1.2.5 it confirms that the POC contractor “shall coordinate the production of technical documentation on the web” and “review all task and subtasks of the technical documentation.” On page 113 under task 3.3.8, however, the solicitation says “the DAR contractor shall coordinate the review and publication of TDW materials developed by NAEP contractors.” Will all contractors be submitting their TDW to the POC or the DAR contractor for review? Or both? | Each Functional task is responsible for .11. This means that the General Activities found in .11 of each Functional Task is to be applied as it pertains to each task, so it will be different for each Task. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 44 | |
| 043 | Section 1.11.3.5: What is the expected level of effort for responding to the QA or other non-Coalition contractors’ requests for information, site visits, etc., per year? | This is to be determined by the contractor. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: Task 1 | Page 46 | |
| 044 | The solicitation states that the pricing proposal should clearly identify the proposed contract type if alternate pricing approaches other than fixed price are proposed. If the alternate pricing approach proposes contract types other than fixed price, should the tab for totals by task include both fixed price and alternative pricing approaches in a single total or should they be separated by contract type? | Yes, if an alternative contract type is being proposed please list the pricing data under different tabs clearly labeling the alternate contract type and provide a totals final tab. | Business | Business Proposal Contents | Page 72 | |
| 045 | Will the risk assessment definitions provided on those pages be the same definitions applied when considering any additional risks, as stated on page 85, when making the best value determination as it applies to alternate pricing approaches? | Yes. | Technical | Evaluation Criteria | Page 85-86 | |
| 046 | Business Question: Should there be only one (1) SF1449 Form completed OR should a separate SF1449 Form be completed for each Task Order 1, 2, and 3? The confusion comes since there are various team leads as this is a collective proposal submission effort and there will be 3 separate contracts awarded. | Separate, one for each functional Task. | Business | SF1449 Form | Page 1-2 | |
| 047 | Business Question: Should there be only one (1) Schedule with Unit Prices/Amounts completed in its entirety OR should a separate Schedule with Unit Prices/Amounts be completed for each Task Order 1, 2, and 3? The confusion comes since there are various team leads as this is a collective proposal submission effort and there will be 3 separate contracts awarded. | 3 separate, one for each functional task. | Business | Schedule with Unit Prices/Amounts Form | Page 3-4 | |
| 048 | Business Question: Should there be only one (1) Section K Reps & Certs completed OR should a separate Section K Reps & Cers be completed for each Task Order 1, 2, and 3? The confusion comes since there are various team leads as this is a collective proposal submission effort and there will be 3 separate contracts awarded. | 3 separate, one for each functional task. | Business | Section K, Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors | Page 43-59 | |
| 049 | Can an example of a multi-year design and evaluation plan (MYDEP) be shared? | The SOO describes how to develop a MYDEP. To learn more about the components of a MYDEP, please see the NAEP Technical Document on the Web, such as: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/instruments/cog_dev_math.aspx | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.1.1 Develop and Update MYDEP | Page 91 | |
| 050 | Can an example of an operational design plan be shared? | The SOO describes how to develop an operational design plan. To learn more about the components of an operational design plan, please see the NAEP Technical Document on the Web, such as: https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/tdw/instruments/cog_dev_math.aspx | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.1.2 Develop Operational Assessment Design Plan | Page 93 | |
| 051 | The technical documentation on the web mentions that ‘All potential NAEP bundle maps are examined by a number of programs that have been developed for that purpose’. Will these programs be made available to the DAR contractor? If not, will the acceptance criteria be made available? | The programs or the documentation will be provided to the next DAR contractor. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.1.2.2 Design Assessment Booklet Assignment | Page 97 | |
| 052 | Will the Digital Form Selection Tool be made available to the new DAR contractor? If not, where can the technical specifications be found? | The Digital Form Selection Tool is a computer program which is owned by NCES and can be made avaiable to the next DAR contractor. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.1.2.2 Design Assessment Booklet Assignment | Page 97 | |
| 053 | Attachment C (Required Government Furnished Property (GFP) for Task 3 (DAR)) lists ‘PARSCALE, Item Response Theory (IRT): Item Calibration Software. Modified version created by ETS with ETS funding’. |
Will the program be made available to the DAR contractor for the duration of the contract? If not, will the program be made available for a transition period to allow for establishing benchmark results?
| NCES will provide access to the current DAR contractor during the transition to respond to questions and provide documentation as needed. Please note that PARSCALE is not required for the next contract cycle. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.2.5 Analyses for Report Cards | Page 103 | ||
| 054 | What is the language for the PARSCALE source code? Will the source code be made available? | PARSCALE is a commercial software. NCES will provide access to the current DAR contractor during the transition to respond to questions and provide documentation as needed. Please note that PARSCALE is not required for the next contract cycle. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.2.5 Analyses for Report Cards | Page 103 |
| 055 | The current contractor uses additional software to estimate the population model and generate plausible values (DESI©, Direct Estimation Software Interactive, developed by ETS). Will this software be made available to the DAR contractor for the duration of the contract? If not, will the program be made available for a transition period to allow for establishing benchmark results? | NCES will provide access to the current DAR contractor during the transition to respond to questions and provide documentation as needed. Please note that DESI is not required for the next contract cycle. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.2.5 Analyses for Report Cards | Page 103 |
| 056 | What is the expected number of restricted and internal-use data sets? Can an example codebook be made available? | RUD codebooks can only be made available to those with an IES approved RUD license. For each NAEP assessment, a RUD file, assosciated codebook, and internal data set are developed. Please see the NAEP assessment schedule for when/how many NAEP assessments will be administered each year. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.2.6 Developing Restricted-use Datasets | Page 105 |
| 057 | How many data products (video, blog, webinar, etc) of each form are requested per year? | Per report card release, approximately the following: |
- 1-2 videos (no more than 5 minutes long each)
- At least 3 blog posts (no more than 1,000 words each)
- Webinars are to be determined but not to exceed more than one a year.
- Briefing and release PPT
- Two page, “glossy” summary of results
- Two page Secretary summary
| - Technical FAQs | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.3.3 Extended Reporting and Dissemination | Page 111 |
| 058 | Will the electronic report generator and underlying code be made available to the DAR contractor? | Both are web-based tools and will be made available. |
Sikali, Emmanuel: Sikali, Emmanuel:
| Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.3.5 NAEP State and TUDA Coordinator Support | Page 111 |
| 059 | Do the electronic report generator and NAEP data explorer rely on the same underlying code base? | They both draw from the same underlying data. |
Sikali, Emmanuel: Sikali, Emmanuel:
| Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.3.5 NAEP State and TUDA Coordinator Support | Page 111 | |||
| 060 | How many psychometric linking studies are currently planned for the contract period? | It's stated in the SOO that ED cannot anticipate all future special studies throughout the duration of this contract. And, NCES may choose to exercise the linking studies as options. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.4 Research and Development | Page 115 |
| 061 | How many record linking studies are currently planned for the contract period? | It's stated in the SOO that ED cannot anticipate all future special studies throughout the duration of this contract. And, NCES may choose to exercise the linking studies as options. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.4 Research and Development | Page 115 |
| 062 | For clarity and ease of comparing proposals, should all vendors be assuming the same level of effort/number of hours for a small-scale study, medium-sized study and large-scale study? For example, 400 hours for a small; 1,000 hours for a mid-sized and 2,000 hours for a large? Alternatively, should all vendors use the same dollar amount for budgeting purposes for a small-scale study, medium-sized study and large-scale study? | The Department is still working to gather data to support this question and the resonse will be provided in an amendment to the RFP. | Technical | Attachment A, SOO: 3.11.2.1 Research and Special Studies | Page 132 |
| 063 | Please confirm that publication references cited in the techncial proposal can be included as an appendix and excluded from the page limits. | Yes. | Technical | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, IV. Volume I-Technical Proposal Overview | 65 |
| 064 | Please confirm that a technical proposal submittal letter and technical proposal table of contents are excluded from the page limits. | Yes. | Technical | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, IV. Volume I-Technical Proposal Overview | 65 |
| 065 | Please clarify the location of the example chart referenced "Establish baselines and set targets for performance metrics and performance measures utilizing the sample chart of performance metrics provided below:" Last bullet on page 68. | This is a typo and the reference to the "sample chart" and the RFP will be amended with the correct reference. | Technical | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, IV. Volume I-Technical Proposal Overview | 68 |
| 066 | Within the Instructions to Offeror in terms of proposal submission, the Government lists the below. Does this mean that one organization submits the Team Volume and that Team Volume will be reviewed alongside all Task submissions? Or, should each Task plan to submit the Team Volume in addition to Volumes I, II, and III? |
Electronic Submission: Proposals are to be submitted by email as separate documents with the following file names:
(i) Team Name /Team Volume ([Version Date])”;
(ii) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume I. Technical Proposal ([Version Date])”;
(iii) Team Name” [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume II. Past Performance ([Version Date]);
(iv) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume III. Business Proposal ([Version Date]);
(v) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume Please confirm if the Team volume should be submitted by each team member with the task-specific technical proposals? The team will submit one team proposal volume overall (i). There should be seperate submissions separated by the Functional Task number these are items (ii-v). For better clarification please see the red highlighted texted.
(i) Team Name /Team Volume ([Version Date])”;
(ii) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume I. Technical Proposal ([Version Date])”;
(iii) Team Name” [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume II. Past Performance ([Version Date]);
(iv) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume III. Business Proposal ([Version Date]);
| (v) Team Name [Name of Offeror] (Task Number) Volume Please confirm if the Team volume should be submitted by each team member with the task-specific technical proposals? | Technical | Section L, Instructions to Offerors, I. Instructions to Offerors, Proposal Submission | 62 | |||
| 067 | The SOO on page 3 mentions the High School Transcript Study (HSTS). What assumptions, if any, should we include in budgeting for the High School Transcript Study? For example, should HSTS be considered an optional collection, similar to the notation on NIES bullet on the same page? Or would HSTS be one of the special studies called out within Subtask 11.2? | High School Transcript Study (HSTS) should be considered part of the core work and should be budgeted accordingly. | Technical | SOO, Procurement Overview, Administration | 3 | |
| 068 | What is the wage determination number and date applicable to this solicitation? | This is considered a professional services contract and is exempt from the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) Act and wage determination is not applicable. | Business | K.10, Offeror Representations and Certifications, k (3) (i) | 56 | |
| 069 | This section states that "the technical evaluators will review the technical proposal and the past performance volume, but they will not have access to the business proposal." Will the Technical evaluators also be reviewing the Team Volume, as it will further detail the overall approach for working together as a team? | Yes, they will have access to the Team Volume which should not include any of price data included. | Technical | Instructions to Offerors | 69 | |
| 070 | Exhibit M.2 on page 81 indicates that one past performance is needed per Team Member. Page 63 indicates "each Team Member must submit its own Volume II. Past Performance, for each of its selected Teaming Task Component it is to perform, if more than one." If a company is submitting a proposal for more than one Task, can they only submit one Past Performance that is relevant for all tasks? | No, each of the 3 functional task is considered separate and thus will be kept separate during evaluation. | Technical | Instructions to Offerors | Pages 63 and 81 | |
| 071 | HSTS is mentioned in the introduction, but not later in the tasks. Should analysis and reporting of HSTS be included in the core or as an optional task? | Tasks for the High School Transcipt Study (HSTS) are completed wihtin the Data Collection portion, Task 8. | Technical | SOO introduction | Page 3 | |
| 072 | Would the government consider alternative suggestions for key personnel roles, or provide descriptions for the labor categories listed for Task 3? For example, could project director be included instead of senior editor/author? | Yes, the Department will accept suggestions for proposed key personnel and recommended positions. | Technical | Instructions to Offerors | 22 | |
| 073 | Is the table of contents included in the page count limits? | No. | Technical | Instructions to Offerors | 65 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .