Att G - Q&A Template -Posted 5.21.26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- IAM, ILEARN and IREAD AssessmentsBid Documents
- Solicitation number
- 26-86999
- Issued by
- Marion County, Indiana
About this file
This is a Question and Answer (Q&A) Template document for RFP #26-86999 issued by the Indiana Department of Administration on behalf of the Indiana Department of Education for the procurement of a single contractor to develop, administer, score, and report three statewide assessments: ILEARN, IREAD, and Indiana's Alternate Measure (I AM). The contract will cover school years 2027-2028 through 2032-2033 (a six-calendar-year base period from January 1, 2027, through December 31, 2032, representing five school years) with one optional one-year extension through December 31, 2033. The solicitation requires the contractor to manage approximately 83,000 ILEARN students annually, 70,000-120,000 IREAD students depending on the administration cycle, and 900 I AM students per grade level. Key deliverables include developing approximately 1,024 new I AM items and 77 passages in Year 1, with historical item development for ILEARN and IREAD averaging 1,800 to 4,800 items annually depending on state funding allocation. The pre-proposal conference was held April 29, 2026, written questions were submitted by May 4, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. ET with responses provided by May 8, 2026, and proposals are due June 22, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. ET through the Supplier Portal. Award recommendation is anticipated in September 2026, with proposal discussions and oral presentations potentially occurring in July or August 2026.
Current budget allocations for the programs total approximately $117.5 million for ILEARN ($19.5-$37.6 million annually), $4.6 million for IREAD ($875,000-$1.3 million annually), and $4.1 million for I AM ($950,000-$1.2 million annually) for the period April 1, 2022, through December 31, 2026. Cost evaluation is based on all three programs for all six years excluding optional years, with proposals requiring firm, all-inclusive, non-negotiable pricing submitted on a per-assessment fee basis. The incumbent contractor is Cambium Assessment, Inc., which must transition all existing item banks, data, materials, and results to the selected contractor. Evaluation criteria allocate 50 points for management quality and capability, 30 points for cost, 5 points for Buy Indiana Initiative status, and 15 points for diversity subcontractor commitments with potential bonus opportunities for a maximum of 103 points. Subcontracting goals require 8 percent Minority Business Enterprise participation, 11 percent Women Business Enterprise participation, and 3 percent Indiana Veteran Owned Small Business participation. All proposed subcontractors must be listed on the State of Indiana Certified M/W/IVOSB database as of the proposal due date. Respondents must demonstrate prior experience serving multiple states in large-stakes summative assessment administration, provide documented system uptime information from the previous five years, submit recent audited financial statements or Dunn & Bradstreet reports, and furnish three client references submitted directly to idoareferences@idoa.in.gov by the proposal due date.
View the file
Other files
Show all 21
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
Question & Inquiry Form
| Attachment G | ||||||
| Question and Answer Template | ||||||
| RFP #26-86999 I AM, ILEARN and IREAD Assessments | ||||||
| Please submit your questions in the form below (yellow shaded area) per RFP Section 1.24. | ||||||
| Click the dropdown in the RFP Document Column to select topic. | ||||||
| No. | RFP Document | Section Number | Page | Topic | Question | State Responses |
| 1 | RFP Bid Package | The RFP documents posted under the 'View Bid Package' link in the IAM, ILEARN and IREAD Assessments Event differ from the 'Bid Documents' link posted on IDOA's Current Business Opportunities page. In the 'View Bid Package' link in the Event, the RFP documents are for a different RFP (#26-85965, Wisewoman & INBCCP Data Management and Claims Adjudication). Could you post the relevant RFP documents for RFP #26-86999 I AM, ILEARN and IREAD Assessments in the Bid Package? | Updated/Corrected | |||
| 2 | Artificial Intelligence - Technical Proposal Questions | Where should the "Artificial Intelligence - Technical Proposal Questions" be included in our submission? | Within the IOT section | |||
| 3 | Attachment E Business Proposal Template | 2.3.14 | 26 | 2.3.14 Payment | On pg. 26 of the RFP Main Document, section 2.3.14 seems to require a response, but in Attachment E Business Proposal, 2.3.14 says "removed at the request of the agency." Please confirm whether 2.3.14 requires a response. | Those are referencing 2 different items. The RFP Main Document is accurate. |
| 4 | Event Questions in Supplier Portal | Are all the Event Questions on the bid page correct? For example, there is a requirement to upload a Cloud Questionnaire and Resource Usage Template - these documents are not included in the 'Bid Documents' in IDOA's Current Business Opportunities page for RFP #26-86999 I AM, ILEARN and IREAD Assessments, but these documents appear in the 'View Bid Package' link in the Event. The RFP documents in the 'View Bid Package' link in the Event are for a different RFP, so it seems that the Event Questions are not aligning with what is in the 'Bid Documents' for RFP #26-86999. Please confirm if the Event Questions will be updated. | This has been updated/corrected and the Cloud Questionnaire and Resource Usage template has been added. | |||
| 5 | Scope of Work | Please confirm we should be referring to the PDF version of the Scope of Work (file name Att K - Scope of Work RTP), not the Word version (labeled Att K - Scope of Work - update term and link). There are inconsistencies between both versions. | The non-pdf version has been removed. | |||
| 7 | 2.4 | 15 | Text-to-Speech (Spanish) | ILEARN Math/SS/Science do not currently offer Spanish TTS. Does IDOE want to add Spanish TTS going forward? If so, should we include prices for adding Spanish TTS both to your current item banks and also new development under this contract? | Yes, IDOE would like to add this capability. Vendors should provide costs for this work. | |
| 8 | 2.4 | 14 | Files for Braille Embosser | For the online files for the braille embosser, please confirm that all programs/subjects require UEB contracted Braille and that for math/science, it should be Nemeth. | Yes, all programs and subjects require UEB contracted braille with Nemeth code for math/science as appropriate for the online files for braille embosser. | |
| 9 | 3.3 | 30 | Files for Braille Embosser | IREAD does not curently offer BRF/PRN files for the items. Does IDOE want to add BRF/PRN files going forward? If so, should we include prices for adding Braille to both your current item banks and also new development under this contract? | No, IDOE offers IREAD paper as uncontracted and contracted formats. | |
| 10 | 4.4 | 46 | Files for Braille Embosser | I AM does not curently offer BRF/PRN files for the items. Does IDOE want to add BRF/PRN files going forward? If so, should we include prices for adding Braille to both your current item banks and also new development under this contract? If yes, would this be in addition to the printed Braille books? | No, IDOE offers I AM paper as contracted format. | |
| 11 | 5.6 | 61 | Educator Committees | RangeFinding is not included as an educator meeting. Does IDOE anticipate developing new handscored items under this contract? If so, should we include pricing for developing new handscored items and the associated rangefinding costs? | There may be some minimal handscored item development based on the yearly item development plan. IDOE plans to handle rangefinding in house for these items as needed, on a year-to-year basis. Rangefinding educator meetings do not need added to this contract. | |
| 12 | 4.1 | 35 | I AM Research Implementation Manual | The West Ed report says "The literature review and the policy review can be requested from IDOE." Can you please send us a copy of this information? | These documents can now be accessed at this link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1l6yN6MMeA4a_CcOll_HvBgUhMyRlIh4N?usp=sharing | |
| 13 | Attachment A MWBE Commitment | At the bottom of the 2nd paragraph, there is a redline that was unfinished. (The amount entered in “TOTAL BID AMOUNT” should match the amount entered in the Attachment D, Cost Proposal on …) This looks like the incorrect document was attached. | It is referencing the Cost Proposal Total cost located on line I125 | |||
| 14 | Attachment A1 - IVOSB Commitment | At the bottom of the 2nd paragraph, there is a redline that was unfinished. (The amount entered in “TOTAL BID AMOUNT” should match the amount entered in the Attachment D, Cost Proposal on …) This looks like the incorrect document was attached. | It is referencing the Cost Proposal Total cost located on line I125 | |||
| 15 | Table 2.1 and Section 2.2(d) | 7 & 10 | U.S. Government Form Type | Table 2.1 mentions U.S. Government will be CAT, and Section 2.2(d) mentions fixed form; please confirm whether U.S. Government will be CAT or fixed form. | US Government will be CAT. | |
| 16 | 2.3(a) | 10 | Spanish Supports for Items | Section 2.3(a) indicates that currently, all operational items have been tagged with Spanish supports; please confirm whether this includes Spanish TTS. | The items have been tagged with Spanish written translations so that items can be viewed in either Spanish or English. Items have NOT been tagged for Spanish text-to-speech (TTS) currently; however, those tags would be added to all math, science, and social studies items within this new contract. | |
| 17 | 2.7(d) | 23 | ILEARN Academic Standards Updates | Please describe IDOE's plan/scope for updates to the ILEARN Academic Standards and how often the standards will be updated, including whether all or some content areas will be updated. Should pricing be included for these updates, including standard settings? Please indicate whether the standard setting(s) would be in-person or virtual. | Indiana Academic Standards and Content Connectors are evaluated on a six year cycle, one subject each year. Virtual standard settings will occur only if needed based on the changes made to standards. IDOE anticipates being able to validate the current cut scores following the next round of standard revisions. Anything further would be negotiated once more information is known. https://www.in.gov/doe/students/indiana-academic-standards/ | |
| 18 | 3.3 | 30 | IREAD Braille Booklet | Please confirm whether Uncontracted versions of the IREAD braille booklets should be produced and priced, in addition to Contracted versions. | The braille versions of IREAD paper tests will already exist. Base files will be provided to the contractor to support additional printings as needed of the braille assessment (contracted and uncontracted) | |
| 19 | 2.2(b) | 9 | ELA - Score items using an item scoring model based on scoring assertions | Is the use of scoring assertions needed for ELA, or are they used for Science only? | A formal scoring assertions model is used for science only. However, ELA includes scoring of the written essay, which is based on a 10-point rubric and special scoring rules, provided in the scoring specifications. | |
| 20 | Table 2.4 | 16 | U.S. Government Paper Accommodations | Will paper versions of U.S. Government be needed? | Yes, paper versions will be needed for students requiring this accommodation. | |
| 21 | 2.7(b) | 21 | Indiana Educator Handscorers | Please provide the estimated hourly rates to be paid to the Indiana Educator Handscorers for each year. | The estimated hourly rate for the contract will be $25/hour. | |
| 22 | 4.2(a) | 37 | I AM Blueprint | For scheduling purposes, will the I AM blueprint be available upon contract award? If not, when does IDOE anticipate it will be available? | The I AM test blueprint will be available upon contract execution. | |
| 23 | 4.3 | 41 | I AM Item Specifications, Passage Specifications, and Style Guide | For scheduling purposes, will the I AM Item Specifications, Passage Specifications, and Style Guide be available upon contract award? If not, when does IDOE anticipate they will be available? | The style guide can be made available upon contract award. Specifications are being developed beginning this summer, and IDOE will work with the awarded vendor on a timeline for scheduling. | |
| 24 | 4.4(a) | 47 | Support Levels 1 and 2 for Paper Versions | Please confirm the support levels that should be produced in paper formats, i.e., should two versions of each regular print and large print form (a Support Level 1 version and a Support Level 2 version) and one version of braille (Support Level 2) be produced? If not, please describe. | Both support levels must be available as paper forms. Because IDOE has not produced paper forms for these support levels previously, IDOE welcomes suggestions from vendors on the best way to provide options for schools efficiently. Braille forms should be produced with Support Level 2 only (additional graphics are not a support for this group of students). | |
| 25 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Cost Proposal | In which lines on the Cost Proposal spreadsheet should vendors submit costs for paper printing, shipping, collection, and materials accounting, including producing a missing materials report? | Line 48, Assessment Development: Annual Form Development |
| 26 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | 5.10(b) | 73-74 of SOW | Subcontracting | Attachment K - Scope of Work, Section 5.10(b) identifies “test delivery” as a key service that may not be subcontracted. In the statewide assessment industry, it is standard practice for assessment publishers to partner with specialized assessment technology providers for online test delivery and administration services. This model allows states to leverage best-in-class technology platforms while the prime contractor retains responsibility for assessment design, psychometrics, program management, and overall contract accountability. |
| Would the Department consider revising this requirement to permit subcontracting of assessment technology and test delivery services, provided the prime contractor maintains full accountability for performance, security, and compliance? Allowing this approach could broaden competition and provide Indiana access to the strongest available assessment technology solutions. | A revision will not be made to this portion of the SOW. | ||||||
| 27 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 2.7B | 16 | Human Scoring - Attachment K | Is the contractor responsible for rangefinding of field test items and should costs for rangefinding meetings be included in the response? | The contractor is responsible to create typical rangefinding materials for any field tested open-ended items (as outlined in the SOW). IDOE plans to handle rangefinding in house for these items. Rangefinding educator meetings do not need added to this contract. | |
| 28 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 2.7C | 18 | Human Scoring - Attachment K | Could the DOE provide a historic count of responses that required a rescore or a rescore was requested? | 2,258 item rescores were requested following the Spring 2025 ILEARN test administration. This is less than 0.1% of the approximately 1,920,000 open-ended responses collected across all grades and content areas in Spring 2025. | |
| 29 | Attachment B Sample Contract | 2.3.5 | 24 | Contract Terms/Clauses | Please confirm whether bidders may submit proposed alternative language for terms identified as "substantively required terms" understanding that such terms may ultimately be accepted or rejected at the State's discretion. | Any potential "redlines" must be submitted as outlined in the RFP. | |
| 30 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 4 | 2 & 3 | Confidential/Redacted File-Attachment J | Do bidders need to mark the pages or sections with confidential information as "Confidential" in the proposal submitted or provide any other form of marking for the information sought to be held in confidence? | Please see section 1.15 Confidential Information on the RFP Main Document. These directions must be followed or items will not be considered "confidential". | |
| 31 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 4 | 2 & 3 | Confidential/Redacted Filr-Attachment J | How and when will bidders be notified if the information sought to be held in confidence has been approved to be held in confidence? | Bidders are not notified. Bidders are required to follow instructions as outlined in section 1.12 Confidential Information on the RFP Main Document. If you have specific questions, please see provision of IC 5-14-3 for further information. | |
| 32 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 4.2(f) | 40 & 41 | Attachment K: Stopping Rules | Attachment K, Section 4.2(f) states that vendors should “support test administrators who administer paper forms with their use of the stopping rules.” Can the State clarify what forms of support are expected (e.g., scripted administration guidance, decision trees, visual cues in the test booklet, post‑test validation, or training materials? Are those paper-pencil stopping rule decisions to be made in real time? | There should be adequate support provided for test administrators to make decisions about stopping rules when administering paper tests. There are several solutions that IDOE sees as possible, including scripted guidance or visual cues in the test booklet. The vendor may suggest a path that works best for their specific solution that would provide test administrators with the support they need to make these decisions in real time. | |
| 33 | Attachment B Sample Contract | 8 | 5 | Attachment B1/2/3 | The RFP requires an FBI Identity History Summary Check as part of the background‑check requirements. Please confirm whether the State will accept functionally equivalent criminal background checks conducted by nationally recognized third‑party providers that do not require fingerprinting, or whether fingerprint‑based checks are mandatory for all covered personnel. | No | |
| 34 | 3.2.3 | 36 | Evaluation Criteria | Does the lowest cost proposal receive a toal of 30 or 35 points? | As outlined in the Summary of Evaluation Criteria of the RFP Main Document; 30 points | ||
| 35 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Is the Cost Evaluation based on the first year total of all the 3 programs or the grand total value of all 6 years of all the 3 programs? | As the State is requesting one (1) vendor to perform all 3 programs, the Cost evaluation is based on all 3 programs for all years (excluding the "optional years"). We have updated the cost proposal to make this more clear. | ||||
| 36 | Attachment J Attestation Form | This is for RFP Main Document, 2.6.2 | 29 | Buy Indiana Initiative | Can the State please provide information detailing how the five bonus points are allocated from the "Buy Indiana" criteria? | The information pertaining to Indiana Business Preference can be found on the RFP Main Document section 2.6.2 | |
| 37 | Attachment J Attestation Form | This if for Attachment K., 5.10(b) | 69 | Allowed subcontracting | This section states “However, key services, which include item development oversight, test construction, test delivery, and scoring (with the exception of handscoring or scanning of paper test materials), may not be subcontracted”. The second bullet below states “If a subcontractor will provide services related to key elements of test administration, scoring, or reporting, the contractor must also include relevant education background, professional experience, and resumes for subcontractor staff who would serve in primary roles”. |
Can the State please clarify that subcontractors for key elements can be utilized, given they provide the required documentation from the second bullet?
| "Services related to key elements of test administration" are not the same as fully subcontracting key elements. An example is that the scoring of the assessment cannot be subcontracted; however, handscoring is a component of scoring that might be subcontracted. Test delivery cannot be fully subcontracted; however, a subcontractor might provide key data services for the vendor. | ||||||
| 38 | Attachment B Sample Contract | Can the State please provide the current annual and total budget for each of the programs - ILearn, Iread and IAM | As of 5/6/26, the current totals for work from 4/1/22 through 12/31/26 are: ILEARN $117,493,195 ($19.5-$37.6 million/year), IREAD $4,567,336 ($875k-$1.3 millon/year), I AM $4,097,800 ($950k-$1.2 million/year).[Note that annual costs vary from year to year based on a number of variables.] | |||
| 39 | 1.3 | 6 | Purpose of Solicitation | Will the state contract with the vendor for six contract cycles as the base contract. We understand one additioanl school year could be added as an extension. Does the current vendor have a 6 year or 7 year contract? | The current contract is 5 school years (3 for the base contract plus 2 1-year extensions). The new contract will be for a base contract of 6 calendar years January 1, 2027 - December 31, 2032 (i.e., 5 school years) plus 1 optional extension year (through December 31, 2033, covering SY 2032-33). | |
| 41 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 2.4(a) |
3.3(a)
| 4.4(a) | 17, 31 & 47 | Paper Tests (Print Booklets) - Attachment K | Given Attachment K’s statement that existing IREAD paper forms will be provided to the contractor upon contract execution (Attachment K, IREAD Paper Booklet section, pp. ~31) and references to ongoing form development over the life of the contract, can the State clarify whether existing ILEARN and I AM paper forms will be transitioned for first‑year administration, or whether new paper forms must be developed for Year 1 in addition to continued form evolution over the life of the contract? | No paper test forms exist for I AM under this new design model. All paper tests will need to be developed from scratch. Files for existing ILEARN paper test forms (e.g., pdf files and item metadata files) will be provided to the vendor upon contract execution. | |||
| 42 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.3 (b) | 7 | Item Development iLearn | Understanding that the item development plan will be developed annually in collaboration with Ithe state, is there some minimum number of items that the contractor should plan for annually, or can the state provide an average count of items developed by content area? | Historically, this has varied greatly year-over-year based on the funding that the state is able to allocate to item development. Typically, this is negotiated between the state and the contractor each year as to the number of items that the state desires and the number of items the contractor is able to develop within that term. Historical data: During school year 2025-2026 approximately 3600 total items (across grades, content areas, and programs) were developed. During school year 2024-2025 approximately 1800 total items (across grades, content areas, and programs) were developed. During school year 2023-2024 approximately 4800 total items (across grades, content areas, and programs) were developed. | |
| 43 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 7 | Through-year assessment | Can the State clarify expectations for make-up testing, including whether there will be designated make-up windows within each checkpoint administration period? | Students who are unable to test within a Checkpoint window will not make up opportunity 1. They are able to participate in the opporutnity 2 window, which remains open through April. These students who miss opportunity 1 of a checkpoint may have missing data on their end-of-year summative report based on the scoring specifications for those scores that use information across the school year. | |
| 44 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 7 | Through-year assessment | How does the State intend to address late testers, and are there policies for students who are unable to test within the standard checkpoint window? | Students who are unable to test within a Checkpoint window will not make up opportunity 1. They are able to participate in the opporutnity 2 window, which remains open through April. These students who miss opportunity 1 of a checkpoint may have missing data on their end-of-year summative report based on the scoring specifications for those scores that use information across the school year. | |
| 45 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 7 | Through-year assessment | Does the State expect comparability across checkpoint assessments to be established (e.g., through a common scale across checkpoints or alternative approaches)? | A common scale already exists across ILEARN Checkpoint and summative assessments and must be maintained. | |
| 46 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 7 | Through-year assessment | Can the State provide guidance on how the level of rigor should be represented across checkpoint assessments? For example, should all checkpoints assess standards at their full end-of-year expectations, or is the State open to a model in which rigor is phased in over time to reflect instructional progression? | Because the ILEARN Checkpoints focus on mastery of the academic standard, the full range of expectations as expressed on the range PLDs for each assessed standard should be included in the Checkpoint assessment's computer-adaptive item pool. | |
| 47 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 7 | Through-year assessment | How does the State envision the integration of checkpoint and summative results within the overall assessment system? For example, should checkpoint assessments be designed as part of a unified measurement system with a common scale, or as independent measures that contribute to predictive reporting for the summative assessment? | The ILEARN Checkpoint assessments are already on a common scale with the ILEARN sumamtive assessment, and this common scale must be maintained. Portions of end-of-year score reports integrate information across the system. These scores are described in detail in the Scoring and Reporting section of the SOW. | |
| 48 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.7 (a) | 15 | Scoring Specifications and Item Response Theory (IRT) Models | Can the state provide additional information regarding the current vertical scale, including the methodology, and how it informs scoring and reporting? | IDOE is currently creating a new vertical scale for ILEARN math and ELA. The scale will be developed using Spring 2026 ILEARN assessments (Indiana-specific data). Once the spring assessment window closes, there will be information available on the breadth of the scale and the number of score points needed to describe student performance vertically across grades 3-8. Items for the vertical linking study are embedded in the Spring 2026 administration. Cut scores will be set on the new scale in July 2026. | |
| 49 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.8 (b) | 19 | Individual Student Results | Can the State clarify expectations for predictive modeling, including whether specific methodologies are preferred or if vendors may propose alternative approaches supported by research? | The Indiana Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) approved the current predictive model approach described in the SOW (time-adjusted IRT). While an alternative approach could be discussed with the TAC, the contractor must be prepared and ready to maintain the current approved model. | |
| 50 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.7 | 15 | Score Scales | How does the State intend to evaluate the validity and defensibility of combined scoring models during federal peer review? | USED representatives have confirmed with IDOE that, because the overall scale score on the summative assessment is what is used for accountability and only considers student performance on the summative, detailed documentation regarding combined reporting category scoring models is not needed for peer review purposes. | |
| 51 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.8 (b) | 19 | Individual Student Results | Are there expectations for transparency of predictive models to educators and stakeholders, and if so, at what level of detail? | An overview of the methodology applied is all that IDOE currently provides to educators. The Technical Advisory Committee must be able to review all methodologies and results in detail upon request (e.g., if a question arises or for technical reports if deemed necessary) | |
| 52 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.8 (b) | 19 | Individual Student Results | Does the State expect comparability across checkpoint assessments to be established (e.g., through a common scale across checkpoints or alternative approaches)? | A common scale already exists across ILEARN Checkpoint and summative assessments and must be maintained. | |
| 53 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 4.3 (a) | 37 | Item Development | To what extent are vendors expected to adhere strictly to the provided blueprints, including content distribution, and depth of knowledge (DOK)? My question here is about whether students are supposed to take “checkpoints” that are aligned to end-of-year expectations (i.e., level of rigor in the standard) | Test blueprints must be strictly adhered to at all times. For I AM, the new test design documentation expresses IDOE's plans to align items to learning targets that range from early entry to full mastery of the content connector. This range should be present on all of the I AM through-year assessments. | |
| 54 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 2 | ILEARN Assessment Overview | What is the State’s policy for students who miss an entire checkpoint administration? | Students who are unable to test within a Checkpoint window will not make up opportunity 1. They are able to participate in the opporutnity 2 window, which remains open through April. These students who miss opportunity 1 of a checkpoint may have missing data on their end-of-year summative report based on the scoring specifications for those scores that use information across the school year. | |
| 55 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.1 | 2 | ILEARN Assessment Overview | How should missing checkpoint data be handled in reporting, prediction, and any accountability determinations? | Students who are unable to test within a Checkpoint window will not make up opportunity 1. They are able to participate in the opporutnity 2 window, which remains open through April. These students who miss opportunity 1 of a checkpoint may have missing data on their end-of-year summative report based on the scoring specifications for those scores that use information across the school year. | |
| 56 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.8. (e ) | 22 | API Data Connection to Integrated Intervention or Curriculum Provider Resources | Can the State provide additional detail on priority systems or platforms that the assessment system must integrate with via API (e.g., SIS, LMS, intervention platforms)? | The contractor must have an immediate API solution to connect interim and summative assessment data to third party vendors. Third party vendors must meet contractor and IDOE specifications to be a provider. Providers include instructional systems (individual learning path lessons) for all students, data management platforms with targeted connections to supplemental or intervention/instructional resources for MTSS support, and reporting and data visualization platforms to support decision-making. | |
| 57 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 3.6 (a) | 29 | General Formatting for Results | Are there preferred data standards (e.g., Ed-Fi, OneRoster) for system integration and data exchange? | IDOE requires Ed-Fi data standards. | |
| 58 | Attachment K - Scope of Work | 2.8. (e ) | 22 | API Data Connection to Integrated Intervention or Curriculum Provider Resources | What are the State’s expectations regarding interoperability with third-party instructional or reporting tools? | The contractor must have an immediate API solution to connect interim and summative assessment data to third party vendors. Third party vendors must meet contractor and IDOE specifications to be a provider. | |
| 59 | RFP Document | 1.41 | 6 | Key Performance Indicators | Can the State provide additional details on anticipated Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), including performance thresholds and associated remedies for non-performance? | Specific KPIs and performance thresholds will be discussed and agreed upon between the State and the awarded vendor during contract negotiations. In general, IDOE expects KPIs and other metrics to focus on timely delivery of assessments and reports, system uptime, accuracy of data, and other critical elements of each assessment. Remedies for failure to successfully meet requirements typically include liquidated damages, which in the past have ranged from $50k-$100k per day for delays/system outages during testing windows to $250k+ per grade/content area for egregious errors that require the State to suppress student scores due to significant errors made by the Contractor. | |
| 60 | RFP Document | 1.41 | 6 | Key Performance Indicators | How will the modified Net Promoter Score survey be administered, and how will it factor into overall vendor performance evaluation? | Please see section 1.4-1.4.2 of the RFP Main Document | |
| 61 | RFP Document | 1.4 | 6 | Statement of Work | Can the State clarify the role of IV&V in approving deliverables and the process for resolving disputes related to deliverable acceptance? | Please see section 1.4-1.4.2 of the RFP Main Document | |
| 62 | Attachment J Attestation Form | 5.1 | 71 | Attachment K., Scope of Work, 5.12( c ) & 5.12(d) | Since IDOE works with a 3rd party replication vendor and MetaMetrics for the Lexiles and Quantile measurements, does the bidder need to include these in our cost proposal? | No, these are separate contracts that IDOE oversees. The contracted vendor will be required to support this work. | |
| 63 | |||||||
| 64 | |||||||
| 65 | |||||||
| 66 | |||||||
| 67 | |||||||
| 68 | |||||||
| 69 | |||||||
| 70 | |||||||
| 71 | |||||||
| 72 | |||||||
| 73 | |||||||
| 74 | |||||||
| 75 | |||||||
| 76 | |||||||
| 77 | |||||||
| 78 | |||||||
| 79 | |||||||
| 80 | |||||||
| 81 | |||||||
| 82 | |||||||
| 83 | |||||||
| 84 | |||||||
| 85 | |||||||
| 86 | |||||||
| 87 | |||||||
| 88 | |||||||
| 89 | |||||||
| 90 | |||||||
| 91 | |||||||
| 92 | |||||||
| 93 | |||||||
| 94 | |||||||
| 95 | |||||||
| 96 | |||||||
| 97 | |||||||
| 98 | |||||||
| 99 | |||||||
| 100 |
| Attachment A MWBE Commitment |
| Attachment A1 - IVOSB Commitment |
| Attachment B Sample Contract |
| Attachment C Indiana Economic Impact Form |
| Attachment D Cost Proposal Template |
| Attachment E Business Proposal Template |
| Attachment F Technical Proposal Template |
| Attachment H Reference Form |
| Attachment I Pre-Proposal Network Opportunities Form |
| Attachment J Attestation Form |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .