B-47327 21st Century Community Learning Centers Statewide Evaluation Question and Answer Addendum 3.docx

25-586SBE-CHFED-B-47327

SBE: 21st Century Community Learning Centers Statewide Evaluation Question and Answer Addendum #3

1. Are site visits to every subgrantee required, or is sampling a representative subset of grantees acceptable? If site visits are required for every grantee, can some be virtual site visits?

ANSWER: The second bullet point of Section A.2: Desired Outcomes of this Project/Engagement states: “Conducting site visits, surveys, and other assessment activities to provide a comprehensive assessment of each individual subgrantee’s implementation.” (Emphasis added.) ISBE intends that every subgrantee be visited and that these site visits be conducted on location.

2. The RFP notes that the “processes and procedures that are associated with the activities the selected Vendor will conduct are largely in place.” What are these processes/procedures, and do they include specific data collection tools that the Vendor will use?

ANSWER: Processes and procedures, including specific tools, that are currently in place are outlined on ISBE’s public facing 21st CCLC Local Evaluation webpage. These are the processes, procedures, and tools that have been implemented by the current vendor. Potential revisions would be made in consultation with ISBE. As the current processes, procedures, and tools have successfully captured the needed information, it is not anticipated that major revisions/overhauls will be needed.

3. Will the Vendor be responsible for reporting on implementation and outcomes (or just outcomes) of CCLC programming from the 2024-2025 school year?

ANSWER: The vendor will be responsible for reporting on implementation and outcomes from the 2024-2025 school year.

4. What specific SEL skills is ISBE most interested in learning more about?

ANSWER: SEL skills and associated learning and activities will vary greatly among subgrantees and will often depend largely on the unique needs of each grantee’s community. An example of an analysis of SEL skills and learning can be found on page 17 of the most recent available (FY 2023) Statewide Evaluation.

5. Does ISBE expect the evaluation activities for a given year to focus only on currently active grantees (63 in FY2025)? Does ISBE expect evaluation activities to include the two cohorts (FY2021 and FY2023) that have end dates of FY 2025? If additional cohorts of grants (e.g., FY2026) can be added to this evaluation, can ISBE provide an estimate of the number for our budgeting purposes ANSWER: ISBE expects that the evaluation activities in each year of this contract will focus on all active cohorts and grantees during that specific fiscal year. I.e. the evaluation activities for the FY 2025 Statewide Evaluation will focus on Cohorts FY 2021, FY 2022, FY 2023, and FY 2025; the evaluation activities for the FY 2026 Statewide Evaluation will focus on Cohorts FY 2022, FY 2025, and FY 2026 (if a competition is held in FY 2026). Section B.2. notes:

*Decisions regarding whether or not competitions will take place in FY 2026 and later have not yet been made. Such competitions are subject to and contingent upon sufficient federal appropriations and spending authority from the Illinois General Assembly.

The frequency of cohorts and the number of entities awarded in each cohort year depends on the amount of funding available for subgrants. While it is anticipated that there will be future cohorts, it is unknown how frequently cohorts will begin or how many entities will be awarded within those cohorts. The number of entities per cohort indicated in the table above is relatively stable, but it should be noted that in some cases cohort sizes may vary significantly. As an example, the cohort that began in FY 2015, which concluded at the end of FY 2024, had 78 unique entities as subgrantees.

6. Regarding the Commitment to Diversity Categories, will partial/percentage points be able to be given to entities that may not be able to fully comply with all categories due to current Executive Order conflicts?

ANSWER: The Commitment to Diversity section is weighted approximately 20% of the total technical points. ISBE’s expectation is that vendors will provide responses to the best of their ability and will be scored accordingly.

7. What is the total number of sites across the 53 unique entities?

ANSWER: The RFP has been updated to state that there are 63 unique entities. Among those 63 entities, there are currently 363 active sites.

8. How many of the 53 unique entities are Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)? Tribal Organizations? Community-based organizations (CBOs)? Faith-based organizations (FBOs)?

ANSWER: The RFP has been updated to state that there are 63 unique entities. Among those 63 entities, 29 are LEAs; 28 are CBOs; and six are “others” (not Tribal Organizations nor FBOs).

9. As we understand it, “in addition to conducting the annual statewide evaluation of the 21st CCLC Program, the selected Vendor also will support all subgrantees in conducting their local evaluations.” How often does the state request that the vendor conduct on-site evaluations of subgrantees?

ANSWER: On-site visits are a required component of the statewide evaluation. Supporting local evaluations does not require (but may include) on-site visits. This work includes, but is not limited to, providing resources, tools and templates, and technical assistance to subgrantees as they conduct their local evaluations.

10. How often are subgrantee training sessions conducted by ISBE?

ANSWER: The frequency and scope of ISBE-provided training sessions can vary greatly depending on subgrantee needs. Such training may include activities ranging from brief walkthroughs of a required task to larger-scale multiple hour and/or multiple session focused training. Generally, but not always, there are anywhere from one to five formal training sessions, webinars, meetings, etc. per year that are offered to all subgrantees. Some of these are required for subgrantees to attend while others are not.

11. Are these statewide training sessions conducted for each of the seven regions, or is there a different structure?

ANSWER: Historically, training sessions have not targeted or been limited to any specific regions or groups of regions. Invitees vary depending on the needs of grantees (e.g., a training may be focused on grantees that serve high school students or summer school programs only).

12. Do the ISBE 21st CCLC program professionals have an established risk methodology approach to evaluation?

ANSWER: ISBE’s 21st CCLC program staff utilizes a Risk Analysis Tracker/Procedure as a component of our subgrantee monitoring practices, but this is not directly related to local or statewide evaluation activities.

13. With barriers indicated in previous EDC evaluations such as “low parent involvement in activities and difficulty in recruiting and retaining program staff”, as well as “difficulty in recruiting students” at the high school level, has a gap analysis been conducted to determine if there are community partners that may not be presently active in the 21st CCLC programs across the state?

ANSWER: ISBE has not conducted or contributed to any such gap analysis.

14. As we understand it, the program currently has systems in place for evaluation purposes. Outside of the data entry requirements in the 21APR system, does the state currently maintain their own software system for use with the 21st CCLC program?

ANSWER: ISBE does not maintain its own software for local or statewide evaluation activities.

15. What is the program’s philosophy on the use of restricted AI to strengthen monitoring or quality control?

ANSWER: The program has not established such a philosophy.

16. Are there in-state requirements for vendors interested in pursuing this opportunity?

ANSWER: No, there are no in-state requirements for vendors interested in pursuing this opportunity.

17. Since the response is the day after a Federal Holiday, would ISBE consider extending the deadline?

ANSWER: At this time, ISBE does not anticipate extending the due date for proposals.

18. The RFP states that “There are 53 unique entities that have been awarded subgrants under the 21st CCLC Program and that would participate in the activities required under the terms of this contract.” Some of these 53 entities have more than one grant and/or spread across cohorts. Given the requirement of a site visit and report for each site visit in the 2nd year, will this require multiple site visits/reports with the same entity if they have multiple grants/enrolled across cohort years?

ANSWER: The RFP has been updated to state that there are 63 unique entities. Each of these entities may have one or more grants. The selected Vendor is required to conduct, at minimum, one site visit per grant (not per entity). Site visits shall be conducted in the second year of each of those grants.

19. Similarly, will multiple summative reports or just one summative report for an entity that has more than one grant and/or in more than one cohort year?

ANSWER: As noted in the response to question #18, each unique entity may have one or more grants. The selected Vendor is required to complete a summative report for each grant. Therefore, entities with multiple grants would need summative reports for each of those grants.

20. The plan calls for multiple reports annually. Can we assume these are all written reports? Is there any expectation of the need to share data in other formats for various audiences (e.g., PowerPoint presentations, sharing orally at meeting(s) with stakeholders, subsets of data to post on ISBE or subcontractors' websites, potential publications)?

ANSWER: The written reports are the primary product, but there may be occasions where the selected Vendor is requested to present information shared in the reports in presentations, during meetings, etc.

21. Instruments currently exist for the subgrantee annual evaluations and spring survey. Is this contract to include resources for revising these as needed or are they to be used exactly as is for cross-year comparisons? If revisions are expected, is there an expectation to completely overhaul/create new instruments or just minor adjustments?

ANSWER: The current instruments may serve as a basis for what the selected vendor will develop, revise, etc. Potential revisions would be made in consultation with ISBE. As the current instruments have successfully captured the needed information, it is not anticipated that major revisions/overhauls will be needed.

22. Do instruments/judgment criteria exist for the site visits? If so, please provide. If not, can we assume the expectation is that the evaluation would create these criteria?

ANSWER: There is no existing instrument that ISBE expects the selected Vendor to utilize for site visits. ISBE expects the selected Vendor to create such an instrument in consultation with ISBE.

23. The RFP and Attachment G.1 reference the task of conducting site visits to every subgrantee during the second year of the grant. Do these site visits need to be conducted in-person, or can they be conducted virtually with grantee staff?

ANSWER: ISBE intends that every subgrantee be visited and that these site visits be conducted on location.

In addition, does the state mean site visits will be conducted for all active subgrantees, or just the cohort that is newly funded during the second year of the contract period?

ANSWER: Site visits will be conducted during the second year of every grant. If an individual subgrantee has multiple grants across multiple cohorts, each grant would require a site visit during the second year.

24. Section C.1 (p. 7) of the RFP lists several required attachments and a weblink with a list of blank forms for the attachments. “Offer to State” is listed twice. Does this refer to two separate documents on the procurement website or is this an error? The PDF attachment for the “Request for Proposal Offer to the State of Illinois” document on BidBuy and on the procurement website gives an error message, even though we use the most updated version of Adobe. Can you post these forms as a Word file? Or post error-free PDF versions?

ANSWER: Only one Offer to the State is required. Please use this link: Request for Proposal Offer to the State of Illinois v.25.2 You will need to download the document first and then open for best results.

25. Section F.2.3 requires documentation demonstrating experience of professional background in working with school, district, and community-level program quality and performance evaluation. Would an evaluation report be sufficient to meet this requirement? If not, what other kind of documentation should be submitted for this? How many documents should be submitted for this requirement?

ANSWER: It is up to the bidder’s discretion to determine the types and quantities of documentation that will best demonstrate its ability to conduct this wok.

26. Section F.2.4 requires documentation demonstrating experience in evaluation of quality and effectiveness of out-of-school time programs, including a minimum of three years’ experience conducting statewide program evaluation services for 21st CCLC Programs. Would a peer-reviewed journal article discussing evaluation findings suffice for this requirement? What is the total number of documents that should be submitted to establish this experience?

ANSWER: It is up to the bidder’s discretion to determine the types and quantities of documentation that will best demonstrate its ability to conduct this wok.

27. Section F.2.5 requires demonstrated experience in performing statewide evaluation of program impact and identifying characteristics associated with high-and low-performing 21st CCLC Programs. Would a journal article that discusses findings and challenges for a statewide evaluation of 21st CCLC programs suffice for this requirement? If not, what other documents should be submitted to meet this requirement.

ANSWER: It is up to the bidder’s discretion to determine the types and quantities of documentation that will best demonstrate its ability to conduct this wok.

28. Section F.3.4 requires reference to and analysis of previous statewide evaluations. Does this reference the applicant’s previous experience conducting statewide evaluations (referenced in Section F.2.4) or the statewide evaluation reports of ISBE prepared by the previous vendor?

ANSWER: This section requires the bidder to reference and analyze previous statewide evaluations that were provided by the current/previous vendor. These previous statewide evaluations are available on ISBE’s website, under the dropdown menu for “Statewide Evaluations.”

29. Section F.3.6 requires sample materials of professional development activities. Can you give an example of the type of materials you’re requesting, given that the Technical Assistance System should reflect flexible and varied delivery mechanisms?

ANSWER: It is up to the bidder’s discretion to determine the types and quantities of documentation that will best demonstrate its ability to conduct this wok.