Attachment B.doc

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

Reading First Logistical Support

Introduction

This AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN (AFEP) sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education will use in evaluating the technical performance of the contractor. A copy of this plan will be furnished to the contractor so that the contractor will be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating performance on this contract and address any concerns that the contractor may have prior to initiating work.

Purpose of the AFEP The AFEP is intended to accomplish the following:

1. Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials and outside experts;

2. Define the key tasks which will be assessed;

3. Describe the rating elements and standards of performance against which the contractor’s performance will be assessed for each key task;

4. Describe the process of quality assurance assessment; and

5. Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms that will be used by the Government in documenting and evaluating the contractor’s performance.

Each of these purposes is discussed in detail below.

Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials The following Government Officials will participate in assessing the quality of the contractor’s performance. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). The COR will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording, and reporting on the technical performance of the contractor on a day-to-day basis. The COR will also be responsible for completing the Award Fee Evaluation Forms (described in greater detail below) that will be used to document the inspection and evaluation of the contractor’s work performance on key tasks.

It is extremely important for the COR to establish and maintain a team-oriented line of communication with the Contractor’s Project Director (PD) in order to perform monitoring functions. The COR, CO, and PD must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Meetings should be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems. Less serious problems should be discussed and resolved on an impromptu basis.

The Contracting Officer (CO) will have overall responsibility for overseeing the contractor’s performance. The Contract Officer will be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the contractor’s performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and property control; reviewing the COR’s assessment of the contractor’s performance; and resolving all differences between the COR’s version and the contractor’s version. The CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required.

The Contracting Officer’s procurement authorities include the following:

1. SOLE authority for any decisions which produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract;

2. SOLE authority for any actions subject to the “Changes” clause;

3. SOLE authority for any decision to be rendered under the “Disputes” clause;

4. SOLE authority for negotiation and determination of indirect rates to be applied to the contract;

5. SOLE authority to approve the substitution or replacement of the Project Director and other key personnel;

6. SOLE authority to approve the contractor’s invoices for payment, subject to the Limitation of Costs clause and the Limitation of Funds clause;

7. SOLE authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements;

8. Authority to arrange for and supervise Award Fee Evaluation activities under this contract;

9. SOLE authority to approve the contractor’s Quality Control Program;

10. To approve all contractor purchases of equipment, supplies, and materials exceeding $2,500 are encouraged even though not required by FAR 13.106; and

11. Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

Key Tasks to Be Assessed Even though the Government through its COR will be monitoring the contractor’s performance on a continuing basis, the volume of tasks performed by the contractor makes technical inspections of every task and step impractical. Accordingly, the Department of Education will use an award fee evaluation plan process to monitor the contractor’s performance under this contract. Specifically, the COR will assess the contractor’s performance across a set of tailored rating elements for the following key tasks:

· Task 2: National Conference

· Site Selection and Reservation

· Presenter Conflict of Interest Screening

· Registration

· Evaluation Report

· Task 3: State Directors Meetings

· Site Selection and Reservation

· Travel and Lodging Arrangements

· Evaluation Report

· Task 4: Reading First Advisory Committee Meetings

· Site Selection and Reservation

· Meeting Minutes

Rating Elements and Standards of Performance for Key Tasks The contractor’s performance shall be evaluated by assessing the key tasks described above. Tailored rating elements (subtasks) for each task have been developed and incorporated into the Award Fee Evaluation Plan Rating Forms. To receive an award for a task, the contractor must receive a superior rating , (8-10) points, for each rating element associated with that task. The rating elements and acceptable standards of performance for these tasks are described below:

Task 2: National Conference

Rating Element 1: Site Selection and Reservation where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the National Conference. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Rating Element 2: Presenter Conflict of Interest Screening where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive synthesis of all proposed reviewers’ conflict of interest screening reviews for the National Conference. The Contractor conducts a thorough Internet search of each proposed presenter identifying books and publications, affiliations with publishers and other literacy organizations, and other work that could pose a potential conflict of interest. Superior performance for subtask B.7 includes the Contractor conducting conflict of interest interviews and screening of presenters, when possible, ahead of the deadline for subtask B.7. Superior performance includes the Contractor cataloging the expertise and affiliations of presenters to ensure that there is a balance of expertise presented at the National Conference.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include meeting the deadlines associated with the subtask. Acceptable performance for subtask B.7 includes the Contractor conducting conflict of interest interviews and screening of all presenters per ED guidance, conducting a basic Internet search, and providing a report of the information received from the screening to ED.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include failure to meet performance standards for this rating including the failure to conduct conflict of interest screening of all potential presenters, the failure to conduct a basic internet search, and the failure to meet deadlines associated with the subtask.

Rating Element 3: Registration where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element. The onsite registration would include an electronic system that maximizes efficiency by quickly accessing attendee profiles, providing verification of attendance so attendees may get credit, and printing name badges. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include access to laptops where attendees can register at the National Conference. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would a failure to meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Rating Element 4: Evaluation Report where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include a comprehensive synthesis of all attendee evaluations from the National Conference. The evaluation reports will highlight strengths and areas of improvement for both the content and logistical arrangements of the National Conference. The Contractor will synthesize all evaluations for all breakout sessions and workshops. Based on the evaluations, the Contractor will provide suggestions for continuous improvement regarding logistical support for future conferences.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable evaluation report from each meeting summarizing the attendees’ responses. The contractor would provide a general overview of strengths and areas of need for improvement for the National Conference

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include a failure to distribute evaluations at the National Conference. Unacceptable performance includes the failure to submit an acceptable evaluation report to ED within the deadlines established in subtask D.2

Task 3: State Directors Meetings

Rating Element 1: Site Selection and Reservation where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the State Directors meetings. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Rating Element 2: Travel and Lodging Arrangements where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all travel arrangements made for the State Directors meeting. The Contractor shall compare travel costs and ensure that they are purchasing tickets in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The Contractor exceeds deadlines and for subtask B.3. The travel arrangements are under budget for subtask B.3. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the contractor meeting all deadlines associated with subtask B.3. Contractor shall stay within budget by purchasing reasonable ticket options. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to meet deadlines associated with subtask B.3. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Rating Element 3: Evaluation Report where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include a comprehensive synthesis of all attendee evaluations from the State Directors meeting. The evaluation reports will highlight strengths and areas of improvement for both the content and logistical arrangements of the State Directors meeting. Based on the evaluations, the Contractor will provide suggestions for continuous improvement regarding logistical support for future meetings.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable evaluation report from the State Directors meeting summarizing the attendees’ responses. The contractor would provide a general overview of strengths and areas of need for improvement for each meeting.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include a failure to distribute evaluations the State Directors’ meetings. Unacceptable performance includes the failure to submit an acceptable evaluation report to ED within the deadlines established in subtask D.2

Task 4: Reading First Advisory Committee Meetings

Rating Element 1: Site Selection and Reservation where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the FACA meeting or exceeds deadlines associated with planning an advisory meeting with short notice. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.0 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by advisory meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1 or deadlines associated with planning an advisory committee meeting on short notice. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-3.99 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Rating Element 2: Meeting Minutes where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, submit high-quality and accurate minutes, and exceed deadlines associated with subtask D.3. Superior performance includes prompt response to all ED clarifications pertaining to minutes ahead of the deadlines should the transcriber have any questions as the transcriber would likely not have content knowledge of the Reading First program.

Acceptable (5-7) – would meet deadlines associated with subtask D.3. Acceptable performance includes an organized presentation of meeting minutes as the report will be published for the public. Acceptable performance includes response to ED clarifications by the deadlines established.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to contract with a transcriber, the failure to meet the requirements and deadlines set out in subtask D.3, and/or the failure to respond to clarifications by the deadlines associated with subtask D.3.

Process of Award Fee Evaluation While quality assurance is closely tied to these performance standards for tasks; content, timeliness and cost are also important considerations in the assessment of contractor performance. The contractor’s cost performance will be evaluated by the Department at the end of the contract. The Department expects the contractor to stay within cost. The contractor shall not exceed the total estimated cost of the contract.

In the event of an excusable delay (as defined in FAR 52.249-14, Excusable Delays and EDAR 3452.242-71, Notice to the Government of Delays), the Department and the contractor shall work together to modify the contract with regard to the due dates of the subtasks. If such an event were to occur that would require a modification to the due dates of the subtasks, the contractor’s performance shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

The contractor’s performance will be evaluated by the COR using the appropriate key evaluation forms (see below). These forms will serve to document and evaluate the contractor’s performance on each key task under this contract. Each form will be completed by the COR and the rating element scores will be averaged to generate the final evaluation score for that key task. The Contractor must receive a score of superior, (8-10 points), on each rating element to receive an award fee for the task. Partial fees will not be awarded. This final evaluation score will document the COR's understanding of contractor performance for that key task.

The COR will substantiate, in narrative form, all individual scores judged to be indicative of “superior” or “unacceptable” performance. At a minimum, performance at the “acceptable” level is expected from the contractor. The primary method of surveillance shall be documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of subtasks under Tasks 3, 4, and 5. The COR will also use the participant evaluations provided by the contractor to evaluate the contractor’s performance.

The COR will forward copies of completed evaluation forms to the CO. The CO will forward a summary of COR comments to the contractor. The contractor shall respond in writing to any “unacceptable” final average evaluation scores within 5 working days after receipt of the form(s).

The CO will review the evaluation form prepared by the COR. When appropriate, the CO may investigate the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COR opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will immediately discuss every event receiving an “unacceptable” rating with the contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

Award Fee Plan Performance incentive bonuses will be awarded for those key tasks that are judged by the COR to be superior. If the contractor’s performance is unacceptable, the government will take a deduction from the funds for that key task.

The tasks that will be used to evaluate contractor performance and the bonuses and deductions tied to each are listed below. In order to receive a bonus payment for a subtask, the contractor must receive a rating of "Superior" (8-10 points), for each rating element. If the contractor receives an overall rating of "Unacceptable" (1-4 points), based on the average score across all of the rating elements for a subtask, then the stated deduction will be deducted.

*All incentives and disincentives will be stated in dollar values upon award of the contract. The approximate percentages will be replaced with the actual dollar values. The dollar amount of incentives and disincentives for the base year and each option year will be proportionate to the scope of work of the contract.

Task 2:

· There is no award fee for Acceptable Performance

· Superior Performance results in an award of 3% of the annual year’s contract value awarded at the end of each year.

· Unacceptable performance results in a deduction of 3% of the annual year’s contract value deducted at the end of each year.

Task 3:

· There is no award fee for Acceptable Performance

· Superior Performance results in an award of 1% of the annual year’s contract value awarded at the end of each year.

· Unacceptable performance results in a deduction of 1% of the annual year’s contract value deducted at the end of each year.

Task 4:

· There is no award fee for Acceptable Performance

· Superior Performance results in an award of 2% of the annual year’s contract value awarded at the end of each year.

· Unacceptable performance results in a deduction of 2% of the annual year’s contract value deducted at the end of each year.

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

Task 2 – National Conference Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________

Average Score Across

All Rating Elements: ________________________

Rating Element 1: Site Selection and Reservation Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the National Conference. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Rating Element 2: Presenter Conflict of Interest Screening Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive synthesis of all proposed reviewers’ conflict of interest screening reviews for the National Conference. The Contractor conducts a thorough Internet search of each proposed presenter identifying books and publications, affiliations with publishers and other literacy organizations, and other work that could pose a potential conflict of interest. Superior performance for subtask B.7 includes the Contractor conducting conflict of interest interviews and screening of presenters, when possible, ahead of the deadline for subtask B.7. Superior performance includes the Contractor cataloging the expertise and affiliations of presenters to ensure that there is a balance of expertise presented at the National Conference.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include meeting the deadlines associated with the subtask. Acceptable performance for subtask B.7 includes the Contractor conducting conflict of interest interviews and screening of all presenters per ED guidance, conducting a basic Internet search, and providing a report of the information received from the screening to ED.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include failure to meet performance standards for this rating including the failure to conduct conflict of interest screening of all potential presenters, the failure to conduct a basic internet search, and the failure to meet deadlines associated with the subtask.

Rating Element 3: Registration Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element. The onsite registration would include an electronic system that maximizes efficiency by quickly accessing attendee profiles, providing verification of attendance so attendees may get credit, and printing name badges. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include access to laptops where attendees can register at the National Conference. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would a failure to meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask C.1 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Rating Element 4: Evaluation Report Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include a comprehensive synthesis of all attendee evaluations from the National Conference. The evaluation reports will highlight strengths and areas of improvement for both the content and logistical arrangements of the National Conference. The Contractor will synthesize all evaluations for all breakout sessions and workshops. Based on the evaluations, the Contractor will provide suggestions for continuous improvement regarding logistical support for future conferences.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable evaluation report from each meeting summarizing the attendees’ responses. The contractor would provide a general overview of strengths and areas of need for improvement for the National Conference

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include a failure to distribute evaluations at the National Conference. Unacceptable performance includes the failure to submit an acceptable evaluation report to ED within the deadlines established in subtask D.2

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

Task 3: State Directors Meeting Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the State Directors meetings. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Rating Element 2: Travel and Lodging Arrangements

Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all travel arrangements made for the State Directors meeting. The Contractor shall compare travel costs and ensure that they are purchasing tickets in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost. The Contractor exceeds deadlines and for subtask B.3. The travel arrangements are under budget for subtask B.3. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.5 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the contractor meeting all deadlines associated with subtask B.3. Contractor shall stay within budget by purchasing reasonable ticket options. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-4.49 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by conference attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to meet deadlines associated with subtask B.3. performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.3 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Rating Element 3: Evaluation Report

Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include a comprehensive synthesis of all attendee evaluations from the State Directors meeting. The evaluation reports will highlight strengths and areas of improvement for both the content and logistical arrangements of the State Directors meeting. Based on the evaluations, the Contractor will provide suggestions for continuous improvement regarding logistical support for future meetings.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable evaluation report from the State Directors meeting summarizing the attendees’ responses. The contractor would provide a general overview of strengths and areas of need for improvement for each meeting.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include a failure to distribute evaluations the State Directors’ meetings. Unacceptable performance includes the failure to submit an acceptable evaluation report to ED within the deadlines established in subtask D.2

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

AWARD FEE EVALUATION PLAN

RATING FORM

· Task 4: Federal Advisory Committee Meetings Reviewer: _________________________________

Date: _________________________________ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, and include an accurate and comprehensive report of all sites considered for each meeting. The report would include a comprehensive comparison of the return on investment of each site considered, the accessibility of each site, including accessibility for individuals with disabilities as well as accessibility to/from all regions of the United States, and proximity to airports, restaurants, and other needs of meeting attendees. The Contractor exceeds deadlines for subtask B.1 associated with the FACA meeting or exceeds deadlines associated with planning an advisory meeting with short notice. Superior performance also includes an average of 4.0 or higher on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by advisory meeting attendees.

Acceptable (5-7) – would include the submission of an acceptable review and justification of the site selected and evidence other sites were consulted and visited. The contractor meets all deadlines associated with subtask B.1 or deadlines associated with planning an advisory committee meeting on short notice. Acceptable performance also includes an average score of 3.0-3.99 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to select a site by the deadlines associated with the subtask, the failure to provide ED with justification as to why a site or location was selected, and/or the failure to secure a site meeting accessibility requirements. Unacceptable performance also includes an average score below a 3.0 on a 5-point Likert scale or similar evaluation of subtask B.1 as evaluated by meeting attendees.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):

Rating Element 2: Meeting Minutes

Score: _______ where:

Superior (8-10) – would meet acceptable performance standards for this rating element, submit high-quality and accurate minutes, and exceed deadlines associated with subtask D.3. Superior performance includes prompt response to all ED clarifications pertaining to minutes ahead of the deadlines should the transcriber have any questions as the transcriber would likely not have content knowledge of the Reading First program.

Acceptable (5-7) – would meet deadlines associated with subtask D.3. Acceptable performance includes an organized presentation of meeting minutes as the report will be published for the public. Acceptable performance includes response to ED clarifications by the deadlines established.

Unacceptable (1-4) – would include the failure to contract with a transcriber, the failure to meet the requirements and deadlines set out in subtask D.3, and/or the failure to respond to clarifications by the deadlines associated with subtask D.3.

Supporting comments (required for unacceptable or superior performance ratings):