REL_-_Amendment_0001_SF30.pdf

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30. (Rev. 10-83) Previous Edition unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Page of Pages AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. Contract ID Code

2. AMENDMENT MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (if applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6) CODE

(x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (NO., Street, Country, State and ZIP Code)

CODE FACILITY CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning ______ copies of amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OR OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

Check One

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return _______ copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Contents Amendment 0001 Supplemental Information

Letters of Interest, Support, and Commitment

General Solicitation Information

Concept Papers

Conferences and Meetings

Confidentiality/Disclosure/FOIA

Conflict of Interest

Contract Proposal Analysis

Evaluation Criteria

Travel

Formatting & Style

Submission Protocols

IT Reporting

Information Technology

Key Personnel

Management Plan

Past Performance

Pricing Matrix

Technical Evaluation

Schedule of Deliverables

Small Business

Subtask 2.2:

Task 2.7

Task 3

Funding

Task 6.2

PAGE 3 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Amendment 0001 Supplemental Information

Amendment 0001 to Solicitation No.: ED-IES-15-R-0016 responds to vendor questions and updates the following documents:

(1) Performance Work Statement

(2) Instructions to Offerors

(3) Small Business Evaluation Tool (the same chart is updated in the Evaluation Criteria).

(4) Evaluation Criteria (only to clarify the weight of the sub-factors)

(5) Pricing Matrix

Please note that these documents may also contain templates or other reference documents that are also updated (see Concept Papers).

The Department recognizes that responses to these questions may prompt additional inquiries from the vendor community. For this reason, we will accept additional questions submitted on or before Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:00 PM Eastern Time. Please do not repeat questions that have already been answered (e.g., will the Department reconsider the proposal length; will the Department consider additional resumes for personnel, etc.). The Department will not accept any additional questions submitted beyond this deadline, and the proposal response deadline remains unchanged.

Please submit any remaining questions by the deadline stated above to Jonathan.Bettis@ed.gov with a cc to Heather.Watroba@ed.gov. Again, the Department will not answer questions individually, nor will we accept questions submitted via telephone or facsimile.

Please note that all questions are stated as originally submitted by the contractor with minor redactions where appropriate.

PAGE 4 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Letters of Interest, Support, and Commitment

The Department has received several questions about the letters of interest and letters of support that the Department has requested as part of the RFP. In the responses to questions below, we clarify that letters from potential partners are required for three sections in the RFP: (1) letters of interest are required to indicate interest in a specific partnership with a potential REL contractor (Task 3.1), (2) letters of support are required as part of the concept paper plans requested in Appendix C of the Request for Proposal (but labeled as Appendix A1 and A3 in the offeror’s proposal – please see clarifications in the concept paper outlines and requirements), and (3) letters of commitment are required for subcontractors and consultants not employed by the prime contractor to demonstrate that they are committed to working with the contractor. The purpose of asking for letters of interest and support is for offerors to demonstrate that there are state education agencies, local education agencies, and/or other parties that are willing to partner with them to do REL work if the offeror is awarded a REL contract.

State education agencies, local education agencies, and other parties may provide the same letter to all potential offerors in a region, or may customize their letters to be specific to the offeror and the partnership/project being proposed. A letter of interest or letter of support is not an endorsement of an offeror or a particular technical approach that an offeror proposes to apply in a region. The Department will evaluate the offeror’s proposed partnership approach based on the narrative provided in the proposal. Letters provided by state education agencies, local education agencies, or other parties are required and will be evaluated as supporting documentation.

Question 1: We are requesting clarification on the requirements for submitting letters of commitment. Should the proposal include letters of commitment from research partnerships? If so, how many letters are required for each partnership? Are these letters of commitment to be included in a separate appendix labelled “Letters of Commitment”? It is our understanding that letter of commitment from consultants, subcontractors, and other collaborators should be included in the Resumes Appendix—is this correct?

Response: Letters of commitment refer to letters from one or more consultants as well as any subcontractors. These letters of commitment may be in an Appendix, and the Department has revised the Instructions to Offerors accordingly.

General Solicitation Information

Question 2: Will additional appendices be accepted, beyond the ones specifically requested in the Instructions? For example, may an offeror include an appendix for References or Works Cited?

Response: The Department will not accept additional appendices beyond those indicated in the Instructions to Offerors. However, please note that we have revised the Instructions to Offerors to allow offerors to submit the following additional appendices:

(1) Certifications required by Clause 3452.224-71 NOTICE ABOUT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS; and (2) Table of Time Commitments (referenced as Tables A and B in the Instructions to Offerors). Offerors may single space

PAGE 5 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

footnotes, and footnotes may be in the Word standard font size (10 point). Please note, footnotes may not be used to circumvent the 75 page limitation. Footnotes are appropriate for citation information or a brief explanatory statement. Offerors may not use footnotes to convey more than one or two sentences of information.

Question 3: What activities should be budgeted for Years 2 through 5? Page 122 of 135 requests a schedule of deliverables only for the first year and states the schedule will be updated each year as part of the Updated Annual Plan. Should we budget hypothetical activities for Years 2 through 5 or only the proposed activities for Year 1?

Response: See page 130 of the Instructions to Offerors. The Schedule of Deliverables is a wholly separate document from the price matrix and budget documentation. Offerors absolutely must provide a budget for all years of performance. We remind offerors that the Pricing Matrix governs for all five years of performance unless otherwise modified by the Contracting Officer following award.

Question 4: Will the Cost Reimbursement portions of the proposal budget and budget narratives need to be split into IT and Non-IT costs? Page 2 of the solicitation, titled “Schedule” implies that CR deliverables are not divided into IT and Non-IT. However, Page 131 of the solicitation mentions, “Offerors shall identify whether the price for each task and subtask is information technology (IT) or non-IT costs. Offerors must provide a table with the total amount of funds that are IT fixed price and non-IT fixed price by year.” Please clarify.

Response: Yes. Cost Reimbursement tasks should distinguish between IT and Non-IT values.

Question 5: The August 2015 RFI included a request for a 7 page Capability Statement. The February 5th RFP does not mention a requirement to submit the 7 page Capability Statement (at least we have not found such a reference). Are we correct in assuming that we do not need to include the 7 page Capability Statement in the technical proposal or as a separate document as part of our application?

Response: Capability statements are not required at this stage. The Department traditionally requests capability statements as a market research tool rather than as a substantive tool to evaluate technical proposals at the solicitation stage.

Question 6: Human Subjects: On page 18 of 145 in the solicitation there are additional proposal instructions: “(e) Proposal Instructions. An offeror proposing to do research that involves human subjects must provide information to the Department on the proposed exempt and nonexempt research activities. The offeror should submit this information as an attachment to its technical proposal. No specific page limitation applies to this requirement, but the offeror should be brief and to the point.” Should the technical proposal include an additional appendix for Human Subjects Narrative?

Response: Yes, and we have revised the Instructions to Offerors accordingly to permit offerors to submit the certifications associated with EDAR Clause 3452.224-71 NOTICE

PAGE 6 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

ABOUT RESEARCH ACTIVITIES INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS as an appendix.

Question 7: There are some items in the contract terms that will require closer review by our business offices. Will there be time to do so after the contract is awarded or should they be addressed in advance? Specifically, are the following negotiable?

• I.9 52.203-13 Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Apr 2010)

• I.20 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages-Supplies, Services, or Research and Development

(Sept 2000)

• I.30 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan (Jan 1999)

• I.59 52.232-17 Interest (Oct 2010)

• I.81 52.249-8 Default (Fixed Price Supply and Service) (Apr 1984)

• I.88 3452.242-70 Litigation and Claims (Aug 1987)

Response: Questions or objections to the clauses/provisions must be raised prior to the close of the Solicitation. We note that these clauses are necessary and proper to safeguard the Government’s interests during the life of a REL contract.

Question 8: The Service Contract clauses do not appear to be applicable to the type of work expected under this RFP since the principal purpose of this contract will not be to provide service workers as defined by the US Department of Labor. We see that FAR 52.222-43 “Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards – Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts)”, and the associated FAR 52.204-14 “Service Contract Reporting Requirements” are included in the RFP. We request that the Contracting Officer consider removing these clauses since the principal purpose of this contract would be to provide the services of workers who are almost all considered Professional and would be exempt under DOL rules.(RFP Pages 30 and 32)

Response: We respectfully disagree. This statement assumes that we have already reviewed all functional labor categories proposed by the offeror. We have not included an Area Wage Determination, so the referenced clauses may become self-deleting if the functional categories proposed meet the test of being exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Concept Papers

Please note that the Department has revised the Concept Paper outlines based on feedback provided by the offerors – some of which is explained in greater detail in the responses below.

Question 9: When preparing Appendices A1, A2, and A3, are offerors required to use the concept paper templates referenced in Subtask 2.2 (p. 55) and found in Appendix C? If so, would the Department consider allowing single spaced, size 10 font for responding to the questions in the tables on the Event and TCTS concept paper outlines to account for the fact the tables include a great deal of detailed questions and instructions?

PAGE 7 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Response: Please use 12-point font and double spacing. As noted above we have revised the outlines.

Question 10: Also, we read the Concept Papers requirement to mean that all three concept papers should address the same topic. For example, we are assigned to write about an applied research study for improving mathematics outcomes in the middle grades. We believe the other two concept papers should directly related to each another. That is, all concept papers should be developed around the topic for improving M.S. mathematics outcomes. Are we interpreting the concept paper expectation correctly?

Response: Yes, all concept papers must be on the same assigned topic.

Question 11: In our experience, a completed event plan is around 8 pages single-spaced, including the cover sheet, agenda, and speaker bio(s). The template in the RFP is 3 pages without any text filled in. To what part(s) of the concept paper does the 5-page double-spaced limit apply so that adequate information can be provided. Perhaps the limit applies to the information after the cover sheet, allowing the cover sheet length to be determined by the word limits in different sections? For example, can a draft agenda and CVs be attached and therefore not count against the length limit?

Response: We have revised the concept paper outlines thus allowing approximately five double-spaced pages, plus the annotated agenda.

Question 12: Do the three concept papers have to be responsive to the same partner, or might they respond to different regional partners (for example, TCTS with one partner and applied research with a different partner, each responsive to the context of that partnership in the first six months of 2017)?

Response: The concept papers may respond to different regional partners if the offeror prefers.

Question 13: Is the TCTS concept paper template intended to apply to any one of the three subtasks: 5.1 training, 5.2 coaching, or 5.3 development of products/tools? The information requested following the cover sheet seems to apply only to events such as those entailed in training. Is it acceptable to provide a description of the work not limited to events? If so, perhaps the prompt could be like the one in some current REL concept papers: Briefly describe the activities you plan for [the first] contract year; a table with type or focus of work; specific list of activities with dates, topics and speakers if possible; audience; intended outcome.

Response: The TCTS concept paper must be based on either subtask 5.1 or 5.2.

Question 14: For the applied research concept paper, would it be acceptable to use national datasets that have data about the region, rather than administrative data from one or more state or local education agencies?

Response: This decision is entirely up to the offeror.

PAGE 8 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 15: Is there a preferred order/labeling for the appendices beyond the concept papers?

Might the full set of appendices be:

A1 TCTS concept paper A2 Event concept paper A3 Applied research study concept paper B Schedule of task activities Gantt charts C Deliverable Schedule D Resumes E Letters of Commitment

Response: The concept papers shall be labeled A1, A2 and A3. The offeror may label the other appendices as it chooses.

Question 16: Must all three of the projects described in the concept papers be carried out if the assigned topic is not identified as a priority need in the region or if there is not a research partnership focused in that area?

Response: In the proposal phase, the offeror should propose activities in the three concept papers that are related to the assigned topic, feasible, realistic, and could be completed if approved by the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) after award. It is conceivable that, after detailed review and discussion with the COR, the COR determines the REL should not move forward with the topic at that time. This represents an exceptional case, and the Concept Papers should represent work that is ready to begin once the contracts are effective.

Question 17: Page 127 of 145: The concept papers are supposed to describe a regionally-specific, realistic plan that "could commence" within the first 6 months after the effective award date of a REL contract. They are supposed to include letters of agreement for data access and presenters or trainers who are not employees of the Offeror.

a. Can the Department clarify whether the concept papers are intended to be a demonstration of the Offeror’s quality of work on concept papers? Or does the Department intend that the proposed activities be incorporated into the proposed Year 1 plan and budget?

b. Does the Department prefer that the concept paper activities be incorporated into planned activities for Year 1?

c. If the randomly assigned topic is not a top priority for stakeholders, and we do not include the concept paper activities in our proposed Year 1 activities, are we still required to include the mentioned letters of agreements, especially for data access that is only hypothetical?

PAGE 9 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Response (to all subcomponents): Yes. Concept papers are the offeror’s opportunity to demonstrate thoughtful, high-quality, targeted, realistic plans for work in a specific topic area. The Department intends for the contractor to incorporate these activities in their Plan as the Department believes these topics are all national priorities. Letters of support (for concept papers) are still required. Any letters of commitment from subcontractors or consultants necessary to execute the plans outlined in the concept paper are also required.

Conferences and Meetings

Question 18: Will Conferences and Meetings included in the proposal be considered as approved by the Contracting Officer upon award? We see that 313.237-72 “Clearance of Conferences/Meetings” is included in the RFP. However, it is our understanding that any conferences and meetings that is required as part of the work scope and included in the budget and budget narrative of the proposal is considered approved. Please clarify. (RFP Page 27).

Response: This clause applies to the REL Director's Meeting which will be approved after award and occurs twice each year. All other conferences/meetings that are directly related to performance only need to be approved by the COR by way of the Updated Annual Plan.

Confidentiality/Disclosure/FOIA

Question 19: We see that EDGAR 3452.224-70 “Release of Information Under the Freedom of Information Act” is included in the RFP. However the breakdown of those rates into their components, which includes the base salary and any additional costs that comprise the loaded rate, are required by the Instructions to Offerors, and we want to be sure that the rate build-up, including the individual salaries and other proprietary information, such as fringe rates, overheads, indirect costs and fees are not disclosed under FOIA as they are considered confidential and proprietary under exemption 4 and would provide a pricing advantage to competitors on future bids. (RFP Pages 17 and 132).

Response: We recognize that offerors may consider pricing information to be proprietary.

The Department allows all holders of content subject to release under the Freedom of Information Act to claim an exemption. The Department does not release business information as a general policy.

Conflict of Interest

Question 20: Should the Conflict of Interest Certification be completed by one person at each organization (prime, subcontractors, and consultants) or each of the ten “named personnel,” or all people named throughout the proposal? (Pages 111 and 132)

Response: The Conflict of Interest Certification should be signed by an authorized representative of the prime contractor and an authorized representative of each subcontractor. Offerors must also submit signed Certificates from each individual consultant.

PAGE 10 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 21: Will Consultants named in the proposal be considered as approved by the Contracting Officer upon award? We see that EDGAR 3452.237-70 “Services of Consultants” is included in the RFP. However, it is not clear whether or not prior approval of the Contracting Officer is required for these consultants post-award. (RFP Page 22)

Response: The Contracting Officer approves the consultants by signing the award document. Following award, it is the awardee’s responsibility to notify the Contracting Officer of any additional consultants for review and approval and to notify the Contracting Officer of any removals.

Contract Proposal Analysis

Question 22: Please provide an example of cost plus fixed fee. For example in 5.4, if we set all WWC reviews at a "fixed fee" of $7,500, is the "cost plus" a variable amount depending extent of the review and on the reviewer consultant or in house person who conducts the review? Or in

6.2 for example, is an original research project fixed at $5,000 with a "cost plus" variance of another $5,000 depending upon the data analysis needs and effort? Or in 5.2 where fixed might be $4,000 for a TCTS adapting an intervention event and the "cost plus" variable because of the expert brought in for technical assistance or maybe a venue change fee?

Response: A Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract provides for payment to the contractor of a negotiated fee that is fixed at the inception of the contract. The fixed fee does not vary with actual cost but may be adjusted as a result of changes in the work to be performed under the contract. A fixed fee in a CPFF environment does not refer to a flat-rate pricing for a set task. We refer offerors to FAR Part 16.306 for additional information.

Question 23: The RFP states, “the Department will evaluate the component price and level of effort of each element.” Does this apply to both the FFP and CPFF tasks? Please clarify how the CPFF tasks will be evaluated.

Response: This applies to both FFP and CPFF tasks. Please note the requirement for a Cost Realism analysis for CPFF tasks as well.

Question 24: Reference: RFP Section L.III, Business Proposal, Proposed Costs, #2 – Price Information (pp. 130-131). Is a cost breakdown required for fixed price tasks?

Response: Yes.

Question 25: Section 5 in the Business Volume is titled “Breakdown for Other Direct Costs and Other Resources” but it asks bidders to “indicate the number of hours being proposed for each staff person and breakdowns of direct charges for materials…etc.” Should bidders include all hours for all staff by subtask for all years in response to this section?

Response: Yes, offerors should include this information for all staff for all years.

PAGE 11 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 26: Indirect Cost Rate Agreement: Page 131 of 145 in the solicitation states: “A copy of current indirect rate agreements shall be provided in the business proposal.” If an Offeror does not have a negotiated indirect cost rate agreement what shall the Offeror provide?

Response: Offerors must provide some information to confirm that the offeror is approved by some federal agency to be awarded work on a cost-type basis. An offeror could provide a copy of its CASB-1 Disclosure Statement that is reviewed by DCAA or some other approved federal auditing agency and approved by a Contracting Officer/Administrative Contracting Officer representing a Federal agency. An offeror could also provide the submission to their approved federal auditing agency containing their provisional indirect rates pending approval.

Additionally, we note that the following CFR reference may provide additional guidance for offerors:

CFR §200.414(f): “In addition to the procedures outlined in the appendices in paragraph

(e) of this section, any non-Federal entity that has never received a negotiated indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in Appendix VII to Part 200— States and Local Government and Indian Tribe Indirect Cost Proposals, paragraph D.1.b, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10% of modified total direct costs (MTDC) which may be used indefinitely. As described in §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs, costs must be consistently charged as either indirect or direct costs, but may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. If chosen, this methodology once elected must be used consistently for all Federal awards until such time as a non-Federal entity chooses to negotiate for a rate, which the non-Federal entity may apply to do at any time.”

Question 27: For how many topic areas is each REL expected to lead cross-REL coordination activities? On page 61 (PWS Subtask 3.3) the RFP reads, "Each REL shall be responsible for coordinating, reporting, and promoting REL activities on one non-overlapping topic..." On page 122, the RFP reads, "Subtask 3.3 in the PWS indicates that each REL shall be responsible for coordinating, reporting, and promoting REL activities on up to two non-overlapping topics in education..."

Response: We have revised the Instructions to Offerors to reflect that each REL is responsible for coordinating, reporting, and promoting REL activities on one non-overlapping topic.

Question 28: What is the expected level of participation in the REL program evaluation in years 2-5?

Response: Subtask 2.7 is revised to say “during year 2.”

PAGE 12 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Evaluation Criteria

Question 29: Evaluation criteria, pg. 139. Can the government provide any information on the relative weight of each section?

Response: Each individual criterion is ranked in descending order of importance. All sub factors beneath each individual criterion are of equal weight.

Question 30: On pg. 132 of the solicitation under the Labor Rates section it is requested that "Labor hours shall be proposed for the development of costs, in the event that it becomes necessary to extend the period of performance for up to 6 months beyond the stated period of performance." Are only labor hours and rates for the 6-month option period being requested, or would the Department like to see a full budget with breakdown for other direct costs and resources for the option period?

Response: The Department only requires rates. The period of performance is capped at five years by the Education Sciences Reform Act. Collecting rates for the six-month extension is a safeguard measure, and no other budget information is required.

Travel

Question 31: Pg. 131 of 145 – Per Diem and Travel. Does the rule of No Fee on Travel apply to just airfare and other transportation or does it apply to Travel (airfare/other transportation) and to Per Diem (subsistence/lodging)?

Response: The prohibition on fee applies to both travel and per diem (we consider per diem part of the whole travel costs).

Question 32: Will Travel included in the proposal be considered as approved by the Contracting Officer upon award? We see that 31.205.71 “Travel Costs” is included in the RFP. However, it is our understanding that any travel that is required as part of the work scope and included in the budget and budget narrative of the proposal is considered approved. Please clarify. (RFP Page 26)

Response: Travel will be approved at the time of award. Any changes will be negotiated in each Updated Annual Plan and will require COR and CO approval.

Question 33: Please confirm that the Table 2.0 REL Funding Estimates include Travel funding and that Travel funding is not over and above the amounts in the table. (RFP page 129)

Response: The estimates in Table 2.0 include travel.

PAGE 13 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Formatting & Style

Question 34: To provide necessary detail, would IES permit Gantt Charts to contain not less than 10 point text? Will the Department consider revising the font size and/or double spaced requirement for all other tables and figures to size 10 font and/or single spaced? (e.g., logic model, personnel expertise matrix, organizational capabilities table)

Response: We agree, and 10-point font and single spacing for Gantt charts are acceptable.

We have revised the Instructions to Offerors accordingly.

Question 35: Should project schedules or timelines be included in the body of the technical plan, as well as compiled in the appendix?

Response: Offerors may include this information in the body of their Technical Proposal, but the Instructions to Offerors have also been revised to permit the inclusion of project timelines in an appendix.

Question 36: In order to conform to the 1 inch margins and font sizes specified in the REL solicitation, we must use landscape mode for the two time commitment tables. Is this okay?

Response: Yes. The Instructions to Offerors have been revised accordingly.

Question 37: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Technical Proposal, General Instructions (pp. 119- 120). Would the Government confirm that offerors may include photos/screenshots of completed products in the proposal.

Response: No. Offerors may not include photos/screenshots in the Technical Proposal.

Question 38: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Technical Proposal, General Instructions (pp. 119- 120). Would the Government confirm that footnotes in the Technical Proposal may be in a font size smaller than 12 point and single-spaced?

Response: Offerors may single space footnotes, and footnotes may be in the Word standard font size (10 point). Please note, footnotes may not be used to circumvent the 75 page limitation. Footnotes are appropriate for citation information or a brief explanatory statement. Offerors may not use footnotes to convey more than one or two sentences of information.

Question 39: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Technical Proposal, General Instructions (pp. 119- 120). Would the Government consider adding an optional Appendix for a compliance matrix to assist evaluators in locating the portions of an offeror’s response that address each RFP requirement? Given the page limit, the only way offerors will include this helpful tool is if it is exempt from the page limitation. If the Government decides to allow this, may it be single-spaced?

PAGE 14 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Response: Offerors may include the information within the page limit of the body of the technical proposal but it must be double-spaced.

Question 40: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Technical Proposal, General Instructions (p. 120). If an offeror decides to include logic models in its submission (referencing the discussion and logic model on p. 52 of the RFP), may those logic models be single-spaced and use 10 point font?

Also, may logic models be included in an Appendix (and exempted from the page limitations) rather than included within the text?

Response: Logic models may be in size 10 font and single spaced but shall be included in the technical proposal, not in an appendix. The Instructions to Offerors have been revised to reflect this information.

Question 41: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Technical Proposal, General Instructions, #7 – Time Commitments of Proposed Personnel (pp. 123-125). Would the Government confirm that the font size and spacing requirements shown on page 119 for the “Table of Time Commitments” applies to both tables on page 124 of the RFP?

Response: Yes, the font and spacing requirements apply to all Tables of Time Commitments. Tables may be displayed in landscape format in the appendix and there are no page limitations.

Question 42: Reference: RFP Section L.III, Business Proposal, Page Limitation (p. 128). May charts and tables within the Business Proposal text be single-spaced?

Response: Yes, charts and tables in the Business Proposal may be single-spaced. Please be mindful of how readable your tables and charts are and how easy it is to review and comprehend the cost/price data that you are including.

Question 43: Please confirm that “cover sheet” and “cover page” refer to the same item. (See Solicitation Page 120. “The Cover Page, Cover Letter, and Table of Contents are excluded from the page limit.” See Solicitation Page 12. (“The cover sheet must include the name and address of the entity submitting the proposal and be signed by an officer of the entity.”)

Response: Cover Sheet and Cover Page are the same thing, and we have revised the Instructions to Offerors accordingly.

Submission Protocols

Question 44: Reference: RFP Section L.II, Submission Instructions (p. 119). Because of the 15MB limit on each email message offerors send during submission, it’s likely that one or more of the individual volumes will exceed that limit. Would the Government confirm that offerors may split individual volumes within multiple emails if necessary (as long as the emails are clear about the contents)?

PAGE 15 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Response: It is possible to separate appendices from the primary technical volume.

Similarly, it is possible to separate cost/price data from other supporting cost/price information (indirect rate agreements, supporting cost data, etc.). However, it is not possible to submit two primary technical volumes with the expectation that the Department will join the PDFs into one coherent document. For example, please do not submit “Technical Proposal Pages 1-45” and a second email with “Technical Proposal Pages 46-75” followed by supporting appendices.

IT Reporting

Question 45: The Business Volume instructions on page 131 of the RFP state “Offerors shall identify whether the price for each task and subtask is information technology (IT) or non-IT costs. Offerors must provide a table with the total amount of funds that are IT fixed price and non-IT fixed price by year.” Subtask 4.1 (Website) is an IT task but is CPFF. Should offerors include this subtask in the requested summary table for IT and non-IT funds?

Response: Yes, the offeror should include the information for subtask 4.1 in the requested IT summary.

Information Technology

Question 46: What control does the contractor have over the choice of hardware and operating system of the Department's REL servers? Is there a limit on the number of servers and/or disk space utilized?

Response: All websites and web applications must be developed using ASP.NET (.NET Framework 2.0 - 4.5 supported) and SQL Server 2012 on a Windows 2012 Servers. Other platforms and databases that are not approved to run in the IES Data Center are not authorized to be used. All software developed under this contract should be transferred to IES free of any restrictions, licenses, or fees. See subtask 6.1 in the PWS.

Yes, there is a limit and it will be determined based off of the requirements of the application and available budget.

Question 47: Does the Department support or allow the use of a virtualization layer?

Response: No, the Department does not support or allow the use of a virtualization layer.

The Department manages the infrastructure, OS, web and database layers. The contractor is responsible for the application layer.

Question 48: Does the Department intend to manage data backup on behalf of contractors?

Response: Yes, the Department intends to manage data backup on behalf of contractors.

PAGE 16 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 49: How will contractors be able to interact with REL servers during development?

Will they receive administrative access? If not, what is the deployment and maintenance procedure?

Response: The contractors will have the necessary access to upload web content files and database objects to development servers for review and posting to the live website.

Question 50: How will contractors be able to interact with REL servers for data curation and management? Will they be able to gain remote access or is the "portal" restricted to web protocols (http/https)?

Response: The contractors will have access to the development systems through a secure terminal server interface.

Question 51: Are there constraints on the software that can be installed on REL servers?

Response: Yes, there are constraints on the software that can be installed on REL servers.

All software needs to be approved by the Department before installation. Any additional software must be licensed appropriately or be freely available through open source licensing. The contractor should not assume new software will be approved.

Question 52: The requirements on data hosting within the Department add a new software development component to the proposal ("Each REL will be responsible for creating its own portal to upload, access, and manipulate the data ..."). How and where should this new deliverable be reflected in the budget and proposal?

Response: This question is addressed under Subtask 6.1 of the PWS and the budget should be included under the related project:

(Subtask 6.1) All data collected by the REL shall be hosted in the IES Data Center. All websites and web applications must be developed using ASP.NET (.NET Framework 2.0

- 4.5 supported) and SQL Server 2012 on a Windows 2012 Servers. Other platforms and databases that are not approved to run in the IES Data Center are not authorized to be used. All software developed under this contract should be transferred to IES free of any restrictions, licenses, or fees.

Question 53: How can data collected by the REL itself comply with the data hosting requirements?

Response: It is up to the contractors to develop the data collection platform that complies with the base mechanism provided by the Department.

Question 54: Does the .NET framework provided by the IES Data Center include a common web content management system for managing content updates for the REL websites?

Response: No.

PAGE 17 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 55: If the IES Data Center is NOT providing a common web content management platform for the REL websites, are vendors allowed to implement their own content management systems for each REL website? Without a content management system, vendors will have to manually code HTML pages for the site, including all content updates which will be labor extensive and costly.

Response: A content management system is not a requirement of this contract, however any content management system must be approved by IES, use Internet Information Server (IIS) version 8 as the web server and SQL Server 2012 as the database server, and not require additional 3rd party licensing.

Question 56: RELs typically work with three types of data: 1) data collected by the REL; 2) data collected by a partnering organization for analysis by the REL; and 3) data collected by public agencies that make those data publicly available to RELs and others. In the first two cases, these data may or may not include personally identifiable information (PII). Please clarify which of these data will be required to be stored on the server hosted by the US Department of Education. Are data without PII allowable to be stored on local servers?

Response: All data collected by the REL shall be hosted in the IES Data Center.

Question 57: What format or platform will the web page templates be provided in? Can we make changes to the templates?

Response: The format will be in HTML. There will be some flexibility in the content of the page, but the design and layout must follow the approved templates. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that all REL websites share the same design and overall appearance.

Question 58: In Subtask 4.1, it states that the contractor shall continuously evaluate and test the online system, correct problems, and make necessary improvements. What type of tests are required, and are there testing standards?

Response: Contractors shall ensure that the content on the page is accurate, links work, and that website content is compatible with common browsers.

Question 59: In Subtask 4.1, it states that the website shall be updated at least once a week. Do weekly updates refer to content or features of the website?

Response: This refers to content. Features should be updated on an as needed basis.

Question 60: In Subtask 5.3, are there preferred webinar or online course platforms to be used?

PAGE 18 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 61: Section IV: Is the awardee required to attain the ATO, or does IES perform that?

Response: The awardees will be covered by the IES ATO.

Question 62: Section IV: "Full and unfettered access for the Department’s third party Managed Security Services Provider (MSSP) must be granted to access all computers and networks used for this system." In this statement, what is in scope for the systems? Does this include the awardee's network? Awardee's computers?

Response: This covers only Department systems.

Question 63: The draft RFP mentioned the awardee developing a web portal to access data stored on IES servers. Is this a requirement? If so, by what means or protocols will the data by made available? Will data be exported from the IES data store on to awardee computer resources?

Response: Yes, this is a requirement. Any data to be made available will do so via the web interface developed by the contractor.

Question 64: Regarding IT and the Earned Value, in Appendix D, ED mentions two types of IT funding that must be monitored and reported on monthly. Please provide additional specific examples of DME and Steady state funding?

Response: See pages 7 and 10 here for additional information: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/egov_docs/fy13_ guidance_for_exhibit_300_a-b_20110715.pdf

Question 65: Reference: PWS, Task 4.1 (pp. 63-64). Will the REL websites be part of a central web content management system (WCMS)?

Response: No.

Question 66: Page 25, Subtask 4.1: Do the individual REL websites have to be designed in the IES frame? It appears the current REL websites are not in the IES frame.

Response: Yes. Offerors must follow the templates for the new IES website.

Question 67: Page 25, Subtask 4.1: Does the Offeror have flexibility in proposing the website navigation categories? If the navigation categories are set by IES, what levels are set and what levels are flexible?

Response: Further guidance will be given after award, but offerors should plan that the headers, footers, and page structure are fixed. There will be flexibility in the content and specific elements of the page, but not in the design.

PAGE 19 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 68: Please clarify the frequency of the Earned value report. If "Each month the contractor must submit an EVM Reporting Sheet and EVM Backup for DME and Steady State funding separately", doesn't that mean 12 spreadsheets and not 4 as described in Appendix D? Also, in regards to "EVM will be reported in 6 month periods, from October 1st to March 31st and April 1st to September 30th of each year," does it mean that 1) the first monthly report begins October 2017, and 2) there is a cumulative 6-month report in addition to a monthly report in March 2018?

Response: Each month the contractor must submit up to 4 spreadsheets – there should be earned value for DME, backup for DME, earned value for SS, and backup for SS. If there is no DME or SS spending for a given month, no reporting is required.

Question 69: Does IES intend to perform a C&A (certification and accreditation) process? This relates to the Compliance with the “Department IT Security Policy” language in the RFP. If so, will this include subcontractors or are offerors responsible for subcontractor oversight? (RFP Pages 63, 78, and 79)

Response: All REL websites will be covered by the IES C&A and ATO.

Question 70: Will IES be responsible for any vulnerability scanning of any websites? This relates to the Compliance with the “Department IT Security Policy” language in the RFP. (RFP Pages 78 and 79)

Response: Yes.

Question 71: Can virtualization tools such as Citrix be used to access data sets stored at the IES Data Center? This relates to the “Guidance for REL Websites 2017-2022” language in the RFP.

(RFP Pages 66, 69, and 101)

Response: A Remote Desktop interface will be available for development access to files and databases.

Question 72: Is the Moderate Risk rating of the “Research Assistant/Principal Investigator” meant to represent only those two roles, or the range of individuals who would fall in the range between those roles? This relates to the EDGAR 3452.239-72 “Department Security Requirements” on page 24 of the RFP.

Response: This relates to the range of individuals who will potentially have access to personally identifiable information when conducting data analysis.

Question 73: Will event registrations be held on the Department’s web site or on the web sites of the individual RELs? (RFP Page 99)

Response: RELs are not authorized to have non-IES websites. They may link to a third-party registration page (such as through Web-Ex or GoToMeeting) through their REL website.

PAGE 20 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 74: Will RELs receive administrative access to IES servers?

Question 75: Will all approved updates on the development server be moved to production by IES web support? If so, will REL developers be permitted to contact IES IT web support directly for these updates?

Response: Yes. The IES web team will migrate application files and databases to the production servers upon request. All communication must be conducted through the COR. If a content management system is implemented, content changes can be made to the production websites. The IES web team will move approved updates to production.

All communication must be conducted through the COR.

Question 76: The IES web standards call for the usage of tables over divs in website development for accessibility reasons, but the solicitation calls for websites to be “optimized for multiple form factors (e.g., computers, tablets and smartphones),” which generally preferences using divs over tables. Which should be the first priority in developing REL sites?

Response: Developers may use divs over tables. The Department will revise the web guidance to clarify this.

Question 77: Will the REL contractors have administrative access to the IES YouTube page to create annotations within videos and video playlists?

Response: No. All videos will be submitted to IES to be uploaded to YouTube.

Question 78: Will REL contractors be able to install and run JavaScript libraries, such as JQuery and D3, frameworks such as Bootstrap for responsive development, and CSS preprocessors such as LESS?

Response: Most client side libraries are acceptable as long as they adhere to IES privacy standards and Section 508 compliance.

Question 79: Will REL contractors be permitted to use third-party applications for collecting contact information and emailing subscribers, such as for event registrations and newsletters?

(For instance, email services such as MailChimp or Constant Contact and event registration such as EventBrite or Adobe Connect.)

Response: Yes. However, contractors must include language with a registration that allows a third party to consent to being contacted for future events or other communications.

PAGE 21 OF 130 ED-IES-15-R-0016/0001

Question 80: Will REL contractors now be responsible for initial posting of approved publications?

Response: No. The IES webteam will post final publications.

Question 81: Will REL developers access the staging servers via SQL Server 2012 Management Studio? Are alternative software options permissible for access for Mac computers?

Response: All access to the development/staging SQL Servers will be done on a Remote Desktop interface, which is compatible with multiple operating systems, including Mac

OS.

Question 82: In the event that there is security breach that impacts REL data stored on IES servers, will government assume primary liability for those data?

Response: The Government is responsible for systems and data housed in its data center.

Question 83: The following paragraph is included in subtask 6.1. “All data collected by the REL shall be hosted in the IES Data Center.