REL_-_RFI_Addendum_-_09.04.15.docx

September 4, 2015

REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY

FY16/FY17 ACQUISITION

Solicitation No.: ED-IES-15-R-0016

RFI Response Feedback & Additional Information

Facilitated by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Contracts and Acquisitions Management Office

Table of Contents

Introduction

The purpose of this document is threefold: (1) to address questions submitted in response to the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Request for Information and Vendor Engagement announcement (RFI); (2) to clarify the Department’s instructions on the format of capability statements; and (3) to provide supplemental evaluation rating information as described in the August 25, 2015 webinar.

In the RFI, the Department requested that interested parties submit pre-webinar questions no later than August 19, 2015, and we received many questions from the vendor community. In this document, the Department provides responses to a portion of those questions and supplements the information provided during the webinar. The questions are arranged topically and are indexed in the table of contents above. Please note that some questions require additional thought and deliberation while other questions do not warrant a response. For example, we revised the solicitation instructions in response to some questions, so a formal response is not warranted. The Department will post a complete response at a later date. However, the information contained in this document should provide enough supplemental information to enhance the quality of an offeror’s RFI response.

Please note that we have also provided a digital recording, a transcript, and the Power Point slides from the August 25th webinar. The transcript is included in this document, and the digital recording and Power Point slides are posed as attachments on FBO.

Note also that interested parties are invited to provide additional feedback on the evaluation scale as part of their formal RFI response due September 10, 2015. This information was not included in the original RFI posting but was discussed during the August 25th webinar.

Capability Statement Clarification

Offerors should refer to the original RFI for submission information and timelines for the capability statements. Capability statements must conform to the following requirements:

· Double-spaced

· Standard one-inch margins

· 12-point font

· The cover page does not count against the seven page limit. Please refer back to the RFI for information regarding the important content that you must include on the cover sheet.

Please be sure to address all criteria described in the RFI.

Selected Questions & Responses[footnoteRef:1] [1: All references to page numbers refer to the RFI page number. These numbers will likely change between now and issuance of the final solicitation. ]

Approval Processes

Question: Can the Department provide details on the peer review process and how this may differ by deliverable type? What are the criteria for peer review for relevance to a policymaker or practitioner audience and for readability? Will the RFP indicate the level(s) of review that will be required for each different type of deliverable?

Response: Per the IES authorizing legislation, all REL research must be peer reviewed. For more information on the current REL peer review process, please see the REL Resource Guide, which is available as an attachment on FBO.

Question: The solicitation allows for developing or testing new statistical or analytical methods; what are the criteria that will be used to approve such projects?

Response: All REL work must be specifically tied to a specific stakeholder need in the region. Therefore, new statistical or analytical methods work that is conducted by a REL contractor will have a strong tie to REL work being conducted in the region. For more information about applied methods work, click here.

Question: After the last competition there were significant delays in getting plans approved by IES. That resulted in a loss of confidence among potential clients, as well as using valuable resources as lab staff waited for approval. Will IES consider including a provision that automatically approves plans after 30 days, unless there are specific issues to be addressed?

Response: No, IES will not consider such a provision. There is ramp-up time in every contract, and the RELs are no exception. To prevent delays, IES recommends that contractors thoroughly understand how to propose and manage Firm-Fixed price (FFP) deliverables and provide concise, clear, and compelling project proposals.

Question: Can IES indicate the number of research studies proposed during the current cycle that did not move forward on the basis of IES’ concerns/reservations?

Response: The number of research studies that moved past the concept paper stage but did not result in a final product is very small. IES Contracting Officer’s Representatives (CORs) worked closely with contractors to ensure that proposed research studies were of sufficient quality that they were likely to receive a positive peer review.

Authorizing Legislation

Question: The House and Senate bill reauthorizing the Education Sciences Reform Act is currently before Congress. Both versions have a clause that states: “In conducting a competition for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to eligible applicants that will provide a portion of non-Federal funds to maximize support for activities of the [REL] to be established under this section.” If this bill is approved by Congress, will this clause be incorporated into the Regional Educational Laboratory RFP? How does IES intend to make this clause actionable in the competition?

Response: The contracts are being awarded under the current authorizing legislation. The Department does not speculate on pending legislation. We will modify the REL contracts to respond to any new legislative mandate if necessary.

Ask A REL

Question: Will each REL have its own Reference Desk?

Response: Yes, see Task 5.5.

Analytic Technical Assistance and Development

Question: When does IES expect to release the RFP to conduct analytic and technical support (ATS) for the REL? Will REL contractors and/or subcontractors (i.e., awardees) be eligible to compete for the ATS contract, or will this be considered a conflict of interest?

Response: The Department does not have a timeline for that acquisition. Conflicts of interest are analyzed on an individual basis, and all contractors are expected to provide a plan to avoid conflicts of interest. We encourage interested offerors to review the Department’s acquisition forecast for new contract opportunities. Click here for access to the forecast.

Big Picture

Question: What does IES see as major differences between the current REL contracts and the new solicitation?

Response: The draft performance work statement (PWS) represents a continued focus on researchers and practitioners working in partnership to conduct high quality research and provide targeted technical support and training that meets stakeholder needs. The PWS clarifies the types of work that RELs may and may not do, references processes and REL program documents created during the current REL contract period, and signals the importance of content expertise, problem solving, and creativity to the new REL program. The draft PWS represents an increased focus on addressing high-leverage problems.

Budget

Question: Will (and when) will the Department provide exact regional budget allocations?

Response: The Department will provide anticipated regional budget allocations with release of the final RFP. Note that these are subject to change with any annual appropriation.

Business Proposals & Allowable Costs

Question: How will IES accommodate flexible and creative responses to changes in regional priorities given that the pricing and payment schedule is written and accepted a year or more in advance of the work being performed, in some cases?

Response: The Department will work with the contractor to develop a deliverable schedule that will allow maximum flexibility.

Question: Is there any flexibility in the percent of budget allocation to tasks?

Response: Yes. See page 73 of the RFI.

Question: The Proposal requires a breakdown of all costs including unloaded labor, Other Direct Costs, Indirect rates, etc. Is this required for the Firm Fixed Price Tasks, or only Cost Reimbursable?

Response: This information is required for both CR and FFP tasks.

Clarification

Question: RELs are required to allocate no less than 25% of their resources to meeting the needs of rural areas, as defined by the U. S. Census Bureau. Can IES clarify how that commitment should be represented in the proposal? In cases where work is intended to benefit an entire state (e.g., an analysis of the SLDS), for example, how would the effort be determined? Are there other conditions or circumstances where the Department might require similar “set-asides” as they do with rural? For example, Native Americans or large urban districts, etc.

Response: As required by the REL's authorizing legislation, 25% of REL funds must go to meeting the needs of rural areas. This should be demonstrated through offeror's suggested work plans and projects for the base year. All other allocations should be made based on the region's needs.

Question: At several points in the phrases about requests for information, the phrase “within the scope of a particular REL region” appears. What are the implications of this phrase? Does it mean expertise in any area that was carried out specifically in the region?

Response: This phrase is a reminder that the work of a REL is done at a large scale, both in terms of geography, complexity of the work, and quantity of the research studies, technical assistance, and dissemination activities. Capability statements should provide information about the offeror’s ability to successfully do all of these tasks at scale, or across the entire scope of the region.

Question: Section 2, Substantive Content: The required items for the capability statements refer to research needs, analytic needs/topics and education topics. Please define each term. Do education topics refer to the four encouraged topical areas on pg. 19? Or to the topics referred to on page 33 in subtask 3.3?

Response: Research needs refers to needs in the region for which research will help inform decision making. Analytic needs/topics refers to needs that stakeholders in the region have for training, coaching, or technical support related to analytic skills or interpretation. Because successful REL offerors will have expertise in the a variety of topic areas that are of importance to their region and to the field, the offeror should describe the topics that best suit their expertise and demonstrate how that expertise is relevant to the region.

Question: Research “use” has been defined in myriad ways. Is the intent that the solicitation will define “use” solely in instrumental terms?

Response: We assume that the question refers to the notion that there are instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic uses of research. Instrumental use refers to the direct use of research for making a decision. Conceptual use refers to a broader change in thinking about an issue on the basis of research findings. Symbolic use refers to use of research to justify a previously held position. It is not the Department’s intent in this procurement to provide a fully elaborated theory of types of research use and their application to the REL program. However, symbolic use as described above clearly is not in the spirit of the REL program. Dissemination activities may represent a conceptual use of research. Customized, intensive support and research are more likely to represent instrumental use.

The Department reminds offerors that the REL logic model indicates that there should be demonstrable impacts of research on education decision making.

Question: Can you please provide examples of “use-inspired research” conducted by the current REL contractors?

Response: Yes, there are REL examples, but rather than highlight a particular current REL contractor, we use a non-REL example. We argue that the work of the Chicago Consortium on School Research was noteworthy because it addressed genuine practitioner concerns but situated those concerns within a broader empirical and theoretical context. It developed frameworks and models related to school organization, school culture, and student progress. New estimation methods (HLM) also were developed using data from this partnership. In turn, these frameworks, models, and estimation methods were used to advance inquiry in sociology, education, and statistics.

Question: The draft PWS redefines “analytic technical assistance” as "training, coaching, and technical support (TCTS) for research use.” Will ED clarify what activities are or are not allowable under this new definition?

Response: The draft PWS provides information about activities that could be considered TCTS on RFI page 4. Additional information will be provided in the final solicitation.

Question: Please define the scope of “early childhood education” that the Department encourages the REL to address. For example, birth to grade 3? Preschool only? Preschool through grade 3? Other?

Response: Early childhood education occurs prior to kindergarten.

Question: Could IES please clarify the distinction between Subtask 5.1 (Develop and implement training for conducting, understanding, and applying research” and Subtask 5.2 (Provide in-depth coaching and consultation)? Is the distinction that 5.1 focuses on the use and application of research while 5.2 focuses on “problems of practice,” which encompasses non-research topics?

Response: As described on RFI pages 36-37, subtask 5.1 refers to providing training, while subtask 5.2 represents more in-depth sustained consultations. In the academic world, subtask 5.1 would be similar to teaching a large class, while subtask 5.2 would be similar to teaching a seminar session or holding office hours for in-depth discussion.

Question: Is it acceptable for data to exist on compliant shared systems/infrastructure?

Response: This depends on the data being stored – i.e. what the data are, who owns the system, and who owns the data.

Question: What is the definition of “career” when the solicitation refers to “College and Career?”

Response: This term is used in different ways in the field. Offerors should define career in the way that is consistent with the needs of their region.

Question: Does the REL contract require that the prime contractor have an office within the region?

Response: The REL is required to be responsive to the needs of the region and spend substantial time working in the region. It is challenging to conduct adequate needs sensing without regularly interacting with stakeholders in the region. Therefore, while a regional office or corporate headquarters is not required, it is strongly encouraged. The Department would have serious reservations about an offeror’s ability to assess regional needs without a physical presence in the region.

Concept Papers

Question: Can you describe any coordination between the Comprehensive Centers (regional or national) and the REL program RFPs?

Response: See Task 3.2.

Question: In terms of Concept Papers, would IES be open to allowing applicants to provide one or more papers on a topic of their choosing in addition to the assigned concept paper—to illustrate how the applicant would approach a topic in one of their areas of expertise?

Response: No. Offerors should only submit concept papers requested in the RFP.

Question/Department Note: We received fourteen detailed questions about the concept papers. The questions were similar and requested additional information about the purpose of and manner in which the Department will assign the concept papers to each region. The response below provides additional clarification on the role of the concept papers and how IES will use these papers throughout the competition. To the extent that this response prompts additional questions or does not fully address your concerns please note this in your formal RFI response.

Response: We recognize that there are pros and cons to this approach but appreciate the questions and the opportunity to explain our reasoning. After award, REL contractors no longer write proposals in response to REL RFPs -- but they do write many concept papers. Therefore, the Department wants to assess how well each offeror can perform on a set of important, authentic tasks. Second, REL work occurs under pressure as SEAs and LEAs submit requests for help, and this task enables the Department to judge whether an offeror can respond well to unanticipated requests. We are requiring offerors to demonstrate their expertise in this “deep dive” way rather than providing brief, incomplete information (all that can reasonably be accommodated in a 75 page proposal) on a set of proposed studies and other activities that may or may not be implemented after award.

Concept papers will be used by the evaluation panel to assess the quality of the proposed work products developed by each offeror. The topics listed in the RFP are of national interest. Therefore, the topics will be assigned at random in the final RFP. Because these topics are assigned at random, they may not be the most pressing need in your region. But we expect that these topics of great national interest will meet the needs of some stakeholders in all regions. The Department expects that offerors will perform the work outlined in the concept papers in Year 1, and the work shall be incorporated into their annual plan and technical proposal. The Department also expects that these activities will be carried out at the cost proposed. However, these activities should only be a portion of the REL's work, and the REL should plan other activities and partnerships that meet other needs in the region.

Contract Structure

Question: What rationale or criteria were used to determine whether contract tasks will be firm fixed price or cost reimbursable?

Response: We determined contract type based on a number of factors. First, we examined the level of uncertainty with respect to each task. Where it is difficult to predict the number of occurrences or timing of an event, we designated the task as Cost Reimbursement (CR). High-risk tasks with a large degree of uncertainty regarding performance warrants a CR designation while those tasks that are relatively constant, easy to predict, and comparatively low risk warrant a designation of Firm-Fixed Price (FFP).

Question: Task 6 delineates a number of possible subtasks. Is each REL expected to propose work under each subtask or do these subtasks represent possible categories of work that might fit the region?

Response: Offerors should propose work to the extent that meets the needs of their region that falls under subtasks 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.5. The proposal and year 1 plan is not required to contain proposed work in all of the subtasks of Task 6. Subtask 6.4 is required for all published reports, and therefore may or may not be proposed in year 1 depending on the proposed project and timeline. This will be clarified in the final solicitation.

Question: Under the “contract type” section, you state that there will be no award fee (page 13). Can you clarify what is meant by “any applicable fee structure?” Will a fixed fee be allowed for cost-reimbursement tasks?

Response: We are still evaluating the appropriate fee structure for the REL contracts. We know that we will not issue a contract that includes award fees. We have not yet determined whether we will utilize a fixed fee or incentive fee contract structure.

Coordination Contract

Question: Given that subtask 3.3 addresses cross-REL coordination, is the 2012-17 Coordination Task conducted by one REL being discontinued?

Response: There will be no separate coordination task in this contract.

Data Sharing

Question: Will the RELs be required to make provisions for a data sharing plan with other researchers or the public?

Response: Yes. Please see the IES Policy Regarding Public Access to Research available here.

Question: Has an initial FIPS 199 categorization of data been made, and if so, what is the anticipated level?

Response: We have not yet determined the data categorization.

Evaluation Criteria

Question: Pages 80-82 contain information on evaluation criteria. What is the distribution of points between these seven categories?

Response: We plan to utilize an adjectival rating scale. For additional information please see pages 31-32 of this document. We do not anticipate awarding a “bonus” or giving additional weight to small businesses other than what is stated in the small business evaluation factor.

Governing Board

Question: Please confirm our assumption that there is no required number of Governing Board members to be appointed by the contractor and that the number and qualifications of the proposed Board members are at the discretion of the contractor.

Response: A Governing Board is comprised of the region’s chief State school officers or their designees and other regional education stakeholders. There is no required number of Governing Board members.

Question: Is it correct that board members are to be solicited after contract award as soliciting in advance will favor incumbents?

Response: Offerors may contact potential Governing Board members as appropriate.

IT Deliverables

Question: Page 29: In the description of subtask 2.2., IT is a modifier of deliverables in each case. What does IT refer to in these cases?

Response: IT subtasks are determined to be classified as information technology. Examples include software development for a tool, online courses, and website development. These deliverables must be paid for by using a separate IT line item and shall be reported in the earned value reporting (see Subtask 2.4). The Instructions to Offerors will reflect the need for offerors to report the earned value of the investment. Please note that this is required by OMB, it is not just an IES requirement.

Just in Time

Question/Department Note: We received six questions regarding “Just in Time” projects. The response below clarifies the Department’s expectations.

Response: For projects that have been approved to be conducted under Subtask 6.5, the Department expects that the REL will independently meet the peer review requirement prior to submission to IES and will have done all copy editing and checks for readability prior to submission. IES will approve the report for release within a week. For accountability, the quality of the REL’s Just in Time products will be assessed annually by an independent set of experts, and the experts’ rating will be recorded as part of the REL's performance. Please see page 40 of the RFI for more information.

Just in Time reports may be done within or outside the context of a research partnership to meet a need that could not have been anticipated by the REL. For example, suppose that a state requires a descriptive analysis -- completed start-to-finish within two months -- that will inform a decision about where to direct resources. The state wants to make this information widely available to the public to encourage discussion and deliberation and to demonstrate its transparency. Neither the state nor the REL realized when the REL’s annual plan was submitted that this analysis would be needed. This might be a good candidate for a Just in Time report.

Just in Time projects allow for a faster turnaround time and publication by the REL. Just in Time projects are not IES-branded publications.

RELs are not required to conduct Just in Time projects. However, this subtask provides additional flexibility to the REL to get research findings to the right people at the right time.

Letters of Interest/Letters of Support

Question: Offerors are required to submit “letters of interest” from at least one potential stakeholder in each proposed research alliance or partnership. In the Department’s opinion does that give incumbents an unfair competitive advantage since they already have established research alliances and partnerships and might be able to produce numerous stakeholder letters? How will IES judge the number of letters from stakeholders? What, if anything, would the Department consider doing to level the playing field for non-incumbents? Are more than one letters of interest acceptable?

Response: The Department does not believe that requiring offerors to submit a letter of interest unfairly advantages the current REL contractors. First, we note that letters of interest are one of many factors that the Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will evaluate. Second, we note that the research alliances may not necessarily continue following completion of the current REL contracts. This means that both incumbent contractors and new offerors would both start from an equal field in terms of recruiting new alliance members for the FY17 awards. Existing alliances may no longer represent the best use of REL funds in any particular region, so current contractors and prospective offerors would be on equal footing in terms of finding suitable interested parties.

We will likely revise the Instructions to Offerors to provide additional information regarding letters of interest.

Question: We welcome and appreciate IES' decision not to allow general letters of support. It will significantly reduce burden on regional stakeholders and state education agencies to respond to numerous contractors' requests for producing such letters. Would IES also consider not requiring letters of interest or commitment from SEAs to be on the Governing Board of a particular contractor's bid? We believe it is in the best interests of REL programs and regional stakeholders that SEAs are represented in the REL Governing Board. So, once awards are made, RELs could invite the state chief education officers or their designees to be on the board. We expect this would reduce the burden on SEAs to respond to the multiple contractors pursuing the RELs.

Response: We agree that letters of support from SEAs and associated representatives are not required at the proposal stage for the purposes of serving on the Governing Board. In accordance with ESRA, the successful offeror shall invite representatives from all applicable SEAs to participate on the Governing Board following award.

Question: The definition of high-leverage priorities includes “priorities for regional policymakers (particularly at the state level).” The FAQ also indicates that IES does “not consider letters of support from any individual or organization in making our determination in order to preserve an unbiased, full and open competition.” Please clarify whether letters from state policymakers may be used as exhibits to provide one source of evidence that the REL proposal is focusing on high-leverage priorities in the state or region.

Response: Letters of support from state policymakers are not required. While offerors could choose to include these in the body of their proposal, they should carefully consider whether the letter is the strongest way to provide evidence given limited space. There are likely more effective ways to demonstrate that the offeror has engaged with state policymakers about high-leverage priorities.

Needs of the Region

Question: How closely does the needs assessment of the analytic needs of the region (Subtask 2.2) align with the needs assessment in the ‘12-17 PWS? In what other tasks do you envision the needs assessment playing a key role?

Response: The successful offeror is expected to conduct an ongoing needs assessment to ensure that the needs of the region are accurately reflected in their work plan. The region’s needs should be the primary driver of the annual work plan. Needs assessment is embedded within all of the work that the REL proposes to conduct.

Question: How will the REL-Created Annual Assessment of Analytic Needs be used in the RFP process?

Response: The current REL contractors conducted needs sensing as a separate task. This document is provided to share what resulted from that effort. Offerors do not necessarily need to use the information for the purposes of submitting a proposal, but this information will provide a sample of what the current contractors identified as areas of high need.

Question: How will IES independently determine the accuracy of an applicant’s responsiveness to needs in the region?

Response: Reviewers will assess the process by which the offeror analyzed the needs of the region, including the discussions with state policymakers and additional fact-finding that informed the proposed plan. For successful offerors, the Governing Board must make annual assurances that the REL’s annual work plan reflects their priorities and that they concur with the REL’s proposed approach.

NAICS/PSC Codes

Question: Regarding NAICS and PSC codes, please confirm that these codes are only applicable to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

Response: The proposed NAICS and PSC information is applicable to all businesses. This information should be of particular importance to small businesses for set-aside purposes.

We are still evaluating whether the NAICS codes indicated in the RFI are appropriate for the competition. Note that feedback on the NAICS is specifically targeted in the RFI, and we welcome feedback from the field.

Partnerships

Question: What is an example of a partnership with non-partisan regional groups that has saved costs and increased the profile of the REL? What kinds of activities are expected to take place with these partners, under which Task?

Response: One example among many would be: a REL could partner with regional chapters of professional organizations of teachers of particular subjects. It is probably easiest to collaborate on dissemination with such groups, but collaboration need not be limited to dissemination. It is well-known that educators often turn to professional organizations for support and ideas. By partnering with these trusted intermediaries, the REL can be more cost efficient (given a fixed event cost, the cost per participant goes down as the number of participants goes up) and potentially more impactful as the REL reaches new audiences that might not have considered the REL program as a source of support. In sum, the Department does not envision the REL in each region as a “lone wolf”; effective RELs are to be deeply connected to other groups that share its interests.

Question: Please provide a little more information on the difference between a research alliance and a research partnership.

Response: Research alliances took many forms in the 2012-2017 RELs. With one exception, all research alliances involved more than one jurisdiction (either multiple districts, multiple states, or combinations of states and districts). Outside of the REL context, researcher-practitioner partnerships have focused on individual districts but have worked with multiple offices within the district. A research partnership, as envisioned in this PWS, may be more narrowly conceived than the research alliances or researcher-practitioner partnerships described above. For example, a REL could develop a partnership with one office in an LEA (e.g. a Human Resources office, or the charter schools office) and commit to working with that office on a substantial research or TCTS project. There could be just a few staff members at the LEA who participate in the partnership, and the partnership could be either short- or long-term.

Question: The RFI states that “at all times throughout the contract, the REL will work with at least two research alliances.” Under Subtask 3.1, are there expectations for the number of partnerships each REL will maintain?

Response: There are no expectations for the number of research partnerships (that is, not research alliances) to be maintained.

Question: IES describes the requirements for identifying, supporting, and maintaining partnerships (Subtask 3.1). Will offerors be required to describe fully and enumerate the number of proposed partnerships in their responses?

Response: The Department will want to know in detail which research partnerships and research alliances the offeror proposes to support during the first year of implementation.

Question: Can you clarify the potential make-up of partnerships? Alliances? For example, to what extent can REL partnerships (and alliances) be with organizations other than K12 schools, schools, districts, SEAs? Can partnerships be with: (a) Postsecondary organizations, particularly those interested in strengthening student access and success? (b) Early childhood providers outside of the public school system? (c) Educator preparatory programs? (d) Professional development providers, and other partners who have primary responsibility for supporting or administering instructional programs in schools? € Support service providers, including those that provide social and psychological services to students and families?

Response: ESRA indicates that the clients of the RELs are LEAs, SEAs, school boards, state boards of education, and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools. We encourage RELs to keep this in mind as they establish their partnerships. However, we also understand that substantial and lasting education improvements for young people may require cross-system work and involvement of a variety of stakeholders.

The bottom line: yes, groups other than LEAs, SEAs, boards of education, and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools may be involved in alliances and partnerships. However, keep in mind who the primary clients of the RELs are, as defined by ESRA.

Question: Page 24 of the RFI notes “The Department expects that, at all times throughout the contract, the REL will work with at least two research alliances, as defined above.” Can research alliances serve shorter-term purposes that could be addressed within a two-, three- or four-year timeframe, or are all research alliances expected to continue for the full contract cycle?

Response: Research alliances may last for fewer than five years. Two, three, or four years also would be acceptable. When research alliances have met their goal – or can achieve their goal in some other way – they should disband.

Question: Does IES expect existing REL research alliances (from the 2012-17 cycle) to continue their work in the 2017-22 cycle? In other words, would a new contractor be expected to carry on or support the work of existing research alliances (and their specific membership)?

Response: No, the Department has no such expectation. That said, research alliances from the 2012-17 cycle may continue. In such cases, the Department would expect these alliances to have a compelling reason to continue and to reflect a deepening and maturing work agenda.

Question: Please provide a little more information on the difference between a research alliance and a research partnership. Can partnerships be made with entities outside the region, and if yes, does there have to be clear involvement with the region or of benefit for the region? (p.20) Or are these partnerships only in reference to national entities (see page 20) that are IES or federally funded entities (e.g., R & D centers, CCs, etc.)

Response: See the discussion of research alliances and research partnerships, above.

The question also seems to address partnerships that the REL may develop with entities that can help to extend and amplify the work of the REL. These partnerships may be developed with national entities that do not have a prior presence in the region. Keeping in mind that each REL serves a national audience as well as a regional one, such partnerships with national entities would be entirely appropriate.

Question: The RFI reflects substantial development of the concepts of partnerships and alliances. Could you describe more fully characteristics of alliances that have been successful and characteristics of those that have not from the 2012-2017 contract? Are there differences in the breadth and size of alliances that relate to their success?

Response: We appreciate this question and the genuine spirit of inquiry that seems to motivate it. Thus, although we cannot provide a complete picture of features of successful alliances, we offer the following observations. Research alliances with members who work in close proximity to each other allow important face-to-face contact; farther flung, cross-state research alliances are more difficult to maintain. However, some cross-state alliances that involve participants in similar roles have been quite successful.

Question: Should the work with alliances be focused on specific research questions or on broader research agendas?

Response: We are not sure that we understand the question. Research alliances should have particular goals for improvement that they want to achieve (e.g. “a four-year graduation rate of 90%”) and should have a research agenda that will inform the steps taken to bring about the improvement.

Question: Many stakeholder groups are specifically referenced in the solicitation, but teacher groups are only generally referenced via the broad term of practitioners. Are teacher groups (professional associations, unions, etc.) acceptable research partners?

Response: Yes. Please keep in mind that ESRA identifies LEAs, SEAs, boards of education, and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools as the RELs’ clients. However, this does not preclude the participation of other types of organizations in research alliances, which – after all – are ultimately about making improvements to education, informed by research. Having the right people at the table who can help bring about change, informed by research findings, will help RELs to fulfill their mission.

Peer Review

Question: When IES refers to “peer reviewed education research,” is the intention to provide examples of peer review at all stages of research (e.g., review of design) or only publications? Is IES also interested in peer reviewed work of other types of work, e.g., training/technical support models, tools?

Response: All research must be peer reviewed, and all REL publications, including tools, will go through a peer review process. The type of review process will differ based on the type of the product. For more information, see The REL Resource Guide, which is available as an attachment on FBO.

Priorities

Question: On p. 19, how should offerors think about the relationship between priorities 1, 2 and 3 and priority 4? Should priorities 1, 2 and 3 be considered more critical in the context of high needs communities?

Response: Please see slides #25-30 from the REL Vendor Engagement webinar

Question: Can the Department provide clarification on the expected scope of priority 4 (for example, is this focused on K-12, or does it include postsecondary access/attainment), as well as what is meant by access (e.g., issues of equity, attendance/absenteeism) (see p. 19)?

Response: The fourth priority on page 19 reads “increasing education access and attainment in high needs communities, schools, and subgroups of students.” This includes Pre-K through post-secondary education.

REL Evaluation

Question: Will there be an external evaluation of RELs during the next contract period?

Response: The Department intends to conduct an independent evaluation of each REL. The type of evaluation and who will be performing the evaluation will be determined by the Department in Year 2.

Question: What outcome indicators or metrics are in place for IES and how does the REL program address those metrics? How do they align with the outcomes in the logic model in the draft solicitation?

Response: The current REL program relies on selected responses from the Stakeholder Feedback Survey (click here). New metrics for the 2017-2022 RELs have not yet been determined.

Question: Page 25, section IV, #8, states that REL should set clear goals and performance targets, adjust strategies, try new solutions, and use data to track its performance. If RELs are to try new strategies, just like any experiment, some will not be successful. To what extent will GPRA measures and IES support and encourage strategic and informed risk-taking in methods or approach, as part of the effort to “try new solutions?”

Response: The Department recognizes that some risk is required when trying new solutions and is willing to tolerate a degree of calculated risk. The Department’s strategy for current REL contractors has been to recognize when contractors are taking appropriate risks and to work closely with contractors to provide the support, feedback, and “cover” needed. The Department also emphasizes that, after award, it allows high-performing contractors to take more risks than those with average or below-average performance.

Question: What will be the indicators of success and major short and long term outcomes used to determine success of the RELs (e.g., increased use of research findings in education decision making, particularly at state agencies)? How will these indicators and outcomes be evaluated? Will each REL be required to collect and report on their progress toward achieving these outcomes, or will an external evaluation be conducted? What type of evidence will be required?

Response: Program-wide indicators and metrics have not yet been determined.

Request for Information (RFI) and Capability Statements

Question: Will the information provided in the respondent’s capacity statements be made public before the competition?

Response: The Department will not publicize the capability statements or its evaluation of the capability statements. We will not publish any of the feedback that we receive through the RFI process. Note, however, that feedback that you provide may be incorporated into the final solicitation through a revised PWS, instructions, or evaluation criteria.

Question: What are the formatting requirements for the capability statements?

Response: Please see page 5 of this document.

Question: What REL requirements will the Department procure under Solicitation No.: ED-IES-15-R-0016? What will not be procured? What is the timeline for the Southwest Procurement?

Response: The Department will procure services for nine of the ten REL regions – all regions except REL Southwest. The Department will compete the REL Southwest requirement in 2017 and will likely utilize the same PWS, Instructions to Offerors, Selection Criteria, and Evaluation Scale for the Southwest competition.

Question: Is the Formal RFI Response, due no later than 2:00 PM EDT on September 10, something that only organizations intending to bid as Prime Contractor should complete or should any organization, regardless of their intended role in a Lab bid complete the Formal RFI Response?

Response: The capability statements represent the Department’s efforts at market research and analysis for the purposes of determining a set aside designation for each REL region. For this reason, it is appropriate for companies that anticipate submitting offers as prime contractors to respond. If a company is currently teamed with another business but there is a chance that it may ultimately propose as a prime, then we recommend that you submit a capability statement.

We note that the submission of a capability statement is one element of a much broader RFI initiative. Even if you do not intend to respond to any future RFP as a prime contractor you may still provide valuable feedback to the content of the PWS.

Question: Will the Department post a list of individuals/companies that attended the August 25 webinar?

Response: Yes. During the webinar, the acquisition team requested that interested parties submit their name and contact information to Jonathan Bettis if they wished to be included on the list. A list of those attendees is attached to this RFI. This list does not include every person/company that attended the event. Rather, this list only includes those individuals that expressly granted permission for the Department to share their information.

Question: Does a respondent have to respond to all three subsections in Part II – Formal RFI Response, or can it chose to respond to only some of the subsections? For example, respond to Vendor Questions and Comments/Edits but not submit a Capability Statement at this time?

Response: Offerors may respond to any component of the RFI that they choose. For example, an Offeror may submit only a capability statement. Others may decline to submit a capability statement and instead provide feedback on the Performance Work Statement. Still others may respond to questions without submitting any additional information. We welcome any information that you care to share, and there are no restrictions or limitations to your manner of response.

Material that an Offeror submits in response to the RFI will not in any way affect the evaluation of your final proposal should you elect to submit one.

Question: Is the primary purpose of the Capability Statement directed at helping IES determine if there are one or more qualified small businesses in a REL region that could compete as a Prime contractor for a REL? Would IES consider competing one or more regions as a Total Small Business set-aside? Who should submit a capability statement?

Response: The primary purpose of the capability statement is to determine whether there are two or more qualified small businesses in a particular region. These businesses must not only demonstrate an understanding of the technical elements of the procurement, they must also demonstrate the capacity to deploy that technical understanding in a manner consistent with the core mission of the REL program.

We welcome capability statements from any business, but if you are a small business (of any category) interested in submitting a proposal, we encourage you to submit a capability statement. To the extent that you are partnering with other small (or large) businesses, it is likely important to include information on their capabilities in your response.

Question: Items III and IV of the capability statement requirements request information on “capacity to conduct this work…” How is capacity different from the demonstrated ability/expertise/experience that is required in each item? Is capacity being defined as the number of staff/consultants available with expertise?

Response: The Department believes that a company may have the technical know-how to complete one or more technical elements of the REL program, but they may lack the institutional capacity to deploy those technical abilities across any particular REL region. This means that RELs operate at scale. Therefore, capacity refers to the ability to work on multiple projects simultaneously at the scale required in a REL contract and the provision of sufficient numbers of capable staff with appropriate expertise, experience, and time available to respond to the region's needs.

Question: Are stakeholders’ letters of interest required for the RFI or the RFP only? Do these letters count toward page limits?

Response: Letters of interest will likely be required for the RFP. Letters are not required as part of the RFI response.

Question: To what extend should/could work housed under the REL contract, but executed by current or previous subcontractors, be used as examples of previous work for the capability statement?

Response: Offerors should mention any relevant past experiences that helped them develop capabilities and capacities to meet the current requirement.

Request for Proposals

Question: Is there a projected window for releasing the final Request for Proposals (RFP), and will the Department issue a draft RFP? How long will offerors have to respond to the RFP?

Response: The Department anticipates releasing a RFP no later than January 30, 2016. Offerors will have a minimum of 30 days to respond to the RFP because these items are non-commercial.

Research

Question: Is it correct to assume that proposals will not contain detailed research plans for Task 6 studies?

Response: That is correct. However, although detailed research plans for Task 6 studies are not required, the offeror should sufficiently describe all work being proposed for year 1 in the proposal.

Question: Is it envisioned that every REL will conduct an experimental study of the effectiveness of strategies for presenting data and communicating results (Sub-task 6-3)? Perhaps this could be an appropriate Cross-REL collaborative project.

Response: The Department believes that studying what works using experimental methods is an important way that the RELs can provide support for their regions. However, the Department will be unimpressed by proposed experimental studies that do not serve a pressing regional need and have a clear audience that needs information from the study to take an action or make a decision.

The Department is supportive of cross-REL collaborative projects, which could involve a randomized study.

Question: Is it the expectation that Task 6 research would all be published by IES (assuming it meets review standards)?