RFP_ED-IES-17-R-0014_Amendment_0001_FormSF30.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

Continuation Page

PAGE 2 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

Continued from Block 14...

responses to clarification questions.

The solicitation is hereby amended as follows:

Attachment Page

PAGE 3 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS

SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW SUPPORT FOR THE INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

(IES)

NOTICES TO OFFERORS: FAR Clause 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, shall apply to this submission. The outside of the proposal packaging, the cover of each proposal, and the header of each proposal page shall contain the title “Scientific Peer Review for the Institute of Education Sciences.” The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the Technical Evaluation Criteria of this request for proposals. It is understood that the proposal will become a part of the official contract file.

This Request for Proposal (RFP) does not commit the Government to pay any cost for the preparation and submission of a proposal. In addition, the Contracting Officer is the only individual who can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds in connection with this acquisition.

Offerors shall prepare separate technical and business/cost proposals for the project. The technical proposals must not contain reference to specific costs, although resource information may be included so that the offeror’s understanding of the scope of the work may be evaluated. Cost information must be restricted to the business proposal. The offeror must include past performance information in the technical proposal (as outlined on p. 5-6). Each proposal must be separate and complete in itself so that evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of the other.

An official authorized to bind your organization must sign the proposal. Offerors must submit the technical proposal electronically in WORD AND PDF format and the cost proposal electronically as an EXCEL WORKBOOK (including a summary sheet) with a narrative description of costs electronically in PDF format. The separate proposal volumes shall be submitted electronically as separate documents to Thomas.Smith@ed.gov (Contract Specialist) and Veronica.Price@ed.gov (Contracting Officer). If an email’s attachment size exceeds 20MB, it is recommended that the offeror break up the proposal into smaller attachments in separate emails. If the submission exceeds 20MB, the Department may not receive the proposal. Offerors are encouraged to conserve paper by copying double-sided. Offerors are encouraged to submit proposals on recycled paper with a high post-consumer waste content.

Proposals are due by 12:00 pm Eastern Time (ET) on June 2, 2017.

Proposal Validity Period

The proposal must list the names and telephone numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations, and a statement to the effect that the proposal is firm for a period of at least 90 calendar days from the date of receipt of proposals specified within this RFP.

Clarification Questions

The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) will accept clarification questions from potential offerors. Clarification questions must be submitted by the due date, which is 12:00 pm ET, on May 11, 2017. All questions must be submitted electronically to Thomas.Smith@ed.gov with a carbon copy to Veronica.Price@ed.gov. The Department does not guarantee that a response will be given to clarification questions submitted after the due date/time. Offerors will not receive a response until all questions have been received by the due date. All questions and answers will be posted on the Federal Business Opportunities web site (www.FBO.gov). It is the prospective offeror’s responsibility to monitor this site.

L.3 Instructions to Offerors ED-IES-17-R-0014 Amendment 0001

PAGE 4 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

Oral explanations or instructions given by the Government before the award of the contract(s) shall not be binding. Any information given to a prospective offeror concerning a solicitation will be furnished promptly to all other prospective offerors if that information is necessary in submitting offers or if a lack of it would be prejudicial to any other prospective offerors. This information will be sent to all offerors that respond to the RFP.

General Instructions for the Technical Proposal (Volume I)

Through the technical proposal, the offeror must show a thorough understanding of the goals and activities of the PWS and demonstrate that the proposed staff have the necessary experience and expertise to meet task objectives. While the intent of each task is spelled out in the PWS, this must be considered a starting point and technical proposals must include detailed work plans and illustrative examples where needed to fully describe the offeror’s plans to accomplish each task and the relevant deliverables. A proposal that simply repeats the language of the PWS without specifying the offeror’s plan will be considered ineligible for award.

It is important that the offeror completely address all of the tasks described in the PWS and provide enough detail on the offeror’s approach to each task to allow a review panel to adequately judge that approach. The panel will not make assumptions or guesses.

Offerors are encouraged to suggest improvements to the approaches detailed in the PWS, along with a justification of the merits of these alternative approaches. Offerors may find it necessary to make adjustments to the schedule provided in the PWS, in accordance with the newly proposed strategies and/or procedures. In this case, offerors shall clearly identify any changes in the schedule and explain their rationale.

Technical proposals must not exceed 85 double-spaced pages with a 12-point font size and margins of at least 1 inch. The page limit includes the narrative and corresponding tables/graphics, abstracts of current corporate work, and lists of the current contractual commitments of proposed staff. The page limit does not include the appendix containing résumés for key project staff, subcontracting agreements, and letters of commitment. Each resume must be no more than 4 pages and must clearly demonstrate that individuals have the skills to perform the work for which they are proposed. The Department is not responsible for reviewing any proposal that exceeds the maximum page limit.

All pages must be numbered consecutively, including appendices. Offerors shall use the format and content requirements detailed below in preparing their technical proposals.

Additional Information from IES – Estimates and Timeline

Below is a list of estimated figures and typical timeline to assist the Contractor with assessing their ability to execute the requirements for this contract. The actual numbers will fluctuate each fiscal year based on the number of Requests for Applications (RFAs) released by the IES Centers.

Estimates (each fiscal year):

Estimated number of discretionary research grant competitions: 9-11 Estimated number of discretionary research grant applications: 900-1000 Estimated number of discretionary research grant letters of intent (LOIs): 950-1050 Estimated number of scientific peer review panels: 20-30 Estimated number of peer reviewers per panel: 7-24 Estimated number of peer reviewers (including discretionary research grant reviewers, report manuscript reviewers, and unsolicited grant reviewers): 300-350

PAGE 5 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

Estimated number of unsolicited grant applications: 5-10 Estimated number of report manuscripts: 50-100 (approximately 45 will require external review)

IES’s Annual Discretionary Grant Competitions – Historical Information

Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 Fiscal Year 2016 Number of discretionary research grant competitions held 7 9 10 Letters of Intent Received for discretionary research grant competitions 1077 1274 995 Discretionary research grant applications Received 963 1119 948 Number of discretionary research grant peer review panels held 20 26 26 Number of discretionary research grant reviewers (total) 337 458 400

Overview of a typical schedule for the review of annual discretionary grant applications (each fiscal year):

March-May Notice inviting applications is published in the Federal Register and RFAs are posted at http://ies.ed.gov/funding/

May-June Receipt of letters of intent (LOIs). Contractor receives LOIs, creates and transmits reports to IES via the Peer Review Information Management Online (PRIMO) system.

June-July IES staff begins reviewer recruitment (and continues through

November/December). Contractor is making the necessary preparations for application receipt.

August Receipt of Applications. Contractor coordinates with the Department’s G5 team to transfer applications to PRIMO.

Contractor and IES simultaneously conduct compliance and responsiveness screenings (continues through September) Contractor begins peer review panel meeting planning (hotel identification, etc.)

September Contractor makes an online Applicant Notification System (ANS) available and sends invitation emails sent to applicants.

October Fall peer review panel meetings, if applicable.

IES staff begin assigning applications and reviewers to panels and panel sections.

November Contractor receives final assignments of applications and reviewers to panels and panel sections from IES and contacts panel members to obtain necessary documents (including a Panel Member Agreement) and works with panel members to obtain conflict of interest information.

PAGE 6 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

December IES staff finalize assignments of applications to primary reviewers.

Contractor provides all necessary review materials to reviewers, and works with IES staff to establish reviewer training webinars.

Contractor informs reviewers that they may begin working on their application reviews, monitors reviewers’ progress, and works to finalize logistical details for peer review meetings (continues into January).

January-February Critiques and preliminary scores are due from reviewers. Contractor monitors reviewer compliance with due dates, conducts quality control activities and conveys information to IES staff. IES staff performs triage of applications and sets an order of review for February/March panel reviews. Contractor staff convey triage and order of review information to reviewers.

February-March Spring peer review panel meetings.

Contractor releases final scores to applicants via the ANS.

March Contractor delivers peer review summary statements to IES and releases summary statements and regret letters to applicants via the ANS.

NOTE: This is a typical schedule for the bulk of IES’s research grant applications. Our annual schedule depends on the competitions run by the IES Centers. There may be other or different competitions run on different cycles, and it is possible some may be on accelerated timelines or rolling basis. Some review panels could be held in the fall and some, smaller panels could be held virtually by video teleconference (VTC) panel.

Technical Proposal Format and Contents

Proposals must include, but are not limited to, each of the following sections:

A cover sheet with the name and address of the firm and signed by an officer of the firm.

Table of Contents. The Table of Contents must provide a means of quickly accessing important points of discussion in the proposal. The table of contents must also provide the name of the senior author (and coauthors, if applicable) of each section. Authors’ names must be listed in order of writing contribution (most to least).

Introduction. The offeror must provide an overview that demonstrates knowledge of: (a) the IES peer review procedures for the peer review of discretionary research grant applications, unsolicited research grant applications, and IES reports and (b) the integrated support system that IES uses to carry out its responsibilities with regard to peer review of applications and reports. In addition to demonstrating expertise, the introduction shall also briefly describe the proposal and provide rationale for why the proposed approach will meet the intent and requirements of the contract and must describe ways in which the approach is unique, insightful, or particularly comprehensive.

Technical Approach (Task Descriptions). This section shall completely and concisely explain the strategies, operations, and procedures the offeror proposes to achieve the contract’s objectives, addressing each task and subtask in the order presented in the PWS. This section must

PAGE 7 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

include a discussion of any potential issues that might arise and the proposed means to address them.

Management Plan and Timelines. The offeror shall present a proposed timeline that includes start and end dates for each project task and activity. It must be clear when work related to each subtask and deliverable will be accomplished, the key staff responsible for the work, and how time for the Department approval of deliverables has been budgeted. In building their timelines, offerors must assume a contract award date of July 17, 2017.

Transition-in activities. The Contractor shall provide an incoming transition plan for 30 business days from the existing contract to the new contract. A sample plan shall initially be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal and updated after award. After award, but no later than 48 hours, the Contractor shall begin to coordinate with the COR to plan and implement a complete transition. A final transition-in plan will be due to the COR within 15 business days of award.

The transition-in plan will describe in detail how the Contractor shall transition in to the resultant contract to include being capable of providing full performance on the day after the end of the transition-in period. The Contractor shall consider including in the transition-in plan a schedule for meeting with the existing support contractor to discuss the transition and collect and necessary materials that are necessary for the transition. The COR will provide contact information for the existing contractor.

Transition-out activities. The Contractor shall provide an outgoing transition plan for 60 business days from the existing contract to the follow-on contract. The plan shall initially be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal and updated after award. This transition may be to a government entity, another Contractor, or to the existing Contractor under a new contract. The Contractor shall assist the COR in planning and implementing a complete transition from this Contractor to the successful offeror. The plan shall include formal communication with government staff and successor management and staff. The plan shall also include delivery of copies of existing policies and procedures, and delivery of required metrics, statistics and requirements documents. A schedule for deliverables will be determined at a later date.

Proposed Personnel. This section shall provide the names of the proposed project director, other key personnel, subcontractors, and consultants. Offerors must indicate the number of proposed hours for each staff person (including subcontractors and consultants) by task as well as in total and must describe the specific responsibilities of each proposed staff person. A narrative description that clearly describes how staff qualifications relate to the requirements of the PWS and proposed task assignments must be included.

To indicate the availability of staff persons to work on this contract, offerors must also indicate the proportion of each staff person’s time (including subcontractors and consultants) that is committed to current and pending federal and non-federal projects by year during the anticipated period of performance of this contract. The offeror must also indicate the proposed proportion of each staff person’s time that would be committed to the current contract during this time frame.

Any sub-contractual arrangements shall be described thoroughly and it must be clear which tasks will be completed by sub-contractors and the role that they will play. The offeror shall assure that proposed subcontractors/consultants are free of conflicts of interest that might bias their approach to this work. Letter(s) by proposed subcontractors/consultants indicating willingness to serve, if the offeror is selected, shall be included within the offeror's proposal as an appendix. The offeror

PAGE 8 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

shall ensure that all subcontracts or consultant agreements contain all prime contractor clauses that are required to flow down into all relevant subcontracting and consultant agreements.

This section must be accompanied by an appendix that includes résumés of no more than 4 pages each for key staff members. The resumes must include educational and professional background and must highlight experience relevant to the contract.

Organizational Capabilities and Experience. This section shall include an organizational chart with an accompanying description of functional responsibilities, applicable prior corporate experience to carry out those responsibilities, lines of communication, and authority for project management along with mechanisms for quality, timeliness and cost control. Applicable prior corporate experience must include evidence of successful experience with projects that are similar to the current project in terms of the specific tasks to be performed and the level of effort required.

In addition, offerors shall provide a complete list of the title, contract or grant number, award date, end date, and dollar amount of all contracts and grants with the U.S. Department of Education that are current or ended after April 1, 2014. This list and the discussion of corporate experience shall be provided for any proposed subcontractors and consultants as well as for the proposed prime contractor. For contracts or grants directly relevant to this procurement—either as a basis for corporate qualifications or as a source of potential conflicts of interest—a brief summary of the contract or grant activities shall also be provided.

Small Business Participation and Plan. The Department values an approach where substantive work is performed in a meaningful capacity by small businesses more highly than an approach where only menial work is performed by small businesses. A meaningful capacity for substantive work includes work other than courier services and office supplies. Therefore, a valued approach for the anticipated contract will be one where technical, analytical, data collection or another significant service is performed by a qualified small business.

Offerors shall state the work to be performed by a small business(es), the name of the small business(es), the socio economic status of each small business concern, and the percentage of work proposed to be performed by each small business concern (by and for each performance period, inclusive of option years), but NO COST INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED.

Past Performance

To support the technical proposal, offerors shall submit information about three contracts, completed in the last four years or currently in process, but beyond the first year of the contract, which are of similar size, scope, complexity or, in any way, are relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. The "Contractor Performance Information” form (Attachment C) shall be used to collect this information from references. The three contracts may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments and/or commercial customers. Contracts with the parent company or an affiliate of the offeror may not be used.

Each reference is to complete the form and return it to the Contract Specialist, Thomas Smith, as prescribed on the form. Completed forms from references are due on the same day as Technical and Business Proposals under this solicitation. Request that the reference please return the completed form, via email, by the time and date on the form, to the following:

PAGE 9 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

E-mail to: Thomas.Smith@ed.gov and a cc to: Veronica.Price@ed.gov

The Source Selection Official/Contracting Officer reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other services such as CPARS and FAPIIS. The Government also reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other sources. Consideration of the offeror’s reputation in terms of quality, problem resolution, cost control, timeliness, business relations and customer service will be evaluated.

Business Proposal (Volume II)

The Department anticipates awarding a Cost Reimbursement contract through a full and open competition. The Department anticipates fully-funding the base period at time of award and subsequently, anticipates fully-funding each option year, at the time of exercise.

The offeror shall submit proposed costs for each task and subtask and for the project overall, for each performance period. The proposed budget for each task shall include the number of hours each staff person is expected to commit. There is no page limitation for the business proposal. Please verify that the contents of the business proposal are mathematically accurate and the supporting data reconcile in the proposal.

NOTE TO OFFERORS - It is required that your business proposal contain enough information for a cost realism determination to be made. Offerors are expected to use their best business judgment in submitting the necessary information. The Contracting Officer can reject an offeror’s proposal if a negative cost realism determination is made, or if proposed costs are found to NOT be reasonable. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.404-1 states, “cost realism means the costs in an offeror’s proposal are a) realistic for the work to be performed; b) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and c) are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.” As such, Offerors’ proposals must contain identification of cost or pricing data (i.e., data that are verifiable and factual) and an explanation of the estimating process. When applicable, the following items must be specifically identified; e.g., Other Administrative Data (Refer to FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 I.C.). Please verify that the contents of the business proposal are mathematically accurate and the supporting data reconcile in the proposal.

Additional Information from IES – Honorarium Policy

IES grant application reviewers who complete and submit all review assignments and who attend in person the onsite peer review meeting are typically given an honorarium of $2,000.

For reviewers who participate as VTC reviewers, the honorarium amount is typically $1,500.

Report manuscript reviewers and unsolicited grant application reviewers who complete and submit their reviews are typically given honoraria of $500 for an unsolicited grant application review; or $200, $400, $600, or $800 for report manuscript review, depending primarily on the length of the report manuscript.

The purpose of this policy is to outline circumstances when all or part of an honorarium is withheld from a reviewer serving on an Institute peer review panel and to provide consistent guidance for handling of such issues.

Scientific Peer Reviewers

1. When will reviewers already scheduled to participate in an onsite meeting be entitled to an additional ad hoc honorarium for service on a second panel?

PAGE 10 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

When the addition of assigned applications for an ad hoc review increases assignments to greater than ten

(10) applications, reviewers will receive an additional $250. However, if a reviewer both serves on a grant application review panel and completes one or more report manuscript or unsolicited grant application reviews within the same fiscal year, the reviewer may receive both types of honoraria.

2. What obligation does the Institute have to pay reviewers who were unable to travel to a meeting (e.g.

due to weather or canceled flights) and end up participating by teleconference?

Due to weather/airline – participation by teleconference (TC): If all reviews are completed, 100% of honorarium.

Family emergency/illness – participation by TC: If all reviews are completed, 100% honorarium;

if some reviews are not completed/un-submitted, 80% of honorarium.

Unable to travel due to undisclosed reason/late changes – participation by TC: if all reviews are completed, 80% of honorarium.

No onsite or teleconference participation and reviews are completed: 60% of honorarium will be paid.

No onsite or teleconference participation and reviews are not completed: 0% of honorarium will be paid.

For report manuscript and unsolicited application reviews: 0% of honorarium if the review is not returned; 80% of honorarium if the review is received after an agreed-upon due date.

Ad Hoc Reviewers (onsite or video teleconference)

For reviewers with no other assignments: $250 for each application reviewed. Ad hoc reviewers are assigned between one (1) and four (4) applications to review. Typically, no more than three

(3) or (4) ad hoc members are used to supplement a panel.

Business Proposal Contents

Proposals must include each of the following:

A cover sheet with the name and address of the firm and signed by an officer of the firm.

Abstract. A one-page summary is to be provided abstracting the proposal contents in language understandable to an informed layperson. The abstract shall indicate full acceptance of the solicitation requirements or note any Offeror or assumptions justified. A summary chart showing the proposed Cost Reimbursement costs for each performance period shall be included. Totals for each performance period must be incorporated into the chart.

Cost Accounting, Estimating, and Purchasing System Information. The offeror shall include information on the status of your accounting system, estimating system, purchasing system. If these systems have been reviewed and approved by a Government Agency, include a copy of the approval letter. If they have not, offerors must state so and provide a justification for all proposed costs. The Government reserves the right to not award a contract to a company that does not have an approved accounting, estimating, and purchasing system.

Breakdowns for Other Direct Costs. Offerors shall submit proposed costs itemized for each task/subtask, as well as a total proposed cost for the entire work to be performed under each performance period. The proposed budget for each task and subtask must indicate the number of hours being proposed for each staff person and breakdowns of direct charges for materials, PAGE 11 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/ supplies, consultants, equipment, telephone, copying, travel, and any other major budget items, as well as indirect cost rates used in preparing the cost estimate. Indirect rates shall be in accordance with your current provisional billing rate agreements. A copy of current indirect rate agreements shall be included with the business proposal.

The business proposal must also include costs itemized by project year.

Subcontractor Cost(s). Offerors must submit its price/cost analyses of all subcontractors proposed whose costs exceeds the threshold for certified cost or pricing data (as applicable). The following information must be addressed (as applicable):

o If a subcontract proposal exceeds the threshold for certified cost or pricing data (FAR 15.403-4(a)) and is not otherwise exempt from other exceptions in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), please include the prime contractor’s price/cost analyses establishing the reasonableness of each subcontract price.

o In accordance with the thresholds in FAR 15.404-3(c) and FAR 15.408,Table 15-2 II.A.(2), Cost and Pricing data, a copy of each subcontractor’s proposal must be provided.

o Identify in the proposal the degree of competition and the basis for establishing the source and reasonableness of price for each subcontract priced on a competitive basis (FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 II. A. (1)) exceeding the threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a).

o Additionally, in accordance with FAR 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort, if applicable, if the Offeror intends to subcontract more than 70% of the total cost of work to be performed, the proposal must identify (i) the amount of the Offeror’s indirect costs and profit applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s) and (ii) a description of the added value provided by the Offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s).

Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All Offerors who are not designated as a small business in the stated NAICS Code for this requirement must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan for review, to satisfy the applicable requirements of 48 CFR 52.219-9 II. A template (Attachment B) has been provided to facilitate this process. Offerors must submit the template and a small business subcontracting plan that contains all information and elements required by FAR 19.7.

FY 2017 Prime and Subcontracting Goals Prime Sub

Small Business 22.50% 31.00% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00% 5.00% Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00% 5.00% Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3.00% 3.00% Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUBZone) Small Business 3.00% 3.00%

For this requirement, the goal of 31% or more of the total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to small businesses is to be considered a mandatory minimum. If a Plan does not meet the mandatory minimum goal, the proposal shall be considered non-responsive, and not be reviewed. To the extent that the Plan fails to meet any of the other of the Department’s 2017 small business subcontracting goals (i.e., 5% or more of the total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to SDB concerns, 5% or more of the total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to WOSB concerns, 3% or more of the total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to HUBZone small business concerns, and 3% or more of the total subcontract dollars be subcontracted to SDVOSB

PAGE 12 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

concerns), the offeror shall include a statement in its business proposal describing the efforts that the offeror will make to identify subcontracting opportunities in the future.

Offerors must submit a price/cost breakdown for any subcontractor/consultant whose costs exceed the threshold for certified cost or pricing data (as applicable). The following information must be addressed (as applicable):

If a subcontract/consultant proposal exceeds the threshold for certified cost or pricing data (FAR 15.403-4(a)) and is not otherwise exempt from other exceptions in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b), please include the prime contractor’s price/cost analyses establishing the reasonableness of each subcontract/consultant price.

In accordance with the thresholds in FAR 15.404-3(c) and FAR 15.408,Table 15-2 II.A.(2), Cost and Pricing data, a copy of each subcontractor’s/consultant’s proposal must be provided (as an appendix to the business proposal).

Identify in the proposal the degree of competition and the basis for establishing the source and reasonableness of price for each subcontract priced on a competitive basis (FAR 15.408, Table 15-2 II. A. (1)) exceeding the threshold at FAR 15.403-4(a).

Additionally, in accordance with FAR 52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort, if applicable, if the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70% of the total cost of work to be performed, the proposal must identify (i) the amount of the offeror’s indirect costs and profit applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s)/consultant(s) and (ii) a description of the added value provided by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s)/consultant(s).

Labor Rates. Offerors shall submit their labor rates broken out, not fully loaded. Offeror’s labor rate must be consistent with their current labor rates. Offerors are permitted to propose discounted rates to improve the competitiveness of their proposal. The labor mix and labor categories proposed must be consistent with the personnel proposed in the technical proposal. Any rate higher than $800 per day for any proposed consultant requires justification.

Offerors shall include a statement to the effect that should it become necessary for the

Government to exercise FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, the rates in effect for the respective period of performance shall remain in effect for the duration of the extension period.

Conflict of Interest

The offeror and all proposed subcontractors and consultants shall fill out the Conflict of Interest Certification in Section K (3452.209-70-Conflict of Interest Certification (May 2011)) of this solicitation. All Conflict of Interest Certifications are to be submitted with the offeror’s Business Proposals.

The Offeror shall submit a Conflict of Interest Plan, providing details on its policies and procedures to identify and avoid potential organizational or personal conflicts of interest (or apparent conflicts of interest) that would call into question the independence and validity of IES’s scientific peer review procedures. The Plan must also address procedures taken to neutralize or mitigate such conflicts, if they have not been or cannot be avoided. The Plan must indicate that such policies and procedures are operative throughout the period of performance of the contract or task order. The policies must address, at

PAGE 13 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

a minimum, gifts, outside activities financial interests, or other significant connections or identifications that would establish, or give the appearance of establishing, a conflict of interest. A method for periodically reviewing financial interests of employees, subcontractors and consultants, and their immediate families, in order to assess actual or apparent conflicts of interest must be included in the plan.

In this clause, the term “potential conflict” means reasonably foreseeable conflict of interest.

The thoroughness, completeness, and effectiveness of the Plan shall be evaluated as part of the offeror’s overall proposal. The Plan will be incorporated into the contract or task order awarded to the successful offeror.

Notice and Instructions Regarding Additional Security Clearance Requirements

Contractor employees must undergo security screening if they are hired to serve 30 calendar days or more on an ED contract or project, and they will:

a. Have an ID badge granting unescorted access to ED facilities;

b. Have ED IT system access;

c. Have access to unclassified sensitive information, such as Privacy Act-protected, personally identifiable, proprietary or other sensitive information and data; or,

d. Perform duties in a school or location where children are present.

Below are the Risk Level Designations which contain more detailed specifications:

RISK LEVEL DESIGNATIONS

HIGH RISK (HR) (6/6C) positions are those with the potential for an exceptionally serious impact on the efficiency of ED. A Background Investigation (BI) is required for all contractor employees in High Risk positions. High Risk positions include those with

1. Responsibility for the development, direction, implementation, and administration of ED computer security programs, including direction and control of risk analysis or threat assessment.

2. Significant involvement in mission-critical IT systems.

3. Responsibility for preparing or approving data for input into an IT system which does not necessarily involve personal access to the IT system, but which creates a high risk for effecting grave damage or realizing significant personal gain.

4. Assignments associated with or directly involving the accounting, disbursement, or authorization for disbursement from IT systems of amounts of $10 million per year or greater, or lesser amounts if the activities of the individual are not subject to technical review by higher authority to insure the integrity of the IT system.

5. Major responsibility for the direction, planning, design, testing, maintenance, operation, monitoring, or management of the IT systems hardware and software.

6. Access to an IT system during the operation or maintenance in a way that bypasses incorporated controls, to permit high risk for causing grave damage or realizing a significant personal gain.

7. Any other positions that involve high risk for effecting grave damage or significant personal gain.

MODERATE RISK (MR) (5/5C) positions are those with the potential for moderate to serious impact on the efficiency of ED. A National Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI) and a credit check is required. The investigation will be expanded to a Minimum Background Investigation (MBI) or a Limited Background Investigation (LBI) if the NACI plus credit check investigation develops information that the Chief of Personnel Security considers potentially actionable. Moderate Risk positions include those with

1. Work that is technically reviewed by a higher authority at the High Risk level to ensure the integrity of the information or IT system.

PAGE 14 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

2. Access to or processing of proprietary data or information protected under the Privacy Act of 1974.

3. Accounting, disbursement, or authorization for disbursement from IT systems with amounts less than $10 million per year.

4. Other positions that involve a degree of access to an IT system that creates a significant potential for damage or personal gain less than that in High Risk positions.

LOW RISK (LR) (1/1C) positions require a National Agency Check with Written Inquiries (NACI). Low Risk positions includes those that:

1. Perform duties in a school or location where children are present.

2. Require having an ID badge that grants unescorted access to ED facilities.

3. Involve IT assignments not identified as High or Moderate positions.

All Offerors must submit the list of all proposed contractor employees, subcontractors and consultants;

their position titles, and their risk levels, with their proposal submissions using Attachment E – Contractor Personnel Listing, to this RFP. This list shall include all proposed employees, regardless of whether they require a clearance.

The successful offeror must submit the list of all contractor employees, subcontractors and consultants; their position titles, and their risk levels to the COR, using Attachment E – Contractor Personnel Listing, on the same day that the contract is awarded (See the Contractor Personnel Listing requirement outlined in Attachment A – Performance Work Statement) This list shall include all proposed employees, regardless of whether they require a clearance. They must also submit the personnel information required for the initiation of the security clearances for contractor personnel on the date that the contract is awarded (See the Security Clearance Application Initiation requirement outlined in Attachment F).

The security clearance application includes verification of a completed electronic application, completed contractor employee investigative forms, and a "Request for Personnel Security Officer Action" form. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is now requiring that all applications be reviewed by the Principal Office for a contract, the Chief of Personnel Security in the Department of Education and submitted to them no later than 14 days after the contractor employee submits their electronic application. This means that although contractor personnel can start working under a contract at the time of award, they cannot perform activities that require security screening, such as access to ED IT systems, access to sensitive/PII data, unescorted access to ED facilities, or perform work in a school or at a location where children are present. Therefore, the successful offeror (hereafter called “contractor”) must ensure that its contractor employees submit the security clearance application to the COR within 1 to 2 business days of an assignment to an ED contract and ensure that the forms are complete. In the event that the application is not complete, the contractor must resubmit the application to the COR within 7 business days of notification of an incomplete application or the contractor employee must be removed from the contract. Any contractor employee who has not successfully completed the submission of their security clearance application within 14 days from the date the employee was assigned to the contract must be removed from the contract until they complete their security clearance application. Offerors are advised that adherence to and compliance with all security clearance requirements will be evaluated annually under the CPARS Regulatory Compliance rating category.

PAGE 15 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

Attachment A ED-IES-17-R-0014 Amendment 0001 5/16/2017

Performance Work Statement

Scientific Peer Review Support for the Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Purpose

This contract will provide integrated support for the full range of scientific peer review activities conducted at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), including the review of applications submitted to the annual discretionary research grant competitions and the external scientific peer review of report manuscripts and unsolicited grant applications submitted throughout the year. In addition to the peer review activities, the contract will use information technology support to maintain, develop and enhance the online application processing, peer review management and applicant notification system providing critical infrastructure known as PRIMO (Peer Review Management Online) developed for IES.

1.2 Background

The mission of IES is to provide rigorous and relevant evidence on which to ground education practice and policy and share this information broadly. By identifying what works, what doesn’t, and why, IES aims to improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly those at risk of failure. IES is the research arm of the U.S. Department of Education (Department). IES was established under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA). One of the ways IES provides evidence to ground practice and policy is through research funded under its discretionary grant competitions. IES also supports research funded through an unsolicited grant opportunity for research, evaluation, and statistics, projects that would make significant contributions to the mission of the organization. Another way in which IES provides evidence to ground practice and policy is through publications funded or produced by the Institute.

Under ESRA, IES is required to establish and maintain rigorous peer review processes for the evaluation of applications for grants and cooperative agreements; additionally, IES is required to conduct a rigorous peer review process prior to publication of all research, statistics, and evaluation report manuscripts conducted by, or supported through, IES. Current IES procedures for the peer review of grant applications, and for the peer review of report manuscripts, were approved by IES’s Board of Directors – the National Board for Education Sciences (NBES) – in January 2006 (https://ies.ed.gov/director/sro/peer_review/application_review.asp).

The peer review processes approved by NBES in 2006 for the scientific review of applications submitted to discretionary grant research competitions were patterned after those of other Federal scientific agencies, particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The scientific peer review procedures for the review of report manuscripts were also modeled on those of top-tier research journals, and were also approved by the NBES. IES’s scientific peer review activities are carried out by the Office of the Deputy Director for Science (also known as the Standards and Review Office or SRO). Peer review activities and staff are purposefully situated outside of the IES Centers that fund research grants and contracts, provide technical assistance to applicants, and work with grantees and contractors.

PAGE 16 OF 65 ED-IES-17-R-0014/

In a typical year, IES runs between 9-11 discretionary grant competitions with over 35 topic areas and an unsolicited grant opportunity, and receives between 900-1000 grant applications. In addition to the research grant applications, we review between 50-100 report manuscripts annually. In order to review the large number of applications and report manuscripts received, IES relies on 300-350 external, expert peer reviewers. Research grant applications are reviewed on topically-organized scientific peer review panels. The number of panels each year ranges from approximately 20 to 30; the majority of these are panels that meet in-person, while some smaller panels meet via video teleconference (VTC). In recent years, IES has held peer review panel sessions in the fall and winter/spring. In future years, it is possible panels for some competitions will be held on a rolling basis through the year. Panels can range in size from 4 or 5 for a small VTC panel to 25 for a large in-person panel; the average number of members across all review panels is approximately 16. Our extensive peer review operation spans every month of the year and includes staff from the IES Standards and Review Office, IES Centers, and a large number of contractor staff with broad peer review and IT knowledge and expertise.

For more information on IES, go to http://ies.ed.gov and review materials provided on the website.

1.3 Information related to IES’s Peer Review Information Management Online System (PRIMO)

The technology providing critical infrastructure for these activities is an online application processing, peer review management, and applicant notification system known as PRIMO (Peer Review Management Online) developed for IES and maintained by a Contractor. This system – used by IES staff, reviewers participating in IES peer review activities, and individuals and organizations who have submitted grant applications for peer review – is critical to fulfilling the primary responsibilities of IES: to ensure that IES funds and produces educational research of the highest scientific quality. The overall goal of PRIMO is to ensure efficient grant and report manuscript peer review processes by minimizing the time necessary for all phases of these processes, reducing the amount of email correspondence required for each phase, and reducing the use of paper, as well as providing a secure means of maintaining related records, and a database that can be readily analyzed to support the continuous improvement of review processes.

PRIMO is designed as a system of distinct but interconnected components that, in combination, provide critical support for the work of IES and contract staff.

PRIMO is currently on a Microsoft .NET framework, version 4.5 using a SQL Server 2008 compatible database and capable of being hosted on Internet Information Services (IIS) version 7.5.