SF30.pdf

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

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

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

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

(x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

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

CODE FACILITY CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

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

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

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

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

Check One

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

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

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

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

Clarification Questions and Answers

Impact Evaluation of Departmentalized Instruction in Elementary Schools

Solicitation # ED-IES-17-R-0019

1. The “Instruction to Offerors” (p.76) says that “cost information shall be restricted to the business proposal,” while the same section directs

(p. 80) offerors to use Attachment B (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) – which includes cost information – as a guide in developing their Small Business Participation and Plan, which is part of the technical volume. Should Attachment B be included in the business volume or the technical volume?

Attachment B shall be included in the business volume.

However, information (minus the cost allocations) for all proposed subcontractors and consultants shall also be provided in the Technical volume so that the viability of the proposed staffing can be evaluated, based on the technical approach presented by each offeror.

2. There is no task in the PWS for regular, ongoing communication between IES and the PD/evaluation team.

Does ED expect offerors to propose an approach to and budget for regular communication?

Offerors shall use their best business judgement in developing the best, comprehensive technical solution to executing the tasks outlined in the PWS to their fullest extent. The associated costs must be commensurate with the proposed technical solution.

3. Classroom observations in optional task 14 (p. 45) are scheduled to occur during Option I, which will be executed in August 2018.

According to subtask 14.1, the instrument selected for the classroom observations should be included in Task 3 – Forms Clearance Package, which occurs during the Base Period.

Is it correct that 14.1 should be budgeted as part of the Base Period budget and 14.2 and

14.3 as part of Option I?

Offerors shall have a separate budget for Optional Task 14 and fully include it as part of Option I.

4. Please confirm when past performance evaluation forms (attachment C) are due? The forms indicate June 26 at 12:00 PM Eastern Time.

Past performance evaluation forms (Attachment C) are due on the same date and time as the technical and business proposal submission.

PAGE 3 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

However, page 81 under Section L states “Each reference is to complete the form and return it to the Contract Specialist, Pavan Mehrotra, as prescribed on the form. Completed forms from references are due on the same day as Technical & Business Proposals under this solicitation.”

5. Page 78 under Section L states “Also, the page limit does not include the appendix with subcontracting agreements.” Is this the same as the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (attachment B) provided with the RFP? Please confirm the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is exempt from the page limit requirement.

The subcontracting agreements that are to be included in the appendix of the technical proposal are distinct from Attachment B. The agreements are typically letters from the proposed subcontractor to the prime contractor indicating agreement to serve as a subcontractor and a brief description of the services to be provided by the subcontractor. No cost information shall be included in these letters, and these letters do not count toward the 50-page limit for the technical proposal. In addition, as described on page 80 of the RFP, the body of the technical proposal shall include a section called “Small Business Participation and Plan.” This section does count toward the 50-page limit. In this section, offerors shall state the work to be performed by the small business(es), the name of the small business(es), the socioeconomic 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 periods). Other than the percentage of work proposed, no cost information on these small businesses shall be provided in this section or in any other part of the technical proposal. Attachment B does include cost information and shall be included in the business proposal only.

6. In regards to the requirement that technical proposals must not exceed 50 double spaced pages, may bulleted or numbered lists within the regular text of the proposal be single spaced?

Bulleted and numbered lists within the regular text of the proposal must be double-spaced. They do not need to be indented, however.

7. In regards to the requirement that technical proposals must not exceed 50 double spaced pages, may footnotes be single spaced?

Footnotes may be single spaced and 10-point font.

However, inserting frequent and/or lengthy footnotes that contain substantive information as a strategy to convey more content in the same number of pages is strongly discouraged. Overuse of footnotes is distracting to a reader and can make the proposal more disjointed or disorganized.

8. Can the Department of Offerors are welcome to use their own job titles and

PAGE 4 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

Education kindly clarify if the Offeror should develop their own staffing team, or if the list of personnel outlined on Page 17 of the RFP section (b) “Project Director, Deputy Project Director, Principal Investigator, Analyst, Programmer, Statistician, Research Assistant, Site Recruiter, Site Coordinator, Site Liaison, Data Coordinator, Test Proctor, Survey Administrator, Site Visitor, Interviewer, Classroom Observer, Data Coder” are the expected staffing configuration.

specific staffing configurations. However, each person’s job title shall crosswalk into one of the broad personnel categories outlined on Page 17 of the RFP. This ensures that every person is matched to their appropriate security risk level. If a person’s responsibilities span more than one of the personnel categories listed on Page 17, then they shall be assigned to the category with the highest risk level (e.g., if a person has low-risk and medium-risk responsibilities, they shall be assigned to the medium-risk personnel category for the purposes of security clearance). If a crosswalk is used, it shall be included with Attachment D. Attachment D shall be completed using the personnel job titles from the list on Page 17.

9. On page 77 of the RFP, it indicates that “proposals are due by 12:00pm (Eastern Standard Time) on July 10, 2017 and shall be sent via the US postal Service, UPS, or FedEx”.

a. Is a date stamp of July10 before the due time sufficient to indicate on-time delivery?

b. Can proposals be dropped off at the Department of Education office indicated below or are only mailed proposals accepted?

U.S. Department of Education Office of the Chief Financial Officer 400 Maryland Avenue

SW

LBJ Building, Room

BC102

Proposals must be physically received at the Government location listed in the Request for Proposals by the date and time stated in the RFP. Proposals may only be mailed or sent via FEDEX/UPS to the U.S. Department of Education’s Headquarter location in the LBJ Building.

10. Page 83 of the RFP states:

Subcontractor Cost(s).

Offerors must submit its price/cost analyses of all subcontractors proposed

Offerors may refer to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) for information regarding cost and pricing data.

PAGE 5 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

whose costs exceeds the threshold for certified cost or pricing data (as applicable).

Can the Department of Education please advise on the threshold percentage amount?

11. Page 83 first bullet of the RFP indicates that the “Offeror shall submit proposed costs itemized for each task/subtask” can the Department of Education please clarify which are the subtasks?

Please refer to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) for information on tasks and their components.

12. Can the Department of Education clarify if the subcontractors must submit all cost related documents?

Offerors are expected to adhere to the Cost/Business proposal instructions set forth in the Instructions to Offeror section of the subject Request for Proposals.

13. Can Department of Education clarify the ceiling for this bid?

Neither the Government’s level of effort, or the estimated total cost/price will be provided for this procurement. The Department’s acquisition forecast (https://www2.ed.gov/fund/contract/find/forecast.html) provides estimated contract values, but these are just estimates.

14. The RFP states that the estimated cost and fixed fee for this contract is TBD. Can you please indicate when the government intends to make a determination on this?

The estimated cost and fixed fee are to be proposed by offerors.

15. Please confirm that there are no deliverables associated with Tasks 5 or 12.

There are no deliverables for Tasks 5 and 12—these tasks involve holding the Technical Working Group meetings.

16. Would it be acceptable for figures and tables to be single spaced, and in 10-point font?

Figures and tables may be single spaced and 10-point font.

However, offerors are strongly discouraged from converting substantial blocks of text into tables or figures as a strategy to convey more content in the same number of pages. For example, offerors shall not convert a bulleted or numbered list into a table simply to save space. Figures and tables shall only be used if they substantially improve the organization and presentation of material. Figures and tables with a large amount of text are typically ineffective ways to present information.

17. Please clarify the small business requirements for this RFP. Are they the same as the SB goal of 31% of contract dollars described on pp. 80-81 of the RFP?

The small business requirements are addressed on pages 80-81 of the subject Request for Proposals.

PAGE 6 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

18. Page 5 of the PWS indicates that Option Period 1 will be exercised by September 2018.

By what date does ED anticipate making the decision to move forward with Option Period 1?

The Department anticipates making the decision no later than August 2018.

19. Is videotaping for classroom observations a requirement?

The Department anticipates that it could be most advantageous to collect observation data by video, but it is not a requirement. As noted on page 77-78 of the RFP, “Offerors are encouraged to suggest improvements to the approaches detailed in the PWS, along with a justification of the merits of these alternative approaches.”

20. If our contract has a CPARs does the client need to fill out the questionnaire?

Yes, questionnaires must be completed for each offerors past performance references.

21. Page 37 indicates that Attachment D (Contractor Personnel Listing) and Attachment E (Security Clearance Application Initiation form) are not required to be submitted as part of the offeror’s proposal, but rather will be submitted at the time of award. Page 85 states that Attachment D must be submitted with the proposals. Kindly clarify when these forms should be submitted, and if as part of the proposal submission, in which volume the forms should be submitted.

Attachment D must be submitted with the technical proposal and Attachment E must be submitted prior to award by the successful offeror who receives the award.

22. Will we be able to share any results from our data collection (e.g., from any surveys we collect) with the schools/districts?

Offerors shall assume that it will not be possible to share a district or school’s own findings with them.

23. Please confirm that the cover sheet, abstract and table of contents are not included in the 50 pages of the technical proposal.

The cover sheet, abstract, and table of contents are not included in the 50-page limit.

24. Page 2 of the RFP lists Optional Task 14 within Option Period I, however on page 45, Optional Task 14 follows the same timelines as the Base Period, Offerors shall have a separate budget for Optional Task 14 and include it just within Option Period I.

PAGE 7 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

Option Period I, and Option Period 2. Can you please confirm if Optional Task 14 should be budgeted across all time periods or just within Option Period I.

25. Do you accept sealed bids from subcontractors who may wish to keep certain financial information confidential from the prime contractor?

Confidential subcontractor information may be submitted directly to the Contracting Officer by proposed subcontractors. However, all prime contractor’s must include sufficient subcontract supporting cost information and data, for a cost realism analysis to be performed .

26. Are offerors limited to submitting three past performance questionnaires?

a. If limited to three, please confirm that subcontractors’ references may be included in the three performance questionnaires that offerors submit.

No, offerors are not limited to submitting three, relevant past performance questionnaires. Subcontractors’ references may be included in the three performance questionnaires that offerors submit.

27. Page 80 of the solicitation (Technical Proposal Format and Contents) requires that offerors provide information on Small Business Participation (such as the work to be performed, name and socioeconomic status of each small business, and the percentage of work to be performed by each small business) but no Cost information shall be provided.

The solicitation also requests a Small Business Subcontracting Plan to fulfill the requirements of FAR 19.7, which includes information regarding contract values. Can IES please confirm that the Small Business Participation information should be submitted in the technical proposal, and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, as well as Attachment B, Subcontracting Plan Review Form, should be submitted in the business proposal?

Yes, the small business participation information (without cost information) shall be submitted in the technical proposal, and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Attachment B Form shall be submitted in the business proposal (with cost and proposed percentages information). See response to Question 5 for additional clarification.

28. We assume the abstract and The cover sheet, abstract, and table of contents are not

PAGE 8 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

table of contents are not included in the 50-page limit for the technical proposal.

Could ED confirm that this is the case?

included in the 50-page limit.

29. Is it acceptable to use single-spacing for bullets, tables, figures, and graphics? These would take up a large amount of space if prepared with double spacing (for example, organization charts, timelines, staff commitment tables, GANTT charts, and the complete list of ED projects) which would reduce the information that bidders can provide to ED about important features of their technical approach.

Please see responses to questions 6, 7, and 16. The same guidance for figures and tables applies to graphics.

30. Is it acceptable to use a smaller font for tables, figures, and graphics in the technical proposal? Some figures, tables, and graphics are not amenable to 12 point font or would take up a large amount of space if prepared in 12 point font (for example, organization charts, timelines, staff commitment tables, GANTT charts, and the complete list of ED projects) which would reduce the information that bidders can provide to ED about important features of their technical approach.

Please see responses to questions 6, 7, and 16. The same guidance for figures and tables applies to graphics.

31. On page 80, the instructions call for bidders to submit a complete list of contracts or grants with the Department of Education (ED) that are recent and directly relevant to the requirements of the current procurement. This list will take up a substantial amount of space for firms that have many relevant contracts and/or grants with ED. Is it acceptable to include this list in an

This list must be included in the body of the technical proposal. Although the language on page 80 calls for a “complete list,” the offeror has discretion in deciding which prior work is most relevant to the current procurement, and thus what list would be “complete.”

PAGE 9 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

appendix that is not included in the 50-page limit?

32. Does IES expect contractors to host all data collection systems and store all data collected for the evaluation in the IES Data Center?

Yes. The following language has been added to the PWS in the section on “Compliance with the Department’s IT Security Policy” to further clarify the requirements:

“Systems developed for this contract shall be hosted in the IES Data Center. To be hosted in the IES Data Center, all websites and web applications must be developed using ASP.NET (.NET Framework 3.5, 4.5, 4.6, and MVC 3 are currently supported) and SQL Server 2012 Standard Edition on Windows 2012 Servers and comply with IES's web development standards. A copy of the standards is available upon request. Other platforms and databases are not authorized to run in the IES Data Center. All third party software needs to be approved by the Department.

Any third party software must be licensed appropriately or be freely available through open source licensing. The contractor shall not assume new software will be approved. All software developed under this contract shall be transferred to IES free of any restrictions, licenses, or fees in accordance with the Rights and Data Clause contained in the contract. All IT security requirements listed below are covered by the current IES Data Center security authorization. By hosting this system in the IES Data Center the contractor will be in compliance with the IT security requirements listed in this contract below.”

33. Page 83 of the RFP states that, “The business proposal shall also include costs itemized by project year.” Does ED mean costs itemized by (1) project period (base/option I/option II), (2) by contract year (years 1-year 4), or (3) both?

Both. This particular sentence refers to itemization by contract year. However, since each task maps into one and only one project period, and task-by-task costs must be reported, costs itemized by project period shall also be reported (by simply summing the costs of tasks in each project period).

PAGE 10 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

Version date: June 22, 2017 Attachment A- PWS

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Performance Work Statement

IMPACT EVALUATION OF DEPARTMENTALIZED INSTRUCTION

IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

I. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will evaluate the impact of departmentalized instruction in elementary schools on student achievement. More specifically, the evaluation will use a random assignment design to examine the impact of switching from self-contained instruction (teachers teach all subjects to a fraction of students in a particular grade) to departmentalized instruction (teachers teach one subject to all students in a particular grade). The evaluation will focus on math and reading in the upper elementary grades (4 and 5), with an emphasis on schools that serve a high percentage of disadvantaged students and are in need of improvement.

II. THE EVALUATION

A. Legislative Authority

This evaluation is authorized by Title VIII Section 8601 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, which allows the Department to pool resources across ESEA programs to evaluate the impact of individual federal education programs that currently lack sufficient evaluation dollars or various strategies that cut across a wide range of ESEA programs.

B. Background

There is a growing need to identify school improvement strategies that work. Previous large-scale efforts such as the federal School Improvement Grants program, which provided over $7 billion between 2009 and 2016 to schools that agreed to implement a number of whole-school improvement models and strategies, have not demonstrated evidence of widespread success.1 Similarly, while improving the quality of classroom instruction is widely viewed as a key school improvement strategy, much of the evidence on the effectiveness of providing professional development to teachers has been disappointing despite billions of dollars in public investment

1 Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., Boyle, A., Upton, R., Tanenbaum, C., & Giffin, J. (2017). School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness (NCEE 2017- 4013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

PAGE 11 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 2

each year.2 The Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub.L. 114-95), which was signed into law in December 2015 as the reauthorization of ESEA, gives states and districts substantial flexibility in deciding how to improve their low-performing schools, provided the improvement strategies are “evidence-based.” This requirement highlights the need to continue searching for improvement strategies that show evidence of effectiveness.

One potentially promising strategy is using departmentalized instruction instead of instruction in self-contained classrooms by one teacher. For example, if there are two fourth-grade teachers in a school, instead of having both teachers teach all subjects (self-contained), one teacher only teaches math while the other teacher only teaches reading (departmentalized). This approach is common in middle and high school but not in elementary school, even though there may be good reasons to specialize. Fractions and rational number content are typically introduced in fourth and fifth grade. Because these topics are foundational for later math courses such as algebra, it is critical for students to receive effective instruction on these topics. However, teaching these topics is particularly challenging since they are complex and since elementary school teachers tend to have a more limited math background.3 Departmentalization thus provides a potential avenue to address this challenge because in each school, some teachers may have a comparative advantage over their fellow teachers in teaching certain subjects. Departmentalization may be particularly appealing because it is likely a low-cost strategy that aims to better allocate existing teaching resources, rather than infuse more resources.

Even though a number of elementary schools in the nation have begun switching from traditional self-contained classrooms to departmentalized instruction, there is little convincing evidence on whether one model is more or less effective than the other.4 To date, there has been only one random assignment study of departmentalized instruction, which found small negative impacts on reading and math achievement for participating public elementary schools in Houston, Texas.5 The impacts were more negative for special education students and students with younger teachers, although it is not clear why. Further evaluation is needed to see if these findings extend to other contexts and to explore the possible mechanisms behind these impacts.

Findings from the Department’s evaluation will provide relevant information for educators and administrators considering how best to deploy their existing team of teachers to maximize student learning. The evaluation findings will also help state policymakers make an informed

2 Garet, M., Heppen, J., Walters, K., Smith, T., & Yang, R. (2016). Does Content-Focused Teacher Professional Development Work? Findings from Three Institute of Education Sciences Studies (NCEE 2017-4010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education.

3 Garet, M., Heppen, J., Walters, K., Parkinson, J., Smith, T., Song, M., Garrett, R., Yang, R., & Borman, G. (2016).

Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact of Content-Intensive Teacher Professional Development (NCEE 2016-4010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

4 Two recent nonexperimental studies include: (1) Taylor-Buckner, N. (2014). The Effects of Elementary Departmentalization on Mathematics Proficiency. Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. (2) Strohl, A., Schmertzing, L., Schmertzing, R., & Hsiao, E. (2014). Comparison of Self-Contained and Departmentalized Elementary Teachers’ Perceptions of Classroom Structure and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Studies in Education.

4(1), 109-127.

5 Fryer, R. (2016). The ‘Pupil’ Factory: Specialization and the Production of Human Capital in Schools. NBER Working Paper 22205. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22205.

PAGE 12 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 3

decision about whether an improvement strategy such as departmentalized instruction is worth recommending for their low-performing elementary schools.

C. Key Evaluation Questions

The primary research question for this evaluation is as follows:

• What is the impact of switching from self-contained instruction to departmentalized instruction in upper elementary school (grades 4 and 5) on student achievement in math and reading?

The evaluation has an optional task that if exercised will answer the following additional research question:

• What is the impact of switching from self-contained instruction to departmentalized instruction in upper elementary school (grades 4 and 5) on instructional quality, such as the quantity and quality of student-teacher interactions?

D. Evaluation Approach

The primary purpose of the Department’s evaluation is to assess the impact on student achievement of switching from self-contained instruction to departmentalized instruction. To estimate the causal impacts of this strategy, the evaluation will use a random assignment design.

Participating elementary schools will be randomized within each district to either switch from self-contained to departmentalized instruction for two years in fourth and fifth grade (treatment condition) or to continue self-contained instruction (control condition).

The evaluation sample will prioritize low-performing elementary schools that serve a high percentage of disadvantaged students, so that the findings are relevant for schools where there is a pressing need to find effective improvement strategies.

Data collection will consist of administrative data on student achievement and any other relevant outcomes that are available from existing data sources, such as attendance and discipline (at baseline and at the end of each intervention year); administrative data on student, teacher, and school characteristics (at baseline); and a teacher survey (at the end of the first intervention year). There is also an optional task that if exercised will involve collecting data on instructional quality from classroom observations (in the spring of the first intervention year).

E. Design Issues

Several considerations need to be taken into account in designing this evaluation, including:

• Assigning teachers to subjects, selecting schools, and securing support from relevant stakeholders. The process for deciding which teachers will teach which subject in each school is a critical component of the departmentalization strategy. This process should be empirically based with clear and transparent assignment rules. The preferred approach is

PAGE 13 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 4

to use value-added measures, but other measures may also warrant consideration.

Although the focus of the evaluation is on math and reading, the evaluation may need to account for teacher assignments to subjects other than math and reading, and determine whether it is necessary to impose requirements on the number of participating teachers in each school. It will be important to select schools where there are likely to be gains to specialization. Such schools will need to have teachers with a well-documented and substantial comparative advantage over their fellow teachers (i.e., one teacher is relatively much stronger in teaching math while the other is relatively much stronger in teaching reading). Since the departmentalization strategy involves altering the subjects that teachers will teach, close attention must be paid to securing any necessary approvals from key stakeholders, such as principals, teachers, and teacher unions. Teachers must also have sufficient notice of what condition they are assigned to, so that they have time to prepare for any changes in what they will teach. Careful consideration of the sequencing of these activities as part of the recruitment process, randomization, and setup of the departmentalization intervention will be vital to successfully carrying out the evaluation.

• Outcomes other than math and reading achievement. While the primary outcome of interest for the evaluation is math and reading achievement, other outcomes may be of intrinsic interest or relevant to understanding the mechanisms for the student achievement impacts. The hypothesis is that departmentalized instruction may improve student achievement because teachers can provide relatively higher-quality instruction in the subject that they specialize in. Consideration is needed on whether there are existing instruments that can yield valid and reliable measures of these potential changes in instructional quality. While departmentalization may increase the total number of students that a given teacher impacts, it may also reduce the amount of time that a given teacher interacts with each student. This may have consequences for other aspects of instruction or related student-teacher relationships, which may then impact achievement or other types of outcomes such as attendance and disciplinary incidents. Consideration is needed on whether there are cost-efficient ways to validly and reliably assess potential impacts of departmentalization on these non-achievement outcomes.

• Analytic and attrition considerations. The evaluation will focus on measuring the impact of departmentalization on the cohort of students that are in fourth grade during the first year of departmentalization. The evaluation will follow this cohort into fifth grade during the second year of departmentalization. Because this is a longitudinal cohort, attention to relevant analytical issues such as attrition and mobility is particularly important. Fifth-grade students in treatment schools during the first year of departmentalization will receive departmentalized instruction, but their outcomes will not be measured. Similarly, fourth-grade students in treatment schools during the second year of departmentalization will receive departmentalized instruction, but their outcomes will not be measured.

• The need to develop and finalize evaluation plans in a short timeframe. To be ready for implementation during the 2018-19 school year, it will be necessary for evaluation plans to be detailed and finalized in a very short timeframe.

PAGE 14 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 5

• Power Analyses and random assignment. To determine the appropriate sample size for the evaluation, it will be necessary to: (1) determine the most appropriate unit of random assignment for this type of intervention; (2) determine a defensible target minimum detectable effect size for this type of intervention; (3) carry out a power analysis with assumptions that are reasonable for the expected context of the evaluation. The Department currently anticipates that approximately 200 schools will be randomly assigned in order to detect a 0.1 standard deviation impact on student achievement.

F. Period of Performance

The period of performance will consist of an 18-month base period and two option periods (of varying terms) that would result in a 48-month period contract in total.

The Base Period will include finalizing the design of the evaluation, recruiting the sample of schools, developing the data collection instruments and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) forms clearance package, and a Technical Working Group (TWG) meeting. Based on successful recruitment of schools and an acceptable plan for delegating teaching assignments in schools that are assigned to departmentalize, the Department will decide whether or not to exercise Option Period I by September 2018.

Option Period I is 24 months and overlaps with the base period by 7 months. Option Period I will include random assignment of schools to treatment and control conditions, securing teaching assignments for schools in the treatment condition, supporting the implementation of departmentalized instruction for two school years, and collecting baseline and outcomes data.

Based on the successful conduct of these activities, the Department will decide whether or not to exercise Option Period II by September 2019.

Option Period II is 20 months and overlaps with Option Period I by 7 months. Option Period II will include analyses of data collected for the evaluation, a TWG meeting to discuss findings, a report, and a data file.

Base Period Option Period I Option Period II Dates 9/25/17 to 3/25/19 8/25/18 to 8/25/20 1/25/20-9/25/21 Contract Month

Months 1-18 Months 12-35 (Overlaps with Base Period by 7 months)

Months 29-48 (Overlaps with Option Period I by 6 months)

Duration 18 months 24 months 20 months

PAGE 15 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 6

III. SCOPE OF WORK

A. Base Period (All Tasks are Cost Plus Fixed Fee)

Task 1—Kick-off Meeting with the Department, Base Period Progress Reports, and Security Clearance Requirements

1.1 Kick-off Meeting: The contractor’s project director and up to three key project staff members shall meet with the Department’s Contracting Officer (CO), Contract Specialist (CS), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and other appropriate Department staff within 1 week after contract award. This meeting shall be held at the Department’s offices in Washington, DC. The contractor shall submit an agenda to the COR at least 2 business days before the meeting that includes discussion of the base period tasks. The COR will review and provide feedback within 1 business day. In the meeting, the contractor shall be prepared to discuss the scheduling of activities, to identify areas of concern, to suggest ways of addressing potential problems, and to review other issues related to the contract. Within 1 week after the meeting, the contractor shall submit to the COR a memo summarizing the key issues and concerns raised at the meeting, and how each will be addressed as part of the contract.

1.2 Monthly Progress Reports: The contractor shall prepare monthly progress reports due to the COR no later than the 15th of each month. In these reports, the contractor shall summarize the major activities and accomplishments for the prior calendar month. In addition, the contractor shall provide information for each project task regarding significant events and/or findings, problems encountered, and staff use. The contractor shall also specify the extent to which the project is on schedule, briefly describe the activities planned for the next month, and identify and discuss significant deviations from the management plan. If there are deviations, the contractor shall describe the plan for resolving the problems and shall identify and discuss any decisions needed from the COR. The COR will provide a security personnel spreadsheet that the contractor shall update each month and attach to every monthly progress report. In this spreadsheet, the contractor shall provide all requested information, including all contractor staff members who currently or previously worked on the contract, their position risk levels, and the status of any security clearances required.

1.3 Monthly Manpower Reports: The contractor shall prepare monthly manpower reports due to the COR no later than the 15th of each month. These reports, prepared and signed by the project director, shall summarize the actual personnel assignments for the prior calendar month, showing for each staff member the hours charged by task. The report shall project similar assignment information for the upcoming calendar month. The reports shall also exhibit expenditures, segregating project costs by individual and by task, and specifying for all travel the locations, duration, and personnel for each trip.

1.4 Security Clearance Requirements: The contractor must submit a list of all contractor employees (regardless of whether they require a clearance), their position titles, and their risk levels to the COR on the same day that this contract is awarded. These employees must have been listed in their successful (final) proposal revision. The list of contractor employees shall be submitted on Contractor Personnel Listing (Attachment D of the related Request for Proposals

PAGE 16 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 7

for this contract), for these purposes. The contractor must also complete and submit to the COR the Security Clearance Application Initiation form (which was included as Attachment E of the related Request for Proposals for this contract) for the initiation of the security clearances for contractor personnel on the same day that this contract is awarded.

Task 2—Technical Working Group (TWG) Formation

The contractor shall form a group of experts (the TWG) who will provide advice and guidance on the evaluation design, specific research questions that the evaluation will address, implementation of departmentalized instruction, data collection plans, and analysis plans.

2.1 Bios for Recommended Participants: The contractor shall recruit a team of six TWG members whose expertise areas include (but are not limited to): teacher assignment policies, teacher value-added methods, and experimental evaluation methods. Within 2 weeks after contract award, the contractor shall submit a list of potential TWG members that includes a brief description of each proposed expert’s relevant credentials and area of expertise, and details how the expert’s credentials and expertise align with the evaluation’s needs. The COR will review and approve the list and/or provide comments within 1 week of receipt of the list.

2.2 Letters of Commitment: After the COR approves the proposed TWG members, the contractor shall contact each proposed member to request a signed letter of commitment. The contractor shall submit signed letters of commitment to the COR no later than 6 weeks after the contract has been awarded.

Task 3—Forms Clearance Package

The contractor shall prepare all forms and documents necessary for OMB clearance and shall coordinate its own Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval.

3.1 Draft OMB Package: The contractor shall prepare a draft OMB forms clearance package that includes all required forms, calculations of participant burden, and data collection materials and instruments. The required forms are the Information Collection Submission Worksheet, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission Worksheet (Part II: Information Collection Detail), Supporting Statement Part A, and Supporting Statement Part B. The package shall incorporate:

(1) a description of the evaluation’s general purpose and potential value to the field of education,

(2) the evaluation’s primary research questions, (3) a description of the intervention and evaluation design, (4) a description of and justification for any incentives, (5) a description indicating how data will be tabulated and analyzed, and (6) copies of all data collection instruments.

The first draft of the OMB package shall be submitted to the COR no later than 15 weeks after contract award. The COR will provide feedback within one week, and the contractor shall make any revisions necessary to prepare the OMB package for initial submission 18 weeks after contract award.

PAGE 17 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 8

3.2 Revised OMB Package: Based on comments received after internal and external review of the initially submitted OMB package -- gathered during the first 60 calendar days of the clearance process -- the contractor shall make all needed revisions and submit a revised OMB package to the COR within 2 weeks of the end of the first 60-day comment period. The contractor shall be prepared to make one additional round of revisions to the OMB package within 2 weeks of the end of the second 60-day OMB review period, as required. The contractor shall build a minimum of 120 calendar days into the schedule for the entire clearance process.

3.3 Documentation of IRB Approval: The contractor shall coordinate its own IRB approval for the data collection, ensuring that all aspects of the evaluation have been approved. The contractor shall submit documentation of IRB approval to the COR no later than 36 weeks after the contract award.

Task 4—Evaluation Design

The contractor shall refine and finalize the evaluation design such that the result is a comprehensive plan for how all aspects of the evaluation will be conducted.

4.1 Draft Design Report: The contractor shall prepare a draft report that includes each of the following components:

(a) Description of the intervention and evaluation research questions

(b) Randomization plan and power analysis: The report shall describe how schools will be randomly assigned to treatment and control conditions, as well as how teaching assignments within schools will be determined for schools assigned to the treatment condition. The power analysis shall outline the key contrasts for the evaluation, what the appropriate, policy-relevant minimum detectable effect sizes are, and what sample sizes are needed.

(c) Recruitment plan: The report shall provide detailed plans for ensuring that the recruited evaluation sample is sufficiently large to meet the target minimum detectable effect size.

The report shall also provide detailed plans for identifying and recruiting schools that have teachers with sufficiently large relative differences in how effective they are at teaching reading and math. The report shall discuss strategies to ensure that the resulting evaluation sample is policy relevant and includes low-performing elementary schools with a high percentage of disadvantaged students. The report shall detail how the contractor will secure any necessary agreements from districts, schools, teachers, teacher unions, and any other relevant stakeholders. The report shall describe what steps the contractor will take to ensure that attrition and mobility of teachers, students, and schools are minimized, to the extent possible.

(d) Data collection plan: The report shall detail what outcome data will be collected from administrative records, when the data will be collected, and how the data will be collected to ensure that the evaluation’s research questions can be adequately answered. The report shall describe the purpose of the teacher survey, as well as the timeline and procedures for administering it to ensure high response rates and resulting data that will help address the evaluation’s research questions. The report shall detail plans for collecting baseline data from administrative records for the purposes of examining baseline equivalence and

PAGE 18 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 9

subgroup analyses. The report shall include as attachments drafts of all instruments discussed in the data collection plan.

(e) Analysis approach: The report shall include a basic plan for what statistical analyses the contractor will conduct using the data to answer the evaluation’s research questions, including appropriate estimating equations. The plan shall focus on questions related to impacts on outcomes, but also include a discussion of how the contractor will use the teacher survey for purposes such as describing implementation and exploring possible mechanisms for the observed impacts.

The contractor shall electronically submit the draft design report to the COR no later than 6 weeks after the contract has been awarded. The COR will provide feedback within 2 weeks.

4.2 Materials for Sharing Design Plans with TWG and Documenting the TWG’s Feedback: The draft design report (Task 4.1) shall serve as the basis for the PowerPoint slide presentation that the contractor shall prepare in order to solicit guidance from the TWG. At least 3 weeks before the first TWG meeting (Task 5), the contractor shall submit to the COR the following: (1) A set of PowerPoint slides that include proposed discussion questions for the TWG; and (2) A meeting agenda. Within 1 week after the first TWG meeting, the contractor shall submit a written summary memo to the COR detailing the TWG’s key recommendations, remaining issues, and the contractor’s proposed actions to address the TWG’s recommendations. The COR will provide feedback within 1 week.

4.3 Final Design Report: The contractor shall provide a final design report that is a revision of the draft design report, which fully incorporates all TWG, OMB, and COR feedback from Tasks 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, and 4.2. The contractor shall submit the final design report to the COR no later than 48 weeks after contract award.

Task 5—Technical Working Group (TWG) Meeting #1

The contractor shall convene one full-day meeting of the TWG no later than 14 weeks after the contract has been awarded. The meeting shall focus on the implementation strategy for departmentalized instruction, as well as the evaluation design, data collection, and analysis plans.

This meeting shall be held at the Department’s offices in Washington, DC, and the contractor shall cover the travel, per diem, and honorarium expenses of the TWG members. Food and beverage shall not be provided for attendees, but the contractor shall build a coffee break and a lunch break into the agenda.

Task 6—Recruit Evaluation Sample

The contractor shall implement the recruitment plan developed in Task 4, and ensure that a sufficient sample size (with the appropriate characteristics defined in Task 4) is identified and recruited to participate in the evaluation.

6.1 Recruitment Materials: For recruitment purposes, the contractor shall prepare a short brochure describing the evaluation that is suitable for distribution to a non-technical audience, including district administrators, principals, and teachers. The contractor shall also include a

PAGE 19 OF 29 ED-IES-17-R-0019/0001

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT 10

recruitment letter geared towards districts that include general information on the evaluation, as well as specific information on the importance of the evaluation, its purposes, products, timelines, and the expected benefits from participation.

The contractor shall submit a draft brochure, letter, and all other notification materials to the COR for review no later than 8 weeks after contract award. The COR will provide feedback within 1 week, and the contractor shall make any revisions necessary in order to begin outreach to prospective districts.