Vendor_Questions_Responses.pdf

U.S. Department of Education Solicitation #ED-IES-17-R-0025 Peer Review and Support for Regional Educational Laboratories Vendor Questions & Department Responses Deadline for Questions: April 25, 2017 @ 11:00 am EST

Question No. Reference Question/Statement Department Response

1 Conflict of Interest Are firms that are prime contractors or subcontractors on current REL regional contracts or the cross-REL evaluation contract precluded from an award for this contract due to COI concerns?

This matter is currently undergoing legal review. As such, it is anticipated that a response will be posted on www.FBO.gov prior to the official release of the solicitation for this requirement.

2 PWS Task 3.1 & 7.1 Regarding the applications and systems addressed in PWS 3.1 and 7.1, why doesn’t ED envision that the winning offeror will use the systems built and/or used by the incumbent contractor?

The system built and used by the incumbent contractor was built on their server to their IT requirements, and will not be transferred to the IES Data Center. NCEE now requires that a new application be built in the IES Data Center.

3 PWS Task 3

Under Task 3, will the SharePoint system currently used to track and review REL work be transferred to the vendor awarded this contract? Or should vendors budget for developing a new tracking and review system? If a new system is required, does ED require a SharePoint system or can another system be developed as long as it can be hosted in the IES Data Center?

The SharePoint system currently used to track and review REL work will not be transferred to the vendor awarded this contract. Offerors should budget and plan for developing a new tracking and review system as described under Task 3.

Any type of system that can be hosted in the IES Data Center can be proposed, so the system can be a SharePoint system but does not have to be.

4 PWS Task 2.2

Task 2.2 indicates “For each year of the contract, NCEE anticipates…up to 15 proposals and reports for impact evaluations and systematic reviews.” In the previous sentence, it is stated that NCEE anticipates up to 35 proposals and reports for impact evaluations and systematic reviews over the five-year period of this contract. Can we expect up to 75 proposals (i.e., 15 each year * 5 years) or up to 35 proposals and reports for impact evaluations and systematic reviews over the life of the contract?

Per Task 2.2 of the PWS, NCEE anticipates up to 35 proposals and reports for impact evaluations and systematic reviews over the five-year period of this contract. The number of proposals and reports will vary each year, with up to 15 in year 1 and likely zero in year 5. (Please note that this a estimate based on the last cycle.)

5 Contract Will the holder of this contract be precluded from doing any work under any of the REL regional contracts or the cross-REL evaluation contract?

This matter is currently undergoing legal review. As such, it is anticipated that a response will be posted on www.FBO.gov prior to the official release of the solicitation for this requirement.

6 Statement

The instructions for the capabilities statements suggest that ED is considering a much stronger emphasis on personnel experience than on corporate experience, which may prevent well qualified firms from being able to compete. We suggest a more even emphasis on corporate experience and personnel experience.

Thank you for the feedback.

7 Solicitation Release Can you provide more specific information about when you anticipate releasing the RFP (early/mid/late May)? The anticipated release of the solicitation is late May 2017.

8 Solicitation Release

The request for capability statements for this procurement asked a question about the possibility of releasing this RFP through GSA OASIS. We believe that the GSA OASIS contracts are not viable procurement tools because they would severely restrict competition and prevent contractors that have experience conducting large, complicated studies for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) from bidding on the work. Limiting the pool of eligible contractors to only those who hold GSA OASIS contracts would result in reduced competition, which could result in lower-quality bids and ultimately poorer project performance. The vast majority of firms eligible under GSA OASIS contracts do not have the necessary range of skills and experience required for this contract – extensive experience conducting rigorous evaluations of education interventions, reviewing large numbers of diverse REL reports and proposals under tight time constraints, and developing a tracking system for those products. Moreover, this approach would prevent multiple firms that do have experience evaluating education interventions for NCEE from submitting proposals, including Abt Associates, American Institutes for Research, Mathematica, and MDRC. Can you please confirm that IES is not planning to use the GSA OASIS contracts for this procurement?

Thank You for your comprehensive response. As part of the Department’s market research efforts, we reserve the right to investigate various procurement methodologies in an effort to determine the most suitable method to disseminate the solicitation for the subject requirement, which may result in receipt of proposals from all interested and eligible vendors.

Sheet1