ED-NAG-15-A-0004_Amendment_0001_FormSF30.pdf

Attachment Page

PAGE 2 OF 5 ED-NAG-15-R-0004/0001

Responses to Questions: ED-NAG-15-R-0004

RESPONSES TO CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS

ED-NAG-15-R-0004

July 7, 2015

Participant Engagement in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP):

Critical Review and Synthesis of Research

PAGE 3 OF 5 ED-NAG-15-R-0004/0001

Responses to Questions: ED-NAG-15-R-0004

The following responses to clarification questions are provided as an amendment to the Request For Proposals (RFP).

General Questions:

1. Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent? If so, would you be able to provide the contract details?

This is a new requirement; there is no incumbent.

2. Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past?

As noted in in the response to Question 1, the National Assessment Governing Board has not contracted for this type of work covering the current scope of services. However, other offices at the U.S. Department of Education may have conducted literature reviews and analytic reports. Offerors may review the scope of such work by conducting public searches prior to submitting offers. It is to be noted that the scope of services will cover prior research work in this area, as noted in Task 2. .

Performance Work Statement Questions:

1. Does NAGB have specific parameters on the timeframe the review research should encompass (e.g., the past 25 years, 35 years or how far back)?

In the initial conceptual stages of this proposed work, the Governing Board considered a timeframe of no earlier than 1990, which is 25 years. In the final release of the RFP, we removed that language so as not to exclude any particularly relevant piece of research which could originate from earlier than 1990 or any seminal work that would need to be included as part of a comprehensive review. Older work may not make it into the final synthesis report or may receive only an oblique reference as determined by the Board.

2. Should studies published prior to a particular year not be included in the bibliography? If so, what is that year?

Similar to the response to question #1, the Governing Board does not wish to strike any work or publication preemptively, based on an arbitrary choice of year when that work or publication may prove of seminal historical importance or critical value to the field.

Certain studies that date too far back may not be relevant for inclusion; others may be. A more liberal or open search is preferable to one that is a priori narrowed.

3. Page 6 of the Performance Work Statement notes that a preliminary scan of literature identified more than 30 relevant studies. Was the preliminary scan performed by NAGB, NAEP, or an outside contractor? If it was conducted by an outside contractor, is the contractor eligible to bid?

PAGE 4 OF 5 ED-NAG-15-R-0004/0001

Responses to Questions: ED-NAG-15-R-0004

The preliminary scan was performed by Governing Board staff and will be provided to the successful contractor only at award.

4. Is there a minimum or maximum number of studies that should be included in the bibliography?

No.

Instructions to Offerors Questions:

1. The Instructions to Offerors do not indicate whether the Executive Summary will be included in the maximum 20-pages. Please clarify.

The Executive Summary is included in the 20 page limit. Appendices may include supplemental information that may be referenced in the 20 page limitation for the proposal.

2. The Instructions to Offerors (ITO) (page 3) indicate that bidders “demonstrate technical understanding of the federal requirements for providing communications services,” in adherence to the PWS’s technical specifications. Please clarify what is meant by federal requirements for providing communications services.

Please ignore this sentence regarding Communications Services which was included as an oversight. The paragraph on Page 3 of the ITO should read as follows:

“Offerors must demonstrate an understanding of key areas of work and must propose a viable project implementation plan, with effective quality control and cost-saving strategies. Creativity in responding to the requirements is encouraged. Approaches that are thoroughly described and supported by effective management and implementation plans are likely to contribute to the efficiency and success of accomplishing project goals.”

3. The Instructions to Offerors (page 4) specify that the QASP must address “all phases of the evaluation process and development of recommendations.” Please clarify this phrase.

Table 2 of the QASP in Appendix A, pages 10-11, provides specific contract areas of performance to be monitored at task levels. The description, standard, performance metrics, acceptable quality levels, and monitoring methods will need to be reviewed by offerors and recommendations for monitoring this work as specified in the QASP may be augmented with what has been specified.

PAGE 5 OF 5 ED-NAG-15-R-0004/0001

Responses to Questions: ED-NAG-15-R-0004

4. Would NAGB accept a USB-flash drive as an electronic device when submitting copies of the technical, business and past performance?

Yes, portable drives may be submitted on CD, DVD, or USB with read write capabilities.