Attachments_A_-_E_ED-NAG-16-R-0001.pdf

Attachment A: Statement of Work

RFP# ED-NAG-16-R-0001

ED-NAG-16-R-0001

FOCUSED REPORTING WITH DATA FROM THE

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS (NAEP)

April 29, 2016

Contents I.Purpose

II.Background

III.Project Objectives

IV.Scope and Mission

V.Scope of Work

Task 1: Project Management

Task 2: Geographic / Regional Analyses

Task 3: Trial Urban District Assessment Analyses

Task 4: NAEP Performance among Public, Non-Public, and Public Charter Schools

Task 5: Inclusion and Exclusion Policy Implementation

VI. Deliverables and Due Dates

VII. List of Appendices and Attachments to the RFP

I. Purpose

Pursuant to the legislative mandate of the National Assessment Governing Board (hereafter Governing Board) to develop guidelines for reporting and disseminating results and to take appropriate actions to improve the form, content, use, and reporting of results of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data1, the Governing Board has a requirement to conduct analyses with NAEP data and produce artifacts based on these analytic results. The dual purposes of this effort are to improve the form and use of NAEP by: (1) harnessing NAEP’s unique capacity as a nationally representative survey of academic achievement and (2) highlighting the rich analyses possible with NAEP data, including NAEP’s contextual variables.

The Governing Board seeks innovative, accessible, and policy-relevant analytic products that tap the immense value of NAEP data.

The work shall delve into education topics with NAEP findings and produce high-impact artifacts, to include infographics, two-page briefs featuring concise text with dynamic graphs and charts, maps, and other visual representations of information. These artifacts shall present substantive findings from technically sound analyses of NAEP results in ways that are visually appealing and targeted to the needs of a diverse set of stakeholder audiences. Project deliverables shall further the Board’s mission by disseminating NAEP findings, spotlighting results and trends that are typically not featured in initial Report Card releases, and providing examples of how to use NAEP data and present findings.

II. Background

The Governing Board was created by Congress in 1988 and comprises 26 members appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Education, including governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, researchers, business representatives, and members of the general public.

The Governing Board sets policy for NAEP, commonly known as “The Nation’s Report Card.”

More information on the Governing Board and its work can be found at www.nagb.gov.

NAEP is an ongoing nationally representative assessment of U.S. student achievement in key academic subjects. Since its authorization by Congress in 1969, NAEP has provided an independent, objective measure of achievement in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S.

history, civics, economics, geography, technology and engineering literacy, the arts, and other subjects. NAEP results are reported nationally, and depending on subject, by state, and in 27 large urban districts. Through results of NAEP assessments, the public, including policymakers, 1Title III—National Assessment of Educational Progress, §301 and 302(5)(1), P.L. 107-279 http://www.nagb.gov/ educators, media, as well as business leaders and parents, are informed about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States.

The independent and objective information provided by NAEP has helped build its reputation as the “gold standard” for monitoring student achievement and progress over time. NAEP is administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the U.S. Department of Education. The Governing Board sets policy for NAEP, identifies subjects to be tested, determines the content of NAEP assessments, establishes achievement levels for each assessment, approves all NAEP test questions, takes steps to improve the reporting of results, and plans, and executes initial releases of NAEP Report Cards.

The Governing Board’s Reporting and Dissemination Committee (R&D) is responsible for developing guidelines for reporting and disseminating results, planning and executing the initial public release of NAEP Report Cards, and taking appropriate actions needed to improve the form, content, use, and reporting of results.

III. Project Objectives

The release of each Nation’s Report Card generates discussion among media, policymakers, parents, and the education community. However, once the test scores and data are released, critical conversations shift to other areas which lie beyond NAEP’s statistical mandates. This procurement is designed to generate continued discussion on the results by delving into NAEP data to produce artifacts, briefs, and ancillary materials that extend and enhance reporting of NAEP results. The collateral materials are planned for expanded dissemination via social media tools.

This project addresses several priorities included in the Governing Board’s Strategic Planning Initiative (https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2015-11/14-strategic-planning-initiative-update.pdf) and meets several of the goals in the Governing Board’s 2014 Communications Plan:

(https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/policies/Communications-Plan-0814.pdf).

The requirements of this procurement support these priorities by bolstering understanding of NAEP results, maximizing the impact of NAEP reporting, increasing the analytic use of contextual variables, highlighting state-level and district-level NAEP data, and publicizing insights from NAEP that could be used to improve education outcomes for all students.

There are five tasks in this contract, as detailed in this Statement of Work. It is likely that additional tasks may be issued during the contract period of performance as the Governing https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2015-11/14-strategic-planning-initiative-update.pdf https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2015-11/14-strategic-planning-initiative-update.pdf https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/policies/Communications-Plan-0814.pdf

Board’s requirements change. Additional analyses that hold the richest potential for eye-catching, accessible, and comprehensible products will be driven by the Board’s ongoing work, such as its outreach to external partners and other organizations and other strategic planning activities of the Governing Board. These analyses may be driven by a need to respond to compelling news stories, education trends, and policy work in other branches of the Federal Government as they pertain to the Board’s work.

Each final analysis and product shall be accompanied by a brief methodology report of the data source, the analyses undertaken, and the quality control process implemented in sufficient detail to facilitate subsequent replication or updating. If results are linked to other data, then these other data sources must be noted and explained. The analytic findings must be accessible to stakeholders of various backgrounds and must bear value on ongoing conversations in education policy.

All deliverables must pass review by both the Governing Board and NCES staff to ensure adherence to rigorous NCES and NAEP statistical standards available at https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2012/. This requires documentation of data collection methodologies, quality control standards as detailed in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Attachment B, and compliance with all federal accessibility standards required by Section 508.

Artifacts and products must be aesthetically appealing, have policy relevance, and must be comprehensible to targeted audience(s). It is of utmost importance to ensure that this research does not pursue or purport any notions of causality, but is focused on the project objectives highlighted above, that will include examining relationships among subgroups and over time.

Products may shed new light on subgroup differences and point to new directions in understanding what factors may contribute to these differences which would be helpful in furthering the Board’s expanded outreach strategies designed to make greater use of NAEP results.

IV. Scope and Mission

The primary areas of focus have two core elements:

1. Analyses of NAEP results through NAEP Data Explorer, especially contextual data;

and

2. Visually appealing and comprehensible presentations of findings from these analyses.

The richness of the findings should drive what products result from the analyses.

https://nces.ed.gov/statprog/2012/

The intent of this work is to design and conduct focused analyses of extant data, highlighting often overlooked variables or perspectives (e.g., collections of states or urban districts united by a common characteristic), and to present analytic findings in meaningful ways to produce maximum impact on critical, relevant policy conversations.

The offeror may need to hire consultants with specific content or technical expertise relevant to the given task. The contract from this Statement of Work is designed to be sufficiently nimble to allow the contractor to perform at optimal effectiveness given resource needs that may shift with the different tasks undertaken. The scope and intent is generally the same:

(1) an analysis;

(2) an artifact for presentation and dissemination—visual representations of the findings (e.g., briefs, or a series of briefs, that focus on key graphics or charts accompanied by concise text; infographics, or a series of infographics, supported by analyses; other graphics with accompanying clear, concise, and appealing explanatory text; videos) best suited to disseminate the findings in compelling, innovative, and relevant ways; and

(3) a brief paper (not to exceed two pages) documenting the project methodology with the aim of allowing others to replicate the findings.

The work will be conducted under the technical direction of the Governing Board’s Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

V. Scope of Work

Task 1: Project Management

The contractor shall attend an in-person kick off meeting at the NAGB office within 10 business days of contract award. The purpose of this meeting will be to provide an overview of the contract terms and conditions, describe contract communication processes, and deliverable and invoice submission. The proposed work plan shall also be discussed at this meeting, together with a Project Milestone Schedule.

Deliverables for this task shall include (1) A summary of meeting minutes; (2) a final Project Work Plan and (3) a Milestone Schedule.

Overall contract deliverables to be provided under the task include weekly meetings and minutes and monthly progress reports. The progress reports shall describe in detail work performed for the reporting period, anticipated or actual challenges, and any other relevant concerns. This report must be included with each monthly invoice. In addition, a quarterly report, of no more than a page shall be presented to the Governing Board for review of work by the R&D committee at the Governing Board’s quarterly meetings.

Analytic Tasks (Tasks 2-5):

The Governing Board’s R&D Committee has discussed the need to address four topics under this contract. The work prioritizes an examination of NAEP state-level results by region, which could highlight practices common to high-performing or strong-growth states. Regional groupings may highlight shared strengths and challenges in narrowing test score gaps between subgroups and in allocating resources to address such issues. Other topics of priority to the Governing Board for reporting and dissemination include a look at schools of choice, specifically charter schools and non-public schools, as well as more in-depth understanding of inclusion and exclusion rates by state for Students with Disabilities (SD) and English Language Learners (ELL).

Tasks 2 through 5 differ from each other in content but are similar in purpose as these tasks require an analytic and reporting plan, draft deliverable reporting, as well as a final deliverable.

Final acceptance of contract work shall be posted within 30 days of the National Assessment Governing Board’s approval of contract products.

The offeror shall submit a proposed work plan, deliverable schedule, and budget for each analytic task. There are four critical deliverables within each analytic task:

1. Analytic Plan

2. Reporting Plan

3. Product and Methodology Report

4. Visual Presentation

The analytic plan shall be the first deliverable under each task that outlines the steps the contractor shall undertake to conduct the analyses. The analytic plan shall comprise the data source, selected variables, and planned analytic methods. The plan shall not exceed two pages.

Preliminary findings shall be submitted to the Governing Board COR and shall include a reporting plan that recommends the most relevant and compelling means to report the analytic results. The reporting plan shall not exceed two pages and may suggest multiple means of dissemination to achieve project objectives.

Deliverables 3 and 4 comprise the production of artifacts to present the findings. Accompanying the final deliverable for each task shall be a concise Methodology and Analysis (M&A) brief that outlines data source, analytic steps taken, quality control processes, and recommendations that assist in the analysis for edification, verification, and subsequent updating with newer data in the future. The results shall be presented in a visually appealing, innovative and creative manner together with a comprehensible set of graphics and/or charts and/or videos and/or infographics, with brief introductory and explanatory text that are Section 508-compliant.

The primary analyses will be conducted with information available through the NAEP Data Explorer, which may prove sufficient to the specific task and/or present the most updated data available. However, the contractor may be required to explore the possibility of analyzing restricted-use NAEP data to delve more deeply into the data and/or to match that data with other sources of federal data, such as the database on per pupil expenditures reported by NCES at the U.S. Department of Education.

Task 2: Geographic / Regional Analyses

The contractor shall produce at least two analyses on topical areas to be provided by the COR of the most recent publicly available NAEP data in reading, mathematics, U.S. history, civics, geography, and science by geographic region. The contractor shall analyze state-level NAEP data by region to determine signs of progress in improving achievement on NAEP overall or in narrowing achievement gaps among subgroups on NAEP. The contractor shall determine what characteristics may be common to the states that show similar score patterns.

Regions shall be defined in cooperation with Governing Board guidance. Subgroup differences shall be analyzed by region and over time, illuminating progress, stagnation, or declines in student performance trends and achievement gaps. In addition, the contractor shall produce artifacts (e.g., brief or series of briefs with graphics, infographics, charts, graphs, videos, etc.) as directed by the COR to present the findings of these analyses in visually appealing ways for public dissemination via the Governing Board website and social media tools.

Task 3: Trial Urban District Assessment Analyses

Task 3 shall focus on analyses of data from urban districts that participated in the Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) program. The contractor shall produce at least two analyses on topical areas to be provided by the COR of the most recent publicly available NAEP data in reading and mathematics among districts participating in TUDA. In addition, the contractor shall produce artifacts as directed by the COR (e.g., brief or series of briefs with graphics, infographics, charts, graphs, videos, etc.) to present the findings of these analyses in visually appealing ways for dissemination through social media.

Some of the similarities within regions may highlight similarities among TUDA participants, thus suggesting an interesting analysis of similar subgroup trends in performance among

TUDAs. Select NAEP data may be parsed and analyzed by membership in one of the large urban districts that participate in TUDA. Changes in achievement gaps may be similar across certain districts and those similarities, if found - especially similar progress in narrowing gaps and increasing overall achievement—shall be highlighted.

Task 4: NAEP Performance among Public, Non-Public, and Public Charter Schools

The Governing Board is actively seeking ways to highlight NAEP so that stakeholders are aware of the availability and potential uses of this data. The data NAEP provides on charter schools warrant greater analysis to determine if compelling briefs and/or infographics could emerge from these findings, e.g., if there are characteristics common to states that have high-performing charter schools.

The contractor shall analyze most recent NAEP data on non-public schools and charter schools to compare with public schools on key dimensions of performance and contextual variables, as directed by the COR. The contractor shall also produce artifacts as directed by the COR (e.g., brief or series of briefs with graphics, infographics, charts, graphs, videos, etc.) to present the findings of these analyses in visually appealing for dissemination through social media. This work shall be the fourth task in this contract, which may overlap with work on Tasks 2 and 3.

This work should include review of what TUDA data can be analyzed to understand how schools of choice—charter schools and private schools—perform on NAEP, especially in cities with a high proportion of charter schools, such as the District of Columbia, Detroit, and Atlanta. If preliminary analyses indicate potentially interesting and high-impact findings, additional follow-up activities shall be decided on by the Governing Board CO under recommendations made by the COR.

Task 5: Inclusion and Exclusion Policy Implementation

The Governing Board revised its inclusion and exclusion policy several years ago to accommodate more Students with Disabilities (SD) and English Language Learners (ELL) to participate in NAEP: https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/policies/naep_testandreport_studen tswithdisabilities.pdf

Implementation of this policy action has resulted in increased inclusion rates and sparked significant change in student exclusion policies and practices in several states. The Governing Board seeks to examine how these exclusion and inclusion rates relate to student performance on

NAEP.

https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/policies/naep_testandreport_studentswithdisabilities.pdf https://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/policies/naep_testandreport_studentswithdisabilities.pdf

The contractor shall study inclusion and exclusion rates for SD and ELL across states and urban districts participating in TUDA. The goal of this task is to determine points of similarity and distinction across units of analysis. Findings shall be presented in succinct and visually appealing ways for dissemination through social media.

VI. Deliverables and Due Dates

The due dates provided are a preliminary draft and subject to change based on the ongoing work and outcomes of analyses.

Deliverable Date Due Task 1: Project Management

-Kick off meeting minutes

-Weekly calls and minutes

-Monthly Reports

-Quarterly Reports

5 working days following the meeting

Weekly, on dates determined at kick off meeting

30 calendar days, with invoice submission

Four times a year, 20 working days prior to each Board meeting

Task 2: Geographic / Regional Analyses

-Analytic Plan

-Reporting Plan

-Product and Methodology Report

-Visual Presentation

One month following kick-off meeting

Four weeks after COR/CO approval of Analytic Plan

No more than 10 weeks after COR/CO approval of Reporting Plan

No more than 12 weeks after COR/CO approval of Reporting Plan

Task 3: Trial Urban District Assessment Analyses

Five months following kick-off meeting

Deliverable Date Due

No more than 10 weeks after COR/CO

Task 4: NAEP Performance Among Public, Non-Public, and Public Charter Schools

Ten months following kick-off meeting

No more than 10 weeks after COR/CO approval of Reporting Plan

Task 5: Inclusion and Exclusion Policy Implementation

Fourteen months following kick-off meeting

Four weeks after COR/CO approval of Analytic Plan

No more than 10 weeks after COR/CO approval of Reporting Plan

VII. List of Appendices and Attachments to the RFP

Attachment B – Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan Attachment C – Instructions to Offerors Attachment D – Technical Evaluation Criteria Attachment E – Past Performance Rating Form Attachment F – Pricing Schedule

Attachment B: Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

RFP ED-NAG-16-R-0001

OVERVIEW

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) documents a set of systematic quality assurance methods to be used in the administration of the National Assessment Governing Board’s contract resulting from this solicitation. The QASP provides quality metrics, describes performance standards, defines acceptable levels of quality, and details the steps to inspect performance to determine if the deliverables meet required quality standards. The purpose of the QASP is to ensure that the work is performed as required, and that products and deliverables are of high quality standards, statistically defensible, and adhere to project timelines. Invoiced costs must comply with approved contract budgets.

Results from the monitoring will be documented at www.cpars.gov as past performance information utilized in reviewing contractor performance for federal contracts. The QASP will be an integral component of the contract and will be updated as needed throughout the contract lifecycle. Offerors may propose changes to the QASP that strengthens project quality assurance in proposal submissions.

METHODS OF SURVEILLANCE

Several methods of surveillance shall be used by the government to monitor contract performance, as described below.

Regular Contract Monitoring and Reporting:

The contract deliverables include weekly, monthly, and quarterly reports. The monthly report requires the contractor to provide technical and cost information both of which will be utilized by the CO and COR to monitor ongoing work plans and ensure that the contractor complies with the contract terms and conditions.

Periodic Meetings:

The contractor shall meet with the CO, COR, and other Governing Board staff in person or via conference call on a weekly basis. These meetings will provide opportunity to address contract work needs and discuss ongoing issues so that contract requirements are continuously discussed.

Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS):

The COR will use www.CPARS.gov to document and evaluate the contractor’s performance for each key requirement in accordance with the adjectival rating system. In narrative form, the COR will substantiate all adjectival ratings other than Satisfactory. Performance at the “Satisfactory” level is the minimum standard expected from the contractor. The COR will forward copies of all completed ratings to the Contracting Officer, by close of business after completion of ratings. When appropriate, the CO may investigate the ratings to determine if all the facts and circumstances were considered in the opinions outlined on the rating forms. The CO will discuss every area receiving an “Unsatisfactory” rating with the contractor to ensure that corrective action is promptly initiated. The contractor is required to respond in writing to any negative rating within five business days after receipt of the form. Each key task/subtask shall be separately evaluated.

http://www.cpars.gov/

Favorable ratings on QASP elements will result in correspondingly favorable past performance reporting at www.cpars.gov. Marginal and Unsatistfactory ratings on any elements of the QASP will result in a correspondingly unfavorable past performance reporting.

RATING DEFINITION

Exceptional Performance meets all contractual requirements and exceeds all contract expectations. The performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with a few minor problems for which corrective action taken was highly effective. Favorable Past Performance Rating at www.cpars.gov.

Very Good

Performance meets all contract requirements and exceeds most expectations. The performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with a few minor problems for which corrective action taken was effective.

Favorable Past Performance Rating at www.cpars.gov.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contract requirements. The performance of the element or sub-element being assessed contains some minor problems and the corrective action taken appears satisfactory. Favorable Past Performance Rating at www.cpars.gov. The Government reserves option to cancel or terminate work as specified in the contract

Marginal

Performance does not meet basic contract requirements. The performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which a corrective action has not been identifed or proposed actions appear to be only marginally effective or not fully implemented. Unfavorable Past Performance Rating at www.cpars.gov. The Government reserves option to cancel or terminate work, as specified in the contract.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contract requirement and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element of sub-element being assessed contains a serious problem for which a corrective action is ineffective as determined by the Contracting Officer. Unfavorable Past Performance Rating at www.cpars.gov. The Government reserves the option to cancel or terminate work as specified in the contract.

QASP ELEMENTS AND RATING DEFINITIONS

• QUALITY DETERMINANT – Describes what is to be accomplished during the contract period of performance. The headings reflect the major deliverables from the contract and were developed by the Governing Board as part of the contracting process to assist in the development of the QASP. Offerors may modify the elements to improve the QASP.

• PERFORMANCE STANDARD – Describes the expected overall quality of deliverables.

• ACCEPTABLE QUALITY LEVEL – Provides key aspects of the performance standards to be met.

• MONITORING METHOD – Identifies the methods used for monitoring performance http://www.cpars.gov/

QUALITY

DETERMINANTS

QUALITY METRICS CONTRACT

RATING

Desired Outcome & Objective What do we want to accomplish for this contract and what is the desired end result for this project?

Performance Standard What are the standards for completeness, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality, and/or cost?

Acceptable Quality Level (AQ) How acceptance is defined and how much error will be accepted?

Monitoring Method How will we determine attainment of quality metrics? Monitoring will take place via the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO).

Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory

GENERAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT

SCHEDULE AND

REPORTING

Project milestones, including draft deliverables are delivered on time.

Regular reporting to be delivered according to Project Milestone Schedule in agreed-upon format.

Project Milestone Schedule includes all of the contractual deliverables and agreed-to dates.

Weekly updates submitted by email or on phone call.

Monthly operations and financial report submitted by 15th of following month.

Quarterly report for Governing Board meeting submitted per Project Milestone Schedule.

Compare the expected date of delivery per Project Milestone Schedule with actual date of delivery. Compare agreed-upon format to deliverable for completeness.

Receipt of montly report will be reviewed by the VOR and validated with acceptance by the

CO.

Teleconferences to discuss potential issues, challenges, and cost overruns will be scheduled on an as-needed basis.

COSTS

Invoice is submitted according to contracted budgets and timelines in the agreed-upon formats with supporting details.

The contractor is expected to be in

Monthly invoices to be submitted by 15th of following month.

100% compliance with federal

Compare the expected date of delivery per Project Milestone Schedule with actual date of delivery.

Compare approved budget to

QUALITY METRICS CONTRACT

RATING

Desired Outcome & Objective What do we want to accomplish for this contract and what is the desired end result for this project?

Performance Standard What are the standards for completeness, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality, and/or cost?

Acceptable Quality Level (AQ) of quality metrics? Monitoring will take place via the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO).

Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory compliance with all federal cost accounting standards and regulations.

Cost savings are to be obtained for other direct costs to ensure cost reasonableness.

guidelines and U.S. Department of Education guidelines.

100% compliance with NAGB expectations regarding invoiced costs with work performed.

current summary invoice to ensure compliance with contract budget and project milestones.

BUSINESS

RELATIONSHIP

Contractor staff are responsive to work requests, and work is performed as contracted, with details as specified in each contract task.

The contractor is responsive to work requests, is flexible in undertaking changed work requirements within scope, anticipates potential areas of concern, and develops contingency plans.

CO, COR, and technical staff will monitor contractor’s business relations on an ongoing basis and via annual assessments conducted at www.cpars.gov.

MANAGEMENT OF

PERSONNEL

Key staff performing work requests are responsive, and perform assigned duties effectively, as specified in each task request.

Contractor staff respond to work requests in a timely manner.

Changes in project priorities are made quickly and effectively. Only assigned key staff provide services as contracted.

COR and CO will review contractor staff work on an ongoing basis to assure that staff assignments are executed as detailed in contract tasks.

QUALITY METRICS CONTRACT

RATING

Desired Outcome & Objective What do we want to accomplish for this contract and what is the desired end result for this project?

Performance Standard What are the standards for completeness, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality, and/or cost?

Acceptable Quality Level (AQ) of quality metrics? Monitoring will take place via the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO).

Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory

TECHNICAL SCOPE OF WORK

ANALYTIC &

REPORTING PLANS

Analytic plan, which outlines plans for analysis and reporting, must adhere to technical rigor and quality standards as approved by COR and CO for each task.

The reporting Plan meets standards and purposes of each task’s analyses and artifacts.

Up to two rounds of draft review on the analytic plan and reporting plan with additions, revisions, and/or modifications suggested by Board staff are acceptable.

Achievement of desired outcomes will be determined by:

(1) Quality of product(s) as determined by COR on the basis of technical rigor, analysis appropriateness and accuracy, methodological transparency, and clarity in communicating content;

and

(2) Relevance of elements of plans to producing interim and final deliverables in accordance with contract’s purpose and standards of quality.

DRAFT DELIVERABLES Draft deliverables include draft analysis, draft product, and draft methodology and analysis brief report.

Up to two rounds of draft review on the draft artifacts with additions, revisions, and/or modifications.

Draft deliverables represent appropriate, technically sound and valid data analysis and interpretation.

Draft methodology report

Adherence to requirements of desired outcomes as defined in the project scope.

Request external review from NCES, NAGB staff and members on deliverables for completeness, technical accuracy, and general comprehensibility.

QUALITY METRICS CONTRACT

RATING

Desired Outcome & Objective What do we want to accomplish for this contract and what is the desired end result for this project?

Performance Standard What are the standards for completeness, reliability, accuracy, timeliness, quality, and/or cost?

Acceptable Quality Level (AQ) of quality metrics? Monitoring will take place via the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and Contracting Officer (CO).

Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory accurately describes all relevant analyses conducted with specific NAEP variables.

Analysis must be accompanied by complete data file.

When product undergoes NCES quality control process, no more than 30% of product requires substantive and/or technical revision.

FINAL PRODUCTS Final deliverables adhere to process and standards as required under the contract.

Data analysis summaries are thorough, error-free, of high quality, and are fully responsive to the statement of work and to staff and Board feedback.

Methodology report outlines how to replicate analyses accurately.

Deliverables are well written, easily understood by a third party, and responsive to reporting expectations and requirements.

Presentation is visually appealing and easily adaptable for dissemination through Governing Board website and social media outlets.

100% of summarized analyses are free of material errors and statistically valid.

Final report demonstrates 100% alignment with project milestone schedule, including documentation of changes or explanation of reasons for non-alignment.

Visual presentation of analysis 100% ready for social media dissemination and website posting, including Section 508 compliance.

Achievement of desired outcomes will be determined by:

(1) Quality of product(s) as determined by COR on the basis of technical rigor, analysis accuracy, methodological transparency, and clarity in communicating content;

(2) Timely submission or completion dates, which will be documented and compared with project’s plan; and

(3) Checks against Section 508 compliance policy without requiring multiple revisions.

Attachment C: Instructions to Offerors

NOTICE 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 should contain the title “Focused Reporting with data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress”. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in Attachment D of the Request for Proposals (RFP). It is understood that proposals and all related questions and responses will become part of the official contract file.

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

Offerors shall prepare separate technical and business/cost proposals. All information necessary to judge the technical soundness and management capabilities of the offeror will be contained in the technical proposal. The business proposal will contain all information related to the determination of the price associated with each of the project’s tasks. The technical and business/cost proposals must each be complete in and of themselves so that evaluation and review of one may be accomplished independently of the other. Cost information must be restricted to the business proposal and the technical proposal must not contain reference to specific costs (although resource information may be included so that the offeror’s understanding of the requirements may be evaluated).

Proposal Submission Requirements

The proposal must be signed and submitted by an official authorized to bind your organization.

Offerors are required to follow the submission format as detailed below. Responses shall include three separately packaged hard copy proposals: a technical proposal, a business proposal, and past performance information as described in detail below.

• One original and five copies of the technical proposal

• One original and four copies of the business proposal (Microsoft Excel format with formulas for cost and pricing data)

• One original and four copies of the past performance

• An electronic copy of all files on a portable drive (with read write capabilities)

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 4:00 pm EST on Tuesday June 21, 2016 and shall be sent to:

U.S. Department of Education National Assessment Governing Board 800 North Capitol Street NW Suite 825

Washington, DC 20002-4233 Attn: Anthony White, Contracting Officer

Proposal Validity Period

The proposal shall list the names and telephones numbers of persons authorized to conduct negotiations. The proposal shall include a statement that the offer is firm for a period of at least 120 calendar days from the date of receipt of proposals specified within this RFP.

Clarification Questions

The Department will accept clarification questions from potential offerors. Clarification questions must be submitted by the due date, which is 4:00 pm EST on Monday May 16, 2016. The Department does not guarantee that a response will be given to clarification questions submitted after the due date. Offerors will not receive a response until all questions have been received by the due date. All questions and answers will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.FBO.gov). It is the prospective offeror’s responsibility to monitor this site.

Oral explanations or instructions given by the Government before the award of the contract shall not be binding. Any information given to a prospective offeror concerning the solicitation will be furnished to all other prospective offerors if that information impacts the submission of proposals, or if a lack of information would be prejudicial to any other prospective offerors. This information will be sent to all offerors that respond to the RFP.

http://www.fbo.gov/

A. Technical Proposal (Volume I)

All information necessary to judge the technical soundness and the capabilities of the offeror shall be contained in the technical response to the RFP. The technical response shall not exceed 20 pages, on 8.5” by 11” paper size and a 12-point font, assuming standard 1” margins. Resumes and other supporting material may be provided in appendices. Each resume shall not exceed 4 pages. The page limit includes the narrative and corresponding tables/graphs, abstracts of current corporate work, and lists of the current contractual commitments of proposed staff. The page limit does not include the table of contents, appendix containing resumes for key project staff and letters of commitment. The Government 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.

Technical Proposal Contents

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

1. Table of Contents

The proposal should include a Table of Contents as a means of quickly accessing important points of discussion in the proposal. The Table of Contents shall outline the offeror’s response to the RFP.

2. Executive Summary/Introduction

The Executive Summary should briefly describe the offeror’s overall plan for achieving the project objectives and highlight key areas of the proposal that address the requirements. A short summary of the offeror’s qualifications and unique strengths shall be provided in the summary.

3. Technical Approach

The technical approach shall address all specified requirements in executing the requirements and demonstrate that the proposed staff has the necessary experience to meet task objectives.

While the intent of each task is spelled out in the requirements document, this should be considered a starting point. Technical proposals must include detailed work plans and illustrative examples where needed to fully describe the offeror’s plan to accomplish each task and submit project deliverables.

Creativity in responding to the requirements is encouraged. Approaches that are thoroughly described and supported by effective management and implementation plans are most likely to contribute to the overall efficiency and success of accomplishing project goals. A proposal that simply repeats the language of the requirements document without specifying the offeror’s plan will be considered ineligible for award.

Offerors are encouraged to suggest improvements to the approaches detailed in the work statement, along with a justification to the merits of these alternative approaches. Offerors may find it necessary to make adjustments to the schedule provided in the requirements document, 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.

4. Management Plan and Timelines

The management plan section shall detail the offeror’s overall management plan, including lines of authority, coordination, and communication within the offeror’s organization. This project requires working under tight timelines; therefore a well-formulated project management plan is especially important. The offeror shall describe in this section of the proposal the management control system that will be used internally for planning, scheduling, budgeting, managing, and reporting on all phases of the contract.

All personnel, including staff and consultants, shall be identified by name and title. Their position in the project’s management structure must be detailed in an organizational chart. This chart shall depict clearly the lines of authority and responsibility for all persons and organizations involved in the conduct of this project. The proposed management plan should ensure appropriate coordination of activities across relevant groups and individuals in the process and appropriate timing of activities.

A Gantt or similar chart displaying the proposed timeline and key project milestones shall be provided. This section shall include a chronological timeline for all major activities and key deliverables. Included in this timeline shall be the start and completion dates for each task, as well as intermediate dates for precursor steps and draft deliverables, as appropriate. Key staff responsible for each task shall also be identified. The work of subcontractors or consultants is the responsibility of the prime contractor, and the management plan must specify how subcontractors or experts will be managed.

Offerors shall propose a plan to ensure quality control and expand or propose additional metrics to the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) in the RFP, Attachment B to the work statement. The QASP will be an integral component of the contract and will be updated as needed throughout the contract lifecycle. Offerors may propose changes to the QASP that strengthens project quality assurance in proposal submissions.

5. Proposed Personnel

This section of the technical proposal shall identify proposed staff and highlight their educational background and expertise relevant to the proposed work. Vitae of proposed staff shall document knowledge, skills, abilities, and relevant training associated with the position proposed. Key personnel competencies and experience in performing work of a similar size and scope to that outlined, and proposed roles must be specified.

The proposed Project Director must have demonstrated skills in managing similar projects, have exceptionally good management and organizational expertise, and must have strong written and oral communication skills. Successful oversight for project quality and cost controls is essential to the contract. The Project Director must participate in all aspects of the project and serve as the primary point of contact for the contract. The proposed Project Director is a key position in the contract. Any changes or substitutions of key personnel will require written advance approval by the Contracting Officer.

This section shall be accompanied by an appendix that includes resumes for all key staff for this contract. Resumes should document only directly related experience, educational background, publications, and professional activities relevant to the contract. Roles and responsibilities of proposed staff shall be identified and the level of effort by task needs to be described vis-à-vis commitments to other contract work.

6. Organizational Capabilities and Experience

The offeror’s organizational capability and experience in undertaking all phases of work specified must be demonstrated. This includes resources that are necessary for the supporting of all task areas. The offeror’s experience in conducting projects of a similar nature and magnitude must be provided, particularly using the NAEP Data Explorer. This section should include an organizational chart with 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 specified tasks to be performed and the level of effort required.

In addition, offerors shall provide a list of the title, contract number, award date, end date, and dollar amount of all contracts with the U.S. Department of Education that are current or ended after November 1, 2014. This list and the discussion of corporate experience shall be provided for any proposed subcontractors and consultants as well for the proposed prime contractor. For contracts 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.

B. Business Proposal (Volume II)

Business Proposal Submission

The business proposal shall include completion or attestation of the Representations and Certifications issued in the RFP or attest to online certification, and provide proposed overall contract costs detailed by task. Costs shall be provided in a format similar to the Pricing Schedule (Attachment F). A cumulative total shall be provided. The business proposal shall include a Conflict of Interest Plan and Certificate. The business proposal will contain all information related to the determination of the costs associated with the execution of the project.

The offeror shall submit proposed costs for each task and subtask and for the project overall, for the 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 are reconciled in the technical proposal.

NOTE TO OFFERORS – It is required that the business proposal contain enough information for a cost realism determination to be made. Offerors are expected to use their best business judgement 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 prices are found to NOT be reasonable.

Other Direct Costs need to be identified by cost type, and cost assumptions will need to accompany the proposed costs. All other cost reductions or rebates shall be provided upfront as it is likely that negotiations shall be very limited; an award may be made without extensive cost negotiations. The budget needs to be provided in both print, as well as electronic Microsoft Excel format (with formulas).

Business Proposal Contents

Proposals must include each of the following:

1. Abstract

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

2. Fixed Price Task Budgets

Offerors shall include the price of each deliverable on a firm-fixed price basis, with a proposed payment schedule. The Department will pay the corresponding invoice only after the Department has accepted each deliverable.

3. Cost Accounting, Estimating, and Purchasing Information

The offeror shall include information on the status of their accounting system, estimating system, and purchasing system. If these systems have been reviewed and approved by a Government agency, please include a copy of the approval letter. If they have not, offerors must state so and provide 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.

4. Breakdown of Other Direct Costs

Offerors shall submit proposed costs itemized for each task, as well as a total proposed cost for the entire work to be performed under the contract.