Amendment_0001.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 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

Version Date: August 03, 2015

ED-OII-15-R-0014

Vendor Questions & Responses

This document includes all questions that the U.S. Department of Education (Department) received by the submission deadline for the Office of Innovation and Improvement’s (OII) Charter School Program (CSP) Data Collection and Monitoring solicitation. The questions are largely identical to those submitted. Where appropriate, the Department has made grammatical revisions and phrasing changes for common understanding and readability.

(1) What is the response date for this opportunity?

August 20, 2015 at 11:00 AM Eastern Time. Please note that the Solicitation includes a due date of 11:00 AM EST. This is a typographical error as Washington, DC observes EDT in the summer and EST in the winter.

(2) Who is the incumbent vendor?

The incumbent is WestEd.

(3) How many FTEs are expected for this opportunity?

The Department is not providing estimates of level of effort or the number of employees that an offeror should propose. All offerors must propose their best technical solution utilizing as many (or as few) Full, Part-time, consultants or other types or employees as the offeror deems necessary.

(4) What is the value of the previous contract?

The value of the previous contract is $5,951,086.00

(5) What was the amount of the incumbent’s contract over how many fiscal years?

Please see the response to (4) above for contract value. The previous contract spanned four years and will expire on September 25, 2015.

(6) Were the tasks the same, or substantially similar to, the current solicitation?

Some tasks are the same, and some tasks are new. To facilitate comparison, we have provided the most recent version of the old Performance Work Statement (PWS). Please note, this is provided only to allow comparison. Offerors must not rely on the old PWS to structure their responses to this solicitation.

PAGE 3 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(7) Is the incumbent allowed to bid on this contract?

Yes, the incumbent is permitted to submit a proposal. This competition is unrestricted, full and open. All eligible offerors are permitted to respond, and the Department encourages competition.

(8) If we insert charts into the technical proposal, does the size of the chart(s), such as the timeline required in the Management Plan (page 25 of 70) count against the 50 page limit?

Possibly. Charts generally count against the 50 page limit. Please see our response to Questions 42 and 43 for supplemental information for additional information on how certain components may now be included in a size-restricted Appendix A (with Appendix B renamed).

(9) Similarly, if we include a table or graphic (e.g. summary table or an org chart) in response to describing our proposed technical approach, do these charts count against the 50 page limit? It is clear that no appendices are allowed, however, the charts that the PWS requires may become lengthy, such as the timeline chart required in the Management Proposal section, where it requires the applicants to show an "interrelationship of tasks" by week, over a 5 year period (page 25 of 70).

Yes, graphics and tables that are included to demonstrate a technical approach or proposed technical solution count against the page limit. Please see our response to Questions 42 and 43 for additional information.

(10) The introduction to the RFP (page 3) references past data collection and monitoring. Who collected the data and did the monitoring?

The data described in Task 10 were collected by the incumbent, WestEd, during a previous contract and will be collected throughout the life of this contract for Federally-funded CSP grantees.

The PWS also references data reconciliation and reporting in Task 11 that involve other national datasets (specifically CCD, EDFACTS and CRDC). These data were collected for the Department by other contractors under separate contracts.

(a) Is the data housed with the Department or with the contractor?

The CSP grant awards database is housed by the contractor but is owned by the Department and is considered Government property that will return to the Department at the expiration of the contract. The national data (CCD/EDFacts/CRCD) submitted to the Department is housed by the Department.

PAGE 4 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(b) Will the data be available to the contractor for this solicitation? If so, what is the format?

No, the data will not be available prior to award. This data will be exportable in Excel file formats and distributed via email as necessary.

(11) Given that a new online system may require up to 12 months for approval in the Department, will the timelines for this project be adjusted accordingly? Or is this information intended to convey a preference for using a current online system provider?

Yes, if necessary, impacted timelines will be adjusted. The requirement in Task 4 in no way indicates a preference for an existing system. The CSP does not have a preference for any existing system. Rather, we are relying on the vendor community to pose the best possible technical solution since CSP lacks any system to collect and manage the data. An offeror may propose to use an existing system that they have created under previous contracts or for other industry parties, but IT requirements in the PWS clearly note that all information, content, and systems will be owned by the Department and returned to the Department at contract expiration.

(12) Is the 12-month approval process for a new system provider or for a new system?

The notification in the PWS that the time of the approval process may take up to 12-months is only a forewarning that the approval of a new system is not automatic or a quick process. However, contractor diligence and efficiency could have an impact on the approval time for the implementation of a new system. The approval process includes meeting Department requirements for the online system. The provider will be the successful offeror or any partner/subcontractor that the offeror proposes.

(13) Some timelines listed in the RFP specify business days and some do not. Do we assume that all timelines are based on business days rather than calendar days?

All dates specified in the PWS should mean business days.

(14) Is there a Departmental policy or guideline about remuneration for review group members, expert panelists, monitors, and other roles required for this contract?

The Department does not have published information for fees paid to non-contract employees. The contractor may propose whatever costs it determines are reasonable and necessary in order to ensure performance in accordance with the PWS. Should offerors determine that remuneration is necessary based upon the qualifications and expertise of consultants and any prevailing industry rates, the offeror must include a justification in the business proposal. Nothing over $70.00 per hour is allowable.

PAGE 5 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(15) Is there a specific budget amount that has been set aside for the work described in this RFP?

The Department has prepared its own internal cost estimate. As a general policy, we do not release our price estimates and decline to do so for this procurement.

(16) What is the anticipated timeline for awarding this contract?

The Department anticipates making award no later than September 28, 2015.

(17) Will the Department provide all currently available policy documents, training materials, tools, handbooks, protocols, and related documents as references for completing this task, for both the SEA and CMO components? Are the documents available in electronic format?

The CSP has released OMB-approve data collection templates. Additionally, we have attached monitoring indicators and indicator crosswalk for the field. We refer all offerors to the National Charter School Resource Center (http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/) for additional policy documents and other information that may be helpful in formulating a technical proposal.

(18) Have the FY2016 SEA and CMO Project Director meetings been scheduled? If so, what are the dates and locations? Is the contractor expected to present at this meeting as part of the Baes Period requirements?

The FY16 SEA and CMO Project Director meeting schedules have not been finalized.

The contractor is expected to attend and present at the CMO and SEA PD meetings in the Base Period and all optional periods. The PD meetings are planned to be held during the third or fourth weeks of March – CMO during one week and SEA during the other.

(19) Please clarify the relationship between the frameworks and business processes. Is the framework an outline with the business process as detailed information that is added over time?

The framework is the overarching sequential process that will be used for monitoring, data collection, and risk management. The SEA and CMO business processes are project and program-specific for grant implementation and compliance with performance requirements.

(20) If the framework is to be completed within 30 days of contract award, is the entire rest of the Base Period available to complete the business processes? If not, what is the timeline for business process completion and addition to the frameworks?

The framework shall incorporate how the contractor will develop handbooks, monitoring protocols, monitoring tools, and other document-gathering materials and

PAGE 6 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

documents. A draft SEA monitoring protocol including the SEA business processes for monitoring grant administration and performance is due within sixty (60) days of the effective date of the contract award. The draft detailed CMO protocol including CMO business processes for monitoring grant administration and performance is due within seventy (70) days of the effective date of the contract award.

(21) Does the Department require specific web application frameworks or languages, or are these at the contractor’s discretion as long as they meet FISMA and other requirements listed in the RFP?

The Department’s technology requirements are included in the PWS. The contractor has the discretion to propose an online application that will meet the provided requirements as presented using whatever web application framework or language that the contractor prefers assuming that it is compliant.

(22) Is the online system manual intended to be interactive or static (e.g., clickable PDF or HTML page)?

The offeror has the discretion to propose the best training method that will facilitate the use of the online system.

(23) The RFP states that the SEA grantee review group should consist of seven SEA representatives but does not state a specific number of representatives for the CMO grantee review group. Should this also have seven members?

Both the SEA and CMO grantee review groups consist of seven participants.

(24) During the Base Period approximately how many attendees would be expected at the monitor training?

The offeror has the discretion to propose how many total monitors will be trained to carry out the monitoring process based 3-4 monitors for each onsite visit.

(a) Of these, how many would the contractor be expected to host (e.g. pay for travel, per diem, and so forth)?

The offeror shall host all of the monitors selected to provide the monitoring services outlined in this procurement, including travel, lodging, per diem, etc.

(25) Is there an expected duration of the onsite training (e.g. one day) during the Base

Period?

The offeror has the discretion to propose the duration of the onsite training for the Base Period.

PAGE 7 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(26) Is there an expected duration of the webinar training during the Option Periods?

The offeror has the discretion to determine a sufficient length of time for the webinar training during the option period.

(27) Historically, about how many individuals are included in the total pool of monitors?

Depending on the number of onsite visits for SEAs, the pool of monitors has varied from twelve to sixteen.

Depending on the number of onsite visits for CMOs, the pool of monitors has been approximately twelve.

(28) Do some monitors participate in more than one onsite visit (i.e. do they monitor more than one grantee)?

During previous years, SEA monitors have participated in more than one SEA onsite visit and CMO monitors have participated in more than one CMO onsite visit.

(29) Except for the quarterly expert review meetings that will take place during the annual SEA/CMO Project Director meetings, will these meetings be held on-site at the Department, or will the contractor need to provide meeting space?

The meetings will occur on-site.

(30) Is the monitoring team intended to include one of the evaluation experts?

No, the evaluation experts will not be included on the monitoring teams.

(31) Please confirm that the monitoring and tracking system mentioned in Task 9 is the same system described in Task 4 (page 9).

The SEA and CMO monitoring and tracking tools and mechanisms mentioned in Task 9 are not currently the same system described in Task 4. The CSP currently monitors and tracks grantee performance using distinct tracking mechanisms using Excel (e.g. the monitoring system includes a mechanism to monitor and track onsite monitoring implementation – visit schedules, monitors to be used). There is a separate mechanism to track monitoring, report development and progress, and review schedule and completion dates. Finally, there is a separate monitoring and tracking mechanism for monitoring grantee project performance and program compliance.

The offeror has the discretion to propose as an option a digitized monitoring and data tracking system utilizing web-based technology and methods to provide the services

PAGE 8 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

under this procurement or the offeror has the discretion to propose alternative means to provide the services under this procurement.

(32) Because CSP is unsure of how many monitoring visits may be required, and the contract is designated as Firm-Fixed Price, should contractors assume that the optional subtasks (pages 17-18) represent the maximum number of onsite visits requested during one contract year?

Not necessarily. As an example, CSP could initially require seven SEA monitoring visits in Option Period I. In this scenario, CSP would exercise Optional Task 9.1.4 at the same time it exercises Option Period I. One month following exercise of Option Period I CSP could have an urgent need to monitor two additional grantees. Therefore, CSP would exercise Optional Task 9.1.1 some weeks later.

Historically, CSP monitors seven SEA grantees and five to seven CMO grantees each year. CSP expects that the optional task quantities outlined in the PWS will be sufficient to meet our monitoring needs in any given year.

(33) What is the current number of grantees for the CSP (i.e. overall, how many may need monitoring and/or would be included in the monitoring and tracking system?

There are three current SEA grantees, but the number will grow to 12 as FY16 commences. There are currently 12 CMO grantees, but the number will grow to 20 as FY16 commences. The number will vary throughout the life of the contract depending on funding availability.

(34) Would you please provide additional technical information about the current mechanisms for collecting, synthesizing, and analyzing grantee and subrecipient award data? For example, is this a web-based system? What are the specific application frameworks and languages used?

CSP is not currently using a web-based system. Excel and other software packages are used to collect data. CSP specifically uses SEA and CMO data collection forms/templates, including sub recipient grantee award data.

Offerors may propose to use whatever software programs they feel appropriate to analyze the data in accordance with CSP’s needs.

(35) Please clarify the timeline for training for SEA and CMO grantees, and the relationship between the training plan and the training manual. Subtask 10.3 (page 20) says that a draft training plan is due within 90 days of the effective date of the contract. It also says that a draft training manual is due in the same time period. One assumes that the purpose of the plan is to develop the manual and that the plan should be approved before the manual is started, not that both are developed at the same time.

PAGE 9 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

We will revise the language of the PWS to require the manual to be due ten days following approval of the plan to allow additional time to prepare.

(36) Are the reports for Task 11 intended to be delivered for the first time in the Base

Period or in Option Period 1?

Reports are due in the Base Period.

(37) Is the training for new grant directors and project directors intended to be on-on-one or in a group format (e.g. quarterly for all new directors)?

Previous training has been in group format in the Base Period and a discretionary format can be proposed during option periods depending on the number of new grant directors.

(38) Approximately how many new directors are named each year?

Historically, zero to four new project directors are changed in any given year.

(39) Regarding Subtask 11.1: How exactly will the contractor receive data from the following mentioned sources (CSP Awards Database, Credit Enhancement transaction data, EDFacts, CRDC, NCSRC; and external sources: CREDO, NACSA, the Alliance and other charter school research organization collections for comparative analysis.) In other words, is the data sent via email? Hard copy?

Does the contractor pull the data dynamically using the proposed digital/software tool? What file types would be transferred?

The COR will deliver the data to the contractor in an electronic format using available file types. Typically this data will be submitted via email using whatever data file type applies to the particular dataset.

(40) The page limit excludes the cover page and table of contents. Is a cover letter permitted or would that count against the 50 page limit?

Offerors may submit a cover letter, but please note that the letter should not contain any technical information or otherwise be used to circumvent the technical proposal page limitations. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will not evaluate a cover page for technical content.

(41) ED specifies a subcontractor agreement letters to be included in the Management

Plan. Does the Department wish these letters to be included in the page count? We are also assuming that the letter is not subject to the required double line spacing.

PAGE 10 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

The subcontractor agreement letter is not subject to the required double line spacing.

Letters of agreement/commitment from subcontractors and personnel may go in a separate appendix (likely Appendix B) and do not count against the page limitations.

(42) Does ED require five separate time commitment tables (one for the base year and each of four option years)? This requirement will likely take up a significant percentage of the overall page count and just want to make this is not redundant with the Labor Hours by Personnel in the Business Proposal

Offerors may propose one commitment table that details staff obligations over the duration of the contract (with clear lines between each period) or five individual tables.

As long as the information is present, we do not object to the offeror’s preferred method of presentation. We expect staff commitment to be similar to the information contained in the Business Proposal. However, the Business Proposal will contain price buildups and other cost information not otherwise present in the Technical Proposal. Offerors may condense the information in the technical proposal or provide interesting means of presenting the information in the Technical Proposal that one would not necessarily expect to find in a detailed Business Proposal.

(43) A detailed schedule for a five-year project (260 weeks) will require a number of pages to effectively meet this requirement. Given the possible length, do you prefer an alternative approach, e.g., include a detailed schedule as an additional Appendix?

Offerors may include a 15 page Appendix A that contains the GAAN chart information if appropriate. Résumés would constitute an Appendix B.

(44) The Technical Approach instructions require a response that “Corresponds with the PWS”. Are the six additional requirements in this section (pages 62-67) included in the scope for our response?

The IT requirements listed on pages 62-67 apply broadly to all Department contracts with IT elements. An offer is required to ensure that all proposed solutions comply with the IT information provided on pages 62-67. This requirement coexists with the requirement that an offeror propose a technical solution that corresponds with all elements of the PWS.

(45) Are SEAs and CMOs involved in the grantee review panel eligible for an onsite visit in the base year?

The SEAs and CMOs selected for the onsite review will not be selected for the Grantee Review Panel.

(46) Subtask 5.2.1 asks for the grantee review group attendance at the annual meeting to be budgeted in option years. Task 5.1 and 5.2 specifically indicate that this

PAGE 11 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

group’s work occurs in the base year. Please clarify the role of this group in the option years and clarify whether the members identified in the base year are expected to continue in all option years?

We note that 5.1 and 5.2 discusses the creation of the SEA and CMO grantee review groups through the development of a plan and recruiting and convening the group in the Base Period. After additional deliberation, CSP has concluded that all relevant materials will have been developed and tested, so the CSP will not require this level of review in the option periods. As a result, the PWS is revised to delete any reference to the option periods for that subtask.

(47) Will the grantee review group need to be provided with a stipend?

Please see the response to Question 14. The offeror may propose whatever fee arrangement it determines to be appropriate for the grantee review group. We remind offerors of GSA per diem and hotel/travel rates.

(48) Subtask 10.4 states that a report will be submitted after 11 APR and 12 FPR submissions have been completed. Please clarify whether there are a total of 23 APRs/FPRs or if a report will need to be submitted after the first 23 are completed and another report submitted for any additional APRs/FPRs beyond the first 23.

The number of completions is 23 and the report will include only the 23 grant completions.

(49) For sub-task 12.1, approximately how many new director trainings are expected each year?

The exact number cannot be determined; zero to four for each year has been the average.

(50) On page 27, it states: “Offerors shall submit a complete price build-up to include the identification of proposed labor categories by named individuals, their functional category, level of effort, effective hourly rate, extended labor price, other direct costs (including the identification of any applicable indirect costs), and profit/fee. The price shall be presented by task by period of performance and shall include any applicable assumptions used to formulate the price build-up.”

(a) Since the solicitation states this is a FFP contract, the above language is more appropriate for a Time and Materials type contract. Is it the Government’s intent to create a BPA with fully loaded labor category rates?

No. The Department will not make an award for a Time and Materials (T&M) contract or establish a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA).

PAGE 12 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(b) Should the Contractor submit a FFP proposal with totals only, as requested in the Standard Form 1449?

Offerors should propose Firm-Fixed Prices for all work. The Department is entitled to request (and has requested) detailed information about how the contractor arrives at those totals. A business proposal that submitted only total prices for each task or subtask is not compliant. This information is necessary in order to make a determination as to whether the offeror’s price is fair and reasonable. This data is critical to making that determination.

(51) When should contractors expect to receive responses to questions?

The Department will post responses as soon as possible.

(52) Personnel Criterion 2 requests that each "senior staff person" be clearly identified with qualifications attached, while in other places in the RFP "key personnel" and "all proposed staff" are used. Are these terms used interchangeably or does ED request information for key personnel, senior staff, and all proposed staff?

Criterion 2 is referring to all senior and key staff. This means staff that play a substantial role in executing the requirement. This does not necessarily mean that key staff will automatically be designated as Key Personnel in the final contract.

(53) The proposal notes that for planning purposes the contract is expected to begin on

September 27, 2015 which is a Sunday. When using a Sunday for the effective date, some deliverable due dates will be calculated to the weekend. Is it possible, for planning purposes only, to revise this date to Monday, September 28?

The Department will evaluate the award and effective date as the end of Fiscal Year 2015 approaches. We will consider appropriate business days when scheduling the effective date.

(54) The PWS includes specifies business or calendar days for some, but not all deliverables. For example, subtask 11.3 includes calendar days and unspecified days for related deliverables. For unspecified deliverables, please specify whether business or calendar days should be used in determining deliverable due dates.

Deliverables are due based on business days as described in Question 13.

(55) When deliverables are contingent upon Department review or comment, how many days should the proposer assume the Department needs to review a document/deliverable? This information is necessary to calculate an accurate deliverable schedule.

PAGE 13 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

The average time for a review and comment period from the Department is ten business days, but for more complex reviews the Department reserves the right to extend the time of review and comment.

(56) Can the Department provide examples of SEA or CMO "business practices" that it imagines the contractor including in its review? Are these intended to be specific to the CSP grant (and/or grant administration) or more broadly to grantees as a whole?

There are standard practices for all SEA and CMO grantees. An example of a standard SEA and CMO business practice is the submission of the Annual Performance Report (APR). There are other practices that may only be relevant and specific to one or several grantees. We refer offerors to the National Charter School Resource Center and the Department/Office of Innovation and Improvement’s CSP website for any other information on the charter program that would be beneficial in proposing a technical solution.

(57) Under Task 9.2 it is clear that the Department will select CMO grantees for onsite visits during the Base Year. Will the Department also select the SEA grantee for the Base Year site visit?

Yes, The Department will select both SEA and CMO grantees to be monitored for the Base Period and option periods.

(58) Under Subtask 12.2 does the Department want one technical assistance webinar for SEA grantees and another for CMO grantees or two webinars for each type of grantee?

The Department requires two webinars for the SEA program and two for the CMO program.

(59) For subtask 13.1 there is no reference to CMOs in the discussion of the "Lessons

Learned" document. Does the Department want a similar document for CMO grantees? Or, should CMO lessons learned be incorporated in to the SEA document?

The Department requires two separate documents, one for the SEA monitoring and data collection implementation and one for the CMO monitoring and data collection implementation.

(60) For large SEA grantees such as CA and large CMO grantees such as KIPP, can a monitoring team exceed the specified 3-4 persons?

PAGE 14 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

We cap the monitors at four. We believe that a smaller number may be appropriate for smaller cohorts of grantees while four will be sufficient for larger SEA and CMO grantees.

(61) How many past performance examples would the Department like included in the proposal?

There is no set number of examples. Offerors should provide enough information to satisfy the Organizational Capacity/Experience/Past Performance criterion using whatever number of examples and pages of text that the offeror determines is appropriate.

(62) Does the Department expect the contractor to work with Department or other contractors to secure CSP award data from Non-SEA grantees in order to create a complete database of award information?

The offeror will not be required to include any tasks related to the collection of data from the Non-SEA grantees.

(63) What is the CSP Data Initiative the contractor is required to report on in the annual comprehensive report?

The CSP Data Initiative encompasses the identification of the data to be collected, compiled, and analyzed that is essential for program planning and decision-making purposes. The annual Comprehensive Report organizes CSP data and the reporting of the data generated from ad hoc requests. The document presents and describes all of the data collection, compilation, synthesis, and analytical reports in a coherent matter and includes the stand-alone data reports to be generated under Task 10.

(64) Will the contractor review logic models for SEA grantees and review project evaluations for CMO grantees? Or should the contractor be prepared to review logic models and grantee evaluations for both SEA and CMO grantees?

We have clarified the language of Subtask 8.2 to address this question. First, CSP intends for the evaluation team to be the primary reviewing party with the contractor serving as a facilitator. Additionally, we expect both SEA and CMO evaluations and logic models to be reviewed.

(65) Can the Department provide examples of types of supplemental data in the

APR/FPR that the contractor should include in the grantee awards database? Are these data expected to be project specific or applicable across grantees?

All information included in the SEA and CMO data collection template will form the basis for the awards database.

PAGE 15 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(66) Does the Department expect the contractor to provide one technical assistance session applicable to all grantees during the project director's meeting? Or is it anticipated that group or individual sessions will be conducted?

The Department expects one technical assistance session for the SEA and CMO program. Informal individual or group sessions may be requested at the discretion of the contractor.

(67) Is the external evaluation technical assistance (referenced under Task 8) intended for Department staff only? If so, is there an expectation to provide similar technical assistance to grantees?

For the Base Period, the expert evaluation sessions will include Department staff.

(68) Under what circumstances will the Department make the determination to implement Optional Task 4?

The Department will analyze budget availability and CSP team needs in order to determine whether to exercise Optional Task 4.

(69) Under Optional Task 4, will the CSP staff work with the contractor as needed to secure the necessary approvals to ensure that the online system meets Federal standards?

The COR will advise the contractor to secure the necessary approvals.

(70) Page 28 (Organization of the Business Proposal) instructs the Offeror to include negotiators’ contact info and a firm offer in a “cover letter”, is this meant to be different than the “cover page” mentioned on page 23 (Organization of the Technical Proposal)?

The cover letter referenced in the Business Proposal is separate from the Cover Page for the Technical Proposal.

(71) Can small business participation be assigned by geographic area?

We are unsure what this question means. The offeror is free to propose any subcontracting arrangement including what work will be done by any particular subcontractor. There is no limit to the number of subcontractors that the offeror may utilize as long as the offeror is compliant with all applicable rules and regulations and shows an efficient method to accomplish the work.

If the question is asking whether different subcontractors may support monitoring (or other) activities based on the region of the grantee, then the offeror may make such a

PAGE 16 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

proposal which the Technical Evaluation Panel will consider and evaluate in accordance with the criteria.

(72) Is there a minimum education level the Department wants for proposed Key

Personnel?

The minimum education level for the proposed key personnel is at the discretion of the offeror.

(73) Would DoED please identify the various types of work the successful offeror would be conflicted out of, when awarded this Contract?

The Department analyzes conflicts of interest on an individual basis. We decline to give specific examples of scenarios where a conflict of interest would arise for this procurement.

As a general example, it would likely be a conflict of interest for a contractor to be responsible for developing a study under one contract and, during the course of performance, respond to a solicitation for services to evaluate the effectiveness of that same study.

(74) By signing, the offeror is certifying that, "to the best of their knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances which could give rise to an organizational or personal conflict of interest, for the organization or any of its staff."

While we understand the circumstances that would give rise to an organizational conflict of interest, we are seeking additional clarity regarding those situations that would give rise to a personal conflict of interest and preclude the offeror from performing work under this solicitation. If “personal” conflicts of interest are applicable for this solicitation, would DoED please identify which situations under this solicitation would give rise to a personal conflict of interest or identify the products, property, or services that could give rise to a personal conflict of interest?

We decline to provide examples of personal conflicts of interest. We refer the offeror to the specific language of Education Department Acquisition Regulation (EDAR) 3452.209-70 which identifies several examples of potential conflicts (e.g. unequal access to information; biased ground rules; impaired objectivity, etc.).

PAGE 17 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

(75) Would DoED please remove from the first sentence, second line, “or personal” as we do not believe it is applicable?

We decline to alter the language of Education Department Acquisition Regulation (EDAR) 3452.209-70. We note that a Contracting Officer cannot alter the language of an EDAR clause absent a waiver. No waiver applies.

(76) Is DoED seeking a specified number of past performance examples describing past and current experience in conducting projects of a similar or comparable nature?

Please see the response to Question 61.

(77) Personnel, Criterion 3 notes that submissions will be evaluated based on the extent to which the time commitments of the project director, co-director, and all other key project staff are appropriate to the task assigned? Besides the project director and co-director, what other personnel are required to be identified?

The offeror should identify all key project staff.

(78) Can the Government confirm that the offeror is permitted to submit position descriptions in lieu of resumes for key personnel that are unknown at the time of submission?

The offeror may submit position descriptions, but an offeror with a position description would not likely rate as highly as an offeror who has identified an individual to fill that position and included a resume.

(79) The RFP notes that time commitments for each staff member proposed should be included within the Management Plan. It is also noted on page 26 of 70 of the solicitation that the Technical Approach must include a clear labor hour chart.

Are these separate requirements; should separate labor hour charts be included in the Management Plan and Technical Approach sections?

We note that there is some overlap in the requirement, and we expect that the Management Plan will be much more detailed than the overview of personnel hours by task. This requirement exists because of the language of Criterion 3 under “Personnel” under which the Technical Evaluation Panel will review the extent to which time commitments of the Project Director, Co-Director, and other Key project staff are appropriate to the task assigned. We would expect that this information could be condensed as long as sufficient information is present to satisfy the criterion.

(80) The solicitation asks for a complete price build-up including profit/fee. Can DoED please elaborate on what profit/fee information is required?

PAGE 18 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

We decline to provide additional information on what constitutes a suitable profit in a Firm-Fixed Price environment.

PAGE 19 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

Addendum to 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items (April 2014)

The offeror is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the proposed tasks and the existing resources, as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal should address the requirements in the PWS, not simply repeat the language. The proposal should be written in sufficient detail to enable the review panel to effectively evaluate its full merits. In preparing technical and business proposals, offerors are requested to write using plain language.

Although the intent of each task is described in the scope of work, it is up to the offeror to propose the most effective method for performing the tasks and the most feasible timeline and dates for all key activities. Offerors are encouraged to exercise independent judgment with respect to the best methods of attaining the objectives expressly stated in the PWS.

Submission Instructions

The technical and business proposal shall be submitted as separate digital documents. The technical and business proposal must be received at or before 11:00am EDT on August 20, 2015. Proposals shall be submitted electronically to the Points of Contact listed below:

• Jonathan E. Bettis, Contract Specialist (Email Jonathan.Bettis@ed.gov)

• Pamela Bone, Contracting Officer (Email Pamela.Bone@ed.gov)

All questions in response to this solicitation must be received at or before 11am EST on July 29, 2015. Questions shall be submitted electronically to the Points of Contact listed below:

• Jonathan E. Bettis, Contract Specialist (Email Jonathan.Bettis@ed.gov)

• Pamela Bone, Contracting Officer (Email Pamela.Bone@ed.gov)

The Department’s email system cannot handle emails larger than 20MB. Submissions should be broken up into separate emails if necessary. Proposal or questions that were rejected by our servers due to violation of the size limit or other technical issues will not be accepted after the specified deadline, so please plan accordingly when submitting materials to the Department.

In preparing their technical proposal and business (price) proposal, offerors are also requested to follow the proposed format and content suggestions detailed below:

General

The Department intends to award a performance-based, Firm-Fixed Price contract on a full and open basis using the procurement methods found in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15. The contract will have a Base Period of 12 months and four 12-month option periods.

The proposal shall consist of two volumes: (1) Technical Proposal, and (2) Business Proposal.

Each of the parts shall be separate and complete so that the evaluation of one may be accomplished independently of evaluation of the other. Cost information must be restricted to the business proposal. The technical proposal must not contain reference to specific cost, although

PAGE 20 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

resource information (e.g. staff mix and associated level of effort) may be included so that the offeror’s understanding of the scope of work may be evaluated.

Technical Proposal Instructions

The offeror is expected to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the proposed tasks and the existing resources as specified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The proposal should address the requirements in the PWS, not simply repeat the language. The proposal should be written in sufficient detail to enable the Department to perform a comprehensive evaluation based on its full merits.

Although the intent of each task is spelled out in the PWS, it is incumbent upon the offeror to propose the most effective method for executing the tasks and the most feasible timeline and dates for all key activities. Offerors are encouraged to exercise independent judgment with respect to the best methods of attaining the objectives of this contract.

The technical proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 50 double-spaced pages using font size no smaller than 12 points. Specifications pertaining to font and spacing do not apply to tables, figures, or exhibits. The Department will not evaluate any pages in excess of 50. Offerors shall not include substantive materials in the appendix in order to circumvent the page limitations.

The page limit established for the technical proposal excludes resumes and letters of agreement from subcontractors and partners (if applicable). No additional appendices are allowed. The cover page and table of contents do not count against the 50 page limit.

A. Organization of the Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal shall contain:

Cover Page:

The cover page shall include the project title: [i.e. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Charter Schools Program Monitoring and Data Collection, name and contact information for the offeror’s negotiators for the Technical Proposal.]

Table of Contents

The proposal should include a Table of Contents to highlight the structure of the technical proposal and to list the main authors of each section.

Technical Approach

This section should fully describe the theoretical and technical approach the offeror will employ in complying with the PWS. This section should demonstrate a clear understanding of the goals, objectives, and requirements upon which the project will focus. Offerors should provide a clear rationale for the proposed technical approach. While a general statement of strategy is appropriate, procedures should be described in a clear and comprehensive way

PAGE 21 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

with regard to each task and sub-task, and should reflect efficient utilization of the offeror's resources. The offeror should identify any anticipated and potential problems, and propose improvements in the design of the work and the timeframe for completing tasks (including deliverable due dates) to facilitate successful completion of the work. This section must correspond with the PWS and schedule of deliverables contained therein.

Offerors should be sure to provide specific strategies related to:

• The planning and development of monitoring and data collection frameworks with SEA and CMO business processes that will include the process for the development of SEA and CMO monitoring handbooks, monitoring protocols, monitoring tools, and other document-gathering materials and documents.

• The planning and development of an online CSP monitoring and data collection system.

for monitoring and data collection

• The contractor’s plan to recruit and select expert evaluation consultants and the contractor’s proposed processes regarding the review and assessment of logic model designs and other types of evaluative models and strategies provided in local grantee project evaluation descriptions in their approved applications.

Management Plan

The Offeror shall provide a summary description of its internal management control system that will be used for planning, scheduling, budgeting, managing, and reporting the accomplishments of this requirement. The proposed management system should include procedures for effective management of project resources, procedures for controlling the quality of products/services, and procedures for early identification of potential problems in carrying out task activities. The offeror must describe how the internal management control system will be applied to the work of this proposal as specified in the PWS and the Evaluation Criteria.

In addition to describing the management system, the offeror should present the following information:

• Sub-contractual arrangements including the work to be done, responsibilities for tasks, reporting arrangements, and any other terms of the agreement. A letter from the proposed subcontractor delineating the nature of the agreement must be included.

• Time commitments for each staff member proposed (including subcontractor personnel, consultants, and any other proposed personnel), to be expressed in person-hours and shown in tabular form as follows:

Staff/Consultant Task

Total

FTE

% time on other

Federal Projects

% time on non-Federal

Projects

PAGE 22 OF 62 ED-OII-15-R-0014/0001

It is important that offerors report this information separately for each performance period identified in the solicitation. In addition, the offeror should outline all existing obligations over the period of the contract for staff proposed for the contract, including the percentage of time allotted to existing projects. The chart must include a total for each task and for the entire contract.

• A schedule of task activities and the delivery of products in calendar weeks from the effective date of the contract.

• Charts (e.g., GANTT charts) showing the interrelationship of tasks plotted on a time scale. This chart may comprise Appendix A and must not exceed 15 pages in length.

• Time for any contractor internal review and clearance procedures as well as Department review.

• Listings of materials or services the offeror expects the Department to make available (e.g., data, reports, etc.).

In summary, the management approach should provide assurance that all tasks will be completed on time and with a high level of quality. For planning purposes, the contract award is planned for September 27, 2015.

Organization Capacity/Experience/Past Performance

This section should describe previous and current successful experiences related to overall management of a federal program and contract. It should demonstrate organizational capacity to meet the specific requirements identified in the PWS.

To support the Department’s goals and objectives for this project, the offeror should propose a team of qualified individuals to conduct and complete this contract successfully.