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 5 ED-OOS-15-R-0039/0001

US Department of Education Office of Educational Technology

Solicitation ED-OOS-15-R-0039

Responses to Vendor Questions

1. The time between the release of the RFP and its due date is three weeks. This is a quite short timeframe to create a proposal to build an innovative evaluation infrastructure of this complexity. Is there any possibility of this deadline being extended?

a. The deadline will not be extended. Award is intended to be made in September 2015.

Proposals remain due at 11:00am Eastern Time on Thursday, September 3, 2015.

2. Who is the incumbent on this effort, or is this a new requirement?

a. ED-OOS-15-R-0039 is a new requirement.

3. Can you provide information on expected award size? What is the estimated size of the firm fixed-price contract(s) to be awarded? Given the tasks specified in the Performance Work Statement, does the Department have a total budget in mind for the contract? What is the total funding available for this project? Could you provide any guidance on the total bid level?

a. The Department will not be providing funding or estimated cost information. Offerors are expected to propose a price and level of effort that is commensurate with the proposed technical solutions.

4. Can the Department specify the level of effort for this procurement?

a. Offerors are expected to propose a level of effort that is commensurate with their own unique proposed technical solutions. The Government estimates that the level of effort for the base period is approximately 7,960 hours and the level of effort for the optional task is 15,500 hours.

5. Is the intent to award to a sole contractor or multiple contractors?

a. The Department will not separate this requirement into multiple procurements and intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Subcontracting and teaming arrangements remain at the discretion of the offeror. The Department encourages capable vendors to partner to form a team of vendors with the distributed expertise necessary to successfully complete this work requirement. One vendor will have to be identified as the

PAGE 3 OF 5 ED-OOS-15-R-0039/0001

prime offeror.

6. How should the offeror budget for level of effort in the proposal? Person days per staff for task?

a. Business proposals must contain information in sufficient detail for the Government to make a price reasonableness determination. Generally, labor category hours per task and subtask can provide this information, but offerors should use independent judgment in determining business proposal structure.

7. What is the level of rigor expected for the pilot evaluations and field tests?

a. The level of rigor for the pilot evaluations and field tests should match the intended use of the evaluation results. There is not an expectation that these research designs will meet the gold standard for traditional evaluations; rather, the focus of the evaluations will be on providing evidence helpful to school decision makers. It is anticipated that context will likely be a significant element of the tech evaluations and reports.

8. Can participating sites be involved in the app selection process? Can the apps selected be those already in use by the sites?

a. The process for app selection will be defined by the contractor with input from the

Technical Working Group and the Department. It is highly likely that the participating sites would be involved in the app selection process in order to match apps to school needs.

Selecting apps already in use by sites is a possible element of a research design, though not a necessary element.

9. Should the offeror identify companies in the Technical Proposal as potential apps for either the pilot evaluation or field tests?

a. Identifying proposed companies will not help or hurt any offerer’s proposal.

10. Who specifically are the evaluation tools being developed for? Product developers/businesses, administrators/teachers, or researchers? Should one tool be able to address the needs of all of these potential users?

a. Ideally the evaluation tools developed would serve the needs of each of these stakeholder groups. The first priority, however, is ensuring that the tools are helpful to administrators and teachers.

11. When the software evaluations are released will they be under the name/brand of the contractor or the Department? In other words, will the vendor be able to say, “According to the U.S. Department

PAGE 4 OF 5 ED-OOS-15-R-0039/0001

of Education, our product….”?

a. The Department does not endorse any products and the evaluations shall not be presented as an endorsement by the Department. Any deliverable produced under this anticipated contract shall be subject to EDAR clause 3452.227-70 “PUBLICATION AND

PUBLICITY” which is included in this solicitation.

12. To help schools, districts, and states make evidence-based decisions, is the inclusion of an interactive platform to present to principals, superintendents, and others (who are not researchers) a critical element of the solution?

a. The interactive platform described in the request for proposals is a critical element of the work requirement. The interactive platform provides supports for school leaders who want to conduct tech evaluations in order to enable the field to make better evidence-based decisions.

13. Data connections that provide light weight investment for schools (e.g., automated data pulls) seem to be a critical element. Are there requirements or preferences on the media that are used to access and pull requisite date for analysis?

a. While incorporating automated data pulls and other data collection activities may be included in the research designs, they are not the only approaches possible. No preference or requirements are included in the RFP for how data should be pulled or what kinds of data should be analyzed.

14. Sub-task 3.2 in the PWS states that OMB clearance is not necessary for the pilot studies, which we read to mean that we are not to have more than 9 respondents to any instrument. Task 5, however, outlines the requirement for all pilot study reports to meet WWC standards. It is not clear how one can meet the Task 5 requirements since it will take more than 9 respondents to have a rigorous enough study to satisfy WWC.

a. The pilot studies do not have to meet WWC standards. The field tests should attempt to meet WWC standards.

15. Ultimately, what are the measures of success of the RCTE?

a. RCTE will be a successful if the following goals are achieved:

i. The field has access to usable research designs and tools for conducting tech evaluations.

ii. A group of tech evaluations are produced that provide information helpful to school leaders.

PAGE 5 OF 5 ED-OOS-15-R-0039/0001

iii. What is learned from the project is shared broadly to stakeholder groups.

16. At the end of the funding cycle, should the program be self-sustaining to continue or will there be subsequent rounds of funding?

a. Funds have been allocated to support the base year of the RCTE contract. If additional funds are secured, an option is built into the contract to support additional years. This additional funding is not currently allocated and is not guaranteed. The research designs and tools should allow the field to conduct tech evaluations on their own at the conclusion of this project.

17. Should the offeror identify the individuals in the Technical Proposal as potential members of the

Technical Working Group?

a. Yes.

550 12th St SW - 7th Floor Washington DC 20202-4210