ESBD_393011_1739457955178_RFP No. 781-5-03529A Questions and Answers 2.12.25.pdf

TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION

COORDINATING BOARD

Request for Proposals (RFP) Student Success Acceleration Program

RFP 781-5-03529A

Questions and Answers February 6th, 2025

1. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. What data currently exist or will become available for measuring student outcomes?

Response:

Awarded Respondent will have access to SSAP applications and will work with SSAP grantees to determine which data currently exists. Other publicly available data resources (e.g., Data Bridge, Education Research Center) may also be appropriate avenues for determining available data.

2. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. Will the awardee have the ability to request specific data points for the evaluation metrics or must they use data that have already been pre-determined?

Response:

Awarded Respondent may request specific data points for the evaluation metrics.

3. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. What stakeholders will likely be involved in determining appropriate KPIs for both the formative and summative evaluations?

Response:

As part of the Evaluation Plan, Respondents should outline appropriate stakeholders based on grantee’s expertise and experience with evaluation protocols.

4. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. Does the selection committee have a preference for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach to the evaluations?

Response:

No. Respondents should provide appropriate justification for their approach to evaluations based on best practices.

5. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. Is there a data collection system already in place to obtain any data that may be necessary for the evaluations?

Response:

Awarded Respondent should be aware that each SSAP grantee will have its own data collection system, process, and protocols at the institutional level. Other publicly available data sources such as the Education Research Centers and THECB’s Data Bridge, may also be appropriate.

6. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. Is there a preference for software used for quantitative data analyses?

Response: No.

7. Page 4 – Section 3.1.4. The language “best practices” is used in the RFP. Does this imply that the evaluation should seek to use methods that would meet What Works Clearinghouse standards for classifying an intervention as a Best Practice?

Response:

No. Awarded Respondent may document sources for best practices in its literature review (see Section 3.1.1).

8. Page 5 – Section 4.1. Is there an approved budget for this evaluation?

Response:

Yes; however, THECB is not able to share budget details.

9. Page 3 – Section 3.1.3. Can THECB define what they mean by “impact evaluation”?

Within evaluation, there are varying uses/meanings of impact evaluation. Does THECB retain the federal (OMB) definition: a type of evaluation that focuses on assessing the impact of a program or aspect of a program on outcomes by estimating what would have happened in the absence of the program or aspect of the program, which assumes a counterfactual?

Response:

Respondents should define “impact evaluation” within the context of its Evaluation Plan and in meeting the three objectives outlined in Section 3.1.4.

10. Will institutions funded through the SSAP 2.0 grant program be required to comply with evaluation activities by the selected external evaluator, such as site visits, interviews, focus groups?

Response:

Yes. Respondents should outline in their Evaluation Plan which evaluation activities will be required by SSAP grantees and which activities will be optional.

11. Is the use of remote or virtual technologies (such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams) acceptable for in-person work such as

a. Qualitative data collection

b. Attending project meetings and/or work sessions

Response:

Yes. Respondents should consider the type of activity and modality to help ensure optimal results.

12. Will the selected vendor have access to students-level records related to demographic (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) and socioeconomic status (e.g., Pell grant eligibility), college enrollment, major declaration, credit accumulation, and credential attainment?

a. How soon after the award will the data be made available for analysis?

b. How will the Coordinating Board support the selected vendor in establishing data sharing agreements with partner agencies (if needed)?

Response:

Respondents should outline in the Evaluation Plan the type of data needed from SSAP grantees. A timeline with due dates for identified data should reflect the Awarded Respondent’s internal resources and capacity to meet deliverables by due dates outlined in Section 3.2. Awarded Respondent should understand, while some support from THECB in establishing data sharing agreements may be available, Awarded Respondent should not expect such support. Further, THECB will not share any student-level data in THECB’s possession with Awarded Respondent until a data sharing agreement has been executed by both THECB and Awarded Respondent.

13. Has THECB established a total or annual not to exceed budget for this project? If so, what are the budget parameters?

Response:

Yes; however, THECB is not able to share budget details.

14. How many SSAP grant applications were received by THECB and how many were ultimately funded? Can THECB provide a list of funded SSAP 2.0 grants?

Response:

THECB received fifty-five (55) applications. THECB accepted thirty-three (33) applications as part of the SSAP 2.0 program. Awarded Respondent will receive a list of SSAP 2.0 grantees.

15. How many of the projects funded under the SSAP 2.0 Grant program address the following program areas (duplicated counts):

a. Academic support;

b. Advising;

c. Basic Needs/Wrap-around Services;

d. Finances/Cost;

e. Mental Health and Wellness;

f. Some College, No Credential Re-engagement;

g. Underserved Populations

Response:

a. Academic support; 9

b. Advising; 7

c. Basic Needs/Wrap-around Services; 17

d. Finances/Cost; 11

e. Mental Health and Wellness; 13

f. Some College, No Credential Re-engagement; 7

g. Underserved Populations 14

16. How many of the projects funded under the SSAP 2.0 Grant program requested additional funds for the following Student Awareness Groups (duplicated counts):

a. Pregnant and Parent Students;

b. Foster Care;

c. Intellectual and Developmental Disability (IDD);

d. Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Students

Response:

a. Pregnant and Parent Students; 21

b. Foster Care; 9

c. Intellectual and Developmental Disability (IDD); 7

d. Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Students 1

See responses above for total grantees indicating target population and primary focus.

17. Is the prior vendor (incumbent evaluator) eligible to bid on this RFP opportunity?

Any vendor meeting Minimum Eligibility Criteria (Section 2) are eligible to bid on this RFP.

18. Clarifications on Scope of Work & Deliverables (Section 3) (Section 3.1.2) Can THECB provide more details on the types of student success programs funded under SSAP

2.0 to help refine the evaluation approach?

Response:

All details on the types of student success programs funded under SSAP 2.0, including its solicitation, can be found at this link: https://www.highered.texas.gov/institutional-grant-opportunities/student-success-acceleration-program-ssap-2-0-grants/

19. Clarifications on Scope of Work & Deliverables (Section 3) (Section 3.1.2) Can THECB provide the number of student success programs funded under SSAP 2.0?

Response:

Thirty-three (33) applications are funded grantees under SSAP 2.0.

20. Clarifications on Scope of Work & Deliverables (Section 3) (Section 3.1.4) What level of institutional engagement is expected from SSAP 2.0 grantees during the evaluation process?

Response:

Respondents should review information outlined in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 to determine the level of engagement needed to meet scope of work and deliverables and include this information in the Evaluation Plan. Respondents should consider that SSAP grantees include both community colleges and universities and will reflect various capacities for institutional engagement.

21. Clarifications on Scope of Work & Deliverables (Section 3) (Section 3.1.2, 3.1.5) Will THECB facilitate introductions to grantee institutions, or is the respondent responsible for outreach?

Response:

THECB grant management staff will help to facilitate introductions to grantees.

22. Clarifications on Scope of Work & Deliverables (Section 3) (Section 3.1.4) Will the respondent be provided access to program participants (e.g., for focus groups, interviews) during the evaluation process?

Response:

No, Respondents may base their Evaluation Plan and Continuous Improvement Support Plan on their expertise and experience with activities and expectations outlined in the Scope of Work and Deliverables outlined in Section 3. Responses to Questions 14, 15, and 16 may also be helpful.

23. Data Access & Confidentiality (Sections 3.3, 7.2) (Section 7.2) What specific data will be made available to the awarded respondent, and will it include student-level data?

https://www.highered.texas.gov/institutional-grant-opportunities/student-success-acceleration-program-ssap-2-0-grants/ https://www.highered.texas.gov/institutional-grant-opportunities/student-success-acceleration-program-ssap-2-0-grants/

Respondents should include in their proposal the data and time needed to meet Section 3, Scope of Work and Deliverables, based on their expertise and experience working with similar types of evaluations and understanding the possible limitations of institutional capacities. THECB will not share any student-level data in THECB’s possession with Awarded Respondent until a data sharing agreement has been executed by both THECB and Awarded Respondent.

24. Data Access & Confidentiality (Sections 3.3, 7.2) (Section 3.3, 7.2) Will the awarded respondent need to obtain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals for data collection, or will THECB facilitate this process?

Response:

THECB will not facilitate the IRB approvals needed for data collection. See Answers to questions 1-5 for more information regarding data sources.

25. Data Access & Confidentiality (Sections 3.3, 7.2) (Section 7.2) How will THECB support data-sharing agreements with grantee institutions to ensure timely access to necessary information?

Response:

See Response to Question 24.

26. Data Access & Confidentiality (Sections 3.3, 7.2) (Section 7.2) Are there any state or institutional data security requirements beyond FERPA that the respondent must comply with?

See RFP Section 7.2 for information regarding data security.

27. Budget & Payment Terms (Sections 4.1, 4.2) (Section 4.1) Is there a maximum budget for this contract, or should respondents propose a cost estimate based on projected work?

Response:

There is a defined budget; however, THECB is not able to share budget details.

Respondents should propose a cost estimate based on projected work.

28. Technical Assistance & Continuous Improvement Plan (Section 3.1.5) (Section 3.1.5.1) Does THECB expect Communities of Practice (CoP) to be virtual, in-person, or hybrid, and how frequently should they meet?

Response:

Respondents should include expectations regarding Communities of Practice, including delivery mode and frequency, as part of their proposal and based on their expertise and experience with evaluation work.

29. Reporting & Presentation Expectations (Section 3.2) (Section 3.2.6) Are there specific conferences or convenings where THECB expects findings to be presented, or does the respondent need to propose these?

Response:

Respondents should propose conferences and/or convenings based on their expertise and experience to best meet the scope of work/deliverables in Section 3.

30. Reporting & Presentation Expectations (Section 3.2) (Section 3.2.5) To what extent should the final report include individualized feedback for each grantee versus aggregate findings?

Response:

Respondents may determine how individualized feedback for each grantee and aggregate findings would strengthen final report findings based on their expertise and experience.

31. General: Is this project supported by a federal grant award? If so, can you provide detail on the grant type and funding agency?

Response: This is not federally funded.

32. Section 4.1: In Section 4.1 on page 5, the directions indicate that respondents should provide pricing in a separate PDF attachment. In Section 9.3 on page 13, however, the directions indicate that pricing should be part of “the first PDF,” along with the scope of work and description of experience and qualifications. Could you clarify?

Response:

Please include pricing in a separate PDF, in accordance with Section 4.1. However, because of conflicting instructions within the RFP, submission of pricing in accordance with either section 4.1 or section 9.3 is acceptable.

33. Section 3.1.5: Could you please confirm if there is an existing rubric for the evaluation team to review and refine, or the team needs to develop a rubric from scratch?

Response:

THECB has an existing rubric available; however, Respondents may propose another rubric to develop, identify and refine that meets Section 3.1.5.2.

34. Section 3.1.3 and Section 3.2.2: Section 3.2.2 on page 4 notes that “Final Approval of Evaluation and Continuous Support Plans, as per 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.5” should take place by May 30, 2025. Section 3.1.3 refers to the Evaluation Plan and Section 3.1.5 refers to the Continuous Support Plan, but it is unclear what specific deliverable in Section 3.1.4 should be submitted and approved by May 30. Could you clarify? Does Section 3.1.4 refer to details that should be included in the Evaluation Plan and/or Continuous Support Plans?

Response:

Respondents should include an Evaluation Plan (Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4) and a Continuous Improvement Support Plan (Section 3.1.5) in their proposal. The RFP evaluation process will review submitted proposal(s) and anticipates making an award based on the evaluation of those proposal(s). Awarded Respondent will meet with THECB staff and have opportunity to further refine and finalize Plans to resubmit by May 30 (or other negotiated date).

35. Section 2.2: Section 2.2 notes that bidders should include an organization chart as part of their Company Profile. Should we assume that the organization chart should only focus on the project team--i.e., the staff that are relevant to the work--as opposed to the entire larger company.

Response:

Respondents should include, at minimum, the project team and may include larger company information as relevant to strengthen their proposal.

36. Section 3.2 Reports and Deliverables lays out a project schedule but notes that certain dates may be negotiated with THECB. Can THECB provide any further information as to their flexibility around the current schedule? For example, the evaluation plan and interim report are expected within approximately 1 month of one another: is THECB willing to consider a later date for the report, and / or an earlier project start date and date for submission of the evaluation plan?

Response:

THECB staff are open to negotiating with Awarded Respondent the deadlines for both deliverables.

37. Section 3.1.1 requests the contractor prepare “A literature review of student success programs and their impact on student outcomes in Texas and nationally.” Can THECB provide further information around the scope and expectations of this deliverable? Will a detailed slide deck and presentation to THECB personnel of key findings from a review of relevant literature and available program information in the state and nationally suffice to meet the board’s expectations for this deliverable?

Response:

Yes.

38. Are we ineligible if we specifically have not conducted research and evaluation or provided technical assistance to Texas public IHEs? (We have in other states.)

Response:

Yes (see Section 2.2).

39. Can the date for the interim report be extended? (It seems very close to the date of the final approval of the evaluation plan.)

See response to Question 36.

40. Can you confirm that the awarded SSAP 2.0 applicants will be participating in the evaluation, but that the selected evaluator will be responsible for leading the implementation study/formative assessment and impact evaluation?

Response:

Confirmed.

41. Are in-person convenings mandatory for the selected evaluator?

Response:

No.

42. Will there be a preference for evaluators who have worked with the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board previously?

Response:

No.

43. Does the evaluator need to have a Texas business license?

Response:

THECB does not require the Awarded Respondent to have a Texas business license;

however, Respondent must be eligible to conduct business in the state of Texas.

44. Can all evaluation activities occur virtually?

Response:

THECB encourages Respondents to include a variety of modalities to optimize outcomes.

45. What is the expected budget or budget range for evaluation work? (If this cannot be shared, what was the total amount awarded to the SSAP 2.0 grantees?

Response:

There is a defined budget; however, THECB is not able to share budget details.

Respondents should propose a cost estimate based on projected work. Approximately 8M is the total amount for SSAP 2.0 grantees.

46. Are there any budget restrictions such as a cap on indirect costs?

Response:

Pricing must be based on deliverables. THECB will pay per deliverable or group of deliverables upon approval by THECB of the deliverable(s) provided.

47. Have the SSAP 2.0 grants begun implementation? If so, when did they begin?

Response:

Yes, October 1, 2024, or upon execution of the Notice of Grant Award, whichever is later, for each individual grantee.

48. Has there previously been an evaluator(s) involved in implementing the Student Success Acceleration program grants?

Response:

Yes.

49. If surveys and/or interviews are planned, are incentives for participants allowed? If so, are there any restrictions (e.g., amount and type)?

Response:

Incentives for survey and interview participants are allowable. Respondents should include this information, as applicable, in their Evaluation Plan.

50. Are there any formatting requirements for the proposal such as page limits, paragraph spacing, font, font size, page margins, etc.?

Response: No.

51. Will the evaluator need to seek approval from an IRB?

Response:

Yes. SSAP grantee institutions may require IRB approval.

52. Should evaluation materials (e.g., surveys) be made available in languages other than English?

Response:

It is not a requirement to make evaluation materials available in languages other than English. The Respondent may elect to do so.

53. Can THECB provide guidance on the budget allocation for this evaluation?

Response:

There is a defined budget; however, THECB is not able to share budget details.

Respondents should propose a cost estimate based on projected work.

54. For the pricing sheet, does THECB need a line-item budget or lump sum? Should a budget justification be included?

Response:

Pricing must be based on deliverables. Respondents may provide a breakdown of the costs within the deliverable pricing, but it is not required. If not provided, THECB may request additional information during the evaluation process.

55. Does THECB expect any of this work to be completed in-person or on-site?

Response:

Respondents are encouraged to consider inclusion of in-person and on-site work as appropriate.

56. Are researchers working at institutions receiving Student Success grants (e.g., UT Austin) eligible to participate in this evaluation work if they were not involved in the grant application and are not providing programming associated with the grant?

Response:

THECB will consider all proposals meeting the Minimum Eligibility Criteria in Section 1.

57. There are multiple eligible projects that aim to impact different outcomes. Will the THECB provide/offer outcomes of interest or priority areas to guide the work of the evaluation team?

Response:

Yes. THECB staff will review the Awarded Respondent’s proposal and provide feedback to guide the work of the evaluation team.

58. Do you anticipate the research team developing one universal rubric to rate programs?

Or do you envision different rubrics - in order to identify core components and expected outcomes specific to particular programs (i.e., mental health and wellness programs vs.

finance programs)?

Response:

THECB expects one universal rubric with core components impacting student success.

59. Will the protocol be used to score applications in upcoming SSAP competitions? Or is the protocol intended to be a tool that will be used to retrospectively assess previously funded grants?

It is unclear to what the term “protocol” refers.