EVT0010922_-_Questions_and_Answers_-_FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- EVT0010922
- Issued by
- Sedgwick County, Kansas
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document from the Kansas State Department of Education regarding the Universal Reading Screener procurement (Event Number EVT0010922) for Kansas public school districts and nonpublic schools. The project seeks a single statewide universal reading screener for pre-kindergarten through 8th grade that identifies students at risk for reading difficulty. The screener must be a coherent tool covering all specified grade levels and meet documented requirements across statistical, technical, and assessment criteria. Written questions were due September 16, 2026, with proposals due October 7, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. CDT. The contract term runs from January 1, 2027, through June 30, 2030, with an option to renew for one additional twenty-four-month period. The initial budget period (January 1, 2027, through June 30, 2028) covers professional development only, with screener administration commencing July 1, 2027. Subsequent budget periods follow the Kansas fiscal year cycle (July 1 through June 30).
Vendors must propose per-student rates for screener administration covering all costs associated with administration, scoring, and reporting three times per year, with separate rates for professional development and training in hourly, daily, in-person, and virtual formats. Pricing must be detailed for all five budget periods, with optional different pricing for different grade levels. For the optional renewal period (years 4-5), vendors may propose incremental price increases not exceeding 5 percent of years 1-3 pricing. Estimated student counts include pre-K four-year-olds at 12,000 and kindergarten through grade 3 at 33,000 per grade level. No funding has been appropriated; costs are paid directly by individual school districts and nonpublic schools. Payment terms are Net 30 days via electronic funds transfer or Kansas Procurement Card. The procurement is subject to Kansas Bidder Preference programs, including Disabled Veteran Owned Business and Certified Business categories. Award will be made by the Procurement Negotiation Committee based on vendor qualifications, ability to meet scope requirements, and cost, with selected vendors potentially required to present proposals before the committee.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Event Number: | EVT0010922 |
| Event Name: | Universal Reading Screener – Kansas Public School Districts |
| Agency: | Kansas State Department of Education |
| Procurement Officer: | Lee Askew |
| Question # | RFP Page | Section | Question | Response |
| 1 | Will the DOE accept proposals that address a subset of grades PreK-8? | No, legislation is for a 'single statewide universal screener' PK-8. If one vendor has products for grade levels that build into a coherent screening tool, those would be acceptable. | ||
| 2 | 11 | 1.9 | Should all signatures be wet signatures or just the signature referenced in section 1.9 of the RFP on page 11? | They can be autopin or wet. |
| 3 | 15 | 2.4 | Will financial statements be required with the proposal as outlined in section 2.4 on page 15? | If it was not stated in Section 4 : Specifications; Under Agency Requirements then the answer would be "No". |
| 4 | Event Details Page | On the STATE OF KANSAS Event Details page, there are questions - should vendors include answers in their proposal? | Yes, the Bid Event Details pages to include the answers to the (8) questions should be part of the signed forms you submit with your technical proposal. | |
| 5 | Cost Sheet | Do we only need to show the base rate, proposed rate, and discount offered for the universal screener once? Will that pricing apply to all grade levels covered in the RFP (Pre-K-8), or must we detail the pricing for all five budget periods for every grade level? So, would we have to add 10 different line items under "direct cost categories" for each grade? | Bidders should show the proposed pricing for the universal screener for all five years included in the cost sheet, even if the proposed pricing stays the same. Bidders may propose different pricing for different grade levels, and may add lines to the cost sheet, if necessary. | |
| 6 | Cost Sheet | Also, if we are not including 10 different options for Professional development, should we delete those extra rows or just leave them blank | Bidders may leave any unused lines on the cost sheet blank. | |
| 7 | 15 | (f) financial statement may be required. | Are financial statements required to be submitted with proposals? | See Question #3 for answer |
| 8 | 26 | 4.6 Plan of Evaluation: | "Evaluation will be based on the ability of a vendor to meet the scope of work, the vendor’s qualifications, and the cost of the proposal. Evaluation of the ability to meet the scope of work will use a rubric based on the specified screener criteria listed for Documentation Requirements, Statistical Considerations, Technical Requirements, and Scope of the Assessment. Additional consideration will be provided for the ability to provide items under the Optional/Preferred Criteria." |
| Will the KSDE share the rubric evaluators will be using to evaluate proposal responses? | No, but it will be aligned to the criteria as noted on the RFP. | ||||
| 9 | 25 | 4.3.5. Optional Preferred Criteria | "Model “sandbox” for educator preparation programs, Service Centers, KSDE coaches to use in training courses." |
| Will KSDE clarify who will have access to the model sandboxes? Will students in teacher-training programs (non-KSDE or school district staff) have access? | Higher education instructors preparing teachers and students enrolled in courses for KSDE approved programs. | |||||
| 10 | 23 | 3.48 | We presume the intellectual property specified to be owned by the State in RFP Section 3.48 includes assessment materials custom-developed or produced by the successful offeror at the expense of the State, but does not include: (1) the successful offeror’s pre-existing items or derivatives thereto; (2) any items developed or produced by the successful offeror at its expense and licensed to the State; or (3) the successful offeror’s underlying scoring and reporting systems and software, or modifications to those systems and software. Is this correct? If this is not correct, please explain. | The Office of Procurement and Contracts does not negotiate terms and conditions with any bidders while the solicitation is still active. The terms and conditions can be negotiated with the awarded vendor; If you have exceptions to the terms and conditions, please attached them at the end of your technical proposal labeled "Exceptions". | ||
| 11 | 1 | Cover Page | The Cover Page says the term is January 1, 2027 - June 30, 2028 with options to renew for two additional 24 month periods whereas Section 4.9 says base term is January 1, 2027 - June 30, 2030 with the option to renew for one additional 24 month period. Which is correct? | The contract term is January 1, 2027 (or date of fully execution), through June 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one (1) additional twenty-four-month period. | ||
| 12 | N/A | N/A | Should the successful Contractor plan to contract directly with districts who are interested in purchasing the screener? Should the Contractor also expect to be asked to agree to district-specific data privacy terms or cybersecurity exhibits? | Currently, the successful contractor should plan to contract directly with districts. | ||
| 13 | 2 | Events Details Doc | Can you provide updated links to the Bidder Preference Program and the Disabled Veteran Owned Business bidder preference program that are linked in the document. Both links provided indicate Page is no longer Available. | Those pages are going through an update and are not available at this time. | ||
| 14 | The cover page states a contract period of January 1, 2027 through June 30, 2028, with the option to renew for two additional twenty-four-month periods. Section 4.9 states a term of January 1, 2027 through June 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one additional twenty-four-month period. The accompanying Excel cost sheet contains five budget periods. Which term governs for purposes of pricing the proposal? | The contract term is January 1, 2027 (or date of fully execution), through June 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one (1) additional twenty-four-month period. Vendors will put an incremental price increase for years 4 and 5 (24-month renewal period) not to exceeding 5% of your pricing for years 1-3. | ||||
| 15 | Section 4.3.1 lists WCAG 2.2 AA under Documentation Requirements. Section 4.3.4 states that the delivery platform and score reports must meet WCAG 2.2 AA “or includes an Accessibility Conformance Report (formerly known as VPAT, with a roadmap and timeline for achieving WCAG 2.2 compliance).” Will KSDE confirm that a current Accessibility Conformance Report, accompanied by a documented remediation roadmap and timeline, satisfies both sections? | Yes, a current Accessibility Conformance Report, accompanied by a documented remediation roadmap and timeline, will satisfy both sections. | ||||
| 16 | Section 4.3.3 requires support for “industry-standard interoperability specifications” and names eight SIS environments. Will KSDE confirm whether standards-based rostering and data exchange (for example, OneRoster, or brokered rostering through Clever or ClassLink) satisfies this requirement, or whether direct platform-specific integrations are expected for each named system? Separately, does KSDE require a specific Ed-Fi Data Standard version or ODS/API Technology Suite version for the direct data transfer described in Section 4.3.3, and will KSDE provide the transfer schema, frequency, and validation rules prior to award? | –A standards-based rostering and data exchange will satisfy the requirement. |
–KSDE will be 6X for the Ed-Fi Data Standard and Version 7 of the API during school year 2027-2028.
–KSDE will provide the transfer schema, frequency, and validation rules prior to award.
| 17 | Section 4.3.3 requires reports for educators, students, and caregivers in English and Spanish. Does this requirement apply to the full report suite, or only to family- and student-facing reports? | Only family and student facing reports |
| 18 | Section 4.3.2 requires clearly stated benchmarks identifying high risk, low/moderate risk, and at or above grade-level performance. Does KSDE require specific percentile thresholds or specific category labels for state reporting under the Every Child Can Read Act, or will the vendor’s published and validated cut scores be accepted as submitted? | KSDE requires the following benchmarks: high risk, some risk, and at benchmark or above. KSDE does not require specific thresholds or expected percentile levels; the vendor should determine the appropriate and validated cut scores. |
| 19 | Section 4.3.4 references grades PreK–8, while Section 4.5 references grades K–8. Could KSDE clarify whether PreK screening is required statewide or is optional for districts that serve PreK students? | PreK-8 is required. | ||
| 20 | Would KSDE please provide estimated student counts by grade to support proposal pricing and implementation planning? | PK- 4 year olds= 12,000; K-3 = 33,000 per grade level; 4-9= 35,000 per grade level; grades 10-11=<5,000 | ||
| 21 | 1 | Cover page | We would like to confirm that even though the procurement is posted in the eSupplier system, bids are not submitted through the procurement system and are only submitted via email to procurement@ks.gov with the Bid Event Number in the subject line. Is that understanding correct? | Vendors may submit their bids either via our E-Bids process in the eSupplier portal or via the procurement@ks.gov email address. But I urge you to submit to both just to ensure the Office of Procurement and Contracts receives your bid. |
| 22 | 13 | 1.17 | Our technical manual / technical report contains confidential and proprietary information relating to the development and maintenance of our assessment, and is required to be provided in its entirety. If we mark each page as "Proprietary" and include "Proprietary" in the file name for that and any similar documentation, will that suffice for the "separateness" requirement to prevent disclosure? | Yes, that will be sufficient. Please make sure that the proprietary pages are able to be read and not blacked out; only put a watermark labeled "Proprietary". |
| 23 | 13 | 1.17 | May we provide a single explanatory document providing a list and rationales for any/all materials or content marked as "Proprietary" in our proposal response package? | Please see above answer. |
| 24 | 13 | 1.17 | If there are portions of the narrative component of our response that contain confidential or proprietary information within a larger narrative response, may we mark those specific portions on a page with "Proprietary" tags before and after the content, and then separately provide a copy of our narrative component with those tagged sections redacted? Or would the State prefer a single summary statement pointing to a separate attachment containing all of the confidential or proprietary content? | Yes, please mark each section with a "proprietary" tag. You will need to include each section in a separate "Proprietary" document referencing each page of the Technical proposal that is "Proprietary". If it is an entire page, just simply use a "Proprietary" watermark on the original, as it still must be readable. |
| 25 | 13 | 1.18 | What format would the state prefer any requested exceptions be submitted in that "Exceptions" section of the Technical Proposal: the entire document containing redlined track changes, a summary table including only the clause reference and the redlined requested exception or addition, or another format? | It needs to be a separate document labeled "Exceptions" and it needs to go at the end of your technical proposal. Exceptions will only be negotiated with the awarded vendor. |
| 26 | 14 | 2.2 | Would the state accept a Technical Proposal in the form of a narrative document ordered sequentially as follows: 1) the signature and attestation/assurance forms and certificates in order as shown in the RFP, followed by 2) content of Subsections 2.3-2.10 as their own sections, followed by 3) a section for requested exceptions to terms and conditions (if any), followed by 4) a section dedicated to the content of Subsection 4.3 "Scope of Work & Deliverables" with each criterion from the RFP followed by the vendor's response to that criterion? | Yes, that would be acceptable. |
| 27 | 26 | 4.9 | Subsection 4.9 "Term of Contract" has different term length and renewal options than the "Period of Contract" stated on the first page of the RFP Bid Document. Is the initial contract through June 30, 2028 or June 30, 2030? | The contract term is January 1, 2027 (or date of fully execution), through June 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one (1) additional twenty-four-month period. |
| 28 | 11; 26 | 1.8; 4.7 | On the cost proposal worksheet, where do we include pricing for KSDE staff professional learning training? The question is in reference to Section 1.8 on page 11 and Section 4.7 on page 26 of the RFP: |
“Prices are to be entered in spaces provided on the cost proposal form if provided herein.” (Section 1.8, p. 11)
| “The KSDE Literacy Team and others, as designated and/or invited by the agency, will engage in professional learning provided by the vendor to help establish a sustainable train the trainer model for implementation of the single statewide screening tool. KSDE staff will use official agency communication channels to promote professional learning provided by the vendor to strengthen implementation and assist schools in fully utilizing the screener resources and utilizing screener data.” (Section 4.7, p. 26) | Professional development for KSDE staff may be included as a separate professional development line on the cost sheet. Bidders may propose multiple professional development options for KSDE staff. If a bidder needs additional lines on the cost sheet, they may add additional lines. | |||||
| 29 | N/A | NA | Given HB 2485 preserves district authority to use other approved screeners, does KSDE intend for the awarded contract to become the exclusive statewide screener, or will it operate alongside continued district-level flexibility, at least through the 2027-28 transition year referenced in the statute? | Yes, it will be the exclusive statewide screener to be implemented fall of 2027 for reporting to KSDE. | ||
| 30 | N/A | NA | Does the state have a defined weighting between cost and quality/technical criteria for the "best value" evaluation, and can that weighting be shared prior to submission? | There is no defined weighting. | ||
| 31 | N/A | NA | What is KSDE's expected timeline for award relative to the Comprehensive Literacy Implementation Plan process, and will districts be required to adopt the awarded screener for the 2027-28 school year, or is a longer transition period anticipated? | Plan is to determine the screener by December 2026 to allow systems to prepare in spring of 2027 and implement Fall 2027. | ||
| 32 | N/A | NA | May bidders include embedded hyperlinks to supplemental materials (e.g., product demo videos, online help documentation, sample reports, technical manuals) as a supplement to the written technical proposal response, or must all evaluated content be fully contained within the submitted Word/Excel/PDF files? | Yes | ||
| 33 | N/A | Cost Sheet | May vendors add lines if there are differences in pricing for grade bands? | Yes, bidders may add additional lines to the cost sheet. | ||
| 34 | N/A | Cost Sheet | Please provide a breakdown of student population for the following grade bands: pre-K, K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. | PK- 4 year olds= 12,000; K-3 = 33,000 per grade level; 4-9= 35,000 per grade level; grades 10-11=<5,000 | ||
| 35 | N/A | Cost Sheet | On the cost sheet, the Invoicing note describes professional learning for state level employees. Please clarify where on the cost sheet vendors should capture the cost of this initial professional learning for the state (execution of the contract through June 30, 2027). | Professional development for KSDE staff may be included as a separate professional development line on the cost sheet. Bidders may propose multiple professional development options for KSDE staff. If a bidder needs additional lines on the cost sheet, they may add additional lines. | ||
| 36 | 1; 26; Cost Sheet | Cover sheet; 4.9 - Term of Contract; Cost Sheet | Please confirm the Contract Term. The RFP has potentially conflicting dates: 1) Cover page: January 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028, with option to renew for two additional 24-month periods; (2) Section 4.9: January 1, 2027 (or date of final execution, if later) – June 30, 2030, with option to renew for one additional 24-month period; and (3), the Cost Sheet has five years with services beginning January 2027 and ending June 2032. | The contract term is January 1, 2027 (or date of fully execution), through June 30, 2030, with the option to renew for one (1) additional twenty-four-month period. | ||
| 37 | 3, 14 | Vendor Response Checklist, 2.2. Proposal Format | Please clarify if the intent of, "Bidders are instructed to prepare their Technical Proposal following the same sequence as this RFP. Should vendors 1) follow the checklist outline or 2) provide a response to every page of the RFP, in order. | No, the checklist is simply a guideline for the vendors to follow to ensure that they include all required documents. The easiest format to review for the technical proposal would be "Organization Information/Introduction; Qualifications; Experience to include resumes if appicable; Timeline and Methodology (If applicable); References; Transmittal Letter; Any signed Amendments from Bid Event; Signature Sheet; Signed Forms (Immigration, Sexual Harrassment, Boycott of Israel, and Certification of Procurement; Proprietary Document; Exceptions Document. | ||
| 38 | 12 | 1.14 - Evaluation of Proposals | Does "Compliance with terms and conditions of the RFP" specifically refer to the RFP section "3: Terms and Conditions" beginning on RFP page 17? | Yes, Section 3 beginning on Page 17-23. This statement also includes Section 6 - Contractual Provisions Attachment (DA-146a Rev. 07/19) | ||
| 39 | 24 | 4 - Specifications | Is the outcome of this bid one sole vendor who all districts will be required to use starting in fall of 2027, or is the intended outcome to create a list of vendors and let districts select which they want to use? | The outcome is to determine one sole vendor who all districts will be required to use starting in fall of 2027. | ||
| 40 | 24 | 4.3.2 – Statistical Considerations: | The RFP states that the universal reading screener must provide “clearly stated benchmarks to identify high risk, low/moderate risk, and identifying students who are at or above grade level benchmark.” Please clarify whether KSDE requires the screener to report three distinct classification/status levels (high risk, low/moderate risk, and at/above benchmark). If three classifications are required, must they be reported for the student’s overall screener result, for each individual subskill/task, or both? Additionally, would a validated two-category classification system that identifies students who require monitoring versus those who do not require monitoring satisfy this requirement? | The composite score and subskill scores should both be labeled by the performance risk category. | ||
| 41 | 24 | 4 - Specifications | Is the outcome of this bid one sole vendor who all districts will be required to use starting in fall of 2027, or is the intended outcome to create a list of vendors and let districts select which they want to use? | The outcome is to select one vendor who all districts will be reuqired to use startin in fall of 2027. | ||
| 42 | 24 | 4 - Specifications | If mutliple vendors are awarded are districts permitted to select different vendors by grade level | To provide a single statewide universal screener, there will not be multiple vendors. | ||
| 43 | 25 | 4.3.3 - Technical Requirements | Please confirm whether KSDE expects the vendor to transmit reporting data directly to KSDE after each administration window, or whether individual districts will be responsible for reporting the data to KSDE directly. | The vendor must transmit all data to school districts. The vendor may be able to also transmit the data directly to KSDE, as long as the data can be provided in the proper format. | ||
| 44 | 25 | 4.3.3 - Technical Requirements | Section 4.3.3 requires the vendor to provide a data dashboard for data review. Please confirm whether this dashboard needs to be available to individual schools and districts, or whether KSDE is expecting a separate statewide dashboard for its own use. | The dashboard would need to be available for school and district use. KSDE does not expect a separate statewide dashboard. | ||
| 45 | 25 | 4.3.3 - Technical Requirements | Can KSDE provide the total number of schools, districts, support networks (e.g., regional service centers, cooperatives), and any other entities in scope for this training? A breakdown by type (school/district/service center) would help us size the model appropriately. | 285 school districts, 1500 schools + PreK. 5-7 service centers, 24 SPED cooperatives | ||
| 46 | 25 | 4.3.4 - Scope of the Assessment; 4.3.5 - Optional/Preferred Criteria | Are the PreK "suggested subskills" in Section 4.3.4 scored in the best value evaluation rubric, or purely informational? Same question for the Section 4.3.5 optional/preferred criteria (Oral Language Component PK-2, RAN measure). | They will be scored, not only for informational purposes. | ||
| 47 | 25 | 4.3.4 - Scope of the Assessment | The RFP states that suggested Pre-K subskills include letter names/letter sounds, concepts of print, initial (onset) sounds, and listening comprehension. Please clarify whether these are required individual measures or illustrative examples of appropriate Pre-K early literacy subskills. If they are required, please provide the specific assessment expectations or definitions for each construct, particularly concepts of print and listening comprehension, that KSDE will use to evaluate whether a proposed screener satisfies this criterion. | They were suggested subskills, not required. | ||
| 48 | 25, 26 | 4.3.5 - Optional/Preferred Criteria; 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | In 4.3.5, there is a description of KSDE coaches, and in 4.7, the RFP describes developing a train-the-trainer program. Please clarify if the intent is for the vendor to train state level staff who will deliver the professional learning to the schools or if the vendor will be the sole provider of the professional learning to schools that has been developed in collaboration with the state. Can KSDE clarify the division of responsibility between vendor-delivered training and KSDE-delivered training once the train-the-trainer model is established? Specifically, after the initial cohort is certified, is the vendor expected to continue delivering training directly to schools, or does responsibility shift primarily to KSDE-trained trainers with the vendor providing back-end support only? | The vendor will provide training specific to screener administration and how reports are generated. KSDE would receive training to be able to use screener examples and make connections in additional professional learning provided. The vendor can provide train the trainer model for KSDE and service centers to align with the training that the vendor provides systems. The vendor would provide continued help desk and offer opportunities for training for sustaining the use of the screener. | ||
| 49 | 26 | 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | Please provide the number of state level staff who will require professional learning. Approximately how many individuals does KSDE anticipate certifying as "trainers" in the initial cohort (e.g., the KSDE Literacy Team and other designated/invited staff), and is there a target number of trainers per region, district, or service center for sustainability going forward? | Approximately 40-50 | ||
| 50 | 26 | 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | Once trainers are certified, is there an expected or estimated total number of end-user educators (teachers, interventionists, etc.) who will ultimately be trained on screener administration and use? Does KSDE have an estimate of total FTEs/staff across the state who will need this training over the life of the contract? | There are approximately 40,000 educators in Kansas who will need to know and understand how to use the selected tool in approximately 303 school systems. The vendor should propose a training program that will successfully reach these individuals. | ||
| 51 | 26 | 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | Does KSDE have a preference or requirement for delivery format (in-person, virtual, hybrid) and frequency (e.g., annual refreshers, ongoing office hours, on-demand modules) for both the initial train-the-trainer sessions and ongoing sustainability support? | Various formats and flexibility will be needed to meet the needs of all schools across the state. There is no specific requirement at this time for the delivery format. | ||
| 52 | 26 | 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | Is the vendor expected to provide certification documentation, train-the-trainer materials/toolkits that KSDE-designated trainers can reuse independently. | Materials and toolkits would be helpful. There will not need to be certification documentation provided by the vendor. | ||
| 53 | 26 | 4.7 - State Resources to be Provided | Please provide the number of state level staff who will require professional learning. Approximately how many individuals does KSDE anticipate certifying as "trainers" in the initial cohort (e.g., the KSDE Literacy Team and other designated/invited staff), and is there a target number of trainers per region, district, or service center for sustainability going forward? | Approximately 40-50 | ||
| 54 | Across PreK-Grade 8, administration methods may be different for screening; Is there any consideration for different administration options based on appropriateness for age/grade? Ex: paper-pencil, digital, both? | Various options can be provided for any/all grade levels. | ||||
| 55 | Across PreK-Grade 8, alternative assessment options may look different for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, or nonverbal while some fluency-based screening tasks may not be possible for these populations; Is it acceptable to have accommodations that are not standardized for these students when they have response capabilities? | Yes, and if possible provide evidence that the accomodations have been validated. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .