MLTI Evaluator RFP Vendor Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP - 05A - 202601005
- Issued by
- Maine
About this file
This Vendor Questions and Answers document addresses procurement details for the Maine Department of Education's Maine Learning Technology Initiative (MLTI) Program Evaluation Services RFP #202601005. The Department seeks proposals for comprehensive evaluation services to assess MLTI's implementation, operational aspects, and achievement of goals related to equitable technology access, professional learning, and infrastructure support. The evaluation must employ mixed-methods approaches combining quantitative and qualitative data collection, including surveys, interviews, focus groups, and site visits across School Administrative Units. Statewide data collection must occur annually throughout the contract period, with samples that are sufficiently diverse and representative of participating schools and stakeholders. In addition to annual reports, interim deliverables, dashboards, briefings, and other reporting products may be required as agreed upon by the Department and the awarded bidder. The initial contract period runs from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2029, with potential renewal through June 30, 2032. The mandatory Bidders' Conference occurred on June 29, 2026, with written questions due July 13, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. local time, and proposals due July 31, 2026.
The Department will facilitate transition from the incumbent vendor, American Institutes for Research, providing access to prior evaluation instruments, datasets, reports, and other materials. Bidders must be education policy research institutes as defined by Maine statute—organizations conducting evidence-based research and analysis on education systems—and may include for-profit organizations meeting this definition. No geographic preference is provided to Maine-based bidders. Proposals will be scored on a 100-point scale: Organization Qualifications and Experience (25 points), Proposed Services (50 points), and Cost Proposal (25 points), with cost scoring using a mathematical formula where the lowest cost receives 25 points. Travel costs are capped at 5 percent of total proposal cost and subject to State of Maine travel policies. Bidders must submit three years of tax returns, balance sheets, and income statements to demonstrate financial viability, along with a certificate of insurance on an ACORD form, litigation history for the past five years, and an organizational chart. No page limits apply to proposal sections unless otherwise specified, though bidders should be detailed yet succinct. Student engagement requires parental consent, and the Department anticipates one award with no best and final offers solicited.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| MLTI Evaluator RFP Vendor Questions Part 2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFP# 202601005 - Maine Learning Technology Initiative Program_Final.docx | DOCX document |
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
Q & A Question Answer Date Answer
| Q1. (Part II - Scope of Services, Evaluation Plan) | ||
| Does the Department have an existing evaluation framework, logic model, or prior evaluation reports that bidders are expected to build upon? If so, can you please share those documents? | 6/30/26 | Yes. Existing evaluation reports and the MLTI logic model are available on the Department's website. |
| Q2. (Part II - Scope of Services, Evaluation Plan) | ||
| What specific existing Maine DOE datasets will be made available to the awarded bidder (e.g., student performance data, device distribution data, professional learning participation data)? | 6/30/26 | The awarded bidder will have access to relevant MLTI program data, including device distribution data and professional learning participation data. |
| Q3. (Part II - Scope of Services, Evaluation Plan) | ||
| Are there minimum sample size expectations or required coverage across School Administrative Units (SAUs) for interviews, focus groups, or site visits? | 6/30/26 | Yes. Samples should be sufficiently diverse and representative of participating schools and stakeholders. Specific expectations will be determined collaboratively between the Department and the awarded bidder. |
| Q4. (Part II - Scope of Services, Evaluation Services) | ||
| Is the awarded bidder expected to conduct statewide data collection every year, or will data collection intensity vary across contract years? | 6/30/26 | The awarded bidder will be expected to conduct statewide data collection annually throughout the contract period. |
| Q5. (Part II - Scope of Services, General Requirements) | ||
| Are there any restrictions or required protocols for engaging directly with students (e.g., parental consent, IRB approval)? | 6/30/26 | Any engagement with students requires parental consent. |
| Q6. (Part II - Scope of Services, Reporting) | ||
| Beyond the annual report, are there expectations for interim deliverables, dashboards, or briefings (e.g., quarterly updates)? | 6/30/26 | Yes. In addition to the annual report, interim deliverables, briefings, dashboards, or other reporting products may be required as agreed upon by the Department and the awarded bidder. |
| Q7. (Part II - Scope of Services, Communication and Narrative Support) | ||
| Can the Department provide examples of "dynamic materials" or prior public-facing evaluation products to clarify expectations? | 6/30/26 | Yes. Examples may include data dashboards, infographics, executive summaries, presentations, and other public-facing communication materials designed to convey evaluation findings. |
| Q8. (Part IV - Proposal Submission Requirements) | ||
| Is there a page limit for any proposal section? | 6/30/26 | Bidders are requested to be detailed yet succinct in all responses. However, no there are no page limits for proposal sections unless otherwise specified in the RFP. |
| Q9. (General / Scope of Services) | ||
| Will the Department facilitate a transition from the incumbent vendor, including access to prior evaluation instruments, datasets, and reports? | 6/30/26 | Yes. The Department will facilitate a transition from the incumbent vendor and will provide access to relevant evaluation instruments, datasets, reports, and other materials as appropriate. |
| Q10. (Part IV - Proposal Submission Requirements; Certificate of Insurance) | ||
| Are bidders required to meet specific minimum insurance coverage thresholds beyond submission of the ACORD certificate of insurance? If so, can the Department provide those | 6/30/26 | There is no minimum threshold of coverage to bid. Bidders must provide the COIs as described in the RFP Part IV Section II. The awarded bidder will be required to maintain insurance coverage as described in the state's service contract Rider B Terms and Conditions. See Part VI of the RFP for the website link. |
| Q11. (Part III - Vendor Self Service System; Eligibility / Contracting Requirements) | ||
| Is registration with the Maine Secretary of State required at the time of proposal submission? Is registration with the Maine Secretary of State required prior to c | 6/30/26 | Please see Part III, A. Vendor Self Service #5 (pg. 11). Registration with VSS is required for the ability to submit questions or bids. Registration with the Maine Secretary of State is not applicable. |
| Q12. (Part II 5 Financial Viability) | ||
| The solicitation requires that bidders submit three tax years' Balance Sheets and Income (Profit/Loss) Statements. Would a signed letter from our accounting firm on their letterhead stating that we are on strong | 6/30/26 | No, a signed letter would not satisfy the RFP requirement to demonstrate financial viability. |
| Q. 13. (Part III E 3 Proposal Submission ) |
File 4 [Bidder's Name] - Cost Proposal
| The instructions state that an Excel format preferred, and the submission must include Appendix G (Cost Proposal Form). What level of detailed pricing is required in | 6/30/26 | Bidders should provide as much detail as reasonably possible in their cost proposals. The Department recognizes that final pricing and scope details may be refined during contract negotiations. | |
| Q15 (Appendix C) "Education Policy Research Institute" Could the Department clarify the criteria used to determine whether a bidder meets this definition? Are for-profit organizations eligible, or is this limited to nonprofit or academic institutions | 6/30/26 | For-profit organizations that meet the definition in the RFP of "education policy research institute" are eligible to apply. |
| How are professional learning opportunities planned, developed, and implemented? Are they mandatory or provided upon request? | 6/30/26 | MLTI professional learning is developed through a combination of statewide strategic planning and educator feedback. The Learning Through Technology team, including content specialists and contracted Distinguished Educators from Maine schools, identifies professional learning needs based on current priorities and field input. Professional learning is delivered through statewide online courses, virtual sessions, technical assistance resources, and customized support provided in response to requests from districts, schools, and individual educators. Participation in at least one MLTI-offered professional learning opportunity is included as a commitment within the MLTI Opt-In Agreement, although participation tracking is currently limited. Professional learning topics and delivery are designed to be responsive to both statewide priorities and local needs. |
| Has MLTI conducted previous program evaluations, and will those results be available to bidders? | 6/30/26 | MLTI has worked with an external evaluator for several years and has prior evaluation reports available. These reports are posted on the MLTI website and made available to all prospective bidders as part of the procurement process. https://www.maine.gov/doe/index.php/learning/technology/MLTI |
| Does the evaluation scope extend through 2032, or is this a one-year evaluation? | 6/30/26 | The evaluation is conducted in one-year periods that align with the annual MLTI Opt-In cycle. However, the resulting contract is intended to extend through 2032, subject to renewal provisions. The awarded bidder would be eligible to continue providing evaluation services throughout the contract term without a new competitive procurement until 2032. |
| Is evaluation of student achievement or academic outcomes within the scope of this RFP? | 6/30/26 | The current evaluation scope is focused on the program components identified in the RFP, including device access, professional learning, and related program implementation measures. While understanding the impact of MLTI on student achievement and outcomes is a long-term goal and aligns with statutory intent, limitations in available data and local data collection practices make that level of analysis challenging at this time. Evaluation of student academic outcomes is limitedly included within the current scope of work. |
| What criteria determine eligible students and staff for device allocations, and what grade levels are included in the program? | 6/30/26 | Participating School Administrative Units (SAUs) select one grade level each year for MLTI device allocations. Eligible students are those enrolled in the grade level selected by their SAU. Eligible grade levels are grades 1–12; pre-kindergarten and kindergarten are not included in the device allocation program. Eligible staff allocations are associated with personnel who directly support students in the selected grade level, in accordance with MLTI allocation guidelines. While device allocations are limited to the selected grade level, professional learning opportunities are available to educators throughout the participating SAU and are not restricted to the grade level receiving devices. |
| What are MLTI's current evaluation priorities, and is the Department seeking a different evaluation approach through this procurement? | 6/30/26 | This is the second competitive procurement for MLTI evaluation services. Since the initial evaluation contract was awarded, the program has evolved from a primary focus on device access to a broader model centered on professional learning, supported by equitable access to technology. As a result, the Department's evaluation priorities have shifted toward understanding the effectiveness and impact of professional learning and student leadership opportunities, while continuing to assess device access and connectivity as foundational elements of the program. The Department is particularly interested in better understanding how these program components contribute to educator practice and, where feasible, student outcomes. |
| How does MLTI define student success, and what outcomes are the program seeking to support? | 6/30/26 | MLTI views student success as more than academic achievement or technology proficiency. The program aims to help students develop a foundational understanding of technology, including how technologies such as artificial intelligence, computer science, and emerging technologies influence learning, work, and society. MLTI seeks to support students in becoming informed, critical, and responsible users and creators of technology by fostering digital literacy, technology fluency, critical thinking, digital citizenship, and the ability to adapt to future technological change. The program emphasizes understanding both the opportunities and challenges associated with technology and preparing students to navigate an increasingly technology-driven world. |
| What is the budget for the initial period of performance? | 6/30/26 | The initial period of performance is two years. As this is a competitive process, bidders are expected to submit a cost proposal as instructed in the RFP. |
| How does MLTI define and approach equitable access? | 6/30/26 | MLTI's approach to equitable access has evolved over time. While the program initially focused on ensuring equitable access to devices and internet connectivity, current equity considerations also include access to educational software, professional learning opportunities, technology-rich learning experiences, and community support for technology-enabled education. The program seeks to address disparities among districts by expanding access to resources and opportunities, supporting educator professional learning statewide, engaging underrepresented schools and educators, and promoting informed community and school board engagement. MLTI recognizes that equity encompasses not only access to technology, but also access to the knowledge, tools, and support necessary to use technology effectively for teaching and learning. |
| Is the evaluation expected to examine differences in technology access, implementation, and outcomes across districts and provide recommendations to address equity gaps? | 6/30/26 | Yes. The Department is interested in understanding how differences in resources, opportunities, and technology implementation may affect outcomes across districts. Evaluation findings may be used to identify disparities, inform program improvements, and support recommendations regarding policies, practices, or resources that could improve equitable access to technology-enabled learning opportunities throughout the state. |
| Is the evaluation expected to assess emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and provide recommendations regarding their appropriate use in education? | 6/30/26 | The Department is interested in evidence-based evaluation findings and recommendations related to emerging technologies and their impact on teaching and learning. This may include examining both opportunities and potential risks associated with technologies such as artificial intelligence, as well as identifying implications for professional learning, program design, and future policy considerations. The Department values objective, research-informed analysis that can help schools make informed decisions and support student well-being, safety, and success in a rapidly changing technology landscape. |
| Are tribal schools included in the program and the evaluation? | 6/30/26 | Yes. |
| The RFP states that the start date is 7/1/2027. Is that correct? | 6/30/26 | Yes. |
| What data collection activities are currently used as part of the MLTI evaluation? | 6/30/26 | Current evaluation activities include surveys of school leaders, educators, and students; focus groups and interviews; analysis of feedback collected through professional learning and program events; and review of relevant research and literature. The evaluation leverages both data routinely collected by the MLTI program to inform continuous improvement and additional evaluation-specific data collection activities. Family surveys have generally not been included due to logistical and consent considerations. |
| The RFP emphasizes minimizing burden and disruption to educators and students. Are there expectations regarding in-person, virtual, or hybrid data collection activities? | 6/30/26 | The Department expects evaluation activities to continue prioritizing approaches that minimize burden and disruption to participating schools, educators, and students. While the specific mix of in-person, virtual, and hybrid data collection methods may be determined in collaboration with the selected vendor, the Department anticipates continuing a flexible approach that balances data quality with efficiency and participant accessibility. |
| Are you able to share who your current evaluator is? | 6/30/26 | Yes. The American Institutes for Research. |
| Where will the reports from your current/previous evaluator be posted for us to review? | 6/30/26 | Here is the link to the webpage with previous evaluation reports: https://www.maine.gov/doe/learning/technology/MLTI |
| Is preference given to bidders that are based in Maine? | 6/30/26 | No. The Department does not provide a preference for bidders based in Maine. Proposals will be evaluated based on their ability to effectively meet the requirements of the RFP and support the evaluation of the MLTI program. While familiarity with Maine's educational landscape may be beneficial, bidders are not required to be located in Maine. |
| Are there any additional criteria defining an eligible organization beyond what is stated in the RFP? | 6/30/26 | Eligible organizations are those identified in the RFP as qualified to provide education policy research and evaluation services. No additional eligibility criteria beyond those described in the RFP apply. Eligibility for the MLTI program itself (e.g., participating SAUs) is separate from eligibility to submit a proposal under this RFP. |
| Appendix C defines an education policy research institute as an organization that conducts evidence-based research to inform education decision-making. Could the department clarify the criteria used to determine whether a bidder meets this definition to help ensure compliance with eligibility requirements? | 6/30/26 | Bidders that attest to being an education policy research institute as defined in the RFP are eligible to bid. |
| Where can we find the link to the Bidder's Conference slides? | 6/30/26 | https://canva.link/2kbe8zfwi3h6tqk |
| Where can we find the recording of this meeting? | 6/30/26 | https://youtu.be/2BIAsfbqUUg |
| Will we get a transcript of this meeting? | 6/30/26 | https://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/Technology%20%26%20Learning%20-%20MLTI%20Evaluator%20RFP%20Bidders%20Conference%20Transcript%20-%206.29.2026.pdf |
https://youtu.be/2BIAsfbqUUghttps://www.maine.gov/doe/sites/maine.gov.doe/files/inline-files/Technology%20%26%20Learning%20-%20MLTI%20Evaluator%20RFP%20Bidders%20Conference%20Transcript%20-%206.29.2026.pdfhttps://canva.link/2kbe8zfwi3h6tqk
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .