SF30 Amendment 0001 Pages 2-8 Q As to Solicitation Request for Proposal

54OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 8

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

Amendment 0001 06/09/11

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

National Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts, Rm 618, 1100 Pa. Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20506

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code) (�) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

Prospective Offerors X NEARFP11-16

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

X 05/24/11

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X 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 one (1) copy of the 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 OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATA SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you 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 data specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(�) 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 required to sign this document and return 1 copy to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of SF 30 Amendment 0001 to Solicitation Request for Proposal (NEARFP11-16) Our Town Community Indicators Study is to amend Page 35, Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, criteria number 4. Organizational Experience from 30 points to 25 points, 5. Price from the % sign to the word “points” and to incorporate pages 2 through 8 Questions and Answers (Q & A’s).

Please SUBMIT your PROPOSALS by FRIDAY, JUNE 24, 2011at 5:00 p.m. (EST). If you decide NOT TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL, PLEASE NOTIFY ME with an e-mail to CONTRACTS@ARTS.GOV.

All other terms and conditions remain the same and unchanged.

Except at 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)

Latonca M. Harris Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _____________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

06/09/11

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

mailto:harrisl@arts.gov

AMENDMENT 0001, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q & A’S)

To Solicitation Request for Proposal (NEARFP11-16) Our Town Community Indicators Study.

Please acknowledge receipt of the Amendment via email so that the Contracting Officer knows the paperwork was delivered and received. In accordance with the Standard Form 30 (SF30), Amendment of Solicitation the Contractor is required to sign the SF30 document and return 1 copy to the issuing office at the time proposals are due.

Q1: Can you provide any additional information (readings or links) on the ArtsPlace initiative?

A1: ArtPlace is a new public/private grant-making initiative to promote the role of arts and culture in building livable, sustainable communities. It is currently run by Carol Coletta and administered through the Nonprofit Finance Fund.

Q2: Is there a limit to the type and number of appendices we may include in our proposal?

A2: There is no limit as to the type and number of appendices. We do encourage proposers to submit only information that is directly pertinent to their proposal.

Q3: For our budget, do you want any more detail than that allowed in the pricing guide in Section B? In what document format would you prefer the budget?

A3: As per page 33 of the RFP, all proposers should complete the Pricing Table in Section B.

Prices shall include all direct and indirect costs, and any other factor which contributes to the total firm fixed price. In addition, provide a breakdown of project costs by personnel (including daily rate and projected time on each task), supplies, travel, etc., associated with the tasks.

Services to be purchased from other agencies or subcontractors must be specified. Budget information should be presented in Word.

Q4: What format (sql, csv, xml, web service. etc.) will the data from the GEO Database and all other grants.gov data sources be made available? Will a data schema including minimum, maximum, required, data types, formatting, be made available? How will the contractor be able to access this information and on what frequency will this be made accessible?

A4: Data from the GEO database and other NEA databases can be transmitted in a format compatible with Excel. Our Town application data may be transmitted in PDF and Excel formats.

Data is in both numeric and text form. The NEA will provide an orientation regarding the Agency’s data to the contractor. The contractor will submit a formal data request to the NEA and will receive data in the formats as indicated above. Multiple data requests may be submitted. The contractor will not be given direct access to any Agency databases.

Q5: Will the NEA provide or have administrative or technical support for specific types of intercept, household, and organizational surveys or analyses of existing local, state, and/or national data sources? Is all survey data collection expected to be conducted solely by the contractor or will Our Town grantees assist in local data collection?

A5: While the NEA will have oversight over data collection efforts led by the contractor, it is not anticipated that the Agency will provide any administrative or technical support. It is anticipated that the burden of data collection will fall primarily on the contractor. See also A23.

Q6: The technical capacity that the contractor would provide to help build capacity is this specific to the survey. Who instruments themselves and administration, to the methods for developing and executing the grant projects, or both?

A6: This question is unclear. If this question refers to Task 3, which is described on pages 9-10 in the RFP, the intent is for the contractor to build grantee capacity to track and report indicators data. Indicator data may be collected through multiple methods, of which surveys are one anticipated method.

Q7: Do you have a listing of the other proposers that we are encouraged to collaborate with?

A7: No.

Q8: In sub task 2 there is a point regarding the provision of guidance. Is this also in regards to the survey instruments, project execution, both or another area that I am not listing?

A8: As stated on page 10 of the RFP, the guidance should focus on how Our Town communities can identify community-specific indicators based on their project objectives, and how they can collect, analyze, and report the indicators data. As indicated in A6, indicator data may be collected through multiple methods, of which surveys are one method. Project execution will not be addressed through this guidance.

Q9: As far as respondents to the survey instruments would we only collect data from residents or from civic stakeholders, administrators, and grantee staff as well?

A9: The recipients of survey instruments will not be determined until the indicators system is finalized. The development of the indicators system is one of the tasks of this contract.

Q10: Can you help me understand the terms indicator and outcome, and how the two relate to one another from your point of view? Are we limited to those indicators listed and the underlying attributes or do we have the opportunity to conduct research that may discover further indicators that would be meaningful additions to our measurement systems. I am thinking of this in terms of the American Customer Satisfaction Index Methodology that we developed and used and am trying to reconcile the concept to your nomenclature and goals.

A10: See footnote 4 in the RFP for a discussion of outcomes and indicators. Proposers are not limited to the indicators listed in the RFP; the indicators listed in Appendix B are proposed only as an example.

Q11: What is the anticipated timeline for award of the Our Town grants?

A11: The FY2011 Our Town grant awards will be approved by the Agency’s National Council on the Arts during its upcoming meeting on June 23-24, 2011. At this time, the anticipated award date for Our Town grants is September 2011; start dates for individual projects may vary. A grant period is not expected to exceed one year.

Q12: Approximately how many will be awarded (information is necessary to estimate the costs of aggregate data collection for baseline)?

A12: As was noted in Appendix A of the RFP, the NEA anticipates awarding approximately 35 grants, based on the availability of funding.

Q13: Does Task 2.2 assume data collection from all awardees for ALL types of indicators or only those that are related to the project strategies in that grant?

A13: As was stated in the RFP on page 8, the NEA expects the indicators system to include some indicators that will apply to all projects. However, the NEA also anticipates that some indicators will apply only to individual Our Town projects with shared characteristics.

Q14: Is the intention of Task 3 that all grantees participate in the orientation, even if they are not part of the piloting of guidance?

A14: Yes.

Q15: Are FY 2011 grantees expected to implement the indicator system? If so, are they provided resources to do so?

A15: FY 2011 grantees are not expected to implement the indicator system and will not be provided with additional resources beyond what is described in Task 3. The contractor is held responsible for collecting baseline indicators data.

Q16: Is it correct to assume that Task 4 is not necessarily related to data about the indicators (depending on the answer to question 5 above)?

A16: Yes.

Q17: For Task 4, how many grantees are anticipated for the sample?

A17: The number of grantees may be proposed at the time of responding to this RFP.

Q18: The scope of work suggests that indicators are to be used to track the relationship between arts and livability which suggests an evaluation rather than either indicators about livability or indicators about the arts sector/arts access, etc. Is the intent that the indicators would be used by communities in evaluations of the grants? Or is the intent for status reporting periodically?

A18: An intent of this contract is to develop an indicators system to monitor trends in quality of life, creative activity, community identity/sense of place, and the local economy in Our Town communities. A baseline collection of indicators data will be conducted by the contractor. The contractor will develop guidance on how Our Town communities can identify community-specific indicators based on their project objectives, and how they can collect, analyze, and report the indicators data. While the data collected on indicators could be used by Our Town communities to evaluate the success of their projects, this is not a primary intent nor an expectation of this contract.

Q19: Will Our Town grantees be funded for the indicators work they are expected to undertake? Are Our Town grantees expected to internally develop the capacity to track indicators themselves, or to partner with local entities who have expertise about social indicators?

A19: See responses in A15 and A18.

Q20: Is there any provision for the likely scenario that some grantees will not be able to develop the capacity to effectively take on indicator work? Will the NEA accept that finding and a subsequent decision by the contractor to work only with those grantees that seem likely to be able to develop the capacity to do the work?

A20: The contractor holds the responsibility for collecting baseline indicators data. It is possible that some grantees will not be able to develop the capacity to pilot the written guidance (Task 3, Sub-Task 3). For this sub-task, the NEA will accept as a sampling criterion the capacity of a grantee to take on indicators work.

Q21: If in the process of developing the indicator system, the contractor finds that desirable data require fairly extensive technical manipulation in order to be usable; will the NEA provide additional resources (money or research staff) to cover such work?

A21: No.

Q22: Given that many of the indicators will lag the grant projects, who is responsible for collecting the data post-grant period? Who will determine the window for post-period monitoring for effects?

A22: Frequency of data collection will be determined by the contractor as part of Task 1. In regards to responsibility for data collection in the post-grant period, the NEA will revisit this question at the end of the contract period.

Q23: Page 7 of the RFP states: “Consultation with grant project stakeholders as appropriate.

However, the contractor must be mindful that grantees will have limited time and resources for meetings related to this contract.” – What does the NEA expect regarding contractor and grantee interaction? What level of involvement and/or commitment of time and resources are the grantees expected to contribute to this work? Specifically, what can be expected for grantees involvement/work with contractor on Task #4?

A23: The NEA is sensitive to the potential burden imposed on grantees. For Task 4, it is anticipated that grantees will provide information to the contractor through online focus groups or interviews and possibly through the submission of administrative data directly related to the implementation of their project. Grantees will also be expected to provide some support for on-site data collection related to the Task 2 baseline collection of indicators data. Proposals that minimize burden for grantees will be viewed favorably.

Q24: With regard to the development of new primary data collection mechanisms, it is likely that this task will be more expensive than perhaps anticipated. If this is the case, would the NEA accept a modification to the work plan that potentially includes eliminating this aspect of the work or would the agency be in a position to augment the budget?

A24: As stated in footnote 3 of the RFP, the NEA anticipates that intercept, household, and organizational surveys and analyses of existing local, state, and/or national data sources will be primary data sources. However, proposers are welcome to propose alternative strategies that may be more efficient and minimize Our Town grantee burden.

Q25: Task 2, Subtask 3 - Does the NEA expect any level of causality to be explored between the funded projects and the indicators?

A25: Given the estimated budget for this project, conclusive demonstration of causality is not expected. However, the NEA believes it is possible to make incremental steps toward demonstrating causality. The NEA welcomes proposals that address the issue of causality.

Q26: Task 4 appears to be a somewhat separate endeavor from Tasks 1-3. If the potential contractor submits on only Tasks 1-3 or solely for Task 4 will their proposal be disqualified from consideration?

A26: Yes, proposals that do not address all tasks will be disqualified.

Q27: Please provide further explanation for what is expected in the task that states, "Collect data in FY 2011 from Our Town projects to inform the revision of grant guidelines and reporting requirements for future Our Town Grant competitions." What kinds of data need to be collected?

A27: For Task 4, data must be collected on project-level inputs, outputs, and short-term outcomes. As stated in the RFP, the NEA is interested in understanding how Our Town projects were implemented, including the resources and partnerships that projects employed, the type and range of activities that projects undertook, and the measurable outputs of these activities (e.g., cultural asset maps). The NEA is also interested in identifying short-term outcomes of Our Town projects at least 18 months following project completion. It is anticipated that data will be collected using mixed methods (e.g., online focus groups, telephone interviews, grant application/report data reviews, and administrative data reviews).

Q28: Is this activity separate from the proposed evaluation of the Our Town initiative? If so, will the contractor that performs work on the indicators system be permitted to work on the evaluation study?

A28: At this time, there is no other study planned that examines the Our Town initiative.

Q29: Who will be responsible for administering the proposed intercept and household surveys—the contractor, individual projects, or a combination of the contractor and individual projects?

A29: The contractor is responsible for administering the anticipated intercept and household surveys. See also A23.

Q30: Is it the expectation that the intercept and household surveys would be administered as part of the baseline collection (Task 2), as part of the end of project data collection (Task 4), or both?

A30: The anticipated intercept and household surveys would be administered as part of Task 2 only, unless the proposer sees these instruments as appropriate for use in Task 4.

Q31: Is there any expectation that comparison data (e.g., from intercept or household surveys) would be collected in communities that are not participating in an Our Town initiative?

A31: While the use of comparison data is not an expectation of this study, the NEA welcomes proposals that include this approach.

Q32: Aside from the organizational survey, what other reporting requirements will Our Town projects be required to complete (e.g., the Final Report described in Appendix C)?

A32: All reporting requirements were described in Appendix C of the RFP.

Q33: Is it the expectation that a single version of the organizational survey will be completed by all Our Town projects?

A33: Whether a single version of the organizational survey will be completed by all Our Town projects is not known at this time. The final form and distribution of any survey is dependent on the final indicators system, which will be developed by the contractor.

Q34: Will the organizational survey be administered via an online application? If administered online, is the expectation that the survey would be hosted by the contractor? If hosted by the contractor, who will be responsible for administering/hosting the organizational survey in future years with future cohorts of Our Town projects?

A34: The NEA welcomes proposers to propose methods of survey administration. However, all instruments, including those hosted by the contractor, must be transferred to the NEA at the conclusion of the contract. See also A22.

Q35: Will the contractor be responsible for collecting any data from Cohort 2 Our Town participants under this contract?

A35: No.

Q36: Is it the expectation that all Our Town projects would complete the same intercept and/or household surveys—or that they would have an opportunity to tailor these protocols so that they reflect and focus on their specific approach/outcomes?

A36: See A13 and A33.

Q37: Is it the expectation that the contractor will be responsible for preparing the OMB clearance package?

A37: Yes, the contractor will be responsible for preparing the OMB clearance package.

Q38: The tasks to be completed during the 5-month period between January 27th and July 27th is quite ambitious—including (1) developing the intercept, household, and organizational surveys;

(2) gaining NEA approval for these instruments; (3) pre-testing the intercept, household, and organizational surveys; (4) obtaining OMB approval—which may take up to 60 days; (5) collecting and validating data from individual projects; and (6) analyzing and summarizing the data in a report. Will the NEA consider extending the July 27th deadline to allow for more time to develop, pre-test, program, and administer the surveys?

A38: The NEA will allow flexibility for adjusting dates of interim deliverables. If the proposer anticipates requesting a deadline extension for a deliverables, this should be addressed in the proposal.

Q39: What would be the procedure for gaining permission to use data outside of the context of the project and what would be the criteria for authorizing such use?

A39: All publicly available data can be requested through the Freedom of Information Act.

Q40: Did NEA utilize services of a contractor to develop its 2012-2016 Strategic Plan? If yes, is that contractor permitted to bid on this solicitation?

A40: The NEA used the services of a contractor to develop its 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. This contractor is permitted to bid on this solicitation since the solicitation was advertised as “unrestricted/not set aside for any particular group.”

Q41: Did a consultant/contractor assist NEA with the MICD25 implemented in 2010?

A41: No consultant or contractor assisted the NEA with the MICD25 grant program implemented in 2010.

Q42: If that proposal were funded, would it disqualify us from being involved in the indicator project?

A42: This question is not clear.

Q43: If other applicants contact us about being included as a consultant on the project, is there any reason why we couldn’t play that role on more than one proposal?

A43: The solicitation was advertised as “unrestricted/not set aside for any particular group,” so a proposer is free to participate in more than one proposal.