RFP_17-14_Amendment_0001.pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 12

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

Amendment 0001 10/4/2017 N/A

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

National Endowment for the Arts

Grants & Contracts, 3rd floor

400 7th St. SW, Washington DC 20506

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

POTENTIAL OFFERORS RFP 17-14

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9/14/2017

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 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.

X 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: FAR 52.212-4(c) "Changes"

D. OTHER Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is required to sign this document and return ___ copy to the issuing office.

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

***DEADLINE EXTENSION***

The purpose of this amendment is to 1) make 3 corrections to the solicitation, 2) extend the proposals deadline to

5:00 PM EST, Monday, October 23, 2017 and 3) provide responses to questions submitted by vendors. All proposals must be submitted via email to chaudhryu@arts.gov.

Continued, pgs. 2-12.

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)

USMAAN Z. CHAUDHRY

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)

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

Usmaan Z. Chaudhry 10/4/2017 mailto:chaudhryu@arts.gov

Amendment 0001

1) Make 3 corrections to the solicitation:

The following corrections are hereby implemented:

a) All references to ‘Section M’ are hereby replaced with ‘Section 10’.

b) All references to ‘Section K’ are hereby replaced with ‘Section 9’.

c) The following statement is hereby deleted from SOW # 1 (Collective Impact Measurement), pg. 6, Section L.1 General: “Offerors are required to provide a sample report demonstrating expertise in the measurement and evaluation of Collective Impact projects.” For guidance on this matter, please refer to the Evaluation Criteria, Personnel Qualifications and Experience (pg. 8), which states:

“The contractor provides a sample report demonstrating expertise in the measurement and evaluation of complex programs in education and youth development.”

2) The deadline for proposals is hereby extended to 5:00 PM EST, Monday, October 23, 2017.

3) Provide responses to questions submitted by vendors:

1. I am part of an Australian research group and just wondered if you consider proposals from international research consultancies?

In accordance with the small business set-aside applicable to this procurement, responses will only be accepted from U.S. small business concerns. For additional information, please see the following guidance from the Small Business Administration:

https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/qualifying-small-business

2. We are a British company with extensive experience in the arts and culture sector, and are considering submitting a proposal. However I wanted to check first whether there would be any issues awarding a contract to a non-American company?

See question 1.

3. Will firms that were awarded contracts for the recent RFP’s issued in 2016, (or that have existing contracts with NEA), have an advantage in these current two RFPs, due to their existing work that may provide them with greater technical familiarity or ability to offer a volume price?

Proposals will only be judged on the criteria outlined in the solicitation.

4. Is there a desire for continuity from previous evaluations versus interest in a new approach?

Evaluation designs are informed by the research questions asked and the characteristics of the program under study. Therefore, there is not a desire for continuity from previous evaluations.

5. Does the NEA prefer to work with someone local, or at least on the East Coast?

The NEA does not have a preference.

6. When providing “Price” for the BPA, is it ok to provide daily rates or hourly rates for the general staff-levels with different roles and expertise described for each level? Or do you require specific hourly or daily rates for specific staff named and whose technical expertise is described?

For comparative purposes, hourly rates must be provided for general staff levels.

7. Section 10 refers to “Section M” “for more information” but Section 10-M is missing: “Proposals must address the following (see Section M for more information): Offeror’s Understanding of

Required Services. Organizational and Personnel Qualifications (Based on Technical

Competencies), including Past Performance. Price.”

This is a typo; ‘Section M’ references should be replaced with ‘Section 10’.

8. Is the expectation that the the blanket proposal will reflect a price that is more competitive than the sum of each individual SoWs' price, (i.e., to reflect a buying power discount)?

Given the nature of the BPA vehicle, it is anticipated that the pricing provided under it will be more competitive than pricing that would hypothetically be provided for a single, one-off procurement need. However, pricing included in each SOW must reflect the pricing included in the BPA (the same rates should be utilized). BPAs generally operate on the basis of a set price-list which is utilized for all work awarded under the BPA. However, offerors are certainly encouraged to extend any pricing discounts in the responses to each SOW. If offerors choose to extend a discount, the discount should be documented in the pricing for each SOW (so that both the original BPA pricing is evident, as well as the reduced pricing due to the discount).

9. We must submit a response to the BPA RFP (17-14) to be able to submit to the 2 SOWs included on the site. Is this correct? Are all 3 responses due on October 16? I do not see a due date on the SOWs.

Correct, a response to the overall BPA is required to respond to either SOW. For the due date, please see pg. 1 of amendment 0001 for further details.

10. We assume that for some future task orders we may want to engage a subcontractor or consultant but those options are not known at this time. Please confirm that the BPA contractor would be able to include subcontractors and consultants in responses to future task orders even if not named at this point in time.

The NEA confirms that the contractor will be able to include subcontractors and consultants in responses to future task orders and do not need to name subcontractors specifically at this time.

11. At one point the text suggests that all BPA task orders will be competed among all those who hold

BPA awards. At another point, the language suggests that the need for competition will be “as determined.” Please clarify intentions.

If, for a particular RFP under the BPA, the number of established BPAs do not constitute adequate competition, the contracting officer may solicit offers from additional sources to satisfy competition requirements. The contracting officer will determine the appropriate course of action as needed at the time each RFP is issued.

12. The RFP language suggests that NEA may seek price reductions in cases where NEA funds are not sufficient. Because we are a federal contractor, we are obligated to bid consistent approved rates.

How would a federal contractor offer price reductions under these circumstances?

Such situations will be handled as they arise during the course of the BPA. Federal requirements on hourly rates, etc. will be observed in any discussion regarding a price reduction.

13. Text suggests providing Representations and Certifications in Section K which was not part of the

RFP package. We assume that the information in SAM will suffice. Please confirm.

This was a typo; ‘Section K’ references should be replaced with ‘Section 9’.

14. Pricing. Should labor unit rates includes management fee as well as Overhead and General &

Administrative costs?

If overhead and administrative costs are applicable then yes, those rates should be included.

15. For the overall proposal and the two task orders, should pricing information be provided in separate documents in each case?

Yes. All documents for the BPA proposal, SOW # 1 proposal and SOW # 2 proposal must be entirely separate as each of these 3 responses will be evaluated separately and on the basis of what is included in that particular response. Note: Also see question 8.

16. We do not host our own corporate IRB but work with several other IRBs to accomplish tasks. We assume that would be an adequate response.

Yes.

17. For task order #1, C.3.4.c, are there any planned gathering where some or all grantees are gathered together in a location for a meeting/conference?

This is a possibility but nothing is planned at this time.

18. I am a registered vendor and available to collaborate/partner with any qualified research and evaluation experts who need experienced project management and project facilitation related to this RFP.

For offerors who wish to collaborate with others or serve as sub-contractors, please feel free to search the ‘Interested Vendors’ list (on the public FBO listing for this solicitation) where vendors interested in this procurement may have listed themselves. Offerors may feel free to contact these vendors if they so wish.

19. This acquisition is a small business set-side. How is a proposer considered eligible as a small business concern? Thank you.

To be eligible for award for this solicitation, contractors must be eligible small business concerns under the NAICS code 541720 (Research & Development in the Social Sciences &

Humanities), for which the size standard is $20,500,000.00. (The size standard is the largest that a concern may be and still qualify as a small business – in this case, the standard refers to the concern’s average annual receipts.) For more information on size standards, please visit FAR 19.1. The table of size standards issued by the Small Business Administration is available at the following link, which lists the size standard applicable to each NAICS code:

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf

Additionally, see the following definition of “concern” from FAR 19.001:

“Concern” means any business entity organized for profit (even if its ownership is in the hands of a nonprofit entity) with a place of business located in the United States or its outlying areas and that makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes and/or use of American products, material and/or labor, etc. “Concern” includes but is not limited to an individual, partnership, corporation, joint venture, association, or cooperative. For the purpose of making affiliation findings (see 19.101) any business entity, whether organized for profit or not, and any foreign business entity, i.e., any entity located outside the United States and its outlying areas.

For more information, please visit FAR 19, available at: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/.

For further questions regarding an entity’s eligibility as a small business concern, please contact the Small Business Administration:

https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/qualifying-small-business

20. Will the contractor(s) receive PII data or other sensitive data from the SPP instrument?

The work listed in the RFP can be done with the public use datafile. However, future RFPs under this BPA may include potential for using restricted use datafiles. This option can be discussed after BPAs have been established.

21. Will the contractor(s) need to "clean the data" from the SPP instrument (i.e., analyze the data set to detect and remove inaccurate information from it)?

The Census Bureau will provide us with a dataset that includes responses for each individual item per respondent. The contractor may need to create composite/index scores, create a plan to handle missing data, and other types of decisions related to analysis. For an example of what the Census Bureau releases, please see the Census Bureau data download page:

https://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html#cpssupps

On this page, review the listing for the July 2012 supplement, which is the 2012 SPPA. And for an example of what the NEA releases, which includes composite scores that were created by contractors, see https://www.arts.gov/publications/additional-materials-related-to-2012-sppa

22. Approximately how many observations/respondents are in the SPP instrument that the contractor(s) will be analyzing?

The 2017 SPPA will include approximately 36,000 respondents.

23. Who are NEA's collective impact grantees? How many grantees are there?

As stated on page 4, C.3.4.a, 39 Collective Impact grant awards had been made as of Aug. 21, 2017. A list of Collective Impact grantees as of June 2017 is available on the NEA website:

https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/collective-impact-grants-june2017.pdf .

24. What are the sought qualifications for the key personnel?

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/19.htm#P23_3116 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/ https://www.sba.gov/contracting/getting-started-contractor/qualifying-small-business https://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html#cpssupps https://www.arts.gov/publications/additional-materials-related-to-2012-sppa https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/collective-impact-grants-june2017.pdf

Key personnel should have the capability to manage and conduct tasks associated with the services outlined in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.

25. Is there an incumbent contractor? If yes, is the incumbent contract eligible to bid?

There is no incumbent contractor.

26. May a firm submit a response only for the BPA and not for either the Collective Impact

Measurement or SPPA reports scopes of work?

Yes, an offeror may submit a response only for the BPA if it does not wish to submit a response to the two SOWs at this time. In this case, the offeror’s proposal will be fully considered when evaluating and establishing BPAs, and the offeror may be awarded future work under the BPA (beyond the two SOWs which are included with the BPA).

27. Could you clarify the certification process/requirements for small business eligibility?

See question 19. For additional information, please contact the Small Business

Administration:

https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/what-we-do/contact-sba?interiorpage2015

28. For the SPPA scope of work, should proposals be inclusive of graphic design and layout, or will the

NEA secure those services independently?

These services are outside of the scope of this RFP, and the NEA will procure those independent of the BPA. If an offeror provides these services, a simple note to that effect in the proposal is welcome. No additional detail should be provided.

29. I see that the SPPA start date is flexible. Would a January start date be acceptable or does the NEA need work to commence earlier?

January would be an acceptable start date.

30. On the top of page 19 of the BPA RFP (RFP 17-14), bidders are instructed to “see Section M for more information” on understanding of the requirements, qualifications/price. Apologies for the oversight, but I am having trouble finding and “Section M.” Is it perhaps mis-labeled?

This is a typo; ‘Section M’ references should be replaced with ‘Section 10’.

31. We are very well qualified to perform the services described, but I see that there is a 100% set aside for groups under the Small Business Program. We are a small group that operates under the auspices of a college. Does that mean we can't apply? Would we need to be approved officially as a small business? A couple of us also do consulting independently, so perhaps that is a "small business."

See question 19 and 27. Generally speaking, educational institutions are not considered small business concerns. To be eligible, yes, offerors must be small business concerns. For complete information on this, please reach out to the Small Business Administration.

32. Is it preferred that prospective offerors submit all three proposals for the blanket purchase agreement (BPA) and two task order statements of work or is it acceptable to propose for the BPA and one of the task orders detailed?

https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/what-we-do/contact-sba?interiorpage2015

Offerors are encouraged to submit responses to the BPA and both SOWs. However, offerors may submit a proposal for any combination of the following items: the BPA and both SOWs, the BPA and one SOW, or the BPA and neither SOW. Submitting a response for only the

BPA and one SOW, or only the BPA, will not affect the evaluation of an offeror’s proposal.

33. Have there been past contractors/incumbents involved with the provision of services specified in

SOW #1 & #2? If yes, can the NEA share who the affiliated contractors are? Also, can the NEA disclose who the contractor was for the SPPA Pilot Study and Planning project (RFP 15-28) and the current status of the contract with this vendor?

Services similar to those requested in SOW # 1 (Collective Impact Measurement) have not previously been requested.

Services similar to those requested in SOW # 2 (SPPA Reports) have previously been provided by Silber & Associates (contract # C12-111).

RFP 15-28 for the SPPA pilot study and planning project was awarded to MBK Analytics, LLC (contract # C15-59). The contract has completed and is now over.

34. Do you have any published guidelines regarding the statistical audits mentioned in the BPA RFP?

At the current time, we do not have published guidelines regarding the statistical audits.

35. Can you please confirm that a budget template was not provided with the solicitation?

No budget template was provided. There is no required template as long as the information is laid out clearly.

36. SOW # 2 (SPPA Reports): Page 5, C.3.2 – The RFP states “…a quality control plan, which provides for a review of statistical analyses undertaken as part of this contract by an analyst external to the project team and documentation of this quality control review.” Can you provide additional information about this expectation? For example, will the consultant as a subcontractor or will the ORA identify an independent analyst?

The contractor shall be expected to obtain the external analyst.

37. BPA SOW: Page 5, 1.3.1 – For the IRB, does the ORA have a review board they work with, or is the selection at the discretion of the consultant? (also page 7, 1.3.2)

For secondary data analysis projects that use publically available data, no IRB is necessary.

In the event that restricted data is to be used, the contractor and/or the NEA may need to use an appropriate IRB method for that dataset. In the case that a project includes primary data collection, the NEA will need to go through a formal approval process from the U.S. Office of

Management and Budget’ Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB-OIRA);

additional IRB may be necessary.

38. BPA SOW: Page 20, above item (c) – States a requirement for Representations and Certifications and refers to Section K. Where is this located? Apologies if I have overlooked it!

This was a typo; ‘Section K’ references should be replaced with ‘Section 9’.

39. Confirming submission instructions: If we decide to submit proposals for the BPA and for SOW #1 and/or #2, each proposals must be freestanding and include complete information, even if it is redundant with another of the proposals.

Correct.

40. The pricing for the Collective Impact Measurement states it must include unit prices. We typically set our projects on a flat fixed price for the development of a logic and measurement model. Will this project be a fixed flat price or will the vendor be required to bill hourly for the work performed?

Pricing for the Collective Impact Measurement SOW must utilize (extrapolate) the unit prices / rates included in the BPA. The pricing included in the SOW response must include a cost breakdown sufficient to demonstrate that the BPA pricing is utilized (unit prices/rates must be stated). The final cost arrived at using those rates is anticipated to be the firm fixed price (set price) for this SOW, barring any negotiations the agency may conduct with the vendor prior to awarding the work. Note: This SOW will not be set up on a cost-reimbursement basis (agency reimbursing contractor for all incurred costs). It is anticipated that this will apply to all task orders issued under the BPAs.

41. To confirm the SPPA data to be analyzed for the First Look and Comprehensive Report has already been collected? In what format will this data be presented to the vendor (excel, SPSS, SAS, etc.)? Will we receive all raw data? How many complete records are contained in the file?

The data for the SPPA has already been collected. The data can be given to the contractor in a variety of formats, such as excel, SPSS, SAS, Stata, and other formats. The data will be delivered to the contractor on an agreed method, and it could include sending it via a cd-rom or through an online file sharing platform, for example. There will be approximately 36,000 records.

42. How many BPA awards are anticipated - either for each area 1.3.1 and 1.3. or in; total?

This will depend on the number of proposals received. The agency hopes to establish at least three, or more, BPAs for each area.

43. Page 4: How much volume is anticipated on a yearly basis; how many task orders does the NEA envision releasing each year?

Volume has not been finalized for the forthcoming years. In the past, during a given year, the ORA typically manages 2-3 research reports and 2-3 evaluation projects, as well as smaller research and evaluation tasks such as literature reviews, data users’ guides, white papers, and research briefs.

44. Page 4: How many companies participated in putting together ORA's 5-year research agenda? Are they eligible to bid on this BPA?

No external companies participated in writing the ORA’s 5-year research agenda.

45. Page 9: 5.1 - What is the dollar value ceiling for simplified acquisition threshold?

The simplified acquisition threshold is $150,000.00.

46. Page 10: 5.3 - "this may be supplemented by competition outside of the BPA holders." Why would the government go outside BPA?

The contracting officer may solicit proposals for a given need outside of the BPA if needed for adequate competition requirements. See question 11.

47. Page 18: 10 (b) proposals no more than 15 pages. Does this mean 15 pages for each 1) Research &

Analysis Services and 2) Evaluation & Performance Measurement Services?

Correct. 15 pages per item: The BPA and the two task orders each have a 15-page limit.

48. Page 18: 10 (b) states "(not including attached resumes..". Would the government prefer formal resumes or personnel bios and is there any page limitation for resumes/bios?

The NEA has no preference on the format for resumes. Regardless of format, the NEA expects that the proposal will provide evidence of the specific qualifications and skills of the offeror’s staff and their familiarity and experience with the topic and areas relevant to this project.

49. Page 19: 2. Price: "...comprehensive travel costs need not be included in the initial cost proposal."

Can the government confirm that bidders are not to provide travel costs for the main BPA proposal activities?

If there are any travel related rates the offeror can include in the BPA pricing, those are encouraged. If this is not practicable, that is acceptable as well. Comprehensive travel costs do not need to be provided in the BPA response. For SOWs # 1 and # 2 though, comprehensive travel costs must be provided.

50. Page 19: 4. Task Order Statements of Work: "Offerors shall submit separate proposals and pricing for each statement of work for which they intend to submit an offer. The proposals and pricing for each statement of work must be separate from the proposal and pricing for the overall BPA solicitation." Question: We will be submitting pricing for the BPA and for Task Orders. Will bidders be able or encouraged to provide discounted pricing on Task Orders that is reduced from

BPA pricing?

See question 8.

51. SOW # 1, pg. 3: Solicitation states: "Building on the NEA’s 2015 Arts Education Convening on

Shared Measurement…" Has the NEA attempted to develop a logic model as the one being requested in this Task Order?

No.

52. SOW # 1, pg. 3: Solicitation states: "Building on the NEA’s 2015 Arts Education Convening on

Shared Measurement…" Who did the work for the 2015 Arts Education Convening on Share

Measurement" and are they eligible to submit a proposal for this task order?

The contract for supporting this convening was awarded to SimplePath, Inc. / Michael

McAfee (contract # C15-60). Previous contractors are eligible to submit responses to this

BPA, and by extension, this particular SOW.

53. SOW # 1, pg. 4: C.3.3 States: " The literature review shall review no fewer than 25 but not exceeding 50 high quality works from the relevant research and evaluation literature." Will the

NEA provide guidance on the relevant literature to be included in this review or will the contract identify and proposal literature for review?

As stated in the SOW on pg. 4, C.3.3., it is the contractor’s responsibility to “identify and review key works of the academic, theoretical, and ‘grey’ research and evaluation literature on Collective Impact projects in education and youth development and, as appropriate, the broader social services sector.” The NEA has identified some relevant literature that will be provided to the contractor.

54. SOW # 1, pg. 5: C.3.4c State: "The contractor shall then facilitate a logic modeling session with staff to gather input for the logic model." Can the NEA provide more clarity on how it defines

"logic model" and what the term means for purposes of this task? More specifically, is the NEA looking for word document based "logic model" or an interactive, technology database and driven

"logic model"?

The Collective Impact logic model is intended to visually present the theory and assumptions underlying the Arts Education Collective Impact program. Specifically, the logic model will link outcomes (both short- and long-term) with program activities/processes and the theoretical assumptions/principles of the program. The development of the logic model shall be informed by an analysis of NEA grant data (grant applications, final descriptive reports) and other grant documentation from the program’s inception in addition to consultation with NEA staff and grant project directors/evaluators. The NEA does not expect the logic model to be interactive or technology-driven.

55. SOW # 1, pg. 5: C.3.5 States: "The contractor shall facilitate face-to-face or online discussions with all current and previous NEA Arts Education Collective Impact grantees (26) to 1) test and refine the logic model and 2) solicit ideas about viable measurement indicators and methods." Would interviewing 26 potential grantees require OMB approval?

OMB regulations specify a number of items that are generally not “information” under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, including facts or opinions that are obtained or solicited at or in connection with public hearings or meetings. This “public meeting” exception also allows agencies to engage with the public on the Internet so long as the engagement is the functional equivalent of a public meeting (i.e., not a survey).

56. SOW # 1, pg. 5: C.3.5 States "an NEA staff member will be present to introduce the consultant and to observe each discussion." We use web-based platforms to reduce costs associated with in-person meetings, including travel, facility, food, and beverage costs. Would the NEA staff be able to join remotely as well and participate via webcam; or would they like to be in-person with the vendor?

NEA staff is able to join remotely using a web-based platform.

57. SOW # 1, pg. 6: Section L 1) States: "Offerors are required to provide a sample report demonstrating expertise in the measurement and evaluation of Collective Impact projects." If bidders do not have an example sample report of Collective Impact projects, are they precluded from bidding on this work?

Offerors should ignore the following statement, which appears on pg. 6 in Section L, 1:

“Offerors are required to provide a sample report demonstrating expertise in the measurement and evaluation of Collective Impact projects.” This statement is hereby deleted as stated in amendment 0001. For correct guidance on this matter, please refer to the

Evaluation Criteria, Personnel Qualifications and Experience, on pg. 8, which states: “The contractor provides a sample report demonstrating expertise in the measurement and evaluation of complex programs in education and youth development.”

58. SOW # 2, pg. 4: C.1: "ORA intends to make the final deliverables available to the public through the NEA’s web site and/or other NEA designated websites". Do the final deliverables need to be

508 compliant or is PDF acceptable?

Final deliverables do need to be 508 compliant.

59. SOW # 2, pg. 12: Evaluation Criteria: 3) "Degree to which the personnel demonstrate knowledge and experience with analysis of large, complex federal data sets, especially the SPPA, to provide descriptive statistics such as frequencies and trends." We do a lot of work with large, complex datasets. However, we have not worked with the SPPA. Question: How open to working with new vendors is the NEA if personnel need to demonstrate knowledge and experience "especially with the SPPA"?

For SOW#2, the NEA is certainly open to new vendors that demonstrate knowledge and experience with analysis of large, complex federal datasets to provide descriptive statistics such as frequencies and trends. Experience in using the SPPA is not necessary at the time of submitting your response to SOW#2, however, demonstration of skillsets that are necessary for using large, complex datasets is expected. In other words, we expect a proposal under

SOW#2 to include experience in using large, complex datasets (whichever datasets those are) and we expect a clear demonstration that those skills can be transferred to using the SPPA if experience in the SPPA is not evident.

60. For both projects: A timeline of approximately 1 year is identified; do you have a targeted start date in mind for them as well?

We anticipate awards for each statement of work to be made as follows: For SPPA, any time between November and February; Collective Impact will be awarded as soon as possible, sometime between November and December. These estimates are not commitments by the agency to award by this time-frame.

For the Collective Impact project (questions 61 – 64):

61. Page 3 mentions both a measurement model and a measurement system. Can you confirm that you hope to develop a measurement model through this RFP, but that a system (i.e., a cloud-based data system) is not part of the expectations?

Yes, we expect the development of a measurement model, which identifies appropriate high-level indicators and methods of measurement, but not a data collection system.

62. Task C.3.4.b: Could other methods be proposed for gathering input from grant directors/evaluators? For example, if there is a conference scheduled that several will be attending, could we facilitate a workshop rather than do individual interviews?

Alternative methods may be proposed.

63. Task C.3.5: Are there anticipated existing events that we should try to coordinate with in order to reduce burden/increase participation by grantees in logic model refinement?

At this time, there are no anticipated in-person events involving Collective Impact grantees during the contract period.

64. Task C.3.5: Would the NEA consider other formats for the final deliverable, such as a website, video, or some other format – rather than a report?

Alternative formats may be proposed provided the report requirements outlined in C.3.5 are met.

For the SPPA Reports project (questions 65 - 66):

65. To what extent will liaisons at NEA be available for ad hoc meetings? For example, we would recommend a collaborative, working meeting where we present preliminary findings and discuss key messages. Is this something that NEA staff could be available for?

Working meetings are welcome. NEA staff will provide as much flexibility as we can to be available for such meetings, although scheduling of such meetings will be handled on a case by case basis depending on the contract and the people involved in a project activity.

66. What lessons learned do you have from previous survey reports that we should be considering?

Were there any aspects of the deliverables that you found unsatisfying that we should try to address in this project? What feedback or comments have you received from stakeholders about the quality, content or format of the reports?

With each SPPA report that we have released, we have had various contractors involved.

The report development process is a collaborative process and we are open to hearing your feedback and guidance on how you feel regarding the older reports. We look forward to finding ways to improve our reporting practices.

67. We specialize in statistical analyses. Where will the data come from for this project, such as “web scrapes”? Is NEA gathering the data and providing to the vendor?

To be determined.

END OF DOCUMENT