Q&A Document Date: January 23, 2026

Subject: Questions & Answers, 25RFP17745

In accordance with the subject Request for Proposal (RFP), the following are answers to questions which have been submitted prior to 5PM, January 9, 2026. These questions are for informational purposes only; they do not alter the requirements specified within the RFP. Any changes to the RFP will be accomplished by the Office of Procurement Management through an addendum.

*The State's response will be in red font following the Vendor's question.

1. Can SD provide an abstract on the grant or the grant application?

The South Dakota Department of Education (SD DOE) will launch a coordinated, statewide initiative focused on transforming math teaching and learning for students with disabilities who continue to experience the lowest proficiency rates and face persistent instructional challenges. This five-year State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG) project will deliver a cohesive, sustainable professional learning model grounded in two evidence-based frameworks: Explicit Instruction (EI) and the Concrete–Representational–Abstract (CRA) instructional sequence. Together, these approaches ensure all learners - including those with disabilities - can access and engage with rigorous mathematics content. The grant will leverage technology to deliver sustained professional development statewide, increasing access for rural communities and equipping teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities, even in low-incidence classrooms. The project will address identified needs through a phased implementation that includes the development of online professional learning modules, the establishment of virtual professional learning communities (PLCs), the co-creation of family-facing tools and training opportunities, and the enhancement of coaching and apprenticeship pathways to support long-term workforce development.

Over five years, South Dakota will: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

2. What are the grant activities to be implemented under this initiative?

Grant activities include the following: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered IEPs that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

3. How many schools/districts will be served by the grant?

Approximately 6 school districts, and 10 schools will be served by this grant.

4. For the purposes of budgeting cost, how many on-site visits will be expected for the evaluation of evidence-based instructional practices?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

5. Can you clarify if the fidelity assessments are expected to start in year 2 or in years 3 through 5?

The fidelity assessments are expected to start in year 2.

6. When are the semi-annual reports due?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

7. What role will the evaluator play in annual federal APR reporting?

The evaluator will conduct the evaluation in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) requirements and Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Program Performance Measures (PPMs), which are required for the Annual Performance Report (APR). Additionally, the evaluator will provide summative data annually to be incorporated into the APR.

8. Could you provide a copy of the SPDG proposal that SDDOE submitted to OSEP in August 2025?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the project is provided below:

The SD DOE will launch a coordinated, statewide initiative focused on transforming math teaching and learning for students with disabilities who continue to experience the lowest proficiency rates and face persistent instructional challenges. This five-year SPDG project will deliver a cohesive, sustainable professional learning model grounded in two evidence-based frameworks: EI and the CRA instructional sequence. Together, these approaches ensure all learners - including those with disabilities - can access and engage with rigorous mathematics content. The grant will leverage technology to deliver sustained professional development statewide, increasing access for rural communities and equipping teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities, even in low-incidence classrooms. The project will address identified needs through a phased implementation that includes the development of online professional learning modules, the establishment of virtual PLCs, the co-creation of family-facing tools and training opportunities, and the enhancement of coaching and apprenticeship pathways to support long-term workforce development.

Over five years, South Dakota will: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered IEPs that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

9. Could you provide a copy of the logic model and Appendix A of the SPDG proposal that SDDOE submitted in August 2025?

Personnel Loading Tables, Timeline, Project Milestones and Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RACI) will be shared with evaluator once selected.

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources (S1, S2, S4, S6)

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway (S5)

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

10. What was the total amount of money that OSEP awarded to SDDOE for the 2025 SPDG?

The State was awarded approximately $3.8 million.

11. How much did SDDOE budget for the evaluation in their SPDG proposal that was submitted to OSEP in August 2025.

The State will determine the budget once proposals have been evaluated.

12. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the proposal submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for the State Personnel Development Grant (SPDG)? If a full copy is not available, would you be able to share the evaluation section and corresponding documents such as a logic model and/or theory of action?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the Logic Model is provided below:

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

13. Are you seeking a full impact evaluation of the program, or is the focus primarily on tracking progress toward goals for required reporting?

The evaluation plan should be designed to comprehensively assess progress toward the SD SPDG’s overarching goals and include support for annual performance reporting.

14. What is the evaluation budget limit per year and for the full five years?

15. How many LEAs will be participating in the SPDG activities and will each participate for all 5 years, or will there be a cohort design?

Approximately 6 school districts, and 10 schools will be served by this grant. There will be no cohort design.

16. Which grade levels will the SPDG focus on?

Grades K-5

17. Will the evaluator be given access to state student-level testing data and/or student level LEA/school data?

The evaluator will use publicly available, school level data which is available on the State’s website.

18. Should the technical and cost responses be submitted as separate volumes?

The State does not require the technical and cost responses to be separate volumes.

19. The RFP does not specify an anticipated budget range or funding level for the evaluation services. To support development of a realistic and responsive cost proposal aligned with the State’s expectations, we would appreciate any guidance you are able to provide regarding the anticipated budget range or total funding for this work.

The State will determine the budget once proposals have been evaluated.

20. Approximately how many LEAs and schools are anticipated to participate in on-site fidelity assessments each year?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

21. Should proposers assume statewide travel for on-site observations, and if so, is there an expected annual volume?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

22. Is there a specific time of day in which the proposals are due by on January 30th?

Proposals must be submitted by 11:59PM Central Time on January 30, 2026.

23. Do you have a budget range that you are able to share?

24. Would the state be willing to share the technical proposal or narrative description submitted for SPDG funding, including a draft logic model, if available? If that is not possible at this time, would the state be willing to share additional details about the proposed program activities?

The SD DOE will launch a coordinated, statewide initiative focused on transforming math teaching and learning for students with disabilities who continue to experience the lowest proficiency rates and face persistent instructional challenges. This five-year SPDG project will deliver a cohesive, sustainable professional learning model grounded in two evidence-based frameworks: EI and the CRA instructional sequence. Together, these approaches ensure all learners - including those with disabilities - can access and engage with rigorous mathematics content. The grant will leverage technology to deliver sustained professional development statewide, increasing access for rural communities and equipping teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities, even in low-incidence classrooms. The project will address identified needs through a phased implementation that includes the development of online professional learning modules, the establishment of virtual PLCs, the co-creation of family-facing tools and training opportunities, and the enhancement of coaching and apprenticeship pathways to support long-term workforce development.

Over five years, South Dakota will: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered IEPs that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

25. In addition to conducting “fidelity assessments of the professional development (PD) system, including both self-reported and on-site evaluations of evidence based instructional practices,” is the state able to provide access to any student outcome data (e.g., math test scores) that we could include as part of our evaluation (both for participating teachers and non-participating teachers to serve as a comparison group)?

The evaluator will use publicly available, school level data which is available on the State’s website.

26. Would it be acceptable to participate in these meetings and discussions virtually, as needed?

Yes, there is an option for virtual meetings. Final meeting logistics will be determined in collaboration with the State.

27. Would it be acceptable to participate in sessions to validate the logic model with the SPDG advisory group virtually, as needed? See attached Appendices Appendix B logic.

Yes, there is an option for virtual meetings. Final meeting logistics will be determined in collaboration with the State.

28. Project Ceiling: What is the total anticipated budget or "not-to-exceed" amount per year or for the five-year contract term (April 1, 2026 - September 30, 2030)?

The State will determine a budget once proposals have been evaluated.

29. Cost Structure: Section 5.3 requires line-item costs per deliverable. Does the State prefer a fixed-fee per deliverable model, or should the itemized budget be based on hourly rates for specific personnel?

The State does not have a preferred budget model; the Consultant may submit multiple cost proposal options.

30. Financial Documentation: Section 3.3.5 explicitly requires submission of "audited financial statements." Are reviewed or compiled statements acceptable if a firm does not have audited statements? Is this requirement waived for smaller firms?

The State prefers audited financial statements but will accept other financial statements.

31. Site Visit Volume: Section 2 mentions "on-site evaluations of evidence-based instructional practices in classrooms".

· What is the anticipated number of LEAs, schools, and classrooms involved in data collection?

Approximately 6 districts, and 10 schools will be served by this grant

· What grade levels will be served by the SPDG grant?

Grades K-5

· How many on‑site fidelity visits are expected per year?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

· Which particular observation tool or approach does SDDOE prefer (e.g., TFI) or would the department prefer that a new instrument be developed?

This will be developed by the evaluator in collaboration with the State.

· Can SDDOE provide a copy of the approved SPDG grant application for interested evaluation vendors?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the project is provided below:

The SD DOE will launch a coordinated, statewide initiative focused on transforming math teaching and learning for students with disabilities who continue to experience the lowest proficiency rates and face persistent instructional challenges. This five-year SPDG project will deliver a cohesive, sustainable professional learning model grounded in two evidence-based frameworks: EI and the CRA instructional sequence. Together, these approaches ensure all learners - including those with disabilities - can access and engage with rigorous mathematics content. The grant will leverage technology to deliver sustained professional development statewide, increasing access for rural communities and equipping teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities, even in low-incidence classrooms. The project will address identified needs through a phased implementation that includes the development of online professional learning modules, the establishment of virtual PLCs, the co-creation of family-facing tools and training opportunities, and the enhancement of coaching and apprenticeship pathways to support long-term workforce development.

Over five years, South Dakota will: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered IEPs that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

· How will the Math SPDG activities intersect with MTSS work in South Dakota?

The primary focus of the Multi-Tiered System of Supports/Response to Intervention (MTSS/RTI) work in South Dakota has focused on literacy instruction. The Math SPDG will provide an opportunity for schools to integrate best practices in math instruction into their tiered systems of support.

32. Should travel-related expenses be bundled into the deliverable costs, or should they be itemized as a separate line item within the cost proposal?

The State does prefer travel related expenses to be bundled into the cost.

33. Data Infrastructure: Section 2.1.3 mentions the adaptation of data collection tools. Does the State currently utilize a specific web-based portal or software for SPDG data management, or is the Consultant expected to provide their own proprietary data system? If provided by the DOE:

· What data systems will the evaluator have access to?

This project will not require the need for access to DOE data systems.

· Will the state handle data pulls, or must the evaluator coordinate with LEAs individually?

Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) submit quarterly reports and fidelity logs to the State to be shared with the evaluator.

· Are there data-sharing agreements already in place?

There is not a need for a data-sharing agreement for the evaluation of this project.

34. Oral Presentations: Section 4.6 mentions that oral presentations may be required at the consultant's expense. What are the tentative dates and format (virtual vs. in-person) of these presentations, so that the selected vendor can ensure staff availability?

The State estimates the week of February 16th-20th for virtual presentations, these dates are subject to change.

35. Fidelity Assessments: For the on-site evaluations mentioned in Section 2, is there a specific instructional practice tool the State currently uses, or should the consultant propose one?

The consultant should propose one. The final tools will be created in collaboration with the State.

36. Will the evaluator be responsible for student outcome analysis? If so,

· How will the SD DOE support the evaluator in securing data access and data sharing agreements to obtain requisite data?

The evaluator will use publicly available, school level data which is available on the State’s website.

37. Did an external evaluator assist in the preparation of the SDDOE SPDG grant application or logic model development? If so, is that organization eligible to bid on this project?

An organization’s eligibility to bid on this project will be determined in accordance with State procurement policies.

38. What is the expected length and format of semi‑annual reports?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

39. What are the federal reporting requirements the evaluator must support?

The evaluator will conduct the evaluation in accordance with the GPRA and GEPA requirements and OSEP PPMs, which are required for the APR. Additionally, the evaluator will provide summative data annually to be incorporated into the APR.

40. How often will the evaluator present findings to leadership or advisory groups?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

41. Accessibility Standards: Section 1.11 references conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Does this requirement apply strictly to external-facing software applications, or does it also apply to the digital evaluation reports and summaries submitted to the State?

The State requires conformance to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2

42. Logic Model Status: Section 2 notes that the evaluator will begin with the "alignment of the evaluation plan to the logic model". Has the logic model for the Math SPDG already been finalized by the State, or will the Consultant be expected to lead the development of the logic model from scratch? If it has been developed, can SDDOE share that document?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the Logic Model is provided below:

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

43. For the required certifications not outlined in Exhibit C: Will the state provide a template certification form, or should bidders include their own signed statement?

The State does not have a template certification form.

44. Section 4.2 allocates 5 points for "Availability to and familiarity with the project locale". Does DOE prefer a South Dakota-based firm for this work, or is remote work acceptable for most tasks not requiring onsite data collection?

The State does not have a preference.

45. Signature Requirements: Section 3.3.6 notes that the Substitute W9 signature must be handwritten and not typed. Are electronic signatures (e.g., Adobe Digital Sign) utilizing a "wet ink" style permissible for proposal submission via email, or does the Substitute W9 require a physical signature, which will be scanned for submission?

W-9’s must be a physical signature or obtained though a legally binding electronic signature program such as, DocuSign or Adobe Sign.

46. The RFP states, “The evaluator will provide comprehensive support for the SPDG project across all five years, beginning with the alignment of the evaluation plan to the logic model . . .” Has the logic model been developed or will the successful vendor need to develop a logic model as part of the scope of work?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the Logic Model is provided below:

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

47. How many LEAs and schools will be included in this evaluation?

Approximately 6 school districts, and 10 schools will be served by this grant.

48. Has participation from selected schools and LEAs been secured or will they need to be recruited for participation? If the latter, will the state or selected vendor be responsible for securing participation from schools and LEAs? If the vendor is responsible for recruitment, does the state have a prescribed rate for payment for participants?

The State is finalizing the selection of LEAs.

49. Section 2 of the RFP indicates, “ . . . on-site evaluations of evidenced-based instructional practices in classrooms.” What frequency and scope of on-site evaluations are expected?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

50. Are there existing data collection instruments already in use or will all data collection instruments need to be developed by the selected vendor as part of the scope of work?

Data collection tools will be created by the evaluator in collaboration with the State.

51. Section 4.1.d of the RFP specifies, “Record of past performance, including price and cost data from previous projects . . .” Is there a minimum or maximum number of previous projects the vendor should include in their proposal? Do these previous projects need to be conducted with the past three years?

See section 3.3.3 of the RFP.

52. Section 2.1.4 of the RFP states, “Carry out data collection activities in alignment with project timelines established in the evaluation plan.” Section 2.2.1 of the RFP states, “Develop and maintain evaluation plans in collaboration with the State and project leadership." Does the State expect the successful vendor to develop a single evaluation plan or multiple evaluation plans?

It is the expectation of the State that a single evaluation plan be developed.

53. Does the proposal need to be WCAG 2.2 compliant?

Yes, the State currently requires compliance with WCAG 2.2.

54. One element of the proposal’s evaluation criteria includes "record of past performance, including price and cost data from previous projects." This element is not listed in the guidelines for the proposal response. Can you clarify if we are expected to include price and cost data with the previous project examples we provide in our proposal?

See Section 3.3.3 of the RFP.

55. What specific qualifications or experiences will a successful proposer bring to this work?

The selected evaluator will be expected to demonstrate deep expertise in developmental evaluation, continuous improvement models, and special education outcomes.

56. Item 2.2.6 in the RFP indicates the consultant will “Participate in meetings and discussions with project teams and advisory groups to share finding and support continuous improvement.” What information can you share about the number and makeup of advisory groups related to this work? Are there existing advisory groups in place or is that a potential outcome of this evaluation work?

The advisory group will be created in the first year of the project.

57. Who are the members of the SPDG advisory group? How long has this group been active?

The advisory group will be created in the first year of the project.

58. Do you have a not to exceed budget or ideal budget range identified for this work? Is there an annual budget maximum we should be aware of?

The State will determine a budget once proposals have been evaluated.

59. The RFP states that “the project will begin with the alignment of the evaluation plan to the logic model, refinement and testing of measurement tools, andvalidation of the logic model with the SPDG Advisory Group.” Is there an existing logic model that has already been developed for the SPDG or will the logic model be drafted as part of the evaluation design phase of this work? If a logic model already exists, can you please share it?

The proposal will be provided to the selected evaluator at the conclusion of the selection process. An overview of the Logic Model is provided below:

Appendix B: Logic Model Problem Statement: South Dakota student mathematics scores have stagnated, and students with disabilities continue to face disproportionately low proficiency. To close these gaps, general and special educators need training, confidence, and tools to deliver scaffolded, standards-aligned instruction, while families need support to reinforce learning at home, and new math standards adoption timelines make this an opportune time to align this work across the state. Improving early math outcomes is essential to prepare students for college, career, and life success.

(S1, S6) ST1: Educators demonstrate increased knowledge of CRA, standards, IEPs

(S1, S3, S6) ST2: Teachers and families report greater confidence in math instruction and support

(I1, I2, I4, I6, I7)

O3: Family math support materials (S1, S3, S6)

scaffolding LT3: Increased math proficiency rates for K-8 students

(I1, I2, I6)

O4: Family engagement nights and webinar materials (S3, S6) ST4: Districts adopt evidence-based math strategies aligned to IEPs MT4: Families demonstrate increased confidence and involvement in pilot schools

LT4: Institutionalized statewide infrastructure for math PD and personalized IEP support

O5: Local needs assessment and math improvement plans (S1, S4) ST5: Accessible, standards aligned math materials developed for family use

(I1, I3, I6)

O6: Collection of best practice resources

LT6: Sustained partnerships across LEAs, IHEs, and family organizations

(I1, I4, I6, I7)

O7: Math Coaching Pathway

O8: Enhanced Apprenticeship Program

60. We understand that the State has previously been awarded SPDG grants. Can you please share more about the State’s historical experience with SPDG?

0. How long has the State been implementing SPDG grants?

The State previously received one SPDG Grant in 2017 for 5 years.

0. How is this current cycle different from previous cycles?

This project has a focus on Math.

0. Has there been an external evaluation conducted in the past? If so, has the State worked with an external evaluation partner? How will this evaluation compare to previous evaluations conducted?

Yes, the evaluation will be tailored to this specific project.

0. To what extent would you like this scope of work to focus on meeting federal grant reporting requirements versus the specific needs and questions South Dakota has?

Both have equal importance.

61. The RFP is titled “Math SPDG.” Can you describe more about what the plan is for this SPDG grant to be specifically tied to Math? What existing professional development systems and data will be leveraged in this grant? This helps us understand what data and people will be available versus what will need to be built in our design.

The SD DOE will launch a coordinated, statewide initiative focused on transforming math teaching and learning for students with disabilities who continue to experience the lowest proficiency rates and face persistent instructional challenges. This five-year SPDG project will deliver a cohesive, sustainable professional learning model grounded in two evidence-based frameworks: EI and the CRA instructional sequence. Together, these approaches ensure all learners - including those with disabilities - can access and engage with rigorous mathematics content. The grant will leverage technology to deliver sustained professional development statewide, increasing access for rural communities and equipping teachers to meet the needs of students with disabilities, even in low-incidence classrooms. The project will address identified needs through a phased implementation that includes the development of online professional learning modules, the establishment of virtual PLCs, the co-creation of family-facing tools and training opportunities, and the enhancement of coaching and apprenticeship pathways to support long-term workforce development.

Over five years, South Dakota will: Develop statewide training modules and resources that build on the state’s literacy work and extend supports into mathematics. Support Pre K - Grade 5 general and special educators as they transition to new standards, with training focused on EI and CRA - evidence-based strategies shown to improve outcomes for students with disabilities - and the development of person-centered IEPs that scaffold learning and align to standards. Engage and support families through co-developed, family-friendly resources, webinars, and math nights. Enhance a career development for special educators by embedding grant-developed content into statewide mentoring and apprenticeship programs. Plan for sustainability and scale by embedding resources in state systems, showcasing tools at state events, and ensuring free public access to validated materials after pilot refinement.

62. What is the State’s expectations for being on-site in South Dakota for various pieces of the scope of work?

This will be determined in collaboration with the State.

63. Can you provide more detail about the sites and personnel that will be involved with this grant? How many schools/sites are included in this? Which key personnel groups are involved from these schools (e.g. is this only for classroom teachers, will principals and other administration participate)? What other key affected groups do you anticipate will need to be part of the evaluation and data collection?

There will be approximately 6 school districts, and 10 schools involved in the project from across the state. A variety of school personnel will be involved as including, but not limited to classroom teachers, administrators, curriculum directors, special education teachers and directors. Specific personnel required for evaluation and data collection will be determined in collaboration with the State based on the personnel listed previously.