RFP-FSU-20-02 Nutrition Training CRISP FINAL.pdf

Request for Proposal

Proposal # RFP-FSU-20-02

Framingham State University, USDA Team

Nutrition Innovative Training: Culturally

Relevant and Inspiring School Professionals

(CRISP) - Culinary Training Via Live

Setting to Advance Staff and the Quality of

School Meals

March 25, 2020

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 2 of 16

About Framingham State University

Framingham State University prepares students for a productive life, enhanced by learning and leadership that will contribute to the culturally diverse world of the twenty-first century.

Established by Horace Mann in 1839 as America’s first public teacher preparation school, Framingham State University today offers undergraduate and graduate programs encompassing the arts and sciences and professional studies.

At Framingham State University teaching is the primary role of the faculty, who engage in their disciplines through instruction, scholarship and service on campus and in their professional communities. The University serves as an important educational and cultural center in the

Metro-West region of Massachusetts.

A Framingham State University education cultivates thoughtful, responsible local and global citizens, prepares students for a career, and positions them for success.

Framingham, Massachusetts is located 20 miles west of Boston. The University now offers 26 undergraduate major; 25 graduate programs; 45 minors to approximately 4,000 undergraduate students and approximately 2,000 graduate students. The University is a public, four-year co-educational school occupying 73 acres on a traditional New England campus. Framingham State

University has seven undergraduate residence halls housing 1,900 students.

Scope of Work

About the CRISP Nutrition In-School Service & Training Project-

Project Narrative Overview:

The expected term of this project will be 7/1/20-9/20/22. Please note that the term of the project may be extended until all the evaluation deliverables and activities are complete. The extension will be considered a no cost extension.

The John C. Stalker Institute (JSI) of Framingham State University, has been awarded a grant to conduct a study and related training to culinary personnel in the K-12 public school system in

Massachusetts in order to improve healthy and nutritious meal options to the student population.

The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program (school meals) play a foundational role in the lifelong health and wellbeing of students in Massachusetts (MA) and nationwide. Serving high quality, nutrient dense school meals provide children with the key

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 3 of 16 nutrients and energy needed to fuel learning, growth and development. In addition, school meals are an opportunity to educate children about different foods and cultures, creating a sense of a global community in each city and town. The Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education in Massachusetts (DESE) requested grant funding to increase State Agency capacity to deliver training to School Nutrition Professionals (SNPs). This funding will be used to expand a currently developed innovative culinary training via live-setting program to 39 schools throughout the Commonwealth of MA. Additionally, grant funding will be used to launch a study on the impact of Culturally Relevant and Inspiring School Professionals (CRISP), a culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals. CRISP will expand a state developed training program to increase SNPs knowledge, skills and self-efficacy related to school meal quality. CRISP will also engage SNPs in implementing strategies to improve school meal quality and students’ perceptions of school meal quality.

Goals:

Provide an eight-hours of culinary training, to 39 schools from the 31 Massachusetts school districts who have been recruited and submitted Memorandums of Understanding to participate in a study which aims to:

1. Deliver innovative culinary training via live setting to 300 to 500 SNPs at schools throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

2. Determine if there is a positive improvement in culinary knowledge and skills, and culinary self-efficacy in school nutrition personnel after the participation in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

3. Determine if there is a positive improvement in students’ perception of meal quality in the schools participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

4. Determine if Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2010 scores of school meals improves in schools after participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school.

Evaluation Design

Due to the necessity of delivering program elements sequentially, a parallel study design will be used. To minimize the potential of confounding, participating schools will be randomized at the school level into one of three groups: 1) Back to Basics and Live Setting Culinary

Training (LSCT); 2) Back to Basics (BTB); and 3) Control Group (CG). As an incentive to gain as much interest in participation as possible, participants randomized to the BTB and CG

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 4 of 16 groups will be waitlisted to receive all program elements after the necessary program evaluations have been collected. All groups will be assessed at baseline. Additionally, LSCT and BTB groups will be assessed at the conclusion of each program element. In an effort to control for environmental factors the CG group will be administered a post assessment one and two months after the initial baseline assessment. Evaluation will not occur after the control group waitlisted elements.

A sample size calculation was performed, and it is estimated that a minimum of 34 schools will need to be enrolled to detect a positive effect size of 0.5 (powered at 80%, alpha .05). We aim to enroll a total of 39 schools, 13 schools for each study group. Institutional Review

Board (IRB) approval for this study will be obtained from Framingham State University in

Fall of 2019. Consent/assent will be obtained from participants as directed by the parameters of the IRB protocol and as requested by the IRB committee.

Program Evaluation Objectives

1. Determine if there is a positive improvement in culinary knowledge and skills, and culinary self-efficacy in school nutrition personnel after the participation in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

a. Culinary knowledge and skills, and culinary self-efficacy survey administered to school nutrition personnel at baseline and after each program element or specified time period.

2. Determine if there is a positive improvement in students’ perception of meal quality in the schools participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

a. Student meal quality survey administered at baseline and after each program element or specified time period.

b. Digital imagery of school lunch trays at baseline and after each program element or specified time period.

c. Meal participation rates

d. Cafeteria POS reports

3. Determine if Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2010 scores of school meals improves in schools after participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

a. HEI-2010 scores assessed at baseline and after each program element or specified time period.

In addition to the above main evaluation objectives, several other surveys may be administered including but not limited to a baseline survey of school nutrition directors to determine demographic information (size of school, number of staff, participation rates, etc.). Additionally, over the course of the study evaluators working with the project coordinator will be expected to

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 5 of 16 report participation/program numbers per type of participant, training hours per type of participant, demographics of participants, and cost per participants, strategies participants implemented to support school meal quality at a school or district level training and evaluation barriers.

Assessment Methods

School Nutrition Professionals (SNPs) will complete a survey assessing culinary knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy. The meal quality of lunch service will be assessed using the previously validated HEI-2010 (Guenther et al., 2013). The evaluation team will seek to utilize previously validated and reliable assessment tools such as the evaluation instrument developed for the Montana Cook Fresh Workshop (Stephens, Shanks, & Bark, 2016) and the

Cooking Skills and Food Skills survey developed by Lavelle et al (Lavelle et al., 2017). If this is not possible due to the nature of this specialized training and the limited availability of previously tested culinary knowledge, skills and self-efficacy tools in the NSLP environment, the evaluators will validate the assessment tools prior to the implementation. The validation method will include content, face, and reliability testing.

A validated Middle/Junior High School Student Participation Survey will be administered to students. This survey elicits information on why students participate in the NSLP. The survey includes questions related to food quality such as The food tastes good and The quality of food is good. Students answer questions using a Likert scale (5, strongly agree to 1, strongly disagree). The survey was previously validated by Castillo and Lofton and includes 27 questions (Castillo & Lofton, 2012). To provide an objective assessment of meal quality acceptability, digital imagery will be used to assess lunch trays in a random sample of students at each assessment period. Digital imagery has been shown to be a valid, reliable and cost-effective method to determine plate waste and thereby act as an indicator for foods consumed (Taylor, Yon & Johnson, 2014). Objective measures including participation rates and Point of Service (POS) sales reports will be used as a proxy for behavioral changes made by students.

In addition to the various assessments of meal quality, the following information will be collected by the Project Coordinator and analyzed by the evaluation team over the course of the grant per participant/program: hours of training; total number; type of participant;

cost of training, and training barriers and challenges. The evaluation team will also maintain a log of barriers and challenges to the implementation of each element of the program.

Data Collection

Data will be collected at key intervals over the course of the study. Please see the attached evaluation timeline (page 14 & 15) for specific information on evaluation time periods. Prior to delivery of programing each participating school will be asked to complete demographic information (e.g., urbanicity, district size, etc.). At the start of each program element (BTB, LSCT, etc.) participants will be asked to sign in to verify attendance, number of training hours

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 6 of 16 and job title. This information will be used to assess school and individual level participation in programing activities as well as track cost of training per participants. Each group of school participants (SNP and students) will be administered a baseline assessment prior to the implementation of program elements. At the conclusion of the program elements, BTB and

LSCT participants will be administered a post-program assessment. CG participants will be administered assessments at the same intervals as the LSCT group. Data related to the HEI-

2010 will be collected from each participating school at baseline and after the implementation of each program activity. Student surveys and digital imagery of lunch trays will be collected at baseline and after each program activity. An evaluation and a program timeline is attached.

Data Analysis

All assessment tools not previously validated will be reviewed and analyzed for content and face validity and reliability. In addition, all tools not previous validated will be pilot tested prior to implementation. Validity will be determined through factor analysis using a cutoff factor of 0.4. Additionally, to test for the internal reliability of questions a Cronbach alpha will be determined for each assessment tool.

Pre and post-training data will be analyzed using SPSS 24 for quantitative data and NVivo 12 for qualitative data. SND and SNP multiple choice culinary knowledge and skills questions will be reviewed individually and as a calculated summary score. Self-efficacy will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale and data will be presented for individual questions and as summative scores. Within group pre and post-training data will be compared using paired t-tests and

ANOVA where appropriate. Between group differences will be analyzed using

ANOVA/MANOVA where appropriate. Descriptive statics will be provided for all demographic data collected. Participation and cost per participant will be tracked using an

Excel spreadsheet.

HEI-2010 scores for school meals will be determined using the components and scoring standards outlined by the research uses of the HEI developed by the National Cancer Institute

(National Cancer Institute, 2018). Digital imagery analysis will be conducted by using side by side comparisons of photos. Two trained reviewers will analyze photos. Interrater reliability will be determined by comparing reviewer’s categorizations of a randomly selected set of photographs. Paired t-tests will be used to compare pre- and post-assessment individual and summary scores for food components. ANOVA will be used to compare results across time periods.

Role of the Evaluation Team

Institutional Review Board Approval will be obtained by Cathy Wickham through Framingham

State University (FSU). The evaluation team will be responsible for the collection and evaluation of data related to all key program activities including: addressing all requirements and requests

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 7 of 16 from FSUs IRB committee, development and validation of questionnaires as needed, implementation, and evaluation of a culinary knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy questionnaire and student meal quality perception questionnaire; pre- and post- program assessment of meal quality using HEI-2010; and digital imagery related to meal consumption as a proxy for meal quality acceptance. Approximately 380 hours of support from FSU Research Assistants will be provided each year over the term of the grant to assist with the collection of assessments and related evaluation work.

The evaluation team will organize, maintain, analyze, and present all assessment data. In addition, the evaluation team will be responsible for collecting and analyzing descriptive statistics from each school including, but not limited to, school level demographics, participation rates, and cafeteria POS reports. The evaluation team will provide written quarterly reports on the evaluation progress. At the conclusion of key mid-points, the evaluation team will provide study findings to the greater project team and will prepare reports as needed for the USDA. All data collected over the term of the grant will remain the property of DESE, JSI, and FSU. In addition, DESE, JSI and FSU reserve the right to publish all data of fundamental value to science and technology.

Overview of Task List/Deliverables

Attend meetings as needed to present evaluation progress and results. These meetings may be in-person or conducted via conference call and will occur at minimum once a quarter and may occur monthly/bimonthly as needed.

Conduct all assessments and evaluations in accordance with the parameters set forth by the

IRB committee at Framingham State University.

Pilot test survey tools and test internal reliability of each assessment tool not previously validated.

Communicate and coordinate with project coordinator and schools to determine schedule for each evaluation.

o Review criteria to confirm eligibility, randomize and notify participating schools.

Collect required consent/assent forms throughout the grant term. Forms will be retained by

FSU as per IRB requirements.

Collect preliminary demographic information from each participating school.

Baseline assessments o Conduct evaluations of School Nutrition Professionals to assess culinary knowledge, skills and self-efficacy at baseline and after implementation of each program.

o Conduct evaluations of school lunches using HEI-2010 at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

o Conduct assessment of students’ perception of school lunch meal quality at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 8 of 16 o Perform digital imagery of lunch trays in a random sample of students at each assessment period (baseline and after each program element) as an objective assessment of meal quality and acceptability.

o Collect participation rates and Point of Service sales reports to be used as a proxy for behavioral change made by students.

Post-program assessments. Note: these assessments will occur after each program element has been delivered and as outlined in the Data Collection section above.

o Conduct evaluations of School Nutrition Professionals to assess culinary knowledge, skills and self-efficacy at baseline and after implementation of each program.

o Conduct evaluations of school lunches using HEI-2010 at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

o Conduct assessment of students’ perception of school lunch meal quality at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

o Perform digital imagery of lunch trays in a random sample of students at each assessment period (baseline and after each program element) as an objective assessment of meal quality and acceptability.

o Collect participation rates and Point of Service sales reports to be used as a proxy for behavioral change made by students.

Collection (pre- and/or post-program as needed) and evaluation of additional information.

Note: some of this data will be collected by the Project team. Data includes but is not limited to:

o Description of strategies participants implemented to support school meal quality at a school or district level.

o Hours of training per type of participant (non-duplicated count) (e.g., number of training hours per school nutrition director, per manager, per frontline staff).

o Total number of participants trained, as well as the breakdown of type of participant

(e.g., director, manager, frontline staff).

o Demographics of training participants (e.g., urbanicity, district size).

o Cost of training per participant.

o Training barriers and challenges.

Maintenance of field notes and logs of evaluation barriers and challenges related to conducting evaluations.

Data and Reports o Organize, maintain, analyze, and present all evaluation data as needed over the term of the program.

o Provide evaluation reports as needed, at USDA required intervals, over the course of the grant including:

A cumulative annual performance report must be submitted within 30 days after the end of each year of the grant period (October 30, 2020; October 30, 2021; October 30, 2022).

o At the conclusion of the grant prepare and submit a final evaluation report

Within 90 days after the end of the grant period, final report that includes, but is not limited to:

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 9 of 16

A brief description of the evaluation methodology and how performance measures were collected and assessed.

A brief description of the tested tools or survey instruments used to capture the performance measures.

Results that include major accomplishments and outcomes, and analysis of all required performance measures (e.g., the total number of unduplicated participants and total encounters reached over the three-year period).

A summary of lessons learned and best practices gleaned from field experience throughout the duration of the training program that could inform future work.

Discussion on how the training program and its results can inform other State agencies seeking to enhance school meal quality, and the feasibility (both financially and administratively) of implementing it in other States.

Evaluation of data from all other assessment measures.

Evaluation Activities/Deliverables:

Evaluation work in 39 schools

Evaluation team will complete project work in accordance with the Culturally Relevant and Inspiring School Professionals (CRISP) project and is responsible for the collection and evaluation of data related to all key program activities including:

selection/development, implementation, and evaluation which includes the following requirements:

o Conduct all assessments and evaluations in accordance with the parameters set forth by the IRB committee at Framingham State University (FSU).

o Review criteria to confirm eligibility, randomize and notify participating schools o Collect preliminary demographic information from each participating school o Collect required/consent/assent forms throughout the grant term. Forms will be retained by FSU as per IRB requirements o Conduct evaluations of School Nutrition Professionals to assess culinary knowledge, skills and self-efficacy at baseline and after implementation of each program.

o Conduct evaluations of school lunches using HEI-2010 at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

o Conduct assessment of students’ perception of school lunch meal quality at baseline and after implementation of each program element.

o Perform digital imagery of lunch trays in a random sample of students at each assessment period (baseline and after each program element) as an objective assessment of meal quality and acceptability.

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 10 of 16 o Collect participation rates and Point of Service sales reports to be used as a proxy for behavioral change made by students.

o In partnership with the program team collect and track per participant/program:

1.) hours of training, 2.) total number, 3.) type of participant, 4.) cost of training.

o Organize, maintain, analyze, and present all evaluation data as needed over the term of the program for the following:

Culinary knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy questionnaire

Student perceptions of meal quality questionnaire

Digital imagery

HEI-2010

Additional data as outlined above o Participate in program meetings and submit mid-point and final evaluation reports

Finalize Data Analysis and prepare final reports

Evaluation team will finalize project work in accordance with the Culturally Relevant and

Inspiring School Professionals (CRISP) project and will complete collection, if needed and evaluation of data related to all key program activities including:

selection/development, implementation, and evaluation.

Analyze all program data in accordance with program objectives including:

o Determine if there is a positive improvement in culinary knowledge and skills, and culinary self-efficacy in school nutrition personnel after the participation in

CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

Analysis of data related to culinary knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy survey o Determine if there is a positive improvement in students’ perception of meal quality in the schools participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

Analysis of data related to student perceptions of school meal quality survey

Analysis of data related to digital imagery o Determine if Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2010 scores of school meals improves in schools after participating in CRISP: Culinary training via live-setting to advance staff and the quality of school meals.

Analysis of data related to HEI-2010 scores o Analysis of all other data collected across the study including:

Participation rates and POS report data

Description of strategies participants implemented to support school meal quality at a school or district level.

Hours of training per type of participant (non-duplicated count) (e.g., number of training hours per school nutrition director, per manager, per frontline staff).

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 11 of 16

Total number of participants trained, as well as the breakdown of type of participant (e.g., director, manager, frontline staff).

Demographics of training participants (e.g., urbanicity, district size).

Cost of training per participant.

Training and evaluation barriers and challenges.

Prepare and submit a final report by evaluation team

Evaluation Timeline – Note that three evaluations (baseline, E2, E3) will be performed at each school. Evaluations will not be conducted after waitlisted training. Please note that this is a tentative timeline and may be adjusted based on the availability of enrolled schools.

9 Schools (P1) School Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July

1 Baseline E2 E3

2 Baseline E2 E3

3 Baseline E2 E3

4 Baseline E2 E3

5 Baseline E2 E3

6 Baseline E2 E3

7 Baseline E2 E3

8 Baseline E2 E3

9 Baseline E2 E3 Legend: BTB & LSCT Group BTB Group Control Group

16 schools (P2)

School Aug Sept Oct. Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July

10 Baseline E2 E3

11 Baseline E2 E3

12 Baseline E2 E3

13 Baseline E2 E3

14 Baseline E2 E3

15 Baseline E2 E3

16 Baseline E2 E3

17 Baseline E2 E3

18 Baseline E2 E3

19 Baseline E2 E3

20 Baseline E2 E3

21 Baseline E2 E3

22 Baseline E2 E3

23 Baseline E2 E3

24 Baseline E2 E3

25 Baseline E2 E3 Legend: BTB & LSCT Group BTB Group Control Group

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 12 of 16

Quality Requirements

1) The owner of the firm must possess a Doctoral Degree in Nutrition Science or a

Doctoral Degree with a concentration in Nutrition Science from an accredited institution.

2) The firm must have a minimum of five years (5) of experience in nutritional research and evaluation in K-12 public schools in MA in order to submit on this proposal.

3) The owner must provide written evidence of Chef-Based Intervention experience in public schools in its submission and list each of these experiences, along with references for each.

4) The owner must have acted as the principal investigator or co-investigator on the grant scope of work outlined above for a minimum of five projects.

5) The owner of the firm must possess Human Subjects Ethics Training Certification and provide evidence of such in its submission.

6) The owner of the firm must have a minimum of ten (10) years of relevant experience in conducting nutritional research and evaluation. Respondents submitting on this proposal will less than 10 years of relevant experience will be rejected.

7) The Respondent must submit resumes or CVs of the key staff which will be working on the proposed project.

8) The Respondent must demonstrate that it will coordinate a minimum of three staff members on the team working on this project and must include those key team staff resumes/CVs in its submission.

14 schools (P3)

School Sept Oct. Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July

26 Baseline E2 E3

27 Baseline E2 E3

28 Baseline E2 E3

29 Baseline E2 E3

30 Baseline E2 E3

31 Baseline E2 E3

32 Baseline E2 E3

33 Baseline E2 E3

34 Baseline E2 E3

35 Baseline E2 E3

36 Baseline E2 E3

37 Baseline E2 E3

38 Baseline E2 E3

39 Baseline E2 E3 Legend: BTB & LSCT Group BTB Group Control Group

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 13 of 16

Evaluative Rating Criteria

1) Years of Nutrition Research (Development and Implementation) Experience:

a) Highly Advantageous: Firm has over 15 years of accumulated experience in conducting nutritional research in K-12 public schools with at least 10 years in MA

K-12 schools.

b) Advantageous: Firm has 5-10 years of experience in conducting nutritional research in K-12 public schools with at least 5 years in MA K-12 schools.

c) Not Advantageous: Firm has 5 years of experience in K-12 public schools with less than 5 years in MA K-12 schools.

d) Unacceptable: Less than 5 years of experience will disqualify the Respondent

2) Years of Program Evaluation Experience:

a) Highly Advantageous: The firm has experience evaluating data and presenting findings from at least five (5) nutrition-related studies, including at least one plate-waste study.

b) Advantageous: The firm has experience evaluating data and presenting findings from 3-4 nutrition-related studies.

c) Not Advantageous: The firm has experience evaluating data and presenting findings from less than 3 nutrition-related studies

d) Unacceptable: The firm has no experience with plate waste studies in public schools.

3) Publications Experience:

a) Highly Advantageous: The owner has published more than 10 articles on school nutrition based research.

b) Advantageous: The owner has published 5-10 articles on school nutrition based research.

c) Not Advantageous: The owner has published less than 5 articles on school nutrition based research.

d) Unacceptable: The owner has published no articles on school nutrition based research.

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 14 of 16

Rule for Award

The University shall award the contract to the “responsive and responsible” vendor who meets all of the quality requirements outlined in this document and who provides the highest-rated

Technical Proposal based on the evaluative rating criteria. The University will take into consideration the evaluation of the Price Proposal in its award determination and will award based on the overall proposal that best meets the needs of the University. The definitions for

“responsible” and “responsive” shall be defined as stated in M.G.L. Chapter 30B, Section 2.

Submission Requirements

It is the sole responsibility of the vendor to submit his/her proposal to the Framingham State

University, Business Office contact listed below by mail or hand delivery per the deadline noted below. Any and all proposals received after this time will be considered non-responsive and will be rejected. The University is in no way responsible for the cost of developing or delivering any proposal.

The Technical Proposal and the Price Proposal shall be submitted in separate envelopes labeled with the RFP Number. You must include two thumb drives which contain all of your response materials with your response; One thumb drive will contain your firm’s Technical proposal. A separate thumb drive will contain the Price proposal. Each thumb drive must be in its respective and separate envelopes.

The Proposals are to be clearly labeled Proposal #RFP-FSU-20-02 on the outside of each of the sealed packages containing the Proposal documents with a label for the

Technical Proposal and a label for the Price Proposal.

The Technical Proposal must respond to all of the Quality Requirements and

Evaluative Rating Criteria outlined above and contain a minimum of three samples of work completed for previous clients. Proposals that do not meet the Quality

Requirements will be rejected and not evaluated further.

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 15 of 16

RFP TIMELINE:

Release of RFP ................................................................................... March 25, 2020

Notice of Intent to Participate……………………………………… March 31, 2020

Deadline for Questions Due from Vendors .......................................April 6, 2020 at 5:00 PM

Response to Questions Emailed .........................................................April 10, 2020

Deadline for Receiving Proposals ......................................................April 17, 2020 at 2:00 PM

Committee Review.............................................................................April 17-April 30, 2020

University Selection ...........................................................................On or before May 1, 2020

(This timeframe may be extended by the University if more time is necessary for a determination)

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Direct all correspondence and questions to: Natasha M. Bizanos-Ashe, Director of Procurement

& Contracts at the following address:

Framingham State University

Business Office

Dwight Hall, Room 201

100 State Street

Framingham, MA 01701

EMail: NBizanosashe@framingham.edu

Any attempt to contact other individuals at the University shall lead to immediate disqualification and the Proposal shall be considered non-responsive. All questions shall be directed to Natasha Bizanos-Ashe and the proposal shall be sent to her attention.

ADDITIONAL RFP INFORMATION

COMMBUYS is the electronic marketplace for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This RFP is being posted on COMMBUYS strictly for the sake of advertising to the widest possible audience. All questions and responses to this RFP must be sent to the University’s contact as stated above.

The University reserves the following rights with respect to this process: to reject any Proposals;

to waive any Proposal technicalities or informalities that are not statutory; to terminate the selection process at any time; to reject any proposal if the Committee determines such proposal does not represent the proposal of a person responsible to perform the work; to not award a mailto:NBizanosashe@framingham.edu

RFP-FSU-20-02 Page 16 of 16 contract; to make decisions that are in the best interest of the project; to adjust the process and schedule as needed; and to initiate an alternate selection process.

Please note the following information:

1. The University is an agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is exempt from any state tax.

2. Unless otherwise stated, the unit price shall be the net price. Separate unit and total prices must be shown if applicable.

3. Quote Acknowledgement Form attached to this RFP must be completed, signed and submitted with the Technical Proposal.

4. If selected, the vendor must execute the Massachusetts Standard Contract Form, W9 and Commonwealth of Massachusetts Terms & Conditions. (Attached)

Framingham State University

CONTRACTING AND PURCHASING

Excerpt from the Equal Opportunity, Diversity, and Affirmative Action Plan—Approved by the Board of High Education: September 28, 2018

I. INTRODUCTION

Together, Bridgewater State University, Fitchburg State University, Framingham State University, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, Salem State University, Westfield State University and Worcester State University (collectively, “the Universities”) have carefully developed the major elements of this Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Affirmative Action Plan with the understanding that a successful plan requires more than knowledge of the laws, regulations and current government requirements. This Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Affirmative Action Plan (“the Plan”) demands vision to fully comprehend what challenges the Universities face in preparing our students for their post-commencement lives. With this Plan, the Universities continue to take a step beyond and, both collectively and individually, commit themselves to the valuing of human dignity, and to the appreciation of the necessity of providing all members of the University community an experience that equips them to relate to all persons and groups in the increasingly global and diverse world in which we all live and work. PURPOSES Pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 15A, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Board of Higher Education (“BHE”) is responsible for the overall governance of the Universities. Together with the BHE, the Universities’ Boards of Trustees maintain and promote a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital or parental status, or veteran status. A primary purpose of this Plan is to inform the campuses of: (1) the Universities’ prohibition of all forms of discrimination, discriminatory harassment, sexual violence, sexual and gender-based harassment, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and retaliation; (2) the Universities’ efforts to prevent such behaviors; and (3) the manner in which the Universities will respond to such behaviors, including the prompt, impartial, fair and thorough investigation and resolution of complaints. Through this Plan, the Universities also seek to responsibly recognize and, when possible, resolve the effects of past societal discrimination and the impact which that discrimination has had. To those ends, the State Universities commit to an ongoing examination of all policies and procedures to ensure that they do not operate to the detriment of any person on any discriminatory basis. Finally, the Universities commit to a pro-active affirmative action posture with respect to the recruitment, selection and promotion of students and employees.

II. CONTRACTING AND PURCHASING:

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY VENDORS

When selecting contractors, suppliers, and vendors of goods and services, including goods and services secured in connection with construction projects, the Universities will offer equal opportunity to all qualified persons and entities and will not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital or parental status, or veteran status. The Universities shall seek to locate and shall encourage the use of minority and female contractors, subcontractors, vendors, and suppliers. The Universities will identify businesses primarily operated by members of such protected classes with the help of agencies such as the State Office of Minority Business Assistance in order to encourage bids and proposals from potential contractors, vendors and suppliers.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

The Universities require that all persons and entities with which they contract for the provision of goods and services shall provide equal opportunity for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital or parental status, or veteran status.

CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE

Prior to the awarding of any contract, the Universities shall require that the contractor provide written assurance of its compliance with applicable state and federal laws and regulations, including the provisions of this Policy, prohibiting discrimination in employment. The Universities shall require that every contract made on or after July 1, 1996, for the purchase of goods and services contain the following provisions. 49 1520495_1 “During the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor agrees as follows: 1. The Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital or parental status, or veteran status. 2. The Contractor will comply with the provisions of the Governor’s Code of Fair Practices, with Chapter 151B of the General Laws of Massachusetts, with the Americans with Disabilities Act and with all other applicable state and federal laws barring discrimination in employment, and with Section IV of the Massachusetts State Universities’ Equal Opportunity, Diversity and Affirmative Action Plan. 3. In the performance of this Agreement, the Contractor shall take affirmative action to employ minority and female subcontractors, vendors and suppliers. 4. The University may at any time require the Contractor to supply it with such data, as it shall reasonably require for purposes of determining whether the Contractor is adhering to the above-described prohibitions against discrimination in employment. 5. In the event that the Contractor shall have failed to comply with the requirements contained in any of foregoing clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, the University may enforce such compliance by withholding part or all of any payment then due until such time as the Contractor complies with any such requirement, and/or by cancelling, terminating or suspending the whole or any part of this Agreement. Nothing herein contained shall bar the University from pursuing such other lawful recourse as it may have to enforce compliance with the above-described requirements and to recover damages for their breach.” The Universities reserve the right to disqualify as a contractor any person or entity that fails to adhere to the prohibitions against the discrimination, discriminatory harassment and retaliation in employment that are contained in Section IV of this Plan.

CONTRACTOR CONDUCT

All contractors, vendors, consultants and suppliers of goods and services shall be required, during any period when they or their agents or employees are present at the Universities, to adhere to standards of conduct that are consistent with this Policy, and all such contractors, vendors and suppliers, their agents and employees shall refrain from acts or conduct that constitute harassment of any person by reason of such person’s race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, genetic information, marital or parental status, or veteran status. The Universities shall require every contractor, vendor, consultant, and supplier to instruct its agents and employees concerning the requirements of this paragraph, and to take actions including disciplinary actions, to correct any violation thereof.

Framingham State University

Proposal Acknowledgement Form

Proposal # RFP-FSU-20-02

Framingham State University

CERTIFICATION OF NON-COLLUSION

The undersigned certifies under penalties of perjury that this bid or proposal has been made and submitted in good faith and without collusion or fraud with any other person. As used in this certification, the word “person” shall mean any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club or other organization, entity or group of individuals.

Signature of individual submitting proposal Date

Name of business:

OR

Mail via US Postal Service to:

� Framingham State University

VENDOR SET-UP REQUEST CHECKLIST

The following forms must be completed and submitted to Framingham State University's Business Office in order for a vendor to be added to our financial system. Existing Vendors do not need to complete.

Vendor Set up Form

W-9 Form

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Terms & Conditions

Prompt Pay Discount Form (optional)

Please send the signed and dated complete forms in one of the following manners:

Email a PDF copy to: vendorinfo@framingham.edu

Framingham State University

100 State Street, Dwight Hall Rm 201

Framingham, MA 01701

ATTN: Vendor Set-Up

COMMONWEALTH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Page 1 of 2. TC Issued 10/25/19

This Commonwealth Terms and Conditions form is jointly issued by the Executive Office for Administration and

Finance (ANF), the Office of the Comptroller (CTR) and the Operational Services Division (OSD) for use by all Commonwealth of Massachusetts (“State”) Departments and Contractors. Any changes or electronic alterations by either the Department or the Contractor to the official version of this form, as jointly published by ANF, CTR and OSD, shall be void. Upon execution of the Standard Contract Form these Commonwealth Terms and Conditions will be incorporated by reference. Performance shall include services rendered, obligations due, costs incurred, commodities and deliverables provided and accepted by the Department, programs provided or other commitments authorized under a Contract. A deliverable shall include any tangible product to be delivered as an element of performance under a Contract. The Commonwealth is entitled to ownership and possession of all deliverables purchased or developed with State funds. Contract shall mean the Standard Contract Form issued jointly by ANF, CTR and OSD.

1. Contract Effective Start Date. Notwithstanding verbal or other representations by the parties, the effective start date of performance under a Contract shall be the later of the date the Contract was executed by an authorized signatory of the Contractor, the date the Contract was executed by an authorized signatory of the Department, the date specified in the Contract, or the date of any approvals required by law or regulation.

2. Payments And Compensation. The Contractor shall only be compensated for performance delivered and accepted by the Department in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of a Contract. All Contract payments are subject to appropriation pursuant to M.G.L. c. 29, § 26, or the availability of sufficient non-appropriated funds for the purposes of a Contract, and shall be subject to intercept pursuant to M.G.L. c. 7A, § 3 and 815 CMR 9.00. Overpayments shall be reimbursed by the Contractor or may be offset by the Department from future payments in accordance with state finance law. Acceptance by the Contractor of any payment or partial payment, without any written objection by the Contractor, shall in each instance operate as a release and discharge of the State from all claims, liabilities or other obligations relating to the performance of a Contract.

3. Contractor Payment Mechanism. All Contractors will be paid using the Comptroller’s payment system unless a different payment mechanism is required. The Contractor shall timely submit invoices and supporting documentation as prescribed in a Contract. The Department shall review and return rejected invoices within fifteen (15) days of receipt with a written explanation for rejection. Payments shall be made in accordance with the bill paying policy issued by the Office of the Comptroller and 815 CMR 4.00, provided that payment periods listed in a Contract of less than forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of an invoice shall be effective only to enable a Department to take advantage of early payment incentives and shall not subject any payment made within the forty-five (45) day period to a penalty. The Contractor Payroll System shall be used only for Individual Contractors who have been determined to be Contract Employees as a result of the Department’s completion of an Internal Revenue Service SS-8 form in accordance with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) 1990, and shall automatically process all state and federal mandated payroll, tax and retirement deductions.

4. Contract Termination Or Suspension. A Contract shall terminate on the date specified in a Contract, unless this date is properly amended in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations prior to this date, or unless terminated or suspended under this Section upon prior written notice to the Contractor. The Department may terminate a Contract without cause and without penalty, or may terminate or suspend a Contract if the Contractor breaches any material term or condition or fails to perform or fulfill any material obligation required by a Contract, or in the event of an elimination of an appropriation or availability of sufficient funds for the purposes of a Contract, or in the event of an unforeseen public emergency mandating immediate Department action. Upon immediate notification to the other party, neither the Department nor the Contractor shall be deemed to be in breach for failure or delay in performance due to Acts of God or other causes factually beyond their control and without their fault or negligence.

Subcontractor failure to perform or price increases due to market fluctuations or product availability will not be deemed factually beyond the Contractor’s control.

5. Written Notice. Any notice shall be deemed delivered and received when submitted in writing in person or when delivered by any other appropriate method evidencing actual receipt by the Department or the Contractor. Any written notice of termination or suspension delivered to the Contractor shall state the effective date and period of the notice, the reasons for the termination or suspension, if applicable, any alleged breach or failure to perform, a reasonable period to cure any alleged breach or failure to perform, if applicable, and any instructions or restrictions concerning allowable activities, costs or expenditures by the Contractor during the notice period.

6. Confidentiality. The Contractor shall comply with M.G.L. c. 66A if the Contractor becomes a “holder” of “personal data”. The Contractor shall also protect the physical security and restrict any access to personal or other Department data in the Contractor’s possession, or used by the Contractor in the performance of a Contract, which shall include, but is not limited to, the Department’s public records, documents, files, software, equipment or systems.

7. Record-keeping And Retention, Inspection Of Records. The Contractor shall maintain records, books, files and other data as specified in a Contract and in such detail as shall properly substantiate claims for payment under a Contract, for a minimum retention period of six (6) years beginning on the first day after the final payment under a Contract, or such longer period as is necessary for the resolution of any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit or other inquiry involving a Contract. The Department shall have access, as well as any parties identified under Executive Order 195, during the Contractor’s regular business hours and upon reasonable prior notice, to such records, including on-site reviews and reproduction of such records at a reasonable expense.

8. Assignment. The Contractor may not assign or delegate, in whole or in part, or otherwise transfer any liability, responsibility, obligation, duty or interest under a Contract, with the exception that the Contractor shall be authorized to assign present and prospective claims for money due to the Contractor pursuant to a Contract in accordance with M.G.L. c. 106, § 9-318. The Contractor must provide sufficient notice of assignment and supporting documentation to enable the Department to verify and implement the assignment. Payments to third party assignees will be processed as if such payments were being made directly to the Contractor and these payments will be subject to intercept, offset, counter claims or any other Department rights which are available to the Department or the State against the Contractor.

9. Subcontracting By Contractor.