Questions and Answers

RFP #GT-14
Teacher Effectiveness: Training and Tools for Teacher Evaluators


IMPORTANT NOTE: Due to the numerous questions received regarding the Bid Cost Proposal for Services 1-3 the form was revised. The revised form is required for use in the submission of a bid.

  1. Question: The requirements state that the “bidder must have ten (10) years of experience performing professional development or training of educators in a K-12 environment.” Does this requirement pertain to the longevity and/or history of the organization in professional development, or can the experience of key organizational leaders with over ten-year careers in professional development to school districts and personnel be considered in this requirement?

    Answer: The ten years experience may apply to either the organization or to the staff member(s) with primary responsibility for (co-)facilitating the in-person training.

  2. Question: As we are a privately owned company, our software code is proprietary.  By being the constant support of the system, rather than selling code, ensures the NYSDOE will always have the latest innovation in our software. Would the NYSDOE be open to a long term relationship to ensure this?

    Answer: No.

  3. Question: Are there any specific guidelines for “educator evaluation systems” that you would like illustrated in the “experience” section?

    Answer: No.
  1. Question: In the RFP, NYSED describes specific training quantity and timing (6 days of in-person training in Year 1, 8 days in years 2 and 3). Can vendors propose that participants in the train-the-trainer program also engage in additional learning outside these in-person sessions (for example, participating in online discussions or viewing master scored videos to support continued calibration)?

    Answer:  The vendors bid response should address the specific deliverables as identified in the RFP document.
  1. Question: Can the training in years 2 and 3 be delivered throughout the entire school year? Or would NYSED prefer that training sessions each year are concentrated in the latter portion of the year?

    Answer: In subsequent years (years 2 and 3), eight (8) train-the-trainer program training sessions will be provided on dates yet to be determined by NYSED. It is anticipated that trainings in years two and three will be distributed across the year.
  1. Question: Although there is no provision in the RFP for delays in performance as a result of a force majeure event (events beyond the contractor’s reasonable control including without limitation, acts of God; acts or omissions of governmental authorities or NYSED or any third party; strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances; acts of public enemies; wars; blockades; riots; civil disturbances; epidemics; floods; hurricanes; tornadoes; and any other similar acts, events, or omissions), does the NYSED acknowledge that such delays in performance would not constitute a breach of the contract?

    Answer:  Yes.
  1. Question: Will the contract resulting from this RFP be a firm, fixed price contract?

    Answer:  Yes.
  1. Question: We presume if NYSED is unable to participate in the review and approval of deliverables due to a delay in contract execution which impacts the delivery schedule, that the vendor will not be held in breach for the delayed deliverables and we further presume that NYSED would collaborate with the vendor to reach revised mutually agreeable delivery dates.  Is this correct?  

    Answer: Yes, however, the training dates specified for year 1 are the result of a significant logistical coordination on behalf of NYSED, and the successful bidder will be expected to fulfill training on those dates.
  1. Question: Please explain the scope of work requirements for registering and tracking attendance at training sessions. 

    Answer: The vendor is NOT expected to handle logistics of scheduling facilities and participant attendance (including printing, collating, and shipping of materials) and should not include these items in their scope of work or costs. The responsibility of registering and tracking attendance at training sessions does not lie with the vendor.
  1. Question:We presume based on the timeframes presented in the RFP that the certification evaluations are standards-specific rather than rubrics-specific.  Is this correct?

    Answer: Yes.
  1. Question: The non-proprietary condition set forth in the Mandatory Contract Requirements section applies to any type of documentation that is shared among the contractor, subcontractor and such vendors.  (Page 10, Paragraph (e))

    We presume that ‘documentation’ as used in this provision is defined as the following deliverables:  training materials and tools. Is this correct?

    Answer:  No, in addition to training materials and tools, our definition of documentation also includes methodologies and frameworks.
  1. Question: Page 12, section 3 of the RFP states the following:  Design training, protocols and support around Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Effective Teaching (and state-approved rubrics closely based on it) and the NYSUT-developed state-approved rubric. The list of approved teacher practice rubrics can be found at http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/teachers-leaders/practicerubrics/home.html#ATPR.

    What level of rubric specific training is required, and is there a reason why the Danielson Framework and the NYSUT rubrics are specifically called out?

    Answer:  Regarding the level of rubric-specific training, the goal is to develop the training to be general enough to apply to all rubrics. The Danielson Framework and the NYSUT rubrics are specifically called out because 1) they are the most commonly used rubrics in the state and 2) to provide a small sample set of rubrics that may be representative of the entire population of NYSED-approved rubrics.
  1. Question: On page 12, Item 4; Page 7, Item 2.a.i., the RFP states:  The New York State Education Department (NYSED) reserves the right to specify additional teacher rubrics that vendors must accommodate in their training. NYSED will identify the rubrics used by attendees before training events, notify vendor at least a week in advance of such rubrics, such that the vendor can coordinate small groupings by common rubrics during trainings. Vendor may be required to differentiate training across 3 rubrics.

    On page 7, the RFP states:
    The training materials, tools, and resources must include, but are not limited to:
    i. Trainers’ guides for turn-key delivery of this scope and sequence including general guidance to trainers for differentiating program and materials for groups using different teacher practice rubrics

    The statements from the RFP cited above seem to be in conflict.  The first statement states that vendors must accommodate additional rubrics with at least one week advance notice by coordinating small groupings by common rubrics during trainings, and the second statement states that vendors must include general guidance to trainers on how to differentiate the program and materials for different rubrics.  Please clarify if NYSED expects the training for each rubric to be customized, and considering the timeframes allowed in the RFP, please clarify the level of customization that NYSED is expecting to see between the rubrics.

    Answer: The primary goal is to develop the training to be general enough to apply to all rubrics, but should also provide pragmatic information for specific rubric(s) used by trainees.  Class groupings may be used to segment rubrics.  Expected levels of customization might include: Several talking/training points for each rubric, a Quick Reference Guide or comparable document for each rubric, etc.
  1. Question: Based on the citations in Question 13, we presume the additional rubrics a vendor would be required to accommodate in their training will not measure teacher attributes beyond the attributes already included in the NYS-approved rubrics.  Is this correct?

    Answer:  Yes.
  1. Question: Regarding Pages 12-13, Mandatory Contract Requirements; Page 18, and Page 38.  On pages 12-13, the RFP states that the bidder may either propose NYSED ownership or a perpetual license to NYSED.  However, on page 18 the RFP states that NYSED shall own all materials, processes, and products developed under this contract, and on page 38 the RFP states that any copyrightable work produced pursuant to said agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of the NYSED and that the materials must be prepared in a form that will be ready for copyright in the name of NYSED.

    We presume that if the successful bidder selects the license model option described on pages 12-13 of the RFP that the terms described in that provision will supersede the terms on pages 18 and 38.  Is this correct?

    Answer: Yes, except in the case of a winning vendor that is a sectarian institution of higher education which is not eligible for Bundy Aid.
  1. Question: Regarding Pages 12 – 13, Mandatory Contract Requirements.  Whether a bidder chooses the alternative presented in paragraph 1 (NYSED ownership) or the alternative presented in paragraph 2 (a perpetual license to NYSED), we presume that NYSED understands that any preexisting underlying systems or software used in performance of the contract will be subject to the inclusion of the standard applicable license agreement in the resulting contract which the bidder will submit for reference with the proposal. Is this correct?

    Answer: Yes, however, it is the strong preference of NYSED that the contractor use publicly available or open source materials whenever possible. The “standard applicable license” must also provide for sufficient flexibility by NYSED to accommodate NYSED’s educational needs. NYSED reserves the right to negotiate the terms of the license agreement, and if acceptable terms cannot be negotiated, to reject the proposal.
  1. Question: Regarding Pages 12 – 13, Mandatory Contract Requirements.  Is NYSED requesting a perpetual license to the underlying software or is a term license for 10 years past the termination date of the resulting contract sufficient.

    Answer: No terms other than those stated in the RFP are acceptable.
  1. Question: Regarding Pages 12 – 13, Mandatory Contract Requirements.  We presume that the definition of “preexisting materials” in paragraph 4 on page 13 includes the vendor’s preexisting systems and software and derivatives thereof.  Is this correct?  We further presume that paragraph 4 on page 13 applies whether the vendor selects the option in paragraph 1 (NYSED Ownership) or the option in paragraph 2 (perpetual license to NYSED).  Is this correct?

    Answer: Yes to both. However, the successful bidder’s choice to use a preexisting system, software, process, methodology, etc., should be identified and explained in the bid. See question 16 above regarding NYSED’s strong preference in this area.
  1. Question: Regarding Page 13, Paragraph 3.  We presume that the source code that NYSED requests the successful bidder deliver to NYSED at the end of the resulting agreement will be source code for software, or derivatives of software, that is developed as a specified deliverable under the resulting agreement and not source code for preexisting underlying systems or software that is simply used to deliver a service under the contract.  Is this correct?

    Answer: Yes, however, as noted for preexisting underlying systems, SED requires a ten year irrevocable license that will not be subject to future royalties or fees. Any costs for such licenses must be reflected in bidders cost proposal.
  1. Question: Regarding Page 13, Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise (M/WBE) Compliance Requirements.  Can NYSED confirm that a bidder can submit a combination of the two percentage requirements to equal the total 29%? For example, could a bidder comply with the M/WBE requirement with a proposal including 20% WBE and 9% MBE?

    Answer: It is NYSED’s preference that the vendor strive to meet the goals of 17% minority owned business and 12% women owned business, however proposals that satisfy the total M/WBE requirement with an alternative percentage distribution will be considered, provided the bidder provides a justification for the alternative distribution.
  1. Question: Regarding Page 18, Technical Proposal Scoring.  Please provide the Scope of Work for the Technical Evaluation Tables.

    Answer: The “Technical Evaluation Tables” were removed from this RFP, and no longer are required for submission.
  1. Question: What is the state budget by year for this effort?

    Answer: NYSED will not be providing this information.

 

Back to top

Last Updated: May 29, 2012 12:48 PM