RFP Number: TA-01
Questions and Answers


Evaluation of New York State interventions in Persistently Lowest Achieving (PLA)/Schools Under Registration Review (SURR) Schools and Differentiated Accountability (DA) System


Program Questions

  1. Question 1. In addition to conducting site visits to the 57 original PLA schools identified in 2009-2010, please clarify the three school years for which district and school site visit data will be collected for this contract.

    Answer: The three school years are 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013.

  2. Question 2. In Years 2 and 3 of the contract, it is expected that the contractor will conduct school site visits to a sample of PLA/SURR schools from each cohort. Please identify the school years for which the sample of PLA/SURR schools will be drawn for Year 2 & Year 3.

    Answer: The years are 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.

  3. Question 3. Could NYSED provide access to blank copy of the surveys conducted on Differentiated Accountability SQR, ESCA, and JIT?

    Answer: No.  As noted in the RFP, the surveys will be made available to the successful bidder.  They are not required to respond to this RFP.

  4. Question 4. Will SED communicate to the LEAs that the successful vendor has permission to access necessary data to successfully complete the tasks of the contract?

    Answer: The successful vendor will be utilizing data already collected by the State and when necessary, the State will contact LEAs in cases where notice of permission is required such as interview protocols, etc.

  5. Question 5. Page 6 indicates that the vendor will interview SED staff involved in PLA/SURR schools and in DA activities. Does this requirement include staff from the External Technical Assistance Center, Network Teams, and/or other SED-funded regional or statewide TA/PD agencies?

    Answer: The vendor will only interview staff members internal to SED, such as those from School Improvement and OISM.

  6. Question 6. Page 7 indicates that the vendor must measure the quality of the district and school improvement plans that districts and schools have filed as a first step in implementation in PLA/SURR intervention requirements. Page 13 indicates that the vendor must determine the quality of the improvement plans as a first step in implementation in PLA/SURR and DA intervention requirements. Please clarify: are we to analyze school improvement plans for the 57 or so PLA/SURR schools only, or are we to include the DA schools, as well? If we are to include the DA schools, would this review be limited to the Improvement phase schools or would we be required to examine corrective action plans and restructuring plans, as well? In other words will be vendor be required to review and assess the plans for the 500 or so DA schools in addition to the PLA/SURR schools.

    Answer: For DA schools, the vendor will review improvement, corrective action and restructuring plans that are required only for newly identified schools in their first year of identification.

  7. Question 7Page 8 of the RFP indicates that the implementation evaluation must assess the quality of implementation and outcomes in all districts and schools, annually. Page 6 indicates that data must be gathered from all districts in which there are PLA/SURR or DA schools (i.e., no mention of all schools). Please clarify. Does the state expect implementation data from all districts and all 500+ schools in need of improvement? Does the state expect outcome/impact data from all districts and all 500+ schools in need of improvement? Also, does the state want a demographic profile for each of the 500+ schools?

    Answer: Yes. Implementation and outcome/impact evaluations must assess the quality of implementation and outcomes in which there are PLA/SURR or DA schools and districts. Demographic profiles are required.

  8. Question 8. Page 9 indicates that the context of the evaluation prohibits the use of experimental or quasi-experimental research. Please clarify.  We understand that since random assignment is impossible we cannot implement an experimental design, however we can think of several quasi-experimental designs that could be used. Is the state inferring that it only wants a descriptive/qualitative assessment via multidisciplinary teams?

    Answer: The evaluation prohibits the use of experimental or quasi-experimental research.  However, as noted in the RFP, quantitative as well as descriptive/qualitative assessment is required.

  9. Question 9. Please clarify what is meant by the context in which interventions are implemented, e.g.,

    Page 7: The vendor must provide a description of the context within which the interventions are being implemented in each district and school (e.g. school improvement grant plans and or school improvement plans), and
    Page 9:  The vendor must also describe the context within which the intervention is being implemented in each district and school and include a profile of demographic characteristics.   

    Answer: The context within which the interventions are being implemented refers to the characteristics of the schools and districts and other factors that may allow for or hamper implementation. Demographic profiles are also required.

  10. Question 10. Pages 7-8 indicates that the vendor should include and incorporate into the study design the school improvement plans and performance contracts.  Will the vendor be able to review these documents during the initial months of the study, prior to the start of data collection activities?

    Answer: The vendor, to the extent they are available, will be able to review the school improvement plans and performance contracts prior to the start of the data collection activities.

Fiscal Question:

  1. Question 11. Can you prove estimated cost and/or level of effort in terms of professional FTEs expected for this contract?

    Answer: These items must be determined by the vendor.

General Question:

  1. Question 12. Please advise as to the correct format for sending the required proposal documents. The submission document and RFP provide different directions for submitting the proposal documents. The submission documents ask for a separate sealed envelope with a CD-ROM containing the electronic versions of the Technical and Cost proposals. However, the RFP requests that the electronic version of each proposal accompany the bound copy in an envelope. See below.

    According to the submission documents:
    • Technical Proposal labeled Technical Proposal - RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • Cost Proposal labeled Cost Proposal - RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • CD-ROM containing technical/ cost proposal labeled CD-ROM- RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • M/WBE Documents labeled M/WBE Documents-RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open

    According to the RFP:
    • Technical Proposal and an electronic version labeled Technical Proposal - RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • Cost Proposal and electronic version labeled Cost Proposal - RFP #TA-01
    • Do Not Open
    • M/WBE Documents labeled M/WBE Documents-RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    •  

    Answer. The following is correct:
    • Technical Proposal labeled Technical Proposal - RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • Cost Proposal labeled Cost Proposal - RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • CD-ROM containing technical/ cost proposal labeled CD-ROM- RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open
    • M/WBE Documents labeled M/WBE Documents-RFP #TA-01 Do Not Open

  2. Question 13. Page 24 (of the Submission Documents) states that subcontracting is limited to twenty-five percent (25%) of the annual contract budget.  All other parts of the RfP stipulate 40%. Please clarify.

    Answer: Subcontracting is limited to forty percent (40%.) of the annual contract budget.

Back to top

 

Last Updated: May 30, 2012 2:48 PM