Download Report

STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RFP No. 2015-05
Addendum 01 – Q&A
Note to potential respondents:
This addendum is intended to revise, clarify and become part of RFP NO. 2015-05 for
Washington Reading Corps Evaluation, issued January 26, 2015.
All amendments, addendums, and notifications will be posted on the OSPI Web site and
released via the Washington Electronic Business Solution (WEBS) Website.
1. QUESTION: Is any kind of quasi-experimental or experimental design currently being
implemented for the 2014-2015 school year?
ANSWER: No, there is not a quasi – experimental or experimental design being
implemented with sites. The Apparent Successful Contractor will be expected to choose
a “control” group from schools that are comparative to WRC schools (i.e. Title 1 $, Free
& Reduced %, urban/rural/suburban, etc.).
2. QUESTION: What specific types of data are Washington sites that receive the WRC
program required to submit 3 times during the school year?
ANSWER: Sites are required to submit literacy focused screening assessment scores
three times per school year to OSPI. They also submit their tutoring model, which
includes the number of sessions per week and the amount of time where the children
are served. Washington is the local control state, which means schools and districts can
choose whichever assessment they want to use. The Apparent Successful Contractor
should be prepared disaggregate assessment data to show which WRC schools show
the most/least growth based on the assessments they are using.
3. QUESTION: Are comparison schools required to submit the same types of data 3 times
during the school year?
ANSWER: No. The comparison schools are not required to submit the same data.
4. QUESTION: Will the contractor have access to student-level achievement data for WRC
and comparison site schools?
ANSWER: Yes. The contractor will be given redacted WRC Student Tracking Logs
three times per year. The comparison site data will be based on information that can be
collected from statewide data (www.k12.wa.us).
5. QUESTION: On p. 7 the RFP notes “OSPI requires the Contractor submit an evaluation
draft by May 29, 2015, to the WRC partnership for feedback. The final evaluation shall
be due on June 30, 2015.” Will student outcome data be available prior to the end of
May 2015 in order to include impact findings in the draft evaluation report by May 29,
2015? If so, when will that student outcome data be made available?
ANSWER: It is anticipated that student outcome data will be available; however, with the
new assessments being employed this year (i.e. Smarter Balanced Assessment), a
delay may occur. If the release date of the data hinders the Contractor’s ability to
RFP No. 2015-05: Addendum 01
Page 1 of 3
complete the evaluation by the deadline, it may be extend through an amendment
process.
6. On p. 15 of the RFP it states “The Logic Model (Exhibit F) and Evaluation Plan Narrative
(Exhibit G) developed for the federal grant application will guide potential contractors in
the development of the work plan.”
a. QUESTION: How should Exhibit G Evaluation Plan be incorporated into a
consultant’s proposal? Is Exhibit G considered part of the Objective and Scope of
Work (p. 4 of RFP)?
ANSWER: Yes. The Evaluation Plan demonstrates the scope of work that the
team believes would be the most effective for achieving the desired outcomes.
b. QUESTION: Is Exhibit G the final evaluation plan for 2014-2015 which the
awarded contractor will implement?
ANSWER: Yes. Exhibit G provides insight as to why the program design
decisions for the Washington Reading Corps have been made. This is the plan
that has been submitted to the Corporation for National Community Service
(CNCS). The design questions are also designed to respond to the Washington
State Legislature who provides funding for the project.
c. QUESTION: Should all 8 evaluation questions in Exhibit G be addressed in the
consultant’s proposal for this RFP?
ANSWER: Yes. Consultants shall answer these questions in their proposal.
These are the questions that have been submitted to CNCS committee during
the grant writing process.
d. QUESTION: Why is The BERC Group named in Exhibit G as the evaluator?
ANSWER: BERC was the evaluator for the 2013-14 contract period.
e. QUESTION: If The BERC Group is implementing Exhibit G’s evaluation plan
during the 2014-2015, how does the RFP’s Objective and Scope of Work differ
from Exhibit G?
ANSWER: Upon selection of a new contractor as a result of this procurement,
the evaluation plan will be updated to reflect the new evaluator.
f.
QUESTION: For the 2015 contract, is the consultant proposing and providing
only an impact evaluation (not an impact and process/implementation
evaluation)? The Evaluation Plan in Exhibit G includes process/implementation
questions (p. 41, questions 1, 6-8), yet pp.5-6 of the RFP emphasize that an
impact evaluation is requested (with no mention of specific evaluation activities
beyond evidence of impact of WRC).
ANSWER: The implementation section of the Exhibit G was used when the
CNCS grant was initiated. The implementation section of Exhibit G refers to the
WRC’s ability to effectively run the program. The focus of the evaluation is
primarily about the impact the WRC members have on students, schools, and
their communities. Reviewing student growth (assessment data) will set the
stage for longitudinal analysis of the WRC impact over time.
RFP No. 2015-05: Addendum 01
Page 2 of 3
7. QUESTION: For the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 evaluations, is the consultant proposing
and providing only an impact evaluation (or both an impact and process/implementation
evaluation)?
ANSWER: The scoring team will be looking at an impact evaluation. Process and
implementation may be a part of the recommendations for future program
improvements.
8. QUESTION: Are the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 evaluations expected to be different
than (or identical to) the evaluation plan for 2014-2015? It appears the time frames are
quite different : 1 year each for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 vs. a 4-month contract for
RFP 2015-05.
ANSWER: The evaluations should follow the plan. The time frame for the past
evaluation was initially a six-month proposal by the time we began collecting data. This
request reflects four months, but it may be extended.
9. QUESTION: On p. 15 the RFP states “The deliverable that will be measured for
performance will be the external evaluation of the Washington Reading Corps (WRC)
program model. The evaluation will include the findings from the evaluation, as well as
an analysis to determine evidence-based program findings and suggestions for
improvements to the WRC program.” Does the highlighted section refer to findings from
the impact evaluation? If not, what does it mean?
ANSWER: Yes. This refers to findings from the impact evaluation. We are interested in
learning what is going well (at site and program level) and what is not, so that it can
guide our work moving forward.
10. QUESTION: In responding to RFP No. 2015-05, should the consultant propose a budget
for each of 3 years and an evaluation plan for each of 3 years?
ANSWER: Only submit a budget for Year 1. Subsequent years may be negotiated at a
later date.
11. QUESTION: What is the expected level of effort in Years 2 and 3?
ANSWER: This scope of work for Years 2 and 3 will be negotiated at a later date based
on the needs of the project.
RFP No. 2015-05: Addendum 01
Page 3 of 3