1. REGIONAL EDUCATIONAL LABORATORY FY16/FY17 ACQUISITION Solicitation No.: ED-IES-15-R-0016 VENDOR ENGAGEMENT WEBINAR August 25, 2015 2:30 PM EDT 1

2. Webinar Speakers Acquisition Team Introductions Jonathan E.Bettis, Contract Specialist Heather Watroba, Contracting Officer Stephen Scheffer, Contracting Officer Technical Team Introductions Joy Lesnick, Acting Commissioner of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) Sandra Garcia, REL Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) 2

3. Points of Contact Jonathan E. Bettis Jonathan.Bettis@ed.gov (202) 245-6971 (email is preferred) Heather Watroba Heather.Watroba@ed.gov Please do not contact members of the REL Team. 3

4. Introductory Information Today’s webinar is being recorded and will be available after the event. We will not be able to answer all questions today. Look for full question responses on FBO.gov. The webinar, transcript, and questions and answers will be posted on www.FBO.gov. The final solicitation controls. 4

5. Overview of Today’s Webinar I.Acquisition Information – Contract Structure, Timeline, RFI Response Information, Competition for REL Southwest, Proposal and Evaluation Information II.Technical Information – Key goals for the REL Program, areas of continued and increased focus, key tasks, topic area clarification, putting it all together III.Discussion 5

6. RFI Response Information Clarifications about Capability Statements – Length: 7 double spaced pages – ED will not disclose capability statements to the public or the evaluation of the statements. – You are not required to submit a capability statement to respond to the other elements of the RFI. – Potential prime contractors (large and small businesses) should submit capability statements with subcontractor information if warranted. General RFI Information – You may respond to individual elements of the RFI and not others. 6

7. Acquisition Timeline 7 DateDescription September 4, 2015The Department will post responses to selected acquisition and technical questions on a rolling basis. Additional responses will follow. September 10, 2015Formal RFI response is due no later than 2:00 PM Eastern Time. There will not be a Draft RFP. This is your only opportunity to comment on the competition. January, 2016Anticipated date for release of RFP. RFP Deadline through September 2016 Proposal evaluation and negotiation will occur in a staggered sequence. January 3, 2017Effective date for awards for the 9 regions and commencement of performance. Winter, 2017Anticipated date for release of REL SW RFP. December 1, 2017Effective date for REL SW award and commencement of performance.

8. The Current REL Competition (9 Regions) and the REL Southwest Region Competition The five year contract for the current contractor doing the work of REL Southwest is 11 months off schedule due to a protest at the time of award in 2012. REL Southwest will start November 30, 2017, which is 11 months after the other 9 regions. The Department will solicit the requirement for REL Southwest after January 2017. We expect to utilize the same documents as for the other 9 regions. Therefore, the feedback we receive as part of this RFI will likely apply to the competition for REL Southwest in 2017. Implications for cross-REL coordination described later in this presentation 8

9. Contract Structure This is a contract competition, not a grant competition. How do we determine which tasks are Firm- Fixed Price or Cost Reimbursement? – How can you recommend a change? Will the entire contract structure be Firm- Fixed Price? – No. 9

10. Proposal Submission & Evaluation Funding and Evaluation – REL funding is determined by formula. The total value of your proposal is less important than what is being proposed for your proposed price/cost. Electronic proposals only Notes on timeliness Will likely utilize an adjectival scale rather than a traditional points scale 10

11. REL Competition - Technical Requirements This portion of the presentation will: – Provide an overview of the major substantive portions of the draft PWS, including clarifications – Address some of the questions that have been received after the RFI was posted This portion of the presentation will not: – Repeat or summarize all of the information in the RFI and draft PWS – Answer all of the questions posed thus far (200 and counting!) Written answers are forthcoming. 11

12. Information about the 2017-2022 REL Program 1.Five key outcomes of a sustained REL program investment 2.Continued focus: partnerships/alliances, rigor, and relevance 3.Increased focus: addressing “high leverage” education problems, shared responsibility for coordination 4.The work of the RELs – three primary tasks: Dissemination, Training Coaching and Technical Support (TCTS), Applied Research 5.The work of the RELs – three sets of topic areas in the draft PWS: Generally encouraged topics, cross-REL coordination topics, concept paper topics 12

13. 5 Key Outcomes of a Sustained REL Program Investment (RFI pp. 25-26) 1)Development of sustained partnerships with policymakers and/or practitioners focused on using research to address substantial, high- leverage issues in education. 2)Completion of ambitious, coherent, cumulative agendas of high-quality research, technical assistance, and dissemination. 13

14. 5 Key Outcomes of a Sustained REL Program Investment (RFI pp. 25-26) 3)Widespread recognition among the region’s state and local education agency leaders of the REL as a key resource for credible research and support for using research in education. 4)Increased individual and organizational capacity to access, understand, interpret, critique, apply, and/or conduct research, particularly at state education agencies in the region. 5)Increased use of research findings in education decision making, particularly at state education agencies. 14

15. More information about the REL Program outcomes Why these outcomes? Do these outcomes represent a shift from previous REL program goals? How do the logic models of individual RELs fit into this overall program logic model? Will these outcomes be measured? 15

16. Continued Focus on Partnership Research alliances are defined in the 2012-2017 REL Program are one kind of partnership. Research alliances will be continued in 2017- 2022. Other possible partnerships include (RFI p. 20): – professional organizations that seek to improve instruction in particular school subjects; – organizations that support teachers, principals, superintendents, or school boards; – research and development (R&D) centers funded by IES; and other federally supported technical assistance entities. 16

17. Continued Focus on Partnership - continued Current REL contractors will be implementing a transition plan for all alliances at the end of the contract. The existing REL alliances may complete their work, may continue independently, or may partner with a future successful REL contractor. In the proposal: – Describe the partnerships that you propose to support if you are the successful REL Offeror, and how you will establish and complete a coherent research and TCTS agenda within these partnerships – Present an convincing argument for how you have determined which aspects of your proposed work are best done in partnership and which work is best suited to take place outside of a partnership framework 17

18. Continued focus on rigor IES Standards, COR Review, and Peer Review for Rigor – See: REL Resource Guide (Located here on FBO.gov) and ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/resourceshere Technical Working Groups: – The contractor shall propose a plan for soliciting advice and incorporating the guidance of the TWG, either in full or a subset of multiple TWG members for all research projects and projects that involve technical support for the use of research (p. 30) Quality Assurance: – The contractor shall establish a process for ensuring that the work of the REL is of the highest quality and that all published products will meet IES review standards for rigor, relevance, quality, clarity, and plain language (p. 30) 18

19. Continued focus on relevance Governing Board (RFI p.28) – Providing strategic guidance on how the REL shall carry out its activities for maximum effectiveness and efficiency; – Provide annual assurance to the IES that the REL’s updated annual plan will address high-leverage problems in the region and that Governing Board members are in agreement with the plan of work as proposed by the REL, noting any concerns with the plan. – Provide annual independent assessment to IES about the extent to which the work of the REL has contributed to the use of research evidence in education decision making in the region and increasing capacity for such use. The assessment shall also raise areas of concern. 19

20. Continued focus on relevance - continued Current peer review questions about relevance: 1)Is the audience for this report well defined? 2)Is the report organized and written so that it is understandable and engaging for the intended audience? 3)If you were reading the report as a practitioner (e.g., state, district, or school leader), would you find the information and findings (or potential findings) useful and interesting? 4)Is there a clear action or decision that a practitioner or policymaker could take after reading this report? If so, what is it? 5)Would you recommend this report to someone you know? Why or why not? If so, who would it be? 6)Was the amount of time required to read this report proportional to the amount of new information that will be gained? 20

21. Continued focus on relevance - continued Focus on: – actionable topics and projects – products for multiple audiences – writing for readability and plain language – brevity (all REL reports are currently 20 pages of main text or less) – variety of formats and graphics for communicating – creative and engaging ways of helping practitioners engage with research 21

22. Increased Focus: Addressing High- Leverage Education Problems High-leverage problems are those that (RFI p. 16): 1)if addressed could result in substantial improvements in education outcomes for many students or for key subgroups of students; 2)are priorities for regional policymakers, particularly at the state level; and 3)require research or research-related support to address well. Focusing on high-leverage problems increases the likelihood that REL support ultimately will contribute to improved student outcomes. 22

23. Increased Focus: Shared Coordination Each REL will be responsible for coordinating within the REL Program (Subtask 3.3) – shared coordination task. Each REL will be responsible for coordinating with other Federal and non-Federal entities to achieve the key outcomes in the REL Program logic model. All REL websites will be hosted on IES server. Each REL will be responsible for working directly with the IES web team to post and update content approved by the COR. 23

24. The Work of the RELs: Primary Tasks Dissemination of scientifically-valid research (Task 4) – “Light touch” information sharing Technical assistance related to application and use of scientifically-valid research (Task 5 – Training, Coaching, and Technical Support for research use) – Activities that require more extensive, ongoing, or customized support to meet the needs of particular stakeholders. Conduct and publish findings from applied research projects (Task 6) – A focus on “use-inspired research” -- research that seeks to solve practical problems but also, to the extent possible, advances fundamental understandings of education problems and processes. 24

25. The Work of the RELs – Topic Areas Three places in RFI where topic areas are mentioned: 1)Generally encouraged topic areas (RFI p. 19) 2)Cross-REL coordination topic areas (RFI pp. 33, 71) 3)Concept paper topic areas (RFI p. 70) In addition, RELs are required to: – Be responsive to regional topic areas of high priority and leverage (RFI p. 16) – Focus 25% of efforts in rural areas (RFI p. 15) How do these topic areas fit together? 25

26. 1) Generally Encouraged Topic Areas (RFI p. 19) To the extent possible, the Department encourages the REL and its region to address the following four topics: early childhood education and school readiness college and career readiness professional development and teacher preparation to deliver effective instruction, informed by the most credible, up-to-date research increasing education access and attainment in high needs communities, schools, and subgroups of students 26

27. 2) Cross-REL Coordination Topic Areas (Subtask 3.3 - RFI pp. 33, 71) Cross-REL coordination will be shared by all REL contractors. All REL contractors will have a coordination task and responsibilities. Each REL will be responsible for leading the REL Program coordinated effort on a particular topic Offerors should indicate 1-3 topics for which they have the interest and expertise to lead the coordination of that topic across the REL Program. IES will select assignments from the topics identified by the successful Offerors (RFI p. 33). Possible topics include: The generally encouraged topic areas (previous slide and RFI p. 19) Topic areas listed in Subtask 3.3 (RFI p. 33) Other topic areas suggested by the Offeror The special case of REL Southwest 27

28. 3) Concept Paper Topic Areas (RFI p. 70) In lieu of writing samples or examples of previous work, IES is requesting 3 related concept papers describing a realistic plan for future work in one topic area. The topics on p. 71 will be randomly assigned to the 9 regions prior to the release of the final solicitation. Each region will have a different topic. The 9 possibilities are listed as Regions A-I. Any similarities between topic areas and work in the regions that is already underway will be the result of chance. The topics assigned to each region for this activity are not assigned to the region or successful Offeror in any way beyond the competition phase. However, the concept paper plans should be realistic and ready to implement if the Offeror’s bid is successful and the COR approves the plans to move forward. 28

29. 3) Concept Paper Topic Areas (RFI p. 70) - continued Successful Offerors will have the capacity to design work that addresses each of the topic areas on p. 70 in a meaningful way, even if the topic area is not the primary strength of the Offeror or the most pressing need in the region. The three concept papers are part of Appendix A in the proposal. The main body of the proposal is where Offerors shall describe their topical expertise as it relates to the needs of the region, and a plan for addressing those needs according to the tasks identified in the PWS. 29

30. Putting it All Together: A Complex Undertaking! Working in partnership Mix of personnel with content, methodological, and technical assistance expertise in a wide variety of topic areas Coordinating within and beyond the REL program Regional needs, national audience High-leverage problems Focus on rural issues Rigor and relevance 30

31. Is my organization a good fit for a REL contract? Characteristics of the Potential REL TeamYESNO Your team wants to do interesting and actionable research-based work that will support practitioners and policymakers X Your team is flexible, adaptable, and creative X Your team includes well-respected researchers interested in doing applied work in partnership with practitioners X Your team includes a mix of skills including: diverse content area expertise, adult training expertise, coaching expertise, management expertise, and research expertise X Your team has dedicated sufficient time to the leadership roles on the REL X Your team wants to be a part of the Federal Government’s key effort that aims to help practitioners and policymakers engage with high quality research evidence from a variety of sources X 31

32. Is my organization a good fit for a REL contract? Characteristics of the Potential REL TeamYESNO Your team has a great deal of experience providing technical assistance, but little experience providing analytic technical assistance related to research and research use X Your team is interested in pursuing a particular research agenda X Your team is focused on writing scholarly articles for other researchers, as opposed to writing about research for practitioners X Your team has extensive experience supporting practitioners but little research expertise X Your team is focused primarily on disseminating and communicating with stakeholders about the results of your own work X 32

33. Discussion 33