RFP ED-00-R-0033
Amendment # 0001
Issued May 19, 2000


The above solicitation is amended/clarified as follows:

Question 1 - On page 60, some 2,460 hours are estimated for the Project
Director over the life of the five-year study, which amounts to about 25-30
percent time a year (depending upon whether you estimate a work year as 1800
or 2000 hours). However, on page 62 (last paragraph), it states "ED
recommends that the Project  Director spend a significant portion of his or
her time on this study."  Moreover, in the other related RFP's, the Project
Director's time is typically estimated at a minimum of 50 percent
(ED-00-R-0026) or 75 percent (ED-00-R--0029).  Could you  please clarify the
estimated time for the Project Director on this study?

Answer 1 - ED recommends the Project Director spend a minimum of 50% of his
or her time on this study.  Please see Section L.6. 311-2a General
Instructions of the amended RFP for a revised listing of the labor
categories and hours.

Question 2 - On page 61, the technical proposal is to be limited to a
maximum of 200 double-spaced pages, including resumes, tables, and
appendices.  The other related RFPs (ED-00-R-0026 and ED-00-R-0029) both
require no more than 100 double spaced pages, excluding resumes and other
appendices.  Would it be possible to have the same limit that applies to the
other RFPs all apply to this one?  That is, the 100 double-spaced limit,
excluding resumes and other appendices?  If the requirement is kept at an
inclusive 200 page limit, it will require bidders to spend  considerable
time editing resumes, descriptions of studies, and other already-formatted
materials.

Answer 2 - Technical proposals must be limited to a maximum of 100
double-spaced pages excluding resumes, tables, and appendices.

Question 3 - We request clarification on the overall level of effort for the
proposed evaluation. The total number of hours sums to about 50,000 person
hours over five years.  The data collection, for example, includes: Annual
surveys of 400 principals, 400 district administrators, and 3200 teachers.
Collecting four rounds of assessment data on students in 75 schools (100
students per school), collecting state assessment data on students in 400
schools, on site data colleciton in 75 schools that includes interviews,
document review, and classroom observations (each visit estimated at three
days). By way of contract (after a quick read), the data collection in the
LEESI RFP  (ED-00-R-0029) also includes 75 schools and a similar amount of
student assessment.  It has more extensive site visits but fewer survey
respondents. Its estimated overall level of effort, however, is more than
three times as large, at over 150,000 person hours.   Could you please
clarify the overall level of effort?

Answer 3 - The level of effort is revised to assume 65,000 labor hours.  The
remaining difference between the LEESI and SCII in labor hours is due to the
LEESI's longer and more frequent site visits, as well as the videotaping and
wider dissemination.

Question 4 - Using the LEESI schools (or a subset of them) as comparison
schools, is it anticipated that this contractor will independently analyze
data on reading achievement in the LEESI schools? Or will the LEESI
contractor analyze data on their own schools following a common analytic
plan? The first approach has far greater cost implications than the second
approach.

Answer 4 - ED assumes that each contractor would analyze data on their own
schools following a common analytic plan.

5.  The Statement of Work incorrectly states that the LEESI will be
administering an  independent assessment in grades K-3, however they will be
doing so for either grades K-2 or grades 1-3.

6.  Section J FIPS are hereby amended.  See most recent solicitation dated
5/22/00.