STATEMENT OF WORK

The Outcomes of Diversity in Higher Education

A. INTRODUCTION

This contract is for a study of the outcomes of diversity in higher education and is based on the need for a critical examination and evaluation of the effects of increased proportions of racial/ethnic minority students participating in higher education, of attempts to improve the climate of campus life for those students, and of inclusion of racial/ethnic minority perspectives and experience in critical areas of the curriculum that prepare all students for participating in a workforce that is both increasingly multi-cultural and serving diverse racial/ethnic groups. The research will also examine and weigh comparative outcomes of institutional policies and practices. This procurement is authorized by Title IX of the Goals 2000 Educate America Act [Section 931 (Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act), P.L. 103-227 (March 31, 1994)].

B. BACKGROUND

By the middle of the 21st century, people of color and of language backgrounds other than English will comprise nearly half of the U.S. population, and constitute an ever-more-critical portion of the workforce. Employers have recognized a more culturally-diverse workforce as essential to successful business competition, and expect higher education to prepare students for a work environment that is characterized by racial/ethnic diversity. Employers have also recognized that a workforce drawn from and prepared to serve the unique multi-ethnic population that characterizes the United States is also prepared to compete in a global economy. A firm consensus has developed that a well-educated and racially diverse workforce is more productive, offering a broader range of perspectives and ideas leading to better decision-making than a less- educated and less diverse workforce. Creativity and innovation are more likely to flourish when the pool of talent expands.

For related reasons, racial/ethnic diversity among student bodies serves an important co-curricular function in higher education. Exposure to individuals from varying backgrounds and cultures prepares students better not only for work but also for citizenry and democracy by broadening their perspectives and knowledge. While, by virtue of geography and mission, not all colleges and community colleges enjoy the full benefits of culturally diverse student bodies, overall, our system of higher education has established a tradition of promoting diversity as a means for fostering tolerance, understanding, and respect for group differences.

Over the past two decades, the U.S. system of higher education has made considerable progress in increasing the proportion of all racial minorities among college students. The minority share of enrollments among U. S. Citizens at all levels of higher education increased from 16 percent in 1986 to 26 percent in 1995; at the undergraduate level, from 17 to 27 percent; at the graduate level, from 11 to 17 percent.1 These overall encouraging figures, however, mask both disparities and problems. Overall, the proportion of Asian-American students tripled (from 1.8 percent to 5.6 percent) and the proportion of Hispanic students doubled (from 3.6 percent to 7.6 percent), while the proportions of African-American and American Indian/Alaskan Native students remained flat (Digest of Education Statistics, 1996, table 203, p. 208). Attendance patterns are also variable, with Hispanic and American Indian/Alaskan Native students far more likely to attend community colleges than students from other groups. Furthermore, while the "access rates" for all minority students rose considerably, only Hispanic students increased their bachelor's degree completion rates (The Condition of Education, 1996, p. 25). More seriously, the gap of degree completion rates between white and Asian-American students, on the one hand, and other racial minorities remains unacceptably wide, despite the fact that a higher percentage of African-American, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan Native students receive financial aid (specifically, grants) (Digest of Education Statistics, 1996, table 312, p. 324). Lower degree completion rates hamper efforts to increase the numbers of minority faculty to keep pace with the growth of the minority student population.

ED's awareness and concern about these differential, and sometimes paradoxical, patterns of participation, attendance, financial aid, and completion is reflected in an on-going series of quantitative analyses called the Postsecondary Education Data Analyses Reports (PEDAR), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. The purpose of the PEDAR series, in part, is to provide a national portrait of issues affecting access, participation, and degree completion, with particular attention to minority and low-income students. ED is not alone in collecting and analyzing these national data. The National Science Foundation, the National Research Council, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among others, also conduct large-scale data gathering, analysis, and time-series studies of national scope. It is not the intention of this solicitation to duplicate the types of data collection or analyses being conducted under PEDAR and allied studies or under the aegis of other federal agencies. The specified level of effort is insufficient to support new large-scale national data collection.

Instead, the purpose of this contract is more focused on institutions, state systems, and disciplinary organizations, and intended to elicit more qualitative approaches. Despite recent questions about the future of affirmative action, most institutions are committed to maintaining racial/ethnic diversity in their student populations, and have pledged to continue to strive for increased minority representation in faculty and staff. State systems are seeking more equitable ways of accommodation and distribution of racial minority populations across many types of institutions, from open door community colleges to selective flagship university campuses. Disciplinary and professional organizations in fields of study leading to careers in the helping professions (teaching, nursing), professional service (medicine, law, architecture), and communications (journalism, commercial art), for example, are increasingly committed to integration of materials and topics on the culture, language, and status of minority populations into their curricula on the grounds that students trained without this material cannot be effective workers in a multi-cultural economy and society.

The degree of commitment to these objectives, acceptance and participation by faculty and staff, and definitions of successful outcomes vary from institution to institution, state system to state system, and among disciplinary and professional organizations. Our understanding of the reasons for this variance is imperfect. Evaluative studies on the effectiveness of programs and policies addressing these different aspects of "diversity" are also lacking.

Institutional approaches to improving the participation and degree-completion rates of minority students, for example, have involved a variety of strategies, from curricular modifications to student service programming to self-conscious campus climate enhancements to increasing the scope and quality of pre-college outreach programs. Identifying strategies that are both cost effective and beneficial is essential in developing successful programs that could be replicated in similar institutional settings. State system approaches to more equitable distribution of minority students among institutional types involve consideration of testing, competency-based admissions, language issues, and desegregation cases, among other problems. Both institutional and state policies that are driven by factors of race, ethnicity, and language are further confounded by students' experience and socioeconomic background, and ambivalent public opinions of what is fair, just, and moral. The research must take account of these multiple perspectives in order to develop an inclusive evidentiary base on the value of diversity for all students. Research that does not address this complexity, or respond to some of the uneasy questions it raises, is not likely to contribute substantially to either theory or practice.

C. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK

This is a contract for research on the Outcomes of Diversity in Higher Education that will lead to a stronger base of evidence on the comparative effectiveness of approaches to a multiplicity of "diversity issues" confronted by institutions of higher education, state systems, and disciplinary organizations. In each case, research must focus on defining the desirable outcomes of policies and programs, identifying indicators of success, and evaluating innovative practices that positively effect students from various racial, ethnic, and language minority groups. To better understand the complexity of diversity issues, researchers need to employ multi-disciplinary approaches, and to draw on fields ranging from linguistics to economics, for example. In the process, ED expects researchers to create effective linkages among the various organizations conducting disparate work on related issues. Particularly if comparative studies of states, groups of institutions, or disciplinary organizations are proposed, opportunities for collaboration must be created.

The following are examples of broad-based issues and research questions on racial, ethnic and language diversity that are considered appropriate for this contract:

• What are the real and likely effects of alternative state system approaches to

minority student participation in higher education, particularly on the distribution

of minority students by institutional type? To what extent are these effects altered

in states with special mission institutions (Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic

Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges)? In states that encourage differentiation of	institutions by curricular missions?

• What features of institutional policy and programs have been most effective in minority student degree-completion? What features have been least effective? To what extent do institutional strategies change in relation to size, location (in respect to proximity to minority communities), selectivity, and special emphases of curriculum?

• To what extent have the disciplines in fields such as helping professions,
professional services, and communications included materials and topics on the culture, language, and experience of minority populations into their curricula?	In what kinds of institutions (including special mission institutions) has this happened, and with what effects? In fact, what measures of effectiveness are most compelling? What have been the most successful faculty development practices in these efforts?

• Do teaching styles, uses of technology, and course organization have different impacts on different groups of students according to race/ethnicity and/or second language backgrounds? What styles, technologies, and organization have proven most effective in the learning and achievement of minority students from different backgrounds? Are these effects greater or less for the majority population?

• How do institutions with historically distinct enrollment mixes (e.g. commuter/residential, full-time/part-time, non-traditional age/traditional age) approach the task of improving the campus climate for minority students, and with what effects? What are the most convincing criteria for a hospitable climate? What criteria do minority students themselves use to define "comfort level"? and does to what extent does "comfort level" determine degree completion?

• What have proven to be the best models of practice in college preparatory outreach programs for pre-college minority students? What features of those programs are most closely correlates not merely with initial enrollment, but of degree retention and degree completion? What are the quality control mechanisms in the successful programs? To what extent are members of the student's family or extended family involved, and how? Where and how can these practices be conducted on a large scale?

• What have been the effects of different degrees of racial/ethnic diversity on campuses and/or in major fields on the majority population? What are the most persuasive indicators of positive impact? The least persuasive? Do alumni surveys tell us anything about the enduring effects of diversity?

References

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 1996 (Washington, D.C.: 1996), 208, 324.

U. S. Department of Education, The Condition of Education, 1996 (Washington, D.C.:1996), 25.

E. TASKS

BASE YEAR

1.1	Meet with COTR

Following the contract award (within 10 working days), the contractor shall meet with the COTR and the Contract Specialist to discuss the contract generally and specifically the plan of work (including analysis plan), management plan, commitment of participants, collaborators/consultants, proposed products, and dissemination/outreach plan.

2.1	Finalize Commitments and Submit Revised Plan of Work

Within 2 weeks following the meeting with the COTR and the Contract Specialist, the contractor shall submit a finalized list of all participants and collaborators from participating institutions, organizations, or associations, along with a management plan that details how efforts will be coordinated. In addition, the contractor shall submit a revised plan of work to the Contract Specialist and the COTR for final review and approval, including a final product and dissemination/outreach plan. The contractor shall not implement the plan until it has been approved by the COTR.

[Deliverables for Task 2.1: (1) Finalized List of Participants and Collaborators; (2) Revised Plan of Work; (3) Revised Analyses Plan; (4) Revised Management Plan; (5) Proposed Product Plan; (6) Revised Dissemination and Outreach Plan ]

3.1	Implement Research Plan

Following review and approval of the revised plan of work by the COTR, the contractor shall conduct the study based on the revised plan of work and the proposed research questions.

4.1	Prepare Report on Preliminary Findings

The contractor shall prepare a brief report (not to exceed 20 pages) on significant findings of the research. The purpose of the preliminary report is to determine whether additional analyses will be required. This decision will be made in consultation with the COTR .

[Deliverable for Task 4.1: Preliminary Report]

5.1	Develop and Submit Draft Research 'Issues Brief'

Following review and comment of the preliminary findings by the COTR, the contractor shall develop and submit a brief (4-6 page) research report of the findings. The report shall be suitable for publication.

[Deliverable for Task 5.1: Draft Research Issues Brief]

6.1	Submit Final Draft of the Research 'Issues Brief'

Following review and comment of the draft report by the COTR, the contractor shall revise and submit the final draft of the research issue brief.

[Deliverable for Task 6.1: Final Draft of Research Issues Brief]

OPTION YEAR 1

7.1	Prepare Report on Additional Findings

The contractor shall prepare a brief report (not to exceed 20 pages) on significant research findings. The report will include all research findings not described in the preliminary report.

[Deliverable for Task 7.1: Research Findings Report]

8.1 Prepare Draft Outline of Final Report

Once the COTR has reviewed and commented on the research findings, the Contractor shall prepare and submit a draft outline of the final report.

[Deliverable for Task 8.1: Draft Outline of Final Report]

9.1 Submit Revised Outline of Final Report

Following review and comment by the COTR, the contractor shall submit a revised

outline of the final report.

[Deliverable for Task 9.1: Final Outline of Draft Report]

10.1 Prepare Draft Final Report

Once outline has been approved by the COTR, the Contractor shall prepare and submit the draft final report.

[Deliverable for Task 10.1: Draft Final Report]

11.1 Revise and Submit Final Report

Following review and comment by the COTR of the draft report, the contractor shall submit a final report.

[Deliverable for Task 11.1: Final Report]

12.1	Meet with COTR to Discuss Additional Research and Data Needs

Within 2 weeks after the submission of the final report, the Contractor shall meet with the COTR and the Contract Specialist to discuss additional research and data needs relevant to the current activity. The contractor shall submit a plan to conduct a follow-up analysis based on the study's findings.

[Deliverable for Task 12.1: Follow-up Analysis Plan]

OPTION YEAR 2

13.1	Implement Follow-up Analysis Plan

Upon approval of the COTR of the follow-up analysis plan, the contractor shall examine additional research questions relevant to the project.

14.1	Develop and Submit Draft Report on Findings

The contractor shall prepare and submit a draft report (not to exceed 20 pages) on the research findings.

[Deliverable for Task 14.1: Draft Follow-up Report on Findings]

15.1 Revise and Submit Final Report

Upon review and comment by the COTR of the draft report, the contractor shall revise and submit a final report.

[Deliverable for Task 15.1: Final Follow-up Report]

16.1 Develop and Submit Preliminary Dissemination Products

The contractor shall develop and submit all dissemination products proposed in the plan of work.

[Deliverable for Task 16.1: Dissemination Products]

17.1	Submit Final Dissemination Products

Following review and approval of the preliminary dissemination products by the COTR, the contractor shall submit the final dissemination products.

[Deliverable for Task 17.1: Final Products]

18.1 Prepare and Submit Revised Dissemination and Outreach Plan

The contractor shall revise the dissemination and outreach plan and submit it to the COTR for review and approval.

[Deliverable for Task 18.1: Revised Dissemination and Outreach Plan]

19.1	Implement Dissemination and Outreach Plan

The contractor shall implement the dissemination and outreach activities based on the revised plan.

20.1	Prepare and Submit Dissemination and Outreach Report

The contractor shall prepare and submit a report on all dissemination and outreach activities.

[Deliverable for Task 20.1: Dissemination and Outreach Report]

F. DELIVERABLES

Quarterly Reports. Within 10 days following the end of each quarter, the Contractor shall submit quarterly reports to the COTR and Contracting Officer that includes a description of the project activities for the quarter and the activities planned for the coming quarter. Problems shall be identified, along with recommended solutions. The report shall include a summary of the hours worked during the quarter (by month and by project staff) on each task. Project expenditures shall be reported by each task (by month and to-date expenditures).

Status Reports. The contractor shall submit status reports on the implementation of the research activity. The Contractor shall submit one report upon completing one-third of the activity and a second report after completing two-thirds of the activity.

Other Anticipated Products. The contractor shall submit all visual products (videos, brochures, etc) in final form, along with necessary computer files for layout. Other proposed products shall require review and approval by the COTR prior to submission.

G. SURVEILLANCE PLAN

A quarterly status report shall be provided by the contractor within 10 working days following the end of quarter following the effective start date of the award. A summary of accomplishments, problems encountered, and plans shall be provided for each task. The number of direct labor hours shall be provided for each task.

Work performed on this contract is subject to the technical review of the COTR. In general, the work will be evaluated in terms of how well the requirements are satisfied, clarity of documentation, and timeliness of scheduled task accomplishment. The management plan will be evaluated by smoothness of operations and timeliness.

The contractor's performance shall be evaluated under Tasks 1-20 by the COTR who will assign the following overall ratings: 1) Superior; 2) Acceptable; and 3) Unacceptable. For each task that the contractor performs at the 'Superior' level, a $1,000 bonus will be awarded to the contractor. Conversely, for each task that the contractor performs at an 'Unacceptable' level, a 1,000 deduction will be made to the amount of the contract. In addition, the Contractor shall receive a $1,000 bonus for each product of 'Superior' quality, and will receive a $1,000 deduction for each product that is deemed 'Unacceptable' by the COTR. Performance bonuses for deliverables and products will be made in a lump sum following the completion of specific tasks. For each deliverable of 'Superior' quality completed in Tasks 2-4, 5-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-16, and 17-20, a lump sum payment will be made following the completion of Tasks 4, 6, 9, 12, 16, and 20 respectively. No performance award shall be given for the completion of Task 1.

Standards

BASE YEAR

Task 1	Meet with COTR

Standard: Within 10 days following the contract award, the contractor shall meet with the COTR and the Contract Specialist to discuss the final revisions to the proposal, including the plan of work, commitment of participants and/or collaborators, analysis plan, intended products, and dissemination and outreach plan.

Unacceptable performance:	1) Meeting does not take place within 10 days of the contract award; or 2) the contractor does not contribute substantially to discussions on revisions of the analysis plan, intended products, or dissemination/outreach plan.

Acceptable performance: 1) Meeting with COTR and Contract Specialist takes place within specified time frame; and 2) the contractor considers alterative approaches to the problem, suggests solutions to problems; and 3) the contractor demonstrates that the intended products conform to established convention; and 4) the plan presents dissemination and outreach methods appropriate for each target audience.

Superior performance: 1) Meeting takes place within 5 days of the contract award; and 2) the contractor works closely with COTR and provides insight into potential problems and the contractor submits a report that clear, comprehensible, and informative; and 3) the report addresses unexpected preliminary findings and presents feasible and insightful interpretations of the findings; and 4) the dissemination and outreach plan gives full consideration to the needs of intended target audiences.

Task 2	Finalize Commitments and Submit Revised Plan of Work

Standard: The contractor shall identify all project participants in a timely manner. Each participant's role shall be clearly described. The type of activity and amount of time for each participant/collaborator/consultant shall be well documented. The contractor shall revise the plan of work to incorporate the comments and revisions suggested by the COTR. The plan of work shall demonstrate a clear, in-depth understanding of the purposes of and the need for the proposed study. Analytic techniques are appropriate for the issues under study.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor fails to identify all participants within the specified time frame; or, 2) participants roles are ambiguous; or 3) the activity or the amount of time associated with each activity is not clearly articulated; or 4) the revised plan of work is unclear, poorly articulated, or shows poor understanding of the purposes and need for the study; or, 5) the methodology or research design is inappropriate.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor identifies all participants within the specified time frame; and 2) the role of each participant/collaborator, and consultant is clearly described; and 3) the type of activity or the amount of time associated with each activity in the final plan of work is clearly articulated; and 4) the plan of work presents clear evidence that the contractor understands why the work is important; and 5) the methodology or research design is appropriate for study.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the standards for acceptable performance, 1) the contractor uses measures and methods that are cost and time effective; and 2) the contractor not only presents a clear statement of a discrete problem and understands its importance, but also why it is more important than other allied problems.

Task 3	Implement Research Plan

Standard: The contractor shall conduct the study based on the research methodology described in the plan of work.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor does not complete the research study within the specified time frame; or 2) the study is fraught with numerous problems and obstacles that should have been foreseen by the contractor, resulting in major modifications to the plan.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor completes the study within the specified time frame; and 2) the contractor effectively resolves or minimizes obstacles raised during the course of the study, requiring minimum modifications to the research plan.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the above criteria for acceptable performance, 1) the contractor demonstrates foresight into and takes immediate action to correct potential problems, and 2) no modifications to the research plan are required.

Task 4	Prepare Report on Preliminary Findings

Standard: The contractor shall submit a narrative report describing significant preliminary findings of the research. The report shall not exceed 20 pages in length.

Unacceptable performance: The contractor 1) fails to submit the report within the specified time frame; or 2) the report exceeds the 20-page limit or submits a report that is less than 10 pages in length; or 3) the report does not address the relevance of the findings or the potential impact of the findings.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor submits the report within the specified time frame; and 2) The report does not exceed the maximum number of pages and does not go below 10 pages; and 3) The report addresses the potential impact of the findings on relevant stakeholders.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the above standards for acceptable performance, 1) the contractor submits a report that clear, comprehensible, and informative; and 2) the report addresses unexpected preliminary findings and presents feasible and insightful interpretations of the findings.

Task 5	Develop and Submit Draft Research 'Issues Brief" Report

Following a review of the report on the findings, the contractor shall prepare brief research report suitable for publication.

Standard:	The contractor shall develop a brief report, between 4-6 pages, including tables and figures if applicable.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor fails to submit the report in a timely manner; or 2) the report exceeds 6 pages in length; or 3) the report is unstructured or is not concise; or 4) the target audience for the report is not clearly identified, or 5) The report does not clearly address a specific research issue or question.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor submits the report within the specified time frame; and 2) the report is between 4-6 pages in length; and 3) the report is well structured and concise; and 4) the target audience is well identified; and, 5) The report is clearly focused on a specific research issue or question.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the report is 1) clear, comprehensible, and informative and 2) presents feasible and insightful interpretations of the findings.

Task 6	Submit Final Draft of 'Issues Brief' Report

Unacceptable performance: 1) The final draft report is not delivered within the scheduled time frame; and 2) the report does not reflect the revisions and recommendations of the COTR.

Acceptable performance: 1) The final draft report is delivered with the scheduled time frame and reflects all comments and recommendations of the COTR; and 2) The document is appropriately formatted and does not require further editing.

Superior performance: The final draft report is delivered at least 1 week prior to scheduled due date and is 'camera ready.'

Option Year 1

Task 7	Prepare Report on Research Findings

Standard: The contractor shall submit a narrative report on significant findings. The report shall describe all findings not described in the preliminary report. The report shall not exceed 20 pages in length.

Unacceptable performance: The contractor 1) fails to submit the report within the specified time frame or 2) exceeds the 20-page limit or submits a report that is less than 10 pages in length; or 3) the report does not address the relevance of the findings or the potential impact of the findings.

Acceptable performance: The contractor: 1) submits the report within the specified time frame; and 2) does not exceed the maximum number of pages and does not go below 10 pages; and 3) discusses the relevance of the findings and potential impact on the findings.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the above standards for acceptable performance, 1) the contractor submits a report that clear, comprehensible, and informative; and 2) the report addresses unexpected findings and presents feasible and insightful interpretations of the findings.

Task 8	Prepare Draft Outline of Final Report

Standard: The contractor shall submit a preliminary outline of the draft report, based on the study's findings.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor does not submit the outline in the time frame specified; or 2) the contractor omits relevant points and issues; 3) The outline is disorganized.

Acceptable performance: The contractor submits the outline within the specified time frame; and, 2) the outline is clear and consistent, forms a logical progression, and is inclusive.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the outline requires minimal editing in matters of content.

Task 9	Submit Revised Outline of Final Report

Standard: The contractor shall submit a final outline of the draft report.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor does not submit the outline in the time frame specified; or 2) the revised outline does not reflect the comments and recommendations of the COTR.

Acceptable performance: The contractor submits the outline within the specified time frame; and 2) the outline reflects the comments and recommendations of the COTR.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the outline requires no further editing.

Task 10	Prepare Draft Final Report

Standard: The report shall contain: 1) an introduction that discusses the major issues and research questions being addressed and includes a review of the available relevant literature on the issues; 2) analysis of the data and findings; 3) relevant data tables, charts, and graphs; 4) recommendations and future research needs; and, 5) 1-2 pages of highlights from the data. An executive summary in an appropriate non-technical style shall be prepared.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The draft final report is not submitted within the specified time frame; or 2) the introduction fails to address the major issues and research questions; or 3) data analysis fail to support findings; or 4) tables, charts, graphs contains errors, or otherwise inaccurate or incomplete; or 5) recommendations are unrealistic; or 6) the document is poorly written or requires major revisions in content and in editing.

Acceptable performance: 1) The draft final report is submitted within the specified time frame; and 2) all relevant sections are included in the final report; and 3) data analyses support findings; and 4) tables, charts, graphs are easy to read, accurate, and complete; and 5) recommendations are feasible and realistic; and 6) the document is well written in a language appropriate for its target audience(s) and requires minimal editing in areas of content.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the draft final report is presented in a clear language appropriate not only to its target audience, but also to secondary audiences and the general public. In addition, the findings contribute substantially to the areas of affirmative action and diversity policies and practice by providing new knowledge about critical issues or raising provocative questions that frame national discussions on affirmative action/diversity programs and initiatives.

Task 11	Revise and Submit Final Report

Standard: The contractor shall ensure that the comments, recommendations, and revisions made by the COTR are incorporated into the final draft and that the final draft is submitted in a timely manner.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor fails to submit the revised draft report within the specified time frame; or 2) the document requires major revisions in content; or 3) the document reflects poor integration of the comments and recommendations of the COTR.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor submits the revised final draft report within the specified time frame; and 2) the document requires minimal editing; and 3) the revision adequately reflects the comments and recommendations of the COTR.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the revised final draft requires no editing.

Task 12	Meet with COTR to Discuss Research Needs Relevant to Current Activity

Standard: The contractor shall meet with the COTR and the Contract Specialist to discuss implications of the current study and to submit a plan to examine additional research questions and issues relevant to the project.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The plan is not logically linked to the current study; or 2) The plan is unclear, poorly focused, or poorly articulated.

Acceptable performance: The contractor clearly demonstrates that research issues and questions are clearly linked to the project's findings.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the critical for acceptable performance, the contractor presents a cohesive line of inquiry that will contribute to, strengthen, and/or influence national research on affirmative action/diversity programs, and clearly describes how the additional research questions will be examined. The plan is both cost and time effective.

Option Year 2

Task 13	Implement Follow-up Analyses Plan

Standard: The contractor shall conduct the study based on the research methodology described in the plan.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor does not complete the analyses within the specified time frame; or 2) problems arise during the analyses phase that should have been foreseen by the contractor, resulting in major modifications to the research plan.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor completes the analyses within the specified time frame; and 2) the contractor effectively resolves or minimizes obstacles raised during the course of the analyses, requiring minimum modifications to the plan.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the above criteria for acceptable performance, 1) the contractor demonstrates foresight into and takes immediate action to correct potential problems, and 2) no modifications to the research plan are required.

Task 14	Prepare and Submit Draft Report on Findings

Standard: The report shall contain: 1) an introduction that discusses the major issues and research questions being addressed and includes a brief review of the available relevant literature; 2) analysis of the data and findings; 3) relevant data tables, charts, and graphs; 4) recommendations and future research needs; and 5) 1-2 pages of highlights from the data. An executive summary in an appropriate non-technical style shall be prepared.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The draft final report is not submitted within the specified time frame; or 2) the introduction fails to address the major issues and research questions; or 3) data analysis fail to support findings; or 4) tables, charts, graphs contains errors, or otherwise inaccurate or incomplete; or 5) recommendations are unrealistic; or 6) the document is poorly written and requires major revisions in content and in editing.

Acceptable performance: 1) The draft final report is submitted within the specified time frame; and 2) all relevant sections are included in the final report; and, 3) Data analyses support findings; and 4) tables, charts, graphs are easy to read, accurate, and complete; and 5) recommendations are feasible and realistic; and 6) the document is well written in a language appropriate for its target audience(s) and requires minimal editing in areas of content.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the draft final report is presented in a clear language appropriate not only to its target audience, but also to secondary audiences and the general public. Also, the findings contribute substantially to the areas of affirmative action and diversity policies and practice by providing new knowledge about critical issues or raising provocative questions that frame national discussions on affirmative action/diversity programs and initiatives.

Task 15	Submit Final Report of Findings

Standard: The contractor shall ensure that the comments, suggestions, and revisions made by the COTR are incorporated into the final draft and that the final draft is submitted in a timely manner.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor fails to submit the revised draft report within the specified time frame; or 2) the document requires major revisions in content; or, 3) the document reflects poor integration of the recommendations of the COTR.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor submits the revised final draft report within the specified time frame; and 2) the document requires minimal editing; and, 3) the revision adequately reflects the comments and suggestions of the COTR.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the revised final draft requires no editing.

Task 16	Develop and Submit Preliminary Dissemination Products

Standard:	The contractor shall prepare and submit products that will effectively inform relevant constituencies and the public on critical research findings and implications of the study.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The products are not submitted within the specified time frame; or 2) the products are not in camera ready format.

Acceptable performance: 1) The products are submitted within the specified time frame and are camera ready; and 2) the products are specifically designed for each target audience.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the products will promote intellectual exchange across all levels of constitutes at the national level, and in both public and private sectors.

Task 17	Submit Final Dissemination Products

Standard: Upon review and approval of the preliminary dissemination products by the COTR, the contractor shall submit the final dissemination products.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The products are not submitted within the specified time frame and 2) do not reflect the recommendations made by the COTR.

Acceptable performance: The products are submitted by the due date; and 2) the products reflect the recommendations of the COTR.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance,
the products, require no further modifications.

Task 18	Revise and Submit Dissemination and Outreach Plan

Standard: Based on the research findings, the contractor shall revise the dissemination and outreach plan, and describe how the dissemination products will be used.

Unacceptable performance: 1) The contractor fails to submit the plan in a timely manner; or, 2) the dissemination and outreach strategies fail to identify the specific needs of each target audience; or 3) the dissemination and outreach plan does not take the project's findings into consideration, or does not clearly demonstrate how the information will reach targeted audiences.

Acceptable performance: 1) The contractor clearly describes and justifies cost-effective dissemination and outreach procedures that assure the materials reaches those responsible for and interested in diversity programs, policies, and practices; and 2) specific needs of each target audience are clearly identified.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the plan is likely to result in the information from this study actually contributing to the understanding of the effects of diversity and affirmative action programs in higher education.

Task 19	Implement Dissemination and Outreach Activities

Standard: The contractor shall implement activities described in the dissemination and outreach plan.

Unacceptable performance: The contractor fails to follow activities and timelines

articulated in the plan.

Acceptable performance: The contractor follows the plan and completes activities within the specified time frame.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance,
no modifications are required to the plan.

Task 20	Develop and Submit Report on Dissemination and Outreach Activities

Standard:	The contractor shall submit a report on all dissemination and outreach activities related to project.

Unacceptable performance:	The report is not completed within the scheduled timeline.

Acceptable performance: The report is completed within the scheduled timeline.

Superior performance: In addition to meeting the criteria for acceptable performance, the report clearly describes all dissemination and outreach activities and discusses the impact of the activities on targeted audiences.

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES

Deliverable	Due Dates	Copies	Government
(Weeks after COTR CO	Review Time

Award)

Base Year:

Finalized List of Participants

and Collaborators	2 weeks	2	1	1 week

Revised Plan of Work	4 weeks	2	1	1 week

Revised Analysis Plan	4 weeks	2	1	1 week

Revised Management Plan	4 weeks	2	1	1 week

Revised Product Plan	4 weeks	2	1	1 week

Revised Dissemination Plan	4 weeks	2	1	1 week

Quarterly Report	16 weeks	2	1

Status Report	24 weeks	2	1

Quarterly Report	32 weeks	2	1

Preliminary Findings Report	40 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

Draft 'Issues Brief' Report	43 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

Quarterly Report	48 weeks	2	1

Final Draft 'Issues Brief' Report	52 weeks	2	1

Option Year 1:

Status Report	58 weeks	2	1

Research Findings Report	62 weeks	5	1

Quarterly Report	64 weeks	2	1

Outline of Final Report	66 weeks	5	1	1 week

Revised Outline of Final Report	72 weeks	5	1	1 week

Quarterly Report	72 weeks	2	1

Draft of Final Report	87 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

Quarterly Report	88 weeks	2	1

Final Report	99 weeks	5	1

Follow-up Analysis Plan	102 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

SCHEDULE OF DELIVERABLES (cont.)

Deliverable	Due Dates	Copies	Government
(Weeks after COTR CO	Review Time

Award)

Option Year 2:

Quarterly Report	118 weeks	2	1

Draft Follow-up Findings Report	120 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

Final Follow-up Report	126 weeks	5	1

Prelim. Dissemination Products	130 weeks	5	1	2 weeks

Quarterly Report	134 weeks	2	1

Final Dissemination Products	146 weeks	5	1

Quarterly Report	150 weeks	2	1

Dissemination and Outreach

Implementation Report	155 weeks	5	1