LETTER FOR RFP:	ATTACHMENT A

To: All Offerors

SUBJECT: Performance Based Contract

Previously the Government acquired much of its support services on a cost reimbursable basis using for the most part cost plus fixed fee contracts. In many cases this was simply a level of effort contract in which the Contractor was paid for hours incurred and not necessarily for work accomplished as a result of those hours incurred.

Under Performance Based Contracting methodology, the Contractor will be paid based on END RESULTS. The Government plans to award a firm fixed price incentive contract.

The Government is in fact purchasing the services of the Contractor to provide specific "OUTPUTS". The services or products shall be well defined. In no event will open-ended requirements be issued which lack distinct objectives and/or deliverables.

All offerors are urged to read carefully OFPP Circular Number 4 on Performance Work Statements. Note specifically the section on Deduct Analysis. The Government has a right to make deductions including costs (not just fee) when performance is below standard. The Department plans to implement these guidelines since they are a key element of Performance Based Contracting. Please read carefully all attachments related to the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and the performance requirements summary. Please direct all questions in writing to the following address:

U.S. Department of Education

Contracting and Purchasing Operations

7th and D Streets, SW

ROB-3, Room 3636

Washington, DC 20202-4447.

ATTN:

Note: Pursuant to FAR Part 16.4 Incentive Contracts, the Government reserves the right to in the performance requirement summary. Also, the Government reserves the right to change the surveillance plan periodically. The Contractor shall be given reasonable notice to any changes ahead of time.

The government reserves the right to take whatever actions are necessary to address continued nonperformance. Remedial actions may include legal remedies.

CENTER TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING INFORMATION

AND SUPPORT ON TECHNOLOGY TO FAMILIES OF

CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

100 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS	4

100.1 Acronyms/Definitions	4

100.2 Scope of Work	4

100.3 Purpose	5

100.4 Overview/Background/Statute	5

110 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES	6

110.1 Printing Services	6

120 CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TOOLS, AND SUPPLIES	7

120.1 Office Space/Storage Space	7

120.2 Office Supplies	7

120.3 Quality of Contractor-Furnished Materials	7

120.4 Contractor-Furnished Equipment and Tools	7

130 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL	7

130.1 Basic Requirements	7

130.2 Project Management	7

130.3 Technical Qualifications of Staff	8

140 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE	8

140.1 Contractor's Quality Control Program	8

140.1-1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Schedule of Deliverables	9

140.2 Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan	9

140.3 Meetings with the Contractor	9

200 TECHNICAL WORK REQUIREMENTS	9

200.1 Task 1: Meeting with ED	10

200.2 Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis	10

200.3 Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee	11

200.4 Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials	12

200.5 Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events	13

200.6 Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations	14

200.7 Task 7: Reporting Requirements	15

200.8 Option Years One through Four	15

200.9 Base Year and Option Years Schedule of Tasks and Deliverables	15

300 MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE	17

400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS	17

400.1 Safety	17

400.2 Contingencies	18

400.3 Emergency/Disaster Contingency	18

400.3-1 Emergency/Disaster Contingency Schedule of Deliverables	19

400.4 Strike Contingency	19

400.4-1 Strike Contingency Schedule of Deliverables	19

500 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS	19

500.1: Reports	19

500.1A: Quarterly Progress Report (QPR)	19

500.1B: Quarterly Expenditure Reports	20

500.2: Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan	20

500.3: Evaluations	31

100 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

100.1 Acronyms/Definitions

OTHER RELEVANT PROGRAMS AND ORGANIZATIONS - Throughout this document, the expression "other relevant programs and organizations" refers to a range of programs and organizations that can address the technology-related needs of parents and families of children and youth with disabilities, including but not limited to the following: (1) Organizations of/for Parents and Families, such as The Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, National Parent Network on Disabilities (NPN), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders (CHADD), Parent Teacher Association (PTA), and Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights (PACER), and Family Education Network (FEN); (2) Government-Funded Programs such as the Parent Training and Information (PTI) Centers, the Community Parent Resource Centers, the Technical Assistance for Parent Programs (TAPP), and the National Parent Information Network (NPIN), The National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY), and state and national programs funded under the Technology Related Assistance Act; (3) Other Organizations Focusing on Disabilities and/or Technology such as National Easter Seals Society, National Federation of the Blind, Learning Disabilities Association (LDA), and United Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCPA), the Alliance for Technology Access (ATA), and Closing the Gap (CTG).

TECHNOLOGY - a broad range of high-tech and low-tech products, including audiotapes, videotapes, computer hardware and software, multimedia, telecommunications, adaptive devices, and "assistive technology devices" as defined in Section 602(1) of IDEA.

100.2 Scope of Work

The Contractor shall operate a center to help other programs and organizations provide information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities on accessing and using technology. The center will be national in scope, and the other programs and organizations will include: (1) Organizations of/for Parents and Families, (2) Government-Funded Programs, and (3) Other Organizations Focusing on Disabilities and/or Technology.

Technology will include a broad range of high-tech and low-tech products, including audiotapes, videotapes, computer hardware and software, multimedia, telecommunications, adaptive devices, and "assistive technology devices" as defined in Section 602(1) of IDEA.

The Contractor shall conduct a national needs assessment and resource analysis to ensure that the center addresses documented needs and draws upon available resources. The Contractor shall also establish and maintain a broad-based national network to foster communication and collaboration with and among relevant programs and organizations. From this network, the Contractor shall establish and maintain a representative advisory committee, and involve this committee in periodic planning and review of the center's activities and products.

The Contractor shall collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials. Materials may include written materials, audio and video tapes, computer software, and other forms of materials and media. Procedures for supporting the use of materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to: demonstrating materials at conferences, providing assistance via e-mail or phone, referring users to other resources, and providing services such as materials reproduction and distribution. The Contractor shall make maximum appropriate use of already-developed materials to minimize the need to develop new materials.

The Contractor shall participate in meetings, conferences, and events to achieve the following goals: (1) To increase public and professional awareness of (a) the needs of families related to access and use of technology, (b) the potential contributions that parents and families can make in the access and use of technology for students with disabilities, (c) the activities of the center and its network of programs and organizations, and (d) the center's materials and support; and (2) To increase communication and collaboration between the relevant programs and organizations. The Contractor's participation in such meetings, conferences, and events may include, but is not limited to, delivering presentations, exhibiting and demonstrating materials, conducting discussions, and participating in work groups.

The Contractor shall plan, conduct, and report on annual evaluations to answer the following questions: (1) Is the center effective in improving the ability of other relevant programs and organizations around the country to provide technology information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities? (2) Is the center effective in fostering communication and cooperation involving programs and organizations? (3) Is the center making efficient and effective use of available resources and capabilities?

100.3 Purpose

The U.S. Department of Education (ED), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) requires a Contractor for 12 months with four 12-month option periods to operate a center to help other relevant programs and organizations provide information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities on accessing and using technology. The center will accomplish this mission by (1) assessing needs and analyzing available resources; (2) forming a broad-based network; (3) collecting, developing, and disseminating materials; and (4) participating in meetings, conferences, and events.

100.4 Overview/Background/Statute

The Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization Program (Section 687) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as amended by P.L. 105-17, helps to ensure that "appropriate technology and media are researched, developed, demonstrated, and made available in timely and accessible formats to parents, teachers, and all types of personnel providing services to children with disabilities to support their roles as partners in the improvement and implementation of early intervention, educational, and transitional services and results for children with disabilities and their families," (Section 681(b)(3)).

Parents and families play a critical role in the access and use of technology with students with disabilities. Parents must often advocate for making technology available to their children and can help in selecting technology and planning its use. Family support is often an important determinant of the success or failure of technology with students with disabilities.

To fulfill these functions, parents and families must have access to up-to-date information concerning various forms of technology. In some cases, parents need information on alternative methods for obtaining and maintaining technology, and may need to acquire skills in using technology and helping students in its use.

A range of types of information and services can support parents and families in fulfilling these functions. These include general and specific information on technology, assistance in selecting and obtaining technology, training in using technology, technology lending libraries, and referral services.

There is a national infrastructure of programs and organizations that can address the technology- related needs of parents and families. However, availability is inconsistent, and the full range of needed resources is often difficult for parents and families to access. Programs and organizations intended to meet the needs of parents and families are often not equipped to provide specialized information and services related to technology. Often such programs and organizations have limited funds and resources, further constraining their capacity to provide technology information and services.

The intent of this procurement is to establish a center not to work directly with parents but instead to work with other relevant programs and organizations to improve the availability and quality of technology-related information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended, Part D, Section 687 (20 U.S.C. 1487) and Section 661 (20 U.S.C. 1461) contains the authorization for this procurement. The Division of Research to Practice (DRP), OSEP, is responsible for administration and leadership for the Technology Development, Demonstration, and Utilization Program.

110 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES

110.1 Printing Services

The Government Printing Office (GPO) must print, or, by delegation, authorize the printing of the publications, brochures, pamphlets, and other printed materials developed under this contract.

120 CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TOOLS, AND SUPPLIES

120.1 Office Space/Storage Space

The Contractor shall provide adequate protection from damage for all contract files, materials, products, and facilities consistent with the standards and regulations based on the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970. Should the facilities be considered unacceptable by the Government, the Government retains the right to require the Contractor to relocate to facilities which meet Federal Government Standards, at the Contractor's expense. The Contractor shall provide sufficient warehouse space to hold and store document stock, distribution materials, and negatives for information products.

120.2 Office Supplies

The Contractor shall supply all office supplies and materials, including supplies required for computer operation, throughout the contract's duration.

120.3 Quality of Contractor-Furnished Materials

The Contractor shall ensure that all materials and supplies used under this contract are not unsuitable or harmful to ED customers or its employees, meet manufacturer's specifications and comply fully with all applicable OSHA and EPA standards.

120.4 Contractor-Furnished Equipment and Tools

All equipment by the Contractor shall meet OSHA safety requirements. This equipment must operate using existing building circuits. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to prevent the operation or attempted operation of electrical equipment or combinations of equipment which require power exceeding the capability of existing building circuits.

130 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

130.1 Basic Requirements

The Contractor shall provide staff who are qualified to perform the work described in this performance work statement (PWS). Contractor personnel responsible for answering the telephone and dealing with ED employees, other programs and organizations, and all other customers should be able to speak clearly, easily understand the English language, and operate a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD). Contractor personnel shall be familiar with and experienced in standards of accessible product development, and alternate forms of communication and dissemination.

130.2 Project Management

a. The Contractor shall provide a project manager/director for administration and technical supervision of Contractor employees. The project manager/director shall be the Contractor's primary representative and shall have the Contractor's full authority to act on matters pertaining to the performance of services under this contract.

b. The project manager/director shall have technical experience and be knowledgeable in all facets of the work required to be performed under this PWS and have a minimum of five (5) years of recent experience managing a contract or operation similar in scope and complexity to the present contract.

130.3 Technical Qualifications of Staff

The Contractor shall employ staff who have extensive expertise in: (1) disabilities, families, and technology, with an emphasis on topics related to the role of families in the use of technology with students with disabilities; (2) materials development, marketing, evaluation, management, and dissemination; (3) research, needs assessment, and program evaluation; and (4) other relevant programs and organizations that can contribute to the center's work.

The Contractor's personnel shall possess the following skills, knowledge and abilities:

(1) skill in using databases, ERIC and other computer-based clearinghouses;

(2) skill in mailing lists data base management.

140 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE

140.1 Contractor's Quality Control Program

The Contractor shall establish a performance based quality control plan to ensure that the requirements of the contract are met as specified. A copy shall be provided to the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) and the Contracting Officer (CO) 15 work days after the effective date of the contract and within 5 days of any subsequent changes. The Contractor shall include in this performance based quality control plan at a minimum the following:

a.	An inspection program addressing all of the services stated in the PWS. It must specify the areas to be inspected on either a scheduled or unscheduled basis and the names, titles and qualifications of the individuals performing inspections and the extent of their authority. Their functional roles must be depicted in an organizational chart.

b.	Methods of identifying deficiencies in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable and the corrective actions needed to be taken; procedures for notifying the COTR when deficiencies are encountered; planned corrective actions and descriptions of proposed sampling techniques. In other words, a continuous improvement process (CIP).

c.	Methods of documenting and enforcing quality control operations of both the Contractor's and Subcontractors' (if any) work, including inspection and testing.

d.	The format for the Contractor's Quality Control Reports.

e.	For each option year, the Contractor shall discuss problems encountered and steps taken to correct them.

The Contractor shall maintain all documentation of all Quality Control Inspections, inspection results, and any corrective action required and/or performed by the Contractor throughout the term of the contract. This documentation shall become the property of the Government and made available to both the CO and COTR upon request. The Contractor shall turn this documentation over to the CO within ten (10) work days after completion or termination of the contract.

140.1-1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Schedule of Deliverables

a.	a revised quality control plan is due to the CO and the COTR within 15 work days of the effective date of the contract and/or within 5 days of any subsequent changes.

b.	documentation from all quality control inspections shall be due to the CO and the COTR within 10 work days after completion and/or termination of the contract.

140.2 Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

The Government will monitor, assess, record and report on the Contractor's technical performance under this contract in accordance with the procedures, methods and guidelines set forth in its Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). A copy of this plan is attached to the contract (See Exhibit A of Technical Exhibit 500.4).

140.3 Meetings with the Contractor

The Contractor, its designated Project Director/Manager, or both, shall meet with the CO and COTR once during each year of the contract. When meeting, a mutual effort will be made to resolve any and all problems identified. The Contractor shall prepare written minutes of any and all meetings and submit them to the government for review.

200 TECHNICAL WORK REQUIREMENTS

200.1 Task 1: Meeting with ED

The Contractor shall meet annually with ED to clarify work requirements and procedures, and to review the Contractor's evaluations and Quality Control Plan.

TASK 1 DELIVERABLES

1A	The Contractor's Project Manager/Director and up to two other key people from the Contractor's staff shall, within five work days after the effective date of the contract and each subsequent option year, if exercised, attend a one-day meeting in Washington, D.C. with the ED Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) and the Contracting Officer (CO).

1B	The Contractor shall, within five work days after the first (base-year) meeting with ED, submit to the CO and the COTR a schedule of deliverables and reports for the base year and four option years with unique identifiers for each deliverable and report.

1C	The Contractor shall, within five work days after each annual meeting with ED, submit to the CO and the COTR a report of clarifications and understandings resulting from the meeting.

200.2 Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis

The Contractor shall conduct a national needs assessment and resource analysis to (1) determine parent and family information and service needs related to technology for students with disabilities; (2) identify relevant programs and organizations that can help address these needs; (3) analyze capabilities and gaps in the relevant programs and organizations (as identified under item (2) above) to address the needs (as identified under item (1) above); (4) identify exemplary sites and programs around the country that address technology needs of parents and families. The Contractor shall prepare and disseminate a report on the findings of the needs assessment and resource analysis.

TASK 2 DELIVERABLES

2A	The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for conducting the needs assessment and resource analysis as described above. The COTR will provide feedback via e- mail within fifteen work days after receiving the plan.

2B	The Contractor shall, within six months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft report of the needs assessment and resource analysis. The COTR will provide feedback via e-mail within fifteen work days after receiving the report.

2C	The Contractor shall, within eight months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final version of the needs assessment and resource analysis. The Contractor shall, within eight months after the effective date of the contract, submit the final version of the report to Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), or use a similar dissemination resource to make the report generally available.

200.3 Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a broad-based national network by (1) identifying a range of other relevant programs and organizations that can help to address the technology- related needs of parents and families of children and youth with disabilities; (2) informing the identified programs and organizations about the mission and activities of the center; and (4) fostering communication and collaboration with and among the programs and organizations to further the purposes of the center supported under this contract.

The Contractor shall establish and maintain a representative advisory committee by (1) selecting a subgroup of up to nine members from the broad-based network that is representative of the network with regard to the type of organization, disability focus, and geographic region; and by (2) involving this subgroup in periodic planning and review of the activities and products of the center.

The purpose of this advisory committee will be to advise the Contractor, not ED. The Contractor shall be responsible for managing and setting agendas for any meetings and teleconferences with the advisory committee. The Contractor shall also be responsible for utilizing the advisory committee's advice in the operation of the center.

TASK 3 DELIVERABLES

3A	The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for establishing a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee as described above. The Contractor shall include in this draft plan a complete description of its proposed approaches for establishing a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee, a list and description of identified programs and organizations proposed for network membership, and a list of proposed members of the advisory committee. The COTR will provide feedback to the Contractor via e- mail within ten work days after receiving the plan.

3B	The Contractor shall, within six weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final plan for establishing a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee, and shall implement the plan.

3C	The Contractor shall, within each Quarterly Progress Report (QPR), describe its efforts during the preceding quarter and plans for the subsequent quarter to establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee, including all of the following information: (1) a description of its ongoing efforts to identify programs and organizations, (2) a description of programs and organizations it has added or removed from the network in the preceding quarter, (3) a description of its efforts to inform these programs about its mission and activities, (4) a description of its efforts to foster communication and collaboration with and among the programs and organizations, (5) a description of the current membership of the representative advisory committee, and (6) a description of its efforts to involve the advisory committee in periodic planning and review of the activities and products of the center.

200.4 Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials

The Contractor shall collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials by (1) identifying, collecting, and evaluating already-developed materials; (2) revising materials to improve their quality, usability, accuracy, and/or effectiveness; (3) developing materials to meet needs that are not adequately addressed in already-developed materials; (4) packaging, cataloging, and disseminating materials; and (5) supporting the use of materials.

Procedures for supporting the use of materials may include, but are not necessarily limited to: demonstrating materials at conferences, providing assistance via e-mail or phone, referring users to other resources, and providing services such as materials reproduction and distribution.

Materials may include written materials, audio and video tapes, computer software, and other forms of materials and media. The Contractor shall make maximum appropriate use of already- developed materials to minimize the need to develop new materials. The Contractor shall carefully consider factors of cost, practicality, and usability, as well as quality and effectiveness in evaluating, revising, and developing materials.

The Contractor shall cease any activities planned or underway under Task 4 upon receiving written instructions to do so from the COTR.

TASK 4 DELIVERABLES

4A	The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for collecting, evaluating, revising, developing, disseminating, and supporting the use of materials. The COTR will provide feedback via e-mail within ten work days after receiving the plan.

4B	The Contractor shall, within two months after the effective date of the contract, submit a final plan for collecting, evaluating, revising, developing, disseminating, and supporting the use of materials, revised in accordance with COTR feedback, and shall begin implementation of the plan.

4C	The Contractor shall, within each QPR, report on its efforts during the preceding quarter and plans for the subsequent quarter to collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials, including all of the following information: (1) an updated catalog of materials, indicating any changes since the previous QPR; (2) a description of activities undertaken during the preceding quarter to collect, evaluate, revise and/or develop materials, with a description of the products/findings, and actual samples if requested by the COTR; (3) a description of the activities undertaken during the preceding quarter to disseminate and support the use of materials, including a tabulation of materials requested, materials distributed, and support activities completed; (4) a description of plans for the subsequent quarter to collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials; and (5) a justification of these plans on the basis of available evidence from the Task 2 Needs Assessment and Resource Analysis, input from the Advisory Committee, customer feedback, the Task 8 Annual Evaluation, or other sources.

200.5 Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

The Contractor shall participate in meetings, conferences, and events to achieve the following goals: (1) To increase public and professional awareness of (a) the needs of families related to access and use of technology, (b) the potential contributions that parents and families can make in the access and use of technology for students with disabilities, (c) the activities of the center and its network of programs and organizations, and (d) the center's materials and support; and (2) To increase communication and collaboration between the relevant programs and organizations.

The Contractor shall participate in meetings, conferences, and events focused on such topics as: (1) technology (such as the "Closing the Gap" conference); (2) individuals with disabilities, parents, and families (such as conferences of parent, professional, and advocacy groups); and (3) technical assistance and dissemination (such as "TA&D" conferences convened by OSEP and the Department of Education).

The Contractor's participation in such meetings, conferences, and events may include, but is not limited to, delivering presentations, exhibiting and demonstrating materials, conducting discussions, and participating in work groups.

The Contractor shall pay travel and labor costs for non-staff persons (e.g. representatives of programs and organizations involved in presentations or demonstrations) to participate in meetings, conferences, and events.

The Contractor shall participate in no fewer than six and no more than fifteen meetings, conferences, and events per year. The Contractor shall participate in a meeting, conference, or event only after submitting a request to the CO and COTR, as described below, and receiving written approval from the COTR.

TASK 5 DELIVERABLES

5A	The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a request for approval to participate in a meeting, conference, or event by three weeks prior to the meeting, conference, or event. This request may be included in a QPR or submitted separately. The Contractor shall include the following information in its request: (1) a description of the meeting, conference, or event; (2) a description of the nature and purpose for the Contractor's participation in the meeting, conference, or event; (3) names, qualifications, and intended roles for any participants not normally on the Contractor's staff; (4) the evaluation plan, including the instrument and sampling plan, for evaluating the quality and results of Contractor's participation; and (5) an itemization of travel, labor, and other costs required for the Contractor's participation in the event. The COTR will approve, disapprove, or request changes or additional information via e-mail within ten work days after receiving the request.

5B	The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a report of its participation in each meeting, conference, or event in a QPR within four months following the meeting, conference, or event, including (a) a description of meeting, conference, or event, (b) a description of the Contractor's activities and purposes in participating in the meeting, conference, or event, and (c) an objective evaluation of its participation in the meeting, conference, or event, with ratings expressed on a four point scale of 1=unacceptable, 2=low acceptable, 3=high acceptable, and 4=superior.

200.6 Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

The Contractor shall plan, conduct, and report on annual evaluations to answer the following questions: (1) Is the center effective in improving the ability of other relevant programs and organizations around the country to provide technology information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities? (2) Is the center effective in fostering communication and cooperation involving programs and organizations? (3) Is the center making efficient and effective use of available resources and capabilities, as identified by the needs assessment and analysis conducted under 200.2?

TASK 6 DELIVERABLES

6A	The Contractor shall, within three months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for conducting an annual evaluation. The Contractor shall include in this evaluation plan a description and justification of instruments and methodologies to collect, analyze, and report data in a timely and cost-effective manner. The COTR will provide feedback via e-mail within ten work days after receiving the plan.

6B	The Contractor shall, within four months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final plan for conducting annual evaluations, revised in accordance with COTR feedback, and shall implement the plan.

6C	The Contractor shall, within 11 months after the effective date of the contract and each subsequent option year, if exercised, submit to the CO and the COTR a report of the annual evaluation, including a description of data collection and analysis procedures, findings, and recommended adjustments to the center's products and activities.

200.7 Task 7: Reporting Requirements

The Contractor shall prepare and submit on a quarterly basis: (1) a Quarterly Progress Report (QPR); and (2) a quarterly expenditure report (QER). See Technical Exhibit 500.1 for further information about the QPR and QER,

TASK 7 DELIVERABLES

7A	The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a concise Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) due on the fifth work day following the end of each quarter.

7B	The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR an itemized Quarterly Expenditure Report (QER) due on the fifth work day following the end of each quarter.

200.8 Option Years One through Four

Based on results achieved in the base year, the Contractor shall continue to perform Section 200, Tasks 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 during option years one through four, if exercised, and shall submit to the CO and the COTR deliverables as per the Schedule of Tasks and Deliverables.

200.9 Base Year and Option Years Schedule of Tasks and Deliverables

Task	Description	Due by End of:	Copies to ED
1	Meeting with ED	1A	Meeting with COTR and CO

1B	Final Schedule of Deliverables

1C	Report of Clarifications and Understandings	5 days after ef fective date of contract and option years

5 days after base-year meeting

5 days after base-year meeting	NA

3

3
2	Conduct needs assess ment and resource analysis	2A	Draft Plan for Conducting the Needs As
sessment and Analysis

2B	Draft Report of the Needs Assessment and Analysis

2C	Final Report of the Needs Assessment and Analysis	2 weeks

6 months

8 months	2

3

3
3	Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representa tive advisory committee	3A	Draft Plan for Establishing a Network and Advisory Committee

3B	Final Plan for Establishing a Network and Advisory Committee--Submitted and Implemented

3C	Quarterly report on Task 3	2 weeks

6 weeks

Quarterly	2

2

3
4	Collect, eval
uate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials	4A	Draft Plan for Collecting, Evaluating, Revising, Developing, Disseminating, and Supporting the Use of Materials

4B	Final Plan Submitted and Implemented

4C	Quarterly report on Task 4	2 weeks

2 months

Quarterly	3

NA

3
5	Participate in meetings, conferences and events	5A	Request for Approval to Participate

5B	Report of Participation	3 weeks prior to participation

In QPR by 4 months follow ing participa tion	3

3
6	Conduct an
nual evalua tions	6A	Draft Evaluation Plan

6B	Final Evaluation Plan--Submitted and Implemented

6C	Evaluation Report	3 months

4 months

11, 23, 35, 47, 59 months	3

3

3
7	Reporting requirements	7A	Quarterly Progress Report

7B	Quarterly Expenditure Report	5 days follow ing end of quar ter

5 days follow ing delivery of draft report	3

3

One copy of all Final deliverables shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist. The balance shall be delivered to the COTR.

300 MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

The Contractor shall meet the Minimum Standards of Performance (MSP) as described in the Exhibit A of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (Technical Exhibit 500.4). In performing the work described in Section 200 of this PWS, the MSPs identify the point of demarcation between satisfactory and unsatisfactory Contractor performance. The Government will monitor the Contractor's performance in accordance with procedures set forth in its QASP and will take appropriate action for all documented instances where performance falls below the MSP.

400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

400.1 Safety

a. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable safety and occupational health requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910, OSHA's General Industry Standards. If the Contractor fails or refuses to promptly comply with safety requirements, the CO will issue an order stopping all or part of the work until satisfactory corrective action has been taken.

b. The Contractor shall verbally via phone inform the COTR of any unsafe/hazardous conditions within thirty (30) minutes of becoming aware of the condition, and in writing within one (1) workday. If the condition is within the scope of the Contractor's responsibility, the Contractor shall correct the unsafe condition and notify the COTR and CO in writing within 3 work days following the Contractor's initial awareness of the unsafe/hazardous conditions.

c. The Contractor shall verbally inform the COTR within two (2) business hours of the occurrence of all types of injuries and illnesses (first aid, limited duty, lost time and facility) sustained by a Contractor employee arising out of and in the course of his/her employment; a detailed written report is required within 24 hours to the CO. The Contractor shall comply with OSHA and other regulatory agency requirements for record keeping and reporting of all accidents.

d. The Contractor shall verbally via phone inform the COTR of all incidents where Government property is damaged by Contractor employees within four (4) business hours of an occurrence; a written report of the facts and extent of damage is due to the CO within three (3) workdays. The Contractor shall be responsible for all damages caused purposively or by negligence of its employees.

400.2 Contingencies

In the event of a national disaster or major disruption at ED, the Contractor shall be prepared to continue, and expand if necessary, performance to meet the mission requirements of the operations and maintenance support services included in this SOW. In all such situations, the Contractor shall assume that the Government cannot provide any supplemental forces yet will continue to need the same or additional performance under the contract which the Contractor shall be required to meet. In the event that a national disaster or emergency occurs and results in an increase of work directed by the CO and an increase in the cost of performance, such increase will be subject to the "Changes" clause (FAR subpart 52.2). Such emergency situations may include, but will not be limited to:

a. A national or local emergency (e.g., national epidemic or localized outbreak of disease), that increases contract requirements, or;

b. A national disaster (e.g., fire, flood, other acts of God) that impacts upon the Contractor's ability to perform.

400.3 Emergency/Disaster Contingency

The Contractor shall implement an emergency/disaster contingency plan which includes at a minimum: (1) an initial mobilization and contingency plan outlining the methods in the above-cited emergency situations, and (2) a contingency plan for each Subcontractor (if any). The Contractor's plan shall also provide for the continuation of Subcontractor's services in the event a Subcontractor is unable to satisfactorily implement its contingency plan. Any changes to the plan must be approved by the CO prior to implementation of this change. This plan shall be due to the C.O. and the COTR within 30 days after the effective date of the contract.

400.3-1 Emergency/Disaster Contingency Schedule of Deliverables

Emergency Disaster Contingency Plan - due to C.O. and the COTR within 30 days after the effective date of the contract.

400.4 Strike Contingency

The Contractor shall implement a strike contingency plan for the continuation of services required by this PWS in the event of a work stoppage, slowdown, or similar action by Contractor or Subcontractor (if any) employees. The Contractor's plan shall also provide for the continuation of Subcontractor services in the event a Subcontractor is unable to satisfactorily implement the strike contingency plan. All proposed changes to this strike contingency plan shall be approved by the COTR prior to their implementation. This plan shall be due to the C.O. and the COTR within 30 days after the effective date of the contract.

400.4-1 Strike Contingency Schedule of Deliverables

Strike Contingency Plan - due to C.O. and the COTR within 30 days after the effective date of the contract.

500 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS

500.1: Reports

The Contractor shall submit the reports listed below. The U.S. Department of Education reserves the right to change, delete, or add report requirements for compliance by the Contractor as may be required for ED administrative purposes.

500.1A: Quarterly Progress Report (QPR)

The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a concise Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) due on the fifth work day following the end of each quarter. The Contractor shall include the following information in the QPR: (1) A brief summary of the previous quarter's activities and the plans for the following quarter; (2) A description of any problems encountered or anticipated in fulfilling the tasks in Section 200-Technical Work Requirements; and (3) The information specified under Subsections 200.3, 200.4, and 200.5 for Deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, as well as reports of the Contractor's activities under other tasks and deliverables.

500.1B: Quarterly Expenditure Reports

The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR an itemized Quarterly Expenditure Report (QER) due on the fifth work day following the end of each quarter. The Contractor shall include the following information in the Quarterly Expenditure Report: (1) A manpower report prepared and signed by the Project Manager/Director, summarizing actual personnel assignments for the quarter just completed, and showing for each named individual the hours and costs charged by task, and projecting for the following quarter similar assignment information; (2) An itemized exhibit of expenditures segregating project costs by task for the quarter just completed.

500.2: Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

CONTRACT NO.

Introduction

This Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) has been developed pursuant to the requirements of the Performance Based Statement of Work in Contract: . This plan sets forth procedures and guidelines that the Department of Education will use in evaluating the technical performance of the Contractor, . In order for the Contractor to be aware of the methods that the Government will employ in evaluating its performance, a copy of this plan will be furnished to the Contractor at the time of the initial meeting in Washington with the CO and the COTR. At that time the Contractor may address any concerns in regard to the QASP and how it will be used to assess the Contractor's performance. Exhibit A is the actual surveillance instrument that will be used by ED to monitor the Contractor's performance.

A. Purpose of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following:

a.	Define the roles and responsibilities of participating Government officials;

b.	Define the types of work to be performed with required end results;

c.	Describe the evaluation methods that will be employed by the Government in assessing the Contractor's performance;

d.	Provide copies of the quality assurance monitoring forms that will be used by the Government in documenting and evaluating the Contractor's performance; and

e.	Describe the process of performance documentation.

B.	Roles and Responsibilities of Participating Government Officials

The following Government Officials will participate in assessing the quality of the Contractor's performance. Their roles and responsibilities are described as follows:

1.	{Insert COTR's name} will serve as the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR). He will be responsible for monitoring, assessing, recording and reporting on the technical performance of the Contractor on a day-to-day basis. He will have the primary responsibility for completing "Quality Assurance Monitoring Forms" which he will use to document his inspection and evaluation of the Contractor's work performance. It is extremely important for the COTR to establish and maintain a team oriented line of communication with the Contractor's Project Manager (PM) and the PM's office staff due to daily interface necessary in performing' monitoring functions. The COTR, CO, and PM must work together as a team to ensure that required work is accomplished in an efficient and proper manner. Meetings should be held on a regular basis in order to resolve serious problems. Less serious problems should be discussed and resolved on an impromptu basis.

2.	[insert CO name] will serve as the Contracting Officer (CO) and have overall responsibility for overseeing the Contractor's performance. The Contract Specialist (CS), will be responsible for the day-to-day monitoring of the Contractor's performance in the areas of contract compliance, contract administration, cost control and property control; reviewing the COTR's assessment of the Contractor's performance; and resolving all differences between the COTR's version and the Contractor's version. The CO may appoint CS to attend meetings with Contractor and to act on her/his behalf. All planned additions and modifications resulting in alterations of the facility's structure or mechanical services must be approved by the CO prior to commencement. The CO may call upon the expertise of other Government individuals as required. The Contracting Officer's procurement authorities include the following:

a.	SOLE authority for any decisions which produce an increase or decrease in the scope of the contract;

b.	SOLE authority for any actions subject to the "Changes" clause;

c.	SOLE authority for any decisions to be rendered under the "Disputes" clause;

d.	SOLE authority for negotiation and determination of indirect rates to be applied to the contract;

e.	SOLE authority to approve the substitution or replacement of the Project Manager and other key personnel;

f.	SOLE authority to approve the Contractor's invoices for payment, subject to the Limitation of Costs clause and the Limitation of Funds clause;

g.	SOLE authority to approve the GFE/GFP inventory turnover to the Contractor;

h.	SOLE authority to monitor and enforce Department of Labor promulgated labor requirements;

I.	SOLE authority to administer all property-related clauses contained in the contract;

j.	SOLE authority to arrange for and supervise QA activities under this contract;

k.	SOLE authority to approve the Contractor's on-site purchasing, work order control, stock equipment inventory, pager/telephone credit card record systems and other systems which the Contractor is required to furnish under the contract;

l.	SOLE authority to approve the Contractor's Quality Control Program, preventive maintenance program, emergency/disaster contingency plan, and strike contingency plan;

m.	SOLE authority to approve all Contractor purchases of equipment, supplies, and materials exceeding $2,500; and

n.	Signatory authority for the issuance of all modifications to the contract.

C.	Identification of the Types of Work to be Performed

This contract calls for the Contractor to operate a center for the U.S. Department of Education to help other programs and organizations provide information and support to families of children and youth with disabilities on accessing and using technology. The work to be performed under the contract falls into the categories listed below:

a.	Conducting national needs assessment;

b.	Analyzing national resources;

c.	Establishing and maintaining a national network of programs and organizations;

d.	Establishing and maintaining an advisory committee;

e.	Collecting and evaluating materials;

f.	Revising and developing materials;

g.	Disseminating materials and supporting their use;

h.	Participating in meetings, conferences, and events; and

I.	Conducting annual evaluations.

D.	Methodologies to be Used to Monitor the Contractor's Performance

Even though the Government through its COTR will be monitoring the Contractor's performance on a continuous basis, the sheer volume of tasks performed by the Contractor make 100% technical inspections impractical. Accordingly, the Department of Education will use the methodologies described in the QASP Exhibit A to monitor the Contractor's performance under this contract.

E.	Quality Assurance Reporting Forms

1.	The COTR, on a quarterly basis, will use two quality assurance monitoring forms (Exhibits B & C) to document and evaluate the Contractor's performance under this contract. The two forms when completed will document the COTR's understanding of Contractor requirements, what was actually done, and the impact or consequences of what was not done.

2.	The COTR will evaluate each event quarterly in accordance with the following definitions of Contractor performance:

a.	Superior (+) -- a level of performance which exceeds the minimum standards of performance, while not exceeding the estimated cost (as negotiated in the contract or any subsequent modifications) for the quarter.

b.	Acceptable (o) -- an acceptable level of performance which meets the minimum standards of performance, while not exceeding the estimated cost (as negotiated in the contract or any subsequent modifications) for the quarter.

c.	Unacceptable (-) -- a level of performance which is not acceptable and fails to meet the minimum standards of performance, and/or exceeds the estimated cost (as negotiated in the contract or any subsequent modifications) for the quarter.

3.	The COTR must substantiate all tasks which he judges to be indicative of "superior" or "unacceptable" performance. Performance at the "acceptable" level is expected from the Contractor. Performance at all three (3) levels will be evaluated.

4.	The COTR will forward copies of all completed QA monitoring forms to the CO/CS and Contractor by close of business on the days the forms were prepared. The Contractor is required to respond in writing to any negative QA monitoring form(s) within 5 working days after receipt of the form(s).

F.	Analysis of Surveillance Results

1.	The CO will review each QA monitoring form prepared by the COTR. When appropriate, the CO may investigate the event further to determine if all the facts and circumstances surrounding the event were considered in the COTR's opinions outlined on the forms. The CO will immediately discuss every event receiving a substandard rating with the Contractor to assure that corrective action is promptly initiated.

2.	After reviewing the Contractor's deliverables, the COTR will prepare a written report for the CO summarizing the overall results of his surveillance of the Contractor's performance during the previous month. This report will become part of the formal QA documentation.

G.	Applicability of the Excusable Delays Clause

In the event of an excusable delay (as defined in FAR 52.249-14), the Department of Education and the contractor shall work together to modify the contract in regard to the due dates of the deliverables. If such an event were to occur that would require a modification to the due dates of the deliverables, the contractor's performance, where applicable in this QASP, shall be measured by the date agreed upon in the modification.

Exhibit A: Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

A.	Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.2 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (2A) The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for conducting the needs assessment and resource analysis. (2B) The Contractor shall, within six months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft report of the needs assessment and resource analysis. (2C) The Contractor shall, within eight months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final version of the needs assessment and resource analysis, and shall submit the final version of the report to Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), or use a similar dissemination resource to make the report generally available.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of the deliverables.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR and two other ED staff people with expertise in parents and/or technology will evaluate all Task 2 deliverables using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented in Section 500.3 "Evaluations."

6.	Analysis of Results: Numerical ratings will be averaged across evaluators and across evaluation criteria, and will then be rounded to the nearest integer.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 2:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 2, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 4 across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any individual evaluator.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 2, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 2 or more across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual evaluator.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 2 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

B.	Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.3 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (3A) The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for establishing a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee. (3B) The Contractor shall, within six weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final plan for establishing a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee, and shall implement the plan. (3C) The Contractor shall, within each QPR, describe its efforts during the preceding quarter and plans for the subsequent quarter to establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of the deliverables.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR and two other ED staff people with expertise in parents and/or technology will evaluate the deliverables 3A and 3B. The COTR will evaluate 3C. All Task 3 deliverables will be evaluated using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented in Section 500.3 "Evaluations."

6.	Analysis of Results: Numerical ratings will be averaged across evaluators and evaluation criteria, and will then be rounded to the nearest integer.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 3:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 3, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 4 across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any individual evaluator.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 3, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 2 or more across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual evaluator.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 3 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

C.	Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.4 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (4A) The Contractor shall, within two weeks after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for collecting, evaluating, revising, developing, disseminating, and supporting the use of materials. (4B) The Contractor shall, within two months after the effective date of the contract, submit a final plan for collecting, evaluating, revising, developing, disseminating, and supporting the use of materials, revised in accordance with COTR feedback, and shall begin implementation of the plan. (4C) The Contractor shall, within each QPR, report on its efforts during the preceding quarter and plans for the subsequent quarter to collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of the deliverables.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR and two other ED staff people with expertise in parents and/or technology will evaluate the deliverable 4A. The COTR will evaluate 4C. All Task 4 deliverables will be evaluated using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented in Section 500.3 "Evaluations."

6.	Analysis of Results: Numerical ratings will be averaged across evaluators and evaluation criteria, and will then be rounded to the nearest integer.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 4:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 4, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 4 across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any individual evaluator.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 4, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 2 or more across the evaluators.

(3)	No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual evaluator.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 4 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

D.	Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.5 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (5A) The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a request for approval to participate in a meeting, conference, or event no later than three weeks prior to the meeting, conference, or event. (5B) The Contractor shall submit to the CO and the COTR a report of its participation in each meeting, conference, or event in a QPR by four months following the meeting, conference, or event.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt, evaluation of the deliverables, review of Contractor-submitted evaluation data.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR will evaluate all Task 5 deliverables using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented in Section 500.3 "Evaluations." Contractor-submitted evaluations will be taken into account as described below.

6.	Analysis of Results: COTR ratings will be used for 5A and 5B. For 5B deliverables, Contractor-submitted evaluations will be averaged across criteria and evaluators for each meeting/conference/event.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 5:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 5, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	COTR ratings average to 4.

(3)	Contractor-submitted evaluations for all meetings/conferences/events average to 4 across criteria.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 5, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	COTR ratings average to 2 or 3.

(3)	Contractor-submitted evaluations for all meetings/conferences/events average to 2 or 3 across criteria.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 5 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

E.	Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.6 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (6A) The Contractor shall, within three months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a draft plan for conducting an annual evaluation. (6B) The Contractor shall, within four months after the effective date of the contract, submit to the CO and the COTR a final plan for conducting annual evaluations, revised in accordance with COTR feedback, and shall implement the plan. (6C) The Contractor shall, within 11 months after the effective date of the contract and each subsequent option year, if exercised, submit to the CO and the COTR a report of the annual evaluation, including a description of data collection and analysis procedures, findings, and recommended adjustments to the center's products and activities.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of the deliverables.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR will evaluate deliverables 6A and 6B, and the COTR and two other ED staff people with expertise in parents and/or technology will evaluate 6C. All Task 6 deliverables will be evaluated using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented in Section 500.3 "Evaluations."

6.	Analysis of Results: Numerical ratings will be averaged across evaluation criteria and rounded to the nearest integer.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 6:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 6, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 4.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 6, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 2 or more.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 6 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

F.	Task 7: Reporting Requirements

1.	Contract Requirement: Section 200.7 of PWS.

2.	Performance Indicator(s): (7A) The Contractor shall, by the fifth work day following the end of each quarter, submit to the CO and the COTR a Quarterly Progress Report. (7B) The Contractor shall, by the fifth work day following the end of each quarter, submit to the CO and the COTR a Quarterly Expenditure Report.

3.	Primary Method of Surveillance: Documentation of date of receipt and evaluation of the deliverables.

4.	Minimum Standards of Performance: Deliverables must be received by the due dates and must include all requested information.

5.	Evaluation Procedures: The COTR will evaluate all Task 7 deliverables using the criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors presented included in Section 500.3 "Evaluations."

6.	Analysis of Results: Numerical ratings will be averaged across evaluation criteria and rounded to the nearest integer.

7.	Summary of Ratings for Task 7:

a.	In order for the Contractor to receive a "superior" rating for Task 7, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 4.

b.	In order for the Contractor to receive an "acceptable" rating for Task 7, all of the following conditions must be met:

(1)	All deliverables are received on or before the due date.

(2)	All criteria ratings average to 2 or more.

c.	The Contractor shall receive an "unacceptable" rating for Task 7 if the requirements for neither "acceptable" nor "superior" are met.

G.	Application of Target and Incentive Fees

Incentive fees will be assessed on a yearly basis as follows:

Task 2: Conduct Needs Assessment

To be completed in base year.

Base Year Only:

Superior:	Target fee plus $2,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $3,000

Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee

To be planned and begun in base year and continued in option years.

Base Year and Each Option Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $2,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $3,000

Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials

To be planned and begun in base year and continued in option years.

Base Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $2,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $3,000

Each Option Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $3,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $4,000

Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

To be planned and begun in base year and continued in option years.

Base Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $1,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $2,000

Each Option Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $2,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $4,000

Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

To be planned and begun in base year and continued in option years.

Base Year and Each Option Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $2,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $3,000

Task 7: Reporting requirements

To be begun in base year and continued in option years.

Base Year and Each Option Year:

Superior:	Target fee plus $1,000

Unacceptable:	Target fee minus $3,000

The maximim fee increase for superior performance in any year is $10,000. The maximum fee decrease for unacceptable performance in any year is $17,000.

500.3: Evaluations

Criteria, scores, ratings, and descriptors are provided for each deliverable. Descriptors are intended to be illustrative and are subject to change.

Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis

Deliverable 2A: Draft plan

Conceptual Quality of Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plan displays understanding and insight into parent, family, disability and technology issues. Plan draws from other sources of information, such as research, evaluations, and other literature, to provide rationale for approaches.

3

High Acceptable

There are no logical weaknesses. A general rationale is provided. Approaches seem generally appropriate.

2

Low Acceptable

Explanation and justification are marginal.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: No rationale is presented concerning approaches. General approaches are inappropriate and/or unlikely to be effective.

Methodology

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Methodologies are described clearly and completely. Strong rationale is provided for the appropriateness of the methodologies.

3

High Acceptable

Sampling, instrumentation, analysis, and reporting plans are described completely. There are no logical weaknesses. A general rationale is provided.

2

Low Acceptable

Sampling, instrumentation, analysis, and reporting plans are described completely. Explanation and justification is marginal.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The plan is unclear and/or incomplete. No rationale is presented concerning methods, sampling, and analysis. Approaches are inappropriate and/or unlikely to be effective.

Instrumentation

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Descriptions, samples and technical justification are provided for all proposed instruments. The proposed instruments address the full scope of the study. Technical quality and effectiveness of instruments are supported.

3

High Acceptable

All proposed instruments are completely described, but not fully justified. The proposed instruments address the full scope of the study, and seem likely to be effective.

2

Low Acceptable

All proposed instruments are described and address most of the scope of the study. Technical soundness and effectiveness seem satisfactory, but are not really established.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Instruments are poorly described and/or technically weak. Instruments do not address the full scope of the study.

Sample

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The sample is national and fully representative of such factors as disability groups, perspectives, and resources. Possible exemplary sites are likely to be included.

3

High Acceptable

The sample is national and generally representative, with minor weaknesses.

2

Low Acceptable

The sample is generally representative, with moderate weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

The sample is too narrow to be useful.

Scope and Depth

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plan addresses a comprehensive range of needs, capabilities, gaps, and resources, and promises to provide meaningful and in-depth results.

3

High Acceptable

Plan addresses a comprehensive range of needs, capabilities, gaps, and resources. Results may lack depth, but are likely to be meaningful.

2

Low Acceptable

Plan addresses a comprehensive range of needs, capabilities, gaps, and resources, but there are moderate weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

Plan is too narrow and/or flawed to be acceptable.

Analysis Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Proposed analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are established.

3

High Acceptable

Proposed analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are not completely established, but seem likely.

2

Low Acceptable

Proposed analysis methods are described and justified with moderate weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

Proposed analysis methods are not described and/or justified at an acceptable level.

Deliverables 2B and 2C: Draft and final version of report

The rating for Deliverable 2B, the draft report, will be based only on the following criterion, "Quality of Draft," which is derived from the ratings for the remaining criteria, which will be used to evaluate the final version of the report. This is intended to be a method for evaluating the draft and providing feedback to the Contractor based on the criteria by which the final version of the report will be evaluated.

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 2B)

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average to 3.3 or higher (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 3 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a superior overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

3

High Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 2.3 and 3.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a high acceptable overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

2

Low Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 1.7 and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). And, no criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer).

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average below 1.7 (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). One or more criteria are rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). One or more reviewers give the draft an overall rating of unacceptable.

Topic Coverage

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report provides uniformly excellent discussion of all required topics.

3

High Acceptable

The report provides discussion of all required topics.

2

Low Acceptable

The report has uneven but acceptable coverage of all required topics.

1

Unacceptable

The report has unacceptable gaps in the coverage of required topics.

Depth and Insight

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report shows exemplary depth and insight across most of the topics it addresses.

3

High Acceptable

Depth and insight are uniformly acceptable across topics.

2

Low Acceptable

Depth and insight are mostly acceptable, but for some topics they are weak.

1

Unacceptable

Report is unacceptably superficial and/or lacking in insight.

Technical Soundness

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Data collection, analysis and reporting are uniformly excellent in appropriateness and rigor.

3

High Acceptable

Data collection, analysis and reporting methods are uniformly sound.

2

Low Acceptable

Data collection, analysis and reporting methods have minor flaws that do not pose major threats to the uses of information.

1

Unacceptable

Data collection, analysis and/or reporting are unacceptable.

Clarity and Completeness

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Presentation is uniformly excellent in clarity and completeness.

3

High Acceptable

Presentation is uniformly acceptable in clarity and completeness.

2

Low Acceptable

Presentation is generally acceptable in clarity and completeness, with only minor flaws.

1

Unacceptable

Presentation is unacceptably unclear and/or incomplete.

Dissemination and Accessibility

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Dissemination arrangements make the report readily accessible in alternate formats for virtually all potential users.

3

High Acceptable

Dissemination arrangements make the report generally accessible, but not all forms and potential audiences are readily addressed.

2

Low Acceptable

Dissemination and accessibility are minimally acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

Dissemination and/or accessibility are unacceptable.

Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network and a representative advisory committee

Deliverable 3A and 3B: Draft plan and final plan

The rating for Deliverable 3A, the draft plan, will be based only on the following criterion, "Quality of Draft," which is derived from the ratings for the remaining criteria, which will be used to evaluate the final plan. This is intended to be a method for evaluating the draft and providing feedback to the Contractor based on the criteria by which the final plan will be evaluated.

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 3A)

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average to 3.3 or higher (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 3 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a superior overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

3

High Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 2.3 and 3.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a high acceptable overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

2

Low Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 1.7 and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). And, no criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer).

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average below 1.7 (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). One or more criteria are rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). One or more reviewers give the draft an overall rating of unacceptable.

Network Members as Listed

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The proposed membership of the network is clearly described and is comprehensive and inclusive of the programs and organizations that may benefit from and contribute to the Contractor's efforts under this contract.

3

High Acceptable

The proposed membership is generally comprehensive and inclusive, with minor gaps. Description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

The proposed membership is minimally comprehensive and inclusive of the programs and organizations, with significant gaps. Description is acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The planned network is unacceptable in its coverage and/or scope. The description is unacceptable.

Plans for Identifying and Recruiting Programs and organizations

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plans for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations are clearly described and supported, and are likely to establish and maintain comprehensive and complete membership. Programs and organizations will be well informed of the purposes and benefits of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

Plans for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations are likely to result in comprehensive and complete membership, with some gaps. Benefits of the Center will be generally communicated. Description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Plans for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations are likely to result in uneven membership with significant gaps. Benefits of the Center will not be broadly communicated. Description is acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Plans will result in a network that is unacceptable in its coverage and/or scope. The description is unacceptable.

Communication and Collaboration

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plans for fostering communication and collaboration with and among programs and organizations are exemplary in scope and effectiveness. Plans are well described and supported. Plans draw from other successful efforts, and are innovative as appropriate.

3

High Acceptable

Plans for fostering communication and collaboration are acceptable in scope and likely effectiveness. Description and support are acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Plans for fostering communication and collaboration are marginally acceptable. They are likely to meet minimal needs. Description is acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Plans for fostering communication and/or collaboration are unacceptable. The description is unacceptable.

Quality of Advisory Committee

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The plans for selecting the advisory committee are clearly described and supported and are likely to produce a representative and effective committee. The proposed membership is representative and of exemplary quality.

3

High Acceptable

The plans for selecting the advisory committee are adequately described and likely to produce a representative committee. The proposed membership is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

The plans for selecting the advisory committee meet minimal standards for acceptance. The proposed membership is minimally acceptable. Description is adequate.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The plans for selecting the advisory committee are unacceptable. Proposed membership is unacceptable. The description is unacceptable.

Involvement of Advisory Committee

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The plan for involving the Advisory Committee is well described and supported. The plan is likely to produce meaningful and effective involvement with the Center. Effective methods are described for how the Contractor will use the input from the Committee.

3

High Acceptable

The plan for involving the Advisory Committee is likely to produce meaningful and effective involvement with the Center. The description and support are acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

The plan for involving the Advisory Committee is likely to produce a minimally acceptable level of involvement with the Center. The description and support are acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The plan for involving the Advisory Committee is not likely to produce an acceptable level of involvement with the Center. The description and/or support are unacceptable.

Deliverable 3C: Task 3 Report in QPR

Ongoing Efforts to Identify and Inform Programs and Organizations

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Efforts for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations are clearly described and supported. Evidence is provided that these efforts are effective in establishing and maintaining comprehensive and complete membership. Evidence is provided that programs and organizations are well informed of the purposes and benefits of the Center. Efforts are adapted as needed to ensure success.

3

High Acceptable

Efforts for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations seem to result in comprehensive and complete membership, with some gaps. Benefits of the Center seem to be generally communicated. Description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Efforts for identifying and recruiting programs and organizations result in uneven membership with significant gaps. Benefits of the Center are not broadly communicated. Description is acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Efforts result in a network that is unacceptable in its coverage and/or scope. The description is unacceptable.

Efforts to Foster Communication and Collaboration

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Efforts for fostering communication and collaboration with and among programs and organizations are exemplary in scope and effectiveness. Efforts are well described and evidence is provided of their effectiveness. Efforts are adapted as needed to ensure success.

3

High Acceptable

Efforts for fostering communication and collaboration are acceptable in scope and effectiveness. Description and support are acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Efforts for fostering communication and collaboration are marginally acceptable. They meet minimal needs. Description is acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Efforts for fostering communication and collaboration are unacceptable. The description is unacceptable.

Efforts to Maintain and Involve the Advisory Committee

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The efforts for maintaining a quality Advisory Committee and involving it in planning and review are well described and supported. Evidence is provided that the Advisory Committee is contributing to the Center's work. Advisory Committee input products are provided.

3

High Acceptable

Efforts for involving the Advisory Committee are apparently producing meaningful involvement with the Center. The description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

The Advisory Committee seems to have a minimally acceptable level of involvement with the Center. The description and support are acceptable.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The Advisory Committee does not have an acceptable level of involvement with the Center. Acceptable quality is not maintained in the Advisory Committee. The description and/or support are unacceptable.

Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop, disseminate, and support the use of materials

Deliverable 4A and 4B: Draft plan and final plan

The rating for Deliverable 4A, the draft plan, will be based only on the following criterion, "Quality of Draft," which is derived from the ratings for the remaining criteria, which will be used to evaluate the final plan. This is intended to be a method for evaluating the draft and providing feedback to the Contractor based on the criteria by which the final plan will be evaluated.

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 4A)

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average to 3.3 or higher (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 3 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a superior overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

3

High Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 2.3 and 3.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a high acceptable overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

2

Low Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 1.7 and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). And, no criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer).

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average below 1.7 (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). One or more criteria are rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). One or more reviewers give the draft an overall rating of unacceptable.

Overall Quality of Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The plan is exemplary in its comprehensiveness, description and support, cohesiveness, innovativeness, and overall probable effectiveness.

3

High Acceptable

The plan is generally acceptable in its comprehensiveness, description and support, cohesiveness, innovativeness, and overall probable effectiveness.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan.

1

Unacceptable

The plan is unacceptable in at least one of the qualities of comprehensiveness, description and support, cohesiveness, innovativeness, and overall probable effectiveness.

Comprehensiveness of Identification and Collection

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The plan is very comprehensive in the scope of its materials identification and collection strategies. It employs a variety of search strategies and will reach all of the possible sources of materials. It provides evidence to support its approach.

3

High Acceptable

The plan is generally comprehensive in the scope of its materials identification and collection strategies. It employs a variety of search strategies.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan.

1

Unacceptable

The plan is unacceptable in its scope and comprehensiveness.

Evaluation Methods

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plans for evaluating materials are technically sound. The plans involve input from potential users and audiences, technical experts, members of the Network and/or Advisory Committee, or other outside perspectives. Evaluation includes try-outs when appropriate. Evaluation results are relevant and useful in revising, packaging, dissemination and using the materials. Evaluation includes a range of factors, including quality, effectiveness, usability, durability, flexibility, and economy.

3

High Acceptable

Plans for evaluating materials are technically sound and involve a variety of sources of input and methods. Evaluation includes a range of factors, including quality, effectiveness, usability, durability, flexibility, and economy.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan. Evaluation includes a range of factors, including quality, effectiveness, usability, durability, flexibility, and economy.

1

Unacceptable

Plans for fostering communication and/or collaboration are unacceptable, and/or the description is unacceptable.

Development and Revision Strategies

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The plans for developing and revising materials are exemplary in quality and probably effectiveness. The proposed processes are well supported. Development and revision will be accomplished in a technically competent and cost effective manner. The plan requires carefully documenting that no existing materials can adequately address needs before development activities are begun. Planned methods are likely to produce materials that are effective, usably, economical, and appropriate to the potential users.

3

High Acceptable

The plans for developing and revising materials are acceptable in quality and probably effectiveness. Technical competence and cost effectiveness are acceptable. The plan requires carefully documenting that no existing materials can adequately address needs before development activities are begun.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan. The plan requires carefully documenting that no existing materials can adequately address needs before development activities are begun.

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following applies: The plans for developing and revising materials are not adequately described. The plans for developing and revising materials are unacceptable. The plan lacks a provision for carefully documenting that no existing materials can adequately address needs before development activities are begun.

Cataloging and Management

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Planned procedures for cataloging and managing materials are exemplary in quality and cost effectiveness. There is a high degree of support for the proposed procedures. Resources and capabilities for accomplishing these tasks are exemplary. A variety of accessibility formats are provided for.

3

High Acceptable

Planned procedures for cataloging and managing materials are acceptable in all respects.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan

1

Unacceptable

The description of cataloging and management procedures is unacceptable, and/or the planned procedures are unacceptable.

Dissemination and Support Strategies

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The planned procedures for disseminating and supporting the use of materials are exemplary in quality and probable effectiveness. A variety of approaches are used as appropriate for the materials and users. Plans are based on previous experience, research, or other sources of evidence. Plans are cost effective and do not impose cost or management burdens on users.

3

High Acceptable

The planned procedures for disseminating and supporting the use of materials are exemplary in quality and probable effectiveness. A variety of approaches are used as appropriate for the materials and users. Plans are based on previous experience, research, or other sources of support. Plans are cost effective.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable plan.

1

Unacceptable

Dissemination and support procedures are not adequately described, and/or procedures are unacceptable.

Deliverable 4C: Task 4 Report in QPR

Description of Previous Activities

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support activities for the preceding quarter are fully described. The description is exemplary in completeness, clarity, provision of examples or samples as appropriate. Description relates the activities of the quarter to the overall plans for Task 4 and the implications for the general work of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support activities for the preceding quarter are fully described. Description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support activities for the preceding quarter are fully described. Description is generally acceptable with minor flaws or gaps.

1

Unacceptable

Description is unacceptable with regard to clarity and/or completeness.

Description of Plans

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are fully described. The description is exemplary in completeness, and clarity. Description relates the plans for the quarter to the overall plans for Task 4 and the implications for the general work of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are fully described. The description is entirely acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are fully described. Description is generally acceptable with minor flaws or gaps.

1

Unacceptable

Description is unacceptable with regard to clarity and/or completeness.

Justification of Plans

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are fully justified. The justification is exemplary in completeness and clarity. Justification is based on evidence available from the Task 2 Needs Assessment, customer feedback, the Task 8 Annual Evaluation, or other sources. Planned activities are appropriate and reasonable, and are related to the overall plans for Task 4 and the general work of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are fully justified. The description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are justified. The description is generally acceptable with minor gaps or flaws.

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following apply: Collection, evaluation, revision, development, dissemination and support plans for the subsequent quarter are not justified. The description is unacceptable in clarity and/or completeness.

Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

Deliverable 5A: Request for Approval to Participate

Description

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The description is entirely exemplary in its presentation of the meeting, conference, or event; the Contractor's proposed participation; and itemized costs. Full details are provided. The description is clear and precise.

3

High Acceptable

The description is generally acceptable. There are no serious flaws. No clarification or further justification is required.

2

Low Acceptable

The description is generally acceptable with major gaps and weaknesses. Clarification is required.

1

Unacceptable

The description is unacceptably imprecise, unclear, or incomplete.

Justification

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The request presents an exemplary justification. The justification is based on objective evidence derived from reliable sources. The justification relates the proposed meeting, conference, or event with the overall purposes of the Center. The Contractor's proposed personnel and activities are fully justified.

3

High Acceptable

The justification is generally acceptable. There are no serious flaws. No clarification or further justification is required.

2

Low Acceptable

There are gaps or weaknesses that require further clarification and/or justification.

1

Unacceptable

The justification is imprecise, unclear, incomplete, or unconvincing.

Cost Effectiveness

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Proposed costs are low for the probable benefits of participation. The Contractor leverages resources from outside sources to control costs. All expenditures are justified in terms of the purpose of participation.

3

High Acceptable

Costs are acceptable and reasonable with not notable flaws.

2

Low Acceptable

There are some gaps and weaknesses in an otherwise acceptable cost request.

1

Unacceptable

Costs are unreasonable or unrealistic, and/or the itemization is incomplete or unclear.

Evaluation Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Evaluation plan is exemplary and technically sound. Instruments, sampling plan, analysis plan, and reporting plan are all clearly described and exemplary. Results will be expressed on the requested 4-point scale. Multiple relevant criteria will be evaluated. An adequate response rate will be ensured. The evaluation plan is feasible and realistic.

3

High Acceptable

Evaluation plan is technically sound. Results will be expressed on the requested 4-point scale. There are no major weaknesses in the plan.

2

Low Acceptable

There are correctable gaps and weaknesses in the evaluation plan.

1

Unacceptable

The evaluation plan is incomplete, unclear, and/or technically unacceptable.

Deliverable 5B: Report of Participation

Description

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The meeting, conference, or event; and the Contractor's participation are described clearly and completely. The activities and evaluation procedures are consistent with the approved plan, and any changes are explained and justified. Evaluation findings are presented clearly and completely. Evaluation findings are summarized and discussed in terms of the Contractor's proposed purpose in participating in the meeting, conference, or event, and the overall purposes of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

The description is clear and complete with no major gaps or weaknesses. The activities and evaluation procedures are consistent with the approved plan, and any changes are explained and justified.

2

Low Acceptable

There are correctable gaps or weaknesses in the report, but it is generally acceptable. The activities and evaluation procedures are consistent with the approved plan, and any changes are explained and justified.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The report is unacceptably unclear or incomplete. Evaluation findings are not reported fully. The activities and evaluation procedures are not consistent with the approved plan, and changes are not explained and justified.

Evaluation Results

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Ratings average to 4 across evaluators and criteria when rounded to the nearest integer.

3

High Acceptable

Ratings average to 3 across evaluators and criteria.

2

Low Acceptable

Ratings average to 2 across evaluators and criteria.

1

Unacceptable

Ratings average to 1 across evaluators and criteria.

Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

Deliverable 6A and 6B: Draft evaluation plan and final evaluation plan

The rating for Deliverable 6A, the draft evaluation plan, will be based only on the following criterion, "Quality of Draft," which is derived from the ratings for the remaining criteria, which will be used to evaluate the final evaluation plan. This is intended to be a method for evaluating the draft and providing feedback to the Contractor based on the criteria by which the final plan will be evaluated.

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 6A)

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average to 3.3 or higher (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 3 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a superior overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

3

High Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 2.3 and 3.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). No criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). And, all reviewers rate the draft as demonstrating the potential for a high acceptable overall rating given moderate levels of revision.

2

Low Acceptable

All of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average between 1.7 and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). And, no criterion is rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer).

1

Unacceptable

One or more of the following apply: The ratings on the remaining criteria for the draft report average below 1.7 (across reviewers and criteria, rounding to the nearest tenth). One or more criteria are rated below 2 (averaged across reviewers and rounded to the nearest integer). One or more reviewers give the draft an overall rating of unacceptable.

Description

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The evaluation plan is fully described in all respects. Description is exemplary in clarity and detail. Samples of products and instruments are provided.

3

High Acceptable

The evaluation plan is fully described in all respects.

2

Low Acceptable

The evaluation plan is described in a generally acceptable manner, with flaws and weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

Description is unacceptable with regard to clarity and/or completeness.

Conceptual Quality of Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Evaluation plan addresses all required evaluation questions, as presented in Section 200.6, in a logically cohesive fashion. The evaluation plan provides a link between evaluation findings with the purposes of the Center, and demonstrates insight into the needs being addressed.

3

High Acceptable

The plan addresses all required evaluation questions logically. There are no major flaws in the conceptual quality.

2

Low Acceptable

The plan addresses all required evaluation questions. There are correctable flaws.

1

Unacceptable

The evaluation plan is conceptually flawed and/or conceptual basis is not presented.

Methodology

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Methodologies are described clearly and completely. Strong rationale and evidence are provided for the appropriateness of the methodologies.

3

High Acceptable

Methodologies are described clearly and completely, and are appropriate and technically sound.

2

Low Acceptable

There are correctable flaws in an otherwise acceptable description of methodologies.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The description of methodologies is unclear and/or incomplete. No rationale is presented concerning methodologies. Methodologies are inappropriate and/or technically inadequate.

Instrumentation

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Descriptions, samples and technical justification are provided for all proposed instruments. The proposed instruments address the full scope of the evaluation. Technical quality and effectiveness of instruments are supported.

3

High Acceptable

All proposed instruments are completely described, but not fully justified. The proposed instruments address the full scope of the study, and seem likely to be effective.

2

Low Acceptable

All proposed instruments are described and address most of the scope of the study. Technical soundness and effectiveness seem satisfactory, but are not really established.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Instruments are poorly described and/or technically weak. Instruments do not address the full scope of the study.

Sample

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The sample is representative of the activities and purposes of the Center. An adequate sample is ensured. The sample will produce an unbiased and comprehensive view of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

The sample is acceptable with minor weaknesses.

2

Low Acceptable

The sample is generally acceptable, with moderate weaknesses which must be corrected.

1

Unacceptable

The sample is poorly described and/or unacceptable.

Analysis Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Proposed analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are established based on strong evidence.

3

High Acceptable

Proposed analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are not completely established, but seem likely.

2

Low Acceptable

Proposed analysis methods are described and justified with moderate weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

Proposed analysis methods are not described and/or justified at an acceptable level.

Reporting Plan

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Plans for reporting the evaluation findings are fully described and exemplary. Reporting will apply objective findings to completely and clearly answer the evaluation questions. Reporting will explicate the implications of the evaluation results for the effectiveness of the Center, and adjustments to the Center's products and activities.

3

High Acceptable

Plans for reporting the evaluation findings are fully described. Reporting will address the evaluation questions, and describe adjustments.

2

Low Acceptable

Reporting plans are adequately described. Report will address the questions and describe adjustments to a minimally acceptable level.

1

Unacceptable

Proposed reporting methods are not described and/or justified at an acceptable level.

Deliverable 6C: Evaluation report

Overall Quality of Report

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The evaluation report is exemplary in overall quality. All topics are presented clearly and cohesively. The presentation style is professional. All aspects of the evaluation are presented in an understandable format. Accessibility needs are addressed.

3

High Acceptable

The evaluation report is acceptable in overall quality. Accessibility needs are addressed.

2

Low Acceptable

There are moderate flaws in quality, such as missing information, inaccurate references, or stylistic flaws. Accessibility needs are addressed.

1

Unacceptable

The overall quality is unacceptable.

Completeness

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Evaluation report addresses all required evaluation questions, as presented in Section 200.6, in a logically cohesive fashion. All aspects of evaluation are reported. The evaluation links evaluation findings with the purposes of the Center, and demonstrates insight into the needs being addressed.

3

High Acceptable

The report addresses all required evaluation questions logically. There are no major flaws in the report.

2

Low Acceptable

The report addresses all required evaluation questions. There are correctable flaws.

1

Unacceptable

The evaluation report is conceptually flawed and/or conceptual basis is not presented.

Methodology

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Methodologies are described clearly and completely. Methodologies are exemplary in quality and appropriateness. Methodologies contribute to results of exceptional rigor and usefulness.

3

High Acceptable

Methodologies are described clearly and completely, and are appropriate and technically sound.

2

Low Acceptable

There are flaws in otherwise acceptable methodologies that diminish the quality of the report to a minor degree.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: The description of methodologies is unclear and/or incomplete. Methodologies are inappropriate and/or technically inadequate.

Instrumentation

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Descriptions, samples and technical characteristics are provided for all instruments. The instruments address the full scope of the evaluation. Technical quality and effectiveness of instruments are demonstrated.

3

High Acceptable

All instruments are completely described, but not fully justified. The instruments address the full scope of the study, and seem effective.

2

Low Acceptable

All instruments are described and address most of the scope of the study. Instrument flaws diminish the quality of the study and report to a minor degree.

1

Unacceptable

At least one of the following applies: Instruments are poorly described and/or technically weak. Instruments do not address the full scope of the study. Instruments flaws significantly weaken the evaluation and report.

Sample

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The sample is representative of the activities and purposes of the Center. An adequate sample is obtained and documented. The sample demonstrably produces an unbiased and comprehensive view of the Center.

3

High Acceptable

The sample is acceptable with minor weaknesses. Description is acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

The sample is generally acceptable, with moderate weaknesses which somewhat weaken the evaluation. Description is marginal.

1

Unacceptable

The sample is poorly described and/or unacceptable.

Analysis

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

Analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are demonstrated. Analysis provides a strong basis for answering evaluation questions and suggesting adjustments.

3

High Acceptable

Analysis methods are completely and clearly described. Their appropriateness and rigor are acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

Proposed analysis methods are adequately described, and have moderate weaknesses.

1

Unacceptable

Analysis methods are not described and/or justified at an acceptable level. Analysis is inappropriate or technically flawed.

Implications

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report fully describes and documents the implications of the evaluation results for the effectiveness of the Center, and adjustments to the Center's products and activities. Exemplary insight is demonstrated in the use of evaluation findings to uncover needed adjustments.

3

High Acceptable

The report presents an acceptable discussion of implications of the evaluation results. A moderate level of insight is displayed.

2

Low Acceptable

Implications are presented at a minimally acceptable level.

1

Unacceptable

The report does not present or justification implications to an acceptable degree.

Task 7: Reporting Requirements

Deliverable 7A: Quarterly Progress Report

Quality of Report

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report is delivered on time and is exemplary in overall quality. All topics are presented clearly and cohesively. The presentation style is professional. All aspects of the Contractor's activities are presented, including the required information on deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, and all other activities and products. Insightful analysis is provided. Information is presented in an understandable format.

3

High Acceptable

The report is delivered on time and all required information is presented, including information on deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, and all other activities and products. Information is presented in an understandable format.

2

Low Acceptable

The report is delivered on time and all required information is presented, including information on deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, and all other activities and products. There are moderate flaws in quality of presentation.

1

Unacceptable

The report is not delivered on time, and/or is incomplete or unclear.

Center Activities

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report presents compelling evidence that: (1) the Contractor is achieving all purposes for this Center at an exemplary level; (2) any problems are being effectively recognized and addressed; (3) the Contractor is using and managing resources, including the Advisory Committee, effectively and efficiently; (4) all tasks called for under Section 200 Technical Work Requirements are being managed and completed in an exemplary fashion.

3

High Acceptable

The report presents evidence that: (1) the Contractor is achieving all purposes for this Center in an acceptable manner; (2) any problems are being recognized and addressed; (3) the Contractor is using and managing resources, including the Advisory Committee, effectively and efficiently; (4) all tasks called for under Section 200 Technical Work Requirements are being managed and completed.

2

Low Acceptable

There are flaws or gaps in an otherwise highly acceptable report in terms of the presentation of evidence or the level of functioning indicated by the evidence.

1

Unacceptable

The report does not present adequate evidence, and/or the level of functioning revealed in the report is unacceptable.

Deliverable 7B: Quarterly Expenditure Report

Quality of Report

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report is delivered on time and is exemplary in overall quality. Cost information is clearly itemized by task. Manpower reports and projections are detailed and documented.

3

High Acceptable

The report is delivered on time and presents all required information in an acceptable manner.

2

Low Acceptable

The report is delivered on time and presents all required information, with minor flaws with regard to level of detail or clarity of presentation.

1

Unacceptable

The report is not delivered on time, and/or is incomplete or unclear.

Expenditures

Score and Rating:	Descriptors:

4

Superior

The report presents compelling evidence that: (1) the Contractor is achieving the Center's purposes in a highly cost effective manner; (2) cost tracking and management procedures are exemplary; (3) the Contractor is leveraging resources from other sources in a consistent and exemplary manner; (4) careful and accurate cost and manpower projections are produced.

3

High Acceptable

The report presents evidence that the Contractor is achieving the Center's purposes in a cost effective manner, and that cost tracking and management procedures are acceptable.

2

Low Acceptable

There are flaws or gaps in an otherwise highly acceptable report in terms of the presentation of evidence, the expenditures reported, and/or cost management and projection procedures.

1

Unacceptable

The report does not present adequate evidence, and/or expenditures are unacceptable, and/or cost management and projection procedures are unacceptable.

Exhibit B: Deliverable Evaluation Quality Assurance Form

Task:	Deliverable:

Overall Rating:	Superior

Acceptable

Unacceptable

Deliverable Received On Time:	Yes	No

Criteria	Ratings	Comments

(4=Superior; 3=High Acceptable; 2=Low Acceptable; 1=Unacceptable)

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

Comments:

Exhibit C: Quarterly Evaluation Quality Assurance Form

Quarterly Progress Report

On-Time:	Yes	No	Rating:	4	3	2	1

Adjustment to Fee:

Comments:

Quarterly Expenditure Report

On-Time:	Yes	No	Rating:	4	3	2	1

Adjustment to Fee:

Comments:

Other Deliverables During the Quarter:

Deliverable	Rating	Adjustment to Fee

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1

4	3	2	1