Amendment No. 0002 to RFP ED-98-R-0027 is hereby issued to respond to questions raised by potential offerors; Section M, Evaluation Criteria-- Staff Competencies and Experience and amends the closing date of the RFP as follows:

A. Please note the responses to the following questions:

1.	Will there be a bidders conference?

Answer: No.

2.	When is start date? How long is the Base Year?

Does the Base Year link to the fiscal year? If so, is the base year 9 or 10 months?

Answer: The anticipated start date will be on or about January 1, 1999.

12-months. The base year is not linked to the federal fiscal year.

3.	Award Fee Plan: Is this to be implemented? There is no dollar amount included in the
RFP. Section L Item L.18 AWARD FEE: Specifically, what needs to be provided?

Answer: Yes. See Clause H.23 and H.24. The dollar amount will be included in the	awarded contract. An award fee will be based on the government's judgmental
evaluation of the contractor's performance in terms of the criteria stated in the contract.

4.	Who copyrights information and products developed?

Answer: The copyright to all publications and products developed remains with the U.S.	Department of Education, as noted under FAR Clause 52.227-23.

5.	Is there a reading room set up to view Center materials? If not, how do we obtain copies
of existing training materials to review?

Answer: No. Training modules may be requested under the Freedom of Information Act	by writing to the Contract Specialist, Susan Webster, U.S. Department of Education,	Contracts and Purchasing Operations, Group A, 7th & D Street, SW, Room 3636A ,	Washington, DC 20202-4444.

6.	Past performance requirements ask for "contracts". Unless directed otherwise, we are
assuming that we may include our extensive experience with Cooperative Agreements	and Grants.

Answer: Contracts and grants (including cooperative agreements) are awarded and	administered by significantly different procurement methods and regulations. As	requested, please provide information on contracts of related scopes, similar size, and	complexity. If you do not have any experience in administering contracts of similar size
complexity and scope you should state that and then submit performance evaluations on	related grants, cooperative agreements or proposed personnel who have relevant
experience.

7.	There are 4 references to Past Performance.

Technical Proposal Section:

1. Page 67 requests four contracts/subcontracts completed during the past three	years.

2. ALL contracts and subcontracts currently in process

3. ALL similar ir related grants or contracts performed within the last four
years.

Past Performance Report Section:

4. Page 71, L.11, 314-l, Paragraph A requests information on four most recent	contracts similar in size, scope, complexity, etc.

Answer: Page 67 of the RFP is amended to include the following:

The offeror should propose a principal investigator who should spend at least 5% of	his/her time providing corporate leadership and oversight to the project director and	operations of the Center. If problems in operating of the Center arise, for example	contract deliverables are late or are of poor quality, it is expected that the principal	investigator will step in and resolve the problems in a quick and efficient manner.

The intent of both page 67 and page 71 was to have the offeror provide information on	four most recent contracts and subcontracts completed in the last three years or currently	in process, which are of similar size, scope, complexity or are relevant to the effort	required by the solicitation. However, technical evaluation panelists do not see the past	performance report required under page 71 because it is not included as part of the	technical proposal--therefore the information requested in two places. As noted in	the question, the technical proposal instructions request more information than page 71.

(1,4) Are the four contracts, subcontracts referenced in the Technical Proposal Section, page 67	the same four contracts reference in the Past Performance Report Section page 71. Is the	same information needed in both sections and can it be the exact same information ?

Answer: Yes.

(1)	Are the contracts reported in the Technical Proposal Section only for the "Experience"
part of the proposal and should they be institutional experience or principal
investigator specific?

Answer: The technical proposal instructions requested information on the contracts so	that panelist could evaluate offeror's "Institutional/Organizational and "Principal	Investigator Experience and Performance?"

(2) Do you want ALL institutional or principal investigator similar or related grants or
contracts performed in the last four years?

Answer: Both

(1,2,3,4) Is one reference requesting "Institutional Capabilities" and the other asking for	"Principal Investigator" experience and should each list of contracts/grants/cooperative	agreements/subcontracts be "Institutional Specific" or "Principal Investigator" specific?

Answer: Both 'Institutional' specific and 'Principal Investigator' specific.

o	Is the 200 page limit for the Technical Proposal exclusive of abstracts, table for
contents, needs assessments, etc?

Answer: No, the 200 page limit for the Technical Proposal is inclusive of	abstract, table of contents, needs assessment, etc. The appendix is not covered in	the page limit.

o	Do titles for sections, tasks, and sub-tasks; table of contents; labels for exhibits,
and text within charts and boxes need to be double spaced?

Answer: No.

o	Regarding travel: Do you provide a base cost for airfare, hotels, etc?

Answer: Offerors should use government per diem rates as indicated in FAR Part	31 which is published by GPO and on the Internet. The government does not	provide base costs for airfare.

o	Do we need to budget at the sub-task level? When developing the Technical
Proposal, do we need to speak, in terms of effort and specific costs, to the sub-	task level? It is our understanding, unless directed otherwise, for financial	reporting purposes we need to report to the task level only.

Answer: No, offerors need only to budget at the task level for the entire period of	performance.

o	In the Management Plan section, Section L, page 63, institutional/corporate
oversight is clear. Is the Management Control system referenced at the
project/department level or institutional level? Is the reference to subcontract
management at the institutional level or at the department/project level?

Answer: The offeror should explain and show the management control system at	both the project level and the institutional l level. For example, the offeror should	explain how the Center is connected to the larger organization and should provide	an organizational chart.

o	Page 23 of the RFP: What is the proposed honorarium for the product review
panel and approximately how many days service will each person serve?

Answer: By a departmental regulation, EDAR 3452.237-71, the cost for a	consultant is normally at $150.00 per day. The offeror should proposed based on	its experience the number of days needed to complete the work.

o	Page 8: The last bullet specified limiting fees for services to non-post secondary
institution and those populations that are not under-served. This implies that	fees for services to these audiences are allowable. Is this correct?

Answer: Fees for services are limited to non-postsecondary institutions. It is not	ED's intent to require fees to any postsecondary institution. Fees for services will	be considered on an individual case basis in consultation with the COTR. For	budgeting purposes offerors should assume that all services are free. Currently no	fees are required for any Center services.

o	Page 20 for the RFP specified that by Section 10th of each year letterhead and
envelopes must be printed and distributed. What is the expected date for the base	year?	With the DPPH, does this need to be calculated for each of the four option
years? In what ways is postage to be specified in the budget? Are all postage	charges handled with ED metering?

Answer: Base year anticipated for January 1, 1999. Yes. Postage is a direct cost?	It can be specified as "postage and mailing costs." Postage and mailing costs	may include but is not limited to shipping of materials, publications, overnight	delivery, newsletter mailing costs and handling expenses and so forth. No Center	mailing or shipping costs are handled by ED metering.

B. Section M of the RFP , page 83, is changed as noted.

Item 3 - Delete Staff Competencies and Experience -- 40 points

and replace with the following:

Item 3. Staff Competencies and Experience 37 Points

A. Quality and experience of the Center Director (10 points)

B. Quality and experience of the Center Managing Director (10 points)

C. Quality and mix of skill of Other Staff and Consultants (17 points)

Delete Item 4 - Institutional/Organizational Experience

and Performance 5 Points and replace with the following:

Item 4 - Institutional/Organizational and Principal Investigator

Experience and Performance 8 Points

A. Institutional/organizational experience (5 points)

B. Quality and Experience of principal investigator (3 points)

C.	The closing date is extended to October 29, 1998.