STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) RFP NO

Transcription

1 STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) RFP NO PROJECT TITLE: Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments PROPOSAL DUE DATE: 3:30 p.m., Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) on January 19, 2018 ESTIMATED CONTRACT PERIOD: March 1, 2018 September 30, Amendments extending the period of performance, if any, shall be at the sole discretion of OSPI. CONSULTANT ELIGIBILITY: This procurement is open to those Consultants that satisfy the minimum qualifications stated herein and that are available for work in Washington State. SUBMIT PROPOSAL TO: Proposal Delivered by FAXED PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. All communications concerning this RFP must be directed only to the RFP Coordinator via . Any other communication will be considered unofficial and non-binding on OSPI. Consultants are to rely on written statements issued by the RFP Coordinator. Communication directed to parties other than the RFP Coordinator may result in disqualification of the Consultant. This RFP is available at the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) website located at OSPI's website and at the Department of Enterprise Services, Washington Electronic Business Solution (WEBS) Procurement website. All RFP amendments or Consultant questions and OSPI answers will be posted to these sites. All interested Consultants must be registered with WEBS under the following commodity codes in order to receive notifications: : Educational Research Services, : Examination and Testing OSPI, and its contractors and subcontractors, must not discriminate in any programs or services based on sex, race, creed, religion, color, national origin, age, marital status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, gender expression, gender identity, disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, and must comply with state and federal nondiscrimination laws, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of Questions and complaints of alleged discrimination should be directed to the Equity and Civil Rights Director at /TTY: ; or P.O. Box 47200, Olympia, WA ; or equity@k12.wa.us. Page 1 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

2 RFP TABLE OF CONTENTS Section A. Introduction... Page 4 Definitions... Page 4 Purpose of RFP... Page 5 Background... Page 6 Objective and Scope of Work... Page 9 Bidder Qualifications... Page 9 Period of Performance... Page 10 Funding... Page 10 Indirect Costs... Page 10 ADA... Page 11 Section B. General Information for Bidders... Page 12 RFP Coordinator... Page 12 Estimated Schedule of Performance Activities... Page 12 Complaint Procedure... Page 13 Submission of Proposals... Page 13 Proprietary Information/Public Disclosure... Page 14 Addendums and Amendments to the RFP... Page 14 Small Business, Women-/Minority- or Vendor-Owned Business Participation... Page 14 Acceptance Period... Page 15 Responsiveness... Page 15 Most Favorable Terms... Page 15 Contract Terms and General Conditions... Page 16 Cost to Propose... Page 16 No Obligation to Contract... Page 16 Rejection of Proposals... Page 16 Commitment of Funds... Page 16 Statewide Vendor Payment Registration... Page 16 Insurance Coverage... Page 17 Section C. Proposal Contents... Page 18 Letter of Submittal... Page 18 Technical Proposal... Page 18 Management Proposal... Page 25 Cost Proposal... Page 26 Section D. Evaluation and Contract Award... Page 27 Evaluation Procedure... Page 27 Evaluation Weighting and Scoring... Page 27 Selection of Apparent Successful Bidder... Page 27 Notification to Bidders... Page 27 Debriefing of Unsuccessful Bidders... Page 28 Protest Procedure... Page 28 Page 2 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

3 Section E. RFQ Exhibits... Page 30 Certifications and Assurances... Page 31 Sample Contract... Page 33 General Terms and Conditions... Page 37 WA Science Materials... Page 47 Alignment Criteria for Next Generation Science Summative Assessments... Page 48 Prospective NGSS Consultant... Page 53 Proposal Evaluation Criteria... Page 54 Contractor Intake Form... Page 55 Proposal Checklist... Page 56 Page 3 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

4 Section A. INTRODUCTION 1. DEFINITIONS Definitions for the purposes of this RFP include: Agency or OSPI The Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and the entity issuing this RFP. Amendment A unilateral change to the Solicitation that is issued by OSPI at its sole discretion and posted on WEBS and OSPI s website. Apparent Successful Bidder (ASB) A Bidder submitting a response to this Solicitation that is evaluated and is identified and announced by OSPI as providing the best value to the Agency. Upon execution of a Contract, the ASB is referred to as the successful Bidder or the Contractor. Bid An offer, proposal, or quote for goods or services submitted in response to this RFP. Bidder Individual organization, public or private agency submitting a proposal in order to attain a contract with OSPI. For purposes of this Solicitation, the terms Bidder, Consultant, and Vendor are interchangeable. Competitive Solicitation A documented formal process providing an equal and open opportunity to Bidders or Consultants culminating in a selection based on predetermined criteria. Complaint A process that may be followed by a Consultant prior to the deadline for bid submission to alert OSPI of certain types of asserted deficiencies in the Solicitation. Consultant Individual organization, public or private agency submitting a proposal in order to attain a contract with OSPI. For purposes of this Solicitation, the terms Bidder, Consultant, and Vendor are interchangeable. Contractor Individual or company whose proposal has been accepted by OSPI and is awarded a fully executed, written contract. Debriefing A short meeting an unsuccessful Bidder may request with the Coordinator following the announcement of the Apparent Successful Bidder for the purpose of receiving information regarding the review and evaluation of that Bidder s Response. Proposal A formal offer submitted in response to this RFP. Proprietary Information Information such as patents, technological information or other related information that the Bidder/Proposer does not want released or shared with the public. Protest A process that may be followed by a Bidder after the announcement of the Apparent Successful Bidder to alert OSPI to certain types of alleged errors in the evaluation of the Solicitation. Page 4 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

5 Request for Proposals (RFP) Formal procurement document in which a service or need is identified but no specific method to achieve it has been chosen. The purpose of an RFP is to permit the consultant community to suggest various approaches to meet the need at a given price. RCW The Revised Code of Washington. Responsible Bidder An individual, organization, public or private agency, or other entity that has demonstrated the capability to meet all the requirements of the Solicitation and meets the elements of responsibility. (See RCW (2)) Responsive Bidder An individual, organization, public or private agency, or other entity who has submitted a Bid that fully conforms in all material respects to the Solicitation and all its requirements, in both form and substance. RFP Coordinator An individual or designee who is employed by OSPI and who is responsible for conducting this Solicitation. Solicitation A formal process providing an equal and open opportunity for Bidders culminating in a selection based upon predetermined criteria. Subcontractor An individual or other entity contracted by a Consultant to perform part of the services or to provide goods under the Contract resulting from this Solicitation. Subcontractors, if allowed, are subject to the advance approval of OSPI. Vendor Individual organization, public or private agency submitting a proposal in order to attain a contract with OSPI. For purposes of this Solicitation, the terms Bidder, Consultant, and Vendor are interchangeable. WEBS Washington s Electronic Business Solution, the Consultant notification system found at Washington Electronic Business Solution (WEBS) Procurement website and maintained by the Washington State Department of Enterprise Services. 2. PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is initiating this Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit proposals from Bidders interested in participating on a project to evaluate the alignment of both of OSPI s new science assessments the general assessment, Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (WCAS) and the alternate assessment, the Washington Access to Instruction & Measurement (WA-AIM) specific to the content of science, to the state s current academic content standards, Washington 2013 State K-12 Science Learning Standards. Page 5 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

6 3. BACKGROUND OSPI is the primary agency charged with overseeing K-12 public education in Washington State. Led by State School Superintendent Chris Reykdal, OSPI works with the state s two hundred and ninety-five (295) school districts to administer basic education programs and implement education reform on behalf of more than one million public school students. OSPI resides in the Old Capitol Building in Olympia. OSPI is the agency charged with development and administration of state assessments used in state and federal accountability. Inasmuch, OSPI is responsible for ensuring that the quality of its assessment instruments are in keeping with nationally recognized practices in the field of test measurement and psychometrics. Specific to this charge and in carrying out the objective of demonstrating validity and reliability in its testing program, OSPI includes as one of the many processes, conduct of alignment studies associated with each assessment instrument. 1. Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (WCAS) The Washington State 2013 K-12 Science Learning Standards were adopted by the Superintendent of Public Instruction in October The standards are built on a threedimensional model of Science and Engineering Practices (SEP), Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI), and Cross Cutting Concepts (CCC). The Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (WCAS) is based on item clusters that assess a single Performance Expectation (PE) or bundled PEs. A bundle is generally two (2) or three (3) related PEs that can be used to help explain or make sense of a scientific phenomenon. Figure 1 shows how PE bundles, scientific phenomena, stimuli, and items form an item cluster. Figure 1: Item Cluster Each item within an item cluster aligns to two (2) or three (3) dimensions from the PEs in a bundle. Achieving as full coverage of a bundle as possible requires developing items that target a variety of the dimensions represented in the PE bundle. Page 6 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

7 Each item in an item cluster is linked to a stimulus or stimuli and to the other items within the item cluster. The stimulus may be interspersed among the items to add information as needed. Student exposure to the stimulus is considered essential in order to respond correctly to any individual item. A phenomenon is used to give the cluster conceptual coherence. All items must support the particular phenomenon identified. The science assessment team at OSPI began conducting item cluster writing workgroups with science educators from across Washington State in October Each workgroup produced six (6) to nine (9) aligned item clusters. All educator-produced item clusters, as well as vendor-produced standalone items, were reviewed for content by Content Review workgroups also composed of Washington State educators. Three (3) rounds of item writing and content review work groups were convened between October 2015, and December 2016, resulting in the item clusters and standalones that were field tested in spring The Grade 5 field test included fourteen (14) item clusters and nineteen (19) standalone items. The Grade 8 field test included thirteen (13) item clusters and seventeen (17) standalone items. The high school field test included fourteen (14) item clusters and thirty-six (36) standalones. Pilot Range-finding and Rubric Validation workgroups were convened in late July In these workgroups, educators looked at a range of student responses to short-answer (SA) and technology enhanced (TEI) items and decided how to score each student response. Scoring rubrics for both SA and TEI items were refined and the professional scorer training materials for the SA field test items were produced by this workgroup. Content Review with Data for all field-tested items was completed during Fall The work group, used data for all field-tested items as well as content and grade-level expertise to decide which items advanced to the operational item bank. Figure 2 shows the WCAS Development Events for Fall 2015 through Winter Figure 2: WCAS Development Events Development Event Timing Item Cluster Writing Oct 2015 March 2016 Oct 2016 Content Review Dec 2015 July 2016 Dec 2016 Field Testing Spring 2017 Spring 2017 Spring 2017 Pilot Range-Finding and Rubric Validation Summer 2017 Summer 2017 Summer 2017 Content Review with Data Fall 2017 Fall 2017 Fall Washington Access to Instruction & Measurement (WA-AIM) The Washington Access to Instruction & Measurement (WAAIM) alternate assessment was developed under the same guiding principle of the regular assessment, focusing on Page 7 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

8 one Performance Expectation (PE) and writing sets of five item to fully measure the multidimensionality of the PE. WAAIM Science development work occurred in three specific phases with built-in content and bias reviews occurring throughout the development process. Phase 1: PE Selection: Phase 1 was the Initial reduction in the breadth of the PEs to be measured. The committee was taken through a process to narrow down the number of PEs to five (5) per grand band to match the current WA-AIM ELA and Math design. The selected PEs were reviewed by OSPI content staff. Phase 2: Access Point Framework Development: Phase 2 involved the process of reducing the depth and complexity of the skills measured in the PE through development of the Access Point Frameworks, which is the founding foundation of the WA-AIM test design. The committee was tasked with taking the original PEs from Phase 1, reducing the language down into an Essential Concept then building out three Access Points. The Access Points serve as the measureable knowledge, skills, and abilities of the WA-AIM. The WA-AIM has three Access Points for each standard/pe measured. Figure 3: Example of an Access Point Framework Page 8 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

9 Phase 3: Performance Task and Example Item Development: Phase 3 involved the development of the Performance Tasks for each Access Point. Each Performance Task contain the following elements: Requirements: List of what must be present in the items administered to the student. Restrictions: Accommodations, modifications, adaptions, or boundaries of each item which may violate the item constructs. Example Items: Five (5) example items that teachers may administer to their student as they appear. Teacher may also use the example items as models or templates to develop their own set of five (5) items which meet the requirements of the Performance Task. 4. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF WORK Evaluate the alignment of OSPI s general assessment, the Washington Comprehensive Assessment of Science (WCAS), and alternate assessment, the Washington Access to Instruction & Measurement (WA-AIM), to the state s current science academic content standards, Washington 2013 State K-12 Science Learning Standards. The activities required to accomplish the primary objective will involve subject matter experts who systematically gather judgments about selected dimensions of alignment (e.g., content match, cognitive complexity) of components of the system (e.g., content standard extensions, current assessments, scoring rules & requirements, administration guidelines), as applicable to both assessments. A complete analysis with conclusions drawn as a result of the alignment study shall be delivered to OSPI as a technical report at the conclusion of the Contract. Bidders should become familiar with the materials that are both global (applicable across content) and specific (science only) to the general and alternate assessments, regarding design and administration, and that will support plans and approaches to satisfactorily complete the objective of this RFP. The general assessment (WCAS) should be viewed as filling the prototypical role of a large-scale assessment, whereas, WA-AIM is the state s alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS), assessing students with the most significant cognitive disabilities/challenges (in more informal vernacular, the 1% assessment). Supporting materials associated with the state s two assessments can be found at links listed in Exhibit D. For estimating purposes, meetings to conduct the alignment studies and a post-study meeting with OSPI and its National Technical Advisory Committee (NTAC) should be proposed for locations in or around Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. 5. BIDDER QUALIFICATIONS Minimum Qualifications: Licensed to do business in the State of Washington. If not licensed, provide a written intent to become licensed in Washington within thirty (30) calendar days of being selected as the Apparent Successful Bidder. Experience within the last five (5) years with large-scale assessment, and associated knowledge of best practices in the field of test measurement. Experience with the last five (5) years with public K-12 education. Experience conducting alignment study activities between standards and measurement instruments. Page 9 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

10 Consultants who do not meet these minimum qualifications will be rejected as non-responsive and will not receive further consideration. Any proposal that is rejected as non-responsive will not be evaluated or scored. Desirable Qualifications: Participation in the primary activities of and conduct of studies of a recognized expert in Next Generation Science Standards. Experience in developing assessment items and tasks aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards. 6. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The period of performance of any contract resulting from this RFP is tentatively scheduled to begin on or about March 1, 2018, and end on or about September 30, The option to extend any contract resulting from this procurement shall be at the sole discretion of OSPI. Additional services that are appropriate to the scope of this RFP, as determined by OSPI, may be added to the resulting contract by a written amendment mutually agreed to and executed by both parties. 7. FUNDING OSPI has budgeted an amount not to exceed two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for this project. Proposals in excess of this amount will be rejected as non-responsive and will not be evaluated. Should bidder submit a proposal listing travel as separate charges, applicable mileage, meals, lodging, or other travel-related expenses, are expected to be estimated, and will subsequently be reimbursed, in accordance with Washington State travel regulations established by the Office of Financial Management, irrespective of cost estimates provided in the proposal. Any contract awarded as a result of this procurement is contingent upon the availability of funding. The Bidder shall provide their most favorable and competitive cost estimate to perform the work. 8. INDIRECT COSTS Per OSPI s indirect costs policy, the maximum amount that may be charged or included in grants and contracts is the following: Page 10 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

11 Entity State Grants and Contracts Federal Grants and Contracts School Districts State recovery rate Federal indirect rates, per OSPI s agreement with the U.S. Department of Education Educational Service Districts Per annual letter of agreement by K-12 Financial Resources Division Per annual letter of agreement by K-12 Financial Resources Division All other entities (including higher education, non-profits, independent consultants, etc.) 10% 10% 9. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OSPI complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Bidders may contact the RFP Coordinator to receive this Request for Proposals in an alternative format. Page 11 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

12 Section B. GENERAL INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS 1. RFP COORDINATOR The RFP Coordinator is the sole point of contact in OSPI for this procurement. All communication between the Bidder and OSPI upon receipt of this RFP shall be with the RFP Coordinator, as follows: Name: Address: Address: Kyla Moore 600 Washington Street South P.O. Box Olympia, WA All communications concerning this RFP must be directed only to the RFP Coordinator via . Any other communication will be considered unofficial and non-binding on OSPI. Bidders are to rely on written statements issued by the RFP Coordinator. Communication directed to parties other than the RFP Coordinator may result in disqualification of the Bidder. 2. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROCUREMENT ACTIVITIES Item Action Date 1. OSPI issues RFP November 20, Question and Answer period November 20- December 5, Last date for questions regarding RFP December 11, OSPI posts final Question and Answer Addendum or Amendment (if necessary) December 15, Complaints due January 11, Proposals due January 19, OSPI conducts evaluation of written proposals 8. OSPI announces Apparent Successful Bidder and sends notification to unsuccessful bidders(s) January 22-31, 2018 February 7, Contract negotiation begins February 8, OSPI conducts debriefing conferences (if requested) February 12-13, Anticipated (no later than) contract start date March 1, 2018 OSPI reserves the right to revise the above schedule. Page 12 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

13 3. COMPLAINT PROCEDURE The complaint process is available to Bidders interested in this RFP. The complaint process allows Bidders to focus on the solicitation requirements and evaluation process and raise issues with these processes early enough in the process to allow an agency to correct a problem before proposals are submitted and time expended on evaluations. A Bidder may submit a complaint based on any of the following: The solicitation unnecessarily restricts competition; The solicitation evaluation or scoring process is unfair or flawed; or The solicitation requirements are inadequate or insufficient to prepare a response. Bidders may submit complaints up to five (5) business days prior to the proposal due date noted in the Estimated Schedule of Procurement Activities. However, Bidders are encouraged to submit complaints as soon as possible so OSPI can rectify the issue(s) early in the process. Complaints must be submitted to the RFP Coordinator. In order to be considered a valid complaint, the complaint must meet the following requirements: Must be in writing. Should clearly articulate the basis for the complaint. Should include a proposed remedy. Complaints not received by the deadline noted in the Estimated Schedule of Procurement Activities will not be reviewed by OSPI. Failure by the Bidder to raise a complaint at this stage may waive its right for later consideration. The OSPI Contracts Administrator or an employee delegated by the Contracts Administrator will review valid complaints and respond to the submitter in writing. OSPI will consider all complaints but is not required to adopt a complaint, in part or in full. OSPI s response to the complaint is final and not subject to administrative appeal. The response, and any changes to the RFP will be posted to WEBS prior to the proposal due date. Any complaint addressed during the complaint process cannot be raised during the protest process. 4. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Bidders shall submit proposals as an attachment to an to the RFP Coordinator noted in Section B.1. Proposals must arrive by 3:30 p.m. in Olympia, WA, on January 19, (Please note RFP No in the subject line.) Attachments to the shall be Microsoft Word format or in Portable Document Format (PDF). Zipped files may be received by OSPI and can be used for submission of proposals. OSPI does not assume responsibility for any problems with the electronic delivery of Applicant materials. Proposals not received by the deadline will not be reviewed. Late proposals will not be accepted and will be automatically disqualified from further consideration. Proposals must respond to the procurement requirements. Do not respond by referring to material presented elsewhere. The proposal must be complete and must stand on its own merits. Failure to respond to any portion of the procurement document may result in rejection of the proposal as non-responsive. All proposals and any accompanying documentation become the property of OSPI and will not be returned. Page 13 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

14 5. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION/PUBLIC DISCLOSURE Your entire response to this RFP is a public record and will be disclosed consistent with the Public Records Act), Chapter RCW. A. CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS For the purposes of this RFP do not include confidential or proprietary information unless specifically requested by OSPI. If OSPI requests confidential or proprietary information, you must clearly print the word Confidential on the lower right-hand corner of each page containing the confidential or proprietary information. B. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS If a public records request seeks your proposal and the proposal contains pages clearly marked Confidential, OSPI will take the following steps: i. We will notify you. We will identify the requestor and the date that OSPI will disclose the requested records. ii. We will give you an opportunity to seek a court order to stop OSPI from disclosing the records. iii. We will not evaluate or defend your claim of confidentiality. We will not withhold or redact your documents without a court order. If you have any questions, refer to the OSPI Public Records Office. 6. ADDENDUMS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE RFP In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, an addendum or an amendment will be published on the OSPI website. For this purpose, the published Consultant questions and Agency answers, and any other pertinent information, shall be considered an addendum to the RFP. Additionally, all addenda referred to above will be released on WEBS under the commodity code(s) listed on the cover page of this RFP. It will be the responsibility of interested Consultants to check the website periodically for addenda and amendments to the RFP. 7. SMALL BUSINESS, MINORITY & WOMEN S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MWBE), AND VETERAN-OWNED BUSINESS PARTICIPATION In accordance with the legislative findings and policies set forth in chapter RCW, the State of Washington encourages participation in all of its contracts by firms certified by the Office of Minority and Women s Business Enterprises (OMWBE). Participation may be either on a direct basis in response to this RFP or on a subcontractor basis. For more information on certification, contact the Washington Office of Minority and Women s Business Enterprises A.200 encourages the participation of Veteran and Service Member Owned Businesses certified by the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs RCW 43.60A.195. For more information on certification, contact Washington State Department of Veteran Affairs. Additionally, per Department of Enterprise policy, agencies are encouraged to buy from in-state small business, including microbusinesses and mini-businesses. Page 14 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

15 However, no preference will be included in the evaluation of proposals, no minimum level of MWBE participation shall be required as a condition for receiving an award, and proposals will not be rejected or considered non-responsive on that basis. Any affirmative action requirements set forth in federal regulations or statutes included or referenced in the contract documents will apply. Self-Certification should be submitted with the Contractor Intake Form (Exhibit H). 8. ACCEPTANCE PERIOD Proposals must provide sixty (60) days for acceptance by OSPI from the due date for receipt of proposals. 9. RESPONSIVENESS All proposals will be reviewed by the RFP Coordinator to determine compliance with administrative and minimum requirements and instructions specified in this RFP. OSPI may reject a Proposal as nonresponsive at any time for any of the following reasons: Incomplete Response Submission of a Response that proposes services that deviate from the scope and technical requirements set forth in this document and Exhibit B, Sample Contract, except as permitted in an amendment to this Solicitation Failure to meet the minimum Bidder qualifications or to comply with any requirement set forth in this RFP, including Attachments Submission of incorrect, misleading or false information History of prior unsatisfactory contractual performance The RFP Coordinator may contact any Bidder for clarification of the proposal. If a proposal is deemed non-responsive, it shall be removed from further consideration. Bidders whose proposals are found to be non-responsive shall be disqualified from further evaluation and shall be notified in writing. Within three (3) business days following such notification, Bidder may request a Debriefing Conference that shall be limited to the reasons Bidder was found to be non-responsive. Refer to Debriefing of Unsuccessful Proposers procedure in Section D. If a proposal meets all administrative and Bidder qualification requirements and submittal instructions, OSPI shall continue with the written evaluation and, if applicable, the oral evaluation. OSPI reserves the right at its sole discretion to waive minor administrative irregularities. 10. MOST FAVORABLE TERMS OSPI reserves the right to make an award without further discussion of the proposal submitted. Therefore, the proposal should be submitted initially on the most favorable terms which the Bidder can propose. There will be no best and final offer procedure. OSPI does reserve the right to contact a Bidder for clarification of its proposal. The Bidder should be prepared to accept this RFP for incorporation into a contract resulting from this RFP. Contract negotiations may incorporate some or all of the Bidder s proposal. It is Page 15 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

16 understood that the proposal will become a part of the official procurement file on this matter without obligation to OSPI. 11. CONTRACT AND GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS The Apparent Successful Bidder will be expected to enter into a contract which is substantially the same as the sample contract and its General Terms and Conditions. In no event is a Bidder to submit its own standard contract terms and conditions in response to this RFP. The Bidder may submit exceptions as allowed in the Certifications and Assurances section. OSPI will review requested exceptions and accept or reject the same at its sole discretion. Should contract negotiations fail to be completed within two (2) weeks after initiation, the State may immediately cease contract negotiations, declare the Vendor with the second highest score as the new Apparent Successful Contractor, and enter into contract negotiations with that Vendor. This process will continue until the Contracts are signed or no qualified Vendors remain. 12. COSTS TO PROPOSE OSPI will not be liable for any costs incurred by the Bidder in preparation of a proposal submitted in response to this RFP, in conduct of a presentation, or any other activities related to responding to this RFP. 13. NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRACT This RFP does not obligate the State of Washington or OSPI to contract for services specified herein. OSPI also reserves the right to cancel or to reissue the RFP in whole or in part, prior to execution of a contract without penalty. 14. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS OSPI reserves the right at its sole discretion to reject any and all proposals received without penalty and not to issue a contract as a result of this RFP. 15. COMMITMENT OF FUNDS Only an authorized representative of OSPI may legally commit OSPI to the expenditures of funds for a contract resulting from this RFP. No cost chargeable to the proposed contract may be incurred before receipt of a fully executed contract. 16. STATEWIDE VENDOR PAYMENT REGISTRATION Bidders awarded contracts as a result of this RFP will be required to register as a Statewide Vendor (SWV). The SWV file is a central vendor file maintained by the Office of Financial Management for use by Washington State agencies in processing vendor payments. This allows you, as a vendor, to receive payments from all participating state agencies by direct deposit, the State's preferred method of payment. Effective April 30, 2011, all OSPI Contractors are required to register as a Statewide Vendor. Participation in direct deposit is optional. For online registration, visit the Department of Enterprise Services website. 17. INSURANCE COVERAGE Page 16 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

17 The Apparent Successful Bidder must comply with the insurance requirements identified in the General Terms and Conditions. The Contractor shall, at its own expense, obtain and keep in force insurance coverage which shall be maintained in full force and effect during the term of the contract. The Contractor shall furnish evidence in the form of a Certificate of Insurance that insurance shall be provided, and a copy shall be forwarded to OSPI within fifteen (15) days of the contract effective date. Page 17 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

18 Section C. PROPOSAL CONTENTS Proposals must be formatted to print on eight and one-half by eleven (8 ½ x 11) inch paper size with individual sections clearly identified. The Letter of Submittal, excluding the signed Certifications and Assurances and Contractor Intake Form, shall be a maximum of one (1) page. The four (4) major sections of the proposal are to be submitted in the order noted below: 1. Letter of Submittal including signed: a. Certifications and Assurances b. Contractor Intake Form 2. Technical Proposal 3. Management Proposal 4. Cost Proposal Proposals must provide information in the same order as presented in this document with the same headings. This will not only be helpful to the evaluators of the proposal, but should assist the Bidder in preparing a thorough response. Items in this section marked mandatory must be included as part of the proposal for the proposal to be considered responsive; however, these items are not scored. Items marked scored are those that are awarded points as part of the evaluation conducted by the evaluation team. 1. LETTER OF SUBMITTAL (MANDATORY) The Letter of Submittal, the attached Certifications and Assurances, and the attached Contractor Intake Form must be signed and dated by a person authorized to legally bind the Bidder to a contractual relationship, (e.g., the President or Executive Director if a corporation, the managing partner if a partnership, or the proprietor if a sole proprietorship). Along with introductory remarks, please attach to the Letter of Submittal the following information about the Bidder and any proposed subcontractors: 1. Name, address, and telephone number of each principal officer (President, Vice President, Treasurer, Chairperson of the Board of Directors, etc.); 2. Location of the facility from which the Bidder would operate; and 3. A detailed list of all materials and enclosures included in the Proposal. 2. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL (SCORED) The Technical Proposal must contain a comprehensive description of services including the following elements: A. Project Approach/Methodology Include a complete description of the Bidder s proposed approach and methodology for the project. This section should convey Bidder s understanding of the proposed project. B. Work Plan Include all project requirements and the proposed tasks, services, activities, etc. necessary to accomplish the scope of the project defined in this RFP. This section of the Technical Proposal must contain sufficient detail to convey to members of the evaluation team the Bidder s knowledge of the subjects and skills necessary to successfully complete the project. Include any required involvement of OSPI staff. The Page 18 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

19 Bidder may also present any creative approaches that might be appropriate and may provide any pertinent supporting documentation. C. Project Schedule Include a project schedule indicating when the elements of the work will be completed and when deliverables, if any, will be provided. D. Deliverables Fully describe deliverables to be submitted under the proposed contract. E. Outcomes and Performance Measurement Describe the impacts/outcomes the Bidder proposes to achieve as a result of the delivery of these services including how these outcomes would be monitored, measured and reported to the state agency. Please Note: Mere repetition of the work statement in Section 1 will not be considered responsive. F. Risks Define risks you identify as being significant to the success of the project. Include how you would propose to effectively monitor and manage these risks, including reporting of risks to the agency s contract manager. 2A. Alignment Plan Considerations In proposing a methodology for conduct of the alignment study(ies) Bidder should attend to the following considerations specific to the associated content standards and design of both the WCAS and WA-AIM assessment. The Performance Expectations (PEs) represent the integration of three dimensions Science and Engineering Practices (SEPs), Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCIs), and Cross Cutting Concepts (CCCs). Previous science standards included all three but were treated as separate measureable skills. As part of both the assigned-staff preparation and execution of the in-person work sessions, an orientation/overview presented by OSPI on elements of NGSS and the state s efforts in achieving efficacy behind the standards vision for science instruction and learning and the resulting assessment design. As part of both the assigned-staff preparation and execution of the in-person work group sessions, receipt and review of OSPI materials and documentation that support itemdevelopment activities (e.g., powerpoints, pre-workshop training). Inclusion, with full description, of intended review criteria for conduct of the alignment study(ies). Inclusion within proposal of documentation that serves as evidence of the Bidder s comprehension and understanding behind the structure of the NGSS and key documents used to interpret and apply the NGSS. Specific to the WCAS: o The items in an item cluster should be viewed holistically as a complete set. An item cluster must be determined as meeting the intent of the PEs to which it is aligned. The intent of the PEs is informed by analyses based on the information specified in the PE itself, the foundation boxes, the Evidence Statements, and additional documentation (e.g., K 12 Framework for Science Education, NGSS Progression Appendices). o The basis of item clusters meeting the intent of the Washington State K-12 Science Learning Standards (NGSS) is that they meet the expectations of multidimensional Page 19 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

20 o o o alignment as well as meet the intent of each PE in a PE bundle in the context of a phenomenon. A science phenomenon is defined as a real world observation (e.g., ice forming on a lake, organisms consuming foods, bubbles forming as a chemical reaction occurs). The PEs in a PE bundle should support an explanation, at least in large part, of the observed phenomenon. The basis of a PE bundle is the individual PEs and the supporting information found within the PE foundation boxes, with additional guidance from the Evidence Statements for the PE. The purposes of PE bundles are to: ensure that PEs are not assessed in isolation from one another; allow for an assessment to measure as broad a range of PEs as possible without compromising validity; and support an explanation of appropriate phenomena that would provide a basis for assessing the given PEs. Each PE within a PE bundle is important in determining item cluster alignment and need to be represented sufficiently in the item cluster. Therefore, each item within an item cluster must achieve alignment to at least one PE, with the PEs judged independently of one another. While the emphasis of item-to-dimension alignment is on the dimensions specific to the target PE, alignment to the dimensions for the other PE(s) in the PE bundle should be considered as well. Terminology for Alignment Processes The different components of the PEs are indicated in Figure 3. Discussions of alignment use the following terminology for the components indicated in Figure Z in relation to this PE and to the foundation boxes: a. Performance Expectation (PE): This color-coded and bolded sentence represents the assessable statement of what students should know and be able to do (NGSS, 2015b, p. 1). Discussions of alignment use the following terminology for the components indicated in Figure 3 in relation to this PE and to the foundation boxes: Page 20 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

21 a. Performance Expectation (PE): This color-coded and bolded sentence represents the assessable statement of what students should know and be able to do (NGSS, 2015b, p. 1). b. Clarification Statement: Clarification Statements, immediately following the PE, supply examples or additional clarification to the performance expectations (NGSS, 2015b, p. 3). Clarification Statements may include emphasis statements or example statements; each is applied to alignment judgments differently. Some PEs do not have Clarification Statements. c. Assessment Boundary: Assessment Boundaries, immediately following the Clarification Statement, specify the limits to large scale assessment (NGSS, 2015b, p. 3) of a PE. Some PEs do not have Assessment Boundaries. d. Foundation boxes for each dimension: These are the color-coded boxes below the box containing the PE, Clarification Statement, and Assessment Boundary. The dimensions referenced in the PE are elements from the K 12 Framework (NRC, 2012). e. Science and Engineering Practices (SEP): This is the practice that contributes to the listed PE. A total of eight general practice categories are applied across the full set of standards. In the example given, the SEP is Developing and Using Models. f. SEP general grade-band expectation: This paragraph, directly below the SEP, is directly associated with the NGSS SEP progressions document (NGSS, 2015a, Appendix F) and describes the grade-band expectation for the stated practice. g. SEP grade-band-specific bullet: The SEP bullets for each grade band describe aspects of the practice at that grade band. The bullet shown in the SEP foundation box for each PE is directly associated with the PE in the NGSS SEP progressions document (NGSS, 2015a, Appendix F). h. Disciplinary Core Ideas (DCI): This is the core idea that contributes to the listed PE. The DCI foundation box may include multiple DCIs. The DCI code provides the following information: the discipline (first alphabetical code); the core idea (first numeric code); and the sub core idea (second alphabetical code). i. DCI grade-band description: These bullets, taken from the K 12 Framework, describe the sub core idea(s) associated with this PE. j. Crosscutting Concepts (CCC): This is the crosscutting concept that contributes to the listed PE. A total of seven general crosscutting concept categories are applied across the full set of standards. In the example given, the CCC is Energy and Matter. k. CCC grade-band-specific bullet(s): The CCC bullets for each grade band describe aspects of the crosscutting concept at that grade band. The bullet(s) shown in the CCC foundation box for each PE are directly associated with the PE in the NGSS CCC progressions document (NGSS, 2015a, Appendix G, Section 2). In addition to the specific SEP or CCC, the following aspects may also be listed in the SEP or CCC box if relevant to the standard: Connections to Nature of Page 21 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

22 Science and/or Connections to Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science. It should be noted that these are not SEPs or CCCs, but are listed in these boxes because the NGSS recommend that they are best taught and assessed in the context of specific science ideas (e.g., phenomena) (NGSS, 2015b, p. 4). The following additional documentation can be used to inform interpretation of the intent of the standards. These materials can be used to help inform alignment judgments and interpretation of the intent of information in the foundation boxes, but should not be relied upon as a primary source of alignment judgment, as the primary source of alignment judgment is the specific language in the PE. The National Research Council s A Framework for K 12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (K 12 Framework) (NRC, 2012). Front matter from the Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States (NGSS Lead States, 2013). NGSS Appendices (NGSS, 2015a), which provide information regarding grade-level progressions for dimensions and other aspects of the NGSS, as well as general descriptions of alignment categories, for use in aligning items to PEs/dimensions. The science assessment team uses an Alignment Judgement Document with content review workgroup participants to facilitate conversations about alignment and to ensure alignment of items and clusters to the intended PEs. The work group participants are asked to make context, individual item, and overall alignment judgments for each cluster. Standalone items require individual item judgements only. Participants use the following guidelines when making judgements. All judgements are recorded. Context judgments Judgment PE Bundle (yes/no) Phenomenon (yes/no) Stimuli (Yes/no) Alignment Requirements Is the PE/PE bundle appropriate to explain a phenomenon? Is the phenomenon appropriate for the PE/PEs and gradelevel? Does making sense of the phenomenon require the student to use knowledge and ability across the PE/combination of PEs? Does the stimulus provide sufficient information for the student to engage with the phenomenon without providing information that it is expected students will know or that is assessed in the items? Page 22 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

23 Individual Item Judgements Individual alignment judgments require a 0 3 assignment. The rubric below should be used. Individual item judgments include: Item to SEP alignment Item to DCI alignment Item to CCC alignment General Alignment Description Categories for Items Alignment Category Description If a student responds correctly to this item, it is highly likely that the student has the knowledge or ability 3 reflected in the PE/dimension. Well Aligned An alignment of 3 can be achieved if there is alignment to the grade-band specific bullet/element for the dimension. 2 Aligned 1 Partially Aligned 0 Not Aligned The complete bullet/element is addressed in the item. If a student responds correctly to this item, it is likely that the student has the knowledge or ability reflected in the PE/dimension. An alignment of 2 can be achieved if there is alignment to a proximal bullet/element in the progression for that grade-band. The majority of the intended knowledge or ability of the proximal bullet/element is addressed in the item. If a student responds correctly to this item, the student has some of the knowledge or ability reflected in the PE/dimension. An alignment of 1 can be achieved if there is alignment to any bullet/element in the progression for that grade-band. Only some (less than the majority) of the intended knowledge or ability of the PE/dimension is addressed in the item, and/or the item may not asses the intended focus of the dimension as described in the specific dimension bullet/element. No knowledge or ability as intended by the PE is required for a student to respond correctly to this item. Overall item cluster judgment Is the item cluster acceptable for use? Yes/No Page 23 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments

24 Specific to the WA-AIM instrument: o There is a process of linking or bridging of the PEs through generated Essential Concepts to the Access Point Frameworks, which are the foundation of the assessment of the intended student population. o Assessment is constructed as performance tasks with five (5) inter-related items achieving measurement of the identified (linked) standard. o Only components explicit to linked standards (refer to above bullet) may be assessed in the series of five (5) items. o Alignment will mean close integration of the dimensions integral to the linked standard as represented in the series of five (5) items.. o In evaluating alignment of the set of five (5) items, the alignment should consider the degree of integration of the dimensions of the linked standard. For example, the set of five (5) items may find full alignment with SEP, partial alignment to DCI, and only minimal (or no) alignment to CCC. The more fully aligned on all dimensions, the stronger the integration of the dimensions and the more aligned the item is as a whole. o The series of five (5) items and the order of alignment considerations should likely be: Integration of the dimensions (SEP, DCI, CCC) Degree of connection to all three dimensions Appropriateness of DOK o An alignment approach will most likely need to consider both item-series and test-level criteria. Specific to the lead consultant/facilitator of the study(ies), OSPI must be able to discern the degree of expertise/familiarity with the NGSS, NGSS assessment implementation (not just written academic reports). Bidder will provide rationale for consultant s selection. If Bidder is willing to consider an external consultant as part of bid, Exhibit F lists possible consultants OSPI would consider viable candidates for the role. 2B. Subject Matter Experts In-Person Meetings Bidder shall propose a comprehensive plan to conduct in-person meetings with subject matter experts to gather the initial data and judgements needed for the alignment study. A comprehensive plan will include no less than the following details: - Number of panelists by grade level/span and content combinations - Number of days required to accomplish data/judgement gathering - Explicit study design (methodology) for presentation to OSPI s technical advisory committee - Timeline/Schedule detailing completion of required activities Proposed study design must have the adequate flexibility to integrate potential modifications and approaches put forth after technical review. 2C. Panelist Recruitment Bidder will address all logistical details associated with the conduct of in-person meetings involving subject matter experts. Details will be coordination of travel and reimbursement of associated expenses (travel, stipends, substitute costs, etc.), candidate selection notifications, Page 24 of 56 RFP No : Alignment Study Washington Science Assessments