U.S. Department of Education, Grants and Contracts Services, 7th & D Streets, SW, Room 3633, ROB Washington, D.C. 20202-4337

A -- PART 2 OF 2: DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING HIGH PERFORMANCE LEARNING COMMUNITIES SOL RC961370 DUE 070596 POC Linda Feeney, Contract Specialist, 202-708-8282. PART 2 OF 2: VI. AWARD PROCESS: The expected award date is September 30, 1996. ED reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none proposal to avoid geographic, demographic and schooling-level when other studies to be funded under this BAA. Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206 (b) not to be in the Government's best interest, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price of all option years to the total price of the base year. For thsi annoucement, price will be substantial factor in source selection, however, quality factors (including technical merit and past performance), considered together, are significantly more important than cost or price. The contracting officer will determine whether the difference in quality is worth the difference in cost or price. Award will be made (dependent on funds availability) to the offeror (s) whose proposal (s) is/are evaluated as offering the best value approach for attainment of program objectives considering cost and quality factors. Technical quality will be evaluated in a peer review panel, based on the criteria specified below. Proposals received as a result of the BAA shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria specified theirin through a peer or scientific review process. Written evaluation reports on individual proposals will be necessary but proposals need not be evaluated against each other since they are not submitted in accordance with a common work statement. VII. TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA: The following criteria apply to both abstracts and complete proposals requested under this announcements. No other technical criteria will be used to evaluate the abstracts or technical proposals. 1. Scope and technical soundness of the study, including an adequate research strategy that will-provide specific strategies and procedures t initiate, support and maintain high performance learning communities that promote high levels of learning for all students. Maximum points: 35. 2. Offeror's demonstrated understanding of the nature of high performance learning communities and the multitude of factors surrounding the creation and maintenance of such communities. Maximum points: 25. 3. The adequacy of proposed personell time commitments to complete their tasks and the extent to which proposed personnel possess the training and experience to conduct their assigned tasks. Maximum points: 20. 4. Scope and quality of proposed products. Maximum points: 10. 5. Offeror's proposed use of innovative strategies to develop and implement high performance learning communities. Maximum points: 10. VIII. PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: The Contracting Officer will evaluate the past performance of each offeror who is asked to submit a complete proposal that will evaluated on the subfactors below: a. Quality of Product or Service - compliance with contract requirements - accuracy of reports - appropriateness of personnel - technical excellence. b. Problem Resolution - anticipates and avoids or mitigates problems - satisfactorily overcomes or resolves problems - prompt notification of problems - pro-active- effective contractor- recommended solutions. c. Cost Control - within budget - current, accurate and complete billings - costs properly allocated - unallowable costs not billed- relationship of negotiated costs to actual - cost efficienceis. d. Timeliness of Performance - meets interim milestones - reliable - stays on schedule despite problems - responsive to technical directions - completes tasks on time, including wrap - up and contract administration - no liquidated damages assessed. e. Business Relations - effective management - use of performance - based management techniques - business-like concern for the customer's interests - effective management and selection of subcontractors - effective small/small disadvantaged business subcontracting program - reasonable/cooperative behavior - effective use of technology in management and communication - flexible - minimal staff turnover - maintains high employee morale - resolves disagreements without being unnecessaryly litigious. BONUS RATING -- Where the offeror has demonstrated an exceptional performance level in any of the above six subfactors, the Contracting Officer may give additional consideration for that factor. It is expected that this rating will be used in those rare circumstances when contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance level of ''excellent.'' 3. Past performance evaluation will be based on information obtained from the awards and references listed in the offeror's proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, and other who may have useful and relevant information. Information will also be considered regarding any major subcontractors, and key personnel records. The Contracting Officer will give greater consideration to information about an offeror's past performance that the Contracting Officer considers either more reliable or more relevant to the effort required by this solicitation. (0157)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0003 19960606\A-0003.SOL)