RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Is the page-length restriction noted on page 36 (“not to exceed 30 pages”) for Section C (the
Technical Approach) only or the entire Technical Proposal (Sections A-C)?
Q: Are attachments 6.4 and 6.6 included in the technical approach 30 page limit?
Q: We understand that a vendor application may be submitted as part of the technical proposal package (e.g., as an appendix). Please confirm that the vendor application, if submitted, would not count against the 30 page limit.
Q: Do resumes count in the 30 pages for the Technical Approach?
A: Correction to RFP : The Technical Approach , Section C of the Technical Proposal, should not exceed 30 pages inclusive of appendices and other supporting documentation. The Technical
Approach should be double-spaced and in a 12-point font.
Q: Does the 3 page limit for qualifications refer only to B.7 or the whole of section B?
A: The 3-page limit applies only to Section B.7.
Q: Can the font size in tables be less than 12 point?
Q: Is it permissible to single space charts and tables within the RFP?
A: Tables and charts should be 12-point font. They may, however, be single-spaced.
Q: Will the contract be cost-reimbursement or fixed price?
A: The contract will be fixed price.
Q: May we send two examples of evaluation reports?
Q: The original RFP had requirement for an example evaluation report that was not included in the re-issued RFP, could you confirm that this is no longer a requirement?
A: This is no longer a requirement in the Reissue of the RFP (dated January 9, 2013).
Q: Does [organization/institution] have to complete section B if it doesn’t seem to apply to us?
A: Section B must be completed by all Proposers.
Q: Does RSCC require a formal (hard copy) letter from the proposer stating the intent to propose, or will an email suffice to meet the requirements of 1.8?
A: A hard copy letter or email response to the RFP Coordinator will suffice.
1

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Can you clarify whether only one proposal per institution/organization will be accepted – or one proposal per PI? If there will be only 1 proposal accepted per institution, would a partnership of more than one institution, disqualify any other proposals from those institutions represented in the partnership?
Q: On page 9 in section 4.3.7 it states that, “A Proposer shall not submit multiple proposals in different forms.” Please define ‘proposer’. Specifically will multiple proposals be accepted from different principle investigators who are employed at the same institution of higher education? Is the ‘proposer’ the institution or the individual?
Q: Can an organization or institution only submit one proposal?
Q: Can you define "partners" as mentioned in Item 3 of Table 1?
Q: Please define 'the proposer', is this the institution or the principle investigator?
Q: Per the referenced RFP article 4.3.6 states Proposer shall not submit more than one proposal.
We have two different departments on campus who want to submit. For the definition of
“Proposer” does that mean the University or the individual departments? We obviously would like to be able to submit both. Please advise.
A: Per Sections 4.3.6 and 4.3.7 (p. 9) of the RFP, a Proposer shall not submit more than one proposal. One proposal per institution, organization, entity, or business will be accepted. In a
University or similar setting with multiple departments, “Proposer” refers to the university and not the principal investigator or department. Submitting more than one proposal shall result in the disqualification of the Proposer. Roane State intends to enter into a contract for evaluation services with only one contractor, and only one proposal per contractor will be accepted. Any contractor who submits more than one proposal shall be disqualified. A contractor may have partners or subcontractors and those partners or subcontractors will not be counted as a contractor for purposes of applying the “one proposal per contractor” rule.
Q: Are we are supposed to submit all documents in Section 6.4 along with the actual technical proposal?
A: Yes.
Q: Contract section 4.17, page 12, says that “registration with the Institution is not required to make a proposal (any unregistered service provider must simply register as required prior to the final contract approval). Are we therefore required to submit attachment 6.8, or is this optional?
A. Section 6.8 should be submitted.
2

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: May proposals be hand delivered, in separately sealed packages as instructed, to the address indicated in 3.1.5?
A: Yes, if packages are hand delivered they should be brought to:
Roane State Community College
Purchasing Office (Room T-102)
276 Patton Lane
Harriman, TN 37748
Q: For the electronic version of the technical proposal, what format should it be in?
Q: Would a thumb drive suffice in lieu of a CD?
A: Please provide a CD in PDF or MS Word format.
Q: Scoring methodology for Section B is unclear. Does the total score = (total raw weighted score/maximum possible raw weighted score) x 400, similar to Section C scoring? If not, please explain the method used.
A: The Proposals will be scored as follows:
Qualifications and Experience (Section B) 400
Technical Proposal (Section C) 350
Cost Proposal (Attachment 6.5) 250
Please note that cost data should not be included with materials submitted to address Sections B. and C.
3

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: The budget example given is for 48 months – yet the timeline appears to be 3 years and 5 months. Which of these is correct?
A: Roane State intends to enter into a contract with an expected effective period beginning April
1, 2013 and ending September 30, 2016 (see Contract Term , Section 4.20, p. 12 of RFP).
Q: Will we be allowed to provide, with the proposal, exceptions to the Pro Forma contract that are necessary for the laws of our state (e.g. we are bound by the laws of the state of … as well as the state statues for our Board of Regents). Several clauses in the Pro Forma contract would make us non-compliant with our governing laws; we would therefore need an arrangement to negotiate in good faith certain specific clauses within the Pro Forma contract.
A: No, we cannot be bound by the laws of another state and will not entertain material changes to the Pro Forma contract. Proposers should be prepared to agree to the Pro Forma terms with no material modification.
Q: Regarding section E.2 (a)(2) of the Pro Forma contract. This section describes potential liquidated damages and states that E.2 (a)(2) will be included "only if applicable." It would be helpful to know (1) if this section will be included in a resulting contract and (2) if so, will applicants be able to review a copy of the referenced attachment before the proposal deadline.
A: A determination will be made as to liquidated damages during final contract negotiation.
Q: RFP 1.4, Attachment 6.3. The Proposer ___does or ___does not agree to extend this proposal and current contract pricing to all TBR/UT Institutions for the same time period it is available to the Institution as Proposer has indicated in its proposal in response to Section 1.4 of this RFP.
The meaning of this statement is unclear in this context because the contract resulting from this
RFP would be between the offeror and RSCC for specifically defined services. Please state the intended application of these terms more clearly or consider deleting from the solicitation.
Q: What does the statement in section 1.4 on page 3 of the RFP mean: “Does Proposer agree to extend this proposal and current contract pricing to all TBR/UT Institutions of Higher
Education? ____yes ____no.” Does it mean particular institutions included or not included in the current RFP may want the selected evaluator to conduct a similar analysis? Are we supposed to include this statement in our proposal?
A: This statement is optional and the vendor does not have to agree to it. What the statement means is that if the proposer wins the bid then they will extend the same terms to the institutions
4

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13   specified if yes is checked. In practical terms, it is probably not feasible for this contract to be extended to other institutions since the scope is specific and an hourly rate is not being used.
Q: RFP Section 4.15 states that proposals must be valid for 180 days. Attachment 6.5 Cost
Proposal & Scoring Guide states that proposal shall remain valid for 120 days. Please clarify the required proposal validity period.
A: Proposals should be valid for 180 days.
Q: Is the agreement regarding access to confidential information provided with the contract/award itself; or will there be a separate or additional agreement for FERPA? And if so, does this need to be finalized by the contract award date?
A: See Section D.17 of the Pro Forma contract.
Q: Are you open to negotiating the invoicing/payment terms to consider monthly billing in equal increments over the course of the firm fixed-price contract?
Q: Please clarify the payment methodology. Is the intent for the Contractor to invoice monthly, or only to invoice at each of the five milestones?
A: Payment terms will be finalized during final contract negotiation. The Contractor’s compensation shall be contingent upon the satisfactory completion of project milestones.
5

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: We are expected to follow people admitted for which semesters? How much baseline data will there be?
Q: For training prescription programs that are less than two-years in length, for example EKG
Tech, will the evaluation include multiple cohorts during the intervention or just a single cohort?
A: Per the SGA, participant and cohort group members need to be tracked throughout the entire period of the grant. The number of cohorts that will need to be tracked will depend on program length. Baseline data availability will depend on the variable(s) of interest.
Q: In the technical narrative of the grant, BANNER and other tracking systems are mentioned.
Currently, what student and program information do these tracking systems collect, both within
TBR and outside TBR?
Q: Do RSCC and the consortium members share a common graduate tracking process? What data elements are tracked?
A: The Banner system for each TBR institution contains student academic data (e.g., grades, program of study, degree attainment) and basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, enrollment status, and financial aid information). Other data systems have yet to be developed and the Evaluator is expected to play an important role in that process.
Q: The RSCC program staff have proposed to provide quarterly reports to the consortium members. It appears to us that the quarterly reports would be a natural venue to include the implementation and formative evaluation data. Is this approach feasible or would the program funders prefer that Evaluators provide separate implementation project data reports?
A: Per the grant SGA (p. 33), the Evaluator is required to submit a final report, due to the
Department of Labor at the end of the grant period of performance, and at least one interim report on findings to-date. These reports are in addition to the executive summaries and/or presentations (following a timeline that is agreed upon by grant staff and the Evaluator) referenced in Attachment 6.2 of the RX TN Evaluation RFP.
Q: Does the following “Two (2) two-day evaluation conferences in Washington, DC in 2013 &
2014” (p. 22 of the RFP) mean two conferences in 2013 and two conferences in 2014 or one conference in 2013 and one conference in 2014?
Q: What is the purpose of the two trips to Washington, DC? Are there two specific meetings to be attended and, if so, what are they?
A: The Evaluator will be expected to attend one conference in 2013 and one conference in 2014.
At this time, the DOL has not provided any further information about these conferences.
6

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: In the evaluation plan it is unclear how the comparison group was selected. For example, the
Occupational Therapy program is at the Roane, Cleveland, and Chattanooga institutions but the comparison group is from Roane, Cleveland, and Nashville. Why would the comparison group include Nashville but not Chattanooga? Can you please explain exactly how the comparison groups would be selected?
Q: What pools are the comparative group members drawn from?
A: As specified in Table 2 of the RFP, the comparison groups consist of students enrolled in participating programs in the Spring 2013 semester. Because some programs will not be in place at some institutions until later in the grant period, the cohort groups are limited to those that currently exist. For example, the Occupational Therapy program now exists at Roane, Cleveland, and Nashville. As detailed in the Technical Proposal (e.g., table beginning on the bottom of page
25), institutions vary in their participation of grant components. For the Occupational Therapy component, participating institutions consist of Roane, Cleveland, and Chattanooga.
Please note, however, that Proposers are encouraged to modify and expand upon the RX TN
Program Evaluation Plan (see Section C, p. 36, of the grant RFP).
Q: Can you please explain why a comparison group cannot be established for the new programs:
Surgical Tech (AAS), Emergency Medical Dispatch, and Patient Care Tech?
A: As specified in Table 2 of the RFP, comparison groups consist of students enrolled in participating programs in the Spring 2013 semester. These programs are new and will not be in place at any institutions until later in the grant period. Please note, however, that the Proposers are encouraged to modify and expand upon the RX TN Program Evaluation Plan (see Section C, p. 36, of the grant RFP.)
Q: It is noted in Table 2 (pg. 10 of the revised RX TN Program Evaluation Plan) that a number of the program components have availability to the curriculum online for RX TN participants.
Would the comparison group students have the same access to online features of the curriculum?
A: Curricular enhancements will not be in place until after Spring 2013. The Evaluator’s plan should explain how participant group members only will be affected by grant inputs and processes.
Q: Roane State’s Evaluation Plan footnote 2 calls for a dissemination plan that could include development of multiple tailored evaluation reports aimed at specific stakeholder groups. Please clarify if these will be a requirement for the Evaluator to provide, how many of them there will be over the grant period and how extensive will they be (number of pages expected to include text, tables and graphs).
7

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: What is the frequency of the stakeholder meetings noted in footnote 2 on page 5 of the RX
TN Program Evaluation Plan?
A: Per the RX TN Program Evaluation Plan, the selected Evaluator will work with grant staff to develop a plan to disseminate findings. The Pro Forma contract (Attachment 6.2 of the RFP) lists the following as a responsibility of the Evaluator: Share formative evaluation findings including most recent data on Outcome Measures quarterly with grant staff via executive summaries and/or presentations at grant meetings following a timeline agreed upon by the OIER and grant staff, and as detailed in the Contractor’s Evaluation Plan; identify and implement effective methods for disseminating findings to key stakeholders.
The specific dates for meetings have not yet been set.
Q: Please clarify the phrase “assist with project site visits.” Does that mean assist with preparation for these visits only or would travel be required? How many visits are anticipated over the grant period, and if travel is required how long would each visit be?
A: The Evaluator will be expected to provide any assistance necessary to comply with DOL requirements during site visits. At this time, no further information is available.
Q: Who is the national Evaluator? Will the national Evaluator comments on the initial RX TN
Evaluation Plan be shared with potential bidders? What are the expectations for the winning contractor to engage in TA provided by the national Evaluator? What is the timeframe for this?
A: At this time, we do not know who the national Evaluator will be. The comments provided by the DOL regarding the initial evaluation plan have already been incorporated into the revised RX
TN Evaluation Plan (updated 1/2013). At this time, no further information is available regarding the national evaluation.
Q: On what dates are the interim and final reports due? There is a discrepancy between the dates listed in the Evaluation Plan and the RFP.
A: The RX TN Program Evaluation Plan was written as a tentative document. The reports are due as listed in the final contract between Roane State and the Evaluator; as currently written in the Pro Forma contract, the interim report is to be submitted to DOL by 11/30/14, and the final report is due to DOL by 6/30/16.
Q: Are the data analysis procedures to be employed by the Evaluator required and limited to those described in Table 1 of the Evaluation Plan?
Q: Can we suggest/make changes to the analysis methods (e.g., statistical methodology) as outlined in the Program Evaluation Plan?
8

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
A: Per the RFP, (e.g., Section C, p. 36), proposers are encouraged to modify and expand upon the RX TN Program Evaluation Plan. It is expected that the final evaluation plan will be altered from the plan that was initially created for grant submission.
Q: Can you please describe the selection criteria for student participants? Will there be the same access to data across all institutions? Will the structure for the groups be the same? If there are individuals who apply but are not selected, can we identify who those are?
Q: What are the criteria for being a participant in the project?
Q: In the program evaluation plan for RX TN (revised 01/2013) page 4, participants are selected by program directors from a pool of self-selected candidates based on their assessment of students’ aptitude. Please explain the director’s selection process.
A: Selection criteria for programs will vary across programs and institutions. The only selection criteria are those set by the schools to enter the school and specific programs of study. The grant requires we target recruitment to Trade Act Adjustment eligible participants, dislocated workers, and underemployed. Veterans must be given preference. However, anyone is welcome to be served by the grant.
The Banner system for each TBR institution contains student academic data (e.g., grades, program of study, degree attainment) and basic demographic information (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, enrollment status, and financial aid information). Most performance data will be tracked across institutions using a common method, to be determined. In general, data collection efforts will be concentrated on participant and cohort group members; thus, while some information might be available for students who have applied but are not selected, this will likely vary across academic programs and institutions. See the Evaluation RFP, Table 2, for a description of participant and cohort group members.
Q: Would the contracted Evaluator be provided with data sets to conduct analyses on or would the Evaluator be responsible for collecting and organizing the data themselves? Would those data be provided to the contracted Evaluator? If so, in what format?
Q: On page 44 of the technical proposal, performance measures were mentioned. Is it expected that the Evaluators will provide data for the outcomes included in the performance measurements or that the data will be provided by RSCC staff?
Q: We understand from the RSCC proposal, that RX TN institutions already have data collection and tracking systems consistent with DOL required metrics (CMATs system; Access-based;
BANNER). What enhancements do you anticipate to enable program-wide data collection and tracking for RX TN? And where do you see the interface with the Evaluator? For example, will the Evaluator have direct access to the system to pull reports and download data for analysis, or will this access be coordinated through the RX TN data manager?
9

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: What data described in Table 1 of the Evaluation Plan will be provided by Roane State?
Q: Will there be a process for the Evaluator to have access to / contact with students/participants or will all communication go through the RX TN program?
Q: Is Evaluator supposed to contact/recruit all participants and controls directly or is grantee responsible?
Q: Will the employment and earnings data provided by USDOL to Roane State provide all the data required for the evaluator to address evaluation questions 11, 12, and 13?
Q: Will the Evaluator collect data from each campus separately, or will there be one source for data on individual campus program outcomes?
Q: Who will be responsible for tracking the certifications/licensure exam scores and pass rates referenced in evaluation question 9, the CCs/TTCs or the external Evaluator?
Q: Can you clarify who is responsible for collecting data on students who have graduated and controls?
Q: Is the Evaluator supposed to contact ALL program graduates and controls or is the grantee responsible for this?
Q: Will email addresses for these groups be made available to the Evaluator?
A: The selected Evaluator will work directly and closely with grant staff to identify data sources and develop data collection methods. For some variables of interest, data will already be readily available (for instance, in institutions’ BANNER systems). The employer and earnings data provided by USDOL will most likely not provide all the data required for the evaluator to address questions 11, 12, and 13. Some means of collecting data will still need to be refined, and the Evaluator is expected to play a critical role in developing an evaluation implementation plan, and with collecting and reporting data.
Q: Does the Spring 2013 cohort (comparison group) consist of either (a) all students taking courses in that program in Spring 2013, or (b) students newly entering these programs in Spring
2013?
Q: How will the comparison group be established for those students who receive student support prescriptions but do training outside of the training prescriptions, as referenced in evaluation question 6, Analysis Column?
Q: Will all students in the comparison groups described in Table 2 of the evaluation plan be completing their programs in spring 2013, or will some be continuing on in their programs in fall
2013?
10

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Will the student support services be provided to the control group in ongoing years? How will the control group be tracked longitudinally?
Q: Can you clarify the size and composition of the comparison group as initially envisioned?
Q: Page 4 of the evaluation plan says the participant group and comparison group are of equal size. Is that accurate?
Q: Are potential sample sizes available by campus, program component, and participant vs. control group?
Q: What is the approximate total number of students that will be in the comparison groups from spring 2013 (totaled across all schools and disciplines)? Will this number be comparable in size to the participants experiencing training prescriptions? Page 4 says the comparison group will be equal to the number of students in the participants groups, is this possible?
Q: In terms of tracking Spring 2013 cohort student (comparison group), will program coordinators keep these students from participating in grant-funded program activities (e.g., student support services)? If so, what measures will be put in place to keep them as a true comparison group longitudinally?
Q: Based on the participant and control groups and analyses outlined in Tables 1 and 2 in the
Program Evaluation Plan, what type of outcome data would we be expected to report for the three Program Components which do not have a comparison group available?
A: Per the Evaluation RFP, a responsibility of the Evaluator is to assist with the development of cohort and comparison groups based on funding agency guidelines and best practices. As originally proposed in the RX TN Evaluation Plan, the comparison group consists of students enrolled in participating programs in the Spring, 2013 semester. Responses to this RFP need to advance a process that will be used to develop cohort and comparison groups, explaining how participants in each group will be compared (Attachment 6.4, Section C, p. 36). Importantly, the
Evaluator’s plan needs to explain how participant group members only will be affected by grant inputs and processes.
Q: In Table 2 on page 10 of the Evaluation Plan (revised 1/2013), there are 12 Community
Colleges and 4 TTCs listed as institutions in the Participant Group. For the purposes of this
RFP, is this an all inclusive list of institutions participating in this project?
A: The community colleges and 4 TTCs will be delivering training. However, as detailed in the technical proposal, it is anticipated that completion coaches will be reaching out to students at all
TTCs in the state to recruit students to continue their education and provide some student support services.
11

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Has a project logic model been developed?
A: Please refer to the Project Work Plan that was submitted to DOL, available on the RX TN website (www.roanestate.edu/rxtn). Evaluation proposals may include program logic models, if desired.
Q: Regarding the table of outcome measures on page 43 of the Technical Proposal submitted to
USDOL, can you clarify each category of participant? For example, how do the categories of participants (e.g., participants served, participants retained in their program of study) relate to one another? Are they nested? Where do you anticipate overlap between categories?
A: Please refer to the Grant SGA (Appendix G, p. 51) for current definitions of all outcome measures.
Q: How many curriculum specialists will there be? What is their role?
A: Roles are still being defined, but they will enhance/develop curriculum described in the grant.
There are 4.5 FTE budgeted.
Q: How many evaluation sites will there be in the program?
Q: Can you tell me how many specific sites are involved in the evaluation plan?
Q: How many sites/CCs will be involved in the program?
A: Roane State is the primary site. There are 12 more community colleges involved and 4 technology centers that will be delivering services. The community colleges will be delivering services to additional technology centers in their service area.
Q: Will ALL participants receive assessment and support services?
Q: Will all students receiving training prescriptions also receive student support prescriptions?
A: Student Support Prescription services are not required to be delivered to all participants in grant-funded training, but it is likely they will be, with services also being delivered to additional students.
Q: How many Program Directors are associated with RX TN programs (multiple across campuses)?
A: There is one grant Program Director with Program Coordinators at each community college.
12

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Does RSCC maintain records for all students on their Trade Act Assistance eligibility, e.g. whether they were laid off by no fault of their own in an affected industry?
Q: Does RSCC maintain records for all students on their Trade Act Assistance eligibility, e.g. whether they were laid off by no fault of their own in an affected industry?
A: There is no TAA eligibility required for grant funded services participation. However, we will ask TAA eligible participants to provide documentation for data tracking purposes if required by USDOL.
Q: Please clarify the numbers in the Outcomes Measures Table on page 43 relative to calculations described on page 44. For instance, page 44 says that 85% of students that start training will complete, but Line 2 is not 85% of Line 1 in the Outcomes Table.
A: Line 1 is all participants including those that just receive student support services and/or enter a non-grant funded training. Please refer to the SGA for specific descriptions of performance measures.
Q: Regarding the table of outcome measures on page 43 of the Technical Proposal submitted to
USDOL, can you clarify each category of participant? For example, how do the categories of participants (e.g., participants served, participants who completed RX TN, participants retained in their program of study, participants completing credit hours, and participants earning credentials differ) relate to one another? Are they nested? Where do you anticipate overlap between categories? It is difficult to tell the answers to these questions from the summation of the tallies.
A: Please refer to the SGA for specific definitions of the performance outcomes.
Q: Will all students receiving training prescriptions in two-year programs be starting the first year of their program under the training prescription or might some have completed one year prior to the training prescription.
A: This has not yet been determined.
Q: Please define Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 per Work Plan and Project Management
Table.
Q: Please define Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and Year 4 per “Outcomes” table.
A: Year 1 is October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013 and so forth.
13

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: What are the years of intervention for the student support prescriptions and the training prescriptions?
A: Per the SGA, services/training are not an allowable cost in Year 4. The exact implementation plan is still under development.
Q: Will the enhanced courses be introduced all at once, or on a rolling basis?
A: The implementation plan is under development but most likely on a phased schedule.
Q: Is there an existing exit survey in place? Both for students who leave the program early and for those that complete the program.
A: There is currently no survey in place for students who leave the program early. Participating institutions administer an institution-wide alumni survey approximately once every five years, but the focus of that survey is broad and the format and schedule are largely dictated by the
Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC).
Q: Can you explain the role of the Data Manager (listed in Data Sources in Table 1)?
A: They will develop any required databases for collecting grant performance outcome data across the co-grantees. In addition, they will provide other technical support.
Q: Is there a single point of contact for the project, like a Project Director? Are there regular administrative or management team meetings of the grant core team?
A: Yes, there is a Project Director. Grant team meetings will occur regularly but the meeting schedule has not yet been set.
Q: What is the expected end date for activity 2:1.B: review and approval of curriculum by advisory board and SME?
A: This has yet to be determined.
Q: On page 4 of the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding the TAACCCT grant program, it states that participants must be tracked “beyond the 36-month grant period” and
“During the final 12 months of the grant, successful applicants will be expected to track and report all outcome measures for all program participants.” When would the last data collection for the project take place? In spring 0f 2016?
A: This will be driven by USDOL guidance.
14

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: Currently, what is RSCC’s policy on indirect costs when proposers are from another
Tennessee institution of higher education?
Q: What indirect rate is allowed to be charged for the subcontract?
Q: We understand from the RX TN project budget, that all the partner colleges and institutions agreed to a 10% cap on indirect, rather than their standard/higher rate. Do you recommend that applicants under this RFP follow this guideline as well (i.e. indirect at 10% or less) or is there some other restriction on indirect costs?
A: All vendors, including those affiliated with other institutions of higher education, are required to submit a budget proposal which includes all costs for evaluation services. The Evaluator will not be paid for indirect costs in addition to the cost of the bid for services. Any amount deemed to be indirect should be built into the proposed cost for services and should not be shown as a line item in the proposal or invoiced during the grant with a line for indirect costs.
Q: Is there flexibility in the allocation of staff time on the budget? For example, could more time be allocated to the Evaluator and less time allocated to the PI than is outlined in the sample budget?
Q: Is the entire cost proposal attachment 6.5 only; or should we include additional pages for budget justification and further detail?
Q: The evaluation budget narrative includes cost for “printing and mailing surveys.” Is there any reason all surveys (employer and program participants/graduates) could not be done electronically?
Q: Are you requesting or expecting any budget information, beyond the total?
A: The RX TN Evaluation Budget Narrative is a document that was submitted to DOL to arrive at an estimated cost of procuring evaluation services. Proposals need specify only the proposed price for the entire scope of service including all services as defined in the RFP Attachment 6.2.
Please follow the directions in Attachment 6.5 of the RFP; the cost proposal MUST be completed EXACTLY as shown. No additional pages for budget justification or detail are required; we do not want information beyond the total.
15

RX   TN   Evaluation   Q&As
2 ‐ 15 ‐ 13
Q: I am wondering if there is any other information published besides the RFP for the RX TN
(TAACCCT) third-party evaluation services proposal.
A: All published documents pertaining to the RX TN grant can be accessed via the RX TN webpage (www.roanestate.edu/rxtn).
Q: Please clarify how RSCC intends to make full proposal content available for public review and inspection. Will proposal content be openly available on the Internet, available for review upon request, or provided in some other manner?
A: Proposals will be made available for review as specified in the calendar beginning on March
8. Files may be inspected via appointment made with Jack Walker at the Roane State
Community College Main Campus, Room T-102. Calendar is subject to change as circumstances may warrant.
Q: Why was the RFP reissued?
A: Unfortunately, we had to pull and reissue the RFP to make revisions necessary to align with newly released DOL requirements (e.g., travel to DC).
Q: What are the procedures for Roane State's review and approval of the survey instruments and interview protocols that will be proposed?
A: The Technical Approach will be evaluated as described in Section C of Attachment 6.4, p. 36.
Q: Given that responses to comments will not be available until the 18th, will Roane State consider extending the due date since responses may have significant impacts on the offerer's proposed approach and require substantial revisions to the proposal due on the 22nd?
A: Responses are for clarification purposes and are not expected to necessitate significant changes to proposals. All proposals need to be submitted by 2 pm Eastern on Friday, February
22.
Q: Is a state-funded research unit (such as one located within a Tennessee university) precluded from submitting a proposal?
A: No, these types of proposals are permissible.
16