CENTER TO ASSIST IN PROVIDING INFORMATION
            AND SUPPORT ON TECHNOLOGY TO FAMILIES OF
              CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

                   PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Note: This Performance Work Statement is best viewed in a
nonproportional font with at least 12 characters per inch

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

100 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
     100.1 Acronyms/Definitions
     100.2 Scope of Work
     100.3 Purpose
     100.4 Overview/Background/Statute

110 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES
     110.1 Printing Services

120 CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, TOOLS,
     AND SUPPLIES
     120.1 Office Space/Storage Space
     120.2 Office Supplies
     120.3 Quality of Contractor-Furnished Materials
     120.4 Contractor-Furnished Equipment and Tools

130 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL
     130.1 Basic Requirements
     130.2 Project Management
     130.3 Technical Qualifications of Staff

140 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE
     140.1 Contractor's Quality Control Program
     140.1-1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Schedule of
          Deliverables
     140.2 Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan
     140.3 Meetings with the Contractor

200 TECHNICAL WORK REQUIREMENTS
     200.1 Task 1: Meeting with ED
     200.2 Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis
     200.3 Task 3: Establish and maintain a broad-based network
          and a representative advisory committee
     200.4 Task 4: Collect, evaluate, revise, develop,
          disseminate, and support the use of materials
     200.5 Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and
          events
     200.6 Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations
     200.7 Task 7: Reporting Requirements
     200.8 Option Years One through Four
     200.9 Base Year and Option Years Schedule of Tasks and
          Deliverables

300 MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
     400.1 Safety
     400.2 Contingencies
     400.3 Emergency/Disaster Contingency
     400.3-1 Emergency/Disaster Contingency Schedule of
          Deliverables
     400.4 Strike Contingency
     400.4-1 Strike Contingency Schedule of Deliverables

500 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS
     500.1:  Reports
     500.1A:  Quarterly Progress Report(QPR)
     500.1B:  Quarterly Expenditure Reports
     500.2:  Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance
          Plan
     500.3:  Evaluations

================ End Table of Contents ===============

100 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

100.1 Acronyms/Definitions

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

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

100.2 Scope of Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

100.3 Purpose

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

100.4 Overview/Background/Statute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

110 GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES

110.1 Printing Services

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

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

120.1 Office Space/Storage Space

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

120.2 Office Supplies

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

120.3 Quality of Contractor-Furnished Materials

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

120.4 Contractor-Furnished Equipment and Tools

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

130 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

130.1 Basic Requirements

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

130.2 Project Management

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

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

130.3 Technical Qualifications of Staff

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

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

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

(2) skill in mailing lists data base management.

140 QUALITY CONTROL/QUALITY ASSURANCE

140.1 Contractor's Quality Control Program

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

140.1-1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance Schedule of
Deliverables

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

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

140.2 Government's Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

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

140.3 Meetings with the Contractor

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

200 TECHNICAL WORK REQUIREMENTS

200.1 TASK 1: MEETING WITH ED

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

TASK 1 DELIVERABLES

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

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

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

200.2 TASK 2: CONDUCT NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND RESOURCE ANALYSIS

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

TASK 2 DELIVERABLES

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

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

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

200.3 TASK 3: ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN A BROAD-BASED NETWORK AND A
REPRESENTATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

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

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

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

TASK 3 DELIVERABLES

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

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

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

200.4 TASK 4: COLLECT, EVALUATE, REVISE, DEVELOP, DISSEMINATE,
AND SUPPORT THE USE OF MATERIALS

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

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

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

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

TASK 4 DELIVERABLES

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

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

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

200.5 TASK 5: PARTICIPATE IN MEETINGS, CONFERENCES, AND EVENTS

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

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

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

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

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

TASK 5 DELIVERABLES

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

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

200.6 TASK 6: CONDUCT ANNUAL EVALUATIONS

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

TASK 6 DELIVERABLES

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

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

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

200.7 TASK 7: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

TASK 7 DELIVERABLES

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

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

200.8 Option Years One through Four

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

================================================================

200.9 BASE YEAR AND OPTION YEARS SCHEDULE OF TASKS AND
DELIVERABLES

Note: This table is best viewed in a nonproportional font with at
least 12 characters per inch 

TASK           DESCRIPTION                     DUE BY     COPIES
                                               END OF:    TO ED

1 Meeting      1A Meeting with COTR and CO     5 days        NA
with ED                                        after ef  
                                               fective   
                                               date of   
                                               contract  
                                               and option
                                               years     
                                                         
               1B Final Schedule of            5 days         3
               Deliverables                    after base-
                                               year meet-
                                               ing      
                                               
               1C Report of Clarifications     5 days         3
               and Understandings              after base-
                                               year meet-
                                               ing
                                               
2 Conduct      2A Draft Plan for Conducting    2 weeks        2
needs          the Needs Assessment and              
assessment     Analysis                                       
and                                             
resource       2B Draft Report of the Needs    6 months       3
analysis       Assessment and Analysis                    
                                                          
               2C Final Report of the Needs    8 months       3
               Assessment and Analysis                    
               
3 Establish    3A Draft Plan for Establishing  2 weeks        2
and main-      a Network and Advisory Commit              
tain a         tee                                        
broad-based                                    
network and    3B Final Plan for Establishing  6 weeks        2
a represent-   a Network and Advisory Commit              
ative ad-      tee--Submitted and Implemented             
visory com-                                 
mittee         3C Quarterly report on Task 3   Quarterly      3
               
4 Collect,     4A Draft Plan for Collecting,   2 weeks        3
evaluate,      Evaluating, Revising, Develop              
revise,        ing, Disseminating, and                    
develop,       Supporting the Use of                      
disseminate,   Materials                                  
and support                                               
the use of     4B Final Plan Submitted and     2 months      NA
materials      Implemented                                
                                                         
               4C Quarterly report on Task 4   Quarterly      3

5 Participate  5A Request for Approval to      3 weeks        3
in meetings,   Participate                     prior to   
conferences                                    participa  
and events                                     tion       

               5B Report of Participation      In QPR by      3
                                               4 months   
                                               following
                                               participa
                                               tion
                                               
6 Conduct      6A Draft Evaluation Plan        3 months       3
annual                                                    
evaluations    6B Final Evaluation Plan--      4 months       3
               Submitted and Implemented                  
                                                          
               6C Evaluation Report            11, 23,        3
                                               35, 47, 59 
                                               months

7 Reporting    7A Quarterly Progress Report    5 days fol-    3
requirements                                   lowing end 
                                               of quarter 

               7B Quarterly Expenditure        5 days fol-    3
                  Report                       lowing end
                                               of quarter 

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

================================================================

300 MINIMUM STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

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

400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

400.1 Safety

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

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

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

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

400.2 Contingencies

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

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

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

400.3 Emergency/Disaster Contingency

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

400.3-1 Emergency/Disaster Contingency Schedule of Deliverables

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

400.4 Strike Contingency

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

400.4-1 Strike Contingency Schedule of Deliverables

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

500 TECHNICAL EXHIBITS

500.1:  Reports

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

500.1A:  Quarterly Progress Report  (QPR)

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

500.1B:  Quarterly Expenditure Reports

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

================================================================

                                                     APPENDIX A

500.2:  Performance Based Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

CONTRACT NO._________                       

Introduction

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

The QASP is intended to accomplish the following: 

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

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

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

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

     e.   Describe the process of performance documentation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C.   Identification of the Types of Work to be Performed

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

     a.   Conducting national needs assessment;
     b.   Analyzing national resources;
     c.   Establishing and maintaining a national network of
          programs and organizations;
     d.   Establishing and maintaining an advisory committee;
     e.   Collecting and evaluating materials;
     f.   Revising and developing materials;
     g.   Disseminating materials and supporting their use;
     h.   Participating in meetings, conferences, and events; and
     I.   Conducting annual evaluations.

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

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

E.   Quality Assurance Reporting Forms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F.   Analysis of Surveillance Results

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

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

G.   Applicability of the Excusable Delays Clause

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

================================================================

EXHIBIT A: PERFORMANCE BASED QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE Plan

A.   Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.2 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 2:  

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 2, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 4 across the
                    evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any
                    individual evaluator.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 2 or more
                    across the evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual
                    evaluator.

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

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

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.3 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 3:  

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 3, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 4 across the
                    evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any
                    individual evaluator.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 2 or more
                    across the evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual
                    evaluator.

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

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

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.4 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 4:  

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 4, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 4 across the
                    evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 or 2 by any
                    individual evaluator.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 2 or more
                    across the evaluators.
               (3)  No criterion is rated as 1 by any individual
                    evaluator.

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

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

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.5 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 5:

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 5, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  COTR ratings average to 4.
               (3)  Contractor-submitted evaluations for all
                    meetings/conferences/events average to 4
                    across criteria.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  COTR ratings average to 2 or 3.
               (3)  Contractor-submitted evaluations for all
                    meetings/conferences/events average to 2 or 3
                    across criteria.

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

E.   Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.6 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 6:  

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 6, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 4.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 2 or more.

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

F.   Task 7: Reporting Requirements

     1.   Contract Requirement: Section 200.7 of PWS.

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

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

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

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

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

     7.   Summary of Ratings for Task 7:

          a.   In order for the Contractor to receive a
               "superior" rating for Task 7, all of the following
               conditions must be met:
          
               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 4.

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

               (1)  All deliverables are received on or before
                    the due date.
               (2)  All criteria ratings average to 2 or more.

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

G.   Application of Target and Incentive Fees  

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

Task 2: Conduct Needs Assessment

To be completed in base year.

     Base Year Only:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $2,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $3,000

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

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

     Base Year and Each Option Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $2,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $3,000

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

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

     Base Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $2,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $3,000

     Each Option Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $3,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $4,000

Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

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

     Base Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $1,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $2,000

     Each Option Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $2,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $4,000

Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

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

     Base Year and Each Option Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $2,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $3,000

Task 7: Reporting requirements

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

     Base Year and Each Option Year:

     Superior:      Target fee plus $1,000
     Unacceptable:  Target fee minus $3,000

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

================================================================

500.3:  Evaluations

Note: This section is best viewed in a nonproportional font with
at least 12 characters per inch.

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

Task 2: Conduct needs assessment and resource analysis

Deliverable 2A: Draft plan

Conceptual Quality of Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Plan displays understanding and
                           insight into parent, family,
                           disability and technology issues.
                           Plan draws from other sources of
                           information, such as research,
                           evaluations, and other literature, to
                           provide rationale for approaches.
  
  3       High Acceptable  There are no logical weaknesses.  A
                           general rationale is provided.
                           Approaches seem generally
                           appropriate.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Explanation and justification are
                           marginal.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  No rationale is presented
                           concerning approaches.  General
                           approaches are inappropriate and/or
                           unlikely to be effective.
  
Methodology

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Methodologies are described clearly
                           and completely.  Strong rationale is
                           provided for the appropriateness of
                           the methodologies.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Sampling, instrumentation, analysis,
                           and reporting plans are described
                           completely.  There are no logical
                           weaknesses.  A general rationale is
                           provided.
                           
  2       Low Acceptable   Sampling, instrumentation, analysis,
                           and reporting plans are described
                           completely.  Explanation and
                           justification is marginal.

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

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Descriptions, samples and technical
                           justification are provided for all
                           proposed instruments.  The proposed
                           instruments address the full scope of
                           the study.  Technical quality and
                           effectiveness of instruments are
                           supported.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All proposed instruments are
                           completely described, but not fully
                           justified.  The proposed instruments
                           address the full scope of the study,
                           and seem likely to be effective.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All proposed instruments are
                           described and address most of the
                           scope of the study.  Technical
                           soundness and effectiveness seem
                           satisfactory, but are not really
                           established.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Instruments are poorly
                           described and/or technically weak.
                           Instruments do not address the full
                           scope of the study.
  
Sample

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The sample is national and fully
                           representative of such factors as
                           disability groups, perspectives, and
                           resources.  Possible exemplary sites
                           are likely to be included.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The sample is national and generally
                           representative, with minor
                           weaknesses.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The sample is generally
                           representative, with moderate
                           weaknesses.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The sample is too narrow to be
                           useful.
                           
Scope and Depth

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         Plan addresses a comprehensive range
                           of needs, capabilities, gaps, and
                           resources, and promises to provide
                           meaningful and in-depth results.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Plan addresses a comprehensive range
                           of needs, capabilities, gaps, and
                           resources.  Results may lack depth,
                           but are likely to be meaningful.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Plan addresses a comprehensive range
                           of needs, capabilities, gaps, and
                           resources, but there are moderate
                           weaknesses.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Plan is too narrow and/or flawed to
                           be acceptable.
  
Analysis Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Proposed analysis methods are
                           completely and clearly described.
                           Their appropriateness and rigor are
                           established.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Proposed analysis methods are
                           completely and clearly described.
                           Their appropriateness and rigor are
                           not completely established, but seem
                           likely.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Proposed analysis methods are
                           described and justified with moderate
                           weaknesses.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Proposed analysis methods are not
                           described and/or justified at an
                           acceptable level.
  
Deliverables 2B and 2C: Draft and final version of report

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

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 2B)

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average to 3.3 or
                           higher (across reviewers and
                           criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           3 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           superior overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 2.3
                           and 3.2  (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           2 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           high acceptable overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 1.7
                           and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  And, no criterion is rated
                           below 2 (averaged across reviewers
                           and rounded to the nearest integer).
  
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following apply:
                           The ratings on the remaining criteria
                           for the draft report average below
                           1.7 (across reviewers and criteria,
                           rounding to the nearest tenth).  One
                           or more criteria are rated below 2
                           (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).  One
                           or more reviewers give the draft an
                           overall rating of unacceptable.
                           
  
  Topic Coverage
  
  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         The report provides uniformly
                           excellent discussion of all required
                           topics.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The report provides discussion of all
                           required topics.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The report has uneven but acceptable
                           coverage of all required topics.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The report has unacceptable gaps in
                           the coverage of required topics.
  
Depth and Insight

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report shows exemplary depth and
                           insight across most of the topics it
                           addresses.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Depth and insight are uniformly
                           acceptable across topics.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Depth and insight are mostly
                           acceptable, but for some topics they
                           are weak.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Report is unacceptably superficial
                           and/or lacking in insight.
  
Technical Soundness

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         Data collection, analysis and
                           reporting are uniformly excellent in
                           appropriateness and rigor.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Data collection, analysis and
                           reporting methods are uniformly
                           sound.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Data collection, analysis and
                           reporting methods have minor flaws
                           that do not pose major threats to the
                           uses of information.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Data collection, analysis and/or
                           reporting are unacceptable.
  
Clarity and Completeness

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         Presentation is uniformly excellent
                           in clarity and completeness.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Presentation is uniformly acceptable
                           in clarity and completeness.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Presentation is generally acceptable
                           in clarity and completeness, with
                           only minor flaws.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Presentation is unacceptably unclear
                           and/or incomplete.

Dissemination and Accessibility

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         Dissemination arrangements make the
                           report readily accessible in
                           alternate formats for virtually all
                           potential users.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Dissemination arrangements make the
                           report generally accessible, but not
                           all forms and potential audiences are
                           readily addressed.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Dissemination and accessibility are
                           minimally acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Dissemination and/or accessibility
                           are unacceptable.

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

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

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

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 3A)

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average to 3.3 or
                           higher (across reviewers and
                           criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           3 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           superior overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 2.3
                           and 3.2  (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           2 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           high acceptable overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 1.7
                           and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  And, no criterion is rated
                           below 2 (averaged across reviewers
                           and rounded to the nearest integer).
  
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following apply:
                           The ratings on the remaining criteria
                           for the draft report average below
                           1.7 (across reviewers and criteria,
                           rounding to the nearest tenth).  One
                           or more criteria are rated below 2
                           (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).  One
                           or more reviewers give the draft an
                           overall rating of unacceptable.
                           
                           
  Network Members as Listed
  
  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         The proposed membership of the
                           network is clearly described and is
                           comprehensive and inclusive of the
                           programs and organizations that may
                           benefit from and contribute to the
                           Contractor's efforts under this
                           contract.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The proposed membership is generally
                           comprehensive and inclusive, with
                           minor gaps.  Description is
                           acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The proposed membership is minimally
                           comprehensive and inclusive of the
                           programs and organizations, with
                           significant gaps.  Description is
                           acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The planned network is
                           unacceptable in its coverage and/or
                           scope.  The description is
                           unacceptable.
  
Plans for Identifying and Recruiting Programs and organizations

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Plans for identifying and recruiting
                           programs and organizations are
                           clearly described and supported, and
                           are likely to establish and maintain
                           comprehensive and complete
                           membership.  Programs and
                           organizations will be well informed
                           of the purposes and benefits of the
                           Center.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Plans for identifying and recruiting
                           programs and organizations are likely
                           to result in comprehensive and
                           complete membership, with some gaps.
                           Benefits of the Center will be
                           generally communicated.  Description
                           is acceptable.
  2       Low Acceptable   Plans for identifying and recruiting
                           programs and organizations are likely
                           to result in uneven membership with
                           significant gaps.  Benefits of the
                           Center will not be broadly
                           communicated.  Description is
                           acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Plans will result in a
                           network that is unacceptable in its
                           coverage and/or scope.  The
                           description is unacceptable.

Communication and Collaboration

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Plans for fostering communication and
                           collaboration with and among programs
                           and organizations are exemplary in
                           scope and effectiveness.  Plans are
                           well described and supported.  Plans
                           draw from other successful efforts,
                           and are innovative as appropriate.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Plans for fostering communication and
                           collaboration are acceptable in scope
                           and likely effectiveness.
                           Description and support are
                           acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Plans for fostering communication and
                           collaboration are marginally
                           acceptable.  They are likely to meet
                           minimal needs.  Description is
                           acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Plans for fostering
                           communication and/or collaboration
                           are unacceptable.  The description is
                           unacceptable.
  
Quality of Advisory Committee

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The plans for selecting the advisory
                           committee are clearly described and
                           supported and are likely to produce a
                           representative and effective
                           committee.  The proposed membership
                           is representative and of exemplary
                           quality.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The plans for selecting the advisory
                           committee are adequately described
                           and likely to produce a
                           representative committee.  The
                           proposed membership is acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The plans for selecting the advisory
                           committee meet minimal standards for
                           acceptance.  The proposed membership
                           is minimally acceptable.  Description
                           is adequate.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The plans for selecting the
                           advisory committee are unacceptable.
                           Proposed membership is unacceptable.
                           The description is unacceptable.
  
Involvement of Advisory Committee

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         The plan for involving the Advisory
                           Committee is well described and
                           supported.  The plan is likely to
                           produce meaningful and effective
                           involvement with the Center.
                           Effective methods are described for
                           how the Contractor will use the input
                           from the Committee.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The plan for involving the Advisory
                           Committee is likely to produce
                           meaningful and effective involvement
                           with the Center.  The description and
                           support are acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The plan for involving the Advisory
                           Committee is likely to produce a
                           minimally acceptable level of
                           involvement with the Center.  The
                           description and support are
                           acceptable.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The plan for involving the
                           Advisory Committee is not likely to
                           produce an acceptable level of
                           involvement with the Center.  The
                           description and/or support are
                           unacceptable.

Deliverable 3C: Task 3 Report in QPR

Ongoing Efforts to Identify and Inform Programs and Organizations

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Efforts for identifying and
                           recruiting programs and organizations
                           are clearly described and supported.
                           Evidence is provided that these
                           efforts are effective in establishing
                           and maintaining comprehensive and
                           complete membership.  Evidence is
                           provided that programs and
                           organizations are well informed of
                           the purposes and benefits of the
                           Center.  Efforts are adapted as
                           needed to ensure success.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Efforts for identifying and
                           recruiting programs and organizations
                           seem to result in comprehensive and
                           complete membership, with some gaps.
                           Benefits of the Center seem to be
                           generally communicated.  Description
                           is acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Efforts for identifying and
                           recruiting programs and organizations
                           result in uneven membership with
                           significant gaps.  Benefits of the
                           Center are not broadly communicated.
                           Description is acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Efforts result in a network
                           that is unacceptable in its coverage
                           and/or scope.  The description is
                           unacceptable.
  
Efforts to Foster Communication and Collaboration

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Efforts for fostering communication
                           and collaboration with and among
                           programs and organizations are
                           exemplary in scope and effectiveness.
                           Efforts are well described and
                           evidence is provided of their
                           effectiveness.  Efforts are adapted
                           as needed to ensure success.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Efforts for fostering communication
                           and collaboration are acceptable in
                           scope and effectiveness.  Description
                           and support are acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Efforts for fostering communication
                           and collaboration are marginally
                           acceptable.  They meet minimal needs.
                           Description is acceptable.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Efforts for fostering
                           communication and collaboration are
                           unacceptable.  The description is
                           unacceptable.
  
Efforts to Maintain and Involve the Advisory Committee

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         The efforts for maintaining a quality
                           Advisory Committee and involving it
                           in planning and review are well
                           described and supported.  Evidence is
                           provided that the Advisory Committee
                           is contributing to the Center's work.
                           Advisory Committee input products are
                           provided.
                           
  3       High Acceptable  Efforts for involving the Advisory
                           Committee are apparently producing
                           meaningful involvement with the
                           Center.  The description is
                           acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The Advisory Committee seems to have
                           a minimally acceptable level of
                           involvement with the Center.  The
                           description and support are
                           acceptable.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The Advisory Committee does
                           not have an acceptable level of
                           involvement with the Center.
                           Acceptable quality is not maintained
                           in the Advisory Committee.  The
                           description and/or support are
                           unacceptable.
                           

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

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

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

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 4A)

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average to 3.3 or
                           higher (across reviewers and
                           criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           3 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           superior overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 2.3
                           and 3.2  (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           2 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           high acceptable overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 1.7
                           and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  And, no criterion is rated
                           below 2 (averaged across reviewers
                           and rounded to the nearest integer).
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following apply:
                           The ratings on the remaining criteria
                           for the draft report average below
                           1.7 (across reviewers and criteria,
                           rounding to the nearest tenth).  One
                           or more criteria are rated below 2
                           (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).  One
                           or more reviewers give the draft an
                           overall rating of unacceptable.
  
  
  Overall Quality of Plan
  
  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         The plan is exemplary in its
                           comprehensiveness, description and
                           support, cohesiveness,
                           innovativeness, and overall probable
                           effectiveness.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The plan is generally acceptable in
                           its comprehensiveness, description
                           and support, cohesiveness,
                           innovativeness, and overall probable
                           effectiveness.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The plan is unacceptable in at least
                           one of the qualities of
                           comprehensiveness, description and
                           support, cohesiveness,
                           innovativeness, and overall probable
                           effectiveness.
  
Comprehensiveness of Identification and Collection

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The plan is very comprehensive in the
                           scope of its materials identification
                           and collection strategies.  It
                           employs a variety of search
                           strategies and will reach all of the
                           possible sources of materials.  It
                           provides evidence to support its
                           approach.
  3       High Acceptable  The plan is generally comprehensive
                           in the scope of its materials
                           identification and collection
                           strategies.  It employs a variety of
                           search strategies.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The plan is unacceptable in its scope
                           and comprehensiveness
  
Evaluation Methods

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Plans for evaluating materials are
                           technically sound.  The plans involve
                           input from potential users and
                           audiences, technical experts, members
                           of the Network and/or Advisory
                           Committee, or other outside
                           perspectives.  Evaluation includes
                           try-outs when appropriate.
                           Evaluation results are relevant and
                           useful in revising, packaging,
                           dissemination and using the
                           materials.  Evaluation includes a
                           range of factors, including quality,
                           effectiveness, usability, durability,
                           flexibility, and economy.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Plans for evaluating materials are
                           technically sound and involve a
                           variety of sources of input and
                           methods.  Evaluation includes a range
                           of factors, including quality,
                           effectiveness, usability, durability,
                           flexibility, and economy.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan.
                           Evaluation includes a range of
                           factors, including quality,
                           effectiveness, usability, durability,
                           flexibility, and economy.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Plans for fostering communication
                           and/or collaboration are
                           unacceptable, and/or the description
                           is unacceptable.
  
Development and Revision Strategies

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The plans for developing and revising
                           materials are exemplary in quality
                           and probably effectiveness.  The
                           proposed processes are well
                           supported.  Development and revision
                           will be accomplished in a technically
                           competent and cost effective manner.
                           The plan requires carefully
                           documenting that no existing
                           materials can adequately address
                           needs before development activities
                           are begun.  Planned methods are
                           likely to produce materials that are
                           effective, usably, economical, and
                           appropriate to the potential users.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The plans for developing and revising
                           materials are acceptable in quality
                           and probably effectiveness.
                           Technical  competence and cost
                           effectiveness are acceptable.  The
                           plan requires carefully documenting
                           that no existing materials can
                           adequately address needs before
                           development activities are begun.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan.  The
                           plan requires carefully documenting
                           that no existing materials can
                           adequately address needs before
                           development activities are begun.
  
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following applies:
                           The plans for developing and revising
                           materials are not adequately
                           described.  The plans for developing
                           and revising materials are
                           unacceptable.  The plan lacks a
                           provision for carefully documenting
                           that no existing materials can
                           adequately address needs before
                           development activities are begun.
  
Cataloging and Management

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         Planned procedures for cataloging and
                           managing materials are exemplary in
                           quality and cost effectiveness.
                           There is a high degree of support for
                           the proposed procedures.  Resources
                           and capabilities for accomplishing
                           these tasks are exemplary.  A variety
                           of accessibility formats are provided
                           for.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Planned procedures for cataloging and
                           managing materials are acceptable in
                           all respects.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan
                           
  1       Unacceptable     The description of cataloging and
                           management procedures is
                           unacceptable, and/or the planned
                           procedures are unacceptable.

Dissemination and Support Strategies

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         The planned procedures for
                           disseminating and supporting the use
                           of materials are exemplary in quality
                           and probable effectiveness.  A
                           variety of approaches are used as
                           appropriate for the materials and
                           users.  Plans are based on previous
                           experience, research, or other
                           sources of evidence.  Plans are cost
                           effective and do not impose cost or
                           management burdens on users.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The planned procedures for
                           disseminating and supporting the use
                           of materials are exemplary in quality
                           and probable effectiveness.  A
                           variety of approaches are used as
                           appropriate for the materials and
                           users.  Plans are based on previous
                           experience, research, or other
                           sources of support.  Plans are cost
                           effective.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable plan.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     Dissemination and support procedures
                           are not adequately described, and/or
                           procedures are unacceptable.

Deliverable 4C: Task 4 Report in QPR

Description of Previous Activities

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support activities for the preceding
                           quarter are fully described.  The
                           description is exemplary in
                           completeness, clarity, provision of
                           examples or samples as appropriate.
                           Description relates the activities of
                           the quarter to the overall plans for
                           Task 4 and the implications for the
                           general work of the Center.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support activities for the preceding
                           quarter are fully described.
                           Description is acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support activities for the preceding
                           quarter are fully described.
                           Description is generally acceptable
                           with minor flaws or gaps.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Description is unacceptable with
                           regard to clarity and/or
                           completeness.
  
Description of Plans

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are fully described.  The
                           description is exemplary in
                           completeness, and clarity.
                           Description relates the plans for the
                           quarter to the overall plans for Task
                           4 and the implications for the
                           general work of the Center.
  3       High Acceptable  Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are fully described.  The
                           description is entirely acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are fully described.
                           Description is generally acceptable
                           with minor flaws or gaps.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Description is unacceptable with
                           regard to clarity and/or
                           completeness.
  
Justification of Plans

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
                           
  4       Superior         Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are fully justified.  The
                           justification is exemplary in
                           completeness and clarity.
                           Justification is based on evidence
                           available from the Task 2 Needs
                           Assessment, customer feedback, the
                           Task 8 Annual Evaluation, or other
                           sources.  Planned activities are
                           appropriate and reasonable, and are
                           related to the overall plans for Task
                           4 and the general work of the Center.
                           
  3       High Acceptable  Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are fully justified.  The
                           description is acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are justified.  The
                           description is generally acceptable
                           with minor gaps or flaws.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following apply:
                           Collection, evaluation, revision,
                           development, dissemination and
                           support plans for the subsequent
                           quarter are not justified.  The
                           description is unacceptable in
                           clarity and/or completeness.
  
Task 5: Participate in meetings, conferences, and events

Deliverable 5A: Request for Approval to Participate

Description

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The description is entirely exemplary
                           in its presentation of the meeting,
                           conference, or event; the
                           Contractor's proposed participation;
                           and itemized costs.  Full details are
                           provided.  The description is clear
                           and precise.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The description is generally
                           acceptable.  There are no serious
                           flaws.  No clarification or further
                           justification is required.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The description is generally
                           acceptable with major gaps and
                           weaknesses.  Clarification is
                           required.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The description is unacceptably
                           imprecise, unclear, or incomplete.
  
Justification

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The request presents an exemplary
                           justification.  The justification is
                           based on objective evidence derived
                           from reliable sources.  The
                           justification relates the proposed
                           meeting, conference, or event with
                           the overall purposes of the Center.
                           The Contractor's proposed personnel
                           and activities are fully justified.
  3       High Acceptable  The justification is generally
                           acceptable.  There are no serious
                           flaws.  No clarification or further
                           justification is required.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are gaps or weaknesses that
                           require further clarification and/or
                           justification.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The justification is imprecise,
                           unclear, incomplete, or unconvincing.
  
Cost Effectiveness

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Proposed costs are low for the
                           probable benefits of participation.
                           The Contractor leverages resources
                           from outside sources to control
                           costs.  All expenditures are
                           justified in terms of the purpose of
                           participation.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Costs are acceptable and reasonable
                           with not notable flaws.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are some gaps and weaknesses in
                           an otherwise acceptable cost request.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Costs are unreasonable or
                           unrealistic, and/or the itemization
                           is incomplete or unclear.
  
Evaluation Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Evaluation plan is exemplary and
                           technically sound.  Instruments,
                           sampling plan, analysis plan, and
                           reporting plan are all clearly
                           described and exemplary.  Results
                           will be expressed on the requested 4-
                           point scale.  Multiple relevant
                           criteria will be evaluated.  An
                           adequate response rate will be
                           ensured.  The evaluation plan is
                           feasible and realistic.
  3       High Acceptable  Evaluation plan is technically sound.
                           Results will be expressed on the
                           requested 4-point scale.  There are
                           no major weaknesses in the plan.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are correctable gaps and
                           weaknesses in the evaluation plan.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The evaluation plan is incomplete,
                           unclear, and/or technically
                           unacceptable.

Deliverable 5B: Report of Participation

Description

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The meeting, conference, or event;
                           and the Contractor's participation
                           are described clearly and completely.
                           The activities and evaluation
                           procedures are consistent with the
                           approved plan, and any changes are
                           explained and justified.  Evaluation
                           findings are presented clearly and
                           completely.  Evaluation findings are
                           summarized and discussed in terms of
                           the Contractor's proposed purpose in
                           participating in the meeting,
                           conference, or event, and the overall
                           purposes of the Center.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The description is clear and complete
                           with no major gaps or weaknesses.
                           The activities and evaluation
                           procedures are consistent with the
                           approved plan, and any changes are
                           explained and justified.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are correctable gaps or
                           weaknesses in the report, but it is
                           generally acceptable.  The activities
                           and evaluation procedures are
                           consistent with the approved plan,
                           and any changes are explained and
                           justified.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The report is unacceptably
                           unclear or incomplete.  Evaluation
                           findings are not reported fully.  The
                           activities and evaluation procedures
                           are not consistent with the approved
                           plan, and changes are not explained
                           and justified.
                           
Evaluation Results

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Ratings average to 4 across
                           evaluators and criteria when rounded
                           to the nearest integer.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Ratings average to 3 across
                           evaluators and criteria.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Ratings average to 2 across
                           evaluators and criteria.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Ratings average to 1 across
                           evaluators and criteria.

Task 6: Conduct annual evaluations

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

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

Quality of Draft (only for Deliverable 6A)

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average to 3.3 or
                           higher (across reviewers and
                           criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           3 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           superior overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  3       High Acceptable  All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 2.3
                           and 3.2  (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  No criterion is rated below
                           2 (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).
                           And, all reviewers rate the draft as
                           demonstrating the potential for a
                           high acceptable overall rating given
                           moderate levels of revision.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All of the following apply:  The
                           ratings on the remaining criteria for
                           the draft report average between 1.7
                           and 2.2 (inclusive, across reviewers
                           and criteria, rounding to the nearest
                           tenth).  And, no criterion is rated
                           below 2 (averaged across reviewers
                           and rounded to the nearest integer).
  
  1       Unacceptable     One or more of the following apply:
                           The ratings on the remaining criteria
                           for the draft report average below
                           1.7 (across reviewers and criteria,
                           rounding to the nearest tenth).  One
                           or more criteria are rated below 2
                           (averaged across reviewers and
                           rounded to the nearest integer).  One
                           or more reviewers give the draft an
                           overall rating of unacceptable.
  
  Description
  
  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:
  
  4       Superior         The evaluation plan is fully
                           described in all respects.
                           Description is exemplary in clarity
                           and detail.  Samples of products and
                           instruments are provided.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The evaluation plan is fully
                           described in all respects.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The evaluation plan is described in a
                           generally acceptable manner, with
                           flaws and weaknesses.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     Description is unacceptable with
                           regard to clarity and/or
                           completeness.

Conceptual Quality of Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Evaluation plan addresses all
                           required evaluation questions, as
                           presented in Section 200.6, in a
                           logically cohesive fashion.  The
                           evaluation plan provides a link
                           between evaluation findings with the
                           purposes of the Center, and
                           demonstrates insight into the needs
                           being addressed.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The plan addresses all required
                           evaluation questions logically.
                           There are no major flaws in the
                           conceptual quality.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The plan addresses all required
                           evaluation questions.  There are
                           correctable flaws.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The evaluation plan is conceptually
                           flawed and/or conceptual basis is not
                           presented.
  
Methodology

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Methodologies are described clearly
                           and completely.  Strong rationale and
                           evidence are provided for the
                           appropriateness of the methodologies.
  3       High Acceptable  Methodologies are described clearly
                           and completely, and are appropriate
                           and technically sound.
                           
  2       Low Acceptable   There are correctable flaws in an
                           otherwise acceptable description of
                           methodologies.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The description of
                           methodologies is unclear and/or
                           incomplete.  No rationale is
                           presented concerning methodologies.
                           Methodologies are inappropriate
                           and/or technically inadequate.
                           
Instrumentation

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Descriptions, samples and technical
                           justification are provided for all
                           proposed instruments.  The proposed
                           instruments address the full scope of
                           the evaluation.  Technical quality
                           and effectiveness of instruments are
                           supported.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All proposed instruments are
                           completely described, but not fully
                           justified.  The proposed instruments
                           address the full scope of the study,
                           and seem likely to be effective.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All proposed instruments are
                           described and address most of the
                           scope of the study.  Technical
                           soundness and effectiveness seem
                           satisfactory, but are not really
                           established.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Instruments are poorly
                           described and/or technically weak.
                           Instruments do not address the full
                           scope of the study.
  
Sample

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The sample is representative of the
                           activities and purposes of the
                           Center.  An adequate sample is
                           ensured.  The sample will produce an
                           unbiased and comprehensive view of
                           the Center.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The sample is acceptable with minor
                           weaknesses.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The sample is generally acceptable,
                           with moderate weaknesses which must
                           be corrected.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     The sample is poorly described and/or
                           unacceptable.
  
Analysis Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Proposed analysis methods are
                           completely and clearly described.
                           Their appropriateness and rigor are
                           established based on strong evidence.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Proposed analysis methods are
                           completely and clearly described.
                           Their appropriateness and rigor are
                           not completely established, but seem
                           likely.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Proposed analysis methods are
                           described and justified with moderate
                           weaknesses.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Proposed analysis methods are not
                           described and/or justified at an
                           acceptable level.
  
Reporting Plan

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Plans for reporting the evaluation
                           findings are fully described and
                           exemplary.  Reporting will apply
                           objective findings to completely and
                           clearly answer the evaluation
                           questions.  Reporting will explicate
                           the implications of the evaluation
                           results for the effectiveness of the
                           Center, and adjustments to the
                           Center's products and activities.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Plans for reporting the evaluation
                           findings are fully described.
                           Reporting will address the evaluation
                           questions, and describe adjustments.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Reporting plans are adequately
                           described.  Report will address the
                           questions and describe adjustments to
                           a minimally acceptable level.
  1       Unacceptable     Proposed reporting methods are not
                           described and/or justified at an
                           acceptable level.

Deliverable 6C: Evaluation report

Overall Quality of Report

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The evaluation report is exemplary in
                           overall quality.  All topics are
                           presented clearly and cohesively.
                           The presentation style is
                           professional.  All aspects of the
                           evaluation are presented in an
                           understandable format.  Accessibility
                           needs are addressed.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The evaluation report is acceptable
                           in overall quality.  Accessibility
                           needs are addressed.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are moderate flaws in quality,
                           such as missing information,
                           inaccurate references, or stylistic
                           flaws.  Accessibility needs are
                           addressed.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     The overall quality is unacceptable.

Completeness

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Evaluation report addresses all
                           required evaluation questions, as
                           presented in Section 200.6, in a
                           logically cohesive fashion.  All
                           aspects of evaluation are reported.
                           The evaluation links evaluation
                           findings with the purposes of the
                           Center, and demonstrates insight into
                           the needs being addressed.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The report addresses all required
                           evaluation questions logically.
                           There are no major flaws in the
                           report.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The report addresses all required
                           evaluation questions.  There are
                           correctable flaws.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The evaluation report is conceptually
                           flawed and/or conceptual basis is not
                           presented.
  
Methodology

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Methodologies are described clearly
                           and completely.  Methodologies are
                           exemplary in quality and
                           appropriateness.  Methodologies
                           contribute to results of exceptional
                           rigor and usefulness.
                           
  3       High Acceptable  Methodologies are described clearly
                           and completely, and are appropriate
                           and technically sound.
                           
  2       Low Acceptable   There are flaws in otherwise
                           acceptable methodologies that
                           diminish the quality of the report to
                           a minor degree.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  The description of
                           methodologies is unclear and/or
                           incomplete.  Methodologies are
                           inappropriate and/or technically
                           inadequate.
  
Instrumentation

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Descriptions, samples and technical
                           characteristics are provided for all
                           instruments.  The instruments address
                           the full scope of the evaluation.
                           Technical quality and effectiveness
                           of instruments are demonstrated.
  
  3       High Acceptable  All instruments are completely
                           described, but not fully justified.
                           The instruments address the full
                           scope of the study, and seem
                           effective.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   All instruments are described and
                           address most of the scope of the
                           study.  Instrument flaws diminish the
                           quality of the study and report to a
                           minor degree.
  
  1       Unacceptable     At least one of the following
                           applies:  Instruments are poorly
                           described and/or technically weak.
                           Instruments do not address the full
                           scope of the study.  Instruments
                           flaws significantly weaken the
                           evaluation and report.
  
Sample

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The sample is representative of the
                           activities and purposes of the
                           Center.  An adequate sample is
                           obtained and documented.  The sample
                           demonstrably produces an unbiased and
                           comprehensive view of the Center.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The sample is acceptable with minor
                           weaknesses.  Description is
                           acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The sample is generally acceptable,
                           with moderate weaknesses which
                           somewhat weaken the evaluation.
                           Description is marginal.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The sample is poorly described and/or
                           unacceptable.
  
Analysis

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         Analysis methods are completely and
                           clearly described.  Their
                           appropriateness and rigor are
                           demonstrated.  Analysis provides a
                           strong basis for answering evaluation
                           questions and suggesting adjustments.
  
  3       High Acceptable  Analysis methods are completely and
                           clearly described.  Their
                           appropriateness and rigor are
                           acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Proposed analysis methods are
                           adequately described, and have
                           moderate weaknesses.
  
  1       Unacceptable     Analysis methods are not described
                           and/or justified at an acceptable
                           level.  Analysis is inappropriate or
                           technically flawed.
  
Implications

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report fully describes and
                           documents the implications of the
                           evaluation results for the
                           effectiveness of the Center, and
                           adjustments to the Center's products
                           and activities.  Exemplary insight is
                           demonstrated in the use of evaluation
                           findings to uncover needed
                           adjustments.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The report presents an acceptable
                           discussion of implications of the
                           evaluation results.  A moderate level
                           of insight is displayed.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   Implications are presented at a
                           minimally acceptable level.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The report does not present or
                           justification implications to an
                           acceptable degree.

Task 7: Reporting Requirements

Deliverable 7A: Quarterly Progress Report

Quality of Report

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report is delivered on time and
                           is exemplary in overall quality.  All
                           topics are presented clearly and
                           cohesively.  The presentation style
                           is professional.  All aspects of the
                           Contractor's activities are
                           presented, including the required
                           information on deliverables 3C, 4C,
                           5A, and 5B, and all other activities
                           and products.  Insightful analysis is
                           provided.  Information is presented
                           in an understandable format.
  3       High Acceptable  The report is delivered on time and
                           all required information is
                           presented, including information on
                           deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, and
                           all other activities and products.
                           Information is presented in an
                           understandable format.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The report is delivered on time and
                           all required information is
                           presented, including information on
                           deliverables 3C, 4C, 5A, and 5B, and
                           all other activities and products.
                           There are moderate flaws in quality
                           of presentation.
                           
                           
  1       Unacceptable     The report is not delivered on time,
                           and/or is incomplete or unclear.

Center Activities

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report presents compelling
                           evidence that: (1) the Contractor is
                           achieving all purposes for this
                           Center at an exemplary level; (2) any
                           problems are being effectively
                           recognized and addressed; (3) the
                           Contractor is using and managing
                           resources, including the Advisory
                           Committee, effectively and
                           efficiently; (4) all tasks called for
                           under Section 200 Technical Work
                           Requirements are being managed and
                           completed in an exemplary fashion.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The report presents evidence that:
                           (1) the Contractor is achieving all
                           purposes for this Center in an
                           acceptable manner; (2) any problems
                           are being recognized and addressed;
                           (3) the Contractor is using and
                           managing resources, including the
                           Advisory Committee, effectively and
                           efficiently; (4) all tasks called for
                           under Section 200 Technical Work
                           Requirements are being managed and
                           completed.
  2       Low Acceptable   There are flaws or gaps in an
                           otherwise highly acceptable report in
                           terms of the presentation of evidence
                           or the level of functioning indicated
                           by the evidence.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The report does not present adequate
                           evidence, and/or the level of
                           functioning revealed in the report is
                           unacceptable.
  
Deliverable 7B: Quarterly Expenditure Report

Quality of Report

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report is delivered on time and
                           is exemplary in overall quality.
                           Cost information is clearly itemized
                           by task.  Manpower reports and
                           projections are detailed and
                           documented.
  
  3       High Acceptable  The report is delivered on time and
                           presents all required information in
                           an acceptable manner.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   The report is delivered on time and
                           presents all required information,
                           with minor flaws with regard to level
                           of detail or clarity of presentation.
                           
  1       Unacceptable     The report is not delivered on time,
                           and/or is incomplete or unclear.

Expenditures

  Score and Rating:        Descriptors:

  4       Superior         The report presents compelling
                           evidence that: (1) the Contractor is
                           achieving the Center's purposes in a
                           highly cost effective manner; (2)
                           cost tracking and management
                           procedures are exemplary; (3) the
                           Contractor is leveraging resources
                           from other sources in a consistent
                           and exemplary manner; (4) careful and
                           accurate cost and manpower
                           projections are produced.
  3       High Acceptable  The report presents evidence that the
                           Contractor is achieving the Center's
                           purposes in a cost effective manner,
                           and that cost tracking and management
                           procedures are acceptable.
  
  2       Low Acceptable   There are flaws or gaps in an
                           otherwise highly acceptable report in
                           terms of the presentation of
                           evidence, the expenditures reported,
                           and/or cost management and projection
                           procedures.
  
  1       Unacceptable     The report does not present adequate
                           evidence, and/or expenditures are
                           unacceptable, and/or cost management
                           and projection procedures are
                           unacceptable.

================================================================

Exhibit B: Deliverable Evaluation Quality Assurance Form

Task:               Deliverable:

Overall Rating:   ___  Superior
                  ___  Acceptable
                  ___  Unacceptable

Deliverable Received On Time:      Yes       No

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

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

_______   4  3  2  1   ______________________________________

Comments:

================================================================

Exhibit C: Quarterly Evaluation Quality Assurance Form

Quarterly Progress Report

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

     Adjustment to Fee:

     Comments:

Quarterly Expenditure Report

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

     Adjustment to Fee:

     Comments:

Other Deliverables During the Quarter:

     Deliverable    Rating        Adjustment to Fee

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________

     ___________    4  3  2  1    __________