AMENDMENT 1
RFP: ED-00-R-0020
IPEDS

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date
specified  in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following
methods:

1) By returning one copy of the amendment with the offers' name, address,
and signature; 
2) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer 
submitted; 
3) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the 
solicitation and amendment number.

FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR
THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN
REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.  If by virtue of this amendment  you desire to
change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or
letter, provided  each telegram or letter makes reference to the
solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to  the opening hour
and date specified.


This amendment does not change the proposal due date.  

1.  Clause 52.249-9, Default (Fixed-Price Research and Development), in
Section I has  been deleted from this RFP.

2.  The following is a list of questions received with their answers:


Q1.  B.1. 301-8 (c) states that the award fee pool available is $52,000.  Is
this your  budgeted amount for completion of the project?

A1.  $52,000 is the available incentive amount for each period of the
contract.  The  total available incentive amount for the life of the
contract is $208,000.

Q.2.  B.2  301-8 states that "the amount of award fee...earns, if any, is
based on a  subjective evaluation by the....in accordance with the award fee
plan.  Does this mean  that if awarded the contract, the Government may not
have to pay us based on a subjective  evaluation of the work performed?

A2.   The Government will award the incentive funds based on the Quality
Assurance  Surveillance Plan (Attachment B).  Some of the criteria are
subjective and some are objective.	

Q3.   C.1  302-2 states "the contractor shall furnish......facilities
necessary to perform  the requirements set forth....SOW, Attachment A.  Does
this mean no work shall be performed  at your site?  Does this mean we
provide all of our own equipment?

A3.  Work will be performed at the contractor's site and with their own
equipment.

Q4.  Paragraph H.8. 307-2 Key Personnel Designation of the reference
solicitation lists the  key personnel essential to the resultant contract. 
However, no labor category descriptions  were provided in the reference
solicitation.  Will labor category descriptions be provided  to offerors? 
Will additional labor categories and labor category descriptions be provided
 as well?

A4.  No labor categories are specified in the RFP other than the two noted
in the key  personnel area.  It is up to the offeror to determine the needs
of the statement of work  and how they anticipate staffing the project.  The
proposal and the staffing will help  determine the understanding of the
project and qualifications of the offeror.  Please see the  Technical
Evaluation Criteria (Clause M.1) for the weight/point value that will be
given to  this aspect of an offeror's proposal.

Q5.  Reference the solicitation Attachment A, Section A.2.  There is mention
of "...web-based  survey procedures."  We have reviewed two subsequently
referenced web sites and found  insufficient discussion of the production
utility the Government proposes to administer  the survey with.  We request
NCES to disclose, in detail, the architecture, design, and  functionality of
the utility that will be used to effect data collection.  This information 
is needed to assess the utility's suitability for the production of data
collection task.   We wish to assess the extent to which the production
utility will be compatible with the  target population's technical
infrastructure and skill levels.  This information is critical  to
establishing the extensiveness of help and coordination support that will be
needed  throughout the survey. If design changes to the utility are required
for the survey to  progress in accordance with a proposed plan, who is
responsible for the technical  modifications and test?  

A5.  The system used to conduct the pilot test is available at 
http://train.nces.ed.gov  use 998500010, 998500020...998500120 as the Id
code and  "training" as the password.  This will  provide the offeror with
an idea of how the system works and how edits are performed.  The 
system/software contractor is responsible for any modification to the
programs determined  as a result of calls to the Help Desk.  The system is
being built with "built-in" Help screens  and on line tutorials.  In
addition, NCES is funding regional training for respondents that  should
help alleviate some of the problems.

Q6.  In Subtask 4.1, under III.14 Derived Variable Specifications,
computations will use  collected data and "other IPEDS data". Please specify
the type and format of "other IPEDS  data" that must be used for
computations?  

A6.  Assume the Fall Collection - By collected data, we mean those data
elements collected  during the Fall collection (ie., Institutional
Characteristics, Completions, and Price  Information).  So when determining
derived variables, the contractor should anticipate  creating variables
using the data in this collection as well as those elements collected  in
the Spring (ie., Enrollment, Finance, and Graduation Rate data).

Q7.  What level of detail and/or level of depth of historical institutional
data will  be available for use by the contractor?  Will raw data from
previous surveys be available  for our use?  

A7. The contractor will have access to all data that are available on the
SQL server as  well as any historic IPEDS data.  This information will be
added to Clause H.2,  Government-Furnished Data and it will be added to the
Statement of Work.

Q8.  Type of data--In general terms, what is the types of data will be
collected for  this research?

A8.  The data that are being collected from nearly 8,000 postsecondary
institutions  includes general information about the institution including
name, address, levels  of awards; numbers of student enrolled and those that
complete by race/ethnicity and  gender; financial statistics including
revenues and expenditures; information on  graduation rates; tuition and
fees, room and board charges; and information on student  financial aid. 
The full matrix of the data cells to be collected for 2000-2001 can  be
found at:  http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/whatsnew.html

Q9.  Budget -- I saw an anticipated project cost of $52,000, but was not
sure whether  this was what was envisioned as the award to the chosen vendor.

A9.  $52,000 is the incentive fee pool for each 17 month period (also refer
to A1).

Q10. The RFP indicates that a Web IPEDS instrument was pilot tested. Was
that instrument  the one developed by Unysis?  If yes, are the results of
the pilot test available to  bidders?  If the full Unysis instrument was not
the one that was pilot tested, will  there be a separate pilot test of the
full Unysis instrument or instruments? 

A10. The pilot test was conducted in August 1999 using the instrument
developed by  Unisys to collect Institutional Price and Student Financial
Aid information.  The  survey response rate was about 92% for Title IV
eligible institutions.  Approximately  30 institutions submitted "paper"
surveys that required manual input to the system.   There will be no
additional pilot testing prior to full implementation.       Q11.  The RFP
indicates that only two data collections will be conducted in the  first
year of the project.  What is the length (number of cells) of each of the
instruments?

A11.  The proposed data elements are posted to the NCES/IPEDS website.  They
can be  seen at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/whatsnew.html

Q12.  Does the Unysis instrument include automatic edits?  To what extent
will the  contractor be responsible for editing the data?    A12.  The
Unisys system does include both hard and soft edits.  Institutions are 
responsible for resolving all edits prior to locking their data.  The
contractor is  responsible for reviewing responses to soft edits and
determining if the responses are  "reasonable" prior to migrating the data
to the SQL server.      Q13.  We are still concerned that the lines of
authority and responsibility between the  Help Desk contractor and the two
subcontractors are not clearly defined. For instance,  the contractor is to
be held accountable for timely responses to incoming questions  from
postsecondary institutions, but responses that require involvement of either
of  the subcontractors may be delayed due to conditions beyond that
contractor's control.   Would the government please explain how contractor
accountability will be upheld in  such situations? 

A13.  The contractor is responsible for notifying the COTR and the systems
or  hardware support contractor if there are problems.  It is this
notification that  they are held responsible for...not the correction of the
problem.  The support  contractors have similar requirements to correct the
problems and email the HELP  desk that the problems have been resolved.     
 Q14.  The RFP does not mention an OMB clearance package. Can we assume that
the  contractor has no responsibility for OMB clearance? 

A14. The contractor has NO responsibility for preparing OMB clearance
packages.

Q15.  (Ref. Page 8 of Attachment A). Previous rounds of IPEDS have resulted
in separate  files and ED-Tab reports for the components of IPEDS, for
example, Institutional  Characteristics, Completions, Fall Enrollment, Fall
Staff, etc.  Are we correct in  assuming that under the scope of this
procurement the contractor will prepare  separate files and documentation
for each of the components and a corresponding  ED-Tab report? For example,
for the Fall base year the following files, electronic  codebooks, and
ED-Tabs would be prepared: Institutional Characteristics, Institutional 
Price, and Completions. For the Spring of the base year the following files,
 electronic codebooks, and ED-tabs would be prepared: Fall enrollment,
student  financial aid, finance, and graduation rates. Alternatively, is
there a plan to  combine all or some of the Fall components into one file,
codebook and ED-Tab?

A15.  For the Fall collection, NCES expects ONE ED-Tab and one electronic
codebook  that includes information from all three components of the fall
collection.  Similarly,  ONE ED-Tab and one codebook will cover the Spring
collection.  The files are quite  different because of their structures. 
These will need to be separate, with separate  documentation describing the
structures.  We will clarify this in the Statement of Work at the time of
award.

Q16.  (Ref page 60 of Section L) We understand that separate budgets need to
be  developed for Fall and Spring collections for 4 periods (base, option 1,
option 2,  option 3) and for optional Winter collections for the 3 option
periods. This is a  total of 7 cost proposals, 4 of which will have separate
Fall and Spring sub-totals.  Are we correct in assuming that you require a
technical proposal that contains three  "separate and complete sections"
covering: (1) the base period Fall and Spring, (2) the  three option
periods, and (3) the optional Winter collections?  Or does ED need 
"separate and complete" technical sections for each of the 7 collections? 

A16. We do not need technical sections for each of the 7 collections. 
Offerors should  submit technical proposals with three different components.
The main section should  address the base period.  It should explain the
offerors technical approach.  In a  separate tab/section the offeror should
address the combined options (1,2, & 3).  The purpose of this section is to
deal with additional issues that may be involved  in transitioning into the
options, or any other issues - it will most likely refer  the reader to the
methodology in the main section.  The third section should address  any
changes that occur in the technical approach for the optional winter
collections.  

Q17. We understand that ED is very concerned with quality of the data
reported and  that a number of range and logic edits are being developed for
inclusion in the  web-program. Is it possible for ED to make available a
listing of the on-line hard  and soft edits that will be in the web-program?
This would give prospective contractors  an understanding of the amount of
additional editing that will be needed or desired  once the data are
collected. To what extent will the on-line edits make comparisons  to
previously reported data or ranges for sectors?

A17.  The hard and soft edits are currently being developed and they are
very similar  to those done in previous years.  Since all edits must be
resolved by the respondents  prior to locking the data, the contractor's
responsibility will be to review the  responses to the soft edits prior to
migrating the data.  About 1/4 of all edits  are comparisons with prior
submissions.  In addition, the entire file should be  reviewed (before and
after imputations) to ensure quality data prior to preparation  of ED Tabs.

Q18.  Does ED expect that the amount of item non-response will be
substantially  different with the new web approach than with the paper mode?
For imputation planning,  is there a level of item non-response that should
be anticipated? 	

A18.  Because the data collection is much smaller than in previous years, we
 anticipate a lesser amount of item non-response than with the paper forms.

Q19. Is there a data collection/methodology report presenting results of the
financial  aid pilot study conducted this summer? Could that report be made
available to potential   contractors, even in draft form?  

A19.  There is no formal methodological report from the summer collection. 
We can  say however, that we had about a 92% response rate from the Title IV
eligible schools  that were expected to participate in the IPSFA survey.

Q20.  Is there a technical report available on the results of the graduation
rate  component? What level of imputation is expected for this component?

A20.  There is no technical report available on the results of the GRS. 
Until the  1996 cohort reaches maturity for all institutions, NCES does not
plan to impute GRS data.

Q21.  Reference the technical proposal format (RFP pages 60-61).  Because
the same  methodology could apply for each data collection and period, the
only substantive  difference between data collections in and between base
and option years would be  cost, staffing and schedule.  Can we propose an
overall methodology to be used for  the base and option years and limit the
tabs to the information that changes?

A21.  Yes. Offerors should submit technical proposals with three different
components.  The main section should address the base period.  It should
explain the offerors  technical approach.  In a separate tab/section the
offeror should address the combined  options (1, 2, & 3). The purpose of
this section is to deal with additional issues that  may be involved in
transitioning into the options, or any other issues - it will  most likely
refer the reader to the methodology in the main section.  The third section 
should address any changes that occur in the technical approach for the
optional winter  collections.

Q22.  Does the Government provide the web-based data collection system or
does the  winning offeror have to build it?  

A22.  The web system will be built by another contractor and will be
provided to the  winning bidder.  Please see Clause H.2,
Government-Furnished Data.

Q23.  Will the winning offeror be required to maintain, enhance or upgrade
the web-based  data collection system?

A23.  No, the winning bidder will not be required to update the system.

Q24.  Does the government provide the collection and peer analysis servers
or does the  winning offeror establish them?

A24.  The servers used for data collection are housed at the government
site.  Contractors will  be given access to this through the data collection
system.

Q25.  Will the winning offeror be required to maintain, enhance or upgrade
the collection  and peer analysis servers?

A25. No

Q26.  What is the role of the two independent, government-provided
contractors relative  to problem reports?  Who do they respond to?

A26.  When problems that involve the data collection system or the hardware
(server) are  encountered, the HELP Desk is required to email the COTR and
the relevant contractor to  inform them of the problem.  When these problems
are resolved, the HELP Desk and the COTR  are informed of the resolution.

Q27.  Has the Government defined the data to be collected or does the
winning offeror have  to define the data?

A27.  The data that will be collected has been defined.   See
http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/whatsnew.html

Q28.  Has the Government prepared the data collection forms, questions,
surveys, etc.  or does the winning offeror develop these products?	

A28.  The surveys are built into the web-based data collection system.

Q29.  Who builds the electronic codebooks and how do they work?

A29.  The winning contractor will build the electronic code books which will
be very  similar to those that currently exist.  These list survey
variables, their values, descriptions,  minimum and maximum values,
frequencies, etc. so that users have information about the file  to aid in
their use of the data.  This information also is added to the CD rom release
of data.

Q30.  Who provides the institution's identification number and password that
is needed for  registration?

A30. The system generates passwords; id codes are built by adding "FA" for
fall collection  to the institution's UNITID code and then adding 1 as a
suffix.  Thus the id will look  like this:  FA2123451

Q31. How many institutions will need assistance due to lack of adequate web
resources?

A31.  The number of institutions needing assistance is unknown at this time.
 However,  approximately 30 schools that responded to the pilot study in
August 1999 required assistance.

Q32.  How many Title IV institutions exist?

A32.  There are approximately 8000 Title IV eligible institutions at this
time.