1. Contract summaries are available here.  Looks like even more professional development, and the school environment survey 
    Posted by
    14

    View comments

  2. Here's a link to the NYC DOE's list of contracts with descriptions.  

    Eliza Shapiro of Politico wrote a preview of the controversial $30 million+ Amazon contract link here. 

     The Daily News covered contracts for special education service providers with prior incidents of fraud or violations here.

     The biggest concern revealed in the documents may be found in the Addenda (page 132).  A provider of pre-K services, Church Avenue Day Care, did not file NYC corporate taxes for 2010-2014.  While this transgression would normally disqualify a vendor (categorize them as "non-responsible"), the DOE didn't detect the issue because pre-K providers were put in place for 2014-2015 academic year before background checks were completed.  The DOE didn't pay the firm, instead the Fund for Public Schools, the DOE's private fundraising arm did.  The documents now make clear the firm hasn't corrected the issue: "Unfortunately, the vendor did not resolve it's tax issues".  But inexplicably, the DOE wants to reimburse the Fund for Public Schools anyway.

     Obviously, Panel members should against this reimbursement.  Moreover, the DOE's practices of using a private fundraising entity to fund programs with disqualified vendors should be probed further.

     "
    Posted by
    5

    View comments

  3. The DOE posted this document with information on contracts up for approval at the next Panel for Educational Policy meeting.  We'll try to parse it out into individual items in the next few days but in the meantime, please post comments below.
    Posted by
    Labels: 201603
    4

    View comments

  4. State education law requires procurement contracts for the NYC public schools to be approved by the NYC Board of Education (called the "Panel for Educational Policy" by the City).  The Department of Education provides information on these contracts to the public for review prior to the meetings.  The information is available on the NYC DOE web site in a single pdf file.  In the past, close review of this information has found a number of issues of waste, fraud and abuse, most notably the approval of a massive contract to a firm implicated in fraud against the public schools.  

     To boost transparency and facilitate public review of these contracts, the items to be considered by the PEP are listed on this site individually.  People can review the contract information and comment below.  The intention is to provide a forum anyone to share observations and concerns about the procurement for the public schools.

     Note there are several options for viewing this site: the "flipcard" option makes it easiest to see the full list of items summarized by product or service being procured and vendor. 
    Posted by
    1

    View comments


  5. Confusing format 

    We would like to thank the DOE for making more information available on contracts in advance of the vote. However, the format is confusing and the information is confusingly offered, in four different documents. Instead, it would be good to have the summaries and descriptions for each month’s proposed contracts in one single document, with a table of contents listing page numbers, to make it easier to refer to and locate specific contracts. 

    Too many retroactively awarded 

    We are concerned about the fact that DOE is asking for the panel’s approval of several contracts months after the services have already been paid for and presumably delivered. Professional development contracts for Renewal Schools are all single source and retroactive, suggesting they were done quickly and without much advance planning. It is unclear why the contracts for work beginning in August or September were not brought for approval until the end of February. The DOE is obligated to have these contracts proposed, publicized and voted upon before awarding them rather than wait six months after the services have started. 

    DOE is spending millions on consultants of uncertain quality when more Professional Development should be provided internally 

    There are numerous experienced professionals within the DOE whose work should include leading and facilitating Professional Development workshops. There are many in the "trenches” with first-hand knowledge of what good teaching practices involve. Given the size of the NYC public school system, and the various district and borough offices, it would be better and allow for substantial cost-savings to provide professional development in-house, than to continuously contract out for many millions of dollars for services from consultants, especially when the quality of these services is often questioned by our teachers. 

    Are these PD vendors going to be evaluated as to their quality and effectiveness by DOE? What can DOE provide to show how these services, when provided previously, have been received by educators and what value have they added? The Renewal schools would be more likely to succeed by spending funds to hire more teaching staff, particularly when over 60% of these schools still have class sizes of thirty or more, instead of piling on consulting contracts for professional development. 

    Finally, many of the Professional Development contracts are to train teachers in the Common Core State Standards, even as the Commissioner of Education has already stated that there will be substantial changes to these standards in the year ahead. 

    Pearson should not be hired 

    There are three contracts listed with Pearson, including in new areas, despite the fact that NY State discontinued their services due to poor quality. Moreover, only two of the many recent scandals and problems with Pearson’s performance are noted in the DOE’s summary. A more complete list of Pearson’s problems in recent years should include the Pineapple passage on the 2012 NY state exam which was so confusing and ridiculous that it had to be taken off the test, and has become a national symbol of the incompetence of standardized test makers, errors in the 2012 NY 4 

    Pearson math exams, the insertion of commercial logos and products in their exams, their refusal to sign the student privacy pledge, and many others. 

    Too many contracts are listed without vendors and amounts specified in advance, and too little information provided 

    Today, Feb. 23, at the last minute, contracts #16-18 for preK vendors were withdrawn, that previously had no vendor names or amounts associated with them. At the same time, at the last minute, information is now provided that contract #15 will be awarded to Yeshiva of Kings Bay to provide half day preK. We have real reservations about providing city funds to religious providers of preK services. Moreover, though the general scoring method used to select preK providers is described in the document, nowhere is the score reported that that this particular vendor received.  A quick search finds that this provider was sued in 2009 under the Fair Labor Act, though we cannot determine what the resolution of the case or judgement may have been.  Another listing says that “a second lawsuit” against Yeshiva of Kings Bay in Brooklyn was filed in the same year, “for failing to pay a teacher any wages for eleven months.” Neither lawsuit is mentioned in the DOE documents. At the very least, all pertinent information, including vendor names, amounts to be paid, the scores the they received from DOE in the various categories, and any legal judgements against them should be reported at least a month in advance of the vote, so that there can be sufficient public comment and discovery of their merits in advance. 

    Comments on Specific Items: 

    Item 2, Literary Professional Development Services 

    Pearson is being introduced here as a new vendor despite the fact that many districts and NYS have moved to do less business with them. The case for them here appears to be their ties to the Common Core: "Pearson offers literacy programs that have been developed in collaboration with authors of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and offers participants an opportunity to learn about the instructional shifts that are outlined in CCSS". This rationale makes no sense for two reasons: 1) NY State stopped using Pearson as a vendor for state tests, including CCSS tests, due to the poor quality of its work. 2) NY State has announced it will develop new standards to be released in 2017. Pearson will have no relevant expertise with these standards. 

    Item 3, Professional Development for Instructional Technology Services 

    This item proposes to spend $9 million for a vaguely described set of services to integrate technology with instruction. There is little evidence that out-sourcing instruction to software helps kids learn; the DOE should provide Panel members and the public with a more comprehensive explanation of what is being purchased along with a review of the efficacy of current spending on these services. Vendors need to provide evidence of their competency. For example, what is the record of success of Teaching Matters which is due to get $7.7M for this purpose? 5 

    Items 8 - 12, Professional Development for Renewal Schools:

    8: EngageNY ELA professional development to all Renewal High Schools and Receivership Schools. 
    9: Math Solutions services will be administered to the Renewal Schools. 
    10: On-site staff development at 18 Renewal Schools implementing the Readers and Writers Project. 
    11: Professional development to staff at the Renewal Schools - Principal Conferences. 
    12: Professional Development to staff at the Renewal Schools - Teacher Courses 

    All five of the items for the Renewal Schools are retroactive and negotiated with a single vendor rather than bid competitively. This poor procurement practice suggests limited or no advance planning for the Renewal Schools improvement programs.   DOE needs to explain why services began in August or September, when the contract won't be approved until the end of February. DOE is ignoring their own procurement policy, and for a signature initiative. 

    The largest contract, over $1 million with Scholastic for its "Math Solutions" program is also the vaguest. It's unclear what's actually being delivered for the money. It's mostly "administrative support" with the actual amount of development for teachers limited: "Teams of two to three teachers per school will attend these PD sessions as well as receive job-embedded coaching." Doesn't the DOE have a dedicated administration team for the Renewal Schools? Are the resources contacted here redundant? The statement of work and full contract details should be released to the public. 
    Posted by
    0

    Add a comment

  6. Available information from DOE as of 2/10 is posted individually as blog entries below.  Feel free to leave comments here if they pertain to multiple items or contracts.  There are a large number of professional development contracts, both for the Renewal Schools and for the system at large.  There are also blank items, presumably placeholders, for information to follow on the Universal Pre-k program contracts.
    Posted by
    Labels: 201602
    2

    View comments

  7. Item: 1

    Description:
    Arts education services (RA#17)


    Item: 1
    REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION (RA#17) FOR ARTS EDUCATION SERVICES (MTAC R0891)

    Estimated Annual ITotal Contract Amount

    Funding Source

    Contract Term

    Options

    Procurement Method

    Is Contract Retroactive?

    Contract Type

    $140,000 I
    $700,000

    Various

    Five Years

    None
    Multiple Task Award Contract (MTAC)

    No

    Requirements

    Vendor Name & Address
    Components*

    Neighborhood Music &Arts 107-14 Queens Boulevard #19 Forest Hills, NY 11375
    1-Dance 2-Music
    3-Theater
    6-Parent Engagement

    Service Requestor I Contract Manager
    Division of Contracts & Purchasing Contact
    Paul King Executive Director
    Office of Arts & Special Projects
    Aldrina Hazell Procurement Analyst
    Instructional Service Procurement

    PURPOSE
    Authorization is requested on behalf of the Office of Arts and Special Projects (OASP) to contract with Neighborhood Music & Arts (NMA) to provide Arts Education Services. The awarded vendor will offer direct services to students with optional related professional development and parent engagement services in dance, music, and theater. These services will be provided at the discretion of each participating school or central office operating on behalf of a school or consortium of schools.

    DISCUSSION
    NMA will deliver services that support and advance teaching and learning by building on the Blueprint for Teaching & Learning in the Arts and the New York State Learning Standards (NYSLS) for the Arts . TheBlueprint forms the basis for instructional programs in dance, music, theater, visual arts, and the moving image and is built upon five strands of Arts Learning: Arts Making; Literacy in the Arts; Making Connections; Community and Cultural Resources; and Careers and Life-long Learning. Services provided by awarded vendors will incorporate the guidelines established in the Blueprint while enhancing studies in other areas.

    Proposals were distributed to an evaluation committee that included Arts Coordinators and Directors from OASP, all of whom are knowledgeable about the Blueprint and the NYSLS for the Arts. They haveparticipated in developing the Blueprint, are currently implementing arts programming, and possess years of experience within the New York City public schools or DOE central offices. To ensure scoringconsistency, a training session was conducted for all committee members, in which they received an overview of the process and a scoring rubric. Proposals were evaluated using the following criteria: program plan (25 points), organizational capacity (25 points), demonstrated effectiveness (25 points), and price (25 points). Successful vendors were required to achieve a minimum score of 80 points.

    Contract award has previously been made to 108 proposers and one is recommended in this RA.
    NMA offers custom-designed programs that include choral and instrumental music, dance or creative movement, and theater. Students will recognize simple music symbols; play and perform for class or school audiences; learn musical vocabulary and pitch; learn and practice choreography, ballroom, modern, jazz, and hip-hop dance and dance vocabulary; and learn and practice theater vocabulary, diction, acting techniques, vocal projection, and character development. NMA staff will collaborate with school representatives in designing a program that best meet the needs of the school.

    The negotiated hourly rate of $157 has been determined fair and reasonable based on comparison with hourly rates for similar services provided by vendors contracted under this solicitation.

    The estimated annual contract amount is based on expenditures under a previous contract for similar services.

    A background check on NMA, including VENDEX, VCIP, System for Award Management, and the Uniform Commercial Code, found no significant adverse information. This vendor provided satisfactory service under previous contracts. NMA has therefore been determined to be responsible.

    It is necessary to contract for these services because the DOE does not possess the expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this program.

    The MTAC process is the preferred procurement method as this process allows the DOE to award contracts for similar services to multiple vendors in order to meet demand for such services and to offer a choice among vendors.

    As a part of the MTAC process, all service requests over $25,000 must go through a competitive process for procurement of services . Users will be required to create a scope of services and conduct a mini­ solicitation process among the awarded vendors in their component areas . Vendors will be required to provide a statement of work and pricing based on their contracted services, which will be evaluated and scored by the user. Upon completion of this mini-solicitation process, schools will be able to secure services via a purchase order. This process is to ensure competition among the large number of vendors, who have been awarded contracts as a result of this procurement. Future RAs for these services will be submitted in batches as new providers are presented for award of contracts.

    *Component Services:
    1. Dance - ballet, modern, hip-hop, ballroom, African, Caribbean, dances of other countries & cultures, choreography.
    2. Music - hip hop, jazz, classical , instrumental, vocal, choral, composing.
    3. Theater - playwriting, storytelling , performing, playmaking , auditions, assemblies.
    4. Visual Arts - museum tours, paintings, murals, drawing, architecture, collages.
    5. Moving Image, New Media - film making, videography, photography.
    6. Parent Engagement - all of the above subjects in concert with direct student services.
    Posted by
    Labels: 201602
    1

    View comments

  8. Item: 2


    Description:

    Literacy professional development services. (RA #7)


    Item: 2
    REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION (RA#7) FOR LITERACY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (MTAC R0996)

    Estimated Annual I Total Contract Amount

    Funding Source

    Contract Term

    Options

    Procurement Method

    Is Contract Retroactive?

    Contract Type

    $2,705,000 I
    $13,525,000
    Tax Levy &Reimbursable Funds

    Five Years

    None

    Multiple Task Award Contract (MTAC)

    No

    Requirements

    Vendor Names &
    Addresses See Table B below.


    Service Requestor I Contract Manager
    Division of Contracts and Purchasing Contact
    Jessica Kaplan
    Deputy Executive Director
    Office of Curriculum, Instruction & ProfessionalLearning Division of Teaching and Leaming

    Joy Gentolia, DirectorInstructional Service Procurement

    PURPOSE
    Authorization is requested on behalf of the Division of Teaching and Learning to contract with the vendors listed below to provide systemwide literacy professional development services. These services will be provided at the discretion of participating schools, central offices operating on behalf of schools, or consortiums of schools.

    DISCUSSION
    To help ensure that its students achieve the higher standards in literacy that adoption of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) requires, the DOE must acquire professional development services for its teachers, leaders, coaches, administrators, and support staff. These services will increase literacy content and pedagogical knowledge, support the implementation of CCLS, and align resources toimprove student achievement. These services will also support schools and learning communities as they plan and conduct effective instruction and professional development in literacy.

    Contracted vendors will provide high-quality, needs-based, and CCLS-aligned professional development
    h
    h
    and support instruction for teachers and other staff covering kindergarten through 12th grade. Services will focus on literacy content, pedagogy, citywide core curriculum programs, research, and best practices and will include institutes, workshops, seminars, coursework, conferences, walk-throughs, and intervisitations.

    It is necessary to contract for these services because the DOE does not possess the expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this program.

    In response to the solicitation, vendors proposed for one or both of these focus areas:
    1) Literacy Professional Development and 2) Literacy Consultants/Coaches.

    Proposals were evaluated by a minimum of three evaluators . The evaluation committees included a principal, a teacher, senior instructional coaches, and program directors. Proposals were scored based on program plan (25 points), organizational capacity (25 points), pricing (25 points), and demonstrated effectiveness (25 points). Successful vendors were required to achieve a minimum score of 80 points.
    Seventeen vendors were recommended for contract awards under previous RAs and three are recommended here.

    The recommended vendors' services introduce shifts in pedagogy and provide direction on efficient and effective ways to use student data to inform instructional practices and improve student achievement. Professional development offerings will provide specific support to schools and teachers for implementing all or some components of reading and other components of literacy instruction in ELA and content area classrooms, including foundational literacy skills. Program delivery methods include customized workshops, support, and coaching.

    Table A shows the proposed and negotiated average hourly rates for each vendor recommended here for award. The negotiated rates range from $218 for Literacy Support Systems professional learning and coaching, which focuses on integrating literacy instruction into other core curriculum areas, building content and/or academic vocabulary, and embedding grammar instruction in writing workshops, to $283 for NCS Pearson's face-to-face, online personalized professional development and job-embedded coaching. Pearson offers literacy programs that have been developed in collaboration with authors of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and offers participants an opportunity to learn about the instructional shifts that are outlined in CCSS.

    Negotiations resulted in an average cost savings of approximately 25 percent in program hourly rates. The prices offered by all three vendors have been determined to be fair and reasonable based on a comparison with hourly rates for like services by vendors contracted under this solicitation.

    TABLE A. HOURLY RATES FOR RECOMMENDED VENDORS
    Awarded Vendor
    Original Average Hourly Rate
    Negotiated Average Hourly Rate
    Literacy Support Systems, Inc.
    $229
    $218
    Litlife, Inc.
    $339
    $279
    NCS Pearson, Inc.
    $583
    $283

    The estimated annual contract amounts for Literacy Support Systems and Litlife were derived from their previous contract expenditures for these types of services. NCS Pearson's estimated contract amount is based on the minimum amount for new vendors for Literacy Professional Development requirements contracts of $30,000.

    Background checks for all three vendors included VENDEX, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Federal Tax Lien, and the System for Award Management identified the following noteworthy information for NCS Pearson, Inc.
    There are three cautions in VENDEX:
    • The EEOC conducted 35 investigations of NCS Pearson since 2010. Seventeen are currently pending and 18 have been dismissed without the imposition of any penalties, fines or damages, or any further action.

    • In December 2011 and February 2012, Pearson Charitable Foundation (Foundation) and Pearson Education received subpoenas from the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General's office requesting documents and information related to the Foundation and various Pearson businesses including NCS Pearson. This matter was resolved by an agreement between the Attorney General and the Foundation on December 12, 2013, in which the Foundation agreed to pay $7.7 million, add three independent directors to its board, not feature Pearson products at events funded by the Foundation, and pay $200,000 for the costs of the investigation.

    • On April 19, 2013, the DOE released findings that Pearson had discovered errors in the scoring of the most recent Gifted and Talented exam. The errors affected 4,735 students, 2,698 of whom were told they did not qualify for the Gifted and Talented program when, in fact, they did. 2,037 of the students who previously qualified for district programs were subsequently found to be qualified for citywide programs. Pearson has submitted a satisfactory corrective action plan that includes process improvement, the expansion of the administrative advisory committee, and a change in subcontractors, which the DOE believes adequately addresses the issues. In addition, Pearson did not charge the DOE for the first year of services provided under the current contract. Since this incident, Pearson's s performance under the current contract has been satisfactory.

    Previously, VENDEX contained a caution indicating that several Federal agencies investigated claims that NCS Pearson overcharged the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for recruitment and hiring services. The matter was settled in 2008 with no finding of wrongdoing when NCS Pearson agreed to pay $5.6 million. In July 2012, the TSA sought an additional $232,328 in 2010 to resolve unallowable cost provisions in the settlement agreement.

    News reports indicate that on March 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced that Pearson had settled a hiring discrimination lawsuit. During a scheduled compliance review, OFCCP determined that, in 2009, NCS Pearson violated an Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from practicing job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provides for affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity. NCS Pearson entered a conciliation agreement with OFCCP to pay $100,000 in back wages and interest to the 67 affected job seekers and offer associate software developer positions and retroactive seniority to at least four class members as positions became available. Additionally, the company will revise its selection policies and procedures to ensure equal employment opportunities for future applicants.

    In light of the size of the vendor, which generated just over $1.5 billion in revenue in 2014 and almost
    $2.5 billion in 2013, and its recent performance for the DOE, we do not believe any of these matters preclude a determination that the vendor is responsible.

    All three vendors have therefore been determined to be responsible to provide approved services.

    The MTAC process is the preferred procurement method as this process allows the DOE to award contracts for similar services to multiple vendors in order to meet demand for such services and to offer a choice among vendors.

    As a part of the MTAC process, all service requests over $25,000 must go through a competitive process for procurement of services. Users will be required to create a scope of services and conduct a mini­ solicitation process among the awarded vendors in their component areas. Vendors will be required to provide a statement of work and pricing based on their contracted services, which will be evaluated and scored by the user. Upon completion of this mini-solicitation process, schools will be able to secure services via purchase order. This process is to ensure competition among the large number of vendors who have been awarded contracts as a result of this procurement. Future RAs for these services will be submitted in batches as new providers are presented for award of contracts.

    TABLE B. ESTIMATED CONTRACT AMOUNTS FOR RECOMMENDED VENDORS
    VENDOR NAME & ADDRESS
    FOCUS AREA(S)
    ESTIMATED ANNUAL I
    TOTAL AMOUNT
    Literacy Support Systems Inc. 70 Parkside Drive
    Point Lookout, NY 11569

    1, 2

    $2,300,000 I $11,500,000
    Litlife, Inc.
    315 West 57th Street #9H New York, NY 10019

    1

    $375,000 I $1,875,000
    NCS Pearson, Inc.5601 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437

    1, 2

    $30,000 I $150,000
    Posted by
    Labels: 201602
    3

    View comments


  9. Item: 3

    Description:

    Math professional development services for teachers, leaders, coaches, administrators and support staff (RA#?).

    Item: 3
    REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION (RA#7) FOR MATH-RELATED SERVICES AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (MTAC R1026)

    Estimated Annual I Total Contract Amount

    Funding Source

    Contract Term

    Options

    Procurement Method

    Is Contract Retroactive?

    Contract Type
    $30,000 I
    $150,000
    Tax Levy &Reimbursable Funds

    Five Years

    None

    Multiple Task Award Contract (MTAC)

    No

    Requirements

    Vendor's Name & Address
    Component{s)
    NCS Pearson, Inc.
    5601 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437

    1, 2

    Service Requestor I Contract Manager
    Division of Contracts and Purchasing Contact
    Jessica Kaplan
    Deputy Executive Director
    Office of Curriculum, Instruction & Professional Learning Division of Teaching and Leaming

    Bryan E Hester Procurement Analyst
    Instructional Service Procurement

    PURPOSE
    Authorization is requested on behalf of the Division of Teaching and Learning to contract with NCS Pearson, Inc. ("Pearson") to provide systemwide mathematics-related professional development services. These services will be provided at the discretion of participating schools, central offices operating on behalf of schools, or consortiums of schools.

    DISCUSSION
    To help ensure that its students achieve the higher standards in mathematics that adoption of Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) requires, the DOE must acquire professional development services for itsteachers, leaders, coaches, administrators, and support staff. These services will increase math content and pedagogical knowledge, support the implementation of CCLS, and align resources to improve student achievement. These services will also support schools and learning communities as they plan and conduct effective instruction and professional development in math.

    Vendors will provide high-quality, needs-based, and CCLS-aligned professional development and support instruction for teachers and other staff covering prekindergarten through 1 h grade. Services
    will focus on math content, pedagogy, Citywide core curriculum programs, cognitive development , research, and best practices, and will include institutes, workshops, seminars, coursework, conferences, walk-throughs, and inter-visitations.

    It is necessary to contract for these services because the DOE does not possess the expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this program.

    Vendors proposed for one or more of the following components: 1) Mathematics Professional Development and 2) Mathematics Consultants/Coaches.

    Proposals were evaluated by a minimum of three evaluators. The evaluation committees included a principal, a teacher, senior instructional coaches, achievement coaches, and program directors. Proposals were scored based on program plan (25 points), organizational capacity (25 points), pricing
    (25 points), and demonstrated effectiveness (25 points). Successful vendors were required to achieve a minimum score of 80 points.

    Fifteen vendors were recommended for contract awards under six previous RAs and one is recommended here.

    NCS Pearson, Inc. offers a variety of customizable on-site and online K-12 PD, coaching, curriculum, and assessment tools designed to assist teachers and administrators in making instructional decisions that result in improved student achievement in mathematics. Programs are aligned to the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSS-M) and are delivered using a blend of grade-level workshops, small-group and individual coaching, planning sessions, lesson modeling, and online resources. Services are tailored to the experience levels of participants, and target the differentiated needs of diverse learners, in particular English Language Learners (El s). Pearson's roster of workshop topics ranges from content literacy, course-specific instructional strategies, and college readiness, to technology integration, math coaching methodologies, and the measurement of student understanding .

    NCS Pearson's average hourly pricing was negotiated from $583 per hour to $275 per hour for a 53 percent price improvement. Pricing was determined to be fair and reasonable based on a comparison with hourly rates for like services by vendors contracted under this solicitation.

    The estimated contract amount is based on the minimum amount for new vendors for Mathematics Related Services and Professional Development requirements contracts of $30,000.

    Background checks including VENDEX, the Vendor CIP Report, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Federal Tax Lien, and the System for Award Management, identified the following noteworthy information for prime vendor NCS Pearson, Inc.

    There are three cautions in VENDEX:
    • The EEOC conducted 35 investigations of NCS Pearson since 2010. Seventeen are currently pending and 18 have been dismissed without the imposition of any penalties, fines, or damages, or any further action.
    • In December 2011 and February 2012, Pearson Charitable Foundation (Foundation) and Pearson Education received subpoenas from the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General's office requesting documents and information related to the Foundation and various Pearson businesses including NCS Pearson. This matter was resolved by an agreement between the Attorney General and the Foundation on December 12, 2013 , in which the Foundation agreed to pay $7.7 million, add three independent directors to its board, not feature Pearson products at events funded by the Foundation, and pay $200,000 for the costs of the investigation.
    • On April 19, 2013, the DOE released findings that Pearson had discovered errors in the scoring of the most recent Gifted and Talented exam. The errors affected 4,735 students, 2,698 of whom were told they did not qualify for the Gifted and Talented program when, in fact, they did. 2,037 of the students who previously qualified for district programs were subsequently found to be qualified for citywide programs. Pearson has submitted a satisfactory corrective action plan that includes process improvement, the expansion of the administrative advisory committee, and a change in subcontractors, which the DOE believes adequately addresses the issues. In addition, Pearson did not charge the DOE for the first year of services provided under the current contract. Since this incident, Pearson's performance under the current contract has been satisfactory.

    Previously, VENDEX contained a caution indicating that several Federal agencies investigated claims that NCS Pearson overcharged the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for recruitment and hiring services. The matter was settled in 2008 with no finding of wrongdoing when NCS Pearson agreed to pay $5.6 million. In July 2012, the TSA sought an additional $232,328 in 2010 to resolve unallowable cost provisions in the settlement agreement.
    News reports indicate that on March 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced that Pearson had settled a hiring discrimination lawsuit. During a scheduled compliance review, OFCCP determined that, in 2009, NCS Pearson violated an Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from practicing job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provides for affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity. NCS Pearson entered a conciliation agreement with OFCCP to pay $100,000 in back wages and interest to the 67 affected job seekers and offer associate software developer positions and retroactive seniority to at least four class members as positions became available. Additionally, the company will revise its selection policies and procedures to ensure equal employment opportunities for future applicants.

    In light of the size of the vendor, which generated just over $1.5 billion in revenue in 2014 and almost
    $2.5 billion in 2013, and its recent performance for the DOE, we do not believe any of these matters preclude a determination of vendor responsibility. Therefore, NCS Pearson, Inc. has been determined to be responsible to provide approved services.

    The MTAC process is the preferred procurement method as this process allows the DOE to award contracts for similar services to multiple vendors in order to meet demand for such services and to offer a choice among vendors .

    As a part of the MTAC process, all service requests over $25,000 must go through a competitive process for procurement of services. Users will be required to create a scope of services and conduct a mini­ solicitation process among the awarded vendors in their component areas. Vendors will be required to provide a statement of work and pricing based on their contracted services, which will be evaluated and scored by the user. Upon completion of this mini-solicitation process, schools will be able to secure services via purchase order. This process ensures competition among the large number of vendors who have been awarded contracts as a result of this procurement. Future RAs for these services will be submitted in batches as new providers are presented for award.
    Posted by
    Labels: 201602
    0

    Add a comment


  10. Item: 4

    Description:

    Professional development for instructional technology services to assist with integrating computer technology into the instructional program (RA#3).

    Item: 4

    REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION (RA#3) FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (MTAC R1077)


    Estimated Annual I Total Contract Amount

    Funding Source

    Contract Term

    Options

    Procurement Method

    Is Contract Retroactive?

    Contract Type

    $1,864,000 I
    $9,320,000
    Tax Levy & Reimbursable Funds

    Five Years

    None

    Multiple Task Award Contract (MTAC)

    No

    Requirements

    Vendor Names &
    Addresses See Table B below.

    Service Requestor I Contract Manager
    Division of Contracts and Purchasing Contact
    Celine Lewin-Azoulay
    Executive Director, Office of Innovation
    Division of Instructional and Information Technology
    Joy Gentolia
    Director, Instructional Service Procurement Division of Contracts and Purchasing

    PURPOSE
    Authorization is requested on behalf of the Office of Innovation to contract with the vendors listed below to provide professional development services in instructional technology for educators and
    administrators in Pre-K through 1ih grade. These services will be provided at the discretion of
    participating schools, central offices operating on behalf of schools, or consortiums of schools.

    DISCUSSION

    To increase the integration of technology across the Common Core curriculum and help ensure that educators and their students are equipped with appropriate leading-edge technology and support, the DOE must acquire professional development services for its teachers, leaders, coaches, and administrators. These services will focus on improving student performance, enhance and support instruction, and increase schools' capacity to independently expand the instructional use of computer technology.

    Awarded vendors provide PD services in instructional technology and assist with integrating computer technology into instructional programs so that educators and administrators can make appropriate use of computers and other technologies in classrooms. PD program delivery methods include presentations, lectures, workshops, and courses.

    It is necessary to contract for these services because the DOE does not possess the expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this program.

    Vendors proposed for one or more of the following components:

     Professional development workshops that will increase teachers' and administrators' ability to make effective and appropriate use of computers, telecommunications, the Internet, and related technologies.

     Professional development through curriculum enrichment services, through which organizations will develop model lessons and co-teaching archetypes in collaboration with school-based staff.

     Professional development through mentoring , through which organizations will provide one-on-one partnerships with classroom teachers. This PD can include a combination of services from Components 1 and 2, and one-on-one services such as observations, experiences, and studies for teaching improvement.

    Proposals were evaluated by a minimum of three evaluators. The evaluation committees included a principal, a teacher, senior instructional coaches, and program directors. Proposals were scored based on program plan (25 points), organizational capacity (25 points), pricing (25 points), and demonstrated effectiveness (25 points). Successful vendors were required to achieve a minimum score of 80 points.

    Ten vendors were recommended for contract awards under previous RAs and three are recommended here.

    Table A shows the proposed and negotiated average hourly rates for each vendor recommended here for award. The negotiated rates range from $122 for NYIT's workshops that examine current research on the way students in the digital age learn and how this translates into teaching practices, to $275 for NCS Pearson's professional development workshops designed to improve rigor through technology­ based strategies. Negotiations resulted in an average cost savings to the DOE of approximately 21 percent in program hourly rates. Pricing for all three vendors was determined to be fair and reasonable based on a comparison with hourly rates for like services by vendors contracted under similar solicitations.

    TABLE A. HOURLY RATES FOR RECOMMENDED VENDORS
    Awarded Vendor
    Original Average Hourly Rate
    Negotiated Average Hourly Rate
    NCS Pearson, Inc.
    $319
    $275
    Teaching Matters, Inc.
    $323
    $273
    New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)
    $186
    $122

    The estimated annual contract amounts for all three vendors were derived from their respective previous contracts' expenditures for these types of services.

    Background checks for all three vendors included VENDEX, the Uniform Commercial Code, the Federal Tax Lien, and the System for Award Management. The following are noteworthy findings for NCS Pearson and NYIT:

    NCS Pearson
    There are three cautions in VENDEX:
    • The EEOC conducted 35 investigations of NCS Pearson since 2010. Seventeen are currently pending and 18 have been dismissed without the imposition of any penalties, fines, or damages, or any further action.
    • In December 2011 and February 2012, Pearson Charitable Foundation (Foundation) and Pearson Education received subpoenas from the Charities Bureau of the New York Attorney General's office requesting documents and information related to the Foundation and various Pearson businesses including NCS Pearson. This matter was resolved by an agreement between the Attorney General and the Foundation on December 12, 2013, in which the Foundation agreed to pay $7.7 million, add three independent directors to its board, not feature Pearson products at events funded by the Foundation, and pay $200,000 for the costs of the investigation .
    • On April 19, 2013, the DOE released findings that Pearson had discovered errors in the scoring of the most recent Gifted and Talented exam. The errors affected 4,735 students, 2,698 of whom were told they did not qualify for the Gifted and Talented program when, in fact, they did. 2,037 of the students who previously qualified for district programs were subsequently found to be qualified for citywide programs. Pearson has submitted a satisfactory corrective action plan that includes process improvement, the expansion of the administrative advisory committee, and a change in subcontractors, which the DOE believes adequately addresses the issues. In addition, Pearson did not charge the DOE for the first year of services provided under the current contract. Since this incident, Pearson's performance under the current contract has been satisfactory.

    Previously, VENDEX contained a caution indicating that several Federal agencies investigated claims that NCS Pearson overcharged the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for recruitment and hiring services. The matter was settled in 2008 with no finding of wrongdoing when NCS Pearson agreed to pay $5.6 million. In July 2012, the TSA sought an additional $232,328 in 201O to resolve unallowable cost provisions in the settlement agreement.

    News reports indicate that on March 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced that Pearson had settled a hiring discrimination lawsuit. During a scheduled compliance review, OFCCP determined that, in 2009, NCS Pearson violated an Executive Order that prohibits federal contractors from practicing job discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and provides for affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity. NCS Pearson entered a conciliation agreement with OFCCP to pay $100,000 in back wages and interest to the 67 affected job seekers and offer associate software developer positions and retroactive seniority to at least four class members as positions became available. Additionally, the company will revise its selection policies and procedures to ensure equal employment opportunities for future applicants.

    In light of the size of the vendor, which generated just over $1.5 billion in revenue in 2014 and almost
    $2.5 billion in 2013, and its recent performance for the DOE, we do not believe any of these matters preclude a determination of vendor responsibility. Therefore, NCS Pearson, Inc. has been determined to be responsible to provide approved services.

    New York Institute of Technology
    VENDEX reports that in 2009, NYIT's recruiter compensation practices were investigated by the United States Department of Education. In October 2011, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) began negotiations with NYIT regarding potential False Claims Act claims arising out of past violation of the incentive compensation regulations. December 18, 2012, NYIT settled with the USDOJ and the New York State Attorney General's Office (NYS AG), with the vendor and its co-defendant, Cardean, paying a fine of $2.5 million, after which they were released from any civil or administrative claims.

    Though no longer reportable on VENDEX, NYIT informed the DOE that in 2007 they entered into an Agreement on Code of Conduct with the NYS AG, without admitting any wrongdoing, regarding a nationwide and industry-wide student loan investigation and NYIT's student loan practices.

    In addition, a review of public campaign finance records on October 10, 2009 conducted by the NYS AG showed that NYIT inadvertently made payments to the Long Island Association Action Committee while paying their membership dues. Upon being informed by the NYS AG, NYIT promptly requested and received a refund check from the Long Island Association. NYIT has instituted measures to ensure that Long Island Association invoices are carefully scrutinized before payments are made.

    In light of the satisfactory resolution of the above matters, the DOE does not believe they preclude a determination that NYIT is responsible.
    All three vendors have therefore been determined to be responsible to provide approved services.

    The MTAC process is the preferred procurement method as this process allows the DOE to award contracts for similar services to multiple vendors in order to meet demand for such services and to offer a choice among vendors.

    As a part of the MTAC process, all service requests over $25,000 must go through a competitive process for procurement of services. Users will be required to create a scope of services and conduct a mini-solicitation process among the awarded vendors in their component areas. Vendors will be required to provide a statement of work and pricing based on their contracted services, which will be evaluated and scored by the user. Upon completion of this mini-solicitation process, schools will be able to secure services via purchase order. This process is to ensure competition among the largenumber of vendors who have been awarded contracts as a result of this procurement. Future RAs for these services will be submitted in batches as new providers are presented for award of contracts.

    TABLE B. ESTIMATED CONTRACT AMOUNTS FOR RECOMMENDED VENDORS
    Vendor Name & Address
    Component(s)
    Estimated Annual I
    Total Amount
    NCS Pearson, Inc.5601 Green Valley Drive Bloomington, MN 55437

    1, 2

    $94,000 I
    $470,000
    New York Institute ofTechnology Northern Boulevard, P.O. Box 8000 Old Westbury, NY 11568

    1, 2

    $230,000 I
    $1,150,000
    Teaching Matters, Inc.
    475 Riverside Drive, Suite 1270
    New York, NY 10115

    1, 2, 3

    $1,540,000 I
    $7,700,000
    Posted by
    Labels: 201602
    1

    View comments

About Me
About Me
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Loading