Department of Education contract for teacher evaluation system study awarded to American Institutes for Research for over $21.3 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,301,207 ($21.3M)

Contractor: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2011-09-26

End Date: 2017-12-25

Contract Duration: 2,282 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF A TEACHER AND LEADER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM. THIS CONTRACT WILL PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF AN IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION STUDY OF A TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM THAT HAS VARIOUS KEY FEATURES: EMPHASIS ON STUDENT GROWTH, CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS, MULTIPLE RATING CATEGORIES, AND TIMELY AND CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK FOR EDUCATORS.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20202

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $21.3 million to AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES for work described as: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF A TEACHER AND LEADER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM. THIS CONTRACT WILL PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF AN IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION STUDY OF A TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATI… Key points: 1. Contract focused on evaluating a teacher and principal performance evaluation system with key features like student growth and classroom observations. 2. The study aimed to examine the implementation and impacts of the evaluation system. 3. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 4. The contract type was Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs if not managed carefully. 5. The duration of the contract was over 2200 days, indicating a long-term research and evaluation effort. 6. The contractor, American Institutes for Research, is a known entity in behavioral sciences research.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of over $21.3 million for a multi-year research study on teacher and principal evaluation systems appears within a reasonable range for such complex, long-term projects. Benchmarking against similar large-scale educational research contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests an effort to link contractor payment to performance outcomes, which is a positive indicator, but the final cost is contingent on achieving award fee criteria.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This competitive process is generally expected to drive down costs and encourage innovation. The presence of four bidders (no) suggests a reasonable level of interest in the contract, though further analysis would be needed to determine if this level of competition was sufficient to ensure optimal price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value for public funds. Full and open competition increases the likelihood that the government receives high-quality research services at a fair price.

Public Impact

Educators (teachers and principals) are the primary subjects of the evaluation system being studied. The study's findings could inform future educational policies and practices related to teacher performance and professional development. The research is conducted within the District of Columbia, suggesting a focus on educational systems in that geographic area. The contract supports a workforce of researchers and analysts involved in educational policy and evaluation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if award criteria are not strictly managed.
The long duration of the contract (2282 days) necessitates sustained oversight to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness.
The specific impact on student outcomes from the evaluated system is a key area for detailed analysis within the study itself.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The contractor, American Institutes for Research, has a strong reputation in behavioral sciences and educational research.
The contract focuses on a critical area of education policy: teacher and leader performance evaluation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities sector (NAICS 541720). This sector encompasses a wide range of research activities, including social policy, education, and behavioral studies. The market for educational research services is competitive, with numerous academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and private research firms vying for government contracts. The value of this contract is significant within the context of specific educational research projects, reflecting the complexity and scope of evaluating large-scale implementation studies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As it was awarded through full and open competition, it is likely that large businesses or established research institutions were the primary bidders. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any small businesses were involved as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program officials within the Department of Education. As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, performance metrics and award criteria would be closely monitored to ensure the contractor meets objectives and earns performance incentives. Transparency would be facilitated through regular reporting requirements and potentially public dissemination of the study's findings, subject to federal guidelines.

Related Government Programs

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants
Educational Research and Improvement Programs
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) Research Grants

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contract type requires careful monitoring to control costs.
Long contract duration necessitates sustained oversight and relevance checks.
Potential for findings to be sensitive or complex to implement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $21.3 million to AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES. THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) HAS A REQUIREMENT TO EXAMINE THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF A TEACHER AND LEADER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM. THIS CONTRACT WILL PROVIDE AN EVALUATION OF AN IMPACT AND IMPLEMENTATION STUDY OF A TEACHER AND PRINCIPAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SYSTEM THAT HAS VARIOUS KEY FEATURES: EMPHASIS ON STUDENT GROWTH, CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS, MULTIPLE RATING CATEGORIES, AND TIMELY AND CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK FOR EDUCATORS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Education (Department of Education).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-26. End: 2017-12-25.

What was the specific performance of American Institutes for Research on this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded to American Institutes for Research (AIR) and had a duration of 2282 days, concluding in December 2017. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, AIR's performance would have been evaluated against pre-defined criteria to determine award fees. While the total award amount is over $21.3 million, specific details on the performance ratings or the amount of award fees earned are not publicly available in this summary. Generally, CPAF contracts incentivize contractors to exceed basic performance requirements, and successful completion of complex research projects like this often reflects positively on the contractor's capabilities. Further review of contract performance reports or final award decisions from the Department of Education would be necessary for a detailed assessment of AIR's performance.

How does the cost of this contract compare to similar studies on teacher evaluation systems?

Directly comparing the $21.3 million cost of this specific contract to 'similar' studies is challenging without a standardized benchmark for evaluating teacher and leader performance systems. The scope of this contract, focusing on implementation and impact of a system with multiple key features (student growth, observations, feedback), suggests a comprehensive and potentially costly research endeavor. Large-scale educational research projects can range significantly in cost depending on methodology, sample size, duration, and geographic reach. To provide a robust comparison, one would need to identify other federal or large foundation-funded studies with comparable objectives, methodologies, and durations. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure also introduces variability, as the final cost is influenced by performance. However, the overall value appears consistent with the scale of a multi-year, in-depth evaluation of a significant educational policy initiative.

What were the primary risks associated with this contract, and how were they managed?

Key risks for a contract of this nature, focused on evaluating educational policy implementation, could include challenges in data collection (e.g., educator participation, data quality), potential for findings to be politically sensitive or difficult to interpret, and contractor performance issues. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure itself carries a risk of cost overruns if award criteria are not met or if scope creep occurs without proper modification. Management of these risks would typically involve rigorous project planning, clear definition of evaluation metrics, regular progress reviews by the Department of Education, and strong contract oversight. The long duration (2282 days) also presents a risk of the research becoming outdated or the evaluation context shifting. The Department would likely have employed mechanisms such as phased reporting, milestone reviews, and potentially adaptive management strategies to mitigate these risks throughout the contract's lifecycle.

What was the overall effectiveness of the teacher and leader performance evaluation system studied?

The provided data describes the contract's purpose: to examine the implementation and impacts of a teacher and leader performance evaluation system. It does not, however, contain the findings or conclusions of that study. The effectiveness of the system itself would be the primary output of the research conducted under this contract. Therefore, to determine the system's effectiveness, one would need to access the final reports and analyses produced by American Institutes for Research for the Department of Education. The contract's success lies in its ability to provide a thorough and objective evaluation, which can then inform decisions about the system's efficacy and potential modifications.

How has federal spending on educational research and evaluation changed over the period this contract was active?

This contract was active from September 26, 2011, to December 25, 2017. During this period, federal spending on educational research and evaluation, primarily through the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) within the Department of Education, remained a significant but fluctuating component of the overall education budget. While specific year-over-year figures for 'evaluation of teacher performance systems' are not readily available, overall IES funding generally saw increases in some years and decreases in others, influenced by broader federal budget appropriations and administration priorities. The Obama administration, during much of this contract's life, emphasized evidence-based practices and data-driven decision-making in education, which likely supported continued investment in research and evaluation. However, budget constraints and shifting policy landscapes always present challenges. A detailed analysis would require examining historical appropriations data for IES and related programs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Social Sciences and Humanities

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: ED-IES-11-R-0051

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1000 THOMAS JEFFERSON ST N W, WASHINGTON, DC, 20007

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,515,178

Exercised Options: $21,301,207

Current Obligation: $21,301,207

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $1,709,908

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline