505-Response To RFPWest Labs

7/29/2019 505-Response To RFPWest Labs

1/8

Response to RFP

Prepared for: Far Western Labs

Prepared by: Granite Consultants, LLC

Date: July 2011

Affiliated with: Boise State University EdTech 505


2/8

Response to RFP from Far Western Labs

July 12, 2011 Charles Lyons: Boise State University

Response Statement

Per the Request for Proposal (RFP) submitted by Far West Laboratory

for Educational Research and Development (FWL), Granite Consultants

(GC) enthusiastically submits this Response. GCs intent is to meet all

the requirements outlined in the RFP and to provide a superior product.

Introduction

FWL, an industry leader in the development of educational products is

seeking evaluation of its latest product: Determining Instructional

Purposes (DIP) training program. FWL is seeking information and

recommendations of the dissemination of this product. The evaluation

will also provide information to FWL can be used to convince school

district administrators in purchasing DIP. GC proposes evaluation

completion by September 1, 2011 with meeting/recommendations

session on September 15, 2011.

Program Description

FWL has developed the DIP training program for use by school district

administrators and graduate administration students to instruct them

in school administration and to prepare for effective administrative

planning. The DIP Program is broken into three sequential but

independently flexible units: Unit 1 Setting Goals, Unit 2 Analyzing

Problems and Unit 3 Deriving Objectives. Each of the three units

consist of four to six independent modules which can be done over

several days in a row or as separate modules over a longer period of

time. Each unit consists of reading materials, followed by group

activities (intended for actual school personnel units) and lastly a


3/8

feedback session. The program has been cleverly set up to allow for

the units to be completed altogether or as separate units to allow

administrative groups to focus on individual tasks. A coordinator using

the Coordinators Handbook runs each unit. The program allows for

the coordinator to be someone that has previously completed unit(s) of

the program or a facilitator that is new to the program. All materials

are supplied by FWL by the unit or combined. Duration of the program

is about 10-15 hours for Units 1 and 3 and 12-18 hours for Unit 2.


4/8

Evaluation Method

The Evaluation will begin immediately upon negotiation of contract.

GC will complete Unit 1 of the DIP program to evaluate its

effectiveness. As each unit it totally independent from the other, this

should be sufficient for evaluating the effectiveness of the training.

GCs Chief Evaluator will act as coordinator for the evaluation. He will

have summarized the materials in the unit and in the coordinators

handbook prior to initiating the evaluation. GC currently has three

interns that will act as the students. All are experienced

administrators and have completed course work for doctorate degrees

in Educational Administration and are fulfilling their requirements foroutside experience.

The evaluation will proceed in a manner identical to one that FWL had

anticipated. All involved will act as a school unit and proceed in that

fashion. The coordinator will introduce the materials, the procedures

and leave the administrators to proceed. However, through the use of

a webcam, the coordinator will be in another room taking notes and

observations of the group. The students have been instructed toverbalize all conversations (nothing on paper). The coordinator will

come back into the room to wrap up the instructional phase and

transition into the activities phase. Again he will repeat the leaving for

this part of the training but will be present to lead and conduct vital

information during the feedback stage. This stage will be extended.

The students and coordinator will discuss all aspects of the training

and the materials provided. Primary goals of this session are to gather

information about the effectiveness of the training and its value. The

group will determine that based upon the results of this session, would

they be likely to want or need to continue with Units 2 and/or Unit 3.

(Additional criteria will also be gathered from a response survey


5/8

completed by the students directly upon completion of the feedback

stage). This information will be summarized into the Final Report to be

issued to FWL.

GCs Principle will work directly with the coordinator at this point to

compile all information into evaluation goal summaries. This summary

will focus on, and report separately for each: the effectiveness of the

training, materials included in Unit 1 and the feedback stage. The

report will also focus on whether each administrative type in a school

unit would be served by the training. Salient information and

highlights of the information gathered in all phases will be

summarized. Recommendation for FWLs continuation will beexpressed using detailed rationale.

If the recommendation is made to discontinue, detailed rationale will

be provided. However it continuation is recommended (or continuation

with modifications) is likely to be recommended, rationale will be

provided along with a summary of information that will be valuable for

convincing school units to purchase the program.


6/8

Project Personnel

Markus Headstone, PhD, Principle. BS Igneous Petrology Colorado

School of Mines and PhD Evaluation Sciences - Boise State University.

Dr. Headstone is co-founder of Granite Consultants and has over 30

years of experience in numerous evaluations. He is currently an

Adjunct Professor (on sabbatical) at Cemetery College (Crypts

Campus). He has published over a dozen articles in numerous journals

and has authored two textbooks on evaluation. He serves as senior

reviewer for Evaluators Monthly, published by Monument News.

Mr. Rocky Faade MSEd, Chief Evaluator. BS Education Arizona

School of Hard Rocks and MSEd. Boise State University. Mr. Faade

has had a distinguished career in education; first as a classroom

teacher, principal and superintendent. He served as Deputy

Commissioner of Education for the state of Arizona for 4 years before

coming to GC. Mr. Faade has completed numerous evaluations,

including the recent evaluation of developing actual lead zeppelins.


7/8

Proposal Budget for Far West Labs

Manpower Chief Evaluator (!) Principle (2) Total by Task Total Job

Task 1 2 1 $840

Task 2 4 $240

Task 3 3 2 $1,620

Task 4 3 3 $2,340

Task 5 2 1 $840

Task 6 6 4 $3,240

Task 7 4 4 $3,120

Task 8 1 1 $780Task 9 5 3 $2,460 $15,480

Travel and per diem (3)

Task 7 2 2 $2,500

Task 9 2 2 $2,500 $5,000

Communications

Phone and Fax,

all Tasks $2,000 $1,000 $3,000

Task 7 -

Shipping $150 $150Supplies andPhotocopying $5,000 $2,000 $7,000

JOB TOTAL (4) $30,630

Itemized Cost: $60/hr X 8hr/day (1)$90/hr X 8hr/day(2) $90/hr X 8hr/day

%$15$1500/trip+ $500 pd (3)

Cost forInterns = Zero


8/8

Proposed EvaluationSchedule

Task Deliverable ( Y or N) Deadline Date

1. Contract, Prepare for

Unit 1, Intern Training N September 1, 2011

2. Conduct DIP Evaluation N September 7, 2011

3. Compilation of Data andFeedback N September 14, 2011

4. Decision Making Basedupon Feedback N September 28, 2011

5. FWL Conference Call Y October 3, 2011

6. Write Evaluation Report N October 17, 2011

7. Present Findings to FWL Y October 24, 2011

8. Follow up documents Y November 1, 2011

9. First ImplementationTraining N January 3, 2012

Documents

505-Response To RFPWest Labs