Stay informed about Coronavirus — COVID-19. Learn more
Read the initial return-to-school guidance.

Adult and Community Learning Services (ACLS)

FY20-22 Adult Education Service RFP Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Updated September 10, 2019

Q.1. Our program is not on the list of eligible providers apparently because we did not achieve our enrollment target this year. Nevertheless, we are an experienced provider covering Hampshire and Franklin Counties in three locations. We have a vibrant distance learning program, are welcoming refugees and asylum seekers and we offer an IELCE certified nurse aide training. We also offer comprehensive immigration legal services. We have received a grant from ORI to serve refugees and will be collaborating with a refugee resettlement agency in Hampden County. Would you entertain an application from our program for classes outside of our home county since we know there are students on waiting lists and have a provider willing to refer them to us? Would you entertain an application that covers both regions, Hampshire/Franklin where we currently work and Hampden County? We offer childcare and would love to offer more family literacy. We are a SNAP Pathways to Work Provider. In short, we offer many of the programs referenced in the RFP and we are constantly exploring additional ways to serve the immigrants who seek assistance from us. (Please note that the program name was removed from this question.)

A.1. No, the applicant is not eligible to apply for option 1 or 2. The applicant is eligible to propose services in a new workforce area under option 3.

Q.2. When can programs expect to be notified if they are selected for funding through the FY2020 Adult Education RFP? Also, for budgeting purposes, when could a program expect to begin classes?

A.2. Once applicant is approved for services, ACLS will negotiate the start date.

Q.3. It was our understanding that any unique seat had to be available for students at any time during the year from July to June. However, in the sample class plan provided in the released RFP, there are unique slots allocated for a summer course only, the same way they were allocated in the previous RFPs and SMARTT. If we misunderstood the information given to us at the bidding conference and the subsequent Q&A, can we apply for the increase of slots through separating the summer program we run? Providing classes in the summer allows the program to fill the gap in summer services for adult ESOL learners in Boston and accelerates outcomes. It is one of the reasons why we were able to serve 203 NRS students while our grant obligations are 142 slots. In the summer of FY 19, the program still operated on the previous RFP design with fewer groups and students served, which means that this year we will probably serve even more students. A higher than funded by the grant number of students requires more support services, advising, etc.

A.3. Summer seats are not considered unique seats so the program cannot just propose to add only summer classes. The program can propose a class with unique seats that runs all year long including a summer class.

Q.4. If we understand it correctly, to increase capacity, we need to add a new group, which we do not think is the best option for the quality of the program unless we separate the summer program as additional groups. Another way to increase capacity is to add slots to our existing lower level groups with the biggest waiting lists. We have served more students and produced excellent outcomes because of the intensity - faster student moves - and quality of services. We can maintain the quality of services if we increase slots in groups a bit, but not if we add another group. Adding another group for 15 slots with the maximum funding allowed per slot will barely cover a full time teacher's position (all our teachers have full-time positions) with a minimum required DOE rate, leaving no funds for books, space, student support, advising, career services, intake, testing, etc., which would not serve our students well. Replacing dropped out students in existing groups on a regular basis allows to maintain a full enrollment, but it puts additional work on teachers who need to accommodate new students and produce WIOA outcomes. Additional funds for increased slots in existing groups can be used for support services and increased work load for teachers, which is a part of their working conditions.

A.4. The RFP is for additional classes with a minimum of adding one class. If the applicant determines that a higher rate is needed per seat due to increased intensity, they should provide a rationale for it and request a budget that reflects a higher rate per seat. ACLS is not looking to add slots to existing classes with these funds. Current programs can apply under option 1 or 2 to add classes to existing services.

Q.5. I was really happy to receive notification of the new RFP. We hope to apply for additional funding, but first, I have a question for you about match funding. We presently receive a total of $823,723 from ACLS. We have a match of $558,337 which is a 68% match. Is it necessary for us to provide additional match funding? If so, it will probably prevent us from seeking additional funding for 2020. Please advise.

A.5. Programs currently funded by DESE with match well above 20% that are not able to provide additional match with this RFP can provide a justification under schedule B that provides a rational why the program is not able to add additional match funds. Programs must ensure that the current match will be at or over 20% when combining the current and new funding.

Q.6. Please define "site". If a program is part of a larger organization for example, an LEA. Would each physical place that a class(es) take place be defined as a different "site" even though it is part of the same organization?

A.6. Yes. A site for this RFP is defined as a new location where services will be offered. For example, the applicant currently offers classes at a high school and with this RFP is proposing to offer classes at a new location (e.g. downtown library). Currently funded eligible applicant that would like to offer additional services at a new location (site) is eligible to apply under Option 2.

Q.7. Definition of "blended learning". How do you define blended learning for this RFP?

A.7. Blended learning is defined as a class that combines face to face instructional hours with additional online hours to offer increased intensity. For example, a class with 15 active seats will meet 3 hours twice a week for a total of 6 classroom instructional hours and in addition the students will be expected to do 3 hours in an online curriculum that is coordinated with the classroom instruction. Please note that online homework is not considered instruction and it does not count towards a blended learning model.

Q.8. Definition "Integration of digital learning delivery models"? Please clarify.

A.8. Please refer to the information in FY20-FY22 Massachusetts Policies for Effective Adult Education in Community Adult Learning Centers (CALCs) and Correctional Institutions (AECIs) on p. 19 under Digital Literacy Development section.

Q.9. In the RFP the statement "DESE will fund a minimum of one adult education class offering a minimum of 15 active seats (a minimum grant size of $34,500)….." I'm not sure what this means? Does this mean that each class offered has to have 15 active seats? Or if a program proposes 2 classes of 12 active seats each, would this meet the requirement of minimum of 15 active seats? In this scenario there is a minimum 15 active seats (actually 24)?

A.9. If the applicant proposes to offer two classes of 12 active seats, the applicant will meet the requirement of a minimum of 15 active seats. The proposed design in the question offers 24 active seats which is above the required minimum of a class with 15 active seats.

Q.10. With the due date of September 13, 2019, when does the department project that awards would be announced? Also anticipated start dates for programs to begin this FY? In other words, when proposing a program the grant applicant would be better informed as to the anticipated start date, when writing for the RFP request (i.e. # of weeks, etc.). Assuming that this awardee will continue for the subsequent years, should the initial request be for a longer period of time (start date in September FY21)?

A.10. For the purposes of this competition, please submit a full year plan and budget. When awards are announced, we will work with grantees to prorate as needed. ACLS plans to announce the awards in October.

Q.11. Will the program performance of classes written for this grant have an effect on previously funded classes from the same organization? In other words, If Program ZuZu added three classes under this funding (Program Clarence). Would the performance of Program Clarence effect Program ZuZu? Would they be combined or evaluated separately?

A.11. All funded seats will be held to the same standards as outlined in our policy manual. If a program is currently funded for 100 seats and applies to add 30 seats the new target for the program will become 130.

Q.12. Can a non-funded program that does not currently offer 50 active seats apply for this grant if the program design submitted includes 50 or more active seats? Is there a requirement of a minimum number of people served currently for non-funded programs to be eligible to apply? (Prior RFP required programs to have served 50 students per year. Is that requirement still active?)

A.12. A new applicant (not currently funded by DESE for adult education services) is required to propose a design that serves a minimum of 50 students with this RFP. The applicant is also required to provide in Appendix A program data and past effectiveness. This RFP does not require that the applicant served a minimum of 50 students prior to applying for this grant.

Questions from bidders' conference held on 7/25

Q.13. Will the new grant be just for FY20 or for the remaining of the current funding cycle?

A.13. Funding awarded through this RFP will be available for FY21 and 22 as long as the state and federal budget remains at the current funding levels.

Q.14. Do we submit the proposal and accompanied documents via a portal like in the most recent O&C RFP?

A.14. No. As stated in this RFP, the submission is done via email. The applicant may send multiple emails if the files are too large. Please make sure to label your emails correctly. ACLS will acknowledge receipt of a proposal by responding to the emails. All proposals must be emailed to which is the same email address that is used for this Q&A.

Q.15. Do currently funded programs need to submit FY19 data from LACES? What about MSGs? That information is not currently available in LACES. How and when will we have access to FY19 MSG outcomes? Is there something else that we should use in place of FY19 MSG outcomes?

A.15. Yes, for currently funded programs submitted data must come from LACES. FY19 MSG outcomes should be posted on or before September 6, 2019. However if this information is not available prior to proposal submission programs can use Table 4 data and MSG calculator with actual enrollments by level to provide analysis of MSG program performance related to target. Programs should reference what data is being reported.

Q.16. What appendices are required for each Option?

A.16. As stated in the RFP the following appendices are required for the various options:

Option 1: Appendix A, Appendix I (if requesting administrative cost above 5%)

Option 2: Appendix A, Appendix B (if applicable), Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix I (if requesting administrative cost above 5%)

Option 3: Appendix A, Appendix B (if applicable), Appendix C, Appendix D, Appendix E, Appendix F, Appendix G, Appendix H, Appendix I (if requesting administrative cost above 5%)

Q.17. Is appendix I only required if you want to negotiate an admin cost above 5%?

A.17. Yes, if you are requesting an admin cost above 5% you need to submit Appendix I.

Q.18. Does the minimum of one class of 15 seats mean that if a program proposes to offer two classes, they both need a minimum of 15 seats?

A.18. No, if a program proposes only one class there is a minimum of 15 seats for that class. For a program that proposes multiple classes it is up to the program to propose the number of seats in each class. For example, a program can propose 3 classes of 12 seats for a total of 36 seats which exceed the minimum of 15 seats required in this RFP. ACLS will not consider a request for fewer than 15 seats total under this RFP for Option 1 and 2.

Q.19. Does program design using a blended learning model have to use online curriculum? We do not have access to online curriculum, can we still propose a blended leaning model using a curriculum that is installed on computers? (Question from corrections)

A.19. Yes, you can propose that as long as the curriculum that you are using can track hours. Please see FY 2019 Massachusetts Guidelines for Distance Learning in Adult Education for how distance learning hours are tracked. Also see Q.7/A.7 above.

Q.20. Many programs are visited by legislators. When our program had a legislative visit, we were promised an increase. The legislator said that the increase to adult education was given but it is up to ACLS how the funds get distributed. Will any portion of the current increase address working conditions?

A.20. This RFP is addressing specific legislative language to prioritize decreasing the waitlist. For programs that exceeded their active seat targets, the cost per seat range was increased for FY20. ACLS is considering other opportunities to increase cost per seat based on program outcomes (i.e. enrollment, MSG).

Q.21. Our program will be applying for additional seats in both ABE and ESOL under Option 1. Do we submit two Option 1 responses - one for ABE and one for ESOL?

A.21. No, only one proposal is needed.

Q.22. We plan to propose a STAR class with a blended learning component. Does that fall into Option 1 or Option 2?

A.22. It depends if the program has been funded for this type of class in FY19. If this is a new type of class not offered in FY19, then the applicant should respond under Option 2. If this is something the applicant is currently offering, then you can respond under Option 1.

Q.23. Do we need to submit both option I and option II responses if our program proposes to both add a new site and add classes to an existing site?

A.23. Yes, you should respond to Option 1 (adding classes to an existing site provided the classes are consistent with what was approved in FY19) and Option 2 (adding a new site).

Q.24. Our program is eligible to apply for ESOL but was not on the list to be eligible to apply for ABE under Option 1 and 2. Does that mean that we can only apply for ESOL services under these two options?

A.24. Yes. You can apply for ESOL under Option 1 and 2 but not for ABE. You can apply for ABE under Option 3 if you choose to offer new services outside your current workforce area.

Q.25. Our agency has a program in Boston and is considering to open a new site in Lynn which is a different local workforce area. Would we be applying under Option 3?

A.25. Yes, because you are proposing services outside your current workforce area, you need to submit an application under Option 3.

Q.26. The workbook instructions refer to IET/IELCE. Is this an error?

A.26. The workbook instructions were updated (7/24/2019) and posted under the RFP. Please refer to the correct version of the workbook instructions.

Q.27. What is the anticipated start date for programs under Option 3?

A.27. ACLS will negotiate the start date with the program.

Q.28. We currently offer IET and IELCE at one of our locations but there are no stand-alone ESOL services there. We will be proposing to add ESOL classes at that location. Do we apply under Option 1 or Option 2?

A.28. You will apply under Option 2.

Q.29. If a program is applying for additional classes, it might impact the teaching schedule for everyone in the program. Is it possible to negotiate one large budget for the program that combines current grant and the funding that the program gets through this RFP?

A.29. Services funded under this RFP will have new fund codes. The budgets will not be combined with existing funds. You can amend your current budget if you need to make changes for FY20.

Q.30. Will the new seats be added to the existing number of seats?

A.30. Yes, the new seats will be added to the current seats (for currently funded programs) and programs will have new total seats that they will be held account able for.

Q.31. Will Option 1 be scored using a scoring rubric?

A.31. Yes, there is a scoring rubric included in this RFP for your reference. The same rubric will be used for all 3 Options, however each Option has different sections and number of points. Each Option will be evaluated based on the total number of points available under that Option.

Q.32. How will we know that the proposal was received after we email it?

A.32. ACLS will acknowledge the receipt of the email/proposal.

Q.33. We are applying for option 3, can we use our own waitlist or does DESE have a state approved waitlist?

A.33. The state does not have a state approved waitlist. The programs need to show a need for services where they are proposing to open a site and can use their waitlist.

Q.34. Will the questions and answers from the bidders' conference be posted on DESE website?

A.34. Yes.

Q.35. Can this funding be used to increase slots to existing classes and not add classes?

A.35. See Q.4/A.4 above.

Q.36. Does ACLS hold the same expectation for students in online instruction/distance learning.

A.36. Yes

Questions from bidders' webinar held on 7/26

Q.37. If you are applying under option 3, do you need to demonstrate a wait list?

A.37. Programs must submit Appendix A. There are two charts in that Appendix with one of them being for new applicants and it does include an active wait list. Any applicant that applies for this funding must show that they have ESOL and/or ABE services. Applicants must show need in the area they are proposing to serve.

Q.38. Question: Can you define how new programs will be judged for past performance?

A.38. The applicants must show demonstrated need and provide data in Appendix A along with related questions in that section of the RFP. Both the chart and narrative answers will be evaluated by the review team using the evaluation rubric included in this RFP.

Q.39. Are students with disabilities considered "hard to serve" populations?

A.39. Yes. It is also up to the applicant to let us know what population they will serve.

Q.40. If we are applying for an additional level of ESOL classes that we haven't had before, would this be considered Option 1 or Option 2

A.40. If you are applying for something currently not funded, then it would be Option 2. If it's a class you already have and you are adding an additional class it would be option 1.

Q.41. Where can I find the information for Appendix in LACES?

A.41. Currently funded programs can get technical assistance on how to search LACES and generate reports. If there is specific information you cannot find, you can post it to the Q&A. MSG outcomes are not available in LACES. FY 2018 MSG outcomes are posted on our website. FY 2019 MSGs are not posted yet. See Q.15/A.15 for information on MSG outcomes.

Q.42. If we submit a prorated budget for an abbreviated YR1 how will be funding for YRs 2 and 3 be determined?

A.42. Applicants are asked to submit a full year's budget. If funded, ACLS will negotiate a pro-rated budget for FY 2020.

Q.43. Can previously funded programs access their SMARTT performance data from the years they were funded?

A.43. All student level performance data from SMARTT has been migrated over to the LACES data system. Programs should be able to access that data by removing any filters that read "Current Fiscal Year" or "Active" within any of the search screens within LACES.

Q.44. Our agency was just short of 100% enrollment pertaining to ABE slots and we do not usually have a waitlist. Our subcontractor provides services to ESOL students and they have a waitlist. Will additional funding through this RFP be available to both of us or just for the ESOL slots through our subcontractor?

A.44. If you are currently a funded agency, there are eligibility lists for both ABE and ESOL in the RFP. Please refer to that list.

Q.45. For all the required forms, if we have existing services, do you want all the information on the existing services too? Or do you only want to see information pertaining to the new services we're proposing? For example, the Class Plan?

A.45. You need to include the new classes you are proposing under this new grant in your Class Plan. You do not include the ones you are currently funded for.

Q.46. Do currently funded programs need to submit an updated statement of assurances or will the FY20 signature be sufficient.

A.46. This is a new grant so you need to submit a new statement of assurances with new signatures with this application.

Q.47. Would the department fund food in the budget, for example breakfast for participants?

A.47. No, the department does not fund refreshments.

Q.48. When our classes are full, we do our best to connect applicants to other programs in the area, so we don't maintain an active wait list. Does that make us ineligible?

A.48. No, but you need to find a way to show there is a need in your area and that you would be able to fill the classes you are proposing to serve.

Q.49. Would a childcare component be funded?

A.49. It is up to the applicant to propose a program with a childcare component which the reading team will evaluate and consider.

Q.50. If your program is eligible for both ESOL and ABE, can you apply for both under option 1?

A.50. Yes, if the services are consistent with Option 1, you can submit one Option 1 application to offer both ESOL and ABE services. See also Q.21/A.21.

Q.51. Are funding decisions mostly derived from waitlist numbers in LACES?

A.51. Funding decisions are based on the entire proposal. The proposals are viewed holistically using a scoring rubric.

Q.52. What if we want to add the same classes but at night to add to day classes? Option 1 or 2?

A.52. The applicant should apply under Option 1.

Q.53. Can you define what you are looking for in describing impact to the community?

A.53. It is up to the applicant to describe what impact on the community these funds would have.

Q.54. With these new funds, do we have to have a sequence of classes SPL 0-6?

A.54. If you are a currently funded program then you already offer the sequence and do not need to add a full sequence, you can add individual levels based on your identified need. For new applicants (Option 3), you will need to either offer a full sequence of services or have a Memoranda of Agreement to offer a sequence with a partner agency.

Q.55. Can a program that is serving a hard to serve population go above the $2,300 to $3,300 range if justification is provided?

A.55. Applicants may propose amounts above the range but must provide a justification for it which will be evaluated by the reading team.

Q.56. What is the anticipated turn around for approval (given the Sept 13 submission date), when should programs target classes start date?

A.56. ACLS plans to notify applicants by mid-October. ACLS will then negotiate a start date with the program based on its readiness to begin services.

Q.57. If funds are awarded through this opportunity to a current grantee, will the funds be added to current ISA or will it be a separate distribution of funds?

A.57. This grant has a separate fund code and will have a separate budget. The new slots will be added to the current ones in LACES. See Q.29/A.29.

Q.58. Can you clarify if we are currently funded for ESOL 1 and 2 classes and we want to add an ESOL 3 class at the same site, can we apply under Option 1?

A.58. No, you will need to apply under Option #2 because you don't currently have an ESOL 3 class.

Q.59. Could you clarify how eligibility for ESOL and/or ABE was determined for currently funded programs?

A.59. The eligibility was based on programs meeting 90% of ABE and/or ESOL enrollment targets.

Q.60. How much start up time will the program have to fill the new seats?

A.60. The start date will be negotiated with ACLS based on program's readiness. See Q.56/A.56.

Questions submitted to Q&A

Q.61. We are a provider of both ABE and ESOL. May our proposed funding be for a combination of students from those two groups? For example, 50 students (35 ESOL, 15 ABE)?

A.61. Yes. The applicant can propose a combination of ESOL and ABE services.

Q.62. We are launching a new program redesign and wonder if DESE would consider incremental funding as the program gains momentum (50 students year 1, 75 year two, etc.)?

A.62. The applicant should propose the number of seats that can be maintained in all three years. Provided the program meets their enrollment levels there might be future opportunities to increase the number of seats.

Q.63. Are applicants able to submit letters of support as part of the application? If so, where do they fit and do they count in the 38-page narrative limit?

A.63. No, the RFP does not require programs to submit letters of support.

Q.64. If my program is currently funded for ESOL 1 and ESOL 2 and I want to add and ESOL 3 as well as another ESOL 1 class, do I have to do two different proposals? I was told at the bidder's conference webinar that if I was adding a different level ESOL that I don't currently have, then I should apply with Option 2? But what if I also want to add another class for Level 1 which I am already funded for? So in other words, if I am funded for Level 1 and Level 2 (ESOL), can I apply for a new Level 3 (ESOL) and an additional Level 1 (ESOL) under the same option? Or would it be two different proposals? Please clarify.

A.64. You should submit one proposal under Option 2 only.

Q.65. If I am currently funded at one cost per seat level does it make sense to ask for more money per slot for the newly proposed classes?

A.65. It is up to the applicant to propose a cost per seat that is needed to run the program.

Q.66. If we propose to establish an additional class(es) at an existing site(s), the new classes would benefit from certain existing positions, such as the program coordinator, that support the program as a whole. For that reason, it seems to me that the cost per seat should be calculated in the context of the whole program, as opposed calculating the cost per seat as a ratio based on the funds requested in the proposal. Otherwise, we would present an artificially low cost per seat that would be impossible to maintain in later years. (The flip side of this is that sharing certain functions across an expanded number of classes at a site would probably reduce the cost per seat of the currently funded classes slightly.) I don't think the budget forms can accommodate the issue as I see it. Please advise.

A.66. The applicant should propose the cost per seat that is needed to offer new proposed services that the applicant is applying for in response to this RFP. The applicant can amend the budget of the current services as needed if there are changes to the existing program as a result of adding additional classes.

Q.67. Regarding the match requirement, what are eligible sources of cash match Specifically, are federal funds in general acceptable as match? Are CSBG and/or CDBG funds eligible as match?

A.67. Please refer to Match and Maintenance of Effort (State requirement) section on p.30 in FY20-FY22 Massachusetts Policies for Effective Adult Education in Community Adult Learning Centers and Correctional Institutions — Revised May 2019.

Q.68. I am trying to determine if our three-school charter network that serves older high school students 16-22 for the most part would be eligible for this grant.

A.68. Please refer to FY20-FY22 Massachusetts Policies for Effective Adult Education in Community Adult Learning Centers and Correctional Institutions — Revised May 2019 for policies that apply to adult education programs. Please note that adult education services are for students who:

  1. are at least 16 years of age;
  2. are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary school under state law; and
  3. do not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and have not achieved an equivalent level of education; or are basic skills deficient; or are English language learners.

Students under 18 must provide a letter of withdrawal from the local school district in order to enroll in the program. Students who are home schooled must provide a letter from the local school district stating that they are not enrolled.

Q.69. Given that the fiscal year began on July 1, 2019 and the grant award will not be made until September, how should an applicant design the budget? Should the budget worksheet include a full fiscal year or should it reflect a partial year beginning in September?

A.69. The budget should reflect a full fiscal year. See Q.10/A.10 and Q.42/A.42 for additional information.

Q.70. We are currently providing Levels 1, 2, and 3 of ESOL. In this RFP, we would like to add Level 4 to this sequence at our current location and also apply for classes at a different location. Should we apply using Option 1 (for the additional class in the same location) and Option 2 (new classes at a different location)? Please advise.

A.70. You should submit one proposal under Option 2.

Q.71. The Literacy Center is currently a subcontractor for Bristol Community College — Attleboro for ESOL on our current grant. I am wondering if Option 3 is available to us on this new RFP — namely, could we apply as an agency that has not been funded by DESE (a new agency) if we thought we could fill 20 or 30 additional ESOL seats. We would continue to be a subcontractor for Bristol Community College for the 66 seats we are funded for under the original grant.

A.71. If applying as a new agency under Option 3, you must propose a program design that offers a minimum of 50 seats.

Q.72. Bristol Community College, (Bristol) subcontracts AE funds out to our local partner-The Literacy Center (TLC) for ESOL services. TLC has a waitlist and is looking to add additional seats to their ESOL program through the new funding that is available.

Bristol's enrollment was just shy of 100% and we do not have a waitlist for AE services at this time. Bristol is currently in the process of reconfiguring the AE budget and class plan for FY20 due to the fringe rates that must be covered in full through grant funds. After cutting a large portion of expenses, it was determined that the only way to balance the budget was to cut back on weeks of service to students, and, as you know, a more intensive program increases outcomes in employment, post-secondary opportunities and training all needed for self-sufficiency.

With that said, the question is: Can Bristol apply for new funds to increase the weeks of service to Adult Education students IF the TLC also applies to increase the number of ESOL seats on their end? (Assuming we both stay within the $2300–$3300 per student)

A.72. This RFP is for additional classes. It is not to add seats to existing classes or extend weeks of currently funded classes.

Q.73. We received transitional funding for FY19. We had ABE and ESOL classes for the entire year and entered the data into LACES. Will we receive MSG outcomes for FY19? If we will not receive MSG outcomes for FY19, what should we report in the proposal?

A.73. ACLS will email FY19 MSG to FY19 grantees by close of business Thursday, August 29th and post to the ACLS website soon after.

Q.74. We have completed our proposal and would like to submit. Would you prefer that programs use Table 4 data and the MSG calculator to determine MSG program performance as related to our target or wait until September 6 and hope that the FY19 MSG outcomes are posted?

A.74. ACLS will email FY19 MSG to FY19 grantees by close of business Thursday, August 29th and post to the ACLS website soon after.

Q.75. We cannot find the scoring rubric. Where is it located?

A.75. The scoring rubric has been posted with the RFP under additional information.

Q.76. In the RFP, under required forms, Part I is the Program Unit Signature Page. When you look at the explanations of Options 1–3, Part I is the Program Data. How would you like us to differentiate these two? Could you please give us the order that you'd like us to submit the required forms and narrative questions?

A.76. The section you are referring to is part of Part III Required Program Information which consists of (I) Program Data, (II) Budget Workbook, (III) Class Plan and Required Program Information. You may refer to that section as Part III Required Program Information, Option 1, Part I-Program Data. You should follow the order of the RFP when submitting documents.

Q.77. Our program received transitional funding for FY19 and does not have any data in NRS Table 4 for FY 18-19 in LACES. We held classes for the entire year and entered attendance and test data for the year in LACES. Could you please explain this? We are applying for the current RFP and we will have to use the FY19 data.

A.77. ACLS excluded transitionally funded programs from federal reporting and as a result, these programs will not be included in table 4. However, ACLS will send out an FY19 MSG report to all FY19 grantees including programs with FY19 transitional funding by close of business Thursday, August 29th and post MSG outcomes to the ACLS website soon after.

Q.78. Our college is interested in submitting for both the Option 1: Currently funded in region: expanding existing services at existing site(s) and Option 2: Currently funded in region: proposing new services or new sites within region. Are we allowed to write for both of these options? Or are we limited to only submitting one of these options? Currently we would like to expand our ESOL program by 30 seats at our existing Leominster location (i.e. Option 1) and to establish a new site in Devens for ESOL of approximately 60 seats (option 2).

A.78. Applicants can respond to both Options in their proposal. Applicants are not limited to choosing only one Option.

Q.79. We are applying for additional funding under Option 1. Our program had a negotiated administrative cost above 5% for our continuation grant. We will NOT have administrative costs above 5% in this particular grant request. However, if this funding is approved and combined into our overall grant, the total administrative cost rate will be over 5%. I am just clarifying that we do not need to complete Appendix I if this specific grant request does not request administrative costs above 5%. Is that correct?

A.79. Correct. Since the proposal you are submitting does not go above 5% administrative cost, you do not need to include Appendix I.

Last Updated: September 10, 2019

Contact Us

Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906

Voice: (781) 338-3000
TTY: (800) 439-2370


Disclaimer: A reference in this website to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm, or corporation name is for the information and convenience of the public and does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.