Amendment_02_14-233-SOL-00119.pdf

RFP: 14-233-SOL-00119

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.: RFP: 14-233-SOL-00119

AMENDMENT NO.: 02

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 6, 2014

ISSUED BY:

Program Support Center Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 12501 Ardennes Avenue Suite 400 Rockville, MD 20857

Point of Contact: Shanelle Jackson, Contract Specialist

NAME AND ADDRESS OF RESPONDENTS: To All Responders

The above numbered Solicitation is amended as set forth below.

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT

PURPOSE: To clarify the Solicitation requirements by amending Section B.4.2, Section H.1, Section H.11, Section H.12, Section L.2, Section I.5.2, Section L.4(2)(g), Section L.4(2)(h), Section L.5, Section M.3, Section (d) page 10 of the Technical Proposal Template and J.2 Pricing Scenario; and responding to questions submitted under the Solicitation. Unless specifically noted, all specifications remain unchanged.

Solicitation Amendment:

1. Section B.4.2 Fee is revised as follows:

The Contractor shall not exceed the following ceiling rates:

Fixed Fee Ceiling for Prime Contractor (%)___ Fixed Fee Ceiling applied by Prime Contractor on Subcontracts (%)___ While ceiling rates are established, a fixed fee will be negotiated at the task order level.

2. Section H.1 TASK ORDER PROCEDURES is revised as follows:

h. Individual Task Orders may continue for one year past the end of the 5 year contract period.

3. Section H.11 Release and Use and Copyright of Data First Produced from Work Performed

Under this Contract is revised as follows:

(a) Release and Use – Data first produced in the performance of the Contract. As permitted in FAR 52.227-17, the provisions of this Section H.1 shall apply to any release or use of data first produced in the performance of the Contract and any analysis, tools, methodologies, or recorded product based on such data.

(b) Release and Use – Requirements related to confidentiality and quality. To ensure public trust in the confidentiality protections afforded participants in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-supported research, AHRQ requires and monitors compliance by its contractors with section 934(c) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 299c-3(c)), which states in part that

No information, if the establishment or person supplying the information or described in it is identifiable, obtained in the course of activities undertaken or supported under this title, may be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was supplied unless such establishment or person has consented...to its use for such other purpose. Such information may not be published or released in other form if the person who supplied the information or who is described in it is identifiable unless such person has consented...to its publication or release in other form.

In addition to this requirement, section 933(b)(1) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 299c- 2(b)(1)) requires AHRQ to assure that statistics and analyses developed with Agency support are of high quality, comprehensive, timely, and adequately analyzed.

Accordingly --

(1) prior to the release or use of data based upon work performed under this Contract, the Contractor agrees to consult with the Contracting Officer’s Representative and Contract Officers regarding the proposed release or use. The Contractor will in good faith consider, discuss, and respond to any comments or suggested modifications that are provided by AHRQ within two months of receiving the proposed release or use.

The purpose of such consultation is to assure that:

(A) identifiable information is being used exclusively for the purpose(s) for which it was supplied or appropriate consents have been obtained;

(B) the confidentiality promised to individuals and establishments supplying identifiable information or described in it is not violated; and

(C) the quality of statistical and analytical work meets the statutory standards cited above.

(2) The Contractor must satisfy conditions (1)(A) and (1)(B). At the conclusion of any consultation required by paragraph (b)(1) above, if AHRQ and the Contractor cannot agree that a proposed use or release satisfies condition (1)(C) above:

(A) the research professional at the Contractor responsible for the quality of the Contract work will, in advance of any release or use of such data, certify in a letter to the Contracting Officer what differences of opinion cannot be resolved regarding the statutory standards referenced in condition (1)(C) and the basis for Contractor assertions that these standards have been met; and

(B) the Contractor must print prominently on the release or other product, or on any portion that is released, or state prior to any oral presentation or release of such material, the following disclaimer:

THIS PRESENTATION/ PUBLICATION/OR OTHER PRODUCT IS

DERIVED FROM WORK SUPPORTED UNDER A CONTRACT WITH THE

AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY (AHRQ)

CONTRACT# . HOWEVER, THIS PRESENTATION/ PUBLICATION/OR

OTHER PRODUCT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE AGENCY.

(c) Required Statement Regarding Protected Information. On all written material or other recorded products, or preceding any presentation or other oral disclosure, release or use of material based on identifiable information obtained in the course of work performed under this contract, the Contractor shall make the following statement:

IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION ON WHICH THIS REPORT,

PRESENTATION, OR OTHER FORM OF DISCLOSURE IS BASED IS

PROTECTED BY FEDERAL LAW, SECTION 934(c) OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, 42 U.S.C. 299c-3(c). NO IDENTIFIABLE

INFORMATION ABOUT ANY INDIVIDUALS OR ENTITIES SUPPLYING

THE INFORMATION OR DESCRIBED IN IT MAY BE KNOWINGLY USED

EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR PRIOR CONSENT. ANY

CONFIDENTIAL IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION IN THIS REPORT OR

PRESENTATION THAT IS KNOWINGLY DISCLOSED IS DISCLOSED

SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS PROVIDED.

(d) Copyright – Data first produced in the performance of the Contract. Subject to the terms of this Section regarding release and use of data, AHRQ, through its Contracting Officer, will grant permission under FAR 52.227-17(c)(1)(i) to the Contractor to establish claim to copyright subsisting in scientific and technical articles based on or containing data first produced in the performance of this contract that are submitted for publication in academic, technical or professional journals, symposia proceedings or similar works.

When claim to copyright is made, the Contractor shall affix the applicable copyright notice of 17 U.S.C. 401 or 402 and acknowledgment of Government sponsorship (including contract number) to the data when such data are delivered to the Government, as well as when the data are published or deposited for registration as a published work in the U.S. Copyright Office. In such circumstances, the Contractor hereby agrees to grant to AHRQ, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up, nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license for all such data to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of AHRQ. A description of this license will be incorporated into the copyright notices required above.

(e) Subcontracts. Whenever data, analyses, or other recorded products are to be developed by a subcontractor under this Contract, the Contractor must include the terms of H.1 in the subcontract, without substantive alteration, with a provision that the subcontractor may not further assign to another party any of its obligations to the Contractor. No clause may be included to diminish the Government’s stated requirements or rights regarding release or use of products or materials based on data derived from work performed under this contract.

4. Section H.12 Lack of Compliance with Requirements for Release or Use is revised as follows:

Failure to submit materials for statutorily mandated confidentiality and statistical and analytic quality reviews as required by Section H.11 of this contract will be viewed as a material violation and breach of the terms of this contract, as the requirements of this provision are necessary for AHRQ to carry out its statutory obligations and responsibilities. Records of the Contractor's performance, including the Contractor's performance pertaining to this Contract, will be maintained and will be considered as an element of past performance which is part of all subsequent competitive contract proposal reviews.

5. Section I.5.2 HHSAR 352.231-70 Salary Rate Limitation (AUG 2012)is revised as follows:

(a) Pursuant to the current and applicable prior HHS appropriations acts, the Contractor shall not use contract funds to pay the direct salary of an individual at a rate in excess of the Federal Executive Schedule Level in effect on the date the funding was obligated (the effective date of the contract action). Funding obligated on or after December 23, 2011 cannot be used to pay the direct salary of an individual at a rate in excess of Federal Executive Schedule Level II.

(b) For purposes of the salary rate limitation, the terms “direct salary,'' “salary”, and “institutional base salary'', have the same meaning and are collectively referred to as “direct salary'', in this clause. An individual's direct salary is the annual compensation that the Contractor pays for an individual's direct effort (costs) under the contract. Direct salary excludes any income that an individual may be permitted to earn outside of duties to the Contractor.

Direct salary also excludes fringe benefits, overhead, and general and administrative expenses (also referred to as indirect costs or facilities and administrative [F&A] costs).

Note: The salary rate limitation does not restrict the salary that an organization may pay an individual working under an HHS contract or order; it merely limits the portion of that salary that may be paid with contract funds.

(c) The salary rate limitation also applies to individuals under subcontracts. If this is a multiple-year contract or order, it may be subject to unilateral modification by the Contracting Officer to ensure that an individual is not paid at a rate that exceeds the salary rate limitation provision established in the HHS appropriations act in effect when the expense is incurred regardless of the rate initially used to establish contract or order funding.

(d) See the salaries and wages pay tables on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Web site for Federal Executive Schedule salary levels that apply to the current and prior periods.

6. Section L.2 Inquiries/Submission paragraph 4 is revised as follows:

The proposal must be submitted no later than August 28, 2014 at 12:00pm Eastern Time. The Offeror shall submit one (1) electronic copy of the written technical, past performance and business proposal to the Government. The proposal should be emailed to the Contract Specialist, Shanelle Jackson, at PSCacquisitions@psc.gov.

The Offeror shall submit seven (7) hard copies of the Technical Proposal. Hard Copies of the technical proposal shall be sent to the Contract Specialist, Shanelle Jackson, at 12501 Ardennes Avenue, Suite 400, Rockville, MD 20857.

7. Section L.4(2)(g) has been revised as follows:

Small Disadvantaged Business Participation. This is a separate requirement from that of a Subcontracting Plan per FAR clause 52.219-9, outlined in Section L.2 (A)(2)( i) below. In accordance with FAR part 19.1201-2, the extent of participation of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns in performance of the contract shall be evaluated in unrestricted acquisitions expected to exceed a total estimated cost of $650,000 (or $1,500,000 for construction). Proposed targets will be incorporated into and become part of the resulting contract. The Contractor shall be required to report SDB participation and the Contractor shall be required to notify the Contracting Officer of any substitutions of firms that are not SDB concerns. Offerors shall provide a plan for the inclusion of Small Disadvantaged Business concerns in performance of the contract. Participation in performance of the contract includes the work expected to be performed by SDB concern(s). This can include SDB's (as prime Contractor), joint ventures, teaming arrangements, and subcontracts. Offerors shall submit the following information in one clearly marked section of their business proposal:

(1) The plan should express intended commitments for the inclusion of SDB concerns in the performance of this requirement. This commitment should be formalized through the inclusion of specific names of organizations and points of contact of proposed SDB's, as well as signed agreements or letters of intent from the proposed SDBs for designated services.

(2) The NAICS Code and a description of the services to be performed by each SDB must be designated, and the SDB identified to provide such services must be certified as an SDB and meet the size standard for the NAICS code identified.

(3) The Offeror should stipulate SDB participation targets, expressed as percentages for each applicable, authorized NAICS industry subsector; a total target for SDB participation by the Contractor (including joint venture partners and team members); and a total target percentage for SDB participation by subcontractors.

(4)The Offeror should describe their plan for achieving the SDB participation target(s) proposed, and their procedures for monitoring compliance with the SDB participation plan.

8. Section L.4(2)(h) is added as follows:

SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

All Offerors, other than those certifying themselves as a small business under the authorized NAICS industry subsector, shall provide a completed "Small Business Subcontracting Plan" in accordance with the instructions provided in FAR Clause 52.219-9 "Small Business Subcontracting Plan - Alternate II". The model subcontracting plan can be found by going to the HHS website: http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/osbdu/Small%20Business/subcontractplan.html, (click on Contracting Information, then Subcontracting Plan).

mailto:PSCacquisitions@psc.gov http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/osbdu/Small%20Business/subcontractplan.html

Shown below are the FY2014 subcontracting goals for HHS. These subcontracting goals are based on the total subcontracting dollar of the contract.

Small Business: 33% Small Disadvantaged Business (including 8a): 5% Woman-Owned Small Business: 5% Hubzone: 3% Veteran-Owned Small Business: N/A Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business: 3% If subcontractors are proposed, Offerors shall include a commitment letter from the subcontractor.

An acceptable plan must, in the determination of the Contracting Officer, provide the maximum opportunity for small business concerns and small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged persons to participate in the performance of the contract. If the apparently successful offeror fails to negotiate a subcontracting plan acceptable to the contracting officer within the time limit prescribed by the contracting officer, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

Small business firms should not submit a subcontracting plan as required in FAR 19.702(b);

however, they do need to propose targets for SDB participation in accordance with FAR 19.1202-4 in order to receive credit under the SDB participation evaluation factor. See instructions regarding SDB participation in Section L.9 below.

9. Section L. 5 Past Performance Volume Instructions paragraph 2 is revised as follow:

The offeror shall provide a maximum of 3 performance references for contracts within the past 3 years. Each reference should be limited to five (5) pages in length.Offerers are strongly urged to select past performance references for projects listed in response to the information requested on page 2 of Appendix J.1 (titled Successfully Performing High Quality, Field-Based Delivery System Research within Health Care Delivery Settings).

10. Section M.3 is revised as follows:

M.3.1 Prime Organization = 100 points

• (40) The offeror clearly explains how:

o The capabilities, experience, personnel, populations served, and strategic/competitive advantages of the partnering organizations combine to create a robust Partnership that aligns with the objectives of the SOW.

o Existing collaborations, relationships, and complementary interests and strengths among the partnering organizations will contribute to success on ACTION III projects.

o The partnership will be able to flexibly and expeditiously respond to emergent or otherwise unanticipated needs for specialized skills or additional expertise, staffing or other resources.

o The interest and engagement of member organizations will be sustained over the life of the Master Contract.

o The interests and qualifications of the Partnership will support robust research on topics of key interest to AHRQ, including questions aligned with AHRQ’s four Priorities (see Section C.2) and topics arising from implementation of health reform under the Affordable Care Act.

• (60) The offeror demonstrates an ability to achieve the objectives of ACTION III task orders by providing evidence of the Prime Organization’s:

o Demonstrated experience and expertise in successfully completing federal contracts o Demonstrated experience and expertise in successfully conducting field-based delivery system research, including overcoming unanticipated challenges o Demonstrated experience and expertise in successfully managing projects that use diverse methods, approaches, vehicles, and strategies to maximize the likelihood of broad and meaningful spread and uptake of evidence-based interventions -- beyond simply publishing research reports in peer-reviewed journals o Demonstrated experience, expertise and capacities for successfully managing complex, collaborative research projects involving coordination across multiple, diverse sites and actors o Specific interest in, and capacities to conduct, research focused on AHRQ’s priority areas of focus.

M.3.2 Partnership Capacities and Resources

Partnership Capacities and Resources = 50 Points

The offeror demonstrates the capacity of Partnership Members to collectively conduct and/or support field-based delivery system research, by including evidence of:

• (10) Access to a broad array of diverse providers and provider and system organizations and sites willing and able to serve as settings for field-based research and commitment and engagement of operational leaders

• (10) Infrastructure necessary for conducting quantitative and qualitative research, including:

o Access to databases and information systems that are of suitable quality, integration, size and diversity to support meaningful research o Ability to identify, access or collect, and successfully manipulate, data needed to support field-based research

• (10) Capacities to spread of findings or products beyond simply publishing research reports in peer-reviewed journals and ability to reach and impact targeted population/s and/or targeted care delivery settings

• (5)Access to a diverse mix of recipients of care, including AHRQ’s priority populations

• (5) Access to informed input and expertise from key individual and organizational stakeholders that shape care delivery

• (5) Experience and expertise in synthesizing available evidence, experience and expert opinion on complex interventions

M.3.3 Personnel/Staffing = 50 Points

(subfactors are weighted equally)

• The offerer provides evidence that personnel have the necessary education/expertise/skills for conducting field-based delivery system research, including:

o Diverse clinical expertise o Training, expertise, and experience in other relevant disciplines o Expertise and experience in the full range of implementation and evaluation research methods, including both qualitative and quantitative methods o Substantive expertise in AHRQ’s priority topics

• The offeror provides evidence that personnel have expertise and experience in successfully completing federal contracts, including producing high quality deliverables for diverse audiences

• The offeror provides evidence that personnel have expertise and experience in conducting field-based delivery system research, including overcoming unanticipated challenges

• The offeror provides evidence that personnel have competencies and experience in spread of findings or products to target audiences

The offeror provides evidence that personnel have proven competencies and experience with management of multidisciplinary teams across multiple and diverse sites, and collaboration with a variety of clinical, academic/research, and management professions across organizations.

11. Attachment J.1 Technical Proposal Template page 10 (Section d) is updated as follows:

Partnership Competencies in synthesizing available evidence, experience and expert opinion on complex interventions (where “Partnership” refers to Prime and/or Member Organizations).

Examples can come from the Prime Organization or from any Member Organization.

12. Questions:

Question 1: For the pricing scenario requirement listed in 2c on page 68: PSC

a. The proposal sets a ceiling a federal executive level 1 (on page 43) but it is our understanding that HHS limits payments to contractors to federal executive level 2. If AHRQ will allow payments at the executive level 1 then we need to use the level 1 maximum as the ceiling for Class 1. On the other hand, if AHRQ intends to continue capping salaries at executive level 2 then setting our ceiling at a higher amount would simply make us look more expensive than we actually would be if AHRQ’s cap is lower.

So if you could clarify what the maximum salary is that AHRQ will allow, that would be very helpful.

Answer a: The ceiling is Federal Executive Level II. This has been corrected in item 5 above.

b. For the costing spreadsheet, should the rates from base year 1 be used, should an average of all years be used, or should some other method be used. We are concerned that different interpretations of the rates that should be used will distort pricing comparisons between bidders.

Answer b: Please see the updated spreadsheet which includes pricing scenarios for loaded and unloaded rates for each contract year. See the Amendment to the Pricing Scenario Spreadsheet.

c. The loaded and unloaded pricing scenarios have exactly the same number of hours for each labor categories but different costs for subcontractor, ODCS, and travel. Could AHRQ confirm that these differences are intended or clarify which set should be changed to make them the same.

Answer c: There is no significance to the different cost. This was completed for sample purposes only.

d. In the unloaded labor scenario spreadsheet there is $70,000 for subcontractor. Could

AHRQ confirm that this $70,000 is for a single contractor or specify the values of the individual subcontracts that are assumed. Many indirect rate agreements allow for the application of indirects to the first $25,000 of a given subcontract so the indirect costs will be different if this amount is for one subcontract or more than one.

Answer d: For sample purposes assume there is only one subcontract.

Question 2: For the small disadvantaged business participation requirement in 2g on page 68 and in 4i on page 69, is the requirement in 2g something we should commit to for the entire IDIQ and the requirement in 4i for specific projects for which a small business subcontracting plan is required? If so, are we required to include section 4i in our cost proposal since the IDIQ does not commit AHRQ to providing us with any specific contracts or scopes of work. Without knowing what specific task orders we may win, we do not know how we can respond to section 4i? If a response to 4i is required, please explain how to respond without any specific task orders, budgets or scopes of work.

Answer 2: There is not a 4i. This has been correct see items 7 and 8. We understand the difficulty in establishing definitive plans when specific work to be acquired has not been defined at the master IDIQ level. Therefore, rather than requesting target dollars for SDB participation, we have established a target goal as a percentage (.5% of total contracting dollars). The Contractors’ achievement of that target goal will be assessed during contract performance. We are requesting that offerors review the work included in the IDIQ statement of work, and submit a plan that demonstrates a commitment to meet the target goal by subcontracting to SDBs to the maximum extent practicable.

The intention for both the SDB Participation Plan and the Subcontracting Plan is that the goals will be established at the IDIQ master level so that individual SDB Participation Plans and Subcontracting Plans will not have to be submitted, negotiated and approved at individual order levels.

Question 3: On page 70 there is a discussion about using information from PPIRS in lieu of completing a past performance questionnaire. We do not know whether information on existing

ACTION task orders has been stored in PPIRS or not. Can AHRQ clarify whether we should assume that all recent ACTION II task orders have information in PPIRS, whether no recent ACTION task orders have information in PPIRS or whether we need to check with someone at AHRQ about whether or not a specific project has information in PPIRS. If so, should we contact our contracting officer for each project, our project officer for each project, or is there a single point of contact we should contact to find out about all projects in question.

Answer 3: If you are unsure of the PPIRS status of your past performance references, please submit past performance questionnaires to the respective Contracting Officers for completion.

Question 4: On page 70 there is a statement that offerors should submit a maximum of three past performance references for contracts within the past three years. Could AHRQ clarify whether the three year limitation means that the contract must have ended within the past three years, must have started in the past three years (but can still be ongoing), or if the contract must have both start and end dates between and Aug. 28, 2014.

Answer 4: The contract must be ongoing or have ended within the past three years.

Question 5: On page 70 there is a statement that offerors should submit a maximum of three past performance references. On page 71 there is a statement that “past performance information shall be provided for the prime, predecessor companies, key personnel . . . and/or subcontractors.” Could AHRQ please clarify whether they are requesting information about a broader set of contracts than just the three contracts stipulated on page 70” Or is the instruction on page 71 followed by providing information only for the three contracts for which performance references are required.

Answer 5: Offerors must submit 3 past performance references which can contain information for the prime, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirements when such information is relevant to the acquisition.

Question 6: Given the length of the proposal materials, attachments may be very large. Could you please clarify the maximum email size that can be received by the HHS system so we will be able to split materials into a series of submission emails that will all be acceptably sized.

Answer 6: The maximum email size is 20 megabytes per email.

Question 7: We are assuming that the non-binding letters of intent should be submitted to the same person/email address that is specified for proposal questions and for submitting the proposals. Could you please confirm this or indicate where these letters should be sent.

Answer 7: Yes, all non-binding letters of intent should be submitted to the Contract Specialist Shanelle Jackson at Shanelle.Jackson@psc.hhs.gov.

mailto:Shanelle.Jackson@psc.hhs.gov

Question 8: Will Spread projects or components involve only the preparation of a plan and associated materials, or also the spread activities—actually conducting outreach to providers or to the public?

Answer 8: Spread projects may include either or both.

Question 9: Will the size of Implementation be driven, in part, by considerations of statistical validity (power to detect change)? Will Analysis and Assessment projects or components be concerned with statistical validity? Any guidance about the rigor of anticipated quantitative evaluations and analyses would be appreciated.

Answer 9: Implementation projects are likely to vary in size and purpose. Considerations of statistical validity may or may not be a concern in any given project, depending on the project purpose. The required or expected level of rigor will be evident from the information provided in the Request for Task Order (RFTO).

Question 10: Neither Pilot Testing nor Implementation describe the data collection that would be needed to measure impact – whether the intervention “worked”. Could AHRQ provide guidance as to the types of data collection anticipated?

Answer 10: The type of data collection required for any project will vary with the project purpose. Most past ACTION II projects have involved collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data; clinical and non-clinical data; and measures of both processes and outcomes. AHRQ recognizes that the time frames for RFTOs are often too short for definitive impact analysis. Nonetheless, some RFTOs will direct offerors to gather preliminary impact data or to analyze existing data that provides indications of impact.

Question 11: Section F.1, PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, states “The period of performance shall be for a base period of sixty (60) months.” Will there be option periods?

Answer 11: No, there will be no option periods under this IDIQ.

Question 12: HIPAA Business Associate Clause (2006). For patient-identified information (i.e., HIPAA data elements) does AHRQ expect FISMA? If so, which level of FISMA should contractors anticipate?

Answer 12: Individual task orders may require FISMA data security protection. The level (Low / Moderate / High) will be determined by the requirements of the task order and will be explicitly stated in the RFTO.

Question 13: Section I.5.2, HHSAR 325.231-70, Salary Rate Limitation (2012) —Please confirm that the salary rate limitation provided in Federal Executive Schedule Level I is calculated on an annual basis.

Answer 13: Please see amendment #5 which corrects the Federal Executive Schedule Level to II.

Yes, the Federal Executive Schedule Level II is calculated on an annual basis.

Question 14: Some questions AHRQ has asked us to address have specific page limitations (e.g., Section J1, last bullet on page 5), but others do not. AHRQ also offers guidance as to page limits for major sections, and overall. Could AHRQ please explain where flexibility is permitted? May we exceed page limits for specific questions, or for major sections, as long as we remain within the overall limit of 105 pages?

Answer 14: AHRQ will allow flexibility as long as the overall page limit of 105 (plus 2 pages for the Introductions) is observed. However, AHRQ strongly encourages offerors to be guided by the specific page recommendations for each section.

Question 15: Will AHRQ accept single-spaced proposals?

Answer 15: Yes.

Question 16: Will the 2-page “Introduction” count towards the total 105 page limit? If so, in which category will the 2-page Introduction be placed?

Answer 16: The introduction does not count towards the page limit.

Question 17: Is there a page limit for CVs in the Technical Appendix? May we include CVs for several additional senior staff from each of our partners, or are we limited to the 15 key individuals?

Answer 17: Yes, you may provide CVs of no more than 4 pages each for additional staff.

Question 18: May we use fonts within the template tables such as Arial or other typefaces? May we use 10 point fonts in these template tables?

Answer 18: You may use one of the following fonts and sizes:

• Calibri 11 or 12

• Arial 10 (NOT Arial NARROW)

• Times New Roman 12

Question 19: Will there be specific small business goals? If so, will the goals apply to each task order individually, or to the entire set of funded task orders a contractor receives over the five years of the IDIQ?

Answer 19: There will be small business goals. We realize that individual task orders may not be able to reach each goal each time (dependent on the work to be performed and availability of small businesses for such work), but contractors’ performance on achievement of goals will be assessed on the whole (esrs reporting at master level).

Question 20: If there are no subcontractors required for a particular task order (or all task orders) that a contractor receives, will any small business goals apply?

Answer 20: See response to Question 19 above.

Question 21: On page 70, under paragraph 2 of L.5 it states: “The offeror shall provide a maximum of 3 performance references for contracts within the past 3 years. Each reference is limited to 10 pages in length.” While on page 71 in paragraph 3 “Past performance information shall be provided for the prime, predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience and/or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition.” Are subcontractors also required to submit the maximum of 3 past performance questionnaires, in addition to the prime contractor?

Answer 21: See response to Question 5 above. Each reference is limited to 5 pages in length. See items 9.

Question 22: Since there is no scope of work for the IDIQ, what might be considered “major or critical” subcontractor contributions?

Answer 22: Major or critical contributions would be those needed to demonstrate the ability of the Partnership to successfully conduct the type of work described in the SOW, particularly as needed to complement the capacities of the Prime.

Question 23: Page 78 states that the evaluation of the proposals submitted “shall be weighted as indicated in establishing a numerical rating (maximum of 200 points obtainable) for all technical proposals submitted.” The evaluation points from M.3.1 and M.3.2 add up to 195 total. Can AHRQ address what evaluation criteria is intended to be measured for the missing 5 points?

Answer 23: See Solicitation item #10 above.

Question 24: M.4, p. 82: “Past performance information entered to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) is available to Federal agencies through a separate system called the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) for source selection purposes. The government will be considering past performance information contained in PPIRS to the greatest extent possible…For contracts that do not have past performance information available through PPIRS, offerors are requested to provide the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment J.4) directly to their reference.” Please advise on the process of how to verify PPIRS contents.

Answer 24: The Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer Representative (COR) for each requirement should be able to provide you with that information.

Question 25: The limit for the technical proposal is 105 pages - does this refer to single or double spaced pages?

Answer 25: Technical proposals may be submitted single spaced.

Question 26: The RFP requires a maximum of 3 performance references for the “offeror.” Does this maximum include past performance for subcontractors performing major or critical aspects of the requirement or should the prime organization offer 3 and the subcontractors offer their own past performance (if so, how many?)?

Answer 26: See response to Question 5 above.

Question 27: AHRQ is requesting the past performance questionnaires be returned directly to AHRQ. Is it possible to be notified when a past performance questionnaire has been received?

Answer 27: No, sometimes upon initial receipt, we cannot readily determine which offeror a past performance questionnaire belongs to. For instance if past performance is submitted for a subcontractor or key personnel.

Question 28: Is the two page limit for the introduction counted within the 105 page limit for Technical Proposal sections Factors 1-3 as outlined at the bottom of page 59 and top of page 60?

Answer 28: No. See response to Question 16 above.

Question 29: Can AHRQ clarify their intent/meaning of “affordability” and the degree to which cost itself will be of interest (as opposed to cost effectiveness, for example) as an outcome?

Answer 29: AHRQ defines its interest in affordability as follows:

AHRQ will facilitate cost and price transparency by improving the data, measures, and public reporting strategies needed to convey information on health care price and cost along with quality. AHRQ will also develop and spread evidence and tools to measure and enhance the efficiency of health systems–the capacity to produce better quality and outcomes while avoiding overutilization, or to maintain quality and outcomes with lower resource use. We will analyze variations in quality and resource use, and identify the factors that differentiate higher performing from lower performing systems.

Use the following link to view descriptions of all four priorities in AHRQ’s Congressional Budget Justification for 2015:

http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/about/mission/budget/2015/cj2015.pdf.

Pay particular attention to Section A of this document, as it describes both the specific types of research topics covered by each of the four priorities, as well as proposed initiatives for 2015 (e.g., A proposed $15 million patient safety initiative which would expand Patient Safety research to focus beyond inpatient settings to other settings of care, beginning with primary care and nursing homes).

Question 30: Will economic or cost/utilization modeling be included as part of potential analyses under ACTION III?

Answer 30: Economic or cost/utilization modeling could potentially be included as part of potential analyses under ACTION III.

http://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/about/mission/budget/2015/cj2015.pdf

Question 31: The technical proposal must not contain references to cost; however, resource information, such as data concerning labor hours and categories, materials, subcontracts, etc., must be contained in the technical proposal so that your understanding of the scope of work may be evaluated. Given that there is no scope of work for the IDIQ RFP, nor does the template request any information on labor hours, categories, materials, is it agreeable to the government to exclude this information?

Answer 31: The Offeror should include all information they feel necessary to fully provide an understating of the statement of work.

Question 32: Does the introduction count against the 105 pages or should the introduction be excluded altogether, given that there is no proposed work at the IDIQ level?

Answer 32: See response to Question 16 above.

Question 33: Would the government like hardcopy, electronic, or both?

Answer 33: The government would like electronic copies of all components of the proposals and seven (7) hard copies of the Technical Proposal portion, excluding the CVs. (CVs should be submitted only electronically).

Question 34: What is meant by “independent” in “independent health care providers” on page 7 of the RFTO J.1 Template? What does “independent” mean in the context of inpatient providers, ambulatory providers, and long term care providers?

Answer 34: Independent health care providers is meant to include any providers not included in the preceding table on page 7 titled “Partnership Composition—Health Delivery Systems/ Organizations of Affiliated Health Care Providers or Provider Organizations.”

Question 35: Are we limited to 15 resumes to include as part of the Technical Appendix or is that the maximum number of tables that we can include as part of the Factor 3 of the Technical Proposal Template?

Answer 35: See response to Question 17 above.

Question 36: The NIH Salary Limit poses undue risk to contractors when calculating fully loaded labor rates for the firm-fixed price Schedule B.5, because contractors have no control over how the Limit may change over time. Would AHRQ consider waiving the Limit for B.5, or allowing the fixed labor rates to be modified as the Limit changes?

Answer 36: We are not able to waive the salary rate limitation. However, keep in mind that the Salary Rate Limitation is an annual cap not an hourly cap. So, while the ceiling rates cannot change as a result of any salary rate adjustments, when you consider that the limitation is an annual cap, we do not agree that there is undue risk to contractors. See questions and answers posted on the HHS site regarding the salary rate limitation:

http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/salary-rate-limitation-qa.html http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/salary-rate-limitation-qa.html

Question 37: Section B.4, page 4: Are the requested unloaded hourly direct labor rate maximums for the prime contractor only?

Answer 37: Yes. Offerors are not proposing subcontractor rates at the master IDIQ level. Prime contractors will be held to the ceiling rates and labor classes specified in the contract, but prices/costs for any needed subcontractors will be handled at the individual task order level.

Question 38: Section B.4.1, page 4: Are the requested indirect cost rates for the prime contractor only?

Answer 38: Yes.

Question 39: Section B.5, page 5: Are the requested fully loaded hourly labor rate maximums for the prime contractor only?

Answer 39: Yes.

Question 40: Section L.5, page 71: If past performance information is being submitted for key personnel that will perform critical aspects of the requirement based on performance with a previous employer, can a past performance questionnaire (Attachment J.4) be submitted by a reference for the key personnel even if the contract past performance information is available in

PPIRS?

Answer 40: Yes

Question 41: Section L.7, page 76: Paragraph L.7.b refers to Section L.2 (A)(2)(a) but Section L.2 does not include any subsections please clarify.

Answer 41: The correct section is L.4 (2).

Question 42: Attachment J.1, page 1: Can experience of the proposed Principal Investigator/Project Director in successfully conducting work under Federal contracts at a prior employer be included in the six (6) contracts identified in the requested table?

Answer 42: Yes, for up to three of the six projects cited.

Question 43: Attachment J.1, page 13: The template for Factor 3 indicates that information for this factor must be limited to 15 individuals. Are additional CVs or resumes permitted to be included in the allowed Technical Appendix?

Answer 43: See response to Question 17 above.

Question 44: Evaluation criteria add up to 195 points, not 200 as cited as maximum – section M.3. of RFP, pages 78-80

Answer 44: See response to Question 23 above.

Question 45: What does New or Existing Collaboration refer to in first table on page 9 of Technical Proposal Template? For example, collaboration with Network, collaboration with some members of Network.

Answer 45: “New or “existing” refer to the nature of the collaboration between the Prime Organization and the organization being described in the table.

Question 46: Section d) on page 10 of Technical Proposal Template – should these examples come from Prime and/or Member Organizations?

Answer 46: See Technical Proposal Template Amendment #1 above.

Question 47: Section e) on page 11 of Technical Proposal Template – can these examples come from more than one Member Organization?

Answer 47: Yes.

Question 48: When is the anticipated award date of ACTION III?

Answer 48: AHRQ hopes to award the Master Contracts by February 2015.

Question 49: When will award notifications be made?

Answer 49: Award notifications will be made once all the Master Contracts are established.

Question 50: When does ACTION II end?

Answer 50: ACTION II ends in fall 2015. However, no further RFTOs will be released under ACTION II; all RFTOs issued after FY2014 will be under ACTION III.

Question 51: Can individual TOs continue beyond the ACTION contract period?

Answer 51: Yes. See item #2 above.

Question 52: Do all proposed subcontractors (not just the proposed SDB subcontractors) need to complete an identical Business Proposal as the Offeror? There is a reference to this on page 69, but it appears to be part of the SDB section. It is unclear whether all proposed Subs (SDB or not) need to submit a full business proposal.

Answer 52: No, the Prime Contractor is the only Offeror who needs to submit a business proposal. The only information required from subcontractors as part of the offerors’ proposals is the information required as part of the SDB participation plan.

Question 53: On page 69 of the RFP, this link did not work:

http://www.hhs.gov/osdbu/forms/html. Can you please provide a working link or additional http://www.hhs.gov/osdbu/forms/html guidance on the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Also, there is reference to subs over $650K, which does not seem to apply for this contract, which does not include a budget. (see 4i7, page 69 RFP).

Answer 53: The correct link is:

http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/osbdu/Small%20Business/subcontractplan.html

Question 54: How do the subcontracting goals for HHS relate to the requirement of the Offeror to have a SDB subcontracting plan?

Answer 54: They are not related. See items 7 and 8 above.

Question 55: Is the Offeror required to include proposed SDB subcontractors, or just a plan to include them?

Answer 55: See answer to Question 54 above.

Question 56: A SDB may agree to provide a LOC, but not be willing to provide a COMPLETE COST PROPOSAL in the same format as the Offeror’s cost proposal. These are small, disadvantaged businesses who may not see the benefit of completing a full cost proposal when there are no dollars attached to this RFP. They may choose to wait until there is an actual RFTO under consideration. Will a LOC suffice? Also, the 7 items asked for in the LOC include details that will not be known without a specific project. How do you suggest this is handled? In particular, (7) asks for additional information for subcontracts over $650,000. At this point there is no subcontract with a dollar amount. How do you suggest we address this item?

Answer 56: See answer to Question 52 above.

Question 57: L.5. Past Performance, page 70, RFP: The RFP states that a maximum of 3 performance references shall be provided. Is there a minimum?

Answer 57: There is no required minimum; offerors should use their professional judgment in providing sufficient performance references for the government to assess the offerors’ past performance.

Question 58: Page 68, RFP: Can you provide an example for (2)b “other rates/fees your company typically uses.”? We are not familiar with the example provided, “Material handling.”

Answer 58: Other rates/fees are specific to each organization. Each offeror should provide the applicable rates and fees associated with its organization.

Question 59: Page 67, RFP: Are you expecting every applicant to contact Shanelle Jackson requesting the applicable wage determination for our area? Is there another publically available place to obtain this information?

Answer 59: Yes, offerors should contact Ms. Jackson for their wage determination.

http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/osbdu/Small%20Business/subcontractplan.html

Question 60: Page 12, J.1 TP: When you say, “each proposed Member Organization with whom you have a history of past collaboration” does the ‘YOU’ refer to the Prime or all the Members?

In other words, are you interested in prime-member collaboration as well as inter-member collaboration?

Answer 60: The question refers to the relationship between the Prime its Member organizations

Question 61: How do you define small business? Is there an annual budget or revenue limit?

Answer 61: Small business and annual budget or revenue limits are defined by the NAICS code associated with the requirement.

Question 62: How do you define disadvantaged business? Are you following HHS’s subcontracting goals for FY2014 as listed on page 69? If so, how does this specifically apply to the SDB requirement for the Offeror?

Answer 62: The definition of disadvantaged business’ can be found at http://www.sba.gov/content/disadvantaged-businesses.

Question 63: For final submission, do you want 3 files, 1. TP, 2. Past Performance, and 3.

Business proposal? Or one file with all three. Should these files be in any particular format (in addition to the requirements of 1-inch margins, no less than 12 point font)?

Answer 63: These should be three separate files.

Question 64: For SDB – please clarify what you need from the Offeror? Would a completed form (when you fix the link) plus a LOC from the SDB suffice?

Answer 64: There is no form to be completed. See Section L.4(2)(g).

Question 65: On page 5 of the RFP (B.4.2 Fee), I am unclear about what exactly we need to provide (i.e. what fee are they referring to?) “The contractor shall not exceed the following ceiling rates: Fixed Fee Ceiling for Prime Contractor/Subcontractors (%) ___; Fixed Fee Ceiling applied by Prime Contractor on Subcontracts (%) ___; ceiling rates are established, a fixed fee will be negotiated at the task order level.

Answer 65: For cost-plus-fixed fee task orders, the fixed fee will be negotiated for each task order. However, Offerors are to propose a ceiling, as a percentage, that will not be exceeded.

Additionally, Offerors are to propose, as percentage, a ceiling applicable to subcontract costs.

Question 66: On page 4 (B.4.1 Indirect Costs), this part talks about provisional and ceiling rates for fringe, overhead & G&A. Unsure if we need to submit this table in addition to the indirect cost rate agreement or if the indirect cost rate agreement is sufficient.

http://www.sba.gov/content/disadvantaged-businesses

Answer 66: Both are needed. However, the table should include the Offeror’s established indirect rates.

Question 67: On page 43 of the RFP, the following…