National_and_Tribal_Evaluation_of_the_2nd_Generation_of_the_Health_Profession_Opportunity_Grants _Amendment_3.pdf

(x)

15-233-SOL-00191

x x

1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

DAM

Rockville MD 20857 12501 Ardennes Avenue Twinbrook Place, Suite 400

DHHS/PSC/AMS/DAM

06/19/2015000003

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

05/15/2015

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Provide answers to the questions received

2. Revise Section F.1 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (Changes Highlighted)

3. Revise Section L.3.1 FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and

Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data (OCT 2010) ALT III (OCT 1997) ALT IV (OCT

2010) (Changes Highlighted)

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Period of Performance: 09/30/2015 to 09/29/2025

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

ROSANNA BROWNING

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

Solicitation: 15-233-SOL-00191

Amendment: 0003

Answers to Bidder Questions

QUESTION 1: Has a contractor performed similar work to this for the government in the past? If available, please provide the incumbent contract number. If you are unable to provide a contract number, is it safe to assume this is a new requirement for the government?

ANSWER: The work specified under this solicitation is a new requirement. Similar work has been performed in the past in support of the evaluation activities around the first round of HPOG program grantees funded in 2010 (see the description of OPRE’s career pathways portfolio provided in the solicitation in Section C, C.2 Background). The contract numbers are as follows:

HPOG Impact Study – Contract No. HHSP23320095624WC/HHSP23337012T

Pathways for Advancing Careers and Education – Contract No. HHSP23320072913YC

HPOG Implementation, Systems, and Outcomes Evaluation Design and Performance

Reporting – Contract No. HHSP23320095624WC/HHSP23337007T

National Implementation Evaluation – Contract No.

HHSP23320095624WC/HHSP23337016T

Evaluation of Tribal HPOG – Contract No. HHSP23320095647WC/HHSP23337014T

Intermediate Outcomes of Career Pathways Programs – Contract No.

HHSP23320095624WC/HHSP23337019T

Evaluation and System Design for Career Pathways Programs: 2nd Generation of HPOG –

Contract No. HHSP23320095624WC/HHSP23337022T

QUESTION 2: For purposes of estimating costs for Task 11 under SC1, the instructions tell offerors to assume three special topic reports, briefs and documents will be developed under this task. Do you mean three documents in total, or three of each type? Are these annual assumptions or in total over the six-year period of performance for this SC? (RFP Section B.2, pp. 11)

ANSWER: Offerors should assume a total of three special topics reports, briefs, or documents will be developed under SC1, Task 11. These assumptions are for the entire six year period of performance.

QUESTION 3: Is the “$1,000,000 per fiscal year for one year” for site payments for each of OSC5 and

OSC6 for a total of $2,000,000., or is a total of $1,000,000 over both? (RFP Section B.2, pp. 12 and RFP

Section C.3.5, pp. 61)

ANSWER: OSC5 and OSC6 are two separate optional services components, and Offerors should assume that $1,000,000 per fiscal year is available under each OSC, for a total of

$2,000,000.

QUESTION 4: Do the estimated labor hours for Optional Service Components (OSC) 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 include data collector hours? (RFP Section B.2, pp. 14-15)

ANSWER: The Estimated Level of Effort estimates offered in Section B.2 do not include labor hours associated with data collection/survey execution as part of OSC 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

QUESTION 5: How many grant applications were received for non-Tribal grantees? How many of these are returning grantees? (RFP Section C.3.1, pp. 26)

ANSWER: ACF is not permitted to share this information. Grant awards will be made by the end of September 2015.

QUESTION 6: How many grant application were received for Tribal grantees? How many of these are returning grantees? (RFP Section C.3.2, pp. 43)

ANSWER: ACF is not permitted to share this information. Grant awards will be made by the end of September 2015.

QUESTION 7: Given that site payments for evaluation costs are likely to absorb much of the total of

$5,000,000 (or $4,000,000 depending on the answer to the above question), there may be insufficient funds to support robust optional program components that will have reliably detectable effects. In the discussion of MOUs under Subtask 3.4, the RFP describes “additional potential site payments to facilitate the implementation of optional program components.” By “additional” does the RFP intend that payments would come from sources other than the total of $5,000,000 (or $4,000,000 depending on the answer to the above question)? (RFP Section C.3.1, pp. 31)

ANSWER: The RFP does not intend that payments would come from sources other than the up to $5,000,000 total in site payments across SC1, OSC4, OSC5, and OSC6. This amount is to be divided amongst all grantees/programs participating in the impact evaluation during the grant period and represents the total amount of resources available for site payments.

QUESTION 8: Subtask 5.1 refers to site agreements as both Subcontracts and MOUs. Under the current

HPOG Impact Study, sites were issued agreements in the form of MOUs and were not subject to consent at FAR 52.244-2. Please clarify if site agreements issued under the 2 nd

Generation contract will be subject to such consent. (RFP Section C.3.1, pp. 33)

ANSWER: This is an oversight. Site agreements shall be issued in the form of MOUs and thus not subject to consent under FAR 52.244-2.

QUESTION 9: Based on the RFP, it appears that the timelines for development and submission of the

OMB packages for the non-Tribal and Tribal evaluations differ, with the Tribal package being submitted several months before that of the non-Tribal. In our experience, it is not permissible to have two OMB packages for the same project pending simultaneously. Would it be acceptable to submit the Tribal package several months later than the date implied by the RFP so that the non-Tribal and Tribal evaluation data collection instruments and protocols can be submitted in a single OMB package? (RFP

Section C.3.1, pp. 36 and RFP Section C.3.2, pp. 48)

ANSWER: OMB clearance will need to be obtained for both the National and Tribal evaluations and it is anticipated that these evaluations will operate on slightly different schedules. As it is not permissible to have two OMB packages for the same project pending simultaneously, Offerors should propose an appropriate timeline for OMB clearance for both evaluations, whether it is coordinated as one package or two packages submitted sequentially.

QUESTION 10: Task 7 of OSC4 includes “site specific reports of 15-month study findings, and interim reports for each of the HPOG sites eligible to measure site-specific impact results.” Are these two different reports for each eligible site? If so, what is the nature of the interim report? (RFP Section C.3.4

(Task 7), pp. 59)

ANSWER: Offerors should please disregard the inclusion of “interim reports” under this task.

Offerors shall assume that site-specific reports of 15-month study findings for each of the HPOG sites eligible to measure site-specific impact results will be produced under this task. Following the bidding assumptions included in RFP Section B.2 (pp. 12), Offerors shall assume that, at a minimum, reports will be produced for the Final Implementation/Process Study Findings, the

Final 15-month Follow-up Study Findings, and that ten (10) grantees will be eligible to measure site-specific impact findings.

QUESTION 11: In the suggested schedule, OSC11 (36 Month Data Collection) begins in September

2018. This does not allow sufficient time to obtain OMB clearance to begin 36 month data collection on a timely basis. May offerors assume that this OSC will be exercised by September 2017? (RFP Section

F.1, pp. 74)

ANSWER: Please see the revised Section F.1 Period of Performance included in this amendment for a complete list of revised possible election dates for the Optional Services

Components.

QUESTION 12: Section L.3 states that certified cost or pricing data is not required; however, FAR

52.215-20 Alt III is referenced in this section, as well as Alt IV. In addition, Section I.1 includes FAR

52.215-11 and 52.215-13 both of which are only applicable, as prescribed by FAR 15.408 (b) and (c), under solicitations and contracts when it is contemplated that certified cost or pricing data will be required from the contractor or any subcontractor. Please clarify if certified cost or pricing data will be required from the contractor or any subcontractors proposed. (RFP Section L.3, pp. 113)

ANSWER: Certified cost or pricing data is required.

QUESTION 13: Per pp. 111-113, we understand that Offerors must prepare an HHS Section 508 Product

Assessment Template, in accordance with its completion instructions, and provide a binding statement of conformance. However, does a bidder need to ensure that the technical proposal itself is 508-compliant, or rather, that the applicable deliverables that it proposes will be 508-compliant? (RFP Section M.41, pp.

120)

ANSWER: Technical proposals do not need to be 508-compliant; proposed deliverables that will be made publically available do need to be 508-compliant.

QUESTION 14: We understand the need for offerors to provide OPRE with succinct proposals. Even with that understanding in mind, we request that OPRE consider expanding the page limit beyond 100 pages, given that the complexity of the evaluation, including the need to describe both the approaches to the tribal and non-tribal grants, depict the large study team, and articulate our approach to 21 Optional

Service Components and over 50 tasks. Alternatively, would OPRE consider excluding a three-to-five page executive summary, “milestones or phasing charts” (Section L.2.1, page 110), staff time commitment charts (Section L.2.2, page 111) and a schedule of deliverables?

ANSWER: We appreciate that this is a complex evaluation with numerous optional services components and tasks. OPRE maintains the 100 page limit and encourages Offerors to identify efficiencies in points of discussion for their proposals. Several of the optional services components and tasks across optional services components are repetitive. OPRE agrees to remove the requirement to provide an executive summary; additionally, OPRE agrees to allow

Offerors to include the required milestones or phasing charts, staff time commitment charts, and a schedule of deliverables outside the 100 page limit.

QUESTION 15: In general regard to data security: 1) What is the FIPS 199 security categorization level for this system? 2) Will the contractor be required to submit a Privacy Impact Assessment? 3) Will the contractor be expected to participate in a certification and accreditation (C&A) effort? If so, what is the expected level of involvement from the contractor? Are there any ongoing C&A activities that should be included in the proposed budget?

ANSWER: The HPOG Participant Accomplishment and Grant Evaluation System (PAGES) data system to be used in the proposed contract is being developed and will be maintained under an existing contract. The proposed contract does not contain any information systems that would be subject to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), so questions on FIPS 199 and C&A are not relevant. The contractor will not be expected to submit a Privacy

Impact Assessment.

QUESTION 16: In order to complete OSC4 by September 30, 2022, especially with respect to Task 4.3

Final Report Execution, several of the optional service components to support the 15 month follow-up data collection would need to be exercised earlier than the election dates shown in Section F.1. In particular, OSCs 8, 9 and 10 each would need to be exercised several months earlier so that the data from these 15-month surveys can be included in the analysis for the final report. In addition, if these three

OSCs cannot be exercised earlier than noted in the RFTOP, there are similar implications for the report associated with the 36-month follow-up survey. Can offerors propose alternative election dates for OSCs in order to comply with the schedule of deliverables in the RFTOP? (RFP Section F.1, pp. 74)

ANSWER: Please see the revised Section F.1 Period of Performance included in this amendment for a complete list of revised possible election dates for the Optional Services

Components.

QUESTION 17: A pretest of the 15-month follow-up instrument is included in OSC4, after the OMB package has been submitted. Is it acceptable to add the pretest to SC1 (and remove it from OSC4) so that the instruments can be revised based on the pretest results prior to submission of the OMB package?

ANSWER: Yes, this was an oversight. Offerors may assume that pre-tests of the first follow-up survey instrument will be conducted under SC 1, Subtask 6.2 (Design First Follow-up Survey) in advance of or simultaneously with submitting the OMB package rather than under OSC4, Task 3

(Administer First Follow-up Survey). Additionally, Offerors may assume that pre-tests of the second follow-up survey instrument will be conducted under OSC11, Task 2 (Instrument

Development and OMB Clearance) rather than OSC11, Task 3 (Administer Second Follow-up

Survey).

SECTION F DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (Changes Highlighted)

The government anticipates the period of performance will be for a base period of 72-months, with twenty optional periods varying in length. The total period of performance shall not exceed 120 months.

The optional services components may be elected at any time during the period of performance as required to meet study objectives, and the optional services component periods of performance are expected to overlap. A possible schedule of election is presented below but it does not constrain the government’s ability to elect optional services sooner or later, as needed.

Possible Election Dates and Period of Performance for each Optional Services Component

Optional Services Component 2 12 Months Date: September 2015

Optional Services Component 3 60 Months Date: September 2016

Optional Services Component 4 72 Months Date: October 2016

Optional Services Component 5 24 Months Date: October 2017

Optional Services Component 6 24 Months Date: October 2018

Optional Services Component 7 24 Months Date: October 2017

Optional Services Component 8 24 Months Date: October 2018

Optional Services Component 9 24 Months Date: October 2019

Optional Services Component 10 24 Months Date: October 2020

Optional Services Component 11 84 Months Date: October 2017

Optional Services Component 12 24 Months Date: October 2018

Optional Services Component 13 24 Months Date: October 2019

Optional Services Component 14 24 Months Date: October 2020

Optional Services Component 15 24 Months Date: October 2021

Optional Services Component 16 72 Months Date: October 2018

Optional Services Component 17 24 Months Date: September 2016

Optional Services Component 18 24 Months Date: September 2018

Optional Services Component 19 24 Months Date: September 2020

Optional Services Component 20 24 Months Date: September 2022

Optional Services Component 21 24 Months Date: September 2023

SECTION L – INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

L.3.1 FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than

Certified Cost or Pricing Data (OCT 2010) ALT III (OCT 1997) ALT IV (OCT 2010)

(Changes Highlighted)

(a) Submission of certified cost or pricing data is not required.

(b) Provide the data described below:

All costs or pricing information must be submitted in sufficient detail to allow for a complete cost analysis by the Government. The cost proposal shall contain information that will validate that the proposed costs are consistent with the technical proposal and provide the supporting rationale needed to permit a determination of cost realism.

At a minimum, the Offeror should itemize the cost for individual elements, such as labor, supplies, travel, etc. as indicated in items 1-6 below:

1) Direct Labor: (Provide complete detailed breakdown of all labor costs) include all persons, listing the persons name, title, number of hours worked, hourly rate, the total cost per person and a total amount for this category;

2) Fringe Costs: show rate, base and total amount;

3) Overhead or Indirect Costs: show rate, base and total amount;

4) Travel: include for each airplane or train trip taken, the name of the traveler, date of travel, destination, the transportation costs include ground transportation shown separately and the per diem costs. Local and other travel costs shall also be listed.

5) Other Direct Costs: include a listing of all other direct charges to the contract, i.e., consultants, training event costs, and registration fees. In addition, provide source-type supporting documentation for all other direct costs, i.e. vendor quotes, previous invoices for the services, etc.

6) Fee: show rate, base and total.

This breakdown of costs must be shown for each year of the contract. The business proposal must show proposed costs by task and total for each optional services component, with each optional services component separately priced, as well as the overall cost for the entire contract.

If the Offeror proposes any other direct costs (ODC’s) (travel, supplies, etc.) to perform the work herein, supporting documentation must be submitted to support each ODC proposed. A detailed breakdown shall be provided. The Offeror should also summarize total costs for the entire contract period by individual category.

Proposed hourly rates shall be supported by the submission of the employee's most recent payroll schedule or payroll journals. Documentation to verify salaries for new hires shall consist of written offers of employment, employment agreements or contracts which indicate the position, annual salary and hourly rate for each new hire.

The Offeror's proposal should indicate whether escalated rates are used. If escalation is included, state the percent and methodology, e.g. annual flat rate applied to a base rate as of a specific date or a midpoint rate for the period of performance. Salary increases that are anticipated during contract performance must be claimed under the contract. Plans for any additional compensation resulting from employee relations, profit sharing, pensions or health and welfare benefits shall also be included. The Offeror shall also state whether overtime will be required under the contract and the overtime premium rate to be applied for all direct labor proposed.

The Offeror shall indicate in its proposal whether or not it has the necessary financial capacity, working capital and other resources to perform without assistance from any outside sources. (If not, you must indicate the amount required and the anticipated source).

Documentation to verify indirect cost rates such as the Offeror’s most recent indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant audit agency shall be submitted as part of the proposal. A copy of the Offeror’s most recent audited financial statements shall also be included.

(c) Submit the cost portion of the proposal via the following electronic media: Microsoft Word, Microsoft

Excel, or PDF format.

(End of provision)