5906-0 Vendor QA FINAL.pdf

Question Background Question Answer

Can you confirm if the dashboard must be built with RShiny? Yes, it must be built with RShiny.

Does OHA plan to handle hosting for the dashboard? If, for example, it is done with RShiny, would you handle setting up the hosting for the app?

Yes, OHA will be hosting it on an Posit Connect server.

What format is the SHS data in now? Both BRFSS and SHS data are in SPSS.

Attachment D

Do you want references to fill out all of 5906 ATTACHMENT D~1.docx, send the form to me, and have me submit the form with our application. Or do you just want the reference’s contact info so that you can contact them to ask them the questions on the form?

Vendors must have each of their references complete their own copy of attachment D. The vendor submitting a proposal in response to the RFP shall include their completed reference forms in their proposal packet.

The RFP mentions the use of R Shiny. Is R Shiny a hard technical requirement for this project, or would you consider alternative front-end frameworks (e.g., a custom JavaScript application) that could offer improved performance, scalability, and long-term maintainability?

In addition to performance and scalability, it’s also worth noting that R Shiny can be quite limited in terms of layout flexibility and visualization customization.

If the goal is to produce a polished, production-quality experience with a high degree of design and interactive control, a modern JavaScript framework may be better suited to support those needs, but we understand that there are a variety of considerations for any technology stack (please see next question).

The use of the Shiny package in R for the front-end visualization is a requirment as outlined in section 3.1.1.

Can you clarify if the primary goal is to leverage existing R-based data pipelines (e.g., for analysis and modeling) while allowing flexibility on the visualization layer?

For instance, would a hybrid approach—where R handles data processing and a JavaScript front-end handles interactive visualizations—be acceptable?

The use of Shiny as the visualization layer is required.

Can you elaborate on what is involved in “applying real-time weight(s) to application-available complex survey data”?

Are these weighting functions specific R functions, or are they generalizable/standard statistical weighting functions that could be reproduced in other applications?

Does this mean users can modify weight parameters interactively and see results update instantly?

This is why experience with BRFSS data is a requirement. BRFSS data are weighted, and the application needs to apply weights and calculate accurate cofidence intervals and RSE in real time based on users' data requests. The weights are not specific to R.

Could you elaborate on what the security requirements are? Will we be working with non-anonymized data?

There are no identifying variables in BRFSS data. But there are granular race/ethnicity variables which may require suppression.

Is prior direct experience with BRFSS data a hard requirement, or would equivalent experience with public health survey data—combined with extensive work on CDC, state-level, and other complex health datasets—be considered sufficient to meet this requirement?

Experience with BRFSS data is a hard requirement. It is a complex dataset, and this project requires the contractor to be extremely familiar with the data, weighting, how prevalence estimates are calculated/displayed, etc.

What is the expected size and complexity of the BRFSS and SHS datasets to be queried in real time?

Are there existing APIs or ETL processes for these data sources?

Both are annual datasets. BRFSS datasets have roughly 8,000 to 9,000 records each year. SHS has in excess of over 60,000 records across grades 6th, 8th and 11th. There are no existing APIs or

ETL.

Page #7, Section 2.3.2 Will the OHDCIA display data only from the core BRFSS, or from the state modules (I.e., Adverse Childhood Experiences, Caregiver)as well? All modules that Oregon has asked (Core, Optional, State-added) will be included/displayed.

In one place you mention RShiny as one option for creating the dashboard. I’m focusing on the “e.g. R-Shiny” here:

"Agency seeks a Proposer with capacity to provide all personnel, labor, equipment, materials, and supplies to develop a multi-faceted, interactive, flexible, web-based, user-driven, open-source (e.g., R-Shiny)-based, data visualization tool that is able to access, handle and manage complex, weighted survey data in real time."

However, throughout the rest of the proposal, you talk about RShiny being the required tool.

Data handling and analysis requirements

Data visualization requirements

Page #7, Section 2.3.2 Since BRFSS data comes with the survey weights developed by the CDC, could you clarify whether the scope of the project is to develop any sort of additional weights, or simply applying the weights provided by the CDC to the data?

The scope of work requires weights developed by CDC and Oregon to be applied to the data in real time/on-demand.

Page #7, Section 2.3.2 Does OHA have existing disclosure avoidance processes or specific suppression criteria when presenting survey data or would the contractor be expected to help develop appropriate suppression and disclosure avoidance methodology as part of the contract?

There are current suppression criteria, and we would welcome discussion with the contractor about suppression, disclosure, protecting respondent confidentiality.

Page #8, Section 2.4 What are the levels of geographic resolution that is anticipated for the OHDCIA? For the substate levels, will OHA give the contractor access to the restricted version of the BRFSS?

Geographic area will be at the county and regional levels. Yes, the contractor will have access to the restricted datasets.

Page #8, Section 3.1.1 If restricted data are used, deploying the application on a public platform like shinyapps.io may not be secure.

In that case, what security requirements will OHA mandate for hosting and access on a different platform?

Restricted data will not be included/displayed and will only be provided to the Contractor for design/development purposes.

Page #8, Section 3.1.1 What are the performance expectations, such as the expected daily or peak number of OHDCIA users, and what considerations should the contractor keep in mind when selecting a hosting solution that can meet these demands, given that platforms like shinyapps.io may not offer sufficient bandwidth or user capacity?

OHA will host the application on an R Shiny server once it is final/ready for launch. The Contractor will not host.

Page #8, Section 2.4 Can OHA clarify the expected scope and duration of post-launch technical support for end users and dataset integrations? Should this support be included in the fixed price, or may it be structured as a separately priced optional service?

It is estimated that the Contractor will be available to provide technical support for at least six months. Price for support may be included as a separate line item.

Page #9, Section 3.2.1 Can OHA clarify what specific content should be included in the Administrative Proposal as referenced in Section 3.2.1? Is the Executive Summary, Administrative Proposal, and Technical Proposal intended as one combined volume, or should they be submitted as separate documents?

Preference is to have them combined/in one document.

Page #10, Section 3.2.2 Does the 12-page limit apply only to the Technical Proposal narrative, or does it include the Executive Summary and Administrative Proposal as well?

Proposal submission required elements are outlined in 3.2.1.

The elements listed in 3.2.2 state which do not count toward the page limit.

The Executive Summary, Administrative Proposal, and Technical Proposal are not listed in section 3.2.2, so yes, they are counted toward the 12 page limit.

Page #12, Section 3.3.5 Sections 3.3.5 and 4.9.4 reference both a Project Implementation Plan and a Project Work Plan as part of the proposal. Can OHA clarify the distinction between these two plans? Are both required as separate deliverables, and if so, how should proposers distinguish between the two in the response?

Agency will allow the two to be combined into one document/plan.

Page #11, Section 3.3.2 Can OHA clarify whether proposers are expected to submit completed Reference Check Forms (Attachment D) with their proposal, or simply provide contact information for references as stated in Section 3.3.2?

Section 3.2.1 notes that Attachment D Reference Check Form must be submitted as part of the proposal submission.

Page #11, Section 3.3.3 Given that the contract is structured as Firm-Fixed Price, can OHA confirm whether proposers must disclose unburdened salary/wage, fringe rate, and overhead components, or if fully loaded labor rates per role will satisfy the Price Proposal requirements?

section 3.3.3 Price Proposal states:

"• The Price Proposal must include separate line items for personnel, travel, supplies, other costs, and administrative and overhead charges; and

• For all fully loaded personnel costs, the Price Proposal must include the name and title of all positions for each individual staff person who will perform the Work, and list the salary/wage and fringe rate separately for each such individual"

So yes, the salary/wage and fringe rate must be provided for each individual staff person who will perform the Work. Any applicable adminstrative and overhead charges and other costs must be outlined.

Attachment A1, Page 10, Section 3.7 Will proposers be permitted to price warranty-related support as a distinct line item, or should the costs of defect correction during the 365-day and 90-day warranty periods be built into the base fixed price? It should be built into the base price.

Attachment A, Page 21, Section 8.6 Section 8.6 requires full IP assignment to the Agency, while Section 8.7 allows reuse of concepts and methods.

Can OHA clarify whether contractors will be permitted to retain or reuse pre-existing templates, tools, or methodologies used during performance?

"Contractors will be permitted to use pre-existing templates, tools or methodologies. Such pre-existing material would be considered “Contractor Intellectual Property”, which under Section

8.1 of the contract is the IP of the Contractor. The assignment of ownership to the Agency under Section 8.2 applies to “Work Product” which is limited to material created under the contract, not pre-existing material."

Attachment A, Page 23, Section 9.5 Can OHA clarify whether background checks are required for all proposed staff, or only those who will access State systems, data, or facilities? Will remote staff with no system access still be subject to this requirement? This shall be for personnel that will perform Services and have access to Agency Data.

Attachment A, Pages 27-29, Section 12 & 13

As a nonprofit organization, there is a commitment to maintaining equitable and balanced contractual relationships, with careful attention to provisions that may impose disproportionate financial risk. While the contract includes a 1.5x limitation of liability, the carveouts for indemnity, confidentiality breaches, and data breaches - combined with the absence of a disclaimer for indirect damages - substantially diminish the protection this cap would typically offer. Additionally, these provisions appear to be non-mutual, creating the possibility that a contractor could be held liable for circumstances arising from the State's own actions or omissions. Would the State consider narrowing these carveouts or providing clarification on whether there is flexibility in how risk is allocated?

The proposers should base their proposal on the indemnity, limitation of liability, and other related provisions set forth in the sample contract. The negotiable items under this Contract are set forth in Section 5.4 of the RFP and do not include the indemnity and limitation of liability provisions and OHA does not elect to expand the list of negotiable items. Also, There is a disclaimer on indirect damages under Section 13.2 of the sample contract

Attachment A, Pages 44-46, Exhibit C

The insurance requirements in Attachment A include naming the State as an additional insured on all applicable policies, providing advance notice of cancellation, and maintaining coverage for 24 months following contract completion. Would the State consider alternative insurance arrangements that still meet the intent of the requirement - such as industry-standard notice periods and exclusions for policies where additional insured status is not typically available?

The RFP does not list insurance provisions as negotiable in Section 5.4 of the RFP, but Section

5.3.1 of the RFP does imply that insurance could be negotiated. Regardless, the State will require the Proposer to demonstrate the insurance coverage set forth in the insurance exhibit. The State may consider pragmatic changes to the insurance provision to arrive at protections to the State that are equivalent to those set forth in the Sample Contract.

Attachment B Does the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B1) require notarization, or will a signed version by an authorized representative suffice?

The requirement for notarization of affidavits in Oregon stems from the Revised Uniform Law on Notarial Acts, specifically found in ORS Chapter 194.

If a vendor submits Attachment B Disclosure Exemption Affadavit without the completing the entire form, including the Notary section and notarized signature, then the document is not valid.

Attachment B Can OHA confirm whether proposers are permitted to submit a redacted copy of their proposal alongside the full version, in order to clearly separate any confidential or exempt information?

Yes, this is permitted.

Attachment F Can OHA confirm whether Attachment F (COBID Certification / Outreach Plan) must be submitted if the proposer is not COBID certified and does not intend to use subcontractors?

Section 3.2.1 notes that Attachment F - Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan is required to be submitted as part of a vendor's proposal.

Question 1 gives the vendor the opportuntity to confirm/deny if they are an Oregon certified firm as outlined under paragraph 1 of Attachment F.

Question 4 gives the vendor the opportunity to confirm/deny if any subcontracting opportunities are available for this procurement.

As noted in section 3.2.2, attachment F does not contribute towards the Proposal Page Limit.

5906 vendor Q&A