ADDENDUM 1.pdf

November 21, 2022

ADDENDUM 1

TO: VENDORS

FROM: MICHELLE FAIRCLOTH, CHIEF OF GENERAL SERVICES

RE: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL NO. RFP FNW 22 23 49

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS

This addendum is to provide answers to questions received in reference to this Request for Proposal and provide notice of the new Public Meeting for Opening of Proposals.

Question / Answer

1. USDA has implanted a detailed procurement review for the NSLP. For this RFP, is the procurement review included in the scope NSLP Administrative Review for this RFP?

No, the division has a procurement team that will be conducting the Procurement portion of the Administrative Review.

2. While USDA has standard review forms that must be completed for all NSLP Administrative Reviews, several states have additional forms or tools that are also completed during the review. Does FL have any state specific review forms/tools? If so, can a blank copy of these be provided with the Q&A response?

Yes, Please see APPENDIX II and APPENDIX III on the MyFloridaMarketPlace Vendor Information Portal, State of Florida Advertisement webpage.

3. For Sponsors that utilize a vendor or Food Service Management Company that prepares the meals off-site, will a visit to the vendor’s or FSMC facility be required?

No, a site visit with the vendor or FSMC facility will not be required.

4. The budget request in the RFP is requesting pricing for 3 groups of reviews, small, medium, and Large. The small and medium reviews have a maximum number of sites, so the vendor is able to determine an accurate rate for these review types. For the large review, it states “over 9 site reviews”. There are a significant number of Sponsors in Florida that will require well beyond 9 site visits. In appendix B, Hillsboro and Palm Beach are both listed. Each of these sponsors will require over 20 site visits to be completed. It is hard to provide one fixed price that covers a large Sponsor with 9 site visits and/or a large Sponsor with 20+ site visits. May the vendor provide a “per site” fee for any reviews that exceed 12 site reviews? For example, the vendor would provide a set rate for a large review, from 9-12 sites, and then a supplemental site fee for any sites beyond 12. If not, may the sponsor provide pricing for an extra-large review, (i.e. more than 14 site visits)?

The Department anticipates completing the reviews of school districts with more than 12 sites, therefore a supplemental site fee isn’t needed.

5. In an effort to complete the onsite portion of all 150 Administrative Reviews prior to May 31st, is it permissible for the vendor to provide a 6-week notification timeframe from the notification date to the onsite review date?

Yes, it can be permissible to provide a 6-week notification timeframe. Also, all sponsors up for an Administrative Review have received an Engagement letter at the start of the 2022-2023.

6. For any review that is appealed and will require Vendor preparation time and/or court testimony, can the vendor propose an hourly rate for any time beyond the standard scope of the review?

The expectation is that the vendor’s presence/participation in an appeal is part of the services to be rendered. During the past two fiscal years, the Department had a total of one appeal for the National School Lunch Program. Should one occur, the vendor may appear virtually or telephonically.

7. The fixed fee by unit price category within Attachment B does not include the additional services scoped of: communication with FDACS and School Food Authorities (SFAs), correspondence with FDACS and SFAs, data entry into FDACS’ Florida Automated Nutrition System (FANS). Should the fees for these items be built into the AR fix fee unit price by unit category?

Yes, the expectation is that the fees are already built in the fixed rate for sponsor type.

8. Since the involvement with the appeals process is variable, would the contractor be able to submit additional fees / travel costs if called upon to provide in-person testimony and assist with administrative appeals arising from AR reviews with a proposal of standard fees per hour by position (rate card)?

See answer 6.

9. How many administrative appeals have there been in each of the past two years and on average how much time should contractors expect to commit to the appeal process and any related in-person testimony?

See answer 6.

10. Section 2.4 item B states that the contractors will be eligible to submit an invoice for 50% of the AR fee upon successful completion of the Entrance Conference. What are the criteria to invoice for the balance of the fees for completion of post-AR activities?

Once the review is closed, complete and error-free, the remaining 50% will be issued to the contractor. A review is considered closed once all tasks on the checklists have been completed.

Please see the attached appendices.

11. Section 2.6 item 3, requires the respondent to have at least three years of experience with all programs associated with the NSLP. Would some experience with those programs and/or similar programs combined with monitoring experience of other unrelated grant programs be acceptable?

No.

12. Confirming that the RFP requires at least three separate customer references that will only be accepted from the prime contracted vendor and the required references cannot be provided by subcontractors incorporated in the proposal?

Yes, the RFP is to execute an agreement with the prime contracted vendor and not the subcontractor.

13. Section 4.1, instructions for tab C, indicates that past performance with the Department shall constitute a reference to be used by the Department. For clarity, do we correctly understand that the Respondent can list past experience with the Department as one of its three required references?

Yes, that is correct.

14. Section 2.6 item 6, requires all respondent staff to have documented experience and demonstrated knowledge of all USDA and Florida rules, regulations and guidance as it relates to each of the programs associated with this solicitation. For purposes of complying with this requirement, will documented and demonstrated experience with similar grant programs and monitoring services be acceptable, so long as key members of the proposed team have specific experience related to each of the programs associated with this solicitation, or does each team member have to have the specific NSLP/USDA-related program experience?

See answer 11.

15. Section 2.3 of the RFP states “The AR may be conducted virtually, in-person, or a combination of the two depending on the direction of USDA and FDACS.” Section 2.5 item 13 states “conduct entrance and exit conferences with the Sponsor’s superintendent, designee, or other appropriate official at the Sponsor location”. Please confirm whether some of the ARs can be completed remotely, including the entrance and exit conferences. If so, approximately how many of the ARs are anticipated to be remote? What is the criteria for determining whether remote is an option?

Yes, elements of the ARs can be completed remotely, excluding the entrance and exit conferences. It is anticipated that the on-site portion of the ARs be completed on-site. In case the division receives a directive from our Commissioner or Governor in reference to COVID, we have added the remote option as a buffer to ensure compliance with regulations.

16. Is there an incumbent vendor providing these services or similar services currently? If so, who is that vendor, and what are the contracted fees for the services?

We have a vendor completing the Nutrition Standards component of the Administrative Review.

The vendor is Tennille Consulting Business and the value of the contract is $30,000 ($750 per review.)

17. Will FDACS consider modifications to various provisions of the RFP, including its contract terms and conditions, which would be included in our proposal as exceptions? Such exceptions would include industry standard modifications such as, but not limited to, insurance items;

ownership, warranty and remedy provisions typical for the type of services contemplated;

indemnification obligations limited to third party claims; inclusion of a limitation of liability, etc., and be included as exceptions within our proposal.

The Department will not consider any variations, inclusions or exceptions of the Request for Proposal, State of Florida General Terms and Conditions and the Department Contractual Services Agreement.

18. Section 2.1 of the RFP indicates a scope of 150 NSLP ARs by 6/30/23, but Appendix 1 to the RFP has approximately 61 ARs scheduled after January 1, 2023. Are 150 ARs anticipated in subsequent years with approximately 61 planned for the initial contract year?

The RFP is for up to 150 ARs. There will likely be up to 150 ARs in subsequent years of this contract.

19. Is the schedule at Appendix 1 the schedule intended to be followed by the awarded contractor?

There are dates that have passed; have those dates been rescheduled?

A revised schedule is being finalized and will be ready upon contract execution.

20. Is the Department about to share why this solicitation was not solicited for procurement using the State Term Contract? Since is not through the State Term Contract, are the state transaction fees of .7% still applicable to the billings associated with this project?

There is not a current State Term Contract for Administrative Review as defined in this Request for Proposal. The contract resulting from this RFP is subject to the transaction fee as identified in s. 287.057(24)(c) Florida Statues, pursuant to Rule 60A-1.031, Florida Administrative Code.

21. Has a risk assessment of each Sponsor been performed and if so, would the Division provide a copy of that risk assessment?

This question is vague and does not provide enough detail for the Department to formulate a response.

22. Will the selected contractor have input into the future AR work schedule?

No.

The Department hereby notifies vendor of the following update to the section 1.1 Timeline in this Request for Proposal. Deletions are struck through in red font, and additions are emphasized in bold/blue font:

EVENT DATE/TIME (ET) LOCATION

Anticipated Posting of Written Responses to

Vendor Inquiries November 18, 2022 November 21, 2022

Vendor Information Portal

Sealed Proposals Due December 08, 2022

5:00 PM ET

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 S. Calhoun Street, SB-8 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Public Meeting for Opening of Proposals

December 09, 2022

10:00 AM

11:00 AM ET

Teleconference Number: 1 (888) 585 – 9008 Conference Room Number: 407 639 217

Evaluation Phase (Anticipated)

Notice of Agency Decision/ Intent to Award

(Anticipated)

December 20, 2023 Vendor Information Portal

Anticipated Contract Start Date

January 02, 2023

This Addendum is hereby incorporated into and made a part of the above noted Request for Proposal.

All other terms, conditions and specifications of this Request for Proposal will remain the same. For questions regarding this Addendum, please contact the Purchasing Office at Bids@FDACS.gov.

https://www.myflorida.com/apps/vbs/vbs_www.main_menu https://www.myflorida.com/apps/vbs/vbs_www.main_menu mailto:Bids@FDACS.gov

The Department hereby notifies vendor of the following update to the section 1.1 Timeline in this Request for Proposal. Deletions are struck through in red font, and additions are emphasized in bold/blue font: