Addendum 2.pdf

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ADDENDUM #2

RFSQ-BHS-FY24-0084

PROGRAM EVALUATOR SERVICES

ADDENDUM #2

ISSUED ON OCTOBER 2, 2023

BY

ANGELEAH MACATIAG

CONTRACTS MANAGER

ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

The following document shall be incorporated as part of the above-mentioned RFSQ:

• Addendum #2 –

A. Revisions to the RFSQ B. September 29, 2023 Pre-Proposal Conference Question-and-Answer

ALL OTHER SPECIFICATIONS, TERMS and CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED

ADDENDUM #2

A. Revisions to the RFSQ

1. A revised RFSQ template has been uploaded to Periscope Holdings to provide clarity regarding the assessment criteria that will be used for Offeror’s written Responses. Section V.B.2. is revised as follows:

“Response Requirements/Criteria referenced in Section IV.H. of this RFSQ shall be utilized in the evaluation of Offeror’s written Responses accordingly. Each response will be reviewed to determine if the Offeror is responsive to the submission requirements outlined in the RFSQ to qualify Offerors to the Qualified Pool list as referenced in Section II.C.5. of this RFSQ. Responses should give clear, concise information in sufficient detail to allow an evaluation based on the criteria listed in this RFSQ.”

B. September 29, 2023, Pre-Proposal Conference Question-and-Answer

1. Q:

A:

Given the September 29, 2023 Pre-proposal Conference is occurring only two business days prior to the Initial Round of Responses due October 3, 2023, referenced in Section II.A. Table 2: Anticipated Open RFSQ Schedule, is the County of Santa Clara considering a deadline extension?

The Pre-proposal Conference on September 29, 2023, will not lead to an extension of the Initial Round of Responses due on October 3, 2023 at 3:00 P.M. PST, as per RFSQ Section II.A. Table 2: Anticipated Open RFSQ Schedule. The Pre-proposal Conference should not impact Offerors' ability to submit procedural questions in writing via Periscope Holdings at www.periscopeholdings.com/s2g.

This solicitation is an open RFSQ, and you can find additional information in RFSQ Section II.A. Table 3: Calendar Year 2023-2024 Evaluation Schedule for Subsequent Responses (after the Initial Round of Responses). Evaluations may also be conducted on an as-needed basis as determined by the County.

2. Q:

Will there be other Offeror Response submittal opportunities after the Initial Round of Responses?

Yes, there are two (2) additional opportunities for Offeror Response submissions planned for calendar year 2024, as indicated in RFSQ Section II.A. Table 2:

Anticipated Open RFSQ Schedule and Table 3: Calendar Year 2023-2024 Evaluation Schedule.

3. Q:

Could you provide guidance on how to complete the Response submission documents, specifically Appendix B, "Evaluation Criteria and Qualifications," and Written Response Submission, as outlined in Section IV.E.2?

Offeror should refer to RFSQ Section IV.H.

http://www.periscopeholdings.com/s2g

4. Q:

How closely should Offeror’s Appendix B, “Evaluation Criteria and Qualifications,” Section 2, which pertains to the Proposed Program Description align with or incorporate elements from the Attachment A, “Scope of Work?” Section 2 of Appendix B outlines evaluation criteria that appear distinct from those in the Scope of Work.

Offeror Responses should align with the criteria in Appendix B, “Evaluation Criteria and Qualifications,” Section 2, which pertains to the Proposed Program Description. While Attachment A, “Scope of Work,” is provided as reference and is not required to be submitted, it is essential that Responses address the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 2 of Appendix B. Offeror should follow the Response Requirement/Criteria as outlined in RFSQ Section IV.H.

5. Q:

Can we clarify whether it's permissible for us, as a partnership of independent contractors, to engage in subcontracting within our team? This query pertains to the subcontract language, as outlined in Section I.A.7.c. of the RFSQ, specifically for non-Medi-Cal services.

Section I.A.7.c.2 of the RFSQ explicitly states that subcontracting within your team for non-Medi-Cal services is not allowed.

6. Q:

Could you provide more detailed guidance on the specific requirements for the submission related to Historical Performance Analysis? I had a question about this in the addendum, but the response provided didn't fully address my understanding. Could you please rephrase or elaborate on this matter?

Offerors are required to complete Appendix C, "Customer References," as part of the Response submission process.

7. Q:

Is it necessary for each member of our team, as a partnership, to have insurance, or would insurance for the lead evaluator alone suffice?

If the agreement is to be with a single vendor, we would require the specified vendor to provide evidence of insurance since they will be the one to sign the contract and agreeing to the indemnification and insurance terms.

8. Q:

Is it acceptable to provide an addendum from an insurance agency that aligns with the County's insurance requirements website instead of the specifically mentioned "letter" in the RFSQ, which designates the County as an additional insured?

Before a contract is awarded, the County requires an actual additional insured endorsement (AIE) that demonstrates the County’s inclusion as an insured party on the general liability policy. We will accept an actual AIE specifically naming the County or a blanket AIE that designates those required under contract as additional insured parties.

9. Q:

Is it permissible for us to submit sample reports that we have previously prepared for the County, even if these reports were not presented to the Board, provided we have obtained permission from the relevant agency for which the report was created?

Yes, it is permissible to submit sample reports that were prepared for the County, as long as you have obtained permission from the relevant agency for which the report was created. These sample reports can be included as “Miscellaneous Supporting Documents” as part of the Organization of Response Submission outlined in Section IV.E.2. It's important to reference these Offeror-generated documents in the Response Narrative as well.

10. Q:

Does the reference to “responses in the competitive range may be considered for contract award” in Section V.B.2. of the RFSQ indicate a qualifying threshold that applies to this RFSQ?

Thank you for pointing out the section for BHSD review. BHSD has released Addendum #2 to amend Section V.B.2. to indicate:

Response Requirements/Criteria referenced in Section IV.H. of this RFSQ shall be utilized in the evaluation of Offeror’s written Responses accordingly. Each response will be reviewed to determine if the Offeror is responsive to the submission requirements outlined in the RFSQ to qualify Offerors to the Qualified Pool (QP) list as referenced in Section II.C.5. of this RFSQ. Responses should give clear, concise information in sufficient detail to allow an evaluation based on the criteria listed in this RFSQ.

In addition, Section I.A.2 of the RFSQ describes how this RFSQ is a two-part solicitation process.

Phase I – Offerors will submit Responses based on the minimum requirements established within this RFSQ. Offerors who meet the RFSQ minimum requirements will be part of the Qualified Pool (QP) who are eligible to provide program evaluator services. Meeting the minimum requirements does not guarantee contract award(s).

Phase II – Once the QP is established for each category, the County will release a Work Order Proposal Request (WOPR) to move forward with contract negotiations for the specific services that are needed. Only QP members can apply for the WOPR and each WOPR released will be specific to the service the County is seeking for program evaluator services. The release of the WOPR may also be dependent upon when funding becomes available.

11. Q:

In Appendix B, "Evaluation Criteria and Qualifications" Section 2 which focuses on the Proposed Program Description, criterion "b" requests documentation of cultural competency and engagement. Could you clarify what you mean by "documentation" and how it should be integrated into the narrative?

The "documentation" in the context of the RFSQ pertains to providing evidence and explanations to demonstrate the organization's ability to address cultural competency and engagement requirements. It outlines specific areas where this documentation should be integrated into the Written Response narrative.

Additionally, it emphasizes the need for Offerors to complete Appendix G, the "Cultural Competence Form," which assesses an organization's ability to apply language, gender, and culturally specific competencies to the RFSQ services.

12. Q:

If we wish to apply for multiple categories, should we submit entirely separate applications for each category, or is it acceptable to include information about the additional category within a separate five (5)-page narrative?

Only one (1) Response submittal is needed. As specified in Section I.A.3. Offerors have the option to apply for one (1) or more categories using Appendix A, “Cover Sheet,” and provide qualifications for each category of interest. Each submission will be evaluated independently for the respective category, and the number of categories proposed will not impact the evaluation process described in Section II.C.5 of the RFSQ.

13. Q:

Can we submit insurance documentation after the application deadline with any flexibility or exceptions?

As specified in Section IV.A.2. Non-Conforming Responses, “a submission may, at the sole discretion of the County, be construed as a non-confirming Response, ineligible for consideration, or incomplete if it does not comply with the requirements of the RFSQ.” In addition, as specified in Section III.A.15.q, the County retains the authority to “Reject a Response, either in its entirety or partially, if any essential document or item required for the Response is found to be incomplete, incorrectly filled out, lacking clarity, indefinite, ambiguous, or missing, as determined by the County's judgment.”