Addendum 2.pdf

County of Santa Clara Addendum #2

RFSQ-BHS-FY25-0066

Children, Youth, And Family System of Care Services

ADDENDUM #2

ISSUED ON OCTOBER 25, 2024

BY

ANGELEAH MACATIAG

CONTRACTS MANAGER

ELECTRONIC REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILY SYSTEM OF CARE SERVICES

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

• Addendum #2 –

A. October 24, 2024 Offeror’s Conference Question-and-Answer

ALL OTHER SPECIFICATIONS AND TERMS and CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED

ADDENDUM #2

A. October 24, 2024 Offeror’s Conference Question-and-Answer

1. Q:

A:

Page 5, Section I.A.4.d.iii: This question asks CCPs to “outline your program’s direct service staff vacancy rates over the past five (5) years, …” Due to a combination of factors including but not limited to shifting services from in-person to telehealth (due to shelter-in-place), we do not have reliable vacancy rate data for the 2020-time frame. Given that, is it ok if we report only the vacancy rate data going back four years (to 2021) instead of five years?

Yes, it is acceptable to report vacancy rate data for the past four years (from 2021 onward) if reliable data from 2020 is unavailable. Please ensure that your submission includes an explanation for the missing data from 2020, outlining the reasons for the unavailability of this information.

2. Q:

As a CCP providing two services, should we submit direct staff vacancy rates specific to each service/program or is it sufficient to submit overall agency data?

Refer to question 44 of the Periscope Question and Answer forum for details.

3. Q:

Do the slots per category in Section I.A.12, Table 3, remain the same as the current allocation, or has there been a change?

The slots per category in Table 3 are estimates and may differ from current allocations. BHSD anticipates awarding contracts as specified in Table 3 but reserves the right to adjust the number of slots per Offeror based on anticipated needs. The final number of active slots may change during contract negotiations.

4. Q:

In regard to the Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) and Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) information do we need to include the CAPS we receive from annual Quality Improvement (QI) audits?

Please include all CAPs and PIPs received over the past five years, specifically focusing on those related to performance audits. CAPs from annual QI audits that pertain solely to documentation standards are not required as part of the CAP/PIP submission. Refer to Section I.A.4.c of the RFSQ for further details.

5. Q:

What circumstances would require a County-contracted provider (CCP) to submit a full proposal for their current program?

A County-contracted provider (CCP) may be required to submit a full proposal for their current program if they are not in good standing.

Circumstances that could prompt a full proposal include unresolved performance issues, compliance concerns, or significant changes to the program scope that require additional review to ensure alignment with County standards.

6. Q:

For Appendix A Section I, please explain the difference between the first two options ..."our organization is an existing" vs "...our organization is seeking evaluation as an existing..."

These options serve as self-attestations to ensure completion of the correct section of this form:

1. Our organization is an existing BHSD-contracted Children, Youth, and Family System of Care service provider – Choose this option to confirm that the organization is currently a County-Contracted Provider (CCP) for the specified programs and has correctly identified all relevant programs in this form.

2. Our organization is seeking evaluation as an existing CCP – Select this option to affirm that the organization would like to be considered for the “Current CCP Evaluation Process” as described in Section I.A.3 of this RFSQ.

7.

Q:

Page 5, Section I.A.4.d.iii: There are a few specific questions about the vacancy rate data being requested for the allcove Palo Alto Program:

Due to shelter-in-place, the official launch of allcove Palo Alto was delayed until June 2021. During the shelter-in-place period, an interim telehealth version of the program called Virtual You was sponsored. Should vacancy rate data be reported for Virtual You, or should data only be included for the allcove Palo Alto Center starting from its opening in June 2021?

It is acceptable to report vacancy rate data starting from June 2021, when allcove Palo Alto officially launched. Please ensure your submission notes that vacancy data is being provided from June 2021 onward due to the delayed launch of allcove Palo Alto.

A Team Lead position was split between allcove Palo Alto and allcove San Jose. After allcove San Jose closed, the position was not refilled and no longer exists. Should this position be included in the vacancy rate data? If so, should it be reported as a 0.5 FTE role for allcove Palo Alto?

Yes, the Team Lead position should be included in the vacancy rate data while it was active. Be sure to clearly indicate the timeframe during which the position was filled and when it was no longer part of the staffing plan.

When allcove San Jose closed in early 2022, staff were temporarily placed at allcove Palo Alto until the Downtown Youth Wellness Center (DYWC) opened. Should the increased staffing at allcove Palo Alto during that time be reflected, or should only the original staffing plan for allcove Palo Alto be reported?

The vacancy rate data should reflect the original staffing plan for allcove Palo Alto. However, you may include a note explaining the temporary increase in staff from allcove San Jose during early 2022, but this should be clearly identified as a temporary adjustment, separate from the standard staffing levels for allcove Palo Alto.

8. Q:

For the A4: School-Based Outpatient (SB OP) Scope of Work, what are the expectations regarding staff availability before and after school hours? Are there specific hours during which staff are required to be available?

The SB OP program requires that services be provided before, during, and after school hours, in alignment with the school schedule and in collaboration with the designated school district. There are no specific set hours for staff availability, but services should be scheduled flexibly to meet the needs of both the students and their families. Additionally, it’s essential that services do not unduly interfere with students’ academic time or rights to education.

9. Q:

For Appendix B#, where Offerors are prompted to supply "Miscellaneous Supporting Documents," can you please clarify what kinds of documents are being sought? Would a narrative response explaining or expounding on checkbox responses be considered an appropriate Supporting Document?

Miscellaneous Supporting Documents in Appendix B# should include verifiable items that directly support your organization’s qualifications as referenced in your Response Narrative. This may include, but may not be limited to, certifications, licenses, letters of reference, organizational chart, job descriptions, etc. These documents are meant to reinforce the information provided in your Response Narrative, but do not need to include additional narrative explanations.

10. Q:

For the A12: School-Based Early Intervention Scope of Work, Section VII.A.v mentions that Evidence-Based Practices (EBPs) include, but not limited to, Triple P Level 3 and the Strengthening Families Program (SFP). Would it be acceptable to offer comparable EBP with similar programmatic elements and a cultural focus, such as Familia Adelante, in place of the SFP? Or is the use of SFP specifically required?

Section VII.A.v of the SB EI SOW specifies that both the SFP and Triple P Level 3 are required EBPs for this program. However, it is acceptable to include additional comparable EBPs, with BHSD approval, such as Familia Adelante, if they align with the program’s objectives and provide cultural specificity. These additional EBPs can complement, but not replace, the required SFP and Triple P Level 3. Approval of additional EBPs will be discussed during contract negotiations.

11. Q:

The most recent amended RFSQ on Periscope is not displaying correctly and returns an error when attempting to click or download it. Could you confirm if the latest RFSQ is accessible, or if there might be an issue with the file?

The County has not encountered any issues with the file. Please reach out to Periscope Holdings for assistance. The County has also contacted Periscope to inquire about potential compatibility issues with specific browsers, such as Firefox or Chrome. If any browser-related issues are identified, this response will be updated with recommended troubleshooting steps. In the meantime, we encourage you to reach out to Periscope directly.

Periscope Holdings is contracted by the County to provide vendors with technical support for tasks such as registration, account maintenance, and other technical issues. We recommend reaching out to their helpdesk for assistance with this issue. You can contact them through the following:

1. Frequently Asked Questions: https://support.bidsync.com/hc/en-us/categories/203148568-FAQs

2. Email: S2G@periscopeholdings.com

3. Phone: 1 (800) 990-9339 https://support.bidsync.com/hc/en-us/categories/203148568-FAQs https://support.bidsync.com/hc/en-us/categories/203148568-FAQs mailto:S2G@periscopeholdings.com

12. Q:

We are instructed to submit only one common set of appendices for all programs yet a couple of these documents, such as the Cultural Competence Form, would vary depending on the program. How ought we to proceed?

This requirement applies to full proposals. Offerors must submit a complete Response Submission for each newly proposed program. While common documents like financials may only need to be submitted once, any program-specific appendices, forms, or narratives must be submitted separately for each program to ensure that all program requirements are met in full. Refer to Section IV.E, Table 7-8 of the RFSQ for details on how to compile and organize submissions.

13. Q:

Could you please confirm the total number of Scope of Works (SOWs) included in the RFSQ?

There are 20 different SOWs in this RFSQ. Although it might initially appear to be 19, two of the SOWs are divided as 1a and 1b, bringing the total to 20.

14. Q:

Section I.A.14.a of this RFSQ indicates an initial contract start date of July 1, 2025 while the RFSQ coversheet lists the bid end date as June 30, 2029.

What opportunities will there be for qualification after the initial start date of July 1, 2025, and what steps should applicants take to qualify at that time?

Per Section I.A.14 of the RFSQ, the approximate initial contract term is from July 1, 2025, up to and including June 30, 2026. In order to be considered for that the approximate initial term, Offerors must follow the initial response deadlines.

Any responses submitted after the initial round deadline will be included in subsequent evaluation cycles, which are conducted annually or on as-needed basis. Please refer to Section II.A, Table 6 for the annual evaluation schedule. As this is an open RFSQ, electronic submissions will be accepted through January 2, 2029 as outlined in the RFSQ coversheet.

15. Q:

Could you please confirm whether or not a CAP/PIP for one program should be reported for every program being applied for?

Refer to question 1 of the Periscope Question and Answer forum for

16. Q:

A:

Is there a list of current County-contracted providers?

For a list of County-contracted providers, please visit:

https://bhsd.santaclaracounty.gov/find-behavioral-health-service-provider

17. Q:

For geographic regions in Outpatient and Early Childhood OP can you discuss the regions where services are provided and how that's determined?

The geographical locations identified for Outpatient Continuum (scope 6) and Early Childhood Outpatient (scope 8) are the four regions within Santa Clara County:

• North County (Palo Alto, Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale)

• Central County (San Jose, Cupertino, Santa Clara, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and Campbell)

• East County (San Jose [Foothills, Berryessa] and Northeast San Jose/Milpitas areas)

• South County (Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and the unincorporated area of San Martin)

These regions were determined based on service needs and County planning to ensure comprehensive geographic coverage and accessibility across Santa Clara County.

18. Q:

Page 5, Section I.A.4.d.i: As part of this question, we are asked to explain our hiring process. If we have a formal hiring process document for our agency, can we simply add it as an attachment to our CCP Evaluation submission and then reference it as part of our response to that question?

Refer to question 46 of the Periscope Question and Answer forum for

19. Q:

Page 5, Section I.A.4.d.iii: This question asks CCPs to “outline your program’s direct service staff vacancy rates over the past five (5) years…” Should program managers be included in this vacancy rate data?

The requirement is to outline your program’s direct service staff vacancy rates over the past five (5) years, including steps taken to address and fill these vacancies and the impact on staffing levels. You are encouraged to include program managers, especially if they support direct services.

https://bhsd.santaclaracounty.gov/find-behavioral-health-service-provider

20. Q:

For each program being applied to under the Current County-Contracted Providers (CCPs) Evaluation Process, up to 2 pages can be submitted on the staffing and hiring process. Therefore, for 5 programs, up to 10 pages total may be submitted.

Refer to question 5 of the Periscope Question and Answer forum for

21. Q:

Can you clarify what a performance audit is for the Corrective Action Plan (CAP)/Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) information? And to confirm, are these CAPs/PIPs issued from the County?

Yes, this applies to CAPs/PIPs issued by the County. A performance audit for CAP/PIP evaluates a program's effectiveness in meeting community needs and addressing recurring challenges. It identifies areas where the program may consistently fall short, helping to guide corrective actions to improve service delivery.

22. Q:

Would County financial audits of any BHSD programs also be considered a documentation audit?

No, financial audits are separate from documentation audits, which typically focus on clinical documentation issues. Please report any Corrective Action Plans/Performance Improvement Plan resulting from financial audits.

23. Q:

Will the estimated Maximum Funding Obligation (MFO) for the annual slots referenced in Section I.A.12, Table 13 of the RFSQ be distributed among all agencies awarded under this program?

The estimated annual MFO for program slots will be allocated proportionally across all Offerors in Qualified Pool to be awarded, ensuring budget distribution aligns with the overall funding limits and program goals.