QUESTIONS 3.doc

QUESTIONS:

Please characterize the nature of the online conversations and discussions you wish to foster on health related questions: is the intent to create a transparent exchange that is open to the public, or to host more private discussions limited to invited participants or stakeholders?

ANSWER: We do not use the terms “online conversation” or “online discussion” in the RFP. If this question refers to Subtask 2.5.3, the discussions described are intended for purposes of demonstrating and assessing the methods that the Contractor will develop in this project, and they should be structured to best accomplish these purposes.

You list the requirement of a PMI-certified Project Manager on pg. 86 of the RFP. Which specific PMI credentials (ie: PMI-PMP, PgMP) does the Project Manager need to have from the Project Management Institute? Would others without this in the proposal be considered if they can demonstrate the ability to do the work? Also, can we propose a PM that’s certified after we are awarded a contract?

ANSWER: AHRQ requires a PMI-PMP certified Project Manager because of the project’s complexity and size as well as the reporting requirements. It is acceptable to propose an uncertified Project Manager. However, the Offerer must then include a plan describing how the Project Manager will obtain PMI-PMP certification if the contract is awarded.

Subtask 2.2: Bullet 2 in this subtask requests cost information about web solutions. Should that be in technical proposal or business proposal?

ANSWER: The Offeror should include in the technical proposal an outline of web technology to be used in their proposed approach. The conceptualization of the approach and the knowledge demonstrated by the Offeror in presenting the component of the technical proposal will be assessed by the reviewers. Costs associated with developing this approach should be detailed specifically in the cost proposal. Since this Contract will be a firm fixed price, the costs presented in the cost proposal will be part of the negotiated agreement if the contract is awarded to the Offeror.

Brief biographic sketches or CVs (less than ten pages in length) providing the relevant qualifications necessary for this effort are only required for key personnel. Key personnel noted include Project Director and PMI Certified Project Manager -- Are other key personnel required in the RFP?

ANSWER: CVs for other personnel are not required. However, please include biosketches of other personnel to document the expertise and skills of each individual. This documentation will help the reviewers assess the capabilities of the proposed staff.

Are there any limitations in terms of technologies that we should be aware of? (e.g: are only those technologies that currently have TOS agreement with HHS allowed?)

ANSWER: Given the guidance (see below *** or at http://newmedia.hhs.gov/resources/general_guidance/) from the Government CIO/CTO on cloud computing, open government, social networking, and the requirements that address all Federal information resources, AHRQ wants to ensure that any proposals are in line with enterprise architecture, accessibility, privacy, and security concerns. Any solutions suggested will need to meet those requirements. Potential offerors can find vetted sources at: http://www.apps.gov

For example, the Agency uses RightNow Technologies as our customer relationship management system and it is deployed from a government hosting environment that has already been through the certification and accreditation process.

In addition, as stated in the RFP, any technologies or resulting items must be 508 compliant and follow AHRQ Publishing and Communications Guidelines (http://www.ahrq.gov/news/pubcomguide/pcguide2.htm).

For any online educational components, is AHRQ currently employing a prescribed CMI (Computer Managed Instruction) or LMS (Learning Management Systems) platform?

ANSWER: While we do not have a prescribed CMI or LMS platform, any proposed solution would have to address all of the requirements of a Federal information resource.

Page 10-11 Expert Consultation. The RFP does not state specifically state whether these external experts are paid or volunteer. Does the government consider these to be paid or volunteer requirements? Does the government have a preferred honoraria scale for patient, caregiver and consumer group representation on the TEP’s?

ANSWER: AHRQ follows the NIH reimbursement rate for honorarium of $200 per day plus hotel and travel expenses. For budgetary purposes you may use the following.

FY 09 FLAT REIMBURSEMENT RATES

Non-local reviewer

• One day meeting - $475 ($200 honorarium, $80 meals, $195 ground transportation including luggage fees)

• Two day meeting - $755 ($400 honorarium, $160 meals, $195 ground transportation including luggage fees) Local reviewer (does not stay in hotel, drives each day)

• One day meeting - $320 ($200 honorarium, $45 meals, $75 ground transportation)

• Two day meeting - $640 ($400 honorarium, $90 meals, $150 ground transportation) Local reviewer (stays in hotel, drives once, roundtrip)

• One day meeting - $320 ($200 honorarium, $45 meals, $75 ground transportation)

• Two day meeting - $565 ($400 honorarium, $90 meals, $75 ground transportation) Mail Reviews (does not include reimbursement for meals (i.e. meals $80.00), or flat rate (i.e. $195.00) for ground transportation.

• Honorarium for a mail review is $200.00 per day Telephone Conference Reviews

• Honorarium for telephone conference reviews is $200.00 per day Note: Based on unusual circumstances, an extra lodging night may be required. In those circumstances, lodging costs will be reimbursed.

Subtask 2.5.3 indicates that honoraria will be provided participants – for budgeting purposes, what should be considered for each participant?

ANSWER: Please see answer for #3.

Please clarify that IT hardware/software does not include fees associated with stakeholder research management or social media tools that might be proposed. P3; #11

ANSWER: Fees associated with stakeholder research management or social media tools proposed should not be included in the budget proposal because any proposed IT hardware, software, peripherals, and licensing fees for software-as-a-service applications have to be centrally approved and authorized for procurement through AHRQ’s IT department. Any licensing agreements have to be between the Agency and the vendor, and therefore, contractors cannot sign agreements for the Agency and any information system must be reviewed and approved for operation. IT infrastructure may be considered as government owned, but contractor operated. We would also have to have the product accessibility template completed for any solution proposed as part of the market analysis and due diligence process: http://www.hhs.gov/od/vendors/index.html.

For costing purposes, could AHRQ elaborate on the scope of work requirements for tasks three and four? On page 27, subtask 3.6 it is stated that the framework may involve interactions with current EHCP components including SRC, EC, EPC and DEcIDE staff centers. On page 29, subtask 4.1 – the Contractor shall include work in both tasks with all components and the extent that stakeholder engagement shall include meetings and engagement opportunities with each and all entities that are current EHCP components.

All components of the EHC Program are expected to collaborate when necessary to produce the most efficient processes and the most successful products. Interactions may include regular and ad hoc conference calls as well as (usually biennial) in-person meetings for the both the EPCs and DEcIDEs.

How should inconsistencies be handled…like:

a.) Subtask 3.6 (p. 27) in the scope of work is omitted from the technical instructions on p. 83.

ANSWER: Technical instructions for Subtask 3.6 were explicitly omitted because the development of the framework and methods is dependent on the work performed and the information gathered in Subtasks 3.1 through 3.5. However, the Offeror may propose how they will use that work and information to develop a Framework and Methods document.

b.) Subtask 5.1 (p. 33) indicates the Stakeholder Group will meet four times per year, while the delivery schedule (p. 46 – subtask 5.1) indicates meeting only 3 times per year.

ANSWER: This is an error. Subtask 5.1 should read “The Group at large is expected to meet in person three to four times in each year of the contract...” Please budget for four meetings.

c.) Task 6 (p. 37) is omitted from the technical instructions.

ANSWER: This was not an oversight. Project Management should be described under L.8 Part D. AHRQ did not want to create undue burden in asking for duplicate information to be described in Parts C and D.

Can AHRQ provide additional detail as to what they expect in conduct of Task 5.5, Evaluate the EHC Stakeholder Group Impact and Support? Does AHRQ anticipate the need for outside data to be collected to complete this task?

ANSWER: It is up to the Offeror to propose an evaluation strategy to be executed throughout the Stakeholder Group activities and to determine whether outside data should be collected to fully complete the task.

The RFP specifically prohibits reimbursement of foreign travel. However, AHRQ has stated elsewhere that foreign expertise is relevant to the study. Can the study pay for these experts to attend TEP and other advisory meetings in the US?

ANSWER: Please refer to pages 3-4, sections B.4a.(6).

Are there tasks associated with the Option Years? Should these be discussed in the response?

ANSWER: The option to carry out subtask 3.7 may be exercised at the discretion of AHRQ during the contract period through a contract modification if time permits or during option years. A budget will be negotiated at the time the tasks are identified. Discussion of these tasks is not required because identification of activities and task will not occur until after the framework and methods have been developed.

The RFP states that for any proposed technology solution the Contractor must also describe associated costs. But you do not want cost information in the technical proposal. Please be clear on which you want in which part of the proposal for this element.

ANSWER: The Offeror should include in the technical proposal an outline of web technology to be used in their proposed approach. The conceptualization of the approach and the knowledge demonstrated by the Offeror in presenting the component of the technical proposal will be assessed by the reviewers. Costs associated with developing this approach should be detailed specifically in the cost proposal. Since this Contract will be a firm fixed price, the costs presented in the cost proposal will be part of the negotiated agreement if the contract is awarded to the Offeror.

Please give examples of the kind of materials you deem to be acceptable evidence of the contractor’s ability to obtain equipment, facilities and personal resources necessary to perform the requirements of this project.

ANSWER: The burden of proof of ability, resources and the ability to obtain or upgrade these is the responsibility of the offeror and they can do that in any way they deem would be sufficient. The government cannot recommend in this area, should the recommendation be deemed to be all-inclusive or otherwise totally sufficient – when, in effect, it may not be.

The EPCs were created to conduct systematic literature reviews. What role will they play in the literature reviews included in the tasks for work done from this RFP?

ANSWER: The Contractor is responsible for all tasks in the RFP. However, all components of the EHC Program, including the EPCs, DEcIDEs, and the Citizens’ Forum Contractors are expected to collaborate when necessary.

The DECIDE Networks and the CERTs have access to patients and providers. What role will they be able to fulfill in terms of recruiting individuals to take part in various activities under this contract?

ANSWER: The Contractor is responsible for all tasks in the RFP. However, all components of the EHC Program, including the EPCs, DEcIDEs, and the Citizens’ Forum Contractors are expected to collaborate when necessary.

***HHS General Guidance for Utilization of New and/or Social Media (http://newmedia.hhs.gov/resources/general_guidance/) OP/DIVs augment this guidance to reflect their own (more restrictive) practices…

· Introduction

· Scope

· Licensing

· Approvals and Notifications

· Branding

· Comments & Commenting

· Applicable Policies

Introduction:

HHS encourages the use of appropriate Social Media/Web 2.0 (SM/W2.0) technologies to enhance communication, collaboration, and information exchange in support of HHS’s mission. These tools are evolving rapidly and are shaping how we work with our customers, business partners, other government agencies, and the public.

The decision to use a social media tool (or combination of tools) must be based on a strategic communications plan and must address the commitment of resources necessary to manage and maintain the public engagement.

The guidelines established in this document have been designed to ensure that official HHS websites and social media accounts present accurate, credible information and that personal opinions are not misinterpreted as official HHS positions. This document also provides guidelines for employees’ unofficial (i.e. personal) use of SM/W2.0 technologies and how to use SM/W2.0 technologies in a way that does not pose a threat to HHS IT security.

Scope:

For the purpose of this set of guidelines, SM/W2.0 technologies are defined as XML feeds, blogs, wikis, social networking sites, discussion forums, collaborative research Web sites, comment features for news or videos or other content posted to Web pages, and other ways of directly interacting with the public.

Licensing:

HHS, through Web Communications and New Media Division (WCD), is signing federally negotiated agreements with social computing providers that make it possible for Department employees to use these technologies for official HHS use while meeting current legal requirements.

Most SM/W2.0 services, using a “click here to agree” method, require the acceptance of standard terms of use to open an account. Many such terms of use contain provisions that Federal agencies are forbidden by law to accept. Do NOT unilaterally agree to any license (Terms of Service agreement) not already signed by HHS without consulting WCD and the Office of General Counsel (see list at http://www.newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/tos).

Approvals and Notifications:

The level of approval required to use social media is media specific. All official uses of social media must be approved by program or office management (with the level of approval to be determined by management) in consultation with the appropriate communications office. If the communication involves the discussion of policy, management, budget issues or would otherwise be classified as “official communication,” it should be reviewed by the appropriate communications office.

Certain high-profile or public-involvement (i.e., opportunity for comment) media require notification of the WCD and may require approval of either WCD or the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA).

Social media requiring notification or approval of WCD or ASPA include, but are not limited to, blogs, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. Additional information about certain applications is available at www.newmedia.hhs.gov/tools.

WCD’s Center for New Media will maintain a directory of social media accounts utilized by the Department, organized by media and by topic, at the above mentioned Web site. Including your outreach in an HHS directory documents the legitimacy of your SM/W2.0 presence.

Branding Departmental social media sites and content must clearly identify ownership or sponsorship through the use of Department or OPDIV branding. Branding must be part of the approval process.

Employees establishing personal SM/W2.0 accounts must obtain management approval before incorporating Agency identifiers in their profile or user name (i.e., scott@cms).

Comments & Commenting:

A number of social media allow or encourage the submission of written comments (see YouTube guidance for handling of video comments). HHS encourages this public interaction with the following caveats:

· All comments must be reviewed and cleared (moderated) before they are posted to or included on an HHS page or account.

· The comment policy must be clearly stated or linked (see http://www.newmedia.hhs.gov/standards/comment_policy.html#comment for model comment policy).

· Comments must not be posted if they contain:

· Partisan political views

· Commercial endorsements

· Discriminatory, racist, offensive, obscene, inflammatory, unlawful or otherwise objectionable statements, language or content.

· Records must be kept of all comments received, whether approved for posting or not.

· Individuals commenting in their official capacity on any platform must identify their Agency relationship.

· In general, employees participating in their official capacity on SM/W2.0 sites should follow the same rules of behavior they would when participating in a public meeting.

Applicable Policies:

Use of social media technologies must follow the current laws and guidelines that govern information and information technology. These statues and regulations include, but are not limited to Section 508 (accessibility), records management, privacy, usability of data, security, intellectual property, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), and information quality.

It is essential to be as accurate as possible. While there is often a tradeoff between speed of communication and accuracy, HHS employees are expected to fact check communications and whenever feasible to correct inaccurate information about HHS work (especially on HHS Web sites) that is brought to their attention.

Some SM/W2.0 web sites improperly use copyrighted images and videos. HHS employees may not use or post copyrighted materials without written permission from the copyright owner.

Do not include surveys, polls, questionnaires, etc., unless the questions have received OMB Paperwork Reduction Act clearance. The Paperwork Reduction Act prohibits certain information collections by the HHS without prior approval by OMB.

SM/W2.0 content that is not accessible to people with disabilities must also be posted in accessible formats on official HHS Web sites. This ensures that our use of SM/W2.0 technologies remains in compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that people with disabilities always have an accessible version of the content, and that the official version of content is located on a government Web site.

Do not solicit consensus advice from the public using SM/W2.0 technologies. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) prohibits agencies from receiving consensus advice from de facto committees or groups that arise outside of the structure and public scrutiny of a formally established advisory committee.

Make sure that content stored on SM/W2.0 web sites is secure and adequately maintained, that there is no unauthorized disclosure of personal privacy information, and that records are retained consistent with the HHS Web records policy http://www.hhs.gov/web/policies/webpolicies/webrecords.html. [Note: WCD is working with the Department records Officer to update this policy to reflect SM/W2.0.] GSA Terms of Service Agreements with Social Media Vendors A coalition of federal agencies (led by GSA's Office of Citizen Services) has been working on Terms of Service agreements with a broad range of social media providers who offer free services to users. The objective is to resolve issues with the existing standard Terms of Service (TOS) that are problematic to federal agencies. Having these agreements means that, if an agency chooses to use various social media sites, they won’t have to start from scratch on negotiating a special TOS.

If you're at a federal agency, you need to work with your agency attorneys and any other key stakeholders to be sure your agency can agree to the legal provisions of each agreement.

Terms of Service: FAQs — Learn more about how your agency can use these Terms of Service agreements

Negotiated TOS Agreements Below are links to the agreements and specific instructions for how agencies can sign on.

· AddThis: bookmarking and sharing

· Bing: search engine API

· Blip.tv: video sharing

· Cooliris: video and picture browsing

· Dipity: multimedia timelines

· Disqus: universal commenting & social discussion

· Facebook: social networking

· Flickr: photo sharing

· FriendFeed: social networking aggregator

· IdeaScale: voting and feedback

· IntenseDebate: social commenting

· LinkedIn: professional networkin

· MixedInk: collaborative writing

· MySpace: social networking

· OpenCalais: automated metadata

· Scribd: social publishing

· Slideshar

HYPERLINK "http://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=TOS_Slideshare" \o "http://forum.webcontent.gov/?page=TOS_Slideshare" \t "_blank" e: presentation sharing

· Socrata: data hosting (formerly Blist)

· TubeMogul: video analytics and distribution

· TwitVid: video sharing

· UserVoice: voting, customer & constituent feedback

· Ustream.tv: video broadcasting platform

· Vimeo: video sharing

· Wikispaces: collaboration

· WordPress: blogging

· YouTube: video sharing