Proposal Questions AHRQ-12-10009 posting version.pdf

Questions and answers AHRQ-12-10009 Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 1 of 15

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, AHRQ-12-10009: Questions and Answers

1. P. 14, bottom of the page lists points c and d; where or what are points a and b for this section?

This was a formatting error. The three objectives are as listed.

2. On page 84 of 96, in the General Narrative of Section 3, it says “Describe the depth of knowledge/expertise . . . from the EPC Program priority conditions (See SOW, Table 1).” The Statement of Work does not contain labeled Tables. Could you please specify where this list is located by page number or attachment number

Table 1 is located on p.14, as labeled Table 1: EHC Program priority conditions and cross-cut areas

3. Can you identify the page numbers and topics for Sections I and J.

See page 3 Table of Contents.

4. P. 93, Some of the evaluation criteria appear in different sections here compared to the “Technical Proposal Requirements” on p. 82. For example, “a sound approach to managing conflicts of interest” is listed under “technical approach” on p. 93 but it is listed under “Key Personnel and Core Team” on p. 84. Similarly, “demonstrated ability to adapt to changing needs of the science, literature, Partner and/or AHRQ; or to adapt to other unexpected events” is listed under “Key Personnel and Core Team” on p. 94 but under “Management Plan” on p. 85. Which guidelines should we follow for the technical proposal (i.e., section L.8 pages 81-86, or Section M, pages 93-95).

5. Overlap exists between sections C and D of the Technical Proposal (key personnel and mgmt. plan). How will the sections be evaluated? Should overlap of information provided be avoided, or will reviewers be aware that there will be some redundancies in the information? For example, will reviewers read the entire application or will reviewers be assigned to separate sections?

Follow the guidelines for the technical proposal on pages 81-86. See amendment 3.

6. Throughout Section L of the RFP the government refers to the Cover Page of each section of the proposal and outlines requirements for the data or information to be contained on that page. However, Section L.3 (2) refers to “The first page of the proposal must show”- Please confirm that in this instance the first page to which the government is referring is the Cover Page.

The cover page for the solicitation is separate and distinct from a cover page on an offeror’s submitted proposal. Requirement od the cover page for the technical proposal are in Section L.8. The cover page of the business proposal shall include the information in Section L.3 (2) and L.11.

7. Table on Page 4: Does the phrase “(without topic refinement)” apply to all review types listed in the boxes specifically for Items Nos. 3, 4, and 5 or just to the technology assessment tasks?

8. P. 4, items 3, 4, 5 in the table: there is a list of contract items and the clause “without topic refinement” is listed beside the technical/technology assessment. Does this mean that only the TA‟s are to be costed out without the topic refinement, and conversely should the costs for the other items in those categories include topic refinement?

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 2 of 15

The phrase “(without topic refinement)” should apply to all review types listed in the boxes for Items Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

9. Table on Page 4: Is the item listed under item 3, “small technical assessment” equivalent to a “small technology assessment”?

10. Are the terms “technical” and “technology” interchangeable in reference to technical or technology briefs and technical or technology assessments as used in this RFP?

11. How does a “technical brief” differ from a “technology assessment”? The RFP appears to use the two terms interchangeably in places but lists a “small technical assessment” separately from a ”technology brief” in the table on Page 4 under item 3. Furthermore the RFP uses a link to the technology assessment program reports as examples of technical briefs.

References to “technology briefs” should be replaced with “technical briefs,” and references to “technical assessments” should be replaced with “technology assessments”. See amendment 3.

12. On page 87 of 96, one of the tasks of the Past Performance Information task is to have contractors complete the Past Performance Questionnaire, etc. The list of organizations who are required to do this are “listed in (1) above” – there is no obvious (1) anywhere near above, and the (1)s that are above have no clear list. Please clarify where this list is located in the package.

See Amendment 3

13. On page 87 of 96, there is a reference to the Past Performance Questionnaire and Contractor Performance Form being Attachment #4 in the package. Our package has these two documents as Attachment #2. There is no Attachment #4 identified in the footers, although the „Sample format for cost proposal‟ is headed as Attachment #4, although the footer calls it Attachment #5. Could you confirm that the instructions on page 87 are referring to Attachment #2 (Past Performance Questionnaire and Contractor Performance Form), and not to Attachment #4?

See Amendment 3

14. H.14 of the RFP maintains “an organization that receives/coordinates EHC/EPC deliverables, including the EPC Scientific Resource Center (SRC) has been identified as having a significant Organizational Conflict of Interest that is considered unable to be mitigated.” This language, as currently phrased, implies that all organizations that have access to EHC/EPC products as found on page 12 of the RFP have a conflict. This would preclude almost all organizations because many of these deliverables (we presume) will be public. Will AHRQ consider revising the wording of H.14 or provide a clarification of your intent? Are there contracts other than the SRC that are considered organizational conflicts?

Please see amendment 2. The presumptions are not valid.

Delivery and Format

1. P. 81 specifies the length of 25 pages for the technical proposal. Are all the items a-d listed on p. 81 (cover page, table of contents, introduction, technical discussion) to be included in the 25 page-limit, or is the 25 pages limit just for the “technical discussion”?

2. Page 81states that the technical proposal should comprise two sections. Section 2 is the TO1 technical proposal which the RFTO states should be 15 pages not including the

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 3 of 15 cover page and table of contents (toc). However, for Section 1, does the 25 page limit include the cover page, toc, and introduction? Or are the cover page, TOC, and introduction excluded from the 25 page limit?

3. Are the "Introduction" (1-2 page summary), Cover page, and TOC part of the 25 pages, or in addition to it? Similarly, does TO1 (RFTO) limit of 15 pages apply only to Technical Discussion (and not include Cover, page, TOC, Introduction, Biosketches) (section L.8, p 81; attachment #6, section 7.1 A)?

4. The RFP requires significant detail within the Technical Proposal 25 page limit; For instance, Section 2, Technical Approach (pgs 82-83) requires the offeror to “describe their understanding, approach and specific expertise as related to the objective. In addition, each section should include a response to the specific issue or topic area described below.” Using Section 2.1, Engaging stakeholders to improve usability and applicability of systematic reviews, as an example, the offeror must address 13 stated items plus the Specific Response Narrative with an additional 4 questions in this section, all while addressing the task requirements of Sections C and D. Q. Would AHRQ consider extending the page limit to accommodate the level of detail required?

The cover page, TOC and introduction may be excluded from the 25 page limit. The 25 page limit is for item d, the technical discussion.

5. Should the proposal be saved in .doc or .docx format?

Either is acceptable.

6. Is there a more detailed address, phone number or other specific delivery details for

UPS or FedEx delivery than the address provided in the RFP?

Address is shown on page 2 of the RFP.

7. If UPS or FedEx services are used, what is the procedure for obtaining an acceptable delivery receipt? For example, is there a specific location and/or individual‟s signature other than the delivery signature obtained by UPS or FedEx in the course of normal everyday business?

Contracting personnel will be available to sign for delivery.

8. Re: Proposal Submission: What is preferred delivery method for submission? Can we hand-deliver directly to Gayle Sunde? If so, what are the preferred hours, building/office location, and preferred phone number should delivery logistics need clarification on the day of delivery?

Please refer to page 2’ Proposal Submission’.

9. Does Section L7 (b) I. and IV. require the submission of CD ROM copies in addition to hard copies?

Yes.

10. Will the government accept jump drives or only CD ROMs?

Either is acceptable.

11. Page one of the RFP indicates the proposal is due at 12:00 Noon EST on the established deadline. Given the difficulty experienced by commercial couriers in delivering packages to AHRQ and the delays created by building security, would the

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 4 of 15

Government please consider moving the due date from noon to 5:00 PM EST? This provides an opportunity for afternoon delivery when the morning courier delivery is held up by security delays.

Proposals are due at 12:00 Noon EST on the established deadline.

12. What date are past performance checklists due to AHRQ?

Not later than the date and time for receipt of proposals.

13. Should Past Performance Questionnaire, Contractor Performance Form related to EPC

III activities be included with proposal for distribution by AHRQ?

Refer to Section L.9.

14. In response to questions dated February 22, “Q. On page 79, Section L-7 (b), it is stated that proposals shall be no less than 11 point font. Spacing is not indicated. Is single spacing allowed?

Single spacing is allowed.

15. Single-spacing is allowed for the main IDIQ proposal. Can the 15-page proposal for Task Order 1 also be single-spaced?

No change, Task Order 1 shall be double spaced. .

16. RFTO, Sect. 3, Reference is made to providing signed letters of commitment for all subcontractors and consultants as Appendix material. Is it the intent that letters of commitment are not to be included in the 15 page limit for the RFTO?

Appendices are not included in the 15 page limit for responses to RFTO #1/Attachment 6

17. For TO1 proposal: should the proposal be self-contained or can bidders refer back to elements of the IDIQ proposal? Example: For TO1 proposal CVs: may we refer reviewers to the same appendix containing CVs for the IDIQ proposal? Or should we include a separate appendix for TO1 CVs?

The TO1 proposal should be self contained.

18. Is there a limit to the number of CVs that can be appended to the application? Is it permissible to copy the CVs double-sided?

There is no limit to the number of CVs. Each biosketch or CV should be 10 pages or less. It is permissible to copy CVs double-sided, but they should still be limited to 10 pages/5 sheets.

19. P. 79, can the hard copies be printed double-sided?

Hard copies may be printed double-sided.

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 5 of 15

General

1. For each comparative effectiveness topic, will the various stages (i.e. topic refinement, systematic review, future research needs document) be bid separately, or will one EPC be assigned all stages? Or will a work assignment for one stage be issued with an “option” for other stages?

Each task order will define its own scope of work, which may vary according to program needs.

2. Will proposals from outside of the United States be considered for this RFP? If so, P. 6 states that foreign travel is not an allowable cost. Can we include costs for travel from Canada to attend meetings in the US?

Yes.

3. Can an institution that does not already have a formal establishment of an evidence base practice center apply for and respond to the task orders?

Only awardees of the EPC IV IDIQ contracts will be eligible to compete for Task Orders.

4. The RFP mentions that 10 centers will be appointed. This is reducing the number from 14 to 10 or is there a re-assignment of roles in the structure of EPCIV? Given the increase in CER funding, why is there a planned reduction in the number of EPC awards?

Yes 10 awards are anticipated, which is a reduction compared to the number of centers under the current contract. There has been no increase in appropriated funds for Comparative Effectiveness Research or Patient Centered Outcomes research to AHRQ.

5. Funding ($70K-$50M over 5 years): Can I request dollars for infrastructure (the proposed Center's operating expense) or does the pricing have to go by task order?

What might be allowable costs for establishing the Center?

6. Is our cost estimate/business proposal a hypothetical example of what we might do? Or is whatever we submit our actual TO1 funding if we get the master contract?

7. P. 4 states that “under this IDIQ contract, the minimum is $70,000…” Is it permissible for individual contract items to cost less than $70,000?

8. Does the $50 million include monies coming from other entities such as CMS for the TA Program and other such conduits (pp 64-5)?

All Funding will be by task order. The submission of a response to TO1/Attachment 6 is for actual award of TO1 if the master contract IDIQ contract is awarded. The minimum award that a successful bidder of the EPC contract will receive under the course of the contract is $70,000.

The maximum award for a successful bidder of the EPC contract from all sources would be $50 million.

9. What‟s the anticipated break-down between sole-source contracts and competitive TOs?

10. Is it anticipated that any task orders may be set aside for small business?

11. What does AHRQ anticipate as a minimum number of products per EPC per year?

See Section H. 6.

12. What is the estimated award/start date?

Award and performance will be prior to September 30, 2012.

13. The RFP requires each EPC to have the expertise and capacity to cover all EHC Program priority conditions. Will those EPCs that were awarded ARRA contracts and

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 6 of 15 became specialists in one of eight priority conditions now need to reorganize to become generalist EPCs? And will those EPCs be given priority for work related to their “ARRA contract” area of expertise?

See Sections L and M.

14. Are we required to submit conflict of interest disclosure forms from staff with this proposal? This seems difficult, as we have no way of knowing the specific interventions involved in future systematic reviews.

There is no requirement to submit conflict of interest disclosure forms at this time.

Legal and clauses

15. Article H.10 (pages 44-51) requires each contractor employee to, among other things, to receive Public Trust clearances prior to accessing “the System.” Can AHRQ provide a definition of “the System” and will any of the work envisioned under this RFP require access to that system? If not, will AHRQ amend the RFP to remove the inapplicable sections?

16. Section H.10.7 – FISMA Continuous monitoring (p. 45-47) H.10.7.a – Asset Management

a. Question: Can asset management tracking be manual and not automated?

H.10.7.b – Configuration Management

b. Question: Can configuration compliance status monitoring be manual and not automated?

H.10.7.c – Vulnerability Management

c. Question: Can vulnerability detection be manual and not automated? If it must be automated, please provide an example of the output of an acceptable automated vulnerability assessment report format.

H.10.7.e – Remote access

d. Question: Can virus and malware scans be done manually prior to network connection?

e. Question: For remote employees located in areas with low bandwidth, is there an alternative split tunneling configuration allowed to enable Voice over IP to be split from data connectivity connections? If so, describe the acceptable alternative.?

The H.10 security and privacy requirements will be required and included as applicable for any task orders that contain an IT component or if the contractors are required to access federal IT systems.

17. How should an offeror address the additional costs associated with H.10 security requirements within the fixed-prices requested in Section B or may they be covered under item 6, as cost reimbursable?

Offerors must consider all costs when preparing business proposals.

18. Will any data for EPC IV be considered “sensitive” for the purposes of the requirements of section H.10 (pages 44-51)?

AHRQ does not anticipate use of “sensitive” data for the majority of EPC work on systematic reviews, technical briefs, comparative effectiveness reviews, or technology assessments. If required by a particular task order the section H requirements will be applicable.

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 7 of 15

19. Section H.7 – Personnel Security Requirements – General (p. 42) Question: Can electronic fingerprinting be done through another law enforcement or background check agency in a location near the contractor‟s residence or offices and not only at the Parklawn Building?

AHRQ does not anticipate contractors needing permanent access to the AHRQ building, but the clause remains in the event that need arises in the future. Should the need for electronic fingerprinting and background investigation arise in the future; AHRQ will explore arrangements for completing the required electronic fingerprinting at other federal facilities near the contractor‟s locations.

20. Section H.9.3 – Protection of Sensitive Information (p. 44)This section states “For purposes of this contract, information is sensitive if the FIPS 199 Confidentiality or Integrity security objective is rated Moderate or High by the OPDIV CIO or CISO, as appropriate.” Question: Please clarify. What is the FIPS 199 Rating for the general data related to this RFP?

Please see reference #10, under section H.10.

21. Section H.8 (b) pg 43 states in part: “The Section 508 accessibility standards applicable to this contract/order are identified in the Statement of Work/Specification/Performance Work Statement. The Contractor must provide a written Section 508 conformance certification due at the end of each contract/order exceeding $150,000 when the contract/order duration is one year or less. If it is determined by the Government that EIT products and services provided by the Contractor do not conform to the described accessibility standards in the Product Assessment Template, remediation of the products or services to the level of conformance specified in the Contractor„s Product Assessment Template will be the responsibility of the Contractor at its own expense.”

In contrast to this, Section L.6.a. – d. pgs 77-78 appear to require the offeror to complete and submit an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment and provide a binding statement of conformance, “In order to facilitate the Government's evaluation to determine whether EIT products and services proposed meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, offerors must prepare an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template, in accordance with its completion instructions, and provide a binding statement of conformance. The purpose of the template is to assist HHS acquisition and program officials in determining that EIT products and services proposed support applicable Section 508 accessibility standards. The template allows vendors or developers to self-evaluate their products or services and document in detail how they do or do not conform to a specific Section 508 standard. Instructions for preparing the HHS Section 508 Product Evaluation Template may be found under Section 508 policy on the HHS Office on Disability Web site ( http://www.hhs.gov/od/ ). Question: Please confirm that all offerors are required to submit a completed Section HHS Section 508 Product Assessment as part of the Technical Proposal, and if so, whether it should be included as an exhibit to Section 1 or Section 2 (Task Order).

A section 508 Product Assessment will be required with deliverables/products of task order.

http://www.hhs.gov/od/

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 8 of 15

RFP SOW and Personnel

1. What is the definition of “core team” (management team or management team and lead investigators)? What is the distinction between “core team” and “key personnel”; are these mutually exclusive?

The core team comprises at minimum the director, associate director and project manager and others who are to implement and oversee AHRQ EPC processes and procedures across projects and would be involved in all reports. Key personnel are those whom the EPC is contractually required to notify AHRQ if there are changes for particular projects. In many cases these may be the same individuals.

2. Can the Associate Director be hired and serve as a subcontractor out of a different institution from the Director?

Review Conflict of interest information, management requirement and criteria and associated risks.

3. Can an institution that is the prime contractor on the SRC contract be a subcontractor on an EPC-IV contract if there isn't any overlap in personnel?

See amendment 2 to the RFP.

4. Can an institution that is the prime contractor on an EPC-IV contract be a subcontractor on the SRC contract?

See amendment 2 to the RFP.

5. Can there be co-principal investigators for the entire contract?

AHRQ does not recognize co-principal investigators. Key Personnel proposed may be listed in the contract and/or may be listed in a Task Order as appropriate.

6. “This work of engaging stakeholders and partners for topic development, prioritizing research and disseminating findings, as described below in D.3.2 is expected to be at least 20% of the work of promoting evidence synthesis within a given clinical area and the EPC should anticipate appropriate personnel for these efforts.” (Page 17). Does this translate into 20% of any given TO? If not, please explain.

Yes, it is anticipated that stakeholder engagement is an integral process throughout all stages of systematic review and work conducted by an EPC, thus it is anticipated that it will be a significant effort for any task order award.

7. Section D.1.1.1. Topic Identification (RFP Page 18): In the event of an in-person meeting with stakeholders, should the EPC budget for travel for EPC staff? If so, how many meetings and how many participants?

D.1.1.1, #6 (RFP Page 19): Should the EPC budget for travel for stakeholders and partners? If so, how many meetings and how many participants?

AHRQ does not expect that Topic Identification and stakeholder efforts will involve in-person meetings or travel. .

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 9 of 15

Questions under Task Order One (TO1) / Attachment 6.

1. Attachment 6, delivery schedule: the text states that “offeror must propose actual dates within the delivery schedule”. Do we make assumptions regarding other process, for instance, we don‟t know when the draft reports will be ready for AE review. This will also involve multiple due dates for each report – do we include multiple dates in the “date due” column?

For those dates which are contingent on other deliverables, you may provide relative dates.

The delivery schedule may be attached as an appendix.

2. Attachment 6, Section C.2, in picking our primary and secondary choice of area for leading/participating in methodologic work – can we switch priorities once this task order is underway? There is a list of areas of methodogical focus for the Workgroup. Could we propose an additional area of focus? Regarding workgroup areas of methodological focus (Attachment #6, section C.2), are the bullet points suggestions only? Does the proposal need to address each bulleted topic within each area or can the proposal cover only some bulleted topics? Can the proposal add other topics?

Selection of methodologic priority areas will be made according to program needs.The areas listed are the identified EPC program priorities. Offerors may suggest other areas of expertise, but work will be awarded according to program needs.

3. Can we edit the “deliverables” in the deliverable schedule for the RFTO #1 (attachment #6, section 5)?

The deliverables are determined by EPC program need. The Offeror may suggest additional deliverables as needed for their proposal.

4. TO1 requires selection of primary and secondary workgroup areas. Could AHRQ clarify if a contractor is to then select one of the bulleted focuses within the area as a particular focus? Is the kickoff call and work plan referred to in the deliverable schedule to be in relation to one of the 13 bulleted methodologic focuses or one of the 4 larger areas?

Each methodologic area is to focus across the bulleted areas of focus, and the Offeror is to select one or two of the four major areas.

5. For the RFTO #1, can we nominate more than one Associate Editor?

For RFTO #1/ Attachment 6, you many propose more than one Associate Editor.

6. For the methods work, the RFTO Attach. 6, C.2 indicates 100 to 150 hours of investigator time. Does this mean 100-150 hours annually? Or across the lifetime of the contract? If it is the latter, then it could be as little as 100 hours / 5 years = 20 hours per year, which hardly seems like enough time to do any meaningful methods work.

For pricing purposes is it intended that the 100-150 hours is the level of effort to support the work described in the workgroup areas of methodological focus, areas 1-4?

RFTO #1 is a severable task orderfor work conducted within the year. 100-150 hours is an estimate for the work conducted across the EPC for the tasks described in Attachment 6, Section C (including associate editor work, work within one of the four given areas of methodologic focus, and engaging partners to promote dissemination) during that year. The 100-150 hours is intended to accomplish the work across the entire TO1 for the first year of this severable task order.

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 10 of 15

7. The RFTO states that TO1 will support dissemination efforts “for example, conference presentations and journal articles” on findings from AHRQ supported EPC reports. Is it correct that AHRQ will use TO1 to fund such expenses? Attachment 6, Delivery schedule, last row, refers to attending conferences, does this section also include the writing and submission of manuscripts based on EPC reports?

The funding from TO1 is intended to support associate editor work, methdologic work, and some limited dissemination work, which is estimated to be equivalent to 100-150 hours for one year. This may include presentation at conferences or preparation of manuscripts.

8. The TO1 RFTO lists the level of staff effort (in hours) for both methods work and Associate Editor work. However, the level of funding available for the following tasks is unclear:

Attendance at EPC learning network webinars Writing journal articles Presentations at conferences How are we to budget these tasks? Please keep in mind that we have no way to know the specific topics of future reports, and thus no way to know which particular conferences will be best for disseminating our results.

The 100-150 hours is estimated to be the staff effort across the TO1 for methods work, associate editor work, and dissemination work.

9. For TO1, how many webinar and in-person sessions should each contractor anticipate leading during the 5 year period?

Each workgroup, which will be comprised of approximately 5 persons is expected to lead 2 webinars and 2 sessions at in-person meetings.

10. What should be the content of Task Order 1 (Section 2 of 15 long Technical Proposal).

Attachment #6, Section 7 reads as it should deal with methodological issues and not with systematic reviews evaluating the effects of health care interventions. Are you looking for specific examples that should illustrate if the candidate knows how to do (methodological) review? Can you please confirm this?

Attachment 6/Task Order 1 is intended to advance the methods of systematic reviews as well as improve the consistency and scientific rigor of products under the EPC program. It is not to conduct systematic reviews. The proposal should demonstrate the Offerors familiarity and expertise in advancing the methods of systematic reviews conducted within the EPC Program.

Cost/Pricing Contract questions:

1. P. 81 mentions “labor hours and categories”. Can you clarify what is meant by “categories”?

Categories are the offerors standard labor groupings.

2. On page 4 of 96, it is stated that the “contract items and associated Statement of Work (Section C) requirements and prices are shown below” – the table that follows contains no prices. What does FFP refer to in this table?

Should separate cost proposals/budgets be submitted for each of the contract items within the same category (e.g., topic development and dissemination and implementation will have the same price – do they need separate cost proposals)?

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 11 of 15

The “Mechanisms for Pricing Task Orders” on page 5 appears to have conflicting instructions. The second bullet says items will be based on a firm-fixed price for that item. However, the fourth bullet says all tasks are separate and that both tasks have the same price. Is the price requested at the item level or task level? If item level, do you intend that the price is to cover any one of the tasks or that the price covers all tasks combined in that item?

FFP stands for Firm Fixed Price. As described on p.5, tasks within the same category or item number will have the same negotiated fixed price. The Offeror may thus submit one cost proposal/budget for each item or category, rather than each task. However each task is separate and each RFTOP will specify which technical area (column 3 of the table on p.4), and thus which negotiated firm fixed price, applies.Refer to L.11 Business Proposal Instructions.

3. Regarding pricing for items 1 to 5 as specified in Section B.2 (page 4 of 96) and L.11.A (page 89 of 96) of the RFP. To support the FFP prices for each of items 1 through 5 shown in table B.2, are offerors required to provide detailed breakdown of their budgets for:

- each item only, in which case offerors would only provide 5 budgets for the 5 items, or -each task number, in which case offerors would have to provide a total of 9 budgets for each task, or -each technical area, in which case offerors would have to provide a total of 16 budgets?

Offerors should provide insight into their pricing methodology and the number of iterations necessary to document their rationale.

4. For the purpose of cost development, do the small, medium and large technology assessments differ in a similar way to the small, medium and large systematic reviews?

For example, can the same projected included number of articles for each be used to project cost?

Yes, the same estimates should be used for technology assessments as for systematic reviews.

5. For the FFP quotes to be provided for the various tasks, are these prices for year 1 only subject to increases based on standard pay raises for years 2-5 or are these fixed quotes for a 5-year period (page 4)?

These fixed prices will be applicable across the length of the 5 year contract.

6. Attachment 6, RFTO: under section 4.C.3. travel to conferences. The text states that a “budget must be submitted…” Should these costs be included in the cost proposal for the Task Order, or will these budgets be requested separately on a case-by-case basis during the contract period?

7. Item 6 in Section B.2 on page 4 of the RFP, and the RFTO included as attachment 6 appear to be the same task (D.3). Does AHRQ want a price proposal for D.3 only in the IDIQ price volume or should there also be an additional, separate submission price for the RFTO pertaining to methods pricing?

Task Order 1/Attachment 6 corresponds to Item 6 on page 4. Cost proposal should reflect expected staff hours for the tasks described in the RFTOP. See also Amendment 3.

8. Section D.2 on page 24 states that the EPC shall write a manuscript based on the final evidence report. Does this statement refer only to EPCs working with the USPSTF? If not, does this mean that EPCs can include funding for manuscript preparation in their budgets? Will such funding come from Task Order One?

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 12 of 15

9. “Dissemination of EPC scientific processes, research protocols and methods, and evidence findings through presentations and manuscripts,” (page 24). Should these activities be budgeted for within each technical area (table page 4) or will there be additional funds through dedicated TOs for such activities?

10. The next paragraph (top of page 25) states that EPCs may be required to provide technical assistance to organizations that use the reports as a basis for decision making.

What types of tasks will be required? Will the RFTOs for each systematic review list these tasks, so we can budget accordingly? Or will a separate contract be issued after the report is completed?

If particular dissemination activities as described under D.2 are required, the task order will specifically list “Dissemination and Implementation” as one of the activities under that task order. The fixed price for the dissemination activities under D.2 will be negotiated as described under page 4, Item 1. The Offeror should submit a cost proposal for each of the 5 categories described on p.4. The Dissemination and Implementation activity is listed under Item 1.

11. If awards are made in a given category (as in Items 1-5 of the table on page 4), but the literature base proves larger than the specifications on page 5), is the “category” for funding a legitimate reason for restricting the number of articles reviewed, or will AHRQ increase the funding to the next highest category?

This will be addressed on a case by case basis.

12. The requirements for items 3, 4, and 5 have very broad ranges as described in B.2 on page 5 of the RFP. These factors are further compounded because the precise requirements for the future fixed-price task orders are not known at this time. Therefore, it is certain that offerors will have to price the fixed-price tasks at the high end of the range. For example, offerors must assume the medium items will have an estimated 180 articles included. To decrease cost to the Government and increase the amount of scientific research that can be carried out under the total ceiling, will discounting of the fixed-price task order quotes be permitted when task orders are competed? If so, will AHRQ amend section B.2 of the RFP to include, “Offerors may discount their task order quotes at the time of competition for individual task orders”?

Please propose an average price.

13. P. 89, Section L.11. The information listed in points 1 to 10 is required “for each contract item”. This will result in a lot of duplication, as some of the points/information will be the same for each contract item. Is it necessary to list them for each contract item, or can we list the standard information separately and only list the information that changes or is specific for each contract item?

Items 7 and 8 may be provided only once.

14. P. 34, what is G&A (item (j)?

This does not apply to educational institutions.

15. P. 62, can you provide the information for the blanks in K.1, i.e., the NAICS code for the acquisition and the Small Business Size Standard? P. 67, can you provide the information for the blank in K.5 (i.e., the area covered in this contract)?

Section K is to be completed by the offeror. The NAICS is on page 2 of the RFP.

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 13 of 15

16. P. 79 mentions the “Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan” and under the Business Proposal, a “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”. What is the difference between these items? Are they applicable to offerors outside the U.S.?

Yes. See FAR 19.

17. P. 89, the RFP reads “detailed breakdown of each proposed direct cost elements showing proposed total quantities by year”. If the proposed period of performance for a contract item is more than a year, do we need to break down the budget to show costs for each 12-month period or part thereof?

Yes.

18. P. 89: our institution does not have a payroll register. Can you provide a list of acceptable alternatives to a payroll register.

Copies of check stubs showing rate of pay or personnel action forms would suffice as well.

19. Can we use historical data to estimate annual salary increases for our cost proposals over the five-year period, as the collective agreements we follow have not been negotiated for the next five years?

Yes

20. Attachment 3, is it necessary to complete the lobby disclosure activities form if we have nothing to report?

Yes

21. Attachment 4, Sample format for cost proposal: what is meant by “classification”? What does the fixed fee rate refer to?

Labor classification. Fee is also known as profit, if applicable.

22. Attachment 6, “information on invoices – cost reimbursement”, what is item “(k) fee – show rate, base, and total”?

Fee is not applicable to education institutions.

23. The RFP incorporates 52.244-2 Subcontracts, Alternate I (June 2007) on page 56, which maintains that Contractors with approved purchasing systems must only notify the Contracting Officer in advance of entering into a “(i) cost-plus-fixed price subcontract, or

(ii) fixed-price subcontract that exceeds either the simplified acquisition threshold or 5 percent of the total estimated cost of this contract.” Otherwise, 52.244-2(d) requires the contract to list specific subcontracts where approval is required. In addition to 52.244-2, the RFP also contains language on page 39 that requires written approval of all subcontracts by the Contracting Officer prior to entering into any subcontract exceeding the threshold in 52.215.12. We believe the contradiction between the language in 52.244-2 and the requirements on page 39 creates an ambiguity and may decrease efficiency for the Government during the administration of the project. Therefore, we respectfully request that the instructions on page 39 be amended so that written approval for subcontracts is not required per 52.244-2 for those Contractors that maintain approved purchasing systems.

No change made. Details will be handled with each Task Order.

24. H.6 of the RFP indicates the federal Executive Schedule Level is I but that Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 revised the ceiling to Executive Level II. For pricing purposes, should contractors assume the Executive Level II limitation will remain in effect for future years as well as 2012?

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 14 of 15

Yes. Please see asterisk and note in H.5.

25. Page 90 of the RFP, as well as Attachment 5, require Contractors to submit Certified Cost or Pricing Data. Per FAR Part 15.403-1, Prohibition on Obtaining Certified Cost or Pricing Data (CCPD), CCPD shall not be obtained “when the contracting officer determines that prices agreed upon are based on adequate price competition” and the award is made based on best value “where price is a substantial factor.” Therefore, we respectfully request that AHRQ remove the requirement to submit a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1. Similarly, we request AHRQ also remove the requirement that this to flow down to subcontractors and the references to 52.215-12 on pages 39 and 54 be deleted. We further request Alternate IV be included to 52.215-20 on page 70

Certified cost and pricing data is required. Adequate price competition remains to be determined.

26. Section L.11.A.8 states “Copy of most current indirect cost rate agreement. If no rate agreement exists, show detailed calculations of all proposed indirect rates, supported by audited or reviewed financial statements…” Question: In lieu of audited or reviewed financial statements, can detailed calculations of all proposed indirect rates be supported by statements compiled by a CPA firm?

Yes.

27. Can I create my own budget template (including initial year and composite budget)?

Yes, if it contains all requested information.

28. Business Proposal Pricing QuestionIf the table in Section B.2 requires the firm fixed price by task, why is the Government asking for a detailed breakdown of each proposed direct cost element showing proposed total quantities per year?

This isto allow evaluation of the business proposal and analysis of pricing.

29. It is not completely clear how budget should be written, as it appears that funding is provided upon issuing a specific task order. How can one write the budget when we are not sure how many task orders we may be given?

Refer to section B and Section L.11.

Past performance

1. Would an offeror be disqualified if s/he has less than 5 federally funded evidence-based projects to include in past performance information?

No.

2. Can an evidence based project led by one of the content leads be counted towards to past performance information?

Yes, if the person listed is part of the proposed core team.

3. Do all 5 projects have to be completed by the lead PIs (the Director and/or the Associate Director)?

If available; otherwise should be relevant to proposed core team.

Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) IV Page 15 of 15

4. Past performance page 86: If major subcontractors are included, should each subcontractor provide a list of the last 5 contracts? Or should the offeror provide a total of 5 contracts including a mix of the prime and subcontractors?

List can be from both prime and subcontractors as long as they are part of the core team..

5. Regarding Past Performance Information and the last 5 contracts and subcontracts completed in the past 3 years, should we include customers who contracted only with individuals or pairs of individuals within the EPC for work that was substantively similar but completely separate from our EPC work (page 86)?

See amendment 3

6. Regarding past performance, within a Task Order contract where there are multiple completed or in-progress projects with different TOOs, do we list and ask each one to complete a performance review (section L.9, p 86)?

Direct past performance questionnaires to the task order officer.

7. We are asked to provide a contract number for all contracts listed in the Past Performance table, but with the exception of one or possibly two projects, all are under the same contract number. Is there another identifying number we should provide in addition to the contract number?

Provide Task Order numbers and project titles as appropriate.

8. Regarding past performance, within a Task Order, do we consider each phase (Topic ID, Topic Development, Topic Refinement, CER, etc) as a unique project in defining what is complete and what is in progress (section L.9, p 86)?

Each Task Order is one project.

9. If the past performance described for the Technical Section 1 response to RFP Section L..9 is identical to the past performance described to respond to RFTO Section 4, is it permissible to provide a clear reference between the Technical Section 1 proposal and the RFTO proposal avoiding duplication of space? Or is it the intent that the RFTP proposal should be a stand-alone document with no references to other parts of the proposal?

Section L.9 refers to the RFP.

There is no request for submission of Past Performance Questionnaires in RFTO 1. The information requested in Attachment 6 should be narrative only. The Task Order proposal should stand alone.

End of Q & A