Q and A posting 2.pdf

Q and A posting 2

AHRQ-12-10009 EPC IV

Note. For clarification of Attachment 6, section 7.1, see amendment 4 and also reference Question 6 on page 9 of 15 Q &A posting dated March 16, 2012.

1. Please clarify whether there will be an opportunity for negotiation of the award. Page 53 of the solicitation states that there will be a “negotiation process”; however page 1 states the contract will be awarded “without negotiations”.

Answer: The Government intends to award without negotiations.

2. Contract Clauses and Terms and Conditions:

Answer: The following FAR clauses will be included in awards to Universities or Research Institutions, in lieu of the commercial version of the clause:

52.215-2 Audit and Records - Negotiation, Alternate II 52.216-7 Allowable Cost and Payment (Paragraph (a) is modified to delete the words "Subpart 31.2" and to add “31.3".

52.249-5 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Educational and Other Nonprofit Institutions) 52.230-5 Cost Accounting Standards

All other terms, conditions and clauses contained in the RFP are applicable and will remain in the resultant contracts.

3. Section H.13: Award Announcement: Our institution requires that all externally funded projects are identifiable by sponsor name, project title, funded amount and period of performance without restriction. Can you advise how to resolve this conflict (e.g., so that we could announce the award without prior notification to AHRQ)?

Answer: H.13 stands as written.

4. Section H.1: Release and Use and Copyright of Data First Produced from Work

Performed Under this Contract: request to remove FAR 52.227-17 as it is not applicable.

Answer: FAR 52,227-17 and H.1 stands as written.

5. In the RFTO (Section 2) – do we have to cover all sub-items of the Workgroup area of methodological focus we choose?

Answer: In Attachment 6, each of the four workgroups will prioritize needs from among the sub-items within each methodologic focus area.

6. On page 6 section B.3 it states that unallowable costs include (11) information technology hardware or software. We would like to determine whether certain software and licenses used as integral parts of our EPC's systematic review process would be considered unallowable under that section:

Answer: This contract does not provide for the direct reimbursement of IT hardware of software. All work under this contract will be issued by task order. See L. 11 for business proposal instructions.

7. Publication Guidelines (link on page 44 of 96, Section H.9)

AHRQ-12-10009 EPC IV

Q and A posting 2

Please clarify whether the terms “Grantee” and “Contractor” have the same meaning, as both are used throughout the document.

Answer: Grantee and Contractor are not the same. This is a contract.

8. Can the category (medium or large sized CER) be readjusted after the initial stages of the review based on the amount of literature? That is, if an initially awarded medium size CER turns out to be a large CER, will the price be adjusted?

Answer: Adjustments of this nature are not anticipated.

9. Is the Institution or the contracting administrator‟s name to be listed on the Letter of intent?

Answer: The institution

10. Section G.5: Information on Invoices: Our University adheres to OMB Circular A-21

Cost Principles, section J. 10. B for Payroll distribution. The University‟s invoices will reflect „percentage of effort‟ as the basis for labor costs. Our University does not record labor hours in its audited financial reporting. Is this acceptable?

Answer: Labor hours are required when the accounting system provides that information.

However, under OMB Circular A-21 percentage of effort is allowable.

11. The Eisenberg Center has prepared summaries for consumers and clinicians for many of the evidence reports, but has prepared relatively few summaries for policymakers.

Does AHRQ expect that the Eisenberg Center will make any changes in the types of products it prepares for stakeholders?

Answer: AHRQ and the EC decide whether to produce summaries for policymakers on EPC reports on a case-by-case basis depending on the appropriateness of the topic.

12. On page 10, the RFP refers to the role of the Scientific Resource Center in developing topics for presentation to topic triage and providing resources to the EPCs to ensure consistency of processes in topic development. On pages 18-20, the RFP describes the role of the EPCs in topic identification and topic development. To what extent will the topic identification and topic development activities be distributed between the SRC and the EPCs?

Answer: Topics for development by the EPC(s) will be awarded as indicated by individual task order requests.

13. On page 15, the RFP refers to having the EPC Director, Associate Director, and Project Manager function as a core team for senior leadership. Will AHRQ allow some leeway in the number and titles of people on the senior leadership team? May we designate two Co-Directors rather than differentiate between a Director and an Associate Director?

May we include more than one Associate Director? May we include more than one Project Manager on the senior leadership team?

Answer: There can only be one PI for the contract. The offeror is not limited to proposing only one associate director and/or one project manager as core team for senior leadership.

Responsibilities may be distributed, but the Offeror should ensure that there is sufficient time devoted by either the PI (director) or associate director(s) for each assigned task order to ensure consistent oversight and quality across all projects under the contract.

14. On page 22, the RFP indicates that the EHC program has a number of partners who develop dissemination products, and seems to indicate that the EPC‟s role is limited to

AHRQ-12-10009 EPC IV

Q and A posting 2 being available to review translational products and make a presentation if necessary.

Will support be available if an EPC wants to be more involved in actively disseminating the products of its work?

Answer: There is some funding support available to support limited dissemination efforts by the EPC as described in RFTO1/Attachment 6.

15. Pg 62: If the Representations and Certifications are submitted as part of the Business

Proposal, do they also have to be re-submitted electronically through https://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=1102m1P4Sldv59a1Y3JrOxJteIJbPw&url=https%3A%2F%2Forca.

bpn.gov if the institution has recently submitted them?

Answer: Yes.

16. Does AHRQ have a preference for receiving 3-4 page NIH-style biosketches versus lengthy curriculum vitae for the EPC directors and for all other personnel?

Answer: The offeror may submit either the biosketch or CV.

17. For the Technical Proposal on Task Order 1, is it necessary to address all of the items in the chosen primary and secondary workgroup areas? Could the proposal focus mainly on one of the listed items for the primary workgroup area? For example, if an EPC wanted to work on Area 2, would it have to address the peer review issues as well as the literature searching related issues?

Answer The Offeror may focus the proposal on their primary and secondary workgroup areas.

18. For the Technical Proposal on Task Order 1, is it correct to assume that the proposal should focus on the process for addressing the issues rather than presenting a specific plan for addressing one of the issues?

Answer: Offerors should follow instructions as outlined in the technical proposal questions.

19. For the Business Proposal on Task Order 1, should the budget be based on what it would take to address both the primary and the secondary workgroup areas of methodologic focus? If so, is it necessary to distinguish the budget for the primary workgroup area from the budget for the secondary workgroup area?

Answer The budget should be based on the staff level of effort necessary to accomplish the work, as outlined in the RFTO.

20. To what extent are plans for conducting work on future research needs included in

AHRQ‟s spending plans for the upcoming year?

Answer :AHRQ may request future research needs over the lifetime of the contract, which will be detailed in individual task orders.

21. Pg 24: Does AHRQ anticipate requesting more decision analysis and modeling than has been the case in the last 5 years?

Answer: Specific requests for decision analysis and modeling will be outlined in future task orders if requested.

End of Q and A https://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=11UTV11nV11WPZ5EEH1Epea3RBpaE5&url=https%3A%2F%2Forca.bpn.gov%2F