AHRQ-15-10001_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

AHRQ-15-10001: Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Questions and Answers

1. Please confirm that the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be based on the IDIQ total of $49,000,000.

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be based on the IDIQ maximum of $49,000,000 over five years. The estimated period of performance for the five-year base IDIQ contract is November 12, 2014 to November 11, 2019.

2. It appears that the $49 million cap over the 5 years listed on page 4 is per individual EPC? If it is per individual EPC, is there a different separate cap for the entire set of EPC V contractors or is this also $49 million (minus the minimum $60K per contractor)?

3. p. 4. The main paragraph under B.2 reads in part as follows:

Under this IDIQ contract, the minimum is $60,000, while the total maximum amount of all task orders awarded under any individual contract shall not exceed $49,000,000. Once a single IDIQ contractor reaches this maximum, the fair opportunity for competition will be considered reached and no new task orders will be awarded to any IDIQ contractor.

a. Do “individual contract” and “IDIQ contractor” both mean an EPC (for EPC-V)?

b. Can AHRQ confirm that the clause about an “individual contract not exceeding $49 million” pertains to awards made across the entire 5-year period? Or, will the EPC program have $49 million per year (available for TOs for 12 awards)?

c. The clause “the fair opportunity for competition will be considered reached and no new task orders will be awarded to any IDIQ contractor” implies that as soon as any single EPC reaches $49 million, the entire EPC-V program is ended and will presumably need to be rebid. Is there a program total? If the entire EPC program is limited to $49 million, does AHRQ anticipate that with EPC V, as with EPC IV, the program cap may be reached before the anticipated 5-year period?

Each successful offeror (EPC/IDIQ contractor) will be awarded an indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contract. Each of these (estimated 12) IDIQ contracts will be subject to a maximum of $49 million during the entire 5-year period. Unlike EPC IV, there is no “EPC program limit.” The authority to issue any new task orders under “EPC V” expires when any individual IDIQ contractor has received $49 million in task order awards.

4. Is it correct that the technical proposal is double spaced (indicated on p 83), limited to 25 pages, and that those 25 pages include the cover page and table of contents? If the double spacing is accurate, does this apply to the business proposal and all other support documentation as well?

5. pp. 83 and 85. On format of the proposal:

a. Does AHRQ have any limitations or restrictions on appendices or attachments to the technical proposal?

b. Do the cover page, table of contents, and introduction (1–2 pages) all count against the

25-page limitation, or can the 25 numbered pages start with the technical discussion?

6. Pg 85: Do you have a page limit for the resumes/CVs?

7. Please clarify if the 25 page maximum for the technical proposal does or does not include the cover page and table of contents.

8. Regarding the write up of Section 1, please clarify whether the cover page and the table of contents count towards the 25 page limit.

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 1 of 19

9. Is there a page limit for the appendix of the Technical Proposal?

10. Page 85, what does “other portions of the technical proposal” refer to?

11. With regard to the total page limit for the Technical Proposal, does the 25 pages include the cover page, Table of Contents and Introduction?

12. Do the 25 pages include the cover page, table of contents, introduction?

13. Is the reference section included in the 25 page limit of the Technical Proposal?

The page limit includes the Cover Page, Table of Contents, Introduction and Technical Discussion. The technical and business proposals should be double-spaced. Appendices and support documentation may be single or double spaced.

Please see solicitation amendment.

14. Is it allowable to have more than one Associate Director (with established roles/responsibilities/FTE)?

15. Pg 13: Instead of listing one person as the EPC Director and another person as the EPC Associate Director, may we list two people as Directors or Co-Directors if we clearly define the roles of each person? We believe it is possible to have two directors working together closely enough to share final responsibility for products of the EPC’s work.

16. Are the job categories listed mandatory for EPCs? (p12) Some organizations may employ staff with titles that differ from those listed to perform the listed tasks.

The offeror should describe how the roles in Section L (Director, Associate Director, and Program Manager) will be filled as defined in Section C. The offeror may propose multiple persons for each role or the same person for multiple roles, but should make clear how each of the responsibilities as defined in Section C will be filled.

17. What is the difference between a “project director” (p14), “EPC Project Manager” (p14), and “program manager” (p88, p95)

Please see solicitation amendment.

18. We understand that each EPC V contractor will be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each TO. Will there be some established load of projects per EPC per year?

Other than Task Order 1, which will be awarded with a base and four one-year options to all successful offerors, task orders will be competitively solicited, evaluated and awarded.

19. The Business Proposal instructions do not include a specific requirement for resources or research environment. May this be included as part of the business proposal in (e) Performance Capability, or should we include these as part of the appendices?

A description of the resources or research environment is not required.

20. We see a projected start date of 11/14/14 for the IDIQ contract award in the RFP. Would it be acceptable to use 12/1/14 at the start date upon which to base our costs?

21. pp. 2 and 32. For period of performance (TBD on p. 32), staff planning, and budgeting purposes, should we assume a start date of 11/12/2014 and an end date 5 years later on 11/11/2019? If another period of performance is intended, could AHRQ specify what it is?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 2 of 19

The estimated period of performance for the five-year IDIQ contract is November 12, 2014 to November 11, 2019. These dates should be used for proposal planning and estimation.

22. If an offeror intends to include a subcontract as part of the proposal, will a subcontractor business proposal and all required elements (i.e. representations & certifications) need to be present in the proposal?

Yes.

23. p. 10. About the SRC: a couple of bullets say that the SRC will “… provide resources…” Can AHRQ specify what these resources might be?

24. pp. 4 and 90. The RFP states that “multiple tasks have been grouped together as the EPC program experience has indicated these tasks will require similar effort and therefore result in similar cost.” In other words, AHRQ expects that a large systematic update (that may include more than 180 articles) will require the same level of effort as a new medium SR of 51–180 articles and presumably less effort than a new large review of more than 180 articles. In our experience, a large update can require more effort than a large new review with the same number of studies as the update. A large update can add new questions and a new analytic framework, necessitate the revision of old risk of bias ratings to match current methodological standards, require synthesis of new findings with the old review results, and require interpretation and analysis of the old findings in light of the new results. Can AHRQ please clarify how this determination of the lower level of effort for updates was made? Similarly, can you please clarify the rationale for assuming that medium updates (with 51–180 articles and all the attendant tasks described above for large updates) require the same effort as small systematic reviews (16–50 articles)?

25. Page 21, D.1.3.2, paragraph 3: If questions are added to an update review, will AHRQ consider upgrading the review’s size? E.g., if a question is added to what had been a small review and it is determined the entire report should undergo updating, will or could it become a medium review?

Who will make that determination, and will it be based on a preliminary literature search?

As described in Section D.1.3.2, if there are any new questions or comparisons as identified during the surveillance step, then the review would be considered as a “new” systematic review, rather than an update. The category of an update only applies when there are no new questions or comparisons identified.

As noted in Section D.1.3.2, there are some efficiencies anticipated in an update, as defined above, from having an existing background, outline and framework. The update is intended to identify new studies to be inserted and directly into the original systematic review document, highlighting the areas changed. TEP shall be engaged only on a limited basis, if at all. The contractor may amend the previous review protocol rather than developing a new one. The contractor shall place the updated findings in context of old findings, just as they would place any systematic review findings in the context of what was previously known.

26. p. 19. D.1.3. Systematic Reviews:

a. Comprehensive protocol. Will AHRQ require EPCs to register their protocols? If so, will registration be via PROSPERO?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 3 of 19

Authors are welcome to register their protocols via PROSPERO, but this is not a requirement of the Statement of Work and associated costs should be done at the contractor’s expense.

b. Dissemination. This says that “the EPC shall be available to make one webinar presentation to the stakeholder, partners, or others.…” Can AHRQ confirm that this is one webinar in all to an audience of AHRQ’s specification, and not more than one webinar, each to a different stakeholder, partner(s), or others?

As part of the Systematic Review, the Statement of Work requires EPCs, as requested by AHRQ, to make one single webinar presentation, to an audience of AHRQ’s specification, rather than multiple webinars.

27. p. 23. D.1.5 Decision Analysis, Modeling, and Clinical Economic Studies:

a. Can AHRQ please define a “clinical” economic study? How would that differ from, say, cost analysis, burden of illness studies, or cost-effectiveness studies?

Please see solicitation amendment.

b. The RFP says that decision analysis will dovetail with concurrent systematic evidence review. Is that true for modeling and clinical economic studies? Does this mean that the nominator or partner (or the topic development or topic refinement stages) must specify the need for decision analysis (or modeling or clinical economic studies) at the outset, or that the EPC needs to include this in its protocol? OR: can AHRQ ask for these additional studies and analyses at any point in the systematic review process? If AHRQ can request additional studies or analyses late in the systematic review process, will the EPC be able to request additional time to plan and carry them out?

28. Pg 23: The description of task D.1.5 seems to make an assumption that a pre-existing validated model will be available to support any decision analysis, modeling, or clinical economic study, and that such models will only require a little modification to fit the assigned topic. We are concerned that this assumption could put an EPC in the undesirable position of using a pre-existing model even when that model may require more than a little modification to do justice to the assigned topic. In such situations, would it be possible to negotiate a different firm fixed price to ensure that an appropriate model is used to address the topic? Since the description of the task also refers to the need to collaborate with the team doing the systematic review , should we assume that the EPC doing any decision analysis or modeling will usually be different from the EPC doing the systematic review? Extra effort will be needed to coordinate efforts between two EPCs as compared with coordinating efforts between two teams within an EPC.

29. For the decision analysis activity (D.1.5), is it possible that in some cases the same EPC will be responsible for both the systematic review and the decision analysis? The RFP seems to imply that the two activities are done by separate EPCs who will coordinate work.

Each task – in this case, specifically those under D.1.5 – and subsequent task order, is independent from any other and will be solicited, evaluated and awarded on its own as required.

There will be no preference or exclusion for award of tasks under D.1.5 with respect to the contractor performing a related Systematic Review.

For tasks under D.1.5, if solicited in a Request for Task Order, a technical and cost proposal will be required and a negotiated task order will be awarded; a fixed-price will not be established for these tasks at award of the IDIQ contract.

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 4 of 19

30. D.1.2. Manuscript preparation: Does this apply only to USPSTF systematic reviews? Or will AHRQ pay for manuscript preparation for all SRs?

31. Pg 4: For Item No. 2, Task D.2.1, should we assume that the task of preparing a manuscript only applies to work that will be done for the USPSTF, as mentioned on page 24, and that it only involves preparation of a single manuscript regardless of the scope of the task order?

32. Page 24, D.2: When will AHRQ determine that a “manuscript preparation” and “added partner engagement” is needed for a given topic, e.g. prior to the RFTO for the main EPC product?

33. Section B.2, Item 2, Manuscript Preparation-is this exclusive to USPSTF work or does this include manuscripts for non-USPSTF products?

34. pp. 24–25: Dissemination and Implementation:

a. Generally, are some of these steps (e.g., D.2.1, D.2.2, and their constituent parts) required or expected for all EPC systematic reviews, or only for the USPSTF (given that only the USPSTF is called out)?

b. If the USPSTF or a different partner requests additional searches for either a new (not previously specified) key question or two contextual questions (as in D.2.2.2), will the funding for that systematic review be supplemented accordingly (e.g., if the number of articles moves from a small to a medium review by virtue of the new work)?

c. Can AHRQ clarify what a “circumscribed section” is for the basic systematic review and at what point the findings from such supplemental questions need to be submitted to the AHRQ TOO and the partner (if this material is to be included in some fashion in the main report, but in some “circumscribed” way)?

35. Pg 24: Does task D.2.2.1 (Bridge Search) only apply to work being done for the USPSTF?

36. Does section D.2 (pgs. 24-25) only apply to USPSTF products?

37. Pg 24-25: If an EPC is asked to perform a supplementary review, should we assume that the supplementary review must follow all of the same steps as outlined in the Methods Guide for full systematic reviews? Since the scope of work for a supplementary review could vary a lot, it seems difficult to develop a firm fixed price for Task D.2.2. without having additional clarification of the limits of what could be expected in a supplementary review.

38. Please provide clarification regarding how Tasks D.2.2.1. Bridge Search and D.2.2.2.

Supplemental question(s) for Systematic review that are described in the Statement of Work section correspond to the Item Numbers within the table of fixed price items on pages 4 and 5 of the RFP.

39. D.2.2.1. Bridge search and D.2.2.2. Supplemental questions for SR: These items are not listed in the table of fixed priced items. Are they part of Item 2?

40. Is there a ballpark figure for Item 2 (Task D.2.1 and Task D.2.2) that EPCs could work with?

Section D.2.2 has been removed from the Statement of Work for this requirement. When solicited via task order, the requirements previously described under D.2.2 will be specified in the individual Request for Task Order. Please see solicitation amendment.

41. p. 45. Does the 508 compliance certification not apply for task orders under $150,000 or more than 1 year? In other words, do the certification requirements apply only for those tasks over $150,000 and less than 1 year in length?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

42. p. 63, attachment B. Sample format for cost proposal: Can we use a different cost proposal format, as long as all the specified information is given?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 5 of 19

The format provided in Attachment B is not mandatory. However, cost proposals should include all required information in Section L.10.

43. Will AHRQ fund dissemination work for every report or only selected reports and if the latter, how will these reports be selected?

44. p. 63 and Attachment E. Collaboration:

a. p. 2 of Attachment E: Item 4 says that the EPC should “…engage with partners directly or at scientific meetings.…” Does this requirement mean or imply that travel (travel, lodging, subsistence, etc.) to specific scientific meeting(s) that partners sponsor or convene, or to general scientific meetings that partners are likely to attend, will be covered? This seems to be compatible with Section C.4 concerning promoting dissemination of one report through travel to conferences (with TOO approval and other requirements).

The first four items under “C. Specific Requirements/Tasks” correspond with tasks C.1 through C.4 that follow immediately thereafter. Dissemination work performed under this task order will be done according to each contractor’s dissemination plan (for one report annually), subject to approval by the Task Order Officer.

b. For C.2 of attachment E: For the 50–100 hours of investigator time, is this over the 5 years of performance or annually? Can this be apportioned across more than one investigator?

Please see solicitation amendment.

c. For C.3 on Associate Editors:

i. Can AHRQ confirm that AEs will be asked to review systematic reviews, technology assessments, methods reports, and technical briefs (as different types of reports are mentioned in different places in this attachment)?

ii. In the third bullet, AHRQ estimates that the time commitment for each report is about 25 hours per year. Can AHRQ clarify or confirm that an AE will, on average, receive only two reports (or similar documents) per year (as specified in a later bullet)?

Please see solicitation amendment.

d. On C.4 for dissemination: Can AHRQ clarify whether “the EPC should anticipate promoting the dissemination of about 1 EPC report” means only a single report over the 5-year period of performance or one report per year?

45. Attachment E, C.4: The first paragraph states that for the purposes of this task order, the EPC should anticipate promoting the dissemination of about 1 EPC report. Does this mean 1 report per year? Per the contract period?

46. pp. 86–87. On challenging methods:

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 6 of 19

a. The list under “2. Technical approach” includes 7 items; the list under “Challenging evidence synthesis methodology areas” includes 6 of the 7 items and omits dissemination and implementation. Was that intentional?

b. Because AHRQ specifies that the technical approach should pick only 3 of the 7 areas, does AHRQ expect EPCs to name senior investigators with expertise in the remaining areas (and would that include dissemination and implementation)?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

47. pp. 86–87. Technical personnel and clinical or other topic areas:

a. Will AHRQ be awarding bundled EPC-V contracts targeted to specific topic areas (such as cardiovascular disease, mental health, or cancer; prevention and behavioral interventions; or the methodology areas)–as was done with EPC-IV?

b. If so, will that be done in this IDIQ procurement or through a separate competition once all EPC-V awards are made?

48. Will there be areas of concentration in EPC V?

Task orders for individual topics will be solicited, evaluated and awarded competitively via Request for Task Order among all IDIQ contractors.

49. p. 87. Specifying Associate Editors and Senior Investigators: Can AHRQ clarify whether the agency wants “time available” as a percentage FTE for each proposed AE separately or wants this value summed across all nominated AEs? For AEs (given the “25 hours” specification earlier), is AHRQ interested in knowing, for each nominated FTE, that the person has more than 25 hours available and specified as a percent FTE?

Both the technical and business proposal should specify the time proposed for each individual for each of the Items as described in the solicitation. All proposed costs in the business proposal should correspond directly with the effort proposed in the technical approach.

50. Page 88 asks us to address quality issues raised in peer review that are associated with the management plan in our 5 most recent published products – we are not aware of quality issues that peer reviewers brought up, in particular not those that are associated with the management of the project. Would it be possible to provide more guidance regarding these “quality issues?”

The proposal should summarize the major themes raised in peer review that would have required substantive changes to address. These may include methodological concerns, comments about the presentation of information generally or from the clinical context, or concerns regarding the interpretation or analysis of data.

51. Page 96: How will the “quality of similar work conducted by the core team” be evaluated? Should the Technical Proposal include information from the Past Performance part?

See solicitation amendment.

52. p. 88. Part of Key Personnel: Ensuring quality and timeliness of deliverables:

a. For the quality and timeliness details about reports, do the “5 most recently published” products mean SRs (or other reports) that AHRQ has accepted and published on the

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 7 of 19 agency Web site? If so, does this mean that the two sets of publications for quality and timeliness should be identical?

The two sets of publications for quality and timeliness should be identical. The proposal should describe any quality or timeliness concerns separately and the management plan to address any of those concerns separately.

b. Can AHRQ provide more specific definitions as to what it means with respect to “quality issues” and whether the quality questions raised are to be only those arising from peer reviewers? If some or none of the most recently published reports had no quality issues raised in peer review—however AHRQ is defining quality–can we simply say (and document) that?

The proposal should summarize the major themes raised in peer review that would have required substantive changes to address. These may include methodological concerns, comments about the presentation of information generally or from the clinical context, or concerns regarding the interpretation or analysis of data.

c. Similarly, can AHRQ quantify what “timeliness” means? If some or all of the last 5 products were delivered within the time frame required (by the relevant due date), can we simply say (and document) that? If delayed publications can be attributed to external factors (e.g., AE delays), can we say that?

The proposal should describe the management plan in place to ensure adherence to timelines established at the outset of projects. The proposal should describe the actual time taken for the last 5 products similar to those products listed in the SOW and how they compare with the initial timelines for the deliverables, along with explanations for any deliverables completed late.

d. Can AHRQ clarify what it means by the phrase “… products similar to those described in the SOW compare…”? Specifically, compare with what (with each other or with something else)?

Please see solicitation amendment.

53. p. 89. Past Performance: Are we correct in thinking that both the prime contract and any major subcontractors should submit this information on 5 contracts each? What about consultants and other small businesses?

54. Please confirm that we will not be responsible for sending out forms to contractors/grantors for past performance.

Only the prime contractor is required to submit past performance information.

55. pp. 93 and 95. The SDB participation plan (p. 93) asks for 7 elements. Section M on page 95 specifies only 1 element as an evaluation factor. Will the other elements required in the participation plan not be used for evaluation?

56. We feel that it is unnecessary to include the requirement for a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing data given that this is a competitive procurement. We plan to prepare our budget utilizing

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 8 of 19 our Government approved accounting and purchasing systems. Based on the requirements of FAR Part 15.403-1, we feel that our standard, approved systems will generate accurate proposal data, and the level of detail required for certified cost or pricing data is not appropriate for this acquisition.

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.

57. The RFP incorporates 52.244-2 Subcontracts, Alternate I (June 2007), 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 41 which 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 41 creates an ambiguity and may decrease efficiency for the Government during the administration of the project. Therefore, we respectfully request the instructions on page 39 are amended so written approval for subcontracts is not required per 52.244-2 for those Contractors that maintain approved purchasing systems.

58. Section B.3.a. Items Unallowable Unless Otherwise Provided - Does the prior approval requirement apply only to cost reimbursable task orders or does it apply to both fixed price and cost reimbursable Task Orders? If it applies to both types of task orders, will AHRQ issue a clarification similar to the 1/7/14 letter to current EPC IV IDIQ contractors that based on AHRQ’s review of FAR Clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts, Alternate I, consent to subcontract is not required for fixed price task orders and EPC contractors will not need to submit subcontract and consultant approval requests for fixed price task orders?

59. Section H.3 Subcontracts - Will written approval from the Contracting Officer be required on fixed price task orders? Under the current EPC IDIQ, AHRQ issued a clarification that based on AHRQ’s review of FAR Clause 52.244-2 Subcontracts, Alternate I, consent to subcontract is not required for fixed price task orders and EPC contractors will not need to submit subcontract and consultant approval requests for fixed price task orders.

60. Pg. 2: How does the NAICS size standard of $14 million relate to the total maximum amount of all task orders awarded under any individual contract as specified on page 4?

No relation.

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 9 of 19

61. Pg 19: The description of the peer review step does not mention the role of an Associate Editor, but review by the Associate Editor often adds time to the peer review process. Should we assume that the peer review process will continue to involve review by an Associate Editor and the Task Order Officer, as has been the usual approach under the EPC-4 contract?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

62. Pg 21: The description of task D.1.3.2 seems to assume that systematic review updates will be performed by the EPC that performed the original systematic review. Is that true? If an update is being done by a different EPC, there may be a greater need to convene a TEP, and there may be a need to do more than just an amendment to the protocol. Also, it would not be appropriate for an EPC to incorporate changes directly into the original systematic review without having to wrestle with the implications for authorship of the resulting update.

63. Development of a draft protocol for an updated systematic review is listed as a deliverable. (p18) How does this deliverable differ from the protocol deliverable required in D.1.3 Systematic Reviews and D.1.3.2 Systematic Review Updates?

If a contractor conducts a surveillance task, the contractor will develop a draft protocol for a proposed update of the systematic review as the final deliverable. This may be done as a modification of the original systematic review report protocol. The protocol deliverable for the update will be the finalization of the protocol. Please see solicitation amendment.

AHRQ anticipates that the protocol would be developed during the surveillance stage by the contractor conducting the update and that the protocol and final report should contain sufficient details for the EPC to update the report. The role of the TEP is to provide input on the methods for conducting the review, and this should be determined by factors other than who is conducting the review. It is true that authorship would need to be handled appropriately, but this does not mean that a different team cannot update a report that has already been published in the public domain.

64. Pg 21: What does AHRQ consider to be a “limited number of studies” for which an update of a systematic review would be appropriate?

Please see solicitation amendment.

65. Pg 83: May we use flash drives instead of CD ROM copies?

66. Section B.2, Item 9, Tasks D.1.5, D.1.6, and D.5. – is a budget required for these items?

Currently the RFP states “to be negotiated.”

67. Pg 90: The business proposal instructions call for a firm fixed price for each of the 8 items in Section B. Does that mean we are not required to provide any cost estimate for the tasks in Item 9 (which are listed as “to be negotiate”)?

The tasks in Item 9 will be negotiated per individual task order. A proposed cost/price for these tasks is not required at this time.

68. Is a small business subcontracting plan required now if we don’t know whether our funding will exceed $650,000?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 10 of 19

All offerors shall submit a small business subcontracting plan.

69. The tasks listed in section B.2 do not involve sensitive information (as defined on page 46). Since most of the security and privacy requirements described in H.10 do not apply to EPC work, how much information about security and privacy do we need to include in the business proposal?

The proposal shall confirm the offeror’s ability to adhere to the applicable security and privacy requirements.

70. Under the EPC-4 contract, the EPCs will be working on methods projects in the coming year. For how long do you expect those projects to be supported under the EPC-4 contract?

While the EHC program will continue through the EPC V IDIQs, the EPC IV IDIQs are separate contracts and should be treated as such. AHRQ will work to address concerns balancing the operation of a single program under multiple contracts.

71. Are the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (p.91) and the Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan (p.93) separate and different requirements? Are both required as part of the proposal?

Yes; yes.

72. We've reviewed the RFP and request clarification from AHRQ as to whether the following clauses are appropriate to be included in the resulting contract:

a. H.8: we understand this applies to IT products and services, which are not being procured here.

b. H.10: privacy and security requirements cover PHI and sensitive information which we understand do not apply to the scope of work

c. H.13: Will there be any "sensitive information" provided by the government to the contractor under this contract? If so, please explain.

d. HHSAR Regulation 352.239-72, Security Requirements for Federal Information Technology Resource. Please clarify how the information related to tracking & conducting systematic reviews would be classified as information requiring security under this clause.

e. We have noted that the contract contains clauses related to cost-reimbursement. Should these clauses that relate to cost-reimbursement contracts be retained since this RFP requires fixed-fee pricing.

Although most of the work, particularly systematic reviews, under the EHC program by EPCs does not cover IT products or services or sensitive information, this IDIQ covers a broader scope of work than these questions indicate and the clauses are appropriate in the IDIQ to cover instances in which they might apply.

Not all items are firm-fixed price. Section L.10 explicitly states Attachment E is a cost-reimbursement requirement and that all EPC contractors will be required to accomplish these tasks. Additionally, task orders with tasks from Item 9 may be cost-reimbursement, depending on the task and the Request for Task Order.

73. Section H.1. (1) states that AHRQ is allowed two months to provide comments or suggested modifications to the EPC on proposed publications or releases of data. Under a fixed-price

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 11 of 19 contract, two months of responses time would significantly impact project timelines. Would the Agency please consider reducing this allowed time to one month?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

74. Please clarify why FAR 52.227-17, Rights in Data—Special Works was included in the RFP rather than FAR 52.227-14, Rights in Data—General.

75. Given the possibility of ‘no negotiation’, can certain FAR clauses be substituted for those applicable to a non-commercial, non-profit Institution of Higher Education as follows:

a. Section E: Inspection and Acceptance:

i. FAR 52.246-5 Inspection of Services –Cost Reimbursement- request to replace with 52.246-9

ii. FAR 52.246-4 Inspection of Services- Fixed Price- request to replace with

52.246-9

iii. FAR 52.246-6 Inspection Time and Material Labor Hour- request deletion as not applicable

b. Section F.2: Deliverable Schedule: Work delivered by our University is produced using

Best Efforts, and provided “as is”. As per the clause 52.246-9, The Government has the right to inspect and evaluate the work performed under the contract, therefore, please remove language specifying that deliverables must be approved. Please also revise to state that our University will consider revisions recommended by the Task Order Officer and reach mutual agreement with the Government on final deliverable.

c. Section F.3: Clauses Incorporated by Reference:

i. FAR 52.242-15, Alt. I: request to reduce the time frame to less than 30 days.

ii. FAR 52.242-15: request to remove as not applicable

d. 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. Also, the Cost Proposal instructions do not require that hours are listed.

e. Section G.6: Indirect Cost Rates and Fee: FAR 52.216-7(d)(2): request to replace Section 31.2 with 31.3 which incorporates the appropriate Cost Principles.

f. Section H.1: Release and Use and Copyright of Data First Produced from Work Performed Under this Contract: FAR 52.227-17: please replace with FAR 52.227-14 which is the appropriate clause for an education institution performing Research & Development.

g. Section H.1: Copyright: request to remove first sentence, as FAR 52.227-17 is not applicable.

h. Are items in Section H.10 Security and Privacy Requirements relevant to this RFTO since all work is done at the EPC site rather than at government facilities? If we have to address this requirements; please respond to the following questions:

i. Section H.10(5): Privacy Requirements:

1. FAR 52.239-1: request removal as not applicable based on statement of work.

2. Privacy Act of 1974- request removal as not applicable based on statement of work.

ii. Section H. 10(11): Please clarify if these requirements are incorporated based on the Statement of Work.

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 12 of 19

iii. Section H.10(12): Security and Privacy Training: please provide information as to who is responsible for conducting this training?

iv. Section H.10(15): Please define “Agency Information”.

The clause selection for this solicitation was done based on a review of the expectations and requirements for the EPC program. Prior to award, some minor adjustment of clauses will be done based on each contractor’s institutional status (educational, non-profit, etc.). However, no significant exceptions or changes are anticipated; proposals should be submitted with the expectation that few, if any, changes will be made to the clause selection or language from the solicitation. Participation in the EPC program will be subject to the acceptance of all contract terms and conditions.

76. Page 6 of the RFP states that Consultant fees are an unallowable cost. On page 89, the instructions for the Technical Proposal request that the Offeror provide an explanation regarding how the Offeror will work with any consultants to successfully meet timelines and quality expectations of the work. Please explain how consultants are an unallowable cost, but can still be used to complete work under task orders.

77. Page 6, item 10: Please define “consultant fees.” Would these be the same as the honoraria we currently offer to TEP members? The small subcontracts we provide for team members who are not staff of our institution? If so, does this stipulation mean that we are no longer allowed to offer TEP members honoraria or to pay team members who are not employees?

The costs listed are unallowable as direct costs “unless authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer.” Please see solicitation amendment (Section H.3) for additional information.

78. The RFP states that the maximum total amount a single contractor can reach under this IDIQ is $49,000,000. If EPC A is awarded a Task Order contract that proposes subcontracting a portion of the work to EPC B, will the full amount of the Task Order contract be counted toward the total for EPC A and no dollars for that particular contract be counted toward EPC B? Or will the total amount of the contract be split between EPC A and B reflecting the amount of the subcontract to EPC B when calculating total amounts awarded under the IDIQ?

The limitation on awards is calculated based on the amount of work awarded to an EPC as the prime contractor. In the scenario presented, the full amount of the award would be attributed to EPC A and none would be attributed to EPC B.

79. Is every EPC expected to do work for USPSTF and on technology assessment? If not, can we not address this work in our application?

80. Will all EPCs be expected to conduct surveillance? (p18) Or will a list of surveillance topics be competed via RFTO? Or will one EPC be selected to conduct all surveillance?

81. Will we need to submit a proposal and compete for Participation in Derivative Products?

82. Are all EPCs expected to undertake reviews in the listed clinical topic areas and challenging evidence synthesis clinical subject areas rather than focusing on specific areas where they are strong?

While task orders will be competitively solicited, evaluated and awarded (other than that described in Attachment E), offerors will not be required to submit a proposal for each Request for Task Order. However, IDIQ proposals in response to this solicitation should demonstrate –

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 13 of 19 and will be evaluated upon – an offeror’s ability to complete all tasks described in the Statement of Work for the full breadth of clinical topic areas.

83. Page 10, bullet 3 (under Topic Triage): What criteria will the SRC use to determine eligibility of a review for updating surveillance?

The SRC has developed a process for identifying reports for surveillance, which is described on the EHC website (http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/submit-a-suggestion-for-research/how-are-epc-systematic-reviews-updated/). The criteria for commissioning an update are consistent with the criteria used for topic triage of all reports.

84. Page 15, Stakeholder Engagement, line 5: Inclusion of the patient perspective “through all aspects of systematic reviews” has not been the policy under EPC IV. Will that policy change under EPC V?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

85. Page 15 states that “the work of engaging stakeholders….is expected to be at least 20% of the work of promoting evidence synthesis. Does this mean 20% of the “D1” task, which includes such subtasks as topic development, topic refinement, and developing systematic reviews tasks?

Yes, it is assumed that the work of evidence synthesis (described in D.1) will involve substantial time for stakeholder engagement to ensure that evidence is translated and used appropriately.

86. Page 17, D.1.2 Topic Refinement: Does AHRQ anticipate that a maximum length of time will be allowed to elapse between completion of a topic brief for a topic development and movement of that topic to topic refinement?

There is no established or required timeline; the Government will work to ensure that all Requests for Task Order meet the requirements and needs of the EHC program.

87. A limited literature scan is listed as subtask D.1.1 (p16). Recent RFTOs for project have also been expected to include a limited literature scan. For EPC V, if such a scan is conducted during topic development, will EPCs be expected to subsequent search and describe results in proposals?

When submitting proposals for a Task Order topic, it is anticipated that the EPC should be familiar with the body of literature and challenges that it may pose. Specific instructions and evaluation criteria will be listed in the RFTO.

88. Page 20, Items 7: Does the term “peer review” include here the documentation of response to all public comments?

Yes, peer review refers to the EPC documentation of responses to peer and public review.

89. Page 21, D.1.3.2, 3rd bullet point: If the changes to the document are shown in boldface type and this formatting is explained upfront, can it be left to the discretion of the EPC to decide whether a list of every wording change will be necessary? A table or list of substantive changes is to be expected.

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 14 of 19

90. Page 24, role of the funder: are all publications associated with AHRQ project subject to approval from the TOO?

Any manuscript based on data first produced under contract is subject to the requirements established in the contract. Work funded under the scope of work described in Attachment E, C.4. and Item D.2.1 requires approval of the Task Order Officer prior to manuscript preparation.

91. Task D.2.1: if we plan to draft and submit a manuscript based on an evidence review we’ve done, would we submit a proposal and compete to write the manuscript, or would we just request these funds, perhaps retroactively upon submission of a first draft? And if that’s the case, would AHRQ play an increased role in the preparation and publication of manuscripts?

The Government will issue Requests for Task Order for its requirements. If a contractor does related work (ie extra manuscript preparation) outside the statement of work of its task order, it is done at the contractor’s expense. Regardless, work done based on data first produced under the contract is subject to the requirements established in the contract.

92. May task D.2.3. refer to working with the Eisenberg Center on derivative products (e.g., a patient decision aid)?

D.2.3 may include working with others on derivative products, such as a patient decision aid.

However review of Eisenberg Center products for consistency with the original review should be considered part of the work of the systematic review as described in D.1.3, task 11.

93. P. 26, D.3.1, D.3.2: Will Future Research Needs continue to be determined in a process separate from that of the systematic review and reported in a document that is separate from the SR report, as has been done in the recent past, or will Future Research Needs determination and reporting return to the SR process and report? This seems unclear between these two paragraphs.

The EPC should continue to identify research gaps in the evidence as part of the systematic review. Development of a more refined statement of future research needs with engagement of stakeholders may be requested separately.

94. Page 44, H.7: to whom do these personnel security requirements pertain?

The requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible.

95. Where or what are attachments 1 and 2, referred to on pg. 63?

Attachment 1 and 2 will be included in the resultant contracts. Attachment 1 is required as part of the proposal (page 91). Attachment 2 is also referenced as Attachment D (page 63).

96. Is there no dedicated proposal section to describe facilities and resource?

97. What is the definition or scope of “functional limitations and disability” on page 87?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 15 of 19

Functional limitations and disability was one of the 14 priority conditions established by the Secretary of HHS under the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. It can include clinical conditions which primarily affect the ability to perform activities of daily living.

98. Do we need to submit a separate technical proposal, budget justification, and budget for activities described in Attachment E or where in the proposal should they be described?

The specific requirements in Attachment E should be addressed in the technical proposal as part of the technical discussion. The business proposal, as stated in Section L.10, should include an estimate for the work in Attachment E.

99. Should the Director and Associate Director be described in section 3. Technical Personnel or 4.

Key Personnel, Core Team, and Management Plan, or both?

100. There seems to be some overlap between the two personnel sections. Our core team holds many of the technical expertise that is evaluated in the Technical Personnel section (p94 and 95).

Should members of staff be described in detail in the Technical Proposal or the Key Personnel section?

There may be overlap in individual persons listed in Section 3 Technical Personnel and Section 4 Key Personnel if an individual is proposed to function as part of the core team leadership role as well as a technical (clinical or methodological) role. In these cases, the individual should be listed twice and the expertise relevant to the relevant section described. However only one copy of a CV, resume or biosketch needs to be provided, although it should contain information to support all roles described.

101. How does the Personnel section outlined on page 12ff map to the Technical Personnel and the Key Personnel section?

102. The Technical Proposal Instructions (p.84ff) and Evaluation factors for award (p94) do not map to the Personnel section on page 12ff. Could that be clarified?

103. For which personnel do labor hours need to be described? (p85)

All personnel proposed for the completion of the requirements of the Statement of Work should be described.

104. How shall price increases be factored into the business proposal? Cost estimates for 2015 tasks will not necessarily be the same as 2018 ones.

The IDIQ contract will have a five-year ordering period. Cost estimates should be proposed with the understanding that the firm-fixed prices will be used during the performance of the IDIQ.

105. Is it sufficient to provide one exemplary budget of a task within an item or will we need to submit a description of the cost elements (labor, subcontracts, indirect rates, fee etc.) used to develop the proposed firm-fixed price for all tasks under an item?

106. Does the Business Proposal need to include budgets for each task per item or can one task be chosen as an example for the cost estimate on item level (p4, p90)?

Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) V Page 16 of 19

107. Are letters of support for the clinical and other subject matter experts required? (p. 86-87)

108. Can a letter of support be included in lieu of a CV/resume and vice versa? (p. 86)

109. Does “biosketch” mean NIH biosketch or biographical paragraph? (p. 86)

110. Should submitted CVs of Key Personnel be shorter than those for Technical Personnel? For

Technical Personnel we should submit a CV, resume, or biosketch (p86) while for Key Personnel and Core Team members, a “focused” curriculum vitae/resume or biosketch (p88) is requested.

Letters of support are not required. For both Key Personnel and Technical Personnel, the proposal should include a…