AHRQ-16-10010_Solicitation_Questions_Responses.docx

Scientific Resource Center to Support the USPSTF

AHRQ-16-10010

Responses to Proposal Questions March 10, 2016

Thank you for your interest in this Request for Proposal (RFP). Below is a key to the responses to the questions found on the following pages:

· “No solicitation amendment necessary” – This response is given when 1) the requirements are clearly articulated in the solicitation to the maximum extent possible, 2) the information is not available or 3) dependent on approach.

· “Please see solicitation amendment” – This response is given if the response to the question affects a revision to the RFP. Please see the amended RFP posted to Federal Business Opportunities.

· “This question is unclear” – This response is given if the question was not clear or if AHRQ did not understand the question being asked.

· A response to the question is provided - A response/answer is given if clarification is necessary, but the response does not require an amendment to the RFP.

1. If an institution with an AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers award (EPC V) is awarded a contract or subcontract under RFP No. AHRQ-16-10010, would the EPC be able in the future to submit proposals for systematic evidence reviews in support of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, or would there be a conflict of interest issue?

See Section K.4 regarding potential conflicts of interest.

2. Under the description of requirements for Task 4 (Topic Nominations & Topic Development), the RFP states that “The contractor shall prepare a Topic Nomination Background document for each topic nomination following the specifications in the USPSTF Procedure Manual.” Under the current USPSTF procedures, background documents are only prepared for those nominations that the Topic Prioritization Workgroup assigns as a potential new topic (i.e., those nominations that are in the USPSTF scope and highly relevant) - not for nominated topics that are out of the USPSTF scope or already addressed by USPSTF recommendations. Does AHRQ intend to change this procedure?

Please see solicitation amendment.

3. Under the description of requirements for Task 4 (Topic Nominations & Topic Development), the RFP states that “Depending on the volume, the contractor shall conduct an initial assessment of nominations and reconsiderations on a monthly or bimonthly quarterly basis.” In the deliverable schedule on page 18, the RFP indicates that a call to discuss final dispositions and recommendations for all nominated topics will occur no later than one month prior to each of the in-person TF meetings, i.e., on a quarterly basis. Does AHRQ intend to change this to a monthly or bimonthly task?

Please see solicitation amendment.

No, the monthly or bimonthly basis is in order to inform the monthly topic prioritization workgroup to discuss the initial assessment. The final disposition is discussed one month before the TF meeting.

4. In the past, methods projects have involved assisting with publications; should we budget for manuscript preparation and support?

No solicitation amendment required.

5. Under the description of requirements for Task 5 (Support and Development of Methods to Advance the Work of the USPSTF), the RFP states that “The Contractor shall conduct 1-3 methods research projects each year to advance the work of the USPSTF; the number will depend on the size…” Can AHRQ provide guidance about how many methods projects of what size should be included in the budget each year?

Please see solicitation amendment.

6. Should an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template be included with the technical proposal?

Please see solicitation amendment.

7. If an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template should be included in the technical proposal, does this count against the 30 page limit

Please see solicitation amendment.

8. For Subtask 5.3, the RFP indicates that proposals should include the price for up to 6 trips to present research findings and/or proposed updates to the methods workgroup or to the full Task Force at its in-person meetings and scientific meetings. Should this be budgeted as 6 trips per year (i.e., 2 people to attend each of the 3 full Task Force meetings per year)?

Please see solicitation amendment.

9. Would a contractor be barred from holding the USPSTF SRC contract if they are currently providing scientific support to another guideline-making body?

No, the contractor would not be barred if they are providing scientific support to another guideline-making body. The contractor shall keep in mind the confidentially of the Task Force’s work and that it cannot be shared with others.

10. If a methods project required the use of a technical expert panel: (a) What limits, if any, are there on the amount of the honoraria that may be paid to nonfederal expert panel members? (b) Would AHRQ provide meeting space, or should the contractor plan to provide it?

Honoraria are subject to limitations established by the Contracting Officer’s Authorization at award. Planning for and establishing meeting space are not in the scope of this requirement.

11. Can the font size used for tables and graphs be smaller than that required for the proposal narrative?

Yes, as long as the text is legible.

12. Is there a page limit for resumes?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

13. Can AHRQ confirm whether bio-sketches and resumes are required for all personnel, or only for key personnel?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

14. Can AHRQ confirm that the past performance volume requires:

a. a list of 5 contracts for the prime contractor; and

b. a list of 5 contracts for each major subcontractor?

In addition, for the past performance volume, does AHRQ require, permit, or prohibit contractors from providing additional information about past performance from subcontractors playing a minor role?

No solicitation amendment necessary.