Responses_to_Offeror_Questions_AHRQ-20-10005.pdf

Question Number

RFP (or Attachment) Page Number

Relevant Section Number or Title Question Response

1 RFP, Page 1 Section A Is the intended due date for the Notice of Intent 12/9/2019 (as stated) or 11/9/2019? Please see solicitation amendment.

2 RFP, Page 2 Section A – Solicitation Form

Will AHRQ consider electronic submission of proposals rather than physical delivery of a hard copy and electronic copies of proposal volumes? No solicitation amendment necessary.

3 RFP, page 2 Proposal submission Can the proposal be submitted electronically in addition to the papercopy and flash drive?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

4 Page 5 B.2: IDIQ Contract Would AHRQ consider awarding multiple contracts for a task order in a single state and/or geography? No solicitation amendment necessary.

This is task order dependent.

5 RFP Page 5 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

Is it allowable to propose additional labor categories as part of the IDIQ budget? No. Offeror shall use only the provided labor classes for the IDIQ.

RFP AHRQ‐20‐10005

ACTION IV IDIQ ‐

Section b.3 Task Orders and Prices –

B.3 Can the offeror include additional labor classes (and associated rates)?

See response to question 5.

7 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

Can Offerors bid additional levels (more labor categories ) under each main category heading in order to provide AHRQ with the most cost effective approach for any given task order? This would allow contractors to have more loaded labor rates to more accurately and competitively price labor across a variety of staff levels and research needs of the scope.

See response to question 5.

8 Page 5 B. 3 Task Orders and Prices

Are we able to come in as a subcontractor on more than one application for Action IV? No solicitation amendment necessary.

Refer to Section C ‐ Definition of "ACTION 4 Partners" on page 12

9 Page 5 B. 3 Task Orders and Prices What are the anticipated release dates for the first task orders?

AHRQ anticipates the release date for the first task orders shortly after award of the IDIQ.

10 RFP, Page 5 Section B.3, Task Orders and Prices

If team members’ standard accounting practices do not translate to a standard hourly rate (such as universities or medical centers), will the government allow them to be bid as Other Direct Costs at the Task Order level?

No. Offerors shall provide fully loaded hourly rates for each labor class.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Pages 5‐6

Section B.3 Task Orders and Prices

Please confirm that the rates proposed in this section will constitute the Offeror’s maximum fully‐burdened hourly rates per labor class for each year of the IDIQ, and that the Offeror may propose different fully‐burdened hourly rates per labor class on a task order by task order basis, as long as the rates proposed for each task order do not exceed the maximum rates in this section.

No. Offerors shall use the labor classifications included in the IDIQ only. Offerors should NOT propose additional labor rates.

Responses to Offeror Questions

AHRQ‐20‐10005

Thank you for your interest in the 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 offerors approach.

• “Please see solicitation amendment” – This response is given is the response to the question affect a revision to the RFP. Please see the amended RFP posted to Federal Business Opportunities (FBO).

• A response to the question is provided – A response/answer is given; a clarification is necessary, but the response does not require an amendment to the RFP.

12 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

For the Fully Burdened Hourly Rate for each ordering period, are these considered ceiling rates or set‐rates for labor categories for T&M and FFP task orders? See response to question 11.

13 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

If the rates are considered ceiling rates, at the task order level would you expect a discount on the labor rate itself, or can individuals be bid at their fully loaded labor rate as long as they do not exceed the maximum rate established for this IDIQ? See response to question 11.

14 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

When establishing rates for subcontractors on any given task order, may the offeror burden Subcontractor and Consultant rates in accordance with their approved Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA), and reasonable fee/profit?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

Reference Section B.3.

15 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

When pricing individual task orders, will subcontractors be allowed to use their GSA rates or other T&M rates for their portion of the cost proposal? See response to question 14.

16 RFP, Page 6 Section B.3, Labor Class Definitions

Can years of experience be used to substitute for the education requirement? If so, please provide the substitution criteria.

No amendment to the solicitation necessary: see phrase "normally holding" on page 6 of RFP.

17 7 Labor Class Definitions For Class V, AHRQ indicates that this labor category includes “Other technical staff such as editors, etc.” In order to ensure consistency across bidders, would AHRQ provide additional guidance on what types of personnel offerors should include in this labor category?

Please see solicitation amendment

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Pages 7‐8

Section B Section B indicates that information technology hardware or software is an unallowable cost . Does this include the costs of operating cloud‐based storage platforms (e.g. Microsoft SharePoint), data storage hardware or software, and/or creating and maintaining websites?

IT hardware or software are unallowable costs. Contractors are required to furnish all necessary IT equipment. Any deviation from this must be approved by the Contracting Officer as stated in Section B.5.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Pages 7‐8

Section B

Section B indicates that information technology hardware or software is an unallowable cost . However, p. 11 states, “The new role envisioned for ACTION 4 will be to serve as the preliminary phase of the effort to build a National Test Collaborative (NTC). The purpose of the NTC would be to test Health IT tools in the real world before they are disseminated for use.” Are information technology hardware or software costs allowable if they are related to the NTC’s work? See response to question 18.

20 Pg. 8 B4.a Items Unallowable Unless Otherwise Provided

Information technology hardware or software is listed as unallowable . IT hardware and software have been necessary to execute the work required in many of the task orders. Is it AHRQ’s intent that IT hardware and software can be included with proper justification and approval by the Contracting Officer? See response to question 18.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Pages 7‐8

Section B.4

B.4 refers to Unallowable items’ unless otherwise provided’‐ should the word ‘provided’ be ‘approved’? If not, this section implies that Consultant Fees are not allowable, as well as other items listed in 1‐12. Can AHRQ clarify the section on unallowable costs? For example, please confirm that the unallowability of “Consultant Fees” does not preclude Offerors from proposing and ultimately billing consultant labor.

Please see solicitation amendment.

Offerors may include Subcontract and Consultants with task order proposals.

If approved, these costs will be specifically authorized in the task order award.

22 Pg. 8 B4.a Items Unallowable Unless Otherwise Provided

Consultant fees are listed as unallowable . Consultants have been used to execute the work required in many of the task orders. Is it AHRQ’s intent that consultants can be included with proper justification and approval by the Contracting Officer? See response to question 21.

23 RFP, Page 8 Section B.4.a.(9) and (10)

Section B.4.a(9) and (10) state that Subcontractors and Consultants are unallowable unless authorized in writing by the Contracting Officer. Does the government consider the award of the IDIQ as written authorization to use the Action IV Partners that were part of the team, or will prime contractor’s need to request authorization separately, post‐award?

See response to question 21.

24 Pg. 8 B4.a Items Unallowable Unless Otherwise Provided

Travel to attend general scientific meetings is listed as unallowable. Travel is typically required to execute the work required in many of the task orders. Is it AHRQ’s intent that travel can be included with proper justification and approval by the Contracting Officer?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

Travel to general scientific meetings is unallowable. Travel proposed for specific requirements is not what is listed as unallowable in Section B.4.

25 Pp 9‐12; 14‐18 Statement of Work;

Scope

Does the government prefer specific technologies, programs, or software for web‐based outreach efforts?

Guidance on the specific technologies, programs, or software for web‐based outreach efforts will be determined at the task‐order level.

26 Pp 9‐12; 14‐18 Statement of Work;

Scope

Does the government prefer specific technologies, programs, or software for training activities?

Guidance on the specific technologies, programs, or software for training activities will be determined at the task‐order level.

27 SOW 7 Scope (c) Does AHRQ have any guidance on the type of provider settings that will most likely be utilized in Feasibility/Pilot Testing?

Guidance on the type of provider settings to be utilized will be determined at the task‐order level

28 RFP, pg. 11 Section C ‐ Description/Specificati on/Work Statement

Could AHRQ please clarify the nature of the proposed National Test Collaborative and specifically the work associated with “serve as the preliminary phase of the effort to build a National Test Collaborative”? Will this be a funded role for the primes (to serve as members of the NTC in a pilot or preliminary capacity), or will there be a task order related to building the preliminary phase of the NTC?

Offerors shall reference the Request for Information for additional technical details on the National Test Collaborative.

29 RFP page 11 of 79 Background: The new role envisioned for Action 4.

Should the contractor consider any prior HHS agency efforts to establish a National Test Collaborative (NTC) in its approach?

See response to question 29.

RFP, Page 11‐12 of

Section C ‐ Statement of Work

Would the government please elaborate on AHRQ’s role, and the role the ACTION 4 contractors would play, as part of the preliminary phase effort to build a National Test Collaborative? Does the government anticipate the ACTION 4 contractors would primarily support test originators (e.g., defining Health IT needs, requirements, and parameters for testing) or would the focus be on supporting test executors? See response to question 29.

31 RFP, pg. 12 Section C ‐ Description/Specificati on/Work Statement

What kinds of Health IT tools does AHRQ expect would be tested by the NTC? Who would determine which tools are tested as part of the NTC?

See response to question 29.

32 Page 13 Section C‐ Description/Specificati on/Work Statement

How does this contract aim to reduce duplication for similarly funded national quality improvement contracts such as CMS NQIIC IDIQ? This contract is non‐duplicative of the

CMS NQIIC IDIQ.

33 Page 13 Section C‐ Description/Specificati on/Work Statement

Can financial incentives be offered to participants as part of participation?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

“Definitions,” section, “Tools, Training, Guidance”

Part I – The Schedule – Solicitation Form

Do pre‐existing materials, tools or resources, that are provided by a contractor/subcontractor, as part of the deliverables and that are intended for public use, have to be modified to meet the applicable sections of 508 of the ADA?

The determination of which deliverables must be made 508 compliant will be made at the task order level.

35 RFP, Page 15 Section C Are the task orders going to favor multi‐center studies or single center studies?

The determination of whether a multi‐ center design or single center design is methodologically appropriate will be made at the task order level.

36 Page 16

Section C‐ Description/Specificati on/Work Statement/ Item D.

Is there an allowed time to recruit for each task order once received? The determination of timeline for recruitment will be made at the task order level.

37 RFP, p23‐24 G.4 Section G.4. references task orders (TOs) for Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Time and Materials (T&M), and Labor Hour (LH) contract types. Does AHRQ anticipate also issuing Cost Plus Fixed Fee TOs for this IDIQ? No solicitation amendment necessary.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV, p.

72; and Attachment B, Pricing Scenario

Section L.9.1.B Business Proposal:

Cost/Price Proposal – Rates

Attachment B Pricing Scenario: Tab 3 ‐ Calculations

Section L.9.1.B Rates requires Offerors to “submit full calculation of proposed fully‐ burdened hourly rates by completing Tab 3 in the Pricing Scenario Spreadsheet”. Can the government indicate where in this RFP it is specified that tasks will be CPFF , as they were primarily in AHRQ ACTION III?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

39 5‐7 B.3 Task Orders and Prices

Under the previous AHRQ Action III IDIQ, cost plus fixed fee (CPFF ) Task Orders were allowed. Would you consider adding in CPFF as a possible contract type for task orders and labor categories based on not‐to‐exceed unloaded hourly rates? No solicitation amendment necessary.

40 Pg 29 H.3 For subcontractors and partners included in the proposal, is a separate written approval from AHRQ required prior to executing the subcontract? See response to question 21.

41 Pg 29 H.3 If a subcontractor does not meet the dollar threshold for submission of certified cost or pricing data at FAR 15.403‐4, is prior written approval by AHRQ of the subcontract required?

For each task order, prior written authorization is required for all subcontractors and consultants. See response to question 21.

42 RFP, Page 29 Section H.3

The government states that “Award of any subcontract is subject to the written approval of the Contracting Officer upon review of the supporting documentation as required by FAR Clause 52.215‐12, Subcontractor Cost or Pricing Data...” Did the government mean to reference FAR Clause 52.244‐2, Subcontracts? Or is the government expecting only to see a copy of their Current Cost or Pricing Data certification in order for the Contracting Officer to provide approval? Please see solicitation amendment.

43 29‐30 H.5 Salary Rate Limitation

Because AHRQ is planning to issue this IDIQ with FFP, T&M, and Labor Hour task orders, please clarify how Section H.5 is relevant? We have only encountered this requirement on cost reimbursable contracts.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

This clause is applicable.

44 29 H.5 Salary Rate Limitation

Can contractors assume that the salary rate limitation is escalated yearly. Yes, as long as that assumption has a reasonable basis.

45 Pg. 72 L.9 Business Proposal Instructions

Under Cost/Price Proposal section A, the instructions indicate that the hourly rates can include reasonable increase for inflation and cost of living each year, yet we are subject to the Executive Schedule Level II salary limitation per H.5. As it is customary (not guaranteed) for the Executive Schedule Level II salary to increase over time, is it allowable to include reasonable increases beyond the current Executive Schedule Level II, but note that we will use the lesser of the rate we propose or the applicable Executive Schedule Level II salary limitation at any point in time? See response to 44

46 Pg 30 H.6 item 3 Outside of urgent RFTOs, what is the general turnaround time that will be provided for RFTO proposals?

The government will provide as much time as possible depending on urgency of the requirement.

RFP, Page 29 of 79, Page 37 of 79, and

H.3 Subcontracts; Part II Contract Clauses ‐ General Clauses for a Fixed Price Contract;

and Part II Contract Clauses ‐ General Clauses for a Time and Materials/Labor Hour Contract

Given that this is a competitive, multiple‐award solicitation, and subcontractor pricing is not being solicited at this time, will the government remove FAR Clause 52.215‐12 from the three sections of the RFP listed herein, per FAR 15.403‐1(c)(1)(ii)(B)), which exempts Certified Cost or Pricing Data for competitive bids?

Offerors must certify the cost and pricing data that is provided within their offer for the IDIQ.

48 RFP, Page 7 Section B.3, Labor Class Definitions

Labor classes V and VI have no education/experience requirements. Are they covered by the Service Contract Act? Please see solicitation amendment.

49 RFP, Page 7 Section B.3, Labor Class Definitions

It appears that FAR 52.222‐41 Service Contract Labor Standards is not in this contract, but Class VI: Clerical/Administrative labor class positions are included that potentially would fall under the Service Contract Act. Can the government confirm that 52.222‐41 Service Contract Labor Standards is not applicable to this contract? See response to Question 48.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Pages 7 and 36

Section B.3 Task Orders and Prices Section I Contract Clauses

Given the “clerical/administrative” description for the Class VI ‐ Clerical labor class listed in Section B.3, does FAR 52.222‐41 apply to this solicitation and contract?

See response to Question 48.

51 45 Section I Contract Clauses

In “General Clauses for Time and Material/Labor Hour Contract,” FAR Clause 52.256‐25, Limitation of Liability – Services is referenced. Should this be FAR 52.246‐25? Please see solicitation amendment.

52 RFP, Page 40 of 79 and Page 74 of 79

PART II – Contract Clauses Section I Contract Clauses HHSAR Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 3) Clauses;

and L.10, Notice to Offerors, Protection of Human Subjects

352.270 4a (December 18, 2015)

The solicitation contains the Clause 352.270‐4(b) – Protection of Human Subjects (Dec 2015).

Can the government please confirm the following:

1. If the activities to be performed by the contractor has been classified as research involving human participants by AHRQ or the aligned Human Research Protection Official as defined under 45 CFR part 46?

2. If the contractor will be performing research on identifiable, human specimens or data collected from living individuals?

3. If any research involving human data to be performed by the contractor has been approved by an AHRQ institutional review board?

4. If any research involving human data to be performed by the contractor has been granted an exemption by an AHRQ institutional review board?

5. If any research/activity involving human data to be performed by the contractor still requires the review and determination of an AHRQ institutional review under 45 CFR part 46?

6. If the contractor will be considered an Investigator for purposes of 42 CFR 50.602 in regard to reporting obligations for financial conflicts of interests?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

Offerors are required to include their FWA number in the proposal.

53 N/A Section I, Section K How is AHRQ planning to address FAR clauses that are not applicable to non‐ profit/educational institutions?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

See Section I Note.

RFP_AHRQ‐20‐

10005_ACTION IV,

Part IV – Representations and Instructions

Are named subcontractors required to submit Section K for the IDIQ proposal or at the TO proposal level? Only prime contractor submits Section

K.

55 RFP, Page 67 Section L.5.c Where in the submission should offerors submit their Section 508 PAT? Please see solicitation amendment.

56 RFP; page 67

L.5 Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility/subsectio n (c.)

“In order to facilitate the Government’s determination whether proposed EIT supplies meet applicable Section 508 accessibility standards, offerors must submit an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template, in accordance with its completion.”

Would ARQ like offerors to submit 508 Product Assessment Template with their proposals?

If so, please kindly provide guidance as to which Volume the PAT should be included.

See response to question 55.

57 67

L.5 Electronic & Information Technology Accessibility (c)

The RFP indicates that offerors must submit an HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template . Where should this template be placed in the proposal?

See response to question 55.

58 RFP, Page 68 of 79 Section L.6 General Instructions

Does the government expect the Technical Proposal submitted by the offeror to meet the Section 508 accessibility standards? No solicitation amendment necessary.

59 RFP, Page 68 of 79 Section L.6 General Instructions

Does the government expect the Business Proposal submitted by the offeror to meet the Section 508 accessibility standards? No solicitation amendment necessary.

60 RFP, pg. 68 L.6, (b) Authorized Official and Submission of Proposal

Since AHRQ requests that proposals be signed by an authorized official, can we include a cover letter on top of the proposal with this signature outside of the 70 pg. limit?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Cover/transmittal letter is included in the page limit.

61 68 L.6 (b) Authorized Official

Is it permissible for offerors to include a transmittal letter in their proposal? If so, would this count against the page limit? See response to Question 60.

62 RFP, Pg. 68 L.6, (b) Authorized Official and Submission of Proposal

Can tables be oriented in landscape versus portrait?

Please see solicitation amendment

63 Attachment A, Technical Proposal

N/A Can the offeror present some pages in the “landscape ” orientation to improve formatting and readability of certain tables? Please see solicitation amendment

64 67 L.6 General Instructions Could AHRQ clarify whether the text in charts, graphs, and tables must also use 1.5 line spacing ? Please see solicitation amendment.

65 RFP, Page 68 Section L.6.b Is the 1.5‐line spacing requirement applicable to all charts, graphs and tables? See response to Question 64

66 RFP, Pg. 68 L.6, (b) Authorized Official and Submission of Proposal

Does the minimum 1.5 line spacing apply to tables, graphics and charts?

See response to Question 64 67 RFP: page 68 L.6 (b) Please confirm that tables, charts and graphs may be single spaced . See response to Question 64

68 RFP; page 68 L.6 (b)

“Technical Proposals shall be no less than 12‐point Times New Roman font (this includes all charts, graphs, and tables), minimum 1.5 line spacing , minimum 0.75 inch margins and with numbered pages.” The current proposal template was issued in Calibri, 12 font, with mostly single spacing. Please confirm that offerors should submit their technical template responses in 12‐point Times New Roman font, minimum 1.5 line spacing. See response to Question 64

69 Pg. 68 L.6 General Instructions Does the 1.5 line spacing apply to tables or can we use 1.0 line spacing?

See response to Question 64

RFP AHRQ‐20‐10005

ACTION IV IDIQ–

L.6 GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS (b) Authorized Official and Submission of Proposal

Can charts, graphs, and tables have less than 12 point font and/or less than 1.5 line spacing in order to better meet the 70 page limit?

See response to Question 64

71 RFP page 68 of 79

L.6 GENERAL

INSTRUCTIONS

The RFP states: “Technical Proposals shall be typewritten, reproduced on letter sized paper, with no less than 12‐point Times New Roman font (this includes all charts, graphs, and tables), minimum 1.5 line spacing, minimum 0.75 inch margins and with numbered pages.”

Does the minimum 1.5 line spacing apply to the tables as well or can the tables be single space? See response to Question 64

72 68 L.6 (b) General Instructions

May offerors use single line spacing for charts, graphs, and tables, or other figures/graphics?

See response to Question 64

73 RFP, Page 68 of 79 Section L.6 General Instructions

The template prescribed in Attachment A of the RFP requires that the offeror complete a large number of tables. To minimize white space and rows breaking across pages, would the government consider reducing the font size of text provided in tables only to Times New Roman 11? Alternatively, or in addition, would the government consider reducing the spacing requirements in the tables only from 1.5 to single spaced? See response to Question 64

74 RFP, page 68, 70 L.7 Please confirm that Appendices may be single‐spaced. Please see solicitation amendment.

75 68 L.6 (b) General Instructions

Do font type and size, line spacing , and margin requirements apply to all volumes including content in appendices? If so, will items such as partner letters of commitment, an offeror’s indirect rate agreement, and financial statements be exempted? Please see solicitation amendment.

76 68, 70

L.6 (b) General Instructions, L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

Respectfully, will AHRQ please consider a 100 page limit for the Technical Proposal and/or removing the 1.5 line spacing requirement ?

Please see solicitation amendment

77 70 L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

Would AHRQ consider increasing the page limit for the cover page and technical discussion to 80 pages ? AHRQ has requested a substantial amount of information and required that proposals use 1.5 line spacing . While we will make every effort to be succinct in our presentation, we believe that additional pages are needed in order to adequately respond to all evaluation criteria while meeting the proposal formatting requirements.

Please see solicitation amendment

78 70 L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

Please clarify the page limit for the Technical Proposal. We prepared a mock up Attachment A with the formatting requirements applied (i.e., TNR 12 pt, 1.5 line spacing, 0.75 margins). If we are to provide the maximum allowed for example projects and other requested information (i.e., databases), and we use the full page limits specified in Attachment A, the template itself is a minimum of 60 pages. This is with no content for the prime or any partners.

In order for offerors to be able to reasonably respond to all required elements, we respectfully request that AHRQ consider the following allowances:

1) The 1.5 line spacing applies only to narrative text. It does not apply to charts, graphs, tables, or other figures/graphics.

2) The 70‐page limit refers to 70 double‐sided sheets of paper for the original hard copy, thus 140 pages total. Please see solicitation amendment

79 70 L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

Please confirm that the 70‐page, all‐inclusive limit is for double‐sided pages, i.e., 70 sheets.

If not, we request that AHRQ consider increasing the page limit for the Technical Proposal to 90 or 100 pages (at minimum) to give offerors the ability to reasonably respond to all required elements of Attachment A. Please see solicitation amendment

80 RFP page 70 of 79

L.7 TECHNICAL

PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS

The RFP states: “The technical proposal shall be limited to 70 pages not including appendices. The page limit applies to all other technical proposal content including but not limited to the following: cover page and technical discussion.” Does the 70 pages include a table of contents or list of references? Please see solicitation amendment.

81 RFP, Page 70 Section L.7 Is Volume B of the Technical Proposal excluded from the 70‐page limit (not including appendices)?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

Refer to Section L.7. Volume B is a subset of Volume A. An exact copy of Volume A ‐ to include only sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.10 and 2.11.

82 RFP, Page 70 Section L.7 Appendix 2 has a 100‐page limit. Could the government provide guidance regarding the desired level of detail within each letter of commitment? Please see solicitation amendment.

83 RFP, Page 70 of 79

L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions Required page limitations and formatting, Appendices, 2

The RFP requires offerors submit letters of commitment/support from proposed partners within a 100 page limit . Can the government please clarify if the 100‐page limit is correct, and if so, the expected level of detail for these letters of commitment, beyond an acknowledgement of their commitment to the prime team upon award?

Please see solicitation amendment.

84 Pg. 70 L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions

“Letters of Commitment / Support from Potential Partners” are listed under appendices.

Please confirm that major subcontractors should also be included among the potential partners. Please see solicitation amendment.

85 RFP, page 79 L.7 Is the 100 pages total for appendix 2 or appendix 1 and 2 combined? Please see solicitation amendment.

86 RFP, page 71 L.7 Technical Proposal Content

“The technical proposal shall not contain reference to cost; however resource information, such as labor hours and categories, labor mix, materials, subcontracts, etc., shall be contained in the technical proposal so that the Offeror’s understanding of the Statement of Work (SOW) may be evaluated.” Please confirm that labor hours are not applicable at the IDIQ level. Please see solicitation amendment.

87 RFP, Page 71 of 79 Section L.8 Past Performance Information

Does the government anticipate some overlap in the projects highlighted in Table 1.1 of the Technical Proposal and the Past Performance Information?

Information contained in the past performance volume may include projects detailed in Table 1.1 of the Technical Proposal.

88 RFP: page 68, 70, 71 1. L.7

2. L.6 (b)

1. Please clarify whether the technical proposal described in L.7 is completely separate from the past performance information described in L. 8. That is, AHRQ requires: (1) 70‐page technical section (i.e., template), (2) 15 page past performance, and (3) business proposal.

2. Are the same projects permitted to be in both the technical and past performance?

See response to Question 87.

89 71 L.8 Past Performance

Based on the instructions in section L.6(b), our understanding is that the past performance information should be provided in a separate volume; however, this instruction isn’t provided in section L.8. Could AHRQ confirm that the past performance information requested in this section should be provided in a separate volume? No solicitation amendment necessary.

90 RFP, page 71 L.8 Please confirm that the TNR 1.5 spacing also applies to the Past Performance Volume.

The font size and line spacing does not apply to the past performance information or business proposal.

RFP AHRQ‐20‐10005

ACTION IV IDIQ ‐

Section L.8 Past Performance Information – page

Section (a)

We understand that offerors should submit past performance information for our major subcontractors. Can AHRQ clarify if the list of 5 contracts for past performance:

(1) should include a list reflecting a total of 5 projects between the prime offeror AND our major subcontractors ‐‐ or should the list include 5 projects for the prime offeror, and an additional 5 projects from each of our major contractors; and

2) can the projects be based on relevant grants. Please see solicitation amendment.

92 RFP, page 71 L.8 Please confirm that AHRQ requests no more than 5 contracts total for the Prime and major subs combined. See response to question 91.

93 RFP, pg. 71 L.8, (a) Past Performance Information

Should the offeror submit a list of five contracts in total, or five each for the offeror and each of its major subcontractors? If the latter, is there a maximum number of contracts that should be listed? See response to question 91.

94 RFP, page 71 L.8 Past Performance Information, before (a) and (a)

It states “Offerors shall submit the following information for both the offeror and proposed major subcontractors*” and states we should provide 5 past performance examples and take no more than 15 pages for this section. Is it 5 past performance examples per organization or altogether? See response to question 91.

95 RFP page 71 of 79 L.8 Past Performance Information

The RFP states: “Offerors shall submit the following information for both the offeror and proposed major subcontractors*: (a) A list of five (5) contracts completed during the past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope.”

Could AHRQ clarify whether the past performance requirement calls for:

1) a total of 5 contracts for offeror and all proposed major subcontractors (i.e., submit only 5 contracts which will be a mix of contracts from the prime and subs)

2) 5 contracts for the offeror plus an additional 5 contracts for all proposed major subcontractor(s) (i.e., a prime with 2 subs will submit up to 10 contracts in total‐ 5 contracts for the prime and 5 contracts for all subs)

3) 5 contracts for the offeror plus 5 projects for each proposed major subcontractor (i.e., a prime with 2 subs will submit up to 15 contracts in total: 5 contracts for the prime and 5 contracts for each sub)? See response to question 91.

96 RFP page 71 of 79 L.8 Past Performance Information

If the offeror has a proposed major subcontractor who will be providing this information, can they submit it under separate cover from the Past Performance volume submitted by the offeror? For example, if the requested information from a proposed major subcontractor includes a contract for a private client that is confidential. No solicitation amendment necessary.

97 71 L.8 (a) Past Performance Information

For item e “Contract work,” is AHRQ seeking a description of the work performed under the contract? We assume so, but please confirm or provide clarification.

Yes.

98 RFP, page 71 L.8 (a), g. Can AHRQ please clarify if the program manager listed in bullet “g” is the agency’s program manager or the contractor’s program manager? Please see solicitation amendment.

99 RFP, p 71 L.8

This section allows bidders to list all relevant contracts or subcontracts with federal, state or commercial clients. However, the capabilities table referenced in Attachment 1, section 1.1, limits what can be listed to federal contracts on which the bidder is the prime. Because past performance is used to assess organizational capacity and because some very relevant work may have been performed for non federal clients or in the form of a major subcontract to a federal prime contractor, we would ask AHRQ to expand the types of contracts that can be listed in the capabilities table required in Attachment 1,, section 1.1, to include all relevant contracts of the types permitted in the past performance section.

Past Performance and Technical are evaluated separately. In the Technical Proposal Table 1.1, AHRQ is interested in federal research only. Please note:

Past Performance is a qualitative assessment of an offerors previous customers not used to assess organization capacity.

100 RFP, Page 71 L.8 – Past Performance Information

Will AHRQ accept as evidence of past performance similar information from Federal grants or cooperative agreements in addition to contracts? See response to question 91.

101 RFP, page 71 L.8 Past Performance Information, (a)

Would it be possible to include past performance for foundations as well?

See response to question 91.

102 RFP, page 72 L.8 Past Performance Information, right after section (b)

It states, “For this acquisition, “major subcontractors are defined as subcontractors/partners that are anticipated to work with the prime contractor on all/a majority of the task orders under this IDIQ.” However, we have a large enough partnership that we cannot include all and while we have an idea of future task orders, it will likely vary as to which organizations will be involved. Can you clarify what types of organizations should be included?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

103 RPF, page 71 Section L.8 Past Performance, subsection (a)

Are contracts with non‐profit foundations allowed to be included in the projects listed in Past Performance?

See response to question 91.

RFP, Page 71 of 79 and Attachment A, Technical Proposal

Section L.8 Past Performance Information; and Attachment A, Table 1.1

Is there a minimum period of time (e.g., three months) a project must be active for it to be included as an example in the Technical Proposal and/or Past Performance Information?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

RFP Page 78

M.2 Past Performance Can AHRQ provide more detail about the evaluation and scoring of the past performance volume beyond the reference to FAR 15.305 that is mentioned? No solicitation amendment necessary.

106 RFP, Page 72 of 79 L.9, Business Proposal Instructions ‐ Cover Page

Will the government accept a digital signature on the paper original of the business proposal?

Please see solicitation amendment.

107 RFP, page 74 L.9.2 Please confirm that offerors should use the $75,000,000 maximum not‐to‐exceed amount from Section B.3 in creating their Small Business Subcontracting Plans, and verify that this amount is for illustrative evaluation purposes only. Please see solicitation amendment.

108 RFP page 74 of 79

L.9 Business Proposal Instructions 3.C Other Administrative Data‐ Commitments

The RFP requires that the offeror list other commitments with the Government relating to the specified work or services and indicate whether these commitments will or will not interfere with the completion of work and/or services contemplated under this proposal.

What information should be included in the Business proposal to satisfy this requirement?

Should the offeror specify commitments at the staff level or at the organizational level?

Commitments should be specified at the organizational level to determine capacity to perform under this contract.

109 RFP, Page 78 Section M.1, Criterion 3 Do “proposed personnel” and “personnel assigned to this project” refer specifically and exclusively to key personnel? Please see solicitation amendment

110 Technical Proposal Template, Page 1

Template Instructions, top of page 1

Would AHRQ like offerors to include the beginning set of template instructions in their proposals? Please see solicitation amendment

111 n/a Attachment A Technical Proposal Template, pp. 1‐2

For the cover pages, how should we categorize Member Organizations that bridge different categories (i.e., those that are both a health care organization and an academic research organization)? Please see solicitation amendment

112 3 Attachment A, Table 1.1

Related to the period of performance for Table 1.1, AHRQ indicates that the project “May still be active but must have been initiated in the past five years .” Was AHRQ’s intention to have this statement only apply to projects that are currently active or for all projects that are listed in Table 1.1? Please see solicitation amendment

113 3 Attachment A, Table 1.1

Related to the period of performance for Table 1.1, AHRQ requires that the project must have been initiated in the past five years . Would AHRQ consider allowing projects conducted in the past five years but initiated prior to the past five years?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment_A_Tech nical_Proposal_Tem plate page 3

1.1 Conducting work

under Federal Contracts/Task Orders.

Beneath table 1.1 there is a footnote for Period of Performance* that states that the 5‐10 projects: “*May still be active but must have been initiated in the past five years .” Would AHRQ consider expanding this requirement to include projects that were active in the past five years? Please see solicitation amendment.

115 n/a Attachment A, Table 1.1

Regarding the period of performance of projects, can AHRQ clarify whether “…initiated in the past five years ” means that we can include projects awarded anytime in 2014? For example, many contracts are awarded in August or September prior to the end of the government’s fiscal year. Would we be able to include such projects if they are relevant to the RFP’s statement of work? Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A Technical Proposal Template ‐ Page 3

Criterion 1 – Prime Organization Capabilities: 1.1 conducting work under Federal Contracts/Task Orders

Under Section 1.1, the first sentence requests that offerors “provide the following information about at least five and no more than 10 Federally‐funded contracts/task orders most relevant to ACTION 4 for which the Prime Organization was the Lead Contractor .” If the offeror is a subcontractor on a project and has been the Lead for the majority of the work, can the project be included in Table 1.1 in order to demonstrate our relevant qualifications?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, Technical Proposal template, page 3

1.1 Conducting work

under Federal Contracts/Task Orders

Are projects funded through the Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) considered federally funded?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

Attachment A Technical Proposal Template ‐ Page 3

Criterion 1 – Prime Organization Capabilities: 1.1 conducting work under Federal Contracts/Task Orders

Similarly, several relevant projects are: (1) funded by non‐federal clients (e.g. PCORI, states, provider/insurer or other commercial organizations, and foundations); and (2) funded via grants.

We would like to include these relevant projects in Table 1.1, especially given that Section L.8 (Past Performance) allows for projects “entered into by the Federal Government agencies, agencies of States and local governments and commercial customers”. Please confirm that offerors can include relevant non‐Federal projects and grants to demonstrate our capabilities.

No solicitation amendment necessary

119 Attachment A, Page

Criterion 1 – Prime Organization Capabilities; 1.1 Conducting work under Federal Contracts/Task Orders.

Will AHRQ accept information regarding highly relevant work conducted under Federal grants and cooperative agreements in addition to Federal contracts in Table 1.1?

No solicitation amendment necessary

120 4‐5 Attachment A, Sections

1.2 – 1.3

Would AHRQ consider revising the instructions in sections 1.2 and 1.3 to allow bidders to use experience also from grants and cooperative agreements to demonstrate that they have relevant experience in conducting field‐based delivery systems research and utilizing spread and uptake? No solicitation amendment necessary

Technical Proposal Template, page 6

Additional Narrative for Table 1.4 Is there a maximum paragraph or page limit for this section?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Technical Proposal Template, page 7

Section 1.5: Additional Prime Organizations Capabilities Proposal Instructions a. (i‐iii); a.

iv (i‐iv)

Is there a maximum paragraph or page limit for these sections?

Please see solicitation amendment.

123 7 Attachment A, Section 1.5a, iv

In section 1.5a, iv AHRQ requests information about the prime’s ability to meet various federal regulations and requirements; however, this information is also requested in sections 1.1 – 1.4. Could the government clarify what additional information is being sought in section 1.5a, iv? No amendment needed.

124 7‐8 Attachment A, Section 1.5c

In the first sentence of sub‐section C, offerors are asked to describe the approach that will be used to “successfully provide the highest caliber of technical and operational support”;

however, the remainder of the information requested in this sub‐section relates to information security requirements. Could AHRQ clarify what information offerors should provide in this section?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, Technical Proposal, Page 7‐8 of 17

Section 1.5, Part C

Given Table 1.1 is limited to ten contracts or task orders that speak to the requirements in Tables 1.2‐1.4, is the offeror permitted to reference additional projects NOT in Table 1.1 in the narrative response to Section 1.5, Part C, that highlight our operational and technical support? See response to Question 124.

Attachment_A_Tech nical_Proposal_Tem plate pages 9‐10 and page 16

Table 2.2, Table 2.3, Table 2.5, and Table 3.1

Several tables include multiple footnotes. Do we need to include these footnotes in our final technical volume, or can we omit these footnotes? Please see solicitation amendment page 1 of Attachment A.

Attachment A, Pages 10‐15 Criterion 2

If the numbering for the narrative and table headers are not consecutive or consistent within the Technical Proposal Template, may we correct the numbering in our submission?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Page numbering has been added to the technical proposal template.

128 Attachment A, pg. 9 Table 2.2 Table 2.2 requires that information be provided from Table 2.1.a, however, there is no Table 2.1.a in the template. Should this be Table 2.1? Please clarify. Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, pg.

11 Table 2.7

Table 2.7 requires that information be provided from Table 2.1.b, however, there is no Table 2.1.b in the template. Should this be Table 2.1? Please clarify.

Please see solicitation amendment.

130 n/a Attachment A, Table 2.2

May offerors provide a letter of support for organizations that are not formal partners, but are willing to be supportive of recruiting sites through their membership, for example?

Please see solicitation amendment.

131 n/a Attachment A, Section 2.6

Could AHRQ clarify what types of providers might be included in this section? For example, would a membership organization of health care providers or health systems fall into this category? Should they be described here? How do these providers differ from those who will be described in Table 2.7 [i.e., those counted in Table 2.1(b)]? Please see solicitation amendment.

132 n/a Attachment A, Table 2.8

Regarding the additional narrative for Table 2.8, section b, may offerors only address 2 of the 4 emerging objectives and the new role, or may we address more objectives? Also, could AHRQ please confirm (or clarify) that “new role” refers to building the National Test Collaborative (NTC)?

No solicitation amendment necessary

133 n/a Attachment A, Table 2.8

Please clarify the following instruction for Table 2.8: “Wherever possible, and for all partners with more than 20 Member Organizations, combine multiple organizations of the same type (e.g. hospitals; trade associations) within a single entry.” Do you mean all prime offerors with more than 20 partners? Please see solicitation amendment.

134 RFP 78 2.8 – 2.11

Is there a page limit for the following sections?

2.8: Partnership Organizations' Capabilities, Resources, and Expertise 2.9: Nature of collaborations with Member Organizations 2.10: Available Data Bases 2.11: Experience Using Available Data and Analytics Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment_A_Tech nical_Proposal_Tem plate page 13

2.10 Available Data

Bases and Table 2.10

Section 2.10 includes both bulleted requirements and requirements listed in Table 2.10.

There is some overlap in the requirements listed in the bullets and the table (e.g., description of available data base), but not all requirements are presented in both the bullets and the table. Can we provide all of the requested information, including the bulleted requirements, in Table 2.10 versus providing it once in bullets and then a subset of the same information again in the table?

Please see solicitation amendment.

136 n/a Attachment A, Section 2.10

Can AHRQ confirm (or clarify) that they are only interested in proprietary databases that organizations may have, or must we also include publicly available databases that organizations have used? Please see solicitation amendment.

137 n/a Attachment A, Table 2.13

Please clarify whether the following instruction “Complete for a maximum of four projects;

one page per project” means a total of four one‐page projects, or up to four one‐page projects per partner. No solicitation amendment necessary

Attachment A Technical Proposal Template – Page 15

2.14 Competency

among Member Organizations in synthesizing available evidence, experience and expert opinion on complex interventions

Sections 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12 include the Prime and Member Organizations’ Capabilities and Resources. Section 2.13 is specific to capabilities of member organizations only (since the Prime organization’s expertise should have been included in Table 1.3). Should Section 2.14 apply only to member organizations or could it also include the Prime organization’s capabilities?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment_A_Tech nical_Proposal_Tem plate pages 15‐16

2.14 Competency

among Member Organizations in synthesizing available evidence, experience and expert opinion on complex interventions

Here the instructions ask for: a) up to 2 examples of environmental scans, b) up to 2 examples of evidence syntheses, and c) up to 2 examples of summaries of expert or stakeholder views. Can the offeror include a mix of examples from the Prime Organization and other Member Organizations or must all of the examples in response to 2.14 be for other Member Organizations, excluding the Prime?

See response to Question 138.

Attachment A, Technical Proposal template, page 16

Table 3.1 Personnel Qualifications for

ACTION 4

How is AHRQ defining “Key Personnel”?

Please see solicitation amendment.

141 RFP, pg. 22 G1. Key Personnel Section G does not list any key personnel, however, Criterion 3 in Attachment A indicates that the Project Director and Principal Investigator are key. Can AHRQ confirm these are key personnel for the IDIQ? And if there are any other key roles? Please see solicitation amendment.

142 22 G.1 Key Personnel Given that this is an IDIQ, could AHRQ provide guidance on which personnel are considered key personnel? Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, pg.

Criterion 3 ‐ Personnel/Staffing, 3.1

Can AHRQ provide details on the expected roles and required experience or qualifications of the Project Director and Principal Investigator?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, Technical Proposal Template Page 16 of

Criterion 3 ‐ Personnel/Staffing

The proposal template references two Key Personnel applicable to the IDIQ, the Program Director and Principal Investigator. Are there specific requirements the government expects of individuals proposed in these positions?

Please see solicitation amendment.

Attachment A, Technical Proposal Template Page 16 of

Criterion 3 ‐ Personnel/Staffing

The proposal template references two Key Personnel, the Program Director and Principal Investigator, and twelve biosketches.