RFP AHRQ-21-10008_Responses to Offeror Questions.pdf

Responses to Offeror Questions

AHRQ‐21‐10008

1. We would like to request a copy of the solicitation number HHSAHRQSBSS2010010 issued in 2017 which resulted in a Contract for ActionNet as Contract # HHSA290201700002C.

AHRQ Response: HHS‐AHRQ‐SBSS‐20‐10010 is the Small Business Sources Sought (SBSS) for this requirement. The solicitation number from the previous contract was AHRQ‐17‐10005 and can be found on beta.SAM.gov.

2. Could you please tell me if the Presolicitation posted as solicitation number AHRQ2110008 will be a follow‐on requirement to any work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement?

AHRQ Response: This is a recompetition of HHSA290201700002C.

3. If possible, can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to question 2.

4. Where is the system hosted?

AHRQ Response: Please see RFP amendment

5. Could you provide a full tech stack diagram and list of tools and technology used?

6. Are there development and test environments? Who controls them and what do they contain?

7. What tools are used for data analysis? Where is that data stored?

8. How large is the system in terms of data stored, number of servers/VM, users, and transactions?

9. Can the Government please confirm that AHRQ will cover all cloud hosting costs for both the PSOPPC and NPSD websites.

For the NPSD, the government hosts the system and the government does all maintenance and updates. As stated in section 3 of the SOW, the contractor does all content development work and coordinates with a third party for upload into the NPSD.

10. Will the government please detail whether the AWS cloud is GFE or contractor provided?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to Question 9.

11. We understand that there is an AWS account that hosts the tools used to support PSOPPC work on this contract. Is that AWS account maintained by the incumbent or any other AHRQ vendor?

12. What is the relationship between this contract, AHRQ IT, and the existing contractor who runs the AHRQ AWS enclave? Is this contractor responsible for this project actually operating the technical environment, or is that the separate team that runs the existing AHRQ AWS enclave?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to Question 9

13. Is there any other contractor supporting the NPSD website, or is the entire website to be managed under this contract?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary.

14. Can the government please confirm that the cost for an annual Security Control Assessment done by a 3rd party is not to be included in this proposal?

AHRQ Response: That is incorrect. These costs should be included in the offeror’s proposal.

Typically, a third of the security controls are assessed annually by this contractor not by a third‐party. Please note however that a third‐party is used to perform the independent assessment every three years per the security assessment and authorization process of FIPS Moderate and High information systems.

15. Can the Government clarify if a new ATO will be necessary upon transition from an incumbent or will the existing ATO still be applicable?

AHRQ Response: The current AWS account will be transferred to the new contractor and the existing ATO shall remain valid.

16. Other than travel for PSO Annual Meeting, are there any other meeting costs that should be accounted for within the budget?

AHRQ Response: No.

17. Is the contractor expected to provide content management support services for the PSOPPC website or will that be a separate vendor?

18. Please confirm if the place of performance will be government or contractor site.

AHRQ Response: The place of performance shall be the contractor site.

19. Section C, pg. 8, What tools are being used today to perform work on this contract and which will be provided by the Government?

20. Task 1, pg. 9‐11, What are the technical architectures/tools involved in the PSOPPC and PSO

Collaboration Community Systems?

21. 1.5 Software Engineering & 3.5, pg. 10 and 18 ‐ For contract transition, will the current contractor be turning over existing test plans?

22. 2.5.2, pg. 14, “The Contractor shall provide a corrective action plan with the monthly earned value report in cases where cost or schedule, as measured by Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI), exceeds the established performance thresholds.”

Which IT related performance thresholds are currently being tracked because they have exceeded the department’s standard?

23. Task 3 ‐ Can the Government provide specifics regarding the servers associated with the websites referenced in Task 3?

24. Task 3.4, pg. 17 ‐ The PWS states, "The Contractor shall add functionality to the web sites when deemed appropriate to reflect the activities of the Systems, with approval from the COR". What was the frequency under which functionality was added on the current contract and can the Government please provide an example of the additional functionality provided by the Incumbent?

25. Section 3.4, pg. 17, Please list any Customer Relationship Management (CRM) tools (example:

Salesforce) or collaboration tools (example: SharePoint) that are used for collaboration?

26. Section C.3.5, pg. 18, Was “3.5 NPSD related content development and testing” intended to be labeled, 3.6, or is it a continuation of scope for 3.5 and, as such, be labeled as 3.5.2?

27. Could the Government please provide the technology stack for the Common Formats Processor?

AHRQ Response: Please see RFP Amendment.

28. Task 3.5.1, pg. 18 ‐ Please confirm that previously submitted comments and responses regarding the Common Formats technical specifications will be provided as part of the transition documentation.

AHRQ Response: Yes

29. Section C, 3.5, pg. 18 ‐ On page 18 there is a second task area titled 3.5. Should this task be titled

3.6?

AHRQ Response: Please see answer to Question 26

30. Task 4.1, pg. 19 ‐ For the existing Common Formats (CF) undergoing annual maintenance review, will a CF identified as needing substantive updates (i.e., needing PSWG review and the NQF comments process) be considered as the one revision estimated per year?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary

31. Task 4.1, pg. 19 ‐ Is it expected that all Common Formats are undergoing annual review at the same time?

32. Task 4.2, pg. 19 ‐ Per Task 4.2, the contractor is expected to provide support for the development of one new CF and one revised CF per year. At this time, there are 18 beta Common Formats for surveillance. Is it the expectation that the Contractor will migrate these beta versions to final versions as part of this task?

33. Task 4.2, pg. 19 ‐ For the new Common Formats submitted to NQF, please confirm that NQF is responsible for the collection, coordination, and development of responses to comments received through their system.

AHRQ Response: Yes. No RFP amendment necessary.

34. Section 4.2¸ pg. 19, In the previous contract term, how many times did Common Formats traverse the development period? In which year(s)?

35. Section 4.2, pg. 19, In the previous contract term, how many times did Common Formats traverse the revision period? In which year(s)?

AHRQ Response: Please answer to Question 34.

36. Section 4.3, pg. 19, What computerized system is in use today at AHRQ that allows entry, editing, and versioning of metadata attributes to provide document generation for and support development of AHRQ’s Common Formats? Will the licenses for this system (if applicable) transfer to the new contractor?

37. Pg. 20, 4.4 Common Formats maintenance and upgrades, “Health Level Seven (HL‐7) Activities: The

Contractor shall perform activities related to HL‐7 and the Common Formats. Examples of such activities shall include preparation of documents/materials for ballot routing or documents related to the file transfer protocol, such as the current Implementation Guide.”

Will the government please clarify if AHRQ expects to do ballot routing for the Common Formats and the responsibilities of the government and contractor in this capacity?

38. Task 5 ‐ Can the Government provide technical details of the software stack and processing environment used for the Common Formats Import Processor?

AHRQ Response: Please see RFP Amendment.

39. Task 6, pg. 22 ‐ What has been the volume of existing additional needs on the current contract specific to Task 6 ("Contractor shall expect subsequent need for the SRDS system to reflect additional existing modules of the Common Formats and further expansion of the Common Formats to additional settings such as Common Formats for Diagnostic Safety etc") and will these stay the same for this effort?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. The SRDS is a newly implemented system.

40. C.7, pg. 22, Should the last paragraph on this page be numbered as 7.1?

41. 7, pg. 22, How many Data Use Agreements (DUAs) are current/active?

AHRQ Response: There are currently 28 DUAs in place.

42. Pg. 23, 8.1 Protocols For Rendering Patient Safety Events Non‐Identifiable, “Working jointly with

AHRQ (and any subject matter experts designated by AHRQ), the Contractor shall evaluate the current methodology used for non‐identification and continue to develop, test, implement, and maintain nonidentification protocols that are consistent with the Patient Safety Rule and appropriate for the type and volume of data received from PSOs.”

Will the government please specify the scope of methodology documents and analytic code that will be delivered upon award? Please also specify the language and format of the existing code.

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. This information will be provided once the award is made and during the transition period.

43. Task 8.1, pg. 23 ‐ As part of the transition, will the incumbent contractor provide details of the current non‐identification protocol used to de‐identify data for analysis and transmission to the

NPSD?

44. Task 8.2, pg. 23 ‐ What is the volume of records the PSOPPC contractor would typically receive on a monthly basis to deidentify?

AHRQ Response: The approximate volume of records the contractor would receive for de‐ identification is 500k per year. However, this volume is very fluid from year to year.

45. Task 9.2, pg. 24 ‐ What software is currently used to produce the “PSO profile dashboards, Management dashboards, leadership dashboard, etc.” and the “Data Analytic Interactive Dashboard” mentioned in Task 9.2?

46. Task 10.1.1, pg. 24 ‐ a. What is the actual PSOPPC TA issue ticket volume (per day, month, year, etc.)

? This way we can tailor our LOE estimate and emphasize the scalability of the LOE based on actual issue ticket volume in the narrative of our proposal response

AHRQ Response: Please see RFP amendment.

47. Task 10.1.2, pg. 25 ‐ Can a sample PSO welcome packet be provided?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. The sample welcome packet will be provided once the award is made.

48. Task 10.3 ‐ On page 25, it says that "The Contractor shall maintain a toll‐free telephone number as a call‐in help line and shall maintain a dedicated e‐mail address for technical assistance.". Is the call‐in help line a voicemail only facility or does it require live TA support personnel?

49. What is the current system/tool used for Help Desk and technical assistance support?

50. 10.3.1, pg. 26, What is the volume of inbound calls to the help line/call center?

AHRQ Response: Please see answer to Question 46.

51. Page 26, Subtask 10.3.2 makes reference to same log referenced in Task 9.1. Can the Government clarify the e‐TA Activities log includes activities from Task 8.1/8.2, 9.1, 10.1.1, and 10.3.2?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. Yes.

52. 10.3.2, pg. 26, What tool or product is presently being utilized to capture service tickets from the PSOs or another stakeholder requesting service support from the PSOPPC/NPSD?

53. On page 27, Subtask 10.5 makes reference to Task 10.4 Develop/Maintain/Update Standardized

Responses ‐ should this reference be to 10.3.2 Log Technical Assistance Inquiries instead?

54. SOW, What firewalls/protections are in place today between the PSOPPC and the NPSD? Do these firewalls/protections need to continue?

55. Tasks 3‐14, Can AHRQ provide a current technical architecture/technology framework?

56. Does this SOW include maintenance and development for the NPSD Website at

(https://www.ahrq.gov/npsd/index.html)?

57. Are there any other expected ODCs that the Government expects the new contractor to obtain and/or acquire from the current incumbent?

AHRQ Response: No.

58. Tasks 3‐14, What licenses are provided by AHRQ to the incumbent contractor?

59. What licenses does the Incumbent currently hold that the new contractor would be expected to assume/purchase?

60. Will the government please confirm which software licenses the offeror is required to provide and details on those licenses? Are any of the licenses Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)?

61. Task 12, pg. 29 ‐ Will AHRQ provide the licenses for the COTS data visualization tools referenced (i.e.

Tableau) or is the Contractor expected to provide these? If it is the Contractor's responsibility, please provide an estimate on the type and volume of licenses required.

62. Please provide a list of Government Furnished Equipment for this program.

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. There is no Government Furnished Equipment for this program.

63. What development tools (e.g. IDE, version control, work tracking, testing) are used? What is government furnished and what is not?

64. Pg. 31, 13.2, National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report (NHQDR) Chartbook Support, “AHRQ will provide, or facilitate access, where appropriate to data that is used in the QDR. The Contractor shall use data from these sources for analysis and to prepare chartbook slides.”

Regarding the potential data sources for analysis mentioned, will the government please confirm whether the costs of data acquisition and use agreements are the responsibility of the contractor, or will the government provide these? Which sources were previously used?

AHRQ Response: Data acquisition and use agreements are not the responsibility of the contractor.

65. 13.2, pg. 31, What database platform and versions are in use by NPSD and PSOPPC for analysis and to prepare chartbook slides?

AHRQ Response: Tableau 8.2.1

66. Task 14, pg. 33 ‐ Is the cost for the AWS under this effort the responsibility of the contractor or a responsibility of AHRQ IT?

67. Task 14, pg. 32‐36 ‐ Can the Government confirm that the requirements outlined in Task 14 apply to the current contractor for transition of this effort? If not, please specify what the current contractor performing this effort is required to provide for transition and the timeline for providing this information.

68. Section F.1, pg. 47, What are the Applicable Revised Section 508 Standards for 10.3.1 and 10.3.2?

69. Section K.3, pg. 80, “Note: This notice does not apply to small businesses or foreign governments.

This notice is in three parts, identified by Roman numerals I through III.”

Since this RFP is a total small business set aside, would you please confirm that we are not required to submit a response to Section K.3?

70. “The first page of the proposal must show…” (Section L.2(c)(2), pg. 89) “Proposals in response to this solicitation will be valid for the number of days specified on the solicitation cover sheet (unless a different period is proposed by the offeror).” (Section L.2(d), pg.

90) “The name of the offeror, the RFP number and the title of the RFP should appear on the cover of each part.” (Section L.6(b), pg. 94) “Cover Page: The name of the proposing organization, DUNS number, business address, list of proposed subcontractors, author(s) of the technical proposal, the RFP number and the title of the RFP should appear on the cover.” (Section L.7, pg. 96) The solicitation contains references to; first page, cover sheet, cover, and cover page.

Could you please clarify if these are all intended to be references to the same page? Would you allow a single, unnumbered proposal cover for each part that is not subject to the page limits?

AHRQ Response: Yes, these are all references to the same page. The cover page is included in the page limit.

71. Section L.2(c)(2), pg. 89, Are these instructions referring to the cover page described in Section L.7?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to question 70.

72. Section L.6(b), pg. 94, 12‐point Times New Roman font for graphics can make graphics seem cluttered and difficult to effectively illustrate the intended message. Can we use Arial family, 9‐ point font for graphics?

73. Section L.6(b), pg. 94, 12‐point Times New Roman font for tables can make it difficult to present certain data sets clearly and effectively. Can we use 9‐point font for tables and captions?

74. Section L.6, pg. 94 ‐ The solicitation notes that the font size is to be Times New Roman, 12 point to include charts, graphs, and tables. Typically the Government permits a smaller PT size for these references. Would the Government consider use of Times New Roman 10 PT font for these elements in the Technical Volume? Additionally if footnotes are used, can these references be 10 PT in size?

There are no formatting requirements for headers and footers.

75. Section L.6(b), pg. 94, We assume that tables are not subject to the 1.5 line‐spacing requirement. Is our assumption correct?

76. Please confirm, that 1.5 line spacing does not apply to tables and graphics.

77. Pg. 94, L.6(b), General Instructions, “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).”

Will the government please allow Arial Narrow size 10 for graphics and tables?

78. Section L.6, pg. 94, “…The proposal shall be submitted in the following parts. Each part shall be separate and complete so that evaluation of each part may be accomplished independently…” The parts are: Part I ‐ Technical Proposal, Part II – Past Performance Information, and Part III – Business Proposal. Instructions for Part III – Business Proposal require that we include the Past Performance Information in this part.” Please confirm if Past Performance Information should be submitted separately as Part II and NOT included in Part III – Business Proposal.

79. Section L.7, pg. 96, This section states that the offeror SHALL ONLY include the required

Resumes/CVs and the HHS 508 VPAT as appendices, however, the Technical Approach instructions on page 97 require that the proposal include a PWP with Gantt Chart “as an appendix.” Could you please confirm which appendices are expected/required?

80. Section L.7, pg. 96, Could you please remove Cover Page and Table of Contents from the 45‐page limit?

81. Pg. 96, L.7, Technical Proposal Instructions, Will the government please allow the proposal to include a compliance matrix to aid evaluation in an Appendix outside of the page count?

82. Section L.7 Instructions to Offerors, pg. 96, A PWP is required but is not listed in the appendices.

Would the government please confirm this is Appendix 3 to the Technical Volume.

83. On page 97 under B, it states a requirement for a “preliminary project work plan (PWP) (as an appendix)”. However, on page 96 under the Page Limit Summary there is no Appendix listing that corresponds to this requirement. Should bidders include the preliminary PWP as Appendix 3?

84. Pg. 97, L.7.B, Preliminary Project Work Plan, “The technical approach shall include a preliminary project work plan (PWP) (as an appendix), including a Gantt Chart specifying the duration of all major activities and dates for all milestones (including deliverables and activities).”

Will the government please confirm the preliminary project work plan (PWP) appendix will not be counted in the 45 page Technical Discussion limit?

85. Section L.7; p. 97 – The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s Information Technology solutions and approaches for software development, data layer architecture, scalability and availability of the application, adherence to security standards, and data analytics that must be aligned and streamlined with the existing PSOPPC and NPSD systems. Can the government please provide the technology specifications on the current PSOPPC and NPSD systems?

86. The current incumbent contract and the sources sought notice earlier this year noted a CMMI Level 2 requirement. The solicitation indicates a CMMI Level 3 requirement. Is it the Government’s intention for CMM Level 3 or was this perhaps stated in error?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. CMMI Level 3.

87. Can the Government confirm that the requirement for a CMMI Level III certification can be met by a major subcontractor?

88. Organizational Experience, pg. 98, “The Offeror shall provide evidence of Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) level 3 (in models such as CMMI‐SVC, CMMI‐DEV, etc.).” Can we include CMMI DEV and SVC certificate copies as a separate appendix to Technical Proposal?

89. Appendix A of the 2016 solicitation listed various specifications for the program (i.e. hardware, Cloud Services, and Application Software). Can the Government provide this information for this effort, specifically what the current infrastructure specifications are pertaining to memory size, operating system and hardware, equipment, etc.

90. Section L.7, pg. 98, Are resumes required for non‐key personnel?

91. Pg. 98, L.7.D, Personnel Qualifications, “The resumes of all proposed personnel shall be included (as an appendix) and shall contain information on documented experience, educational background, and training as they related to the requirements of this acquisition.”

The solicitation requests a list of names of all personnel assigned to the project. This requirement heavily favors the current contractor and is a deterrent for small businesses deciding whether to propose. This is especially difficult for contractors other than the current contract given that the Award Date is anticipated to be roughly six months (July 28, 2021) after the proposal submission as personnel availability likely changes during that period. Will the government please eliminate the requirement to propose personnel other than key personnel?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. The proposal shall include all named resources proposed for this project.

92. Section L.7.D., pg. 98, Are we required to submit the names of ALL staff proposed for this project or will roles, responsibilities, and qualifications be sufficient?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to Question 91.

93. Section L.7.D., pg. 98, Can we propose additional key personnel?

AHRQ Response: Yes. That should be based on an offerors individual approach.

94. Section L.7 D, Instructions to Offerors, pg. 98, “The PD shall have a minimum of ten (10) years of experience working with large, complex, health care environments with a minimum education level:

Masters in information systems, computer science and technology/engineering, or related field and certified Project Management Professional (PMP® or equivalent).”

Will the government consider the following?

The Project Director’s resume shall be evaluated to reflect a minimum of ten (10) years of experiences working with large, complex, health care environment and reflect, a minimum education level of Master’s, along with a certified Project Management Professional (PMP® or equivalent).

95. Personnel Qualifications, pg. 98, For the Project Director, will the Government accept additional years of relevant experience “working with large, complex, health care environments” in lieu of the PMP certification?

96. Pg. 98, L.7.D. Personnel Qualifications, “For the Project Director key personnel position, will the government please consider a Federal Acquisition Certification for Contracting Officer's Representatives (FAC‐COR) Level III equivalent to a PMP since there is similar experience required for these certifications?”

AHRQ Response: Please see response to Question 95.

97. D Personnel Qualifications, pg. 98 ‐ The Project Director position requirements indicate a "PMP or equivalent". Can a MBA or PhD be considered equivalent in meeting this requirement?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to Question 95.

98. Section L.7 Technical Proposal Instructions; page 97 of 107: As it relates to the Research Analytics

Director for key personnel, can experience for HL7 CDA and FHIR be augmented by team expertise?

99. Section L.7, pg. 99, Are fractional resources acceptable for the key Research Analytics Director position listed in the RFP? We ask since the skills being requested are very broad and are likely not needed on a full‐time capacity in order to achieve the desired objective. Can more than one person comprise one key position?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. That should be based on an offerors individual approach.

100. Section L.8, pg. 100, How does the Government define, “Major Subcontractor?”

AHRQ Response: There is no set definition of major subcontractor. Offerors should make this determination based on their approach to the use of subcontractors.

101. Section L.8(a)i., pg. 100, Does “major subcontracts” refer to major subcontractors required to perform the work?

AHRQ Response: See response to Question 100.

102. Section L.8, pg. 100, In L.8 (a) it states, “Provide five (5) contracts for the prime and five (5) contracts for each major subcontractor completed for the offeror and each proposed major subcontractor during the past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope.” Can the government confirm that a major subcontractor is defined per the

FAR 209.571‐1?

AHRQ Response: See response to Question 100. Also please note 209.571‐1 is a DFAR clause and only applicable to DOD.

103. Section L.8, pg. 100, “The past performance information (submitted as an appendix to business proposal) described below shall be limited to 10 pages and shall include the information hereunder…” The 10‐page limitation implies that this is a total combined page limit for the Prime and each major subcontractor. 10 pages appears restrictive given the breadth of the scope of work being requested and considering each firm is required to provide 5 contracts each. Can AHRQ please confirm if this 10‐page limit to applies to the prime contractor and an additional 10 page limit for each of the major subcontractors?

AHRQ Response: No, the 10‐page limit is for both the prime and major subcontractors.

104. Section L.8(a), pg. 100, “Provide five (5) contracts for the prime and five (5) contracts for each major subcontractor completed for the offeror and each proposed major subcontractor during the past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope.”

Is this requirement intended to be a maximum of five contracts for the prime and each major subcontractor?

105. Section L.8(a), pg. 100, “Provide five (5) contracts for the prime and five (5) contracts for each past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope.”

Is this requirement intended to be a maximum of five contracts for the prime and each major subcontractor?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to question 104.

106. Section L.8(a), pg. 100, “Provide five (5) contracts for the prime and five (5) contracts for each past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope. “ Would AHRQ increase the past performance page limit to 15 pages for each Prime and Subcontractor? This is required as requested information itself is taking almost a page and leaving very little space for offerors to detail the scope of work relevant to this contract.

107. Section L.8, pg. 100 ‐ It states there is a 10 page limit for Past Performance information. Is the 10 page limit by each company (i.e. Prime has 10 pages, Subcontractor has 10 pages)?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to question 103.

108. Section L.8(a), pg. 100, “Provide five (5) contracts for the prime and five (5) contracts for each past three years or currently in process that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope.”

Would the Government accept projects that are similar in nature to the solicitation workscope and completed within the last five (5) years as opposed to three since this scope of work extends to 5 years?

109. Section L.8(b), pg. 100, “The offeror may provide information on problems encountered on the contracts and subcontracts identified and corrective actions taken to resolve those problems.

Performance information may be obtained from the references.”

Does this mean offerors may submit examples where the firm performed as a subcontractor?

110. Pg. 100, L.9 Business Proposal Instructions, Will the government please provide soft copies of the files for Attachment A (Sample Format for Cost Proposal), B (Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data), and C (Limitations on Subcontracting Spreadsheet)?

111. Please define the “Direct Labor No.” in the Sample Cost Proposal. Is it meant to act as a unique

FTE identifier, represent Tasks / CLIN structure, or meant to reference something else?

112. Section L.9, Given the cost‐plus nature of the Prime contract, can a Significant subcontractor subcontract to the Prime using T&M?

AHRQ Response: Subcontractors may be proposed using other contract types, such as T&M.

However, as a reminder, the salary rate limitation under HHSAR 352.231‐70 applies to the prime and all subcontractors.

113. Section L.9.A.4; p. 101, Cost/Price Proposal – If subcontractors will perform under a FFP, LH or

T&M subk type, may the subcontractor cost detail be omitted from the prime’s Business submission?

AHRQ Response: Please see response to question 112. No solicitation necessary. Cost detail shall be provided for all subcontractors.

114. Section L.9.A.4; p. 101, Cost/Price Proposal – In lieu of the payroll register, may offeror’s submit screen shots of their payroll software to display the proposed employee’s salary/direct rate?

AHRQ Response: Yes.

115. Section L.9.A.4; p. 101, Cost/Price Proposal – Offeror’s must submit a “Copy of most recent payroll register for ALL proposed employees or a certified letter from a senior executive.” Please describe what the certified letter should entail to ensure compliance for the payroll requirement.

AHRQ Response: The letter should include all info provided in a payroll register.

116. Section L.9.A, p. 101 – Please confirm the payroll registry to validate direct labor rates do not require contractors to deliver those named resources, and will only be used as example resources for pricing purposes / evaluation.

AHRQ Response: That is incorrect. The proposal shall include all named resources proposed for this project and their specific payroll register.

117. Section L.9, Do our teammates needs to submit Sealed package cost submissions of their rates to AHRQ?

AHRQ Response: The government expects the Prime to have performed a cost analysis and determined subcontract pricing to reasonable before submitting to the government. All pricing information inclusive of subcontracts should be included in the one business proposal volume.

118. Section L.9, If sealed packages are required, do our teammates need to register for AHRQ proposal module to submit?

AHRQ Response: See response to Question 117.

119. A. Cost/Price Proposal, items 1‐4, pg. 101 ‐ Please confirm that a Business Volume is expected from Subcontractors and that a sealed bids can be submitted by subcontractors directly to the Government. If so, please provide instructions on how these documents should be submitted.

AHRQ Response: See response to Question 117.

120. Section L.9.C; p. 103 Other Administrative Data – Please provide an example of “acceptable evidence” of the contractor’s “ability to obtain” equipment, facilities, etc, to perform the requirements of this contract. How do contractors demonstrate this ability in a tangible document to the government?

121. Section L.9.c.d, pg. 103, Are letters of commitment required for personnel not currently on‐ staff?

122. Section M.1 B Evaluation Factors for Award, pg. 104, Would the government consider clarifying the requirements of the PWP as an appendix to the technical volume to state that “the scope and evaluation of the PWP shall cover all requirements outlined in Section 2.5”.

123. Pg. 104, M Evaluation Factors for Award, Will the government please clarify whether it can it be expected that a qualifying majority partner will be overly reliant on the minority partner in order to provide a highly or otherwise rated technical approach, management plan, and/or organizational experience even where that majority, qualifying majority member lacks relevant corporate experience and past performance under the RFP?

AHRQ Response: No RFP amendment necessary. Any Joint Venture proposed must meet SBA requirements. If a Joint Venture is proposed, it will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation, any other applicable controlling regulations and small business policies.

124. Pg. 104, M Evaluation Factors for Award, Will the government please clarify whether it can it be expected that a majority, qualifying members of a joint venture will be overly reliant on an incumbent and/or other mentor or minority partner where the personnel qualifications factor can solely be met by recruitment of most, if not, all incumbent (key) personnel? How will such circumstances be evaluated by the Agency across all evaluation factors?

AHRQ Response: See response to Question 123.

125. Pg. 104, M Evaluation Factors for Award, Will the government please clarify if a minority venturer partner of the joint venture has the most, if not all, of the experience relevant to the RFP requirements; how will the Agency assess the past performance and/or capabilities of the minority venturer for recency, relevancy or under other RFP factors when the RFP requires the joint venture prime contractor and/or each of its venturers offer to provide up to 5 past performance references?

126. Pg. 104, M Evaluation Factors for Award ‐ Will the government consider the majority, qualifying joint venturer partner overly reliant any minority venturers and any proposed subcontractors to perform the primary and vital requirements of the contract along with the SBA rules saying the qualifying, majority venturer must perform 40 percent of the joint venture’s work even though it lacks necessary experience and, accordingly, cannot provide more than only ministerial and administrative requirements?

127. Pg. 104, M Evaluation Factors for Award, Under SBA affiliation regulation at C.F.R. 121, where a qualifying majority partner lacks the necessary relevant and recent past performance and experience under evaluation factors and subfactors alone; then how will joint venture be deemed ineligible itself under the circumstances even though the joint venture may not be able to meet the purpose of supporting the growth of the inexperienced qualifying majority partner?

128. If offerors will offer proposals as an Unpopulated Joint Venture, which party of the JV shall provide the detailed cost information as the ‘prime’?

AHRQ Response: Offerors are required to provide cost information for all participants.

129. In the prior solicitation, the Government provided information in two Appendices specific to data flow and the relationship of PSOPPC to the NPSD Systems. Can the Government confirm the data in that RFP is still accurate or provide updated information to specific to the Relationship of the PSOPPC to the NPSD Systems and the Data Flow into the PSOPPC and Generation of Reports?