Response to questions.pdf

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 1 of 9 Response to Questions

Evidence-Based Practice Centers (EPC) VII

AHRQ-25-10002

August 30, 2024

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, or

2) the information is not available, or

3) it is dependent on the offeror’s proposed approach.

• “Please see solicitation amendment” – This response is given if the response to the question affects a revision to the RFTO. Please see the amended RFTO.

• A response to the question is provided - A response/answer is given if clarif ication is necessary, but the response does not require a revision to the RFTO.

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 2 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

1 81 and 93 It seems that there is conflicting information in page 81 (instructions, mention 2 topics) and 93 (evaluation, mentions 3 topics).

Please see solicitation amendment.

2 80 Is there a limit to the number of Resumes/CVs (5 pages each limit) submitted in Appendix 1?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

3 82 Please conf irm that we can include Resumes/CVs in addition to those we include for the personnel listed in the tables on pages 82 and 84 of the solicitation.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

4 42 Is there a small business requirement for this RFP?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

5 10 The RFP embedded a link in the bolded part of the following sentence, “The EPC Program has established systematic review methods guidance to promote the scientific rigor, transparency, and consistency of reviews by EPCs and continues to invest in methods development.” However, the link does not work. Could HHS kindly provide the correct link?

The text “and continues to invest in methods development” was inadvertently formatted like a hyperlink. It has been revised to standard text.

Please see solicitation amendment.

6 9 The RFP states, “As a result of input from a panel of health system leaders, the EPC program developed methods papers around improving the usefulness of evidence reviews when evidence was scant; and co-developed a report snapshot and interactive visual dashboard to help leaders understand and use EPC report findings. The latest iteration of the EPC stakeholder panel includes a broad range of perspectives, including patients, clinicians, journal editors, health system leaders, and others.” Would HHS kindly consider sharing the methods papers with of ferors?

Please see solicitation amendment.

NOTE: This change is not represented with highlight.

7 74 The RFP states that the “Name, title, and signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Proposals signed by an agent shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’s authority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished to the issuing of f ice.” We have the following related questions:

a. Would HHS consider a letter from the of feror’s CEO or President (or similar representative) to be evidence of an agent’s authority?

b. If yes, would HHS kindly allow offerors to include the evidentiary letter in an additional annex, exclusive of page limitations?

Include the agent’s title on the cover page of the proposal.

8 78 The RFP requires of ferors to use “no less than 12-point Times New Roman font (this includes all charts, graphs, and tables).” Would HHS allow offerors to present information in headers and footers (e.g., page numbers, disclaimers, title of the RFP) using less than 12-point Times New Roman font?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 3 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

9 80 The RFP states that the Cover Page, Table of Contents, and Technical Discussion are included in the 32-page limit of the Technical Proposal. Would HHS please consider excluding the Cover Page and Table of Contents f rom the 32-page limit?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

10 81 and 93 The RFP states that of ferors must “Describe the of feror’s approach to addressing methodological challenges of synthesizing evidence for 2 of the 8 areas…” Then on page 93 the RFP states that of ferors are evaluated on the “Appropriateness and relevance of the proposed approach to address three topic areas listed in the technical proposal instructions.” Would HHS please conf irm if of ferors need to address two or three topics?

See response to Question 1.

11 82 – 83 The RFP includes six bullet points of qualif ications for Senior Leadership to demonstrate. Would HHS please conf irm that of ferors may name multiple personnel to demonstrate that they meet these qualif ications for Senior Leadership collectively?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

12 85 Would HHS kindly allow offerors to include a Cover Page, exclusive of the 10-page limit, to assist evaluators?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

13 86 The RFP states the following for the Business Cover Page: “Cover Page: One

(1) manually signed original of the proposal. The cover page must also include the UEI and TIN as well as a point of contact and contact information, and all information required by Section L.3, FAR 52.215-1(c)(2).” The instructions for the Technical Cover Page are as follows: “The name of the proposing organization, UEI 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.” We have the following related questions:

a. Would HHS consider replacing the instructions for the Business Cover Page with the instructions for the Technical Cover Page?

b. If that is not suitable, would HHS allow of ferors to use electronically -applied signatures, given this is an electronic submission?

Scanned copies of a signed cover page or digital signatures may be used.

14 80 and 95 What is the dif ference between the letter of commitment and a letter of support? What level and type of commitment is AHRQ looking for leadership and institutions to provide?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

15 1 Is AHRQ amenable to extending the deadline for questions for this RFP?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

16 6 On Page 6, Item No. 22 lists 'Other Related EPC Activities' with pricing to be negotiated. What typical activities fall under this category, and what pricing structures have been applied in past contracts?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

17 7 IT hardware and software are considered unallowable items. Does this apply only to general use software? Is software that is used specif ically to conduct an EPC task order, such as DistillerSR, an allowable expense?

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 4 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

Can you provide examples of acceptable justifications if a need arises to incur such costs?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

18 80 Are any bibliographic references related to the technical discussion to be included in the 32-page limit?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

19 80 Can the resumes/CVs be in the current NIH biosketch format?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

20 80 Should we include resumes/CVs only for those people mentioned in the two tables that are in the Personnel and Management Plan of the technical proposal?

See response to Question 3.

21 80 Should letters of commitment be included for institutions that may be on some task order contracts but not necessarily all or most task orders?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

22 80 Would you def ine what kind of letters can be submitted as letters of commitment?

Are letters of commitment to be included only from proposed subcontractors?

Can we submit letters f rom senior leaders at our institution indicating their commitment to support an EPC (such as a department chair or dean at an academic institution)?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

23 82 We have a number of core investigators in our EPC who work on many task orders but are not considered “senior leadership.” May these core investigators be listed in the personnel table shown on page 82 of the RFP?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

24 82 We have a number of core research staff in our EPC who work on many task orders but are not considered “project/program management.” May these core research staff be listed in the personnel table shown on page 82 of the RFP?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

25 85 If we are currently an EPC, can we include AHRQ-funded task orders completed during EPC-VI as past performance contracts for that document?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

26 85 If we can list completed and/or current AHRQ EPC task order contracts in the past performance document, will what is reviewed be limited to CPARS?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

27 85 If we can list current AHRQ EPC task order contracts in the past performance document, a project that is still ongoing, what will AHRQ provide as part of the packet for evaluation as the assessment of performance?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

28 86 We have a subcontractor on our current EPC IDIQ who is considered an integral partner with our EPC but works on 30%-40% of our task orders rather

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 5 of 9

Number Page Question and Response than “al/a majority.” May we submit past performance information for this subcontractor?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

29 86 The instructions for the business proposal say that the cover page should include one manually signed original of the proposal. However, on page 2 of the RFP, it says the proposal are to be submitted vis the AHRQ proposal module. How will it work for a signed original cover page for the business proposal to be submitted in the AHRQ proposal module?

See response to Question 13.

30 86 May the cover page of the business proposal be signed digitally (for example, with an Adobe Acrobat digital signature or using DocuSign)?

See response to Question 13.

31 86 For the proposal subcontractors to be listed on page 2, if the subcontractor would work on some task orders but not all, can the total estimated amount be based on an estimated number of task orders during EPC-VII?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

32 87 Should the indirect cost rate agreements be included in section A.iii for proposed subcontractors as well as the primary contractor?

Please see solicitation amendment.

33 89 What might be considered “acceptable evidence” of the ability to obtain equipment, facilities, and personnel necessary to perform the requirements of the contract?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

34 92 The IDIQ contract itself would not be to conduct non-exempt human subjects research. To respond to Appendix 4, can we state what we would do if we were awarded a task order that did include non-exempt human subjects research involving more than one institution?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

35 93 Section M details the evaluation factors for the award. Can you provide more information on the weighting of each evaluation criterion and how you assess the “innovation” aspect in proposals?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

36 93 In Section L.6, the technical proposal instructions, on page 81, it says to describe the offeror’s approach to addressing methodological challenges of synthesizing evidence for 2 of 8 areas. On page 93, in the evaluation criteria for Understanding and Technical Approach, it says: “Appropriateness and relevance of proposed approach to address three topic areas listed in the technical proposal instructions. Why are 3 topic areas mentioned in the evaluation criteria when the technical proposal instructions mention 2 areas?

Should the evaluation criteria say “two topic areas”?

See Response to Question 1.

37 74, 80, and

The requested contents for the first page of the proposal as indicated in the Instructions to Offerors seem to conflict with what is noted in Section L.6 and L.8 for what is wanted on the cover pages, respectively.

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 6 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

Does AHRQ request that the information noted in L.2 to be on the f irst page behind the cover page or should all of that information be on each cover page in addition to the content noted in the volume specif ic instructions?

All required content for each volume should be included on the respective cover page.

38 93 The evaluation factors list “Appropriateness and relevance of the proposed approach to address three topic areas listed in the technical proposal instructions.” Is this referring to the Topic Areas listed on page 84 of 95, or the areas on 81-82 of 95? If 81-82, the instructions request 2 of the 8 areas; should we discuss 2 or 3 of these areas?

See response to Question 1.

39 80 Please confirm that resumes/CVs should only be for positions mentioned under page 82 "Personnel and Management Plan"?

See response to Question 3.

40 80 Do CVs and Appendices need to be 1.5 spaced?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

41 73 and 87 On Page 73, the RFP includes FAR 52.215-20 Requirements for Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data (Nov 2021). On Page 87, the RFP requests a completed certificate of current cost and pricing data.

Could the Government please clarify the request for a completed certif icate of current cost and pricing data? It is our understanding that other than certif ied cost or pricing data is being supplied, as this opportunity would result in adequate competition and therefore an exemption under 15.430-1 would apply.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

42 85 Please confirm that AHRQ does not desire for there to be any type of cover page for this volume.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

43 86 How does the client want offerors to manually sign an original of the proposal?

Will an electronic signature suf f ice?

See response to Question 13.

44 86 Could AHRQ please provide more guidance on what they would like to see when they ask about a description of the "offerors overall labor methodology"?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

45 86 Please confirm that offerors should only provide payroll data for named staf f required under page 82 under "Personnel and Management Plan"?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

46 86 Given that there is expected to be ample competition on this opportunity and the fact that the government also plans to conduct an independent cost estimate, is AHRQ willing to waive the requirements of a certif icate of current cost or pricing data?

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 7 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

47 80 The page limit summary table lists Appendix 2: Letters of Commitment. Can you please provide details or instructions on the intent of the letters, as in who these should be f rom/for?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

48 89 Given the HHS Checklists are in Excel format, can we provide completed checklists separate to the Technical Proposal instead of as an included appendix?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

49 86 Please clarify if the government is requesting for just a fully loaded rate by labor category or if the government is requesting to see the full rate build including direct and indirect buildup for each labor category?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

50 22-23 Tasks D.17.1 (Item 12) and D 1.7.2 (Item 13)

Would AHRQ consider changing these tasks to a price “to be negotiated” as it was done in EPC VI and similar to Items 22 and 27?

The budgets that EPCs will propose for these tasks will vary depending on whether the living review is a small, medium, or large. If a single price is requested then can AHRQ provide additional parameters for the volume of studies to allow for accurate budgeting and a fair comparison across proposals, which may make differing assumptions about the scope of the surveillance and update.

Focused updates will be awarded at varying timepoints in the task order to account for the size of the evidence base. As noted in the EPC procedure guide a part of the review may be updated in the focused update.

Please see solicitation amendment.

51 83-84 Could AHRQ provide additional information about what kind of experts they are looking for within the category of “Diagnostic or Prognostic Testing or Management”?

Please see solicitation amendment.

52 85 Can additional pages be allowed in the past performance volume if more than 1 major subcontractor is being proposed since the RFP requests information on 5 contracts for each major subcontractor in addition to 5 contracts for the prime contractor?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

53 86 Will AHRQ accept electronic signatures on the cover page of the business proposal?

See response to Question 13.

54 86 Would AHRQ consider revising the business proposal to request budgets that allow for price escalations each year? This would be more cost-effective for the government as it would allow EPCs to price items at lower costs in the early years of the IDIQ cycle. Under the current model, EPCs have to mitigate the risk of a budget shortfall on reviews awarded in the later years of the IDIQ by using Year 5 labor rates (which are adjusted for inflation) in their budgets. This means the government is paying Year 5 labor rates for projects awarded in Years 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the IDIQ contract.

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 8 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

55 87 The RFP refers to the methods and dissemination task as a time and materials requirement. In prior EPC IDIQ this task was awarded as a cost-reimbursement task. Can AHRQ confirm that this change is intentional and that AHRQ is requesting a time and materials budget and will be awarding a time and materials task order? It does not make any dif ference to how the EPC would do the technical work, but it matters with respect to how the budget is prepared and how the award is classif ied for cost-accounting purposes.

The methods and dissemination task order will be a time and materials requirement.

56 Page 81 states “Describe the offeror’s approach to addressing methodological challenges of synthesizing evidence for 2 of the 8 areas.”

Page 93 fourth bullet indicates:

“Appropriateness and relevance of the proposed approach to address three topic areas listed in the technical proposal instructions.”

How many topic areas should be discussed? Two or Three?

See response to Question 1.

57 Attachment C, Pages

1-7

Content on the right margin is cutoff for all of these pages. Can AHRQ provide a clean copy of this information?

Please see solicitation amendment.

NOTE: This change is not represented with highlight.

58 Attachment B, Page 1

Please confirm that certified cost and pricing data is not required in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, as the Government is anticipating adequate competition.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

59 Attachment B, Page 1

Please confirm certified cost and pricing data is not required at the IDIQ level, as there is no certainty that the $2M threshold will be met under FAR 15.403-4, given that task orders have not yet been issued.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

60 2 The RFP states: “An Indef inite Delivery, Indef inite Quantity, multiple-award, task order-type contract is contemplated for a period of f ive years.” Please conf irm that this contract is an IDIQ contract and not a task-order type contract.

No solicitation amendment necessary.

61 80 and 89 Please clarify what the Letters of Commitment (Appendix 2) should address?

Besides the support of the primary institution, should we also obtain letters f rom subcontract institutions and/or entities as needed per “(e) Resources” as listed on pg. 89? Are there other types of situations that we also need to have a Letter of Commitment for?

No solicitation amendment necessary.

62 80 Is the number of included resumes/CVs unlimited?

See response to Question 2.

RFQ AHRQ-25-10002 Page 9 of 9

Number Page Question and Response

63 85 The proposal needs to specify two reviewers (a candidate and a back-up) with systematic review methodology expertise to perform quality assurance for each project. Can this role be performed by the EPC director or senior leadership, i.e. core staf f?

Yes.

64 5 Could AHRQ provide guidance on the target value for each FFP item in the chart in Section B.3 of the RFP?