AMD 2-2026HCA19-RFP Number Correction.docx

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)

RFP NO. 2026HCA19

Only e-mailed Bids will be accepted.

NOTE: Only Bidders who register in Washington Electronic Business Solution (WEBS) and download the original RFP directly from WEBS will receive notifications of Amendments and other correspondence related to this RFP. HCA is not responsible for Bidder’s failure to register in WEBS or for any resulting consequences. Visit WEBS to register.

PROJECT TITLE: Trueblood FPATH and FHARPS Programs Process Evaluation

PROPOSAL DUE DATE: December 9, 2026, by 2:00 PM Pacific Time (PT)

ESTIMATED TIME PERIOD FOR CONTRACT: February 1, 2027, through April 30, 2028.

The Health Care Authority reserves the right to extend the Contract for up to one (1) additional year, in increments of up to six (6) months each, at its sole discretion, subject to mutual agreement of the parties.

AVAILABLE FUNDING: Up to $800,000

BIDDER ELIGIBILITY: This solicitation is open to those Bidders that satisfy the minimum qualifications stated herein and that are available for work in Washington State.

HCA RFP No. Page 1 of 37 Exhibit F HCA RFP No. Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HCA RFP No. Page 3 of 37

HCA RFP No. 2026HCA19 Page 3

DEFINITIONS

“Amendment” means a written revision, clarification, correction, addition, deletion, or other change to this RFP issued by HCA and posted in WEBS.

“Apparent Successful Bidder” or “ASB” means the Bidder selected as the entity to perform the anticipated services under this RFP, subject to completion of Contract negotiations and execution of a written Contract.

“Bidder” means an individual or company interested in the RFP that submits a Proposal to attain a Contract with the Health Care Authority (HCA).

“Business Day” means Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, except for holidays observed by the state of Washington, unless otherwise specified within the RFP.

“Certified Veteran Owned Business” means the Bidder is a Certified Veteran-Owned Business as defined in RCW 43.60A.190.

“Contract” means the written agreement resulting from this RFP between HCA and the ASB, following successful Contract negotiations.

"Forensic Housing and Recovery through Peer Services” or “FHARPS” means the HCA-administered program specifically tied to the Trueblood Settlement Agreement. The program assists people who are identified as being involved in or at risk of being involved in the criminal court system. The goal of FHARPS is to help participants overcome barriers in order to obtain and maintain housing.

The FHARPS program is designed to address the critical housing needs of people whose competency to stand trial has been raised in court, providing essential support through housing-focused interventions. Stable housing is a key factor in improving overall well-being, yet many participants face significant barriers such as past evictions, criminal legal involvement, and difficulty navigating housing systems. FHARPS teams provide housing-related case management services to assist participants in securing and maintaining temporary housing and connecting them to necessary support services. Effective engagement and trust-building are central to the program, particularly for those who have experienced repeated disruptions in housing and support.

“Forensic Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness” or “FPATH” means the HCA-administered program specifically tied to the Trueblood Settlement Agreement, offering voluntary outreach, in-reach, and intensive case management to eligible people who have a history and are at risk of repeat court-ordered competency evaluations.

“Health Care Authority” or “HCA” means an executive agency of the state of Washington that is issuing this RFP.

“Outpatient Competency Restoration Program" or "OCRP" means court-ordered competency restoration services provided on an outpatient basis to people who are on conditional release from custody or jail. OCRP differs from traditional outpatient behavioral health services in that it focuses on addressing barriers to competency to stand trial, with the goal of enabling people to participate in their own defense.

“Process Evaluation” means a systemic assessment of how a program is implemented and operates, including the delivery of services, program activities, implementation practices, and factors that support or hinder implementation.

“Proposal” means a complete offer submitted by a Bidder in response to this RFP, including the Written Proposal, Cost Proposal, and all required forms, certifications, and attachments.

“Request for Proposals” or “RFP” means this competitive solicitation issued by HCA to obtain Proposals from Bidders for the services described herein, which will be evaluated in accordance with the requirements and criteria set forth in this RFP.

“Revised Code of Washington” or “RCW” means the laws of the state of Washington, as enacted by the Legislature. Any references to specific titles, chapters, or sections of the RCW include any substitute, successor, or replacement title, chapter, or section. Pertinent RCW chapters can be accessed at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/.

“Sequential Intercept Model” or “SIM” means a framework that illustrates how people with mental health and substance use disorders come into contact with and move through the criminal justice system.

The SIM helps communities identify resources and service gaps at each intercept and develop local strategic action plans. The SIM mapping process brings together community leaders, agencies, and systems to identify strategies for diverting people with mental health and substance use disorders from the justice system into treatment.

SIM mapping workshops may include activities such as:

· Plotting resources and gaps across the SIM.

· Identifying local behavioral health services that support diversion from the justice system.

· Introducing community system leaders and staff to evidence-based practices and emerging best practices related to each intercept.

· Enhancing relationships across systems and agencies.

· Creating a customized local map and action plan to address identified gaps.

“Subcontractor” means a person or entity engaged by a Bidder or Contractor to perform any portion of the services required under this RFP or resulting Contract. Subcontractors include Subcontractors at any tier.

“Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration” or “SAMHSA” means the federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) responsible for advancing behavioral health services and addressing mental health and substance use conditions.

“Trueblood Class Members” means persons who are in jail and waiting to receive competency evaluation or competency restoration services as ordered by the court, people who have a history of receiving competency evaluation or competency restoration services or people who have a higher likelihood of needing competency evaluation or competency restoration services in the future.

“Trueblood Settlement Agreement” means the court-approved settlement agreement arising from the Trueblood et al. v. DSHS class action lawsuit, which establishes requirements and strategies to improve timely access to competency services and expand diversion, treatment, and community-based supports for Trueblood Class Members and Potential Trueblood Class Members.

“Washington’s Electronic Business Solution” or “WEBS” means an internet-based bid notification system HCA uses to post competitive solicitations. Individuals and firms interested in state contracting opportunities with the Department of Enterprise Services or any state agency should register for competitive solicitation notices on WEBS. Note: There is no cost to register on WEBS.

“Washington Small Business” means the Bidder is a Washington Small Business as defined in RCW 39.26.010(22).

“Washington State Department of Social and Health Services” or “DSHS” means a Washington state agency responsible for administering a range of social and health services, including competency evaluation and restoration services relevant to the Trueblood Settlement Agreement.

ESTIMATED RPF SCHEDULE

HCA reserves the right in its sole discretion to revise the Estimated RFP Schedule at any time.

ESTIMATED RFP SCHEDULE

*Dates are anticipated and subject to change without an official amendment.

Time: 12:30 – 1:00 PM (PT)

HCA RFP No. Page 3 of 3

HCA RFP No. 2026HCA19 Page 20

PROPOSAL OPPORTUNITY

HCA is issuing this RFP to solicit Proposals from qualified organizations to conduct a comprehensive Process Evaluation for the FHARPS and FPATH programs established under the Trueblood Settlement Agreement. This solicitation is open to those Bidders that satisfy the minimum qualifications stated in this RFP and are available to perform services in Washington State.

HCA intends to award one (1) Contract in an amount not to exceed Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000), to perform the services described in this RFP.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose The purpose of this RFP is to procure a qualified Contractor to conduct a qualitative Process Evaluation of the FPATH and FHARPS programs. The Process Evaluation will examine how the programs are being implemented and operated, identify strengths and challenges in implementation, and provide findings and recommendations to support program improvement and future decision making.

Objective The objective of the Process Evaluation is to assess whether the FPATH and FHARPS programs are operating as intended and meeting the unique needs of Trueblood Class Members. The Evaluator will assess whether the programs are successfully fulfilling the mission, goals, and outcomes as described in the respective logic models and will provide recommendations, including opportunities for earlier diversion interventions consistent with the SIM.

A. Evaluate Program Implementation: Determine whether FPATH and FHARPS are operating as intended and meeting the goals and intended outcomes described in their respective logic models.

B. Identify Opportunities for Earlier Diversion: Review current workflows and identify opportunities to intervene earlier, consistent with SIM.

C. Evaluate Operational Processes: Examine by-name list outreach, jail in-reach, referral processes, and efforts to address barriers to services and housing.

The SIM illustrated below provides a framework for identifying opportunities to connect people with behavioral health services and supports at various points of interaction with the criminal legal system.

Figure 1. Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) Source: SAMHSA GAINS Center. The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) | SAMHSA

Background The Trueblood Settlement Agreement addresses the timely provision of competency evaluation and restoration services to people in the criminal legal system. As part of this settlement, HCA contracts with community behavioral health agencies to provide FPATH and FHARPS services to eligible people.

FPATH is an intensive case management and assertive outreach program. The goal of FPATH is to provide person-centered and trauma-informed care, to improve physical and behavioral health outcomes, reduce legal barriers, and create opportunities for consistent community support and recovery.

People are eligible for FPATH if they have received two (2) or more signed competency orders associated with two (2) different cause numbers, within the last twenty-four (24) months.

FPATH teams conduct outreach and in-reach using a specialized by-name list to locate and engage people in the community, jails, or hospitals. Once rapport and relationships are established; the teams make referrals to connect people with community-based programs and services.

FHARPS teams provide immediate low-barrier, person-centered housing placements, flexible subsidies, and supportive services. The program serves people who are unstably housed or experiencing homelessness and who are either on the FPATH by-name list or court ordered into the OCRP.

FHARPS teams assist participants in overcoming significant systemic barriers, including obtaining identification, accessing transportation and public benefits (e.g., Social Security), and navigating legal or court-related responsibilities. FHARPS staff develop individualized housing plans with the goal of transitioning participants into long-term permanent housing. These individualized housing plans are reviewed and updated regularly to ensure progress toward removing barriers and achieving housing goals.

The Process Evaluation encompasses eight (8) FPATH and eight (8) FHARPS contracted providers operating across sixteen (16) counties and six (6) Behavioral Health Administrative Service Organization (BH-ASO) regions in Washington State. The Process Evaluation must include an evaluation of the three implementation phases:

· Phase One (began in March 2020): Pierce County, Spokane Region, and Southwest Region.

· Phase Two (began in June 2022): King County.

· Phase Three (began in April 2024): Thurston/Mason and Salish Regions.

DSHS Research and Data Analysis Division (RDA) has completed outcome evaluations of the FPATH and FHARPS programs.

The FPATH and FHARPS logic models, which describe each program’s inputs, activities, outputs, and intended effects, are provided in the Scope of Work.

FUNDING

HCA has budgeted an amount not to exceed Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) for this project. Proposals exceeding $800,000 will be considered non-responsive and will not be evaluated.

Any Contract awarded as a result of this RFP is contingent upon the availability of funding.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance of any Contract resulting from this RFP is tentatively scheduled to begin on or about February 1, 2027, and to end on April 30, 2028.

RFP COORDINATOR

The RFP Coordinator is HCA’s sole point of contact for this RFP:

Holly Jones at HCAProcurements@hca.wa.gov

During the RFP process, all Bidder communications regarding this RFP must be directed to the RFP Coordinator. Bidders must rely solely on this RFP and written Amendments to this RFP issued by the RFP Coordinator. In no event will oral communications regarding this RFP be binding. Unauthorized Bidder contact regarding this RFP with HCA employees other than the RFP Coordinator may result in Bidder disqualification.

MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

A. Washington State Business Licensing Licensed to do business in the state of Washington or provide a commitment that it will become licensed in Washington within thirty (30) calendar days of being selected as the ASB.

B. Relevant Population and Program Experience The Bidder must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience conducting research and evaluation of community-based programs serving people involved in both the behavioral health and the criminal legal systems. The Bidder’s experience must include programs providing both case management and supportive housing services.

C. Process Evaluation Experience The Bidder must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience conducting formal process evaluations involving the collection, analysis, and interpretation of qualitative and/or quantitative data.

D. Lead Evaluator Qualifications The Bidder’s designated Lead Evaluator/Project Manager must have a minimum of three (3) years of experience leading process evaluations.

SCOPE OF WORK

The Contractor must provide all necessary personnel, administrative support, materials, and services required to perform a comprehensive Process Evaluation of the FPATH and FHARPS programs.

The Contractor will work in close collaboration with the HCA Trueblood Program Management Team and build upon data and findings provided by the DSHS RDA.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Performance Tasks and Requirements 1.

The Contractor must execute a Process Evaluation consisting of the specific tasks as listed in Sections 9.2 and 9.3.

In addition to the tasks identified in Sections 9.2 and 9.3, the Contractor must comply with HCA and Washington State Institutional Review Board (WSIRB) requirements governing data use and interactions with human subjects. This includes submitting analysis plans for review by the HCA Data Use Committee (DUC) and WSIRB and ensuring compliance with all applicable regulatory and oversight requirements. At a minimum, the Contractor must obtain an Exempt Determination from the WSIRB.

Task A: Qualitative Programmatic Process Evaluation

The Contractor will utilize qualitative methods—including site visits, structured interviews with providers and selected program participants, and/or surveys—to assess provider operations and participant experiences. The Contractor must:

A. Evaluate Service Quality and Intensity: Assess the quality, frequency, and effectiveness of case management and housing support services delivered to enrolled participants.

B. Identify Program Effectiveness: Identify which program components or policies are most effective or impactful for Trueblood Class Members and document participant experiences.

C. Conduct Logic Model Fidelity Reviews: Assess the alignment of the FPATH and FHARPS programs with their respective logic models provided below, including their foundational guiding principles.

D. Perform Provider Comparative Analysis: Identify differences among the eight (8) FPATH and eight (8) FHARPS contracted providers and assess how those differences affect program outcomes, challenges, and successes.

E. Analyze Regional Resource Variance: Identify disparities in regional resources, including housing, behavioral health services, transportation, and evaluate their impact on program outcomes.

F. Assess System Coordination: Measure the level and quality of coordination between providers and key external partners, including local criminal court systems, jail facilities, forensic navigators, and court personnel.

Task B: Outcome-Informed Process Evaluation

A. Use of Existing Outcome Data: The Contractor must use existing DSHS RDA outcome data to inform the evaluation of participant-level and programmatic outcomes related to the following core evaluation objectives:

B. Legal System Impact: Evaluate how program services and processes contribute to reducing participants’ involvement with the criminal legal system, including reduction in arrests, new charges or case filings, and time spent incarcerated.

C. System and Programmatic Barriers: Identify system or programmatic barriers that contribute to people with significant behavioral health conditions cycling through the criminal court system.

D. Engagement and Resource Connection: Analyze the mechanisms that promote participant engagement and facilitate successful connections to long-term community resources and services. Assess factors contributing to program discharges due to loss of contact.

E. Judicial and Competency Dynamics: Identify differences in regional court practices and assess their potential impact on the frequency or nature of future competency orders.

F. Population Nuances and Acuity Trends: Assess changing demographic profiles, including prevalence of co-occurring substance use disorders, primary diagnoses, and shifts in overall behavioral health acuity since program inception.

G. Connections to Permanent Supportive Housing: Assess the likelihood of program participants successfully accessing permanent supportive housing, including through regional Coordinated Entry systems. Review common patterns and/or barriers across regional providers with accessing housing resources. Include an assessment of the regional variation in availability of permanent supportive housing opportunities.

Key Deliverables

The Contractor must produce and submit the following formal deliverables to HCA:

Work Plan A detailed methodology and timeline outlining the Process Evaluation approach and plan for implementation.

Tool A standalone, reproducible operational assessment tool designed for use by the HCA Contract Manager to monitor FPATH providers on an ongoing basis.

Evaluation Report A preliminary comprehensive report detailing findings from Task A, Qualitative Programmatic Process Evaluation, and Task B, Outcome-Informed Process Evaluation, submitted to the HCA Contract Manager for review and feedback.

Evaluation Report A final comprehensive report incorporating feedback from the HCA Contract Manager, detailing findings and providing actionable policy and operational recommendations.

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

A. HCA anticipates holding an optional virtual pre-proposal conference on Tuesday, November 10, 2026. Attendance is not mandatory. The conference is intended to provide the Bidders with an overview of the RFP. Bidders must submit any questions in writing to the RFP Coordinator by the Bidders Questions Deadline in accordance with Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule.

B. HCA will be bound only by written answers issued by HCA. Questions and answers will be posted on WEBS as an Amendment to the RFP in accordance with Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule.

C. Pre-Proposal Conference Access Information

· Date and Time: Tuesday, November 10, 2026, 12:30 – 1:00 PM (PT)

· Virtual Platform: Microsoft Teams

· Conference Weblink:

https://teams.microsoft.com/meet/2270641832740342?p=21KqbLSLDqhTCL28Vb

· Meeting ID: 227 064 183 274 034 2

· Passcode: yg7DU7gG

· Dail-in By Phone:

· +1 564-999-2000,,93357831# United States, Olympia

· (833) 322-1218,,93357831# United States (Toll-free)

· Phone conference ID: 933 578 31#

BIDDERS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Bidders are encouraged to submit questions as early in the process as possible to allow the Procurement Coordinator to consider and respond.

A. Bidders may submit questions in writing before the deadline for Bidders Questions Due identified in Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule.

B. Questions must be submitted by email to the RFP Coordinator using the following subject line: “RFP #2026HCA19 Bidder Questions – [Bidder Name].”

C. Bidders may submit questions on multiple topics; however, each question must address only one topic. HCA may request that Bidders separate questions that address more than one topic to ensure an efficient and timely question-and-answer process.

D. HCA anticipates posting responses in WEBS by an Amendment on the Bidder Answers Posted date identified in Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule.

E. HCA is not obligated to respond to any questions received after the Questions Due date but may do so at its discretion.

REVISIONS TO THE RFP

HCA may revise any part of this RFP by issuing an Amendment in WEBS. Amendments may include revisions, clarification, responses to Bidder questions, or other information related to the RFP.

HCA reserves the right to cancel or to reissue the RFP, in whole or in part, at any time prior to Contract execution.

RESPONSIVENESS

The RFP Coordinator will review all Proposals to determine compliance with administrative requirements and instructions specified in this RFP. A Bidder’s failure to comply with any part of the RFP may result in rejection of the Proposal as non-responsive.

HCA also reserves the right at its sole discretion to waive minor administrative irregularities in a Proposal.

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

Proposals must be received by the RFP Coordinator no later than the Proposal Due deadline identified in Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule. Proposals must be submitted by email to the RFP Coordinator at the e-mail address identified in Section 7, RFP Coordinator, and must meet the following requirements:

1.

A. Proposal Format. Proposal attachments must be submitted in Microsoft WORD or Adobe PDF format, except the Cost Proposal, which must be submitted in a separate attachment in Microsoft Excel format. Zipped files will not be accepted.

B. Forms and certifications requiring an authorized signature, as identified in Section 16, RFP Exhibit Checklist, must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Bidder to the offer. Where required to do so, Bidders may sign submittals using either a physical or electronic signature.

C. HCA is not responsible for problems with Bidder’s e-mail transmission. If HCA’s e-mail system is not functioning properly, HCA may make appropriate allowances.

Bidders should allow sufficient time to ensure timely receipt of Proposals by HCA. Proposals must be received at HCA’s designated procurement email address by the Proposal Due deadline identified in Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule.

Late Proposals will not be accepted unless HCA’s email system is found to be at fault, or HCA determines that allowing a grace period is in the best interest of the State. All Proposals and any accompanying documentation become the property of HCA and will not be returned.

PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS AND GUIDELINES

Proposals must comply with the requirements and restrictions listed in this RFP Failure to comply may result in the Proposal being determined non-responsive.

A. Proposals must provide information in the same order and under the same headings as presented in this RFP. Each response must include the corresponding section number and title, and each question must be restated prior to the Bidder’s response.

B. All applicable items identified in Section 16, RFP Exhibit Checklist, must be included for the Proposal to be considered responsive. Evaluation and scoring will be conducted in accordance with Section 19, Evaluation Procedure and Contract Award.

C. Page limits identified in this RFP are based on single-sided pages. If a Bidder exceeds the page limit for any section of the Written Proposal, HCA will discard the pages exceeding the applicable section limit. Only material within the stated page limit for each section will be considered and scored.

D. Bidders are responsible for all errors and omissions in their Proposals. Proposal documents may not be altered after the Proposal submission deadline, except as permitted by HCA under this RFP. HCA is not responsible for errors or emissions in the Bidder’s Proposal.

E. Bidders must not submit materials that are not expressly requested in this RFP.

F. HCA is under no obligation to consider any supplemental materials that were not specifically requested in this RFP.

RFP EXHIBITS

Proposals must be submitted in accordance with Section 14, Submission of Proposals and must include the following items, in the order listed below:

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Exhibit A - Bidder Forms and Certifications Content

1. Bidder Profile & Submittal Form

1. Diverse Business Inclusion Plan

1. Executive Order 18-03 Worker’s Rights

1. References

1. Washington Small and/or Certified Veteran Owned Business Certification

Remaining RFP Exhibits

EXHIBIT A, BIDDER FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS (MANDATORY)

A. Bidder Profile Submittal Form (Mandatory – Pass/Fail) Bidders must complete Sections A through E. Certifications and Assurances must be signed and dated by an individual authorized to legally bind the Bidder.

B. Section B, Diverse Business Inclusion Plan (Mandatory – Pass/Fail) Bidders must complete Section B. In accordance with RCW 39.19. Washington State encourages participation in state contracts by businesses certified by the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises (OMWBE); businesses certified by the Washington State Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant to RCW 43.60A.200; and Washington Small Businesses as defined in RCW 39.26.005.

The Diverse Business Inclusion Plan is not scored, and no minimum level of diverse business participation is required as a condition of award.

C. Section C, Executive Order 18-03 (Scored) Bidders must complete Section C, indicating whether they require employees, as a condition of employment, to sign or agree to mandatory individual arbitration clauses or class or collection action waivers.

D. Section D, References (Mandatory – Pass/Fail) Bidders must complete Section D, References, providing requested information for three references.

E. Section E, Washington Small Business or Certified Veteran-Owned Business Certification (Scored) Bidders must complete Section E, indicating whether they qualify as a Washington Small Business and/or Certified Veteran-Owned Business.

RFP EXHIBIT DESCRIPTIONS

A. Exhibit B, Draft Contract (Not Scored) The ASB will be expected to enter into a Contract substantially in the form of Exhibit B, Draft Contract. HCA will not accept a draft Contract prepared by a Bidder.

Bidders must review Exhibit B and follow the instructions below:

· If requesting changes: Select “Yes” in Exhibit A, Certifications and Assurances, Section 4 (g) (2), complete and submit Exhibit B-1, Bidder’s Contract Issues List, identifying the specific Contract section or subsection, describing the requested change, proposing a solution, and providing the rationale for the proposed solution. Do not submit Exhibit B, Draft Contract, with your Proposal.

· If not requesting changes: Select “No” in Exhibit A, Certifications and Assurances Section 4 (g) (2). Do not submit Exhibit B, Draft Contract, or Exhibit B-1, Bidders Contract Issues List, with your Proposal.

Any Contract terms and conditions for which the Bidder does not request changes will be deemed accepted. HCA reserves the right to accept or reject any requested changes at its sole discretion.

If HCA and the ASB cannot reach agreement on acceptable Contract terms after a reasonable period of negotiation, HCA may discontinue negotiations and begin negotiations with the next most qualified Bidder.

B. Exhibit B-1, Bidder’s Contract Issues List (Not Scored) If Bidders are requesting changes to the terms and conditions of Exhibit B, Draft Contract, Bidders must complete and submit Exhibit B-1, Bidder’s Contract Issues List with their Proposal. Bidders must identify the specific Contract section or subsection, describe the issue or concern, propose a solution, and provide the rationale for the proposed solution. Proposed revisions submitted directly on Exhibit B, Draft Contract, will not be accepted.

C. Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement (Not Scored) The ASB may be expected to enter into a DSA in the form of Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement. HCA will not accept a draft DSA prepared by a Bidder.

Bidders must review Exhibit C and follow the instructions below:

· If requesting changes: Select “Yes” in Exhibit A, Certifications and Assurances, Section, 4 (g) (3), and complete and submit Exhibit C-1, Bidder’s Data Sharing Agreement Issues List, identifying the specific DSA section or subsection, describing the issue or concern, proposing a revision, and providing the rationale for the proposed revision. Do not submit Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement, with your Proposal.

· If not requesting changes: Select “No” in Exhibit A, Certifications and Assurances, Section, Section 4 (g) (3). Do not submit Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement or Exhibit C-1, Bidder’s Data Sharing Agreement Issues List, with your Proposal.

Any DSA terms and conditions for which the Bidder does not request changes will be deemed accepted. HCA reserves the right to accept or reject any requested changes at its sole discretion.

If HCA and the ASB cannot reach agreement on acceptable DSA terms after a reasonable period of negotiation, HCA may discontinue negotiations and begin negotiations with the next most qualified Bidder.

D. Exhibit C-1, Bidder’s Data Sharing Agreement Issues List (Not Scored) If requesting changes to the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement, Bidders must complete and submit Exhibit C-1, Bidder’s Data Sharing Agreement Issues List with their Proposal. Bidders must identify the specific DSA section or subsection, describe the issue or concern, propose a solution, and provide the rationale for the proposed solution. Proposed revisions submitted directly on Exhibit C, Data Share Agreement, will not be accepted.

E. Exhibit D, Written Proposal (Scored)

Bidders must complete Exhibit D, Written Proposal, in accordance with the instructions and formatting requirements provided, responding to each question in the order presented.

F. Exhibit E, Cost Proposal (Scored) Bidders must complete Exhibit E, Cost Proposal, in accordance with the instructions provided in Exhibit E. The total proposed cost must not exceed $800,000. Proposals exceeding this amount will be deemed non-responsive.

HCA will not necessarily award the Contract to the Bidder proposing the lowest cost. Award will be based on the evaluation criteria set forth in this RFP, including consideration of cost and the extent to which the Proposal meets HCA’s requirements G. Exhibit F, Interested Subcontractor List (Optional) HCA encourages participation by small, diverse, and veteran-owned businesses. The Interested Subcontractor List is optional and is not part of the Bid submission. Refer to Exhibit F for addition information and instructions.

H. Exhibit G, General Solicitation Provisions (Not Scored) Bidders must review Exhibit G, General Solicitation Provisions, which contain terms and conditions applicable to this RFP.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE AND CONTRACT AWARD

A. Initial Review and Responsiveness

The RFP Coordinator will conduct an initial administrative review of all Proposals received by the deadline specified in Section 2, Estimated RFP Schedule, to determine whether Bidders meet the minimum qualifications and whether Proposals comply with the mandatory requirements of this RFP.

As part of the review, Sections A, B, and D of Exhibit A, Bidder Forms and Certifications, will be evaluated on a Pass/Fail basis. A Pass determination requires compliance with the applicable submission requirements specified in Section 17, Exhibit A, Bidder Forms and Certifications. Failure to meet these mandatory requirements may result in a determination that the proposal is non-responsive. Only responsive Proposals will proceed to further evaluation.

The RFP Coordinator will evaluate Sections C and E of Exhibit A and apply applicable points in accordance with Section 20, Evaluation, Weighting, and Scoring.

HCA may, at its sole discretion, waive minor administrative irregularities in a Proposal.

B. Proposal Clarifications

The RFP Coordinator may, at their sole discretion, contact a Bidder to request clarification of any portion of its Proposal. Clarifications must not materially alter the Proposal or provide the Bidder with an opportunity to revise its Proposal after the submission deadline.

C. Proposal Evaluations

The evaluation team will be designated by HCA and may include HCA staff and external evaluators. The evaluation team will evaluate the Written Proposals in accordance with Section 20, Evaluation, Weighting, and Scoring.

The RFP Coordinator will evaluate the Cost Proposals in accordance with Section 20, Evaluation, Weighting, and Scoring, and apply applicable points for Washington Small Businesses, Certificated Veteran-Owned Businesses, and Executive Order 18-03.

Evaluations will be based solely on information provided in the Bidder's Proposal and conducted in accordance with the requirements of this RFP, any Amendments issued, and the weighted scoring system described in Section 20, Evaluation, Weighting, and Scoring.

D. Contract Award

Following the completion of the evaluation and scoring process, HCA will rank responsive Bidders in descending order based on their total combined scores, including Written Proposal scores, Cost Proposal scores, and any applicable preference points for Executive Order 18-03, Washington Small Business and Certified Veteran-Owned Business.

The Bidder receiving the highest total score will be identified as the ASB, subject to HCA’s determination of responsibility, successful contract negotiations, and any other applicable requirements of this RFP.

HCA reserves the right to award the Contract to the Bidder whose Proposal is determined to be in the best interest of HCA and the state of Washington, in accordance with the evaluation criteria and weighted scoring methodology established in this RFP. Award will not necessarily be made to the Bidder offering the lowest cost.

EVALUATION, WEIGHTING, AND SCORING

A. Scoring Exhibit D, Written Proposal

Evaluators will score each section of Exhibit D – Written Proposal using the scoring rubric in Section C, located below the Evaluation Table. Each evaluator’s score for a section will be converted to a weighted section score based on the maximum points assigned to that section in the Evaluation Table below, using the following formula:

(Evaluator’s Rubric Score ÷ 10) x Maximum Points for the Section = Weighted Section Score

The evaluators’ weighted scores for each section will then be averaged to determine the Bidder’s score for that section. The section scores will be combined to determine the Bidder’s total Written Proposal score.

Evaluation Table Exhibit D-Written Proposal

B. Scoring Rubric for Exhibit D, Written Proposal

Evaluators will score the sections outlined in the Evaluation Table above using the following (0-10) scoring rubric. Each section’s weighted score will be calculated by dividing the rubric score by 10 and multiplying the result by the maximum points available for that section, as identified in the Evaluation Table above.

Scoring Rubric for Written Proposal

C. Scoring Cost Proposal

Exhibit E, Cost Proposal, will be scored based on the Bidder's total proposed cost, The responsive Bidder with the lowest total proposed cost will receive the maximum points available for the Cost Proposal. All other responsive Bidders will receive proportionately fewer points using the following formula:

(Lowest Total Proposed Cost ÷ Bidder’s Total Proposed Cost) x 20 = Bidder’s Cost Proposal Score

D. Executive Order 18-03

Pursuant to RCW 39.26.160(3) and consistent with Executive Order 18-03 – Supporting Workers’ Rights to Effectively Address Workplace Violations (dated June 12, 2018), HCA will award 5 preference points to a Bidder that certifies, pursuant to Exhibit A – Bidder Forms and Certifications, Section C, that it does not require employees, as a condition of employment, to sign or agree to mandatory individual arbitration clauses or class or collective action waivers. A Bidder that does not make this certification will receive zero preference points but will not be disqualified from consideration.

E. Washington Small and/or Certified Veteran-Owned Businesses

HCA will award 15 preference points to a Bidder that certifies, pursuant to Exhibit A – Bidder’s Forms and Certifications, Section E, and is verified to qualify as a Washington Small Business or a Certified Veteran-Owned Business, consistent with Department of Enterprise Services (DES) Policy DES-090-06.

A qualifying Bidder will receive 15 preference points, regardless of whether the Bidder qualifies under one or both categories. Bidders that do not qualify under either category will receive zero preference points.

F. RFP Exhibits and Evaluation Summary

EXHIBIT A - BIDDER FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS

EXHIBITS B-G – ADDITIONAL RFP EXHIBITS

SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT SCORES

For the purposes of this RFP, Proposal scores are considered substantially equivalent when the difference between the scores is two percent (2%) or less of the total maximum points available under this RFP.

If two or more Proposals receive Substantially Equivalent Scores, HCA may allow the final scores to determine the ASB or may select the Bidder whose Proposal HCA determines, in its sole discretion, to be in HCA's best interests based on the overall purpose and objectives stated in Section 4, Introduction, of this RFP.

If HCA makes a best-interest determination under this section, the basis for the determination will be communicated in writing to all Bidders with Substantially Equivalent Scores.

NOTIFICATION TO BIDDERS

HCA will announce the ASB to all Bidders via the WEBS notification system.

EXHIBIT A – BIDDER FORMS AND CERTIFICATIONS

Exhibit A is included as a separate document.

EXHIBIT B – DRAFT CONTRACT

Exhibit B is included as a separate document for review only, do not include with Proposal.

EXHIBIT B-1 – BIDDER’S CONTRACT ISSUES LIST

Instructions

RFP No.:

Bidder (Full Legal Name):

1. This Exhibit is required only if requesting changes to Exhibit B, Draft Contract. Bidders must complete and submit Exhibit B-1 if they have issues, concerns, exceptions, or objections to any of the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit B, Draft Contract. Proposed revisions to Exhibit B, Draft Contract must be submitted using only Exhibit B-1.

The Bidder’s Contract Issues List is designed to frame contract discussions, if any, between HCA and Bidders regarding the Contract terms and conditions. In completing Bidder’s Contract Issues List, Bidders must:

A. Identify the specific Contract section or subsection that creates a business issue, concern, exception, or objection;

B. Describe, in business terms, the issue, concern, exception, or objection pertaining to the Contract section or subsection;

C. Propose, in business terms, a solution that is reasonable in light of the Competitive Solicitation and the procurement solution being sought by HCA; and

D. Provide Bidder’s reason or rationale supporting Bidder’s proposed solution, including how the proposed solution is commercially reasonable for a public contract, benefits both Bidder and the HCA and equitably allocates contractual risk and return.

E. Please be advised: The Contract(s) to be awarded is the result of a Competitive Solicitation developed pursuant to Washington’s Procurement Code for Goods/Services that is designed to meet governmental needs for eligible purchasers. HCA endeavors to develop commercially reasonable Contracts that incentivize performance and equitably allocate risk and return based on stakeholder input from eligible purchasers, vendors, procurement professionals, and others. Accordingly:

Contract revisions, if there are any, may NOT be Bidder-specific but must apply to all Bidders.

F. Redlined Documents Will Not Be Reviewed. Do not provide a redlined Contract or sections or subsections. Redlined text may result in HCA making potentially inaccurate assumptions regarding Bidder’s issue(s). Instead, Bidders must follow the instructions set forth above.

G. Standard Bidder Contracts Will Not Be Reviewed. Do not provide a copy of Bidder’s standard contract or a third party’s standard’ contract or contract section. Such documents will not be reviewed.

H. No Substantial Changes. Bidders are cautioned that this is a competitive solicitation for a public contract and HCA cannot and will not accept a Proposal or enter into a Contract that substantially changes the material terms and conditions set forth in this Competitive Solicitation and Contract.

Proposals that are contingent upon HCA making substantial changes to material terms and conditions set forth in the Competitive Solicitation or Contract likely will be determined to be non-responsive.

I. HCA will consider the number and nature of the items identified in the Bidder’s Contract Issues List when determining the likelihood of successfully negotiating a Contract with Bidder.

BIDDER’S CONTRACT ISSUES LIST

Contract Section B Issue Description C Bidder’s Proposed Solution D Bidder’s Rationale for Proposed Solution

1.

2.

3.

4.

EXHIBIT C – DRAFT DATA SHARE AGREEMENT (DSA)

Exhibit C is included as a separate document for review only, do not include with Proposal.

EXHIBIT C-1 – BIDDER’S DATA SHARE AGREEMENT ISSUES LIST

Instructions RFP No.:

Bidder (Full Legal Name):

1) This Exhibit is required only if requesting changes to Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement. Bidders must complete and submit Exhibit C-1 if they have issues, concerns, exceptions, or objections to any of the terms and conditions contained in Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement. Proposed revisions to Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement must be submitted using only Exhibit C-1.

The Bidder’s Data Share Agreement Issues List is designed to frame DSA discussions, if any, between HCA and Bidders regarding the DSA terms and conditions. In completing the Bidder’s Data Share Agreement Issues List, Bidders must:

A. Identify the specific DSA section or subsection that creates a business issue, concern, exception, or objection;

B. Describe, in business terms, the issue, concern, exception, or objection pertaining to the DSA section or subsection;

C. Propose, in business terms, a reasonable revision to the identified DSA section or subsection that addresses the issue, concern, exception, or objection; and

D. Provide the rationale supporting the proposed revision to the DSA section or subsection.

2) Redlined Documents Will Not Be Reviewed. Bidders must not submit a redline version of Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement. All proposed revisions must be identified in Exhibit C-1, Bidder’s Data Share Agreement Issues List.

3) Standard Bidder DSA Will Not Be Reviewed. Bidders must not submit their own standard DSA or a third party's standard Data Share Agreement in place of Exhibit C, Draft Data Share Agreement. Such documents will not be reviewed.

BIDDER’S DATA SHARE AGREEMENT ISSUES LIST

DSA Section B Issue Description C Bidder’s Proposed Revision D Bidder’s Rationale for Proposed Revision

1.

2.

EXHIBIT D – WRITTEN PROPOSAL

Maximum Points for Written Proposal: 100 Maximum Page Limit for Written Proposal: Up to 34 Pages

1. Project Approach & Methodology (Up to 35 Points | Up to 15 Pages)

0. Describe the Bidder’s proposed approach and process evaluation methodology for performing the work required under this RFP. The response must demonstrate the Bidder’s thorough understanding of the FPATH and FHARPS program goals and the process evaluation project objectives, including how the Bidder will approach and complete the qualitative program assessment described in Section 9, Scope of Work, Task A and Task B.

0. Describe how the Bidder will collaborate with HCA’s contracted…