Amendment 0002 signed.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 7

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

00002

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06/11/2020

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 3635 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

Ctrs for Disease Control & Prevention Office of Acquisition Services, OSHSAB 626 Cochrans Mill Rd Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0070

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

X

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

75D30120R67930

9B. DATED (See Item 11)

06/10/2020

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO

10B. DATED (See Item 13)

CODE 001829084 FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, x is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning one copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

NONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copy to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to answer questions submitted.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Stephanie D Cruz

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY

16C. DATE SIGNED

6/24/2020

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE 30-105 Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

ITEM 10A.

Q # Question RFP

Location 1 Section B (Supplies of Services and Prices/Costs) specifies 16-month periods of performance for Options 1-8. Please confirm that NCHS intends there to be a 4-month overlap (September – December) across these option periods.

Answer: Yes. During the overlap months, one period of performance will be ongoing data collection tasks spanning the calendar year, and the other will be non-data collection tasks corresponding to preparation for the next data collection year.

Pages 2-3

2 The RFP includes several references to Position Sensitivity Designations and requisite background investigations, and also acknowledges that background investigations are expensive. Offerors are instructed to assume that interviewers will require Public Trust Level 5. While the RFP states that a favorable NACI is the minimum investigation required for all contractor (or subcontractor) staff, it also states that “final designations for interviewers and other contract personnel will be determined after award” (p95). Should offerors include

(a) an estimate of costs (including staff time to complete questionnaires) for the Public Trust Level 5 investigations for interviewers only, or

(b) an estimate of costs for Level 5 for interviewers plus an estimate for all other contractor and subcontractor personnel assuming the minimum NACI investigation, or

(c) no estimate of costs for background investigations at all, assuming designations will be determined and budget negotiations will be allowed after award?

Answer: For purposes of the proposal and cost estimates, assume interviewers and contract key personnel require Public Trust Level 5 clearance.

Page 16 (E);

pages 56- 57 (Section H); page 95 (B)

3 Section 4.4.3 (Main Study Sample Design) states “Offerors shall describe and estimate costs for: (1) A sample design that includes no oversampling; and (2) a design that includes oversampling of teenage (age 15-19) individuals, and of non-Hispanic black and Hispanic persons as required to meet study objectives”.

(a). For costing purposes for the 8 years of data collection, should offerors assume a sample design with or without oversampling?

(b). Similarly, for the optional contract task in Section 4.12.4 (Increase the sample size from 5,000 completed main interviews per year to as many as 12,000 completed interview per year), should offerors assume a sample design with or without oversampling?

Answer: For the 8 years of data collection, please prepare cost estimates for both the oversampling design and the design with no oversamples. For the optional contract task of increased sample size, please estimate costs only for the design WITH oversamples.

(Section 4.4.3) (Section 4.12.4)

4 With respect to the questionnaire programming specified in Section 4.5.1 (Questionnaire programming; CAI hardware and Software), should offerors

Page 29-30 assume NCHS will be able to provide the source code for the screener, main interview (female and male), and interviewer observation questionnaires?

Answer: NCHS will be able to provide the Blaise source code for the previous screeners and questionnaires as fielded in 2017-2019 NSFG.

Please note that modifications to the female and the male questionnaires will require additional new programming.

(Section 4.5.1)

5 The RFP states that Section 508 compliance is required for the methodological reports.

Please confirm that the methodological reports (i.e., the 4 reports listed under “Design and Data Collection Methods” at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2015_2017_puf.htm#design to be referenced as examples) are the only deliverables that must conform to Section 508.

Answer: Yes.

(section 4.9) and (#6)

6 In the Schedule of Deliverables on page 48, the numbering skips from H2 to H4.

What should be listed for Deliverable H3?

Answer: There is no deliverable H3. To clarify Deliverable H2.: H2 contains final fieldwork report shells (due 5.5 months from EDOC) and fieldwork reports filled in (once a week during fieldwork).

7 In the Schedule of Deliverables on page 49, the numbering skips from K4 to K7.

What should be listed for Deliverables K5 and K6?

Answer: There are no Deliverables K5 and K6.

8. On page 41, in Section 4.12.4: the bold text says to increase the sample size “to as many as 12,000 completed interviews per year.” The text in the paragraph below says to “assume a goal of 6,000 interviews per year for a 2-year period.”

Is the goal to complete 12,000 interviews per year, or 6,000 interviews per year for two years?

Answer: For purposes of the proposal, assume 6,000 per year. The option allows for up to 12,000 interviews per year for actual contract operation purposes.

9. For the "no oversample" design, with a target of 5,000 interviews, do you want us to complete 5,000 interviews with one randomly selected person from each household, attempting to maintain equal probabilities of selection for both households and persons within households? The resulting percentages of the sample defined by certain subgroups, such as teens, would be considerably lower than those that have been achieved in the past, and we wanted to clarify that this was indeed the objective.

Answer: Yes. The objective is to see a technical and cost proposal of the “no oversample” design (no higher probability of selection for teens or persons in Hispanic and black subgroups) by whatever method it is accomplished.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2015_2017_puf.htm#design

10. On Page 30: the text indicates “our aim is to reduce the average length of each instrument by 5-10 minutes.” Please confirm that the reduction in survey instrument length by 5-10 minutes will be achieved by reductions in content and that we should budget for instruments of the following maximum lengths:

female, 70 minutes; male, 44 minutes.

Answer: Reduction in the survey instrument will be achieved by reduction of content. Yes, budget for an instrument of 70 minutes for women and 44 minutes for men.

11. For Experiment 2, should the 5,000 main interviews remain untouched (i.e., using the FTF protocol), meaning that we would need to select additional samples to run this required experiment? Or should the experiment be embedded in the data collection efforts to achieve 5,000 interviews?

Answer: For purposes of the technical and cost proposals, assume additional sample will be required. If offerors anticipate a way to use sample from the projected 5,000 main interviews and still achieve sufficient power (effective sample size maintained), offerors may also describe that approach. See Section C.4.10.

12. In Section 4.12.2, if the OTFTF modes in Experiment 2 prove to be effective, will self-collection of the biomarkers be possible? Or does this optional experiment require that the biomarkers only be collected by interviewers?

Answer: Assume biomarkers could be self-collected if OTFTF mode was implemented. Proposal of self-collected biomarkers for FTF is also welcomed.

Section 4.12.2

13. Regarding interview timings for CAPI-Lite, can we assume that timing requirements will be provided at a later date? Here is a statement from the Questionnaire section, Page 30, section 4.5.1.2: "As shown in Attachments 1-3 the CAPI-lites contain all questions proposed to be asked (pending final consultations with survey cosponsors and consideration of questionnaire length if necessary)."

Answer: We assume this question is about questionnaire length.

Please see section 4.5.1.1, paragraph beginning “When last fielded…” and response to question #10, for statements about questionnaire length estimates.

Regarding the excerpt in the question: See entire paragraph under C.4.5.1.2 Questionnaire, that the excerpt comes from. That sentence was meant to explain the format of CAPI lites. The beginning of the paragraph explains that the attached CAPI-lites are not final and will undergo changes:

“Attachments 1-3 contain specifications for the NSFG questionnaire in the form of “CAPI-lite” documents which should not be regarded as final for two reasons: 1) the questionnaire content is similar to the version planned for the first year of data collection, but changes will still be required;…” To further clarify CAPI-lites: the CAPI-lites are representations of the “CRQs” (see fourth paragraph of Section 4.5.1.1). The CRQs are the documents that will contain specifications for programming, reflecting all final content decisions, and the CAPI-lites will be updated to reflect the final CRQ content.

Section 4.5.1.2,

14. The RFP formatting requirements specify “single spaced in a standard 12-point font such as Times New Roman”. For the sake of efficient use of space, would the government permit the use of 10 point type for exhibits?

Answer: Yes

Section L.10 (e),

15. Are references included in the 150 page limit for the Technical?

Answer: No

Section L.10 (e), page 87

16. The RFP states the pretest sample is the “first 600 cases.” Does this mean the first 600 completed interviews? Or the first 600 eligible screen ins? Or even just the first 600 completed screeners?

Answer: The first 600 completed interviews.

Section 4.4.2, page

17. Can the six required sampling tables (Tables 1-4B) be placed in an appendix to the technical?

Answer: Yes

Section 4.4.3, page 26-29

18. The deliverable dates for the final interviewer and supervisor project manuals are prior to the deadlines for the first drafts of the programmed questionnaires. The first drafts of the project manuals are due beginning of Jan 2021 and beginning of Feb 2021, respectively, with both final project manuals due by end of April 2021, but the first draft of programmed questionnaires are not due to be ready for testing until beginning of August 2021. Can the deliverable dates for the project manuals be shifted back to after August 2021 so that the manuals can be updated to reflect the programmed questionnaires?

Answer: Yes. Please regard due dates to be changed as follows. For drafts, use placeholders for sections covering questionnaire content where necessary.

F.1 Draft project manual: Interviewers: beg of July 2021 F.2 Draft project manual: Supervisors: end of July 2021 F.3 Final project manuals: end of Sept 2021

Section F.2, page 46-47

19. The RFP states in 4.5.2.1: “These materials, along with the NCHS confidentiality brochure tailored for NSFG, are part of the OMB and ERB review packages prepared by the PI (defined in Section 4.2.1).”

The RFP also states in 4.5.2.3: “The contractor shall review letters and consent forms as used under the prior contract and suggest any revisions to the COR and PI (defined in section 4.2.1) for the planned fieldwork under this contract.”

And “The PI (defined in section 4.2.1) includes these procedures and materials in review packages submitted to the NCHS ERB, as well as to OMB.”

However, Section 4.2.1 of the RFP pertains to the Kick-off meeting, and there are not any references in Section 4.2.1 to the OMB or ERB review packages. It is unclear under which task the preparation of the draft packages and materials for OMB and ERB occur. The draft OMB and ERB packages are also missing from the list of deliverables.

Sections 4.2.1,

4.5.2.1 and 4.5.2.3;

page 10, 31, Answer: The references to Section 4.2.1 in the above excerpts refer to the definition of the PI, not to the materials.

The OMB and ERB packages are not delivered by the contractor.

They are the responsibility of NCHS and are prepared and submitted to the OMB / ERB by the NCHS PI. The contractor is responsible for providing or reviewing some of the materials that are part of the OMB and ERB packages, as described in these sections and in Deliverables E1-E3.

20. The RFP amendment includes attachments with new versions of the screener, male and female questionnaires, but not a new version of the Life History Calendar. Should offerors assume that the Life History Calendar will be unchanged from the 2015-2017 version?

Answer: Yes, for purposes of the proposal. As with the questionnaires, there may be changes to the life history calendar before data collection begins. (Also please note Optional Task 4.12.3, Electronic Life History Calendar.)

Attachments

21. For Deliverable E1 (Draft Introductory Materials), under “Due Date from EDOC” the RFP states “

3.5 months (105 days) from EDOC.” 105 days from the EDOC (9/01/2020) is 12/15/2020, not “mid November 2020” as stated in the RFP. Should the due date be mid-December or mid-November?

Answer: E.1 Draft introductory materials: correction to illustrative due date to correspond to “Due Date from EDOC”: Mid-December

Section F, Schedule of Deliverables,

22. With regard to the need for Contractor staff to secure Public Trust Level 5 and Public Trust Level 6 clearances, will the government assist the awardee in obtaining such clearances and PIV cards, as necessary, during the contract?

Answer: Yes. The NCHS Personnel Security Specialist receives the clearance materials from the contractor and processes them/sends them for processing. The NCHS Information Systems Security Officer assists with requirements in C.4.3.1. Note that the final designation of levels of clearance described in C.4.3.1 (E), p. 16, is to be determined after award. Also see response to question #2.

Section

4.3.1 (E),

23. On page 58, Section H.6(c) states, “The contractor may retain a copy of the data in the duration of the contract but must turn over the entire dataset to NIOSH before the present contract expires.”

(a) Should “NIOSH” be “NCHS”? Answer: YES.

(b) Also, does the “entire dataset” include PII and is it referring to the data provided by the respondents? Answer: YES

24. On Page 66, I.3 incorporates the Salary Rate Limitation, and states “An individual's direct salary is the annual compensation that the Contractor pays for an individual's direct effort (costs) under the contract.” On the DHHS website (https://www.hhs.gov/grants/contracts/contract-policies-regulations/salary-rate-limitation/index.html), Q&A 11a states “Does the salary rate limitation need to be applied as an hourly, monthly, or annual rate?” Answer: “Annual.”

https://www.hhs.gov/grants/contracts/contract-policies-regulations/salary-rate-limitation/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/grants/contracts/contract-policies-regulations/salary-rate-limitation/index.html

Please confirm our understanding that as long as an individual does not charge above the FES Level II annual limitation amount on any individual award, that individual would be in compliance with the terms of the award. Answer: YES

25. On pages 84-85, the RFP states the proposal will have three separate parts: the technical proposal, the past performance information, and the business proposal. On page 87, L.11 (b), the RFP states that offerors shall submit relevant past performance information as part of their technical proposal. In which volume should past performance information should be included.

Answer: Past performance should be in a separate volume.

26. On page 87, Section L.11, the RFP states, “In addition, the offeror shall provide the following information, as part of its technical proposal, for those references that will be submitting a questionnaire: 11. Copies of the most recent Past Performance Evaluation issued to the offeror under each contract listed.” Is most recent “Past Performance Evaluation” a “Contractor Performance Assessment Report?” Answer: It could be.

27. For Past Performance Information, if an offeror has a Contractor Performance Assessment Report for a submitted project can this be included in lieu of Attachment J.11 (Past Performance Questionnaire) being completed and returned to CDC prior to the proposal due date?

Answer: Yes

28. Given the unprecedented changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, may submission of proposals for the subject solicitation be conducted electronically in lieu of a hard copy submission?

Answer: CDC does require submittal of at least one hard copy of each proposal volume, and the first paragraph of L.9 (a) will now read:

(a) Offerors are invited to submit a proposal in response to this solicitation. A proposal will have three separate parts: the technical proposal, the past performance information, and the business proposal. Offerors shall deliver one

(1) original of each of the three parts to the following address no later than 2:00 p.m. (ET), 07/10/2020. Offerors shall also submit all three volumes via email by the due date and time to fpblack@cdc.gov.

Please note that in the answer above, the due date and time have NOT been changed.

mailto:fpblack@cdc.gov