Bidder Q & A RFP260000000867.docx

66 KB Posted

Attached to
FTBS- Cass & St. Joseph Counties
Solicitation number
RFP 491 260000000867 3
Issued by
Calhoun County, Michigan

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI ·

This document is a Bidder Questions & Answers file for Request for Proposal No. 200000000867, issued by the State of Michigan for Family Together Building Solutions services in Cass and St. Joseph Counties. The RFP seeks contractors to provide family preservation services with a contract term of three years at a total annual amount of $190,000. The document addresses 34 questions submitted by bidders regarding program requirements, staffing qualifications, service delivery standards, and evaluation criteria, with corresponding answers and clarifications provided by the state. Key amendments were made to credential requirements, allowing Program Managers with a bachelor's degree in human services and minimum two years of supervisory experience, and FTBS Direct Workers with a bachelor's degree or an associate's degree with two years of family services experience and active pursuit of a bachelor's degree. Multiple service delivery requirements were clarified, including standardization of timeframes across preservation contracts (converting hours to days), elimination of virtual visit provisions, clarification on the Protective Factors Survey methodology, and confirmation that team meetings occur bi-weekly rather than weekly.

The annual contract budget allocates $190,000 total with $6,000 designated for transportation and $3,000 for specific assistance, with these amounts representing the budgeted plan subject to discussion if adjustments become necessary. The state confirmed that staffing FTE calculations must account for employee time off and that the state will track 12-month outcomes rather than requiring contractors to conduct follow-ups. Training requirements were modified to remove Solution-Focused training no longer offered by the state while maintaining FTBS-specific core training availability. The document clarifies that the state, not MDHHS contractors, determines client eligibility and referral assignments, and that bidders should provide condensed organizational charts relevant to the proposed Family Preservation services rather than agency-wide charts.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
RFP - 260000000867 Amendment 1.docx DOCX document
Schedule B Pricing RFP 260000000867.docx DOCX document
RFP 260000000867 Version 3.docx DOCX document
RFP - 260000000867 Amendment 2.docx DOCX document

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Michigan.gov/MiProcurement

BIDDER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Request for Proposal No. 200000000867 Family Together Building Solutions in Cass and St. Joseph Counties

Q #
Document and Section
Page #
Bidder Question
Answer (to be completed by the State)
1.
Schedule B - Pricing
Is the total annual amount $190,000 or is it $199,000 (including the transportation and specific assistance)?
The contract total is $190,000.00
2.
E. Credentials, 2) Qualifications
46
Program Manager: requires a master’s degree in the field of human service, preferably in social work. Administrative and clinical work experience is required. Is there any consideration to giving an exception for bachelor’s degree and years of experience as has been allowed within state contracts?
Updated language:

Program Manager: A bachelor’s degree in any human services field or education with a minimum of two years of supervisory experience in family preservation, administrative experience, experience working with families with multiple problems.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

3.
E. Credentials, 2) Qualifications
46
FTBS Direct Worker: requires a bachelor’s degree in the field of human services, preferably in social work. Is there any consideration to giving an exception for an associate’s degree/within 6 months of completing a Bachelor’s a degree like the state contracts allow?
Updated language:

FTBS Direct Worker: A bachelor’s degree in any human services field or the field of education. If there is no suitable bachelor level candidate, the candidate must have at least two years experience working with children and/or families and an associate degree or the equivalent in human services or education and be actively working towards a bachelor’s degree in human services or education to be completed within one year of hire.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

4.
E. Credentials, 3) Training Requirements
46
Family Preservation Solution-Focused training is listed as

required but this training is no longer offered by the State. Will this training requirement be adjusted?

This training is no longer required.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

5.
F. Services to be Provided, i
47
The contract states Administer the Protective Factors Survey-2 with each family when commencing a case and again within seven days of case termination. Will we be allowed to use the retrospective survey like the state requires?
Updated language:

Provide parent(s) with the Protective Factors Survey Retrospective to complete within seven days prior to case termination. Summary results without scores must be included in the Closing Prevention Plan. Case notes must reflect the parent was provided the Protective Factors Survey Retrospective.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

6.
F. Services to be Provided, j
47-48
HIPAA compliant video visits can qualify as face-to-face hours in the following circumstances: (1) Inclement weather, or threat of inclement weather, impedes the ability to meet in person. (2) The family is experiencing an illness that would put the Worker at risk. (3) The Worker is experiencing an illness that would put the family at risk. (4) Outside of these circumstances, video visits may qualify as face-to-face hours but must

total no more than 10% of total face-to-face hours. This was removed from our previous contract as it is no longer allowed by the state. Is this also supposed to be removed from this RFP?

Virtual visits are not permitted.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

7.
2) Position Specific Requirements
50
Should team meetings occur weekly or bi-weekly? The requirements are different under the Program Manager and Supervisor.
Team meetings are to take place bi-weekly.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

8.
2) Volume of Service, b. Unit Definition
51
Can we bill for contract required trainings as is allowed with all other contracts with this limited unit definition?
Unit Definition(s): One unit equals one hour of contractor’s time providing face-to-face contacts with the referred family, time spent attending required training, travel time spent to and from a face-to-face contact, travel time spent to and from an unsuccessful face-to-face contact, and travel time spent to and from required training.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

9.
Category B. Education, Credentials and Qualifications, B2
65
The question is asking if we are currently contracted with MDHHS to provide the services proposed in this RFP? To clarify, is this asking if we provide FTBS services specific to the counties in this RFP, Cass and St. Joseph? Or, is this question asking if we hold any FTBS contracts in general, regardless of the counties they cover?
The question is asking if you are providing FTBS services in general.
10.
Category C. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization and Location, C2, Evaluator Question
68
Can you please clarify how the number of FTE’s correlates/accounts for staff time off for holiday, sick and personal time?
The number of FTEs must reflect the ability to cover staff time off for holiday, sick, and personal time.
11.
Category C. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization and Location, C4
69
Should we only provide an organization chart with positions that have an allocation to the proposed FTBS Cass/St. Joseph contract? The question notes an agency-wide organization chart; however, that is extremely large and will include irrelevant positions.
A condensed organizational chart with details of your Family Preservation services will be sufficient.
12.
Category C. Staffing, Training, Agency Organization and Location, C4
69
If the supervisor is allowed to be over more than one Family Preservation program, should we also include those programs on the organization chart that they will also be supervising?
Yes.
13.
Category D. Program Implementation (Work Plan), D2, Evaluator Question
72
The evaluator question notes, “...as listed in D3 (above).” Is this supposed to say D2?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

14.
Category D. Program Implementation (Work Plan), D9
75
It seems that this chart could be completed with one row. Why are there 3 separate rows?
This document is used for multiple programs. Please complete what you feel applies.
15.
Category D. Program Implementation (Work Plan), D10
76
There is only Service 1 of 1. Why does it list Service 2 of 3, and Service 3 of 3?
Please complete the number of lines that apply to the service description. In this case, complete line 1.
16.
Category D. Program Implementation (Work Plan), D10, Evaluator Question
76
It references C3 and D11. Should this read, C2 and D10?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

17.
Category D. Program Implementation (Work Plan), D14, Evaluator Question
78
It references D15. Should this read, D14?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

18.
Schedule B - Pricing
N/A
Should there be a third row on the Pricing Matrix to account for the three years of the contract?
No. Each year is budgeted the same, therefore only one row is needed to reflect each of the years on the contract.
19.
Schedule B - Pricing
N/A
To clarify, there is $6,000 annually for transportation and $3,000 annually for specific assistance, and these numbers cannot be changed?
The annual amounts for transportation and specific assistance are the budgeted plan, and if any changes are needed they would be discussed if or when issues arise.
20.
1.1 General Requirements, A. Client Eligibility 1) Definition of Eligibility, a. 1. C)
42
Since FTBS cannot accept CAT 1 or CAT 2 without a step down from more intensive services, and CAT 1 and CAT 2’s will be completing a more lengthy service with MFT, is it anticipated that FTBS will receive mostly CAT 3 and CAT 4 cases?
MDHHS determines eligibility. At this time there is no identified plan regarding how referrals will be assigned to each service.
21.
1.1 General Requirements, A. Client Eligibility 1) Definition of Eligibility, a. 2.) should ‘Family Reunification Program’ change to MFT since FRP will be changing to MFT?
42
Should ‘Family Reunification Program’ change to MFT since FRP will be changing to MFT?
Updated language:

2.Foster Care reunification if reunification services are not able to accept the referral.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

22.
1.1 General Requirements, B. Referral Process, 2) Contractor, a. Receiving & Accepting Referrals, 5.)
44
Should ‘96 hours’ change to 4 full days to align with the other preservation contracts?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

23.
1.1 General Requirements, B. Referral Process, 2) Contractor, b. Once a referral is accepted, 1.)
44
Should ’72 hours’ change to 3 days to align with other preservation contracts?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

24.
1.1 General Requirements, E. Credentials, 3) Training Requirements)
46
Should motivational interviewing and protective factors be added to the list of required special topics?
No. Motivational Interviewing is not required, and Protective Factors trainings is at the discretion of the provider.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

25.
1.1 General Requirements, E. Credentials, 3) training requirements)
46
Since the state is not offering solution focused trainings anymore, how would FTBS staff complete this training?
This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.
26.
1.1 General Requirements, E. Credentials, 3) training requirements)
46
Is self-awareness a required training still?
This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.
27.
1.1 General Requirements, E. Credentials, 3. Training Requirements
46
“program specific portion of CORE training” is mentioned in this section of the RFP but does the state plan to continue to offer FTBS Specific training although the state is switching to MFT? If not, how is FTBS Specific training going to be offered?
Program specific core training will still be available at this time.
28.
1.1 General Requirements, F. Services to be delivered, 1) Activities the contractor must perform, b.)
47
Should ’72 hours’ change to 3 days to align with other preservation contracts?
Yes.

This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.

29.
1.1 General Requirements, F. Services to be delivered, 1) Activities the contractor must perform, i)
47
Should this change to “Provide parent(s) with the Protective Factors Survey Retrospective to complete within seven days prior to case termination. Summary results without scores must be included in the Closing Prevention Plan. Case notes must reflect the parent was provided the Protective Factors Survey Retrospective,” to align with other preservation contracts?
This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.
30.
1.1 General Requirements, G. Performance outcomes, 3 & 5)
51
How will the contractor track 12 month outcomes since we aren’t completing 12 month follow ups anymore?
MDHHS will track 12-month outcomes.
31.
1.1 General Requirements, G., Performance outcomes, 6)
51
Should this language change to reflect the Retrospective PF survey? Or should this outcome be removed to align with the other preservation contracts?
This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.
32.
1.1 General Requirements, G., Performance outcomes, 7)
52
Should this outcome be removed to align with the other preservation contracts?
This has been updated in RFP260000000867 Amendment 1.
33.
Schedule B - Pricing
N/A
The allocated annual actual cost for transportation is listed at $6,000. Is this an error? The current contract allocated annual actual cost for transportation is $9,000.
The amount budgeted for transportation is $6,000 per year.
34.
Category A. Bidder Experience and Past Performance A3
58
Describe the referral process used for past contracts in Chart A1-a Sub Question 1. Describe the efforts taken to ensure referral sources had knowledge of services availability to clients. Describe how a hig degree of client participation, engagement and investment in the program were achieved and maintained. -- Specifically for this portion of the question “describe how a high degree of client participation, engagement and investment in the program were achieved and maintained” are you looking for agency collaboration with referrals sources since this is lumped with referral process or are you looking for the agencies working relationship with clients?
This question is asking for two separate pieces of information, one related to working with referral sources and the other related to how you achieved success with clients in participation, engagement, and investment in the program.

Version 2021-2 image1.png

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .