CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL_ad1.pdf
PDF 179 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL
- Issued by
- Delaware
About this file
This is Addendum #1 to Request for Proposals CYF 26-05, issued by the Delaware Department of Youth and Family Services (DSCYF) on September 15, 2026, providing clarifications and guidance to potential bidders for Low-Level Supervision and Case Management and Dual Status Youth Meeting Facilitation services. The addendum addresses seventeen questions raised by bidders regarding service delivery expectations, staffing requirements, contact frequency, and operational procedures. Key clarifications include that bidders must propose appropriate case management contact frequency and supervision intensity based on their service model rather than state-prescribed minimums, with final dosage to be negotiated during contract finalization. The state indicated that historical low-level supervision services target a four-month completion timeline, extensible to six months based on individual circumstances, and the state provided specific historical caseload data showing average monthly active cases of 35 in New Castle County, 9 in Kent County, 16 in Sussex County, and 1 out-of-state case, with an average of 9 new referrals monthly statewide. Additionally, bidders learned that Dual Status Youth Meetings may be conducted virtually in most instances with occasional in-person attendance requirements, group curricula sessions may be delivered virtually, mental health and substance use referrals should be coordinated through community-based providers rather than provided in-house, and external services should be accessed first through Medicaid, private insurance, DSCYF contracted resources, and schools before bidder funding.
The addendum clarifies that bidders submitting unit cost proposals need not submit additional supporting budget documentation beyond the proposed unit cost, invoices are processed monthly, and bidders must include three professional references as part of their submission. The state confirmed that no maximum or minimum caseload expectations are prescribed, that the number of billable service days will be driven by risk-level assessment consistent with the "light touch" program philosophy for low-risk youth, and that indirect costs should be recorded on Line 7 of the DSCYF Budget Form. The state declined to provide examples of rates offered by competing agencies, instead directing bidders to competitive and fair-rate standards. The addendum maintained that all other terms and conditions of the original RFP CYF 26-05 remain unchanged.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL_bfs.docx | DOCX document | |
| CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL_aac.pdf | ||
| CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL_bfsd.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CYF2605-LOW_LEVEL_rfp.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP CYF 26-05 Questions/Answers
ADDENDUM #1
TO: ALL POTENTIAL BIDDERS
FROM: Ryan Bolles
DSCYF – Procurement Administrator DATE: September 15, 2026 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) – CYF 26-05 Low-Level
Supervision and Case Management and Dual Status Youth Meeting Facilitation
The following Q&A is intended to provide additional guidance to all potential bidders:
1. Required frequency and type of case management contact Bidder’s Question: For youth receiving Low-Level Supervision with Case Management, does DYRS have a minimum required frequency of contact with the youth and/or family (e.g., weekly, biweekly, monthly)? Please clarify whether there are separate expectations for face-to-face, home/community-based, telephone, or virtual contacts, and whether contact frequency varies based on individual risk/needs.
State’s Response: The bidder is expected to include in its proposal what it believes is appropriate based on the target population and proposed service model.
2. Expected level/frequency of supervision Bidder’s Question: The RFP states that DYRS assessment results will guide service needs and that the provider will collaborate with the youth, family, and DYRS to develop the ISP.
Is the successful bidder expected to establish the frequency and intensity of case management within the ISP, or will DYRS prescribe minimum supervision/contact requirements at referral?
State’s Response: Consistent with above state response, the bidder is expected to propose the dosage of contacts/case management based on its service model. DYRS is not prescribing level/frequency at this time, it is something DYRS will include during contract negotiations.
3. Expected average length of service Bidder’s Question: Although the RFP establishes a six-month performance benchmark, can DYRS provide the historical average or median length of enrollment for youth served under the current contracted low-level supervision model? This information would assist bidders in developing appropriate staffing and service-delivery assumptions.
State’s Response: The goal of these services is to be a “light touch” with the system for low-risk youth. Historically, the low-level supervision has a goal of completion at the 4-month mark but based on individualized circumstances has been extended up to 6 months.
4. Mental health/substance use referral pathway Bidder’s Question: When a youth is identified as needing mental health evaluation, counseling, substance use treatment, or another clinical service, is the successful bidder expected to provide these services directly/in-house, or may the bidder refer and coordinate with qualified community-based providers?
State’s Response: The successful bidder will be authorized to refer and coordinate with a quality community-based provider.
5. Cost responsibility for externally provided services Bidder’s Question: When a youth requires an external service such as mental health treatment, substance use treatment, tutoring, or another specialized service, is the successful bidder expected to pay for that service from the contract budget, or should services first be accessed through Medicaid, private insurance, DSCYF resources, schools, or other existing funding streams?
State’s Response: The services should first be accessed through Medicaid, private insurance, DSCYF contracted resources, school and existing funding streams unless the bidder wishes to include any of the services in their proposal. Additional discussion will be included in contract negotiations.
6. Psychoeducational service dosage/duration Bidder’s Question: Is DYRS establishing any minimum frequency, duration, or dosage expectations for the required psychoeducational programming, or should the bidder determine the appropriate curriculum, frequency, and duration based on each youth’s risk/needs assessment, ISP, and anticipated period of enrollment?
State’s Response: The bidder is expected to propose these service elements as part of its service model included in its proposal.
7. Dual Status Youth Meetings — virtual vs. in-person Bidder’s Question: May Dual Status Youth Meetings be facilitated virtually when appropriate, or should bidders assume that the DSYM facilitator must be available to conduct meetings in person statewide? If both formats are acceptable, are there circumstances under which an in-person meeting is required?
State’s Response: Bidders should expect that most DSYM facilitator meetings are authorized to be held virtually, but from time to time the DSYM facilitator will be required to attend a meeting in person.
8. Historical referral/caseload information Bidder’s Question: The RFP provides annual counts of youth active with contracted providers by county. Can DYRS provide the approximate average monthly active caseload under the current low-level supervision contract, by county, as well as the average number of new referrals per month?
State’s Response: For the past 12 months, the average number of monthly active cases by county is: NCC - 35, Kent - 9, Sussex - 16, Out of State - 1. The average number of cases which are referred statewide each month is 9.
9. Is there a maximum number of billable days per youth?
State’s Response: The number of billable service days will be driven by the need matching the determined risk level. The program intention is that the service be a “light touch” with the system for low-risk youth.
10. Bidder’s Question: How frequently are invoices paid?
State’s Response: Invoices are processed monthly.
11. Bidder’s Question: Are there maximum or minimum agency caseload expectations?
State’s Response: The bidder is expected to include what it believes is an appropriate caseload based on the service model it is proposing.
12. Bidder’s Question: What does the state consider indirect services?
State’s Response: An indirect cost is any cost that can’t be directly quantified or easily calculated as a cost incurred due to delivery of “direct services”. All such costs are recorded on Line #7 of the DSCYF Budget Form when proposing a cost reimbursable payment methodology. See online budget development instructions here:
https://kids.delaware.gov/management-support-services/contracting-information/
13. Bidder’s Question: Are you able to provide examples of rates offered by other agencies? I want to ensure we offer a competitive and fair rate to the state.
State’s Response: DSCYF cannot share past cost proposals during the RFP process.
14. Bidder’s Question: Can group curricula sessions be provided virtually?
State’s Response: Yes, that is allowed.
15. Bidder’s Question: The Funding section on page 8 indicates that a unit cost proposal is preferred. For bidders submitting a unit cost proposal, what budget information is required beyond the proposed unit cost? Are supporting budget details, salary schedules, or budget narratives required?
State’s Response: No additional budget information is required if proposing a unit cost compensation methodology.
16. Bidder’s Question: Should we assume the number of eligible youth for referral will be the total number of unduplicated youth listed on the table on page 7 of the RFP, minus the number of youth active with a Contracted Provider?
State’s Response: No, the table labeled “Unique DYRS Community Supervision Cases Active with a Contracted Provider by Calendar Year” is the table which identifies the number of youth served by a provider in the stated year. Bidders should use this data as a general guide for potential referrals in future years for bidding purposes.
17. Bidder’s Question: Section #28 notates 'References' and states the Evaluation Team may contact any customer of the bidder, whether or not included in the bidder's reference list.
Is a bidder's reference list required as part of this submission? If so, how many, and what information should a bidder provide?
State’s Response: Yes, include three (3) professional references which can attest to your agency’s ability to provide the services proposed.
All other terms and conditions remain the same. If you have any questions, please contact H. Ryan Bolles at herbert.bolles@delaware.gov.
mailto:herbert.bolles@state.de.us
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .