DCF Parenting Capacity Evaluation RFR - Answers to Written Inquiries 8.27.2021.docx

Answers to Written Inquiries, Parenting Capacity Evaluation RFR August 27, 2021

DCF PCE #22

This document contains answers to all written questions posted during the Bidders’ Conference described in RFR # DCF PCE22 section 3.13 and to all written inquiries submitted per the requirements in RFR section 3.14.

Written Questions Posted During Bidders’ Conference, August 6, 2021

1. Question: There appears to be a problem with the email address for questions. I tried to submit questions in several emails, but all were returned with an error message.

· Answer: We tested servicesnetwork@mass.gov and did not experience any errors. However, we have escalated this issue to the DCF IT department for investigation and resolution, if needed.

2. Question: What is the difference between an SDO certified business and a recognized business?

· Answer: The difference is internal to the SDO and does not affect bidders or contractors. SDO-certified businesses apply and receive their certification directly from the SDO. SDO-recognized businesses receive their certifications from certain third-party certifying bodies whose certifications the SDO recognizes (e.g. a veteran-owned business who received a certification from the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs and whose certification the SDO recognizes without additional investigation).

3. Question: Is it possible to use a past SDP form (the "SDP Form for Purchase of Services")? It applies to FY 2020 and 2021.

· Answer: No, because there is a very substantial difference between those forms.

4. Question: What if we are a minority owned NPO?

· Answer: The SDP requirements stated in the RFR apply to all bidders without exception.

5. Question: Will the SDP PowerPoint be posted to COMMBUYS?

· Answer: Yes, the PowerPoint will be published to COMMBUYS at the same time as these written responses to questions are published.

6. Question: Is a letter of intent required to bid?

· Answer: No, a letter of intent is not required to bid.

7. Question: Can you provide background on this procurement? Has it previously been procured? If so, is it possible to get a list of past qualified providers?

· Answer: This is a new procurement that defines the service in a different way than services procured in the past. Therefore, there is not a list past qualified providers for the service defined in this RFR.

8. Question: Is there a limit on the number of hours to complete the evaluation?

· Answer: The RFR does not state a limit on the number of hours because families involved with DCF have different needs that require consideration. For example, it is understood that conducting a parenting evaluation for a family with six children may take longer than conducting an evaluation for a family with two children. Similarly, it may take longer to conduct an evaluation for a family that is involved with multiple community-based providers than it will to conduct an evaluation for a family that is not involved with any community-based providers. The expectation is that evaluators will perform evaluations and report billable hours following the professional ethics of their profession.

9. Question: Can you provide an estimate of anticipated # of referrals by region/office?

· Answer: Since this is a new procurement, we do not have an estimate of the anticipated number of referrals.

10. Question: There doesn't seem to be any reference to a budget. Is one required?

· Answer: A budget is not required.

11. Question: Will DCF provide an evaluation form or are organizations expected to use their own based on the criteria outlined in the RFR?

· Answer: DCF will not provide a parenting capacity evaluation form; however, the standards outlined in the RFR Sections 2.9.2.2 and 2.9.2.3 should be addressed by each parenting capacity evaluation. In particular, please refer to Section 2.9.3 Sample Outline of a Parenting Capacity Evaluation for an outline of the information expected in each parenting capacity evaluation.

12. Question: Are there required assessment tools for the parenting capacity evaluations or are those at our discretion?

· Answer: There are no required assessment tools for the parenting capacity evaluations. DCF respects that a comprehensive parenting capacity evaluation could be conducted without the need for any assessment tools. Should an evaluator determine that use of an assessment tool would enhance the evaluation for an individual family, the evaluator is expected to use their professional expertise to identify and either provide or arrange for any assessments necessary to complete a comprehensive parenting capacity evaluation and provide the required information outlined in section 2.9.3 of the RFR

13. Question: Does the bidder need to have experience providing this same type of service?

· Answer: A minimum number of years of experience is not stated in the RFR. Bidders are required to respond to and submit, for DCF’s review and approval, Attachment D: Response Sheet, which includes questions about evaluators’ years and types of experiences.

14. Question: Please confirm that there would be no conflict of interest if the evaluator's agency serves a parent/youth as long as the evaluator does not provide direct services to the youth/parent.

· Answer: As mentioned in the question, RFR Section 2.3.3 Impartiality does state limits on the number of roles that an evaluator is permitted to have with examinees. In addition, Section 2.3.3 states that if an evaluator is employed by an agency that provides direct services to parents or children, then the agency must have and follow policies and procedures to ensure impartiality in communicating about the case with internal agency colleagues.

15. Question: Please clarify the seeming discrepancy about the duration of the contract. Section 3.9 of the RFR indicates the total contract duration is 9 years, but Section 3.11 indicates up to 12 years.

· Answer: DCF will issue an amendment to correct Section 3.11. The total contract duration is 9 years.

16. Question: Is the Department proposing a specific staffing requirement for programs for this procurement? For example, would organizations need to have more than one evaluator for the program?

· Answer: DCF is not proposing any specific staffing requirement. As stated in Section 2.3.1, Bidders may be individual practitioners (hereafter, “evaluators”) or organizations that employ evaluators.

17. Question: In order to complete timely evaluations, rapid coordination with DCF offices would be required. How will DCF assure that records, for example, can be quickly accessed and that contact information for families is accurate?

· Answer: DCF staff members will be trained in the new parenting capacity evaluation process and will be expected to maintain timely communications with providers. Regarding contact information in particular, DCF staff will do their best to update information as it becomes available. However, providers should be prepared to follow up with DCF in the event that contact information is incorrect.

18. Question: Is the time spent coordinating with DCF, e.g., obtaining information, reviewing records and schedule with families billable under this contract?

· Answer: DCF expects client-interfacing activities to be billable under this contract. In the example described in the question, reviewing records and scheduling with families would be billable. Communicating with DCF about obtaining information would not be billable.

19. Question: Will providers be allowed to limit the service population for accepted referrals to the population that fits the organization's mission, such as a specific linguistic/cultural group?

· Answer: To respond to this question, we need to provide context for the phrase “limit the service population”. DCF welcomes providers with expertise in a specific linguistic or cultural group, with the understanding that within a specific linguistic or cultural group there is diversity in other characteristics including, but not limited to: age, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion, and spiritual practices, physical or mental disabilities, and family history. This is because having an array of service providers with specialized expertise will allow DCF to meet the diversity of families served by DCF.

A concern with the term “limit the service population” is that it could be misinterpreted to allow providers to ignore the requirement in the RFR for cultural competence.

An example may help to explain this point: a provider with specialized expertise and a mission to serve the Deaf and hard of hearing community may elect to serve only that specific community but would be expected and required to serve the diversity within that community (e.g., age, sexual orientation, gender identification, religion and spiritual practices, physical or mental disabilities, and family history).

The term “limit the service population” cannot be used to ignore the requirement that providers be culturally competent, which includes sensitivity to the following areas (as listed in RFR Section 2.8), including, but not limited to:

· Race

· Culture

· National Origin

· Language, inclusive of American Sign Language (ASL)

· Religion

· Age

· Sexual orientation and gender identification

· Physical or mental disability and developmental needs

· Family history, including veteran status

· Medical/Psychiatric History and Functioning

· Level of Education

If relevant, responses to the question can include Bidders’ experiences with external organizations to supplement their internal expertise.

20. Question: The RFR requests that the bidder select three culturally/linguistic appropriate populations. What if the bidder's expertise is with a specific population?

· Answer: In Question 5 on Attachment D: Response Sheet, Bidders are asked to “provide examples of culturally competent work with at least three different cultural or linguistic populations”. Cultural diversity and linguistic diversity are not synonymous. This RFR refers to cultural competency in an inclusive way that spans an array of characteristics that include but are not limited to race, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, physical or mental disability, and family history including veteran status.

Bidders with expertise serving a specific population will need to describe their ability to serve the diversity within that specific population, which includes sensitivity to the following areas (as listed in RFR Section 2.8), including, but not limited to:

· Race

· Culture

· National Origin

· Language, inclusive of American Sign Language (ASL)

· Religion

· Age

· Sexual orientation and gender identification

· Physical or mental disability and developmental needs

· Family history, including veteran status

· Medical/Psychiatric History and Functioning

· Level of Education

· If relevant, responses to the question can include Bidders’ experiences with external organizations to supplement their internal expertise.

21. Question: Can you provide any details about how a youth/family is identified as needing an evaluation, and also how it is determined which organization will receive that referral (assuming there are multiple organizations awarded contracts)?

· Answer: A parenting capacity evaluation may be requested by DCF to inform decisions on core child welfare issues, which include safety and risk, placement of youth in out-of-home settings, permanency, and reunification.

Some examples of situations that may motivate a referral for a parenting capacity evaluation are provided below. This incomplete list does not represent all the situations in which a parenting capacity evaluation may be requested.

· When children and teenagers express that they do not want to see their parent(s), or refuse to see their parent(s), or refuse to return home,

· Cases of serious abuse by parent(s) or chronic neglect by parent(s),

· Parent(s) who has previously had a child removed from home due to abuse or neglect,

· Cases where parents have a significant trauma history, including a serious abuse or neglect history,

· Cases where children have entered care and returned home multiple times during their involvement with the Department,

· Cases in which the parent(s) believe they are making good progress in building parenting skills, but the progress is not apparent to DCF staff and providers (i.e., where there is attendance but not engagement in service provision), and

· Parent(s) has dual diagnosis of substance use disorder and mental health disorder.

The process through which a decision is made about which provider to select to perform a service is managed locally in each of DCF's 29 Area Offices.

22. Question: What is meant by "a family with lived experiences" in Question #6 of the Response Sheet?

· Answer: “Lived experience” indicates personal knowledge gained through direct, first-hand involvement in events. “Lived experience” is in contrast to knowledge gained through reading about events or observing others experiencing events. Section 2.3.2 of the RFR includes the following examples of lived experiences, in addition to occurrences of abuse or neglect, that are often experienced by families and children involved with DCF:

· A parent and/or a youth with disabilities

· Living in poverty

· Trauma, which may be intergenerational

· Mental and behavioral health concerns, including substance use

· Difficulty with engaging in services or mistrust of government agencies

· Intergenerational experience with DCF

· Intimate partner violence and other forms of family violence

· Experiences of discrimination, bias, and racial trauma

23. Question: Would you please say something more about the Opt-in and Opt-out choices on regional coverage in section 5.4 of the RFR and on the cover sheet? Not sure how that should be filled out. What is required?

· Answer: The purpose of these Opt-In and Opt-Out questions is to provide DCF with an understanding of the geographic areas that Bidders are proposing to serve. The “Opt-In” response is required. This means that Bidders are required to indicate which Regions they are proposing to serve. The “Opt-Out” response is optional and should only be used if there is an Area Office within a Region that a Bidder is “Opting-Out” of serving. Through the contract award process, DCF may negotiate with Bidders on geographic service areas, especially when the Bidder offers unique specialized expertise that may be needed in multiple geographic locations.

24. Question: Please confirm that we can submit applications on a rolling basis up to June 30, 2030. Also, if you are not qualified on the first try, can you re-submit at a later date?

· Answer: Yes, applications may be submitted on a rolling basis up until June 30, 2030. If Bidders are not qualified on the first try, they are welcome to resubmit at a later date.

Written Inquiries Submitted Via Email by August 13, 2021

25. Question: Many factors affect the timeliness of evaluations. These include delays in obtaining records, difficulties in contacting workers to arrange evaluation, problems in contacting clients, such as updated contact information, travel arrangements for interviews, cancelled or missed appointments, and delays in getting information from collaterals. Given these constraints, a 35-day time frame (2.7.1) to complete an information gathering process, write a report, and have the report reviewed by a supervisor before submission may be unrealistic. What capacity is there for flexibility in adjusting time expectations to account for these issues, which are beyond the control of the evaluator and agency?

· Answer: The RFR anticipated that there will be circumstances in which the 35-day timeframe would not be possible. Flexibility is provided through an option for an extension stated in the penultimate bullet point in Section 2.7.1, “If, due to the number of youth in the family, or the complexity of the family’s circumstances, the evaluation cannot be completed within that number of days, the provider shall request an extension from the DCF referral source.”

26. Question: The RFR (2.7.1) states that all referrals be contacted within seven days, or the referral should not be accepted. This effectively eliminates a wait list. This means that any clinician who completes a case or has one fall through would have to wait until another referral comes in. This restraint would make it difficult to maintain a staff with a flow of cases. It also assumes that there are evaluators elsewhere that would be able to take cases immediately, which has not been our experience. How flexible is the seven day requirement?

· Answer: The RFR anticipated that there will be circumstances in which the contact within 7 days will not be possible. In those circumstances, Section 2.7.1 stated that the evaluator should do the following:

· Communicate the delay to the DCF referral source.

· Document each contact attempt, including the method of contact used.

· Contact the DCF referral source requesting alternate family contact information and document this request.

The RFR does not state that an evaluator should not accept a referral if the contact cannot be completed in 7 days. In instances when the contact cannot be completed in 7 days, Section 2.7.1 does state that, "DCF will determine whether the referral should be sent to a different provider." There is flexibility in this determination and will be influenced by multiple factors including but not limited to the circumstances of the case, timeframes associated with the particular case, availability of providers contracted to conduct parenting capacity evaluations.

27. Question: The RFR (2.3.2) notes a need for access to interpreters. Is there any arrangement for reimbursement for the cost of employing interpreters when required?

· Answer: The families involved with DCF come from diverse racial, cultural, and linguistic heritages, which have relevance for family norms and parenting practices; and, therefore cultural competency is necessary for conducting impartial parenting capacity evaluations. Attachment A to the RFR shows the racial, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds of the families served in DCF’s 29 Area Offices. This is provided so Bidders can be prepared to be responsive to cultural and linguistic backgrounds of the parents and youth for whom Bidders are proposing to serve.

The RFR anticipated that there will be times when evaluators receive referrals for families with a cultural and linguistic background for which it is difficult to obtain interpretation services. Section 2.3.2 includes the statement, “If needed, DCF will assist with arranging and reimbursing interpreting services for low prevalence languages or dialects (i.e., used by less than .05% of the Massachusetts population) or for communication services that are difficult to secure, including ASL and CART certified providers.”

28. Question: Parents may have difficulty accessing transportation, which is mentioned as an issue ((2.5), to meet with evaluators. Will DCF support parents in planning for travel, and for the cost of accessing transportation?

· Answer: Section 2.4 includes the statement, “Locations for interviews and observations must be locations convenient for parents and youth.” This means that evaluators are expected to work with families to arrange locations for interviews and observations that are accessible to families and that accommodate a family’s ability to access a specific location.