DORA Inquiry Response 2027000060.docx

Inquiry Responses

RFP SJAA 2027000060

VSS Amendment # 1 October 12, 2026 This document contains all inquiries submitted by companies within the timeframe specified in the above solicitation. The inquiries are restated verbatim as submitted by the company, with the exception of identifying information.

Needed Services”. Please clarify the specific RFP section referred to in this question related to “as needed services”.

Records request.

RFP cover, §4.1.4 and §4.8; Appendix A §2.L; Appendix B, Exhibit A The RFP cover identifies SJAA 2027000060, while the supplied filenames identify SJAA 2026000247. Please confirm the correct solicitation number. Please also confirm that Appendix B is the Model Contract referenced as “Exhibit A” in §4.1.4 and correct the duplicated §4.8.1 numbering.

The correct RFP Number is SJAA 2027000060, please disregard 2026000247. Yes, the Model Contract Appendix B is the same contract referenced as Exhibit A in §4.1.4. Please refer to the duplicative §4.8.1 as §4.8.1 and §4.8.1.1.

RFP §1.C.1

May the Offeror expand the Monitoring Agreement definition to include “completion of any evaluation, monitoring, and/or treatment recommended by the Contractor?

The definition is revised as follows: “Monitoring Agreement” means the individualized agreement between the Contractor and Recipient agreeing to an evaluation, treatment referral and monitoring plan recommended by the Contractor. The agreement must include notice to Recipients of their rights and responsibilities, possible consequences of non-compliance and discharge criteria.

RFP §4.2.3.2

Please revise this to state, “Additional tools shall be used in combination with a comprehensive biopsychosocial evaluation interview when Offeror suspects substance misuse, including urinalysis and/or other collateral information to determine if the Recipient is a habitual user dependent upon, or addicted to, any controlled substance as defined in the program's related statute.” This would be consistent with current Board policy.

If the Offeror proposes to limit the use of urinalysis to those Recipients for whom the Offeror suspects substance misuse, then it should provide a response that explains how such approach meets the requirements of 4.2.3.2, including the process, timelines, resources, and tools used to meet that requirement, as outlined in Offeror Response 4.2 Evaluation and Intake.

RFP §4.2.3.3, first, second and fifth bullets Please confirm that the requirement for a signed authorization/release to the State before an evaluation applies only to applicable Recipients “known to the Board” or “with active State cases”. Will the fifth bullet be revised to include that limitation and align with the first two bullets1, so it does not require every voluntary Recipient to authorize release to the State?

Offeror should provide a response based on the RFP requirement in the event the Contractor needed to release the evaluation to the State if the Recipient is non-compliant with the voluntary treatment.

RFP §4.2.3.3 final bullet and §4.2.4

a) Please confirm that these requirements, including fingerprint background checks and other license information, are limited to Board-ordered evaluations.

b) Must the Contractor absorb this associated fee (based on 4.2.4), or may this be a cost to the Board-ordered Recipient?

c) May an urgent safety assessment or evaluation proceed while fingerprint results are pending?

d) Based on the high cost of fingerprint requirements, would the current process of 1) The Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) 2) SentryLink-National Criminal Background and 3) SentryLink-Driving Records check(s) be acceptable?

a) These requirements apply to all Board-ordered Recipients/applicants.

b) The Offeror should respond to the requirement indicating how they propose to meet the requirement, including the fee.

c) Yes

d) The RFP states “fingerprint background check through the Colorado Bureau of Investigations, on all Board ordered evaluations.” The Offeror should be prepared to meet this requirement or describe in their response how they would proceed differently.

RFP §§4.2.8–4.2.10.1

a) Can sections §§4.2.8, 4.2.9, and 4.2.10.1 specifically distinguish the differences between voluntary Recipients and those Recipients “known to the Board”?

b) Will requirement 4.2.10.1 be clarified to say, “If the Recipient is self-referred, the written evaluation will be provided to the State if the Recipient is determined to be 1) only safe to practice with reasonable skill and safety with treatment and monitoring AND the Recipient refused to sign or becomes noncompliant with a Monitoring Agreement or 2) not safe to practice AND refused to sign a cease practice agreement.

a) The Offeror should provide a response based on the RFP requirement and information for how they plan to meet the requirement in accordance with the instruction for Offeror Response 4.2 Evaluation and Intake. Any Offeror may provide in its response any proposed Board protocols that would address distinctions between voluntary Recipients and those Recipients known to the Board.

b) The Offeror should provide a response based on the RFP requirement and provide information for how they plan to meet the requirement in accordance with the instruction for Offeror Response 4.2 Evaluation and Intake.

RFP §4.2.8 and §4.2.9 Please confirm whether “Rehabilitation Contract” in §4.2.8 means Monitoring Agreement and whether “Rehabilitation Agreement” in §4.2.9 means a Non-Practice Agreement, Monitoring Agreement, or both.

In 4.2.8, “Rehabilitation Contract” should mean “‘Monitoring Agreement’ and Recipient must sign a ‘Non-Practice Agreement’ or ‘Cease Practice Agreement.’” In 4.2.9, “‘Rehabilitation Agreement’ means ‘Monitoring Agreement.’” In circumstances where the Contractor cannot determine whether Recipient is safe to practice, pursuant to 4.2.9, Contractor must require Recipient to enter into a Cease Practice Agreement.

RFP §4.2.10.1

Will the State allow for a fourth possible conclusion, “Contractor does not yet have sufficient information to make a recommendation whether Recipient is safe to practice”? Please clarify the appropriate reporting approach when a Recipient is in treatment or essential collateral information is outstanding and a final safety opinion cannot yet be supported.

No. The Offeror should provide a response that contemplates only the three options. The Offeror may address in their response how its evaluation reports will describe the full scope of known information, outstanding information that is necessary to finalize their opinion and an estimate of the time necessary to complete their full evaluation. The Offeror should address the methods it will employ to determine treatment is necessary for a Recipient, if the Offeror has not completed its evaluation.

RFP §4.3.4

Can this section be revised to distinguish active-case reporting from voluntary-program reporting? Suggested revision:

The Successful Offeror shall be required to provide notification to the State, either written or verbal, as mutually agreed upon in Board protocols, within twenty-four (24) hours or the next business day, of any Recipients (a) known or believed to be unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety or (b) if the Recipient has a mental health or substance abuse relapse. Such reporting is not required for voluntary-Recipients who execute a cease-practice agreement. If such notification is verbal, the Successful Offeror will be required to follow up in writing the next business day.

All reporting requirements will comply with Colorado Medical Board Policy 10.28.

No. The Offeror should provide a response based on the RFP and information for how they plan to meet the requirement in accordance with Offeror Response 4.3 Treatment and Monitoring.

RFP §4.3.8

Will a virtual meeting satisfy the 24-hour face-to-face reevaluation requirement, if clinically appropriate, to allow statewide service delivery?

If the Offeror proposes to utilize virtual meetings to satisfy the 24-hour face-to-face reevaluation requirement, the Offeror should detail how virtual meetings would meet the requirements of §4.3.8 in their proposal, including the process, resources and tools used in accordance with Offeror Response 4.3 Treatment and Monitoring.

RFP §4.3.9

Can this section clarify what “completion of Contract or Agreement” means? Suggested wording:

State shall be notified in writing within 2 business days that a Recipient with an active case is safe to practice without treatment and/or monitoring, therefore having completed their Contract or Agreement. Successful Offeror shall also report the number of Recipients that have completed the program in a quarterly program report to the State.

The Contract or Agreement refers to the Monitoring Agreement. The Offeror should detail how it proposes to meet the requirement in their proposal, including the process, resources and tools used in accordance with Offeror Response 4.3 Treatment and Monitoring.

RFP §4.5.4

Will State review of materials be limited to mutually agreed/identified Recipient-related clinical forms and/or materials referencing DPO, DORA, CMB, or the State? Or may this be clarified in the 2027 Contract supplemental Business Rules?

The State review of materials pertains to materials related to the Physician, Physician Assistant, and Anesthesiologist Assistance Peer Health Assistance Program. This includes but is not limited to forms, correspondence templates and information handbooks, etc. Any Business Rules may further clarify but cannot be less than the RFP/Contract requirement.

RFP §4.7.1.4

Please clarify that general expertise inquiries may be responded to. Suggested wording: Ensure that if it is, at any time, contacted by the media or legislative inquiries about the Division, Department, Boards, or the services performed on their behalf, it will decline response and refer all such inquiries immediately to the Division contact or to DORA’s Public Information Officer. However, Offeror may respond to general media and legislative inquiries seeking its expertise in physician, physician assistant, anesthesiology assistant, and trainee health.

If the Offeror proposes to respond to general expertise inquiries, the Offeror should detail how it meets the requirements of §4.7.1.4 in their proposal, including the process, resources and tools used in accordance with Offeror Response 4.7 Communications and Reporting.

RFP §4.8, including both paragraphs numbered 4.8.1 Please clarify whether referred evaluators/treatment providers may receive Board materials with an appropriate designation that such materials must not be redisclosed?

Yes. 4.8.1 relates only to release of materials to Recipients.

RFP §4.9.3

Please verify that State-initiated Contractor financial inspection will be limited to proposed program funds only.

The RFP requirement in 4.9.3 clarifies this and states it pertains to “financial records and documentation of use of funds for the proposed program”.

RFP §4.10.5.3

Will the State revise this language to include: “Evaluators who conduct evaluations of sex offenders must be approved by the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board or be licensed Psychiatrist(s) with added qualification in forensics and/or requisite experience.”?

The Offeror should detail how modification would meet the requirement of this section in their proposal, including the process, resources and tools used.

RFP §4.11.4 and §4.9.2 Please clarify that the review and auditing by the Division shall be in coordination with the Board. This would allow for consistency with the Colorado Medical Practice Act (section 12-240131(III)(b), C.R.S.), in which the “Medical Board shall select the peer assistance provider.”

An audit in accordance with this requirement would be in compliance with any applicable statutory requirements, the terms of the State of Colorado Contract (reference Appendix B) and its exhibits. There is no question related to 4.11.4 to respond to.

Model §7.B and §7.C Please verify that State-initiated Contractor financial inspection and contract compliance monitoring will heed applicable voluntary Recipients’ confidentiality protections and be limited to activities under this proposed contract.

Please reference RFP paragraph 4.1.4 for directions regarding proposed exceptions to the Model Contract.

image1.png