FAQ Approved.pdf

Ryan White Part B Request for Proposal 2027-0905 Bidders’ Conference QuesƟons

QUESTION DPH RESPONSE

1. Please provide a list of the current grantees.

The 2022-2027 contractors are: Advancing ConnecƟcut Together (Harƞord), Alliance for Living (New London), APEX Community Care-Fairfield, APEX Community Care- Litchfield, City of Harƞord, Windham Regional Community Council, and Yale New Haven Hospital.

2. Will the slides and list of aƩendees to this meeƟng be shared?

No. There were no slides for the Bidders Conference. The recording of the Bidders Conference is posted on the DPH website at: hƩps://portal.ct.gov/dph/request-for-proposals/request-for-proposals?language=en_US

3. Regarding Formaƫng SpecificaƟons (Pages 23 & 39): SecƟon III.A.6 on Page 23 mandates a 10-point font size (Arial or Calibri) with minimum 0.7" margins.

However, Appendix B (Proposal Checklist) on Page 39 specifies a 12-point Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins. Which formaƫng standard is the official requirement for evaluaƟon?

The correct formaƫng specificaƟons to respond to this request for proposal are a 10-point font size (Arial or Calibri) with minimum 0.7" margins.

Font Examples: Arial @ 10-point font Calibri @ 10-point font

4. Regarding 30-Page Limit Exclusions (Pages 23 & 26): Does the 30-page limit specified on Page 23 for the main proposal include the Cover Sheet (Item A) and Table of Contents (Item B) listed in the Required Outline on Page 26, or does the 30-page count begin precisely at SecƟon C or D?

On Page 27 of the RFP it states: “All appendices, financial statements, and budgets are not included in the 30-page count. Other aƩachments should be referred to in SecƟon D and then placed in SecƟon E. The Agency Review CommiƩee will not read answers longer than 30 pages in this secƟon”. Therefore, the 30-page limit includes the coversheet and table of contents as a part of the full response.

5. Regarding OrganizaƟonal Chart Placement (Pages 20, 27, & 39): Page 20 (SecƟon 3.e) states that the organizaƟonal chart must be placed in SecƟon E (AƩachments). Page 27 (SecƟon IV.D.4.d) includes it as part of the SecƟon D Main Proposal, and Page 39 lists it as an example of an aƩachment. Should the OrganizaƟonal Chart be counted within the 30-page limit of SecƟon D, or should it be placed exclusively in SecƟon E as an excluded aƩachment?

The OrganizaƟonal Chart should be placed in SecƟon E as an excluded aƩachment from the proposal response.

RWPB RFP 2027-0905 | Bidders’ Conference QuesƟons

6. Regarding Resumes and Job DescripƟons (Pages 20 & 27): SecƟon 3.b on Page 20 dictates that resumes and job descripƟons must be aƩached in SecƟon E. SecƟon IV.D.4 (b and c) on Page 27 requires job descripƟons and qualificaƟons within the main proposal text. Please clarify if detailed narraƟve summaries belong in SecƟon D while full resumes/job descripƟons are placed in SecƟon E as page-exempt aƩachments.

What order in the aƩachments secƟon should resumes be placed and which number or leƩer?

6a. please confirm resumes and job descripƟons limited to the prime contractor and therefore not required for all proposed subcontractors. (*Page 20 states this is only for proposer key staff)

SecƟon D must include job descripƟons and minimum qualificaƟons for each posiƟon associated with the RFP in a summarized narraƟve. SecƟon E must include full resumes and job descripƟons for each posiƟon associated with the RFP. The order of resumes is at the discreƟon of the Proposer.

All resumes and job descripƟons are to be submiƩed for the Proposer’s key staff.

Resumes and job descripƟons are opƟonal for subcontractors. Adequate informaƟon about subcontractors and their services must be included to meet the evaluaƟon criteria.

7. Regarding Evidence-Based Model Documents (Page 39): Do the copies of "Proposer-created and/or evidence-based model intake, eligibility, enrollment, and assessment forms" requested on the Page 39 checklist count toward the 30-page limit, and what specific naming convenƟon (leƩer or number) should be assigned to them within SecƟon E? If intake forms are to be added as an aƩachment, in what order should it appear in the AƩachments and Appendices list for the TOC and in the file?

The Proposer-created and/or evidence-based model intake, eligibility, enrollment, and assessment forms should be included in SecƟon E (AƩachments) and do not count toward the 30-page proposal limit. The order of these documents is at the discreƟon of the Proposer; however, they should be clearly idenƟfied in the Table of Contents and labeled appropriately within the aƩachments for ease of review.

8. Regarding the ProgrammaƟc SMART Work Plan (Pages 16, 27, & 28): Pages 16 and 27 define the SMART Work Plan as an appendix that is excluded from the 30-page main proposal limit. Page 28 lists it as "item d" under SecƟon E (AƩachments). Please confirm that this document is enƟrely exempt from the 30-page cap regardless of its labeling as an aƩachment or appendix. And in what order should it appear in the AƩachments and Appendices list for the TOC and in the file?

Yes. The ProgrammaƟc SMART Work Plan is an aƩachment and is excluded from the 30-page proposal limit. It should be included in SecƟon E (AƩachments) in the order idenƟfied in the RFP on page 28. The Proposer may organize the remaining aƩachments in a logical sequence provided they are clearly labeled and referenced in the Table of Contents.

9. Regarding MOU/MOA ExecuƟon Timeline (Pages 14, 24, & 28): Are formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with subcontractors and referral partners required to be fully executed and legally binding prior to the August 31, 2026 submission deadline, or are "pending agreements/leƩers of intent" acceptable at the Ɵme of submission, with final execuƟon occurring post-award?

Pending agreements or leƩers of intent are acceptable if they specify the Proposer will enter into a formal MOU/MOA aŌer the awarding of but prior to the execuƟon of a contract.

10. Regarding Campaign Ethics Form Submission (Pages 3 & 39): SecƟon I.B.2 (Page 3) requires the OPM Ethics Form 1 to be submiƩed on the CTsource portal profile. Appendix B (Page 39) lists it on the submission checklist. Is the proposer required to aƩach a physical or PDF copy of OPM Ethics Form 1 to the final proposal email submission, or is verificaƟon on the portal profile sufficient?

The Proposer is required to aƩach a physical or PDF copy of the completed OPM Ethics Form 1 to the final proposal as an aƩachment. DPH will verify submission on the portal.

11. Regarding Naming and Layout Consistency for Assurances (Pages 2, 26, & 39): SecƟon IV (Page 26) lists the Statement of Assurances as Item H, while the Checklist (Page 39) references it as Appendix C. Please confirm that signing and aƩaching Appendix C (found on Page 40) inside SecƟon H saƟsfies both direcƟves?

Yes. Submission of the signed Statement of Assurances (Appendix C) in SecƟon H saƟsfies both the requirements outlined in SecƟon IV and the Proposal Checklist.

12. Can previous relaƟonships between agencies as subrecipients and subcontractors conƟnue if new to a proposer?

Yes, as long as those agreements – if relevant to the proposal – are included in the proposal.

13. If a prospecƟve partner/subcontractor had a service need relaƟonship with an enƟty that is not included in the Expanded Service List of agencies, would that sub-contractor be considered as a NEW site for the proposer?

Yes. The list of agencies in Appendix F are the agencies that received Part B funds and provided Part B services in the preceding five-year period.

14. Can a proposer in one region e.g.

Western, belong to the other region as a subcontracted agency?

Yes. The Proposer can provide services in the Regional Hub in which they are located and apply as the Proposer, and if the Proposer has a locaƟon in the other Regional Hub, they could be a subcontractor in that region for another Proposer.

15. A server limitaƟon of 25MB may be challenging given the volume of materials; if the server rejects a file due to size, is it acceptable to put the aƩachments and appendices in a separate PDF (this has happened historically in other RWPB applicaƟons)?

If not, can files be compressed and sent in a .zip or similar format? (examples of larger space MB items: 3 years of financial audit documents, extensive resumes, scanned signature pages, etc.)

The Proposer may submit up to two separate documents: one containing the complete response (up to 30 pages max) and the other containing all appendices, budgets, forms, etc. The Proposer may submit one document, inclusive of the complete response (maximum 30-pages), appendices, budget, and supporƟng documentaƟon that is compressed and delivered in a .ZIP or similar format that is readily accessible by the Department.

16. What consideraƟons are there for geographical reach for paƟents in the idenƟfied region. For example, is the contractor required to ensure that paƟents in each county have access to services within their geographic reach?

If so, could DPH please define what “geographical reach” parameters and detail are?

From page 15 of the RFP, “The Proposer is responsible for ensuring that all required services are delivered—either directly or through qualified subcontractors—within the selecƟon RPA (Eastern, Western, or Statewide, as applicable). The Proposer must indicate how it will provide services to the areas within the RPA if it does not have a physical presence there by providing proof of service contract agreements with potenƟal subcontractors.

The jusƟficaƟon for providing proposed services within the RPA should be based on surveillance data, needs of the Priority PopulaƟons, community mapping, needs assessments, and prior experience serving the populaƟons.”

Proposers must provide services in each COG Region within the RPA they are applying for either directly or through subcontracts.

17. Do all subcontractors need to be named in the proposal or can they be added with DPH approval within the budget allocaƟon aŌer award?

As recipient of federal funding, all Ryan White Part B services administered by DPH must be procured through an open, compeƟƟve bid process. If a Proposer is awarded a contract, the Proposer must procure any subcontractors that are not included in the current proposal through an open, compeƟƟve bid process approved by DPH.

Please refer to 2 CFR § 200.319 and 2 CFR § 200.320.

18. Based on the AID Surveillance data counts/rates by Town there are significantly more paƟents in idenƟfied in the Western part of the State to serve but the budget has been proposed equally. Any consideraƟon for distribuƟon based on populaƟon distribuƟon?

There are seven Ryan White Part C clinics in the Western Hub Region and three Ryan White Part C clinics in the Eastern Hub Region. AddiƟonally, the Ryan White Part A allocaƟon for New Haven and Fairfield (Western Hub Region) is larger than the Harƞord, Tolland, and Middlesex (Eastern Hub Region) allocaƟon. Therefore, there are already more HIV resources available in the Western Hub Region than the Eastern Hub Region. The budgets are proposed equally because the remaining need in the Western Hub Region, taking into account the greater number of exisƟng resources, is similar to the exisƟng need in the Eastern Hub Region. Ryan White Part B Funding was allocated based on epidemiological data and other available resources in that area.

FY 2025 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part C Early IntervenƟon Services (EIS) Grant Awards | Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program

FY25 Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part A Grant Awards | Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program

19. Page 13 ‘Hours of OperaƟon’ states the Proposer must provide 8-5 services and on call availability – could DPH please confirm only the prime lead proposer has this requirement and it is not passed through to subcontractors?

The 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. hours of operaƟon/services must be provided by the Proposer and all of the Proposer’s subcontractors providing services under the proposal. On-call availability must also be provided by the Proposer and all subcontractors.

20. Please confirm that expanded service funding can only be allocated in the budget to enƟƟes that have not provided RWPB funding in the last 5 years? Can any of this funding be allocated to the proposer to support training and technical assistance to this new provider?

Expanded service funding can only be allocated in the budget to enƟƟes that have not provided RWPB funding in the last 5 years (i.e., not listed in Appendix F).

Training and technical assistance are not qualified expenses to be charged to the Expanded Service funding, unless the Proposer is an organizaƟon that did not previously receive Part B funding, in which case, training and technical assistance may be charged to administraƟve and general costs.

Training and technical assistance are also available from DPH; however, Proposers should make efforts to provide training and technical assistance to the new organizaƟon prior to requesƟng this from DPH.

21. In regard to the budget spreadsheet, please confirm that subcontractor budgets will be a summary total line in “contractual” only and no (other line) details will be submiƩed for the proposal outside of Appendix E.4 Subcontractor Schedule detail. Are details for the subcontractors required to be broken out on the budget form by service area?

For proposal purposes, subcontractor costs may be presented as a summary amount under the Contractual line item on the budget form. Detailed subcontractor budget informaƟon should be provided in Appendix E.4 (Subcontractor Schedule). A separate budget breakdown by service category is not required unless specifically requested elsewhere in the RFP or by DPH during the review process.

In the addendum to the RFP, a fillable Core and Support Services budget is provided.

22. Page 21 (item 3.k.) says “all staff performing billable services”; could DPH please confirm that this applies to staff idenƟfied and working directly under the grant and not all providers/staff engaging RWPB-related billable services?

Yes. This applies to staff idenƟfied and working hours directly billable to the Ryan White Part B funded program.

23. What is allowable use for new partners of the Expanded ($500K per region) funding? And if a new provider is allowed to serve in both Eastern and Western regions, would they potenƟally be eligible for expanded funding opƟon in both?

To be eligible to qualify for Expanded Service funds, the organizaƟon must not have received Ryan White Part B funding in the preceding five years. Allowable costs from this RFP include: Core Medical Services, Support Services, Clinical Quality Management, and AdministraƟve and General costs.

If an organizaƟon that was not previously funded by Ryan White Part B has mulƟple locaƟons that can provide services in both Hubs, and they are included in a proposal for each Hub Region (for instance as Proposer in one Hub Region and as a subcontractor in the other), they would be eligible for the Expanded Service funding in both Hub Regions.

24. Partnerships- can be in collaboraƟon with previous subcontractors?

Yes, as long as the agreements with those previous subcontractors (or MOUs/MOAs for future agreements) are included in this RFP submission and the agreements will conƟnue (or, in the case of an MOU/MOA the agreements will be executed), if the Proposer is awarded a contract.

25. Proposer must provide services between 8:00 am to 5:00 pm a minimum of four (4) days per week and must be open for at least eight (8) hours per day. On-call and emergency availability must be provided during non-business hours. Hours and availability must be posted at the facility and on the Proposer's website. Does this apply solely to the proposer or subcontractors as well?

No. The Proposer and subcontractors are required to provide services 8 hours per day, and a minimum of 4 days a week and provide on-call emergency availability.

26. Are there any licensing requirements or qualificaƟons that staff must have to work as a Medical Case Manager?

Yes. Medical Case Managers must have a bachelor’s degree in a healthcare-related field. If the medical case manager does not have a diploma or credenƟals they must have related direct client service experience under supervision in alignment with the ConnecƟcut Part B Standards of Care.

Service_Standards_of_Care.pdf

27. Are there any licensing requirements or qualificaƟons that staff must have to work as a Housing Case Manager?

No. The qualificaƟons for Housing Case Managers are at the discreƟon of the Proposer.

28. Must the Proposer submit, along with the RFP, Memorandum of Understanding(s) with PotenƟal Subcontractor(s)?

Yes. Please see quesƟon 9 for addiƟonal informaƟon.

29. Can a Proposer who has received RWPB Funding in the last five years apply for the new Expanded Service funding on behalf of a Subcontractor who has not received the funding in the past?

A Proposer that has received Ryan White Part B funding in the preceding five years that chooses to include in its proposal a subcontractor that has not received Ryan White Part B funding in the preceding five years will be able to uƟlize up to $500,000 in the Expanded Service line provided that the enƟre amount is allocated to the subcontractor that did not previously receive Ryan White Part B funding.

30. Is a proposer permiƩed to apply in both capaciƟes—as a Regional Lead and as a subcontractor—under the same Regional Planning Regions?

Proposers are eligible to provide services directly or subcontract with other enƟƟes to meet the service delivery requirements. A Proposer providing services directly would not be classified as a subcontractor.

31. The RFP does not menƟon any Client Service Cap (Maximum Service Limit).

Was this intenƟonal?

Yes. The cap on each funded service is determined by the Proposer and each subcontractor. The Proposer and subcontractors must provide DPH with RWPB policies and procedures document that includes the funded service with the cap per client.

32. Must the Proposer have a physical address/office on each of the Regional Planning Regions?

Yes. The Proposer or one of its subcontractors must have a physical presence in each COG Region.

33. Can sub-contractors hire consultants/sub-contractors?

Yes. The requirements set forth in the RFP regarding subcontracƟng must be included in any further subcontractual agreements.

34. May a subcontractor charge AdministraƟve Costs to their Contractual Amount porƟon?

Yes. The overall administraƟve costs for both the subcontractor and Proposer may not exceed 10% of service costs.

35. May a Proposer to the new Expanded Service funding charge an administraƟve line cost to their contract?

Yes.

36. What organizaƟons from what towns are funded with RWPB funds now?

The 2022-2027 contractors are: Advancing ConnecƟcut Together (Harƞord), Alliance for Living (New London), APEX Community Care-Fairfield, APEX Community Care- Litchfield, City of Harƞord, Windham Regional Community Council, and Yale New Haven Hospital.

37. During the bidders’ conference Mitchell stated how much of the budget may be allocated for CQM, admin and general expenses, Core, and Support Services, etc. along with not to exceed requirements. Would you please state those again?

An addendum to the RFP was posted on August 12, 2026. The Project TLC Statewide Coordinator proposal is exempt from the 75% core medical service requirement as its primary funcƟon is to provide non-medical case management, which is a support service.

For the Eastern and Western Hub proposals: At least 75% of direct service dollars must be allocated to Core Medical Services, no more than 25% of direct service dollars may be allocated to Support Services. AdministraƟve and general costs are capped at 10% of direct service dollars. Clinical Quality Management costs are capped at 5% of direct service dollars.

Example: A Proposer submits a budget of $100,000. Their budget breakdown is as follows:

$65,300 for Core Medical Services $21,750 for Support Services $4,350 for Clinical Quality Management $8,600 for Admin and General

In this example, the total direct service dollars are $87,050 (Core + Support).

Core Medical Services are $65,300 of the total $87,050 direct service costs. This is 75.0% of the direct service dollars and is in compliance with the 75% requirement.

Proposers may submit budgets that allocate up to 100% of service dollars to Core Medical Services.

Support services are $21,750 of the total $87,050 direct service costs. This is 25.0% of the direct service dollars and is in compliance with the 25% requirement.

Proposers may submit budgets that allocate amounts up to (i.e., less than, or equal

to) 25% of service dollars to Support Services.

In this example, Clinical Quality Management may not exceed 5% of $87,050, making the maximum allowable amount $4,352.50. The Proposer submiƩed Clinical Quality Management charges of $4,350, which is under the allowable cap. This is acceptable.

In this example, AdministraƟve and General costs may not exceed 10% of $87,050, making the maximum allowable amount $8,705. The Proposer submiƩed AdministraƟve and General costs of $8,600, which is under the allowable cap. This is acceptable.

The total budget submiƩed balances to $100,000. Budgets must be balanced and every dollar must be accounted for.

38. Please list who aƩended the Bidders’ conference and what organizaƟon they are with.

The aƩendees for the RWPB RFP 2027-0905 Bidders Conference are:

Marianne Buchelli (DPH), Dulce Dones-Mendez (DPH), Africka Hinds (DPH), Vernette Moona-Ellis (DPH), Mitchell Namias (DPH), Christine Romanik (DPH), Denese Smith (DPH), Melinda Vazquez-Yopp (DPH).

Zain Abideen (Divine Strategic Solutions), Tom Alfano (Advancing CT Together), Karim Ba (Optimus Health Center), Lewis Beilman (Cornell Scott-Hill Health Center), Mariliz Beltran (WRCC/ Windham AIDS Program), Christine Bianchi (Staywell Health Center), Eileen Blake (Yale New Haven Health), Belinda Clark (WRCC/ Windham AIDS Program), Chris Cole (A Place to Nourish Your Health), Joan Cruz (Optimus Health Center), Serena Evans (Alliance for Living), Clunie Figaro (Southwest Community Health Center), Jennifer Gran (Alliance for Living), Kasey Harding (Community Health Center, Inc), Tiyana Hock (Alliance for Living), Sabrena John (Cornell Scott-Hill Health Center), Chloe Johnson (Yale New Haven Health), Erika Mott (Advancing CT Together), Elin Nilsen (Yale New Haven Health), Renee Osborne (Yale New Haven Health), Delita Rose-Daniels (City of Hartford), Ruby Rios (Advancing CT Together), Frank Silva (Alliance For Living), Sharian Singh (Windham Regional Community Center), Sofia Swaby (Apex Community Cares), Rose Swift (Cornell Scott-Hill Health Center), Kelly Thompson (Alliance for Living), Megan Tibbetts (Alliance for Living), Michael Virata (Yale New Haven Health), and read.ai meeting notes (added by J.

Cruz).

39. Can the state also provide the average monthly case load for the Statewide TLC Coordinator.

The State does not have an average monthly caseload number, but last year the Statewide TLC Program served 78 clients, each of which was involved in the program for no longer than 90 days.