AMENDMENT TWO - Responses to Questions.pdf
PDF 169 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- NIH-NIMHD-OSPLSP-2021-6
About this file
This document provides responses to questions from offerors regarding solicitation number NIH-NIMHD-OSPLSP-2021-6 from the Department of Health and Human Services National Institutes of Health National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The solicitation seeks estimates of the economic burden of health disparities. One question concerned the provided file naming convention for proposals, to which the response confirmed the example naming should be followed. Another question addressed a statement in the technical evaluation criteria referring to website development, which the response indicated was included in error as website development is not required.
View the file
Other files
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
AMENDMENT TWO
“Estimates of the Economic Burden of Health Disparities”
Remaining Responses to Questions from RFQ-NIH-NIMHD-OSPLSP-2021-6
This amendment is hereby released to provide additional responses to questions received in response to the subject solicitation after the question due date of 11:00 am January 14, 2021. In the following document, the Government provides the answers to each question that was received. No further questions will be accepted in regards to this solicitation.
BUSINESS and TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
1. Section L, p. 26 provides a file naming convention for the Technical and Business volumes. Could the government please confirm “XYZ Company_NIHAI2012001_Technical.pdf” and the business volume equivalent filename reference numbering that does not seem to correspond with the RFP number or other references elsewhere in the proposal. Could the government confirm this is the correct filename to use, lest this inadvertently overlap with a different solicitation.
The provided file name convention serves as an example and in no way associates with the RFP number in the document. Offerors should follow that naming convention example when submitting their proposals.
2. Section M, Technical Evaluation Factors, Factor 1: Personnel Experience (bottom p. 31), includes a Project Manager description that states “Government prefers a Project Manager with 8 years of relevant experience in overseeing the development of websites for federal and commercial customers.” As the scope of work does not appear to require website development, could the government please confirm whether this may have been inadvertently included?
The Government does not anticipate the development of websites. This statement was in error.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .