RAISE Response to Questions.doc

Response to questions

1.

Is a draft ISSP plan needed from the offeror and each subsite with the submission of the offer or can the plan be submitted later on?

No , a draft ISSP is not needed for each subcontractor unless the following apply.

(1) develop Federal Information systems(s) at the offerors/subcontractor’s facility or (2) host and /or maintain a Federal Information system(s) at the offerors/subcontractor’s facility.

2.

Does each site have to submit their own statement of work with the packet of information they send me to include in the offer?

Each Subcontractor should submit a proposal to you based on the SOW that is in the RFP. See page 81 of the RFP which details what should be included.

3.

Can you please tell me what is meant by "Cognizant Field Audit Office," and how the sites can determine which their Cognizant Field Audit Office is?

A Cognizant Field Audit Office a Government agency that performs an audit on your business such as DCAA . Defense Contractors Auditing Agency.

http://www.dcaa.mil/ 4.

I entered a 3% increase in the Labor spreadsheet. It is calculating the 3% for individuals who are at the salary cap. Is that acceptable? If not, do I have to manually go in and change the formula for each year? I can't see any other way to do it.

You cannot exceed the salary rate limitation of $191,300. (Executive Level) See (ARTICLE H.16) pg 22 of the RFP.

5.

Can you also please let me know if original signatures are needed on all signed documents from subsites?

Copies will be accepted.

6.

Do you need an Annual Report from each subsite, or only one from the Primary site?

It is the primary’s responsibility to provide the Annual Financial Report.

7.

Also, does the application packet have to be paginated?

For review purpose, your proposal should be paginated and use tab dividers to help the reviewer find the material.

8.

Do the subcontractors have to submit the Information Technology Systems Security Prospective Offeror Non-Disclosure Agreement or is that only for the primary site to submit?

The primary site is responsible for the submission of the Non-Disclosure Agreement but it is the primary’s responsibility to make sure that their Subcontractors are also following the same per flow down clauses in the subcontracting agreement.

9.

Can we use 1/1/09 as the start date or should we use 12/24/08?

No, this is to be awarded on 12/24/08.

10.

Is it ok to hand deliver the proposal? If so, any contingencies I should know about?

Yes, you can hand deliver your proposal to me.

Address is 6001 Executive Blvd, Bethesda, MD.

Room 8154

You will need to check in with the front security desk and have them contact me at (301)443-6427.

Note: Proposals must be submitted by 3:00 PM Local time on August 4, 2008. If your proposal is not received by the Contracting Officer or his designee at the place and time specified for the office of acquisitions. Then it will be considered late and handled in accordance with HHSAR Clause 352.215-70. Entitled, “Late Proposals, and Revisions” Located in Section L.1. of the Solicitation.

11.

We have been planning the delivery of our proposal for RAISE. The deadline, Monday August 4th, causes a problem with the delivery service (re. over the weekend pick-up insecurities). Is it possible that the deadline could be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday? Thank you for considering our question.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to extend the delivery date. We are working within a very tight schedule.

12.

Article H.20 (pg 26) refers to the Earned Value Management System. We are not familiar with this and are wondering if you can provide some guidance or suggest where we may learn more about what it is?

See FAR 34.201 See OMB Circular a-11, Part 7.

13.

Some of the subsites are extremely concerned because they do not have ISSP plans at their institutions. Is it absolutely necessary to submit this document for each subsite with the offer? Would we be able to submit one ISSP plan that could be adapted at each subsite if our offer is accepted?

See answer (1)

14.

The questions submitted by this potential offeror are interrelated.

On page 88 of the contract pdf document and also on page 6 of the

SOW, the following text appears:

The offeror must also "provide evidence that a service delivery system provider has agreed to be a partner and participate in the

Phase 1 intervention refinement process and/or the Phase 2 feasibility study."

My Grants and Contracts officers are so far construing "evidence of agreement" to mean a letter of intent, signed by an institutional official. Would that be NIH's position? A letter of interest signed by a proposed collaborator is not adequate?

Secondly, my interpretation of this sentence is that the evidence of agreement requirement specifically does not apply to service delivery partners who are planning to participate in Phase 3. Is my interpretation correct? And this would explain why budgets submitted for Phase 3 are cost "estimates?" (also SOW p 6)

Thirdly, the requirement for evidence of agreement says for Phase 1 and/or Phase 2. Does this mean that evidence of agreement is not required for Phase 2, but may be provided at the offeror's option?

If the intervention to be tested for feasibility needs refinement, it might make sense not to ask for an institutional letter of intent for

Phase 2 until it is clear exactly what the service delivery partner is being asked to do (i.e. post Phase 1 refinement), thus at the offeror's option.

Lastly, does the requirement for evidence of agreement, apart from the phase issue, apply not just to service delivery partners but also to any academic personnel who are not from the offeror's institution and are not consultants and who would therefore require subcontracts to be put into place?

RESPONSE:

A response to the RFP is expected to include some letter of intent from service delivery partner(s), certainly for Phase 1. It would be best if such a letter were also signed by an ‘institutional official,” i.e., someone who represents the participant institution.

Because of the way the contract is structured, Phase 1 may result in refinements to the intervention. It is possible that following these modifications, the original service delivery partner may no longer be relevant for Phase 2. Thus, the letter of intent should allow for this possibility and therefore not be worded as a binding contract. Similarly, the results of the Phase 2 feasibility study may result in additional refinements to the intervention, which may necessitate a change in partners for the Phase 3 RCT.

If the offeror has a reasonable idea of the partner necessary for Phase 2, then it would be acceptable to provide a letter of intent for both Phases 1 and 2, with the same caveats as above. It would also be acceptable to propose that the letter of intent for Phase 2 be presented at the close of Phase 1.

Budgets submitted for Phases 2 and 3 are estimates for the same reasons stated above. That is, the result of each preceding phase may alter what will be undertaken in subsequent phases, possibly resulting in a modified budget. Therefore, the budgets that are proposed with the initial offer should reflect the costs of the proposal being submitted by the offeror, and will be considered as estimates, reflecting both the costs of what is being proposed as well as the offeror’s cost efficiency planning. Furthermore, the offeror should note that it is possible that more than one award may be made for Phase 1 or Phase 1 and 2, but that it is unlikely that NIMH will make more than one award for Phase 3.