Q_and_A_PTRFP_8819.pdf

RFP for Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation Evaluation Questions and Answers

1. In the RFP, the sample contract is blank. Which specific PT sample contract is it referring to?

Answer: The sample Professional/Technical (PT) Contract (PT302) will be posted to the SWIFT site.

2. In the RFP we noticed there are page counts for certain proposal requirements but not for others. Is there a page limit?

Answer: As identified in the RFP, the Statement of Understanding must not exceed 2 pages, and the

Relevant Responder Experience must not exceed 5 pages, not including resumes. For sections that do not list a page limit, Responders should fully address all areas required but be concise in their responses.

There is not a page limit for the proposal.

3. Can resumes be included as an appendix to the Technical Proposal?

Answer: Yes

4. Are there any formatting requirements we should follow? Curious about text spacing, margins, etc.

Answer: There is no required formatting. The STATE recommends using accessible font and formatting.

5. Regarding the data in the current data base, is that provided by the providers? Or is there data in the system by young people and families? For the anticipated primary data collection (Task 2.2Aa), do you have a preference for gathering input from providers, parents/caregivers of young people served by those providers, or both?

Answer: Currently, the data is from consultants and participants who are engaged in administrative or direct work with young children and families. The STATE has not historically collected child-specific data or input from parents/guardians.

6. Our current understanding is that data is not collected at the child level. That poses challenges to measuring changes in race-related disparities. Could DHS please provide more info on their interest in this - and if it would be strong enough to start collecting child-specific data?

Answer: Yes, race-related disparities is an area of importance for our system. At this point, our STATE consultation system does not plan to collect individual child-specific data; however, the STATE will consider with the selected responder, site, school, community, or county-related data that would aid in this measurement.

7. What is your level of interest in collecting data about/from consultants?

Answer: Our STATE system has been periodically collecting data from/about our consultants and their training experiences and we would continue this practice with the selected responder.

8. The RFP states that data should be pulled 4 separate times. Is this the classroom level data? Or is this referring to other data from the data base? Does it include demographic data? Can you specify any of the data points will be available through the state data system?

Answer: Data is being collected continuously from consultants and participants. The Responder analyzes the data every six months or on a schedule determined by STATE. The data collected has primarily included: frequency, length, and type of consultation and training sessions; CHILD observation results;

survey responses (i.e. PERM and MBI); and limited demographic data. Classroom level data includes results from the CHILD observation. Most of the data is housed in the Develop and/or Agile Apps systems. The Responder and the STATE will co-create a research design that may include the collection of additional data.

9. For the 4 measures that are listed in the RFP (CHILD, burn-out scale, preschool expulsion risk measure, satisfaction survey) - are they available for all programs/classrooms that receive ECMH consultation?

Answer: The current research design includes the CHILD, MBI and PERM at the start and end of consultation for those sites engaged in child care classroom-based consultation. When classroom-based consultation is not the focus (e.g. FFN, directors or other EC providers), the CHILD would not be used and the MBI and/or PERM would be offered depending on a participant’s role. As noted in the

Responder’s Conference, the STATE system has had some difficulty collecting data and the STATE will co-create the future design with the selected responder. Satisfaction surveys are provided to all participants annually or at the end of consultation.

10. For those measures identified, do you know how often they are collected by the consultants?

Answer: Data is being collected continuously from consultants and participants. Our current design includes CHILD observation, PERM, and MBI collection pre and post consultation. Satisfaction surveys are provided to all participants annually or at the end of consultation.

11. For the consultative system, do the consultants only work with educators? Or with program directors or administrators?

Answer: Consultation is provided to those directly and indirectly providing early childhood services. This includes program directors, administrators, and educators.

12. It notes in the RPF that we will be evaluating data that is quantitative and qualitative – curious about the qualitative data – and if there are any controls. To what extent does the current data system include qualitative data, and have any of the qualitative data been coded? Would existing qualitative data in the system be pulled and analyzed by the vendor or only the quantitative data?

Answer: Currently, the qualitative data has been collected through satisfaction surveys and interviews.

The research design has not involved a control group. The satisfaction surveys and interviews have thus far have been reviewed an analyzed by our current evaluators. The selected responder would be asked to analyze qualitative and quantitative data going forward.

13. What is your level of interest or openness to new approaches in the evaluation?

Answer: The STATE is open to new approaches of data collection and measuring the impact of mental health consultation. Responders are encouraged to propose other measures or tools for consideration, or other methods of data collection, and address data collection complexities.

14. To what extent would you like the responder to be directly involved in data collection?

Answer: The cost proposal includes a line item to develop and implement data collection methods. The

STATE seeks the Responder’s support in collection and monitoring of data. The STATE recognizes that funding may limit the extent to which an evaluator may be involved in the data collection.

15. Have there been any other external evaluations of the ECMH system, and who conducted those evaluations?

Answer: Yes, since July 1, 2019, there has been ongoing evaluation conducted by The Improve Group.

16. For the cost proposal, should we budget for the 2-year period or submit separate budgets for each year? Or provide costs for all 5 years?

Answer: The cost proposal should include separate budgets for the 2-year period.

17. The budget you’d like to see for two years, do you want the work plan to cover just the two years?

Answer: Yes, the work plan only needs to cover the two years.

18. Is it required to include all proposed personnel by name in the budget, or can respondents also designate personnel by their role or level?

Answer: The role or level of the personnel is sufficient.

19. My organization has a federally negotiated indirect cost rate that they must apply absent notice of a cap or limitation on indirect costs. Does this project have a cap or limitation of indirect costs?

Answer: The STATE will accept the federal rate but must be included in the total cost and cannot exceed the total cost.

20. Page 7 of the RFP states that “No change in the successful Responder’s personnel assigned to this project will be permitted without the prior approval of the State Program Manager.” What is the process and/or typical timeframe to approve additional staffing?

Answer: Please provide advanced written notice to the STATE grant manager via email at least 1 week prior to the change.

21. Do you hope and plan to publish and would that step be part of 3+ years and beyond? Or do we hope to work on publications?

Answer: The STATE does not want the goal of publishing findings to drive the evaluation work. The

STATE is interested in sharing our work, which could mean publication. All materials submitted for publication must written in collaboration with the STATE.

22. In terms of reports, requested every 6 months. Would these be external facing or internal for the

STATE to use? Who are the desired audiences for reports? How would the State like to use reports? Is a report due every six months from the start of the project or from the start of data collection/reception?

Answer: The STATE uses State and Federal funds, thus reports are public information (i.e. external facing). The STATE reserves the right to share the data. The STATE may use reports for legislative purposes and to inform and collaborate with others including state and community partners, consultation participants, EC service providers, and funders. From the start of the executed contract, the successful responder will pull and analyze the data every six months or on a schedule determined by

STATE and inform STATE of data integrity issues immediately.

23. The proposal states “The Successful Responder will attend Early Childhood Mental Health evaluation-related STATE identified meetings or trainings (e.g. advisory committee; trainings around data collection and/or outcomes; system strategic planning).” Are these meetings held virtually and can they be attended by a remote successful responder? Is the number and frequency of meetings known?

Answer: These meetings are typically held virtually, and the successful responder would be expected to attend virtually. The number and frequency of these meeting is undermined but would not exceed 1 meeting per quarter.

24. The Cost exhibit has six tasks but the SOW has seven (the cost proposal combined SOW tasks D and F).

Please confirm which task list should be used for the cost proposal.

Answer: Responders may either include 2.2 Tasks and Deliverables Items D and F into Task #4 in the Cost

Proposal, or they may add an additional line in the Cost Proposal to have a total of 7 tasks.

*Please note: questions of similar nature or content were combined.