Response to Offeror Questions document.docx

DOCX document 18 KB Posted

Attached to
Div of Long Term Services & Supports-State Plan on Aging
Solicitation number
24RFP9821
Issued by
Harding County, South Dakota

About this file

This document is a Response to Offeror Questions related to RFP #24RFP9821 issued by the South Dakota Department of Human Services (DHS) Division of Long Term Services & Supports (LTSS) for the development of the 2025-2029 South Dakota State Plan on Aging. The RFP seeks an experienced agency to work collaboratively with LTSS on this effort. Questions were due by February 8, 2024, and responses should be emailed to Katelyn Szuggar at Katelyn.Szuggar@state.sd.us. There is no estimated budget, and DHS is looking for competitive cost proposals. The State Plan is required to address data related to programs funded through the Older Americans Act, and the offeror is expected to complete certain attachments for review by DHS. The contract may be renewed for one additional year after the initial term.

There is no specific budget appropriation for this project, and DHS anticipates using its existing budget. The offeror is expected to conduct a needs assessment with diverse stakeholders, which may require on-site work in South Dakota, while the rest of the work can be done virtually. DHS may provide additional data sources to the selected offeror to assist with the market analysis and needs assessment.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
RFP Document.pdf PDF

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

Response to Questions

RFP 24RFP9821

1) What is the estimated budget limit or budget range for this project?

There is not an estimated budget at this time. DHS is looking forward to competitive cost proposals.

2) Please confirm the due date for questions from bidders.

The due date for questions was February 8, 2024.

3) Please confirm the recipient(s) to whom we should send our RFP response.

Please send responses to Katelyn.Szuggar@state.sd.us

4) Is Google Drive an acceptable method of submitting electronic proposals for submission?

If DHS has an established working relationship with an entity, Google Drive can be accepted as a trusted method to submit proposals for this RFP.

5) Would the State please share their source of funding?

At this time, DHS anticipates using the existing budget.

6) Did the State contract with a vendor to develop its prior State Plan on Aging (2021-2025)? If yes, who is the vendor and what is their total contract value?

DHS did not contract with a vendor for the 2021-2025 State Plan on Aging.

7) Does the State expect the vendor to perform focus groups, town hall discussions, or meetings with individual stakeholder groups? If yes, please quantify the number of stakeholder meeting sessions.

Yes, individual stakeholder meetings would be necessary. However, the number of sessions would depend on offeror’s advice and how the groups could potentially be combined. Cost proposals may be itemized to account for a range of stakeholder meetings.

8) What program data is the vendor expected to analyze?

As noted in the ACL document “Guidance for Developing State Plans on Aging,” the State Plan is required to address data related to programs funded through the Older Americans Act. Those programs would include: Supportive Services, ADRC, Caregiver Services, Nutrition, Native American Programs, Disease Prevention/Health Promotion, Elder Rights Programs, Respite, Adult Day, Transportation, SHIINE, Long Term Care Ombudsman, Adult Protective Services, Legal Assistance, and others that may bring value to the South Dakota State Plan on Aging.

9) Is the vendor expected to complete State Plan components “Attachment A – State Plan Assurances and Required Activities”, “Attachment B – Information Requirements”, and “Attachment C – IFF Requirements”?

Yes, the offeror should plan to complete those attachments for review by DHS.

10) What scope of work is expected to be performed by the offeror in FY2026 after the State Plan is approved by ACL in or around September 2025?

There is no anticipated work expected but in the event that DHS or ACL had further questions or require technical assistance related to implementation of the State Plan on Aging, the length of the contract in the RFP included an option to mutually agree to renew the contract for one additional year.

11) How much has the Legislature appropriated for this effort?

At this time, DHS anticipates using the existing budget.

12) Have funds for both FY2025 and FY2026 been authorized?

At this time, DHS anticipates using the existing budget.

13) If funds were not specifically appropriated, is there a budget estimate for the project?

There is not a budget estimate at this time. DHS is looking forward to competitive cost proposals.

14) What percentage of work product does LTSS expect the offeror to be onsite in South Dakota?

Outside of the needs assessment, the work can be done virtually. For the needs assessment, offeror should explain the proposed methods to conducting it to ensure a diverse and sufficient sample size of consumers and other stakeholders.

15) Are there other sources of data from DHS surveys or state plans (Alzheimer’s, NPA Program, 24-1900-025 contract, etc.) to be analyzed as part of the market analysis or needs assessment?

There may be additional sources of data to review based on information from DHS and stakeholder feedback as well as based on offer’s advice to create an effective, comprehensive State Plan on Aging.

16) If the proposal is only electronic is an index of contents sufficient to meet the requirement of “tabbed with labels”?

Yes, that is the intended expectation.

17) Does the South Dakota Division of Long Term Services and Supports have separate regions throughout the state?

LTSS has different regions based on case management, ombudsman, adult protective services, etc. There are 6-7 regions per discipline.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .