Response to Offeror Questions document.pdf
PDF 58 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 25RFP-25-0920500-026
- Issued by
- South Dakota
About this file
This document is a "Response to Offeror Questions" related to the South Dakota Board of Medical & Osteopathic Examiners' (SDBMOE) Request for Proposal (RFP) for evaluating the Health Professional Assistance Program (HPAP). The RFP seeks a consultant to conduct a comprehensive strategic analysis of the HPAP, which assists regulated health professionals struggling with mental health or substance use issues. The contract is anticipated to be one year with potential extension, and while no specific due date is mentioned in this document, the related opportunity summary indicates proposals are due by August 1, 2025, at 5 pm CDT. The evaluation will focus on assessing the program's current procedures, processes, and effectiveness, with the goal of identifying best practices and potential improvements.
The document reveals that no established budget range has been predetermined, with responses indicating the evaluation should remain within a "fiscally responsible range." The program currently has 15 participants over the past 5 years and was originally based on models from Iowa and Minnesota. De-identified participant data and outcomes will be available, though the focus is on evaluating procedures rather than participant-specific information. The SDBMOE is open to comparing their program with other state models and will make board staff available for interviews about current procedures and processes. A previous evaluation was conducted by an outside agency, which considered wellness program criteria, though the board may not have agreed with all conclusions from that assessment.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RFP Document.pdf | ||
| RFP Document.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
1. What administrative and monitoring datasets are currently available for evaluation purposes (e.g., participant-level data, relapse history, treatment documentation, drug screening results, monitoring compliance)?
o Although this is an evaluation of the procedures and processes rather than participation specific data, deidentified participant numbers and outcomes will be available.
2. Will the evaluation team have access to historical data from before the transition to the in-house HPAP model?
o This data is not available as it was not provided prior to the in-house transition.
3. How should we approach identifying and recruiting HPAP participants for qualitative interviews? Specifically, is the evaluation team permitted to engage individuals currently under monitoring, or should recruitment focus only on those who have completed the program?
o This is an evaluation of the procedures and processes rather than participation specific data. Interviews are not part of this confidential program for those currently under monitoring and those who completed.
4. Are there particular state HPAP or Physician Health Program (PHP) models that SDBMOE considers aspirational or especially relevant for comparison?
o The current program was based upon the programs in Iowa and Minnesota. We would like to see procedures and processes as well as other options being used by other states to see what the best practices will look like going forward.
5. Can you confirm whether there is an expected budget range for this evaluation?
o No, this has not been discussed but should remain in the fiscally responsible range.
6. Please clarify what the "Invitation only" designation means for this RFP? How are invitations provided?
o Ther is no invitation required, this RFP is open to any entity that would like to submit a proposal.
7. How many participants over the past 5 years were enrolled in the SD Health Professionals Assistance Program (HPAP)?
o 15 participants within the last 5 years.
8. The project timeline indicates one year - will it be possible to extend that timeframe if no additional funding is required - that is, a no-cost extension?
o Length of contract is anticipated to be 1 year with the opportunity to extend if deemed necessary and reasonable.
9. Are any in-person meetings or presentations required?
o Possibly to present the findings of the evaluation but more likely it would a report style response to the evaluation.
10. Is there an established budget or maximum dollar amount set aside for this scope of work?
o No, this has not been discussed but should remain in the fiscally responsible range.
11. Has the current or previous HPAP been evaluated before? And if so, when and who led the evaluation?
o Yes, an evaluation was produced by an outside agency who considered wellness program criteria rather than only monitoring program criteria. The Board may not agree with any conclusion reached by the evaluation
12. Are de-identified case files and outcome data readily accessible to the evaluator to support analysis of program effectiveness?
o Although this is an evaluation of the procedures and processes rather than participation specific data, deidentified participant numbers and outcomes will be available.
13. Is there a current or former staff member with historical knowledge of SDBMOE HPAP operations, structure, and oversight changes who could be interviewed to support the evaluation?
o Yes, Board staff can be made available to be interviewed on current procedures and processes.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .