RFP_23-20-008_QA_Final.pdf

RFP # 23-20-08 Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) Subrecipient Compliance Assessments

Questions & Answers

Q1. Regarding the prior RFP for similar services, RFP #22-20-003, will you please provide the following:

a. Name of successful contractor.

b. Amount of contract award.

A1: a. Witt O’Brien’s, LLC; b. $524,800.00

Q2: Is the successful contractor from RFP #22-20-003 eligible to bid on Round Two RFP #23-20-008 ERAP Subrecipient Compliance Assessments?

A2: There are not any limitations on who can submit a proposal since this is not a follow-on contract.

Q3: Will you please provide a list of the vendors who submitted questions for RFP

#23-20-008?

A3: HCD is not required to identify vendors who submit questions about solicitations as part of the bidding process. However, proposers and other members of the public may request records of questions and other vendor communications with HCD by making a Public Records Act request through the PRA Portal on HCD’s Public Records Requests webpage (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/contact-us/public-records-requests) or one of the other methods of submitting a PRA request that are specified on that webpage. Please note that HCD does not maintain, and the Public Records Act does not require HCD to compile, a record that is a list of vendors who submitted questions for this RFP.

Q4: RFP Section 4.B.2 indicates each team member (other than key personnel) must have at least two years of accumulative experience within the past five years.

Does this mean that no one with less than two years’ experience may work on any portion of the engagement, including administrative and support personnel?

A4: Experience requirements refer to staff who will be directly engaging in the compliance review work and who will be participating in meetings, interviews, or other direct communications with subgrant recipients.

These requirements do not extend to administrative and support personnel who are not directly contributing to the compliance reviews or participating in meetings or interviews with subgrant recipients.

Q5: Given the complexity of the RFP and scope of services, would the Department be willing to grant an extension of the final date for proposal submission in order to provide 10 business days between the date that responses to written questions are posted and the final date for submission? For example, if responses are posted May 3, 2024, would the Department be willing to move the final date for submission to May 17, 2024?

A5: We moved the final date for proposal submission to May 17, 2024. Please see Addendum 1.

Q6: What is the maximum budget for this engagement?

A6: The budget allotted for this contract is based on the cost proposals received.

Q7: Will the Department please provide a list of subrecipients that received funding?

A7: The list of subrecipients can be found here:

Option A:

Contra Costa County City of Fontana City of Los Angeles Los Angeles County City of Modesto City of Oxnard San Bernardino County City of San Jose San Luis Obispo County San Mateo County Santa Clara County Santa Cruz County Ventura County Yolo County

Option B:

Alameda County City of Anaheim City of Bakersfield City of Chula Vista City of Fremont City of Fresno Kern County City of Long Beach Marin County Monterey County City of Moreno Valley City of Oakland City of Riverside Riverside County City of Sacramento Sacramento County City of San Bernardino City of San Diego County of San Diego City of Santa Ana Santa Barbara County Sonoma County City of Stockton

Q8: Based on the Department’s experience during Round One of the compliance assessments, how much time was required for Option A and Option B awardees’ compliance reviews?

A8: Time varied substantially dependent on the size of the local program, how closely the local program followed state guidelines, and whether or not the local program operators were regular and consistent with program reporting, among other factors. HCD does not have reliable estimates or averages for the amount of time required to complete the Round One compliance assessments.

Q9: Are the subrecipients subject to a single audit including the compliance supplement?

A9: While most subrecipients are likely subject to single audit requirements, HCD does not track single audit compliance for jurisdictions that receive direct federal assistance and do not regularly receive federal passthrough funding from the state. It will be up to the compliance review team to determine if a given subrecipient is subject to single audit and whether that requirement was adequately met.

Q10: Could HCD provide clarification on onsite reviews based on risk and what that would entail?

A10: As per the Specifications and Detailed Description of Work, the contractor will prepare a risk assessment that identifies the risk of federal non-compliance for each subrecipient. The contractor will identify which subrecipients, based on the level of federal non-compliance risk, would potentially benefit from an onsite compliance review and propose that list to HCD for review. HCD may identify additional subrecipients or different subrecipients that based on program information may also or alternatively benefit from an onsite review. Onsite reviews should be somewhat customized to address the highest risk factors identified in the respective risk assessment.

Q11: What is the budget allocated for this project? (same as Q6)

A11: See response to Question 6.

Q12: HCD notes that the Assessment Plan and Risk Assessment deliverables will identify the contractors approach and assumptions for "performing sample set documentation reviews, whether it be 1% or 100%, "by hand". " Given this range in sampling can result in a significant difference in the level of effort and cost to perform subsequent Compliance Reviews (Task 3) and Assessments (Task 4), would HCD accept that costs provided in the Cost Proposal for these tasks assume a certain volume?

A12: Program will accept assumptions in the cost proposal. Also, see the list of

Option A and B subrecipients in response to question 7.

Q13: Did each of the 37 subrecipients to be assessed as part of this RFP collect applicant questions, data and information in a standardized format, or was applicant information collected differently based on each subrecipient’s specific processes?

A13: Option A subrecipients participated in the California COVID-19 Rent Relief

Program operated through HCD. Application intake for those subrecipients was managed through the state program and was not managed or determined by the Option A subrecipients and as a result will not be part of this compliance review. Option A subrecipients did receive funds to support program engagement, outreach, marketing, and additional eligible activities, and those activities are part of this compliance review. Option B subrecipients did manage application intake as well as administration and all aspects of the respective local program operations are subject to compliance review. In the Option B subrecipient programs, data reporting was standardized. However, intake and management was not and may vary based on the processes and systems used, and the local program priorities implemented.

Q14: Does the data collected by the state/and or subrecipients for the 45,000 applicants reside in a machine readable format?

A14: HCD cannot guarantee the format of the data collected and managed by subrecipients.

Q15: Can the state provide more details on the document types and format collected as part of the ERAP program?

A14: Please see the program guidelines posted on the HCD website for a non-inclusive list of document types, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/erap/docs/State-Rental-Assistance-Program- General-Info-and-Guidance-to-Web.pdf and https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/ERAP-Guidelines- Addendum.pdf. Allowable document formats vary, but expectations should include all common file types, including but not limited to, pdf, gif, jpg, png, tif, xls, doc, xlsx, docx, and any other file types supported by scanners, printers, digital cameras, and mobile equipment.

Q15: Upon review of the RFP we noted that it does not include a limitation of liability (LOL) provision.

We request your consideration of a LOL provision. Large firms or partnerships are particularly disadvantaged by not having an LOL provision and therefore there are unintended consequences of limiting competition based on size or https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/erap/docs/State-Rental-Assistance-Program-General-Info-and-Guidance-to-Web.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/erap/docs/State-Rental-Assistance-Program-General-Info-and-Guidance-to-Web.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/erap/docs/State-Rental-Assistance-Program-General-Info-and-Guidance-to-Web.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/ERAP-Guidelines-Addendum.pdf https://www.hcd.ca.gov/docs/grants-and-funding/ERAP-Guidelines-Addendum.pdf corporate structure. LOL provisions are common in the industry. The basic principle of an LOL is to cap a contractor’s liability commensurate with the fees to be paid. The clause allows the parties to equitably assess the risks relevant to the particular project, and its inclusion is beneficial to the State as well as to businesses, both large and small. First, an LOL allows a business to evaluate risk and potentially take on more risk than normal because there is some contractual relief available. Second, when an appropriate LOL is negotiated, the State maintains a level of comfort with respect to potential liability that may exist relative to the project. Third, inclusion of an LOL helps promote competition as the pool of offerors will likely increase when potential liability is capped proportional to the project. Thus, the use of an LOL helps protect the State’s interests in obtaining a best value while encouraging greater participation by small and large businesses to share in the project’s associated risks. Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request your consideration of a Limitation of Liability provision.

A15: We are not accepting deviations from our state terms and conditions.