RFP# 23RFP8611 – Written Questions and Answers-Final.pdf
PDF 83 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 23RFP8611
- Issued by
- Harding County, South Dakota
About this file
This document is a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the South Dakota Department of Legislative Audit on behalf of the South Dakota Legislature. The purpose of this RFP is to establish a contract with a consultant qualified in analyzing the current programs available in South Dakota for people with intellectual/developmental disabilities (I/DD), including the Family Support 360 Medicaid waiver program and the Shared Living component of the CHOICES Medicaid waiver program. The RFP provides clarification on submitting the Cost Proposal, the definition of "currently providing services" to the Department of Human Services (DHS) or the Department of Social Services (DSS), and the requirements for the point-by-point response in the Detailed Response section of the proposal.
The RFP states that the Cost Proposal can be submitted as appendices to the Response Document and will be evaluated independently from the technical proposal. The RFP also clarifies that a firm with a current active contract and providing services to DHS or DSS related to the subject matter of the RFP would not be considered, but a firm with the ability and staff to ensure an independent evaluation could still submit a proposal. The point-by-point response in the Detailed Response should address the scope requirements listed in the RFP, as well as the seven evaluation criteria outlined in the document.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RFP Family 360 - Shared Living Final.doc | DOC document |
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
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Department of Legislative Audit - Auditor General
Study Concerning the Family Support 360 and Shared Living Programs 427 South Chapelle
Pierre, SD 57501
RFP# 23RFP8611 – Written Questions and Answers
#1. – The proposal indicates that costs will be evaluated independently from the technical proposal. Should the Cost Proposal be submitted as a separate document or within the Response Document?
The Cost Proposals “will be evaluated independently from the technical proposal” (paragraph 5.2.4), Section 7.0 COST PROPOSAL and can be submitted as appendices to the Response Document and not counted as within the thirty (30) page limit.
#2. – As noted in the solicitation, the Legislature is seeking an independent evaluation and that vendors “currently providing services to DHS or DSS” will not be considered. Can you please clarify how “currently providing services” is defined? Is a vendor only disqualified if they have an active contract with DHS or DSS or would a vendor who provided services in the last year and may provide services in the near future to DHS or DSS also be disqualified?
The intent of the RFP request is to have an independent evaluation of the Family 360 and Shared Living programs.
Section 3.0 states “Currently providing services to DHS or DSS”, as such, a firm that has a current active contract and is providing services to DHS or DSS as it relates to the subject matter of the RFP, the Family 360 and Shared Living programs, would not be considered.
However, if the firm has the ability and staff to assure an independent evaluation of the Family 360 and Shared Living programs could be accomplished, they could still submit a proposal for evaluation. If this is the case, please explain how your firm will ensure that the evaluation will be impartial.
#3. – For 5.2.3.2 ("A specific point-by-point response, in the order listed, to each requirement in the RFP. The response should identify each requirement being addressed as enumerated in the RFP.") Should we do a point by point response to the requirements outline in 3.0, 4.0? Or, another part of the RFP?
Please accept Legislative Audit’s apology for the confusion. The State’s standard RFP template can be confusing.
The proposal’s point-by-point response (as discussed in paragraph 5.2.3.2) will be evaluated based on the seven (7) evaluation criteria in paragraph 6.1 and, as such, should be incorporated in the Detailed Response.
The contents of the Executive Summary and the Detailed Response will be the primary source used for the evaluation criteria of paragraph 6.1. The Executive Summary and Detailed Response should address the scope requirements listed in Section 3.0 SCOPE OF WORK, paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 of the RFP, and any other information required by the RFP are all consider critical criteria that should be thoroughly covered in the Detailed Response (paragraph 5.2.3).
The 3 previous and current service/contracts (paragraph 4.4), the Executives and Manager resumes and/or bios (paragraph 5.1.2), and other information that may support the proposal, may be added as additional appendices to the proposal and are not included in the thirty (30) page limit.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .