RFP 5374 final.pdf

STATE OF OREGON

COVER PAGE

Oregon Health Authority (Public Health Division)

Is issuing this Request For Proposals (RFP) under OregonBuys Bid Number OREGONBUYS BID NUMBER S-44300-00002878 for

STUDY OF OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH

RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Date of Issue: April 19, 2022 Opening Date and Time (Proposals Due): May 10, 2022, 3:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Single Point of Contact (SPC):

Name: John F. Gardner Address: 800 NE Oregon Street, Suite 640 City, State, Zip Portland, OR 97232 Phone (voice) 503-509-5698 E-mail: john.f.gardner@dhsoha.state.or.us

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audio recordings, Web-based communications, and other electronic formats. To request an alternate format, please send an e-mail to dhs-oha.publicationrequest@state.or.us or call 503-378-3486 (voice) or 503-378-3523 (TTY) to arrange for the alternative format.

The State of Oregon promotes equal opportunity for all individuals without regard to age, color, disability, marital status, national origin, race, religion or creed, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or veteran status.

mailto:john.f.gardner@dhsoha.state.or.us

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 SCHEDULE

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.3 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

3.1 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.3 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 4: SOLICITATION PROCESS

4.1 PUBLIC NOTICE

4.2 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

4.3 QUESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS

4.4 SOLICITATION PROTESTS

4.5 PROPOSAL DELIVERY OPTIONS

4.6 PROPOSAL MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL

4.7 PROPOSAL DUE

4.8 PUBLIC OPENING

4.9 PROPOSAL REJECTION

4.10 EVALUATION PROCESS

4.11 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONS

4.12 RANKING OF PROPOSERS

SECTION 5: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION

5.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS

5.2 INTENT TO AWARD PROTEST

5.3 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1 CERTIFIED FIRM PARTICIPATION

6.2 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

6.3 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS

6.4 CANCELLATION OF RFP; REJECTION OF PROPOSAL; NO DAMAGES

6.5 COST OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

6.6 STATEWIDE E-WASTE/RECOVERY PROCEDURE

6.7 RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS

RFP 5374 - STUDY OF OREGON PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 3 of 26

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE CONTRACT

ATTACHMENT B DISCLOSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT

ATTACHMENT C PROPOSER INFORMATION AND CERTIFICATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT D REFERENCE CHECK FORM

ATTACHMENT E PROJECT BUDGET FORM

ATTACHMENT F COBID CERTIFICATION / OUTREACH PLAN

ATTACHMENT G RESPONSIBILITY INQUIRY

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 4 of 26

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The State of Oregon, acting by and through the Oregon Health Authority – Public Health Division, (“Agency”), is issuing this Request for Proposal under the provisions of ORS 279B.060 for a study of the Oregon public health system response to Covid-19 as set forth in Senate Bill 1554 (2022).

Additional details on the Scope of the goods or services or both are included in the Scope of Work/Specifications Section 2.4.

Agency anticipates the award of one Contract from this RFP.

The initial term of the Contract is anticipated to be two (2) years with options to renew up to a cumulative maximum of five (5) years.

1.2 SCHEDULE

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time.

All dates listed are subject to change. N/A denotes that event is not applicable to this RFP.

Event Date Time

Pre-Proposal Conference N/A N/A

Questions / Requests for Clarification Due April 27, 2022 5:00 PM (Pacific Time)

Answers to Questions / Requests for Clarification Issued (approx.) April 29, 2022

RFP Protest Period Ends 7 calendar days prior to RFP Opening

Opening (Proposal Due) See RFP cover page

Opening of Proposals Same date and time listed on RFP Cover page for Opening (Proposals Due)

Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award (approx.) May 17, 2022

Award Protest Period Ends 7 calendar days after Notice of Intent to Award

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

The SPC for this RFP is identified on the Cover Page, along with the SPC’s contact information.

Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the RFP only to the SPC, whether about the technical requirements of the RFP, contractual requirements, the RFP process, or any other provision.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 5 of 26

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

Agency is issuing this RFP pursuant to its authority under ORS 279A.050 and OAR 125-246- 0170(2).

Agency is using the Competitive Sealed Proposal method, pursuant to ORS 279B.060 and OAR 125-247-0260. Agency may use a combination of the methods for Competitive Sealed Proposals, including optional procedures: a) Competitive Range; b) Discussions and Revised Proposals; c) Revised Rounds of Negotiations; d) Negotiations; e) Best and Final Offers; and f) Multistep Sealed Proposals.

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

For the purposes of this RFP, capitalized words are defined in OAR 125-246-0110.

2.3 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE

2.3.1 Agency Overview and Background

The Oregon Health Authority’s vision is a healthy Oregon. Our mission is ensuring all people and communities can achieve optimum physical, mental, and social well-being through partnerships, prevention, and access to quality, affordable health care. Our strategic goal is to eliminate health inequities in Oregon by the year 2030.

The Oregon Health Authority (OHA) includes most of the state’s health programs, including Public Health. The OHA Public Health Division works to protect and promote the health of all Oregonians and the communities where they live, work play and learn. Oregon’s public health system includes federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, private organizations and other diverse partners working together to put healthy options and health-promoting services within reach for everyone in Oregon. Oregon needs a strong public health system to achieve better health and better care at lower costs.

2.3.2 Project Overview and Background

For more than two years, the OHA Public Health Division has been responding to the COVID-19 pandemic along with its many federal, state, local, tribal community-based, health system and other partners. Senate Bill 1554, adopted during the 2022 Legislative Session, calls for a comprehensive study of Oregon’s public health system COVID-19 pandemic response. The study will require engagement with a variety of partners directly involved in and some affected by the public health pandemic response to identify lessons learned and recommendations for improvement and public health system resiliency.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 6 of 26

2.3.3 Purpose

Purpose of the RFP:

• To meet requirements for a study of the state’s public health system response to the

COVID-19 pandemic as required by SB 1554 (2022 Legislative Session).

• To identify a successful Proposer to conduct study and review items set forth below and issue series of reports as outlined below.

Additional details:

• Successful Proposer may work with sub-contractors to meet RFP requirements and Deliverables but sub-contractors and their expertise must be outlined in the proposal.

• Successful Proposer will share initial findings and recommendations for each report to a pre-identified group of Agency staff and other partners to provide feedback.

• Senate Bill 1554 requires a total of three reports by OHA to interim committees of the Legislative Assembly, including but not limited to the Senate Committee on Health Care and the House Committee on Health Care, on or before the following dates:

o November 15, 2022 o April 1, 2023 o September 1, 2023

• The total not to exceed amount for the SOW in the contract is $823,000 through June 30, 2023 and $99,952 for the period of July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023.

o An additional $76,000 budget has been established to cover interpretation and translation services expenses and stipend expenses for community member participation in focus groups. Successful Proposer may negotiate to arrange for the services and be reimbursed for these expenses or have OHA arrange for the services and cover these expenses directly.

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS

Successful Proposer will act as a neutral third party and will develop and deliver by the delivery dates below three (3) Reports consistent with the requirements set forth in Senate Bill 1554. To support development of these Reports, the successful Proposer will need to use a mixed methods approach that may include quantitative data analysis, qualitative data analysis, focus groups, document review, and online surveys to gather and interpret the information needed to fulfill requirements of SB 1554. Successful Proposer is expected to engage a diverse group of partners, including those that represent communities disproportionately affected by the COVID- 19 pandemic in a culturally and linguistically responsive manner.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 7 of 26

Report #1 – Due to OHA by November 1, 2022

Report #1 component Key evaluation questions or considerations

(a) Focus on the public health system, including federal, state and local resources and how funding was coordinated between the state, counties and local governments and community organizations.

Within the parameters passed down to OHA and local governments by Congress and FEMA, how did the allocation of federal funds support local and Tribal COVID-19 response activities? How could federal funds allocation and use at the local and Tribal level go more smoothly in the future?

What resources are needed to better implement investments during a significant emergency response?

Possible topics to explore are: mechanisms for determining funding formulas and program elements (scopes of work), timelines for making funds available, disbursements, budget/reporting requirements, flexibility within funding streams.

What are the lessons learned that could be applied in the future?

Possible informants: OHA, Local Public Health Authorities (“LPHAs”), Federally-recognized Tribes (Tribes), Urban Indian Program (UIP), Association of Oregon Counties (“AOC”), Community Based Organizations (“CBOs”), League of Oregon Cities (“LOC”)

(b) Identify efficiencies and deficiencies in the public health system response, areas for improvement and needed investment

What worked well? What system improvements are needed?

What are the lessons learned that could be applied in the future?

What areas should be prioritized for additional investment?

Specific areas to be considered:

• Equity (racial, ethnic, houseless, disabilities, etc.)

• Planning

• Communications

• Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”)

• Testing

• Vaccination

• Wraparound supports for isolation and quarantine

• Data

• OHA Staffing support

• Use of PH best practices and related enforcement

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 8 of 26

What assumptions should we have when planning for future public health emergencies, especially in regard to PPE, testing and related supplies, public data sharing, isolation & quarantine, and vaccine distribution given what we learned about federal, state and local approaches and capacities in these areas?

Possible informants: State and local emergency management, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, AOC, CBOs, LOC, Oregon Department of Education (“ODE”), School districts, Labor unions, Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems (“OAHHS”), Coordinated Care Organizations (“CCOs”), Oregon Academy of Family Physicians (“OAFP”), Oregon Primary Care Association (“OPCA”)

(c) Consider emergency management coordination with the public health system, including distribution of PPE, where vaccines and testing were provided and isolation and quarantine best practices and guidance

In what ways did state and local emergency response coordinate with state and local public health authorities, including for PPE distribution?

In what ways did state and local emergency response coordinate with state and local public health authorities for vaccine distribution and testing?

In what ways did state and local emergency response coordinate with state, tribal and local public health authorities for public information dissemination?

What worked well? What variations were seen in different areas of the state? What statewide improvement could be made?

Possible informants: OHA, Oregon Office of Emergency Management (“OEM”), AOC, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, CBOs, LOC, OAFP, Local emergency managers

(d) Analyze the enforcement of public health requirements by the state, local governments and schools

In what ways were enforcement mechanisms sufficient or deficient? (i.e. LPHA licensed facilities, United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), Oregon Department of Human Services (“ODHS”), OR-OSHA, ODE/school districts capacity).

In what ways were LPHA governing bodies (board of commissioners or public health district board) involved with enforcement of public health requirements?

In what ways could state and local interactions be improved to increase adherence to statewide mandates and requirements?

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 9 of 26

Possible informants: Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OR-OSHA”), OHA, ODE, School districts, Labor unions, Oregon Department of Justice (“DOJ”), LOC, USDA, ODHS

(e) Examine the efficacy of enforcement of pandemic control evidence-based practices, including any statewide public health mandates, at the county and local levels.

To what degree did Oregonians comply with statewide mandates and requirements? Evaluate by different pandemic phases and by geography.

In what ways could state and local policymaking and communications be improved to increase adherence to statewide mandates and requirements?

How was enforcement of masking done effectively or ineffectively?

Possible informants: OR-OSHA, OHA, ODE, School districts, Labor unions, DOJ, LOC, Business Oregon, AOC, CBOs, OAFP, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP

(f) Examine the outcomes related to public health modernization implementation, including the roles that public-private partnerships played and any challenges posed by the current intersection of state and county public health systems.

In consideration of PH Modernization, some LPHA jurisdictions stopped directly providing clinical preventive services such as immunizations. How does, if at all, the pandemic experience inform potential changes to the PH Modernization framework as it relates to Access to Clinical Preventive Services?

Some LPHAs prior to the pandemic relied on community partners to provide clinical preventive services instead of the LPHA providing those direct services. During the pandemic, to what extent did LPHAs use local investments to support existing partnerships (such as those with hospitals, clinics, long-term care facilities, etc.) for COVID-19 clinical activities, including testing and vaccination, or provide those services directly to meet community needs?

What are examples of local public/private partnerships that filled gaps in response efforts?

How did OHA and LPHA partnerships with CBOs fill response gaps? What were the gaps?

What are the lessons learned from the OHA, LPHA, CBO partnerships that should be applied in the future?

During the second year of the pandemic, one LPHA transferred its public health authority to OHA and in another county OHA was already responsible for public health

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 10 of 26 authority, what role did public-private partnerships play in addressed needs in those specific communities? What lessons were learned to improve response efforts in the future?

Possible informants: Public Health Advisory Board (“PHAB”), LPHAs, Tribes, CBOs, CCOs, OAHHS, OPCA

(g) Compare the health equity outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic response, including second-hand health disparities resulting from the increased strain on hospitals, health systems and resources

What were the differences in COVID-19 health outcomes by race, ethnicity, disability, age and geography?

What were the differences in secondary health outcomes resulting from the increased strain on hospitals, health systems and the public health system?

What are the other disparate health outcomes that may have come up during the pandemic that are not directly related to strain on health systems?

Possible informants: CBOs, Tribes/UIP, OHA, OAHHS, LPHAs, OPCA

(h) Engage in a qualitative, in-depth analysis of utilization of resources, differing regulations and enforcement of evidence-based pandemic control practices across the state

In what ways were county responses and enforcement similar and different?

Evaluate any differences by geography.

Possible informants: OR-OSHA, DOJ, ODE, LPHAs, AOC, LOC, CBOs

(i) Assess messaging in general, including whether best practices in public health communication were used during the COVID-19 pandemic

In what ways were communications related to statewide mandates and requirements sufficient or deficient?

In what ways could state and local communications be improved to increase adherence to statewide mandates and requirements?

How well were public health messages made available in multiple languages, to ADA accessibility standards and in plain language?

Possible informants: CBOs, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, OR-OSHA, ODE, AOC, LOC

Broad review of the COVID-19 pandemic

Include contextual factors affecting the response, such as a presidential election in 2020.

Provide background on the timing of the different iterations of the state public health response and any potential impacts those changes/iterations in response organizational structures may have had on public health response efforts.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 11 of 26

Identification of areas in the public health system COVID-19 response that need improvement

Recommendations to improve the public health system COVID-19 response

A summary of key lessons learned

Recommendations for improving:

• Public health system resiliency

• Other deficiencies identified by the study

Report #2 – Due to OHA by March 1, 2023

Report #2 component Key evaluation questions

(a) Identify any local epidemiological data and capacity issue, included those that affected the reporting to statewide data systems

Describe local resources for fulfilling Program Element 01 requirements.

What gaps existed in ability to use local epidemiological data for COVID response?

What gaps existed in local epidemiology capacity?

What state supports existed to address data and capacity issues?

Possible informants: NPAIHB, IHS, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP

(b) Clarify the roles of hospitals, long-term care facilities and local public health programs in response coordination

What worked well?

What needs improvement?

Describe examples of when role confusion occurred. In which areas is role clarity needed?

What recommendations do the hospital, LTCF, ODHS, OHA, and LPHA partners have for role clarity and definition?

Possible informants: ODHS, LPHAs, OAHHS, Oregon Health Care Association (“OHCA”), Leading Age

(c) Compare health and health system data, including COVID-19 positivity rates, rates of COVID-19 infection, hospital capacity and other core metrics with the efficacy of statewide public health mandate enforcement

Describe the relationships between case counts, case rates, hospitalization rates, deaths, vaccination rates, test positivity, and enforcement of public health mandates?

Identify inequities within these metrics and how trends changed over time.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 12 of 26

Possible informants: OHA, OAHHS, OAFP, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, OPCA

(d) Investigate specific public health workforce challenges

What were the most significant challenges to recruiting, onboarding and retaining public health staff during the pandemic?

What were the skill sets that were hardest to recruit for?

What were some best or promising practices you employed to recruit, onboard and retain staff during this period?

Possible informants: OHA, LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (“NPAIHB”), CBOs

In-depth report of nongovernmental and community partner contributions to the COVID-19 response

What roles did CBOs and other non-governmental organizations (“NGOs”) play in the COVID-19 response?

What were the contributions of CBOs and NGOs??

What supports did OHA and LPHAs provide to CBOs and NGOs (funding, TA, communications contracts, etc)

What gaps existed? What are recommendations to address gaps?

Possible informants: LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, CBOs, NGOs, NPAIHB

Recommendations for improving specific workforce challenges

Possible informants: LPHAs, Tribes/UIP, CBOs, NPAIHB

Report #3 – Due to OHA by August 15, 2023

Report component Key evaluation questions Final evaluation and synthesis of the information in previous reports

Final analysis, including findings and recommendations from previous reports

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 13 of 26

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

3.1 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS

To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must demonstrate how Proposer meets all requirements of this section:

• Working knowledge and understanding of Oregon’s complex governmental public health system, including rural and urban differences.

• Experience assessing complex systems for effective response, especially related to communities experiencing health inequities

• Understanding of Tribal Sovereignty

• Experience in complex, multi-variable quantitative and qualitative data analysis across systems

• Experience in qualitative data collection (including focus groups), analysis and community engagement data interpretation best practices, especially with communities historically experiencing health inequities

• Working knowledge of Oregon’s public health modernization framework

• Project management skills

• Graphic design and report development

• Culturally-responsive partner coordination

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Proposal Submissions

To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must contain each of the following elements (further detailed in Proposal Requirements section below):

• Executive Summary, including Proposer’s general approach to the Project and a summary or narrative of Proposer qualifications

• Project Implementation Plan

• Key Persons and Resumes

• Work Samples (maximum of 2 samples)

• Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B)

• Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C)

• Reference Check Forms (Attachment D)

• Project Budget Form (Attachment E)

• COBID Certification / Outreach Plan (Attachment F)

• Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment G)

3.2.2 Proposal Format and Quantity

Proposal should follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Proposal Requirements section. Responses to each section and subsection should be labeled to indicate the item being addressed.

OregonBuys Electronic Response. Proposer should submit its Proposal electronically

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 14 of 26 through OregonBuys. Proposer should follow the procedures outlined in OregonBuys Supplier Solicitation Response:

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20So licitation%20Response.pdf for electronic submission.

The Project Budget must be submitted as a separate electronic response file.

Proposer shall submit one copy of its Proposal and all other submittal requirements, with Attachment C - Proposer Information and Certification Sheet bearing the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature, in one of the following formats: Adobe Acrobat (pdf), Microsoft Word (docx), or Microsoft Excel (xlsx). If Proposer believes any of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B). Proposer shall also mark as “Confidential” in OregonBuys all attachments to its Proposal that Proposer believes are exempt from disclosure

The Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C) must bear the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature.

3.2.3 Authorized Representative

Failure of Proposer’s authorized representative to sign the Proposal may result in rejection of the Proposal by Agency.

3.3 PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposal must address each of the items listed in this section and all other requirements set forth in this RFP. Proposer shall describe the Goods to be provided or the Services to be performed or both. A Proposal that merely offers to provide the goods or services as stated in this RFP may be considered non-Responsive to this RFP and will not be considered further.

Proposal should not include extensive artwork, unusual printing or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the Proposal. Do not include marketing or advertising material in the Proposal, unless requested. Proposal should be straightforward and address the requests of the RFP. Proposal containing unsolicited marketing or advertising material may receive a lower evaluation score if required information is difficult to locate.

3.3.1 Proposer Information and Certification Sheet

Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet (Attachment C).

Failure to demonstrate compliance with Oregon Tax Laws and sign the Proposer Information and Certification Sheet may result in a finding of non-Responsibility.

3.3.2 Executive Summary

Briefly describe the Proposer’s general approach to the Project and a summary or narrative of Proposer qualifications. Illustrate how Proposer qualifications will serve to accomplish the Work.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 15 of 26

3.3.3 Project Implementation Plan

Briefly describe how Proposer would carry out the major activities of this project in context with the Scope of Work. Provide a comprehensive management plan that the Proposer intends to follow. Illustrate how the plan will serve to coordinate and accomplish the Work.

3.3.4 References

Provide two (2) references from current or former client firms for similar projects performed for any clients within the last three (3) years. References must be able to verify the quality of previous, related Work.

Agency may check to determine if references provided support Proposer’s ability to comply with the requirements of this RFP. Agency may use references to obtain additional information, or verify any information needed. Agency may contact any reference (submitted or not) to verify Proposer’s qualifications.

Proposer shall send the Reference Check Form (Attachment D) to its references. Reference forms must be completed by the reference, returned to the Proposer and submitted with the Proposal.

3.3.5 Project Budget

Proposer shall submit a detailed Project Budget (Attachment D) electronically in a separate document through OregonBuys.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicit ation%20Response.pdf for electronic submission.

• For each Report deliverable described in the Statement of Work, the Project Budget should include identifiable costs, time estimates for completion, and a summary of all proposed costs.

• The Project Budget should include separate line items for personnel, travel, supplies, and other costs.

3.3.6 Key Persons and their Resumes

Specify key persons to be assigned to this project including any key persons that are subcontractors, and include a current resume (not to exceed two pages each) for each key person that demonstrates the person’s qualifications and experience for the Work described in this RFP.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 16 of 26

SECTION 4: SOLICITATION PROCESS

4.1 PUBLIC NOTICE

The RFP and attachments are published in the State of Oregon’s electronic procurement system OregonBuys at https://oregonbuys.gov/. Documents will not be mailed to prospective Proposers.

Modifications, if any, to this RFP will be made by written Amendment(s) published in OregonBuys. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking OregonBuys to determine whether or not any Amendment(s) have been issued. Amendment(s) are incorporated into the RFP by this reference.

4.2 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

A Pre-Proposal conference will not be held for this RFP.

4.3 QUESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATIONS

All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP must:

• Be delivered to the SPC via an OregonBuys submission or email;

• Reference the OregonBuys bid number ;

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information;

• Refer to the specific area of the RFP being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number); and

• Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the Schedule in Section 1.2.

4.4 SOLICITATION PROTESTS

4.4.1 Protests to RFP

Prospective Proposer may submit a Written protest of anything contained in this RFP, including but not limited to, the RFP process, Specifications, Scope of Work, and the Sample Contract. This is prospective Proposer’s only opportunity to protest the provisions of the RFP, except that Proposer may protest as provided below.

4.4.2 Protests to Amendment(s)

Prospective Proposer may submit a Written protest of anything contained in an Amendment. Protests to an Amendment, if issued, must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on the second Business Day following the issuance of the Amendment or the date/time specified in the Amendment, or they will not be considered. Protests of matters not added or modified by the Amendment will not be considered.

https://oregonbuys.gov/

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 17 of 26

4.4.3 Requirements for Protests

All protests must:

• Be delivered to the SPC via email;

• Reference the OregonBuys bid number;

• Identify prospective Proposer’s name and contact information;

• Be sent by an authorized representative;

• State the reason for the protest, including:

o the grounds that demonstrate how the Procurement Process is contrary to law, Unnecessarily Restrictive, legally flawed, or improperly specifies a brand name;

and o evidence or documentation that supports the grounds on which the protest is based; and

• State the proposed changes to the RFP provisions or other relief sought.

Protests to the RFP must be received by the due date and time identified in the Schedule.

Protests to an Amendment must be received by the due date identified in the Amendment.

4.5 PROPOSAL DELIVERY OPTIONS

Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Proposal is received by the SPC in accordance with the RFP requirements before Opening. Agency is not responsible for any delays in mail or by common carriers or by transmission errors or delays, or for any mis-delivery for any reason.

A Proposal submitted by any means not authorized below will be rejected. The following delivery options are permitted for this RFP:

Delivery through OregonBuys

Proposal submission should be electronically through OregonBuys. at: OregonBuys.gov

Detailed instructions on how to submit a Proposal can be found at OregonBuys Vendor Formal Solicitation Response.pdf

4.6 PROPOSAL MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL

If a Proposer wishes to make modifications to a submitted Proposal, the Proposer must submit its modification in one of the authorized methods listed in Section 4.5 (Proposal Delivery Options). To be effective the modification must include the OregonBuys bid number and be submitted to the SPC prior to Opening.

If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a submitted Proposal, it must submit a Written notice signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw to the SPC via email prior to the Opening in accordance with OAR 125-247-0440. To be effective the notice must include the OregonBuys bid number.

https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf https://www.oregon.gov/das/ORBuys/Documents/OregonBuys%20Vendor%20Formal%20Solicitation%20Response.pdf

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 18 of 26

4.7 PROPOSAL DUE

A Proposal (including all required submittal items) must be received by the SPC on or before Opening. All Proposal modifications or withdrawals must also be received prior to Opening.

A Proposal received after Opening is considered LATE and will NOT be accepted for evaluation.

A late Proposal will be returned to the Proposer or destroyed.

4.8 PUBLIC OPENING

There will be no public Opening.

4.9 PROPOSAL REJECTION

Agency may reject a Proposal for any of the following reasons:

• Proposer fails to substantially comply with all prescribed RFP procedures and requirements, including but not limited to the requirement that Proposer’s authorized representative sign the Proposal.

• Proposer has liquidated and delinquent debt owed to the State or any department or agency of the State.

• Proposer fails to meet the responsibility requirements of ORS 279B.110.

• Proposer makes any contact regarding this RFP with State representatives such as State employees or officials other than the SPC or persons authorized by the SPC, or inappropriate contact with the SPC.

• Proposer attempts to influence a member of the Evaluation Committee.

• Proposal is conditioned on Agency’s acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate any alternative terms and conditions that are not reasonably related to those expressly authorized for negotiation in the RFP or Amendment(s).

4.10 EVALUATION PROCESS

4.10.1 Responsiveness and Responsibility Determination

4.10.1.1 Responsiveness determination

A Proposal received prior to Opening will be reviewed to determine if it is Responsive to all RFP requirements including compliance with Section 3.1 (Minimum Qualifications) and Section 3.2 (Minimum Submission Requirements). If the Proposal is unclear, the SPC may request clarification from Proposer. However, clarifications may not be used to rehabilitate a non-Responsive proposal. If the SPC finds the Proposal non-Responsive, the Proposal may be rejected; however, Agency may waive mistakes in accordance with

OAR 125-247-0470.

4.10.1.2 Responsibility Determination

Agency will determine if an apparent successful Proposer is Responsible prior to award and execution of the Contract. Proposers shall submit a signed Responsibility Inquiry form (Attachment G) with Proposal.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 19 of 26

At any time prior to award, Agency may reject a Proposer found to be not Responsible.

4.10.2 Evaluation Criteria

Each Proposal meeting all Responsiveness requirements will be independently evaluated by members of an Evaluation Committee. Evaluation Committee members may change and Agency may have additional or fewer evaluators for optional rounds of competition. Evaluators will assign a score for each evaluation criterion listed below in this Section 4.10.2 up to the maximum points available as specified in Section 4.11 (Point and Score Calculation).

SPC may request further clarification to assist the Evaluation Committee in gaining additional understanding of a Proposal. A response to a clarification request may only clarify or explain portions of the already submitted Proposal and may not contain new information not included in the original Proposal.

4.10.2.1 Evaluation Item 1 – Working Knowledge of Oregon Governmental Health System

• Based on the entire Proposal, how well does the Proposer demonstrate they have a working knowledge and understanding of Oregon’s complex governmental public health system?

• 15% of total points

4.10.2.2 Evaluation Item 2 – Ability to Assess Complex Multi-Section Systems

• Based on the entire Proposal, how well does the Proposer demonstrate an ability to assess complex multi-sector systems including but not limited to their fiscal, political, regulatory, and partnership components?

• 20% of total points

SCORE EXPLANATION

OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and project. The Proposer provides insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

6 – 9 VERY GOOD – Response provides useful information, while showing experience and knowledge within the category. Response demonstrates above average knowledge and ability with no apparent deficiencies noted.

ADEQUATE – Response meets all requirements in an adequate manner. Response demonstrates an ability to comply with guidelines, parameters, and requirements with no additional information put forth by the Proposer.

1 – 4 FAIR – Proposer meets minimum requirements, but does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.

RESPONSE OF NO VALUE – An unacceptable response that does not meet the requirements set forth in the RFP. Proposer has not demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 20 of 26

4.10.2.3 Evaluation Item 3 – Project Implementation Plan

• How well does the Project Implementation Plan demonstrate the Proposer’s plan for comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data collection, analysis, interpretation and integration into each report component in a timely manner?

• 30% of total points

4.10.2.4 Evaluation Item 4 – Engagement of Diverse Partners

• How well does the Proposer demonstrate their capabilities to meaningfully engage diverse partners with varying interests, especially those experiencing health inequities, to inform assessment of and recommendations to improve complex systems?

• 15% of total points

4.10.2.5 Evaluation Item 5 – Communication of Relevant Data and Recommendations

• Given the entire Proposal, how well does the Proposer demonstrate their ability to effectively communicate relevant data and recommendations to partners and interested parties?

• 15% of total points

4.10.3 PROJECT BUDGET EVALUATION

The Evaluation Committee will conduct the price evaluation based on the evaluation of the Project Budget provided in Attachment E based on the following criteria:

• How well does the Project Budget reflect a reasonable and necessary use of resources for timely and effective completion of Work describe within the RFP?

• 5% of total points

4.10.4 PREFERENCES

4.10.4.1 Oregon Supplies and Services

[Reserved.]

4.10.4.2 Reciprocal Preference

For evaluation purposes per OAR 125-246-0310, Agency shall add a percentage increase to each out-of-state Proposer's Proposal price that is equal to the percentage preference, if any, given to a Resident Proposer in the Proposer's state.

4.10.4.3 Recycled Materials

[Reserved.]

4.10.4.4 Tiebreakers

If Agency receives Proposals identical in price, fitness, availability and quality and chooses to award a Contract, Agency shall award the Contract in accordance with the https://www.naspo.org/reciprocity1

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 21 of 26 procedures outlined in OAR 137-046-0300.

4.11 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONS

Scores are the values (0 through 10) assigned by each evaluator.

Points are the total possible for each section as listed in the table below.

The SPC will average all scores for each evaluation criterion. The average score will be used as a percentage multiplier of the maximum possible points for that criterion. 1=10%, 5=50%, 7.2=72%, 9=90%, etc. Price points are calculated as stated in the Price Evaluation section.

EXAMPLE:

Proposer A receives scores of 10, 9, and 9.5 for criterion worth 50 points. The SPC averages 10, 9, and 9.5 for a score of 9.5 and uses 95% as a multiplier to the possible points of 50. 50 multiplied by 95% is 47.5. Proposer A’s points for the criterion is 47.5.

4.12 RANKING OF PROPOSERS

The SPC will average the scores for each Proposal (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each Evaluation Committee member and dividing by the number of members). The SPC will combine the average score for each Proposal with Proposer’s price score and reference score.

After any applicable preference has been applied, the SPC will determine the rank of each Proposal, with the highest score receiving the highest rank, and successive rank order determined by the next highest score.

Agency may, in Agency’s sole discretion, determine an apparent successful Proposer with no additional rounds of competition.

TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE : 100

POINTS POSSIBLE 95

4.10.2.1 Evaluation Item 1 - Working Knowledge of Oregon

Governmental Health System

4.10.2.2 Evaluation Item 2 - Ability to Assess Complex Multi- Section Systems

4.10.2.3 Evaluation Item 3 - Project Implementation Plan 30

4.10.2.4 Evaluation Item 4 - Engagement of Diverse Partners 15

4.10.2.5 Evaluation Item 5 - Communication of Relevant Data

and Recommendations

4.10.3 PROJECT BUDGET POINTS POSSIBLE 5

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 22 of 26

SECTION 5: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION

5.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS

5.1.1 Award Consideration

Agency, if it awards a Contract, will award a Contract to the highest ranking Responsible Proposer(s) based upon the scoring methodology and process described in Section 4.

Agency may award less than the full Scope of Work described in this RFP.

5.1.2 Intent to Award Notice

Agency will notify all Proposers in Writing that Agency intends to award a Contract to the selected Proposer(s) subject to successful negotiation of any negotiable provisions.

5.2 INTENT TO AWARD PROTEST

5.2.1 Protest Submission

An Affected Proposer shall have 7 calendar days from the date of the Intent to Award notice to file a Written protest.

A Proposer is an Affected Proposer only if the Proposer would be eligible for Contract award in the event the protest was successful and is protesting for one or more of the following reasons as specified in ORS 279B.410:

• All higher ranked Proposals are non-Responsive.

• Agency has failed to conduct an evaluation of Proposals in accordance with the criteria or process described in the RFP.

• Agency abused its discretion in rejecting the protestor’s Proposal as non-Responsive.

• Agency’s evaluation of Proposal or determination of award otherwise violates ORS

Chapter 279B or ORS Chapter 279A.

If Agency receives only one Proposal, Agency may dispense with the evaluation process and Intent to Award protest period and proceed with Contract Negotiations and award.

5.2.1.1 Protest Requirements

Protests must:

• Be delivered to the SPC via email;

• Reference the OregonBuys bid number;

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information;

• Be signed by an authorized representative of Proposer;

• Specify the grounds for the protest; and

• Be received within 7 calendar days of the Intent to Award notice.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 23 of 26

5.2.2 Response to Protest

Agency will address all timely submitted protests within a reasonable time and will issue a Written decision to the respective Proposer. Protests that do not include the required information may not be considered by Agency.

5.2.3 Insurance

Prior to award, Proposer shall secure and demonstrate to Agency proof of insurance as required in this RFP or as negotiated. Insurance Requirements are found in Exhibit B of Attachment A.

5.2.4 Taxpayer Identification Number

Proposer shall provide its Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) and backup withholding status on a completed W-9 form when requested by Agency or when the backup withholding status or any other relevant information of Proposer has changed since the last submitted W-9 form, if any.

5.2.5 Business Registry

If selected for award, Proposer shall be duly authorized by the State of Oregon to transact business in the State of Oregon before executing the Contract. Visit http://sos.oregon.gov/business/pages/register.aspx for Oregon Business Registry information.

5.2.6 Pay Equity Certification

If selected for award and the Contract value exceeds $500,000 and Proposer employs 50 or more full-time workers, Proposer shall submit to Agency a true and correct copy of an unexpired Pay Equity Compliance Certificate, issued to the Proposer by the Oregon Department of Administrative Services. For instructions on how to obtain the Certificate, visit https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Pages/PayEquity.aspx.

ORS 279B.110(2)(f) requires that Proposer provide this prior to execution of the Contract.

5.2.7 Nondiscrimination in Employment

As a condition of receiving the award of a Contract under this RFP, Proposer must certify by its Signature on Attachment C - Proposer Information and Certification Sheet, in accordance with ORS 279A.112, that it has in place a policy and practice of preventing sexual harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination against employees who are members of a protected class. The policy and practice must include giving employees a written notice that the policy both prohibits, and prescribes disciplinary measures for, conduct that constitutes sexual harassment, sexual assault, or unlawful discrimination.

http://sos.oregon.gov/business/pages/register.aspx https://www.oregon.gov/das/Procurement/Pages/PayEquity.aspx

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 24 of 26

5.3 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

5.3.1 Negotiation

After selection of a successful Proposer, Agency may enter into Contract negotiations with the successful Proposer. By submitting a Proposal, Proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of the RFP, including the terms and conditions of the Sample Contract (Attachment A), with the exception of those terms listed below for negotiation.

Proposer shall review the attached Sample Contract and note exceptions.

Proposer must submit those exceptions to Agency during the Questions / Requests for Clarification period set forth in Section 1.2. If Agency agrees to make any requested changes to the Sample Contract, Agency will issue an Amendment to notify Proposers of such changes. Unless Agency issues an Amendment modifying any of the terms and conditions, Agency intends to enter into a Contract with the successful Proposer substantially in the form set forth in Sample Contract (Attachment A).

Following the selection of the apparent successful Proposer, Agency may agree to negotiate changes to the negotiable provisions of the Sample Contract listed below. However, Agency is not required to make any changes and many provisions cannot be changed. Proposer is cautioned that the State of Oregon believes modifications to the standard provisions constitute increased risk and increased cost to the State.

Any subsequent negotiated changes are subject to prior approval of the Oregon Department of Justice.

Agency is willing to negotiate ONLY the Statement of Work and the following terms and conditions:

• Method of Payment

• Pricing

• Expenses, including for interpretation and translation services at OHA standard rates (or whether such services will instead be provided by OHA contractors and paid for directly by OHA)

• Stipends for community member participation in focus groups (or whether such stipends will instead be provided directly by OHA)

• Attachment A, Exhibit D Subcontractor Provisions

In the event that the parties have not reached mutually agreeable terms within ten (10) calendar days, Agency, at its discretion, may terminate Negotiations and commence Negotiations with the next highest ranking Proposer.

DAS Procurement Services, Version 4.4 July 1, 2021 Page 25 of 26

SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1 CERTIFIED FIRM PARTICIPATION

Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) Chapter 200, Agency encourages the participation of small businesses, certified by the Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (“COBID”) in all contracting opportunities. This includes certified small businesses in the following categories: disadvantaged business enterprise, minority-owned business, woman-owned business, a business that a service-disabled veteran owns or an emerging small business.

Agency also encourages joint ventures or subcontracting with certified small business enterprises. For more information, visit:

https://oregon4biz.diversitysoftware.com/FrontEnd/VendorSearchPublic.asp?XID=6787&TN= oregon4biz

If the Contract has potential subcontracting opportunities, the successful Proposer may be required to submit a completed Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan (Attachment F) prior to execution.

6.2 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

This RFP is governed by the laws of the State of Oregon. Venue for any administrative or judicial action relating to this RFP, evaluation and award is the Circuit Court of Marion County for the State of Oregon; provided, however, if a proceeding must be brought in a federal forum, then it must be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In no event shall this Section 6.2 be construed as a waiver by the State of Oregon of any form of defense or immunity, whether sovereign immunity, governmental immunity, immunity based on the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States or otherwise, to or from any claim or consent to the jurisdiction of any court.

6.3 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS

All Proposals are public records and are subject to public inspection after Agency issues the Notice of Intent to Award. Application of the Oregon Public Records Law will determine whether any information is exempt from disclosure.

All Proposals submitted in response to this RFP become the Property of Agency. By submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP, Proposer grants the State a non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free license for the rights to copy, distribute, display, prepare derivative works of and transmit the Proposal solely for the purpose of…