RFP S-44300-00001685 Questions.pdf

RFP S-44300-00001685

Response to Questions Received January 20, 2022

Q1. General Question: Deloitte requests vendor names of the vendors who submit questions be included in the formal Q&A response. If OHA is unable to provide the names, please provide the number of vendors who submitted questions.

No questions aside from Deloitte have been submitted at this time.

Q2. General Question: Is there a vendor providing services to the state that are similar to those included in the RFP? If so how long has that vendor been providing these services to OHA and are they eligible to bid on this contract?

Unaware of any Contractor currently providing these services.

Q3: Page 7, Sections 2.4: There are five separate broad categories listed in the Project Background and Scope section. Throughout the course of the contract does the state anticipate that separate work orders will be created for each of the five categories? If so, does the state have an estimate of how many different work orders will be awarded under this RFP, annually, and what the average anticipated hours of each work orders will be?

To be determined after award.

Q4: Page 8 and 9, Section 3.1 and Pages 16 and 17, Section 4.10.2.4: For the preferred key person qualifications included in Section 3.1, is the state looking for a vendor to have separate individuals for each of the preferred qualifications listed in Section 3.1 or can vendors propose a core team of individuals that satisfy many of the preferred qualifications in Section 3.1?

As stated in the RFP: “The qualifications of multiple Key Persons may be used to document that Proposer meets the following qualifications. Preferred qualifications will not be used to eliminate Proposers from the pool but will be reviewed and scored as indicated under 4.10.2 Evaluation Criteria.”

Vendors may propose a core team of individuals that satisfy many of the preferred qualifications in Section 3.1.

Q5. Page 11, Section 3.3 and Page 13, Section 4.5: It appears that some language may have been left out of Section 3.3. Is the language in Section 3.3 intending to indicate that price proposals for the procurement should be sent in email to the Single POC rather than uploaded to OregonBuys as described in Section 4.5?

Yes, email to the SPC listed on Page 1 of the RFP.

Q6. Page 11, Section 3.3 and Page 63 Attachment E: Can the state provide more background on what should be included in Attachment E. Should Attachment E only include costs for the Global Budget Pilot work order contract or should it include amounts for all expected work orders under the contract? Is the fixed fully loaded price (a rate that will exist under each work order contract for all years of the contract or is there a methodology for rate increases by year)? Should amounts be included for supplies, equipment, travel in the “fully loaded hourly rate” column? Should the total amount be amounts for the initial two year period of the contract?

This is a universal template, and you can complete it to reflect the costs.

Q7. Attachment 1, Page 51, : Can the state confirm the $150,000 not to exceed amount included on page 51 is just for the Global Budget Pilot Work Order Contract is an illustrative number or the budget for the first work order, or the total budget for the entire contract?

The $150,000 not to exceed amount is just for the Global Budget Pilot Work Order.