S-10000-00014682-0 1st QA.pdf
PDF 118 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-10000-00014682
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This document is a first Question and Answer (Q&A) addendum for the Oregon Intervention System (OIS) Administration contract, addressing four key clarification points about the draft Request for Proposal (RFP). The document provides official responses to bidder questions regarding instructor training specifications, certification level recommendations, and training calendar hosting requirements.
The Q&A addresses several technical corrections, including: confirming that instructor training classes will remain 32 hours (not 40 as initially drafted), eliminating a confusing requirement about proposer recommendations for certification levels, clarifying that the training calendar and instructor list should be hosted on the proposer's website (not the ODDS agency website), and correcting language about master instructor recertification training workshops. The responses indicate these were drafting errors and provide specific guidance on how the language should be interpreted or modified, suggesting the agency is seeking to provide clear and accurate contract expectations for potential bidders.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
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
1st Q&A - S-10000-00014682
Oregon Intervention System Administration
1. Question 1: 2.6.2.1.1 – Indicates the contract will require 40 hour instructor training classes. Currently these classes are 32 hours. Will the contract require an additional 8 hours per instructor training class?
a. This was an error in drafting. There is no intention of lengthening the classes.
2. Question 2: 2.6.3.5.3 – Please clarify this sentence. “Proposer shall address the proposer’s recommendations regarding simplification of the existing certification levels in their proposal.” It is unclear what recommendations the proposer needs to address.
a. This was an error in drafting and should be disregarded.
3. Question 3: 2.6.4.1.5 – This indicates that the OIS training calendar and list of certified instructors would be hosted on the “Agency’s” (ODDS in this case) website. Historically this has been challenging as the calendar is updated multiple times per day. Did the RFP intend for this to be hosted on ODDS’s website or the proposer’s website?
a. No, there is no intention to migrate the web content to ODDS’s website. It should say “Proposer’s website”.
4. Question 4: 2.6.2.1.2 Says no less than three recertification training workshops per training year. 3.3.1.2.2 Says no less than three recertification of master instructors each calendar year. Were these items supposed to correlate with each other? With only 7 master instructors statewide, holding three recertification sessions each calendar year may not be fiscally responsible.
a. No, the addition of master instructors was included in error. Section 3.3.1.2.3, should instead state: “Conduct no less than three (3) recertification of master instructors training workshops each calendar year; and”
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .