Are organizations other than academic institutions (such as non-profit organizations) eligible to apply?



Download 77,71 Kb.
Date conversion10.03.2017
Size77,71 Kb.

  1. Are organizations other than academic institutions (such as non-profit organizations) eligible to apply?

Yes


  1. I am assuming from the instructions that an electronic submission is not possible.  Your directions clearly indicated that US Postal Service does not deliver to the site.  Does UPS or Federal Express deliver directly to the building?  If regular mail is used, how long does it take to go through the necessary security to be delivered to the offices?

Both UPS and Federal Express deliver directly to our building. If regular mail is used, it could take several days to be delivered to our building.


  1. Is the limit of 125 pages for the technical proposal based on double spacing (as indicated on page 1) or single spacing (as indicated on page 60)?

The technical proposal should be double-spaced for ease of reading.


  1. Is the Technical Proposal limited to 125 single-spaced pages  (RFP pg. 60) or 125 double-spaced pages (RFP pg. 1)? 

See response to Question 3.


  1. It appears that there is a page limit on the Technical Proposal (125 pages) is there also a limit on the other sections such as the Business Proposal?  Is there a page limit on the attachments.  For example we have Evidence Analysis methods (70 pages) and Project Manuals (50 pages) that are very instructive and we will pull sections to insert in the Technical Proposal, however the actual manual would be very helpful as an appendix/attachment.  Is this advisable?

There is no page limit on the Business Proposal or attachments. However, for ease of the review of the proposals, it would be advisable to keep attachments at a minimum.


  1. Term of the contract: pages 1, 23, and 25 refer to a contract period of 3 years with 2 one-year options. Page 5 refers to a “two year contract period”. Could you please clarify the contract period for successful offerors? 

The correct term of the contract is a 3-year base period with two 1-year option periods. Page 5 was a typo.


  1. Length of technical proposal:  page 1 indicates 125 pages double-spaced for the technical proposal whereas page 60 says 125 pages single-spaced.  Could you please confirm whether the technical proposal should be single or double-spaced. If the latter, are there specifications around the spacing (e.g., is 1.5 line spacing acceptable or must it be ‘double’)? 

The technical proposal should be double-spaced (2.0 line spacing) for ease in readability. The page limit for the technical proposal is 125 pages.


  1. Page 1 of the RFP states that the technical proposal should be double-spaced; on page 60 of the RFP, it is stated that the technical proposal should be single-spaced. While we assume page 1 is correct, can you please provide confirmation? 

See response to Questions 3 and 7.


  1. Page 1 of the RFP states that the contract base-year period will be three years; on page 5 of the RFP, “the two year contract period” is referenced. While we assume page 1 is correct, can you please provide confirmation?

See response to Question 6.


  1. For the essay on one of 4 issues listed on page 62, section 1.2, may we include an essay about more than one of the issues?

Yes, as long the proposal conforms to the page limit request.


  1. For the description of at least one area of expertise (section 1.5), how important is it to demonstrate expertise in multiple areas if the examples given are purely for “illustrative purposes”?

The areas of expertise that are listed are only meant to be examples and thus for “illustrative purposes” to highlight what are meant by areas of expertise. Offerors may describe any area of expertise not listed as an example.


  1. Trialstat has one of the leading software programs for managing systematic reviews, and charges centers for use of the software on a project by project basis. Could you clarify whether this type of software is excluded from the prohibition on page 6 against covering the cost of information technology software?

AHRQ will support project-specific software with proper justification. Technologies that may be used for general use should be considered as part of overhead.


  1. Can you clarify what the three-year time period is in Section L.10 (pg. 65)? 

This refers to the three previous calendar years (2004, 2005, 2006).


  1. We note that single-spacing and double-spacing are both mentioned in different sections of the RFP.  Could you please clarify which is preferred for the proposal. 

Double-spacing. See response to Questions 3 and 7.


  1. We just want to confirm that existing EPCs are not considered 'new offerers' in Section L10 (past performance information), and therefore are not required to provide contracts for all key personnel. (Pg. 65-66)

Existing EPC’s are not considered “newly formed entities.” This refers to new organizations that have not had any previous contracts with either public, private or government entities.


  1. Does AHRQ want 4 separate CDs, or all files on a single CD?  

A single CD would be preferred.
RFP C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of Systematic reviews and Report the Findings, Elements of EPC Reports, paragraph beginning “In General”: 

  1. Question A.  Can AHRQ clarify the meaning of "The Bibliography will include all studies abstracted, whether used or rejected."  Typically we would not expect to fully abstract a study and then “reject” it, although we might grade it poor quality and not use it for certain analyses, but it would not be rejected (i.e.,  excluded) in the sense of not meeting inclusion criteria. 

The Bibliography should include all articles making it to the step of full-text review to consider for inclusion, both those that end up included in the review and those excluded for specific reasons. The intent is to inform readers about articles that had been identified and considered but not ultimately included, and reasons for exclusion and is similar to our current process which includes an appendix of excluded articles.  We may decide with the EPC that this bibliography is best presented separated into two sections of included and excluded articles.  


  1. Question B.  Can AHRQ clarify the structure of a bibliography in EPC-III? In EPC-II, the references were separate from the bibliography; the latter contained only studies not used (excluded at the full article review [but not abstraction] stage), were placed in an appendix, and were done alphabetically.  If the reports are now to include only a bibliography, how should two disparate types of citations be combined -- one for references actually cited (done numerically in order via reference manage software such as EndNote) and materials excluded ("rejected") and never cited and so not assigned any number.   Should we assume simply that the typical approach, of a reference list and a separate bibliography, will be expected for EPC-III?


EPC reports will contain both a reference list (numbered to match citations in the text) and an alphabetical bibliography. The reference list will include all articles cited in the text, both background articles and those comprising the review, as in current reports.
C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of Systematic reviews and Report the Findings, Elements of EPC Reports, Assessing EPC Reports.           


  1. Can AHRQ clarify whether an EPC Methods Manual (or multiple manuals) for all types of reports, and not just comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), will be issued for EPC-III?  The Methods Manual currently in preparation by various EPCs and AHRQ is explicitly constrained to be relevant to CERs at this time.  

While we anticipate that the Methods Manual will specifically focus on some issues that are specific to CERs, EPC directors will be involved in further discussions regarding the methodologies that are generally applicable to other systematic reviews.
RFP B.3.a.5 and C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of Systematic reviews and Report the Findings, Optional EPC Report Products, Presentations.     

  1. Item (5) says travel to attend general scientific meetings is unallowable as direct cost, but in Section C is a description of possible "presentations … at professional meetings, conferences or training workshops."  Would AHRQ please clarify the difference between "general scientific meetings" and “professional meetings or conferences”, so that we understand what travel might be covered? 

AHRQ will support travel costs for a limited number of conferences in which the investigator is involved in project-specific dissemination. This will be allowable as delineated in the work assignment or task order and as approved in advance by the Task Order Officer. AHRQ does not intend to support travel to conferences that are not directly and specifically related to the project.
RFP B.3.a.5 and C. Specific Requirements, Advance the Methodology of Systematic Review. paragraph beginning “Individual expertise”:

  1. Can AHRQ please clarify whether "regular meetings" for methods will be held only every other year (biannual)?  Will AHRQ hold EPC Directors' meetings or other "regular meetings" on a different schedule (e.g., semi-annually), as has been done to date? 

AHRQ will hold 2 meetings per year. One of these meetings will be devoted to methods and the other meeting for general agenda items.
RFP Part II Contract Clauses) includes FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data Special Works.  RFP page 30 includes the less restrictive H.1 Release and Use language. 

  1. When interpreting Release and Use restrictions, will the H.1 section supersede FAR 52.227-17? 

Yes.


  1. Is the salary rate limitation for the EPCIII business proposal now $186,600 (the 2007 rate)?  (See section H.6 on page 33 of the RFP.) 

Since AHRQ is still under a continuing resolution and our appropriation has not yet been signed into law, we are held to the FY 2006 level which is $183,500.


  1. For the cost data to support the documentation of financial capacity on Page 68 for the business proposal—Do you need the entire Association or just the specific Department that would house the EPC?

Just the specific Department that would support the EPC.


  1. Does AHRQ have a target total number of EPCs for EPC-III?

We will aim to have up to 15 centers.


  1. Does AHRQ have any guidance to proposers about how to convey confidence that a core team exists even though the minimum commitment from AHRQ will be $50K? 

AHRQ anticipates that each EPC will have at least one, possibly more, multi-year task order which will be substantially greater than $50,000, in addition to other competitive task orders.


  1. Will the AHRQ provide additional funding over and above the $50,000 per year to allow us to support the key personnel and core team? 

AHRQ anticipates that each EPC will have at least one, possibly more, multi-year task order which will be substantially greater than $50,000, in addition to other competitive task orders.


  1. Will the multi-year RFTOs have more funding committed from AHRQ to EPCs? If so, what level of funding is anticipated for each type (technology assessment, generalist, USPSTF)? 

Each multi-year task order will have committed funds to each EPC. The level of funding will vary depending on program needs, but each multi-year task order will have sufficient funds for 1-2 large projects per year.


  1. In the past AHRQ has designated some task order topics for generalist EPCs only and others as topics for which all EPCs could compete.  Does AHRQ plan to have some RFTOs in the EPC III program for which all EPCs can compete?

Yes.


  1. Will the topics be assigned or bid upon?

Topics will be available by both mechanisms - by assignment and by competitive bid.


  1. Approximately how many topics will be available each year?

AHRQ anticipates a number of projects of varying sizes, from larger projects requiring 12-15 months for completion to smaller, more concise projects that will require a shorter turnaround time, in the range of 6-9 months. We estimate that there will be enough topics for each EPC to have 2-3 large topics and 4-6 smaller topics.


  1. Will the EPC program have a coordinating center for round three? If so, what will its role be?

There will be a Scientific Resource Center that will provide technical support, methodologic support and topic development for the EPCs.


  1. “Minimum total amount to be awarded over the two year contract period will be $50,000” – if that should be a three year contract period, is the minimum amount of $50,000 still correct? 

Yes. But remember, this is just the minimum. We anticipate EPCs will receive substantially more than this.


  1. Are there salary limits or ranges for the different class levels? 

No, other than the mandatory salary rate limit under Public Law 109-149 which is currently $183,500 per year.


  1. Regarding the Direct Labor requirements for cost proposals.  The RFA requires that time be listed in number of hours or days worked and the hourly rate per person.  As we are an academic institution, faculty member's time is tracked by effort percentage rather than hours.  The University of Minnesota, in compliance with OMB Circular A-21, has a Plan-Confirmation Effort Certification System that was approved by the DHHS Audit office in March of 2000. Will AHRQ accept percentages of effort for each person instead of the hourly breakdown for the Direct Labor category?

Yes, as long as the annual salary is specified for each individual along with the percentage of effort so we can verify the mandatory salary rate limit is not exceeded.


  1. The RFA states, "Specific terms and conditions regarding reimbursement and payment will be specifically delineated in each task order." Previous contracts awarded by AHRQ have required monthly invoicing and the final invoice to be submitted within 30 days of the project end date.   My question - will AHRQ allow quarterly invoicing and final invoice due date of 45 days after the project end date?  These changes would help ensure that the university submits timely invoices and the final invoice would include all applicable charges.

Monthly submission of invoices is preferred so AHRQ may adequately manage and track costs. However, requests for quarterly invoicing will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please provide justification for this request within the business proposal. Prompt and correct invoicing is required of all EPCs. This may be an evaluation factor when determining if option years are to be awarded along with other administrative and technical performance.


  1. Will EPCs be required to participate above a certain threshold (e.g., some number of reviews, participation in a multi-year task order) in order to qualify for renewal in option years?  

We would consider the quality, timeliness, and efficiency of reports when considering the option for renewal more than the quantity of reports.  Of course we would hope that all participate actively and are responsive to requests for new task orders as well.


  1. Period of performance is three years with 2 one-year options – who makes this decision? 

The decision will be made by the program staff (Project Officer, Task Order Officer) and the Contracting Officer.


  1. Who at AHRQ fills out the past performance questionnaire for past EPC projects done under EPC contract with AHRQ? Or do we just send to you, Sharon Williams, as the EPC Contract Project Officer and it is then delegated to someone at the EPC Center office?

Past Performance Questionnaires for past EPC projects should be sent to the AHRQ Task Order Officer for that particular project.


  1. Past performance questionnaire / information confusion:  Page 65 - "A list of the last five (5) contracts and subcontracts completed during the past three years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in process".  Page 75 - "Attached to this solicitation is a questionnaire which is to be copied and provided to customers for current and recently completed (within the past year) projects for work related to this requirement".   Do we provide a detailed list of projects in our narrative (Page 65) but then only send the questionnaire to current and past year customers (Page 75)?

L.10 – page 65 – requires a list of the last 5 contracts and subcontracts completed during the past three years (2004-2006) and all contracts/subcontracts currently in process that are related to the type of work being required under this solicitation. L.10 – page 66 – further states that the Past Performance Questionnaire should be completed by those contracting organizations listed above. This should be changed to reflect that questionnaires are only required as specified in Section M – page 75. Section M – page 75 – provides direction as to who should be requested to complete the past performance questionnaires, i.e., current and recently completed (within the past year) projects for work related to this requirement. We are amending this to require submission of past performance questionnaires for only recently completed projects; not those currently in process and to define recently completed as those completed within the past three years (2004, 2005, and 2006).


  1. Attachments - are full CV's required or will the NIH biosketch be sufficient?  Or should we submit both?

We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.


  1. Do you require CVs for key personnel, potential collaborators or will bios do? It  mentions that CVs can be included as attachments but we weren’t clear whether you wanted CVs for key personnel or for all potential collaborators.

We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.


  1. CVs:  would you like CVs for all individuals named in the technical proposals, or just members of the core team?

We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.


  1. Proposal Intent Response Sheet due on May 1, 2007 - do we need to obtain an authorized institutional signature to be included on the "bidder's list"? 

No.


  1. I am not certain what we need to do concerning the small disadvantaged business subcontracting plan.  Is this a plan that we are to develop that indicates our willingness to hire a SDB concern as a subcontractor?  If so, do individuals (as consultants or private contractors) count? 

Yes. Only businesses that meet the definition of a small disadvantaged business should be included in the plan.


  1. Is Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) separate from SDB? 

A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business is a type of Small Disadvantaged Business and can be included in the Small Disadvantaged Business Plan. However, there are separate goals for each.


  1. Does this grant provide special consideration for SDVOSB? 

This is will be a contract, not a grant. No, there are no price evaluation adjustments for SDB firms. Use of SDVOSBs will be considered in the evaluation of the Small Disadvantaged Business Plan.


  1. My company is planning to submit a proposal for the RFP, “Evidence-based Practice Centers III.”  In the cover letter, we are asked to provide a copy of an indirect cost rate agreement with a federal agency.  We do not yet have such an agreement.  Can you direct me to the individual(s) or agency that can help me get this started? 

The following site can assist new contractors concerning indirect cost rates: http://oamp.od.nih.gov/fas/IDCSubmission.asp.


  1. One of the requirements of the business proposal is to show documentation indicating that an IDC agreement is in place, or that we are in the process of obtaining an agreement.  Should I make application prior to the award as an act of that process?  What should go into the proposal demonstrating that we are in the process? 

Application should be made following award. Indicate in your proposal your intent to obtain an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement should you receive a contract. A special provision will be included in the contract concerning how your indirect cost rates will be reimbursed and a timeframe will be established for you to negotiate your indirect cost rate agreement.


  1. There is an apparent typo on page 76, The sentence just above "Total Available Evaluation Points."  SDB participation will be scored with offerors receiving points from 0 to 5, with <> being the most favorable.  It is unclear what "t" is. 

t” should read “5.”


  1. I have a quick question on the Business Proposal section.  Do you just want the labor rates for individuals that will work on this project, or do you also want estimated totals for the base year and option years.

We want labor rates for those individuals proposed to work on this project for all 5 years (3 base years and two option years).


  1. Attachments: On page 42, Item 4 refers to 2 pages but there is only 1 page in the attachment. 

Page 42 contains a typo. There is only 1 page.


  1. Small Disadvantaged Business Plan: on page 1 the instructions are for original and one hard copy plus one electronic copy on CD. On page 70, instructions are for an original plus one electronic copy on CD. Could you please clarify? 

Page 70 contains a typo. We need one original, one hard copy, and one electronic copy.


  1. Could you please explain what a “small disadvantaged business” is? Is this is specific designation that is given pending certain application procedures or eligibility requirements? Is this relevant to groups applying from outside of the US? 

This requirement does not apply to contracts that will be performed entirely outside the U.S. and its outlying areas.


  1. Should the Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan be submitted with the Business Proposal (RFP pg. 67) or should the SDB Participation Plan be submitted independently of the Business Proposal (RFP pg. 58)? 

The Small Disadvantaged Business Plan should be submitted as a separate volume (RFP page 58).


  1. Could you please clarify what you mean by ‘unloaded’ labour rates (e.g., p. 67)? 

Unloaded” is the direct salary rate and does not include indirect costs such as fringe benefits, overhead, general and administrative (G&A), or fee.


  1. The RFP states that some task orders will require slides and presentations as a deliverable. Will these deliverables be written into the statement of work before the task order is assigned, or will these deliverables be negotiated as the project is in process? If the latter, will a contract modification be issued?

Slides and or presentations will be deliverables written into the SOW of the work assignment or the task order.  If it is negotiated later, it will be issued as a modification to the work assignment or task order.


  1. Past Performance Indicators: What type of contracts are you interested in here – do they include research grants for projects other than systematic reviews? (i.e.; projects funded by CIHR, NIH)

We are interested in contracts that are similar to this solicitation.


  1. Do we obtain a performance evaluation from AHRQ if we have had a prior EPC contract? If so, who is the individual that we would contact? Are the individual projects conducted under the EPC program each considered its own contract or would we obtain a performance evaluation for the overall EPC contract (e.g., all work assignments)? If the latter, are the task orders considered separate from the work assignments? Would it be appropriate to obtain performance evaluations from the partners who nominated the individual EPC topics? 

Performance evaluation from AHRQ should be solicited from up to three task order officers who worked most closely with the EPC on recent projects. We do not request evaluations from partner organizations.


  1. Do you require performance evaluations only for completed projects or for ongoing projects as well?  (Page 66 instructs for evaluations by those contracting organizations listed in (1) above which is a listing of both completed and ongoing projects).

We request performance evaluations only for completed projects, not for ongoing projects. Page 66 is amended.
Under L.10. Past Performance Information, the second paragraph under (4) states:

“The attached Past Performance Questionnaire and Contractor Performance Form (Attachment 1) shall be completed by those contracting organizations listed in (1) above.”




  1. Question: Please confirm our interpretation that: Attachment 1 (Past Performance Questionnaire) should only be sent to those contracting organizations associated with contracts and/or subcontracts that have been completed during the past 3 years, and not to “all contracts and subcontracts currently in process…” 

Correct. See Response to Question 60.
Under L.10. Past Performance Information, the first paragraph states:

“Offerors shall submit the following information … as part of their proposal for both the offeror and proposed major subcontractors: (1) a list of the last five (5) contracts and subcontracts completed during the past three years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in process that are relative to the type of work being required under this solicitation.”  




  1. Question:  Please confirm our interpretation that: The offeror will list a total of 5 contracts and/or subcontracts completed during the past 3 years for the offeror and its major subcontractors, and not 5 contracts and/or subcontracts by the offeror as well as 5 contracts and/or subcontracts by each individual major subcontractor.

We would also like to see a list of contracts and/or subcontracts for each major subcontractor so we can evaluate their past performance as well.
RFP L.9, L.10 


  1. Question: Can AHRQ confirm that Past Performance is a separate volume and does not count against the 125 page limitation on the Technical proposal? 

Yes. Past Performance is a separate volume and does not count against the technical proposal page limit.


  1. The Past Performance Indicators form requires an authorized signature – who is that person (the EPC director? University administrator?) 

The Past Performance Questionnaire is to be filled out by your customers (those you have had contracts with). It is not filled out by the offeror. The person who completes the questionnaire should be the individual who signs it. For example, if you had a previous contract with the National Institutes of Health, you should have the NIH Project Officer complete the questionnaire and send it directly to AHRQ. It will be evaluated along with the rest of your proposal.


  1. Regarding the past performance evaluation, if we have completed 5 projects in the last 2 years, are we required to also request evaluations for projects that are still in process? May we request past performance evaluation for more than 5 projects?

We have changed the requirement and will not request evaluations for projects that are still in process. You may request evaluations for more than 5 completed projects.


  1. We are very concerned about asking customers to evaluate performance before a project has been completed. How can customers give an accurate assessment of quality, cost control, and timeliness when the work has not been completed?

We agree that we do not want evaluations from projects in progress.


  1. For previous projects that were performed as part of the EPC Program, should we submit the performance evaluation form to a representative of the partner organization (as the customer) or to a representative of AHRQ such as the EPC Director, Contract Officer, or Task Order Officer? Although the partner organization should be able to comment on many aspects of our performance, some partners may not be able to comment on cost control issues if all budget issues were handled by AHRQ.

Performance evaluation should be submitted to AHRQ Task Order Officers, not the partner organizations.


  1. Again, in relation to past performance, three years is specified as the time frame for past contracts and subcontracts as per Section L 10. (pg. 65). However, in Section M (Evaluation Factors) under past performance (pg. 75) - recently completed projects are referred to as those completed within the past year. Could you please clarify this?

See Response to Question 40. Section M is changed to those completed within the past three years.


  1. To whom at AHRQ should the current EPC II’s send the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1, page 77) for the response to the EPC III Solicitation? 

See response to Question 59.


  1. Please clarify whether the RFP should be single or double spaced, as different instructions are given on the cover page and on page 60. The cover page of the solicitation states that the submitted proposal "...should be limited to 125 double-spaced typewritten pages, while page 60 of the instructions states that the technical proposal "…shall not exceed 125 pages (not including attachments), single-sided, single-spaced pages. 

Double-spaced.


  1. The section heading "Management Plan and Operational Experience" on RFP pages 63 and 64 is used twice;  is the first one on page 63 actually describing the Key Personnel and Core Team?  

Yes, this was an oversight and is amended.


  1. Please clarify the order in which the sections "Key Personnel and Core Team" and "Management Plan and Operational Experience" are to be presented.  In the outline on page 61, Management Plan and Operational Experience comes before Key Personnel and Core Team, on pages 73 and 74 this is reversed, and on pages 63 and 64 it appears that Key Personnel and Core Team is first (see question 3). 

Please describe the “Key Personnel and Core Team” prior to the “Management Plan and Operational Experience”


  1. Please clarify the makeup of the different Key Personnel and Core Team members. It appears that different terms are being used for the same roles in the Solicitation.

1)The Core Team consists of the EPC Director, EPC Associate Director, and EPC Project Manager, 2) the Key Personnel consists of the Core Team plus the Lead Investigator, all other investigators, the research and editorial staff, and the medical librarian and 3) the Lead Investigator is the principal investigator of the projects.


  1. Pages 12, 13 and 63 refer to the EPC Project Director and the Project Manager.  Are these the same position or two different roles?

The position of the EPC Project Director on page 63 is the same as the Project Manger on pages 12 and 13.


  1. Is there flexibility around the organizational structure?  For instance, can we have two Directors or two Associate Directors?

AHRQ would like meaningful, substantive, and consistent leadership for all projects. Offerors must justify an alternate structure, and clearly identify the commitment level of the proposed leadership team. We strive to have sufficient commitment from senior staff to produce consistent, high-quality products.


  1. Class Levels (p. 67): there are some gaps in the class levels. For instance, how would we class an individual with a PhD or a Masters’ degree but fewer than 5 years experience?  Likewise, how would we class an individual with a Bachelor’s degree but fewer than 3 years experience?

Years of experience relevant to the solicitation during training can count towards experience.


  1. Where does the “Task Order Leader” fit into the structure? Is this the same as the “Lead Investigators” referred to on page 12?

The Task Order Leader is the Lead Investigator.


  1. Please clarify the resource commitment on page 12: "senior leadership will be available at a minimum and consistent availability of 70% fulltime equivalent" and "the EPC Director shall consistently contribute a minimum of 20% FTE."  Do these relate to each project? 

With the understanding that each EPC will have a minimum number of projects per year, we would expect that the time commitment requirement of the leadership outlined in the RFP is reflective of the cumulative time commitment to the EPC through the year.


  1. On Page 12 of the RFP, it states that senior leadership will be available at a minimum of 70 percent of the time and the project manager will be available for 100 percent of the time.  How will contractors be reimbursed for having the senior leadership available for 70 percent and the project manager available for 100 percent of time to work on the project?  Will there be a management task to reimburse those costs?

We anticipate that there will be a workload sufficient to support the core team. There will be no additional funding to reimburse costs outside of specific task orders.


  1. Regarding the description of the core team (page 63), may we designate more than one Associate Director and more than one Project Manager? On page 63, the RFP suggests that the core team should consist of only 3 individuals, while on page 64 it suggests that the core team should consist of more than 3 individuals. We understand that we would have to explain the administrative structure and responsibilities for our core team. For example, our proposed Center is in a large institution and it would be very helpful to have an Associate Director from each of the 3 major divisions within the institution. Also, from past experience, we have found it necessary to have more than one full-time project manager to be able to support simultaneous work on 3 or more projects. Thus, it would be desirable for the core team to have more than one project manager.

AHRQ would like meaningful, substantive, and consistent leadership for all projects. Offerors must justify an alternate structure, and clearly identify the commitment level of the proposed leadership team. We strive to have sufficient commitment from senior staff to produce consistent, high-quality products.


  1. Would AHRQ please clarify the distinctions between a “content area” (RFP pg. 63) and a “topic area” (RFP pg. 62)?

There should be no distinction in these terms and they should be interchangeable.


  1. Period of Performance is expected to begin on August 1st  – when might we expect to be notified? 

We hope to notify successful offerors in mid-July. Task Orders will probably not be awarded until September.


  1. Page 2 and Page 68 refer to “Certified documentation of cost accounting system.  Does this refer to having the signed certifications on Pages 45-48 or does this require additional documentation.  If so what would constitute “certified documentation”?

This refers to the certifications on Pages 45-48.

We would also like to make the following amendments:





  1. Section C, page 20, states that we will issue an RFTO to identify 9-11 EPCs for the generalist program. This should be more in the range of 7-9.  

2. Section L, p 61, states “All successful offerors receiving an award will be given the opportunity to submit a proposal for a task order for one of the above areas of focus.” This is changed to read: “All successful offerors receiving an award will be given the opportunity to submit proposals for task orders for the above areas of focus.”  You may submit for more than one if you like.




The hour and date specified for receipt of proposals remains unchanged by this amendment.


The database is protected by copyright ©sckool.org 2016
send message

    Main page