REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
SALT LAKE COUNTY
Lead Agency for Maternal and Child Health
Pay for Success Project
RFP # MAY 16097
Date of Issue: April 15, 2015
Salt Lake County Mayor’s Office
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part 1: Overview and Instructions
1.1
Purpose of the RFP
1.2
Pay for Success Overview
1.3
Examples of Pay for Success
1.4
Pay for Success in Salt Lake County
1.5
Low-Income Mothers and Children in Salt Lake County
1.6
Project Goals and Desired Outcomes
1.7
Requirements for Lead Agency
1.8
Deadline for Proposal Submission
1.9
Projected Schedule for the RFP Process
1.10 Pre-Proposal Conference and Intent to Reply
1.11 Question Submission
Part 2: Scope of Work and Requirements
2.1
Target Population Characteristics
2.2
Interventions
2.3
Savings to the County
2.4
Scope of Work and Tasks to be Completed
2.5
Stakeholders and Roles
2.6
Contracting Process and Timeline
2.7
Payment
2.8
Insurance Requirements
2.9
Proposal Format / Submission Requirements
Part 3: Response Evaluation and Notice to Proposers
3.1
Evaluation and Scoring Criteria
3.2
Written Agreement Required
3.3
Notice to Proposers
2
EXHIBIT A – Pay for Success Flow Diagram
EXHIBIT B – Price & Budget Proposal
EXHIBIT C – Salt Lake County Zip Code Statistics
ATTACHMENT A – Proposal Cover Summary
ATTACHMENT B – Request for Protected Status
ATTACHMENT C – Procurement Preference System
ATTACHMENT D – Environmental Compliance Practices
ATTACHMENT E – Memorandum of Understanding
3
Part 1: Overview and Instructions
1.1 Purpose of the RFP
Salt Lake County (the “County”) is soliciting proposals from qualified firms (“Proposer /
Contractor”) to provide comprehensive services that can improve health and
development outcomes for low-income mothers and their children (ages pre-natal to 5)
through the context of a Pay for Success (“PFS”) project.
Since 2014, the County has been developing a PFS project, the goal of which is to
provide interventions to low-income mothers and their children either during pregnancy
or in the first years of the child’s life. The County is interested in services that can
provide measurable improvement on birth outcomes, health outcomes for the mother
and child, development outcomes for the child, and/or education and employment
outcomes for the mother. The services provided should be designed to meet the needs
of Salt Lake County’s low-income mothers as measured against a similar group that
does not receive services. The measurement of success for this project will depend on
the type of services provided and outcome addressed.
Through this RFP, the County will identify a lead agency (“Lead Agency”) that will work
with the County and its consultant, Third Sector Capital Partners, Inc., (“Third Sector”),
to finalize the service model and financing structure for the project, secure operating
capital, identify additional service providers if necessary to partner with the Lead
Agency and develop the performance-based contract that will memorialize the project.
In the second stage, the Lead Agency and the County will execute a PFS contract with
the Community Foundation of Utah (the “Foundation”) following approval of the project
by the County Council. Under the PFS contract, the Lead Agency will coordinate the
PFS project, manage any subcontractors, and provide direct services to the project’s
participants. We currently expect the PFS contract will have a term of five years,
including enrollment and evaluation of services. Please see Section 2.5 for more detail
on project stakeholders.
1.2 Pay for Success Overview
PFS has emerged as a mechanism for scaling effective criminal justice and social
services for communities in need by changing the way that government allocates and
invests its resources. PFS contracting is a new form of government social service
procurement, where services are paid for only if agreed-upon-outcomes are achieved,
rather than a more traditional cost-reimbursement contract. In order to bridge the
payment delays inherent to PFS contracting because of the time needed to measure
outcomes, PFS projects raise funding from philanthropy and commercial impact lenders
to pay for project implementation as well as for some of the costs associated with
designing and constructing projects. Please see Exhibit A for an illustrative diagram of a
PFS project service and fund flows.
Governments across the country have begun to explore the use of PFS to invest in
4
preventive social services for vulnerable populations, seeking more effective and
efficient ways to meet the needs of these populations. PFS contracts typically
incorporate a rigorous evaluation in order to objectively determine whether the services
are achieving the intended social outcomes, and therefore whether “success payments”
should be made by the government. This approach has the benefit of ensuring that
public resources are only expended for demonstrated “successful outcomes.”
Funders who provide upfront funding for the PFS project can be philanthropic entities,
independent social investors, commercial banks, or a combination of these entities. The
funders bear most or all of the risk associated with the potential that the PFS provider
fails to meet the desired outcomes, resulting in non-payment by the government. In
exchange for bearing this risk, the funders often receive a success payment if the
desired outcomes are achieved or exceeded. The success payment typically varies
depending on the level of “success” achieved by the PFS project. The PFS service
provider may also receive performance incentives or success payments based on the
achievement of outcomes and contract terms.
1.3 Examples of Pay for Success
Several PFS projects have launched in other jurisdictions across the country addressing
different issue areas, including Utah (early childhood education); Chicago, IL (early
childhood education); Cuyahoga County, OH (family homelessness and foster care);
New York City, NY (juvenile justice); New York State (recidivism of incarcerated young
adults); and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (juvenile justice and homelessness).
For example, the Massachusetts juvenile justice PFS project, which launched in early
2014, aims to reduce recidivism and improve employment outcomes for young men
emerging from justice system who are at high risk of re-offending. The PFS service
provider for this project is Roca, Inc., a nonprofit that delivers an evidence-based
intervention for at-risk young men, training them in job and educational readiness, and
life skills. Over the course of the seven-year project, Massachusetts may make up to
$27 million in success payments based on metrics demonstrating decreases in
incarceration, increases in job readiness, and increases in employment attained by the
young men participating in the Roca program. Massachusetts’ success payments are
generally calibrated to correlate with the decrease in state expenditures as a result of
improved outcomes for this population (e.g., fewer days of incarceration resulting in
decreased incarceration costs). The project received $18 million in upfront financing
from commercial and philanthropic funders with an additional $3.3 million in capital from
deferred service fees from the service provider.
1.4 Pay for Success in Salt Lake County
In 2013, Salt Lake County provided funding for the Utah High Quality Preschool PFS
Project. In conjunction with the United Way of Salt Lake City, the County provided
success payments for the first cohort of low-income, at-risk, 3- and 4-year olds receiving
high-quality preschool. This project aimed to reduce the need for later special education
and remedial services and to improve school performance. After the County and the
5
United Way provided funding for the first cohort, legislation was passed that enabled the
State of Utah to commit to a payback fund for success payments for future cohorts.
The County seeks to launch multiple PFS contracts to fund criminal justice and social
services in the County over the next two years and to utilize PFS financing as an
innovative form of upfront, non-County funding to drive desired social outcomes. The
County engaged Third Sector, a nonprofit PFS advisory firm, in fall 2014 to evaluate the
feasibility of various issue areas for PFS contracting, to work with the County to develop
PFS projects and to engage various stakeholders. In January, Mayor Ben McAdams
announced the selection of three issue areas to move forward with PFS contracting:
child/maternal health, criminal justice recidivism, and homelessness.
In December 2014, the County engaged the Foundation to serve as the financial and
legal intermediary for the three PFS projects. In this role, the Foundation will hold and
disburse funding for services and success payments for the three PFS projects and be
a signatory for all PFS contracts with the Lead Agency selected for each project.
The County intends to release RFPs to select Lead Agencies for all three issue areas
this spring and is moving forward with developing and launching the PFS projects by
early 2016.
1.5 Low-Income Mothers and Children in Salt Lake County
There are 22,936 low-income families with one or more children under the age of 5
living in Salt Lake County.1,2 Data shows that low-income mothers and their children are
more at risk to experience negative birth, health and development outcomes as
compared to the general population, as detailed below.
Birth Outcomes3
Language Development
of the Child as measured
by the Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test (PPVT) 4
Maternal Outcomes5
Low-income mothers are:
 17.5% more likely to have a preterm birth
 ~11% more likely to admit newborns to a NICU
Among low-income children:
 50% of 3-year olds score 1 or more standard deviation
below the mean.
 23.2% of 3-year olds score 2 or more standard
deviations below the mean.
Low-income mothers are:
 77.6% more likely to not have a high school diploma
1
For the purposes of this procurement, low-income is defined as income less than 185% of the Federal Poverty Line
which is the income requirement for participation in WIC.
2
Data from 2009-2013 Salt Lake County 5-year Census estimate
3
State of Utah’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMs) database from the years 2009-2011.
4
Data from sample of 3 year olds in Granite School District from 2012-2014
5
State of Utah’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMs) database from the years 2009-2011.
6
1.6 Project Goals and Desired Outcomes
The goal of this PFS project is to provide services to improve the birth, health and/or
development outcomes of the County’s low-income mothers and their children. A vast
amount of research shows the importance and long-term benefits of investing in the
earliest years of a child’s life. This project aims to engage with a high performing
intervention targeted at low-income mothers and/or their children that will help to
improve the family’s health and quality of life.
The County is interested in programs with a track record of success that positively
impact outcomes for mothers and foster child well-being. Indicators of success may
include:




Birth Outcomes
o Reductions in preterm births
o Reductions in low-weight births
o Reductions in rate of admittance to Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU)
Parenting Outcomes
o Reductions in child maltreatment and neglect
o Reductions in emergency room utilization
Child Development
o Improvement in scores on:
 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
 ASQ Development Tests
 School Readiness Tests
Maternal Outcomes
o Improved educational attainment or job certification
o Increase in mother’s employment/income
The list above should not be considered exhaustive. If Proposer has a proven track
record of affecting related outcomes, they should specify their ability to achieve those
outcomes in their response.
The County intends for this project to work with the efforts at the State level to break the
cycle of Intergenerational Poverty (IGP). Although the County is not specifically
targeting IGP families, defined by the State as families in which parents receive(d)
public assistance as children and adults, the County is motivated to address the
adverse outcomes and long-term financial instability of IGP children. Further, the
County anticipates that data collected from this project will be of use to the State in their
continued efforts to understand Intergenerational Poverty in Utah. For further details,
see Utah’s Third Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty, Welfare Dependency and
the Use of Public Assistance.6
6
Report can be found at: https://jobs.utah.gov/edo/intergenerational/igp14.pdf
7
In line with the State’s policies and strategies behind the IGP report, the County is
particularly interested in services that will affect the maternal outcomes listed above.
Although not traditionally included in programs in the field of maternal and child health,
the County recognizes the importance of financial stability in the success of a family.
Therefore, the County is interested in exploring two-generation approaches that serve
mothers and children in a coordinated effort. Proposers whose programs do not
typically affect the maternal outcomes listed above should consider a potential
partnership with services targeted at enhancing a mother’s educational attainment and
earning potential.
Additionally, the County is launching a place-based initiative in the Kearns Township.
The County expects any PFS project in this targeted geography to work with existing
services in the Kearns Township.
1.7 Requirements for Lead Agency
The County requires the selected Lead Agency to be a non-profit organization capable
of implementing and scaling services within the County in a one-year timeframe. If a
Proposer does not currently operate within the County, the County expects a clear
timeline for establishing and ramping up services within the County. Proposers must
also meet all requirements outlined in this RFP. Further, the Lead Agency is expected
to:
 Develop a targeted, evidence-based service delivery model that provides
services to low-income mothers and/or their children;
 Provide all necessary services, or assemble and manage a team of service
providers that collaborate to provide all necessary services;
 Cooperate with the County, the Foundation and Third Sector in raising necessary
project development and implementation funding;
 Conduct ongoing administration, management and required reporting of the
program’s path to achieve agreed-upon target outcomes; and
 Collect and provide predetermined data for the independent evaluator to
measure program outcomes.
For more details on the Scope of Work, please see Section 2.4.
1.8 Deadline for Proposal Submission
Proposals must be e-mailed and received by 2:00 PM Mountain Time on Wednesday,
May 27, 2015. Proposals should be submitted in PDF formats to [email protected] as further discussed in Section 2.9. No proposals will be
accepted after the closing date and time.
8
1.9 Projected Schedule for the RFP Process
County reserves the right to modify the following schedule at its discretion:
Activity
Pre-Proposal Conference
Intent to Reply (optional)
Proposal Due Date
Committee Meeting
Proposer Interviews (if necessary)
Anticipated Invitation to Negotiation
1.10
Date
April 29, 2015
May 13, 2015 at 5:00PM Mountain Time
May 27, 2015 at 2:00PM Mountain Time
Week of June 8, 2015
Week of June 15, 2015
Week of June 22, 2015
Pre-Proposal Conference and Intent to Reply
Interested Proposers are invited to attend a pre-proposal meeting to discuss the project
and to ask questions about this RFP. It will be held on April 29, 2015 at 11am Mountain
Time for 1.5 hours. It will be onsite at the Salt Lake County offices (2001 South State
Street) in the Council Committee room. If any interested Proposer would like to
participate by conference phone, e-mail [email protected] for the toll free
phone number and meeting room number. Proposers are encouraged to submit their
questions in writing before the meeting through Bid Sync at www.bidsync.com. The
meeting is for informational purposes only and is not binding. If the RFP needs to be
modified or clarified, the County will issue a written addendum on Bid Sync.
Interested Proposers are also invited to send an Intent to Reply to [email protected] by May 27, 2015. The Intent to Reply e-mail should include the
organization name and contact information for the point person at the organization. The
Intent to Reply is not required to submit a proposal, but is highly encouraged.
1.11
Question Submission
Questions may be submitted through Bid Sync. Answers to the questions will be posted
in Bid Sync for anyone to view. Do not contact County officers or employees, or
selection committee members.
Part 2: Scope of Work and Requirements
2.1 Target Population Characteristics
For the purposes of this project, low-income is being defined as 185% of the Federal
Poverty line, which is also the standard used by the Women Infants Children (WIC)
program. The County is interested in serving children that are ages prenatal to 5 years.
9
Statistics on low-income mothers in the County:7
Characteristic
Educational Attainment
Income
Health Insurance
Age
Access to Pre-Natal Care
Smoking During Pregnancy
WIC benefits
Low-Income Mothers in Salt Lake County
 31.8% did not graduate high school.
 10.3% have a college degree.
 60% make less than $20k per year
 44.3% are on Medicaid and 17.3% have
no health insurance
 42.3% are 24 years old or younger
 25.3% had no pre-natal care in the first
trimester
 16.8% smoked before pregnancy
 7.6% smoked in the last trimester
 57.3% of mothers receive WIC benefits
Statistics on low-income children age 0-5 in the County:
Characteristic
Abuse and Maltreatment8
Mean PPVT Score10
Low-Income Children in Salt Lake County
 7.3% of children whose parents received
public assistance in 2014 but are not part
of the IGP cohort are victims of abuse,
maltreatment or neglect.
 13% of children whose parents are in the
IGP cohort are victims of abuse,
maltreatment or neglect.9
 50% of 3 year olds score one standard
deviation or more below the mean
 23% of 3 year olds score two standard
deviations or more below the mean
Baseline birth outcomes for low-income mothers in the County:11
Outcome
Preterm Birth
Low-Weight Births
Infant admitted to NICU
% Incidence Rate
14.8%
9.9%
15.2%
For statistics about the number and percentage of low-income families with children
7
State of Utah’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMs) database from the years 2009-2011.
Data from Department of Human Services and Department of Workforce Services. This data is for a population that
is a subset of the low-income population that is referred to in the rest of the procurement.
9
IGP cohort defined as a person who received a year of public assistance before the age of 18 and a year of public
assistance after the age of 18
10
Data from sample of 3 year olds in Granite School District
11
State of Utah’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMs) database from the years 2009-2011
8
10
under the age of 5 by zip code, please refer to Exhibit C.
Proposers should clearly specify if their proposed services would serve the entire
identified target population or a particular subset of the population based on the
proposed services’ evidence base in achieving positive outcomes for a specific subset
of the target population.
2.2 Interventions
The County seeks to implement an intensive, evidence-based intervention that provides
services to the County’s low-income mothers and children. Interventions do not need to
address all outcomes listed in Section 1.6 nor should interventions be confined to those
outcomes. The County will consider interventions that positively impact related
outcomes. The County will prioritize responses that:





Have an evidence-based track record
Provide services to both mothers and children
Provide educational and employment services to mothers
Have provided services to similar populations
Currently provide services in Salt Lake County
The County is open to partnerships in which local providers implement national models.
In this scenario, Proposers should provide specific details of the partnership including
the scope of support from the national organization, as well as plans to maintain fidelity
to the model at the local level.
For the purposes of this RFP, the County is not interested in using the PFS model to
expand its existing commitment to developing traditional, high-quality pre-school
services.
Interventions may serve mothers and children who are not considered low-income,
however, the County will prioritize the outcomes of low-income mothers and children in
determining success payments.
2.3 Savings to the County
The County understands that a majority of the cost savings associated with healthier
infants and mothers accrue to government at the State and Federal level. However,
early childhood health and development are important indicators of other outcomes that
are critical to the economic success and general well-being of the County.12 Further, the
County realizes long-term savings from supporting healthier children when children and
their families avoid high cost services such as involvement with the Department of Child
and Family Services (DCFS), the criminal justice system and/or behavioral health
12
Grunewald, Rob, and Arthur J. Rolnick. "An early childhood investment with a high public return." The Regional
Economist Jul (2010): 12-13.
11
services.
Salt Lake County would prefer that a project demonstrate some County-level savings
during the lifetime of the project, but will consider paying for outcomes as proxies of the
broader community benefit that will be derived from the desired outcomes listed in
section 1.6. Savings to the city, state or federal government may also be considered, as
the County may pursue a partnership with one or more of those governments to
contribute to success payments.
2.4 Scope of Work and Tasks to be Completed
The organization selected through this RFP process will be afforded the opportunity to
enter into exclusive contract negotiations with the County to serve as the Lead Agency
for this project.
During the negotiation process, the Lead Agency will work closely with the County to
finalize the project’s service model and financing structure, secure operating capital,
identify any additional service providers that will partner with the Lead Agency, and
review and approve the contract(s) that will memorialize the project. Although the
County does not necessarily expect the Lead Agency to provide every service needed
to achieve its desired outcomes, the Lead Agency must possess the knowledge,
resources, and sophistication necessary to oversee all aspects of the program and will
ultimately be responsible for delivering the desired social outcomes. In the event the
Lead Agency subcontracts to provide the services specified in the PFS contract, the
Lead Agency retains full responsibility for contract compliance, whether the services are
provided directly or by a subcontractor. Further, the Lead Agency shall, at a minimum,
include provisions in its subcontract(s) that require the subcontractor(s) to comply with
all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations and the applicable
insurance and indemnification provisions.
The Lead Agency must demonstrate the capacity to perform the following functions:








Enter into a PFS contract with the County and the Foundation;
Develop an evidence-based service model to improve the outcomes of the
County’s low-income mothers and children;
Provide all services or assemble and closely manage partnerships with other
organizations as needed to provide these services to the target population;
Conduct ongoing administration and/or management of the program to achieve
the negotiated outcome(s) with a specific intervention for the target population,
as described;
Manage the project to change or modify the service delivery methods and
service providers if needed to ensure outcomes are achieved;
Collect and provide data to the independent evaluator to measure program
outcomes;
Provide relevant information for and participate in discussions with the
Foundation and Third Sector to raise funding for the project; and
Manage the overall PFS project day-to-day operations.
12
2.5 Stakeholders and Roles
A. SALT LAKE COUNTY
The County expects to enter into a PFS contract with the Proposer under which it will
make success payments to the project if and when successful pre-determined
outcomes are achieved. The County will select the Lead Agency to develop and
oversee the PFS project in collaboration with Third Sector and other project
stakeholders.
B. THIRD SECTOR CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.
Third Sector is currently working with the County to complete a feasibility analysis and
develop PFS projects in Salt Lake County. Third Sector will also lead fundraising for
pre-launch project development funding and post-launch project funding. In partnership
with the County, Third Sector will design the overall financial structure and develop
economic modeling of the project, assist with development of the PFS contracts, and
will identify and engage local and national funders that have an interest in supporting
PFS projects.
C. COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF UTAH – FINANCIAL AND LEGAL
INTERMEDIARY
The Community Foundation of Utah will work with the County, Third Sector, and all
project parties to set up the necessary accounts for this project. The Foundation will
hold and disburse funding for the project in accordance with the Pay for Success
contract.
D. LEAD AGENCY AND SERVICE PROVIDERS
As detailed in Section 2.4, the Lead Agency will oversee all aspects of service delivery
and will ultimately be responsible for delivering the desired social outcomes. If
necessary, the Lead Agency may subcontract with other service providers to provide
specific services and/or interventions.
E. FUNDERS
Funders are the institutions or individuals that provide the financing necessary to
provide the working capital funds for the PFS service provision. Funders may or may
not expect a return of their principal along with some interest, paid out of the success
payments made by the County. They accept some or all of the risk of non-payment if
outcomes are not achieved.
F. INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS AND POLICY INNOVATION LAB AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF UTAH
The Independent Evaluator will be responsible for designing the evaluation
methodology and plan for the PFS project. The Independent Evaluator will also verify
and validate whether the success outcome(s), for which the County will make success
payments, are achieved. Evaluation support during project development will be
provided through the Policy Innovation Lab at the University of Utah.
13
2.6 Contracting Process and Timeline
As noted above, the organization selected through this RFP process will be afforded the
opportunity to enter into exclusive contract negotiations with the County to serve as the
Lead Agency for the Maternal and Child Health PFS Project. The contracting process
will have two phases:
Phase I – Project Construction: The selected organization will collaborate with the
County and Third Sector to finalize the details of the project (e.g., services, outcomes,
contracting and financing structure, evaluation process, etc.) and prepare the
contractual agreement(s) memorializing the project. We anticipate this process will take
approximately 6-9 months. The County Council will then approve the proposer and the
project.
Phase II – Contract Execution and Service Provision: After the completion of the
project construction phase, the Lead Agency, the County, and the Foundation will
execute a PFS contract. Service provision will begin thereafter. If identified as
necessary, the Lead Agency may provide services in a pilot phase before the PFS
project is fully launched.
Accomplishing the goals of this RFP and the subsequent project construction process
will require the coordinated efforts of multiple stakeholders. As such, a successful
Proposer must demonstrate the willingness and skills necessary to collaborate
effectively with other service providers, the County, potential funders, and the evaluator.
There is no guarantee that contract(s) will be executed, or that any future contract
extensions will be granted.
2.7 Payment
PFS is a performance-based approach to contracting that is fundamentally different
from traditional fee-for-service or cost-reimbursement models generally utilized in the
County’s service contracts. The details of the compensation structure for the Maternal
and Child Health PFS Contract will be negotiated during the project construction
process (Phase I), but the County anticipates the compensation provisions of the
contract will utilize the following structure:



To ensure the Lead Agency and any subcontracted service providers have the
working capital necessary to provide services, the Foundation (as detailed in
Section 2.5) will provide the Lead Agency with working capital commensurate
with the cost of service delivery;
The County will make payments if and only if the specific outcomes set forth in
the contract are achieved as verified by the selected Independent Evaluator;
Because the third party funders bear most or all of the risk associated with the
potential failure to achieve desired outcomes, the success payments made by
the County will exceed the amount paid to the Lead Agency by the third party
funders by an amount calibrated to provide the funders with a reasonable interest
rate; and
14

The Lead Agency can also elect to bear some risk of non-success and receive
performance incentives or a portion of the success payments if “success” is
achieved.
2.8 Insurance Requirements
Insurance will be required in the amounts listed below.
A. Workers’ compensation and employer’s liability insurance as required by the
State of Utah.
B. Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amount of $500,000
per occurrence with a $1,000,000 general policy aggregate.
C. Professional liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per
occurrence with a $2,000,000 annual policy aggregate limit.
D. Commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage in the
minimum amount of $100,000 per occurrence.
2.9 Proposal Format / Submission Requirements
Please submit electronic copies of your proposal as described in Section 1.8. All
proposals should be sent as three separate attachments with a program proposal, a
budget proposal and a budget narrative. The submission should also include any
separate PDFs of financial documentation as outlined in Section 3 under the “Financial
Stability” criteria. The proposal should be submitted as:
A. Program Proposal: Proposals must respond to the elements outlined in the
Evaluation and Scoring Criteria (Section 3.1) and must also conform to the
following submission requirements. The program proposals cannot be more
than 30 pages, double-spaced, with size 12 Arial font.
1. Executive Summary: This section must include a summary of the key
aspects of the PFS program proposed by the Proposer, the principal
reasons the Proposer should be selected as the Lead Agency, and
indicate the Proposer’s willingness and authority to enter into an
agreement with the County and to agree to all the terms set forth. It
must not exceed one page. This summary is separate from the
maximum allowable number of pages.
2. Page Numbering: The program proposals must contain page numbers.
3. Table of Contents: The program proposals must contain a table of
contents with references to page numbers.
4. Proposer Request for Protected Information: All documents submitted
in response to this RFP will be treated as public records in accordance
with GRAMA unless a claim of business confidentiality is submitted per
the Request for a Protected Status. If submitting, the Request for
15
Protected Status form must be directly behind the cover summary and
does not count toward the page limit.
B. Budget Proposal - Budget: Submit the proposed Budget by filling out the
Excel attachment and sending with the full proposal as an Excel
spreadsheet. Please title the Excel file “Budget Proposal_NAME OF
PROPOSER”.
C. Budget Proposal - Budget Narrative: Submit the Budget Narrative as a
PDF file. Budget narratives can be no longer than three pages, doublespaced, with size 12 Arial font. If you are requesting preference points,
submit Attachment C as part of the budget narrative.
D. Submit any financial documentation as outlined in Section 3 as separate
PDFs with submission.
Part 3: Response Evaluation and Notice to Proposers
3.1 Evaluation and Scoring Criteria
Proposals will be evaluated, scored, and ranked on the following criteria. The program
proposal is 80% of the scoring and the budget proposal, including the budget narrative,
is 20%.
A. Program Proposal
The program proposal will be evaluated, scored, and ranked by a Selection
Committee. Each member of the committee will be provided a score sheet to
complete the proposal evaluation. Please submit a program proposal narrative
that addresses the requests below.
25% Organizational Experience.
1) Describe the Proposer’s mission and current programs.
2) Describe the Proposer’s organizational infrastructure and management team
as they relate to its capacity to serve as the Lead Agency for this project,
indicating which members of the Proposer’s team will be dedicated to this
project.
3) Detail prior experience in similar projects collaborating with or coordinating
public and/or private entities for service delivery (include letters of reference
or support in an appendix if applicable, letters will not count towards total
page limit).
4) Discuss past experiences and current relationships that demonstrate the
Proposer’s ability to collaborate with the County and Third Sector to obtain
private financial resources in support of this project.
5) Demonstrate familiarity with the target population and the delivery of services
16
to that population either in Salt Lake County or other similar geographies.
6) Identify areas of training or capacity building necessary to successfully deliver
the required services.
45% Proposed Approach.
1) Describe the components of the Proposer’s proposed PFS program model(s),
including services that have the potential to meet the outcomes and
objectives of this RFP. Please comment on the outcomes the County is using
to define success in this project. If program has the ability to affect related
outcomes not listed on this RFP, please justify the inclusion of related
outcomes. Please cite existing local or other national evidence that supports
the effectiveness of the proposed model(s), and its components.
2) Indicate how the proposed model is designed to best serve the target
population for this project and include a logic model. Specify which subset of
the target population the model would serve. If program model does not
exclusively serve low-income mothers and children, provide justification of
universal provision of services as well as strategies for focusing services to
low-income mothers and children as much as possible.
3) Describe how the Lead Agency will scale services if services are currently
being delivered to the target population in the County. If services do not exist
in the County, please describe how the Lead Agency will build capacity for
service delivery and implement services in the County successfully.
4) Describe how the proposed PFS program model would identify eligible
participants and refer them to services. Identify any infrastructure or
partnerships with County entities that would be necessary to establish
referrals.
5) Identify any other public and/or private entities, including subcontractors, with
which the Proposer intends to collaborate in order to execute programming.
Specifically, mention potential partnerships between interventions in order to
achieve both maternal and child outcomes.
6) Describe the means and methods the Proposer intends to use to pursue datadriven performance management throughout the duration of a multi-year
contract as it relates to this specific RFP, and its past experience using similar
means and methods.
7) Propose appropriate metrics and outcomes for assessing the success of the
PFS intervention and describe how the necessary data could be acquired and
used to assess the impact of the provided services.
8) Provide a projection of the anticipated level of success on selected outcomes
for program participants annually for each of the five years of the project. Cite
existing evidence that supports the effectiveness of the proposed
intervention(s) to achieve these levels of success.
9) Identify any questions or concerns related to the County’s program goals set
forth in this RFP and/or obstacles to achieving such goals, including the
Proposer’s ability gaps.
10) If not previously addressed in your response, discuss your organization’s
ability to comply with or address the County’s specific priorities and goals as
17
outlined in Section 2.
10% Financial Stability.
Send, as separate PDFs, documentation that the organization has sufficient
reserves to maintain the program and is in good financial standing, including but
not limited to audited financial statements with the applicable notes and 990
filings for the last two (2) fiscal years. If Proposer cannot provide either, please
provide financial statements and note the reason why statements are not audited
or 990 filings are unavailable.
B. Budget Proposal
The Budget Proposal should include a narrative and a proposed budget for
implementation and execution of the PFS project. Please see the “Budget
Template” (Exhibit B) to fill out the proposed budget. Please note that the
proposed budgets are not binding, but should be thoughtful and thorough.
Written responses should be limited to three pages with 1.5 spacing, with 12point font and one-inch margins. Budget proposals will not count against the
overall page limit.
20% Budget Proposal. Proposers should submit a pro forma PFS budget for
service delivery period by completing the “Budget Template” spreadsheet
provided.
The first worksheet provides specific guidance on completing the pro
forma budget, which should include:



The full costs of service delivery and any applicable revenues;
The number of individuals to be served each year; and
The projected number of successful outcomes.
For purposes of constructing a budget, assume the following:
1) The project will attempt to serve no fewer than 200 individuals over
the five-year service delivery period.
2) Budgets cannot exceed $4,000,000 over the five-year service
delivery period.
In addition to the proposed budget, please provide a budget narrative that
describes and explains:
1) The nature of expenses included in each category;
2) Rationale for any increases/decreases in expenses over time;
3) How the cost associated with each category was derived, including the
basis for the cost estimates (e.g., costs previously incurred in the provision
of the same or similar services, studies estimating the costs of provision of
the same or similar services, etc.).
C. Preference System
18
Salt Lake County may adjust scoring pursuant to its Preference System
established by ordinance and policy. Please refer to the preference system
attachment and include the preference information in the budget proposal if
requesting.
D. Interview, Demonstration, and Site Visit.
The Selection Committee may invite Proposers for an interview, demonstration,
or conduct a site visit. The purpose is clarification and verification of the written
proposal. The Selection Committee may re-score the proposal after the
interview, demonstration, or site visit.
E. Recommended Award
After the Selection Committee has completed their evaluation process, the
Selection Committee will present a recommendation for award to the proper
signing authority for authorization to negotiate a contract with the top-ranked
Proposer.
F. Debrief Meetings
Debrief meetings with the selection committee members will not be allowed,
however, a Proposer may discuss the RFP process with the chair/facilitator of the
committee at any time.
3.2 Written Agreement Required
The selected Proposer must agree to all requirements in the RFP scope of work. The
County, Third Sector, the Policy Innovation Lab and the Community Foundation of Utah
have entered into a nonbinding Memorandum of Understanding to memorialize roles
and responsibilities in launching the PFS project. The selected Proposer must also be
willing to enter into the final PFS contract with the County and the Foundation and enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding, an example of which is attached to this RFP.
Proposers are advised that the County is not bound by the terms of the RFP until a
written PFS contract is fully executed and any activity taken on by the Proposer prior to
full execution of a written agreement is done at the Proposer’s sole risk.
3.3 Notice To Proposers
By submitting a proposal to this RFP, Proposer understands and agrees to the
following:
A. Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA):
County is a governmental entity subject to the Utah Government Records Access
and Management Act (“GRAMA”), Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-2-101 to -901. As a
result, County is required to disclose certain information and materials to the
public, upon request. Generally, any document submitted to County is
19
considered a “public record” under GRAMA. Any person who provides to County
a record that the person believes merits protection under subsection 63G-2305(1) or (2) must provide both: (1) a written claim of business confidentiality and
(2) a concise statement of reasons supporting the claim of business
confidentiality. Generally, GRAMA only protects against the disclosure of trade
secrets or commercial information that could reasonably be expected to result in
unfair competitive injury. For your convenience, County has provided a Business
Confidentiality Request Form which is attached to this RFP as Attachment B. All
documents submitted in response to this RFP will be treated as public
records in accordance with GRAMA, unless a claim of business
confidentiality has been properly made and approved by County. All
proposed costs/pricing/fees submitted to the county are public records.
An entire proposal cannot be identified as “PROTECTED,”
“CONFIDENTIAL,” or “PROPRIETARY” and may be considered nonresponsive if marked as such.
B. Copyrighted Material Waiver: In the event that the proposal contains copyrighted
or trademarked materials, by submitting its proposal the Proposer grants the
County the right to use, reproduce, and publish the copyrighted or trademark
materials in any manner the County deems necessary for conducting County
business and for allowing public access to the responses under GRAMA or
otherwise, including but not limited to photocopying, County Intranet/Internet
postings, broadcast faxing, and direct mailing.
If the proposal contains materials whose copyright or trademark is held by a third
party, it is the Proposer’s sole responsibility to obtain permission from that third
party for the County to reproduce and publish the information.
By submitting its proposal, the Proposer certifies that it owns or it has obtained all
necessary approvals for the reproduction or distribution of the contents of the
proposal and agrees to indemnify, protect, save and hold the County, its
representatives and employees harmless from any and all claims arising from all
intellectual property claims related or connected to the proposal and agrees to
pay all legal fees incurred by the County in the defense of any such action.
C. Restrictions On Communications: From the issue date of this solicitation until a
Proposer is selected and the selection is announced, Proposers are prohibited
from communications regarding this procurement with agency staff, evaluation
committee members, or other associated individuals EXCEPT the Buyer
overseeing this procurement. Failure to comply with this requirement may result
in disqualification.
D. RFP Cancellation: This RFP may be cancelled at any time prior to the execution
of a written agreement if deemed in the best interests of County. This includes
cancellation of the RFP after an award has been made, but prior to the execution
of a written contract. Proposer is not entitled to recover any costs related to the
preparation of the proposal due to cancellation of the RFP or withdrawal of an
award prior to the execution of a written agreement.
20
E. Costs: Proposers bears all costs and expenses related to this RFP including, but
not limited to, preparation and delivery of the proposal, attending the preproposal conference, and attending the interview.
F. Licensing: All applicable federal, state, and local licenses must be acquired
before the contract is entered into between County and the selected Proposer.
Licenses must be maintained throughout the entire contract period. Persons
doing business as an Individual, Association, Partnership, Corporation, or
otherwise must be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and
Commercial Code. NOTE: Forms and information on registration may be
obtained by calling (801) 530-4849 or toll free at 877-526-3994, or by accessing:
www.commerce.utah.gov.
G. Changes or Modifications: Any changes or modification to the RFP will be made
by written addendum. Proposer submitting a proposal based on any information
other than that contained in County’s RFP and any addenda, do so at their own
risk.
H. Receiving Proposals: Contracts and Procurement will administer receipt and
opening of all proposals. Proposals will be held, unopened, by Contracts and
Procurement in the same condition as received if delivered prior to the date and
closing time designated in the RFP. After the closing time, only the identity of
each Proposer will be made public. If only one proposal is received in response
to County request, Contracts and Procurement, in coordination with the agency
requesting the project, may recommend entering into a contract to the single
Proposer if the conditions cited above are met. Alternatively, Contracts and
Procurement may re-solicit for the purpose of obtaining additional proposals.
I. Modifying or Withdrawing Proposals: Proposer may modify or withdraw their
proposals at any time prior to the closing time. Requests to modify a proposal
before the closing time must be made in writing to the County.
J. Rejection of Proposals: Any proposal containing significant deviations from the
specifications of the RFP will be considered non-responsive and may be rejected
in whole or in part.
K. Protests: Pursuant to Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances § 3.20.150, a
protest in regard to the RFP document must be submitted in writing prior to the
RFP closing date. All other protests must be submitted in writing within five (5)
business days after notification of the award is posted on Bid Sync. A protestor
may file only one (1) protest after the RFP closing date. Protest letters must
specifically and completely state the facts that the protestor believes constitute
error in the RFP document or the award.
L. Free and Competitive Selection: Any agreement or collusion among prospective
Proposers to fix a price or limit competition will render the proposal void, and
such conduct is unlawful and subject to criminal sanction. By submitting a
21
proposal, the Proposer hereby certifies that no one in its firm or company has
either directly or indirectly restrained free and competitive selection, participated
in any collusion, or otherwise taken any action unauthorized by County
Purchasing Ordinances or applicable law.
M. Ethical Standards: Proposer represents that it has not: (a) provided an illegal gift
to any County officer or employee, or former County officer or employee, or to
any relative or business entity of a County officer or employee, or relative or
business entity of a former County officer or employee; (b) retained any person to
solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide
employees of bona fide commercial agencies established for the purpose of
securing business; (c) breached any of the ethical standards set forth in State
statute or Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances § 2.07; or (d) knowingly
influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, any County
officer or employee or former County officer or employee to breach any of the
ethical standards set forth in State statute or Salt Lake County ordinances.
N. Campaign Contributions: The Salt Lake County campaign finance disclosure
ordinance limits campaign contributions by Proposers to County candidates. Salt
Lake County Code of Ordinances § 2.72A. Proposer acknowledges and
understands those limitations on campaign contributions mean that any person,
business, corporation or other entity that enters into a contract or is engaged in a
contract with County is prohibited from making campaign contributions in excess
of $100 to County candidates during the term of the contract and during a single
election cycle as defined in the ordinance. Proposer further acknowledges that
violation of those provisions governing campaign contributions may result in
criminal sanctions as well as termination of this Agreement.
O. Reasonable Accommodations: Reasonable accommodations for qualified
individuals to attend meetings may be provided upon receipt of a request with
two (2) working days’ notice. Please contact Contracts and Procurement at
385.468.0306. TTY users may call 711.
P. Environmentally Responsible Procurement Practices: In compliance with
Executive Order #2013-4, County has implemented environmentally
responsible procurement practices. Please refer to Attachment D.
Q. Notice to Retirees of Utah Retirement Systems (“URS”)
County is a URS “participating employer.” Entering into an agreement with
County may affect a URS retiree’s retirement benefits including, but not limited
to, cancellation of the retiree’s “retirement allowance” due to “reemployment” with
a “participating employer” pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 49-11-504 to -505. In
addition, Proposer is required to notify County immediately if a retiree of URS is
the Proposer; or an owner, operator, or principal of the Proposer. Proposer may
refer the URS retiree to the URS Retirement Department at 801-366-7770 or
800-695-4877 for all questions about post-retirement employment regulations.
22
R. Employee Status Verification System
Proposer shall register and participate in the Status Verification System before
entering into a contract with County as required by Utah Code Ann. § 63G-12302. The Status Verification System is an electronic system operated by the
federal government, through which an authorized official of a state agency or a
political subdivision of the state may inquire by exercise of authority delegated
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373 to verify the citizenship or immigration status of an
individual within the jurisdiction of the agency or political subdivision. Proposer is
individually responsible for verifying the employment status of only new
employees who work under Proposer’s supervision or direction and not
those who work for another Proposer or subcontractor, except each Proposer or
subcontractor who works under or for another Proposer shall certify to the main
Proposer by affidavit that the Proposer or subcontractor has verified, through the
Status Verification System, the employment status of each new employee of the
respective Proposer or subcontractor. The Proposer shall comply in all respects
with the provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 63G-12-302. Proposer’s failure to
comply with this requirement may result in the immediate termination of its
contract with County.
23
EXHIBIT
A – Pay forTripartite
Success Diagram
“Typical” Pay for Success
Structure:
Contract
Services
Impact
Funders
Payments
Success Payments
1
Provide
up-front
financing
Service
Provider(s)
3
Provides payment for
services
Delivers Services
Repays funders
if outcomes
met
Funding
Contract
5
6
2
Makes Success Payments
if outcomes met
Intermediary
Government
Payer
Pay for Success Contract
Evaluator
Contract
(can be part of
PFS contract)
Designs evaluation methods
and measures outcomes
4
Evaluator
2
2014, Third Sector Capital Partners, Inc.
24
EXHIBIT B – Budget Proposal
Pricing Budget Worksheets and Narrative Requirements
The Pricing Response should include a narrative and a proposed budget for
implementation and execution of the PFS project. Please note that the proposed
budgets are not binding, but should be thoughtful and thorough. Written responses
should be limited to three pages with 1.5 spacing, with 12-point font and one-inch
margins. Budget proposals will not count against the overall page limit.
Bidders should submit a pro forma PFS budget for a service delivery period by
completing the spreadsheet. The pro forma budget should include:
- The full costs of service delivery and any applicable revenues;
- The number of individuals to be served each year; and
- The projected number of successful outcomes.
For purposes of constructing a budget, assume the following:
1) The project will attempt to serve no fewer than 200 individuals over the five-year
service delivery period.
2) Budgets cannot exceed $4,000,000 over the five-year service delivery period.
In addition to the proposed budget, please provide a budget narrative that describes
and explains:
1) The nature of expenses included in each category;
2) Rationale for any increases/decreases in expenses over time;
3) How the cost associated with each category was derived, including the basis for the
cost estimates (e.g., costs previously incurred in the provision of the same or similar
services, studies estimating the costs of provision of the same or similar services, etc.);
and
4) The source of any projected cost savings to the County and the basis for the
estimated level of impact to achieve the cost savings amount.
ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION AND NOTES:
Pricing Budget Explanations and Notes:
Staffing (Salary & Benefits): Enter the number of FTEs for each job classification
proposed and the total cost per FTE (salary and benefits). In the budget narrative,
indicate the anticipated amount of total staffing cost that reflects salaries and the
amount that is for benefits.
Other Operating Expenses: Include any recurring expenses not related to personnel
expenses.
Startup Expenses: Include all one-time costs related to the initiation of this project.
Lead Agency Costs
25
Staffing (Salary & Benefits): Enter the number of FTEs for each job classification
proposed, the total annual cost per FTE (salary and benefits), and total costs for staffing
each year. In the budget narrative, indicate the anticipated amount of total staffing cost
for salaries and the amount that is for benefits.
Operating Expenses: Include any gross expenses not related to personnel which are
associated with providing services to the target population.
Other Operating Expenses: Include any other general operating expenses not captured
in the other categories above related to the project.
Startup Expenses: Include all one-time costs related to the initiation of this project.
Other Partner Costs
To the extent possible and as applicable, include estimated costs the Proposer expects
to incur through subcontracting or service provision relationships with other entities,
providing a separate budget for each entity. Use the explanations and notes from the
Lead Agency costs as guidance. In the budget narrative, briefly describe the services
the Proposer expects from each service provider, describe the types of expenses
included in each category and explain how the amount of funding assigned to each
category was derived (e.g., costs previously incurred in the provision of the same or
similar services, studies estimating the costs of provision of the same or similar
services, etc.).
Programmatic Impact Projections:
Total Individuals Served: Provide the anticipated total number of individuals to be
served in each year, given the requirement for the program to serve no fewer than 200
individuals and not exceed $4 million in costs over the five-year service delivery period.
In the budget narrative, please include a description and explanation of how these
figures were derived.
Total Projected Baseline Outcomes: Based on the projected number of individuals
served, indicate the baseline of prioritized outcomes
Total Projected Successful Outcomes: Based on the projected number of individuals
served, indicate the project impact of prioritized outcomes to be achieved in each year
In the budget narrative, please include a description and explanation of how these
figures were derived and any evidence to support these projected estimate. (e.g., Lead
Agency or Partner evidence of the same or similar services, studies estimating the
impact of same or similar services, etc.).
(Budget template is attached as an Excel spreadsheet).
26
EXHIBIT C- Salt Lake County Zip Code Statistics1314
The table below shows the number of families and percentage of familiies in each zip
code who are low-income and have a child under the age of 5.
Zip Code
84006
84020
84044
84047
84065
84070
84081
84084
84088
84092
84093
84094
84095
84096
84101
84102
84103
84104
84105
84106
84107
84108
84109
84111
84112
84113
84115
84116
84117
84118
84119
84120
84121
84123
13
14
# of low-income families
with a child under the
age of 5
33
555
724
727
442
678
1083
555
781
196
175
595
358
485
153
170
160
1451
227
638
720
236
216
148
0
0
1165
1719
359
1794
2393
1677
261
1186
% of Families that are lowincome with a child under the
age of 5
19.6
5.5
11
10
5
11.1
11.1
6.4
9
2.5
2.7
8.5
2.8
5.9
22.8
6.9
3.5
29.4
4.5
8.2
9.4
4.2
3.7
8.6
0
0
21.7
23.6
6.4
11.9
20.1
14.7
2.4
12.5
Data from 2009-2013 Salt Lake County 5-year Census estimate
Link to Salt Lake County Map by Zip Code
27