1. society
2. work
3. contracts

RFP DASPS 2365-15
Questions and Answers
Release #3
Dated 3-20-15
Clarification of RFP Q&A Released 3-6-15
Q:
Supervision of Screeners. I am looking for clarification of what looks to me like conflicting
information within the HFO RFP.


A:
Section 3.2.3.4 of the RFP document says that the supervision requirements set forth
in the HFO Policies and Procedures require Eligibility Screeners are subject to the
same supervision requirements as home visitors (weekly, 1:6 ratio).
Rows 17-18 of the Budget Guidance worksheet say that HFA standards do not specify
supervision requirements for Eligibility Screeners.
This is an error and will be corrected by Addendum. The correct language should read:
3.2.2.1.
Staff HFO services so that direct service staff (Home Visitors) receive ongoing
weekly, administrative, clinical and reflective supervision according to HFO
Policies and Procedures. The full-time direct supervisor to full-time direct
service staff ratio shall not exceed 1:6. Best practice is 1:5.
3.2.2.2.
Please explain how Eligibility Screeners will be supported and what type of
supervision they will receive.
Clarified Response: 3.2.3.4. Staff HFO services so that direct service staff (i.e. Home Visitors and
Eligibility Screeners) receive ongoing weekly, administrative, clinical and
reflective supervision according to HFO Policies and Procedures. The fulltime direct supervisor to full-time direct service staff ratio shall not exceed
1:6. Best practice is 1:5.
Staff HFO services so that direct service staff ( Home Visitors) receive
ongoing weekly, administrative, clinical and reflective supervision
according to HFO Policies and Procedures. The full-time direct
supervisor to full-time direct service staff ratio shall not exceed 1:6.
Best practice is 1:5.
Please explain how Eligibility Screeners will be supported and what type of
supervision they will receive. This is being removed.
Q:
How does MIECHV funding work in with the RFP process?
A:
MIECHV dollars for HFO slots must be awarded to a provider offering HFO services. If a current
HFO provider is receiving MIECHV funds now, and they are no longer an HFO provider after the
RFP process, their MIECHV contract that ends on September 30th will not be renewed, as these
funds must be awarded to an existing HFO program.
Clarified Response: Although MIECHV dollars are unrelated to this RFP, if a current MIECHV site is
not awarded a Contract under this RFP then additional discussion will be required
with Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to determine the best planning for families
that are affected by this change.
General RFP and Process Questions:
Q:
Can we submit two proposals for our region?
A:
Nothing in the RFP prohibits a Proposer from submitting a proposal for just a portion of the
Service Delivery Area although the Early Learning Division envisions one award per Service
Delivery Area. Section 5.2.7 is worth a majority of points so please be very clear on the how and
why the approach you are proposing is the best delivery model for all children and families within
that region.
Q:
Is there only one fiscal manager per Service Delivery Area?
A:
The Early Learning Division envisions one award per Service Delivery Area with the Proposer
providing the services directly to children and families but will not preclude other approaches
based on the information contained within the proposal describing how the proposed approach is
the best model for children and families including how the most amount of funding is going to
direct services and not administrative overhead.
Q:
We are a current HFO program who serves our entire jurisdiction. How should we
approach section 5.2.7 since a) it is worth the majority of points; and b) the bulk of the
questions 5.2.7.2.1-5.2.7.2.4 in the section we don't need to expound on since we are serving
the entire service area, are serving all populations in the service area, will not be expanding
services, and are not starting services.
A:
Proposals should be written clearly describing the current services. There is likely to be
evaluation team members who don’t know anything about your entity or the services you provide
and scores can only be based on the information provided within the proposal.
This section will be modified in an addendum to add clarity to the questions.
Q:
Section 5.2.7.1, we are to describe how we will ensure continue services--our proposed
project is a continuation of our current services. Should we just describe our current
program and then state we will continue this program?
A:
Proposals should be written clearly describing the current services. There is likely to be
evaluation team members who don’t know anything about your entity or the services you provide
and scores can only be based on the information provided within the proposal.
Q:
Section 5.2.5.4 asks for a staffing plan that identifies the key staff and experience of key staff
responsible for implementation. Can you clarify what you mean by “key staff”? Are you
looking for information about the Program Manager(s) and Supervisors? Do you want
information about each home visitor and screener? What about the Executive Director, HR,
and/or Finance staff? Do you want each individual’s unique experience? Or the general
experience requirements for each type of position?
A:
A Key Person’s section will be added by Addendum.
Q:
5.1.2 requires a signed original hard copy of the Technical Proposal, and 6 CDs with PDFs of
the Technical Proposal. Is it okay for the signature to appear only on the signed original
hard copy, and for the PDF version to be unsigned?
A:
The PDFs need to be identical to the signed original hard copy.
Q:
I’m hearing from the Director of our Hub that the State and Healthy Families Oregon wants
the Regional Hubs to submit the RFPs.
I know in your questions/answers you mention that you are looking for one application for
each region but could we actually submit both?
A:
There has been no direction from the Early Learning Division to HUBS on who should apply.
The Early Learning Division prefers a regional approach for each Service Delivery Area but
nothing in the RFP prohibits a Proposer from submitting a proposal for just a portion of the
Service Delivery Area. The RFP is open to all entity types and is not limited to the Regional
Hub’s
.
Q:
Is there a potential for the RFP closing date to be moved especially if the Early Learning
Division is looking for Regional Approaches with Direct Service Providers since that is not
how the system is current aligned?
A:
Early Learning Division will be moving the closing date out to May 15th, 2015 at 3:00 to the SPC.
This change will be made by addendum.
Q:
If an Entity submits a proposal with a plan to subcontract, what are the Entities
requirements through provision of services?
A:
If an HFO contract is awarded to an agency that subcontracts direct services to other agencies, the
Lead Agency will be required to ensure that their subcontracted agency administer the HFO
program with model fidelity. To ensure this, the contract administrator at the Lead Agency will
need to be knowledgeable in the HFA model and will be required to do the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Attend the 4 day Intensive Services Home Visitor (ISHV) CORE TRAINING
Attend the 3 day Parent Survey CORE Training and 1 day Supervisor CORE training
Attend the Program Managers CORE Training and complete the (coming soon) Program
Manager On-Line training (approx.. 24 hours of training)
Attend trainings on HFO Database
Participate in all 2 hour monthly HFO Webinars
6.
7.
8.
9.
Q:
Review all HFA Quality Assurance Analyses and Plans and sign off before submission to
HFO Central Administration
Review and approve all subcontractor’s annual budgets before submission each year
Review quarterly fiscal reports
Coordinate and participate in a monthly HFO “Partners” meeting that includes all
Executive Directors for subcontracted agencies and HFO Program Manager.
For the supporting material, MOUs with community partners – we have a lot of them and
they are about 4 pages long each. Do you want them included in the body of the RFP or as
attachments?
For instance, I can list the names of the community partners in the RFP and then include the
actual documents as attachments.
A:
You may include a table of contents or list of names and sector each represent and then have an
attachment with a copy of all the documents.
Budget Questions:
Q:
When will the new budget template be released?
A:
The budget template will be released by Addendum by Monday March 23, 2015. This is a
material change to the RFP process and requires Department of Justice Legal review.
Q:
What is the current FSU amount? $4,250.00?
A:
ELD is not specifying one FSU cost/amount. After numerous meetings, review of the old FSU
cost, review of multiple budgets of varying sized programs, our FSU review committee decided
that that there isn’t one FSU cost that holds true across the state. The cost to serve a family in a
very urban area will be different than the cost in a very rural area. In addition, program size
changes the cost of an FSU. Smaller programs tend to have a higher FSU cost than larger
programs. Please see the Budget Instructions tab on the budget template (the FSU
cost/explanation is nearly the same on the original Budget attachment as will be on the new one
released) for further guidance for understanding FSUs and how to calculate your proposal’s FSU
cost. We anticipate that every proposal will have a different FSU cost.
Q:
The budget form (which I know will be revised to allow Match information to be added) uses
a cell with a percentage to calculate fringe benefits. We are intending to show personnel
costs for our internal staff, and for the subcontractors staffing for home visiting and
screening. We are proposing to subcontract w/ 2 agencies, thus we are likely to have 3
different rates for calculating fringe.
Would it be acceptable to adjust the budget worksheet to allow for that?
A:
The new budget template has instructions on how to change the fridge amounts for each staff
member if needed. You will need to not rely on the formula, but manually enter each one.
Q:
Assuming the awarded proposals have budgets that total more than the total available funds,
what criteria will be used to allocate the dollars among the awarded agencies?
A:
Budgets will be negotiated with each apparent successful proposer based on the amounts requested
and the Early Learning Divisions budget allocation.
Q:
The budget worksheets have a formula that assumes benefits at 30% of salary. Is this fixed
or is it possible to increase that rate to up to 50% to allow for government agencies to apply
and run the program?
A:
The new budget template provides instructions for changing the fringe percentage. You will
simply type in the new percentage into this cell, and it will change all of the fringe calculations.
This is allowed.
Q:
Due to our very recent history of a local RFP process and subsequent program
restructuring, we would like our budget proposal to reflect an opportunity to grow in a
conservative fashion (bringing our current system to capacity in year 1, expanding to add
another team in year 2).
If our budget proposes adding staff in this staggered approach, how will this impact our
long-term allocations (if awarded)?
A:
The awarded funds through this RFP are for the 2015 – 2017 biennium. There is no guarantee on
levels of funding after that.
Q:
Will the HFO contracts be paid as reimbursement for actual expenses incurred, as is
currently the typical practice?
A:
Yes, however the reporting process for reimbursement will look different.
Q:
Can you explain what is meant by the following part of the PSK document, Exhibit A, Part
2, #2 “Travel and Other Expenses. ODE shall not reimburse Contractor for any travel or
other expenses under this Contract.” Home visiting work by its nature involves significant
mileage expenses.
A:
This statement doesn’t mean a Contractor can’t build Travel and other expenses into their Budget.
This means the State will not pay a direct line item for Travel and other expenses. If the State
pays direct reimbursement of Travel and other expenses these need to be spelled out and
reimbursed based on State of Oregon Accounting Manual Practices.