Minutes of Bidder s Conference: November 6, :00 pm 4:00 pm

Transcription

1 Minutes of Bidder s Conference: November 6, :00 pm 4:00 pm City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Health Request for Proposals (RFP) Substance Use Disorder Prevention Services Children, Youth and Family System of Care (CYF) Please follow the guidelines of the RFP for Submission Requirements and Submission Details. Letters of Intent are due at 12:00pm November 16, 2017 Proposals are due on or before 12:00 pm November 30,

2 I. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS FROM THE BIDDER S CONFERENCE 1. There was no description or explanation provided for how to calculate it this new Indirect Cost Rate, how it factors into our overall contracted UOS, what type of work/service falls under this category as billable, etc. To further complicate things, it says that it will be negotiated if awarded. So, while there are strict guidelines for how many Unit of Service we can bill for, for each modality, and how much each modality rate is, there is absolutely no info or guidance on the Indirect Rate which is a huge factor in our budget and workplan. Answer: This was clarified on question # 7 of the ed questions and answers. Please see the indirect cost budget sheet. In response to concerns expressed by the provider network around the cost of providing services, we actually collected cost data from our prevention providers. We used that data, which included everything from youth stipends to staffing to develop a new cost rate reimbursement structure. More information can be found in the RFP under page 36 which has the hourly rates. These particular hourly rates incorporate all of the cost providing the prevention intervention, with the exception of those categories that you see under operating expense portion under the departments Budget Appendix B, indirect cost. Cost items like rent and equipment were not included in the hourly rates. The reason they are not included is there was a wide range of operating costs across providers depending on the size of the organization and other resources they had access to. Up to 15% may be included in budgets to cover operating costs. The budget narrative should justify those costs which include costs like rent, equipment, and printing.. Program costs including staff time is included in the hourly rates on page 37 of the RFP, from $90/ hour or $60/hour depending on the strategy being provided. As you can see, there are substantial increase in the hourly rate for services. We also used data from our prevention providers to make a determination with regards to the number of hours required to offer each of the three interventions. What you see reflected in the RFP are fairly good data that represents to the cost of providing prevention services across the 3 interventions that we are funding. DPH feels confident that this will be more realistic estimate of what it cost to provide the services. It s a new cost rate reimbursement structure to try to bring fairness and equity and reimburse providers for true cost of offering those services. 2. Page Limits. If the text of the question is not counted toward the page limits (which it shouldn t be), but we are required to use the template, how can we ensure that we did not go over the page limit? Is there a line count/limit we should be monitoring? Answer: In the question # 34, it was answered that the Line space taken by template questions will not count toward the maximum page limits specified for each template section. And the answer has stated that questions must appear prior to an agency s response. However, we are amending that answer if you do not want to include the questions, so it doesn t take up a lot of space, you do not have to include the questions. But it s important that you label your answers with the corresponding questions stated in the RFP. This way, reviewers will know exactly where to find your answers. MAKE SURE YOU STAY IN YOUR PAGE LIMIT. If it s 5 page limit, stay within the 5 page limit whether you include the questions or not. Make it easy to read. The checkmarks you do need to include them. 3. What is the reasoning behind not allowing contractors to apply for both levels to maximize their chances of being awarded? It places current providers in an all or nothing scenario, which seems discriminatory. 2

3 Answer: The RFP has 2 levels. It is up to the Departments discretion to include these 2 levels: Level 1 funding up to $300K and Level 2 funding up to $475K. 4. Who is answering questions from DPH being submitted? Answer: Department of Public Health, Children s System of Care and Office of Contract Management & Compliance, Budget office/fiscal office if we need to consult with them. 5. On page 3 of the E-questions, question #5, it is now prescribing the minimum age of the staff members? It says that we have to hire staff 21 or over? How can the Department dictate that? This entire RFP has been riddled with prescribed hours, prescribed modalities, prescribed cost rates, and now prescribed ages of staff? This is showing a very disturbing trend that the Department no longer values the work and expertise of the providers, who are experts in the communities they serve. Answer: Yes providers can hire staff 18 and above as long as they demonstrate their level of experience, maturity, and ability to meet clearance and so forth. This is an amendment to the Questions and Answers. 6. In addition to providing a description of our record in delivering consistent quality services, it states that current providers must include copies of the 2 most recent Monitoring Reports to demonstrate level of quality service delivery. However, for Non-DPH applicants, it only asks of a copy of the contract (but no evaluation report). It appears that this request is not equitable. How will reviewers verify a Non-DPH provider s record without a similar evaluation report being asked of current providers? Answer: Both DPH and non-dph applicants must provide a copy of the two (2) most recent monitoring reports (FY , FY ) or copies of other type of evaluation reports of the two most recent issued reports for Non DPH applicants. If an agency has a Corrective Action Plan, copies of the most recent Corrective Actions Plan must be submitted. This is an amendment to the RFP. 7. Do providers need to have prior experience providing substance use prevention services in order to be eligible or considered for contracts? If not, what would be considered a similar service? Answer: No but proposers must otherwise meet RFP requirements including staffing (page 22) as it references that staff need to have relevant substance use prevention experience. 8. Minimum Qualifications: Do we need to describe prior performance for all interventions that are funded through our current SUD prevention contracts, but are no longer being offered in the upcoming RFP? Or just prior performance for those being offered in the current RFP (SFP and EP/CMCA) since space is limited for the Minimum Qualifications. Answer: There is no limit or perimeters on examples of prior performance to be submitted, but please make sure you are in the allowable page limit and you can mention any of those or those specific to the service solicited in the RFP. 9. Are letters of support or MOU s preferred in partnering with the San Francisco Unified 3

4 Answer: Yes, having a letter or support is good but having an MOU will strengthen your proposal. For a collaborative partnership, you can provide a copy of at least one written agreement or MOU; it doesn t count towards your page limit. There is no limit on the number of letters of support or MOU s that can be provided, but make sure letters and MOUs are related to the services you are proposing and covers the the activities listed on Page 21 of the RFP (e.g. assistance with family referrals and service delivery). 10. If we already have an MOU with the Middle and High Schools in the SFUSD, do we need to add these strategies? Answer: Yes, the MOU should describe all of the services covered by the MOU including those contained on Page 21 of the RFP. You can get a letter of support, but an MOU is stronger than a letter of support. Follow up question: Can it be an addendum to the MOU? An addendum to an MOU is not a letter of support, if the school/partners are willing to sign an addendum, please go for it. But an MOU offering space good enough? Yes you can submit an addendum to an existing MOU. Providing space alone is not sufficient see Page 21 of the RFP for a description of the collaborative activities to support prevention services. The collaborative partnerships should also mention activities such as making referrals to you, how they are linked to you, how they are partnering with you etc. Follow up question: We know that going through the MOU process with the School District is a very lengthy and long process, and also your proposal is only a proposal (not a committed service from your agency), so it will be hard for the school district to sign the MOU. In this instance, it doesn t make sense to provide a letter of support but different school sites who will partnering with you, would that suffice? A proposal must demonstrate an existing collaborative partnership or written commitment to collaborate upon receipt of SUD prevention funding with elementary, middle and high schools in proposed DPH Priority Geographic Services Areas. See page 21 of the RFP. An MOU is a signed agreement a letter of support can say we support you in implementing the services. We suggest that you indicate the details in your proposal response, in your narrative. 11. When asking for 810 hours for every 10 youth served in the EP section (Page 37), if serving 20 youth in Level one-that is 1620 hours. Are you taking into consideration, vacation, sick and the 13 holidays? Answer: No, 810 hours refers to the total number of prevention service activity hours required to serve 10 youth based on historical prevention program data 12. Do we need to submit three separate budgets for all of the strategies? a. Family Centered b. Strengthening Families Program c. Youth Driven EP Projects Answer: No 4

5 13. What is the reasoning behind not considering a contractor who applied for a Level 2 award, to automatically be considered for a Level 1 award since it is the same services, just a lower threshold? It places current providers in an all or nothing scenario, which seems discriminatory. Answer: It is a disadvantage to those organizations that bid at level. 14. Who exactly is on the review panel/committee? If it s not someone who has exposure to work, how will they have any understanding of strength or work? Answer: Reviewers are recruited from different departments, possibly other counties, very limited to current DPH employees (at most one or two), and community-based organizations that have the expertise in the services solicited in the RFP (with substance use prevention experience) 15. The current restrictions/expectations on the RFP unfairly places current providers at a disadvantage, especially requiring providers to offer all of the interventions when some have traditionally not provided all. In order to meet these new requirements, current providers are interested in subcontracting with their partner providers who currently provide theses services and have a lengthy and strong track for some. However, the RFP is prohibiting providers who may be awarded a contract, from being a subcontractor for another contract. That seems counter-intuitive and discriminatory. It would make sense and be considered a best practice for current providers to leverage the expertise of their partner substance use service providers to implement services. Why would this be prohibited if they are planning to serve other populations and geographic areas, which still maximizes the scope and reach of services which is the stated intention/response given to the E-question and reason listed for prohibiting awardees from also being a subcontractor on another award? Answer: The grant awards reflects a new strategic direction in substance use disorder prevention services for City and County of San Francisco. What you see under Appendix A-1 documents, is that we are moving from an intervention based funding system where we fund providers to offer one or two interventions to asking providers to fund a service continuum from grade 5 to high school. That s why you see a change where you would be offering interventions in grade 5 and 6, middle school and high school ages. We believe that will allow us the opportunity to continue to work with youth throughout their school year. We want each provider to be able to provide that capacity. It is our goal with the RFP and the strategic plan to be able to serve a continuum of services from grade 5 to high school in each of our priority geographic service areas to our service populations. It would be an ideal and wonderful outcome if young people were enrolled in those geographic areas throughout, so we can continue to work with their families and we recognize that young people are mobile. But the thought behind this is to make sure that in our geographical areas, the elementary, middle and high school age level, we have a presence in some way to provide prevention services to the youth & their families. Follow up questions: what about run way homeless youth, those not attending schools, and vulnerable youth? If children and youth are not in need of treatment, they can be served with 5

6 prevention funding. SUD prevention strategies are directed at individuals not identified to be in need of treatment per SAMHSA funding requirements. The Substance Use Block Grant prohibits the use of prevention funding for young people who are using substances. We would refer those youth to treatment or early intervention services once we are aware of the need for treatment. For more information, please visit: In addition, the SUD Prevention Strategic Plan focuses on family-centered care. Engaging a child s or youth s family in prevention services offered in elementary and middle school levels is a requirement of the RFP. Finally, the SUD Prevention Strategic Plan and RFP include school-based services for elementary school age children, Grades 5 and Are the grant awards primarily new competitive ones, or are they largely competitive awards at similar current funding levels? Answer: The RFP reflects new competitive grant awards that differ in amount, scope and focus than current SUD prevention services awards. The grant awards also reflect a new cost rate reimbursement structure that reflect more accurately the cost of providing services. 17. If the RFP primarily awards renewed funding for services already being provided, what agencies are currently providing them at each of the target sites? Answer: These are new competitive grants. New and existing parties may apply if qualified. 18. Does the applicant need to submit three separate budgets for all three strategies? Family Center; SFP; EP Answer: No, one budget for all three strategies, but delineate costs for each prevention program. Please make sure you use your budget narrative to justify your budget in addition to the budget forms. 19. How should a collaboration (in EP) must each collaboration submit a separate budget? Do we have to itemize how the funds would be split in the collaboration? Answer: The RFP doesn t fund collaborations. 20. The initial contract term is 15 months (April 2018 June 2019) should the budget we submit with the RFP reflect 12 or 15 months? Answer: Proposal must contain a 12-month budget (do not worry about the starting month). 21. P. 28, Question 3B: The question asks to describe at least 3 specific strategies your organization will use to promote health and equity The RFP prescribes SFP, Family-centered, culturally responsive practices based evidence intervention, and EP are these the strategies you are referring to and that we should describe? 6

7 Answer: The Strengthening Families Program, Youth-Driven Environmental Prevention Projects, and Culturally Responsive Family-Centered Practice-Based Evidence Intervention for Grade 5 and 6 are SUD prevention interventions funded under the RFP. The RFP requests proposers to describe specific strategies/activities that will be incorporated within the delivery of these interventions to support the broader DPH focus on promoting health and equity (e.g. linking families to primary care to support Health and Well-Being). Please see Framework on Page 11 of the RFP. 22. Minimum agency requirements: a. 5 pages double-spaced? Yes b. City Vendor and DUNS our current # s are proof of good standing correct? (Same as Mental Health earlier this year?) Yes Proposal submission template OK to format in Portrait mode vs landscape Answer: As long as you adhere to the page limit, it doesn t matter if the template is portrait or landscape. However, from the reviewer s perspective, when they have to flip back and forth and turning around, it can become frustrating, so one or the other. Don t mix both. 23. If the majority of students are affected by marijuana can we still serve them Answer: No, not with these funds. These funds focus on reducing underage drinking. 24. Is there a 3 months start up period Answer: No, there won t be, but DPH will provide technical assistance and training for all providers to ensure success in providing services. 25. Are these primary prevention dollars only. How are programs who receive other funds affected (secondary other) Answer: Yes, the RFP included primary prevention dollars only. Secondary prevention funding is not part of this RFP. 26. What s the maximum amount we can apply for? Are letters of support OK until funding is awarded? Answer: Please see page 5 of the RFP for Level 1 and Level 2 grant award funding. 27. Indirect Cost Rate: This is an entirely new concept and billing process and is inconsistent with all other DPH Indirect/Admin billing processes, and should be disqualified from this RFP. According to the new structure, the only costs covered under the Unit rates is Salaries and Benefits for direct service? What about all the others costs for providing the service? Per the responses to the E-questions, providers are expected to include all of their operating expenses Appendix B- DPH 4, many of which are actual direct costs (i.e. program supplies, food, stipend/incentives per the SFP Model Fidelity guidelines, rent for program space, which may even increase now that you are requiring community agencies to provide services in other community agencies in an attempt to dismantle a false concept of moving beyond our 4 walls this may include renting of facilities which will be an added costs, consultants which may provide direct service (i.e. 7

8 babysitters for the SFP fidelity requirement) and since the costs have been slashed and agencies may not be able to hire staff and pay benefits, just to name a few). On top of Operating costs, there is still the traditional 15% of actual Indirect for general Admin needs (ED time, Accounting and Finance, Audit, Occupancy for admin space, insurance, etc.). For all other DPH contracts, including the current prevention contracts, a UOS or UOT covered the full cost to provide the service including operating and Indirect. There needs to be full description of what an Indirect Cost is, what services are billable under it, how providers can determine the rate, etc. Also, other direct costs such as food, program supplies, direct service consultants, rent for program space, equipment for program use, etc needs to be removed from the Operating Costs and included somewhere else as these are direct services costs and should not be included as indirect costs. Also, because there is a pattern of not fully answering questions submitted, because this important factor was overlooked and not explained, and is being brought up at the Bidder s conference which represents the last opportunity gain clarity on the multiple issues with the RFP, there should be some consideration that if the answer provided is incomplete or does not fully clarify how to build this into our workplan and budget, additional clarification would be allowed after this period. Lastly, from the detailed table provided with the first set of e-questions, there is a discrepancy between how much Indirect costs will be left once you add up all the prescribed hours and costs. Please reference those table for the following breakdown: Level 1 awards only leave 11% indirect costs while Level 2 allows for the full 15%. How will Level 1 awards and the corresponding prescribed hours be changed to allow for 15% indirect? Answer: Please see the answers to question Letter of introduction: Clarification of Q. 38 pg. 9. In the past they were single-spaced now they must be double-spaced, correct? Answer: They should all be double spaced Question Period is closed. No follow up questions accepted. Proposals are due on or before 12:00 Noon November 30,