This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.
Amendment 2: Questions (Q) and Answers (A)
Q-22: We would like to confirm whether the toolkit
is to be a COTS/3rd party solution (i.e., Visio, iGrafx) that is to be
licensed to AHRQ, or if it is intended to be extensions to COTS software
(templates, stencils, etc) that incorporates the work of the study? The
goal of this question is to determine whether or not the costs of third
party software licenses are to be included in the proposal.
A-22: The toolkit is a contract deliverable and
is therefore Federal property.
Q-23: Have you established the percent of time
spent or anticipated to be spent on site during the period of performance,
and related to this can you identify the number of unique sites and stakeholders
involved? The goal of this question is to determine whether part
of the staffing is intended to be an on-site support role, or if the time
spent on site is to be determined by offeror/contractor. The RFP
seems to imply that much or most of the work would occur off-site, however,
we do not want to make any false assumptions about that.
A-23: AHRQ does not require that the work be performed
on site. The offeror can determine and propose the amount of time
to be spent on site.
Q-24: With regard to the Technical Expert Panel
(TEP), it is unclear as to whether these are to be compensated roles or
otherwise what level of involvement the TEP is intended to represent in
terms of overall participation. Can you please clarify whether these
6-8 individuals are intended to be contributors as part of a consortium
of sorts (e.g., either or not compensated or compensated only with an
honorarium) or whether they are to be primary workers compensated at a
disclosed hourly rate?
A-24: There are two (2) required TEP calls. There
is no pre-specified format or time requirement for the TEP calls. The
offeror should propose a format or length of calls appropriate to receive
adequate input from TEP members.
AHRQ does not require TEP members to be compensated. However, budgeting
for honorariums is acceptable. AHRQ does not require members to
be primary workers compensated at a disclosed hourly rate.
Q-25: With regard to the TEP, it appears that these
individuals to be identified and proposed by the contractor (and approved by
the Project Officer) after the project has been initiated and thus these names,
CVs, etc…would not be included in the proposal. Please confirm
that these are to be identified by the contractor (thus access to such a network
would be a point qualifying factor in the evaluation of proposals) and that
the related information about the TEP members is not expected in the proposal
itself but upon project initiation?
A-25: AHRQ does not require offerors to propose
specific TEP members in response to the RFP. However, offerors
are expected to demonstrate that they have the requisite expertise and
experience to identify appropriate panel members and the ability to engage
them during the toolkit development process.
Q-26: Is the Government's intent that the
toolkit primarily address using information technology (IT) to facilitate
workflow redesign (through process models and simulations, etc) or should
the toolkit focus on workflow analysis and redesign principles and how
health information technology (HIT) can be best incorporated into improved
A-26: AHRQ's intent is that the toolkit
focus on workflow analysis and redesign methods and how health information
technology (IT) can be best incorporated to improve processes, as appropriate.
Q-27: Is the contractor expected to propose a
specific users' group for purposes of evaluating the toolkit in
the response to the RFP?
A-27: AHRQ does not require offerors to propose
specific users' group in response to this RFP. However, offerors
are expected to demonstrate they have the requisite expertise and experience
to identiy appropriate groups and the ability to engage them for evaluation
of the toolkit.
Q-28: Can the Government please clarify "AHRQ's
current required format" for reports of the type in Task 11. Is
the required format specified in the document entitled "EPC II Style
Guidelines," dated April 5, 2006?
A-28: AHRQ has Publishing and Communication Guidelines
Specifications; they focus on style and language issues such as appropriate
reference styles, sections, and headings. The Guidelines will be
made available to the contractor after contract award.
Q-29: Is it acceptable for contractors to propose their
own milestone payment schedule and will it be incorporated into any resulting
A-29: Offerors may propose a payment schedule. Any
payment schedule is subject to negotiations.
Q-30: Please elaborate on the type of labor certification
required for Section L.12.A. Will excerpts from an offeror's
payroll register suffice?
A-30: Payroll information will suffice.
Q-31: In what format should the electronic copy
of the Technical and Business proposal be submitted, i.e., does the Government
wan an editable soft copy, and in what media?
A-31: The Government does not want an editable
soft copy. The required electronic copy is a CD.
Current as of August 2008