Skip Navigation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
Archive print banner

Incorporating Health Information Technology Into Workflow Redesign

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 It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work.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 processes?

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 contract?

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

 

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.

 

AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care