| # |
Question and HHSC Response |
| 1. |
Why would a for-profit
organization need this type of funding?
Shouldn’t it be just for those who do not charge for
services etc…?
Answer:
As good stewards of public
money, HHSC is obligated to provide opportunities to compete for
service delivery as broadly as possible.
HHSC has no basis to exclude for-profit organizations that
wish to submit proposals to deliver the required services.
|
| 2. |
Regarding performance data, how
extensive should that be? Statistical
only? Substantive
review?
Answer:
The performance data will serve two purposes.
It will indicate to HHSC the specific types and quantities
of services the vendor expects to provide.
That information will be considered during proposal
evaluation. The
performance data also will be used in developing performance
expectations to be incorporated into the contract for the
successful vendor. Vendors
should consider the specific performance data they will provide in
the context of HHSC’s needs for this data.
|
| 3. |
Is it reasonable to expect that
other entities not supportive of the program might challenge the
RFP to such an extent that it would jeopardize the timeline on
which the program is based, i.e. tie things up legally?
If so what recourse do program vendors have?
Answer:
HHSC is not assuming delays based on potential litigation.
|
| 4. |
What do you consider to be
“reasonable administrative cost”?
Answer:
As stewards of public funds, it is the intention of HHSC to
maximize the services purchased under this RFP by making efforts
to ensure that administrative costs are appropriate to the level
of services delivered.
For the purposes of this RFP, administrative costs
represent that proportion of costs associated with the program
operations administration (not outreach) during ongoing
operations. HHSC has
no historical experience in purchasing or providing the services
requested under this RFP and looks to the vendor community to
propose reasonable administrative costs that comply with this
intention. However,
vendors may have an interest in knowing that the federal
guidelines for TANF services set a reasonable level at 15 percent.
|
| 5. |
The contract money should not be
used to supplant “existing
resources.” What
are you referring to as existing resources?
Answer:
This question appears to refer to phrasing that was present
in the draft RFP but not the final RFP.
The final RFP addresses this issue by clarifying the intent
that the service provider integrate the client into existing
government and community service delivery programs rather than
provide such services itself.
|
| 6. |
pg 5 of 34 Sec 1.3.2 Project overview - What do you consider
services to be “supplemented & expanded” and can you be
more explicit about what the supplementation and expansion might
encompass?
Answer:
The health and human services agencies of Texas have not
previously requisitioned the services requested in this RFP but
assumes that entities across the state may currently be providing
all or some of these services. The program is intended to increase the level of services and
ensure wider access to these services across the state.
|
| 7. |
section 2 page 18 – How will the physically and financially
separate aspect be determined?
Answer:
In looking at the extent to which the respondent is
“physically and financially separate,” HHSC will consider
administrative relationships, location, financial relationships
and legal relationships.
|
| 8. |
Do you have any specific criteria
to show separation from abortion providers and what criteria to
show “active” support of fundamental aspects of provider’s
mission?
Answer:
In looking at the extent to which the respondent is
“physically and financially separate,” HHSC will consider
administrative relationships, location, financial relationships
and legal relationships. Criteria
for actively supporting the promotion of childbirth may include,
but is not limited to, mission statements, training materials, or
outreach publications.
|
| 9. |
Is it correct that the statewide
prime contractor (or administrator) and the subcontractors
(service providers providing counseling services) should not refer
clients to organizations or entities that promote, refer, or
counsel for abortion?
Answer: Yes,
in so far as the referral would pertain to abortion related
services.
|
| 10. |
Can resumes of
“subcontractors” on page 23 (consultant staff from another
statewide alternatives to abortion program) hired to assist in the
start-up and replication of another statewide alternatives to
abortion program be used to show experience and replace the
requirement of a vendor’s staff since the vendor would not yet
hire staff until the contract has been awarded?
Answer: The resumes of subcontractors can be used as one way to
show experience. Resumes
of subcontractors cannot be used as replacements for demonstrating
the ability of the vendor’s key staff to develop and maintain
the proposed program references in section 2.4 Vendor
Qualifications. The
vendor will need to demonstrate in their proposal their plan to
ensure that qualified service providers will deliver services. |
| 11. |
Can funds
that went unused in Fiscal Year 2006 (because it takes time to
start-up a statewide program) roll-over and be used in Fiscal Year
2007?
Answer:
No. |
| 12. |
On page13
of the RFP, please clarify that $2.5 million will be used for
Fiscal Year 2006 or Fiscal Year 2007.
Didn’t HHSC intend the RFP to read that $2.5 million for
Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007?
Answer:
The legislative rider authorizing these services
appropriates $2.5 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
The budget may not exceed $2.5 million in either fiscal
year 2006 or 2007.
|
| 13. |
The
website that advertises the RFP gives a link to “other required
forms.” At that
link Historically Utilized Business Policy and Procedures are
forms listed as being required to be filled out.
In the RFP, however, on page 25 of 34 Section 7, the RFP
doesn’t require these forms to be filled out and used.
In fact, the HUB requirement from the draft RFP has been
eliminated completely? Do
HUB requirements apply to this RFP and program?
Answer:
HUB requirements
do not apply to this RFP and program. |
| 14. |
Does HHSC intend this program to be a "direct charge
program" whereby HHSC will pay the vendor (prime contractor)
for all costs associated with the start-up, administration, and
operations of this statewide program as approved by HHSC?
Answer: Generally, HHSC anticipates paying the primary
contractor a prorated monthly installment based on an approved
plan of service delivery with established service delivery levels.
As noted in Section 1.4.2 of the RFP, HHSC may negotiate a payment
schedule that provides start up costs during the development
period, as needed, based on a detailed implementation plan with
clear milestones of progress.
The primary contractor is responsible for paying service
delivery providers in a mutually agreed upon manner that the
vendor should describe in the proposal and is subject to approval
by HHSC. It is not necessary that this arrangement be "fee
for service." A major consideration for HHSC will be the
administrative costs associated with this payment arrangement
between the contractor/administrator and providers.
The scope of services in the RFP represents one segment of a
larger service delivery system of support for pregnant females.
HHSC will look favorably on proposals that offer efficiencies
through use or adaptation of existing service delivery
infrastructure, including, but not limited to, equipment,
administration, buildings, provider networks, etc. |
| 15. |
The RFP does not seem to allow pregnancy test kits. Many young
women come to pregnancy support centers because of the free
pregnancy self-test kits that are offered. Pregnancy self-test
kits are not required to have a federal CLIA waiver and are not
viewed as medical devices. Would it be allowable under the program
to reimburse for pregnancy self-test kits that are not captured
under CLIA?
Answer: The pregnancy test is not an allowable
service/good because this program is targeted at women who are
pregnant, not those who think they might be. |
| 16. |
Can services be provided to a woman coming for services thinking
she's pregnant if she finds out she is not; i.e., can abstinence
only counseling be given to women at the negative pregnancy
self-test in order to modify risky life-style behavior that leads
to crisis pregnancies and abortion?
Answer: This program is targeted at women who are
pregnant and are unsure about whether or not to have the child.
Counseling for females who are not pregnant does not fall within
the scope of this program. |
| 17. |
Are services only available to U.S. citizens?
Answer: Individuals who reside and intend to remain in
Texas are eligible for services under this program. |
| 18. |
In regard to client eligibility: Is the following statement
correct? Reimbursement under this program is for service providers
(subcontractors) who serve Texas citizens only. Non-Texan citizens
obviously may be served by service providers but may not be
reimbursed under the program.
Answer: Individuals who reside and intend to remain in
Texas are eligible for services under this program. |
| 19. |
Can we disclose the risks and dangers associated with abortion in
an effort to encourage/promote childbirth?
Answer: This program is intended to provide support
services, as defined in the RFP, for females across the state who
may be pregnant and unsure of whether or not to have the child in
response to perceived lack of financial, material, or social
support. Providing information about abortion is inconsistent with
the purpose of this program. |
| 20. |
How does HHSC define "providing info about abortion" in
the RFP? Is the vendor limited in giving information about risks
and outcomes of abortions to women?
Answer: This program is intended to provide support
services, as defined in the RFP, for females across the state who
may be pregnant and unsure of whether or not to have the child in
response to perceived lack of financial, material, or social
support. Providing information about abortion is inconsistent with
the purpose of this program. |
| 21. |
In regards to what is allowable to mention to clients in regards
to abortion: Is the following statement correct? While promoting
childbirth to women experiencing a crisis pregnancy, emphasizing
the risks and negative outcomes associated with choosing abortion
are normally discussed. The primary purpose of this program is to
promote childbirth. Counselors may not promote, refer, or counsel
for abortion or engage in any other counseling that is
inconsistent with the primary purpose of the program. Discussing
the known risks and negative outcomes of abortion is not the
promotion, referral, or counseling of abortion and is, therefore,
allowed.
Answer: The statement is incorrect. This program is
intended to provide support services, as defined in the RFP, for
females across the state who may be pregnant and unsure of whether
or not to have the child in response to perceived lack of
financial, material, or social support. Providing information
about abortion is inconsistent with the purpose of this program. |
| 22. |
Can the program include medical services as well? (i.e. sonograms,
pregnancy test, sexually transmitted disease test)
Answer: No, the RFP specifies that the program is
intended to provide "material (non-medical) goods and
services," and that vendors are to make referrals for any
medical services to medical services providers in their community.
Pregnancy tests are not considered a medical service/good but are
disallowed. See question 15. |
| 23. |
Is sonography considered a non-medical good or service?
Answer: Sonography is considered a medical good/service.
Sonography is a noninvasive diagnostic medical procedure whose use
is regulated by both state and federal law. The Texas Department
of State Health Services is the regulatory agency in Texas with
oversight over the use of sonography. |
| 24. |
Can an agency that provides abortions apply for funds as agency
that serves as an alternative to abortions?
Answer: The evaluation of all respondents will consider
the extent to which the respondent and its subcontractors are able
to meet the requirements enumerated in the RFP. |
| 25. |
How exactly does Section 1.4.3 on page 6 of 34 apply? When does
1.4.3 (a) apply, and when does 1.4-3 (b) apply and who do they
apply to? Does (a) or (b) apply to the service providers who are
providing the counseling services or do (a) and (b) only apply to
the prime contractor or respondent to the RFP? If they both apply,
which one applies if there is a conflict between them?
Answer: Both HHSC's Uniform Contract Terms and
Conditions and the Uniform Grant Management Standards (Sections
1.4.3 (a) and (b)) apply to a contract awarded under this RFP.
Both apply to the prime contractor, its subcontractors, and all
service providers. HHSC anticipates no conflict between these
provisions. |
| 26. |
The Uniform Grant Management System (UGMS) allows for employee
costs under Circular A-122 Nonprofit provision. However, HHSC has
decided to contract services to the prime contractor; therefore,
is it correct that UGMS cannot be used, which means employee costs
cannot be reimbursable? Is this a correct interpretation?
Answer: Administrative costs for the prime contractor
may include employee costs. Payments to service delivery providers
may not include employee costs. |
| 27. |
Did HHSC intend UGMS to apply to the prime contractor so Circular
A-122 applies which, therefore, allows employee costs to be
reimbursed? The RFP Budget template suggests they are
allowable.
Answer: Administrative costs for the prime contractor
may include employee costs. Payments to service delivery providers
may not include employee costs. |
| 28. |
In regard to Circular A-122 Attachment B. Paragraph 1 of
Attachment B discusses advertising and public relations costs. In
Paragraph 1.c the Circular's definition of allowable costs seem to
exclude advertising to clients to use services under the RFP. Was
this intended by HHSC? Are advertising to clients to use services
under the program an allowable cost? The RFP Budget template
suggests they are allowable.
Answer: The vendor may use funds under this RFP to
advertise to clients the services available. The proposer may
consider this either public relations, as defined in this section,
or section (4) of Paragraph 1.c allowing "Other specific
purposes necessary to meet the requirements of the sponsored
award." |
| 29. |
Circular A-122 Attachment B, Paragraph 1.f prohibits a community
awareness booth type of advertising essential to advertising the
network program services to other community agencies. Is this what
was intended by HHSC when applying Circular A-122?
Answer: Vendors are instructed to provide a list of
exceptions, reservations and limitations to the terms and
conditions of the RFP in the transmittal letter of their proposal.
Generally, HHSC would evaluate this particular exception with
respect to vendors' ability to leverage community resources
already in place and remain focused on the delivery of services. |
| 30. |
What is the difference between "a media expense" listed
in Circular A-122 and "other public information public
awareness costs" listed in the budget template? Are they, in
fact, not the same?
Answer: A media expense may be one type of public
information public awareness costs. Vendors are instructed to
provide a list of exceptions, reservations and limitations to the
terms and conditions of the RFP in the transmittal letter of their
proposal. Generally, HHSC would evaluate this particular exception
with respect to vendors' ability to leverage community resources
already in place and remain focused on the delivery of services. |
