Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Ohio Works First Work Participation Improvement Project
Document #:  JFSR1213178041


Question:   Regarding Section 1.3, under Overview of the Project, page 7, can the State please provide the most current available figures for work participation rate levels? Regarding Section 4.4.A.2.b, under Specifications of Deliverables, page 15, the quarterly round table session scheduled for July 19th occurs prior to the estimated contract award date of July 20th. Does the State intend for all prospective vendors to be in attendance? Regarding Section 4.4.G.1, under Implementation (January – June 2013), page 18, how many counties should vendor assume will require implementation services as it relates to providing a price for this deliverable? Regarding Section 5.1, under Proposal Submission Information, pages 18-19, the RFP indicates one CD-ROM copy of the Technical Proposal and one CD-ROM copy of the Cost Proposal is required at submission. However, page 21 states that “vendors are required to submit one additional CD-ROM copy (using two CD-ROMs) of their entire proposal package.” Please confirm that a total of four (4) CD-ROMs are required at submission, two of which should include the Technical Proposal and the other two should include the Cost Proposal. Regarding Section 5.1, under Proposal Submission Information, page 20, the language states “Submission of a proposal indicates acceptance by the vendor of the conditions contained in this RFP, unless clearly and specifically noted in the proposal submitted and confirmed in the contract between ODJFS and the vendor selected.” Should the Vendor assume this to mean that any exceptions included in the proposal indicate that the bidder has not accepted the terms and conditions that are the subject of the exception and that such exceptions will be subject to negotiation upon award? Please confirm or clarify. Regarding Section 6.1, under Scoring of Proposals, Page 25, the language states “Proposals containing assumptions, lack of sufficient detail, poor organization, lack of proofreading and unnecessary use of self-promotional claims will be evaluated accordingly.” With specific regard to use of the word “assumptions,” what does “evaluated accordingly” mean? What mechanism/formula will the State use in determining its evaluation? Regarding Section 6.1.A.7, under Phase I. Review—Initial Qualifying Criteria, page 25, the solicitation states “Vendors proposal indicates that (as an organization or as individuals) the vendor has completed at least five different government entity (i.e. state or county) assessments of Ohio’s TANF OWF work activity program.” The preceding statement differs from other qualifying criteria such as Section 3.1.1, Mandatory Vendor Qualifications, on page 12, or Attachment C, Item 6, on page 54. Please clarify. Regarding Section 8.6.B, under Contractual Requirements, page 30, with regard to the exceptions requirements, please describe the negotiation process for achieving mutually agreeable terms and conditions.

Answer:   1) As of March, 2012 The Two parent WPR was 51.34% (goal of 90%). 2) Propoective vednors are NOT expected to be in attendence since it is unlikely that a valid contract will be in place at that time. 3) The vendor should rfer to Section 4.2 of the proposal. 4) The proposal should include five (5) paper copies (one signed original and four copies) and one CD-ROM copy of the Technical Proposals. The vendor should also include three paper copies (one signed original and two copies) and one CD-ROM of the Cost Proposal. 5)The vendor they are accepting all of the other terms and conditions in the RFP except those specifically called out that they object to. Additionally, unless the actual contract includes the exception that the vendor proposed the vendor would still be bound by the RFP and if they execute the contract without the exception stated they are agree to be bound by the terms and conditions as stated in the RFP. The language in the contracts that result from the RFP state that if there is a conflict between RFP and the proposal the RFP controls. 6) For example, a vendor might use terms that are standard within its industry, and assuming they are commonly understood, fail to adequately explain them for persons such as ODJFS staff who are not routinely involved with that industry. Another example could involve designing and proposing a work project in response to an RFP (or similar competitive opportunity) based on incorrect assumptions the vendor makes about such things as work volumes, governing legislation, IT systems, or types of equipment or resources that would have an effect upon the project. If a vendor’s proposal gives ODJFS reason to believe that the vendor does not understand the agency’s needs and expectations, or if a proposal does not present information clearly enough for ODJFS to confidently believe the vendor could be successful on the project, the vendor’s proposal would receive a low score for any score criteria related to those issues, and could be disqualified from the competition. Any contract must have good communication, shared understanding, and a meeting of the minds; most ODJFS RFPs for personal services contracts offer a Q&A opportunity for that reason. All evaluation criteria and selection processes that will be used are published with the RFP. 5) Section 3.1.1 and Attachment C item 6 will be used to evaluate the vendor proposal. 6)The process would be determined on a case-by-case basis, according to the complexity of the issues surrounding the disagreement over terms. Generally, however, legal staff of the agency would communicate (using various media) with appropriate representatives of the vendor to determine what resolution, if any, could be found and agreed to.

Date: 7/3/2012

Inquiry: 25876


Question:   In section 3.3 Staff Experience and Capabilities on page 11, item 1 requires that the project manager have project management certification and item 2 requires that the project manager have at least two years of TANF policy consultation with federal or state TANF staff. Can we satisfy this requirement with two staff person who are co-project managers?

Answer:   It would be acceptable to have co-project managers.

Date: 7/3/2012

Inquiry: 25868


Question:   Is there an incumbent that currently helps Ohio improve its work participation rate?

Answer:   ODJFS does not currently have an incumbent consultant to improve its work participation rate.

Date: 7/3/2012

Inquiry: 25867


Question:   Section VI. 6.1 Scoring of Proposals A. Phase I. Review – Initial Qualifying Criteria 7. Page #25 In Section VI 6.1 A 7., the RFP states that the “Vendors proposal indicates (as an organization or individuals) the vendor has completed at least five different government entity (i.e. state or county) assessments of Ohio’s TANF OWF work activity program.” However, in Section III. 3.2 Organization Experience and Capabilities, the language under bullet 1 states that the vendor must demonstrate expertise in increasing work participation rates within the Ohio Work First (or similar program) or TANF Cash Assistance or both. Are similar programs acceptable, as stated in III3.21., or is ODJFS requiring that the vendor have completed at least five different government entity assessments of OH’s TANF OWF work activity program, as stated in VI 6.1 A 7.?

Answer:   Please refer to Section 3.1.1 for Mandatory Qualification criteria. Other Federal programs are acceptable as criteria listed in Section 3.1.1. and Attachment C, Phase 1, item 6. This criteria will be used in Phase 1 of the technical scoring process as acceptance criteria for further evaluation consideration, or disqualification. Items listed in Section 3.2 will be evaluated with a numerical score after applicants have successfully completed Phase I of the technical scoring process. Program similar to Ohio Works first will be considered during this phase and will be scored accordingly (See Attachment C Phase 2 item 2.)

Date: 7/3/2012

Inquiry: 25865


Question:   Section I. 1.1 Purpose Page #5 What are ODJFS’ expectations of the impact of the vendor awarded the work under this RFP on Ohio’s FFY12 WPR?

Answer:   Due dates have not been officially established for project deliverables; however ODJFS expects the vendor to continually provide recommendations for implementation that , when combined with Ohio's current efforts, will lead Ohio to meet or exceed the required federal all family and two parent work participation rates within the project year (FFY2012), and within the year immediately following (FFY2013.)

Date: 7/3/2012

Inquiry: 25864


Question:   Section 4.4 item G, p. 18 requires the contractor to assist in the implementation of recommendations. If the recommendations require updates to Ohio’s eligibility and/or case management systems, does Ohio have the information technology staff needed to perform the necessary work?

Answer:   ODJFS has internal information technology staff that will provide support for technical solutions.

Date: 6/21/2012

Inquiry: 25869


Question:   Is there an incumbent that currently helps Ohio improve its work participation rate?

Answer:   ODJFS does not currently have an incumbent consultant to improve its work participation rate.

Date: 6/21/2012

Inquiry: 25866


back

Inquiry period ended:  6/21/2012 8:00:00 AM