The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) is seeking proposals for Professional Instructional Design Services. The goal of this project is to begin to meet the training goals of our program by implementing role and competency based Laboratory Informatics training and curricula. The proposed project deliverables will be to work with Informatics subject matter experts to review and revise course objectives, identify appropriate number and types of modalities and to lead the design and initial development of necessary course content and support materials.
Requirements
This is an open and competitive process. The candidate firm should have the following experience and capabilities:
- Has expertise in recommending and communicating appropriate technical and aesthetic course development solutions as evidenced by the proposal and references.
- Has successfully completed similar projects and has the qualifications necessary to undertake this project.
- Has appropriate staff to develop the site in the specified project period.
Timeline
At this time, APHL anticipates the following schedule, but is subject to change:
March 15, 2016 – RFP issued
March 28, 2016 – Letter of intent due to APHL
March 29, 2016 – Last day to submit questions (exceptions may be granted)
April 15, 2016 – RFP responses due
April 22, 2016 – Proposal review and follow-up completed
April 29, 2016 – Final review completed and awardee notified within seven days
Request for Proposal Materials
The Request for Proposal: Professional Instructional Design Services - Public Health Laboratory Informatics provides details on how to complete the proposal. The RFP contains a copy of the criteria that APHL will use for evaluation of proposals.
APHL ANNOUNCES A MODIFICATION TO THE ANTICIPATED RFP SCHEDULE
APHL has extended the time available for interested parties to submit a letter of intent (LOI) to apply.
LOIs are now due to the APHL contacts identified in the RFP by no later than 5:00pm (EST) on Monday, March 28, 2016. The other due dates and deadlines specified in the RFP remain unchanged.
Questions for APHL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS: COURSE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY INFORMATICS
LMS
Q: What type of LMS do you have in place at APHL or CDC, if at all?
A: APHL does not have a LMS. CDC does have a platform (CDC TRAIN) but we are looking for LMS recommendations and expect the successful bidder to help us determine the most appropriate solution.
Q: Do you have guidelines for course integration by third-parties into your LMS?
A:N/A
Q: Page 5, APHL wants a clear understanding of the LMS to support course delivery: What are the hosting requirements: all courses – instructor-led training (ILT), virtual classroom/webinar and e-learning, just these course modalities?
A:Still to be determined
Q: Is APHL looking for a LMS solution to be included for the delivery of courses?
A:We are looking for appropriate suggestions on a LMS or platform. We are not requiring respondents to cost out the LMS, but APHL does expect the successful bidder to assist in identifying feasible LMS options.
Q: Does APHL currently use a learning management system (LMS) or partner with the CDC on the LMS to offer online courses?
A:No.
Q: Does APHL require the LMS to interface with other information systems?
A:No.
Q: In Appendix D: Instructional Designer RFP Scorecard, under the Category Course Web Design and Development (page 22 of the RFP), it appears that the successful applicant is expected to clearly define and outline a Learning Management system that can be used for these courses. If the successful bidder is not expected to assist in identifying feasible LMS options, can you please give us some more information about the item that appears in Appendix D?
A:The selected bidder will be expected to assist in identifying feasible LMS options and your proposal should address this. However, the cost proposal does not need to include expenses associated with various LMS options. The ideas you bring forth will be scored; the associated expenses will not be taken into account when scored.
Q: Does the responder need to provide APHL with a list of best learning management systems/tools in the market that can be used for implementation of the approach?
A:We are looking for appropriate suggestions on a LMS or platform. We are not requiring respondents to cost out the LMS, but APHL does expect the successful bidder to assist in identifying feasible LMS options.
Q: Do you currently have an LMS/have you used an LMS to distribute/provide access to eLearning courses in the past?
A:APHL does not have a LMS. We are looking for appropriate suggestions on a LMS or platform. We are not requiring respondents to cost out the LMS, but APHL does expect the successful bidder to assist in identifying feasible LMS options.
COMPETENCIES AND OUTCOMES
Q: How does APHL and CDC expect participants to be assessed during and after each course? Are you expecting some form of testing to take place?
A: Yes, but this is undetermined at this time how formal this will be, it will be decided upon in conjunction with the successful bidder- it has been discussed that since this will be more self-guided (MOOC-like) learning, the testing will be mostly informal at this time. We do expect there to be a clear course evaluation plan for students to give feedback on the courses and material presented.
Q: If a lab currently produces culture medium in-house is it acceptable to use the in-house medium rather than the specific vendor and catalog number(s) listed in the CDC SOPs?
A: Yes, if the culture medium maintains acceptable growth, in-house products may be used.
Q: If there is testing, will it be a written or practical test or some other form of an evaluation?
A: Undetermined at this time.
Q: Is there a desired competency model to align outcomes, objectives and content to?
A: Yes, please refer to the RFP Summary (pg.3). I have included an excerpt here for your convenience: For more information about these training goals, please refer to page 49 of the informatics competency guidelines outlined in the APHL/CDC Competency Guidelines for Public Health Laboratory Professionals, an electronic copy of which is currently available at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6401.pdf
Q: If testing will take place, is there are person from APHL or CDC that has been assigned to tracking participant results from tests?
A: Not determined at this time, but not likely.
Q: Page 3 Background: While APHL and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have begun to define a set of competency-based modules that can be used to design and deploy specific informatics related courses for target roles in the laboratories, are these modules defined in the APHL/CDC Competency Guidelines for Public Health Laboratory Professionals document?
A: No, they are not, but we expect to map developed courses (or their modules) back to the competencies.
Q: Page 18, Participate in primary module and course concepts sessions: A working group of APHL members and CDC SMEs have devised course descriptions and module outcomes. Are these course descriptions and module outcomes been translated into content outlines and/or content requirements?
A: Not yet. Part of process early on in the project will be to confirm focus areas and define the context we wish to focus on. That will determine the precise courses and course descriptions.
Q: In a few words or sentences, how would you describe the most successful outcome from these training projects?
A: Five courses developed by July of 2017
Q: The RFP refers to "Table 11 APHL Competency Guidelines: Informatics Domain" which Lists ~96 topics/courses and suggests four (4) different levels for each (Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert). Will the courses eventually selected for this project requite four (4) different skill level versions of each? If so, please elaborate on your definition of each and vision for how they may vary. (i.e. Beginner, Competent, Proficient, and Expert levels are similar to college courses deemed 101, 201, 301, 401, each increasing in skill requirements, complexity, and difficulty.)
A: Although we would like input into this decision as part of the discovery phase of the project, at this time, we do not anticipate developing four distinct versions, based on skill levels. However, we may choose to develop course modules that are more focused or relevant to a particular audience.
Q: Please describe the expectations in regard to Implementation and Evaluation aspects of the ADDIE Module of the vendor/service provider for this project.
A:We plan to correlate evaluation to the APHL/CDC Competency Guidelines for Public Health Laboratory Professionals. An electronic copy is available at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/other/su6401.pdf. When a course is developed, the evaluation will focus on proving specific capability based on a set of the competencies. It is not fully clear how this will be done yet because the focus of the courses to be built and the level of detail is not determined. The successful bidder will have the assistance of APHL workforce SMEs and the members of the informatics and workforce committees to gauge course development and evaluation with these competencies in mind.
TIMELINE
Q: Does APHL anticipate there be some other type of timing for the course development lifecycle for all (5) of the courses?
A: This has not been determined yet, we anticipate working with the successful bidder and subject matter experts to determine during the analysis and design phase of the project.
Q: Page 6, Develop at least two courses from “Introductions to Informatics” in Appendix A.: For the Phase One period of performance (PoP), is the contractor required to deliver two courses within the “Introduction to Informatics” module by June 30, 2016?
A:No, development of all courses will happen in Phase Two.
Q: Is APHL open to a Time & Materials (T&M) based contract?
A: Yes.
Is the contractor required to submit an updated proposal response for Phase 2?
A:That will be a joint decision between APHL and the contractor. It seems most likely that the level of effort will become much clearer during Phase One, leading to an updated proposal or at least scope of work.
Q: Does APHL expect to have any courses fully designed, developed and implemented by June 2016? If so, how many?
A:No, APHL will focus on the design and final scope between time of award and June 2016. Development and Implementation must happen before June 30, 2017.
COST
Q: Please identify the contract type, e.g. Cost Reimbursable, Fixed Fee, Cooperative Agreement, etc
A: APHL is open to either a time/material or a fixed fee contract type. This will not be a cooperative agreement.
Q: What is the anticipated budget for Phase 1 and Phase 2?
A: We have not released the budget, as this project spans two APHL funding cycles. Although cost is a factor in our decision, more so we are looking for a solid approach to collaboratively working with APHL and its partners to meet project goals. Before ratifying a contract, APHL and the successful bidder will have an opportunity to negotiate price.
Q: Should the cost proposal include expenses associated with the chosen learning platform?
A: This is not necessary, but you are free to add this information if you like, please note that this information will not be considered when scoring your proposal. APHL does expect the successful bidder to assist in identifying feasible LMS options.
COURSE DESIGN CLARIFICATION
Q: Does APHL expect all courses to be developed in parallel so that all courses are developed at once by a larger staff of instructional designers?
A: We have no preference at this time whether courses are developed in parallel or in succession, as long as we can ensure that the courses are implemented based on the timelines given.
Q: Does APHL have any specific preference as to the instructional processes or current instructional development models that we uses to design and develop these courses?
A: At this time, we do not have a preference in terms of the instructional process we employ- the Successive Approximation Method may fit the model, and you are free to suggest whatever method you would recommend. However, please understand that this project is in its infancy and we hope to work extremely close with the successful bidder on a final development approach and methods to achieve our goals
Q: Does APHL anticipate that each course will be developed in a serial fashion with some overlapping at the start and finish of each course development project?
A:This has not been determined yet, we anticipate working with the successful bidder and subject matter experts to determine during the analysis and design phase of the project.
Q: Page 5, Use of the word derivation: Is "derivation" imply "creation"? Analysis? Does APHL have another meaning?
A:When we talk about derivation, we refer to the analysis of course concepts, which then will lead to the creation of course content and all subsequent phases.
Q: Until WGS data streams automatically to AIMS, is the entire data set expected to be uploaded to AIMS weekly?
A:When we talk about derivation, we refer to the analysis of course concepts, which then will lead to the creation of course content and all subsequent phases.
Q: Page 18, Modalities decided at deployment: Modality is an important concept that needs to be address early in the Instructional Design (ISD) Process and directly impacts the level of effort (LOE). Can APHL be more specific on the course delivery preference, such as
- Instructor-led training (ILT)
- Web based training (WBT)
- Virtual classroom training (WCT)?
Depending on the modality type, we feel the estimate of 250 hours for ISD may be insufficient, is the APHL open to bidders providing a revised LOE based on APHLs chosen modality?
A: During this first round of course development, our intent is to focus heavily if not exclusively on web-based training, with an eye to expanding the content of the courses over time and porting it to other modalities, such as instructor lead. Regardless, the estimate of 250 hours was just that- please provide a LOE, based on your proposed approach.
Q: Is there a current graphic design format and expectation for the (5) anticipated courses?
A:No.
Q: Is there a style guide to be used?
A:This will be a co-branded product, so for documentation and other artifacts, we will use try and use APHL and CDC style guides when and where appropriate.
Q: Is there a picture repository available?
A:Possibly- we have to evaluate this in conjunction with our communications and training partners.
Q: Does APHL expect any video development for any of the course?
A: : No APHL does not expect to do any custom video filming; we would expect the use of screen captures, animations and possibly taped lectures.
- Existing videos on Youtube?
A: Undetermined at this time.
- o Videos purchased by APHL or the CDC?
A: Undetermined at this time.
Q: If APHL or CDC is planning to use videos or images from your library of Public Health Laboratories or from CDC, does APHL and or CDC have the rights to use those videos and images for this project?
A: It is undetermined at the time whether we will use videos or images as suggested, but if we were to proceed with this idea, we would engage APHLs communication and legal department to define the proper usage of such artifacts and gain the appropriate permissions.
Q: RFP / p. 8: Please clarify whether “A rough suggestion for development is around 250 hours per course once concepts are drafted in a syllabus format” is for production hours only.
A:Yes, the estimate would be for production hours.
Q: Can you please clarify what is expected by course ‘implementation’ as referenced under the ‘Scope and Approach’ section of the RFP?
A:In this context, implementation is used in place of the word deployment- so this would be the actual launch of a course.
Do you envision the anticipated courses as self-paced or instructor-guided? Should we plan to include outside activities or exercises as part of each course?
A:At this time, we anticipate courses to be self-paced, with an eye to expanding the content of the courses over time and porting the content to other modalities, such as instructor lead.
COURSE CONTENT CLARIFICATION
Q: APHL list five courses but the referenced in Appendix A and Appendix B list are nine modules. How many courses require development? Five or Nine. Please clarify.
A: The information contained in Appendix A is still in concept form- they are topics areas that will be used to help us come to a decision on the first 5 courses to be developed. As stated in the RFP: For purposes of their application, an applicant should estimate their efforts based on the expanded concept derivation for all of the module areas found in Appendix A, and then plan on the full design, development, implementation and evaluation of five (5) courses.
Q: Is "course" and "module" interchangeable?
A: No, a module is included as part of a course, diving the content into digestible pieces.
Q: Do one or more modules signify the completion of a course? Or, is a "module" construed as an independent learning event?
A:Correct- One or more modules will signify the completion of a course- it is not an independent learning event
Q: Can the requirements for the course/module be expanded/clarified?
A: We expect the successful bidder to work with APHL/CDC to determine the final topics and development approach, giving them an opportunity to work closely with APHL SMEs and members through the discovery phase. The organization or individual engaging in this project must provide the capabilities to work from the early stages of the course derivation and design through the full development, implementation and evaluation of the courses, in reality assisting APHL in refining the requirements for the 5 courses. You should estimate efforts based on the expanded concept derivation for all of the module areas found in Appendix A, and then plan on the full design, development, implementation and evaluation of five (5) courses.
Q: Are the 5 courses/modules (to be developed) to be selected from list given in the table in Appendix 1?
A:Yes, we expect the 5 courses to be developed from the list and concepts found in Appendix A.
Q: RFP / p. 6: Please confirm that the intent is to develop a training plan for 5 courses, but design and develop 2 courses in their entirety.
A:No, the plan is to expand on all the concept areas found in Appendix A, and fully develop 5 courses through July 2017. Please refer to the follow RFP excerpt: For purposes of their application, an applicant should estimate their efforts based on the expanded concept derivation for
all of the module areas found in Appendix A, and then plan on the full design, development, implementation and evaluation of five (5) courses.
Q: RFP / p. 6: Please identify the topics for the 2 known courses.
A:No course topics have been identified yet. We expect the successful bidder to work with APHL/CDC to determine the final topics and development approach. As stated in the RFP: "The organization or individual engaging in this project must provide the capabilities to work from the early stages of the course derivation and design through the full development, implementation and evaluation of the courses."
Q: Pages 11-15, There are specific content notes for the first two courses/modules “Introduction to Informatics” and “Data Quality and Sources, Standards, Lab Information Systems”: Will APHL provide documentation or furnished materials for the other seven courses/modules topics?
A:APHL and CDC SMEs will continue to refine the course concepts, found in Appendix A and will provide documentation and material as available. More detailed material will be developed for the five courses selected for full development. We hope to have updated course concept material ready before the contract award date.
Q: Page 16-17, Staff roles and Training: The table illustrates the courses/modules that are applicable to each audience. Does each course/module require any customization to meet each audience’s needs, or does "one size fits all" (for multiple audiences)?
A:This will have to be determined based on the 5 courses eventually selected for development. Generally, we expect little to no customization per audience, we may choose to develop course modules that are more focused on relevant to a particular audience. In the future, courses may build on each other leading to more advanced/specific training.
COURSE HOURS
Q: As far as estimating the eLearning seat time per course, we understand it could be estimated as the same seat time as those of two (2) university credit hours. Our estimates are 10 to 15 Instructor Led Training (ILT) hours and using a common compression rate of about 50% to get to eLearning seat time hours, would require us to propose to create about 5 - 7.5 eLearning seat time hours per course. Does this estimate sound accurate?
A: ELearning modules are not always an exact match to classic university credit hour touch metrics, but we offered the metric to at least baseline a commitment period for resource and time on the project. However, as the course focus areas are identified and the design proceeds we welcome any advice on refining the best way to evaluate the seat time and contact hours. Your estimate is reasonable based on what we have discussed so far.
Q: In the experience of APHL is every credit hour of an APHL course equal to or close to equal to the same contact hours during the course or is there some other measurement of credit hours we should know that APHL uses?
A: The following is the information APHL uses when assessing continuing education credits, it is an excerpt from Professional Acknowledgment for Continuing Education (P.A.C.E.): Provider Application and Manual (Rev 2016-02). American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (ASCLS). A copy of the full P.A.C.E. requirements are available upon request. Briefly stated:
"The P.A.C.E.® program uses contact hours as the measure of continuing education credit awarded. One-half contact hour equals a minimum of 30 minutes of participation in an organized continuing education experience, under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction. The smallest unit of continuing education that is P.A.C.E. ® approved is 0.5 contact hour. To qualify for 0.5 contact hour the program must be a minimum of 30 minutes in length. P.A.C.E. ® does not award approval for less than 0.5 contact hours."
Q: How many hours should it take a student to complete one course?
A: This will depend on the topic and how dense it is, for instance an Intro to Lab Informatics will take a student much less time to complete than a deep dive into security, privacy and compliance.