Statement of Need
The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) is seeking proposals from qualified organizations to implement a Workforce Acceleration Initiative to advance the goals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Data Modernization Initiative (DMI) and the Public Health Data Strategy (PHDS) , led by the Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology (OPHDST) . Specifically, this initiative aims to accelerate State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) progress on Public Health Data Goals through strategic workforce placement and expansion.
Eligibility
This is an open and competitive process.
APHL will follow the anticipated RFP schedule unless otherwise modified on APHL’s procurement site
https://www.aphl.org/rfp/Pages/default.aspx . If there is a change to the RFP schedule following the letter of intent deadline, APHL will also contact the main point of contact identified in their letter of intent directly. Applicants must meet the following three important submission deadlines related to this RFP: the letter of intent email, final response submission and, if applicable, revised or updated submission. Please Note: Applicants who submit proposals in advance of the deadline may withdraw, modify, and resubmit proposals at any time prior to the indicated deadline.
Due dates have a 5:30pm ET deadline unless otherwise indicated
|
RFP Schedule |
Date |
| RFP Issued | 09/29/2023 |
Informational Teleconference (optional)
Register in Advance / Watch zoom call
here | 10/06/2023 |
| Letter of Intent (required) |
10/09/2023 |
| Questions and Clarifications Deadline | 10/15/2023 |
| Final Responses Due (required) |
10/30/2023 |
Submission Evaluation Period Ends
(including follow-up questions and outreach to vendors if necessary) |
11/15/2023 |
| Final compliance review completed, and awardee notified | 11/17/2023 |
RFP Materials
APHL will post all RFP-related documents, current schedule information and answers to all submitted questions and clarifications on APHL's procurement site, The official RFP document will provide detailed information in regards to this request, please read it in its entirety.
Questions and Answers
Cooperave agreement subaward as opposed to a contract?
A:Yes – this opportunity is a subaward. The selected partner will be a subgrantee under the APHL/CDC Cooperative Agreement #NU60OE000104.
Anticipation of subsequent continuation (funding) of this effort?
A:Currently, this is a one-me funding opportunity through APHL’s Cooperative Agreement for a 19-month period (with the potential for a no-cost extension that could possibly extend the meline to 31 months total). CDC is unable to address future funding. While there’s a possibility of a no-cost extension, this has not been approved. Awardees are advised to focus on the current period of performance.
Is there a connection with the Public Health Informatics and Technology (PHIT) Workforce Development Program award under ONC?
A: There is not a direct connection to the PHIT award. CDC is not opposed to innovative approaches, but this particular opportunity is not designed to augment any other efforts or fill in any gaps. It is meant to be national in scale.
Is this envisioned to be a single sub-award or is there the possibility of multiple regional awards?
A:Anticipating a single awardee; however, with the understanding that the awardee may have strategic partnerships and a project plan that considers a regional approach. There is a need for consistency across all work given the tight meline and to alleviate the legal/administrative burden.
Are there particular types of organizations in mind who are best positioned to execute on this requirement?
A:This is an open competition, and all organizations are eligible. A successful organization will meet the criteria outlined in the RFP. The successful organization must have experience to meet the needs of the field and must be able to scale quickly at a national level. Work is expected to begin before the end of the calendar year.
Rolling answers to questions?
A:Yes – any questions will be addressed within 24 hours. If there are questions that emerge after the October 15 Q&A deadline, they will also be addressed. Please don’t wait to ask questions.
Is this a technical assistance and alternative employee placement opportunity, or is this a true workforce development pipeline project?
A:The latter. This is one-me funding to accelerate public health data strategy goals through the use of embedded technical experts at agencies and labs. There is the opportunity for training and acceleration to allow employees to “up-skill.” The idea is to get people who are already technically competent to help STLTS fill critical gaps.
Would funding go to the STLTS to hire embedded experts as employees or would the embedded experts be employed by the awardee organization?
A:The latter; however, there is need for a flexible model based on the rules of the STLTs. Staff will be recruited/placed based on the identified needs of the STLTS, but would be hired and embedded by the awardee. This would take away the burden of the STLTS having to go through their department’s hiring process.
Can protections be added to the Cooperative Agreement around potential staff poaching?
A:We cannot make this a stipulation; we don’t have the ability or authority to enforce it.
Given the complexity of the work for the short period of performance, should the offerors consider teaming partners prior to award, or will the offering organization be expected to issue subsequent RFPs which will take more time?
A:The offeror should not issue subsequent RFPs. The preferred approach is a single sub-awardee managing all aspects of the project to maximize strategic public health impact during the short period of performance. Given the complexity of work, teaming or partnering agreements that are in place by the award date may be considered.
Given the complexity of the work and short period of performance, what SLAs should be in place? Clarification: The question pertains to the performance / response expectations from STLT’s to the subawardee here to make sure needs are identified and addressed, for example if a state PHA requests a consult or placement of an expert term. Based on the timing and needs requested, it may affect the team structure and agreements of the subawardee with potential partners. If potential SLAs are unknown, should the offeror propose them or propose when such things will be decided within the overall program plan?
A:SLAs have not been defined for this project. As part of the implementation plan, respondents are encouraged to clearly define the most impactful SLA terms they feel would align expectations across partners and accelerate project results. (e.g., turnaround times for deliverable feedback/issue resolution, resource onboarding and allocation, etc.)
Management section: Are there existing tools that APHL would like the offeror to use?
A:Since this is a subgrant under an APHL public health program, we will not require the awardee to use a specific information sharing platform; however, our program uses Atlassian tools (Confluence Jira etc..) as well as Smartsheet to manage program information and project work.
Management section: a. Can APHL identify current risk mitigation and communication processes? b. Will these need to be coordinated with CDC or other parties?
A:Risk mitigation: APHL’s Informatics program has a project management office (PMO) that has developed risk identification, management, and mitigation processes based on the principles of the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Communication processes: • Since this is a sub-award, your response should focus on the communication approaches and existing processes your organization finds effective based on experience successfully delivering on complex, multi-partner projects. Your approach should detail how your organization prefers to communicate externally with partners during project execution to align on status, issues, and risks. • You are welcomed to include examples of communication artifacts like status reports, issue logs, and dashboards you typically leverage to ensure transparency and coordination across project partners. • You should assume that general communication materials and outreach to external partners (e.g., STLTs, national public health partners) on the offerings or project updates will be coordinated with OPHDST project leads.
Given the broad nature of the services and relatively large budget, are there key deliverables, work products, outcomes or key performance indicators APHL and CDC are prioritizing?
A:Key deliverables and outcomes must align with the RFP’s Scope of Work. Process indicators would include activities such as identification of 4 to 7 highest priority technical occupational series needed and development of standardized processes. Deliverables would include performance management support tools for use by STLT health departments (e.g., standard templates and management processes) to ensure placed experts work on activities aligned with Public Health Data Goals that generate expected Public Health Data Strategy outcomes consistent across STLT health departments.
Will the existing PH workforce needs assessments be provided?
A:CDC will work with the sub-awardee to identify and access available public health workforce assessments conducted by CDC and other public health organizations (e.g., ASTHO, NACCHO, individual health departments, etc.).
Are there existing information sharing platforms that are preferred?
A:Since this is a sub-grant under an APHL public health program, we will not require or prefer a specific information-sharing platform for this initiative; however, our program uses Atlassian tools (Confluence, Jira etc..) as well as Smartsheet to manage our information-sharing and project work.
What has APHL and CDC done to ensure STLTs are ready to receive staff placements? This was done during COVID, and under other programs over the years, but onboarding processes for personnel vary by STLT and can take weeks or longer. a. Will metrics and evaluations be expected to incorporate this possibility for delays? b. Are mitigating efforts in place/underway
A:CDC will prepare STLTs for placement expectations by leveraging ongoing working relationships with STLT recipients of CDC public health infrastructure, workforce, and data modernization grants and cooperative agreements. CDC recognizes that each jurisdiction has unique systems and needs and so will work with the subawardee to address potential delays accordingly. Offerors should include plans and metrics to address potential delays in the Project Evaluation section of the submission.
Can you provide any additional information regarding the type of agreement APHL intends to award? (contract, grant, cooperative agreement etc.).
A:APHL will award this project to a single subgrantee in the form of a sub-award under the terms of the APHL/CDC Cooperative Agreement #NU60OE000104NU.
Will fee/profit be an allowable cost under this mechanism?
A:Profit is not an allowable cost under this subaward arrangement per the relevant guidance and requirements under 2 CFR Part 200.
Does APHL plan to release Q&A received from all potential bidders?
A:Yes, APHL posts all RFP Q&As and supplemental information (such as the 10/6/2023 informational teleconference notes and recording) to the corresponding RFP webpage linked on the APHL funding opportunity section of the website:Additionally, APHL will send ongoing Q&As, announcements or other communications to the point of contact identified in your Letter of Intent; information will be shared through the informatics@aphl.org inbox.
Is there an overall estimate of how many staff will need to be recruited and placed?
A:As outlined in the RFP, recruitment will be tailored based on the specific technology and data skills needs and gaps identified by the requesting public health entity. The awardee should anticipate having to place technical experts across 107 public health departments (50 states, Washington D.C., eight territories/freely associated states, and 48 large localities).
Will supporting staff be required to be on site at public health departments or can then be remote?
A:The intent of this initiative is to embed technical experts within public health departments to accelerate PHDS progress, as such, we anticipate the majority of staff being onsite. We do understand that the level of onsite work would be dependent on the role, scope of work and physical access requirements.
Is it assumed that agencies where staff are placed will furnish business equipment such as computers and phones?
A:At this point, you should not expect the agency to furnish any business equipment other than the onsite terminals and tools necessary and available to access the agencies network(s), systems and infrastructure.
Do we know if there will be any security badging requirements (federal, state or otherwise) for placed staff?
A:You should anticipate that each of the 107 eligible public health departments will have its own onboarding processes, including badge and security requirements.
Regarding the requirement for “three (3) references letters” on page 5, is APHL seeking three references (i.e. names and contact information) or three actual letters signed by customers? Considering that contracting offices often struggle to turn items around in a timely manner, would APHL accept other methods of documenting customer success? For example, would you accept federal Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) reports (instead of letters) as testimony to contract performance?
A:The requirement is a minimum of 1 and up to 3. We will accept a CPARS report in lieu of a signed letter of reference. It is strongly recommended that the CPARS report align with one of the project descriptions submitted as part of the organizational experience and past performance criteria.
To give applicants more time to form project teams and fully develop their project approaches, will APHL please consider extending the due date by two weeks?
A:An extension will not be granted.