Supplement #1 to the Request for Proposals
Issued Date: September 14, 2020Enhanced Date to Care
(eD2C)
[Solicitation #: 2020.08.HIV.02.0102]
Public Health Solutions
on behalf of
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Bureau of HIV
This Supplement revises the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Enhanced Data to Care (eD2C) issued on August 19, 2020, summarizes questions raised and responses given at the Pre-Proposal Conference Webinar held on August 31, 2020, and addresses questions submitted to the RFP email inbox. Information included in this Supplement amends and supersedes responses given at the Pre-Proposal Conference Webinar.
Failure to comply with any amended requirements and instructions included in this Supplement may result in a proposal being deemed non-responsive and ineligible for consideration for funding.
Please note that only communication received in writing from the RFP Contact on behalf of Public Health Solutions shall serve to supplement, amend, or alter in any way, this RFP released by Public Health Solutions. Any other communication is not binding and should not be relied upon by any party in interpreting or responding to this RFP.
RFP Contact: Mayna Gipson Public Health Solutions E-mail: [email protected]
For a copy of this Supplement or the Request for Proposals, please go to: www.healthsolutions.org/get-funding/request-for-proposals/
Clarifications and/or Revisions to the RFP
The changes listed below are made to the RFP. In the
RFP (REVISED 09/14/2020)
, note that
additions/clarifications/revisions are underlined, deletions are crossed out, and highlighted in
yellow.
NOTE: The Proposal Due Date for this RFP has been extended. The Proposal Due Date is
changed from 9/22/2020 to 10/13/2020.
Revised RFP Document
Download the RFP for
Enhanced Data to Care (eD2C) (Revised 09/14/2020)
to review the
clarifications and/or revisions to the RFP on the following pages:
Page 1, Solicitation #
–
revision
Page 1, REVISED
–
addition of revision date 09/14/2020
Page 2, RFP Release Date
–
addition of revision date 09/14/2020
Page 2, Proposal Due Date
–
revised to 10/13/2020
Page 2, Anticipated Contract Term
–
revised to 03/01/2021
Page 2, Anticipated Funding and Payment Structure - revision
Pages 2-3, Required Documents - revision
Page 3, Notice of Intent to Respond
–
revised to 10/06/2020
Page 4, Submit Proposal to CAMS Contracting Portal - revision
Page 9, Section A. Service Category Experience, 1.vi. Contractor Expectations
–
revision
Page 11, A. Service Category Experience, 2.iii.5. Proposal Instructions
–
revision
Page 17, E. Budget Management, 1.ii. Contractor Expectations
–
revision
Page 19, Section 3
–
List of Attachments
–
revision
Revised Proposal Document(s)
The following documents have been
corrected/revised/updated
and must be downloaded to
ensure that your proposal is submitted with the correct form(s).
•
Attachment C: Clinic Demographics Table (v2)
–
instructions clarified
•
Attachment D: Structured Proposal Form (v2) - updated
Questions and Responses
Minimum Contractor Qualifications
1. Our organization, a 501(c)3, provides healthcare services to over 10,000 patients in NYC, has been excluded from participating in these RFPs. Our affiliate organizations are also excluded. These organizations have a very long history or providing services in this city and can easily do these tasks. We do not fall into one of the limited categories below. We have the experience and ability to do the work as requested in the solicitation. Please explain why the criteria are limited to these categories and why ASOs like us are being excluded from contributing to ending the epidemic in NY. How can we access this funding?
Response: The intent of this RFP is to fund NYC clinics with one of the listed accreditations/designations. This RFP aims to enhance equity across NYC clinics by meeting the needs of proposer agencies that are under-resourced, under-staffed, and struggle to meet ETE/EHE goals compared to other proposals.
Project Expectations
1. In the RFP, p. 11, there are links to 7 websites for providing documentation. The link to NYS Patient-Centered Medical Homes does not work.
Response: https://www.health.ny.gov/technology/nys_pcmh/
2. Does the clinic have to be located in one of the High Proportion zip codes? Are clinics located in close proximity to several of the zip codes and draw extensively from the high proportion zip codes. Response: Proposers do not need to be located in High Proportion zip codes. Proposers that can demonstrate a static clinic location in a High Proportion zip code will receive priority.
3. Can the program be a multi-clinic site? Or one clinic as lead, and then an additional one? Response: No, the program cannot be implemented in multiple sites.
4. If a medical clinic is intending to subcontract with a community-based provider to conduct the linkage to care outreach and engagement activities, how should the applicant present that in the budget? Response: Subcontracting will not be allowed in this RFP. All activities must be conducted by the proposers.
5. When it says that clinics will triangulate data from EMR, pharmacies, appointment scheduling, RHIOs and CSRs -- do we need to set up the relationship with the RHIO? or do you?
Response: Contractors will need to set up their own relationship with the RHIO; DOHMH will be available to provide TA.
6. Since there are no Bronx zip codes listed upon zip codes with High Proportions of PWH Out of Care. should organizations located in the Bronx apply? Don't want to apply if it is unlikely. Thank you
Response: Organizations located in the Bronx are encouraged to apply.
7. Will this contract be subject to ongoing 20% withholding associated with New York State grant contracts?
Response: The funding source for this RFP is the federal Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); not New York State. We do not currently anticipate similar withholding on this funding. 8. Looking for clarification -- we will be reaching out to our clients who have fallen out of care, and other
clients in our vicinity who are either newly diagnosed or have fallen out of care. Is this correct? If not, can you clarify who will fall into our caseload to be part of the 100 clients annually?
Response: Yes, this is correct. The client caseload under this program will include clients who have fallen out of care or are at risk of falling out of care, and PWH within the vicinity of the contracted clinic, who are newly diagnosed and never in care or have fallen out of care.
9. Are we able to apply for this opportunity and the other one due on the same day/time?
Response: Yes. An organization can apply to both RFPs – Enhanced Data to Care; and Building Equity: Intervening Together for Health.
10. On p. 9 of the RFP, under A.1.vii. how would you calculate the provider to client ratio? What is your definition of provider?
Response: Enter the total number of HIV clients and total number of clinical and non-clinical provider FTE that provide HIV care to PWH in Attachment C. Clinical providers include MDs or DOs, Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Nurses. Non-clinical providers include social workers, care coordinators, navigators, general case managers, mental health case managers, substance use case managers.
11. Is there a total number of patients you expect us to reengage at our institution and others? And the 100 from other institutions is a subset of that?
Response: The contractor is expected to outreach and/or link 100 clients to care annually. These clients can be either clients new to the contractor or clients who previously received care from the contractor.
12. Does this grant require contractor’s to work with individuals that are out of care that have never been seen by the contractor or is it focused on working with the contractor’s own patients?
Response: The RFP asks for Contractors to review their own client caseloads for those OOC/NIC/RFC as well as work with individuals that are OOC/NIC and may have never been seen by the Contractor, identified through data triangulation with DOHMH.
13. Given that four awards will be made, will the awards focus on a high zip code area in each borough? Response: Priority will be given to proposals in high priority zip codes. Proposals may be funded outside of rank order to ensure geographic coverage.
Uncompensated Care
1. Provide the total amount (in dollars) of uncompensated care (i.e., health care or services provided by hospitals or health care providers that do not get reimbursed) delivered in the proposer’s 2019 fiscal year, at the static clinic which proposed services will be provided. In this question, are you asking for a) the total amount billed but unreimbursed from any payor (so the difference in everything that is billed and paid); b) the total amount billed and not reimbursed for uninsured patients only; or c) is there some other way we should determine this dollar amount?
Response: For this RFP, uncompensated care is defined as the total amount billed and not reimbursed for patients without private insurance.
Staffing Plan
1. The recommended staffing plan is not possible due to salary levels and fringe rates established by negotiated bargaining units. Since the guidance says “recommended” is it acceptable to propose an alternative staffing plan if we are able to justify our ability to accomplish the objectives of the project? Response: Yes, it is acceptable to propose and justify an alternative staffing plan to accomplish the objectives of the project.
2. We were wondering if an MD would suffice for the suggested Clinical Supervisor position. In the RFP an MSN is recommended. At our organization, we have our Medical Director performs the tasks associated with this position. I know 9/1 was the last date for questions, so I'm hoping someone else asked this question and it is included in the supplement.
Response: Yes, a Medical Director would suffice for the suggested Clinical Supervisor. A BSN or MSN are acceptable.
Reimbursement
1. What is the change in reimbursement from what is in RFP? You covered this too fast.
Response: On page 2 under the Basic Information table, it states reimbursement will occur quarterly. This will be changed to align with page 16 of the RFP which details a hybrid reimbursement model.
Attachment C: Clinic Demographics Table
1. Attachment C asks for the number of clinical and non-clinical providers. Are you asking for the number of individuals or the number of FTEs? Do you consider licensed mental health providers, clinical pharmacists, and nutritionists as clinical or non-clinical?
Response: When documenting the provider ratio proposers should include only clinical and non-clinical provider FTE that provide HIV care to PWH. For the purposes of this RFP, we do not consider to licensed mental health providers, clinical pharmacists, or nutritionists to be clinical providers.
Please refer to the list on Attachment C (MDs or DOs, Nurse Practitioners, Physician Assistants, Nursing Staff).
2. On page 5 of the RFP in the first paragraph of Program Background, last sentence, it states: “These populations include people with HIV (PWH) who identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino and who identify as one of the following: cisgender women; transgender women; non-binary and/or genderqueer individuals; young people, ages 13-29; older adults, ages 50+; or cisgender, transgender, non-binary, and/or genderqueer men who have sex with men (MSM).” However, on the Attachment C: Clinic Demographics Table the last line in the priority populations section just lists cisgender men and transgender men, nothing about MSM.
Black Cisgender
Men H/L Cisgender Men
Black Transgender
Men H/L Transgender Men Does this need to be corrected? Also, is the category “cisgender, transgender, non-binary, and/or genderqueer men who have sex with men (MSM)” referring to all MSM inclusive of all gender? Or four categories: (1) cisgender; (2) transgender; (3) non-binary; (4) genderqueer men who have sex with men? The first one makes more sense to me. The second one would encompass all men seen at the clinic. Can this be clarified?
Response: The priority populations detailed on Attachment C is correct. It is asking for race/ethnicity and gender. The category is correct as written in the RFP and refers to all MSM inclusive of all gender: cisgender, transgender, non-binary, and/or genderqueer men who have sex with men (MSM).
Attachment D: Structured Proposal Form
1. On Attachment D, Structured Proposal Form what does "PIP" stand for under Agency Information? Are you referring the NYC Mayor's Office of Contract Services Payee Information Portal?
Response: The New York City Payee Information Portal (PIP). Additional information can be found at https://www1.nyc.gov/site/mocs/legal-forms/payee-information-portal-pip.page and https://a127-pip.nyc.gov/webapp/PRDPCW/SelfService
2. Attachment D seems to be malfunctioning. When you enter answers in certain sections, it over-writes other sections. Is there a newer version? This is for ED2C. Someone has probably already contacted you about this, but the form field names were repeated so when data is put into one field, it is repeated in other fields with the same name.
Response: Attachment D has been updated.
Attachment F: 12-month Line Item Budget
1. We have more than one fringe rate, based on payroll source. Both rates increase on July 1, so we essentially have 4 rates we need to include in our budget calculations. Also, we are planning to include more staff than there are lines or staff on the budget forms. Can the budget forms be unprotected so we can make appropriate adjustments?
Response: For the purpose of the proposal budget, we recommend that you calculate what the actual fringe costs will be, and then back into a single fringe rate to use on the form. The budget that will be used for contracting will accommodate multiple specific rates.
2. On Attachment F, how should you complete the Fringe Benefits line item when the agency has multiple fringe rates? Union and non-union positions, for example, have different fringe rates. Response: For the purpose of the proposal budget, we recommend that you calculate what the actual fringe costs will be, and then back into a single fringe rate to use on the form. The budget that will be used for contracting will accommodate multiple specific rates.
3. Attachment F: Budget, requests Service Category and Budget Period. What should be entered for Service Category? The name of the RFP? Since the contract period is 3 years and 1 month, what should be entered for the budget period? Months 1-12? Months 2-13? Months 1-13?
Response: The Service Category is “Enhanced Data to Care”. Please use 3/1/21-2/28/22 and represent a fully functioning 12-month program. Note that contract period will now be for 3 years because the anticipated contract start date is revised to 3/1/21.
Attachment I: Proof of Accreditation/Designation
1. For Attachment I: Proof of Accreditation/Designation, the required proof for Article 28 Clinics is a clinical operating certificate with a current date. Operating certificates show the date of issue, but not a current date. Is that OK?
Response: It is ok to submit the Article 28 clinic operating certificate with the date of issue. Do not need the current date on the certificate.
Proposal Submission
1. How long can we expect it to take to get access to the CAMS portal so we can start uploading the proposal components?
Response: Log-in are typically provided within 24 hours. Any currently delay/backlog will be cleared and resolved by 9/2/20. Please note that the portal does not currently include this RFP. It will be added within the week.
2. Confirm which documents/attachments get uploaded into the Document Vault. Do the insurance certificates for Attachment N: Insurance Requirements, to into the Document Vault? Audited Financial Statements? Anything else?
Response: The two documents that you can share with PHS from your organization’s Document Vault in the NYC HHS Accelerator are the current Board of Directors list and the most recent Audited Annual Financial Statement. Using the Document Vault to share documents with PHS is optional. If you do, see Attachment P: Sharing Documents to Public Health Solutions in the Document Vault for instructions on how to share these documents with PHS. The insurance certificates are not required
documents at the time of proposal submission. If awarded a contract, the insurance certificates will be required for contract execution.
3. Do H+H facilities have to submit the proof of accreditation, board of directors list, and audit statement?
