request for proposals - AWS.state.ak.us

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RETURN THIS PROPOSAL TO: DIVISION OF LEGISLATIVE AUDIT Issuing Office Mailing Address: P.O. Box 113300, Juneau, AK 99811-3300 Issuing Office Hand Delivery Address: 6th Floor State Office Building, 333 Willoughby Avenue, Juneau, Alaska 99801

RFP NO. 15-33-04 A PERFORMANCE REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES’ ORGANIZATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE SEALED PROPOSALS SHALL BE RECEIVED AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS UNTIL 1:30PM ALASKA TIME ON NOVEMBER 26, 2014. Offerors Are Not Required To Return This Form Under AS 36.30.020, the Alaska Legislative Council adopted procurement procedures that were based on competitive principles consistent with AS 36.30 and adapted to the special needs of the Legislative Branch. Therefore, the Legislative Branch follows its own procurement procedures and is not subject to the procurement procedures of the Executive Branch. Copies of the Legislative Branch Procurement Procedures are available upon request. IMPORTANT NOTICE: You must register with the procurement specialist listed in this document to receive subsequent amendments, whether you received this request for proposals from the State of Alaska’s “Online Public Notice” web site or another source. Failure to contact the procurement specialist may result in the rejection of your proposal.

Ross Alexander, Procurement Specialist PH: 907-465-3830 FAX: 907-465-2347 TDD: 907-465-4980 Email: [email protected]

State of Alaska Division of Legislative Audit

DHSS Organizational and Administrative Structure Performance Review TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION AND INSTRUCTIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30

PURPOSE OF THE RFP .................................................................................................................................. 4 RETURN MAILING ADDRESS AND DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS ................................................. 4 PHOTOCOPIES .............................................................................................................................................. 4 CONTRACT TERM AND WORK SCHEDULE ................................................................................................... 4 BUDGET ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 LOCATION OF WORK ................................................................................................................................... 5 HUMAN TRAFFICKING ................................................................................................................................. 5 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT .......................................................................................................... 6 REQUIRED REVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 6 QUESTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS .................................................. 6 AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................................................................. 6 NUMBER OF PROPOSALS; ALTERNATE PROPOSALS ..................................................................................... 6 RIGHT OF REJECTION................................................................................................................................... 6 STATE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION COSTS .................................................................................. 7 DISCLOSURE OF PROPOSAL CONTENTS........................................................................................................ 7 SUBCONTRACTORS ...................................................................................................................................... 8 JOINT VENTURES ......................................................................................................................................... 8 OFFEROR’S CERTIFICATION ......................................................................................................................... 8 CONFLICT OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................................... 9 PROJECT DIRECTOR ..................................................................................................................................... 9 ASSIGNMENT/TRANSFER ............................................................................................................................. 9 BINDING ON SUCCESSORS ........................................................................................................................... 9 DISPUTES..................................................................................................................................................... 9 VENUE AND APPLICABLE LAW .................................................................................................................... 9 SEVERABILITY ........................................................................................................................................... 10 PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................... 10 RECORDS; AUDIT ...................................................................................................................................... 10 OWNERSHIP AND REUSE OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................. 10 MATERIALS AND PROCESSES COVERED BY PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, OR COPYRIGHTS ............................ 10 COVERAGE UNDER THE ETHICS LAW ........................................................................................................ 10

STANDARD PROPOSAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................................... 11 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE .......................................................................................................................... 11 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 11 U.S. FUNDS ............................................................................................................................................... 11 TAXES ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSALS ................................................................................................................... 11 SUPPLEMENTAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 11 CLARIFICATION OF OFFERS ....................................................................................................................... 12 DISCUSSIONS WITH OFFERORS .................................................................................................................. 12 PRIOR EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................................................... 12 EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS ..................................................................................................................... 12 VENDOR TAX ID ....................................................................................................................................... 12 ALASKA BUSINESS LICENSE AND OTHER REQUIRED LICENSES ................................................................. 12 ALASKA BIDDER PREFERENCE .................................................................................................................. 13 FORMULA USED TO CONVERT COST TO POINTS ........................................................................................ 14 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION ......................................................................................................................... 15 FAILURE TO NEGOTIATE ............................................................................................................................ 15 NOTICE OF INTENT TO AWARD – OFFEROR NOTIFICATION OF SELECTION ................................................ 15 PROTEST .................................................................................................................................................... 15

RFP 15-33-04

Page 2 of 34

Issue Date: October 30, 2014


DHSS Organizational and Administrative Structure Performance Review

STANDARD CONTRACT INFORMATION ......................................................................................................... 15 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17

FORMAT OF CONTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 15 CONTRACT APPROVAL .............................................................................................................................. 15 PROPOSAL AS A PART OF THE CONTRACT .................................................................................................. 15 ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 15 APPLICABLE LAW...................................................................................................................................... 16 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 16 CONTRACT FUNDING ................................................................................................................................. 17 CONTRACT PAYMENT ................................................................................................................................ 17 INFORMAL DEBRIEFING ............................................................................................................................. 17 CONTRACT PERSONNEL ............................................................................................................................. 17 INSPECTION & MODIFICATION – REIMBURSEMENT FOR UNACCEPTABLE DELIVERABLES ......................... 17 TERMINATION OF CONTRACT .................................................................................................................... 18 BREACH OF CONTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 18 INDEMNIFICATION ..................................................................................................................................... 18 CONTRACT AMENDMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 18 CONTRACT CHANGES – UNANTICIPATED AMENDMENTS .......................................................................... 18 NONDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY ................................................................................................. 19

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................... 19 4.01

BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 19

SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 21 5.01 5.02 5.03

SCOPE OF WORK ....................................................................................................................................... 21 DELIVERABLES .......................................................................................................................................... 24 DOCUMENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 24

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT............................................................................................................... 25 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04

PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT ........................................................................................................... 25 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL FORMAT ............................................................................................................... 25 COST PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................................................ 27 EVALUATION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................. 27

EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................... 27 7.01 7.02 7.03

UNDERSTANDING, MANAGEMENT APPROACH AND PROJECT METHODOLOGY – 30 PERCENT ................... 27 OFFEROR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS – 40 PERCENT .................................................................... 28 CONTRACT COST – 30 PERCENT ................................................................................................................ 28

SAMPLE EVALUATION FORM ........................................................................................................................... 29 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B

RFP 15-33-04

Page 3 of 34




SECTION ONE

Introduction and Instructions 1.01 Purpose of the RFP The Alaska Division of Legislative Audit, hereinafter referred to as the “Division” or “DLA”, is soliciting proposals for a contractor to conduct a performance review of the Department of Health and Social Services’ (DHSS) organizational and administrative structure. 1.02 Return Mailing Address and Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Offerors must submit their proposal to the procurement specialist in a sealed package. The cost proposal included with the package must be sealed separately from the rest of the proposal and must be clearly identified. The sealed proposal package(s) must be addressed as follows: Division of Legislative Audit Attention: Ross Alexander Request for Proposal (RFP) Number 15-33-04 A Performance Review of the Department of Health and Social Services’ Organizational and Administrative Structure P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, AK, 99811-3300 Hand delivery address: 6th Floor State Office Building 333 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, AK, 99801 Proposals must be received no later than 1:30 PM Alaska Time on November 26, 2014. Faxed, emailed, or oral proposals are not acceptable. It is the responsibility of the offeror to ensure that its proposal and any pertinent amendments are received by the Division prior to the scheduled deadline for receipt of proposals. An offeror’s failure to submit its proposal prior to the deadline will cause the proposal to be disqualified. Late proposals or amendments will not be opened or accepted for evaluation. 1.03 Photocopies Photocopied proposals are allowed. 1.04 Contract Term and Work Schedule The contract term and work schedule set out herein represents the Division’s best estimate of the schedule that will be followed. If a component of this schedule, such as the deadline for receipt of proposals, is delayed, the rest of the schedule may be shifted by the same number of days, at the discretion of the Division. The length of the contract will be from the date the contract is signed by the Division until project completion, approximately April 30, 2016.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 4 of 34




The approximate contract schedule is as follows: 10/30/14 11/12/14 11/26/14 12/8/14 12/19/14 12/19/14 7/1/15 7/15/15 8/5/15

Issue RFP Pre-Proposal Conference Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Division issues Notice of Intent to Award a Contract Contract signed by Division Contract start date Contractor submits initial draft preliminary report to the Division Contractor submits revised draft preliminary report per Division feedback Contractor submits final preliminary report

1.05 Budget The Division has set a maximum budget of $300,000 for completion of this project. Proposals priced at more than $300,000 will be considered non-responsive. 1.06 Location of Work The Division will not provide workspace for the contractor. The contractor must provide its own workspace. The contractor should include in their price proposal: transportation and per diem (lodging, meals, and incidentals) costs sufficient to pay for travel to various locations in Alaska to conduct on-site visits and interviews. The contractor shall indicate in the proposal the number and locations of anticipated on-site visits. The contractor should also include in their price proposal: transportation and per diem (lodging, meals, and incidentals) costs sufficient to pay for two trips to Juneau, Alaska to provide public testimony in-person before the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee regarding the results of the review conducted in response to this RFP. The contractor must be available by telephone to provide public testimony to legislative committees on at least four occasions during the course of the contract. 1.07 Human Trafficking By signature on the proposal, the offeror certifies that the offeror is not headquartered in a country recognized as Tier 3 in the most recent United States Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report. In addition, if the offeror conducts business in but is not headquartered in a country recognized as Tier 3 in the most recent United States Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report, a certified copy of the offeror’s policy against human trafficking must be submitted to the Division prior to contract award. The most recent United States Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report can be found at the following web site: http://www.state.gov/j/tip. If an offeror fails to comply with this paragraph, the Division may reject, without liability, the offeror’s proposal as non-responsive, cancel the intent to award to the offeror, or cancel the resulting contract to the offeror. RFP 15-33-04

Page 5 of 34




1.08 Americans with Disabilities Act The Alaska State Legislature complies with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who may need auxiliary aids, services, and/or special modifications to submit a proposal should contact the procurement specialist no later than ten days prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals to make any necessary arrangements. If a request for special arrangements is received less than ten days prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, the Division will attempt to accommodate the request. 1.09 Required Review Offerors should carefully review this solicitation, without delay, for defects and questionable or objectionable material. Comments concerning defects and objectionable material must be made in writing and received by the procurement specialist prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals. This will help prevent the opening of a defective solicitation and exposure of an offeror’s proposal upon which award could not be made. Protests by an offeror based on any omission or error, or on the content of the solicitation, may be disallowed if the offeror has not brought these faults to the attention of the procurement specialist, in writing, prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals. Offerors or their agents may not contact any member of the evaluation committee or their staff or any member of the legislature or their staff regarding this RFP. All questions concerning this RFP must be directed to the procurement specialist listed on the first page of this RFP. 1.10 Questions Received Prior to Deadline for Receipt of Proposals Two types of questions generally arise. One may be answered by directing the questioner to a specific section of the RFP. These questions may be answered over the telephone. The second type is a question that would require the procurement specialist to clarify or interpret part of the RFP or its intent. Response to the second type of question will not be given except in writing via amendment to the RFP. Offerors must put these questions in writing. These questions must be received by the procurement specialist prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals. 1.11 Amendments If an amendment to this RFP is issued, it will be posted to the State of Alaska’s Online Public Notice web site and will be provided to all who have registered with the procurement specialist after receiving the RFP from the State of Alaska’s Online Public Notice web site, or some other source. 1.12 Number of Proposals; Alternate Proposals Offerors may only submit one proposal for evaluation. Proposals that offer something different than what is asked for will be rejected. 1.13 Right of Rejection Offerors must comply with all of the terms of this RFP, Alaska Legislative Procurement Procedures, and all applicable local, state, and federal laws, codes, and regulations. The procurement specialist may reject any proposal that does not comply with all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and performance requirements of this RFP.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 6 of 34




Offerors may not qualify the proposal or restrict the rights of the Division. If an offeror does so, the procurement specialist may determine the proposal to be a non-responsive counter-offer and the proposal may be rejected. A proposal may be rejected if the proposal contains a material alteration or erasure that is not initialed by the signer of the proposal. The procurement specialist may waive minor informalities that: a) do not affect responsiveness; b) are merely a matter of form or format; c) do not change the relative standing or otherwise prejudice other offers; d) do not change the meaning or scope of the RFP; e) are trivial, negligible, or immaterial in nature; f) do not reflect a material change in the work, services, or products requested; or g) do not constitute a substantial reservation against a requirement or provision. Furthermore, a proposal may be rejected in whole or in part when in the best interest of the Division, as provided in sec. 130 of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature. 1.14 State Not Responsible for Preparation Costs This RFP does not obligate the Division to award a contract or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal when the Division does not award a contract. This RFP may be canceled as provided in sec. 120 of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature. Among the reasons that justify cancellation is that all of the responsive proposals exceed the funds available for the contract. 1.15 Disclosure of Proposal Contents All proposals and other material submitted become the property of the Division and may be returned only at the Division’s option. AS 40.25.110 requires public records to be open to reasonable inspection. All proposal information, including detailed price and cost information, will be held in confidence during the evaluation process and prior to the time a Notice of Intent to Award is issued. Thereafter, proposals will become public information. Contracts for services provided to the Division in the preparation of a performance review are subject to sec. 200(b) of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature. Trade secrets and other proprietary data contained in proposals may be held confidential if the offeror requests, in writing, that the procurement specialist do so, and if the procurement specialist agrees, in writing, to do so. The offeror’s request must be included with the proposal, must clearly identify the information they wish to be held confidential, and include a statement that sets out the reasons for confidentiality. Unless the procurement specialist agrees in writing to hold the requested information confidential, that information will also become public after the Notice of Intent to Award is issued. RFP 15-33-04

Page 7 of 34




1.16 Subcontractors Subcontractors may be used to perform work under the contract. If an offeror intends to use subcontractors, the offeror must identify in the proposal the names of the subcontractors and the portions of the work the subcontractors will perform. If a proposal with subcontractors is selected, the offeror must provide the following information concerning each prospective subcontractor within five working days from the date of the Division’s request: a) complete name of the subcontractor; b) complete address of the subcontractor; c) type of work the subcontractor will be performing; d) percentage of work the subcontractor will be providing; e) evidence that the subcontractor holds a valid Alaska business license; and f) a written statement, signed by each proposed subcontractor that clearly verifies that the subcontractor has agreed to render the services required by the contract. An offeror’s failure to provide this information, within the time set, may cause the Division to consider their proposal non-responsive and reject it. The substitution of one subcontractor for another may be made only at the discretion and with the prior written approval of the project director. All subcontractors that perform work under the contract resulting from this RFP are subject to the requirements of paragraph 3.06 (Insurance Requirements) of this RFP. 1.17 Joint Ventures Joint ventures are acceptable. If submitting a proposal as a joint venture, the offeror must submit a copy of the joint venture agreement which identifies the principals involved and their rights and responsibilities regarding performance and payment. 1.18 Offeror’s Certification By signature on the proposal, offerors certify that: a) the offeror will comply with the laws of the State of Alaska; b) the offeror will comply with the applicable portion of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964; c) the offeror will comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the regulations issued thereunder by the federal government; d) the offeror will comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the regulations issued thereunder by the federal government; RFP 15-33-04

Page 8 of 34




e) the offeror will comply with all terms and conditions set out in this RFP; f) the proposal submitted was independently arrived at, without collusion; g) the offer shall be good and firm for a period of at least 90 days from the date of deadline for receipt of proposals to the RFP; and h) programs, services, and activities provided to the general public under the resulting contract will conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the regulations issued thereunder by the federal government. If any offeror fails to comply with (a) through (h) of this paragraph, the Division reserves the right to disregard the proposal, terminate the contract, or consider the contractor in default under the contract. 1.19 Conflict of Interest Each proposal shall include a statement indicating whether or not the firm or any individuals working on the contract has a possible conflict of interest (e.g., currently employed by the State of Alaska or formerly employed by the State of Alaska within the past five years) and, if so, the nature of that conflict. The Division reserves the right to consider a proposal non-responsive and reject it or cancel the award if any interest disclosed from any source could either give the appearance of a conflict or cause speculation as to the objectivity of the offeror. The Division’s determination regarding any questions of conflict of interest shall be final. 1.20 Project Director The administration of the contract issued as a result of this RFP is the responsibility of the individual assigned by the Division to be the project director. The project director shall be named in the contract issued as a result of this RFP. 1.21 Assignment/Transfer Assignment or transfer of the contract entered into as a result of this RFP is subject to sec. 160 of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature. 1.22 Binding on Successors Subject to paragraphs 1.21 (Assignment/Transfer) and 1.25 (Severability) of this RFP, the contract issued as a result of this RFP and all the covenants, provisions and conditions contained in the contract shall insure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the contractor and the Division. 1.23 Disputes A contract resulting from this RFP is governed by the laws of the State of Alaska. If the contractor has a claim arising in connection with the contract that it cannot resolve with the Division by mutual agreement, sec. 350 of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature governs contract controversies. 1.24 Venue and Applicable Law In the event that the parties to the resulting contract find it necessary to litigate the terms of the contract, venue shall be State of Alaska, First Judicial District at Juneau, and the contract shall be interpreted according to the laws of Alaska. RFP 15-33-04

Page 9 of 34




1.25 Severability If any provision of the contract or agreement is declared by a court to be illegal or in conflict with any law, the validity of the remaining terms and provisions will not be affected; and the rights and obligations of the parties will be construed and enforced as if the contract did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid. 1.26 Procurement Procedures This RFP is subject to the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature. 1.27 Records; Audit These requirements are in addition to any other records required by this RFP. Unless the resulting contract will be solely for products, the contractor shall accurately maintain detailed time records that state the date of the work, break down the time in quarters of an hour, describe in detail the work done during the quarter of an hour, and identify what individual did the work. For all types of contracts, the contractor shall also keep any other records that are required by the contract issued as a result of this RFP or the project director. The records required by this paragraph are subject to inspection by the Division or the project director at all reasonable times. 1.28 Ownership and Reuse of Documents All data, documents, reports, material, and other items generated as a consequence of work done under the contract resulting from this RFP are the property of the Division. To the extent the offeror has any interest in the copyright for these items under the copyright laws of the United States, the offeror transfers any and all interest the offeror has in the copyright for these items to the Division, and the Division will be the owner of the copyright for these items. Upon completion of the work or termination of the contract resulting from this RFP, all items shall be delivered to the project director, and the offeror shall certify that it has not maintained any copies of items. Offeror acknowledges that all the items are the property of the Division. 1.29 Materials and Processes Covered by Patents, Trademarks, or Copyrights If the offeror employs any design, device, material, or process covered by a patent, trademark, or copyright, the offeror shall provide for the use by suitable legal agreement with the owner. The offeror and the surety shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Legislature of the State of Alaska, the Division and their officers, agents, and employees, and any affected third party from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of patented design, device, material or process, or any trademark or copyright, and for any costs, expenses, and damages due to infringement at any time during the work or after the completion of the work. 1.30 Coverage Under the Ethics Law The offeror may be subject to the provisions of AS 24.60 (Legislative Ethics) as a legislative employee unless excluded from the definition of “legislative employee” under AS 24.60.990(a)(11). Select Committee on Legislative Ethics Advisory Opinion 99-01 concludes that “any contractors who are paid through the state payroll system, contractors (or those designated within a contracting firm or company) with the Ethics Committee and those services or professional services contractors with legislative contracts over $5,000, who will incur more than incidental use of state resources or who either contract for legislative policy related services or who are designated to represent the Legislature in a policy-related capacity, fall within the legislative employee definition and are therefore subject to the legislative ethics code.” RFP 15-33-04

Page 10 of 34




SECTION TWO

Standard Proposal Information 2.01 Authorized Signature All proposals must be signed by an individual authorized to bind the offeror to the provisions of the RFP. Proposals must remain open and valid for at least 90-days from the date set as the deadline for receipt of proposals. 2.02 Pre-proposal Conference A pre-proposal conference will be held at 9:00AM, Alaska Time, on November 12, 2014 in Room 104 of the Legislative Information Office, located on the 1st floor of the Terry Miller Building, Juneau, AK, 99801. The purpose of the conference is to discuss the work to be performed with the prospective offerors and allow them to ask questions concerning the RFP. Questions and answers will be transcribed and sent to prospective offerors as soon as possible after the meeting. Attendance at the pre-proposal conference is not mandatory, but is highly encouraged. Participants should read the RFP and come to the meeting prepared to discuss any concerns. This will be a teleconference and potential offerors are invited to attend in person, or dial into the conference by calling 855-463-5009. Offerors with a disability needing accommodation should contact the procurement specialist prior to the date set for the pre-proposal conference so that reasonable accommodation can be made. 2.03 U.S. Funds Prices quoted shall be in U.S. funds. 2.04 Taxes All proposals shall be submitted exclusive of federal, state, and local taxes. 2.05 Amendments to Proposals Amendments to or withdrawals of proposals will only be allowed if requests are received prior to the deadline that is set for receipt of proposals. No amendments or withdrawals will be accepted after the deadline unless they are in response to the Division’s request. 2.06 Supplemental Terms and Conditions Proposals must comply with Section 1.13 Right of Rejection. However, if the Division fails to identify or detect in a proposal a term or condition that conflicts with those contained in this RFP or that diminishes the Division’s rights under any contract resulting from the RFP, the term(s) or condition(s) will be considered null and void. After award of contract: a) if conflict arises between a term or condition included in the proposal and a term or condition of the RFP, the term or condition of the RFP will prevail; b) if there is a conflict between the RFP and the contract document, the contract document will govern; and c) if the Division’s rights would be diminished as a result of application of a term or condition included in the proposal, the term or condition will be considered null and void. RFP 15-33-04

Page 11 of 34




2.07 Clarification of Offers In order to determine if a proposal is reasonably susceptible for award, communications by the procurement specialist or the proposal evaluation committee (PEC) are permitted with an offeror to clarify uncertainties or eliminate confusion concerning the contents of a proposal. Clarifications may not result in a material or substantive change to the RFP or the proposal. The evaluation by the procurement specialist or the PEC may be adjusted as a result of clarification under this section. 2.08 Discussions with Offerors The Division may conduct discussions with offerors for the purpose of clarification. The purpose of these discussions will be to ensure full understanding of the requirements of the RFP and proposal. Discussions will be limited to specific sections of the RFP or proposal identified by the procurement specialist. Discussions will only be held with offerors who have submitted a proposal deemed reasonably susceptible for award by the procurement specialist. Discussions, if held, will be after initial evaluation of proposals by the procurement specialist or the PEC. If modifications are made as a result of these discussions they will be put in writing. Following discussions, the procurement specialist may set a time for best and final proposal submissions from those offerors with whom discussion were held. Proposals may be reevaluated after receipt of best and final proposal submissions. 2.09 Prior Experience In order for offers to be considered responsive, offerors must have performed at least three similar reviews of the organizational and administrative structure of public-agencies within the past five years. An offeror’s failure to meet this minimum prior experience requirement may cause the proposal to be considered non-responsive, resulting in rejection of the proposal. 2.10 Evaluation of Proposals The procurement specialist, or an evaluation committee made up of at least three state employees or public officials, will evaluate proposals. The evaluation will be based solely on the evaluation factors set out in Section Seven (Evaluation Criteria) of this RFP. After receipt of proposals, if there is a need for any substantial clarification or material change in the RFP, an amendment will be issued. The amendment will incorporate the clarification or change, and a new date and time established for new or amended proposals. Evaluations may be adjusted as a result of receiving new or amended proposals. 2.11 Vendor Tax ID A valid Vendor Tax ID must be submitted to the Division with the proposal or within five days of the Division’s request. 2.12 Alaska Business License and Other Required Licenses Prior to the award of a contract, an offeror must hold a valid Alaska business license. However, in order to receive the Alaska Bidder Preference and other related preferences an offeror must hold a valid Alaska business license prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals. Offerors should contact the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Corporations, Business, and Professional Licensing, P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, Alaska 998110806, for information on these licenses. Acceptable evidence that the offeror possesses a valid Alaska business license may consist of any one of the following: RFP 15-33-04

Page 12 of 34




a) copy of an Alaska business license; b) certification on the proposal that the offeror has a valid Alaska business license and has included the license number in the proposal; c) a canceled check for the Alaska business license fee; d) a copy of the Alaska business license application with a receipt stamp from the state’s occupational licensing office; or e) a sworn and notarized affidavit that the offeror has applied and paid for the Alaska business license. Prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals, all offerors must hold any other necessary applicable professional licenses required by Alaska Statute. 2.13 Alaska Bidder Preference If an offeror qualifies for the Alaska Bidder Preference, the offeror will receive a preference of five percent. The preference will be given to an offeror who: 1) holds a current Alaska business license prior to the deadline for receipt of proposals; 2) submits a proposal for the contract under the name appearing on the offeror’s current Alaska business license; 3) has maintained a place of business within the state staffed by the offeror, or an employee of the offeror, for a period of six months immediately preceding the date of the proposal; 4) is incorporated or qualified to do business under the laws of the state, is a sole proprietorship and the proprietor is a resident of the state, is a limited liability company (LLC) organized under AS 10.50 and all members are residents of the state, or is a partnership under AS 32.06 or AS 32.11 and all partners are residents of the state; and 5) if a joint venture, is composed entirely of ventures that qualify under (1) – (4) of this subsection. In order to receive the Alaska Bidder Preference, the proposal must include a statement certifying that the offeror is eligible to receive the Alaska Bidder Preference. If the offeror is a LLC or partnership as identified in (4) of this subsection, the affidavit must also identify each member or partner and include a statement certifying that all members or partners are residents of the state. If the offeror is a joint venture which includes a LLC or partnership as identified in (4) of this subsection, the affidavit must also identify each member or partner of each LLC or partnership that is included in the joint venture and include a statement certifying that all of those members or partners are residents of the state.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 13 of 34




2.14 Formula Used to Convert Cost to Points The distribution of points based on cost will be determined by the Division. The lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum number of points allocated to cost. The points allocated to cost on the other proposals will be determined through the method set out below. In the generic example below, cost is weighted as 40% of the overall total score. See Section Seven (Evaluation Criteria) to determine the value, or weight of cost for this RFP. EXAMPLE Formula Used to Convert Cost to Points [STEP 1] List all proposal prices, adjusted where appropriate by the application of all applicable preferences. Offeror #1 - Non-Alaskan Offeror Offeror #2 - Alaskan Offeror Offeror #3 - Alaskan Offeror

$40,000 $42,750 $47,500

[STEP 2] Convert cost to points using this formula. [(Price of Lowest Cost Proposal) x (Maximum Points for Cost)] ______________________________________________________ (Cost of Each Higher Priced Proposal)

=

POINTS

The RFP allotted 40% (40 points) of the total of 100 points for cost. Offeror #1 receives 40 points. The reason they receive that amount is because the lowest cost proposal, in this case $40,000, receives the maximum number of points allocated to cost, 40 points. Offeror #2 receives 37.4 points. $40,000 Lowest Cost

x

40 Max Points

=

1,600,000

÷

$42,750 = Offeror #2 Adjusted By The Application Of All Applicable Preferences

37.4 Points

1,600,000

÷

33.7 Points

Offeror #3 receives 33.7 points. $40,000 Lowest Cost

x

RFP 15-33-04

40 Max Points

=

$47,500 = Offeror #3 Adjusted By The Application Of All Applicable Preferences

Page 14 of 34




2.15 Contract Negotiation After final evaluation, the procurement specialist may negotiate with the offeror of the highestranked proposal. The option of whether or not to initiate contract negotiations rests solely with the Division. Negotiations, if held, shall be within the scope of the RFP and limited to those items which would not have an effect on the ranking of proposals. 2.16 Failure to Negotiate If the selected offeror • fails to provide the information required to begin negotiations in a timely manner; or • fails to negotiate in good faith; or • indicates they cannot perform a contract within the budgeted funds available for the project; or • if the offeror and the Division, after a good faith effort, simply cannot come to terms, the Division may terminate negotiations with the offeror initially selected and commence negotiations with the next highest ranked offeror. 2.17 Notice of Intent to Award – Offeror Notification of Selection Upon selection of an apparent successful offeror, the procurement specialist will issue a written Notice of Intent to Award and send copies to all offerors. The Notice of Intent will set out the names of all offerors and identify the proposal selected for award. 2.18 Protest If an offeror wishes to protest a solicitation, the award of a contract, or the proposed award of a contract, the protest must be filed as required by sec. 230 and 240 of the Procurement Procedures of the Alaska State Legislature.

SECTION THREE

Standard Contract Information 3.01 Format of Contract The contract entered into as a result of this RFP will be in the contract format desired by the Division. 3.02 Contract Approval The contract to be entered into as a result of this RFP is subject to approval by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, or the committee’s designee. The Division will not be responsible for any work done by the contractor, even work done in good faith, if it occurs prior to the signing of the contract. 3.03 Proposal as a Part of the Contract Part or all of this RFP and the successful proposal may be incorporated into the contract. 3.04 Additional Terms and Conditions The Division reserves the right to include additional terms and conditions in the contract. RFP 15-33-04

Page 15 of 34




3.05 Applicable Law The contractor must comply with all applicable federal and state labor, wage/hour, safety, and any other laws which have a bearing on the contract, and must have all licenses and permits required by the Division, and any municipality that is applicable, for performance of the contract that is covered by this RFP. 3.06 Insurance Requirements Without limiting indemnification responsibilities under section 3.14 (Indemnification) and section 1.29 (Materials and Processes Covered by Patents, Trademarks, or Copyrights), the contractor shall purchase at its own expense and maintain in force at all times during the performance of services under this agreement the following policies of insurance. Where specific limits are shown, it is understood that they shall be the minimum acceptable limits. If the contractor’s policy contains higher limits, the Division shall be entitled to coverage to the extent of such higher limits. Certificates of Insurance must be furnished to the procurement specialist prior to beginning work and must provide for notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or material change of conditions in accordance with policy provisions. Failure to furnish satisfactory evidence of insurance or lapse of the policy is a material breach of the contract resulting from this RFP and shall be grounds for termination of the contractor’s services. All insurance policies shall comply with, and be issued by insurers licensed to transact the business of insurance under AS 21. Workers Compensation Insurance: The contractor shall provide and maintain, for all employees engaged in work under this contract, coverage as required by AS 23.30.045, and as required by any other applicable statute. The policy must waive subrogation against the state. Commercial General Liability Insurance: covering all business premises and operations used by the contractor in the performance of services under this agreement with minimum coverage limits of $300,000 combined single limit per occurrence. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance: covering all vehicles used by the contractor in the performance of services under this agreement with minimum coverage limits of $300,000 combined single limit per occurrence. Professional Liability Insurance: covering all errors, omissions or negligent acts in the performance of professional services under this agreement. Limits required per the following schedule: Contract Amount Under $100,000 $100,000-$499,999 $500,000-$999,999 $1,000,000 or over

Minimum Required Limits $300,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate $500,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate $1,000,000 per Occurrence/Annual Aggregate Refer to Division

All insurance shall be considered to be primary and non-contributory to any other insurance carried by the Division through self-insurance or otherwise.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 16 of 34




In addition to providing the above coverages, the contractor shall require that all indemnities obtained from any subcontractors be extended to include the Division as an additional named indemnitee. The contractor shall further require that the Division be named as an additional insured on all liability insurance policies maintained by all subcontractors under their contracts with the contractor, and that an appropriate waiver of subrogation in favor of the Division be obtained with respect to all other insurance policies. The contractor shall provide evidence of continuous coverage by submitting, without reminder, annual renewal certificates for the required insurance to the Division. 3.07 Contract Funding Funds are available in an appropriation to pay for the Division’s monetary obligations under the contract through June 30, 2015. The availability of funds to pay for the Division’s monetary obligations under the contract after June 30, 2015 is contingent upon appropriation of funds for the particular fiscal year involved. In addition to any other right of the Division under the contract to terminate the contract, if, in the judgment of the Division, sufficient funds are not appropriated, the contract will be terminated by the Division or amended. To terminate under this section, the project director shall provide written notice of the termination to the contractor and the contract will be terminated under paragraph 3.12 (Termination of Contract) of this RFP. 3.08 Contract Payment No payment will be made until the contract is approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee or the committee’s designee. If a payment is not made within 60 days after the Division has received a properly approved billing, the Division shall pay interest on the unpaid balance of the billing at the rate of 1.5 percent per month from, and including, the 61st day through the date payment is made. A payment is considered made on the date it is mailed or personally delivered to the contractor. The Division is not responsible for and will not pay local, state, or federal taxes. All costs associated with the contract must be stated in U.S. currency. 3.09 Informal Debriefing When the contract is completed, an informal debriefing may be performed at the discretion of the project director. If performed, the scope of the debriefing will be limited to the work performed by the contractor. 3.10 Contract Personnel Any change of the project team members or subcontractors named in the proposal must be approved, in advance and in writing, by the project director. Personnel changes that are not approved by the Division may be grounds for the Division to terminate the contract. 3.11 Inspection & Modification – Reimbursement for Unacceptable Deliverables The contractor is responsible for the completion of all work set out in the contract. All work is subject to inspection, evaluation, and approval by the project director. The Division may employ all reasonable means to ensure that the work is progressing and being performed in compliance with the contract. The project director may instruct the contractor to make corrections or modifications, if needed, in order to accomplish the contract’s intent. The contractor will not unreasonably withhold such changes. RFP 15-33-04

Page 17 of 34




In addition to any other right of the Division under the contract to terminate the contract, the Division may terminate the contract for substantial failure of the contractor to perform the contract. In this event, the Division may require the contractor to reimburse monies paid (based on the identified portion of unacceptable work received) and may seek associated damages. 3.12 Termination of Contract Upon delivery of written notice to the contractor, the contract may be terminated by the Legislative Auditor with or without cause. To terminate, the project director shall provide notice by email or delivery of a hard copy to the contractor, whichever method is selected in the sole discretion of the project director. If the contract is so terminated and the termination is not based on a breach by the contractor, the Division shall compensate the contractor for services provided under the terms of the contract up to the date the termination notice is delivered, provided the contractor provides the Division with a statement in writing containing a description of the services provided prior to contract termination and a copy of all documents, reports, material, and other items required to be delivered to the project director by this RFP. 3.13 Breach of Contract In case of a breach of the contract, for whatever reason, by the contractor, the Division may procure the services from other sources and hold the contractor responsible for damages resulting from the breach. 3.14 Indemnification The contractor shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the Legislature of the State of Alaska and the Division, and their officers, agents, and employees (“contracting agency”) from and against any claim of, or liability for error, omission, or negligent act of the contractor under the contract resulting from this RFP, including, but not limited to, any costs, attorney fees, and other expenses relating to the contractor’s performance of its contract obligations. The contractor shall not be required to indemnify the contracting agency for a claim of, or liability for, the independent negligence of the contracting agency. If there is a claim of, or liability for, the joint negligent error or omission of the contractor and the independent negligence of the contracting agency, the indemnification and hold harmless obligation shall be apportioned on a comparative fault basis. “Contractor” and “contracting agency”, as used within this section, include the employees, agents, and other contractors who are directly responsible, respectively, to each. The term “independent negligence” is negligence other than in the contracting agency’s selection, administration, monitoring, or controlling of the contractor and in approving or accepting the contractor’s work. 3.15 Contract Amendments In addition to any other amendment the parties may be allowed to make under the contract, the terms of the contract entered into as a result of this RFP may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties. 3.16 Contract Changes – Unanticipated Amendments During the course of the contract, the Division may request the contractor to perform additional work. That work will be within the general scope of the initial contract and may not amount to a material amendment of the contract. When additional work is requested and the contractor agrees to perform the additional work, the project director will provide the contractor a written RFP 15-33-04

Page 18 of 34




description of the additional work and request the contractor to submit a firm time schedule for accomplishing the additional work and a firm price for the additional work. Cost and pricing data must be provided to justify the cost of such amendments. The contractor may not commence the additional work until the project director has secured any required approvals necessary for the amendment and the Division and the contractor have signed a written contract amendment, approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, or the committee’s designee. 3.17 Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Contractor agrees that all confidential information shall be used only for purposes of providing the deliverables and performing the services specified herein and shall not disseminate or allow dissemination of confidential information except as provided for in this section. The contractor shall hold as confidential and will use reasonable care (including both facility physical security and electronic security) to prevent unauthorized access by, storage, disclosure, publication, dissemination to and/or use by third parties of, the confidential information. “Reasonable care” means compliance by the contractor with all applicable federal and state law, including the Social Security Act and HIPAA. The contractor must promptly notify the Division in writing it if becomes aware of any improper storage, disclosure, loss, unauthorized access to or use of the confidential information. Confidential information, as used herein, means any data, files, software, information or materials (whether prepared by the state, the Division, or their agents or advisors) in oral, electronic, tangible or intangible form and however stored, compiled or memorialized that is classified confidential as defined by the State of Alaska Information Security Policies adopted by the Department of Administration and provided by the Division to the contractor or a contractor agent or otherwise made available to the contractor or a contractor agent in connection with the contract, or acquired, obtained, or learned by the contractor or a contractor agent in the performance of the contract. Examples of confidential information include, but are not limited to: personal information, technology infrastructure, architecture, financial data, trade secrets, equipment specifications, user lists, passwords, research data, and technology data (infrastructure, architecture, operating systems, security tools, IP addresses, etc.). Additionally, all data, documents, reports, material, and other items generated as a consequence of work done under the contract resulting from this RFP shall be held as confidential.

SECTION FOUR

Background Information 4.01 Background Information DHSS has a complex mission to promote and protect the health and well-being of Alaskans. Of DHSS’ total $2.7 billion FY 15 operating appropriation, $1.3 billion is funded by state general funds and $1.3 billion is funded by federal funds. The department’s programs are administered by eight operating divisions that focus on: juvenile justice, public assistance, senior and RFP 15-33-04

Page 19 of 34




disability services, Pioneer Homes, behavioral health, child protection, public health, and health care services. The department has a FY 15 personal services budget of $355 million. DHSS recently moved to a “performance budgeting” system. According to department management, this process allowed the department to realign program expenditures to absorb $1.3 million in reductions due to federal sequestration requirements and address program growth and other increased costs submitted in the 2015 budget request. The department will face more significant challenges in the coming years as many of the realignment strategies used to develop the department’s 2015 budget took advantage of one-time savings opportunities that may not be relied upon to reduce future growth and costs. Compounding this issue is the federal government’s move for determining Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility using a “modified adjusted gross income”, a process that allows for set-asides that increase enrollment eligibility by an additional five percent. The Medicaid Services Results Delivery Unit (RDU) has a total FY 15 appropriation of $1.67 billion, of which $695 million is general funded. Medicaid represents 52 percent of DHSS’ total general funded operating budget. The Alaska Health Care Commission and a special task force recently appointed by Governor Parnell are actively looking at Medicaid restructuring and cost containment. The approach of this performance review will complement those efforts. Rather than reviewing Medicaid specifically, the review will focus on the delivery and administration of specific health service categories, which encompass Medicaid funded services. The DHSS Performance Review Scope of Work calls for three contracts for reviews of specific services. This RFP is soliciting a contractor to review DHSS’ organizational structure. Procurements will also be made to obtain contractors to review DHSS’ long-term care and behavioral health services. The broad scope and mission of DHSS, coupled with the number of divisions and service demands, creates challenges for legislators to develop a thorough understanding of the department’s complex budget needs. As decisions regarding expenditures are made, additional information that highlights when cuts to one program will increase demands on another is essential when resource reductions are anticipated. While such a ripple effect is commensurate with entities that have such broad missions, it is also possible that the department’s organizational design contributes to the complexity. A more focused picture of the department’s organization and an understanding of whether the department’s organizational design is perpetuating problems or otherwise inhibiting a more effective means of delivering essential services could help provide more clarity about resource needs. More information on DHSS’ organization, priorities and budget can be found at http://dhss.alaska.gov.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 20 of 34




SECTION FIVE

Scope of Work 5.01 Scope of Work DLA is soliciting the services of a contractor with expertise in government agency organizational reviews to complete a performance review of DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure. The work completed will include a performance analysis of DHSS in accordance with Chapter 19 SLA 2013. Results of the analysis are to be included in a preliminary report to the Alaska Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBAC). Chapter 19 SLA 2013 includes multiple areas for review as well as specified sources for data to be used during the review. The contractor shall request, through the DLA project director, additional data as necessary to complete the objectives required by this RFP. In accordance with the objectives outlined below, the performance review shall be a comprehensive analysis of DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure. The review shall be conducted using recognized methods for evaluating operational performance. The review shall not include either a financial or budget audit, and the use of audit standards to complete the review is not required, although such standards may be used at the discretion of the contractor. Issues that arise during the course of the review that, in the opinion of the contractor, should be subject to audit, shall be included in the report as a recommendation for audit. If an audit is recommended, the contractor shall include sufficient detail to describe the issue and justification for the recommendation. While conducting this review, the review team should take into consideration Alaska’s unique geographic and cultural environment and be sensitive to how those factors influence the department’s organizational structure and administration of services. The review team will be expected to travel to various locations in Alaska to conduct on-site visits and interviews to gather information. To the extent practical and applicable, the review is to include comparison of nationallyrecognized best practices for the organization and administration of a health and social services agency, with the practices currently used by the department. The contractor shall include in the report recommendations of areas in which a best practice can be adopted by the department to improve its effectiveness or efficiency. It is expected that recommendations for improvements to department practices are to be included for all areas the contractor identifies while completing the scope objectives outlined below. Recommendations must include the rationale for the revision, any expected costs associated with changes necessary to implement the new practice, and the expected outcome. As applicable, recommendations shall also address the impact on the quantity and quality of services provided, impact on federal funding, any necessary changes to statutes or regulations in order to enact a change, and impact on other service categories and any shifting of costs to state and non-state entities. The analysis and report should address, at the minimum, the following objectives: 1. Develop a format for a comprehensive overview of DHSS’ budget, showing the interconnectivity of each individual division and the organizational structure utilized to RFP 15-33-04

Page 21 of 34




connect individuals to services within each division and coordinate activities for those services through multiple divisions. This should address the following: a) Identify and provide recommendations for how the number of individuals served, cost of services provided, and funding sources utilized can be organized and presented to provide a comprehensive yet easily understood annual review of services and funding needs. b) Identify strengths and weaknesses of the current budget-reporting format. c) Does the department’s organizational and administrative structure facilitate the development of a well-developed, well-informed budget for the department as a whole? 2. Evaluate whether the organizational and administrative structure of the department is conducive to or inhibits DHSS’ ability to ensure services are provided efficiently and effectively. The evaluation should include the general organization and administration as well as the specific organization and administration of Alaska’s Medicaid program. This should address the following: a) Identify strengths and weaknesses of the current organizational structure. b) Are the department’s services and programs delivered effectively? c) Are the department’s services and programs delivered efficiently? d) Are there changes that could be made to the department’s organizational structure that would improve efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery and administration? 3. Determine whether DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure unintentionally facilitates duplication of services among or within any of its divisions, including a review of the Departmental Support Services RDU and its programs. Determine whether each division has developed or been assigned programs, activities, or services that would be better placed within another division or department, or are driving duplication of services provided through a separate department. 4. Determine whether DHSS’ advisory groups are effective and efficient in advising and overseeing services, and recommend changes based on national best practices to better utilize resources including consolidation or elimination of groups as determined appropriate. The review team should exclude behavioral health and long-term care related advisory groups from this review. This should address the following: a) Are the department’s advisory groups effectively advising and guiding the delivery and administration of services? b) Are the department’s advisory groups efficiently advising and guiding the delivery and administration of services? c) Are all of the department’s advisory groups necessary for effective and efficient delivery and administration of programs and services? d) Are there changes that could be made to improve the effectiveness or efficiency of the department’s advisory entities? 5. Determine whether organizational management best practices can be utilized to more effectively organize the department and reduce funds spent on department and program administration. Compare overall organizational structure of DHSS with similar public or private organizations. This should address the following:

RFP 15-33-04

Page 22 of 34




a) Is the number of staff devoted to administration in the department’s varying divisions commensurate with or disproportionate to the level of services overseen by the department? b) Are there national best practices that could reduce administrative expenses? c) Are there national best practices for department organization that could increase department effectiveness? 6. Recommend changes to DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure that may lead to a more effective and efficient use of the state’s limited resources. 7. Evaluate whether DHSS’ organization and administration of information technology effectively supports its programs and services. The evaluation should recommend new types and uses of technology to improve agency efficiency and effectiveness in line with recognized best practices. Recommendations should include the estimated long-term maintenance costs for the technology or best practice identified. The review team will exclude the recently implemented Medicaid Information System. 8. Determine if DHSS’ proposed budget reductions related to administration are supported by the performance review including whether DHSS complied with AS 44.66.020(c)(2) when proposing cuts to such services. This should address the following: a) Do the proposed reductions represent a good faith effort by the department to identify areas that can be reduced without compromising the department’s ability to meet its mission? b) Are the reductions recommended by the department in response to AS 44.66.020(c)(2) consistent with results derived from the review of each applicable objective within this Scope of Work? c) Did work on any of the objectives within this Scope of Work reveal other potential areas that could be subject to a budget reduction without inhibiting the ability of the department to fulfill its mission? In accordance with Chapter 19 SLA 2013, a review team will be created that includes both the successful contractor and the DLA project director. The process, quality of work, and adherence to schedule will be tightly monitored by the DLA project director. The DLA project director will participate in all discussions between the department and the contractor, and may require daily contact with the contractor as necessary. All verbal and written communications between the contractor and the department will be handled through the DLA project director. A comprehensive deliverable list (Attachment A) will be used to track and monitor progress of the contractor and the review team in meeting review objectives. The DHSS 2014-2015 Performance Review Scope that was submitted to and approved by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBAC) describing the project is provided (Attachment B) for reference purposes only. The objectives provided in Attachment B provide the framework for the performance review, while the review objectives included in this section of the RFP detail the specific issues that the review team should address. The questions included with each review objective in this section are intended to help direct the contractors’ review process.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 23 of 34




The performance review process requires the LBAC to hold public hearings for the expressed purpose of providing members of the public an opportunity to comment on agency activities and identify problems or concerns. Public hearings will be held in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kodiak. Since the DHSS performance review will run concurrent with the legislative session, a meeting will be scheduled in Juneau during the legislative session to give the contractor initial feedback on the department and the issues under review. To accomplish this aspect of the review, the following broad schedule is proposed, with the final dates to be determined. CITY/LOCATION Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks Kodiak

PROPOSED HEARING SCHEDULE First two weeks of February 2015 Last week of April 2015 First two weeks of May 2015 First two weeks of May 2015

The contractor will be required to listen to the hearings in order to gather information pertinent to the review. The contractor may make the independent decision to physically attend any of the identified hearings. 5.02 Deliverables A comprehensive, but not all inclusive, deliverables list has been developed to track the estimated work required of this RFP (Attachment A). All deliverables shall be submitted in electronic format, unless otherwise stated. The assigned deliverable number must be clearly marked on each deliverable submitted. 5.03 Documents On or before the close of business (Alaska Time) on July 1, 2015, the contractor will provide the DLA project director and the Legislative Auditor a copy of an initial draft preliminary report for review both in an electronic PDF format and hard copy. The DLA project director will provide to the contractor feedback regarding the report by July 8, 2015. On or before the close of business (Alaska Time) on July 15, 2015, the contractor will provide the DLA project director a copy of the draft preliminary report that incorporates DLA feedback for transmittal to the department. The department will provide to the contractor feedback and comments on the report by July 29, 2015. On or before the close of business (Alaska Time) on August 5, 2015, the contractor will provide the Legislative Auditor the final preliminary report both in an electronic PDF format and hard copy.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 24 of 34




SECTION SIX

Proposal Format and Content 6.01 Proposal Format and Content The Division discourages overly lengthy and costly proposals. In order for the Division to evaluate proposals fairly and completely, offerors must follow the format set out in this RFP and provide all information requested. In addition to an electronic copy, if submitted, offerors must submit eight (8) hard copies of their proposal to the Division. The proposal must be split into two parts: 1) a technical proposal and 2) a cost proposal. 6.02 Technical Proposal Format All proposals shall include the following items in the order as shown below. Please be as concise and clear as possible. Each section should be titled with the corresponding section, with all relevant information included. Each page should be numbered consecutively. In order to facilitate review of all proposals on an equitable basis, proposals are expected to be a maximum of 50 pages (12 point font and 8.5” x 11” page size) for the body of the proposal. Proposals that exceed the expected page limit may be considered non-responsive. The page limit does not apply to supplemental materials presented as appendices, such as resumes or examples of prior similar reports. Cover Letter Provide a cover letter on the offeror’s letterhead signed by a person with the authority, including fiscal authority, in the organization to bind the offeror, certifying the accuracy of all information in the proposal, that the proposal will remain valid for at least 90 days from the deadline for receipt of proposals, that the offeror meets all minimum requirements of the RFP, and that the offeror will comply with all provisions in this RFP. The cover letter should have the offeror’s complete legal name, type of entity, address, telephone number, fax number, Alaska business license number or other forms of evidence of the license, and tax identification number, and should state whether the offeror qualifies as an Alaska Bidder. The cover letter must also include the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the person the Division should contact regarding the proposal.

Understanding, Management Approach and Project Methodology Offerors must provide comprehensive narrative statements of how they understand and intend to perform and manage the delivery of services under a resultant contract. At a minimum, the proposal shall include: •

Understanding of the Project – Include narrative statements that illustrate the offeror’s understanding of the purpose, scope, requirements, deliverables, and schedule of the project.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 25 of 34




•

Project Management – Identify the organization of the proposed team and each key individual assigned. Identify how much of the total project time (percentage) each key individual will contribute.

•

Project Approach/Methodology – Include a complete description of the proposed approach and methodology for gathering data, performing the analysis, and preparing the final report.

•

Project Schedule – Include a project schedule indicating the order and timeline in which the objectives included in Section 5.01 (Scope of Work) will be completed.

•

Risk Assessment – Include an assessment identifying risks that may impact the project and the level of threat (low, medium, high) they pose to the project’s success. For each identified risk, describe how the risk will be mitigated to facilitate project success.

Experience and Qualifications At a minimum, offerors shall include the following information: •

Corporate Background – Offerors must explain why their firm and project team is particularly suited to meet the requirements of the RFP. Identify the firm’s primary business, years of operation, number of employees, and years of providing services similar to those required under the RFP. This information must be provided for any proposed subcontractors.

•

Organizational Chart – Offerors must provide an organizational chart specific to the personnel assigned to accomplish the work called for in this RFP; illustrate lines of authority; designate the individual responsible and accountable for the completion of each component and deliverable of the RFP.

•

Relevant Experience – Offerors must describe previous engagements that the firm/project team members have performed within the last five years that demonstrate the offeror’s capability to perform the services required by the RFP. Contact information including name and telephone number must be listed for each engagement identified. Relevant experience should include public-agency performance evaluation and evaluation of organizational management, structure, and administration. Experience working with systems with unique geographical and cultural diversity factors should be highlighted.

•

Individual/Key Personnel – Offerors must provide a narrative description of the organization of the project team and a personnel roster that identifies each person who will actually work on the contract. Offerors must also provide, for each person listed on the project team or personnel roster, a current resume reflecting organizational and administrative structure expertise, public-agency performance review expertise, and previous experience for similar work to be performed by the RFP. Offerors must identify the anticipated percentage of total project time that each key individual will contribute.

•

References – Offerors must provide three written references for similar work performed within the last five years.

•

Report Design – Offerors must provide two examples that demonstrate skill and expertise in report design and development, and the ability to explain and display complex information in a variety of written and visual formats. The examples must have been completed by key personnel on the project team.

RFP 15-33-04

Page 26 of 34




6.03 Cost Proposal The offeror must provide a cost proposal in a written narrative that includes the total cost of the contract. Offerors must also include the following in the written narrative: a breakdown of the total cost by travel and per diem expenses, administrative costs, and actual professional services costs. 6.04 Evaluation Criteria All proposals will be reviewed to determine if they are responsive. They will then be evaluated using the criteria set out in Section Seven.

SECTION SEVEN

Evaluation Criteria It is the Division’s intent to conduct a comprehensive, fair, and impartial evaluation of all proposals. All proposals will be reviewed to determine if they are responsive. They will then be evaluated using the criteria set out below. The total number of points used to score the responses is 100. A sample evaluation form is also included which lists the questions that will be used by the Proposal Evaluation Committee to evaluate the proposals. 7.01

Understanding, Management Approach and Project Methodology – 30 Percent 1) How well has the offeror demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project? 2)

To what degree has the offeror demonstrated an understanding of the deliverables the Division expects it to provide?

3)

Has the offeror demonstrated an understanding of the Division’s time schedule? Can the offeror meet the Division’s time schedule?

4)

Are the offeror’s responses succinct and complete?

5)

How well does the management approach support all of the project requirements?

6)

Does it appear that the offeror has allocated sufficient staff and resources to the project to meet the schedule set out in the RFP?

7)

Will the offeror’s proposed methodology allow the offeror to develop a usable, defensible report on DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure?

8)

How well has the offeror addressed pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project? How well has the offeror offered solutions to mitigate project risks?

9)

How well has the offeror clearly detailed their approach to the work to be performed?

RFP 15-33-04

Page 27 of 34


State of Alaska Division of Legislative Audit 7.02

7.03


Offeror Experience and Qualifications – 40 Percent 1) Has the offeror demonstrated substantial experience conducting performance analysis of public-agency organizational and administrative structure? 2)

Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to conduct a performance review of a public health and social services agency’s organizational and administrative structure?

3)

Has the offeror demonstrated substantial professional experience developing and presenting accurate factual reports on organizational and administrative structure reviews?

4)

How well has the offeror demonstrated the competency of the key individuals to evaluate a public-agency’s organizational and administrative structure?

Contract Cost – 30 Percent Converting Cost to Points: The lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum number of points allocated to cost. The point allocations for cost on the other proposals will be determined through the formula listed below. All offerors that qualify as an Alaska Bidder will receive a five (5) percent bidder’s preference. This preference will be given before converting the cost to points. The Division’s procurement specialist will be calculating this section of the evaluation criteria.

Formula for Converting Cost to Points ([PRICE OF LOWEST COST PROPOSAL] X [MAXIMUM POINT FOR COST]) DIVIDED BY (COST OF EACH HIGHER PRICED PROPOSAL)

RFP 15-33-04

Page 28 of 34




SECTION EIGHT

Sample Evaluation Form All proposals will be reviewed for responsiveness and then evaluated using the criteria set out below. The total number of points used to score this proposal is 100. Person or Firm Name: ______________________________________________________ Name of Proposal Evaluation Committee Member: _______________________________ Date of Review: __________________________________________________________ RFP Number: ____________________________________________________________

A. Understanding, Management Approach and Project Methodology – 30 Percent (Maximum Point Value for this Section – 30 Points [100 Points x 30% = 30 Points]) Scale Rating 1:30 where 1=lowest and 30=highest

1)

How well has the offeror demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project?

2)

To what degree has the offeror demonstrated an understanding of the deliverables the Division expects it to provide?

RFP 15-33-04

Page 29 of 34




3)

Has the offeror demonstrated an understanding of the Division’s time schedule? Can the offeror meet the Division’s time schedule?

4)

Are the offeror’s responses succinct and complete?

5)

How well does the management approach support all of the project requirements?

6)

Does it appear that the offeror has allocated sufficient staff and resources to the project to meet the schedule set out in the RFP?

RFP 15-33-04

Page 30 of 34




7)

Will the offeror’s proposed methodology allow the offeror to develop a usable, defensible report on DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure?

8)

How well has the offeror addressed pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project? How well has the offeror offered solutions to mitigate project risks?

9)

How well has the offeror clearly detailed their approach to the work to be performed?

Evaluator’s Point Total for Section A

RFP 15-33-04

Page 31 of 34




B. Offeror Experience and Qualifications – 40 Percent (Maximum Point Value for this Section – 40 Points [100 Points x 40% = 40 Points]) Scale Rating 1:40 where 1=lowest and 40=highest

1)

Has the offeror demonstrated substantial experience conducting performance analysis of public-agency organizational and administrative structure?

2)

Has the offeror demonstrated the ability to conduct a performance review of a public health and social services agency’s organizational and administrative structure?

3)

Has the offeror demonstrated substantial professional experience developing and presenting accurate factual reports on organizational and administrative structure reviews?

RFP 15-33-04

Page 32 of 34


State of Alaska Division of Legislative Audit 4)


How well has the offeror demonstrated the competency of the key individuals to evaluate a public-agency’s organizational and administrative structure?

Evaluator’s Point Total for Section B

RFP 15-33-04

Page 33 of 34




C. Contract Cost – 30 Percent (Maximum Point Value for this Section –30 Points [100 Points x 30% = 30 Points]) The lowest cost proposal will receive the maximum number of points allocated to cost. The point allocations for cost on the other proposals will be determined through the formula listed below. All offerors that qualify as an Alaska Bidder will receive a five (5) percent bidder’s preference. This preference will be given before converting the cost to points. The Division’s procurement specialist will be calculating this section of the evaluation form. Formula for Converting Cost to Points (The amount of each cost proposal is reached after applying any applicable bidder’s preferences.) ([PRICE OF LOWEST COST PROPOSAL] X [MAXIMUM POINT FOR COST]) DIVIDED BY (COST OF EACH HIGHER PRICED PROPOSAL) a. Price of Lowest Cost Proposal

__________________

b. Maximum Points for Cost

30 Points

c. Total of a times b

__________________

d. Cost of Higher Price Proposal

__________________

e. Divide c by d

= __________ Points

Evaluator’s Point Total for Section C

______________________

EVALUATOR’S COMBINED TOTAL FOR SECTION AVERAGES A THROUGH C

______________________

RFP 15-33-04

Page 34 of 34



Attachment A


Project Deliverables Number

Title

Description

Date Due

1

Organizational Chart

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director the contractor's organizational chart. The chart shall show the entire project team, including titles, affiliation (company employee or consultant), which review objectives each team member will be working on, and team hierarchy.

Within 15 days of contract execution

2

3

4

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a comprehensive timeline that identifies the order in which Review objectives will be completed and Within 15 days of contract the estimated completion date of each review objective. If necessary, the contractor shall include mention of any deviation from the timeline submitted as execution part of the contractor's project proposal. The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a detailed monthly status report. The monthly status report shall include a brief narrative of the status of the project, status of items under review, issues or concerns, proposed solutions to concerns (if concerns are noted), and any changes to the contract By the 5th calendar day of each Monthly Status Report staff assigned to the project. The monthly status report shall pertain to the prior calendar month. For example, the monthly status report submitted by month January 5, 2015 shall pertain to work performed in December 2014. The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director the methodologies to be used to complete each review objective. The contractor shall not begin work on a review objective until the DLA project director approves the proposed methodology. For each review objective, the methodology must include the Prior to commencing work on Methodology definition of effectiveness and efficiency as it pertains to the specific area/program under review, the criteria used to assess department programs and any review objective practices, a list of potential interviewees, a list of potential site visits, a list of potential risks to completing the objective, and a list of solutions to mitigate the risks. Project Timeline

5

Interviews

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a list of individuals interviewed while completing the associated review objective. The list shall include the individual's name, title, affiliation(department, agency, company, etc.), and how the individual was identified as a subject for interview.

Within 10 days of completion of each review objective

6

Data

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a complete list of all data sources used to complete the associated review objective. The contractor shall also submit all raw data collected, identified by source.


The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a list of sources used in determining best practices. The contractor shall provide a complete list of Within 10 days of completion sources, including any national experts contacted, used to identify best practices or potential changes to department practices. If the contractor compares the of each review objective department's practices to that of another agency, the contractor shall submit a narrative detailing why the agency was chosen for comparison.

7

Sources

8

Summary

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a brief summary of findings related to each review objective.


9

Issues

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director a narrative detailing all behavioral health-related issues raised by participants at the public hearing. The narrative shall state to which review objective, if any, the issue corresponds. If the issue does not correspond to any review objective, the contractor shall provide a recommendation, including the rationale, about whether or not the issue warrants further investigation by the review team.

Within 15 days after each public hearing

10

11

Draft Preliminary Report The contractor shall submit a draft preliminary report that is a culmination of all review activities. The report is to be comprehensive, including all required to Legislative Auditor review objectives, finding, and recommendations. The report shall also document all appropriate sources of criteria and best practices. and DLA project director Revised Draft The contractor shall submit a revised draft preliminary report if necessary per DLA feedback to the DLA project director for transmittal to the department for Preliminary Report for review and comment. submission to DHSS

7/1/2015

7/15/2015

12

Final Preliminary Report to Legislative Auditor

The contractor shall submit a final preliminary report to the Legislative Auditor.

8/5/2015

13

Workpapers

The contractor shall submit to the DLA project director copies of all work papers used to make financial analyses, perform cost benefit analyses, determine savings from any recommendation, or compare costs of any program elements.

8/5/2015

RFP 15-33-04, Attachment A




Attachment B APPROVED SCOPE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES 2014 – 2015 Performance Review

Introduction - Performance Reviews In 2013, the Alaska State Legislature passed House Bill 30 (Chapter 19, SLA 2013) requiring the Division of Legislative Audit (DLA) to facilitate performance reviews of all state departments at least once every 10 years. During the course of the reviews, departments are required to propose a list of programs or elements that compose at least 10 percent of general funds that can be reduced or eliminated. The legislation further outlines the order in which each agency is to be reviewed. In accordance with legislation, DLA is required to establish a performance review team. The review team, which may include DLA staff, is to be led by an expert working closely with DLA’s project manager. Experts (contractors) are selected based on their subject matter expertise and knowledge of performance review processes. A competitive request for proposals (RFP) process is used to select experts as required by legislative procurement rules. As part of the performance review process, public hearings must be held in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other locations designated by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBAC) for the purpose of soliciting citizen input. A performance review report must be sent to the LBAC for release and the report remains confidential until released. Copies of the final Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) performance review report must be sent to the chairs or co-chairs of the Senate and House Finance Committees one week prior to the beginning of session.

DHSS Performance Review Methodology As required by statutes, this DHSS Performance Review Scope of Work has been prepared by DLA and must be reviewed and approved by the LBAC. Once approved by the LBAC, DLA will use the scope to develop an RFP. State law gives DLA discretion when setting the scope of work which may utilize up to 21 performance review criteria. The review objectives and specific performance criteria that will be covered by this scope are outlined in Appendix B. The performance review statutes are listed in Appendix A. Given the size and complexity of DHSS, multiple contractors, each with specific expertise, will be needed to conduct an informative and useful performance review. Additionally, DLA staff will be requesting and examining DHSS data without the assistance of a contractor. DLA will be assembling the results of the various reviews into one summary report for the LBAC. The

RFP 15-33-04, Attachment B

Page 1 of 20




detailed reports prepared by individual contractors will also be included in an overall report package. DLA anticipates a preliminary report of DHSS’ performance review team recommendations will be transmitted to the LBAC for consideration in October 2015. A final report is expected to be presented to the LBAC in January 2016. A project timeline for the performance review is included in Appendix C.

Overview of the Department of Health and Social Services DHSS has a complex mission to promote and protect the health and well-being of Alaskans. Of DHSS’ total $2.7 billion FY 15 operating appropriation, $1.3 billion is funded by state general funds and $1.3 billion is from federal funds. The department’s programs are administered by eight operating divisions that focus on: juvenile justice, public assistance, senior and disability services, Pioneer Homes, behavioral health, child protection, public health, and health care services with overall management provided by a central administration. The department has a FY 15 personal services budget of $355 million. DHSS recently moved to a “performance budgeting” system. According to department management, this process allows the department to realign program expenditures to absorb $1.3 million in reductions due to federal sequestration requirements and address program growth and other increased costs submitted in the 2015 budget request. The department will face more significant challenges in the coming years as many of the realignment strategies used to develop the department’s 2015 budget took advantage of one-time savings opportunities that may not be relied upon to reduce future growth and costs. Compounding this issue is the federal government’s move for determining Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program eligibility using a “modified adjusted gross income”; a process that allows for set-asides that increase enrollment eligibility by an additional five percent. The Medicaid Services Results Delivery Unit (RDU) has a total FY 15 appropriation of $1.67 billion, of which $695 million is general funded. Medicaid represents 52 percent of DHSS’ total general funded operating budget. A special task force recently appointed by Governor Parnell and the Alaska Health Care Commission are actively looking at Medicaid restructuring and cost containment. The approach of this performance review will complement those other efforts. Rather than reviewing Medicaid specifically, DLA proposes a review of the delivery and administration of specific health service categories, which encompass Medicaid funded services.

Performance Review Components and Objectives The performance review of DHSS provides a unique opportunity to evaluate services and systems driving state expenditures that may not otherwise receive scrutiny. A focus on evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of specific services administered through multiple divisions, each with its own rules and processes for administering that division’s aspect of the RFP 15-33-04, Attachment B

Page 2 of 20




service, may lead to cost effective strategies and allow for sustained budget reductions without reducing services or diminishing service quality. Behavioral health is an example of a category of service administered by multiple divisions. The department’s use of a structure that relies on multiple entities to connect individuals to services makes it difficult to identify how much money is actually spent on providing services and to identify more cost effective strategies for delivering services. A service category review can evaluate and make recommendations on the most cost effective delivery of such services, while also evaluating the administrative costs supporting such a complex structure for realignment and additional efficiencies. DLA recommends a performance review of DHSS in three parts augmented by a DLA assessment. The first two components would include a structural analysis of two high-cost service offerings: behavioral health services and long-term care services. The third component would address the department’s overall organization to evaluate whether the structure either enables or inhibits its efficiency and effectiveness. A final component has DLA staff evaluating DHSS self-reported performance data. Specifically, DLA recommends a performance review that includes: Part I – Behavioral Health; Part II – Long-Term Care; Part III – Departmental Organization; and Part IV – DLA assessment of DHSS self-reported performance data.

PART I – Behavioral Health Of the total $345 million in the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) FY 15 operating budget, $175 million is general funded. For budgetary purposes, behavioral health services include the behavioral health services RDU and the behavioral health Medicaid services and children’s Medicaid services components. Behavioral health services represent 13 percent of DHSS’ total general funded operating budget. DHSS finances and manages behavioral health services primarily through DBH. Through community-based providers, DBH procures the delivery of behavioral health services utilizing a combination of general, federal, and mental health trust funds. The department’s reliance on multiple service providers makes it difficult to accurately evaluate treatment outcomes, service effectiveness, and system-wide efficiency. A performance review will achieve the following objectives: •

Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive overview of how behavioral health services are delivered and funded in the State of Alaska and provide recommendations for how the annual budget can be constructed differently to provide the legislature a more easily


Page 3 of 20




understood format with sufficient detail to allow for a comprehensive review of services and funding needs by program. •

Objective 2: Examine and evaluate all aspects of behavioral health services provided including the types, delivery, funding, and monitoring; and determine the extent services are effectively and efficiently delivered and administered. The review should take into consideration Alaska’s unique geographic and cultural environment and be sensitive to how those factors influence the delivery of behavioral health services. The review team will provide recommendations for improvement to any area identified as not effective or efficient. When making recommendations, the review team must identify the: o o o o

•

Impact on quantity and quality of services provided. Impact of recommendations on federal funding. Necessary changes to statutes or regulations in order to enact a change. Impact on other service categories and any shifting of costs to state and non-state entities.

Objective 3: Identify best practices for effective and efficient behavioral health services, and provide recommendations on practices which could be readily adopted in Alaska to more efficiently maximize resources. When making recommendations, the review team must identify the: o o o o


•

Objective 4: Determine whether DHSS’ behavioral health results-based measures demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s related core services, goals, programs, and objectives; and recommend necessary improvements.

•

Objective 5: Evaluate the continuum of behavioral health services DHSS pays for, including services provided at the Alaska Psychiatric Institute, and provide best practice recommendations to ensure placements and referrals are effective and cost efficient.

•

Objective 6: Determine whether DHSS’ organizational structure ensures effective and efficient access to behavioral health services, or whether streamlining divisions and other organizational issues could reduce overall department expenditures while maintaining the level of services. Also, determine whether the number of DHSS staff devoted to behavioral health administration within the varying divisions is either commensurate with or disproportionate to the level of services overseen by DHSS when compared to national best practices.


Page 4 of 20




•

Objective 7: Determine if DHSS’ proposed budget reductions to behavioral health services are supported by the performance review, including whether DHSS complied with AS 44.66.020(c)(2) when proposing cuts to behavioral health services. The review team will compare the agency’s priorities submitted to the legislature under AS 37.07 with the list of behavioral health programs identified for reduction. The review team will identify any areas in which the reductions are not aligned with service priorities and include a rationale for conclusions.

•

Objective 8: Evaluate whether DHSS’ use of information technology efficiently supports the various behavioral health programs and services. The evaluation should include the extent DHSS can track and report on benefit recipients, including the extent recipients are receiving multiple benefits and whether recipients are Medicaid eligible. The evaluation should recommend new types and uses of technology to improve agency efficiency and effectiveness. The recommendation should include the cost of new information technology. The review team will exclude for consideration the recently implemented Medicaid Information System, which will be certified by Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services upon full implementation.

•

Objective 9: Evaluate DHSS’ purchase of behavioral health services through the use of grants and contracts. Evaluate the current process for solicitation, review, and award of grants and contracts. Review cost effectiveness, and evaluate the level of administrative expenses to deliver services. Determine whether there is a more effective or efficient means of procuring services for recipients. Recommend best practices to maximize the benefits received by clients and/or improve monitoring and oversight.

•

Objective 10: Determine whether the current program structure utilized by DHSS maximizes available opportunities for collaboration and partnership with federal entities to ensure appropriate assignment and payment of costs are allocated to federal entities such as Veterans’ Affairs and Indian Health Services.

•

Objective 11: Evaluate the roles of DHSS behavioral health advisory boards, councils, and task forces in terms of effectiveness and efficiency in developing plans and providing financial and service guidance.

•

Objective 12: Recommend effective methods for DHSS to track utilization of services by clients.

•

Objective 13: Recommend improvements based on nationally recognized best practices to prevent, detect, or reduce fraud, waste, and misuse of services.


Page 5 of 20




PART II – Long-Term Care Services Those in need of long-term care services represent the fastest growing segment of the Medicaid population. Recent projections by DHSS indicate Medicaid expenditures for long-term care services will grow on average 10.3 percent each year between 2012 and 2032, rising from $432 million per year to over $3 billion. 1 Similar to behavioral health, long-term care services are managed through multiple divisions within the department. Of the total $664.7 million FY 15 long-term care services operating budget, $367.4 million is general funded. For purposes of this review, long-term care services include services provided through the Division of Senior and Disabilities Services RDU, Senior and Disabilities Medicaid Services Component, and Alaska Pioneer Homes RDU. Long-term care services represent 27 percent of the total DHSS general funded operating budget. Long-term care services are provided on a continuum to Alaskans of all ages according to functional level and need. As the general population ages, demand for services are projected to escalate. While most seniors receive specific medical coverage through the federal Medicare program, services requiring nursing home and other long-term care strategies are paid through the state Medicaid program. Costs for those in need of services can range from $427 per year for those receiving meals at a senior center to over $160,737 per year for those in nursing homes. 2 Alaska provides nursing home services through state funded facilities known as Pioneer Homes. While numerous private facilities also provide access to such services, Pioneer Homes have become an integral part of the delivery of long-term services to the elderly in the State. Individuals receiving long-term care services may be eligible for and utilize more than one service managed through the department. With this in mind, it is difficult to identify exactly how many individuals are receiving services and the cost of services provided to each eligible individual. This is an area where coordination of care may be unclear. DHSS lacks a system for tracking and monitoring utilization of services. DHSS is utilizing four federal Medicaid waiver options that allow seniors and those with disabilities who are eligible for nursing home services to waive those services and instead utilize in-home services that will allow the individual to remain in their home for a longer period of time. The focus on in-home care and assistance with everyday living tasks exponentially reduces costs to the State. However, finding qualified individuals to provide such services remains a challenge. Compensation to individuals providing such care is fairly low and turnover is significant. The department currently utilizes a Certificate of Need (CON) process that controls the ability to expand services in certain areas of the State. The CON process is continuously debated across the country. In a state with significant geographic and cultural diversity, focusing efforts on 1

Long-term Care Forecast of Medicaid Enrollment and Spending in Alaska Supplement 2012-2032, July 2013 Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Senior and Disabilities Services – Division of Senior and Disabilities Services. February 5, 2014. Duane Mays. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_documents.asp?chamber=HDHS&session=28&bill=&date1=20140205&tim e2=0830 2


Page 6 of 20




ensuring the CON process can effectively address demands for growth and expanded access to lower-cost services in hard to serve areas should be evaluated. Given the volume of state funds devoted to long-term care services, the anticipated growth in demand, and the struggle the department has in identifying quality providers, this is an area where a performance review can achieve the following objectives: •

Objective 1: Develop a comprehensive overview of how long-term care services are delivered and funded in the State of Alaska, and provide recommendations for how the annual budget can be constructed differently to provide the legislature a more easily understood format with sufficient detail to allow for review of services provided and funding needs by program.

•

Objective 2: Identify and recommend best practices which can be utilized to deliver long-term care, community-based services more effectively and efficiently. When making recommendations, the review team must identify the: o o o o


•

Objective 3: Determine whether contracts for the provision of long-term care, community-based services are being managed to ensure funds are expended effectively, efficiently, and in an appropriate ratio of direct service to administration. Evaluate the process for solicitation, review, and award of grants and contracts for long-term care services. Determine whether the system is effective and efficient and whether there is a more effective means of procuring long-term care services for recipients. Make recommendations for improvements to the award and management of contracts and grants.

•

Objective 4: Identify best practices and make recommendations to address projected growth in demand for services provided through Alaska Pioneer Homes. When making recommendations, the review team must identify the: o o o o

•


Objective 5: Identify and recommend best practices that distinguish service needs between people with disabilities and seniors; and are producing quality outcomes on individuals served. When making recommendations, the review team must identify the:


Page 7 of 20


State of Alaska Division of Legislative Audit o o o o



•

Objective 6: Determine if DHSS’ proposed reductions to long-term care services are supported by the performance review, including whether DHSS complied with AS 44.66.020(c)(2) when proposing cuts to long-term care services. The review team will compare the agency’s priorities submitted to the legislature under AS 37.07 with the list of long-term care programs identified for reduction. The review will identify any areas in which the reductions are not aligned with service priorities and include a rationale for conclusions.

•

Objective 7: Determine whether the CON process can be improved and better utilized to expand access to services in high need and underserved areas, and if so, identify best practices to revise the process to expand access to necessary services while maintaining the quality of services.

•

Objective 8: Determine whether DHSS’ current service delivery structure maximizes available opportunities for collaboration and partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and federal entities to ensure appropriate assignment and payment of costs are allocated to federal entities such as Veterans’ Affairs and Indian Health Services.

•

Objective 9: Determine whether DHSS’ long-term care results-based measures demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s related core services, goals, programs, and objectives; and recommend necessary improvements.

•

Objective 10: Evaluate whether DHSS’ use of information technology efficiently and effectively supports its long-term care programs and services. The evaluation should recommend new types and uses of technology to improve agency efficiency and effectiveness. The evaluation should include the extent DHSS can track and report on benefit recipients, including the extent recipients are receiving multiple benefits and whether recipients are Medicaid eligible. Any recommendation for new technology should include an estimate of cost. The review team will exclude from consideration the recently implemented Medicaid Information System which will be certified by Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services upon full implementation.

•

Objective 11: Recommend effective methods to allow DHSS to track utilization of services by clients.

•

Objective 12: Recommend improvements based on nationally recognized best practices to prevent, detect, or reduce fraud, waste, and misuse of services.


Page 8 of 20




Part III – Departmental Organization The broad scope and mission of DHSS, coupled with the number of divisions and service demands, creates challenges for legislators to develop a thorough understanding of the department’s complex budget needs. As decisions regarding expenditures are made, additional information that highlights when cuts to one program will increase demands on another is essential when resource reductions are anticipated. While such a ripple effect is commensurate with entities that have such broad missions, it is also possible that the department’s organizational design contributes to the complexity. A more focused picture of the department’s organization and an understanding of whether the department’s organizational design is perpetuating problems or otherwise inhibiting a more effective means of delivering essential services could help provide more clarity about resource needs. Towards that end, the objectives of an overall evaluation of the department’s organizational structure are as follows: •

Objective 1: Develop a format for a comprehensive overview of DHSS’ budget, the interconnectivity of each individual division’s budget, and the organizational structure utilized to connect individuals to services within each division and coordinate activities for those accessing services through multiple divisions.

•

Objective 2: Evaluate whether the organizational and administrative structure of DHSS is conducive to or inhibits its ability to ensure services are provided efficiently and effectively. The evaluation should include the general organization and administration as well as the specific organization and administration of Alaska’s Medicaid program.

•

Objective 3: Determine whether DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure unintentionally facilitates duplication of services among or within any of the divisions, including a review of the Departmental Support Services RDU and its programs.

•

Objective 4: Determine whether DHSS’ advisory groups are effective and efficient in advising and overseeing services, and recommend changes based on national best practices to better utilize resources including consolidation or elimination of groups as determined appropriate.

•

Objective 5: Determine whether DHSS’ organizational and administrative structure allow for an appropriate check and balance to determine its bottom-line program financial needs as well as the number of individuals served in each program and by each division, and facilitate the development of an overall well-developed, well-informed budget for the department as a whole.

•

Objective 6: Determine whether organizational management best practices can be utilized to more effectively organize DHSS and reduce funds spent on department and program administration. Compare the overall organizational structure of the department with similar public and private organizations.


Page 9 of 20




•

Objective 7: Determine whether each division has developed or been assigned programs, activities, or services that would be better placed within another division or department; or are driving duplication of services provided through a separate department.

•

Objective 8: Recommend changes to organizational or administrative structure that may lead to a more efficient and effective use of the State’s limited resources. When making recommendations, identify the: o o o o


•

Objective 9: Evaluate whether DHSS’ use of information technology efficiently supports DHSS’ various programs and services. The evaluation should recommend new types and uses of technology to improve agency efficiency and effectiveness. The review team will exclude the recently implemented Medicaid Information System, which will be certified by Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services upon full implementation.

•

Objective 10: Determine whether DHSS’ proposed budget reductions related to administration are supported by the performance review including whether DHSS complied with AS 44.66.020(c)(2) when proposing cuts to such services.

Part IV – DLA Assessment of DHSS Performance Data Performance review criteria included in Chapter 19, SLA 13 require DHSS provide specific performance information which does not require specific expertise to review. DLA staff is capable of collecting the information and reporting the results without the assistance of a contractor. As part of the performance review, DLA will request DHSS to provide the following information: •

Objective 1: A list of corrective actions taken by DHSS to address state and federal audit findings issued against any DHSS programs over the last three years.

•

Objective 2: A comprehensive list of all DHSS programs authorized by the Constitution of the State of Alaska, statute, or law. Additionally, a list of all DHSS programs not authorized by the Constitution of the State of Alaska, statute, or law. The department will be asked to organize the information by division and include the funding (identified by source) necessary to support the program. For all programs not required by law, DHSS should include a brief history of how the program originated and evolved.

•

Objective 3: A list of fees charged within each DHSS division, the fee’s purpose, when the fee is assessed, how the fee’s funds are utilized, and when a fee can be waived. Information should be gathered on general funds collected annually as a result of a fee,


Page 10 of 20




the number of times a fee is waived, the amount of general funds that remains uncollected when a fee cannot be collected, and the percent of time a fee is waived. •

Objective 4: DHSS’ procedures for including the public in the rule-making and capital development processes.

•

Objective 5: DHSS’ process for developing capital projects.

•

Objective 6: A list of specific state and federal statutory or budgetary regulations that impede DHSS’ ability to improve its efficiency and effectiveness.

•

Objective 7: A list of operating budget allocations for DHSS advisory boards, councils, commissions, and task forces.

Public Hearings The performance review process requires public hearings in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and other locations designated by the LBAC. At its June 30, 2014, meeting, the LBAC subcommittee for the DHSS performance review designated Kodiak as an additional public hearing location. The expressed purpose is to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on agency activities and identify problems or concerns. The public hearings may be scheduled through the LBAC, or the Senate or House Finance Committees. Since the DHSS performance review will run concurrent with the legislative session, a meeting will be scheduled in Juneau during the legislative session to give contractors initial feedback on the department and the issues under review. To accomplish this aspect of the review, the following broad schedule is proposed, with the final dates and additional hearings to be determined by the participating committee(s). CITY/LOCATION Juneau Anchorage Fairbanks Kodiak

PROPOSED HEARING SCHEDULE First two weeks of February 2015 Last week of April 2015 First two weeks of May 2015 First two weeks of May 2015

Contractors identified for the Part I-III reviews will be required to listen to the hearings in order to gather information pertinent to their specific areas under review. Each contractor may make the independent decision to physically attend any of the identified hearings as well.


Page 11 of 20



DHSS Organizational and Administrative Structure Performance Review APPENDIX A of Attachment B

Section 44.66.020. Agency programs. (a)

Every year, the legislative audit division shall ensure that the review team conducts a performance review of the appropriate programs of the agencies listed in this subsection. Programs that are administered by more than one agency shall be reviewed with the agency that the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee designates. Reviews may be conducted before the dates set out in this subsection at the discretion of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. The first review shall occur in the calendar year set out after each agency’s name, as follows, and subsequent reviews of each agency, or part of an agency, shall occur every 10 years: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)

Department of Corrections, 2014; Department of Health and Social Services, 2015; Department of Education and Early Development, including the foundation formula, 2016; Office of the Governor, 2017; agencies of the legislative branch, 2017; Alaska Court System, 2017; University of Alaska, 2018; Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2019; Department of Administration, 2020; Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, 2020; Department of Fish and Game, 2021; Department of Environmental Conservation, 2021; Department of Natural Resources, 2021; Department of Revenue, 2022; Department of Law, 2022; Department of Public Safety, 2022; Department of Military and Veterans’ Affairs, 2023; and Department of Labor and Workforce Development, 2023.

(b)

Subject to appropriation, the legislative audit division shall hire individuals and contract with individuals or firms to form a review team or teams to complete the reviews under this section.

(c)

In the year before the year designated as the year for review in (a) of this section, the agency shall provide to the review team, before November 1, (1)

citations to the agency’s authority under the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the Alaska Statutes to administer its programs;

(2)

a list of programs or elements of programs that compose at least 10 percent of the general funds in the agency’s budget appropriated from the general fund that could be reduced or eliminated; the agency shall consider first those programs or elements of programs that


Page 12 of 20




(A)

do not serve a current need;

(B)

are not authorized by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the Alaska Statutes; or

(C)

are not essential to the agency mission or delivery of the agency’s core services;

(3)

a list of active encumbrances and an explanation of the continuing need for any encumbrance unsatisfied more than one year after it was incurred;

(4)

all information submitted to the legislature in the agency’s most recent submission under AS 37.07.050, including agency mission, results-based measures, prioritization of core services, and all programs within the core services from the most important to the least important.

Section 44.66.040. Duties of the review team. (a)

(b)

During a review year set out in AS 44.66.020(a), the legislative audit division shall determine the scope of the performance review subject to approval by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, and the review team shall (1)

collaborate with the legislative audit division and the legislative finance division to identify any earlier audit findings or budgetary issues for the agency;

(2)

through the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee or the senate or house finance committees of the state legislature, schedule public hearings in Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other locations as determined by the committees to review agency activities and identify problems or concerns;

(3)

consult with other states and appropriate public policy organizations to establish best practices for the agency;

(4)

analyze the agency priorities AS 37.07.050(a)(13); and

(5)

evaluate the agency process for development of capital projects.

reported

to

the

legislature

under

The review team shall analyze materials relevant to the performance of the agency, including (1)

all material provided under AS 44.66.020(c)(4);

(2)

a 10-year growth history and a 10-year projection of agency expenses by funding source prepared by the office of management and budget;

(3)

organizational charts, personnel charts by location that show the number of positions and the functions of each position, and a list of transfers of personal services funding to or from other line items within the agency during the preceding 10 years, prepared by the office of management and budget;


Page 13 of 20




(4)

audit information, including a list of agency audit recommendations, prepared by the legislative audit division;

(5)

a list of any financial issues relating to the agency’s operating or capital expenditures, prepared by the legislative finance division;

(6)

an explanation of the function and procedure for dedicated funds or any other special funds in the agency, prepared by the legislative finance division;

(7)

a 10-year history of any budget ratifications or supplemental budget requests, prepared by the legislative finance division; and

(8)

analysis and summary of confidential information that the review team may request through the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee from the legislative audit division, if necessary, to complete the team’s review.

(c)

Before December 16 of the review year set out in AS 44.66.020(a), the review team shall provide a confidential preliminary report to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.

(d)

One week before the first day of the regular session of the legislature in the year following the review year set out in AS 44.66.020(a), the review team shall provide to the chairs or cochairs of the senate and house finance committees a final report. In the report, the review team may (1)

evaluate the success of the agency in achieving its mission through the effective and efficient delivery of its core services, goals, programs, and objectives;

(2)

determine whether the agency’s results-based measures demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of the agency’s core services, goals, programs, and objectives and recommend changes if necessary;

(3)

determine whether the results-based measures were useful in conducting the review and recommend changes if necessary;

(4)

evaluate the appropriateness of the budget reductions proposed under AS 44.66.020(c);

(5)

determine whether the agency acted in good faith to correct problems identified in any previous audit or review;

(6)

list agency programs or actions not authorized by statute and identify other authority for those actions;

(7)

identify agency authority to collect fees, conduct inspections, enforce state law, or impose penalties;

(8)

recommend improvements to agency practices and procedures, including means to decrease regulatory burdens or restrictions without decreasing public service and safety;


Page 14 of 20



(e)


(9)

identify areas in which programs and jurisdiction of agencies overlap and assess the quality of interagency cooperation in those areas;

(10)

evaluate whether the agency promptly and effectively addresses complaints;

(11)

evaluate to what extent the agency encourages and uses public participation in rulemaking and other decision making;

(12)

evaluate the agency’s process for implementing technology and recommend new types or uses of technology to improve agency efficiency and effectiveness;

(13)

identify services provided by programs and functions duplicated by another government agency or private entity and recommend the most effective and efficient way to perform those services;

(14)

evaluate whether the agency priorities reported to the legislature under AS 37.07.050(a)(13) and the list of programs or elements of programs provided under AS 44.66.020(c)(2) are consistent with the results of the performance review;

(15)

identify agencies that could be terminated or consolidated, reductions in costs, and potential program or cost reductions based on policy changes;

(16)

identify reductions and efficiencies recommended as a result of a review conducted under this section;

(17)

identify the extent to which statutory, regulatory, budgetary, or other changes are necessary to enable the agency to better serve the interests of the public and to correct problems identified during the review;

(18)

analyze how the review team’s recommendation to terminate the agency or to terminate any program within the agency would affect federal funding or instigate federal intervention;

(19)

include draft legislation to correct problems identified in the report that shall be introduced by the senate and house finance committees of the state legislature during the current legislative session;

(20)

identify areas that need in-depth review in order to provide complete information to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for consideration in the audit process; and

(21)

identify any other elements appropriate to a performance management review.

The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee shall, based on the amount of the actual reduction in state expenditures reported by the legislative finance division under AS 24.20.231(7) increased by an appropriate inflationary factor to be determined by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, estimate the anticipated savings for the second through fifth fiscal years following the review. The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee shall include the amount of the actual reduction and the anticipated future savings in its


Page 15 of 20




annual report under AS 24.20.311 for the second fiscal year following the review and each of the subsequent four reports. (f)

The senate and house finance committee chairs, co-chairs, and subcommittees may incorporate the recommendations of a report submitted under (d) of this section into the budget for the fiscal year following the report.


Page 16 of 20




(Intentionally left blank)


Page 17 of 20


State of Alaska Division of Legislative Audit Statute Reference AS 44.66.040(d)(1)

AS 44.66.040(d)(2)

AS 44.66.040(d)(3)

AS 44.66.040(d)(4)

AS 44.66.040(d)(5) AS 44.66.040(d)(6) AS 44.66.040(d)(7) AS 44.66.040(d)(8)

AS 44.66.040(d)(9)

AS 44.66.040(d)(10) AS 44.66.040(d)(11)

AS 44.66.040(d)(12)


APPENDIX B of Attachment B Crosswalk of HB 30 Requirements and Scope Review Objectives Evaluate success of the agency in achieving its mission through the effective and efficient delivery of its core services, goals, programs and objectives.

Determine whether agency’s results-based measures demonstrate effectiveness and efficiency of core services, goals, programs, and objectives; recommend changes if necessary. Determine whether results-based measures were useful in conducting the review and recommend changes if necessary.

Review Objective Part I, RO 2, RO 5, RO 6, RO 11 & RO 12 Part II, RO 2, RO 3, RO 5 & RO 11 Part III, RO 1, RO 2 & RO 5 Part I, RO 4 Part II, RO 9

Part I, RO 4 Part II, RO 9

Evaluate appropriateness of budget reductions proposed by Part I, RO 7 the agency in response to HB 30 requirements. Part II, RO 6 Part III, RO 10 Determine whether agency acted in good faith to correct Part IV, RO 1 problems from previous audit or review. List agency programs or actions not authorized by statute Part IV, RO 2 and identify authority for actions. Identify authority to collect fees, conduct inspections, Part IV, RO 3 enforce state law, or impose penalties. Recommend improvements to agency practices and Part I, RO 1, RO 2, procedures, including means to decrease regulatory RO 3, RO 5, RO 6 & burdens or restrictions without decreasing public service RO 13 Part II, RO 1, RO 2, and safety. RO 4, RO 5, RO 6 & RO 7 Part III, RO 8 Identify areas in which programs and jurisdiction of Part I, RO 10 agencies overlap and assess the quality of interagency Part II, RO 8 cooperation in those areas. Part III, RO 3 Evaluate whether the agency promptly and effectively Not Included addresses complaints. Evaluate to what extent the agency encourages and uses Part IV, RO 4 public participation in rulemaking and other decision making. Evaluate agency’s process for implementing technology Part I, RO 8 and recommend new types or uses of technology to Part II, RO 10 improve agency efficiency and effectiveness. Part III, RO 9


Page 18 of 20



AS 44.66.040(d)(13)

AS 44.66.040(d)(14)

AS 44.66.040(d)(15)

AS 44.66.040(d)(16)


APPENDIX B of Attachment B(Cont’d) Identify services provided by programs and functions duplicated by another government agency or private entity and recommend the most effective and efficient way to perform those services. Evaluate whether the agency priorities reported to the legislature under AS 37.07 and the list of programs or elements of programs provided in response to review requirements are consistent with the results of the performance review. Identify agencies that could be terminated or consolidated, reductions in costs, and potential program or cost reductions based on policy changes. Identify reductions and efficiencies recommended as a result of the performance review.

AS 44.66.040(d)(17)

Identify extent to which statutory, regulatory, budgetary, or other changes are necessary to enable agency to better serve interests of public and to correct problems identified during the review.

AS 44.66.040(d)(18)

Analyze how the review team’s recommendation to terminate the agency or terminate any program within the agency would affect federal funding or instigate federal investigation. Include draft legislation to correct problems identified in the report that shall be introduced by the senate and house finance committees. Identify areas that need in-depth review in order to provide complete information to the LBAC for consideration in the audit process. Identify any other elements appropriate to a performance management review. Analyze the agency priorities reported to the Legislature under AS 37.07. Evaluate the agency process for development of capital projects.

AS 44.66.040(d)(19)

AS 44.66.040(d)(20)

AS 44.66.040(d)(21) AS 44.66.040(a)(4) AS 44.66.040(a)(5)


Page 19 of 20

Part I, RO 10 Part II, RO 7 Part III, RO 3 & RO 7 Part I, RO 7 Part II, RO 6

Part I, RO 6 Part III, RO 4 & RO 7 Part I, RO 2, RO 3, RO 4, RO 5, RO 8 & RO 9 Part II, RO 2, RO 3& RO 5 Part III, RO 6 & RO 7 Part IV, R0 7 Part I, RO 1 & 2 Part II, RO 1, RO 2, RO 4 & RO 5 Part III, RO 1, RO 4 & RO 8 Part IV, RO 7 Part I, RO 2 & RO 3 Part II, RO 2, RO 4, & RO 5 Part III, RO 8 PM will work with LBAC staff DLA Staff

DLA Staff DLA Staff Part IV, RO 4 & 5 DLA Staff




APPENDIX C of Attachment B Department of Health and Social Services Performance Review Schedule June 2014

Submit Draft Scope to LBAC Subcommittee

August 2014

Submit Scope to Full LBAC for Approval Submit Draft RFPs to Legislative Legal Submit Informational Requests to DHSS, the Office of Management and Budget, and Legislative Finance Issue RFP and Public Notice

September 2014

Proposals Due in Juneau Draft Contracts to Legislative Legal

October 2014

Contracts Signed and Performance Review Initiated

February – May 2015

Public Hearings in Juneau, Anchorage, Kodiak, and Fairbanks

August 2015

Initial Draft Reports Submitted to Project Manager Initial Draft Reports to Department for Comment

September 2015

Preliminary Reports Submitted to Project Manager

October 2015

Confidential Preliminary Draft Report to LBAC

January 2016

Final Report to LBAC Submit Final Report to Chairs: Senate and House Finance Committees


Page 20 of 20
