MODIFICATION
A -- Prevention Content for ODPHP Websites and Print Materials
- Notice Date
- 10/15/2003
- Notice Type
- Modification
- Contracting Office
- Minerals Management Service GovWorks (Franchise) 381 Elden Street, MS 2510 Herndon VA 20170
- ZIP Code
- 20170
- Solicitation Number
- 74655
- Response Due
- 10/22/2003
- Archive Date
- 10/14/2004
- Point of Contact
- Mathew A. Ridolfi Contract Specialist 7037871813 Mathew.Ridolfi@mms.gov;
- E-Mail Address
-
Email your questions to Point of Contact above, or if none listed, contact the IDEAS EC HELP DESK for assistance
(EC_helpdesk@NBC.GOV)
- Description
- 1. Is there a specific or standard format for the Capabilities Statement which must be submitted? No. Please refer to the Notice for the elements to be addressed. 2. Is there a page limit, or recommended length, to the capabilities statement and/or supporting documentation? Yes. The capabilities statement should not exceed 25 pages, including brief resumes of key personnel and supporting documents. 3. No page limit is apparent in the announcement. Is there an expectation regarding the length (in pages) of this Capabilities Statement to be submitted on October 22? Can we also include samples of our work? See answer to # 2 above. Samples may be provided. Samples, including physical samples or URLs to work products, should not exceed 3 pages in length, which is included in the 25 page limit. 4. Do you have an example of a previous "capabilities statement" so that we have a sense of format? No, a sample will not be provided. Please see the answers to questions 1-3 for guidance concerning the content of the capabilities statement. 5. Regarding the ODPHP's interest in identifying a contractor to support them in research and evaluation activities related to consumer health information about prevention, we have a question. Would the successful offeror be restricted from any future work involving the information gathered as part of this contract such as but not limited to developing web sites to share that information with the public? The successful offerer will not be restricted from competing for any possible follow-on contracts related to this project. Since the contract involves audience research, use of the actual information gathered would be restricted subject to federal law. 6. Do you have any guidance on the size of the contract in terms of dollars? I did see the 9,200 hours and 18 months, but we're not sure what would be available besides staff time? The level of effort represents an approximation of the total resources, including all costs, available for this project. 7. Along those lines, would the scope of this contract involve resources for some sort of expert panel to provide input (especially in Tasks 2 & 7)? Yes, this approach would be acceptable, but no additional funds would be available. 8. Do you expect that the lit review & synthesis will include a quantitative meta-analysis or would the review basically focus on qualitative analysis? A quantative meta-analyis is not a requirement, but offerors are free to propose one if warranted. 9. Is Task 2 designed to be something of an end goal in itself or would the expectation be that it substantially affects (or even guides) the following tasks? Yes, the research gaps and recommendations may guide subsequent tasks. 10. Is it safe to assume that the (Task 3) assessment of intended audiences' needs for and interest in prevention content would be based on the findings from the systematic review? Yes. 11. How formal would you expect the "audience testing" (Task 6) to be, especially given the large number of areas to cover? Testing will be guided by the results of task 3; a wide range of capabilities may be required for that task. Offerors should present key personnel, experience, and organizational capabilities with this in mind. Details of a recommended approach and testing plan may be more appropriately presented in subsequent proposals. 12. The SOW refers to identifying and assessing up to 10 sets of existing health content (Task 4). To confirm, by "content" are you referring to tangible prevention materials (such as Internet and print formats)? Yes, the intent is to use actual materials in multiple formats such as Internet, print, multimedia, etc. The emphasis of the comparative evaluation should be on the priority topics identified and it is possible that suitable content may not exist for all topics in all appropriate formats. 13. In the SOW Task 6, it asks that, at a minimum, the topics of the content must include the 10 listed topics (e.g., tobacco use, physical activity). Should we assume a different content set for each of the ten topics? This question is not clear because the phrase "content sets" as used in the Notice and Statement of Work most frequently refers to the existing content to be identified and evaluated while task 6 specifically addresses the prototype content for testing that is to be developed based on the results of prior tasks. Prototype content for each of the priority topics is required, and minimum formats of Internet and print are required. Interactive or multimedia prototype content are also desirable. 14. In the SOW Task 6, should we assume that there will be a different content set for each audience identified? (i.e., if there are three audiences, then a total of 30 content sets be developed-one content set per audience per topic area?) This is dependent on the outcome of task 3; offerors are asked to propose an approach under that task. 15. Are design and development of multimedia objects (audio, video, and graphics) considered part of this project and therefore should we show our qualifications in this area? Yes. 16. Is translation of English language materials into other languages such as Spanish considered part of this project and therefore should we show our qualifications in this area? Translation of the prototype content is not a requirement of this project; however, the research, recommendation, and guideline components of the project may include issues related to materials in languages other than English. 17. Of the experience areas listed in the announcement (i.e., research on health communication; Internet health information; Internet evaluation methodologies; and effective communication with diverse audiences) which skills are most critical/important in ODPHP's opinion to the success of this project? All the skills are critical. 18. What can you tell us about the composition of the review committee for this Capabilities Statement? Will the review be conducted solely by in-house ODPHP staff or will it also include external experts? Capabilities statements will be evaluated by GovWorks and ODPHP staff. Subsequent proposals will be evaluated by GovWorks staff and a panel of HHS employees with expertise in the relevant areas.
- Web Link
-
Please click here to view more details.
(http://ideasec.nbc.gov/ecprod/owa/ec$cbd.sypfirstcount?P_SERVER_ID3=MM143501&P_OBJ_ID1=123525)
- Record
- SN00452744-W 20031017/031016073407 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps.gov Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |