1.  Are organizations other than academic institutions (such as
    non-profit organizations) eligible to apply?

*Yes*

2.  I am assuming from the instructions that an electronic submission is
    not possible.  Your directions clearly indicated that US Postal
    Service does not deliver to the site.  Does UPS or Federal Express
    deliver directly to the building?  If regular mail is used, how long
    does it take to go through the necessary security to be delivered to
    the offices?

*Both UPS and Federal Express deliver directly to our building. If
regular mail is used, it could take several days to be delivered to our
building.*

3.  Is the limit of 125 pages for the technical proposal based on double
    spacing (as indicated on page 1) or single spacing (as indicated on
    page 60)?

*The technical proposal should be double-spaced for ease of reading.*

4.  Is the Technical Proposal limited to 125 single-spaced pages  (RFP
    pg. 60) or 125 double-spaced pages (RFP pg. 1)? 

*See response to Question 3.*

5.  It appears that there is a page limit on the Technical Proposal (125
    pages) is there also a limit on the other sections such as the
    Business Proposal?  Is there a page limit on the attachments.  For
    example we have Evidence Analysis methods (70 pages) and Project
    Manuals (50 pages) that are very instructive and we will pull
    sections to insert in the Technical Proposal, however the actual
    manual would be very helpful as an appendix/attachment.  Is this
    advisable?

*There is no page limit on the Business Proposal or attachments.
However, for ease of the review of the proposals, it would be advisable
to keep attachments at a minimum.*

6.  Term of the contract: pages 1, 23, and 25 refer to a contract period
    of 3 years with 2 one-year options. Page 5 refers to a "two year
    contract period". Could you please clarify the contract period for
    successful offerors? 

*The correct term of the contract is a 3-year base period with two
1-year option periods. Page 5 was a typo.*

7.  Length of technical proposal:  page 1 indicates 125 pages
    double-spaced for the technical proposal whereas page 60 says 125
    pages single-spaced.  Could you please confirm whether the technical
    proposal should be single or double-spaced. If the latter, are there
    specifications around the spacing (e.g., is 1.5 line spacing
    acceptable or must it be 'double')? 

*The technical proposal should be double-spaced (2.0 line spacing) for
ease in readability. The page limit for the technical proposal is 125
pages.*

8.  Page 1 of the RFP states that the technical proposal should be
    double-spaced; on page 60 of the RFP, it is stated that the
    technical proposal should be single-spaced. While we assume page 1
    is correct, can you please provide confirmation? 

*See response to Questions 3 and 7.*

9.  Page 1 of the RFP states that the contract base-year period will be
    three years; on page 5 of the RFP, "the two year contract period" is
    referenced. While we assume page 1 is correct, can you please
    provide confirmation?

*See response to Question 6.*

10. For the essay on one of 4 issues listed on page 62, section 1.2, may
    we include an essay about more than one of the issues?

*Yes, as long the proposal conforms to the page limit request.*

11. For the description of at least one area of expertise (section 1.5),
    how important is it to demonstrate expertise in multiple areas if
    the examples given are purely for "illustrative purposes"?

*The areas of expertise that are listed are only meant to be examples
and thus for "illustrative purposes" to highlight what are meant by
areas of expertise. Offerors may describe any area of expertise not
listed as an example.*

12. Trialstat has one of the leading software programs for managing
    systematic reviews, and charges centers for use of the software on a
    project by project basis. Could you clarify whether this type of
    software is excluded from the prohibition on page 6 against covering
    the cost of information technology software?

*AHRQ will support project-specific software with proper justification.
Technologies that may be used for general use should be considered as
part of overhead.*

13. Can you clarify what the three-year time period is in Section L.10
    (pg. 65)? 

*This refers to the three previous calendar years (2004, 2005, 2006).*

14. We note that single-spacing and double-spacing are both mentioned in
    different sections of the RFP.  Could you please clarify which is
    preferred for the proposal. 

*Double-spacing. See response to Questions 3 and 7.*

15. We just want to confirm that existing EPCs are not considered \'new
    offerers\' in Section L10 (past performance information), and
    therefore are not required to provide contracts for all key
    personnel. (Pg. 65-66)

*Existing EPC's are not considered "newly formed entities." This refers
to new organizations that have not had any previous contracts with
either public, private or government entities.*

16. Does AHRQ want 4 separate CDs, or all files on a single CD?  

*A single CD would be preferred.*

> RFP C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of Systematic reviews
> and Report the Findings, Elements of EPC Reports, paragraph beginning
> "In General": 

17. **[Question A]{.underline}**.  Can AHRQ clarify the meaning of \"The
    Bibliography will include all studies abstracted, whether used or
    rejected.\"  Typically we would not expect to fully abstract a study
    and then "reject" it, although we might grade it poor quality and
    not use it for certain analyses, but it would not be rejected
    (i.e.,  excluded) in the sense of not meeting inclusion criteria. 

*The Bibliography should include all articles making it to the step of
full-text review to consider for inclusion, both those that end up
included in the review and those excluded for specific reasons. The
intent is to inform readers about articles that had been identified and
considered but not ultimately included, and reasons for exclusion and is
similar to our current process which includes an appendix of excluded
articles.  We may decide with the EPC that this bibliography is best
presented separated into two sections of included and excluded articles.
 *

18. **[Question B.]{.underline}**  Can AHRQ clarify the structure of a
    bibliography in EPC-III? In EPC-II, the references were separate
    from the bibliography; the latter contained only studies not used
    (excluded at the full article review \[but not abstraction\] stage),
    were placed in an appendix, and were done alphabetically.  If the
    reports are now to include [only]{.underline} a bibliography, how
    should two disparate types of citations be combined \-- one for
    references actually cited (done numerically in order via reference
    manage software such as EndNote) and materials excluded
    (\"rejected\") and never cited and so not assigned any number.  
    Should we assume simply that the typical approach, of a reference
    list and a separate bibliography, will be expected for EPC-III?

*EPC reports will contain both a reference list (numbered to match
citations in the text) and an alphabetical bibliography. The reference
list will include all articles cited in the text, both background
articles and those comprising the review, as in current reports.*

> C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of Systematic reviews and
> Report the Findings, Elements of EPC Reports, Assessing EPC
> Reports.           

19. Can AHRQ clarify whether an EPC Methods Manual (or multiple manuals)
    for all types of reports, and not just comparative effectiveness
    reviews (CERs), will be issued for EPC-III?  The Methods Manual
    currently in preparation by various EPCs and AHRQ is explicitly
    constrained to be relevant to CERs at this time.  

*While we anticipate that the Methods Manual will specifically focus on
some issues that are specific to CERs, EPC directors will be involved in
further discussions regarding the methodologies that are generally
applicable to other systematic reviews.*

> RFP B.3.a.5 and C. Specific Requirements, Synthesize Results of
> Systematic reviews and Report the Findings, Optional EPC Report
> Products, Presentations.     

20. Item (5) says travel to attend general scientific meetings is
    unallowable as direct cost, but in Section C is a description of
    possible \"presentations ... at professional meetings, conferences
    or training workshops.\"  Would AHRQ please clarify the difference
    between \"general scientific meetings\" and "professional meetings
    or conferences", so that we understand what travel might be
    covered? 

*AHRQ will support travel costs for a limited number of conferences in
which the investigator is involved in project-specific dissemination.
This will be allowable as delineated in the work assignment or task
order and as approved in advance by the Task Order Officer. AHRQ does
not intend to support travel to conferences that are not directly and
specifically related to the project.*

> RFP B.3.a.5 and C. Specific Requirements, Advance the Methodology of
> Systematic Review. paragraph beginning "Individual expertise":

21. Can AHRQ please clarify whether \"regular meetings\" for methods
    will be held only every other year (biannual)?  Will AHRQ hold EPC
    Directors\' meetings or other \"regular meetings\" on a different
    schedule (e.g., semi-annually), as has been done to date? 

*AHRQ will hold 2 meetings per year. One of these meetings will be
devoted to methods and the other meeting for general agenda items.*

> RFP Part II Contract Clauses) includes FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data
> Special Works.  RFP page 30 includes the less restrictive H.1 Release
> and Use language. 

22. When interpreting Release and Use restrictions, will the H.1 section
    supersede FAR 52.227-17? 

*Yes.*

23. Is the salary rate limitation for the EPCIII business proposal now
    \$186,600 (the 2007 rate)?  (See section H.6 on page 33 of the
    RFP.) 

*Since AHRQ is still under a continuing resolution and our appropriation
has not yet been signed into law, we are held to the FY 2006 level which
is \$183,500.*

24. For the cost data to support the documentation of financial capacity
    on Page 68 for the business proposal---Do you need the entire
    Association or just the specific Department that would house the
    EPC?

*Just the specific Department that would support the EPC.*

25. Does AHRQ have a target total number of EPCs for EPC-III?

*We will aim to have up to 15 centers.*

26. Does AHRQ have any guidance to proposers about how to convey
    confidence that a core team exists even though the minimum
    commitment from AHRQ will be \$50K? 

*AHRQ anticipates that each EPC will have at least one, possibly more,
multi-year task order which will be substantially greater than \$50,000,
in addition to other competitive task orders.*

27. Will the AHRQ provide additional funding over and above the \$50,000
    per year to allow us to support the key personnel and core team? 

*AHRQ anticipates that each EPC will have at least one, possibly more,
multi-year task order which will be substantially greater than \$50,000,
in addition to other competitive task orders.*

28. Will the multi-year RFTOs have more funding committed from AHRQ to
    EPCs? If so, what level of funding is anticipated for each type
    (technology assessment, generalist, USPSTF)? 

*Each multi-year task order will have committed funds to each EPC. The
level of funding will vary depending on program needs, but each
multi-year task order will have sufficient funds for 1-2 large projects
per year.*

29. In the past AHRQ has designated some task order topics for
    generalist EPCs only and others as topics for which all EPCs could
    compete.  Does AHRQ plan to have some RFTOs in the EPC III program
    for which all EPCs can compete?

*Yes.*

30. Will the topics be assigned or bid upon?

*Topics will be available by both mechanisms - by assignment and by
competitive bid.*

31. Approximately how many topics will be available each year?

*AHRQ anticipates a number of projects of varying sizes, from larger
projects requiring 12-15 months for completion to smaller, more concise
projects that will require a shorter turnaround time, in the range of
6-9 months. We estimate that there will be enough topics for each EPC to
have 2-3 large topics and 4-6 smaller topics.*

32. Will the EPC program have a coordinating center for round three? If
    so, what will its role be?

*There will be a Scientific Resource Center that will provide technical
support, methodologic support and topic development for the EPCs.*

33. "Minimum total amount to be awarded over the two year contract
    period will be \$50,000" -- if that should be a three year contract
    period, is the minimum amount of \$50,000 still correct? 

*Yes. But remember, this is just the minimum. We anticipate EPCs will
receive substantially more than this.*

34. Are there salary limits or ranges for the different class levels? 

*No, other than the mandatory salary rate limit under Public Law 109-149
which is currently \$183,500 per year.*

35. Regarding the Direct Labor requirements for cost proposals.  The RFA
    requires that time be listed in number of hours or days worked and
    the hourly rate per person.  As we are an academic institution,
    faculty member\'s time is tracked by effort percentage rather than
    hours.  The University of Minnesota, in compliance with OMB Circular
    A-21, has a Plan-Confirmation Effort Certification System that was
    approved by the DHHS Audit office in March of 2000. Will AHRQ accept
    percentages of effort for each person instead of the hourly
    breakdown for the Direct Labor category?

*Yes, as long as the annual salary is specified for each individual
along with the percentage of effort so we can verify the mandatory
salary rate limit is not exceeded.*

36. The RFA states, \"Specific terms and conditions regarding
    reimbursement and payment will be specifically delineated in each
    task order.\" Previous contracts awarded by AHRQ have required
    monthly invoicing and the final invoice to be submitted within 30
    days of the project end date.   My question - will AHRQ allow
    quarterly invoicing and final invoice due date of 45 days after the
    project end date?  These changes would help ensure that the
    university submits timely invoices and the final invoice would
    include all applicable charges.

*Monthly submission of invoices is preferred so AHRQ may adequately
manage and track costs. However, requests for quarterly invoicing will
be considered on a case-by-case basis. Please provide justification for
this request within the business proposal. Prompt and correct invoicing
is required of all EPCs. This may be an evaluation factor when
determining if option years are to be awarded along with other
administrative and technical performance.*

37. Will EPCs be required to participate above a certain threshold
    (e.g., some number of reviews, participation in a multi-year task
    order) in order to qualify for renewal in option years?  

*We would consider the quality, timeliness, and efficiency of reports
when considering the option for renewal more than the quantity of
reports.  Of course we would hope that all participate actively and are
responsive to requests for new task orders as well.*

38. Period of performance is three years with 2 one-year options -- who
    makes this decision? 

*The decision will be made by the program staff (Project Officer, Task
Order Officer) and the Contracting Officer.*

39. Who at AHRQ fills out the past performance questionnaire for past
    EPC projects done under EPC contract with AHRQ? Or do we just send
    to you, Sharon Williams, as the EPC Contract Project Officer and it
    is then delegated to someone at the EPC Center office?

*Past Performance Questionnaires for past EPC projects should be sent to
the AHRQ Task Order Officer for that particular project.*

40. Past performance questionnaire / information confusion:  Page 65 -
    \"A list of the last five (5) contracts and subcontracts completed
    during the past three years and all contracts and subcontracts
    currently in process\".  Page 75 - \"Attached to this solicitation
    is a questionnaire which is to be copied and provided to customers
    for current and recently completed (within the past year) projects
    for work related to this requirement\".   Do we provide a detailed
    list of projects in our narrative (Page 65) but then only send the
    questionnaire to current and past year customers (Page 75)?

*L.10 -- page 65 -- requires a list of the last 5 contracts and
subcontracts completed during the past three years (2004-2006) and all
contracts/subcontracts currently in process that are related to the type
of work being required under this solicitation. L.10 -- page 66 --
further states that the Past Performance Questionnaire should be
completed by those contracting organizations listed above. This should
be changed to reflect that questionnaires are only required as specified
in Section M -- page 75. Section M -- page 75 -- provides direction as
to who should be requested to complete the past performance
questionnaires, i.e., current and recently completed (within the past
year) projects for work related to this requirement. We are amending
this to require submission of past performance questionnaires for only
recently completed projects; not those currently in process and to
define recently completed as those completed within the past three years
(2004, 2005, and 2006).*

41. Attachments - are full CV\'s required or will the NIH biosketch be
    sufficient?  Or should we submit both?

*We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A
biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.*

42. Do you require CVs for key personnel, potential collaborators or
    will bios do? It  mentions that CVs can be included as attachments
    but we weren't clear whether you wanted CVs for key personnel or for
    all potential collaborators.

*We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A
biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.*

43. CVs:  would you like CVs for all individuals named in the technical
    proposals, or just members of the core team?

*We would like CVs for all key personnel and core team members. A
biosketch may be sufficient for potential collaborators.*

44. Proposal Intent Response Sheet due on May 1, 2007 - do we need to
    obtain an authorized institutional signature to be included on the
    \"bidder\'s list\"? 

*No.*

45. I am not certain what we need to do concerning the small
    disadvantaged business subcontracting plan.  Is this a plan that we
    are to develop that indicates our willingness to hire a SDB concern
    as a subcontractor?  If so, do individuals (as consultants or
    private contractors) count? 

*Yes. Only businesses that meet the definition of a small disadvantaged
business should be included in the plan.*

46. Is Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) separate
    from SDB? 

*A Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business is a type of Small
Disadvantaged Business and can be included in the Small Disadvantaged
Business Plan. However, there are separate goals for each.*

47. Does this grant provide special consideration for SDVOSB? 

*This is will be a contract, not a grant. No, there are no price
evaluation adjustments for SDB firms. Use of SDVOSBs will be considered
in the evaluation of the Small Disadvantaged Business Plan.*

48. My company is planning to submit a proposal for the RFP,
    "Evidence-based Practice Centers III."  In the cover letter, we are
    asked to provide a copy of an indirect cost rate agreement with a
    federal agency.  We do not yet have such an agreement.  Can you
    direct me to the individual(s) or agency that can help me get this
    started? 

*The following site can assist new contractors concerning indirect cost
rates: <http://oamp.od.nih.gov/fas/IDCSubmission.asp>.*

49. One of the requirements of the business proposal is to show
    documentation indicating that an IDC agreement is in place, or that
    we are in the process of obtaining an agreement.  Should I make
    application prior to the award as an act of that process?  What
    should go into the proposal demonstrating that we are in the
    process? 

*Application should be made following award. Indicate in your proposal
your intent to obtain an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement should you receive
a contract. A special provision will be included in the contract
concerning how your indirect cost rates will be reimbursed and a
timeframe will be established for you to negotiate your indirect cost
rate agreement.*

50. There is an apparent typo on page 76, The sentence just above
    \"Total Available Evaluation Points.\"  SDB participation will be
    scored with offerors receiving points from 0 to 5, with \<\<t\>\>
    being the most favorable.  It is unclear what \"t\" is. 

*"t" should read "5."*

51. I have a quick question on the Business Proposal section.  Do you
    just want the labor rates for individuals that will work on this
    project, or do you also want estimated totals for the base year and
    option years.

*We want labor rates for those individuals proposed to work on this
project for all 5 years (3 base years and two option years).*

52. Attachments: On page 42, Item 4 refers to 2 pages but there is only
    1 page in the attachment. 

*Page 42 contains a typo. There is only 1 page.*

53. Small Disadvantaged Business Plan: on page 1 the instructions are
    for original and one hard copy plus one electronic copy on CD. On
    page 70, instructions are for an original plus one electronic copy
    on CD. Could you please clarify? 

*Page 70 contains a typo. We need one original, one hard copy, and one
electronic copy.*

54. Could you please explain what a "small disadvantaged business" is?
    Is this is specific designation that is given pending certain
    application procedures or eligibility requirements? Is this relevant
    to groups applying from outside of the US? 

*This requirement does not apply to contracts that will be performed
entirely outside the U.S. and its outlying areas.*

55. Should the Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Plan be
    submitted with the Business Proposal (RFP pg. 67) or should the SDB
    Participation Plan be submitted independently of the Business
    Proposal (RFP pg. 58)? 

*The Small Disadvantaged Business Plan should be submitted as a separate
volume (RFP page 58).*

56. Could you please clarify what you mean by 'unloaded' labour rates
    (e.g., p. 67)? 

*"Unloaded" is the direct salary rate and does not include indirect
costs such as fringe benefits, overhead, general and administrative
(G&A), or fee.*

57. The RFP states that some task orders will require slides and
    presentations as a deliverable. Will these deliverables be written
    into the statement of work before the task order is assigned, or
    will these deliverables be negotiated as the project is in process?
    If the latter, will a contract modification be issued?

*Slides and or presentations will be deliverables written into the SOW
of the work assignment or the task order.  If it is negotiated later, it
will be issued as a modification to the work assignment or task order.*

58. Past Performance Indicators: What type of contracts are you
    interested in here -- do they include research grants for projects
    other than systematic reviews? (i.e.; projects funded by CIHR, NIH)

*We are interested in contracts that are similar to this solicitation.*

59. Do we obtain a performance evaluation from AHRQ if we have had a
    prior EPC contract? If so, who is the individual that we would
    contact? Are the individual projects conducted under the EPC program
    each considered its own contract or would we obtain a performance
    evaluation for the overall EPC contract (e.g., all work
    assignments)? If the latter, are the task orders considered separate
    from the work assignments? Would it be appropriate to obtain
    performance evaluations from the partners who nominated the
    individual EPC topics? 

*Performance evaluation from AHRQ should be solicited from up to three
task order officers who worked most closely with the EPC on recent
projects. We do not request evaluations from partner organizations.*

60. Do you require performance evaluations only for completed projects
    or for ongoing projects as well?  (Page 66 instructs for evaluations
    by those contracting organizations listed in (1) above which is a
    listing of both completed and ongoing projects).

*We request performance evaluations only for completed projects, not for
ongoing projects. Page 66 is amended.*

> Under L.10. Past Performance Information, the second paragraph under
> (4) states:
>
> "The attached Past Performance Questionnaire and Contractor
> Performance Form (Attachment 1) shall be completed by those
> contracting organizations listed in (1) above."

61. **[Question]{.underline}**: Please confirm our interpretation that:
    Attachment 1 (Past Performance Questionnaire) should only be sent to
    those contracting organizations associated with contracts and/or
    subcontracts that have been completed during the past 3 years, and
    **not** to "all contracts and subcontracts currently in process..." 

*Correct. See Response to Question 60.*

> Under L.10. Past Performance Information, the first paragraph states:
>
> "Offerors shall submit the following information ... as part of their
> proposal for both the offeror and proposed major subcontractors: (1) a
> list of the last five (5) contracts and subcontracts completed during
> the past three years and all contracts and subcontracts currently in
> process that are relative to the type of work being required under
> this solicitation."  

62. **[Question]{.underline}**:  Please confirm our interpretation that:
    The offeror will list a **total** of 5 contracts and/or subcontracts
    completed during the past 3 years for the offeror and its major
    subcontractors, and **not** 5 contracts and/or subcontracts by the
    offeror as well as 5 contracts and/or subcontracts by each
    individual major subcontractor.

*We would also like to see a list of contracts and/or subcontracts for
each major subcontractor so we can evaluate their past performance as
well.*

RFP L.9, L.10 

63. **[Question]{.underline}**: Can AHRQ confirm that Past Performance
    is a separate volume and does not count against the 125 page
    limitation on the Technical proposal? 

*Yes. Past Performance is a separate volume and does not count against
the technical proposal page limit.*

64. The Past Performance Indicators form requires an authorized
    signature -- who is that person (the EPC director? University
    administrator?) 

*The Past Performance Questionnaire is to be filled out by your
customers (those you have had contracts with). It is not filled out by
the offeror. The person who completes the questionnaire should be the
individual who signs it. For example, if you had a previous contract
with the National Institutes of Health, you should have the NIH Project
Officer complete the questionnaire and send it directly to AHRQ. It will
be evaluated along with the rest of your proposal.*

65. Regarding the past performance evaluation, if we have completed 5
    projects in the last 2 years, are we required to also request
    evaluations for projects that are still in process? May we request
    past performance evaluation for more than 5 projects?

*We have changed the requirement and will not request evaluations for
projects that are still in process. You may request evaluations for more
than 5 completed projects.*

66. We are very concerned about asking customers to evaluate performance
    before a project has been completed. How can customers give an
    accurate assessment of quality, cost control, and timeliness when
    the work has not been completed?

*We agree that we do not want evaluations from projects in progress.*

67. For previous projects that were performed as part of the EPC
    Program, should we submit the performance evaluation form to a
    representative of the partner organization (as the customer) or to a
    representative of AHRQ such as the EPC Director, Contract Officer,
    or Task Order Officer? Although the partner organization should be
    able to comment on many aspects of our performance, some partners
    may not be able to comment on cost control issues if all budget
    issues were handled by AHRQ.

*Performance evaluation should be submitted to AHRQ Task Order Officers,
not the partner organizations.*

68. Again, in relation to past performance, three years is specified as
    the time frame for past contracts and subcontracts as per Section
    L 10. (pg. 65). However, in Section M (Evaluation Factors) under
    past performance (pg. 75) - recently completed projects are referred
    to as those completed within the past year. Could you please clarify
    this?

*See Response to Question 40. Section M is changed to those completed
within the past three years.*

69. To whom at AHRQ should the current EPC II's send the Past
    Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 1, page 77) for the response
    to the EPC III Solicitation? 

*See response to Question 59.*

70. Please clarify whether the RFP should be single or double spaced, as
    different instructions are given on the cover page and on page 60.
    The cover page of the solicitation states that the submitted
    proposal \"\...should be limited to 125 double-spaced typewritten
    pages, while page 60 of the instructions states that the technical
    proposal \"...shall not exceed 125 pages (not including
    attachments), single-sided, single-spaced pages. 

*Double-spaced.*

71. The section heading \"Management Plan and Operational Experience\"
    on RFP pages 63 and 64 is used twice;  is the first one on page 63
    actually describing the Key Personnel and Core Team?  

*Yes, this was an oversight and is amended.*

72. Please clarify the order in which the sections \"Key Personnel and
    Core Team\" and \"Management Plan and Operational Experience\" are
    to be presented.  In the outline on page 61, Management Plan and
    Operational Experience comes before Key Personnel and Core Team, on
    pages 73 and 74 this is reversed, and on pages 63 and 64 it appears
    that Key Personnel and Core Team is first (see question 3). 

*Please describe the "Key Personnel and Core Team" prior to the
"Management Plan and Operational Experience"*

73. Please clarify the makeup of the different Key Personnel and Core
    Team members. It appears that different terms are being used for the
    same roles in the Solicitation.

*1)The Core Team consists of the EPC Director, EPC Associate Director,
and EPC Project Manager, 2) the Key Personnel consists of the Core Team
plus the Lead Investigator, all other investigators, the research and
editorial staff, and the medical librarian and 3) the Lead Investigator
is the principal investigator of the projects.*

74. Pages 12, 13 and 63 refer to the EPC Project Director and the
    Project Manager.  Are these the same position or two different
    roles?

*The position of the EPC Project Director on page 63 is the same as the
Project Manger on pages 12 and 13.*

75. Is there flexibility around the organizational structure?  For
    instance, can we have two Directors or two Associate Directors?

*AHRQ would like meaningful, substantive, and consistent leadership for
all projects. Offerors must justify an alternate structure, and clearly
identify the commitment level of the proposed leadership team. We strive
to have sufficient commitment from senior staff to produce consistent,
high-quality products.*

76. Class Levels (p. 67): there are some gaps in the class levels. For
    instance, how would we class an individual with a PhD or a Masters'
    degree but fewer than 5 years experience?  Likewise, how would we
    class an individual with a Bachelor's degree but fewer than 3 years
    experience?

*Years of experience relevant to the solicitation during training can
count towards experience.*

77. Where does the "Task Order Leader" fit into the structure? Is this
    the same as the "Lead Investigators" referred to on page 12?

*The Task Order Leader is the Lead Investigator.*

78. Please clarify the resource commitment on page 12: \"senior
    leadership will be available at a minimum and consistent
    availability of 70% fulltime equivalent\" and \"the EPC Director
    shall consistently contribute a minimum of 20% FTE.\"  Do these
    relate to each project? 

*With the understanding that each EPC will have a minimum number of
projects per year, we would expect that the time commitment requirement
of the leadership outlined in the RFP is reflective of the cumulative
time commitment to the EPC through the year.*

79. On Page 12 of the RFP, it states that senior leadership will be
    available at a minimum of 70 percent of the time and the project
    manager will be available for 100 percent of the time.  How will
    contractors be reimbursed for having the senior leadership available
    for 70 percent and the project manager available for 100 percent of
    time to work on the project?  Will there be a management task to
    reimburse those costs?

*We anticipate that there will be a workload sufficient to support the
core team. There will be no additional funding to reimburse costs
outside of specific task orders.*

80. Regarding the description of the core team (page 63), may we
    designate more than one Associate Director and more than one Project
    Manager? On page 63, the RFP suggests that the core team should
    consist of only 3 individuals, while on page 64 it suggests that the
    core team should consist of more than 3 individuals. We understand
    that we would have to explain the administrative structure and
    responsibilities for our core team. For example, our proposed Center
    is in a large institution and it would be very helpful to have an
    Associate Director from each of the 3 major divisions within the
    institution. Also, from past experience, we have found it necessary
    to have more than one full-time project manager to be able to
    support simultaneous work on 3 or more projects. Thus, it would be
    desirable for the core team to have more than one project manager.

*AHRQ would like meaningful, substantive, and consistent leadership for
all projects. Offerors must justify an alternate structure, and clearly
identify the commitment level of the proposed leadership team. We strive
to have sufficient commitment from senior staff to produce consistent,
high-quality products.*

81. Would AHRQ please clarify the distinctions between a "content area"
    (RFP pg. 63) and a "topic area" (RFP pg. 62)?

*There should be no distinction in these terms and they should be
interchangeable.*

82. Period of Performance is expected to begin on August 1^st  ^-- when
    might we expect to be notified? 

*We hope to notify successful offerors in mid-July. Task Orders will
probably not be awarded until September.*

83. Page 2 and Page 68 refer to "Certified documentation of cost
    accounting system.  Does this refer to having the signed
    certifications on Pages 45-48 or does this require additional
    documentation.  If so what would constitute "certified
    documentation"?

*This refers to the certifications on Pages 45-48.*

We would also like to make the following amendments:

1.  Section C, page 20, states that we will issue an RFTO to identify
    9-11 EPCs for the generalist program. This should be more in the
    range of 7-9.  

> 2\. Section L, p 61, states "All successful offerors receiving an
> award will be given the opportunity to submit a proposal for a task
> order for one of the above areas of focus." This is changed to read:
> "All successful offerors receiving an award will be given the
> opportunity to submit proposals for task orders for the above areas of
> focus."  You may submit for more than one if you like.

***The hour and date specified for receipt of proposals remains
unchanged by this amendment.***