1 / 25

RFP SOLICITATION PROCESS

RFP SOLICITATION PROCESS. Presented by Charles L. Henry, Director Office of AIDS Programs and Policy (OAPP) to the Commission on HIV Health Services January 8, 2004. PURPOSE. At December 11, 2003 Commission meeting, OAPP was asked to report on two issues:

edan
Download Presentation

RFP SOLICITATION PROCESS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RFP SOLICITATION PROCESS Presented by Charles L. Henry, Director Office of AIDS Programs and Policy (OAPP) to the Commission on HIV Health Services January 8, 2004

  2. PURPOSE At December 11, 2003 Commission meeting, OAPP was asked to report on two issues: RFP application and appeals process Client eligibility standards required of providers

  3. CHALLENGE Recognizing that we’re in an era of shrinking resources coupled with expanding need, we have to find ways to target our services towards those most in need and most disenfranchised. The EMA can accomplish this effort through: Modifying program design, and Using eligibility requirements.

  4. RFP PROCESS During Year 13, five RFPs released: Peer Support Language Services Legal Services/Permanency Planning Food Services Child Care

  5. RFP PROCESS By the end of Year 13, two more RFPs to be released: SPA 8 Service Provider Network (SPN) and Capacity Building/Infrastructure Development Client Advocacy By February 2004, medical outpatient rate review consultants will be secured/project begins in March 2004

  6. MODIFYING PROGRAM DESIGN Peer Support: No one-on-one counseling any longer: it was inconsistent, quality varied and coun-seling should be provided by professionals Now, one-on-one sessions are solely for new client orientation and to help clients navigate the system (Category 1) Groups are no longer socially oriented: interactive educational/informational group sessions are more topical (Category 1) One agency selected to provide peer cert-ification training County-wide (Category 2)

  7. RESULTS Category 1 “Peer Support” contracts recommended to BOS:  Tarzana for SPA 1  Tarzana, Bienestar for SPA 2  Bienestar for SPA 3  Being Alive, Women Alive, Bienestar for SPA 4  Women Alive for SPA 5  King/Drew for SPA 6  Bienestar for SPA 7  Tarzana, St. Mary’s, Bienestar for SPA 8  18 applications submitted

  8. RESULTS Category 2 “Peer Support” contracts recommended to BOS:  APLA for all eight SPAs  2 applications submitted

  9. MODIFYING PROGRAM DESIGN Language Services: Funding interpreter training to ensure consistent quality County-wide (Category 1) Continues to fund translation of written materials into Spanish/API languages (Category 2) Continues to fund ASL interpretation (Category 3)

  10. RESULTS Category 1 “Language Service” con- tracts recommended to BOS:  Special Services for Groups/PALS for Health for all SPAs  4 applications submitted

  11. RESULTS Category 2 “Language Service” con- tracts recommended to BOS:  Special Services for Groups/PALS for Health for all SPAs  2 applications submitted

  12. RESULTS Category 3 “Language Service” con- tracts recommended to BOS:  Greater Los Angeles Council on Deafness (GLAD) for all SPAs  1 application submitted

  13. MODIFYING PROGRAM DESIGN Legal Services/ Permanency Planning: One provider, but 32 outreach sites: services available in every SPA

  14. RESULTS “Legal Service/Permanency Planning” contracts recommended to BOS:  HIV/AIDS Legal Services Alliance (HALSA) for all SPAs  1 application submitted

  15. MODIFYING PROGRAM DESIGN Food Services:  Two providers, but food pantry in every SPA  Continuing to fund home-delivered meals  Discontinued funding food vouchers for more equity across the County: previously vouchers were only funded/ distributed in one SPA

  16. RESULTS “Food Service” food pantry contracts recommended to BOS:  APLA for SPA 1  APLA for SPA 2  Bienestar for SPA 3  APLA for SPA 4  APLA for SPA 5  APLA for SPA 6  Bienestar for SPA 7  APLA for SPA 8  3 food pantry/1 voucher applications submitted

  17. RESULTS “Food Service” home-delivered meals contract recommended to BOS:  Project Angel Food for all SPAs  1 application submitted

  18. MODIFYING PROGRAM DESIGN Child Care:  Previously, 2 providers serving 3 SPAs  One provider, representing 11 resource centers in all eight County SPAs  The resource centers manage multiple sites throughout the County, accessible by all clients  One provider can ensure that all child care providers are professionally certified, meet all child care standards and are consistently receiving HIV/AIDS training

  19. RESULTS “Child Care” contracts recommended to BOS:  Pathways for all SPAs  1 application submitted

  20. OBJECTIVES Goals of Service Modifications:  Comprehensive Care Plan calls for all services in every SPA and County-wide coverage: all five services now available in every SPA  Reduces service delivery disparities in different areas of the County  Enhances clients’ access to services in all parts of the County  Improves quality of care and cost-efficiency across the service categories

  21. APPEALS Appeal Process described in RFPs Providers given ten working days to appeal, outlined in Funding Announce-ments (sent to all providers that applied) Appeals limited to questions of “process, not outcome” 0 appeals submitted

  22. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Purpose: A way to apportion available services when funding is limited in the face of excessive demand Planning Council, Administrative Agency and service providers all have a stake in determining eligibility requirements

  23. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Currently, for all service categories: HIV-positive, Los Angeles County resident, Indigent, Services cannot be covered by other sources of funding.

  24. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS During Year 13, new RFPs required providers for the first time to imple- ment a sliding fee schedule for clients at certain income levels: For child care, peer support, legal services: clients living at 400% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL). For food services: clients living at 100% of Federal Poverty Level (FPL).

  25. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS As long as they do not conflict with law and the CARE Act: Providers can create further eligibility requirements to target the population(s) they want to serve; OAPP can add eligibility standards for maximum cost-effectiveness of service delivery or in accordance with standards; Commission can design eligibility require-ments to de/refine service delivery, meet unmet/severe need, cost-efficiency and other reasons.

More Related