RFP Proponents Meeting

Verbatim (draft) transcript - DHHS RFP ino session
Accurate Realtime Reporting Inc. - (604) 685-6050

1
1
September 5, 2014 2
Burnaby, B.C. 3
*********************************************** 4
NEIL RICH: So we decided to start the meeting and Arif 5
will show up when he is able to come in. 6
Okay. Let's get going, then, please. 7
So welcome to today's proponents meeting. I'll 8
call the meeting to order. Hello. 9
ARIF LALANI: Hello. 10
NEIL RICH: So this is a proponent meeting for RFP DHH FY 11
15-002, deaf and hard of hearing specialized early 12
intervention services. 13
My name is Neil Rich and I'm with the Ministry 14
of Children and Family Development in the procurement 15
and contract management branch. I'm working with the 16
program area to chair this meeting as well as writing 17
the RFP and the evaluation handbook. 18
We have Diana Tarchuk with us, who is managing 19
and coordinating the RFP and her name is on the front 20
page of the RFP document. 21
So minutes are being recorded and taken today. 22
The transcript from this meeting will be posted and 23
be made available on BC Bid as an addendum to the 24
RFP. 25
2
Okay. We'd like just to remind everyone, if 1
you could ask your questions today as time may not 2
permit the ministry to be able to respond at a later 3
time. 4
Just a reminder for everyone. If we do not 5
understand a question, we may want to ask clarity of 6
that question so we can provide a more wholesome 7
response. There may be questions that are deferred 8
so that we can take that question and then respond to 9
it in a more appropriate manner so that we provide 10
you with the right information. 11
There is no requirement to state your name. 12
What we'd like to identify is -- if you have a 13
question, you will be identified as a proponent with 14
regards to the RFP process and that would be how you 15
would be identified in the transcript. 16
So the agenda for today's meeting would be 17
introductions and I will start with that. So we have 18
myself, Neil Rich, and I am procurement project 19
manager with MCFD. We have Arif Lalani, who is the 20
executive director of provincial services; Rebecca 21
Storey, who is the director of Provincial Deaf and 22
Hard of Hearing Services; Diana Tarchuk, who's the 23
services coordinator of deaf and hard of hearing 24
services. As well, we have with us today Susan Lane 25
3
with the Provincial Health Services Authority, a 1
provincial intervention coordinator. 2
I just want to identify. We're making the 3
assumption that everyone has reviewed and read the 4
RFP and we're also making the assumption proponents 5
have and perhaps have responded to an RFP in the 6
past. If that is not correct, we would like to have 7
an understanding to be able to help you out. 8
So the RFP does contain mandatory 9
requirements -- and this is essential -- and it's 10
section 3.1 of the RFP insofar as the number of 11
responses that are to be provided, the date and 12
closing time of the RFP and one other mandatory 13
requirement is your accreditation certification. So 14
those are critical components that are needed for the 15
RFP process in order for us to evaluate you and 16
ensure that you can move on through the desirable 17
criteria that have been identified. 18
So once the RFP closes, what we will be doing, 19
we will be assessing the responses for their 20
mandatory requirements, we will then move to the 21
desirable criteria in assessing responses in order to 22
determine scores that would apply and ultimately who 23
would be deemed a successful proponent. 24
Prior to reviewing any proposal that has been 25
4
submitted, we have created an evaluation handbook to 1
guide the evaluation committee so it is done prior to 2
the committee reviewing any of the responses. 3
The team will be reviewing the responses 4
individually, make our own assessments, and then the 5
team would then come and have a consensus meeting to 6
derive a consensus score. The purpose of the 7
consensus meeting is to have a collective group 8
understanding of the requirements based upon the 9
guidelines in the evaluation handbook and to identify 10
perhaps areas of responses that perhaps another 11
evaluator may not have picked up on so we want to 12
ensure that everyone has equal opportunity of being 13
deemed a successful proponent. 14
What I'd like to do right now is I'd like to 15
open the floor to questions with regards to the RFP 16
and the requirements identified in the RFP. So 17
I'll -- the purpose of the proponent meeting is for 18
you and for you to ask questions with regards to the 19
requirements of the RFP so I'll open the floor to 20
questions. 21
PROPONENT: This question is in regard to the 22
relationship with the early intervention program, EHP 23
and MCFD and I'm going to read this for clarity. 24
Since the last RFP in 2008, the newborn hearing 25
5
screening has really kicked in and there are many, 1
many more children being identified than there were 2
at the last RFP, so we're seeing many more children 3
in our programs and because of that -- and we're 4
really -- we are so pleased that the provincial 5
government understands the need for newborn screening 6
and early intervention. What we are confused about 7
now is how this is going to impact -- this cutback in 8
the funding for MCFD, how that relates to the 9
numbers -- increased numbers of children that we're 10
seeing and how -- after the two-year EHP services and 11
funding are completed, how we are to provide that 12
ongoing support with reduced funding from MCFD? 13
REBECCA STOREY: If I can respond. The funding from MCFD 14
has not been reduced, as we discussed in our most 15
recent meeting with the contractors; the funding 16
amount remains the same from MCFD and it is our 17
continued intention to work in partnership and in 18
collaboration with the BC Early Hearing Program, 19
which I hope was well reflected in the RFP. 20
PROPONENT: I'm a little confused because in the RFP for 21
2008, the amount of funding was $2.4 million and in 22
this most recent one it says $1.6 million, so -- 23
REBECCA STOREY: No. Thank you. Thank you, Janet, for 24
raising that and that was raised previously in 2008 25
6
and then in 2009, when we completed the RFP. It took 1
a long period of time to actually complete that RFP. 2
The amount that was stated in that original document 3
in 2008, in terms of overall budget, was incorrect 4
and that was communicated to all of the contractors 5
at -- when procurement completed. It was incorrect, 6
that amount. So thank you for stating that. 7
NEIL RICH: Are there any other questions? Go ahead. 8
PROPONENT: Good morning. I'm a parent of a student 9
who's just actually graduated from the Children 10
Hearing Speech Centre. I'm also on the board, chair 11
of the finance committee. But I will say also -- 12
obviously I'm a taxpayer, so I appreciate the 13
restraints, the dilemma that the government is in 14
with respect to funding and I respect this process. 15
I think this is important, that you set parameters 16
around how contracts are awarded and how the 17
government spends money, so I first wanted to just 18
say that we're pleased -- even though this does 19
present some challenges to our school, we're pleased 20
to be part of this process and we're respectful of 21
it, but one of the questions that we've had around 22
the board table through this process is what the 23
intent of the RFP process is to be awarded to one 24
party. Are you hoping for or in fact encouraging a 25
7
joint bid with the three service providers, or do you 1
envision this process effectively picking a winner? 2
Do you see one or two schools rationalizing -- well, 3
frankly, closing, after you award the contract to a 4
single provider? 5
NEIL RICH: To address part of the question that you had, 6
in the RFP it does identify that joint submissions 7
are allowable as part of the competitive bidding 8
process. 9
PROPONENT: Right. 10
NEIL RICH: And from talking with the program area, the 11
discussions as to the direction of the requirements 12
that were defined in the RFP were already discussed 13
with the contractors prior to the RFP being posted. 14
PROPONENT: So are you saying it's up to us to sort this 15
out? I mean does the government have a vision around 16
the services to be provided? Because we do have 17
different programs, we serve different needs. I can 18
tell you as a parent with a student who went to 19
Children's Hearing and Speech Centre, we had that 20
choice. We made that choice because that program 21
suited my daughter's needs and I'm sure there are 22
parents who go to other schools because those 23
programs suit their children's needs so I can't 24
assume the government is just sort of saying, you 25
8
know, you sort this out. You must have a desired 1
outcome, a vision for how the services are going to 2
be provided and the choices that are going to be 3
available to the public. 4
REBECCA STOREY: Rebecca responding. Hopefully the 5
vision that we're looking for, the requirements, the 6
services, the coordination -- the essential 7
coordination is laid out in the RFP. That's the 8
vision the government has, that essential 9
coordination throughout the province of these 10
specialized early intervention services, and then 11
we're looking to the proponents to provide us with 12
their proposals of how that could be coordinated. 13
PROPONENT: Could you clarify for me, then, what the -- 14
what that vision is? 15
REBECCA STOREY: It -- the vision is what is laid out 16
within the RFP. 17
PROPONENT: Yeah. So the RFP is -- it's a long document, 18
you know, it's -- there are different ways to 19
interpret it and that's why I was hoping this session 20
would allow us to get some clarity on exactly what -- 21
if you could be specific about what -- if you could 22
just answer my question specifically. Are you 23
encouraging a joint bid, or do you see a scenario 24
where schools will close? That's what we're trying 25
9
to understand. 1
REBECCA STOREY: And -- and I'm sorry, I can't answer 2
that specifically. It's not the intention of today's 3
meeting to revisit the decision of the single 4
contractor; it's to answer questions with regard to 5
what's laid out in the vision of the RFP, which is -- 6
PROPONENT: I'm not asking the -- the decision to be 7
revisited. It's like I said at the beginning, I 8
respect the process, selecting a single provider, but 9
the outcome is what I'm interested in. Is that -- 10
what is your desired outcome? I'm certain that the 11
government must have a vision or a policy around 12
what -- how this -- how the services will look when 13
this process is done. 14
REBECCA STOREY: And that is what we hope to communicate 15
in the RFP. 16
PROPONENT: I know, but it's not clear to me when I read 17
the article -- that's why I'm here to ask you the 18
question. Can you say -- 19
REBECCA STOREY: Do you have a question regarding -- 20
NEIL RICH: Is there a specific section in the RFP to 21
better -- 22
PROPONENT: Do you -- do you see this decision 23
eliminating schools, programs, rationalizing choices 24
for parents because it -- when you -- when you're 25
10
asking for a single bid, if we do not collaborate, 1
that would be the only logical outcome, that one 2
person -- one party provides the services and 3
therefore, as someone who needs these services, I 4
wouldn't have -- I would no longer have a choice. 5
REBECCA STOREY: I can't comment on what possibly may 6
happen beyond and after the bid being evaluated and 7
decided. I don't know at this point what that would 8
be. 9
PROPONENT: So one scenario could be schools closing? 10
You couldn't rule that scenario out? 11
REBECCA STOREY: I could not rule out that scenario. 12
PROPONENT: Okay. That's what we need to know. Thank 13
you. 14
NEIL RICH: Are there any other questions? Well, this 15
is your time to ask questions with regards to the 16
requirements of the RFP. If there's a particular 17
section you would like to have an elaboration on or 18
a question that you don't understand a specific 19
requirement, we might be able to elaborate a little 20
bit more for you. Yes? 21
PROPONENT: So it helps clarify things, now that I know 22
that the amount of funding remains the same. That 23
helps a lot. So it changes my question just a tad. 24
It has to do with children with special needs and the 25
11
numbers of -- because newborn screening has done 1
many, many wonderful things for families and one of 2
the things that's happened is that we've been able to 3
identify children who have additional needs and -- 4
there are a lot of them and -- we know that -- by 5
listening to the radio now, about class composition 6
and what the numbers are generally, and it's also 7
reflected in our populations in our schools and that 8
was something that we didn't really have a handle on 9
prior to newborn screening, because prior to newborn 10
screening we could just say they were identified late 11
and so their language is delayed because they're 12
identified late, but now they're identified early 13
they get great early intervention and we're still 14
seeing these additional needs, a lot of them. At our 15
centre we do a lot of fundraising. We are providing 16
a lot of extra support through OT, through SLP 17
services. We're doing a lot because we're really 18
committed to that. We recognize that these children 19
need it. So I don't see anywhere in the RFP that 20
these children -- these vast numbers of children are 21
being addressed. That -- in the RFP, it's talking 22
about deaf and hard of hearing children and -- and 23
those basic services and I'm wondering if that's 24
something that you considered in putting this RFP 25
12
together, are those children with -- those many, many 1
children with additional needs? 2
REBECCA STOREY: Maybe if I could -- it's Rebecca, 3
responding again. We agree. I think we see that in 4
early intervention and certainly we see that with the 5
school-aged children that we work with. I hope it is 6
reflected for you in the RFP because it certainly is 7
a reality. I feel it's reflected through the 8
individualized service planning, the importance of 9
collaborative service planning and case management 10
for those kids and looking at that provincial picture 11
that we have a large province with kids with diverse 12
needs spread throughout the province and figuring out 13
how best can we meet those needs so that they are as 14
close as we can get to what we know to be best 15
practice. I hope the assessment component that's in 16
the RFP responds to it as well. It is absolutely an 17
issue that we all talked about and that we're all 18
needing to address, so please do respond to it in the 19
proposals. It has been identified, I think, by all 20
service providers as something that we're dealing 21
with currently. 22
NEIL RICH: Question? 23
PROPONENT: Hi. Good morning. I have two questions for 24
you. The first question being, will you be reviewing 25
13
the RFP criteria, the sections? And maybe, could you 1
explain what you're asking for, or are you just going 2
to answer questions that we have mentioned already? 3
And as far as reviewing the criteria, could you 4
explain and expand upon how client referral would be 5
addressed? Like in the needs for clients to be 6
referred, like a name and so forth. Could you go 7
into that a little bit more as to what it is that 8
you're wanting exactly in the -- in RFP? There's 9
different sections that it's talking about referrals. 10
It could possibly be the same person from an agency, 11
the same parents for all of those sections and so my 12
question is, is what is your envisioned response to 13
that question as far as client referral? And it's in 14
addendum B. 15
REBECCA STOREY: Thanks, Janice. And I just want to 16
clarify -- maybe I'll sign. 17
Do you mean references, or referrals? I just 18
wanted to clarify because the interpretation was 19
"referral." 20
PROPONENT: If you could expand on that. 21
REBECCA STOREY: It helps the evaluation team if you give 22
us references from parents who fit those 23
requirements. For example, parents who have received 24
one-on-one service, parents who have received 25
14
individualized service plans, parents who have 1
attended group sessions, parents who their child has 2
complicated needs and you have then collaborated as 3
far as the service plan is concerned. So that's what 4
we envision as far as that reference section to it, 5
so if you could identify that. 6
PROPONENT: So could you use the same parent in 7
individual sessions, or did you want to see 8
different -- references in different clients in those 9
sessions? 10
REBECCA STOREY: Yeah. If we're looking at it -- I'll 11
just leave it to you to decide what you feel would 12
be the best response. If you're feeling that that 13
person, you know, could meet one or two of those, 14
that's fine. I think that, you know, they could meet 15
one section or another section and then there might 16
be different people or different perspectives. We're 17
going to leave it to you to feel what you think would 18
be best in answering that section. 19
PROPONENT: So are you saying that we could document more 20
than one client for a specific area? 21
REBECCA STOREY: I would open that up to you. If you 22
feel -- I think that, you know, there could be a long 23
list, but I think if you strongly feel, you know, 24
that you've got two really great references, that 25
15
will help us as the team have a better vision and 1
understanding of what you're talking about and it's 2
an opportunity for you to increase your -- your 3
numbers, your points, in a sense. 4
PROPONENT: So I just want to add another question, if 5
I could, and this is connected with staff 6
qualifications. There's a column for outlining that 7
and the last column in that section is asking 8
specifically about service provision and what is 9
being provided, so -- it's a really tiny little 10
column and I have some concerns about the format 11
because we have a lot of answers. I mean, we have 10 12
or 15 pages per person so I'm wondering if it is 13
possible to make the format fit for the individually 14
people because I was thinking, holy smokes, that's a 15
really tiny little column so I don't think I have 16
enough space to answer. Is it okay to change the 17
format? 18
REBECCA STOREY: This is Rebecca responding. The 19
important thing is that you're satisfied with your 20
response and your answer. If the format we give you 21
does not fit, you can tweak it, you can add -- if you 22
want to expand on something, just add another page to 23
it so -- we want you to be satisfied with what you're 24
handing in. 25
16
PROPONENT: So I could add additional pages to the RFP 1
and then reference when you're going through the 2
answers. Thank you. 3
DIANA TARCHUK: And it's very important that you put down 4
exactly where you're adding that, though, so we do 5
know so it helps the evaluation team analyze that 6
clearly and if not, then it might not reflect well. 7
So if you could say, see page A1 or A2, that would be 8
beneficial. 9
PROPONENT: Great. Thank you. 10
NEIL RICH: I think it's safe to say we're looking for 11
your approach and your ideas. We've defined a 12
requirement, we've asked the question. Hopefully 13
it's open-ended, that we'll get the creative ideas on 14
what your idea and thought is to provide that 15
service. We're not necessarily asking for a form and 16
trying to conform to a form. It's -- it's a bit of a 17
format and if it's not working, by all means, make -- 18
make the tweak and change, but, again, lead us to 19
that information, please. 20
PROPONENT: In the RFP you talk about the assessments, 21
about the MacArthur and -- yeah. The MacArthur and 22
the Kent inventory. I am wondering, is the ministry 23
interested in what we're using, or what the outcomes 24
of what we're using are, or both? 25
17
REBECCA STOREY: Thank you for asking that. Both. The 1
point of assessment is to follow the development of 2
the child and -- the ultimate hope is for positive 3
outcomes and for early intervention for school 4
readiness as well. We've talked about that before 5
collectively as a group, that the standardized 6
assessments currently used by the BCEHP are for 7
younger children and that's why we added that piece 8
in the RFP, that we're interested to hear from 9
proponents as to what do they find to be effective 10
assessments to follow those kids as they get a little 11
bit older, so your three-year-olds and four-year-olds 12
and then your transition into five-year-olds so 13
that's why that's in there. 14
PROPONENT: Can I follow up on an earlier question from 15
Janet about the other services that the schools 16
provide? So just for a point of clarity, can you 17
tell me, are the -- are things like occupational 18
therapists and speech language therapists, those 19
services are a requirement in the bid? They are -- 20
they are laid out that each school must have those 21
services? 22
NEIL RICH: In the RFP it does talk about 23
"core services." 24
PROPONENT: Yeah. 25
18
NEIL RICH: And that would be a fundamental requirement. 1
PROPONENT: Which would be -- what would be a fundamental 2
requirement? 3
REBECCA STOREY: Maybe if I can answer that? 4
PROPONENT: Yeah. 5
REBECCA STOREY: What we're looking to are the language 6
development services and those are laid out in the 7
RFP. So as such, an occupational therapist would not 8
be a required service within this RFP. 9
PROPONENT: But as Janet pointed out, there are many 10
children, mine included, who are born with issues 11
that, you know, extend beyond hearing loss and, 12
again, that's one of the reasons why we chose the 13
program that we did. Back to my earlier question, if 14
you envisioned one outcome where a school would 15
close, then I would no longer have choice of -- 16
necessarily, choice of a program that offered those 17
services; is that correct? 18
REBECCA STOREY: One of the core requirements is 19
collaborative service planning, so making sure that 20
the needs of the child are met. 21
PROPONENT: But that -- you don't define what those 22
services or needs might be. 23
REBECCA STOREY: There may be specific needs for each 24
child that are going to have to be addressed in 25
19
individual family service planning with that family 1
and it's not the expectation that the proponent would 2
have all the services required within one centre and 3
that's why collaborative service planning, integrated 4
case management is really a key piece. 5
PROPONENT: Okay. Thank you. 6
REBECCA STOREY: Thank you for that question. 7
NEIL RICH: Here. 8
PROPONENT: Proponent. In the event of a 9
collaborative -- I'm going to use that word, I like 10
that, Rebecca, thank you -- bid, how much detail are 11
you looking for in the nature of that collaboration? 12
In other words, the conditions of subcontracting is a 13
word that the RFP uses in the proposal -- the 14
submitted proposal. How much detail are you going to 15
be requiring? 16
NEIL RICH: Well, section 17 speaks to subcontracting, 17
so we would be looking at one proponent to take 18
the overall lead in the contract in the contract 19
management side of things. I think there's an 20
expectation in the approach side of things, how the 21
lead working with the subcontractors would be 22
identified on the service delivery side of the 23
approach. 24
Do you want to add to that? 25
20
REBECCA STOREY: I would only add that as much 1
information as you can give so that we have a really 2
clear picture of what the vision of the proposal 3
would be, with the understanding that that would be a 4
new working arrangement. And it's hard to know all 5
of the details at this point, so as -- as clear a 6
vision as you can provide to us, maybe with some 7
understanding of planning moving forward, 8
flexibility, problem solving as it might arise, risk 9
management. Does that answer your question? 10
PROPONENT: Yes. 11
REBECCA STOREY: Thank you. 12
NEIL RICH: Any other questions? 13
PROPONENT: Excuse me. So just to clarify. You may have 14
already answered it, but I just want to verify. In a 15
proponent's proposal, if they say that they would be 16
subcontracting with another -- like a subcontractor 17
to provide the services, that subcontractor has to be 18
named? 19
NEIL RICH: Yes, please. 20
PROPONENT: It does? 21
NEIL RICH: Yes. 22
NEIL RICH: Any other questions? 24
PROPONENT: What is the thinking behind the wording, the 25
21
contractor going with one party rather than three, as 1
has been done in the past? 2
REBECCA STOREY: It's not our intention in today's 3
meeting to revisit the decision with regards to one 4
contract. 5
PROPONENT: I don't think he's asking you to revisit the 6
decision; he's asking you just to explain it, what 7
the intent is. 8
REBECCA STOREY: That has been dealt with -- sorry. Go 9
ahead. 10
ARIF LALANI: So to put some clarity into it and only 11
because you've mentioned a couple times closure of 12
schools and that you've selected a specific school 13
in the best interests of your child. This is a 14
procurement process, an RFP for language development. 15
I'm assuming that you selected a school because the 16
school provides a range of services for your child 17
above and beyond just language development. It could 18
be occupational therapists, it could be other 19
services. What this RFP is about is language 20
development. We've had conversations with the 21
executive directors on several occasions coming up to 22
this point and the reality of the sustainability of 23
the existing structure, having three contracts and 24
that structure. This is a way forward in order to 25
22
ensure that we can sustain the funding that's 1
available to provide these services. All you three 2
agencies are currently in structural deficits and 3
have been in the last couple years, as I've been 4
informed. 5
PROPONENT: We have a surplus -- or we had a balanced 6
budget last year and we will this year, too, until -- 7
unless this funding changes. 8
REBECCA STOREY: After fundraising. 9
PROPONENT: After fundraising, yeah. 10
ARIF LALANI: Correct. So you have other funding 11
sources. 12
PROPONENT: Right. 13
ARIF LALANI: So this is one component of what your 14
school provides. You can't equate this one RFP 15
process to a closure of the school. Will it impact? 16
Yeah, probably. But this is what this is about, it's 17
about you folks getting together and trying to figure 18
out how can we provide these services going forward 19
through a single contractor? It doesn't preclude 20
relationships between contractors. It does not. It 21
doesn't -- it doesn't go to a closure of a school 22
because we're -- our vision is that a specific 23
philosophy is what we want. It's how can we make 24
this. The contract structure that has been up until 25
23
now has been historical. It hasn't made a lot of 1
efficiency sense or administrative sense, it's just 2
been historical. We're at a point now where we're 3
looking forward and saying we want to sustain this 4
for five to ten years and how can we go about that. 5
PROPONENT: That's helpful and I appreciate that. I 6
respect that, too. I think it's an important 7
process. Sustainability's been key to our school. 8
You know, I've been on the board and chair of the 9
finance committee in the last couple of years. We've 10
dealt with our own issues of sustainability beyond 11
government funding. We had to do a lot of 12
fundraising. Of course, a reduction in funding 13
accentuates those challenges and we sort of feel like 14
we're on a treadmill here, but so long as we don't 15
see an elimination of the funding, I think that would 16
be the situation where we would have to contemplate 17
perhaps closing the school or putting tuition fees to 18
levels that would either make it impossible for 19
people to go there and then you sort of fall on your 20
own death trap because you lose students, you -- you 21
raise the price to a point where no one could come. 22
ARIF LALANI: Yeah. 23
PROPONENT: Just to clarify, though, from my experience, 24
you know, the ancillary services the school provided 25
24
were important, but the philosophy -- the philosophy 1
of the school for my daughter's needs with respect to 2
speech development because she has a partial hearing 3
loss and speech impairment that is unrelated to her 4
hearing loss as well as other issues, 5
accessibility -- we're on the West Side, this was the 6
closest -- this Children's Hearing and Speech Centre 7
was the closest place that logistic -- my wife had to 8
quit her job in order just to take my daughter to 9
school every morning and my son at his own school in 10
the neighbourhood. You can't be two places at once. 11
Now, that's my problem, not yours; I understand that. 12
But geography and accessibility has to be considered. 13
If we had only one choice way out in Surrey, we might 14
not have been able physically to have been able to go 15
to that school, you know. And fortunately we're in a 16
situation where my wife could afford to quit her job. 17
Had she not, that would have been a real problem, 18
too. 19
So I guess what I'm saying is you have to 20
consider a wide range of things if a school closure 21
is an outcome. I mean there's all kinds of 22
unintended consequences that come from that that 23
affect the children. 24
ARIF LALANI: Absolutely. This RFP is about provincial 25
25
services, not just specific metropolitan areas. 1
The RFP's inclusive of the entire province, so -- we 2
understand there are limitations geographically and 3
in terms of location and that impacts the services 4
that are being provided. The intent is, for this 5
particular contract, to provide the costs for the 6
entirety of the province. 7
NEIL RICH: Are there any other questions? 9
If you do have questions, you can always submit 10
them to Diana Tarchuk on the cover page of the RFP 11
and we'll be more than happy to respond. 12
I would like to remind you that the RFP does 13
close -- have a closing date in time and it closes on 14
September 30th, before 2 p.m. so it's important to 15
take into account that time frame. We would hate to 16
have a late bid come in, all that work that you've 17
done, so I cannot emphasize that enough. 18
The other part would be the cover page of the 19
RFP. Please have your -- the signatory for your 20
organization sign it to submit. That's another 21
critical piece, that if it is not signed, we would 22
have to then -- it does meet the mandatory. Other 23
than that, the mandatories are very limited, just 24
more administration and the certification of 25
26
accreditation. Other than that, we've left 1
everything into the desirable area, which would then 2
hopefully have your creative approaches and thoughts 3
towards the provincial service. 4
I believe that would conclude this proponent 5
meeting. We thank you for attending and look forward 6
to your submissions. 7
REBECCA STOREY: If I could, I'm sorry, just add one last 8
thing. Rebecca speaking. 9
We will -- we have an evaluation team that 10
we'll gather to evaluate the proposals and we have 11
requested that Susan Lane, from the BC Early Hearing 12
Program, join us as an external reviewer for that 13
team and Susan has come to the meeting today and 14
specifically asked us to let you know that she has 15
been invited to join the evaluation team so that you 16
are aware of that and you could express any concerns 17
that you had, but we are looking very much forward to 18
having her as a member of our team. BCEHP is a 19
partner, service provider, partner agency to us and 20
someone who we know and trust, so we wanted to add 21
that as well for you today. 22
PROPONENT: The meeting's over. I'm just curious who the 23
other evaluators are? 24
REBECCA STOREY: The evaluation team will be Susan, 25
27
Diana, myself and Neil. He's our procurement 1
specialist. Arif will be sitting in on the 2
evaluation meeting as well. 3
NEIL RICH: Do you have another question? 4
PROPONENT: I'm just wondering if there's a timeline for 5
the evaluation team's decision? 6
REBECCA STOREY: Thank you for that important question. 7
We will do our best to evaluate it in a timely manner 8
and get an answer to you as soon as we can. We know 9
that all of the proponents will be waiting for our 10
answer. We have set a date the first week of October 11
to gather for that. As soon as we have a decision, 12
we will let you know. 13
NEIL RICH: Great. Thank you for attending. 14
15
Edith McNary, RMR, CRR, RCR (604) 685-6050 16
Accurate Realtime Reporting Inc. 17
Uncertified (Draft) Verbatim Transcript, 2014 18
19

RFP Proponents Meeting

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

RFP Proponents Meeting

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Verbatim (draft) transcript - DHHS RFP ino session

Accurate Realtime Reporting Inc. - (604) 685-6050

Вам также может понравиться