CALIFORNIA CANCER REGISTRY Request for Applications (RFA) #11-10828 Statewide Cancer Reporting System Term April 1, 2012 - June 30, 2017 IMPORTANT DATES: Voluntary Letter of Intent Due – December 30, 2011, 4:00 p.m., PST Applications Due – January 31, 2012, 4:00 p.m., PST Award Date: April 1, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section  1:  Funding  Opportunity  Description   A.   Introduction and Purpose .............................................................................................................. 6   B.   Background ................................................................................................................................... 6   C.   Overall  Goals and Objectives of the Statewide Reporting System RFA ........................................ 8   Section  2:  Recipient  Activities   A. Program Components…………………………………………………………………………………….9 B. Data Production and Quality Control Management Component.....................................................................................................................................9 C. Eureka Data Management Information Systems Component………………………………………………………………………………………………..12 D. Surveillance and Data Use Component……………………………………………………………………………...........................35 Section  3:  Agency  Eligibility/Requirements   A. Agency Eligibility / Requirements…………………………………………………………………………………………….43 Section  4:  General  Information     A.   Time Schedule ............................................................................................................................ 44   B.   Award Term .............................................................................................................................. 444 C. Anticipated Available Funds……………………………………………………………………………45 D.   Applicant Questions .................................................................................................................. 455   1.   What to include in an inquiry ............................................................................................... 455   2.   Question deadline ............................................................................................................... 466   3.   How to submit questions ..................................................................................................... 466   E.   Reasonable Accommodations .................................................................................................. 466   F.   Voluntary Non-Binding Letter of Intent ...................................................................................... 466   1.   General information .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.6   2.   Submitting the Letter of Intent ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.   G.   Matching Funds ........................................................................................................................ 477   H.   CDPH Rights............................................................................................................................. 477   1.   RFA corrections .................................................................................................................. 477   2.   No grant award or RFA cancellation ..................................................................................... 47   3.   Grant amendments after award ............................................................................................ 47   4.   Proposed use of sub-grantees and/or independent consultants ......................................... 488   Page 2 5.   Staffing changes after grant award ..................................................................................... 488   I.   Appeals Procedures.................................................................................................................. 488   Section  5:  Preparing,  Assembling,  and  Submitting  an  Application   A.   Application Format and Content Requirements .......................................................................... 49   1.   General instructions .............................................................................................................. 49   2.   Format requirements ............................................................................................................. 49   3.   Content requirements ........................................................................................................... 51   B.   Application Submission ............................................................................................................... 51   1.   General instructions .............................................................................................................. 51   2.   Proof of timely receipt ........................................................................................................... 52   3.   Applicant costs ...................................................................................................................... 52   C.   Verification of Applicant information............................................................................................ 52   D.   Withdrawal and/or Resubmission of Applications ....................................................................... 52   1.   Withdrawal deadlines ............................................................................................................ 52   2.   Submitting a withdrawal request ........................................................................................... 52   3.   Resubmitting an application .................................................................................................. 53   Section  6:  Evaluation  and  Selection   A.   Collecting Information from Applicants ....................................................................................... 54   B.   Immaterial Application Defects ................................................................................................... 54   C.   Correction of Clerical or Mathematical Errors ............................................................................. 54 D. Evaluation/Scoring………………………………………………………………………………………54 1.   Stage 1 – Required Attachment / Certification Checklist Review ......................................... 54   2.   Stage 2 – Application Evaluation/Scoring ............................................................................. 55 E. Evaluation Criteria……………………………………………………………………………………….56 Section  7:  Grant  Award   A.   Application Mistakes ................................................................................................................... 62   B.   Grant Award ................................................................................................................................ 62   C.   Unanticipated tasks..................................................................................................................... 62   D.   Resolution of language conflicts (RFA vs. final agreement) ....................................................... 62   E.   Disposition of Applications .......................................................................................................... 62   F.   Inspecting or obtaining copies of applications ............................................................................ 63   1.   Who can inspect or copy application materials ..................................................................... 63   2.   What can be inspected / copied and when ........................................................................... 63   3.   Inspecting or Obtaining Copies of Application …. ................................................................. 63   Page 3 Section  8:  Form  Instructions   FORM 1 – Application Cover Page......................................................................................................... 64   FORM 2 – Certification Checklist............................................................................................................ 64   FORM 3 – Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 64   FORM 4 – Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 64   FORM 5 – Agency Capability ................................................................................................................. 64   FORM 6A – Work Plan Narrative............................................................................................................ 66   FORM 6B – Scope of Work .................................................................................................................... 67   FORM 7 – Transition Plan ...................................................................................................................... 68   FORM 8 – Management Plan ................................................................................................................. 68   FORM 9 – Personnel Plan ...................................................................................................................... 69   FORM 10 – Facilities and Resources ..................................................................................................... 71   FORM 11 – Cost Proposal...................................................................................................................... 73   FORM 12 – Budget Detail Worksheet .................................................................................................... 74 FORM 13 – Sub-grantee Budget………...…………………………………………………………………….76 FORM 14 – Budget Summary………………………………………………………………………………….77 FORM 15 – Budget Justification……………………………………………………………………………….77 FORM 16 – Leveraged Funds………………...…………………………………………………………….…78 FORM 17 – Client References…………………………………………………………………………………78 FORM 18 – Appendix Cover Sheet……………………………………………………………………………78 Section  9:  Forms   Forms………………………………………………………………………………………………………………79 Appendices   Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3 Appendix 4 Appendix 5 Appendix 6 Appendix 7 California Cancer Registry Reporting Regions Map California Cancer Registry Automation: White Paper on Improving Data Timeliness Automating Cancer Registration: Challenges and Opportunities Powerpoint Presentation Eureka Features and Functions IT Policy Letter Non-University of California Terms and Conditions University of California Terms and Conditions Page 4 CALIFORNIA CANCER REGISTRY Statewide Cancer Reporting System Request for Applications Pursuant to Section 103885 of the Health and Safety Code, the Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, of the California Department of Public Health, announces a funding opportunity for the operation of the Statewide Cancer Reporting System for the California Cancer Registry. Application Deadline: January 31, 2012, 4:00 pm, Pacific Standard Time (PST) Grant Term: April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2017 Number of Awards: One Project Funding – Approximately $5.7 million annually, for a total award of approximately $29 million To ensure that your application is as well-developed and responsive as possible, please read all sections of this Request for Applications. Page 5 1 FUNDING OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION A. Introduction and Purpose The California Department of Public Health (CDPH), Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch (CSRB), is soliciting applications from agencies that are able to operate the central statewide activities of the California Cancer Registry (CCR). This Request for Applications (RFA) seeks to support and enhance CCR by creating efficiencies in registry operations and supporting the use of CCR data and information. Through this RFA, CDPH intends to promote further technical and methodological enhancements of the CCR informatics infrastructure as well as utilization of cancer registry data to support public health surveillance and cancer research consistent with applicable laws for the protection of confidential information. Applications must address a) how data will be collected, produced and managed in an era of rapidly expanding information technology utilizing CDPH’s Eureka Data Management System (Eureka), and b) what measures will be taken to ensure production efficiency, timeliness, and data quality. Applicants must describe how they will use Eureka as a platform and foundation to automate CCR data production and quality control processes, to directly and securely connect to sources of cancer case reporting, to support CCR’s regional registry model, and to ultimately develop a “Patient-centric” model of cancer case reporting. Applications must also provide a plan for timely utilization of the data, including communicating the results of surveillance and research activities to the public, the legislature, and to health professionals engaged in cancer control programs. In general, applications must describe how CCR data will be used to conduct cancer surveillance and information dissemination, to facilitate epidemiologic studies in support of cancer prevention and control activities, to respond to public inquiries about cancer, to support the use of data for cancer control and research by external collaborators, to manage and prepare data files that meet federal reporting requirements, and to pursue external funding opportunities consistent with the public health mission of CDPH. Applications must also address the protection of confidential patient information as required by applicable law. CSRB intends to make a single grant award, consistent with applicable law, to the most responsive and responsible agency earning the highest score. Additional consideration will be given to agencies that can document the ability to leverage additional funds to support CCR activities. This procurement is open to all eligible agencies and/or individuals that meet the qualification requirements, including but not limited, to commercial businesses, nonprofit organizations, State or public universities (including auxiliary organizations) and other entities. B. Background Historical CCR is a population-based, statewide central cancer registry. CCR began in 1947 as a pilot study to determine the feasibility of creating a central registry based on data reported by hospitals. This collaboration of hospitals was successful and expanded from nine to thirty-six hospitals. In 1960, CCR became population-based in Alameda County, in the rest of the counties of the San Francisco/Oakland Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area in 1969, in Los Angeles County in 1972, and in Orange County in 1984. After the passage of a 1985 state law mandating statewide cancer reporting, the remainder of the state began population-based cancer reporting. Statewide reporting began in 1988 with the designation of ten regional registries covering the entire state. Of the ten original regional registries, two have been combined, forming a total of eight current regional registries (Appendix 1). Today, five institutions Page 6 manage regional registry operations for the eight regions: 1) Region 1/8, Cancer Prevention Institute of California; 2) Regions 2 and 6, California Health Collaborative; 3) Regions 3,4 and 7/10, Public Health Institute; 4) Region 5, Loma Linda University; and 5) Region 9, University of Southern California. California Health and Safety Code Sections 103875, 103885, and 100330, provide for statewide population-based cancer reporting through designated regional registries, requiring data to be reported or collected from all facilities and medical offices that diagnose and treat cancer. The central and regional registries must maintain the confidentiality of information collected by CCR. Additionally, CCR must comply with Section 2593, Title 17, of the California Code of Regulations. Current Operations CCR is a program of CDPH, housed in CSRB. At its inception, the purpose of CCR was to conduct a program of epidemiologic assessments of the incidence of cancer, with a view to identifying cancer hazards to the public health and their remedies. However, CCR has grown into one of the leading cancer registries in the world, and has been the cornerstone of a substantial amount of research on cancer in the California population. To date CCR has collected detailed information on over 4 million cases of cancer among Californians diagnosed from 1988 forward, and more than 160,000 new cases are added annually. The mission of CCR is to serve the public by collecting statewide data, and conducting surveillance and research into the causes, controls, and cures of cancer and communicating results to the public. Data comes from a variety of medical facilities, including hospitals, physician’s offices, radiation facilities, freestanding surgical centers, and pathology laboratories. These many sources report their cases to regional registries. Regional registries perform: • Casefinding and follow-back activities which include case identification in pathology laboratories, follow-back to physician offices and abstracting cases, and death clearance processing. • Data collection from regional hospital activities which include identifying cases as ready to abstract, verifying completeness, running and resolving edits, and monitoring data completeness from hospitals. • Data processing which includes hospital corrections, review of overall case and visual editing specific items per current standards, and making corrections to abstracts. • Data enhancement activities which include reviewing geocoded cases and resolving consolidation conflicts, passive follow-up, and active registry follow-up. • Hospital compliance activities which include reviewing reports on completeness, timeliness, and accuracy and providing feedback to hospitals. • Quality control activities which includes coordinating a training plan with the central registry and training of hospital and regional staff. After collection and processing at the regional level, the data flows to the central registry’s Eureka. The Eureka database includes detailed integrated data, including: • cancer incidence; • demographic information; • administrative information (including date of diagnosis and source of information); and • pathologic data (including cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and type of treatment). Annually, Eureka processes over: • 160,000 patient records • 175,000 tumor records • 250,000 admission records • 950,000 passive follow-up records • 400,000 correction records • 810,000 active follow-up records • 185,000 geocoding records Page 7 Data from the regional registries are further processed and enhanced at the central registry. Production management oversees important functions such as: • Collecting cancer data from military facilities, Veteran’s Administration (VA), and out-of-state cases • Submitting cancer data for geocoding and distributing results to regional registries for resolution • Performing linkages used for passive follow-up with multiple administrative databases • Providing oversight and functional direction for educational trainings at regions • Ensuring CCR data meet the standards set by national organizations such as North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) • Conducting audits (quality control, recoding, reabstracting, casefinding, and CDC quality control) Data are then available for surveillance and research efforts. With over four million cases of cancer in a research database, the value of CCR lies in the use of the data for cancer surveillance, research, and to advance cancer prevention and control. CSRB: • Develops a plan for routine, core cancer surveillance using registry data • Uses cancer registry data to conduct surveillance and epidemiologic studies • Responds to public inquiries and requests for information about cancer and cancer concerns • Protects CCR data by ensuring that use for surveillance and research follows applicable State law, policies, and procedures • Provides technical support and subject matter expertise to CCR. • Effectively promotes and disseminates cancer registry data reports, educational materials, and other associated products and expands the reach and value of cancer registry products • Strengthens existing collaborative relationships and partnerships and expands collaborations with new stakeholders. CCR is supported by state and federal funds. This RFA blends state and federal funding from CDC’s National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). NPCR supports state central cancer registries to collect, manage, and analyze data about cancer cases and cancer deaths. NPCR publishes a set of Program Standards to guide activities and priorities for funded programs. CCR submits a data file to NPCR annually, which must meet reporting and data quality requirements of NPCR. C. Overall Goals and Objectives of the Statewide Cancer Reporting System RFA Overall goals and objectives for operating the Statewide Cancer Reporting System include: • • • • • • • • • • Sustain and improve administration of the statewide cancer reporting system Increase collaboration and coordination of activities with CCR regional registries Improve timeliness, completeness, and quality of cancer registry data Promote technological and methodological enhancements of the CCR informatics infrastructure (automation) Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect to external sources of electronic health information Leverage CSRB technologies to collaborate with state and federal organizations in support of meaningful use objectives Use CCR data in support of public health surveillance and health policy research as well as basic cancer research in conformance with applicable law Ensure continued high level security of CCR data while facilitating use Respond to public questions and concerns about cancer and CCR data Provide California data to federal partners that meet all standards for timeliness and quality Page 8 2 RECIPIENT ACTIVITIES A. Program Components This RFA is soliciting agencies to assist CDPH in the administration of CCR. Specifically, CDPH requests applications that address key components of the statewide cancer reporting system. These three components include Data Production and Quality Control Management, Eureka Data Management Information Systems, and Surveillance and Data Use. Central data production and quality control activities include, but are not limited to, the management and oversight of statewide data collection and quality control to ensure the collection and processing of complete, timely, and accurate cancer data. Data management activities focus on Eureka, and include implementing and managing automation and expert systems development, edits programming, electronic pathology reporting development and support, administering the statewide CCR database, collaborating on federal meaningful use projects, Business Intelligence (BI) development, hardware management, and Eureka engineering and programming. Finally, data use for cancer surveillance and research includes routine reporting of cancer rates and other statistics, monitoring trends, identifying target audiences and providing cancer information, evaluation of cancer control programs, responding to community cancer concerns, protecting and facilitating the use of CCR data for surveillance and new clinical and molecular applications, and assisting with quality control operational activities. Detailed descriptions of the three primary components of this RFA are detailed below. Please carefully review this information and reference this portion of the RFA when completing the Scope of Work (SOW) and Workplan Narrative forms required as part of your application. For each component, Applicants will provide to the State all necessary labor, services, and materials (except as specified by the State) required to accomplish the efforts as specifically set forth in the individual component provisions. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate process improvements and industry best practices in their applications. B. Data Production and Quality Control Management Component Background Cancer registry data production involves a series of case processing activities that take place from the point of case identification and collection through the final step of releasing a data file for public health surveillance and research uses. Many of the steps in case processing take place in the regional cancer registry and are described in RFA 11-10829 for Regional Cancer Registries. The central cancer registry provides oversight, coordination, and management of these regional activities to ensure that production processes for data collection, case processing, and quality control are uniformly employed. The central registry also performs case processing, management, and quality control activities that must take place at the central level on behalf of all regional cancer registries in the state. Specific Data Production and Quality Control Management Goals and Objectives • Provide effective management and coordination of statewide registry operations and production activities • Maintain registry operational policies and procedures documentation • Oversee the collection of high-quality, complete, and timely cancer registry data • Collect and process any California cancer cases that are not collected by regional registries, such as VA and military facilities, and cases diagnosed out of state • Coordinate the development and preparation of management reports and processes with the Eureka data management system Page 9 • • • • • • • • • Develop and oversee processes for continuous quality improvement for all registry production activities Direct data quality audits as required by federal funders Provide oversight, direction, and education for abstracting and coding for hospital and regional cancer registrars Maintain subject matter expertise on current data standards, cancer terminology, and technical requirements for data submissions to federal funders Maintain communication with national cancer standard-setters regarding data changes and quality requirements Develop, update, and provide a training plan for regional registries based on issues identified during audits and visual editing and new data items. Prepare and submit statewide data files to federal funders that meet all applicable reporting requirements and quality standards Manage geocoding patient address at diagnosis, assess quality of geocoding, distribute to regional registries. Perform data linkages between CCR data and administrative databases for passive follow-up purposes. Technical Skill Sets Needed for the Data Production and Quality Control Management Component • Abstraction of Cancer Cases • Business Analysis • Edits Data Analysis • Data Analysis – SAS, SQL • Eureka DMS maintenance and development • Coordinated Core Edits for CDC, National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) and North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR) submissions • Probabilistic linkage - Integrity Resource Documents for the Data Production and Quality Control Management Component: • CCR Volumes I-III http://www.ccrcal.org/Cancer_Reporting/Registrar_Resources/Reporting_Cancer_Cal.shtml • The Standards of the Commission on Cancer, Vol. I: Cancer Program Standards http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/programstandards2012.html • Registry Operations and Data Standards (ROADS), Vol. II http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/roads.html • Cancer terminology • Cancer staging o Collaborative Staging - http://www.cancerstaging.org/cstage/index.html o AJCC Staging - http://www.springer.com/medicine/surgery/cancer+staging?SGWID=0-40654-00-0 • NPCR Program Standards for Cancer Registries   http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/pdf/program_manual.pdf • Data submission requirements for NPCR and NAACCR and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program Specific Performance Objectives for the Data Production and Quality Control Management Component (numbering aligns with Performance Objectives of the SOW, Form 6B-1): 1. Manage and coordinate statewide registry production activities. The Applicant shall provide qualified staff for the management and oversight of central registry production activities. The Applicant shall meet NPCR Program Standards for Administration of central cancer registries by maintaining documentation of registry operations, policies, and procedures. The Page 10 operational manual shall document procedures for data processing operations, including, at minimum, procedures for receipt of data, for monitoring timeliness of case reporting, for conducting death clearance, for implementing and maintaining a quality assurance/control program, and for conducting data exchange with other states and entities. The Applicant shall develop, maintain, and utilize management reports and metrics, to monitor central and regional registry production activities as well as data timeliness, completeness, and accuracy. The Applicant shall describe an approach to continuous process improvement and quality control for all registry production activities and systems. The Applicant is encouraged to propose approaches to data production and quality control that will create new efficiencies, improve communication and coordination of statewide activities, or otherwise result in achieving the goal of continuous improvement in the timeliness and quality of data produced by CCR. The Applicant is expected to communicate regularly with the regional registries to discuss emerging issues and to develop and coordinate collaborative activities in support of process improvements and other projects. 2. Collect high quality, complete data for all cancer cases diagnosed among residents of California The vast majority of cancer casefinding and abstracting tasks will occur at the level of the regional registries. The Applicant shall develop and document routine required activities to ensure that best practices are followed in the regions and that data collection activities are consistently performed statewide. The Applicant shall process cancer cases and information that do not flow through the regions, including but not limited to cases from VA and military health facilities, and California cancer cases diagnosed or treated in other states. The Applicant shall maintain all necessary data use, data transfer, and case-sharing agreements needed to collect and receive California cancer case information. Cancer registries have documented that cancer cases primarily diagnosed and treated outside of hospitals are frequently underreported. The Applicant shall describe an approach to improving the completeness of cancer case reporting from sources that have historically not provided complete case reporting, such as physician offices in the specialties of dermatology and urology. 3. Develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive data quality assurance program The Applicant shall meet NPCR Program Standards for Data Quality Assurance by developing and maintaining an overall program of quality assurance that is defined in the central registry operational manual. The Applicant shall designate a Certified Tumor Registrar (CTR) as required by NPCR to oversee the quality assurance program, and shall identify qualified, experienced CTRs to conduct quality assurance activities. The plan must ensure that standards of NAACCR and CDC NPCR programs are met and any data quality issues identified will be addressed with a corrective plan. The plan will be reviewed annually or more if needed to identify areas which need improvements by reviewing quality control reports. The overall plan will incorporate use of casefinding audits, re-abstracting audits, recoding audits, and quality control audits by funders such as CDC and steps for communications with the State and regional registries of findings, recommendations and implementation of process improvement. The Applicant shall track and report all audits performed by the regional and central registries to the State in a comprehensive annual report. Applicants are encouraged to develop process improvements and work with Eureka toward automation processes to improve data quality. The Applicant shall designate a CTR to serve as a training and education coordinator who will provide training for central and regional cancer registry staff and reporting sources to ensure high quality data. The coordinator will oversee development and approval of training materials for hospital and regional registrars. Training materials should address problems identified from audits, visual editing, and any new data item changes. Training coordinator will encourage communication and foster collaboration between CCR and regional registries and among regional registries to ensure accurate and consistent information are shared and used. The Applicant will evaluate communication processes between regional registries and hospitals and make process improvements when necessary. Training materials at a minimum should address reporting requirements, data collection, quality control, and data processing. The Applicant will provide an annual report of all educational materials produced and training provided to hospitals to the CSRB. Page 11 The Applicant shall develop a plan that addresses NPCR Program Standards regarding Electronic Data Exchange goals for hospital, non-hospital and physician office reporting. At present, those goals are: at minimum, 95 percent of reports from hospitals are submitted to the registry in an electronic format, 85 percent of reports from non-hospital reporting sources (i.e., radiation therapy centers, ambulatory surgery centers, and freestanding pathology laboratories) are submitted to the registry in an electronic format, and 75 percent of reports from physician offices are received in electronic format. 4. Prepare and submit data files to federal funders that meet all reporting requirements The Applicant shall manage all processes supporting the submission of data to primary funders and stakeholders that meet and exceed all reporting requirements for completeness, timeliness, and quality. (see NPCR Program Standards for Data Submission). Routine required services include quarterly geocoding of cancer cases and management of annual linkages with administrative databases for passive follow-up. This shall include linkages with vital statistics death certificate files and other administrative data sets (such as Department of Motor Vehicles, Office Statewide Health Planning, and Development hospital discharge files) to establish and update a date of last contact for cancer patients for follow-up purposes. The Applicant shall manage the coordination of processes for data processing and preparation of data submission files where such processes are interdependent. The Applicant shall describe an approach to reviewing all data files prior to submission to ensure their quality. C. Eureka Data Management Information Systems Component Background To meet the original CCR requirements for Cancer Registry Software in 1988, CCR staff developed CANDIS as the cancer data management system that allowed five of eight California regional cancer registries to receive, edit, link, consolidate and transmit cancer data to CCR on a quarterly basis. CANDIS was essentially a data entry, data view, data store, and data query software solution that supported primarily paper-based manual business processes of cancer data production. In addition, CCR staff developed C/NEXT as a stand alone personal computer software solution to be used for cancer case report creation at hospital reporting facilities. Hospital reporting facilities employed CTRs to collect and assemble the various paper files on patients diagnosed with cancer, and to “abstract” a cancer case gleaned from the various files following the rules and standards for “abstracting” a cancer case as documented in the Cancer Reporting in California, Volumes I-III standards. For the most part, cancer case reports were created at hospital reporting facilities using C/NEXT software, following the Cancer Reporting in California, Volumes I-III standards and then uploaded into CANDIS (or see below: ANEW, Merlin and CRIS) for processing. Over time the Cancer Reporting in California, Volume III standards for data field character validation, and inter-field validation were programmed into a quality control “Edits” technology solution that is still used today. By 1998, it became apparent that the statewide regional registry model with eight separate regional registry systems, using eight separate databases, running on four completely different Cancer Registry Software solutions (CANDIS, ANEW, CRIS and Merlin) was inefficient, outdated, not able to meet the future business needs of CCR, and inherently created significant data quality issues such as duplicate cancer case reporting to CCR. In 1999, CCR Information Systems staff was directed to develop a new single statewide Cancer Registry Data Management System that would replace the four existing systems, create one single statewide CCR database and be developed such as to meet the future business needs of CCR. Another objective of the new system was to be “paperless” and to create a “platform and foundation” for future automation of cancer case data collection and processing using electronic health records. To meet CCR’s requirements to build a new combined regional and central data management system, CCR’s Information Systems staff in October 1999, began a project in collaboration with SEER, CDC, and all eight California regional registries. The project was code-named “Eureka.” Page 12 Coding started in October 2000, and two years later the web-based Eureka cancer data management system went into production, in October 2002, with data from Regions 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being migrated into the statewide Eureka database. By the end of 2004, all data from the previous four data management systems had been migrated into the Eureka statewide database, and all production processing statewide was moved directly onto Eureka. CCR management, in early 2006, decided to pursue a strategy of inviting other states to use Eureka as part of a movement towards long-term sustainability. In late 2006, CCR was contacted by the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry (NCCCR) regarding the possibility of using Eureka. CCR entered into an agreement with NCCCR in April 2007, and Eureka became operational at NCCCR later in the same year. In 2011, NCCCR funded and committed one fulltime Programmer/Analyst to be part of the Eureka collaborative partnership group. The Eureka collaborative partnership team works in a common Eureka development/test environment on work as assigned by the CCR Eureka System Architect. As a continuation of this strategy, in 2010 CCR entered into a partnership with the Saskatchewan Cancer Registry (SCR) to implement Eureka locally in the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan. The partnership included commitments from both organizations to share resources to work on areas of common benefit, specifically towards developing the auto “Case-Building” functionality as part of the CCR developed “Patient-Centric” model that is in alignment with how cases will be predominately created in the future. The Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group was officially recognized in a joint “Memorandum of Understanding” between CCR and SCR, and formally documented in a “Concept of Operations” document between CCR, NCCCR, and SCR. Development of Eureka as a paperless “platform” for future automation of manually performed business processes was another key CCR objective that began to be leveraged more heavily in 2010. A fully integrated Probabilistic Linkage Engine for linking/not linking new cancer case reports to a patient was released. It had a significant positive impact in reducing the manual work load by automatically linking/not linking 50 percent of 250,000 new cancer case reports each year to a patient and tumor and completing the case automatically. This was a significant successful demonstration of the concept of “Straight-thru-Processing” (STP) of cancer cases within Eureka using exception-based automation methodologies. Another development of Eureka in 2010 as a “platform” for future automation of manually performed business processes included the integration of JBoss/Drools business rules management system (BRMS) technology into Eureka. JBoss/Drools is a BRMS with a forward chaining inference based rules engine using an enhanced implementation of the Rete algorithm that is perfectly suited to “automate” thousands of complex cancer rule sets by programming the rule sets in the BRMS technology. Progress was made in 2011 towards using Eureka’s web-based technology as a “platform” for direct cancer case data collection. A key CCR initiative to move towards “system to system” direct cancer case collection by leveraging the healthcare industry’s movement towards implementing Health Information Systems (HIS) that are sources of cancer data, and that produce (or will produce in the future) electronic health records (EHR) containing reportable cancer case data. In support of this strategy, Eureka staff completed a “Security Assessment and Remediation Project” of its source code and system architecture in 2011 that resulted in a Veracode rating of “A”, the top rating possible. And with that rating came the State’s –Information Technology Services Division approval of Eureka to be used as a web-based solution for direct reporting of cancer cases by Physician Offices and other external reporting sources of cancer cases. Using Eureka as a “platform” for direct and secure web-based access to the CCR by external data sources and systems is another key capability to be leveraged both in the short-term and long-term in support of the CCR’s mission. Page 13 Another development was collaborative progress in support of the state and federal Meaningful Use Initiatives. CSRB became closely involved in collaborating on data standards development for disease reporting, and to investigate the possibility of leveraging Eureka technology for secure webbased data collection and processing of other diseases in addition to cancer. Also in 2011, the combination of state budget cuts and the new capability to offer Eureka as a secure web-based solution to reporting facilities for direct reporting of cancer cases led CCR to make a decision to no longer fund C/NEXT software development and support in the next grant period beginning July 1, 2012. CCR staff was asked to develop and implement a transition plan to separate C/NEXT work activities from those of CCR. The basic historical technology foundation of cancer reporting in California since 1988 has been silo-ed into four technologies and four or more separate organizations. • • • • • C/NEXT Software (and other commercial solutions) for data entry at reporting facilities Cancer Registry Software (Eureka) Cancer Reporting in California, Volumes I-III standards Edits technology based on the Cancer Reporting in California, Volumes I-III standards Extracts for annual data submissions to SEER, NPCR, NAACCR, and the State. It is the intent of the RFA to encourage the Applicant to be innovative in creating a dynamic new organization capable of implementing the end-state vision to engineer “end-to-end” business processes and technologies that utilize the Internet and electronic health records to produce cancer case information in “real-time” for public, clinical trial, and other surveillance and evolving scientific uses in support of the larger mission. • The end-state vision is to leverage Eureka’s web-based technology to “expand” and integrate into front-end sources of data to automatically “collect” disease information “system to system” with zero or one-time only manual data entry. • The end-state vision is to leverage Eureka to develop and “expand” into back-end Business Intelligence technologies so that cancer cases can made available in “real-time” for public, clinical trial, and other research and scientific uses in support of the larger CDPH mission. • The end-state vision is to merge data standards and technology into Expert Systems such that systematic “Continuous Quality Control” replaces manual quality control work efforts. • The end-state vision is to create automation solutions such that cancer cases are automatically collected, quality controlled, linked, and consolidated or “Straight-through Processed” in real time for public, scientific, and emerging research data uses. • The end-state vision is to leverage the “end-to-end” capabilities, technologies and business processes developed for cancer to other disease reporting and surveillance. The Applicant is encouraged to create a dynamic organization that is able to leverage Eureka’s webbased technology, Expert Systems, and collaborative partnerships to use Eureka as a “platform and foundation” for direct cancer case and other disease data collection and processing. The new foundation provides the opportunity to use the industry’s movement towards implementing Health Information Systems that are sources of cancer data, and that produce (or will produce in the future) electronic health records containing cancer reporting data and other disease information. The new foundation provides for the opportunity to merge and integrate disparate systems, standards, and technologies to create an “end-to-end” solution that produces cancer and other disease information in “real-time” for public, clinical trials, and other novel research and scientific uses in support of the larger mission. Page 14 Specific Eureka Data Management Information Systems Goals and Objectives 1. Use Eureka data management system as a platform and foundation to automate manual CCR Regional Registry data production processes to reduce the “per-unit cost” of cancer case collection and source document processing by 35 percent or more by end of grant period. 2. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to automate manual CCR Quality Control processes and standards to improve data quality and move towards system-wide “Continuous Quality Control” (CQC). One goal towards the end-state vision of CQC is to automate the manual process of Visual Editing so that Eureka is systematically “Visual Editing” 80 percent of new cancer admissions, doubling the current 40 percent manually Visually Edited. 3. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to automate manual CCR cancer case data production processes to reduce the time to process a cancer case to completion. The end-state goal is to process “straight-through” 80%+ of cancer reports to case completion in “real-time” without any manual intervention and to make the data immediately available for research and public uses. 4. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to reduce the burden and costs associated with cancer case reporting on reporting facilities such as hospitals, physician offices, and pathology laboratories. 5. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to reduce the time-lag in reporting cancer case information. The goal is to achieve 97 percent timeliness of at least incident reporting of cancer cases within six months of diagnosis. 6. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to increase the number of cancer cases collected to meet the expected case count for a given year. The goal is to improve case completeness of expected cancer cases by 2.5 percent from the historical five-year average between years 2005-2010. 7. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to support the Regional Registry Model unique to the State of California. 8. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to develop a “Patient-Centric” model of cancer case reporting that the State of California can leverage for other chronic and infectious disease reporting. 9. Move towards Eureka self-sustainability by developing and supporting collaborative partnerships with external states, federal, international, and State of California organizations and partners. The goal is to have, at a minimum, essential Eureka support and maintenance of annual NAACCR, SEER, and NPCR Data Item Changes funded through collaborative partnership agreements. 10. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation for the development of powerful new BI technologies. The goal is to partner with an external data source (to CCR) and complete at least one “pilot test” of BI capabilities. 11. Automate Quality Assurance system integration and regression testing so as to shorten the time between software release cycles by 60 percent. 12. Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to program CCR Data Standards and other cancer registry “rule-sets” directly into the system and associated expert systems in support of program objectives to reduce “per-unit cost” of cancer case processing, improve case timeliness, improve data quality, and improve case completeness. 13. Leverage CSRB technologies, compliant with Federal, State, and CDPH statutory and regulatory requirements, to collaborate with multiple state and federal organizations in support of the various Meaningful Use Initiatives. CSRB has volunteered to be part of a future “pilot test” that will leverage Eureka technology. 14. Manage the expansion of electronic data exchange activities to meet or exceed NPCR Program Standards for Electronic Data Exchange such as 95 percent of reports from hospitals are submitted to the registry in an electronic format, 85 percent of reports from non-hospital reporting sources (i.e., radiation therapy centers, ambulatory surgery centers, and freestanding pathology laboratories) are submitted to the registry in an electronic format, and 75 percent of reports from physician offices are received in electronic format. 15. Reduce data center and local IT support costs by at least 25 percent for hardware, software, network, storage, peripherals and associated services in the first two years of the grant. Page 15   Description of General Services for the Eureka Data Management Information Systems Component (numbering aligns with Performance Objectives of the SOW, Form 6B-2) This section describes the broad scope of the Eureka Data Management Information Systems component, in which the Applicant and the State work as full partners. CSRB has identified technical and subject matter skill sets that may be required of the Applicant staff to perform the work specified for this component. These skill sets may include: Technical Skill Sets: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Systems Analysis Systems Architecture (.NET Framework) Enterprise Architecture Data Modeling Database Administration (MS SQL Server) Database Migration/Script Programming Relational Database Performance Management Data Analysis Edits Data Analysis Edits Programming (NPCR’s EditsWriter Tool) Business Analysis Software Engineering Use Case Development Software Design Programming Maintenance(C#) Programming Development (C#) Business Rules Management System Programming (Java) User Interface Design User Interface Programming (ASP.NET) Unit Testing Software Configuration Quality Assurance Systems Integration Testing Quality Assurance Automation Programming (Microsoft Team Foundation) User Acceptance Testing Capacity Planning Security Engineering Security Monitoring Reports Programming BI Configuration Management Personal Computer Technical Support Web-Master Technical Writer/Documentation Change Management Problem Management Requirements Management Subject Matter Skill Sets: Page 16 • • • • • 1.0 Table Design Principles Data Visualization Concepts Disease Reporting Data Standards CCR Volumes II-III Standards Health Level 7 Standards Automation and Expert Systems Development The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of meeting the component Goals and Objectives to use Eureka as a platform and foundation to automate Regional Registry data production processes in support of reducing the per-unit cost of Regional Registry cancer case collection and source document processing; to automate manual CCR Quality Control processes to improve data quality and move towards system-wide “Continuous Quality Control”; to automate manual Regional Registry cancer case data production processes to reduce the time to process a cancer case to completion and move towards “Straight-through-Processing” of cancer cases in “realtime”; to automate internal manual Quality Assurance Testing processes to reduce costs and shorten the software release cycle by 60 percent; and to develop automation solutions in support of improving cancer case collection towards meeting the expected case count for any given year in a more timely manner. The Applicant is encouraged to develop additional automation solutions using Eureka that provide a “return on investment” (ROI) of five years or less. Automation projects with an ROI of greater than five years will be considered for project funding if the Business Case is compelling enough for improvement in an area that is difficult to quantify such as data quality. The Applicant shall provide the services to develop the technology, processes, and business rules that will drive automation. It has the potential to make a dramatic positive impact in efficiency and data quality for CCR and its data reporting/collection partners. The Applicant shall leverage the Eureka platform and BRMS infrastructure to gradually develop thousands of business rule requirements and integrate corresponding coded business rules into Eureka to make it a more intelligent system, capable of complex analysis and many more automatic decisions. Most of the manual work performed by Eureka users is related to enforcing CCR abstracting and coding rules, linkage/matching rules, tumor consolidation rules, and rules for applying updates from source documents other than new cases to ensure good data quality. These are all good candidates to become electronic business rules integrated into the Eureka system. The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of leveraging Eureka technology to create and program the business rule sets as so that they can be applied in all areas of cancer data processing and quality control. Business rules that result in an automatic action eliminate a manual decision. Thus, as each new business rule is implemented, less manual work will be required, and CCR will incrementally move closer to straight-through-processing, continuous quality control, and exception-based-processing. The same abstracting and coding business rules can be integrated with data collection/reporting systems and Eureka to achieve CQC. Quality control currently happens late in the data quality cycle. In a real-time “CQC” environment, the system continuously monitors its data to ensure both internal system consistency and agreement with the “outside” world. Internally, the system is designed to continuously reconcile various “audit-points”. Ensuring that these “audit-points” are in agreement helps ensure accuracy of the system's data. Internal system reconciliation does little good without checks from the “outside” external world. The “CQC” system also checks its positions versus external standards and audits. The “CQC” system would be designed to work in conjunction with external auditing to reconcile internal positions in real time with manual auditing quality control in support of meeting NPCR, SEER and state data quality control standards. To meet the automation goals and objectives, the Applicant shall provide the services to program Visual Editing and other processes as listed in the table below. The Automation Goals are outlined below, and in more specific detail in the SOW. Page 17 AUTOMATION GOALS *Y0% is the current pre-existing state of automation PRODUCTION PROCESS/FUNCTION Y0* Y1 Y2 Y3 Target Percentage % % % % New Case Admission Linkage to Tumor 0 0 0 50 Visual Editing 0 0 0 50 Create Death Clearance Only (DCO) 0 0 0 80 Admission Create Physician Office Only (MDO) 0 0 0 80 Admission Create Pathology Report Only Admission 0 0 0 80 Consolidate Patient and Tumor Information 0 0 0 50 Follow-Back to Physicians 0 0 0 20 Data Collection of Cases (Reporting Source 0 0 20 25 Information Systems to Eureka) Active Follow-Up (Hospital Information 0 0 0 0 Systems to Eureka) Monitoring of Hospital Reporting Compliance 0 0 10 25 Quality Assurance Regression Testing 0 20 35 50 Quality Assurance System Testing 0 10 25 35 Quality Assurance Integration Testing 0 10 25 35 Direct Upload of Files from Hospitals into 5 50 65 75 Eureka Straight-Through-Processing of New Case 30 30 40 50 Admissions New Case Admission Linkage to Patient 50 60 70 75 Correction/Update Record Apply or Delete 70 80 80 80 Passive Follow-Up Record Apply or Delete (all 99 99 99 99 types) Geocoding Record Apply or Delete 99 99 99 99 Data Submission Extracts from Eureka 100 100 100 100 Duplicate Admissions Identified on Upload 100 100 100 100 Edits Run on Upload 100 100 100 100 Y4 % 65 65 90 Y5 % 80 80 95 90 95 90 65 35 30 95 80 50 35 50 65 50 60 45 45 85 80 70 55 55 90 65 80 80 80 99 80 80 99 99 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 1.0.1 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete and lead programming team or teams through entire Software Development Life Cycle and Quality Assurance Testing processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. Applicant will work closely with state management to design and to develop Eureka automation programming solutions making specific determinations about system performance and while making recommendations as to which yield a more cost effective product. Additional services include, gathering requirements, analyzing, designing, coordinating, and supervising the development of Eureka automation software system solutions to form a basis for the solution of information processing problems and/or opportunities. The Applicant shall analyze system specifications and translate requirements into task specifications for less senior level programmers. 1.0.2 Level I Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide basic level object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging. Including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 1.0.3 Level II Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level object-oriented application programming services for software development, Page 18 maintenance, and de-bugging. Including but not limited to: requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 1.0.4 Level III Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced level object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging. Including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 1.0.5 Level III Business Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced Business Analyst services and subject matter expertise in how business rule sets for cancer are applied in the production environment of processing a cancer case to completion. 1.0.6 Level III Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced Data Analyst services in the disciplined refinement and structuring of documented and undocumented business rule sets of cancer reporting into programmable specifications that remove all incompleteness and ambiguity, so that cancer and other disease reporting can be processed and executed systematically without the possibility of misinterpretation. 1.0.7 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate processing or to improve existing computer systems. Applicants shall interact with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, and formats for reports. The Applicant shall write detailed descriptions of user needs, program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer programs as required. A thorough understanding of object-oriented programming is required. 2.0 Edits MetaFile Technology Programming The Applicant shall maintain current Edits MetaFile using the Edits Workbench tool supported and maintained by NPCR in support of CCR specific data requirements as defined in Volumes I-III, and to meet data obligations to NAACCR, SEER and NPCR. The Edits MetaFile is published to the CCR web-site and available to be down-loaded by providers of commercially available hospital cancer abstracting software such as IMPAC, ERS, C/NEXT, etc. The Edits MetaFile is “wrapped” in Eureka as an independent “black-box” solution. 2.0.1 Level II Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide programming support to maintain the current Edits MetaFile using the Edits Workbench tool supported and maintained by NPCR. The programming services will be required to use all components of the Microsoft Visual Studio suite and the ability to interface (and develop interfaces) with MS SQL databases and web-based applications. Application programmer support will provide solid oral and written communication skills in written clear and effective software documentation. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level object-oriented application programming services in gathering requirements, application design, and prototyping with software and regression testing and application implementation. Software application programming support generally involves minor updates or changes to existing code using Microsoft Visual Studio suite, C# and interfacing (and developing interfaces) with MS SQL Server databases. 2.0.2 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete the entire Software Development Life Cycle and Quality Assurance Testing processes for Edits, while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. Page 19 3.0 Electronic Pathology and other Laboratory Reporting Eureka Development and Support California law requires all pathology laboratories to report to CCR every cancer diagnosis made in California, but unfortunately the law does not require “electronic” reporting. Obtaining timely pathology report data is both valuable and critical to CCR as the pathology report is generally the first diagnosis of cancer in a patient. Recent years have seen the advent of electronic pathology (ePath) gathering for cancer surveillance in an attempt to improve the efficiency of path-reporting, but ePath reporting has had limited and mixed results. Many laboratories maintain paper-based processes for reporting that continue to present significant challenges to CCR. In many instances, Regional Registry staff regularly visit pathology laboratories to manually review pathology reports and enter the data into the system using one of several tools. There are currently six supported solutions for entering pathology report data into Eureka. The Applicant shall provide services to support the six solutions. The Applicant is encouraged to develop innovative solutions that reduce the time and cost required to collect and process the large number of path-lab reports each year. Additionally, the Applicant is encouraged to develop plans for the expansion of electronic reporting of other sources of laboratory data such as molecular, genetic, and clinical lab information directly into Eureka. The program goal and objective is to have 100 percent of available pathology, genetic, molecular, and clinical lab reports electronically uploaded into Eureka Casefinding and processed. The current six supported solutions for entering path-report data into Eureka that need support are listed below. 1. TransMed 2 is a software solution of vendor Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (AIM). The program creates NAACCR formatted abstract records from pathology reports at the pathology laboratory database. AIM is installed at the path-lab and sends the cases directly into the Eureka Health Level 7 (HL7) Parser that feeds cases directly into Eureka Casefinding. Support is required to ensure that AIM installations are sending/receiving files as expected, loading path report data into Eureka Casefinding as expected, and Eureka is processing the AIM data as expected. 2. Public Health Information Network Messaging Services (PHINMS) works in conjunction with Electronic Mapping, Reporting, and Coding (eMaRC) Plus. The EMaRC Plus program creates NAACCR formatted abstract records from pathology reports and sends the cases directly into the Eureka Health Level 7 (HL7) Parser that feeds directly into Eureka Casefinding. Support is required to ensure that PHINMS/eMaRC installations are sending/receiving files as expected, loading path report data into Eureka Casefinding as expected, and Eureka is processing the eMaRC data as expected. 3. CMR Path software is a laptop PC solution developed by the Cancer Prevention Institute of California. Cancer abstractors visit path-labs and enter data from paper path reports into CMR Path software running on a laptop. Starting July 1, 2012, the CMR Path reports will be uploaded into Eureka Casefinding. Support is required to ensure that CMR Path is loading path report data into Eureka Casefinding as expected, and Eureka is processing the CMR Path data as expected. 4. Paper Path Scanning Optical Character Recognition (PPS/OCR). Paper path reports are scanned, OCR’d, and uploaded into Eureka Casefinding. Support is required to ensure that PPS/OCR is loading path report data into Eureka Casefinding as expected, and Eureka is processing the PPS/OCR data as expected. 5. Eureka Casefinding. Eureka Casefinding provides a web-based screen for manually creating a path-lab report directly into Eureka. Programming services are needed to support the ePath components of the Eureka Casefinding sub-system. 6. Health Level 7 (HL7) Eureka Importer/Parser/Analyzer. The HL7 Importer and HL7 Analyzer processes ePath reports using this standard. These two services were written and developed by CCR to move data through the ePath system. The HL7 Importer verifies the validity of the incoming HL7 messages and forwards the ePath Reports to the Eureka Pre-Processing Database. If there are parsing errors the HL7 Analyzer is an interactive process that allows a user to examine and edit Page 20 these errors before resubmitting them to the HL7 Importer. This is a recursive process that continues until the HL7 message parses correctly. 3.0.1 Level II Application Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level object- oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and debugging. Including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 3.0.2 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide all the services to complete and lead programming team or teams through entire Software Development Life Cycle process and Quality Assurance Testing processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. Applicant will work closely with CSRB to design and develop Eureka ePath programming solutions making specific determinations about system performance and while making recommendations as to which yield a more cost effective product. Additional services include, gathering requirements, analyzing, designing, coordinating, and supervising the development of Eureka ePath software system solutions to form a basis for the solution of information processing problems and/or opportunities. The Applicant shall analyze system specifications and translate requirements into task specifications for less senior level programmers. 4.0 Database Administration Services The Applicant shall provide services in the support and maintenance of the most complex database environments, most complex data conversions, and complex software applications with 6 day x 24 hour online system availability requirements. The CCR database environments include, but are not limited to, production, development, BI, staging, user acceptance, quality assurance testing, research, extracts, disaster recovery, data standards, and reports. The Eureka application is a complex .NET 3.5 Framework, n-tiered, web-based data management system running Microsoft’s Window Server 2008 Operating System Software, and SQLServer 2008 Enterprise Edition for its database. Applicants are expected to develop a plan to maintain system modernization. The current size of the Eureka database on the production server is 128GB. 118.5GB is occupied by the data file and 9.5GB is occupied by the log file. Approximately four (4) terabytes of information is managed on 60+ servers. Current database environments consist of approximately 12 SQL instances with each instance containing 8 databases on average. The Eureka database contains full cancer patient set information on ~4 million patients, ~5 million tumors, and ~6 million admissions (cancer reports). 4.0.1 Level IV Database Administration Services. Expert Database Administrator (DBA) services shall include creation and deletion of database user accounts, promotion of data integrity, monitoring use and performance of the database, reduction of unnecessary or redundant storage, institution of database security, facilitation of data sharing, performance of regular backups, and of recoveries when needed. The DBA is also responsible for creating instances and views, writing SQL queries as required, managing extents, database backups and recovery, and all typical DBA functions. The Applicant shall resolve any database problem that has resulted in unscheduled downtime. This service includes administering several database applications and configuration management software. The Applicant shall provide database administration of Microsoft SQL Server (2008) Enterprise in a .Net environment. Additional services include the design and customization of complex databases including schema and subschema details. DBA shall provide technical assistance such as data retrieval and data updates to both state government and Applicant personnel, create hardware and software solutions in support of all aspects of all project operations; ensure accuracy and completeness of data; formulate and monitors policies relating to database management, and design and implement solutions that integrate systems through database design. This position works with confidential patient health data that must be securely handled and protected at all times. Page 21 4.0.2 Level IV Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter services and expertise in developing complex data migration specification from cancer and other disease reporting standards that change at least annually. Applicant shall provide services to investigate, analyze, and develop specifications to resolve the most complex of data issues. 4.0.3 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate processing or to improve existing computer systems. Interacts with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, and formats for reports. The Applicant shall write detailed description of user needs, program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer programs as required. A thorough understanding of object-oriented programming is required. 5.0 Business Intelligence (BI) Development BI is a broad category of applications and technologies for gathering, storing, analyzing, and providing access to data that could be used to help CCR management and users make better business decisions. BI applications include the activities of production reports, decision support systems, query and reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP), statistical analysis, forecasting, data mining, data warehouses, and customer relationship management capabilities to synthesize valuable information. The Applicant, in addition, is encouraged to propose and introduce new and innovative uses of BI that leverage CCR technologies and data to “move the ball forward” in support of the larger CCR mission. This term “Business Intelligence” was used as early as September 1996, when a Gartner Group report said: By 2000, Information Democracy will emerge in forward-thinking enterprises, with Business Intelligence information and applications available broadly to employees, consultants, customers, suppliers, and the public. The key to thriving in a competitive marketplace is staying ahead of the competition. Making sound business decisions based on accurate and current information takes more than intuition. Data analysis, reporting, and query tools can help business users wade through a sea of data to synthesize valuable information from it - today these tools collectively fall into a category called "Business Intelligence." The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of meeting the this component’s goals and objectives to leverage CCR technologies and data as a platform and foundation to create BI solutions in support of reducing the per-unit cost of cancer case production; to improve data quality; to reduce the time to collect and process a case; and to improve cancer case collection towards meeting the expected case count for any given year. 5.0.1 Level I Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide basic level object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging. Including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. Special emphasis on reports development and support using Microsoft Reporting Services and SQL programming. 5.0.2 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing data to improve uses. Interacts with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, and formats for reports. A thorough understanding of object-oriented programming and SQL is required. 6.0 Meaningful Use Initiative Collaboration and System Development Page 22 As a result of state and federal dollars, several organizations have developed initiatives to help adopt health information technology (HIT) in California. Under the leadership of the State HIT Coordinator, these programs are working together to achieve their mutual goal of improving health care quality, efficiency and access through the meaningful use of technology. These Meaningful Use (MU) Initiatives are helping propel eHealth forward in California as follows: • • • • The California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS) received a $38.8 million award from the Office of the National Coordinator’s (ONC) State Health Information Exchange (HIE) Cooperative Agreement program, which is being used to expand HIE capacity in California. Cal eConnect is a California-based nonprofit created to guide the private and secure delivery of electronic health information. It provides leadership and oversees a collaborative process to develop and support HIE services in California. Cal eConnect works with key stakeholders across the state to establish policies, procedures, and services that support the appropriate, private, and secure exchange of electronic health information between healthcare organizations and government agencies such as public health. CDPH works together with state departments, agencies, local health departments, and other organizations to establish safe and secure health information. CSRB is closely collaborating with multiple state and federal organizations in support of the various Meaningful Use Initiatives. CSRB has volunteered to be part of future a “pilot test” that will leverage Eureka technology. CSRB is closely collaborating on data standards development for disease reporting. The technology section program goals and objectives: • Use Eureka as a platform and foundation for the development of powerful new BI technologies and to demonstrate this capability by partnering with an external data source (to CCR) and complete at least one “pilot test” of BI capabilities. • Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to reduce the burden and costs associated with cancer case reporting on reporting facilities such as hospitals, physician offices, and pathology laboratories. • Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to reduce the time-lag in reporting cancer case information. The goal is to achieve 97 percent timeliness of at least incident reporting of cancer cases within six months of diagnosis. • Use Eureka as a platform and foundation to securely connect directly to external sources of cancer case reporting to increase the number of cancer cases collected to meet the expected case count for a given year. The goal is to improve case completeness of expected cancer cases by 2.5 percent from the historical five-year average between years 2005-2010. 6.0.1 Level IV Enterprise Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter services and expertise in developing data standards for complex data exchanges between multiple diseases and disparate information systems. Shall provide services to investigate, analyze, and develop specifications to resolve the most complex of data exchange issues and data standards issues across the enterprise. 6.0.2 Level II Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging. Including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. Page 23 6.0.3 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing data exchange user requirements, procedures, and problems to improve existing computer systems. The successful applicant will interact with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, and formats for reports. The Applicant shall write detailed description of user needs, program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer programs as required. A thorough understanding of object-oriented programming is required. 6.0.4 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide complete services to complete and lead programming team or teams through entire Software Development Life Cycle and Quality Assurance Testing processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. Services include, gather requirements, analyze, design, coordinate, and supervise the development of Eureka MU software system solutions to form a basis for the solution of information processing problems and/or opportunities. The Applicant shall analyze system specifications and translate requirements into task specifications for less senior level programmers. 7.0 Eureka Helpdesk – External Reporting Source Support The Applicant is responsible for providing Tier I/II Level Eureka Helpdesk Software Support Services to Physician Offices, Pathology Laboratories, Hospitals and other reporting sources (250+ facilities). The Applicant shall provide users access to CCR technologies, information about, technical assistance with, and/or distribution of CCR products and services. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that services are available to accomplish requirements, avoiding impacts to processing activities, and providing end-to-end configuration, validation, verification, and operations to accomplish grant requirements. 7.0.1 Level I Helpdesk Software Support Services. The Applicant shall provide Tier I Level Helpdesk System Software Support services during normal business hours, based on industry best practices (e.g., those established by the Service and Support Professional Association (SSPA), Help Desk Institute (HDI), or equivalent) that provide accurate tracking, routing, and reporting of the CCR’s requirements to ensure a timely resolution and to determine the most effective mechanism for future responses to similar requests. For more complex and difficult issues the Applicant shall collect the information needed to open a Problem Management Tool ticket along with further information that will be helpful, triage the issue, and assign the issue to the appropriate technical personnel based upon the nature of the problem. 8.0 Eureka Helpdesk – Regional Registry Support The Applicant is responsible for providing Tier I/II Level Eureka Helpdesk Software Support Services to the eight Regional Registries (100+ users) and associated remote users. The Applicant shall provide users access to CCR technologies, information about, technical assistance with, or distribution of CCR products and services. The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that services are available to accomplish requirements, avoiding impacts to processing activities, and providing end-to-end configuration, validation, verification, and operations to accomplish grant requirements. 8.0.1 Level II Helpdesk Software Support Services. The Applicant shall provide Tier I/II Level Helpdesk System Software Support services during normal business hours, based on industry best practices (e.g., those established by SSPA, HDI, or equivalent) that provide accurate tracking, routing, and reporting of the CCR’s requirements to ensure a timely resolution and to determine the most effective mechanism for future responses to similar requests. For more complex and difficult issues the Applicant shall collect the information needed to open a Problem Management Tool ticket along with further information that will be helpful, triage the issue, and assign the issue to the appropriate technical personnel based upon the nature of the problem. Page 24 9.0 Web-Master and Technical Documentation Services 9.0.1 Website Support Services. The Applicant shall provide services in web programming languages to maintain the functional applications residing on the local website. The support shall include programming support to maintain, update, and add functionality to the CSRB website and application programs. 9.0.2 Technical Writing Services. The Applicant shall provide services to create and contribute to: installation guides, software product user manuals, use cases, software development life cycle, change management, problem management, configuration management, other processes and reference guides, online help, troubleshooting, and maintenance documentation. This service will include all IT technical writing pertaining to software development lifecycle processes and challenges. The service will include selected research technical writing. Services will require the generation of intuitive graphics and other visual aids. Documentation and writing support will be prepared using Microsoft Office (all applications, including PowerPoint and Access), Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe Acrobat, Visio, HTML, and Paint Shop Pro. 10.0 Quality Assurance Testing The Applicant shall describe a system life cycle management approach describing at a high-level the Applicant’s own system life cycle methodology, including the testing of anticipated modifications to Edits, ePath, BI, Business Rules Management Systems, database migrations/conversion, Eureka, Automation, Regional Registry System Capability, web-based direct access, security, and other technologies and capabilities that require Quality Assurance testing within the system life cycle methodology of a complex integrated system environment. During the past five years, there has been on average four major Eureka releases each year. CDPH requires a system life cycle methodology that is consistent with industry best practices for a complex integrated system environment. CDPH requires that the system life cycle testing methodology include at a minimum the following: • • • • • • • Unit Testing Peer Reviews Integration Testing: software testing that seeks to verify the interfaces between components against a software design. System Testing: tests a completely integrated system to verify that it meets its requirements. System Integration Testing: verifies that a system is integrated to any external or third-party systems defined in the system requirements. Regression Testing: focuses on finding defects after a major code change has occurred. Specifically, it seeks to uncover software regressions, or old bugs that have come back. User Acceptance Testing: user acceptance testing is performed by the users of the systems. As described at the beginning of section 1.0, Automation and Expert Systems Development, the Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of meeting the component’s Goals and Objectives to automate internal manual Quality Assurance Testing processes to reduce costs, and shorten the software release cycle by at least 60 percent from five weeks to two weeks. Page 25 AUTOMATION GOALS *Y0% is the current pre-existing state of automation PRODUCTION PROCESS/FUNCTION Y0* Y1 Y2 Y3 Target Percentage % % % % Quality Assurance Regression Testing 0 20 35 50 Quality Assurance System Testing 0 10 25 35 Quality Assurance Integration Testing 0 10 25 35 Y4 % 60 45 45 Y5 % 70 55 55 10.0.1 Level I Software Quality Assurance Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide basic level Quality Assurance Testing services for a complex integrated systems environment. 10.0.2 Level II Software Quality Assurance Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level Quality Assurance Testing services for a complex integrated systems environment. 10.0.3 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide services to complete all work products and lead testing team or teams through the entire Software Development Life Cycle and Quality Assurance Testing processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. 11.0 Software Release Management The Applicant shall describe a system life cycle management approach describing at a high-level the Applicant’s own system life cycle methodology, including the Software Release Management of anticipated modifications to Edits, ePath, BI, Business Rules Management Systems, database migrations/conversion, Eureka, Automation, Regional Registry System Capability, web-based direct access, security, and other technologies and capabilities that require Software Release Management within the system life cycle methodology of a complex integrated system environment. The purpose of Software Release Management is to assemble and position all aspects of IT services into production and establish effective use of new or changed services. The Software Release Management Plan shall include all the processes necessary to validate, test and deploy a service. The Software Release Management Plan and its development shall include: • • • • • Service Validation and Testing processes for the release of IT services, Push and Pull processes for the release of IT services, Automation and manual processes for the release of IT services, A workshop with CSRB stakeholders to review all elements of the Software Release and Deployment Management Plan, Identification of interfaces with other service management processes; to include, but not be limited to, Service Level Management, Capacity Management, and Information Security Assurance Management. 11.0.1 Software Engineering Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete all work products and lead the organization and teams through the entire Software Development Life Cycle and Software Release Management processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. 12.0 Data Submission Programming Support The Applicant is responsible for providing data analyst and programming support services to maintain and revise the programs associated with producing the annual data extracts and submissions to various funding state and federal organizations, and NAACCR. The programs shall be maintained so as to support the California specific regional registry data model. Page 26 12.0.1 Level II Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 12.0.2 Level IV Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter expertise in cancer reporting standards. 13.0 System Architect and Security Engineering The Applicant is responsible for providing software security engineering and system architect support services to develop, maintain, and revise technologies to a high level of security. The scope of security for CSRB is to secure all grant deliverables (e.g., systems, databases, network, operating environments, processes) to ensure proper handling of confidential patient medical information and to provide access to, and operation of, state government data and systems as required by the following mandates: • • • • • • • • • Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2, http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publications 800-18, 800-30, 80034, 800-37, and 800-63 Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), http://csrc.nist.gov/sec-cert State Administration Manual (SAM) Section 5300 http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/5300/default.htm SAM 5900 http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/5900/default.htm CDPH Information Privacy and Security Policy CDPH approved Hardware and Software Standards CDPH applicable ISO SRx documents These security directives may change over the period of the grant as a result of the evolution of laws and policies stimulated by previous events and future events. The potential for new laws and policies or changes to laws and policies, although outside the control of the CSRB, may affect the scope and/or requirements of the CSRB systems. Therefore, in the event that modifications to security directives affect the grant scope or requirements, the Applicant shall address these situations in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible. The Applicant shall manage SAM 5300 and CDPH Security policies, procedures, and controls for all services the Applicant provides to the State. For each of these services, the Applicant shall integrate the IT security policies, procedures, and control measures into their full life cycle, and shall test and annually review these policies, procedures, and controls for adequacy and compliance. IT security planning, implementation, and compliance is integral to all work performed at CCR and, therefore, is the responsibility of the entire Applicant workforce. The Applicant is responsible for providing technical and operational support for IT and Security. 13.0.1 Level IV System Architect Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Architect and Security Engineering services defined as responsible for developing solution and institutionalizing processes that are able to deal robustly with possible sources of disruption, ranging from natural disasters to malicious acts. The Applicant shall ensure system security is incorporated systematically to ensure data security meets or exceeds industry standards. 14.0 Data Center and Desktop Support Technical Services The Applicant is responsible for providing all IT and computer services including Data Center Services, personal desktop support, Internet access, disaster recovery, data security, video-conferencing, email exchange, print, file storage, and telecommunications support. These include such services as the Page 27 operation, maintenance, and sustaining engineering of computing systems, email exchange, distributed servers, network systems, peripherals, firewalls, personal desktop computers, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Outlook, telephones, as well as hosting support of a mission-critical online web application. The desktop, file storage, print, directory services, email, video-conferencing, and telecommunications services will be in support of local on-site staff. The Applicant is responsible for developing a plan together with state management to achieve the component Goal and Objective to “reduce data center and local IT support costs by at least 25 percent for hardware, software, network, storage, peripherals and associated services in the first two years of the grant”. The Applicant is encouraged to aggressively deploy automation, desktop standardization, and other methods and approaches to reduce costs. The Applicant is provided with a website link to be used as a guideline for ratios on IT staffing. Go to the following website for information on IT Staffing Ratios: http://www.cio-chime.org/MemberBenefits/cionetworking/memtomemsurveysample3.asp The State of California as described in Assembly Bill 2408 and Information Technology Policy Letter 1014 has directed CSRB to develop a plan to move all servers, storage, hardware, software, applications, and associated devices to a state data center facility sometime within the five year RFA grant period. In the event of a move, the Applicant would be given 12 months’ notice of the State’s intent to move from the Applicant provided data center to a state data center. The Applicant is expected to help with the move so as to minimize any negative business impact to grant deliverables. The Applicant is expected to continue to provide local support services for desktops, file storage, print, directory services, and email to local staff in the event of a move to a state data center. For more detailed information, see the following: • • Assembly Bill 2408 - http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_24012450/ab_2408_bill_20100928_chaptered.html Information Technology Policy Letter 10-14 (see Appendix 5) Data Center Services The CCR server environments include, but are not limited to; production, software development, business intelligence, staging, user acceptance, quality assurance testing, research, extracts, disaster recovery, data standards, and reports. The Eureka application is a complex .NET 3.5 Framework, ntiered, web-based data management system running Microsoft’s Window Server 2008 Operating System Software, and SQLServer 2008 Enterprise Edition for its database. Applicants are expected to develop a plan to maintain system modernization. The current size of the Eureka database on the production server is 128GB. Approximately four (4) terabytes of information is managed on 70+ servers. Current database environments consist of approximately 12 SQL instances with each instance containing 8 databases on average. The Eureka database contains full cancer patient set information on ~4 million patients, ~5 million tumors, and ~6 million admissions (cancer reports). The essential support requirement for Data Center Services is to ensure 99.3 percent Eureka webbased systems availability between 6 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) and to manage oversight of the data center services to meet Service Management Plan obligations for overall system environment availability, reliability and performance. Eureka is designed to use the public internet to provide secure web-based access to the application. The Applicant shall provide secure Data Center services as follows in a secure environment such as a SAS 70 Type II Data Center. The Applicant shall ensure that assigned state staff have 7 day x 24 Page 28 hour data center access to the hardware, software, network and associated peripherals to monitor the systems, perform audits, and conduct other state business. The Applicants shall provide infrastructure services, including a secure facility with physical access control, backup power, rack storage, environmental monitoring, network connectivity, and hardware monitoring services (e.g., reporting visible problems to customer). The Applicant is responsible for providing hardware (e.g., server, storage); operating system and related software components; backend software (e.g., web, application, database, fileserver); and backup equipment and consumables. The Applicant is responsible for performing all system administration, network administration and maintenance, sustaining activities associated with the hardware, software and associated applications, and developing, implementing, and maintaining the IT Security Plan in compliance with Federal, State, and CDPH statutory and regulatory requirements. The current supported development, production, quality assurance testing, user acceptance, disaster recovery, reports, extracts, research, and other environments are comprised of the following basic technologies and components with an annual hardware/software/equipment budget of $200,000. For security reasons, a complete list of hardware and software will be provided to the Applicant in a more secure manner, if requested. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Microsoft Windows 2008 Operating System Microsoft SQL 2008 Enterprise Database Microsoft .NET 3.5 Framework Microsoft Team Foundation Server Public Internet Internet Explorer 8.0 ~4 terabytes of storage 70+ Servers Routers/Switches Firewalls Proxy Device(s) Two Factor Authentication System(s) Security Information and Event Log Collector Tape Backups 9 racks Services Provided by the Data Center Physical Location Physical Access Control Redundant Power Environmental Monitoring Hardware Monitoring Network Connectivity Hardware and Operating System with, including Operations and Maintenance, Sustaining, Upgrades, and Backup Capability System Administration Network Engineering Network Administration Support Security Plan Development, Implementation, and Maintenance IT Security Plan Development, Implementation, and Maintenance Page 29 Hosting Services (e.g., Web, Application, Database, File Storage) Data Backups Electronic copies of Intellectual Property sent to a state facility Hosting Services with Application Administration Option Local Facility IT Services The Applicant is responsible for providing all local facility IT services including personal desktop support, Internet access, file storage, print, video-conferencing, email exchange, directory services, and telecommunications support. These include such services as the operation, maintenance, and sustaining engineering of email exchange, personal desktop computers, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Outlook, and telephone systems. The current supported local IT services environment exists with an annual hardware, software, and equipment budget of ~$50,000. For security reasons, a complete list of hardware and software will be provided to the Applicant in a more secure manner, if requested. 14.0.1 System Administration (SA) Services. The Applicant shall provide all SA services to maintain and improve functional capabilities of functional servers, storage, peripherals and all other multi-user computer systems that assist in accomplishment of CSRB’s mission. This support shall apply equally to any new computer systems, whether purchased to replace existing systems or to provide new or improved functionality to the organization. The SA shall analyze hardware and software problems and provide potential solutions to these functional systems. This support also includes providing technical assistance to the programming staff, helping to automate currently existing manual processes and to updating the various CSRB functional systems and applications. The Applicant shall comply with established state plans and schedules for backup and recovery and maintenance and shall also coordinate with the state to schedule any out-of-cycle system and database backups, rotation of backup data to the off-site security location, and downtime related to anticipated hardware and/or software upgrades 14.0.2 Network Administration (NA) and Network Engineering (NE) Services. The Applicant shall provide all NA and NE services to maintain and improve functional capabilities of all network related hardware, software and other devices. NA/NE services include planning and technical advice and assistance to support network resources and connectivity and maintain fully functional support capabilities to include all network devices, interfaces, and component parts. The Applicant shall provide engineering expertise for maintaining and troubleshooting the network. The Applicant shall also provide NA/NE and management services including: network analysis, feasibility studies, program configuration analysis, network hardware/software analysis, network utilization studies, performance evaluations, design studies, and Air Force directory support. 14.0.3 Level II Desktop, Laptop, and PC Services. The Applicant shall provide support services to ensure that the PCs, laptops, and peripheral/network devices assigned/allocated to CSRB personnel are fully functional and are running in such a manner that they provide the level of service needed in support of their mission. Desktop support personnel must be versed on Hardware and Software Standards and configurations used within CDPH and must be able to assist customers in the use of any component of the standard software build that is commonly used within the organization. These responsibilities include updating Problem Management trouble tickets when appropriate. The Applicant shall diagnose and correct problems with PCs, both hardware and software based, to include peripheral devices such as printers, smartcard readers, external disk drives, speakers, and monitors. The Applicant shall replace fuser and transfer kits in printers. Applicant shall resolve the simplest issues over the phone and identify/categorize more Page 30 complex user problems and create tracking tickets in these cases. The Applicant shall have extensive interaction with customers and shall log any customer complaints. 14.0.4 Level I Telecommunications Services. The Applicant shall provide support services to digital telephones, telephone switches, email exchange, FAX machines, video Teleconferencing, audio visual support, and management of wireless devices. Additional support shall include voice over IP systems and shall diagnose and troubleshoot telephone equipment and infrastructure to include performing minor repairs on the spot. 14.0.5 Information Security Officer Services Applicant shall provide Information Security Officer services and support. The Information Security Officer must hold an industry standard and recognizable certification, preferably, CISSP, CISM, or CISA. The Information Security Officer will be responsible for documenting and providing information verification and validation regarding CCR compliance with applicable Federal, State, and CDPH Statutory and regulatory requirements. The Information Security Officer will work closely with the CDPH CIO/ISO, or their designee. 15.0 Cancer Reporting Data Standards Conversion to Programmed Business Rule Sets The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of meeting the component’s Goals and Objectives to maintain and modify as necessary the Cancer Reporting (Standards) California, Volumes I-V. The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of meeting the component’s Goals and Objectives to use Eureka as a platform and foundation to program CCR Data Standards (Cancer Reporting Volumes I-V) and other cancer registry “rule-sets” directly into the system and associated expert systems in support of program objectives to reduce “per-unit cost” of cancer case processing, improve case timeliness, improve data quality, and improve case completeness. The State believes that the next round of large break-through improvements in data quality and productivity will come from the creation and integration of Cancer Reporting Volumes I-V and other cancer rule sets into “actionable” and programmable business rules into the system. This belief is based on the success of many similar rule-based industries in insurance, accounting, and banking that have deployed this technology with great success. Most of the manual work performed by Eureka users is related to enforcing CCR abstracting and coding rules, linkage/matching rules, consolidation rules, and rules for applying updates from source documents other than new cases to ensure good data quality as described in Volumes I-V. These are all good candidates to become electronic business rules integrated into the Eureka system. There are thousands (~7,500) of potential business rule requirements in CCR’s data standards documents, as well as those maintained by SEER, NAACCR, and ACoS, especially rules related to abstracting and coding. CSRB estimates it will take approximately fifteen thousand staff hours to extract them, document them as “actionable” rules, and program them into the business rule tool so that they can be executed in Eureka. These requirements and rules will need to be updated and maintained when CCR’s standards change or when the national standard setters change their standards, therefore a dynamic structure and set of processes will need to be institutionalized that meet future business needs. 15.0.1 Technical Writing Services. The Applicant shall create and contribute to Cancer Reporting in California, Volumes I-V, EasyHelp, online help, and other processes, reference guides, and standards maintenance documentation. This service will include all IT technical writing pertaining to cancer reporting rule-sets. The service will include selected research technical writing. Services will require the generation of intuitive graphics and other visual aids. Documentation and writing support will be Page 31 prepared using Microsoft Office (all applications, including PowerPoint and Access), Adobe FrameMaker, Adobe Acrobat, Visio, HTML, and Paint Shop Pro. 15.0.2 Level I Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide basic object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 15.0.3 Level II Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate object- oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 15.0.4 Level III Business Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced Business Analyst subject matter expertise in how business rule sets for cancer are applied in the production environment of processing a cancer case to completion. 15.0.5 Level III Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced Data Analyst services in the disciplined refinement and structuring of documented and undocumented business rule sets of cancer reporting into programmable specifications that remove all incompleteness and ambiguity, so that cancer and other disease reporting can be processed and executed systematically without the possibility of misinterpretation. 15.0.6 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing user requirements, procedures, and problems to automate processing or to improve existing computer systems and will interact with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, and formats for reports. The Applicant shall write a detailed description of user needs, program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer programs as required. A thorough understanding of objectoriented programming is required. 16.0 NAACCR, SEER, and NPCR Annual Data Item Change Software Engineering Services In an effort towards self-sustainability of Eureka support and maintenance, CDPH entered into memorandums of understanding with the State of North Carolina and the Canadian Provence of Saskatchewan to provide Eureka to each entity in exchange for “in-kind” programming support. Each entity has committed to providing the programming resources necessary each year to update Eureka to reflect the expected annual data item changes. In addition, each entity has committed programming resources to work on bugs and other Eureka enhancements as assigned by the Eureka technical team lead. The programming staff from North Carolina and Saskatchewan have access to the Eureka development environment and work as part of a collaborative partnership group as outlined in the “Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group - Concept of Operations” document. The State is committed to the approach of further developing collaborative partnerships with other cancer registries that have valuable resources to grow the Eureka “open source” development community modeled after private sector successes. The Applicant is expected to work as full partners with the State in supporting and growing the membership of the Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group. In addition, the State is interested in pursuing strategic business partnerships with non-traditional players such as Laboratory Information System vendors, and other large Electronic Health Record software vendors. The State’s approach is to develop strategic partnerships in a movement towards Eureka self-sustainability, to fuel innovation, and to leverage the State’s control of a valuable asset in support of the larger mission. The “Concept of Operations” document describes the broad scope of the Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group, in which the Applicant and the State work as full partners with other external stakeholders. Page 32 16.0.1 Software Engineering Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete all work products and lead the Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group programming team or teams through the entire Software Development Life Cycle process while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. The Applicant will work closely with CSRB staff, CSRB’s Project Management Office, and other stakeholders in the Eureka Collaborative Partnership Group to design and develop Eureka solutions for support and maintenance of the application. The Applicant shall analyze system specifications and translate requirements into task specifications for less senior level programmers to perform programming support for the Annual North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR), SEER, and NPCR Data Item Change Releases and other work as assigned. 16.0.2 Level IV Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter services and expertise in developing complex data migration specification from cancer and other disease reporting standards that change at least annually. Shall provide services to investigate, analyze, and develop specifications to resolve the most complex of data issues. 16.0.3 Level IV System Architect Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Architect and Security Engineering services defined as responsible for developing solutions and institutionalizing processes that are able to deal robustly with possible sources of disruption, ranging from natural disasters to malicious acts. The Applicant shall ensure system security is incorporated systematically to ensure data security meets or exceeds industry standards. 17.0 Regional Registry Eureka Data File System Engineering CCR is comprised of eight Regional Registries. It is required that Eureka maintains a Regional Data File structure within integrated data management architecture. 17.0.1 Level I Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide basic object-oriented application programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 17.0.1 Level IV Enterprise Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter services and expertise in developing complex data exchanges between regional registries while maintaining a single central database and integrated file structure. The Applicant shall provide services to investigate, analyze, and develop specifications to resolve the most complex of data exchange and business process issues across the enterprise. 17.0.3 Software Engineering/Testing Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete all work products and lead programming team or teams through entire Software Development Life Cycle and Quality Assurance Testing processes while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the State. Services include gathering requirements, analyzing, designing, coordinating, and supervising the development of Eureka Regional Registry Data File system solutions to form a basis for the solution of information processing problems and/or opportunities. 18.0 Eureka Software Engineering and Programming Services The Applicant shall develop and document processes and implementation plans in support of using the Eureka Data Management System. The Applicant shall provide complete software engineering services necessary to develop, support, and modernize a complex web-based application. The Applicant is responsible for providing sustaining engineering services for all systems, software, and equipment identified in this RFA. These activities are normally not associated with work requests Page 33 from customers. Sustaining engineering includes changes and modifications to systems to provide additional service capacity, add features to software, reductions of operational risk, replacement of obsolete hardware and software, or consolidation of services. The Applicant is responsible for providing end-to-end systems engineering and service integration for all of the services required in performance of this grant. Eureka far exceeds the basic cancer registry requirements to receive case information, check for duplicates, edit, consolidate, transmit to the central system, and maintain a regional data file for proposed regions. Eureka is a centralized, web-based system constructed with modern industrystandard development tools to allow for maximum adaptability to new and emerging technologies. The Eureka code base represents over 700,000 lines of code and a ten year investment of between 10 and 15 million U.S. dollars. It is a complex enterprise, quality application of enormous strategic value that can be leveraged to dramatically reduce operational costs, improve data quality, improve case timeliness, and improve case completeness all in support of the larger mission. Eureka is comprised of modern .NET technologies, and has many components that are unique and provide a “platform and foundation” for automation and integration with external Health Information Systems. The end-state vision is to leverage Eureka technology in a number of ways that are bulleted below. • • • • • • • • • • • • Straight-Through-Processing (STP) Continuous Quality Control Business Rules Management Exception-based Automation Expansion of technology from Cancer Registry to Multi- Disease Surveillance Real-time reporting Automated Cancer Case Creation Web 3.0 interface to the public Business Intelligence Analytics Capability Integration with Hospital Health Information Systems Integration with paper pathology scanning Enhanced integration with electronic pathology reporting For more detailed information about Eureka and CCR’s vision to leverage the technology, review Appendices 2, 3, and 4. 18.0.1 Level I Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide basic level object-oriented application development programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and application implementation. 18.0.2 Level II Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide intermediate level object-oriented application development programming services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and application implementation. 18.0.3 Level III Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide advanced level object- oriented programming development services for software development, maintenance, and de-bugging, including but not limited to, requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. 18.0.4 Level IV Application Development Programming Services. The Applicant shall provide expert level object-oriented application development programming services for software development, maintenance, regression testing, and de-bugging, including but not limited to; requirements gathering, use case development, code, unit test, and implementation. Page 34 18.0.5 Level IV Enterprise Data Analyst Services. The Applicant shall provide expert Data Analyst subject matter services and expertise in developing complex data exchanges between multiple diseases and disparate information systems, and the regional registries while maintaining a single central database and integrated file structure. The Applicant shall provide services to investigate, analyze, and develop specifications to resolve the most complex of data exchange issues, data standards isues, and business process issues across the enterprise. 18.0.6 Level IV System Analysis Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Analyst services defined as responsible for analyzing user requirements, procedures, and problems to improve processing or to improve existing computer systems. The successful Applicant will interact with a wide array of personnel to analyze current operational procedures, identify problems, and learn specific input and output requirements including: forms of data input, how data is to be summarized, data exchange formats, and data outputs for BI uses. The Applicant shall write detailed descriptions of user needs, program functions, and steps required to develop or modify computer programs as required. A thorough understanding of object-oriented programming is required. 18.0.7 Level IV System Architect Services. The Applicant shall provide expert System Architect and Security Engineering services defined as responsible for developing solution and institutionalizing processes that are able to deal robustly with possible sources of disruption, ranging from natural disasters to malicious acts. The Applicant shall ensure system security is incorporated systematically to ensure data security meets or exceeds industry standards. 18.0.8 Software Engineering Services. The Applicant shall provide all services to complete all work products and lead programming team or teams through entire development process while planning, processing, performing, tracking and briefing progress status to the government. Applicant will work closely with CSRB, design and develop programming systems making specific determinations about system performance while making recommendations which yield a more cost effective product; to review and repair legacy code. Additional services required include, analyzing, designing, coordinating, and supervising the development of software systems to form a basis for the solution of information processing problems. The Applicant shall analyze system specifications and translate requirements into task specifications for junior programmers and serve as software test engineer. D. Surveillance and Data Use Component Background Cancer surveillance activities support the mission of CCR by using cancer registry data to monitor the burden of cancer in California, conducting and supporting epidemiologic studies and research that use cancer registry data, and communicating results to the public. Cancer surveillance and data use activities include programming and technical support for the preparation and enhancement of data and data products for surveillance and research use by internal and external users. This RFA seeks to support and enhance cancer surveillance and data use by expanding the public health, epidemiologic and clinical research use of CCR data and by effectively disseminating cancer information to a wide array of partners and stakeholders. Applicants are encouraged to propose strategies for expanding the number, scope, and public health impact of surveillance and research activities that utilize CCR data. Surveillance and Data Use Goals and Objectives • • • Use cancer registry data to monitor and report on the burden of cancer in California at the state, regional, and local levels Use cancer registry data in support of planning and evaluation of cancer control objectives of state and federal partners Use cancer registry data to conduct surveillance as well as clinical and epidemiologic studies that contribute to scientific knowledge related to cancer prevention and control Page 35 • • • • • • • • • • • Use cancer registry data to respond to public inquiries about cancer and community cancer concerns Promote and support the use of cancer registry data for surveillance and research by a broad spectrum of external researchers and collaborators, particularly for new applications and linkages of registry data (e.g., linkage with biospecimen data) Ensure the protection of confidential data and compliance with applicable law for their release to cancer researchers Prepare research data sets for internal and external users Perform data linkages between CCR data and administrative and research databases for production and research purposes Ensure CCR research data are of high quality for research use Increase the quality, reach, and value of cancer registry data, reports and communications products Manage all aspects of the preparation of an annual data submission to federal funders that meets all reporting requirements Strengthen and expand collaborative relationships Maintain subject matter expertise on current issues in cancer surveillance Coordinate statewide cancer surveillance activities Technical Requirements Technical Skill Sets Required for the Surveillance and Data Use Component: • SAS programming • SQL programming • Probabilistic linkage software • SEER*Stat • SEER*Prep • Joinpoint • Graph and figure preparation software (e.g. Excel; R) • GIS software • Access Subject Matter Expertise Required for the Surveillance and Data Use Component: • • • • • • • • • • • • Cancer epidemiology Biostatistics Health Education/communications Data analysis and data modeling Scientific writing Report writing Cancer registry reporting standards Medical/Cancer terminology, clinical staging Data submission requirements for NPCR and NAACCR Population data Knowledge of cancer reporting requirements Understanding of various packaged software, such as NAACCR Genedits Plus, SEER Edits, NPCR Edits Applicable standards/policies and Resources for the Surveillance and Data Use Component: NPCR Program Manual: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/pdf/program_manual.pdf CDPH Core Activities: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/CoreActivities.aspx) SEER Incidence Site Recodes: http://seer.cancer.gov/siterecode/ Page 36 SEER Cause of Death Site Recodes: http://seer.cancer.gov/codrecode/index.html CCR Data Disclosure and Access Policies and Procedures: http://www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Data_Statistics/CCRPoliciesProcedures_v05.1.pdf CCR Data Dictionary for Researchers: http://www.ccrcal.org/dd/Default.aspx CDC guidelines for defining public health research and non-research activity: http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/integrity/docs/cdc-policy-distinguishing-public-health-researchnonresearch.pdf CDC data submission packet 2012: SEER*Stat: http://seer.cancer.gov/seerstat/ SEER*Prep: http://seer.cancer.gov/seerprep/index.html California Dialogue on Cancer: http://www.cdoc-online.org/ CDC Cancer Prevention and Control: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/about/programs.htm Performance Requirements for the Surveillance and Data Use Component (numbering aligns with Performance Objectives of the SOW, Form 6B-3) 1. Use CCR data to monitor and report on the cancer burden in California. The Applicant shall develop and document processes for the preparation and dissemination of reports that use cancer registry data to describe the cancer burden in California in support of CDPH’s core activity of “producing and disseminating data to inform and evaluate public health status, strategies, and programs (http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/CoreActivities.aspx). The surveillance reporting plan should address the following elements: 1.1 Prepare surveillance reports and informational products that are timely, accurate, clear, and relevant. The Applicant shall prepare cancer surveillance reports that, at minimum, meet NPCR Program Standards for data use: • Within 12 months of the end of the diagnosis year, with data that are 90 percent complete, the central cancer registry produces preliminary pre-calculated data tables in an electronic data file or report of incidence rates, counts, or proportions for the diagnosis year by Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) site groups as a preliminary monitor of the top cancer sites within the state/territory. • Within 24 months of the end of the diagnosis year, with data that are 95 percent complete, the central cancer registry produces pre-calculated data in tables in and electronic data file or report. The report includes, at a minimum, age-adjusted rates for the diagnosis year by sex for SEER site groups, and where applicable, by sex, race, and ethnicity. The Applicant shall prepare cancer surveillance reports, fact sheets, and other informational products that address a broad spectrum of cancer data, including but not limited to: survival, trends, stage at diagnosis, geographic distribution of disease, unequal burden of disease, and quality of cancer care. The Applicant shall prepare content for the annual American Cancer Society (ACS) publication “California Cancer Facts and Figures” in collaboration with the California Division of ACS. The Applicant shall produce annual tables of cancer risk for major cancer sites, maps outlining the geographic distribution of late stage disease for screenable cancers, and support an interactive web based public query system for cancer incidence and mortality data. The Applicant shall describe how the target audiences for reports and information products will be identified, and how reports and products will be tailored to the appropriate reading level for that audience. An overall approach for reporting on these aspects of cancer surveillance over the five-year grant period should be described. Applicants will be expected to use expert knowledge to identify subject areas that are timely and relevant to current issues in cancer epidemiology and clinical oncology and to provide a rationale for setting priorities for the Page 37 production and timing of specific reports. Applicants should describe an approach to the promotion and dissemination of cancer surveillance reports and other products. The Applicant is encouraged to describe new and innovative approaches to expand the reach, quality, relevance, and impact of cancer surveillance reports, information, and other products. 1.2 Ensure the quality of all reports and products. The Applicant shall describe an approach for ensuring that all cancer surveillance reports are accurate, clear, appropriate and relevant for target audiences. The plan should include an evaluation component of the reach and impact of cancer surveillance reports and products. The Applicant shall ensure that all reports and products meet CDPH publication standards for formatting, style, and grammar. 1.3 Improve the timeliness of cancer registry reports. At present there is a nearly two-year lag time between the close of a diagnosis year and the publication of cancer surveillance reports that include that diagnosis year. Applicants shall describe a plan for reducing that interval over the next five-year grant period so that more timely cancer data reports may be produced and disseminated. 2. Conduct surveillance as well as clinical and and epidemiologic studies that use cancer registry data. The Applicant shall describe a plan for conducting surveillance and epidemiologic studies utilizing cancer registry data in support of cancer prevention and control activities. The plan should address the following components: 2.1 Develop and implement a cancer surveillance agenda and plan. The Applicant shall describe a plan to promote design and conduct epidemiologic and/or clinical studies that address an existing or high priority public health program need, or otherwise make a contribution related to cancer prevention and control. The Applicant shall utilize expert knowledge to create an agenda for cancer surveillance studies that emphasize public health and are in alignment with CDPH core activities, and a rationale for the prioritization of new proposals and ideas for studies. The Applicant shall ensure that state and NPCR funds are not utilized directly for research as defined by CDC guidelines. 2.2 Promote coordination and collaboration with regional registry epidemiologists to maximize the use of statewide resources. Historically, surveillance and research activities utilizing registry data has been conducted in the central registry and in regional registries that have strong ties to an academic center with an established research infrastructure. The Applicant shall describe a plan for promoting collaboration among regional registry epidemiologists to share expertise, examine emerging issues, and to develop and coordinate interdependent activities for the efficient and effective use of statewide registry data. This should include the establishment of a steering committee for statewide surveillance projects with active participation from epidemiologists and partners with an interest in cancer epidemiology and the use of cancer registry data both in traditional and novel ways. 2.3 Prepare and submit scientific manuscripts for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific meetings. The Applicant shall provide qualified staff to oversee the preparation of scientific manuscripts describing the results of epidemiologic studies and public health applications of cancer registry data for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The Applicant shall describe a plan for ensuring the quality and accuracy of publications. 3. Respond to public inquiries and requests for information about cancer and cancer concerns. Page 38 The Applicant shall describe a plan for responding to public inquiries about cancer and cancer concerns in a timely and effective manner. The plan should address the following elements: 3.1 Provide responses to inquiries and requests that are timely, accurate, appropriate, and consistent statewide. The Applicant shall develop and implement a process for coordinating responses to public inquiries statewide. The Applicant shall provide appropriately trained staff to respond to inquiries from the public and a broad array of stakeholders regarding cancer, the cancer registry, and community cancer concerns. The plan should include the designation of a senior epidemiologist at the central registry to serve as the lead of a designated team for directing and coordinating responses to public concerns statewide, and to ensure that responses are timely, accurate, appropriate, consistent across the regions, and in compliance with CDPH and CCR procedures and guidelines. The team should include an experienced health educator or comparable communications and outreach specialist to provide comprehensible cancer risk information to the public in support of responding to community concerns and other public inquiries. 3.2 Provide responses to community cancer and cluster concerns that are timely, accurate, appropriate, and consistent with state guidelines. The Applicant shall review and update policies and procedures for addressing the analyses and responses to community cancer concerns to ensure that they are current and appropriate. The Applicant shall perform appropriate analyses of registry data to estimate the number of cancer cases expected and observed in response to specific community cancer concerns. The Applicant shall prepare reports and presentations summarizing findings of community or other evaluations. 3.3 Ensure the quality and accuracy of all community cancer concern responses. The Applicant shall describe an approach to ensuring that responses to community cancer concerns are accurate and technically sound. The Applicant shall establish a statewide workgroup of epidemiologists in the central and regional registries to review specific concerns, responses, and analyses, discuss issues, and provide feedback. The Applicant shall provide qualified staff or access to qualified epidemiologists, statisticians, clinicians, and cancer researchers for consultation on the best approaches for addressing specific community cancer concerns, particularly those involving a small population or a non-geographically based population-at-risk, such as a workplace. 3.4 Maintain a system for tracking all responses to inquiries, data requests, and community cancer concerns. The Applicant shall maintain a system for tracking and reporting all responses to public inquiries, data requests, and community cancer concerns to CSRB, the CDPH, and federal funders on a regular basis. The system should allow the review and preparation of summary reports and a detailed log of inquiries and responses. Applicant shall ensure that items shall be logged within 30 days of receipt. 3.5. Collaborate with other CDPH programs, external stakeholders to support responses, education, and outreach to communities and organizations with cancer concerns and questions. Applicants are encouraged to collaborate with other organizations with an interest in cancer concerns on communication and outreach to communities where cancer concerns occur. The community cancer concerns response plan should address the communication and collaboration with other relevant CDPH programs, such as the Environmental Health Investigations Branch (EHIB) or the Occupational Health Branch (OHB). 3.6 Respond to requests from the public, health officials, media, legislature, or other stakeholders for cancer data, reports, tables, or other products. The Applicant shall respond to requests for tabulated data from a variety of sources. Applicant shall establish parameters of request, perform analyses, prepare tables, or other requested results. 3.7 Respond to requests for individual patient records from the CCR database. Page 39 The Applicant shall respond to requests for a copy of individual patient records from the CCR database as allowable by applicable law. Applicant shall ensure all required documentation is received, access the patient abstract from the Eureka database, and prepare a letter to the requestor summarizing findings. 4. Support the use of CCR data for surveillance and research by qualified external researchers and other users. The Applicant shall provide staff to promote and support the use of CCR data for surveillance by external researchers and other users. The Applicant shall ensure the protection of all confidential data pursuant to applicable law and all State policies and procedures are followed for maintaining the confidentiality and security of cancer registry data. The plan should address the following components: 4.1 Receive, process, manage, and track requests and applications for CCR data. The Applicant shall maintain and manage a process for receiving and processing requests and applications for access to and disclosure of CCR data, and for ensuring that all releases of CCR data to external researcher follow all CDPH requirements for maintaining data confidentiality and security (http://www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Data_Statistics/CCRPoliciesProcedures_v05.1.pdf) The Applicant shall prepare case listings and data files that have been approved for release as specified by the research protocol of the Applicant, including performing linkages between CCR data and another administrative or research dataset. The Applicant shall track and document the status of all data disclosure activities to ensure compliance with all CDPH requirements. The Applicant will coordinate the release of patient case information for patient contact studies to ensure that cases are not released for multiple studies. 4.2 Provide technical support and epidemiologic expertise to external researchers. The Applicant shall provide support to external researchers by maintaining and updating a researcher’s page on the CCR website that details application processes and procedures. The Applicant shall maintain and update a data dictionary and summary of variable reliability, validity, and completeness to be made available to researchers. Applicant shall provide qualified staff to respond to technical questions from researchers about the use of CCR data and available research variables. 4.3 Prepare a summary report of research projects and of publications that utilize CCR data. The Applicant shall provide a plan for documenting the value and productivity of CCR as a resource for research and surveillance in California by preparing periodic reports summarizing these activities. The plan shall include a process for tracking and reporting on publications that have used CCR data, and research projects that use CCR data, including the amount of research dollars generated by projects that use CCR data. 4.5 Expand the use of cancer registry data for surveillance and research by cancer researchers and collaborators. The Applicant should describe a plan to promote and facilitate the use of CCR data for surveillance and research. Applicants are encouraged to describe new and innovative approaches to expand the number of surveillance and research projects that utilize cancer registry data., e.g., linage with biospecimen repositories. The approach should address expanding collaboration and partnerships with National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in California that have not been historically linked to a regional cancer registry, and the establishment or expansion of the cancer registry as a shared resource for NCI cancer centers. Partnerships and collaborations with schools of public health in California are also encouraged. It is expected that such new partnerships and collaborations will increase the utilization of CCR data and expand its public health and scientific impact. 5. Provide technical support for CCR, CSRB, and CDPH for data collection and processing and for epidemiologic studies. Page 40 The Applicant shall provide technical and programming support for surveillance activities and CCR in the following ways: 5.1 Extract and prepare base data files for use by internal and external users. The Applicant shall manage the extraction and preparation of data files from the Eureka data management system that will serve as the base for research use by internal and external users. The Applicant shall prepare research data files in various formats as required by users, primarily using SAS and SEER*Prep to convert files for use in SEER*Stat by all central and regional epidemiologists. The Applicant shall update population files and mortality data and incorporate into SEER*Stat data base for calculation of cancer incidence and mortality rates. The Applicant shall prepare files to update the webbased interactive query system for cancer incidence and mortality rates. The Applicant shall update estimated counts of cancer cases expected to be collected as needed for production purposes. 5.2 Support the enhancement and quality of CCR research data. The Applicant shall describe a plan for ensuring the quality of CCR data for research. This should include a method for reviewing research data files prior to release and for correcting any errors promptly and notifying users of any issues that might impact the research uses of these files. The Applicant shall provide qualified staff or access to qualified staff at academic institutions to ensure accurate preparation of demographic data used to determine population at risk, and to consult on specific statistical issues such as small area analyses, sampling methods, adjustments for delayed reporting and missing data, spatial data analyses, or other specialized knowledge as required for data analysis. The Applicant shall ensure that research data quality improvement activities are coordinated with CCR operations and data management activities. The Applicant shall perform linkages between CCR data and other databases as required for production and research purposes, including linkages required by NPCR with the National Death Index (NDI) and with the CDC-supported breast and cervical cancer screening program housed in the Cancer Detection Section of the CDPH. 5.3 Design and conduct methodological research projects that support the enhancement and quality of CCR data. The Applicant shall design and conduct methodological evaluation and research projects that support the enhancement and quality of CCR data for surveillance and research use. For example, such projects may explore the utility or value of new linkages or the impact of modifications to data standards or variables in CCR surveillance and research data. Applicants are encouraged to develop new and innovative methods to enhance registry data and improve its utility for surveillance and research. 6. Establish and expand collaborative relationships. The Applicant shall describe how it will establish, maintain, and expand collaborative relationships. The Applicant should address the following points: 6.1 Meet NPCR Program Standards for collaborative relationships with comprehensive cancer control planning efforts and all components of the National Cancer Prevention and Control program. The Applicant shall describe plans to maintain and expand collaboration with California’s comprehensive cancer control planning program, the California Dialogue on Cancer (CDOC) and with CDC-funded programs in California that support screening of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. The Applicant shall participate in special studies and projects proposed at the national level by CDC or other national funders. 6.2 Establish and regularly convene an advisory committee to CCR. The Applicant shall describe a plan for establishing and convening an advisory committee to CCR (see NPCR Program Standards: Collaborative Relationships) to assist in building consensus, cooperation, and planning for the registry. Representation should include key organizations and individuals both within and outside the program. The first meeting of the advisory committee shall be held within 6 months of the start of the grant period. Page 41 6.3 Strengthen existing collaborative relationships and partnerships, and expand collaborations with new stakeholders. Applicants are encouraged to develop and describe proposals for new and expanded uses of CCR surveillance and research data beyond traditional reports and scientific manuscripts, and new collaborative relationships and partnerships with a broad array of stakeholders with an interest in cancer surveillance, cancer control, and cancer research. 7. Pursue external funding opportunities that are consistent with CCR and CDPH missions. 7.1 Develop grant and funding proposals. Applicant shall prepare grant applications in response to funding opportunities that are consistent with the CCR mission, provide staff that can serve as principal investigators and managers for funded projects. Applicants are encouraged to propose new and innovative approaches to provide funding to augment support for the epidemiologic activities of CCR. Page 42 3 AGENCY ELIGIBILITY/REQUIREMENTS A. There are no restrictions as to the type of entity eligible to apply for these funds. B. Agencies must be willing to comply with all proposed terms and conditions included in the attached “Sample Grant Agreement.” Appendix 6 includes the Sample Grant Agreement for all entities excluding Universities of California. Appendix 7 includes the Sample Grant Agreement for Universities of California only. C. Agencies must be able to house grant and CSRB staff within a 20 mile radius of the Sacramento downtown area. D. Agencies must have a past record of sound business integrity and a history of being responsive to past contractual obligations. E. Agencies must be financially stable and solvent and have adequate cash reserves to meet all financial obligations while awaiting reimbursement from the State. Page 43 4 GENERAL INFORMATION A. Time Schedule Below is the tentative time schedule for this procurement. Event Date and Time (If applicable) RFA Released November 30, 2011 Questions Due December 15, 2011, Midnight, PST Answers to Questions Posted Flow basis until December 22, 2011 Voluntary Non-Binding Letter of Intent December 30, 2011, 4:00 p.m., PST Application Due Date January 31, 2012, 4:00 p.m., PST Notice of Intent to Award Posted March 2, 2012 Appeals Deadline March 9, 2012, 5:00 p.m., PST Proposed Start Date of Agreement April 1, 2012 B. Award Term The term of the resulting agreement is expected to be 5 years and 3 months, and is anticipated to be effective from April 1, 2012, through June 30, 2017*. The agreement term may change if CDPH makes an award earlier than expected or if CDPH cannot execute the agreement in a timely manner due to unforeseen delays. CDPH reserves the right to extend the term of the resulting agreement via an amendment as necessary to complete or continue the services. Grant extensions are subject to satisfactory performance and funding availability. The resulting grant will be of no force or effect until it is signed by both parties. The Grantee is hereby advised not to commence performance until all approvals have been obtained. Should performance commence before all approvals are obtained, said services may be considered to have been volunteered. *The agreement term April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012, includes a three month transition period, April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012. This three month transition period will only be used if the successful bidder is Page 44 not the incumbent. If the incumbent is the successful bidder, this transition period will not be part of the resulting agreement, and the effective date of the agreement will be July 1, 2012. C. Anticipated Available Funds CDPH anticipates available funding for this grant term to be approximately $5.7 million annually, with total funds available for the 5 year, 3 month term to be approximately $29 million. Funding is a blend of state and Federal CDC funds. Funding is contingent upon appropriation in the Budget Act for each fiscal year of the grant. Funds are restricted by budget year as follows: Budget Year 1, April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012 - $500,000 – Infrastructure and Transition Costs* Budget Year 2, July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013 - $5.7 million – Full Program Operations Budget Year 3, July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014 - $5.7 million – Full Program Operations Budget Year 4, July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 - $5.7 million – Full Program Operations Budget Year 5, July 1, 2015 – June 30, 2016 - $5.7 million – Full Program Operations Budget Year 6, July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017 - $5.7 million – Full Program Operations *The agreement term April 1, 2012 – June 30, 2012, and associated budget, will only be used if the successful bidder is not the incumbent. If the incumbent is the successful bidder, this transition period and associated funding will not be part of the resulting agreement, and the effective date of the agreement will be July 1, 2012. D. Applicant Questions Immediately notify CDPH if clarification is needed regarding the services sought or questions arise about the RFA and/or its accompanying materials, instructions, or requirements. Put the inquiry in writing and transmit it to CDPH as instructed below. At its discretion, CDPH reserves the right to contact an inquirer to seek clarification of any inquiry received. Applicants that fail to report a known or suspected problem with the RFA and/or its accompanying materials or fail to seek clarification and/or correction of the RFA and/or its accompanying materials shall submit an application at their own risk. In addition, if awarded the grant, the successful Applicant shall not be entitled to additional compensation for any additional work caused by such problem, including any ambiguity, conflict, discrepancy, omission, or error. On a flow basis, until December 22, 2012, CDPH will summarize general questions and issues raised and post the summary and responses on the CDPH website at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click the link for this RFA and it will take you to a page which includes a question submittal form as well as a link to the Question and Answer document. If an inquiry appears to be unique to a single agency or is marked “Confidential”, CDPH will email a response only to the inquirer if CDPH concurs with the Applicant’s claim that the inquiry is sensitive or proprietary in nature. If CDPH does not concur, the inquiry will be answered in the manner described herein and the Applicant will be so notified. Inquiries and/or responses that CDPH agrees should be held in confidence shall be held in confidence only until the Notice of Intent to Award is posted. To the extent practical, inquiries shall remain as submitted. However, CDPH may consolidate and/or paraphrase similar or related inquiries. 1. What to include in an inquiry a. A description of the subject or issue in question or discrepancy found. Page 45 b. RFA section, page number or other information useful in identifying the specific problem or issue in question. c. Remedy sought, if any. 2. Question deadline Questions must be received no later than midnight on December 15, 2011. Notwithstanding the question submission deadline, CDPH will accept questions or inquiries about the following issues if such inquiries are received prior to the application submission deadline. a. The reporting of RFA errors or irregularities. 3. How to submit questions Questions can be submitted via the CDPH website at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click on the link for this RFA, then click the link to the question form. E. Reasonable Accommodations For individuals with disabilities, the CDPH will provide assistive services such as reading or writing assistance, and conversion of the RFA, questions/answers, RFA Addenda, applicable library materials, or other Administrative Notices into Braille, large print, audiocassette, or computer disk. To request copies of written materials in an alternate format, please call the number below to arrange for reasonable accommodations. Debbie Gouvea Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch Program telephone number: (916) 552-9950 (TTY) California Relay Service telephone number: 711 NOTE: The range of assistive services available may be limited if requestors cannot allow ten or more State working days prior to the date the alternate format material is needed. F. Voluntary Non-Binding Letter of Intent 1. General information Prospective Applicants are asked to voluntarily indicate either their intention to submit an application or to indicate the reason(s) for not submitting an application. Failure to submit the Letter of Intent will not affect the acceptance of any application. The Letter of Intent is not binding and prospective Applicants are not required to submit an application merely because a Letter of Intent is submitted. 2. Submitting the Letter of Intent Submit the Voluntary Letter of Intent via the CSRB website at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click the link for this RFA, then click the link for the Voluntary Letter of Intent. Letters of Intent must be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on December 30, 2011. Page 46 G. Matching Funds No matching funds are required under this RFA. Although matching funds are not required as a condition of eligibility under this funding opportunity, CDPH will evaluate Applications based on leveraging criteria. Leveraging is when an Applicant proposes to provide additional funds to support or complement their application which are above and beyond the CDPH funds awarded. Leveraged funds can be from another federal grant, from an Applicant's own resources, or resources from other third party sources. Leveraged funding should specifically support one or more of the Performance Objectives for this RFA listed under the Data Production and Quality Control Management, Eureka Data Management Information System, and/or the Surveillance and Data Use sections as outlined under “Recipient Activities”. If awarded, CDPH will expect recipient to make the effort to secure the leveraged resources described in their applications. If the proposed leveraging does not materialize during grant performance, then CDPH may reconsider the legitimacy of the award and/or take other appropriate action as authorized under the grant terms and conditions. Any leveraged funds, and their source, must be identified on the Leveraged Funds form as part of the Application. H. CDPH Rights In addition to the rights discussed elsewhere in this RFA, CDPH reserves the following rights: 1. RFA corrections a) CDPH reserves the right to do any of the following up to the application submission deadline: i. Modify any date or deadline appearing in this RFA or the RFA Time Schedule. ii. Issue clarification notices, addenda, alternate RFA instructions, forms, etc. iii. Waive any RFA requirement or instruction for all Applicants if CDPH determines that the requirement or instruction was unnecessary, erroneous or unreasonable. b) If deemed necessary by CDPH to remedy an RFA error or defect that is not detected in a timely manner, CDPH may also issue correction notices or waive any unnecessary, erroneous, or unreasonable RFA requirement or instruction after the application submission deadline. c) If this RFA is clarified, corrected, or modified, CDPH will post clarification notices and/or RFA addenda on the CSRB web site at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click the link for this RFA. d) If CDPH decides, just before or on the application due date, to extend the submission deadline, CDPH will post the extension notice on the CSRB web site at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click the link for this RFA. 2. No grant award or RFA cancellation The issuance of this RFA does not constitute a commitment by CDPH to award a grant. CDPH reserves the right to reject all applications and to cancel this RFA if it is in the best interests of CDPH to do so. 3. Grant amendments after award Page 47 CDPH reserves the right to amend the grant after CDPH makes the grant award. 4. Proposed use of sub-grantees and/or independent consultants Specific sub-grant relationships proposed in response to this RFA (i.e., identification of preidentified sub-grantees and independent consultants) shall not be changed during the procurement process or prior to grant execution. The pre-identification of a sub-grantee or independent consultant does not affect CDPH’ right to approve personnel or staffing selections or changes made after the grant award. 5. Staffing changes after grant award CDPH reserves the right to approve or disapprove changes in key personnel that occur after CDPH awards the grant. I. Appeals Procedures An Applicant may appeal a funding decision on the grounds that CSRB failed to correctly adhere to the review process specified in the RFA. Only unfunded Applicants who submit an application within the required guidelines may appeal. There is no appeal process for incomplete applications or applications that are submitted after the deadline. Applicants must file a full and complete written appeal, including the issue(s) in dispute, the legal authority or other basis for the protester’s position and the remedy sought. Appeals must be postmarked within 5 working days after CDPH posts the Notice of Intent to Award. Applicants will be notified of decisions in writing within 5 working days of the receipt of their appeal. Incomplete appeals will be rejected. These appeals must be sent to the Linette Scott, MD, MPH, Deputy Director, Health Information and Strategic Planning, c/o the Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, California Department of Public Health. Faxes are not acceptable. Letters of appeal are to be addressed to: Linette Scott, MD, MPH Deputy Director Health Information and Strategic Planning c/o Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch California Department of Public Health 1616 Capitol Avenue, Suite 74.420 PO Box 997377 Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 At her sole discretion Dr. Scottmay hold hearings with the appellants to discuss the appeals, or make a decision based on the written appeal or both. The decision of Dr. Scott shall be the final administrative remedy. Within ten (10) working days of receipt of the written appeal, CSRB staff will contact the appellant regarding whether or not the appellant desires an in-house hearing or only a written response. Within ten (10) working days of either a hearing or notification by the appellant that a hearing is not desired, the appellant will receive final written decision from Dr. Scott. Page 48 5 PREPARING, ASSEMBLING, AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION A. Application Format and Content Requirements 1. General Instructions Applications must be prepared according to the following instructions. a. Each agency or individual may submit only one application. For the purposes of this paragraph, “agency” includes a parent corporation of an agency and any other subsidiary of that parent corporation. If an agency or individual submits more than one application, CDPH will reject all applications submitted by that firm or individual. An agency or individual proposing to act as a prime grantee may be named as a sub-grantee in another Applicant’s application. Similarly, more than one Applicant may use the same subgrantees and/or independent consultants. b. Develop applications by following all RFA instructions and/or clarifications issued by CDPH in the form of question and answer notices and/or clarification notices. c. Before submitting an application, seek timely written clarification of any requirements or instructions that are believed to be vague, unclear or that are not fully understood. d. In preparing an application response, all narrative portions should be straightforward, detailed and precise. CDPH will determine the responsiveness of an application by its quality, not its volume, packaging or colored displays. e. Arrange for the timely delivery of the application package(s) to the address specified in this RFA. Do not wait until shortly before the deadline to submit the application. f. Application materials received after the deadline will not be forwarded for consideration in the review process. 2. Format requirements a. Submit one (1) original application and 10 copies or sets. i. Write “Original” on the original application set. ii. Each application set must be complete with a copy of all required forms and documentation. iii. Print the original pages single-sided on white bond paper. iv. Copies of the application should be double-sided b. c. d. e. All applications must be in English. Applications must be clear and readily legible. Applications must be completed on original electronic CSRB forms. The Agency name of the Applicant should be placed in the area designated on each form. Page 49 f. Format the application as follows: i. Use a font size of not less than 12 points to complete the following forms: • Executive Summary (Form 4) • Agency Capability (Form 5) • Work Plan Narrative (Form 6A’s) • SOW(Form 6B’s) • Transition Plan (Form 7) • Management Plan (Form 8) • Personnel Plan (Form 9) • Facilities and Resources (Form 10) • Budget Justification (Form 15) • Leveraged Funds (Form 16) ii. For instances where Applicants need to fill out additional pages related to a form, the following specifications must be met: • Use one-inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. • Use a font size of not less than 12 points. • Use single space line spacing. • All pages must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch white paper. • Margins on remaining forms should not exceed boundaries created within the forms themselves. Please observe these size specifications throughout the application, or the application will be returned without review. Adherence to these type size and line spacing requirements is necessary for several reasons. No Applicants should have the advantage, by using small type, of providing more text in their applications. Small type may also make it difficult for reviewers to read the application. g. All RFA forms that require a signature must be signed in ink, preferably in a color other than black. i. Have a person who is authorized to bind the proposing agency, sign each RFA form that requires a signature. Signature stamps are not acceptable. ii. Place the forms with original signatures in the application set marked “Original.” iii. The RFA forms and other documentation placed in the extra application sets may reflect photocopied signatures. h. Do not mark any portion of the application response, any RFA form, or other item of required documentation as “Confidential” or “Proprietary.” CDPH will disregard any language purporting to render all or portions of an application confidential. Page 50 3. Content requirements The Forms Instruction Section (Section 8) specifies the order and content requirements for applications. The electronic forms for this application are available on the CSRB website at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. On the website, click on the RFA for which you are applying to find the required forms. B. Application Submission 1. General Instructions a. Assemble an original and 10 copies of the application together. Place the application set marked “Original” on top, followed by the 10 extra copies. b. Place all application copies in a single envelope or package, if possible. Seal the envelope or package. If more than one envelope or package is submitted, carefully label each one as instructed below, and mark on the outside of each envelope or package “1 of X”, “2 of X”, etc. c. Mail or arrange for hand delivery of the application to CDPH, CSRB. d. CSRB must receive the application, regardless of postmark or method of delivery, by 4:00 p.m., PST, on January 31, 2012. Late applications will not be reviewed or scored. e. Label and submit the application using one of the following methods. f. Hand Delivery or Overnight Express: U.S. Mail: Application RFA 11-10828 California Department of Public Health Cancer Surveillance Research Branch Mail Station 7205 1616 Capitol Ave, Suite 74.420 Sacramento, CA 95814 Application RFA 11-10828 California Department of Public Health Cancer Surveillance Research Branch Mail Station 7205 PO Box 997377 Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 Applicant Warning i. CDPH’s internal processing of U.S. mail may add 48 hours or more to the delivery time. If the Application is mailed, consider using certified or registered mail and request a receipt upon delivery. ii. For hand deliveries, allow sufficient time to locate on street metered parking and to sign-in at the security desk. If detained at the security desk, ask security personnel to call Monique Cabral at (916) 552-9880 to arrange for application pickup and receipt issuance. Applicants are warned not to surrender their applications in the care of a person other than CSRB staff. iii. Courier service personnel must sign-in at the security station and must obtain an access key card. Couriers will then be able to access pre-determined areas. If detained at the security desk, ask security personnel to call Monique Cabral at (916) 552-9880 to have a CSRB staff member collect the application package(s) and to Page 51 issue a receipt. Couriers are warned not to surrender applications in the care of a person other than CSRB staff. 2. Proof of Timely Receipt a. CDPH staff will log and attach a date/time stamped slip or bid receipt to each application package/envelope received. If an application envelope or package is hand delivered, CDPH staff will give a bid receipt to the hand carrier upon request. b. To be timely, CSRB must receive each application at the stated delivery address no later than 4:00 p.m., PST, on the application submission due date. Neither delivery to the CDPH’s mailroom or a U.S. postmark will serve as proof of timely delivery. c. CDPH will deem late applications nonresponsive. 3. Applicant Costs Applicants are responsible for all costs of developing and submitting an application. Such costs cannot be charged to CDPH or included in any cost element of an Applicant’s price offering. C. Verification of Applicant information By submitting an application, Applicants agree to authorize CDPH to: 1. Verify any and all claims made by the Applicant including, but not limited to verification of prior experience and the possession of other qualification requirements, and 2. Check any reference identified by an Applicant or other resources known by the State to confirm the Applicant’s business integrity and history of providing effective, efficient and timely services. D. Withdrawal and/or Resubmission of Applications All applications are to be complete when submitted. However, an entire application may be withdrawn and the Applicant may resubmit a new application. 1. Withdrawal deadlines a. An Applicant may withdraw an application at any time before the application submission deadline. 2. Submitting a withdrawal request a. Submit a written withdrawal request, signed by an authorized representative of the Applicant. b. Label and submit the withdrawal request using one of the following methods. Page 52 Hand Delivery or Overnight Express: U.S. Mail: Application RFA 11-10828 California Department of Public Health Cancer Surveillance Research Branch Mail Station 7205 1616 Capitol Ave, Suite 74.420 Sacramento, CA 95814 Application RFA 11-10828 California Department of Public Health Cancer Surveillance Research Branch Mail Station 7205 PO Box 997377 Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 c. An originally signed withdrawal request is required before CDPH will return an application to an Applicant. 3. Resubmitting an application After withdrawing an application, Applicants may resubmit a new application according to the application submission instructions. Replacement applications must be received at the stated place of delivery by the application due date and time. Page 53 6 EVALUATION AND SELECTION A. Collecting Information from Applicants 1. If deemed necessary, CDPH may request an Applicant to submit additional documentation during or after the application review and evaluation process. CDPH will advise the Applicants by email of the documentation that is required and the time line for submitting the documentation. Failure to submit the required documentation by the date and time indicated may cause CDPH to deem an application nonresponsive. 2. CDPH, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to collect, by mail, email, or other method; the following omitted documentation and/or additional information. a. Signed copies of any form submitted without a signature. b. Data or documentation omitted from any submitted RFA attachment/form. c. Information/material needed to clarify or confirm certifications or claims made by an Applicant. d. Information/material or form needed to correct or remedy an immaterial defect in an application. B. Immaterial Application Defects 1. CDPH may waive any immaterial defect in any application and allow the Applicant to remedy those defects. CDPH reserves the right to use its best judgment to determine what constitutes an immaterial deviation or defect. 2. CDPH’s waiver of an immaterial defect in an application shall in no way modify this RFA or excuse an Applicant from full compliance with all bid requirements. C. Correction of Clerical or Mathematical Errors 1. CDPH reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to overlook, correct or require an Applicant to remedy any obvious clerical or mathematical errors occurring in the application. 2. If the correction of an error results in an increase or decrease in the total price, CDPH shall give the Applicant the option to accept the corrected price or withdraw their application. 3. If a mathematical error occurs in a total or extended price and a unit price is present, CDPH will use the unit price to settle the discrepancy. D. Evaluation/Scoring A multiple stage evaluation process will be used to review and/or score applications. CDPH will reject any application that is found to be nonresponsive at any stage of evaluation. 1. Stage 1 – Required Attachment / Certification Checklist Review a. Shortly after the application submission deadline, CDPH staff will convene to review each application for timeliness, completeness, and initial responsiveness to the RFA requirements. This is a pass/fail evaluation. Page 54 b. In this review stage, CDPH will compare the contents of each application to the claims made by the Applicant on the Required Form / Certification Checklist to determine if the Applicant’s claims are accurate. c. If deemed necessary, CDPH may collect additional documentation (i.e., missing forms, missing data from RFA attachments, missing signatures, etc.) from an Applicant to confirm the claims made on the Required Form / Certification Checklist and to ensure that the application is initially responsive to the RFA requirements. d. If an Applicant’s claims on the Required Form / Certification Checklist cannot be proven or substantiated, the application will be deemed nonresponsive and rejected from further consideration. 2. Stage 2 –Application Evaluation/Scoring a. Applications that appear to meet the basic format requirements, initial qualification requirements and contain the required documentation, as evidenced by passing the Stage 1 review, will be submitted to a rating committee. b. The raters will individually and/or as a team review, evaluate and numerically score applications based on the application’s adequacy, thoroughness, and the degree to which it complies with the RFA requirements. c. Raters will evaluate Applications based on four criteria: i. ii. iii. iv. Approach – 45 points available Agency Capability – 25 points available Cost – 20 points available Leveraged Funds – 10 points available d. The following Rating Scale will be used to achieve the Overall Score: Rating Scale Adjective Rating Excellent Range of Points 100-91 Very Good 90-81 Good 80-71 Description Application response of exceptional merit, exceeds basic RFA requirements with more than one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, very minor (if any) deficiencies; Applicant response to SOW is well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; applicant offers superior methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that significantly reduce the risk of failure. Application response is very effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements with at least one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, minor (if any) deficiencies only; Applicant response to SOW is welldefined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers very sound methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that reduce the risk of failure. Application response is effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements and may exceed some requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Page 55 Satisfactory 70-61 Poor/Unsatis factory Less than 61 Applicant response to SOW is generally well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers sound methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that somewhat reduce the risk of failure Application response is marginally adequate, responsive to basic RFA requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response to SOW is interpretable but generally not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that only meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. Application response is not adequate, it is not responsive to basic RFA requirements, and has deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response to SOW is generally interpretable, but not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, processes, and capabilities that do not meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. E. Evaluation Criteria APPROACH (45 points) - Rating 0 to 45 The following scale will be used to rate Applicant’s Approach Adjective Rating Excellent Range of Points 45-41 Very Good 40-36 Good 35-31 Satisfactory 30-26 Description Application response of exceptional merit, exceeds basic RFA requirements with more than one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, very minor (if any) deficiencies; Applicant response to SOW is welldefined, quantifiable and achievable; applicant offers superior methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that significantly reduce the risk of failure. Application response is very effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements with at least one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, minor (if any) deficiencies only; Applicant response to SOW is welldefined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers very sound methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that reduce the risk of failure. Application response is effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements and may exceed some requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response to SOW is generally well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers sound methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that somewhat reduce the risk of failure Application response is marginally adequate, responsive to basic RFA requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response to SOW is interpretable but generally not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, processes and capabilities that only meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. Page 56 Poor/Unsatis factory Less than 26 Application response is not adequate, it is not responsive to basic RFA requirements, and has deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response to SOW is generally interpretable, but not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, processes, and capabilities that do not meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. The following forms will be considered when scoring the applicant’s Approach: • Work Plan Narratives (Forms 6A-1, 2, and 3) • Scopes of Work (Forms 6B-1, 2,and 3) • Transition Plan (Form 7) Raters will consider the following when scoring the Applicant’s Approach: Overall • Does the applicant express/demonstrate an understanding of the project requirements and objectives? • Are the overall strategies and methodologies well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific objectives of the project? • Is the plan adequate to carry out the proposed goals for the entire project period (5 years)? • Does the applicant describe in detail specific actions that the applicant will perform to fulfill all SOW requirements? • Does the applicant describe a performance standard, metric, acceptable quality level and monitoring system for each element of the work plan? • Does the plan describe an approach to developing and implementing a program of continuous process improvement? • Are potential problems and alternative strategies presented? • To what extent can the Applicant implement a smooth transition of activities with little or no disruption to ongoing services? Data Production and Quality Control Management • Has the applicant demonstrated an understanding of data submission procedures and standards? • Does the applicant describe an overall plan for data quality assurance and continuous improvement? Eureka Data Management Information Systems • Does the applicant provide Data Center Services and facilities that meet SAS 70 Type II requirements? • Does the applicant provide evidence of past experience managing an IT Service Management Plan that ensures system availability, reliability and performance of a mission critical online application as described in SOW 14.1? • Does the applicant provide adequate numbers of software engineering staff and experience to meet the SOW deliverables? • Does the applicant provide a defined, and quantifiable response (i.e. FTE’s assigned to manual work activities) on how the “per-unit cost” of cancer case collection and source document processing will be reduced by 35 percent or more as described in the SOW 1.1, and 1.25 ? • Does the applicant provide a defined and quantifiable response to “systematically “Visually Edit” 80 percent of new cancer admissions” as described in SOW 1.2 and 1.31? • Does the applicant provide a defined, and quantifiable response to “reduce the costs (FTEs) and cycle (time) of software releases by 60 percent” as described in SOW 1.20, 1.21, and 1.22? Page 57 • • • Does the applicant provide a defined, and quantifiable response to “process “straight-though” 80 percent of cancer admissions to case completion in real-time without any manual intervention” as described in SOW 1.3 and 1.18? Does the applicant provide a defined, and quantifiable response to develop Meaningful Use Initiative solutions as describe in SOW 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 ? Will the plan effectively facilitate collaborative projects involving non-CCR investigators including NCI cancer centers? Surveillance and Data Use • Are there adequate connections among the proposed surveillance, research, public health and outreach components of the plan to build a synergistic overall program? • Are appropriate cancer registry stakeholders (education and research institutions, businesses, community groups, community based organizations; state and local governments, state and local health departments, and other non-governmental organizations) engaged in the program? • Does applicant describe a comprehensive plan for monitoring cancer surveillance data and reporting results? • Does the applicant provide an effective plan for communication of issues in cancer concerns and cancer risk to public? • Does the plan describe steps for expanding the reach of reports and CCR data to new users and stakeholders? • Does the applicant demonstrate expert knowledge in cancer epidemiology and statistical methods? • Does the applicant describe a rationale for prioritizing cancer surveillance and epidemiologic studies and projects? • Does the applicant describe a strategy for statewide coordination, collaboration, communication regarding surveillance and research? AGENCY CAPABILITY (25 points) - Rating 0 to 25 The following scale will be used to rate Applicant’s Agency Capability Adjective Rating Excellent Range of Points 25-23 Very Good 22-20 Good 19-17 Satisfactory 17-15 Description Application response of exceptional merit, exceeds basic RFA requirements with more than one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, very minor (if any) deficiencies; Applicant response is well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; applicant offers superior methods, approaches, plans, resources, and capabilities that significantly reduce the risk of failure. Application response is very effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements with at least one substantial additional element that will enable performance to exceed basic requirements, minor (if any) deficiencies only; Applicant response is well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers very sound methods, approaches, plans, resources and capabilities that reduce the risk of failure. Application response is effective, fully responsive to basic RFA requirements and may exceed some requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response is generally well-defined, quantifiable and achievable; Applicant offers sound methods, approaches, plans, resources, and capabilities that somewhat reduce the risk of failure Application response is marginally adequate, responsive to basic Page 58 Poor/Unsatis factory Less than 15 RFA requirements, but with deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response is often interpretable but generally not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, plans, resources, and capabilities that only meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. Application response is not adequate, it is not responsive to basic RFA requirements, and has deficiencies that may impact ability to deliver overall requirements; Applicant response is generally interpretable, but not well-defined and quantifiable for critical work activities; Applicant offers methods, approaches, plans, resources, and capabilities that do not meet the minimum level of acceptable risk of failure. The following forms will be considered when scoring the Agency Capability: • Agency Capability Form (Form 5) • SOW (Form 6B-4) • Management Plan (Form 8) • Personnel Plan (Form 9) • Facilities and Resources Form (Form 10) Raters will consider the following when scoring the Applicant’s Agency Capability: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Does existing or planned staff have appropriate experience and training? Does the Applicant have experience managing cancer or other health information? Are existing or planned staff roles and responsibilities clearly defined? As described, will the existing or planned staff be sufficient to accomplish the program and section goals and objectives? Are adequate software engineering resources documented? Is the leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project? How well does the proposed governance and organizational structure address the need to ensure coherence, consistency, and quality across all components of the CCR, including all CCR operations, data management, and surveillance and the regions? Does the agency have relevant experience managing disease registries and/or public health informatics projects? Does the proposed management team have past experience and mastery in institutionalizing a “continuous process improvement” methodology? Does the proposed management team have past experience and expertise in successfully reengineering an organization to move from manual-based work processes to automated end-to-end business processes that utilize the Internet and other technologies? Does the proposed management team have evidence of past experience and mastery in institutionalizing a “continuous process improvement” methodology as demonstrated by a documented history of implementing a process and providing examples of its success? Does the response address the substantive challenges required to develop the technology solutions required meet the data management end-state vision goals and objectives? Does the applicant provide a substantive response to how it will facilitate progress in meeting Meaningful Use objectives? Does the Applicant provide evidence of being capable of developing and managing a dynamic organizational structure that is able to adapt quickly to changing business environments to meet both challenges and opportunities? Does the response address providing secure SAS 70 Type II data center services to host a mission critical online application that contains confidential patient medical health record information? Page 59 • Is there a record of success in obtaining and successfully managing external funds for projects that may supplement the CCR program such as other federal grants, support from states and other public agencies, and support from the private sector? COST (20 points) Rating 0-20 The following scale will be used to rate Applicant’s Cost Adjective Rating Excellent Range of Points 20-19 Very Good 18-17 Good 16-15 Satisfactory 14-13 Poor/Unsatis factory Less than 13 Description Costs are fully justified and support the goals and objectives of the project. Budget reflects innovative approaches to reduce costs while fully supporting the proposed SOW. Costs are extremely competitive and administrative costs have been kept at a minimum. All budget forms are complete and accurate. Costs are fully justified and support the goals and objectives of the project. Costs support the proposed SOW, but no innovative approaches to reducing costs have been identified. Costs are competitive and administrative costs have been kept at a minimum. All budget forms are complete and accurate. Costs support the goals and objectives of the project and support the proposed SOW, but costs are not fully justified. Costs appear reasonable and administrative costs have been kept at a minimum. Budget forms are complete and accurate. Costs support the proposed SOW. Costs are reasonable. Budget forms have minor errors. Costs are not justified and do not support the proposed SOW. Budget forms contain significant errors. The following forms will be considered when scoring the Cost of the Application: • Budget Detail Worksheets (Forms 12A-F) • Sub-grantees Budgets (Forms 13A-F) • Budget Justification (Form 15) Raters will consider the following when scoring the applicant’s Cost: • • • • • • • • • Has the Applicant introduced innovative approaches to reduce costs or provide other benefits? Does the budget support the goals and objectives of the project? Is the budget realistic/reasonable for the SOW? Are the costs justified? Are the costs competitive? Does the application efficiently use the resources available? Are the salaries appropriate for the position classifications? Have the administrative costs been kept at a minimum? Are the budget forms complete and accurate? LEVERAGING RESOURCES (10 points) Rating 0-10 Additional points will be awarded to Applicant’s proposing to leverage additional funds, based on the following scale: Page 60 Points 10 8 6 4 2 0 Leveraging Over $10 million $8 – $10 million $5 - $7.9 million $2 - $4.9 million $1.00 – $1.9 million $0 The following form will be considered when scoring this section: • Leveraged Funds (Form 16) Scoring: • • Has the Applicant identified any leveraged funds to support or complement their application? If so, how much? Do the funds support the types of activities approved for leveraging funds? Page 61 7 GRANT AWARD A. Application Mistakes If prior to grant award, award confirmation, or grant signing, an Applicant discovers a mistake in their application and/or cost offering that renders the Applicant unable or unwilling to perform all SOW services as described in its application response for the price/costs offered, the Applicant must immediately notify CDPH and submit a written request to withdraw its application following the procedures set forth in Section 5, Subsection D. B. Grant Award 1. CDPH shall award the grant only after CDPH posts a Notice of Intent to Award for five (5) working days. CDPH expects to post the Notice of Intent to Award before the close of business on March 2, 2012 on the CSRB website at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click the link for this RFA. 2. Awards will be made to Applicants with the highest scores and whose applications are determined to be technically complete, professional qualifications, experience meet the terms of the RFA, and deemed most competent by the review panel. 3. CDPH will confirm the grant award to the winning Applicant after the appeal deadline, if no appeals are filed. CDPH staff may confirm an award verbally or in writing. C. Unanticipated tasks In the event unanticipated or additional work must be performed that is not identified in this RFA, but in CDPH’s opinion is necessary to successfully accomplish the SOW, CDPH will initiate a grant amendment to add that work. All terms and conditions appearing in the final grant including the salary/wage rates, unit rates and/or other expenses appearing on the Applicant’s Budget Detail Work Sheets will apply to any additional work. D. Resolution of language conflicts (RFA vs. final agreement) If an inconsistency or conflict arises between the terms and conditions appearing in the final agreement and the proposed terms and conditions appearing in this RFA, any inconsistency or conflict will be resolved by giving precedence to the final agreement. E. Disposition of Applications 1. All materials submitted in response to this RFA will become the property of CDPH and, as such, are subject to the Public Records Act (GC Section 6250, et seq.). CDPH will disregard any language purporting to render all or portions of any application confidential. 2. Upon posting of a Notice of Intent to Award, all documents submitted in response to this RFA and all documents used in the selection process (e.g., review checklists, scoring sheets, letters of intent, etc.) will be regarded as public records under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and subject to review by the public. However, application contents, Applicant correspondence, selection working papers, or any other medium shall be held in the strictest confidence until the Notice of Intent to award is posted. Page 62 3. CDPH may return an application to an Applicant at their request and expense after CDPH concludes the bid process. F. Inspecting or obtaining copies of applications 1. Who can inspect or copy application materials Any person or member of the public can inspect or obtain copies of any application materials. 2. What can be inspected / copied and when a. On or after the date CDPH posts the Notice of Intent to Award, all applications, Applicants list, letters of intent, checklists and/or scoring/evaluation sheets become public records. These records shall be available for review, inspection and copying during normal business hours. 3. Inspecting or obtaining copies of application materials Persons wishing to view or inspect any application or award related materials must identify the items they wish to inspect and must make an inspection appointment by contacting Roslyn McClain at (916) 445-8502. Persons wishing to obtain copies of application materials may visit CDPH or mail a written request to the CDPH office identified below. The requestor must identify the items they wish to have copied. Materials will not be released from State premises for the purposes of making copies. Unless waived by CDPH, a check covering copying and/or mailing costs must accompany the request. Copying costs, when applicable, are charged at a rate of ten cents per page. CDPH will fulfill all copy requests as promptly as possible. Submit copy requests as follows: Request for Copies - RFA 11-10828 Roslyn McClain California Department of Public Health Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch MS 7205 1616 Capitol Avenue PO Box 997377 Sacramento, CA 95899-7377 Page 63 8 FORM INSTRUCTIONS The forms required to submit an application are available in downloadable electronic format on the CSRB website at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click on the link for this RFA. Assemble the materials in each application set in the order listed in the Table of Contents (Form 3). The instructions for completing each form are listed below. FORM 1 – Application Cover Page A person authorized to bind the Applicant must sign the Application Cover Page. If the Applicant is a corporation, a person authorized by the Board of Directors to sign on behalf of the Board must sign the Application Cover Page. FORM 2 – Certification Checklist 1. Check each item with “Yes” or “N/A”, as applicable, and sign the form. If necessary, explain the choices. 2. If an Applicant marks “Yes” or “N/A” and makes any notation on the checklist and/or attaches an explanation to the checklist to clarify their choice, CDPH considers this a “qualified response.” Any “qualified response,” determined by CDPH to be unsatisfactory or insufficient to meet a requirement, may cause an application to be deemed nonresponsive. Any attachments must be in at least 12 font and have one inch page margins. . FORM 3 – Table of Contents Enter the appropriate sequential page numbers for each of the sections within the application. FORM 4 – Executive Summary – 2 Page Limit In preparing the Executive Summary, do not simply restate or paraphrase information in this RFA. Describe or demonstrate, in the Applicant’s own words, the following information. 1. An understanding of CDPH’s needs and the importance of this project. 2. The tangible results that are expected to be achieved. 3. A sincere commitment to perform the SOW in an efficient and timely manner. 4. How this project will be effectively integrated into the applying agency’s current obligations and existing workload. 5. Why the applying agency should be chosen to undertake this work at this time. FORM 5 – Agency Capability - 10 Page Limit This form in conjunction with the Management Plan (Form 8), Personnel Plan (Form 9), and the Facilities and Resources (Form 10), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Agency Capability” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. Page 64 1. Include a brief history of the applying agency, including: a. Date of establishment. If applicable, explain any changes in business history or organizational structure that will assist CDPH in determining the qualifications of the applying agency. b. A description of the applying agency’s goals that are relevant, closely related, or will complement this project. 2. Describe relevant experience that demonstrates the Applicant’s ability to successfully undertake this project. Applicants should specifically address any experience with: a. Health Information Management b. Public Health Informatics c. Managing a hospital-based, population-based, or specialty or other disease registry d. Managing large, complex protected health or other confidential data systems e. Conducting public health disease surveillance and epidemiologic studies f. Performing health events investigations g. Processing and analyzing health-related information using standard statistical analysis software programs. h. Obtaining outside support, such as federal grants, to supplement registry activities. i. Providing up-to date cancer or other health information to policy makers, health professionals, and the public j. Successfully reengineering a large organization to move from manual-based production work processes to automated end-to-end business processes that utilize the Internet and other technologies. k. Developing and managing a dynamic organizational structure that is able to adapt quickly to changing business environments to meet both challenges and opportunities. l. Engaging in Meaningful Use Initiatives to facilitate the achievement of one or more objectives. m. Mastery in institutionalizing a “continuous process improvement” methodology. n. Developing technology solutions in support of key strategic end-state vision goals and objectives. o. Securely hosting a mission critical online web-based application and database with confidential patient health records and information. p. Developing, supporting, and maintaining a complex web-based application, expert systems, and associated databases. 3. Describe work projects begun and/or completed in the past five years that involved services similar in nature or closely related to the SOW in this RFA. For each account or project listed, include the following information: Page 65 a. Name of agency or firm for whom services were performed, b. Duration or length of the project, c. Total cost or value of the project, d. Indicate if the account or project is “active/open” or “closed/settled,” e. Describe briefly the type and nature of the services performed. 4. Describe any experience that demonstrates the applying agency’s ability to establish and maintain effective working relationships with government entities, local community based organizations, and private nonprofit organizations. FORM 6A-1, 2, and 3 – Work Plan Narratives CDPH is interested in applications that provide well-organized, comprehensive, and technically sound business solutions. Vague explanations will undermine the proposing Applicant’s credibility and will result in reduced application scores. These forms in conjunction with the Scopes of Work (Form 6B’s) and Transition Plan (Form 7) will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Approach” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. 1. Applicants will submit three (3) Work Plan Narratives that cover the following programmatic areas: • Data Production and Quality Control Management (Form 6A-1) - 10 Page Limit • Eureka Data Management Information System (Form 6A-2) - 30 Page Limit • Surveillance and Data Use (Form 6A-3) - 15 Page Limit 2. Each Work Plan Narrative must include a focused discussion and description of the methods, approaches, and specific actions that will be carried out to fulfill all performance objectives detailed in the SOW forms 6-B, 1, 2, and 3. a. Briefly, explain or describe the overall approach and/or methods that will be used to accomplish the performance objectives identified in the SOW forms 6-B, 1, 2, and 3. i. Explain why the particular approaches and methods that are proposed were chosen (e.g., proven success or past effectiveness, etc.). ii. If applicable, explain what is unique, creative, or innovative about the proposed approaches and/or methods. b. For each performance objective, provide the following information: i. Indicate who will have primary responsibility for performing each major task/activity or function. If known, identify the name and position title of all key personnel, sub-grantees, and/or consultants that will perform the work. If the responsible party is unknown or not yet identified, identify a staff position title or project name/title and indicate “TBD” which is the abbreviation for “to be determined”. ii. Include a performance time line for each major task/activity or function. Indicate the approximate beginning and ending month and year. If a task/activity or function will only occur in one fiscal period or year, indicate the beginning and ending month and year. Page 66 If desirable, in addition to start and end dates, Applicants may use other terms such as startup, on-going, continuous, take-over, turn-over, etc. to describe the performance time line. In doing so, Applicants must define the meaning of each unique term that is used. iii. Explain/describe how the Applicant intends to measure, evaluate, or prove successful completion of each major task, function, or activity. If applicable, identify the key events or outcomes that will signify completion or identify tangible items (deliverables) that will result at the conclusion of the various tasks/activities or functions. iv. Explain/describe how the Applicant intends to measure, meet and improve quality standards for each major task, function, or activity. v. If the nature of a task or function hinders specific delineation of in-depth methods and procedures (e.g., a task is dependent upon a future action or multiple approaches may be used), explain the probable methods, approaches, or procedures that will be used to accomplish the task or function. Also, describe, in this instance, how the Applicant will propose the ultimate strategies and detailed plans to CDPH for full consideration and approval before proceeding to carry out the project. c. If any major complications or delays are envisioned at any stage of performance, describe those complications or delays and include a proposed strategy for overcoming those issues. Likewise, indicate if no major complications or delays are anticipated. d. If, for any reason, the Work Plan does not wholly address each SOW (SOW) requirement, fully explain each omission. Likewise, indicate if the Work Plan contains no omissions. e. Indicate the assumptions made in developing the Work Plan in response to SOW. For each assumption listed, explain the reasoning or rationale that led to each assumption. Likewise, indicate if no assumptions were made. f. If applicable, identify any additional Grantee and/or State responsibilities that were included in the Work Plan that are believed to be necessary to ensure successful performance, but were omitted from CDPH’s SOW. Likewise, indicate if no additional Grantee and/or State responsibilities, outside of those identified in CDPH’s SOW were included in the Work Plan. FORM 6B-1, 2, 3, and 4 – Scope of Work (SOW) The SOW forms will become the official SOW for the resulting grant, and should include all activities in support of the work described in the Work Plan (Forms 6A, 1-3), as well as the administrative activities required to support the programmatic functions as described in the Management Plan (Form 8), Personnel Plan (Form 9), Facilities/Resources (Form 10), and Transition Plan (Form 7). Applicants can add, edit, or delete objectives and activities as needed to accurately reflect the work proposed to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the RFA. These forms in conjunction with the Work Plan Narratives (Form 6A’s), and Transition Plan (Form 7), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Approach” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. Complete the SOW form for each of the following areas: • • • Data Production and Quality Control Management (Form 6B-1) Eureka Data Management Information System (Form 6B-2) Surveillance and Data use (Form 6B-3) Page 67 • Administrative (Form 6B-4) The SOW forms consists of the following 8 columns: • Performance Objective • Required Service • Work to Be Performed • • • • • Performance Standard – A targeted level of accomplishment associated with a desired set of outcomes and expectations. Performance Metric – How the performance standard will be measured. Acceptable Quality Level – The expected performance level for the Applicant. Monitoring System – The mechanisms used to evaluate the work to be performed. Timeline – The timeframe in which the work will be performed by the Applicant. The first three columns have been completed for you. For each Performance Objective, Required Service, and Work to Be Performed listed you are to complete the appropriate Performance Standard, Performance Metric, Acceptable Quality Level, Monitoring System, and Timeline that corresponds with them. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate process improvements and industry best practices in their applications Adding of Performance Objectives, Required Services, and Work to Be Performed • Applicants may include additional Performance Objectives, Required Services, and Work to Be Performed activities. These additions should be done in red font. Deleting/Editing of Performance Objective, Required Service, and Work to Be Performed • Applicants may delete/edit existing Performance Objectives, Required Services, and Work to Be Performed activities. These deletions/edits should be noted by striking out the affected activities. If additions or deletions to the SOW affect the numbering in the document, please disregard this issue, as the numbering will be corrected by CSRB. FORM 7 – Transition Plan – 3 Page Limit Describe an initial overall plan and/or approach for coordinating the transition of existing activities from the current contractor. Address any foreseeable transition complications and potential methods for dealing with or resolving transition complications to minimize the disruption of existing services. The Grantee must submit a finalized transition plan to the State for approval within 15 days after the grant start date. This form in conjunction with the Work Plan Narratives (Form 6As) and Scopes of Work (Form 6Bs), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Approach” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. FORM 8 – Management Plan – 3 Page Limit Grant staff will work collaboratively with and receive direction from CSRB managers. Grant and CSRB staff will be housed together and work together on a daily basis. In order to provide efficient supervision and successful management of the grant, an on-site Grant Manager should be included in any application. This form in conjunction with the Agency Capability (Form 5), Personnel Plan (Form 9), and the Facilities and Resources (Form 10), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Agency Capability” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. Within the Management Plan, please: 1. Describe the Applicant’s management structure to be used to work within the infrastructure noted above. Describe how the Applicant will effectively coordinate, manage, and monitor the efforts of the Page 68 assigned staff, including sub-grantees and/or consultants, if any, to ensure that all tasks, activities, and functions are completed effectively and in a timely manner. a. Describe any project management processes and tools applicant will utilize. b. Describe any continuous process improvement methods applicant will use to ensure overall program efficiencies. 2. Describe the fiscal accounting processes and budgetary controls that will be employed to ensure the responsible use and management of grant funds and accurate invoicing. Include at a minimum, a brief description of all of the following: a. Describe how the costs incurred under this project will be appropriately accounted for and only applicable project expenses will be billed to CDPH (e.g., use of unique account/project codes, etc.). b. Describe the applying agency’s fiscal reporting and monitoring capabilities (e.g., spreadsheets, automated fiscal reports, quality controls, checks and balances, expenditure forecasting, etc.) to ensure grant funds are managed responsibly. c. Describe the proposed billing or invoicing frequency (not more frequently than once per month). Electronic billing is not possible. 3. Include an organization chart. The organizational chart must show the lines of authority and reporting relationships within the Applicant’s organization including the relationship between management and sub-grantees and/or independent consultants, if any. Place the organization chart in the Appendix Section of the application. 4. Include financial statements. Submit copies of financial statements for the past two years or most recent twenty-four (24) month period. a. Annual income statement(s), and b. Quarterly or annual balance sheets Audited statements are preferred, but not required. If audited financial statements are supplied, all noted audit exceptions must be explained. CDPH will accept financial statements prepared by an Applicant’s financial accounting department, accounting firm or an auditing firm. A statement signed by an Applicant’s Chief Financial Officer certifying that the financial statements are accurate and complete must accompany all financial statements. Place the financial statement in the Appendix Section of the application. FORM 9 – Personnel Plan – 10 Page Limit This form in conjunction with the Agency Capability (Form 5), Transition Plan (Form 7), Management Plan (Form 8), and the Facilities and Resources (Form 10), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Agency Capability” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. 1. In this section, describe the proposed staffing plan. In the staffing plan, include at a minimum: a. Position titles for all proposed positions b. Number of personnel in each position. Page 69 c. By position, indicate the full time equivalent (FTE) or percentage of staff time devoted to this project (e.g., full time = 1.0, 1/2 time = .50, 3/4 time = .75, 1/4 time = .25, projected number of hours, if hourly, etc.). d. Annual salary rate or wage range for each position title. Note: Salary rates are restricted to the current National Institutes of Health salary cap, per annum, prorated according to the percent effort on the project. e. Include a job description or duty statement for each position title or classification that will perform work under this project. The job descriptions must indicate the typical tasks and responsibilities that will be assigned to the position and may include desired or required education and experience. To the extent possible job descriptions should not exceed 1-2 pages in length per position title or classification that will perform work under this project. Place all job descriptions or duty statements in the Appendix Section. f. Identify by name and/or position title, each key staff person that will have primary responsibility for managing, directing, overseeing and/or coordinating the work of assigned staff, sub-grantees and/or independent consultants and who will maintain effective communications with CDPH (i.e., Project or Program Manager, Project or Program Director, Grant Manager, etc.). i. Briefly, describe each person’s expertise, capabilities, and credentials. ii. Emphasize any relevant past experience in directing, overseeing, coordinating, or managing other government projects. g. Include a 1-2 page resume for each key staff person (professional, managerial or supervisory) that will exercise a major administrative, policy, or consulting role in carrying out the project work. Place staff resumes in the Appendix Section. To the extent possible, resumes should not include personal information such as a social security number, home address, home telephone number, marital status, sex, birth date, age, etc. 2. Briefly, describe the administrative policies or procedures to be used to ensure that the Applicant will recruit and select well-qualified, competent, and experienced staff, sub-grantees and/or independent consultants. 3. Briefly, describe the processes or procedures that will be used to ensure that vacancies are filled expeditiously and that services are continued despite the presence of vacancies. 4. If sub-grantees (including independent consultants) will be used to perform grant services, Applicants must do the following at the time of application submission: a. Indicate if the Applicant has pre-identified any agencies/persons to perform the work or if the Applicant will recruit them later. i. For each pre-identified sub-grantee and independent consultant include: 1) Full legal name. 2) A SOW that outlines the duties and functional responsibilities that will be assigned to the sub-grantee agency or independent consultant. 3) A brief explanation as to why the sub-grantee agency or independent consultant was chosen. Stress things such as applicable skills, knowledge, capabilities, past experience Page 70 or accomplishments, availability, reasonableness of rates, notoriety in a field or specialty, etc. 4) A 1-2 page resume for key staff of each pre-identified sub-grantee and/or independent consultant. Place all sub-grantee and/or consultant resumes in the Appendix Section. To the extent possible, resumes should not include personal information such as a social security number, home address, home telephone number, marital status, sex, birth date, age, etc. 5) For each pre-identified sub-grantee and independent consultant, that will be used to perform services under the resulting grant, submit a letter of agreement to work on this project. A letter of agreement must be signed by an official representative of each sub-grantee agency or independent consultant, indicating his or her acknowledgement of being named as a sub-grantee or consultant, their availability to work on this project and acknowledgement that they have read or been made aware of the proposed grant terms, conditions and exhibits. Include an explanation if a letter of agreement cannot be obtained from each pre-identified sub-grantee and consultant and indicate when a letter of agreement will be forthcoming. Specific sub-grantee and/or independent consultant relationships proposed in response to this RFA (i.e., identification of pre-identified sub-grantees and independent consultants) shall not be changed during the procurement process or prior to grant execution. The pre-identification of a sub-grantee or independent consultant does not affect CDPH’ right to approve personnel or staffing selections or changes made after the grant award. Place all sub-grantee and/or consultant letters of agreement in the Appendix Section. ii. For sub-grantees and/or independent consultants that cannot be identified when the application is submitted to CDPH or are to be determined (TBD) after the grant is executed, include: 1) An identification of the functions, activities, and responsibilities that will be assigned to each sub-grantee and/or independent consultant. 2) A description of the process that will be used to obtain CDPH approval of each subgrantee and/or independent consultant selection along with approval of their budgeted costs and assigned responsibilities. FORM 10 – Facilities and Resources – 10 Page Limit Applicants must provide all facilities and resources in support of the SOW. In addition, Applicant must provide space in their facility to accommodate an additional 25 CSRB staff and provide all necessary facility resources (space, communications, networks, etc.) for the CSRB staff. Facilities must be within a 20 miles radius of the Sacramento downtown area. This form in conjunction with the Agency Capability (Form 5), Management Plan (Form 8), and Personnel Plan (Form 9), will be used to evaluate the Applicants “Agency Capability” as detailed in the Evaluation Criteria provision. 1. Describe the facilities that will be used to house this project and the additional 25 CSRB staff. Page 71 2. Identify any facilities, support services, or equipment that the Applicant must purchase, rent, or lease on a long or short-term basis to perform the services described in this RFA. 3. Desktop Support Technical Services The Applicant is responsible for providing all computer and telecommunication services in support of local on-site staff including personal desktop support, Internet access, video-conferencing, email exchange, disaster recovery, and telecommunications support. These include such services as the operation, maintenance, and sustaining engineering of computing systems, email exchange, local networks, network systems, peripherals, firewalls, personal desktop computers, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Outlook, telephones, and all other hardware, software and services needed to support onsite staff and their connectivity to external organizations. For security reasons, a complete list of the current hardware and software supported will be provided to the Applicant in a more secure manner, if requested. Describe the desktop support services to be provided. 4. Data Center Services The Applicant is responsible for providing all Data Center Services needed to securely host a mission-critical online web-based production application and database, and it’s associated development, testing, fail-over, disaster recovery, research, and other server environments. The Applicant may provide the Data Center Services internally, or “outsource” the services to a third-party vendor. The Data Center Services are to meet SAS 70 Type II requirements for data security, performance, reliability, and availability. The essential support requirement for Data Center Services is to ensure 99.3% Eureka production systems availability between 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) and to manage oversight of the data center services to meet Service Management Plan obligations for overall system environment availability, reliability and performance. Eureka is designed to use the public internet to provide secure web-based access to the application. The Applicant shall provide services as follows in a secure environment such as a SAS 70 Type II Data Center. Infrastructure services, including secure facility with physical access control, backup power, rack storage, environmental monitoring, network connectivity, and hardware monitoring services (e.g., reporting visible problems to customer). The Applicant is responsible for providing hardware (e.g., server, storage); operating system and related software components; back-end software (e.g., web, application, database, fileserver); and backup equipment and consumables. The Applicant is responsible for performing all system administration, network administration, network engineering, security administration, maintenance, and all sustaining activities associated with the hardware, software and associated applications, and developing, implementing, and maintaining the IT Security Plan. The current supported environments in addition to production are; Eureka software development, quality assurance testing, user acceptance testing, disaster recovery, reports, extracts, research, and miscellaneous other environments that are comprised of the following basic technologies and components with an annual hardware/software/equipment budget of ~$250,000. For security reasons, a complete list of hardware and software will be provided to the Applicant in a more secure manner, if requested. • • • Microsoft Windows 2008 Operating System Microsoft SQL 2008 Enterprise Database Microsoft .NET 3.5 Framework Page 72 • • • • • • • • • Microsoft Team Foundation Server Public Internet Internet Explorer 8.0 ~4 terabytes of storage 70 Servers Routers/Switches Firewalls Tape Backups 9 racks Services Provided by the Data Center Physical Location Physical Access Control Redundant Power Environmental Monitoring Hardware Monitoring Network Connectivity Hardware and Operating System with, including Operations and Maintenance, Sustaining, Upgrades, and Backup Capability System Administration Network Engineering Network Administration Support Security Plan Development, Implementation, and Maintenance IT Security Plan Development, Implementation, and Maintenance Hosting Services (e.g., Web, Application, Database, File Storage) Data Backups Hosting Services of other non-production environments. Describe the Data Center Services to be provided. FORM 11 – Cost Proposal Indicate the annual cost for each full budget period and include a total cost. The first partial year budget, April 1 – June 30, 2012 is restricted to $500,000 for establishing the infrastructure and transitioning functions from current contractor. Each additional budget year is restricted to $5.7 million per year. When completing the form, include all estimated costs to perform the services for the entire term. The incumbent, if applying, is restricted from requesting the $500,000 transition funding. The Applicant’s signature is required. By signing the Applicant agrees that the price(s)/rate(s)/cost(s) presented in its Cost Proposal and Budget Detail Worksheet(s) shall remain in effect until CDPH awards the resulting agreement and throughout the duration of the agreement. CSRB follows the guidelines set forth by the Federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in effect on the effective date of the award, in determining costs (direct, indirect, allowable, and unallowable). Page 73 1. Direct Costs Direct costs, as identified in the guidelines, are any costs that can be identified specifically with a particular project, program, or activity or that can be directly assigned to such activities relatively easily and with a high degree of accuracy. Direct costs include, but are not limited to: salaries, travel, equipment, and supplies directly benefiting the grant support project or activity. Administrative and clerical salaries can be directly charged only if their tasks are project-specific or in direct support of the technical work. These costs must be well justified if they are included. Postage, office supplies, telephone, copying and other administrative/operating costs would normally be considered indirect costs. They may be charged directly to the grant if they are solely for the activities of the CCR and are fully justified in the proposal. 2. Indirect Costs Indirect costs are those: (a) incurred for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one cost objective, and (b) not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. These costs are charged indirectly through the institution’s negotiated indirect cost rate and may not be charged directly to the grant. Examples of these costs are: administrative salaries (provided at the departmental/central level), facilities operation and maintenance costs, and depreciation. Individuals with no institutional affiliations will not be paid indirect costs as grantee or sub-grantees. In the absence of a federal agreement, an equivalently documented Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) rate for the institution may be used. Provisional or pending increases in indirect cost rates will be included in awards only if they are documented prior to execution of the grant agreement. The maximum indirect costs that CSRB pays is the lesser of: (a) the current federally approved rate for the budget year; or (b) the rate provided for in the approved budget. Under no circumstances will funded projects be supplemented to reflect an unanticipated increase in the ICR rate. If the ICR rate decreases below that provided for in the approved budget, CSRB will pay overhead at the new lower rate starting on the date of change, and will decrease the award to the institution by the difference between the originally approved amount and the amount to be accrued at the new rate. For funded awards, CSRB requires a copy of the institution’s current indirect cost agreement annually. FORM 12 – Budget Detail Worksheet Provide a Budget Detail Worksheet for each fiscal year of the application (April 1 to June 30 for Year 1 and July 1 to June 30 for all subsequent years). Year 1 is Form 12A, Year 2 is Form 12B, Year 3 is Form 12C, Year 4 is Form 12D, Year 5 is Form 12E, and Year 6 is Form 12F. On each Budget Detail Worksheet, provide specific cost breakdowns for the budget line items identified in this section. All unit rates/costs, if any (i.e., square footage, salary rates/ranges, hourly rates, etc.), must be multiplied out and totaled for each budget period. Please report costs using whole dollars only. Round fractional dollar amounts or cents to the nearest whole dollar amount. Identify the projected detailed expenses for each line item identified below by following the instructions herein. A. Personnel: For each position, enter in: • Column 1, identify each funded position title or classification that will participate in the project; • Column 2, identify the annual salary rate for each position/classification. Include paid leave benefits such as sick leave, vacation, annual leave, holiday pay, etc. in the salary rates or ranges; • Column 3, indicate the full time equivalent (FTE) or annual percentage of time/effort for each position (i.e., full time = 100%, 3/4 time = 75%,1/2 time = .50%, 1/4 time = 25%, number of hours, if hourly, etc.) working on the project. Page 74 • • • Column 4, the total salary is calculated by multiplying annual salary (column 2) by the FTE percentage (column 3). Applicants may add additional rows to this section, as needed. If applicable, enter $0 if no personnel costs will be incurred. Salary rates are restricted to the current National Institutes of Health salary cap, per annum, prorated according to the percent effort on the project. B. Fringe Benefits: Provide the actual fringe benefits percentage rate in the space provided. Fringe benefit expenses include, but are not limited to, costs for worker’s compensation insurance; unemployment insurance, health, dental, vision and/or life insurance; disability insurance; pension plan/retirement benefits; etc. Calculate the actual Fringe Benefit amount as a percentage of the Personnel Expenses line item and enter the amount in Column 4. If applicable, enter $0 if no fringe benefit costs will be incurred. C. Operating Expenses: Identify all direct project costs. Direct project costs may include but are not limited to the following expense items: • • • • • • • • • • • Consumable office supplies such as paper, pens, copier toner, printer cartridges, etc. Minor equipment purchases (i.e., items with a unit cost of less than $5,000 and a useful life of one year or more). Telecommunications (i.e., telephone or cellular telephones, fax, Internet service provider fees, etc.). Reproduction/printing/duplication. Postage or messenger/delivery service costs. Equipment/furniture rental/lease and maintenance. Software (including license fees, upgrade/maintenance fees, etc.). List each operating expenses on a separate row. If applicable, include the number of units and anticipated unit cost. Extend each unit cost to display applicable subtotals. Applicants may add additional rows to this section, as needed. Enter the total Operating Expense in Column 4. If applicable, enter $0 if no operating expenses will be incurred. D. Equipment: • CDPH will reimburse major equipment purchases under the resulting grant. • CDPH primarily classifies equipment as Major Equipment, Minor Equipment, and Miscellaneous Property. Major Equipment is defined as a tangible or intangible item with a base unit cost of $5,000 or more and a life expectancy of one year or more that is purchased or reimbursed with agreement funds. Major equipment is budgeted in this expense line item. Minor Equipment is defined as a tangible item with a base unit cost of less than $5,000 and a life expectancy of one year. Minor equipment is budgeted as an operating expense, and should be placed in Section C of this form. • List each major equipment item the Applicant intends to purchase. Include the number of units and anticipated unit cost. Extend each unit cost to display applicablesubtotals. • Applicants may add additional rows to this section, as needed. • Enter the total Equipment Expenses in Column 4. • If applicable, enter $0 if no major equipment expenses will be incurred. • Grantees may use their own purchasing system to obtain major equipment up to an annual limit of $50,000. CDPH must arrange all equipment purchases above this limit. E. Travel and Per Diem: Include all travel and per diem costs. Include costs for expenses such as airfare, mileage reimbursement, parking, toll bridge fees, taxicab fares, overnight lodging and meal Page 75 expenses, etc. If applicable, enter $0 if no travel expenses will be incurred. Provide only a lump sum total for Column 4. Itemize these costs on Form 15, “Budget Justification.” F. Sub-grantees: List each sub-grantee entity and their total annual costs in the area provided. • Specify a total cost for all sub-grantee services (including those performed by independent consultants). Sub-grantees include any persons/agencies performing grant services that are not on the Applicant’s payroll. • • If an Applicant intends to use sub-grantees (including independent consultants), provide the information below depending on whether sub-grantees are known/pre-identified or have yet to be determined. o For known/pre-identified sub-grantees or independent consultants, identify each subgrantee/consultant by name and include a separate expense breakdown for each of the subgrantee’s costs for personnel expenses including fringe benefits, operating or general expenses, travel, sub-grantees, and indirect costs. o For unknown/unidentified sub-grantees or independent consultant, list a title for each subgrantee activity/function and indicate a total projected cost for each activity/function to be out sourced. If applicable, enter $0 if no sub-grantee expenses will be incurred. Provide only a lump sum total in Column 4. Include a separate Form 13, per budget year for subgrantees. G. Other Costs: • Indicate here those direct project expenses that do not clearly fit into the other budget line items. Such costs may include, but are not limited to, training/conference registration fees, publication production costs, costs for educational material development or other items unique to performance. • Itemize each expense item and its cost. • If any service, product, or deliverable will be provided on a fixed price or lump sum basis, name the items and/or deliverable and indicate “fixed price” or “lump sum” next to the item along with the price or fee. • Applicants may add additional rows to this section, as needed. • Enter the total Other Costs in Column 4. • If applicable, enter $0 H. Total Direct Costs: Add Items A-G to derive the Total Direct Costs for Column 4. I. Indirect Costs: Provide the actual indirect costs percentage rate in the space provided. Calculate the actual Indirect Cost amount as a percentage of the Total Direct Costs line item for Column 4. Please note, indirect costs are applicable only to the first $25,000 per individual sub-grantee over the entire term of the award. J. Total Expenses: Add Items H-I to derive the Total Expenses for Column 4. FORM 13 – Sub-grantee Budget If applicable, provide a Sub-grantee Budget for each budget year of the application (April 1 to June 30 for Year 1 and July 1 to June 30 for all subsequent years). Year 1 is Form 13A, Year 2 is Form 13B, Year 3 is Form 13C, Year 4 is Form 13D, Year 5 is Form 13E, and Year 6 is Form 13F. For each subPage 76 grantee list the total cost for Personnel, General Expense, Travel, Sub-grantee, Indirect Costs, and the Total Costs per sub-grantee. FORM 14 – Budget Summary Complete the Budget Summary form by transferring the amounts from the detailed budget pages (Forms 12A-12F) and placing them in the categories listed below. Report costs using whole dollars only. Round fractional dollar amounts or cents to the nearest whole dollar amount. A. Personnel: Insert lump sum totals for all positions from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” Do not include detail for each position. B. Fringe Benefits: Insert lump sum totals for Fringe Benefits from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” C. Operating Expenses: Insert “Operating Expenses” lump sum totals from Forms 12A-12F, Column 7, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 4, “Total.” Do not include detail for each operating expense. D. Equipment: Insert “Equipment” lump sum totals from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” Do not include detail for equipment expense. E. Travel and Per Diem: Insert “Travel and Per Diem” lump sum totals from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” Do not include detail for travel item/trip. F. Sub-grantees: Insert “Sub-grantees” lump sum totals from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” Do not include detail for sub-grantee. G. Other Costs: Insert “Other Costs” lump sum totals from Forms 12A-12F, Column 4, into appropriate columns 1 through 6. Insert sum of Columns 1 through 6 into Column 7, “Total.” Do not include detail for each other cost. H. Total Direct Costs: Add items A-G for each Column 1 through 6 to derive the Total Direct Costs for each column. I. Indirect Costs: Provide the actual indirect costs percentage rate in the space provided. Calculate the actual Indirect Cost amount as a percentage of the Total Direct Costs line item for each column. J. Total Expenses: Add items H-I for each Column 1 through 6 to derive the Total Expenses for each column. FORM 15 – Budget Justification – 20 Page Limit Provide a detailed justification for each line item of Form 12A, Budget Year 1. Explain any changes in the budget for subsequent years. The budget and budget justification are examined carefully by reviewers. It is recommended that considerable thought be put into this section. Items not well justified are likely to be deleted or reduced. Special justification should be provided for any unusual expenses. • Personnel: Describe the duties of each position and the specific role each will perform in this project. Page 77 • • • • • • • Fringe Benefits: Describe what the Fringe Benefits provide. Operating Expenses: Itemize and justify all expenses in this line item. List each item separately such as supplies, publication costs, computer charges, rental agreements, etc. Items exceeding $4,999 per unit are considered equipment and should be detailed in the “Equipment Expenses” line item. Equipment: Itemize and justify all expenses in this line item. List each item separately. Any item $5,000 or more per unit is considered equipment and should be detailed in this line item. Travel and Per Diem: Describe and justify the types of travel and who will be traveling. Please identify whether the travel is project-related or is for participation or attendance at meetings. Sub-grantees: Detail for each sub-grantee their name, role, and total annual costs. Itemize their direct and indirect costs. Describe and justify their participation in this project. Other costs: Itemize and justify all expenses in this line item. List each item separately that is not included in previous line items. Indirect Costs: Describe what the Indirect Costs provide. FORM 16 – Leveraged Funds – 3 Page Limit Identify any leveraged funds the Applicant is committing for purposes of their application. Include specific details such as the total average annual dollar amount, sources, intended uses, benefits to the program, timeframes, etc. Also, include documentation to support the existence/commitment of the leveraged funds in the Appendix section. Leveraging may be met by funding from another federal grant, from an Applicant's own resources, or resources from other third parties. Leveraged funding should specifically support one or more of the Performance Objectives for this RFA listed under the Data Production and Quality Control Management, Eureka Data Management Information Systems, and/or the Surveillance and Data Use sections as outlined under “Recipient Activities”. FORM 17 - Client References Identify three (3) clients serviced within the past five years that can confirm their satisfaction with the Applicant’s services and confirm that the Applicant provided timely and effective services or deliverables. If possible, identify clients whose needs were similar in scope and nature to the services sought in this RFA. List the most recent first. FORM 18 - Appendix Cover Sheet Complete the form and check the appropriate boxes that indicate the items included in the Appendix. At a minimum the following documentation must be included in the Appendix of the application in the order shown below. 1) An organization chart 2) Financial statements 3) Key Staff resumes 4) Job Descriptions/Duty Statements 5) Sub-grantee/Consultant resumes 6) Sub-grantee/Consultant letters of agreement Page 78 9 FORMS All forms required to submit an application in response to this RFA are provided in this section for reference only. Actual forms to be used to submit an application can be downloaded from the CSRB website at http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/csrb/Pages/default.aspx. Click on the link for this RFA to find the required forms. Page 79 Applicant (Agency Name): Form 1 APPLICATION COVER PAGE STATEWIDE CANCER REPORTING SYSTEM, RFA #11-10828 Agency’s Name (Legal name as it will appear on the resulting agreement) Federal ID Number Mailing Address (Street address, P.O. Box, City, State, Zip Code) Person authorized to obligate this agency in the matters regarding this application or resulting agreement: Printed Name Title: Telephone number: Fax number: ( ( ) Email address ) Person authorized to obligate this agency in matters regarding the resulting grant: Printed Name: Title: Telephone number: Fax number: ( ( ) Email address ) (CORPORATIONS) Name/Title of person authorized by the Board of Directors to sign all application documents on behalf of the Board: Printed Name: Title: Signature of Applicant or Authorized Representative Printed Name: Page 80 Title: Date: Applicant (Agency Name): Form 2 CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST Qualification Requirements. I certify that my agency meets the following requirements: Yes N/A My agency has read and is willing to comply with the terms, conditions and grant exhibits included in the appropriate “Sample Grant Agreement” attached to this RFA. Yes My agency has a past record of sound business integrity and a history of being N/A responsive to past contractual obligations. My agency authorizes the State to confirm this claim. Yes My agency is financially stable and solvent and has adequate cash reserves to N/A meet all financial obligations while awaiting reimbursement from the State. Application format/content and required forms. Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A My agency complied with the application format requirements and my agency submitted one original application and ten (10) copies. My application is assembled in the following order: Form 1, Application Cover Page Form 2, Certification Checklist Form 3, Table of Contents Form 4, Executive Summary Form 5, Agency Capability Form 6A-1, Work Plan Narrative – Data Production and Quality Control Management Form 6A-2, Work Plan Narrative – Eureka Data Management Information Systems Form 6A-3, Work Plan Narrative – Surveillance and Data Use Form 6B-1, Scope of Work – Data Production and Quality Control Management Form 6B-2, Scope of Work – Eureka Data Management Information Systems Form 6B-3, Scope of Work – Surveillance and Data Use Form 6B-4, Scope of Work – Administrative Form 7, Transition Plan Form 8, Management Plan Form 9, Personnel Plan Form 10, Facilities and Resources Page 81 Confirmed by CDPH Yes No Yes No Yes No Confirmed by CDPH Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Applicant (Agency Name): Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Form 11, Cost Proposal Yes N/A Form 13D, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 4) Yes No Yes N/A Yes N/A Form 13E, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 5) Yes No Yes No Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Form 14, Budget Summary Yes N/A Form 17, Client References Yes No Yes Form 18, Appendix Cover Sheet N/A Appendix Section with the following documentation: Yes No Confirmed by CDPH Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Form 12A, Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 1) Form 12B Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 2) Form 12C, Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 3) Form 12D, Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 4) Form 12E, Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 5) Form 12F, Budget Detail Work Sheet (Year 6) Form 13A, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 1) Form 13B, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 2) Form 13C, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 3) Form 13F, Sub-grantee Budgets (Year 6) Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Form 15, Budget Justification Form 16, Leveraged Funds An organization chart. Copies of financial statements for the past two years or most recent 24-month period (i.e., annual income statements and quarterly/annual balance sheets). Resumes of the Applicant’s key staff (i.e., managers, supervisors, technical experts) that will play a major administrative, policy or consulting role in carrying out the project work. Job descriptions/duty statements. Page 82 Yes No Applicant (Agency Name): Yes N/A Resumes for each pre-identified sub-grantee or independent consultant, if any, that will serve a major role in performing the services. [Check “N/A” if no subgrantees or consultants will be used or if none has been pre-identified.] Yes Letters of agreement, signed by each pre-identified sub-grantee and N/A independent consultant or applicable explanation. [Check “N/A” if no subgrantees or consultants will be used or if none has been pre-identified.] Name of Bidding Agency: Printed Name/Title: Signature Date: Page 83 Yes No Yes No Applicant (Agency Name): Form 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHECKLIST Form # PAGE # 1 Application Cover Page 2 Certification Checklist 3 Table of Contents 4 Executive Summary 5 Agency Capability 6A-1 Work Plan Narrative – Data Production and Quality Control Management 6A-2 Work Plan Narrative – Eureka Data Management Information Systems 6A-3 Work Plan Narrative – Surveillance and Data Use 6B-1 Scope of Work – Data Production and Quality Control Management 6B-2 Scope of Work – Eureka Data Management Information Systems 6B-3 Scope of Work – Surveillance and Data Use 6B-4 Scope of Work – Administrative Activities 7 Transition Plan ttrans 8 Management Plan 9 Personnel Plan 10 Facilities Resources 11 Cost Proposal 12A Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 1) 12B Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 2) 12C Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 3) 12D Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 4) 12E Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 5) 12F Budget Detail Worksheet (Year 6) 13A Sub-grantee Budget (Year 1) 13B Sub-grantee Budget (Year 2) 13C Sub-grantee Budget (Year 3) 13D Sub-grantee Budget (Year 4) 13E Sub-grantee Budget (Year 5) 13F Sub-grantee Budget (Year 6) 14 Budget Summary 15 Budget Justification 16 Leveraged Funds 17 Client References 18 Appendix Cover Sheet To be considered complete, application submissions must include the following: • Original application plus 10 copies. Original is single-sided and copies are double-sided. Page 84 Applicant (Agency Name): EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Please use 12 pt. font text and 1 inch margins for this form. 2 Page Limit. Page 85 Form 4 Applicant (Agency Name): AGENCY CAPABILITY Please use 12 pt. font text and 1 inch margins for this form. 10 Page Limit. Page 86 Form 5 Applicant (Agency Name): WORK PLAN NARRATIVE – DATA PRODUCTION AND QUALITY CONTROL MANAGEMENT Please use 12 pt. font text and 1 inch margins for this form. 10 Page Limit. Page 87 Form 6A-1 Applicant (Agency Name): Form 6A-2 WORK PLAN NARRATIVE – EUREKA DATA MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS Please use 12 pt. font text and 1 inch margins for this form. 30 Page Limit. Page 88 Applicant (Agency Name): Form 6A-3 WORK PLAN NARRATIVE – SURVEILLANCE AND DATA USE Please use 12 pt. font text and 1 inch margins for this form. 15 Page Limit. Page 89