RFP ACPHD-QIA 9000126 Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) Implementation

<<

Background

<                 SCOPE

The Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD) seeks to contract with qualified Bidders with existing programs to support the implementation of Alameda County’s Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) and to serve as CHIP Partners (awarded bidders). CHIP Partners (awarded bidders) will co-lead CHIP implementation. Specifically, CHIP partners (awarded bidders) will follow a set of predefined activities integral to CHIP implementation that improve community health outcomes, strengthen the public health ecosystem, and ensure readiness to respond to current and emerging health threats and hazards. Predefined activities include programming led by the Alameda County Public Health Department and co-lead by CHIP Partners (awarded bidders).

Under this RFP, the Alameda County Public Health Department (ACPHD) will select Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) Partners (awarded bidders). These partners will serve as community-based co-leads for implementing the CHIP. Their primary role will be to advance strategies related to a designated priority area, coordinate with community members and other stakeholders, support the implementation of the CHIP with other organizations, and contribute to measurable improvements in population health outcomes.

Through this approach, ACPHD aims to promote sustainable, community-centered partnerships that support the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) and enhance the overall public health framework in the County. A functioning public health ecosystem is an evolving, interconnected network comprising local public-sector agencies, institutions, community-based organizations, businesses, individuals, and supporting policies. Together, these entities work to protect and improve population health. This ecosystem operates alongside the healthcare system, focusing primarily on prevention and broad population-level health outcomes rather than individual health results.

BACKGROUND

Alameda County’s CHIP priorities were identified through an extensive, community-informed health assessment. The Community Health Assessment (CHA) (see Appendix F) process engaged almost 500 residents and other stakeholders from across the county. The assessment findings are consistent with what is known about how social determinants can dictate individuals' and communities' health. Specifically, safe neighborhood conditions, well-maintained affordable housing, the availability of living-wage employment, access to high-quality education and food, and culturally relevant health care can result in longer and healthier lives.

The Community Health Assessment (CHA) findings were used to guide a prioritization process to identify Alameda County’s health improvement areas. Three priority areas for community health improvement were identified, including Access to Care, Promoting Economic Opportunity, and Promoting Peaceful Families and Communities, and are defined as:

1. Access to Care

Health, dental, and behavioral health care access and delivery that is high quality, comprehensive, affordable, and culturally and linguistically appropriate.

2. Promoting Economic Opportunity

Economic security and opportunity that support the ability of all residents to be able to pay for basic needs, build wealth, and strengthen community resilience.

3. Promoting Peaceful Families and Communities

Ensuring neighborhood safety through violence prevention and promoting community resilience in the face of disasters and emergencies.

Project Details

• Reference ID: ACPHD-QIA 9000126
• Department: Public Health Department
• Department Head: Dept Head (Place Holder)

Important Dates

• Questions Due: 2026-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
• Pre-Proposal Meeting: 2026-05-21T20:30:00.000Z — 1100 San Leandro Blvd. San Leandro, CA 94577 Redwood Room 1st floor Conference Center

Meetings & Milestones

Evaluation Criteria

• Completeness of Response (1 pts) —

  Responses to this solicitation must be complete.  Responses must address all the requirements identified within this solicitation and all related documents, including any Addenda. Failure to meet the Bidder Minimum Qualifications may also be considered an incomplete response and may result in the disqualification of the Bidder.

• Debarment and Suspension (1 pts) —

  Bidders, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM.

• Mandatory Bidders Conference(s) (1 pts) —

  Online or in-person attendance is MANDATORY for potential Bidders. Proposals received from Bidders who do not attend the Mandatory Bidders Conference will be disqualified. 

• Description of Relevant Experience (125 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated, including considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:

  1.    How much direct experience does the Bidder have working on the selected CHIP Priority area?
  2.    How much experience does the Bidder have
  implementing population-level strategies?
  3.    How well did the Bidder describe the established systems used for data collection and analysis?

• Understanding the Project Need (100 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:

  All Bidders
  1.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated a thorough understanding of the role of ACPHD and the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP)?
  2.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project? 
  3.    How well has the Bidder identified pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project? 
  4.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated that it understands the County’s schedule and can meet it?
  5.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated that it understands the deliverables the County expects it to provide?

• Description of Proposed Services (100 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:

  Access to Care
  1.    How well did the Bidder demonstrate success with reaching populations that are not connected to care?
  2.    How well has the Bidder evidenced active, functional partnerships with providers or systems of care?
  3.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated understanding of the importance of culturally Relevant communication?
  4.    How well has the Bidder’s existing programs leveraged peer influence, the sense of belonging, or social networks that shape health behaviors. 
  5.    How well has the Bidder described the existing programmatic or contractual linkage with Alameda County’s public sector or community-based safety net (if applicable)

  Promoting Peaceful Families and Communities
  1.    How well has the Bidder applied strategies that are family-centered and inclusive of children, their parents, and caregivers?
  2.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated an understanding of how storytelling builds connections and belonging?
  3.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated an understanding of school attachment as a protective factor?
  4.    How well do the Bidder’s existing programs engage families and their children aged 10 and under in activities that foster joy, social cohesion, and a sense of belonging with other families?

  Promoting Economic Opportunity
  1.    How well are the Bidder’s existing programs accessible and relevant to diverse populations and how does the program retain and support students or participants from underserved communities?   
  2.    How well does the Bidder’s existing programs, internships, fellowships, residencies, or workforce pathways advance improved population health outcomes?
  3.    How well does the Bidder’s existing strategies (re)engage youth into education and workforce pathways?
  4.    How well has the Bidder demonstrated their experience of collaborating with other entities to conduct and publish research related to public health theory and practice.
  5.    How well has the Bidder articulated the role of community-based and academic research in population health approaches?

• Implementation Plan and Schedule (50 pts) —

  Evaluation will include the likelihood that Bidder’s implementation plan and schedule will meet the County’s schedule and is reasonable. Identification and planning for mitigation of risks that Bidder believes may adversely affect any portion of the County’s schedule may be considered.

  1.    A timeline of project goals, measurable outcomes, and benchmark activities related to the provision of required services and the key personnel assigned to each.
  2.    The ideal Implementation Plan and Schedule will provide a clear picture of what the County can expect during the contract term and in preparing to start the contract. Bidders should consider the information and questions contained in the Evaluation Criteria and Specific Requirements in preparing the Implementation Plan and Schedule.

• Methodology (25 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated considering the RFP specifications and the questions below:

  1.    How well does the methodology depict a logical approach to fulfilling the requirements of the RFP?
  2.    How well does the methodology match and contribute to achieving the objectives set out in the RFP?
  3.    How well does the methodology interface with the County’s schedule?

• Budget Justification, Fiscal Practice, and Budget Form (25 pts) —

  Proposals will be evaluated against the RFP specifications and the questions below: 

  1.    How well does Bidder’s cost capture all activities and staff needed to meet the services requested? 
  2.    How well does the Bidder allocate staff and resources?
  3.    How well does the Budget Justification detail how Bidder arrived at particular calculations? 
  4.    Is the proposed cost appropriate for the nature of the services to be provided? 
  5.    How clear, realistic, and reasonable are costs in relation to the services provided and the number of clients to be served? 
  6.    How well does the Bidder describe its fiscal oversight and management practices? 
  7.    How well do staff salaries reflect local costs of living?

• Cost (75 pts) —

  The points for Cost will be computed by dividing the amount of the lowest responsive and responsible bid received by each Bidder’s total proposed cost.

  Cost evaluation points may be adjusted by considering:

  1. Reasonableness (i.e., how well does the proposed pricing accurately reflect the Bidder’s effort to meet requirements and objectives?).
  2. Realism (i.e., is the proposed cost appropriate for the nature of the products and/or services to be provided? Is the price affordable to the County, including if costs exceed any budget contained in the RFP?).

• References (1 pts) —

  References (See Exhibit A – Bid Response Packet) 
  If a shortlist process is used for a solicitation, references are only performed on the shortlist vendors, and the score is not included in the preliminary shortlist score.

• Vendor Interviews (1 pts) —

  Should the County opt to conduct a vendor interview, the interview may include responding to standard and specific questions from the CSC regarding the Bidder’s proposal.  Whether or not a shortlist process is used, the scores of any evaluation criterion above may be revised or informed based on the vendor interview.

Submission Requirements

• Submit Bid Response and Bid Form (required) —

  Please confirm that both your response and the Bid Form have been uploaded here.

• Submit Response (required) —

  Please confirm that your response has been uploaded here.

• Has your response addressed all the requirements identified within the solicitation and all related documents, including any addenda? Failure to meet the Bidder Minimum Qualifications may also be considered an incomplete response and may result in the disqualification of your bid. (required)
• Your company, its principal, and named subcontractors are not identified on the list of Federally debarred, suspended, or other excluded parties located at www.sam.gov/SAM. (required)
• I certify that I have read, understood and agree to the terms in this solicitation, and that I am authorized to submit this response on behalf of my company. (required)
• Pricing (required) —
  • Choose Option 1 when you have set line items, for example:
    • This is a quote for goods or commodities.
    • This is a public works bid, with a pricing table that can be uploaded into OpenGov Procurement from an Excel spreadsheet.
    • Seeking services for hourly rate schedules.
  • Choose Option 2 when you need vendors to provide you with the line items. 
• Evaluation Committee? (required) —

  Will there be an evaluation committee to review the proposals and score them based on weights and multiple criteria?

• Procurement and/or Project Contact (required) —

  Select the information you would like display.

Questions & Answers