Active SLED Opportunity · CONNECTICUT · CITY OF NEW HAVEN
AI Summary
The City of New Haven seeks proposals for independent Planning Council support services for the Ryan White Part A program. The contract includes administrative, technical, and logistical support to the Planning Council for HIV service planning and resource allocation. Initial 7-month term with two one-year renewals. Proposals due May 12, 2026.
The purpose of this RFP is to procure independent Planning Council support services for the New Haven & Fairfield Counties EMA Planning Council.
The selected contractor will provide administrative, technical, and logistical support to enable the Planning Council to perform its federally mandated responsibilities.
This initial contract is for a 7-month period August 1, 2026 -February 28,2027, which is not to exceed $35,000. We intend to enter into two additional one-year contracts beginning on March 1, 2027.
The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Part A provides federal funding to Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs) to support a comprehensive system of care for low-income people living with HIV.
The New Haven & Fairfield Counties EMA receives funding through the Health Resources and Services Administration HIV/AIDS Bureau (HRSA HAB).
Under the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act and subsequent reauthorizations, jurisdictions receiving Part A funds must maintain a Planning Council responsible for community-based planning and decision-making related to HIV services.
Planning Council responsibilities are outlined in Section 2602(b)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. §300ff-12) and include:
Federal legislation and guidance from the Health Resources and Services Administration require that the Planning Council maintain independence from the Part A recipient (i.e., City of New Haven Health Department) regarding planning and decision-making activities.
Consistent with HRSA HAB Policy and Ryan White legislative provisions, the contractor must:
The contractor will coordinate with the recipient for administrative purposes but must prioritize the Planning Council’s legislative responsibilities
Completeness:
Are all necessary requirements included? Does the set of requirements cover all aspects of the system's functionality, performance, and constraints? Are there any obvious omissions?
Are all stakeholders' needs addressed? Have the requirements captured the essential needs and expectations of all relevant user groups and stakeholders?
Are functional and non-functional requirements adequately represented? Does the documentation include both what the system should do and how well it should do it (e.g., performance, security, usability)?
Clarity and Unambiguity:
Are the requirements easy to understand? Is the language used clear, concise, and free from jargon or technical terms that stakeholders might not understand?
Is each requirement stated unambiguously? Is there only one way to interpret each requirement? Are there any vague or subjective terms used?
Are the requirements at the appropriate level of detail? Are they specific enough to guide design and development but not so detailed that they constrain implementation unnecessarily?
Consistency:
Are the requirements consistent with each other? Do any requirements contradict or conflict with other requirements?
Are the requirements consistent with existing systems and standards? Do the requirements align with any relevant organizational standards, industry best practices, or existing systems the new system will interact with?
Verifiability:
Is it possible to determine if each requirement has been met? Can each requirement be tested, demonstrated, inspected, or analyzed to confirm its fulfillment?
Are measurable criteria defined where appropriate? For non-functional requirements (like performance), are there specific metrics and target values defined?
Traceability:
Can each requirement be traced back to its source? Is it clear which stakeholder need or business goal each requirement addresses?
Can each requirement be traced forward to design elements, code, and test cases? Will it be possible to follow the implementation and verification of each requirement throughout the development lifecycle?
Feasibility:
Are the requirements technically feasible to implement within the project constraints? Can the system be built with the available technology, resources, and timeline?
Are the requirements economically feasible? Are the costs associated with implementing the requirements justifiable in terms of the benefits they provide?
Modifiability:
Is the requirements documentation structured in a way that allows for easy modification? Can changes be made to individual requirements without causing significant ripple effects on other requirements?
Is there a clear process for managing changes to requirements?
Testability:
Are the requirements written in a way that facilitates the creation of test cases? Can testable conditions be derived directly from the requirements?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
Clarity and Focus:
Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?
Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?
Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?
Content and Relevance:
Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?
Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?
Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?
Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?
Delivery and Presentation:
Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?
Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?
Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?
Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?
Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?
Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?
Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?
Engagement and Interaction:
Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?
Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?
Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?
Overall Effectiveness:
Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?
Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?
Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).
Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?
Objective: To assess the qualifications, experience, and availability of the personnel proposed for the project
Direct Ryan White or Planning Council experience
Strong facilitation and group management skills
Experience working with diverse and HIV-affected communities
Roles and responsibilities clearly defined
Key staff demonstrate:
Knowledge of HIV systems of care
Experience with PSRA and community engagement
Objective: To evaluate the realism, comprehensiveness, and efficiency of the project timeline.
Realism & Achievability:
Feasibility: Is the proposed timeline realistic given the scope, resources, and known complexities of the project?
Contingency: Does the schedule include reasonable buffers or contingency time for unforeseen delays or risks?
Clarity & Detail:
Milestones: Are clear, measurable, and logical milestones defined?
Task Breakdown: Is the schedule broken down into sufficiently detailed tasks with estimated durations?
Dependencies: Are critical path activities and dependencies clearly identified?
Efficiency:
Optimized Flow: Does the schedule demonstrate an efficient sequence of activities, minimizing idle time or unnecessary overlaps?
Resource Allocation: Does the schedule align with the proposed resource allocation without creating bottlenecks?
Alignment with Scope:
Comprehensive Coverage: Does the schedule cover all aspects of the project scope of work?
Deliverable Timelines: Are the timelines for key deliverables clearly stated and reasonable?
Objective: To assess the organization's experience and understanding of working within a context comparable to the project's location.
Direct Relevance:
Population Size: Has the organization successfully completed projects in cities with a comparable population size?
Demographic Similarities: Does their past experience reflect an understanding of similar demographic characteristics, if relevant to the project?
Contextual Understanding:
Regulatory Environment: Does their experience suggest familiarity with similar local regulations, permitting processes, or bureaucratic structures?
Infrastructure: Have they worked in environments with similar infrastructure challenges or opportunities?
Logistical Capabilities:
Local Resources: Does their past work demonstrate an ability to mobilize resources effectively in a similar urban setting?
Stakeholder Engagement: Have they successfully navigated stakeholder relationships in comparable city environments (e.g., local government, community groups)?
Challenges & Solutions:
Problem-Solving: Can they articulate specific challenges encountered in similar cities and how they successfully overcame them?
Adaptability: Does their experience show an ability to adapt strategies to specific local conditions?
Objective: To evaluate how thoroughly and effectively the proposed work plan addresses all components of the project's defined scope.
Completeness:
Full Coverage: Does the work plan explicitly address every single item and requirement outlined in the Scope of Work (SOW)?
No Gaps: Are there any areas of the SOW that are not clearly covered or addressed in the work plan?
Clarity & Specificity:
Detailed Methodology: Does the plan describe a clear, logical, and detailed methodology for achieving each part of the SOW?
Actionable Steps: Are the steps outlined actionable and understandable?
Understanding of Requirements:
Interpretation: Does the work plan demonstrate a clear and accurate understanding of the project's objectives and requirements as stated in the SOW?
Implicit Needs: Does it also address any implicit needs or potential challenges related to the SOW?
Deliverables & Outcomes:
Defined Outputs: Does the work plan clearly link specific activities to the production of defined deliverables and desired outcomes for each SOW area?
Quality Assurance: Does it describe how the quality of deliverables for each SOW area will be ensured?
Risk Mitigation (per SOW area):
Identified Risks: Does the plan identify potential risks specific to each area of the SOW?
Mitigation Strategies: Are there clear and appropriate strategies proposed to mitigate these risks?
Objective: To assess the financial realism, transparency, and value for money of the proposed budget.
Clear, detailed, and aligned with proposed workplan
Cost-effective and reasonable
Narrative includes:
Hourly rates and justification
Estimated hours per activity
Clear linkage between costs and deliverables
Includes appropriate allocation for:
Consumer participation support
Meeting logistics
Administrative functions
Objective: To evaluate the overall stability, capacity, and reputation of the proposing organization.
Experience & Track Record:
Relevant Projects: Has the organization successfully completed projects of similar scope, complexity, and type?
Longevity: How long has the organization been in business, and does it demonstrate stability?
Reputation & References:
Client Satisfaction: Do references or past performance demonstrate a history of client satisfaction and successful project delivery?
Industry Standing: Is the organization well-regarded within its industry or field?
Financial Stability:
Capacity: Does the organization appear financially stable and capable of undertaking a project of this size without undue risk? (Often assessed through financial statements or credit checks, if requested).
Organizational Structure & Capacity:
Resources: Does the organization have the necessary internal resources (e.g., equipment, facilities, support staff) to execute the project?
Scalability: Can the organization scale its operations to meet the demands of this project?
Quality Management & Methodologies:
Processes: Does the organization have established processes for project management, quality control, and risk management?
Certifications (e.g., ISO): Does the organization hold any relevant quality management certifications?
Innovation & Adaptability:
Forward-Thinking: Does the organization demonstrate an ability to incorporate new technologies or innovative approaches?
Problem-Solving Culture: Does their background suggest a proactive approach to problem-solving?
Demonstrates direct experience with Ryan White Part A Planning Councils
Clear understanding of Section 2602(b)(4) responsibilities
Experience supporting:
Priority Setting & Resource Allocation (PSRA)
Needs assessments
Comprehensive planning
Provides multiple recent, relevant examples with measurable outcomes
Demonstrates familiarity with HRSA HAB expectations and monitoring
Organization is physically located in Connecticut
The City needs you to get the Disclosure Form notarized. We are offering you a convenient way to do this online through Notary Online (https://notarylive.com) . However, you don't have to use this online service. If you do choose to use it, it will cost you $25 each time you use it for a notarization. You can explore other ways to get your document notarized if you prefer not to pay this fee, click "No".
An online notarization option will be provided for you when responding.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.
In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document.
Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.
Statement of Qualifications:
Each solicitation response shall include a Statement of Qualifications in the format provided in this Solicitation upon stationary of the responding entity.
All questions must be answered, and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. The respondent may submit any additional information he/she desires.
This comprehensive financial review is a necessary step for the City of New Haven to ensure the respondent possesses the financial capacity to successfully undertake and complete the proposed project. Your affirmative response confirms your understanding and willingness to comply with these requirements if requested.
Briefly describe your reason for answering no.
Please upload here
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept the terms and condition of each individual policy.
As a bidder or proposer, any document you submit to the City of New Haven may be a public record and be open for personal inspection or copying by any person. In Connecticut ‘s public records” are defined as all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Section 1-210, CT. A document is subject to personal inspection and copying unless it falls under one of the public records exemptions created under Connecticut law. Answer No if : No part of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public record law.
By claiming that all or part of the bid or proposal is exempt from the public records law, the undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the City of New Haven, its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from and against all claims arising out of a request to inspector copy the bid or proposal. The undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, provide defense (including payment of attorney fees, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses up to and including any appeal) for and defend any such claim at its sole cost and expense through counsel chosen by the City of New Haven and agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if they (claims, etc.) are groundless, false, or fraudulent.
The following parts of the bid or proposal submitted are exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public records law because: (list exempt parts and legal justification - e.g., trade secret):
Respondent expressly acknowledges that the submission of a response, purchasing agreement, or any supporting documentation shall not contain embedded hyperlinks to external terms and conditions. Any terms and conditions intended to be part of the contract must be provided in full, physical or digital text within the formal submission. Furthermore, any respondent terms that conflict with the City’s Standard Terms and Conditions shall be deemed secondary; the City’s terms shall prevail unless a specific exception is negotiated and signed by both parties."
By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept this requirement as a condition of award."
For Example: "Homeland Security"
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from Fleet, in the internal attachment section
If answered yes, please attached confirmation email from the Technology Department , in the internal attachment section of this project.
Instructions for Project Managers
Based on the information you currently have, attempt to answer this question to the best of your capability. Ultimately, purchasing will review this carefully and edit and update as needed based on your solicitation requirements.
As a standard, all activities for Construction and Service require the following:
Any Professional Services type project (usually Request for Proposals) will require the following:
For Commodity, General Liability is the minimum requirement.
This particular question is to be answered for the company (or their subcontractors) not their employees.
Please enter the specific License or Certification required to be eligible to compete on this solicitation. For example, "CPA - Certified Public Accountant."
Guidelines used to determine whether a response is good, effective, or meets expectations of the project
Choose your evaluation factors. Below are example factors you can consider for your Evaluation Criteria. It is important that your actual evaluation of proposals is consistent with the factors and criteria you include in the RFP document. You will be able to add or edit any custom criteria along with the point values (using a 100-point-scale) while you are editing the Evaluation Section of this project.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:
a.
If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.
b.
If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or
c.
If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.
General definitions and parameters of each approach.
Q (Remote Contractor): Good Morning! Does this contract and/or responsible organization allow the contractor to perform required work remotely?
A: This contract follows a hybrid work model. While some tasks may be completed remotely, the contractor will be required to attend certain meetings and activities in person. Therefore, fully remote work is not an option.
SLED stands for State, Local, and Education. These are solicitations issued by state governments, counties, cities, school districts, utilities, and higher education institutions — as opposed to federal agencies.
SamSearch Platform
AI-powered intelligence for the right opportunities, the right leads, and the right time.