Minnesota Judicial Branch Logo

Public Notice Detail
Request for Proposals for Services for the Evaluation of Data Related to Child Protection Initiatives, Processes, and Outcomes for American Indian Families

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2025

Read the Request for Proposals
Proposal deadline: Tuesday, April 22, 2025, 4:30 p.m. CST
 
 

Questions and Answers

 

I.Questions about data access

  1. Will the selected vendor have direct access to the MNCIS, SSIS, and Tribal systems for evaluation purposes, or will access be mediated through agency or tribal partners?
    1. The selected vendor will have access to system data from MNCIS and SSIS  for evaluation. Any additional data access, including to Tribal data , will need to be mediated with each individual Tribe or entity.
  2. Are there current MOUs or data-sharing agreements in place with Tribes and DHS that would support data integration or sharing? If not, would MN SCAO lead the efforts to put those agreements in place or would the vendor be responsible for securing the agreements? What Tribal approvals will be required to facilitate data access?
    1. There are no current data-sharing agreements in place with the Tribes and DHS. Access to any Tribal data would require an agreement be reached with each individual Tribe that is interested in participating in the evaluation project. STP Project leadership will lead efforts to put data-sharing agreement in place with DHS and would also lead efforts to discuss any agreement for access to Tribal data.
  3. For the STP partners' data systems to be analyzed in Phase 1: About how many data systems are there, and what platforms do they use?
    1. The primary sources of data for this project will be the court’s MNCIS system and DHS’s SSIS system. Each of the 11 tribes in Minnesota has a different way of tracking data on ICWA cases, likely including multiple software systems. In process of exploring any potential agreement for additional data-sharing with Tribes, STP Project leadership and vendor would evaluate whether access to any additional Tribal data is helpful to and necessary for this project.

II.Questions about relationships with tribes

  1. Will STP leadership assist in coordinating Tribal engagement, or is the vendor expected to lead this effort independently?
    1. STP Project leadership will assist in coordinating Tribal engagement. However, the STP Project leadership expects to draw upon the vendor’s experience engaging with Tribes.
  2. Have you identified Tribal partners for the State-Tribal Partnership team? If so, can you name the Tribes?
    1. The primary Tribal partner for the STP grant application is Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. The STP Committee also includes Tribal leadership from the following Tribes: Lower Sioux Community, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, White Earth Nation, and Bois Forte Band of Ojibwe.
  3. Does the evaluation of the STP initiative include all 11 federally recognized tribal nations in MN?
    1. Evaluation of the STP initiative should include all ICWA-qualifying cases in the State of Minnesota. This will include cases involving children from each of the 11 federally recognized tribal nations in Minnesota, as well as many tribal nations located outside Minnesota. Because Tribes have sovereign rights over their own data, the STP project may not be able to arrange for additional data-sharing with all 11 federally recognized Tribes in Minnesota. However, for any evaluation methods beyond data analysis (e.g., talking circles or surveys) evaluation should allow for participation by all 11 federally recognized tribal nations in Minnesota.
  4. To what degree and in what ways were Tribal representatives involved in developing the project and RFP?
    1. The STP Committee, including leadership representatives of the Tribes listed in the answer to Question 5, have been meeting together since March 2024 to develop the STP project goals. The RFP was developed by the STP leadership team, including leadership from Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, one of the co-grantees, based upon the evaluation goals identified in the STP grant application. Additional coordination with the Tribes will be needed to match ongoing evaluation to the Tribes’ needs and interests.

III.Questions about deliverables

  1. Is there a preferred budget that should shape RFP responses?
    1. No, the budget has not been established in advance of receipt of proposals.
  2. Considering the overall evaluation budget, what percentage do you envision focusing on assessing and implementing data collection processes versus evaluation of new programs or services developed under this project?
    1. The assessment and implementation of data collection should comprise the majority of the work over the four years, which should be reflected in the overall estimate. As a rough guide, evaluation of new programs and services developed under this project should comprise only 25-35% of the overall estimate.
  3. Are there federal or state efforts currently underway to evaluate the State-Tribal Partnership grantees that we would need to consider to ensure our efforts align and are not duplicative?
    1. Minnesota STP Project leadership is in regular communication with other STP grantees, including about evaluation efforts being undertaken by those projects. STP Project leadership anticipate ongoing collaboration with other grantees to maximize the benefit of our evaluation efforts and avoid duplicative work. All STP grantees are supported by federal technical-assistance staff, who can assist with identifying any areas of overlapping efforts.
  4. Are there any preferred locations for listening sessions (talking circles)? How many people would you expect to have attend? Will DHS and Judicial Branch staff participate in the listening sessions?
    1. Listening sessions or talking circles should take place at tribal locations as opposed to Judicial Branch or DHS offices. STP Project leadership expects to draw upon the vendor’s expertise and feedback from Tribal leadership to determine a meaningful number of participants for any listening session undertaken by the vendor. DHS or Judicial Branch staff may attend listening sessions to assist with logistics or note-taking or to answer questions from participants.
  5. What forms of incentives are acceptable for listening sessions?
    1. Incentives for participating in listening sessions will be determined with feedback from Tribes and the STP committee, at the time that such a listening session is scheduled. STP Project leadership suggests that vendor proposals include a budget line item for participants’ incentives, rather than listing a specific type of incentive to be offered.
  6. If the Contractor decides to do a survey would the questions need to go through a state IRB process and if so how much time would be needed for the review of the applications?
    1. Any survey questions would be reviewed by the STP Project leadership. Vendors should assume a two-week feedback period for committee feedback on any draft survey questions.
  7. If the Contractor decides to do a survey, how would it be publicized to participants?
    1. STP Project leadership expects to draw upon vendor expertise and feedback from Tribal leadership and STP committee members as to the best way to publicize and encourage participation in any surveys. This may include advertising the survey, such as targeted social media ads. DHS and Judicial Branch do not have a database of contact information for Tribal members for this purpose.
  8. How many surveys would be expected to be completed?
    1. If vendor proposes a survey, STP Project leadership hopes to rely upon vendor expertise as to how many surveys would constitute a valid sample size.
  9. What is the implementation timeline for standing up additional ICWA courts beyond the 4th, 2nd, 6th, and 9th judicial districts?
    1. ICWA Courts already exist in the 4th, 2nd, and 6th districts.  The STP committee is actively supporting two additional ICWA Courts being established in the 1st and 9th judicial districts. Those locations should be operating as ICWA Courts by Fall 2025. Beyond that, the STP leadership does not currently plan to initiate any additional ICWA Courts during the grant period, unless requested by additional locations. 

IV.Questions about format of responses to RFP

  1. Is there a page limit to the proposal submission and appendices?
    1. No, there is no page limit.
  2. What kind of documentation is the Minnesota Judicial Branch looking for as evidence of financial stability?
    1. Latest audited financial statements are an example of helpful evidence of financial stability.
  3. Are there any information requirements for the cost proposal?
    1. The cost proposal should clearly outline line items included in the proposal for the period of time covered by the contract, as well as any methodology used to reach those line-item estimates.

V.Questions about the contract

  1. What type of contract will this be?
    1. Firm fixed contract, due to the inclusion of a maximum not-to-exceed amount.
  2. What is the anticipated start date for the contract?
    1. STP Committee intends to evaluate vendor proposals during May 2025 and move forward with contracting with selected vendor in June 2025. Anticipated start date for the contract is July 1, 2025.
  3. Can you confirm the project period?
    1. The project period would be July 1, 2025 (or as soon thereafter as the contract can be finalized) through September 30, 2028.