ATAP Work Services, FY2027–FY2029 — State of Alaska, Department of Health, Division of Public Assistance
Proposals due: September 8, 2026, 3:59 p.m. local · GEMS only
Written inquiries due: August 31, 2026, 3:59 p.m. · Grants Administrator (RFP cover)
Project period begins October 1, 2026 · three-year cycle to 9/30/2029
~$7.06M/yr TANF Block Grant funds · four grants, one per service area
22 scored criteria · 1,600 points · GEMS technical checks pass/fail
A state grant RFP on Alaska's Department of Health template: eligibility and the GEMS record checks are pass/fail gates, and the substance is scored across 22 criteria worth 1,600 points. Everything below cites the RFP's own subsection numbers. One rule shapes all drafting: points are earned only in the response to the associated question — information placed under another question earns nothing (§3.06.3).
Eligibility and service areas — §1.06, §3.01, Amendment 1
| Ref | Requirement | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.01 | Applicant must be eligible under 7 AAC 78.030: state agencies; political subdivisions (cities, boroughs, REAAs); nonprofit organizations and consortia; Alaska Native entities. Nonprofits are verified against the State corporation database or the IRS exempt-organizations register; tribal applicants must submit a sovereign-immunity waiver resolution on the provided template. | Mandatory | GEMS agency record + upload | Minimum-responsiveness gate (§4.01): an ineligible applicant is eliminated before review under 7 AAC 78.090(b)(2). |
| Amd 1 | Amendment 1 (posted 8/17/2026) establishes four application groups; the applicant must select the group its proposal aligns with: Municipality of Anchorage; Mat-Su Valley (cases with 24+ months of TANF); Southeast Alaska; Statewide services (refugee, asylee, humanitarian parolee, Cuban-Haitian entrant, and trafficking-victim populations). | Mandatory | GEMS application | Group choice binds the budget cap and the service definition — see the funding line. |
| 1.06 | Anticipated funds: $7,064,030 per fiscal year (federal TANF Block Grant), four grants. Budget caps by area: Anchorage $4,520,979.20; Mat-Su (24+ months) $1,342,165.70; Southeast $353,201.50; Statewide services $847,683.60. Administrative costs capped at 15% of award. Year-one budget only; later years by continuation approval (§3.05). | Mandatory | GEMS budget module | A budget over the area cap or over 15% admin is out of compliance on arithmetic alone. Indirect costs require a current federally negotiated rate agreement — or the 15% de minimis if none exists. |
Submission mechanics and GEMS technical checks — cover, §3.03, §4.02
| Ref | Requirement | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cover | Proposals accepted only through GEMS (login via myAlaska); due September 8, 2026, 3:59 p.m. prevailing local time. No late proposals (§3.03). Applicants must monitor GEMS or Online Public Notices for amendments. | Mandatory | GEMS | GEMS agency registration is its own lead time — an unregistered agency cannot submit at all. Register before writing. |
| Cover | Written inquiries due August 31, 2026, 3:59 p.m., to the Grants Administrator named on the RFP cover. | Mandatory | — (conduct) | Substantive questions answered only via amendment to all applicants (§3.03). |
| 4.02 | GEMS record checks (pass/fail): nonprofit status documented; debarment clear in SAM; State Grant Assurances signed by an authorized official; Federal Assurance & Certification signed; UEI on record; FFATA report complete for the most recent fiscal year; current governing board roster with terms and an outside emergency contact; Other Funding records complete; Alaska business license current; agency contacts and fiscal-year start date current; current federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement uploaded (if claiming indirect). | Mandatory | GEMS Agency Administration tab | A dozen checkboxes that live outside the proposal text, several only completable by an Agency Power User. This is the part applicants discover last — do it first. |
| 4.03 | Prior grantees confirm compliance history: timely fiscal/narrative/data reporting, single audits submitted with exceptions resolved, effective prior delivery, standards maintained, and disclosure of any Department site visit in the past three years with findings. | Mandatory | GEMS application | Part of the pre-award risk assessment under 2 CFR 200. First-time applicants mark complete without confirming. |
Scored criteria — §4.04–§4.06 (1,600 points)
| Ref | Criterion | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.04-1 | Project description: thorough understanding of program goals and how they will be achieved (120) + knowledge of community/State resources and a broad spectrum of services addressing the range of Temporary Assistance client situations (120). | Scored · 240 | Q1 text box | The single largest surface — 15% of all points in one answer. Both halves are scored on this response alone. |
| 4.04-2 | Timeline for initiation of services and implementation, compatible with program intent (upload). | Scored · 60 | Q2 upload | An October 1, 2026 start leaves no ramp — the timeline must show services standing up at award. |
| 4.04-3 | Alignment with program intent: resources, activities, anticipated goals, outputs, outcomes; activities well developed and reasonable. | Scored · 80 | Q3 text box | Outputs and outcomes are asked for by name — label them as such. |
| 4.04-4 | Evaluation plan with indicators and data-gathering strategies aligned to the §1.04 performance measures. | Scored · 100 | Q4 text box | Mirror §1.04's measures one for one; alignment is the stated test. |
| 4.04-5 | Target population and service area clearly identified, meeting the intent of the services solicited. | Scored · 80 | Q5 text box | Must match the application group selected under Amendment 1. |
| 4.04-6 | Year-one budget: supports project and intent, achievable with demonstrated resources (40); costs reasonable and substantiated (20); allocation across populations/areas described (20); plus pass/fail checks — narrative consistent with detail, costs allowable under 7 AAC 78.160, travel/equipment/subcontract rules, indirect compliance, and eligible match sources at the required level. | Scored · 80 | GEMS budget + narrative | The match table near the beginning of the application and the budget narrative must name the same sources — the reviewer checks both places. |
| 4.05-1 | Previous experience providing the same or similar services, with period and population served, demonstrating resources and capacity (120) + financial strength to manage grants (pass/fail). | Scored · 120 | Q1 text box | Department staff also read prior performance reports, audits, and site-visit records — the narrative should not contradict the file. |
| 4.05-2 | Staffing: qualified service staff (80); sufficient levels (80); position descriptions supporting the RFP (80); qualified administrative staff (80); administrative capacity for management and reporting (80). Upload position descriptions, resumes, and credentials as a single file; state two-year staff turnover (pass/fail). | Scored · 400 | Q2 text box + upload | A quarter of all points. The five criteria are scored separately — cover each in its own labeled passage, and build the single upload file deliberately. |
| 4.05-3 | Client confidentiality procedures compliant with State and Federal standards. | Scored · 100 | Q3 text box | Procedures, not policy claims: intake, storage, disclosure, breach. |
| 4.05-4 | Facilities: safe and appropriate (60); locations enhance access for the target populations (60). | Scored · 120 | Q4 text box | Tie locations to where the caseload actually lives — the service-area descriptions in the RFP give the geography. |
| 4.06 | Support and coordination: documentation of support from each community served (60); involvement of the public and potential recipients (40); partnerships and collaborations well described (60); clear understanding of applicant vs. referring-agency roles (60). | Scored · 220 | Q1–Q4 + uploads | "From each community in which the applicant proposes to serve" — a statewide-services proposal needs support letters plural, not one. |
Review process and award — §3.06–§3.08
| Ref | Item | Flag | Answer in | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.06 | Review path: responsiveness screen → staff evaluation per 7 AAC 78.100 → possible Proposal Evaluation Committee if funds are short or expertise needed. No post-deadline revisions except at the Department's request. | Process | — | The submitted text is final. There is no clarification round to count on. |
| 3.07–3.08 | Final authority: DOH Commissioner or designee; recommendations are advisory. Notification within 15 days of decision; appeals in writing to the Commissioner within 15 days under 7 AAC 78.305. | Process | — | The RFP and the proposal become part of the grant agreement (§3.02) — every commitment written is a contract term if awarded. |
Annotated outline — the response the matrix implies
§1GEMS housekeeping (before any writing)
- Agency registration · Power User tasks: UEI, FFATA, board roster, Other Funding, business license, indirect rate agreement · assurances signed
Every pass/fail line in §4.02 lives here. None of it is prose, all of it can sink the proposal, and some of it only a Power User can touch.
§2Program responses (§4.04 — 640 points)
- Q1 project description (240) · Q2 timeline upload (60) · Q3 intent alignment (80) · Q4 evaluation plan (100) · Q5 population/area (80) · budget (80 + gates)
Answer each question inside its own box as if the others don't exist — §3.06.3 forbids credit for content placed elsewhere. Redundancy between answers is correct technique here, not a flaw.
§3Qualifications responses (§4.05 — 740 points)
- Experience (120) · staffing narrative + single-file upload (400) · confidentiality (100) · facilities (120)
The staffing upload is assembled, not written: position descriptions, resumes, credentials in one file, ordered to the five criteria that score it.
§4Coordination responses (§4.06 — 220 points)
- Community support documentation · public/recipient involvement · partnerships · role clarity with referring agencies
Letters here are evidence, not garnish — "appropriate documentation of support" is the scored words. Collect them per community served.
Source and scope. Every line above is drawn from the State of Alaska's published RFP for ATAP Work Services FY2027–FY2029 (26 pages including Amendment 1), cited by its own subsection numbers. This page is BidStroke's independent decomposition of a public document; it contains no applicant's facts and is not guidance from, or endorsed by, the State of Alaska. Always work from the official notice: Alaska Online Public Notices — ATAP Work Services.