MACPAC Admin data RFP Questions and Responses_061026.pdf

MACPAC Admin Data RFP Q&A

# Question MACPAC Response

CMS now requires its contractors to utilize CMS-hosted data environments when using and analyzing CMS data, such as the T-MSIS and Medicare enrollment and claims data. How do these CMS requirements impact the ability of the MACPAC contractor to access the T-MSIS, MSIS, and Medicare administrative data and conduct work for this contract on a contractor-owned technical environment?

MACPAC is required by its authorizing statute to conduct independent analysis of Medicaid administrative data and collaborates with CMS in order to ensure we achieve our statutory mission. Analysis conducted by MACPAC staff and contractors currently is conducted both within CMS environments and in secure environments outside of CMS's environment, and we anticipate that will continue.

2.1.1 Acquisition of datasets. The description of 2.1.1 indicates that MACPAC will obtain required data files and provide them to the contractor.

Should the contractor anticipate the data feed for T-MSIS, MSIS, and Medicare data will be from MACPAC or will the contractor receive the data as a direct data feed from CMS? If the feed comes from CMS, which CMS entity feeds the data to the contractor and by what method and frequency?

As indicated in 2.1.1, the Contractor should anticipate receiving data directly from CMS, although in certain instances, MACPAC may obtain data and provide it to the Contractor. Also as indicated in 2.1.1, the Contractor shall be prepared to adapt to different file transfer processes or formats. As indicated in 2.2.2, the incumbent receives monthly files totalling approximately 32-34 TB of T-MSIS data, as well as other data through an enterprise file transfer.

2.2.1 Transition Plan. Will the incumbent also be required to develop a transition plan? Will the incumbent’s transition plan be developed before the incoming contractor begins work? How early in the transition period will the incoming contractor have access to the incumbent code currently being used to create MACPAC data marts and generate ongoing analysis?

The incumbent will develop a comprehensive transition plan, subject to approval by MACPAC, prior to the initiation of transition activities. MACPAC anticipates coordination among the incumbent, MACPAC, and a non-incumbent awardee through the transition plan. At this time, MACPAC cannot guarantee a date on which files, code, or other resources operating under the current contract would be available to a non-incumbent awardee.

2.2.5 Documentation of issues related to consistency across files and data analyses. How is the web-based system used to document alerts and changes currently designed, is it based on a standard dashboard tool such as Quicksight or PowerBI or is the web-based system unique to the incumbent contractor? Will it be transitioned to the incoming contractor?

Each Contractor shall propose a mechanism suitable to their analytic and technical operations that achieves the contractual aim of close coordination and communication about analytic files and data. A "dashboard" or specialized platform is not required. The current approach is operated by the incumbent, as we anticipate future mechanisms to be operated by the awardee.

2.2.5 Documentation of issues related to consistency across files and data analyses. A new version of T-MSIS data was introduced last year, has the data pipeline, data marts, and file-to-file consistency checks been revised to accommodate the new version or will adjustments to the new version be part of the new contract?

The incumbent has started to receive the new version of T-MSIS data. Any documentation of issues or adjustments made when switching versions could be included as part of the transition plan.

2.2.7 Federal Information Systems Management Act (FISMA) compliance and data security. Who typically conducts the IS audits? How frequently are these audits conducted? Typically, what time of the year are these audits conducted?

In the event of a MACPAC IS audit, the audit would be conducted by MACPAC or a designee and would be conducted on an ad hoc basis. As indicated in the same section, the Contractor would be required, at MACPAC's request, to provide documentation of internal IS audits, which MACPAC expects to request and receive annually.

2.3.1 Construction of analytic files. CMS will no longer support SAS and now most programming for CMS uses open-source languages. Is MACPAC moving in a similar direction or will the majority of programming continue to be done in SAS?

MACPAC staff and vendors currently use multiple programming languages.

MACPAC will only require the use of SAS or another specified programming language under this contract when a business case requires it (e.g., for alignment or consistency with historical analyses).

2.3.2 Statistical analysis. If programming code developed by the previous contractor is in SAS, such as that used for the MACStats product, may the incoming contractor rewrite the code into Python or other languages?

Yes.

Data quality analyses. Does MACPAC anticipate the contractor will assess the quality of data files as the contractor receives the data or will data quality assessments be part of each task order or both? DQ Atlas provides high-level data quality assessments of the T-MSIS Analytic File data and does MACPAC anticipate similar types of data quality assessments to be conducted on the Medicare data?

Data quality checks shall be performed on all datasets as they are received, cleaned and stored. Additional data quality assessments may be required that are specific to task order analyses. All administrative data used by the Contractor shall be subject to data quality assessments to ensure analytic products are accurate and free from error.

Is there a maximum ceiling on the total value of awards issued under the

IDIQ?

There is no established ceiling to the value of awards. Awards made under this IDIQ are subject to the availability of federal appropriations.

Could MACPAC provide an estimated level of effort (LOE) associated with data storage and management fees?

MACPAC expects the LOE to vary by Offeror, dependent on the storage and management operations in place. Offerors should base their own estimates of the level of effort on the volume of data (noted in 2.2.2) and the other data management tasks outlined in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 that would support the analytic operations of MACPAC.

For analytic activities requiring access to the CCW and/or IDR, would any associated access fees (for example, CCW seat fees) be covered directly by MACPAC, or should those costs be included in the contractor’s budget?

For task orders bid under 2.3, the task order budget shall reflect all analytic costs. In the event fee-free access to the CMS environment is not available, MACPAC will notify the Contractor and request these costs be included in the task order budget accordingly.

For datasets requiring licensing or other acquisition fees (for example, Symphony or First DataBank), would those costs be covered directly by MACPAC, or should they be included in the contractor’s budget?

As noted in 2.1.5, licensing and hardware are not part of this contract. On a task order basis for analytic task orders issued under Task 2.3, and in the unusual event a task order requires a unique data set not otherwise required by the contract, the task order budget may be amended to reflect the licensing of the data set on a one-time basis.

Will individual enclave users be assigned different levels of data access, or will all users operate within a single shared environment with uniform access?

For the purposes of this proposal, all MACPAC staff and contractors should be assumed to require the same level of access; however, their access should be limited by the DUAs governing data use.

Will MACPAC require the use of any specific software within the enclave? MACPAC requires access to software with analytic capabilities, including the ability to manage and manipulate large datasets, perform data analysis, generate summary statistics, and produce Excel or csv tables. MACPAC imposes no single platform requirement, but requires access to at least two software platforms meeting the above definition. MACPAC expects Contractors' provision of such software to be responsive to MACPAC requests and preferences.

How many awards will be made for this IDIQ? MACPAC anticipates issuing one award under this contract vehicle.

Section 3.1 - Technical Approach (Page 15): Could MACPAC please clarify whether the six-page limit applies to each individual mock task, or whether the combined total length for both mock tasks must not exceed six pages?

All contents of both mock task proposals must be included within the six-page section limit, with the exception of sample table shells as noted (p.

15).

Section 3 – Proposal Submission and Evaluation (Page 13): Can offerors send a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to MACPAC project clients? Or should offerors instead assume that MACPAC will collect this information internally, and that PPQs should be directed to non-MACPAC clients only?

PPQs should be directed to non-MACPAC clients only.

Section 3.1 - Technical Approach (Page 14): Could MACPAC clarify whether Appendix A: Resumes for all proposed professional personnel, is included in the 80-page limit for the technical proposal? Appendix A is listed in the technical proposal outline; however, MACPAC separately states that appendices do not count toward the page limit.

Resumes included in an appendix do not count against the 80-page limit for the Technical Proposal volume. On page 13, the RFP indicates that the technical proposal "in combination and excluding appendices" should not exceed 80 pages.

Section 3.4 - Scoring (Page 15) and Section 1.2 - Background (Page 3):

Could MACPAC clarify what is meant by “understanding of MACPAC’s need for and use of survey computing services (10 points)”? Specifically, does “survey computing services” refer to analyzing and programming survey data? If so, is the earlier statement “expertise with programming survey datasets will not be considered in scoring” a discrepancy?

The second bullet in 3.4, Scoring, is amended to read: "understanding of MACPAC’s need for and use of administrative data analytic and computing services (10 points)."

Section 3.1 - Technical Approach (Page 15): Can MACPAC confirm if mock task budgets can be submitted as an appendix outside of the six-page limit?

All contents of the mock task proposals must be included within the six-page section limit, with the exception of sample table shells as noted (p.

15).

Section 3.2 – Business Proposal (Page 15): For offerors that currently hold an existing MACPAC Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Contract for Fiscal Years 2026–2035, should the labor categories/classifications proposed under this solicitation be consistent with those included in the offeror's existing MACPAC FY 2026-2035 IDIQ contract?

This is not required; Offerors may propose labor classifications suited to the analytic work under Task 2.3. Business proposals must include sufficient detail to ensure proposal reviewers understand the differences between labor classifications and the likely application of labor classifications in a Task 2.3 task order budget.

Can MACPAC please provide an estimated level of effort for this contract, ideally by task?

MACPAC expects the LOE to vary by Offeror, dependent on the storage and management operations in place. Offerors should base their own estimates of the level of effort on the volume of data (noted in 2.2.2) and the other data management tasks outlined in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 that would support the analytic operations of MACPAC.

Can MACPAC please provide the number and dollar value of tasks awarded under the current IDIQ contract?

Under the existing IDIQ, MACPAC awards an average of 8 task orders per year. For the most recent complete FYs, the average task order cost was approximately $82,000.

Section 2.2.8 states that external enclave access should be completed during the contract's base year and operational by option year 1. Because the base period is five years and option year 1 begins October 1, 2031, please confirm the intended implementation deadline for MACPAC analytic enclave access. (RFP Page 9 Section 2.2.8)

Section 2.2.8, second paragraph, is amended to read: "The design and development of this external access shall be completed during the contract’s base period and operational by the end of base period year 1."

May offerors submit a recent CPARS evaluation in lieu of one or both of the two required past performance questionnaires (PPQs)? (RFP Page 13 Section 3; 3.1)

At this time, MACPAC will not accept CPARS. In the event an Offeror is unable to secure two PPQs due to circumstances outside the vendor's control, please contact contracts@macpac.gov.

The RFP states that additional copy-editing and Section 508 compliance expenses should be priced separately in the business proposal. Should offerors provide a standard unit rate, an illustrative estimate, or a separately priced optional line item for these services? (RFP Page 13 Section 2.7)

Please provide an illustrative estimate. Pricing for deliverable copy-editing and publishing compliance will occur at the task order level; thus this estimate is used to evaluate the Offeror's approach rather than set long-term pricing policy.

May copies of security certifications and independent security audits be submitted as separate attachments or appendices excluded from the 80-page Volume I limit? (RFP Page 14 Section 3.1, item 9)

Yes, documentation of security certifications and audits may be included as appendices, and excluded from page limit counts.

For sensitive security certifications and independent audit materials, will MACPAC accept appropriately redacted copies, executive summaries, or secure supplemental attachments marked as proprietary? (RFP Page 14 Section 3.1, item 9)

MACPAC treats all proposal submissions as confidential and proprietary, and guards Offerors' materials with appropriate confidentiality and caution.

Please submit secure supplemental attachments. In the event an Offeror requires an alternate submission process for such attachments, please contact contracts@macpac.gov.

Are letters of commitment, teaming documentation, or other supporting materials required for proposed subcontractors or consultants? If so, where should they be included and do they count toward the Volume I page limit?

(RFP Page 14 Section 3.1)

In the event an Offeror's bid includes subcontractors in major project roles (e.g., as Key Personnel or in the completion of ongoing contractual tasks under Tasks 2.1 and 2.2), the Offeror should include documentation of this commitment. Letters of commitment and resumes for proposed subcontractor staff shall be included in an appendix and do not count against the Technical Proposal page limit.

The RFP states that “this section” must not exceed six pages. Is the six-page limit a combined limit for both mock task order proposals or a separate six-page limit for each mock task order proposal? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.1 Mock tasks)

The six-page limit is imposed on the combined response to both mock tasks.

The RFP states that data management and storage fees should be proposed for the entire contractual period without annual escalation. Must the monthly fee remain identical throughout the ten-year period, or may offerors propose year-specific fixed monthly fees that are not based on annual escalation? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

In light of this question, MACPAC is revising the directions in Section 3.2, last paragraph. The text is amended to read, "Offerors shall propose data management and storage fees for the entire contractual period. Offerors must propose data management and storage fees for the entire base period without annual escalation; offerors may propose option year fees reflecting annual escalation. Offerors shall propose fully burdened FFP labor rates for data analysis only for the base period. If and when option periods are executed, incumbent contractors would propose labor rates for those periods."

The scoring criteria refer to MACPAC's need for and use of “survey computing services,” while the RFP primarily concerns administrative data and states that survey-data programming expertise will not be considered in scoring. Please confirm the intended evaluation criterion and the scope offerors should address. (RFP Page 15 Section 3.4)

The second bullet in 3.4, Scoring, is amended to read: "understanding of MACPAC’s need for and use of administrative data analytic and computing services (10 points)."

If an offeror proposes subcontractors, should Volume II identify subcontractor labor rates, indirect costs, and markups separately, or is a consolidated fully burdened rate schedule sufficient? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

A consolidated fully burdened rate schedule is sufficient.

Must both required PPQs evaluate the prime offeror, or may one or both PPQs evaluate the relevant performance of a proposed major subcontractor? (RFP Page 13, 16 Section 3; 3.4)

If an offeror intends to employ subcontractors in major project roles (e.g., as Key Personnel or in the completion of ongoing contractual tasks under Tasks 2.1 and 2.2), the Offeror may include one PPQ for a major subcontractor. If, upon MACPAC's evaluation of the proposal, it is unclear whether the subcontractor will be in a "major" role, MACPAC reserves the right to disqualify this PPQ from review.

For the 80-page Volume I limit, please identify whether the cover page, table of contents, list of acronyms, section divider pages, sample table-shell appendix, resume appendix, and security-document attachments are excluded from the page count. (RFP Page 13-15 Section 3.1)

Appendices do not count toward the 80-page limit, as noted on page 13 of the RFP. MACPAC encourages Offerors to ensure efficiency in their proposals.

For the Organizational Qualifications and Past Performance section, does MACPAC have a preferred number, recency period, or format for past performance examples? May offerors include relevant examples from proposed major subcontractors? (RFP Page 14, 16 Section 3.1; 3.4)

MACPAC's evaluation of the Offeror's past performance and organizational qualifications seeks to assess the Offeror's experience and capacity in managing and executing similar contracts. Therefore, documentation of performance that is closely aligned with this contract (e.g., in scope, time, size) will be most applicable. While MACPAC does not impose any time, size, or other strict limits for inclusion of projects, Offerors are encouraged to assure the relevance of included performance examples.

Please confirm that sample table shells may be placed in an appendix and are excluded from both the six-page mock-task limit and the overall 80-page Volume I limit. Is there any page limit or prescribed appendix placement for the table shells? (RFP Page 14-15 Section 3.1 Mock tasks)

Sample table shells for the mock task proposals may be placed in an appendix and are excluded from both the six-page mock-task limit and the overall 80-page Volume I limit. There is no page limit or prescribed appendix placement for the table shells.

Should Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 be priced as one combined monthly data storage and management fee or as separate monthly fees for each task area?

(RFP Page 5, 15 Section 1.7; 3.2)

Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 shall be priced as one combined monthly data storage and management fee.

Other than the designated Project Director, does MACPAC require any specific positions to be identified as key personnel, or should offerors identify proposed key personnel at their discretion? (RFP; Appendix A Page RFP p. 11; App. A p. 8 Section 2.5.1; Appendix A §16)

Offerors should propose key personnel to serve as project leadership and management as well as task leads for the data storage and management functions (Tasks 2.1 and 2.2) and for execution and management of analytic task orders (Task 2.3). The proposal should describe how the task lead(s) for Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 coordinate with or report to information security personnel within the Offeror's organization. Offerors may propose additional key personnel at their discretion and consistent with their proposed technical approach to the scope of the contract.

Appendix A, Section 15 states that the total duration of the contract, including any option, shall not exceed one year, while the RFP provides for a five-year base period and five one-year option periods. Please clarify the intended application of Appendix A, Section 15. (RFP; Appendix A Page RFP p. 4; App. A pp. 7-8 Section 1.6; Appendix A §15)

Under this IDIQ vehicle, MACPAC will execute task order contracts, including for data storage and management tasks under 2.1 and 2.2. No task order duration will exceed one year in length. No award or expenditure is guaranteed under this IDIQ; scopes of work and payment terms attach to individual task order contracts.

For pricing purposes, should the fixed monthly fee include all platform, cloud, storage, backup, software-license, hardware, secure-enclave, and user-support costs for up to 20 designated users? (RFP; Appendix A Page RFP pp. 6, 9; App. A p. 3 Section 2.1.5; 2.2.8; Appendix A §6)

Yes.

RFP mentions the use of SAS software. Are the majority of the raw data and analytical files in SAS format, or in other format, e.g., HIVE, PARQUET? (RFP Page RFP pp. 9, 10 Section 2.3.1; 2.3.4)

Historical and new data transmitted from CMS are transmitted in zipped flat files. Historical analytic files have been stored in SAS formats.

Can you provide current compute or GPU usage? This will help to accurately scope the hosting. (RFP Page 6 Section 2.1)

MACPAC expects the LOE to vary by Offeror, dependent on the storage and management operations in place. Offerors should base their own estimates of the level of effort on the volume of data (noted in 2.2.2) and the other data management tasks outlined in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 that would support the analytic operations of MACPAC.

Please provide the number of SAS programs and/or lines of code, so that we can estimate the maintenance effort? (RFP Page 6 Section 2.1)

MACPAC expects the LOE to vary by Offeror, dependent on the storage and management operations in place. Offerors should base their own estimates of the level of effort on the volume of data (noted in 2.2.2) and the other data management tasks outlined in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 that would support the analytic operations of MACPAC.

Can the government provide a list of the currently used python packages?

(RFP Page 6 Section 2.2)

MACPAC does not prescribe the use of specific analytic platforms.

Cloud egress costs from the incumbent to a non-incumbent winner could be up to $15k for 215TB. Should we include this cost in our bid in order to cover incumbent costs? (RFP Page 6 Section 2.1)

Incumbent expenses will be the responsibility of the incumbent vendor and shall be covered under their existing contract.

The RFP states "Fully burdened labor rates are defined as consisting of hourly base labor rates plus out-year escalations, applicable indirect burden costs (fringe benefits, overhead, general & administrative), and profit." However later states that "Offerors shall propose fully burdened FFP labor rates for data analysis only for the base period. If and when option periods are executed, incumbent Offerors would propose labor rates for those periods." Should proposed labor rates for the Base Period include estimated out-year escalation for application across all periods, similar to the request for "data management and storage fees for the entire contractual period without annual scalation", or will the Offeror be able to propose rate escalation if and when Option Periods are exercised? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

If and when option periods are executed, incumbent contractors would propose labor rates for those periods.

The RFP requests "Direct and Indirect Fixed Costs" for Data Management and Storage and further states that these costs should be proposed "without annual escalation". Can MACPAC clarify if Offerors need to provide the underlying estimated direct costs, indirect costs, out-year escalation, and profit for proposed Fixed Costs for data management and storage? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

Offerors should provide exceptions, assumptions, and rationales for all components of the business proposal, to include the component parts of fully loaded labor rates as well as the underlying basis for the data management and storage fees. To the extent that MACPAC is unable to assess the reasonableness or appropriateness of proposed rates due to a lack of underlying information, an Offeror's business proposal will be scored accordingly.

The RFP states "Offerors shall propose data management and storage fees for the entire contractual period without annual escalation." Should the proposed fixed fees be inclusive of estimated out-year escalation, or will these fees be subject to revision similar to labor rates, if and when Option Periods are awarded? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

In light of this question, MACPAC is revising the directions in Section 3.2, last paragraph. The text is amended to read, "Offerors shall propose data management and storage fees for the entire contractual period. Offerors must propose data management and storage fees for the entire base period without annual escalation; offerors may propose option year fees reflecting annual escalation. Offerors shall propose fully burdened FFP labor rates for data analysis only for the base period. If and when option periods are executed, incumbent contractors would propose labor rates for those periods."

The RFP requests "Direct and Indirect Fixed Costs for Data Management and Storage". Is any underlying direct or indirect cost information required with regard to proposed fully burdened labor rates? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

As noted in 3.2, "Fully burdened labor rates are defined as consisting of hourly base labor rates plus out-year escalations, applicable indirect burden costs (fringe benefits, overhead, general & administrative), and profit." Offerors' proposals should provide exceptions, assumptions, and rationales for all components of the business proposal, to include the component parts of fully loaded labor rates.

Are there specific labor categories MACPAC would like Offeror's to propose prices for, or may the Offeror suggest labor categories? (RFP Page 15 Section 3.2)

This is not required; Offerors may proposal labor classifications suited to the analytic work under Task 2.3. Business proposals must include sufficient detail to ensure proposal reviewers understand the differences between labor classifications and the likely application of labor classifications in a Task 2.3 task order budget.

May Offerors form a CTA with partners in order to form the most advantageous team to the government? (RFP overall) (Appendix A Page 8 Section 17 - Subcontracts )

MACPAC intends to award a single contract to a SAM-registered legal entity. In the event an Offeror proposes to legally contract with other organizations to execute the terms of the contract, MACPAC shall treat this as a subcontracting arrangement. If an offeror intends to employ subcontractors in major project roles (e.g., as Key Personnel or in the completion of ongoing contractual tasks under Tasks 2.1 and 2.2), the Offeror should include documentation of this commitment. Letters of commitment and resumes for proposed subcontractor staff shall be included in an appendix and do not count against the Technical Proposal page limit.