Solicitation Questions and Answers - SHEP IDIQ.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C77622R0126
View the file
Other files
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Reference | Question | Response to Vendor |
| N/A | Can the government provide a SHEP Methodology Report (or similar report) that discusses topics such as numbers of surveys fielded, response rates by survey, and other procedures? | Monthly volumes and response rates are in Section 2.0, Core Description and Estimated Quantity table, page 4-5. |
| N/A | What is the approved remail process if sample members request a survey reprint. How often does this occur? | Inpatient reprint requests are not processed since the HCAHPS protocol dictates a second survey mailing to nonresponders to the first survey. Outpatient call center activities are managed internally by VA staff and requests are forwarded to the vendor as they are received. Typically 8-10 per month. Reprints are generated and mailed once a month. |
| N/A | Is there an expectation for processing email bouncebacks for the outpatient surveys? | No, not at this time. |
| Page 2, PWS | Will contact information and panel participation history for Veterans currently on the Veteran Insight Panle be made available to the contractor upon award? | The current panel belongs to the incumbent. We are requiring a new vendor to create and maintain a new one. |
| Page 3, PWS | To help facilitate OMB requirement pricing, how often does the government anticipate updates to survey question sets? | Periodically, as needed. Some years there will be no changes, and some years we may have several. |
| Page 3, PWS | Do the 170 medical centers and ~1,063 community based outpatient clinics have very different population sizes and do those sizes fluctuate across time? | Yes, some facilities range from large urban medical centers to rural community based outpatient clinics which are are smaller. Yes, we have seen sizes flucuate across time. |
| Page 3, PWS | Do survey plans sample more heavily (as a percent of the population) from small areas, aim for a fixed number of respondents per area, or something in-between? | Something in-between. For outpatient, the sample is based on the desired number of completes per facility with minimum and maximum sampling rules. Inpatient follows the HCAHPS protocols. |
| Page 3, PWS | Have small area estimation methods been considered for estimating the accuracy of so many centers and clinics? | Yes, we have considered this, but don't currently use this method |
| Page 3, PWS | Can you estimate the quantity and frequency of mailings to the Philippines for each of the four surveys? | On average it's about 200/month combined. |
| Page 3, PWS | How often do survey content changes typically occur? Would an estimate of 10% change once per year for each of the fours surveys be reasonable? | Yes, that's reasonable, and may even be a little high. |
| Page 4, PWS | When the population is provided for the purpose of drawing the sample each month, what variables are included? | Patient identifiers (name, address, email if one is on file, age, etc), clinical identifiers (DRG or clinic stop codes, facility name, date of visit, provider name, etc) |
| Page 4, PWS | Does sampling currently use stratification within sample areas or are sampling goals set across areas? | It's a stratified simple random sample stratified by facility or division |
| Page 5, PWS | For the outpatient surveys, approximately what % of the responses are paper vs. web? | It's about 80% paper 20% web |
| Page 10, PWS | Can the government provide more details on non-HCAHPS sampling procedures, such as inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc.? | Outpatient sample frames include Veterans 18 years or older, who had an eligible encounter/visit with a qualified healthcare provider. The frame excludes dental and encounters from domiciliary, nursing homes, and residential rehabilitation treatment. Also excluded are patients who have previously responded to any SHEP questionnaire (Inpatient, PCMH, etc.) in the previous 12 months and those who requested not to be surveyed. Depending on the survey, monthly random samples are pulled by facility/site based on the desired number of completes per facility with minimum and maximum sampling rules and/or by sampling groups like clinic/care categories. |
| Page 13, PWS | It is indicated that pre-notification and cover letter materials will be personalized with the address and signature block of the facilities. Are there 1,233 variations of this? Also, it appears this does not apply to the Community Care Survey, correct? | The signatures are that of the Director of each Healthcare System, , approximately 170. Signatures change as leadership changes, estimated to be about 10 per quarter. |
| Page 13, PWS | Is it acceptable to print the survey response boxes in color (such as blue) for ease in scanning? | Yes, provided it is not in violation of CAHPS/HCAHPS data collection protocols or VA graphics standards |
| Page 13, PWS | The reminder/thank-you postcard is sent to the entire sample for the outpatient surveys, correct? | Correct. |
| Page 14, PWS | Is the only utilization of the Spanish materials for the Puerto Rico VAMC? | Yes. Both English and Spanish versions of the surveys are sent to all Veterans receiving care from or through the VA Caribbean Healthcare System (Puerto Rico). Veterans choose which version of the survey to respond to. |
| Page 14, PWS | What is the process if a patient in a non-Puerto Rico location requests Spanish? | There is no process other than for VA Caribbean Healthcare Sysytem (Puerto Rico) because that has never happened. However, if a Spanish survey is requested, we can send them one. |
| Page 14, PWS | It is indicated that English and Spanish materials are sent together to the Puerto Rico VAMC members. Does this apply to all four surveys? | Yes. Both English and Spanish versions of the surveys are sent to all Veterans receiving care from or through the VA Caribbean Healthcare System (Puerto Rico). Veterans choose which version of the survey to respond to. |
| Page 15, PWS | It is indicated that white mail is shipped on a weekly basis directly to the Medical Center Directors. There are 1,233 of these, correct? (170 Medical Centers and 1,063 Community Based Outpatient Clinics) | Whitemail is shipped to the parent facility for each healthcare system, 170. Facility policy will determine how the pieces are routed, as appropriate. |
| Page 15, PWS | Can you provide an estimate of the number of call center contacts to expect per month? | The calendar year average from January to May 2023 is approximately 60 calls per month. |
| Page 15, PWS | Are there any requirements to cleanse PHI from margin comments and white mail? | No, comments are sent verbatim to the facilities via Fed Ex to verify chain of custody until delivery. |
| Page 17, PWS | 6.1 Ad Hoc Advanced Data Analytics. Please indicate the anticipated length of task orders, in months, that the contractor should anticipate for each level of support (low, medium, high, training). If length varies, an estimate or average would be helpful for level of effort and staff planning purposes. | Typical task orders for these kinds of services are for 12 months and can contain multiple projects of varying complexities and timelines. Historically, projects have taken 3 to 6 months to complete and have run concurrently. |
| Page 18, PWS | Can API confirm that all complexity tasks (low, medium, and high) must include the following 6 items described in the PWS: (1) a briefing of findings to SHEP Program team, (2) a topline report for VHA leadership (as appropriate), (3) recommendations for quality improvement, (4) a report/presentation of findings suitable for presentation at an academic conference or publication in a peer reviewed journal, (5) a detailed report of findings complete with appropriate supporting tables and appendices, and (6) appendices to include all data, programming, and supporting documentation? | Confirmed. |
| Page 19, PWS | 6.3 Additional Survey Administration indicates that VA may possibly field the listed surveys. Will tasking for ad hoc surveys be done via a Task Order? | Yes once need and funding has been established an existing task order will be modified or a new task order will be issued for the project. |
| Page 19, PWS | The list of additional surveys includes "booklet page" length. Please confirm the mode of survey fielding for each of the ad hoc surveys and provide protocol detials necessary to price (e.g., number and type of mailings) | Those will be priced at the task order level once surveys are identified or developed based on needs appropriate to the population. |
| Page 22, PWS | Does the VA have an internal Department online platform, or preferrerd platform(s) that would be used for the qualitative data collection for the Veteran Insights Panel (VIP)? Are there security requirements or restrictions that should be considered for the online platform? | No the VA does not maintain an existing online platform for the VIP. The vendor is required to host a secure platform. See PWS pg. 42 section 12a "INFORMATION SYSTEM HOSTING, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, OR USE". |
| Page 71, RFP | Page 71 of the solicitation states: “Cover pages, tables of contents, resumes, and/or glossary of abbreviations or acronyms will not be included in the page count of the Volumes.” However, page 73 of the solicitation states: “Key Personnel (maximum of 10 pages, including resumes).” Do resumes count towards the 10-page limit in the Key Personnel section? | No, resumes will not count toward the page limit of the Key Personnel action. |
| Page 73, RFP | Is the HCAHPS Approval Verification part of Volume I or a separate submission? | The HCAHPS Approval is considered a part of VOLUME VI –SIGNED OFFER AND OTHER REQUIRED SUBMITTALS |
| Page 74, RFP | The “Technical Approach to PWS” section only requests the following elements of the PWS requirements be addressed: Section 5.3, Section 5.5, Section 5.8, Section 6.4, and Section 10.0.2. The following sections of the PWS were not listed: 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 as elements to be addressed in the Technical Approach section. Does API want offerors to address all sections of the PWS or only the sections listed currently (5.3, 5.5, 5.8, 6.4, and 10.0.2)? | The referenced section has been revised to read "The offeror shall provide a complete description of the technical approach that is feasible and satisfies all PWS requirements. |
The technical approach shall include details which indicate that the Offeror possesses an overall understanding of the scope and the requirements of the PWS. Proposals which merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient." In addition, the page limit has been revised to 30.
Page 77, RFP RFP says: "Each offeror shall complete the following: (1) Attachment G, IDIQ Line Item Worksheet. The estimated quantities cannot be changed and are for evaluation purposes only. The line item prices must be populated by the Offeror. If volume discounts are proposed, the estimated quantity would dictate which price to provide. The sum of all unit prices will be used for evaluation purposes only."
| This worksheet contains numerous cells that don't appear related to pricing. Can the government clarify specifically which parts of this file should be completed? | The offeror shall complete the column "unit price" on the tab of Attachment G labeled "Items." | ||
| Page 91, RFP | In reference to offeror's Past Performance, the RFP states: "In this context, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractor(s). A major subcontractor is defined as one which will be providing more than 20% of the total proposed price or more than 25% of the total labor force." |
Would the govt please delete the following sentence: " A major subcontractor is defined as one which will be providing more than 20% of the total proposed price or more than 25% of the total labor force." ?
| Rationale: We feel that a subcontractor who possesses past performance that meets your criteria stated on page 75 of the PWS ( "... relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Areas of relevance include all objectives addressed in the SHEP IDIQ PWS.") should qualify as a major subcontractor. Using this metric, the govt could more accurately assess the capability and performance of the offerors, whereas 20% of price or 25% of labor force is somewhat arbitrary given that a single task could greatly influence those metrics. | This percentages outlined are standard for this effort and will not be removed from the solicitation. | |||
| Attachments G and H | Attachment G does not have CLIN 0011C but Attachment H has CLIN 0011C. Please clarify. | Attachment H has been revised to remove the TEP Worksheet tab. Only Labor category information should be added to Attachment H. | ||
| Attachments G and H | Are BOEs required for CLINs 0007 and 0008? | These will be priced at the Task Order level based on the specifics of each project | ||
| Attachment G and PWS | Does Task 6.3 (Additional Survey Administration) align with CLIN 0008 (Other Surveys Ad Hoc)? If not, what is the alignment? | Yes, 6.3 aligns with CLIN 0008. These will be priced at the Task Order level based on the specifics of each project (volume of surveys, frequency of administration, etc.) | ||
| Attachment G and H and PWS | Does Task 6.1 (section Training and Educational Products) align with CLIN 0007 (Training Educational Products) or with CLINs 0006A, 0006B, and 0006C (per Attachment H instructions)? If not, what is the alignment? | Task 6.1 aligns with CLIN 0007. | ||
| Attachment G and H and PWS | Which CLIN aligns with Task 6.2 (Survey Development)? | Survey development is done through the VIP using various combinations of CLIN 0010-series and 0011-series. | ||
| Page 11, PWS | Task 5.2 For planning and pricing purposes, can VA please provide additional detail on the differences between the “Periodic” Key Driver Reports and “Key Drivers Reports” listed below in the same bullet list? | The bullet point "key drivers reports" has been removed from the PWS. The wording "periodic" within this section has been revised to say "semi-annual." | ||
| PWS section 5.7 | Are ALL margin comments shipped to the Medical facilities or only those that are relevant to the facility and not simply dispositions. For example, would the assumption be made that “deceased”, “refused”, etc. for a margin comment would not be printed and shipped? | All comments are to be shipped unless the respondent requests that they not be (confidential/anonymous/do not share, etc.) | ||
| PWS section 5.8 | Does the "innovations" request on page 17 mean that a technical solution can be proposed and priced rather than the paper shipping process described in the PWS for the non-critical white mail bundles? | Minimally follow the current process but, if there are advances in technology that meet VA requirements, we would entertain a proposal. | ||
| Page 5, PWS | For the Outpatient surveys, is every Veteran sent the paper survey regardless of whether the web survey is completed in the first week? (The PWS indicates that a paper survey is sent to every Veteran). | Yes. | ||
| PWS section 5.7 | For the Customer Care survey, is the white mail shipped directly to the facilities or are those handled differently? | I was unable to find a reference to "Customer Care survey" in Section 5.7. All comments from all surveys are to be shipped using the same process. | ||
| N/A | Are postal non-deliverables required to be tracked and reported as a disposition for the Outpatient programs? | Yes. It will be used in calculating accurate response rates. | ||
| Page 13, PWS | Is it acceptable for the 6x9 inch BREs to be folded before inserting? Or, can the 6x9 BRE be produced slightly smaller to fit without folding? | Minimally follow the current process. Any changes to the methods and/or procedures will need to be successfully tested before implementing. | ||
| Page 13, PWS | What % of respondents complete the "Some other language (please print)" option? | 0.50% | ||
| Page 13, PWS | Can you provide a sample of the Specialty Care and Community Care surveys? | Yes, will forward to Ben and Nick. |
JS: JF sent this morning (6/8)
| RFP § E.2(G) | The RFP states that each offeror shall submit no more than three (3) examples of recent (within 3 years) and relevant corporate experience that are of similar size, complexity, and scope to the current requirement. (RFP § E.2(G)). Can the Government clarify how many of these examples must be from the prime contractor itself? | It is up to the offeror to determine many examples will be submitted from the prime. |
| RFP § E.2(G | The RFP states that each offeror shall submit no more than three (3) examples of recent (within 3 years) and relevant corporate experience that are of similar size, complexity, and scope to the current requirement. (RFP § E.2(G)). Can the Government provide additional information regarding what examples will be deemed relevant? | Relevant is defined in this section as experience of “similar size, complexity, and scope to the current requirement” |
| The RFP requires the offeror to “identify key personnel proposed and their duties and responsibilities as related to the requirements in the PWS” and “provide a narrative to address qualifications, education, availability, and specific experiences that are directly related to the requirements of the IDIQ PWS. In addition, a resume shall be provided for each individual proposed as key personnel.” (RFP § E.2(G)). Can the Government confirm there are no required key personnel positions with associated requirements, and instead offerors are expected to propose their own key persons? | Offerors are expected to propose their own key personnel, and the government has no requirements for specific individuals as key personel. | |
| RFP § E.2(G) | Can the Government clarify how corporate experience will be evaluated? | These areas will be evaluated in accordance with the technical evaluation approach outlined in the solicitation. |
| Can the Government clarify how key personnel will be evaluated? | These areas will be evaluated in accordance with the technical evaluation approach outlined in the solicitation. | |
| RFP § E.2(G) | The RFP states that the prime offeror must possess either full or conditional HCAHPS Approval status both at the time of proposal submission and at time of award. However, it is not clear from the RFP which modalities the HCAHPS approval is required. CMS grants HCAHPS approval individually for the following survey modalities: Mail Administration, Telephone Administration, Mixed Mode Administration, Active Interactive Voice Response Administration. Given that the vast majority of the scope of work under this contract is the administration mail surveys, can the Government clarify if the prime offerors need to possess either full or conditional HCAHPS Approval status specifically for Mail Administration at the time of proposal submission and contract award? | Per PWS, 5.1 a Inpatient, page 9, vendor will require full or conditional approval for HCAHPS mail only protocol. |
| RFP § E.2(G) | A conditionally approved vendor has not yet demonstrated to CMS that they have the skillset required to successfully upload HCAHPS data into CMS systems. Given that a conditionally approved vendor doesn’t have the experience with this program that a fully approved vendor does, can the Government confirm that conditional HCAHPS approval is acceptable? | Conditional HCAHPS approval is acceptable. |
| RFP § E.2(G), RFP § E.14, RFP Attachment A - PWS 1.0, and RFP Attachment A PWS 2.0 | API is seeking a contractor that is Hospital CAHPS (HCAHPS) approved. The contractor shall also have demonstrated experience in administering the CAHPS Clinician & Group survey. Given that a conditionally approved vendor doesn’t have the experience with this program that a fully approved vendor does, can the Government confirm that conditional HCAHPS approval is acceptable? | Conditional HCAHPS approval is acceptable. |
| Given the importance of this project and the associated response requirements, we respectfully request an extension to the due date to June 30, 2023. | The due date for submissions shall be extended to 6/30/2023, 12PM Eastern Time | |
| PWS 1.0 Background | Please clarify the official source of information that will determine whether a business qualifies as a SDVOSB or VOSB? This question is in regard to the statement, "Offerors are cautioned that they must be registered and verified in Vendor Information Pages (VIP) database (http://www.VetBiz.gov)." However, VetBiz.gov indicates that the SBA is now responsible for verifying SDVOSB and VOSB status at https://veterans.certify.sba.gov/ | SDVOSB and VOSB status shall be verified through the SBA portal at https://veterans.certify.sba.gov/ |
| Solicitation 3677622R0126 section E.2 (pg. 72) | Should the HCAHPS Approval Verification Letter be provided separately? |
If not, does it count against the 43 pages for the technical volume?
| Please clarify how the verification letter be formatted? | The HCAHPS Approval is considered a part of VOLUME VI –SIGNED OFFER AND OTHER REQUIRED SUBMITTALS. The verification shall be provided as a .docx file or .pdf file. | |||
| Solicitation 3677622R0126; VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (pg. 75) | The RFP states, "Offerors shall submit all Government contracts and/or commercial contracts…" Would the Government consider modifying the requirement to "all relevant contracts and/or commercial contracts . . . within the past 3 years"? | |||
| Yes, within 3 years from the closing date of the solicitation. | ||||
| Solicitation 3677622R0126 (pg. 72) | The RFP states that "The Government will use of the following website to verify the Offeror’s submitted evidence of HCAHPS Approval Status at both the time of proposal submission, and again at time of contract award: http://www.hcahpsonline.org/app_vendor.aspx." However, this link is currently not functional. Can the Government please confirm that the following link will be used instead to confirm HCAHPS approval status: https://hcahpsonline.org/en/approved-vendor-list/ | Yes, the second link will be used and is functioning. | ||
| Attachment A PWS; 8.2.1 Electronic Submissions (pg. 24) | The PWS states "An interactive portal concept is envisioned for the interchange of data/documents (to include deliverables and invoices)." Given the nature of the access to a portal, would the portal be allowed to be hosted in a non-FedRAMP area? | FedRAMP is a requirement of this acquisition and non-FedRAMP service will not be considered. | ||
| Attachment A PWS; 6.1 Ad Hoc Advanced Data Analytics and Reporting, Animated Training Videos, and Education Material (pg. 17) | Is scoping, planning, and thought leadership part of the intended scope of high, medium, and low projects, or should that effort be separately allocated to a task order for program management? | Scoping, planning, and thought leadership part of the intended scope of high, medium, and low projects are built into the project cost. | ||
| Attachment A: PWS; 6.5 Key Personnel (pg. 22) | Please provide any specific key personnel requirements and labor category descriptions. | Per the instructiosn to offerors, Key Personnel are to be proposed by the offeror. Key Personnel are to have qualifications, education, availability, and specific experiences that are directly related to the requirements of the IDIQ PWS. | ||
| Attachment A PWS; 5.7 White Mail Screening and “Critical Service Alerts” (pg. 15) | The PWS states that "Each letter shall be labeled with a sticker containing the survey project number, the processors’ initials, the survey id number assigned to the Veteran, and the Critical Service Alert check." Would the government be open to alternative approaches like handling this electronically? | No. The information will be used by facility staff in contacting API for the identity of any respondent the facility deems requires follow up that has not been self identified. Not all pieces may require identificaiton and follow up. | ||
| Attachment A PWS; 5.7 White Mail Screening and “Critical Service Alerts” (pg. 15) | The PWS states that "Critical Service Alerts are transmitted electronically to the API Office for immediate response and original documents are sent via overnight express." Do the original documents need to be sent overnight, or would the government be willing to extend this to 5-7 days if they are already receiving the electronic communication immediately? | In some instances additional documents are included but the critical service alert pieces are forwarded to expedite processing. In those cases the complete package including all attachments will be required to be sent as soon as possible. | ||
| Attachment A PWS; 5.6 Call Center (pg. 15) | Please confirm that there are no other operational requirements for the call center, such as hours of operation, that deviate from the requirements expressed in the Hospital CAHPS Survey (HCAHPS) Quality Assurance Guidelines (HCAHPS QAG V17.0 March 2022). | VA has no additional requirements other than being in compliance with the most recent HCAHPS QAG. | ||
| N/A | Is it sufficient to be a NCQA-certified survey vendor and conducting CAHPS or must the vendor be an HCAHPS approved vendor? | No. Offeror must be HCAHPS approved to submit data to CMS. | ||
| N/A | It is noted that the solicitation requires a solution at the FedRAMP High level, with award to a small business HCAHPS approved vendor. There does not appear to be a single organization that meets all of these criteria. With the recognition that the FedRAMP authorization process takes a great deal of time - paired with the need for transition - does the Government have a preference for entering an agreement with a small business who will build rapidly towards FedRAMP High Status themselves, or for a small business to contract with an existing SaaS software platform that is already at FedRAMP High and is delivering under ATO within the VA? | The previously listed requirement for FedRAMP High Level is erroneous. The "FISMA Impact Level" required for this acquistion is "moderate." "Attachment A" has been revised to reflect this correction. The government has no preference as to whether an offeror possesses the FedRAMP status themselves or partners with another offeror, so long as the offeror is able to meet all requirements of the PWS and limitations on subcontraction. | ||
| N/A | SAM.gov indicates that the date offers are due is June 16, 2023. However, the offer due date is indicated as 6-23-2023 12PM EDT on the cover sheet. Could you please confirm that June 23, 2023 is the correct due date for submissions? | The due date for submissions shall be extended to 6/30/2023, 12PM Eastern Time | ||
| N/A | Similar to HCAHPS approval, is it also required for the prime contractor to hold the ATO/FedRAMP approval and fulfill the requirements detailed in Attachment A PWS 10.0.2? | Yes, it is required. | ||
| N/A | Given the significant financial investments and outlays required by this contract, can the government please explain how offerors will be evaluated for adequate financial resources and overall responsibility in accordance with FAR Part 9 | Offerors will have their financials verified through Dun and Bradstreet utilizing the offeror's DUNS number. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .