40DHHS-S3391-Questions with Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- VOC Claim Management Software
- Solicitation number
- 40DHHS-S3391
- Issued by
- Nevada
About this file
This document is a Bid Q&A file for RFP 40DHHS-S3391 issued by the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, specifically the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), seeking a Victims of Crime (VOC) Claim Management Software system. The solicitation aims to replace an existing third-party contract and develop a new software platform with staff, victim, and provider portals to manage victim compensation claims. The project timeline targets a minimum viable product ready by January 31, 2026, with proposals due by September 10, 2025, and vendor presentations scheduled for September 24-26, 2025. The contract will have an initial term aligned with the project implementation, with potential phased approaches considered, including a possible Phase 1 go-live by April 1, 2026, and a Phase 2 completion by December 31, 2026.
The total estimated project value is $4,896,574.00 across three biennial periods, with funding comprised of 62% General Fund, 23% Other, 10% Federal Fees, and 5% State Fees. The budget allocates $511,000 for fiscal year 2026 and $1.4 million for subsequent years, subject to federal and legislative approval. The current environment involves an existing contract with Cost Containment Strategies, Inc., which expires June 30, 2026. The state anticipates approximately 15-16 named staff users, with an annual average of 5,536 payment transactions and 3,000-4,000 direct victims. The procurement emphasizes in-house claim management, software flexibility, open-source capabilities, and integration with existing state systems, including single sign-on and potentially the CoreNV financial system.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC - Business Associate Addendum.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC - Confidentiality Addendum.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC Cost Schedule.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC-RFP_Claim Management Software.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-Vendor-Information-Response.pdf | ||
| 40DHHS-S3391-reference-questionnaire.docx | DOCX document | |
| Quote Instructions.pdf | ||
| Standard-form-contract~12.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-Certification-regarding-lobbying.pdf | ||
| 40DHHS-S3391-Insurance Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC - Federal Laws and Authorities.docx | DOCX document | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC Cloud Checklist.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 40DHHS-S3391-TIN Completion Memo.pdf | ||
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC - Fiscal Procedures.doc | DOC document | |
| Terms-and-conditions-for-services~13.pdf | ||
| 40DHHS-S3391-VOC Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 16
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
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| 40DHHS-S3391 - Questions with Answers | |||||
| QUESTION_NBR | CREATED_BY | QUESTION_SUBJECT | QUESTION_TEXT | ANSWER_TEXT | |
| 1 | BPATH | 40DHHS-S3391 SCOPE OF WORK, 1.3 - Timeline | In the timeline, it states the system must be up by January 31, **2026**. Based on the decision being approved in December, this would imply one and at most two months for the project. Please clarify. | Ideally, we would have a minimum viable product ready to use by January 31, 2026. We recognize this is a very tight timeline and we are open to considering alternative timelines in vendor proposals, however vendor proposals that deviate less from this goal will be viewed more favorably. We are also open to a very bare bones MVP by 1/31/26, with most features added after this date. | |
| 2 | BPATH | References to SOW in attachment tab | There is no attachment tab on the nevadaepro web site. Is there another document that has more functional requirements? If so, could you direct us to the location of this document? | We have not defined functional requirements beyond the broad requirements outlined in the RFP. | |
| 3 | BPATH | RFP Requirements | Was an external vendor or consultant involved in developing the requirements or content of this RFP? If so, is that vendor eligible to submit a response to this solicitation? Additionally, to ensure all respondents have equal understanding of the project goals and constraints, will the State make available any documentation, meeting notes, or related materials from the requirements-gathering process? | No external vendor or consultant was involved in developing the requirements or content of the RFP. The state will respond to public records requests made through the Purchasing Division. | |
| 4 | BPATH | Difference with RFP 40DHHS-S3392 (Victims of Crime - Medical Billing & Claims Management) | Could you clarify the difference between RFP 40DHHS-S3392 (Victims of Crime - Medical Billing & Claims Management) and 40DHHS-S3391 (Victims of Crime - Claim Management Software)? | ||
| It appears that S3392 also includes a claims management software component while S3391 does not include a third party doing the bill review process. | Only one of the two RFPs will result in a contract. Ideally, the state seeks a software system and the state will provide personnel (this RFP). If, for any reason, this RFP is unsuccessful, the state may contract with a vendor who bid on S3392 to provide both software and personnel. | ||||
| 5 | BPATH | Third-Party Software | 5. Under Scope of Work, section 2, referring to the requirement, "The state has an existing contract for third-party software and personnel services." What is the third-party software being used? Is this third-party software currently hosted by the State or an outside provider? Are personnel services referring to an outside company doing the bill review process? | The third-party software is a proprietary software system developed by Cost Containment Strategies, Inc. Other software used include Checks on Demand, Account Ability, SAP Crystal Reports, TGRMN ViceVersa PRO, and Microsoft Office. The software is currently hosted by an outside provider. Yes, personnel services refers to an outside company (or, in the future, state of Nevada employees) doing the bill review process. | |
| 6 | BPATH | Data Migration | Under Scope of Work, section 7.b, for the data migration, please specify how many records will be migrated and also what data sources will they be coming from? | Due to statewide network outages, this information cannot be pulled at this time. | |
| 7 | BPATH | Use Case for mobile app for DCFS Staff | Under Scope of Work, section 7.c, for the mobile app for DCFS staff, could you detail the use case for DCFS staff? | An example from a victim's point of view may include the victim logging on with the app to submit their application, view the status of their claim, upload documents, and submit a response. An example from a DCFS staff point of view would include the information submiteed by the victim integrating into their record in the platform that can then be viewed by staff and processed. | |
| 8 | BPATH | MVP Features | 8. Under Scope of work, 4.f, could you clarify the minimum features that would considered to be an MVP? | Entering data into a victim profile, entering claim status, entering claim financial details (amount, type, etc.), entering approvals/denials of claims, searching for victim files, reporting functionality to meet basic state and federal reporting requirements (number of claims, number approved, $ amounts approved, victim types, etc.). | |
| 9 | SNAGEL | Cloud Hosting | Would the state be willing to contract with a SaaS vendor that is hosted through Microsoft Azure? | The state is not unwilling. | |
| 10 | SNAGEL | User Count | How many total named staff users would need a login/access to the database? What is the range of provider users and range of victim clients that is anticipated for each portal? | Approximately 16 named staff users would need login/access to the database. | |
| 11 | SNAGEL | Timeline | Is the state willing to extend the RFP response due date to allow adequate time to complete the response, security evaluation, and customer references? | No, in order to meet the December BOE, the state cannot extend the RFP response due date. | |
| 12 | SNAGEL | Other | Has the state seen demonstrations from vendors for these requirements prior to the release of this RFP? | No | |
| 13 | SPERIDIANCH24 | Dates | There is a requirement for the new system to be ready for use by January 2026. The award date is lis | Ideally, we would have a minimum viable product ready to use by January 31, 2026. We recognize this is a very tight timeline and we are open to considering alternative timelines in vendor proposals, however vendor proposals that deviate less from this goal will be viewed more favorably. We are also open to a very bare bones MVP by 1/31/26, with most features added after this date. | |
| 14 | SPERIDIANCH24 | Budget | What is the budget? | The budget is listed in the cost schedule of this RFP. | |
| 15 | SPERIDIANCH24 | Dates | There is a requirement for the new system to be ready for use by January 2026. The award date is listed as November 2025 which gives only 2 months for system design and development. Can you please clarify if the state is willing to extend the go-live date. | Ideally, we would have a minimum viable product ready to use by January 31, 2026. We recognize this is a very tight timeline and we are open to considering alternative timelines in vendor proposals, however vendor proposals that deviate less from this goal will be viewed more favorably. We are also open to a very bare bones MVP by 1/31/26, with most features added after this date. | |
| 16 | KEVINCHUGH | Project Timeline | In Section 1.3 of the Scope of Work document, it states â??The ideal project timeline will allow for overlap of the new and current contracts with all testing and training completed and the new system ready for use by, at the latest, January 31, 2026. If necessary, if only the minimum viable product and training on this is completed by this date, that may be acceptable.â?? |
| Given the holiday season in December, as well as the estimated board approval date of December 9th, which implies the earliest possible start date is December 10th, having a new system live by January 31 may be unrealistic. Is the State willing to relax this requirement if an alternative timeline is proposed that includes a go-live prior to the existing software contract expiring? | Ideally, we would have a minimum viable product ready to use by January 31, 2026. We recognize this is a very tight timeline and we are open to considering alternative timelines in vendor proposals, however vendor proposals that deviate less from this goal will be viewed more favorably. We are also open to a very bare bones MVP by 1/31/26, with most features added after this date. | ||||
| 17 | KEVINCHUGH | Project Timeline | Is the State open to a phased approach where Phase I allows a baseline configuration live by June 30th, including migrated data from the old system to allow sunsetting the old system, and Phase II includes any configuration and requirements that were not able to be met before the old system sunsets, perhaps completed by December 31, 2026? | Yes, the state is open to a phased approach. The Phase 1 go live would need to be earlier than June 30, 2026, ideally no later than April 1, 2026, and all historical data files do not need to be migrated in this phase. The Phase 2 date of December 31, 2026 is acceptable. | |
| 18 | KEVINCHUGH | Existing Contract | In Section 1.2 of the Scope of Work document, it states â??The State has an existing contract for third-party software and personnel services that expires June 30, 2026.â?? Can the State share the name of the software vendor that is currently being used? | Cost Containment Strategies, Inc. | |
| 19 | KEVINCHUGH | Funding Source | Can the State indicate if the funding source is the State, the Federal government, or a combination? | Combination | |
| 20 | KEVINCHUGH | Integrations | In Section 1.4d of the Scope of Work document, it states â??Integrate with existing State software systems, including single sign on and, eventually, State financial system.â?? Can the State confirm that there are only two integrations involved in this project: (1) SSO and (2) State financial system? If there are any other expected integrations, can the State provide a complete list that will be considered in scope for the project? | There are only two integrations involved in this project. The financial system integration is dependent upon the implementation of the CoreNV project and may not be possible until the second, third, or fourth years of the contract. | |
| 21 | KEVINCHUGH | State Financial System | Can the State share specifications for the State financial system such as platform, whether there is an API available, whether real-time or nightly batch is required, etc.? | The state financial system is the CoreNV system. Other systems may include Advantage and DAWN. | |
| 22 | KEVINCHUGH | Number of Users | How many internal staff users will use the new system? | Approximately 15 named staff users. | |
| 23 | KEVINCHUGH | Claims/Claimants | Can the State provide an estimated number of claimants and claims per year? | The three year average for 2021, 2022, and 2023 is 5,536 payment transactions and 3,000 to 4,000 direct victims each year. Due to statewide network outages, more specific information cannot be pulled at this time. | |
| 24 | KEVINCHUGH | Support | We presume vendors should include in their budgets the cost for providing ongoing support to staff users. Should the proposed budget also include the cost for vendors to provide support directly to providers and victims, or will staff provide that direct support? | Yes, the proposed budgets should include the cost for providing ongoing support to staff users. The state is open to proposals that include "help desk" support to providers and victims for navigating the software system as an optional cost within the state's total budgeted amounts. | |
| 25 | KEVINCHUGH | Staffing - Claim Processing | The RFP mentions that â??The State would like to bring as many services as possible in house,â?? and also mentions that â??The State has an existing contract for third-party software and personnel services that expires June 30, 2026.â?? Does this mean that currently, external personnel perform claim management (interacting with claimants, etc.) using contracted software, but the State will replace those contracted personnel with in-house staff who will use the new software? In other words, is the State looking to procure software and associated software professional services, or is the State also looking to procure staffing to process claims? | Yes, currently external personnel perform claim management using contracted software. Ideally, the state will replace those contracted personnel with in-house staff who will use the new software. | |
| 26 | KEVINCHUGH | Annual Budget | The Cost Schedule mentions â??The NTE shall encompass all costs identified in the proposal, including anticipated changes as the project proceeds, and shall not exceed $511,000 in FY26 and $1.4M in each subsequent year.â?? Can the State confirm that it expects and has budgeted roughly $1.4M for annual renewals? If that is not correct, can the State provide guidance on annual budget allocations for support and maintenance, licensing, and hosting on an annual basis? | The state confirms it expects and has budgeted roughly $1.4M for annual renewals (support and maintenance, licensing, hosting, etc.), updates, and/or ongoing work if the vendor proposes a phased approach. Budgeted amounts beyond the current biennium are subject to federal and legislative approval. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .