60RRBH21R0011 Attachment J.34 RRB Responses to Offeror Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Solicitation 60RRBH21R0011 - RRB Specialty MAC
- Solicitation number
- 60RRBH21R0011
- Issued by
-
Railroad Retirement Board
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 55 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
| 60RRBH21R0011 SMAC Services Amendment A1 | ||||
| Question # | Solicitation Reference | Page #s, Spreadsheet line #s | Offeror Question | RRB Response |
| 1 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M , B.1.1.1.3 /Site Description | 93 | Please confirm that a floor plan description is not required in response to this section. | Offerors are not required to submit a floor plan description as part of their response to the site description information required. | |
| 2 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, H.21 Security Clause- Background Investigations for Contractor Personnel | 42 | Have any of the positions in the current RRB SMAC been determined high risk based on the position sensitivity analysis conducted by the RRB COR and the SEMG? IF so, would the RRB share the position types that may require additional background investigation as this may impact a contractor's onboarding process and timeline? | The RRB is unaware at this time of any positions deemed high risk for the SMAC. | |
| 3 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section J List of Attachments | 65 | J.1.C Performance Requirements Summary attachment is listed in Section J but is not in the attachments. Please confirm that there is a J.1.C Performance Requirements Summary. If this is missing, can RRB please provide? | Attachment J.1.C is now included with this Amendment A001. | |
| 4 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.11 Proposal Assumptions | 89 | The solicitation indicates that offerors shall use the implementation cutover date developed by RRB when developing the costs for CLIN 0001. Please confirm the implementation cutover date is September 1, 2022. | The Implementation cutover date shall be no later than October 1, 2022. The exact implementation date may change based on the awarded contractor's proposed implementation services. Offeror's shall utilize their proposed implementation services timeline for the cutover date, if the date is earlier than October 1, 2022. | |
| 5 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.11 Proposal Assumptions | 89 | We note that records retention requirements are included, though no volume is provided for the number of documents transferred from the incumbent to a new contractor. Would RRB provide an estimated volume of records, including number of boxes, to be transferred so that all bidders can include the same amount of storage costs? | The total estimated storage size of physical records to be transferred to the awarded contractor is 450 Cubic Feet. | |
| 6 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.14 Section D/Past Performance Instructions | 98 | Medicare CPARs are issued by all the same customer, CMS. Please confirm that multiple Medicare CPARs could all be submitted by the same customer. | Yes, multiple CPARS reports may be submitted by the same customer for different contracts. | |
| 7 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.14 Technical Proposal Instructions | 92 | The RFP has a number of submission requirements for subcontractors. To ensure consistency in submissions, could the RRB provide their definition of usual roles in MAC related work: significant subcontractor, subcontractor and vendor. | Offerors shall propose and define in their proposal their use of subcontractors for the SMAC services. | |
| 8 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.14 Technical Proposal Instructions | 92 | Section L.14 title says page limit is 60 pages, but everywhere in RFP (L.13 and text of L.14) say 90 pages. Please confirm that the Technical Proposal volume page limit is 90. | The RRB confirms the technical proposal page limit is 90 pages. | |
| 9 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.14 Technical Proposal Instructions | N/A | The SOW references submission of an Implementation Project Plan with the RFP response. There are no instructions included in the RFP Sections B-M regarding submission of this plan. If this is truly an RFP requirement, would the RRB please provide instructions regarding its submission, such as 1) is this a Microsoft Project type plan? or a narrative plan? 2) what is the page limit for the plan? and 3) what format should it be submitted to the RRB (such as PDF?)? | The Implementation Project Plan required in L.14 shall be (1) A portion of the technical proposal; (2) Include a timeline with critical milestones and tasks and designated task owners from the award of the contract until the completion of implementation; (3) And also include a narrative plan that describes the conduct of the implementation. Lastly, the plan must clearly explain the responsibilities and roles of all parties involved with the implementation (Contractor, RRB, CMS, subcontractors, and other third parties). | |
| 10 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.18 Volume III Conflict of Interest Proposal Instructions | 111-112 | For the Volume III, Conflict of Interest volume, should offerors use the CMS Contractor Business Ethics COI and Compliance Program Requirements template? | Yes, offerors shall use the CMS Contractor Business Ethics COI and Compliance Program Requirements template. | |
| 11 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.19 Section B8 | 113 | Section L.19 states the offeror shall cover scenarios. Please confirm that the scenarios are what is provided 14 days prior to the orals. | Yes, the scenarios will be provided 14 days prior to the Oral presentations. | |
| 12 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.3 FAR 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition (JAN 2017), Alternate I (Oct 1997) | ||||
| L.16 General Business Proposal Instructions | 80, 102 | L.3.d refers to an "offer expiration date" for the number of days specified on the cover sheet. However the SF33 is blank. Please confirm that offerors' proposal should remain firm for a period of 270 days, as defined in Section L.16. | As stated in Section L.16 offeror's proposals shall be firm for a period of 270 days. | ||
| 13 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.9 Proposal Submission and Delivery | 86 | To protect the electronic signatures from being altered, may proposal narrative sections and signed forms be submitted in PDF format? | Yes, proposal sections and signed forms may be submitted in PDF format. | |
| 14 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.9 Proposal Submission and Delivery | 86 | Please confirm that each volume is to be submitted as its own PDF file, with the exception of forms in Excel format (such as cost templates). | The technical and business proposals shall be submitted in separate files. The cost templates shall also be submitted in separate files in the Excel formal. | |
| 15 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, L.9 Proposal Submission and Delivery | 86 | What is the file size limit for emailed proposal submissions? | The file size limitation total for a given email transmission is 10MB. | |
| 16 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, All options years, Line 43. Telephone Inquiries (Answered + IVR Handled) (includes General Provider, EDI Tier 1, Telephone Reopening and Provider Enrollment) | Line 43 | Because handle times and costs are different, can the number of telephone inquiries provided in the BOE be broken out by IVR, General Provider, EDI Tier1, telephone reopenings and Provider Enrollment? | The RRB confirms the IVR Handle Rate is 67%. See the % of total calls completed for each area below: General Provider Inquiries: 84% EDI Tier 1 Telephone: 8% Telephone Reopening: 1% Provider Enrollment Telephone: 7% | |
| 17 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, All options years, Line 43. Telephone Inquiries (Answered + IVR Handled) (includes General Provider, EDI Tier 1, Telephone Reopening and Provider Enrollment) | Line 43 | Can the RRB provide the number of provider, beneficiary, and other checks received? | The RRB confirms the estimated volumes below. Provider Checks Received 8,159 |
Beneficiary Checks Received 36 Other Checks Received 1,233 Total Checks Received 9,428 18 Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, All options years, Line 43. Telephone Inquiries (Answered + IVR Handled) (includes General Provider, EDI Tier 1, Telephone Reopening and Provider Enrollment) Line 43 Can the RRB provide the number of accounts receivables, overpayment requests, solicited checks and/or voluntary refunds, and demand letters handled annually? The RRB confirms the estimated volumes below. Please note that we interpret "Accounts Receiveable" & "Overpayment Requests" to be the same, as all Part B overpayments are demanded/requested. Accounts Receivable 40,796 Overpayment Requests 40,796 Solicited Checks 3,148 Voluntary Checks 6,280 Demand Letters 26,902
| 19 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, BOE/ Clerical Error Reopenings vs. Non-clerical error reopenings | N/A | Our experience indicates that the number of clerical error reopenings typically exceeds the number of non-clerical error reopenings. Would the RRB please confirm the numbers included in the BOE are correct for these workloads? | The RRB confirms the volumes are correct in the BOE for non-clerical error reopenings. | ||
| 20 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, C.5.14.3.7 Medical Review Reopening (SOW) | |||||
| Medical Review Reopenings (BOE | N/A | There is workload provided in the BOE for Medical Review Reopenings. However, it is unclear under which WBS this workload is intended to be reported. Would the RRB please clarify which WBS should be used to allocate the cost to perform this workload? | The RRB confirms that the Medical Review Reopening workload shall be reported in C.5.14.3.7. Attachment J-18 Cost Proposal has been updated. | |||
| 21 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, C.5.14.8- Defending Medical Review Decisions at Administrative Law Judge Hearings (SOW) , Defending MR Decisions at ALJ Hearings (BOE) | N/A | There is workload provided in the BOE for Defending MR Decisions at ALJ Hearings. However, it is unclear under which WBS this workload is intended to be reported. Would the RRB please clarify which WBS should be used to allocate the cost to perform this workload? | The RRB confirms that the Defending MR Decisions at ALJ Hearings workload shall be reported in C.5.14.8. Attachment J-18 Cost Proposal has been updated. | ||
| 22 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Complex Probe Reviews (BOE), C.5.14.3.10 Prepay Provider Specific Probe Medical Record Review, C.5.14.3.11 Prepay Service Specific Probe Medical Record Review | N/A | As we seek to match each workload from the BOE with an associated SOW element and a corresponding WBS from the cost sheets, we have found it unclear which SOW element or WBS should be associated with Complex Probe Reviews. Would the RRB please clarify if Complex Probe Reviews should be split into two entries to correspond to the C.5.14.3.10 Prepay Provider Specific Probe Medical Record Review and the C.5.14.3.11 Prepay Service Specific Probe Medical Record Review SOW elements? And will the RRB please also instruct under which WBS these items should be allocated? | The RRB confirms that the Probe Medical Record Review workload included on the BOE shall be reported to below WBS identified in the cost sheets template. C.5.14.3.10 Prepay Provider Specific Probe Medical Record Review C.5.14.3.11 Prepay Service Specific Probe Medical Record Review C.5.14.3.12 Postpay Provider Specific Probe Medical Record Review C.5.14.3.13 Postpay Service Specific Probe Medical Record Review The BOE workload description has been revised from Complex Probe Reviews to Probe Medical Record Review and Attachment J-18 Cost Proposal has been updated. | ||
| 23 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, General | N/A | We note that the RRB SMAC responds to calls in multiple languages. Would the RRB please provide a breakout of calls received in each language? | RRB confirms the % of beneficiary telephone inquiries received in each language below: English - 99.7% Spanish - 0.27% Other (Albanian, Russian and Vietnamese) - 0.006% | ||
| 24 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, PM Provider Enrollment - Claims (SA) | Line 36 | There is a line for Claims under Provider Enrollment. Will the RRB please confirm "provider enrollment claims" are the assignment of an RRB Medicare PTAN to a provider? | Tasks for Provider Enrollment Claims include verification and assignment of RRB Medicare PTANs. | ||
| 25 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Other contract workload (SA) | N/A | The Medicare Part B MACs process workload for coordination with contractors such as RAC, SMRC, UPIC/ZPIC. However, we know that the SMRC and the UPICs do not sample RRB Medicare claims. Will the RRB please confirm that there are no workloads for RAC or other contractor coordination? | The RRB confirms that there are no workloads for RAC or other contractor coordination. | ||
| 26 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, PM Provider Inquiries, lines 43, 44, Telephone Inquiries (Answered + IVR Handled) (includes General Provider, EDI Tier 1, Telephone Reopening and Provider Enrollment) | N/A | We note that provider inquiries are inclusive of general provider, EDI tier 1, Telephone Reopenings, and provider enrollment. Would the RRB provide the breakout of each of these workloads as the BOE for each type of work is different? | See response to question #16 above. | ||
| 27 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Workload Tier 2 Telephone Inquiries in BOE | N/A | There is a workload included in the BOE for Tier 2 Telephone Inquiries; however, it does not have a clear SOW reference or clear mapping to a WBS in the Cost Templates. Would the RRB confirm that that this workload should go under the C.5.11.1.5.1 Telephone Inquiries WBS? | The workload for Tier 2 Telephone Inquiries shall be reported to C.5.3.2 Telecommunications. | ||
| 28 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate | N/A | If the RRB intends to resume the Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) program, will the RRB please provide TPE workloads in the BOE? | The RRB has provided in the Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate (BOE) the Medical Review total workloads by subcategory. The RRB agrees with the asking potential offeror that the TPE Program is required to be provided in the new SMAC contract to be awarded in 2022. Per RFP 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.14 in the RFP, offerors shall provide its proposed Medical Review service strategy to support its proposed Medical Review workloads broken out by the categories as identified in the RFP. | ||
| 29 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Bill/Claims | N/A | How many beneficiary submitted claims received annually(1490)? | The RRB confirms that the estimated volume for beneficiary submitted claims is 769. | ||
| 30 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate | N/A | Can RRB provider the volume of FOIA requests received annually? | The RRB confirms that the estimated volume for FOIA requests is 60. | ||
| 31 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Postpay Complex Reviews (BOE), C.5.14.3.14 Postpay Provider Specific Medical Record Review (SOW), | |||||
| C.5.14.3.15 Postpay Service Specific Medical Record Review (SOW) | N/A | As we seek to match each workload from the BOE with an associated SOW element and a corresponding WBS from the cost sheets, we have found it unclear which SOW element or WBS should be associated with Postpay Complex Reviews. Would the RRB please clarify if Postpay Complex Reviews should be split into two entries to correspond to the C.5.14.3.14 Postpay Provider Specific Medical Record Review and the C.5.14.3.15 Postpay Service Specific Medical Record Review SOW elements? And will the RRB please also instruct under which WBS these items should be allocated? | The RRB confirms the Postpay Review workload included on the BOE shall be reported to C.5.14.3.14 Postpay Provider Specific Medical Record Review and C.5.14.3.15 Postpay Service Specific Medical Record Review. The BOE workload description has been revised from Postpay Complex Reviews to Postpay Reviews. Please see the Revised Cost Template Attachments J.11-20. | |||
| 32 | Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate, Prepay Complex Reviews (BOE), C.5.14.3.8 Prepay Provider Specific Medical Record Review (SOW), C.5.14.3.9 Prepay Service Specific Medical Record Review (SOW) | N/A | As we seek to match each workload from the BOE with an associated SOW element and a corresponding WBS from the cost sheets, we have found it unclear which SOW element or WBS should be associated with Prepay Complex Reviews. Would the RRB please clarify if Prepay Complex Reviews should be split into two entries to correspond to the C.5.14.3.8 Prepay Provider Specific Medical Record Review and the C.5.14.3.9 Prepay Service Specific Medical Record Review SOW elements? And will the RRB please also instruct under which WBS these items should be allocated? | The RRB confirms the Prepay Review workload included on the BOE shall be reported to C.5.14.3.8 Prepay Provider Specific Medical Record Review and C.5.14.3.9 Prepay Service Specific Medical Record Review. The BOE workload description has been revised from Prepay Complex Reviews to Prepay Reviews. Please see the Revised Cost Template Attachments J.11-20. | ||
| 33 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.8.4 Development of Suspended Claims | 64 | We note that bidders should propose a suspense rate based on their experience and innovation. However, it’s also important to understand the current suspense rate as it’s typically driven from provider billing patterns and system editing. Would the RRB please provide the current suspense rate so that bidders can use this information to determine how the current state factors into bidders’ experiences? | RRB confirms the current claims suspense rate is below. Electronic claims - 4.52% Paper - 20.23% | ||
| 34 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, 5.3.2.1.6 - DDE Capability | 25 | Please confirm this contract will not utilize DDE, as this SMAC is a Part B contract. | The RRB confirms the SMAC is a Part B contract and does not utilize DDE. The SOW Attachment J.1 has been revised and this section has been removed from the SOW in its entirety. | ||
| 35 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, 5.3.2.1.6 - DDE Capability | 25 | Will the RRB please also confirm that SMAC does not support Professional Provider Telecommunications Network (PPTN)? | The RRB will not confirm, prior to evaluation of proposals, whether the SMAC supports usage of any offeror's proposed Provider network system. | ||
| 36 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, 5.4.3.3.2 - Other System Access Requirements | 40 | Is Personal Identity Verification (PIV) required for this contract? | The RRB confirms that at this time, the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) is not required for this contract. | ||
| 37 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.1.1 IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT PLAN | 13 | The SOW indicates the Implementation Project Plan is to be submitted with the proposal response. However, 60RRBH21R0011-Sections B-M does not include instructions to submit the Implementation Project Plan with the proposal response. Further, the deliverable schedule says it should be submitted within 30 days of the kickoff meeting or contract award. Will the RRB please confirm that the Implementation Project Plan should be submitted 30 days from the time of award? | The awarded contractor shall submit the Formal Implementation Project Plan as a deliverable must be submitted within 30 days from the date of award of the SMAC contract, per RFP 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M. Depending on the RRB contract team resources, the contractor must have the ability to provide the formal Implementation Project Plan in Word or Adobe for the narrative and Excel for the timeline or milestone lists, as well as the Microsoft Project file. | ||
| 38 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.11.1.12 Provider Internet Portal | 84 | Will the RRB please confirm that the outgoing contractor will supply a data file containing the names and relevant information to support the transition of online portal users from the incumbent system to the incoming contractor system? Being able to convert data will significantly simplify the transition for providers as compared to needing to register again for portal access with the incoming contractor. | The RRB confirms the outgoing contractor will supply a data file containing the names and relevant information to support the transition of online portal users from the incumbent system to the incoming contractor's system. | ||
| 39 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.11.1.2 Provider Outreach and Education | 76 | Is there a mandated number of face to face trainings or can trainings be done virtually? | The RRB confirms there is not a requirement for a specific number of face to face trainings. Trainings can be done virtually. | ||
| 40 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.11.2.17 Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey | 91 | Please clarify if the Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey has to be done via paper or can offerors propose an electronic solution? | The RRB confirms the Beneficiary Satisfaction Survey can be conducted via paper or electronically. | ||
| 41 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.14.3.8 Prepay Provider Specific Medical Record Review | 105 | CMS instructed MACs to implement the Targeted Probe and Educate (TPE) program which conducts medical review differently than had historically been done. Please clarify whether the RRB intends to restart the TPE program as it is not referenced in the SOW. This will impact the pricing and BOE assumptions for this contract. | See response to question #28 above. | ||
| 42 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.15.1 Support of Benefit Integrity | 110 | The SOW lists the use of the UCM but this system is not identified in the government furnished property listing. Please confirm that the UCM is government furnished property. | The RRB confirms the Unified Case Management (UCM) is government furnished property. | ||
| 43 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.3.2.1.1 ELECTRONIC DATA INTERCHANGE ENROLLMENT FORM | 23 | We understand the EDI enrollment form is a requirement for ongoing operation of the contract. However, it is unclear if this expectation also applies to the transition period. Would the RRB please confirm whether the outgoing contractor will provide a file of enrolled EDI submitters and their associated providers, rather than require each provider to re-enroll, to ease the provider transition burden? | The RRB confirms the outgoing contractor will supply a file of enrolled EDI submitters and their associated providers. | ||
| 44 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.4.6.2 / Congressional Outreach and Education | 46 | Will all outreach to congressional staff be virtual, or does RRB expect any in person outreach/education? If so how many visits a year? | The RRB confirms that due to the national scope of the contract, Congressional staff may conduct outreach virtually. | ||
| 45 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.8.2.7 Local System Edits | 63 | Will RRB confirm that the incoming contractor will receive the local system edit files from the outgoing contractor as part of the transition file transfer / system environment set up? We have found this will ease the transition for providers and simplify the transition period for all stakeholders. | The RRB confirms that the outgoing contractor will supply the local system edit files as part of the transition file transfer. | ||
| 46 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.11.1.2.5 Bulletin/Newsletter Publication | 77 | Can RRB provide the yearly volume of paper bulletins/newsletters mailed? | The RRB cannot provide at this time a volume for paper bulletins/newsletters to be mailed as it is a rare occurrence. | ||
| 47 | Attachment J.1 RRB SMAC SOW, C.5.8.4/ Development of Suspended Claims | 78 | What percentage of suspended claims require medical review? | Per L.14 in the RFP, offerors shall provide its proposed Medical Review service strategy to support its proposed Medical Review workloads broken out by the categories as identified in the RFP. | ||
| 48 | Attachment J.2 RRB SMAC Deliverable Schedule, RRB SMAC Deliverable Schedule - C.6.1.5 | N/A | Our understanding of the Medicare MAC processes are to include this type of reporting in the appeals 2592 monthly reporting to CMS. It seems that this could be included in the 2592 CROWD report. Will the RRB please clarify whether this requires separate reporting? Or whether it should instead be considered as part of the 2592 CROWD reporting? | The RRB confirms that the Supply of Appeal Case Files for C.6.1.5 is separate reporting from the 2592 CROWD reporting. | ||
| 49 | Attachment J.2 RRB SMAC Deliverable Schedule, RRB SMAC Deliverable Schedule - C.6.1.6 | N/A | Please confirm the 7-day standard for files forwarded to the QIC that is included in the SOW Section C.5.10.6.1 Supply Appeals Case Files for QICs is correct, and that this reference to reporting of files forwarded in 1-5 days does not imply a 5-day standard. | The RRB confirms that the 7 day standard for files forwarded to the QIC in SOW Section C.5.10.6.1 is correct. | ||
| 50 | SF33 | 1 | Typically an SF33 form is provided as part of a solicitation package including the solicitation information prepopulated. We note this SF33 form is blank. Could the RRB complete the solicitation information so that all offerors have the same content? | The RRB has confirmed that the SF 33 form that was uploaded to Contract Opportunities was completed accurately. Please review the SF33 that was posted again on Contract Opportunities at sam.gov. | ||
| 51 | General | N/A | Please confirm that RRB has implemented the Medicare Appeals System (MAS)? | The RRB confirms that at this time, the Medicare Appeals System (MAS) is not utilized by the SMAC. | ||
| 52 | General | N/A | What is the number of Beneficiary Portal active users? | The RRB confirms that as of June 2021, there are approximately 300 active beneficiary portal users. | ||
| 53 | General | N/A | What is the average number of concurrent users on the Beneficiary portal at any given time | The RRB confirms that highest concurrent user count on the beneficiary portal is 27. | ||
| 54 | General | N/A | Can the RRB provide the number of active RRB providers by State? | Please see the new Attachment J.33 RRB SMAC Providers by State included with this Amendment 0001. | ||
| 55 | General | N/A | Please confirm the Web Portal Transaction volumes included in J.7 under PM Provider Inquiries include both Beneficiary and Provider transactions. If so, could RRB separate the number of provider and beneficiary transactions? | The RRB confirms that the Web Portal Transaction volumes included in Attachment J.7 are PM Provider Inquiries only. The beneficiary portal transaction estimated volume is 5,332. | ||
| 56 | General | N/A | Would RRB please confirm that the RRB SMAC enforces policies set by the MACs and does not develop its own RRB SMAC policy? | The RRB confirm that the SMAC contractor does not establish local coverage determinations (LCDs) and enforces policies set by the MACs and/or CMS | ||
| 57 | General | N/A | What is the number of active Provider Portal users? | The RRB confirms that as of July 2021, the number of active provider portal users is 54,042. | ||
| 58 | General | N/A | Can RRB provide a listing of all audits performed (and frequency) for the contract? | Offerors shall refer to the RRB SMAC SOW for applicable audits and frequency of audits. | ||
| 59 | General | N/A | Would RRB please confirm that APIs supported in the Medicare Part B MAC environments (such as those to MCS and HIGLAS) are also available and supported for the RRB SMAC? | The RRB confirms that APIs supported in the Medicare Part B MAC environments are available and supported for the RRB SMAC. | ||
| 60 | General | N/A | Please confirm the RRB is at Citibank. | RRB is unclear as to why this question was posed. | ||
| 61 | J.1, J.11-J.20 | N/A | The cost templates provided do not show the following SOW codes as active: C.5.8.3, C.5.10.6, C.5.14.3.8, C.5.14.3.10, C.5.14.3.12, C.5.14.3.14, C.5.14.5, C.5.14.7, C.5.14.8. These are listed as active in the Statement of Work. Please advise as to the applicability of the SOW codes. | The cost template attachments are updated to include these active SOW codes, as well as to remove some inactive codes. Please see the attached revised Cost Templates in Attachments J.11-20. | ||
| 62 | J.7, Bills Claims - Electronic | N/A | Was the intent for the formula for OY9 refer back to OY1 where OY8 refers to OY7, OY7 refers to OY6, etc. | The formula has been corrected with the revised Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate included with this Amendment 0001. | ||
| 63 | J.7, Bills Claims - Paper | N/A | Was the intent for the formula for OY9 refer back to OY1 where OY8 refers to OY7, OY7 refers to OY6, etc. | The formula has been corrected with the revised Attachment J.7 Basis of Estimate included with this Amendment 0001. | ||
| 64 | J.7, Redeterminations | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 65 | J.7, QIC Requests Supported | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 66 | J.7, Clerical Error Reopenings | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 67 | J.7, Non-Clerical Error Reopenings | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 68 | J.7, Effectuations of Redeterminations | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 69 | J.7, Effectuations of QIC Decisions | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 70 | J.7, Effectuations of ALJ Decisions | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 71 | J.7, Complex Beneficiary Inquiry Responses | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 72 | J.7, Complex 2nd Level Screenings | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 73 | J.7, Telephone Inquiries | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 74 | J.7, Written Inquiries | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 75 | J.7, Claims | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 76 | J.7, Claims Edits Resolved / "I" Records Resolved | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 77 | J.7, Cases Initiated | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 78 | J.7, Data Requests - RRB OIG | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 79 | J.7, Data Analysis | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 80 | J.7, Duplicate Primary Payments | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 81 | J.7, General MSP Inquiries Resolved | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 82 | J.7, Debt Collection and Referrals | N/A | Was the intent for OY7, OY8, and OY9 to remain consistent with OY6? In the prior years OY6 refers to OY5, OY5 refers to OY4, etc. | On Attachment J.7 the workloads originally provided for OY7, OY8 and OY9 are correct. | ||
| 83 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.10.f | 87-88 | "Any resultant contract shall include the FAR clauses applicable to the selected Offeror's organization and type of contract award. Copies of the FAR clauses may be obtained at the following address: http://www.acquisition.gov/far. Any additional clauses required by public law, executive order, or acquisition regulations, in effect at the time of execution of the proposed contract, will be included." | |||
| Since Executive Order 14026, increasing the minimum wage for Federal Contractors to $15 per hour, will be in effect during the period of performance, should offerors price out positions at a minimum of $15 per hour? | Yes, Offerors shall include the increased minimum wage as set forth by Executive Order 14206 in their proposals for the SMAC services. The RRB will incorporate the new FAR Clause addressing Executive Order 14206 (that will be issued by the FAR Council later in 2021) into the awarded SMAC Contract in 2022. | |||||
| 84 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.9 (G.24) | 86 | ||||
| (24) | Section G.24 states “Electronic proposals shall be submitted in MS Word and Excel formats, with .pdf signed Certification, to (Do not .pdf the entire proposal)” Does this instruction regarding proposal submission file requirements apply to Section L.9 and the requirements for this submission as well? | Section G.24 provides the submission requirements for the Final Indirect Cost Ceiling Rates to be submitted by the awarded contractor. Section L.9 provides the proposal submission requirements. | ||||
| 85 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.14 | 92 | What is the maximum file size that RRB can receive via email? If there is a file size restriction, can offerors break their submission into multiple emails? | See response to question number 15 above. | 1 | |
| 86 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.14 | 95-100 | The following sections do not have a designation as to whether they are included in the page limit: B.1.3, B.1.4, B.1.5, B.1.6, B.1.7, B.1.8, B.1.9, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, C, and E. Can RRB please clarify that these sections are or are not included in the page limit? | Responses to sections B.1.3, B.1.4, B.1,5, B.1.6, B.1.7, B.1.8, B.1.9, B.2.2, B.2.3, B.2.4, and C are included in the technical proposal page limit. Responses to Section E, Attestations, are not included in the technical proposal page limit. | ||
| 87 | 60RRBH21R0011 Sections B-M, Section L.10 | N/A | There are no instructions regarding page size, margins, fonts, and font sizes. Given the wide variation in word count within the range of options, will RRB provide these instructions? | Page size shall be 8.5" x 11", margins 1", Font style shall be either Times New Roman or Arial, Font size shall be a minimum of 11pt. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .