Attachment J.6 Responses to Pre-Solicitation Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- WTCHP Comprehensive Cost Avoidance, Coordination of Benefits, and Recovery Program Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 75D301-20-R-67859
About this file
This document contains a request for proposal for a World Trade Center Health Program comprehensive cost avoidance, coordination of benefits, and recovery program. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seeks to establish a cost avoidance and recovery platform from pre- to post-payment processes through implementation of a robust primary insurance identification system and database, validation and facilitation of coordination of benefit recovery, recovery of incorrectly paid claims from private insurance, participation in New York State Workers' Compensation Board programs for reimbursement from workers' compensation insurers, identification of deceased members, and provision of performance metrics and payment integrity services. The period of performance is one base year with four option years, with an estimated period from March 2020 through February 2025. Offerors are to propose pricing and payment structures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations and the statement of work.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment J.7 Business Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment J.1 SOO.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFQ 75D301-20-R-67859 Amendment One .pdf | ||
| Attachment J.2 Template Performance-Work-Statement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.1 SOO.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.5 Past Performance .docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.3 BAA Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.2 Template Performance-Work-Statement.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.1 SOO.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J.4 HHS SubK Plan Template.pdf | ||
| RFQ 75D301-20-R-67859.pdf |
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Draft RFP 75D301-20-R-67859
| Date Submitted: | 1/17/20 |
| Contractor: | All |
| Question | |
| Number | RFQ Page |
Reference
| (if applicable) | Question/Comment | Proposed Language Change | CDC Response | ||
| 1 | general/security question | Will the contractor be able to perform work in parallel of obtaining security authorization, or will an authority to operate be required prior to receiving WTCHP data? | All systems that fall under FISMA compliance need to be assessed and authorizied before that can be used in a prodcution environment and holding government data. | ||
| 2 | RFQ Page 6, Section F.1 | HMS Federal recommends adding an Administrative Option to the Period of Performance (TBD). This will allow the WTC Health Program to continue to receive recoupments from appropriate payers and allow the contractor to invoice for the recoveries received after the final option year is over. | This contract will also contain an Administrative Option. During this period, the contractor will continue to receive recoveries from the indentified payer and allow the contractor to invoice for the recoveries received. The contractor will work with the WTC Health Program to transfer all program related data in the format that provided by the Program and ensure that contractor removes all program related data from their network. The WTC Health Program reserves the right to extend the contract until all outstanding recoveries are dispositioned. | Option year five added to contract to allow for the recoupment of payments already in process. No new claims will be submitted to the vendor starting during month six of option year five and continuing through option year six. Since only recoupment will be captured during this period, the contractor shall consider proposing a percentage that reflects the decreased level of effort for this period. All data transfers must in in compliance with established methods based on the SA&A. Data transfers to the government will take place a the end of the contract as well as requested through out the contract. The format of th data sent to the government will be determined at the time of the request. | |
| 3 | RFQ Page 10, Section H.2; B | "In addition, if new or unanticipated threats or hazards are discovered by either the agency or contractor, or if existing safeguards have ceased to function, the discoverer shall immediately, within one (1) hour or less, bring the situation to the attention of the other party." Please define threats, hazards and safeguards that would need to be reported. In our experience with Federal contracts, one (1) hour or less is typical for Privacy Incident Reporting only. | All possible incidents involving data rated at a moderate level need to reported in less than 1 hour. All incidents where access to the systems hosting the government data has been comprimised will need to be reported in the 1 hour tme frame. Attempts and unsuccessful threats and hazards do not need to reported in the 1 hour timeframe. | ||
| 4 | RFQ Page 11, Section H.2; D | The three security factors (Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability) are all marked as Moderate. The overall Risk Level is marked as Low. Please confirm that the risk level of Low is accurate. | Updated to "Moderate" | ||
| 5 | RFQ Page 22, Section L.4 (a) | The requested services are usual and customary as commercial items, therefore, we recommend conducting this procurement as a commercial items acquisition. In addition, the contract fee structure is performance based, putting the contractor’s fee at risk. This inherently makes the required subcontracting goals of a non-commercial items contract difficult to achieve. We recommend removing the Small Business subcontracting plan requirement. | CDC declines to change the acquisition type. The Subcontracting Plan is a federal requirement. Contractors may propose goals that are feasible for this requirement. | ||
| 6 | RFQ Page 23, Sections L.4. (g) and L.4.1 | Will CDC allow for a quote cover/transmittal as part of the Phase I submission, to accommodate some of the required items in Section L.4 (g)? | Yes, contractors may include cover/transmittal letter outside of the page count. RFP revised. | ||
| 7 | RFQ Page 26, Section L.9 | Please clarify in what phase the Data Management Plan should be submitted. | DMP may be submitted in Phase II with the Business Proposal. | ||
| 8 | RFQ Page 31, Factor 5 | Please clarify in what phase the Past Performance Questionnaires should be submitted, and that they should be submitted by the offeror's customers. | Past Performance Questionnaires shall be submitted in Phase II with the Business Proposal. | ||
| 9 | NA | In order to appropriate develop PWS request that the government to release existing Coordination of Benefit and Recovery (COB&R) Plan | NA | Decline | |
| 10 | NA | Provide additional clarification on how this requirement fits with the existing WTC Program Support requirement (2016-N-17955) | NA | Decline | |
| 11 | NA | Clarify OCI between this requirement and the WTC Program Support requirement (2016-N-17955), as applicable | NA | Decline | |
| 12 | 3 | Does the existing data system provide for stoachastic matching for death registries. If not will this be built by systems vendor or part of this contract? | NA | This is a new requirement | |
| 13 | 3 | Does this procurement include the provision of a FWA hardware and software platform to support Objective 5? If so what are the hosting, infrastructure and software requirements or is this intended as SAS? | NA | Offeror to propose approach. No comments | |
| 14 | 3 | Under Objective 1 is use of the near real time data base only for use by the vendor or will there be other users? Are there any system requirements or is this intended as a SAS? | NA | Offeror to propose approach. No comments | |
| 15 | 28 | Given WTC mission and available technologies, NIOSH would benefit from a vendor with CMMI 5 or equivalent credentials who are able to provide both development services and support services using advanced standard processes as well as perform high level predictive analytics and quantitive root cause analyses to drive NIOSH program requirements and process improvements | The Contractor shall maintain Capability Maturity Model (CMM) Level 5 certification (or equivalent) for services and development throughout the performance period of the contract and shall provide the Government current documentation of its CMM Level 5(or equivalent) | Changed | |
| 16 | 29 | Additional Past Performance requirement around previous implementation of Agile within government health sector | Proven ability implementing Agile development framework/environments for large IT projects within government health sector | Changed | |
| 17 | RFQ, H.3, p16 | "Offeror shall include a Key Personnel Chart in the technical proposal which shall be incorporated in Section H.3." |
| Please clarify under which Factor and Phase the Key Personnel chart is to be submitted. | Phase II | |
| 18 | RFQ, H.3, p16 |
RFQ, M.3, p31 "The key personnel (primary senior program and project management team) cited below are considered essential to the work performed under the contract. Pursuant to the terms of HHSAR Clause 252.237-75, Key Personnel, the Contractor shall not replace or divert any of these individuals without the written consent of the Contracting Officer."
"The Offeror shall provide resumes for the Project Manager and any other proposed Key Personnel to support the Program Management and Technical Support Services..."
| What is the percentage of commitment for key personnel? | Contractor to propose. | |
| 19 | RFQ, L.2, p22 |
RFQ, L.6, p24 L.2 FAR 52.216-1 Type of Contract (Apr 1984) "The government contemplates award of a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation."
L.6 Business Proposal Instructions "c. The Business Proposal shall show a recoupment fee per task per period and a total for each period including all tasks. The recoupment percentage may include a combination of percentages based upon the anticipated dollar amount of recouped funds."
If this is a firm fixed price, please clarify what the recoupment fee per task per period is and how we estimate the recoupment percentages. The combination of a recoupment fee with a firm fixed price are in conflict. It appears the intent of the government to contain program costs and provide some incentive for the contractor to maximize program performance. We recommend one of the following changes in lieu of the current language in L.2 to address the intent:
"The Government intends to award a fixed price incentive fee contract resulting from this solicitation."
or
| "The Government intends to award a cost plus award fee contract resulting from this solicitation." | Contract type is not to be revised. This is not a cost plus award fee contract. There is no incentive fee. Contractor will propose a percentage amount. | |||
| 20 | RFQ, L.4.1, p24 | Please clarify if a pricing excel template will be released with the final RFQ. | Yes, a pricing template will be released. | |
| 21 | RFQ, L.8, p25 | Based on the requirement for the HHS Section 508 Evaluation Template, will the Government require access to the system used by the contractor to facilitate recoupments? | The Program will not require access to the systems. But the Program reserves the right to come on site to perform assessments of items covered in the arifacts of the SA&A. | |
| 22 | RFQ, L.8, p25 | Please confirm that the HHS Section 508 Evaluation Template is due during Phase II. | Phase II | |
| 23 | RFQ, L.9, p25 | Please confirm that the Data Management Plan is due during Phase II. | Phase II | |
| 24 | RFQ, L.9, p26 | Please define the Data Management Plan Page Requirements. | Please see contract clause language. | |
| 25 | RFQ, L.9, p27 | Examples of Data Management Plan Templates and Tools |
Both the University of California and USGS links are not working.
| Please ensure links are working. | Removed | |
| 26 |
RFQ, L.4, p22
RFQ, M.3, p28
RFQ, M.3, p29 We have highlighted inconsistencies within the following sections.
L.4 General Instructions Factor 4: Management, Planning, and Technical Execution (Oral)
• 4.1 Technical Approach
• 4.2 Program and Project Management Plan
• 4.3 Staffing Plan
• 4.4 Description of Subcontracting Arrangements
M.3 Evaluation Factors Phase II Factor 4 – Factor 4: Management, Planning, and Technical Execution (Oral)
• 4.1 Technical Approach
• 4.2 Program and Project Management Plan
• 4.3 Staffing Plan
• (4.4 missing)
Factor 4: Management, Planning, and Technical Execution (Oral) (Phase II)
• 4.1 Technical Approach
• 4.2 Program and Project Management Approach
• (4.3 missing)
• (4.4 missing)
| Please clarify. | Revised | ||
| 27 | RFQ, M.3, p31 | "Offerors shall submit these references utilizing Attachment J-4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)." |
Will the Government accept Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires for those government customers that will not complete performance questionnaires?
28 RFQ, L.4.1, p23
RFQ, M.3, p31 Page Limit: 5 Pages / Past Performance / Associated Evaluation Factor: 5
"Offerors shall submit these references utilizing Attachment J-4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).
Each reference shall include, at a minimum: 1) when the experience took place, 2) the name of the federal agency, 3) the contract number, 4) task order number (if applicable) 5) the dollar value."
| As the Government is providing the PPQ template and the customer returns it directly to the Government, please confirm if there is a required page limit for this section. | Template provided-Lauren | |
| 29 | RFQ, J, p34 |
RFQ, M.3, p31 Section J - List of Attachments: 4 - HHS Subcontracting Plan
"Offerors shall submit these references utilizing Attachment J-4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)."
| Both attachments are labeled as Attachment J-4. Please clarify. | Lauren | ||
| 30 | Attachment J.1, p1 | "Our purpose is to establish a comprehensive cost avoidance, coordination of benefit, and recovery program by implementing a comprehensive cost avoidance and recovery platform from pre- to post-payment processes." |
| Has the Government secured funds for the Comprehensive Cost Avoidance, Coordination of Benefit, and Recovery Program? | Recoupment funds | |||
| 31 | Attachment J.1, p1 | Do the requirements of this solicitation cover all segments of the WTCHP member population (i.e., FDNY first responders, general responders, and survivors)? | All members | |
| 32 | Attachment J.1, p2 | "At least four trips are anticipated, including the kickoff meeting. Trips may be to travel to meetings in Washington Metro Area, Cincinnati, Atlanta or New York City." |
| Please clarify if this requires four trips per period of performance or over the entire contract. | At least once per year. Travel will be funded on a separate CLIN. | ||
| 33 | Attachment J.1, p2 | IV. Background: 5. (Optional) "Provide quality assurance payment integrity services." |
| As this is an optional task, what are the requirements in the proposal as far as definition of the PWS and pricing? | Is this still optional? WTCHP needs to address this. Yes. The offeror's proposed CLIN Structure should reflect this as an optional CLIN. | |||
| 34 | Attachment J.1, p3 | "5.1 | Provide performance metrics, quality assurance and surveillance plan (QASP) Review claims, COB information, death records, recoupment records and other databases for errors and potential FWA, and create claim-level breakdowns of improper billing issues for instant compliance verification and overpayment protection." |
| Please define "Instant". | Remove word instant. Objective is to identify or misbilling and correct or propose recommnedation for correction. | ||
| 35 | Attachment J.1, p3 | "5.1 ….and create claim-level breakdowns of improper billing issues for instant compliance verification and overpayment protection." |
| Does the word "instant" mean the WTCHP is looking for a pre-payment claim review here? | Same. | ||
| 36 | Attachment J.1, p3 | "5.4 Provide FWA analytics platforms with ease of access, interface and report." |
| Please define "ease of access". | No response. Contractor to propose. | ||
| 37 | Attachment J.1, p3 | "5.4 Provide FWA analytics platforms with ease of access, interface and report." |
| Who needs ‘ease of access’ to the FWA analytics platform? | The WTC Health Program team | |||
| 38 | N/A | Does the Government anticipate allowing for an additional question and answer period after the final RFQ is released? | No | |
| 39 | Draft RFQ, , Page 23, L.4.1 Proposed Performance Work Statement & Attachment J.2 | The government has designated 10 pages for the proposed Performance Work Statement. The offeror assumes that the 10 pages allotted for the offeror’s response and the required information from the SOO (ex. background, definitions, purpose, and special considerations language) is outside of the 10 page limitations. Would the Government please confirm? | Confirm. | |
| 40 | Draft RFQ, , Page 26, Section L.9 CDC100_0004 Data Management Plan (Instructions) | The government states “Consistent with the terms of and activities expected under the statement of work, the offeror shall develop and submit a DMP as part of its proposal in response to this solicitation, and if awarded a contract, update the DMP throughout the life cycle of the public health data collected or generated during the performance period.” The offeror assumes the DMP should be submitted as a non-page counted attachment to the business volume and will part of Phase II. Would the Government please confirm? | Confirm. | |
| 41 | Attachment J.1 SOO | The Government identifies Objective 5 as optional within the Statement of Objectives. The offeror assumes that a response to this objective will be evaluated. Would the Government please confirm and provide the necessary evaluation criteria? | Same as other evaluatiion criteria. | |
| 42 | Attachment J.1 SOO | The offeror assumes that a response to the optional Objective 5 will be outside of page count limitations. Would the Government please confirm? | No, | |
| 43 | Attachment J.4 | The offeror assumes that Attachment J.4 HHS Subcontracting Plan should be included as part of the business volume within Phase II as a non-page counted attachment. Would the Government please confirm? | Yes | |
| 44 | Draft RFQ, Page 22, L.4 (b) Phase II, Draft RFQ Page 28, M.3 | The verbiage in (b) states there is a tradeoff involving five factors, but the chart below it shows six factors. The offeror assumes one of the listed factors are not included in the count of five. Would the Government please revise to include all six factors? | revised | |
| 45 | Draft RFQ, Page 28, Evaluation Factors | “Factor 4” is listed twice, and in the chart for Factor 4 “4.4 Description of Subcontracting Arrangements,” no instructions or evaluation criteria are given. Would the Government please revise this section to provide the necessary instructions and evaluation criteria? | revised | |
| 46 | Draft RFQ, Page 29, Instructions Factor 3 middle of the paragraph | This section states: “The PWS should describe how each task will be performed allocated from the transition...” This requirement is unclear to the Offeror. Would the Government please revise and provide clarification? | Work plan for transition period. | |
| 47 | Draft RFQ, Page 29, Instructions Factor 4 | Would the Government please provide instructions and evaluation criteria for “4.3 Staffing Plan”? | revised | |
| 48 | Draft RFQ, Page 31, Instructions Factor 6 | Would the Government please provide instructions and evaluation criteria for “6.1 Pricing Structure”? | No further comments | |
| 49 | Draft RFQ, Pages 10 & 11, Section 10, Draft RFP | Sections H.2.D and H.2.E (Baseline Security Requirements), shown on pages 10 and 11 of the draft RFP, notes that risk ranking for Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability have been noted as “Moderate”. However, the Overall Risk Level has been noted as “Low”. Since the Overall Risk Level should be denoted based on the highest watermark of the three factors, the Overall Risk Level should be noted as “Moderate” based on that methodology. In addition, PII Confidentiality Impact Level has been determined to be “High”. With that being said, will the Overall Risk Level be modified to note either “Moderate” or “High”? | Revised | |
| 50 | Draft RFQ, Page 6, Section F | “Performance of service will occur off-site, primarily at the contractor’s facilities.” Are there any restrictions for OCONUS workers? | All system components need to be in the CONUS. | |
| 51 | Draft RFQ, Page 15, Section H, bullet S, 4th sub point | “Notification. The contractor (and/or any subcontractor) shall notify the CO and/or COR and system ISSO before an employee stops working under this contract.” As stated, any turnover or reassignment must be sent to the CO/COR. Would the Government consider limiting this requirement be to the Key Personnel only? | The onboarding and offboarding of all staff need to be reported. All changes to key peronal need to be approved. | |
| 52 | Draft RFQ, Page 23, Section L.4.1 | The offeror assumes that Phase 1 Volume 1 should include a Quotation Cover and Transmittal letter (similar to the Volume 2 requirement) and that both letters are outside of page count. Would the Government please confirm? | Confirmed | |
| 53 | Draft RFQ, Page 27, Section L.9 | Would the Government please revise the link provided? | ||
| https://dmp.dlib.org/ is not reachable. | Removed | |||
| 54 | Draft RFQ, Page 27, Section L.9 | Would the Government please revise the link provided? | ||
| http://www.usgs.gov/datamanagement/plan/dmplans.php is not reachable. | Removed | |||
| 55 | Draft RFQ, Page 31, Factor 5 | “Offerors shall submit these references utilizing Attachment J-4 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ).” Attachment J-4 is the SubK Plan. Will the Government please provide the PPQ attachment? | Renumbered | |
| 56 | Draft RFQ, Page 2, SOO | “At least four trips are anticipated, including the kickoff meeting. Trips may be to travel to meetings in the Washington Metro Area, Cincinnati, Atlanta or New York City.” The offeror assumes the meeting locations are CDC offices and that meeting space will not need to be rented for this travel. Would the Government please confirm? | Confirmed | |
| 57 | Draft RFQ, Page 29, Factor 2 and Draft RFQ, Page 31, Factor 5 | The language in Factor 2 states that “...prior experience discussions should address only the offeror’s own experiences, and not any experience of its parent, affiliates, subcontractors, teaming partners, and so forth.” Factor 5 does not explicitly indicate whether or not past performance of affiliates, subcontractors, teaming partners, and parent companies may be submitted for evaluation. | Factor 5 applies the same restriction. Language in Section M has been revised. |
| Please clarify why the Government believes that limiting past performance experience only to work completed by the prime offeror is not unduly restrictive of competition (assuming the offeror can demonstrate that the subcontractor, affiliate, parent company, or teaming partner will participate meaningfully in contract performance). | Government declides to comment | ||
| 58 | Draft RFQ, Page 29, Factor 2 and Draft RFQ, Page 31, Factor 5 | Factor 2(b)(1)(i) allows for offerors to demonstrate prior experience by identifying federal agency, state or local government, or private sector contract work. By contrast, Factor 5 appears to indicate that only federal agency work may be submitted (“Each reference shall include, at a minimum: 1) when the experience took place, 2) the name of the federal agency, 3) the contract number, 4) task order number (if applicable) 5) the dollar value.” [Emphasis added.]). At the same time, language elsewhere in Factor 5 contradicts the mandate to submit only federal contract work experience by providing that “At least one (1) of these references shall be for an experience utilized by the offeror in its Factor 1 – Demonstrated Prior Experience submission.” (Emphasis added. Please note that we assume that the agency means this line to reference “Factor 2,” rather than “Factor 1.”), when Factor 2 explicitly allows for the submission of experience with private sector and state and local government work. | Confirmed |
| Please confirm that the Government intends to allow offerors to submit prior experience for both Factor 2 and Factor 5 from Federal agency, state or local Government, or private sector contracts. | confirmed | ||
| 59 | Draft RFQ, Page 31, Factor 5 | The draft solicitation language for Factor 5 provides that, for purposes of past performance relevance, “Relevant is defined as work similar in size, scope and complexity to the work identified in the solicitation.” Please provide definitions for the terms size, scope, and complexity, and explain the ratings by which relevance will be evaluated. | Government declines to provide additional definitions |
| 60 | Draft RFQ, Page 32, M.4 | The Government lists adjectival ratings for purposes of proposal evaluation in Section M.4, but does not indicate to which factors it applies. Please confirm whether or not the Government intends to apply the ratings listed in M.4 to each of the proposal factors. | Each factor |
| 61 | Draft RFQ, Page 31, Factor 5 and Draft RFQ, Page 32, M.4 | The Government indicates that Factor 5 will be rated as “Acceptable or Unacceptable.” Do the adjectival ratings listed in Section M.4 apply to Factor 5? If so, please clarify what the agency believes would constitute an “acceptable” rating. Does the Government intend for any adjectival rating other than “unacceptable” received by an offeror to therefore be deemed “acceptable”? | No additional guidance necessary |
| 62 | Draft RFQ, Page 15 & 23 | The offeror assumes that the required Key Personnel organizational chart does not count against the page limitations. Would the Government please confirm? | confirmed |
| 63 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | Key Personnel resumes are limited to six pages; however, further down the page the following statement is contradictory; “Neither any appendix of resumes or CV to support the staffing plan count against the maximum length.” Would the Government please clarify as to whether or not the Key Personnel resumes are restricted to six pages? | Do not apply to page limits |
| 64 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | What font family should be used for text, tables and graphics? | See instructions |
| 65 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | Is a condensed font like Arial Narrow permitted? | no |
| 66 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | Would the Government permit the use of oversized pages/fold outs (11 x 17) for large graphics (e.g., organizational charts)? | no |
| 67 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | Are landscape-rotated 8.5 x 11 page permitted? | yes |
| 68 | N/A | What is the anticipated RFQ release date? | |
| 69 | N/A | What is the anticipated proposal due date? | |
| 70 | Attachment J.1, SOO, Page 2, Item II., Period of Performance | Please confirm that the contract start date identified below is the actual start date for the WTC HP CCACBR Program. |
Period of Performance:
One base year of 12 months with four 12-month options. Estimated dates below:
Base Period 03/01/2020 – 02/28/2021 Option Year 1 03/01/2021 – 02/28/2022 Option Year 1 03/01/2021 – 02/28/2022 Option Year 3 03/01/2023 – 02/29/2024 Option Year 4 03/01/2024 – 02/28/2025
| See RFQ | |||
| 71 | Attachment J.1, SOO, Page 2, Item II., Period of Performance | What is the anticipated implementation period and Go Live date (Implementation Complete) for the program? | Offeror to propose approach. No comments |
| 72 | Attachment J.1, SOO, Page 2, Item II., Period of Performance | Is the offeror or Government responsible for defining the implementation period? | offeror |
| 73 | Attachment J.1, SOO, Page 2, Item II., Period of Performance | Does the Government have a preferred timeframe for implementation? | Offeror to propose approach. No comments |
| 74 | Draft RFQ, Page 30, Factor 4, Rules of Engagement for Oral Presentation | The referenced section states "The Offeror’s participants in the oral presentations shall be limited to the Key Personnel proposed by the Offeror in the proposal submission, as well as the responsible corporate official. No more than three (3) total Offeror Participants shall attend the oral presentation." |
| The first part of the reference leads the offeror to assume that the total number of participants allowed in oral presentations to be (4), comprised of three key personnel and a corporate official. However, the latter part of the reference states (3) total participants. Would the Government please clarify as to whether all 3 key personnel would be allowed to participate in Orals in addition to the corporate official, making the total participants (4) or if the Offeror should choose two key personnel and a corporate official making the total participants (3)? | Three total participants | |||
| 75 | Draft RFQ, Page 30, Factor 4, Rules of Engagement for Orals Presentation | Due to the specialized nature of the services and security requirements outlined in the Draft RFQ, will the Government consider allowing one additional participant for the oral presentation? | Yes | |
| 76 | J.1 SOO; Draft RFQ, Page 22 | I.1 of the SOO states, “The contractor shall propose CLINs and payment structure in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations for each performance objective listed in the SOO.” |
L.2 of the Draft Solicitation states “The government contemplates award of a firm fixed price contract resulting from this solicitation.”
These two solicitation references seem to be in conflict. Will the Government confirm that all CLINs are firm fixed price and in accordance with the Section B of the Draft Solicitation, or should offerors propose CLINs and payment structure (FFP, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, T&M, etc.), as stated in the SOO, in which offerors may amend the Section B to fit their CLIN structure? Government anticipates vendors will proposal a percentage of recoupment. The contract will consist of a fixed percentage of the total amount recovered.
| A firm fixed price structure provides no incentive to maximize recouped funds and potentially disincentives recouped funds (prime contractor costs savings with fixed revenue). For this reasons, will the Government maintain the methodology described in the SOO that requests contractor proposed CLINs and payment structure and remove the firm fixed price language? Alternatively, would the government consider a CPFF or CPFF/FFP hybrid structure so contractor and Government incentives are better aligned? | ||
| 77 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | L.6.c states, “The Business Proposal shall show a recoupment fee per task per period and a total for each period including all tasks. The recoupment percentage may include a combination of percentages based upon the anticipated dollar amount of recouped funds.” |
| Will the government include a plug value for recouped funds so that offerors’ prices are evaluated on equal grounds, where the likelihood of the offeror achieving or exceeding those recoupment values would be supported by their respective technical approaches? | The evaluation will review the percentage amounts. | ||||
| 78 | N/A | Does the successful bidder need to achieve an Authority to Operate (ATO)? If so, please provide details related to the agency's process as this will impact the bidder’s schedule. What is the expected timeframe for accomplishing this? Does the agency grant provisional ATOs? What are the deliverables for the ATO? | |||
| 79 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | The Government limits Key Personnel resumes to 2 pages each for a total of 6 pages. The offeror assumes the required number of Key Personnel to be three. Would the Government please confirm? | There is no required number. Offeror to propose | ||
| 80 | Draft RFQ, Page 24 | Would the Government allow the offeror to propose additional key personnel above the required 3? If so, would the Government please revise the page limitations to reflect the additional 2 pages necessary for each additional key personnel resume? | Allowed | ||
| 81 | Draft RFQ, Page 22, L.4 General Instructions Phase II Factor 3 & Attachment J.2 | Will the Government please clarify if they are requesting a statement of work (SOW) or a performance work statement (PWS)? The document is referred to as a PWS throughout Section L and is referred to as a SOW in the government provided attachment. | PWS | ||
| 82 | Draft RFQ, Page 27, L.10 HIPAA Compliance and Business Associate Agreement. | As CMS has done in the Medicare Administrative Contracts, will the CDC consider imposing liability under HIPPA only in cases where the contractor exhibited gross negligence or intentional misconduct? | If “CDC consider imposing liability” refers to “whose fault is the breach” the BA would be at fault if they were responsible for it. CDC is not assigning liability, however, HIPAA is. Business Associates are already directly liable for quite a few HIPAA violations (See HHS Guidance on “Direct Liability of Business Associates”), including “failure to comply with the requirements of the Security Rule, failure to provide breach notification to a covered entity or another business associate, impermissible uses and disclosures of PHI.” Additionally, when you look at the HHS page on Business Associates it says “where a covered entity knows of a material breach or violation by the business associate of the contract or agreement, the covered entity is required to take reasonable steps to cure the breach or end the violation, and if such steps are unsuccessful, to terminate the contract or arrangement.” If a contractor employee was to commit a HIPAA breach that resulted from intentional misconduct or gross negligence, we would likely step in in some capacity, as this would almost certainly be a reportable material breach and a violation. We would likely defer to the BAs internal sanction policy and also consider demerits in their CPARS and/or a Corrective Action Plan. | ||
| 83 | Draft RFQ, Page 27, L.10 HIPAA Compliance and Business Associate Agreement. | Please clarify what is meant by "directly liable." If liability will only be imposed for violations committed by the contractor and its agents (if any), will the CDC so state? | CDC declines to provide additional definitions | ||
| 84 | Attachment J. 3 | Would the Government please provide an example of a security/data breach for WTC Health Program Members that would not be reportable under the BAA but would still be a "reportable incident" to the HHS Office for Civil Rights? | There are no breaches that a BA would not be required to report to us that would still be reported to OCR. BAs must reported all breaches to us, non-reportable and reportable. Though a BA may consider a breach non-reportable, as the Covered Entity the program is responsible for making the final determination of whether a breach is reportable to OCR. | ||
| 85 | Attachment J. 3 | Will the Government please confirm that it expects the contractor to report the incident to the Office of Civil Rights in addition to the notification to the NIOSH and WTC Health Program HIPAA Compliance Officer? | If the BA is also a Covered Entity in their own right the rule states “a covered entity shall, following the discovery of a breach of unsecured protected health information as provided in 164.404(a)(2), notify the Secretary.” We would also report to OCR indicating that the breach was committed by a BA of ours, however. I am working on template language for the contract HIPAA clauses and BAA and hope to include this clarification regarding OCR reporting and who is responsible in which circumstances. Traditionally we have reported on their behalf, and will continue to do so at least until we have contractual clarification, if not beyond that (just to cover all bases) | ||
| 86 | Draft RFQ Page 22, 28, 31, Factor 6 | Pages 22 and 28, Factor 6 references 5.1 and 5.2 but page 31 Factor 6 references 6.1 and 6.2. Would the Government please clarify the reference? | revised | ||
| 87 | Objective 1 of Draft SOO (1.1) | Do you have an existing database that you use today? If so who is the vendor and would you be looking to replace that system. | Claims and member data will be provided to the extent necessary for the contractor to do the work. | ||
| 88 | Objective 3of Draft SOO (3.1) | Is there a defined timeframe the government has in mind with the statement "Expedite recovery and negotiation…" or will the vendor define. | Offeror to propose approach. No comments | ||
| 89 | Objective 5 of Draft SOO (5.1) | Will the vendor define the performance metrics to be used. | Offeror to propose approach. No comments | ||
| 90 | SOO Objectives | Assuming some or all of these objectives are being done today is the government looking for the vendor to develop a totally new approach based on their experience. | Offeror to propose approach. No comments | ||
| 91 | N/A | Can you please define the population for which you would like the services? Is this for the national membership that we are currently administering, the New York membership or both? | N/A | All members | |
| 92 | N/A | Are you looking for services to determine if claims should be paid by the WTC Health Program or if they should be under workers compensation? | N/A | See SOO | |
| 93 | N/A | Are you looking for recovery from workers compensation or other coverage for services already covered under the WTC Health Program previously? | N/A | For claims submitted to vendor. |
https://dmp.dlib.org/http://www.usgs.gov/datamanagement/plan/dmplans.php
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .