Amendment_5_-_Exhibit_E.1.A_PEO_IDIQ_Questions_and_Answers_-_2nd_Round.pdf

Amendment 0005 E.1.A – PEO IDIQ Questions 2nd Round

Questions and Responses

PEO IDIQ - Questions and Responses – 75FCMC18R0014

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) QUESTIONS

1) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP and A0002 Exhibit E.1.A PEO IDIQ Questions

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations):

Section E: Indirect Cost Rate Agreements and Rate History, “If the Contractor has no prior history of government approved indirect cost rates or if the Offeror is proposing indirect rates which significantly deviate from current actuals, then the Offeror SHALL provide support documentation for the prior 3 years consisting of their current year operating budget.”

Also, 0002 Exhibit E.1.A PEO IDIQ Questions, #52 CMS Response: “No. Instead the

Government will accept information similar to Incurred Cost Proposals (ICPs) submissions for the past 3 years. The information and guidance of preparing ICPs can be found on the publicly available DCAA website.”

Page Number: RFP page 92 and A0002 Exhibit E.1.A page 15

Question: The government response to the prior question (#52) to provide support documentation for the indirect rates through the use of the DCAA Incurred Cost Proposal (ICP) submissions

(i.e. the Incurred Cost Electronic [ICE] submission) is rather onerous for a small business, and much of the information contained in the ICE submission are either duplicative or in more detail than needed for supporting the indirect rates calculations.

For the prior 3-year period, will the government accept the indirect rate detail in the format provided in the DCAA annual Provisional Billing Rate (PBR) submissions?

CMS Response: Please provide the information stated in L.14 Volume I – Contract

Documentation, Section E which includes the requirement to submit the following:

“The budget should also detail the indirect expenses and show the relationship of direct labor

(or other indirect expenses allocation bases) to sales projections. The Offeror shall also provide all data (Bases and Pools), methodology (accounting practices), and relevant information that supports the proposed indirect rates as fair and reasonable. For more information on the data points that need to be provided to enable the Government to able to review the Offeror’s calculations for the proposed indirect rates see FAR Part 31 and FAR Appendix A, Cost

Accounting Standards.”

2) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): PEO Solicitation

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Instructions, L.13, L.15

Page Number: 87, 96

Question: PEO Solicitation - STO page limit – L.13 A states that the page limit for Factor 3 –

STO is 10 pages and L.15 states the page limit is 12. Please reconcile.

CMS Response: L.13 A) has been revised to correct the page limit for Factor 3 – Sample Task

Order from “10” to “12.” See revised solicitation.

3) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.17 Volume IV

Page Number: Page 108

Question:

Section L.17 Volume IV Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Proposal

Submission instructions state on page 108 that “The Offeror/Subcontractor(s) must provide adequate substantive detail in order for the government to conduct an independent analysis of the provided information. Where the Offeror/Subcontractor(s) indicates that no COI exists for a given contract, then for each indication, the Offeror/Subcontractor(s) shall provide rationale and facts in support of said indication.*Subcontractor(s): The same information shall be submitted in Volume IV, Appendices, for each subcontractor.”

Could CMS explain its intent with the above requirement? Does CMS intend for the offeror and subcontractors to only list all current/active and known non-foreign contracts that could pose an actual, potential, and/or apparent COI on the Attachment J.2.A form in Section B2? Or is the intention (based on the solicitation section L17 instructions) to list all current/active and known non-foreign contracts and provide rationale as to why no COI exists for each contract (which could be burdensome for large businesses with potentially hundreds of active contracts), even though the J.2.A form does not seem to provide a location for this detailed information?

CMS Response: The Offeror/Subcontractor must provide a list of current, active and known non-foreign contracts that could pose an actual, potential and/or apparent COI. If however, the

Offeror/Subcontractor determines that the disclosed actual, potential and/or apparent conflict is not a true conflict, they need to provide the rationale as to how they reached that conclusion. The

Offeror/Subcontractor does not need to disclose current/active or non-foreign contracts that pose

NO COI. For example, if the Offeror/Subcontractor currently holds a contract to cut grass for non-provider residential homes, then that contract would not need to be disclosed. If the contract is to cut grass for a hospital, then the Offeror/Subcontractor would need to disclose and explain either why it is or is not a true conflict.

4) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.16 VOLUME III - MA IDIQ

SAMPLE TASK ORDER BUSINESS PROPOSAL (5) – Profit/Fee

Page Number: Page 107

Question:

In the Business Proposal, CMS has not requested a separate breakout of the total Cost and total

Fixed-Fee for the proposed Cost-Plus-Fixed- Fee price. Does CMS want this breakout?

CMS Response: The Sample Task Order Business Proposal requires Offerors to apply fee before the “Total” - Indirect rate category or fee. Offerors should apply the fixed fee (except for the labor which has the fixed fee built in) and explain what they are applying the fixed fee to. For example, if the Offeror proposes Labor, ODCs, Travel and a G&A indirect fee on ODCs, and the application of fixed fee for their company business practices the Offeror should provide the cost of the fixed fee and percentage applied to

5) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Volume II Submission Format /

Subsection C) Small Businesses

Page Number: 97 of 116

Question: Are the offeror required to price out the top 4 labor categories per requirement required under this section? If yes, where would we provide this information as a template was not provided.

CMS Response: No.

6) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): 75FCMC18R0014_PEO_Solicitation

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.16 - Volume II MA IDIQ Sample

Task Order Business Proposal / Subsection 2) Travel and Other Direct Costs

Page Number: 106 of 116

Question: The instructions provide that “Offeror is required to provide the detailed information for travel for the kickoff meeting ONLY” while prescribing the assumed cost at “$2000 per traveler per trip.” When travel costs are broken out, they might not total to $2000 exact. Must the contractor breakout their costs so that it totals exactly at $2000 per person per trip?

CMS Response: The kickoff meeting costs do not have to total $2,000, on the contrary, they should be an estimated cost based on the contractor traveling to CMS and back.

7) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Solicitation

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): SECTION H – SPECIAL

CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS- H.1 BUSINESS ETHICS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND

COMPLIANCE (APR 2017)

Page Number: 31

Question- Text says:

Initial Submission of COI Information: The Contractor shall submit Conflict of Interest information identified in –

• Attachment J.2.A, Contractor Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and

Compliance Program Requirements (follow the format identified in the

Attachment J.2.A).

Question: For this IDIQ response, should the J.2.A only be submitted if we have identified an

OCI? And if that is the case, in place of the J.2, A, would we submit a signed statement saying we have no OCI?

CMS Response: Please see the response to Question 3 in this Exhibit.

8) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14, Factor 1, C (Small

Businesses)

Page Number: 97-98

Question: We have identified redundancies across task areas when presenting our four critical labor categories. Will the government allow all critical labor categories with accompanying descriptions and qualifications to be presented in one attachment to Volume II and require only the labor category names and task specific rationales to be included in the task area write-ups?

CMS Response: No.

9) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 0002 RFP Section L.14

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section B: Prime Proposal Information

Checklist and Subcontractor Proposal Information Checklist

Page Number: 91

Question: Amendment 0002 updated the RFP to state that “Each proposed significant subcontractor shall complete the Subcontractor Proposal Information Checklist, Exhibit E.3.”

However, the instructions in the updated Amendment 0002 Exhibit E.3 still state that “Each subcontractor to a prime contractor shall complete the following checklist for…” Please confirm that that this checklist is only required for proposed significant subcontractors and not all subcontractors.

CMS Response: Offerors should submit Exhibit E.3 for Significant Subcontractors only.

10) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations):

Page Number:

Question: Can the government please clarify the below differences between the Eastern and

Western Site Verification RFPs regarding the following:

The requirement for cost pricing data for subcontractors is still included in the SVS

Western RFP but is excluded from the Eastern RFP. Please clarify if it should be removed from the Eastern.

CMS Response: This was an error and has been removed from the Western RFP.

11) Section: RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13.H) PROPOSAL

INSTRUCTIONS. (7th bullet)

Page Number: 90 of 116

Question: (7th bullet) states:

• The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable and usable by

Microsoft Office 2013(MS Word, MS Excel, and PowerPoint with formats of .docx, .xlsx, .pptx) with any pages requiring signature in PDF format viewable with the standard Adobe Acrobat

Reader 9. SecureZIP for Windows shall be the compression/decompression program used if files are required to be compressed. CMS will not be liable for the inability to read and/or evaluate a proposal that is incompatible with Microsoft Office Suite 2013 CMS will not be liable for the failure to read and/or evaluate a proposal that contains a virus, corrupt files, or similar problem.

Offerors are encouraged to test each disc prior to sending in proposals to ensure that all files are functional. CMS will not accept electronic copies (submission) that are opened, cracked and/or manipulated from either the US Postal Service and/or through hand delivery.

Will CMS please confirm it is acceptable to submit audited financial statements, company disclosure statements, and line of credit documents in PDF format for Volume I?

CMS Response: Yes, CMS will accept an Offeror’s audited financial statements, company disclosure statements and line of credit documents in PDF format for Volume I. CMS will also accept PDF format for some documents which come from outside sources and are only available as a PDF.

12) Section: RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): J.2.A. Contractor Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance Program Requirements (Section E)

Page Number: 3 of 4

Question: Will the Government please confirm that, with respect to the “Contractor

Integrity/Misconduct” provision (the “Disclosure Provision”) contained in Attachment J.2.A

(“Contractor Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Compliance Program Requirements”), “Offeror” means “the Offeror and any parent or affiliate of the Offeror whose conduct may be attributed to the Offeror”?

CMS Response: No. “The Offeror/Contractor shall disclose any and all known violations and alleged acts, within the past ten (10) years, related to the following for itself, its parent and affiliated companies or subcontractors –

False Claims Act, Civil Monetary Penalties, Criminal investigations and/or indictments, and, Qui tam lawsuits or other administrative misconduct.”

13) Section: RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): I.1. FAR 52.252-2 Clauses incorporated by Reference (FEB 1998), 52.227-17

Page Number: 54

Question: Please confirm that the inclusion of FAR 52.227-17 (Rights in Data – Special Works) is intended to be, and is, limited to the protected information of Medicare beneficiaries and providers, and that it does not apply to commercial or other third-party software or data that may be used or developed to execute the contract.

CMS Response: This applies primarily for the production or compilation of data (other than limited rights data or restricted computer software) for the Government's internal use, or when there is a specific need to limit distribution and use of the data or to obtain indemnity for liabilities that may arise out of the content, performance, or disclosure of the data.

14) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section H.1 Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest and Compliance (APR 2017)

Page Number: 27 – 30

Question: CMS’s response to question no. 6 on pages 2-3 of Exhibit E.A.1 clarifies that “a

Medicaid enrolled provider or supplier is not a conflict,” for purposes of applying H.1.c.1.

Given that the RFP encompasses both Medicare and Medicaid provider enrollment and oversight activities, it is not immediately apparent why Medicare providers pose a conflict but Medicaid providers do not. Would CMS please explain the rationale for this distinction? Understanding

CMS’s views on this point will help offerors better identify actual, potential, and apparent COIs in this and other areas.

CMS Response: Please disregard the previous response. The same conflict exists for a Medicaid enrolled provider or supplier.

15) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14.E – Volume I Contract

Documentation, Section E - Indirect Cost Rate Agreements and Rate History

Page Number: 90-91

Question: Per Amendment 2 Q&A Responses questions 59, for newly formed unpopulated JVs, CMS instructed offerors to provide this information for the JV, and if unavailable, all members of the JV shall provide this information. The JV intends to use the approved indirect rates of the large business member of the JV. If the other JV member is a small business with no prior history of government approved indirect cost rates, will CMS still require that the small business member of the JV provide “support documentation for the prior 3 years consisting of their current year operating budget. The budget should also detail the indirect expenses and show the relationship of direct labor (or other indirect expenses allocation bases) to sales projections. The

Offeror shall also provide all data (Bases and Pools), methodology (accounting practices), and relevant information that supports the proposed indirect rates as fair and reasonable.”?

CMS Response: Yes.

16) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14.E – Volume I Contract

Documentation, Section E - Indirect Cost Rate Agreements and Rate History

Page Number: 90-91

Question: If CMS requires that a small business member of an unpopulated JV with no history of government approved indirect cost rates submit the supporting cost and budget data requested in

Section L.14.E, will CMS please consider granting an extension to the proposal due date to allow the small business adequate time to compile this supporting information?

CMS Response: No.

17) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.14.G.3 – Volume I Contract

Documentation, Section G – Other Administrative Data, G.3 Responsibility Questionnaire

Page Number: 92-93

Question: Should unpopulated joint ventures respond only as the JV or should each member of the JV supply an Exhibit E.9 as well?

CMS Response: Yes.

18) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section L.17 - VOLUME IV

BUSINESS ETHICS, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND COMPLIANCE PROPOSAL

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Page Number: 106-107

Question: Should each member of an unpopulated joint venture submit an Attachment J.2.A in addition to the JV itself?

CMS Response: Yes.

19) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Volume I, Contract Documentation;

Section L.14, Amendment 0001, Exhibit E.1.A, Question #25; and Amendment 0002, Exhibit

E.1.A, Question #58

Page Number: 90

Question: Question #25 in the answers to questions included with Amendment 0001 states, “If the Small Business Offeror is a Subcontractor, the Small Business shall complete sections A, B, E, F, and G.” However, Amendment 0002, Question #58 specifically contradicts this by stating, “significant subcontractors should not provide Volume I.” Please confirm offerors should follow the instructions in Amendment 0002 when preparing their Volume I response.

CMS Response: Please follow the instructions from the most recent Amendment when considering how to submit proposals. In the example provided in the question, the instructions in Amendment 0002 should be followed as opposed to the instructions in Amendment 0001.

20) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.14 Volume I – Contract

Documentation

Page Number: 90

Question: The RFP states: The Offeror shall identify, in the header or the footer throughout the proposal, the Offeror’s name and the solicitation number for which the Offeror is submitting the proposal. Please confirm that the Government does not want the Offeror to put an identifying header/footer on Government forms, such as SF33, SF30s, various RFP Exhibits, COI

Attachment J.2.A., Small Business Plan Exhibit J.3, and Section K - Representations and

Certifications.

CMS Response: Confirmed.

21) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.14 Volume I – Contract

Documentation, Section D, Contract Forms and Representations and Certifications (Prime Only)

Page Number: 91

Question: The RFP states: The SF-33 and the Representations and Certifications contained in

Section K must be executed by an official authorized to bind the Offeror and provided by the

Prime Contractor. Section K, Representations and Certifications, does not include a signature/date line for the official to sign. Please advise if CMS will reissue this Section with a signature/date line included or if Offerors are authorized to insert a signature/date line.

CMS Response: CMS has revised the solicitation to state “The SF-33 must be executed by an official authorized to bind the Offeror and provided by the Prime Contractor.”

22) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 002/Amendment 003 IDIQ Section L.13 and Amendment

002/Amendment 003 IDIQ Section L.15

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): A) Organization, Copies, and Page

Limit (Table – Page 87)

Volume II Submission Format (Table – Page 96)

Page Number: 87 & 96

Question: Amendment 002 indicates the page limit for Factor 3 is increased to 12 pages, however Section L.13 still specifies a limit of 10 page. Can the Government confirm that the

QASP Assessment Form (Deliverable A01), Program Management Plan (Deliverable A02) and

Personnel Management and Training plan (Deliverable A03) are to be included in the 12 page limit?

CMS Response: Yes, please include QASP Assessment form, training plan and program management plan in the 12 page limit.

23) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 2, PEO RFP, Volume II, IDIQ Technical Proposal and

Amendment 2, Exhibit E.7, Sample Task Order SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Technical Factor 3, Sample Task

Order, Technical Understanding and Approach, and SOW Section 6.0, Deliverables

Page Numbers: RFP pages 103-104 and SOW page 5

Question: According to the RFP Technical Factor 3, Sample Task Order instructions and SOW, Section 6.0 Deliverables, requirements in Amendment 2, offerors are to include Sample Task

Order Deliverables A01-Draft QASP Assessment Form, A02-Project Management Plan, and

A03-Personnel Management and Training Plan with their proposals. Given the typical content that is included in such Deliverables, and the M.6.3 evaluation criteria emphasis that offerors will be evaluated on “...an effective and thorough plan…”, it will prove challenging to incorporate these Deliverables as well as the RFP required technical solution narrative to address the Technical Understanding and Approach requirements, within the 12-page limit designated for

Factor 3-Sample Task Order. Will CMS consider allowing offerors to provide these three

Deliverables (A01, A02, and A03) in an appendix to Factor 3 that is outside the 12-page limit? If not, can CMS please provide clarification that the Deliverables to be included within the 12-page limit are to contain only summary information of the elements that an offeror would include in each Deliverable?

CMS Response: Yes, please include Deliverables A01, A02 and A03 - QASP Assessment form, training plan and program management plan - in the 12 page limit. Summary information is acceptable to include within the 12 pages.

24) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Sample Task Order SOW Section 2 and Question 125 Answer

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations):

Page Number: STO SOW Page 2 and Answers to questions

Question: The Sample Task Order SOW states 15 days for completion of the QASP Assessment, and Question 125 of the Q&A states 30 days. Will the government please clarify which is correct?

CMS Response: The 15 days in the STO SOW is correct for the completion of the QASP assessment.

25) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): L.13.H\

Page Number: Page 90 of 116

Question:

Some documents, such as supporting materials for Indirect Rates and OCI documentation come from outside sources and are only available as a pdf. Please confirm that submission of these documents in pdf is acceptable or provide guidance on how you would like these submitted.

CMS Response: The language in the solicitation has been updated to allow for supporting documents to be submitted in PDF format for Volumes I, III, IV, and VI (Contract

Documentation, COI Information and Business Proposals).

IDIQ STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) QUESTIONS

26) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Sample Task Order SOW, Exhibit E.7

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 2.0, Assumptions

Page Number: 2

Question:

CMS states that “The Offeror shall assume that a QASP review will need to be completed in accordance with the SOW for each performance period (base and option 1) for each of the [SVS] task orders.” Can CMS confirm if the intention is to have only one site visit performed each contract year for Eastern SVS and only one site visit for each contract year for Western SVS (as opposed to multiple site visits if multiple contractors are awarded a Task Order)?

CMS Response: There will not be multiple contractors awarded a task order. Offerors shall assume one on-site visit for each SVS task order per year. For example, ABC Inc. is the Eastern

Region SVS contractor and XYZ Inc. is the Western Region SVS contractor. The assumption is that the QASP Sample Task Order contractor would perform one on-site visit to ABC Inc. and one on-site visit to XYZ Inc. during the first 12-month period of performance.

27) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 3.11 and 3.12

Page Number: 18 & 19 of 26

Question: Will CMS please identify what tool/tools are currently used for Change Management requests and where are the system changes tracked?

CMS Response: These tools will be detailed in each individual task order SOW. There may be different tools used for the different systems.

28) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 2 General Requirements

Page Number: 7 of 26

Question: Other than PECOS, will CMS please clarify if other CMS system are being used in regard to provider enrollment activities?

CMS Response: Other CMS systems may include the National Plan and Provider Enumeration

System (NPPES) and the Advanced Provider Screening (APS) system. These systems will be identified in the task orders SOWs.

29) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Exhibit_E.7__Sample_Task_Order_SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 4.1 Program Management and Customer

Support, Subheading #4, Bullet 3

Page Number: 4 of 8

Question: This bullet states that the Contractor is to “Select files randomly from universe provided by any PEO IDIQ task order contractor for review.” Will CMS please clarify if this activity is to occur once a year in conjunction with the on-site assessment, or if this is an ongoing activity?

CMS Response: This will occur once per year as part of the QASP.

30) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Exhibit_E.7__Sample_Task_Order_SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 4.2 Onsite QASP Assessments

Page Number: 4 of 8

Question: This bullet states the annual onsite assessments will be conducted to determine compliance with SOW and other Medicare regulations. Will the offeror be required to complete the QASP on behalf of CMS/contractor or are we merely auditing or reviewing completed

QASPs against stated requirements?

CMS Response: As stated in the amendment, the QASP will be performed on the Site

Verification Task Orders - one for the Eastern and one for the Western. The intent is that the

QASP would be performed using the stated requirements on behalf of CMS.

31) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Exhibit_E.7__Sample_Task_Order_SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 2.0 Assumptions

Page Number: 3 of 8

Question: Should the QASP training mentioned be completed as a part of and billed in this contract?

CMS Response: The training in 2.0 assumptions should be completed as part of and billed to the

Sample task order

32) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Exhibit_E.7__Sample_Task_Order_SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 6.1 Quality Control Plan

Page Number: 5 of 8

Question: The Quality Control Plan was omitted from the table of deliverables. Will CMS please clarify that the QCP is a deliverable of the sample TO, and not something that should be provided with proposal submission?

CMS Response: This should not be provided to CMS as a deliverable.

33) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Eastern Region Site Verification Services TO SOW Attachment 1

QASP, Amendment 0002 J.5.A and Western Region Site Verification Services TO SOW

Attachment 1 QASP, Amendment 0002 J.6.A

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 5.1 Surveillance Matrix

Page Number: Pages 4 through 10

Question: In Exhibits J.5.A and J.6.A, there are 4 different time limit requirements related to site visits identified for the Eastern Region and the Western Region, including 30 days, 15 days, 7 day, and 48 hours. However, the associated QASPs, Exhibit J.5.A.1 and J.6.A.1, only asks the

QASP review contractor to evaluate the performance for only 30 days and 15 days site visits. In order to develop a thorough QASP Assessment Form, can the Government please clarify if the

QASP review contractor is required to evaluate the 7 day and 48-hour site visits?

CMS Response: The QASP will not evaluate the 7 day and 48 hour site visits.

34) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Eastern Region Site Verification Services TO SOW Attachment 1

QASP, Amendment 0002 J.5.A.1 and Western Region Site Verification Services TO SOW

Attachment 1 QASP, Amendment 0002 J.6.A.1

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations):

Page Number:

Question: There are only 2 types of visits identified in the QASP – the IDTF and the 30 Day / 15

Day site visits. Are the 30 Day / 15 Day visit type detailed visit types or the observational visit.

In order to develop a thorough QASP Assessment Form, can the Government clarify if the Site

Visits for criteria 3 and 4, and for criteria 7 and 8 are Detailed Visit Types or the Observational

Visit?

CMS Response: The QASP will not evaluate the 7 day and 48 hour site visits.

35) Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Exhibit E.7 Sample Task Order Statement of Work (SOW) as well as

Eastern Region Site Verification Services TO SOW Attachment 1 QASP, Amendment 0002

J.5.A.1 and Western Region Site Verification Services TO SOW Attachment 1 QASP, Amendment 0002 J.6.A.1

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 5.1 Surveillance Matrix

Page Number: Page 2 of Exhibit E.7; and Pages 4 through 10 of J.5.A.1 and J.6.A.1

Question: In E.7, the Sample TO states “The QASPs (see Attachments J.5.A.1 and J.6.A.1) directly correspond to the performance objectives and standards (i.e., quality, quantity, timeliness) specified in the SVS task order Statements of Work (SOWs). CMS is requesting the contractor survey, observe, test, sample, evaluate, and document contractor performance results to determine if the contractor has met the required standards.”

In the Surveillance Matrix in Section 5.1 of each Eastern Western QASPs (J.5.A.1 and J.6.A.1) it appears that the only performance criteria and required standards are for timeliness and accuracy related to site visits referenced in the SVS SOWs, paragraphs 3.3. However, the SVS SOWs include more performance standards SVS SOW 3.1 through 3.2 and 3.4 through 3.7. In order to develop a thorough QASP Assessment Form, please clarify if the QASP review contractor is to

QASP services to for only accuracy and timeliness as defined in the QASP or do we need to survey, observe, test, sample, evaluate, and document performance against all Performance

Standards identified within Section 3 of the SVS TO SOWs?

CMS Response: The QASP contractor shall evaluate accuracy and timeliness services.

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

36) Section, if applicable: 42 CFR § 424.518

Document, Section & Page Number as applicable:

Question: Under 42 CFR § 424.518, “Screening Levels for Medicare Providers and

Suppliers,” CMS retains authority to adjust the screening levels assigned to providers and suppliers under applicable circumstances from “limited” or “moderate” to “high.”

As a consequence of the enhanced enrollment process under the IDIQ, new information on providers/suppliers is almost certain to be discovered.

This may, in turn, have an impact on previously designated screening levels. How does CMS anticipate handling these potential changes of information and allowing Contractors under the IDIQ to pursue such screening level adjustments with follow-up action by CMS?

CMS Response: Any changes in screening levels that impacts the contractor’s operations would be determined by CMS and communicated appropriately to the contractor.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=854c69c657e280c092de298b6928fc6b&term_occur=1&term_src=Title:42:Chapter:IV:Subchapter:B:Part:424:Subpart:P:424.518