Amendment_5_-_Exhibit_E.1.B_SVS_Task_Order_Questions_and_Answers_-_2nd_Round.pdf

E.1.B – PEO SVS Task Order Questions Questions and Responses

SITE VERIFICATION SERVICES TASK ORDER - Questions and Responses –

75FCMC18R0014

Please use the below required format. Also, make sure to add “CMS Response” below each question.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL QUESTIONS (RFP)

1.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP, SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES PRICES/COSTS and

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): B.5 SCHEDULE OF SERVICES and

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

Page Number: 3-4 and 10

Question: Can you confirm that the Period of Performance for each CLIN period is correct and overlapping? For example CLIN 0001 (Base Period) is April to April, but CLIN 0002 (Option

Period 1) is March to March.

April 19, 2020 through April 18, 2021 (Estimated)

March 19, 2021 through March 18, 2022 (Estimated)

February 19, 2022 through February 18, 2023 (Estimated)

January 19, 2023 through January 18, 2024 (Estimated)

December 19, 2023 through May 18, 2024 (Estimated)

CMS Response: Each CLIN period is correct and should be overlapping by exactly one month.

In order to account for the completion of any 30-day site visit ordered, each CLIN will not be able to receive orders one month prior to the end of each performance period. Therefore, the next CLIN will begin its period of performance one month prior to the previous CLIN.

2.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services RFP

Title and Number: RFP Section L.18

Page Number: 13 and 14

Question: Can the Government confirm that the page count for section “Key Personnel and

Staffing Plan” increased to “6” pages (as in the chart on page 13) instead of “5” pages (as in the section 5 header on page 14)?

CMS Response: The correct page limit is 6. The RFPs have been updated to include the correct page number in the Section 5 header.

3.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services RFP and SOW

Title and Number: RFP Section B.5 Schedule of Services and SOW 1.1 Assumptions

Page Number: RFP page 5 and SOW page 6

Question: The estimated quantities and types identified in the RFP no longer equals the estimated quantities and types in the SOW on page 6 and referenced in section 3.9. Can the Government correct the differences and provide the correct estimated quantities?

CMS Response: Amendment 0004 has removed the Quantity Workload estimates in the SOW.

Please see the RFPs and Business Proposal Templates for the correct workload estimates.

4.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 2 RFP, Attachments J.5 and J.6

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Period of Performance, Section F.2

Page Number: 10

Question: The periods of performance for each option period overlap the previous period by one month. Would the Government please confirm this is intentional?

CMS Response: Yes, this is intentional. Please see the response to Question #2 above for further clarification.

5.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 2, Attachment J.6, Western Region Site Verification

Services Task Order RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): B.5, Schedule of Services

Page Numbers: 8 & 9 of 24

Question: There appears to be an inconsistency with the Western Region Site Verification

Estimated Quantity Workload for CLIN 0006 when comparing the workload in the Attachment

J.6 RFP and the Attachment J.6.C, Western Region Site Verification Services Business Proposal

Template in Amendment 2. The CLIN 0006 site verification Estimated Qty workload beginning on page 8 and continuing to page 9 of the RFP appears to be full year site visit workload (same workload as CLINs 0001 – 0005) instead of the reduced five month workload consistent with the period of performance (12/19/23 – 05/18/24) and the Attachment J.C.6, Western Region Site

Verification Services Business Proposal Template, CLIN 0006 Tab, Total Estimated Visits by

SLIN by type (rows 16, 34, 52). Please clarify what CLIN 0006 Estimated Quantity Workload should be priced, the workload contained in Attachment J.6 RFP (pages 8 and 9) or the

Estimated Workload contained in Attachment J.6.C (rows 16, 34 and 52) Business Proposal

Template for CLIN 0006.

CMS Response: Please see Amendment 0004 which has updated the estimated quantities.

6.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): RFP B.5 Schedule of Services

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): B.5 Schedule of Services, CLIN

Page Number: 3-10

Question: It is unclear how the 5 site visits types in the SOW align with CLINS 0001AA, 0001AB, and 0001AC especially considering that the 5 site visit produce at least 4 distinct level of effort expectations with only the observational site visits sharing a similar level of effort. Will

CMS please confirm the alignment of the site visit types in the SOW with the CLINS and advise if a separate CLIN for the 2 types of detailed site visits will be added to the CLINS?

CMS Response: The Observational Site Visit SLINs (000XAA) will include the Site Visit

Verification Observational Form and DMEPOS Site Visit Verification Observational Form type of visits. The Detailed Site Visit SLINs (000XAB) will include the Site Visit Verification

Detailed Form and DMEPOS Site Visit Detailed Form type of visits. The IDTF Site Visits

SLINs (000XAC) will include the Independent Diagnostic Testing Facility (IDTF) Form type of visits.

7.

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

Title and Number: RFP B.5 Schedule of Services, CLIN

Page Number: 3 through 4

Question: Normally CLIN(s) structures align with unique periods performance (PoP), however, in the POE Site Verification (SV) Task Order (TO), CLINs 0002, 0003, 0004, 0005 and 0006 have PoPs that overlap by one month (for example CLIN 0001 begins on 5/19/2019 and ends on

5/18/2020 and CLIN 0002 being on 4/19/2020 and ends on 4/18/2021, the overlap in this period is 4/19/2020 through 5/18/2020). This raises a question as to which Unit Price should be charged for each site visit type performed within the over lapping periods of performance. The

SV TO also includes a table for CLINS 0001-0006 titled the “Last Day to Order Visits”, whereby visits must be ordered by the government no later than one month prior to the last day of the PoP of the current CLIN. Are visits ordered on or after 4/18/2020 but within CLIN 0001

PoP’s ending 5/18/2020 invoiced at CLIN 0001 unit prices or CLIN 0002 unit prices?

CMS Response: Given the example provided in the question, any site visit ordered on

04/18/2020 or earlier, will be invoiced at the CLIN 0001 unit price because a 30-Day Site Visit order on 04/18/2020 must allow the Contractor 30 days within the period of performance to complete the ordered site visit. ANY visit ordered on 04/19/2020 through 03/18/2021 will be invoiced at the CLIN 0002 unit price.

8.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): SVS RFP, Attachment J.5

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): VOLUME VI - SITE VERIFICATION

SERVICES’ TASK ORDER(S) – BUSINESS PROPOSAL, L.19

Page Number: 31

Question: Section 2 of L.19 requires offerors include B.5 in their response. B.5 starts on page 3 of this document and ends on page 21. Note there is no section B.6 in this document. Please confirm CMS is requesting offerors to provide all of B.5, which includes the tables on Pages 3 through 21.

CMS Response: Yes, offerors shall provide a completed Section B.5. Please note that Section

B.6 is intentionally not included in the Task Order RFPs because it is reserved under the IDIQ

Contract for the Fixed Fee Payment Schedule (Cost Reimbursement Task Orders only).

9.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): SVS RFP, Attachment J.5

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section B, B.5

Page Number: 3

Question: The Periods of Performance start 1 month earlier each successive year. For example, CLIN 0002 ends 4/18/2021, while CLIN 0003 begins 3/19/2021. Please confirm this table is correct and represents how offerors should respond.

CMS Response: This is correct.

10.

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

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): J.5 Eastern Region Site Verification

Services TO RFP, L.18, Volume V-A

Page Number: 12-13

Question: The Technical Evaluation Criteria Table indicates that Technical Factor 3 (Key

Personnel and Staffing Plan) is allotted 6 pages, but further down in Section 3, page 13, “Page limit: 5 pages with the exception of the Organizational Charts and Resumes for Key Personnel which will be a maximum of 2 pages each.” Please confirm that the page limit is 6 pages, not 5.

CMS Response: The correct page limit is 6. The RFPs have been updated to include the correct page number in the Section 5 header.

11.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Statement of Work (SOW) Eastern Region Site Verification Services

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 1.1 Assumptions – Quantity Workload

Estimates

Page Number: 6

Question: The estimates included in the Amendment 2 version of the Eastern Site Verification

SOW includes the same estimates as the original document, however, the estimated workload volumes in the updated Business Proposal have been changed and the totals do not match the

SOW. Please clarify the correct workload estimates for the Eastern Site Verification TO.

CMS Response: Amendment 0004 has removed the Quantity Workload estimates in the SOW.

Please see the RFPs and Business Proposal Templates for the correct workload estimates.

12.

Section J.5 and J.5.A:

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Eastern Region Site Verification

Services TO SOW, Sect 1.1 Quantity Workload Estimates/ Eastern Region Site Verification

Services TO RFP, Sect B.5 Schedule of Services, CLIN 0001

Page Number: J.5.A page 6; J.5 Page 5

Question: The volumes for site visits in not consistent in the Eastern Region RFP and SOW.

There is a discrepancy of about 2500 site visits. Which volumes should proposers use to develop staffing levels?

CMS Response: Amendment 0004 has removed the Quantity Workload estimates in the SOW.

Please see the RFPs and Business Proposal Templates for the correct workload estimates.

13.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Attachment J.5.A Eastern Region SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): 1.1 Assumptions

Page Number: 6

Question: The numbers of site visits in the Eastern Region SOW do not correspond to the numbers provided in the corresponding business proposal template and RFP (e.g., CLIN 1, Page

5). Would the Government please clarify?

CMS Response: Amendment 0004 has removed the Quantity Workload estimates in the SOW.

Please see the RFPs and Business Proposal Templates for the correct workload estimates.

14.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 2 – Attachment J. 5 Eastern Site Verification Task Order

RFP

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): B.5 SCHEDULE OF SERVICES

Page Number: pg. 5

Question: What is the number of DMEPOS visits within the total Detailed Visits?

CMS Response: From 12/01/2017-11/30/2018, there were 6,407 detailed DMEPOS site visits performed.

15.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): J. Amendment 2- J.5.A.1 Eastern Site Visit Verification SOW

Attachment 1 QASP

Title and Number: Section 5.1 Surveillance Matrix, Summary Tables for Criteria

Page Number: Pages 5-10

Question: None of the criteria address samples for the 48 hour or 7 day visits. Was this an oversight or is CMS only looking for the 15 and 30 day samples. Additionally, Criteria 5 through

8 refer to sample units as being timely or untimely when the criteria description is Site Visit

Accuracy. We think this was a drafting mistake because the Performance Percentage Calculation uses accurate site visits in the calculation. Please clarify.

CMS Response: At this time the 30 day and 15 day site visits will be used for the samples in the annual QASP.

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) QUESTIONS

1.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services Task Orders SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 1.1 Assumptions

Page Number: 5

Question: In response to question 43, on page 14 of "Amendment_2_-

_Exhibit_E.1.B_SVS_Task_Order_Questions_Submission" CMS indicates that it will not require contractors to comply with the ARS 3.1. Would CMS indicate what security standards apply instead? For example, is compliance with all domains identified in NIST 800-171, using policies and procedures aligned with ISO 27001, and compliance with an annual SOC1 audit sufficient?

CMS Response: No security standards apply to the site verification system. Please disregard the response to Question 127 in Amendment 0002 Exhibit E.1.B. The site verification contractors will not need to pass a SCA (Security Control Assessment). There is no mention of an ATO or

SCA in the Site Verification Services SOWs.

2.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services Task Orders SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 1.1 Assumptions

Page Number: 5

Question: CMS indicated that contractors need to conduct a security control assessment (SCA).

In our experience, an SCA is conducted to prepare for receipt of an authority to operate (ATO).

In response to question 42 on page 13 of "Amendment_2_-

_Exhibit_E.1.B_SVS_Task_Order_Questions_Submission" CMS indicates it will not require contractors to receive an ATO for its technical environment. Would CMS confirm that an SCA is not actually required since there is no requirement for an ATO?

CMS Response: No Authority to Operate ATO is needed. Please disregard the response to

Question 127 in Amendment 0002 Exhibit E.1.B. The site verification contractors will not need to pass a SCA (Security Control Assessment). There is no mention of an ATO or SCA in the Site

Verification Services SOWs.

3.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services Task Orders SOW

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Section 3.9 Contractor Startup Period

Page Number: 21

Question: In our experience, a SCA typically takes about eight weeks to conduct. Considering

CMS' 60-day startup period, it doesn't suggest there is time to conduct a SCA prior to go-live.

Would CMS confirm that an SCA is not required prior to go-live of the SVS TO? Since the contractor's solution will only be live roughly 18 months prior to PECOS 2.0 implementation, does CMS expect contractors to have an SCA conducted after go-live?

CMS Response: No Authority to Operate ATO is needed. Please disregard the response to

Question 127 in Amendment 0002 Exhibit E.1.B. The site verification contractors will not need to pass a SCA (Security Control Assessment). There is no mention of an ATO or SCA in the Site verification SOWs.

4.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services SOW

Title and Number: Section 1.1 Assumptions / Task Order questions released in Amendment #2

Page Number: 5

Question: To clarify the Task Order questions released in Amendment #2: answers to questions

42, 43 and 44 indicate that no ATO nor application of ARS controls are required. However, the answer to question 127 stipulates that a Security Control Assessment is required, and this does not appear to be in the Task Order SOW. Can the Government clarify if the Site Verification contractor’s system is within the scope of FISMA requirements; and if so, can the Government clarify the impact level and update the SOW accordingly?

CMS Response: Please disregard the response to Question 127 in Amendment 0002 Exhibit

E.1.B. The site verification contractors will not need to pass a SCA (Security Control

Assessment). There is no mention of an ATO or SCA in the Site verification SOWs. The

Contractor’s system is within the scope of FISMA requirements.

5.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW):

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Appendix A – Form Templates

Page Number: 26

Question: The form templates for the Detailed Site Visit Verification for Providers/Suppliers

(Non-DMEPOS) and the Site Investigation for Suppliers of Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) are not equivalent from a level of effort and cost perspective; will CMS consider allowing these two types of site visits to be billed under separately priced CLINS?

CMS Response: CMS does not believe that there is an increased level of effort for DMEPOS Site

Visits. Site visits will be billed as Observational, Detailed and IDTF’s.

6.

Section: General (i.e. RFP, SOW): Site Verification Services – East and West 3.2

Title and Number: General

Page Number: Any

Question: Under § 424.518 Screening levels for Medicare providers and suppliers, Section (3)- Adjustment in the categorical risk. CMS has the ability to adjust the screening level from “limited” or “moderate” to “high.” During the PEO process and under various task orders, information may be revealed to CMS and/or its contractors that would allow the adjustment of a provider/supplier’s risk category. Will CMS work with the PEO

Vendors to address these potential adjustments and elevate, as necessary and appropriate, a provider/supplier’s risk score?

CMS Response: The selected site verification contractor will not need to be aware of an adjustment in a provider / supplier’s risk levels. The site verification https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/index.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=bf357408153b566fe5915e650bfb5a49&term_occur=9&term_src=Title:42:Chapter:IV:Subchapter:B:Part:424:Subpart:P:424.518 services contractor will receive requests from the MACs or CMS of those providers/suppliers requiring a site visit.

7.

Section: J6 Western Region Site Verification Services Site Verification Services

Task Order SOW

Title and Number: Western Region Site Verification Services; Eastern Region Site

Verification SOW; 3.5 Quality Control Question F

Page: 14-15

Question: Section 3.4.1 National Provider Enrollment Services ’Requirements (Page

14)

States as follows: “The Contractor shall verify and screen the enrollment data contained on the enrollment applications.”

If the provider/supplier’s geographic location is found to be non-operational, the inspector shall utilize additional search tools (e.g. Google

Maps) to ascertain whether the provider has moved to another location. If a new location is ascertained and is within the vicinity (i.e. within 20 miles of the inspector’s current location), the inspector shall perform a site visit at the newly ascertained location that same day. If the location is located beyond 20 miles of the inspector’s current location, a site visit shall be completed within 7 days of the initial visit. In both cases, the inspector shall identify the new location, including any applicable suite number, in the site visit report.

Does CMS envision interpreting and applying the law (§ 424.518

Screening) to allow the PEO Site Visit Vendor to elevate the provider/supplier’s risk score (with coordination with CMS) if the Site

Visit Vendor learns that the provider is noncompliant, or is not up-to-date as required by law, or has provided false or misleading information on the application?

CMS Response: No. The selected site verification contractor does not have the authority to adjust a provider / supplier’s risk levels. The site verification contractor’s primary function is to perform site verifications at the request of the

MACs or CMS.

8.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): .Amendment 2- J.5.A.1 Eastern Site Visit Verification SOW

Attachment 1 QASP and Exhibit E-7 Sample Task Order. 2.0 Assumptions, and J.5 Task Order

Site Verification SOW.

Title and Number Section 5.1 Surveillance Matrix, Summary Tables for Criterions 1-8 in J.5.A1

Page Number: 5-10

Question: The sample sizes in J.5.A.1 are listed as an example and potentially an illustration of the calculation. In the Sample Task Order, the performance periods of 12 months for the base and 12 months for the option period are listed and the Contractor is to review these 12-month periods. Based on the annual estimates for Site Visits of over 80,000 site visits in the J.5 Task

Order we believe the sample sizes will be much larger than the sample sizes used in the illustration. Is this correct?

CMS Response: The QASP lists an example to show how the sample size will be determined.

Please use the estimated workload in the SVS Task Order RFPs for a 12 month period in order to determine the amount of site visits that will need to be sampled.

9.

Attachment J.5.A. Eastern Region Site Verification Services TO SOW:

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Statement of Work (SOW), 1.1.

Assumptions, Bullet Point #4

Page Number: 5

Question: CMS states: “The Contractor will not begin performing DMEPOS and Medicaid site visits until instructed by CMS.” According to the answer to Question 121 within the document entitled “Amendment 2 - Exhibit E.1.B SVS Task Order Questions”, CMS also states that there were “36,757 DMEPOS high risk site visits in FY 2018” nationwide. Given the high volume of these site visits in FY2018 alone, it would appear that the vendor selected for award should expect a surge in site visits when CMS begins distributing DMEPOS site visit requests. This may mean scaling customer service resources significantly during a specific period of performance. Could CMS provide an expected approximate timeframe around when the contractor should expect to begin performing DMEPOS and Medicaid site visits? Additionally, if the volume of site visits far exceeds the estimated quantity of visits provided for each CLIN and/or SubCLIN, will the contractor be afforded an opportunity to reprice its FFP per site visit?

The FFP per site visit is based on the current estimated volume.

CMS Response: The anticipated timeframe for DMEPOS site visits to begin is approximately

December 2019/January 2020. CMS does not have a timeframe for Medicaid site visits. CMS has accounted for the DME and Medicaid site visits in the estimates provided in the TO SOW.

10.

Amendment 2 - Exhibit E.1.B SVS Task Order Questions

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Question 129

Page Number: 37

Question: According to the RFP the period of performance for CLIN 0001 breaks down as follows:

CLIN DESCRIPTION PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE MONTH PERIOD

0001 Site Verification Services – Eastern Region 05/19/2019 – 05/18/2020 12 Months

0001AA Observational Site Visits 07/19/2019 – 05/18/2020 10 Months

0001AB Detailed Site Visits 07/19/2019 – 05/18/2020 10 Months

0001AC IDTF Site Visits 07/19/2019 – 05/18/2020 10 Months

0001AD 60 Start-Up Period 05/19/2019 – 07/18/2020 2 Months

The answer to question 129 states: “The contractor will have a 60-day start-up period prior to receiving their first site visit request.” It is noted in the business proposal template (Attachment

J.5.C Eastern Region Site Verification Services Business Proposal Template) that the total quantity workload estimate for CLINS 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, and 0005 is 78,170 annually for the eastern region. Does this mean that the contractor should expect to complete its volume of visits in CLIN 0001 during a 10 month timeframe, considering that the 60-day start-up period

(CLIN 0001AD) eliminates 2 months from CLINS 0001AA, 0001AB, and 0001AC? This same logic applies to estimated visits for the western region.

CMS Response: Yes, the estimated workloads associated with the base period are expected to be completed in a 10 month timeframe.

11.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment 2 - Exhibit E.1.B SVS Task Order Questions

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Question 14

Page Number: 5

Question: CMS states: “The wage determination should be based on the location of the

Inspector’s home base (physical location).” Can CMS be more specific as to the definition of physical location? Is this meant to correspond with the headquarter office that employs each site inspector? Is this meant to correspond with each site inspector’s address of residency? If the answer is more toward the latter, will the TO require a modification to add each WD when an inspector moves into, or is hired from, an area not incorporated in the TO?

CMS Response: The physical address in this scenario refers to the address of which the inspector works, which can be their residence. A modification would be required to incorporate any new

Wage Determinations, if applicable.

12.

Section, if applicable:

Document, Section & Page Number as applicable:

Attachment_J.6.A__Western_Region_Site_Verification_Services_TO_SOW.pdf, Section 3.3, Question: CMS provides the following definition for a non-operational site determination:

“Non-Operational Site Visit - The provider’s location is not open during normal business hours, no proper signage (if required), patients and staff are not present and business is not being conducted. The address is not a viable address (i.e., UPS store, commercial mail receiving agency) and the residence or business appears to be vacant (i.e., empty, for rent signage, etc.).”

Must all of these conditions be met for a site to be determined non-operational? What determination should the contractor make if some of these conditions are not met?

CMS Response: The site verification inspector will complete the site verification forms when conducting a site visit and the results will be shared with the MACs or CMS who will determine the final outcome.

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

1.

Section (i.e. RFP, SOW): Amendment_2_-

_Attachment_J.5.A.1__Eastern_Region_Site_Verification_Services_TO_SOW_Attachment_1_

QASP.docx and Amendment_2_-

_Attachment_J.6.A.1_Western_Region_Site_Verification_Services_TO_SOW_Attachment_1_Q

ASP.docx

Title and Number (including subparagraph designations): Criteria 5-8

Page Number: 7- 9

Question: Attachment J.5.A.1 – Criteria 5-8 are titled “Site Visit Contractor Accuracy” however under the “Review Unit Categories” contain titles like “Number … Completed Timely” and

“Number … Completed Untimely”. We believe that this is a typo and should be “Number …

Completed Accurately” and “Number … Completed Inaccurately”. Please confirm.

CMS Response: Yes, this is a typo and the attachments have been revised.

2.

Section, if applicable: N/A

Document, Section & Page Number as applicable: N/A

Question: CMS typically contracts with a firm to conduct SCA of its contractors. Would CMS please confirm if it will use its own vendor to conduct an SCA? Or whether bidders must contact an accredited firm and bear the cost of completing the assessment?

CMS Response: Please disregard the response to Question 127 in Amendment 0002 Exhibit

E.1.B. The site verification contractors will not need to pass a SCA (Security Control

Assessment). There is no mention of an ATO or SCA in the Site Verification Services SOWs.