Attachment_5_-_Pre_and_Post_Info_Session_Questions_with_Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 116 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Provider Enrollment and Oversight IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 75FCMC18R0014
About this file
Questions with Responses
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 20
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
Solicitation
| CMS Provider, Enrollment and Oversight - Solicitation | 75FCMC19-PEO | ||||
| Document Name | Section Number and Name | Question/Comment | CMS Response | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Small Business teaming | Is teaming allowed at the IDIQ level, or is it only recommended at the Task Order level? Would the government more clearly define the limitations or requirements for teaming with regards to the IDIQ and subsequent Task Orders? (-With careful consideration to small businesses being allowed to enter non-exclusive teaming arrangements.) | This is the decision of the Offeror. See also L.13 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, Section H: Other Administrative Data, H.5 Joint Ventures or Teaming Arrangements | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Prime and Subcontracting | It is understood that the government wants different prime contractors for the Eastern and Western Task Orders for Site Verification Services. However, would the government allow a company to prime one region and sub on the other? Or subcontract to both? | Yes, the only restriction can be found under Section L.5 A of the Draft Solicitaion which states "that one Offeror will not be awarded both Site Verification Services’ task orders." The term Offeror relates to being the prime and does not limit the ability to subcontract with another Offeror. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Page 57 - The Salary Rate Limitation HHSAR clause 352.231-70 | ||||
| It is our understanding that this clause is only required to be inserted in solicitations for NIH, SAMHSA, and AHRQ. Will the government remove this requirement from the final CMS PEO RFP? | The current HHSAR states, "The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.231-70, Salary Rate Limitation, in solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement; fixed-price level-of-effort; time-and-materials; or labor-hour contract is contemplated." Since Cost type task orders will be contemplated under this IDIQ, this clause does apply. | ||||
| Draft Solicitation | Page 92 – The government is requiring an adequate and acceptable accounting system for cost reimbursement type task orders. | ||||
| At the PEO Information Session, it was presented that “acceptable” accounting systems for primes and subs bidding on cost reimbursement task orders was only required pre-award, and “adequate” was required post-award. Will the government please add this distinction to the final RFP? | See L.13 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, Section F: Adequate Accounting, Purchasing and Estimating Systems | ||||
| RFP | N/A | Will CMS release a wave chart of potential Task Order Requests for Proposal under the PEO IDIQ? | This may be released to the MA IDIQ holders after awards are made. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | 1. If a company successfully bids on some but not all performance requirements and wins an IDIQ, is that company then only allowed to bid on Task Orders related to those performance requirements that they originally bid on for the IDIQ or can they submit a bid for any TO (regardless of which performance requirement it’s related to)? | If awarded a MA IDIQ, a company will not be restricted to propose on only the requirements for which they initially submitted capability narratives. | |||
| Draft RFP | General | Will all task orders issued under the PEO IDIQ be competed among all awardees? | All unrestricted task orders will be competed among all MA IDIQ awardees; CMS will determine for each task order if it may be set aside for small business or other socioeconomic consideration. | ||
| Draft RFP | General and also Section L.14.2 (page 100) | Can a large business be awarded a PEO IDIQ prime contract and also be a subcontractor to small businesses on those performance areas set aside for small business prime? | Yes, as the FAR allows; See Draft Solicitation Section L.14.1 | ||
| PE&O IDIQ Draft Solicitation | Pg 5, B.1, Description of Services | Will contractors (not on the original IDIQ award)have the opportunity to be added as an IDIQ awardee during the life of the IDIQ? | See Draft Solicitation Section H.11 | ||
| RFP | F.2 Period of Performance | This section states that Option Period 1 is estimated to be 5 years and in Section L.5 General Instructions and Information, A, it states "The ceiling value is estimated at $2 billion over ten years." Are there two option periods, each estimated to be 5 years? | No, as stated in L.5, "The ceiling value is estimated at $2 billion over ten years." | ||
| Draft RFP | G.2 Financial Statements | Is it permissible to provide parent company audited financial statements, even if offeror is not a "new" company? - statement reference - Include a copy of your audited financial statements for the past three fiscal years. If an audited financial statement is not available, provide the most recent revised, compiled or internally prepared financial statement. Offeror’s that are newly formed shall submit the financial statements of the “parent” company (ies). | No | ||
| Attachment 2 - Draft IDIQ Solicitation | G.2.a.1 Billing Rates | Can CMS confirm that G.4.a.2 is correct in the last sentence under item i, In the event the Billing Rate(s) exceed any Ceiling Rate(s) established in G.4.a.2. below, the Government shall reimburse the Contractor at the Ceiling Rate(s), as ceiling rates are not discussed in G.4.a.2. | See Draft Solicitation Section L.13, Section E | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section G.7 Consent to Subcontract | Will the government consider requiring subcontract consent at the IDIQ level, to save time and money associated with evaluating consent on each task order? This could help with faster task order proposal timelines, and support the CMS program office needs for services to start earlier. | CMS will require subcontract consent at the task order level. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section G.7 Consent to Subcontract | Will the government populate the FAR Subcontract Consent clause so that offerors with an approved accounting system are aware of the specific circumstances where subcontract consent is still required? | See Draft Solicitation Section G.7 c. 1. - language has been updated. | ||
| Draft RFP | Section H.1 Business Ethics, Conflict of Interest, and Compliance | Several questions submitted regarding specific conflicts of interest. | Conflicts of interest are very fact specific. As a result, CMS would never be able to provide guidance on a general level. | ||
| RFP | General Question | What organizational conflicts of interest would CMS assigned this IDIQ and/or prohibitions against future work? Will additional conflicts of interest be identified on a task order basis? | See Draft Solicitation Section H.1 c. ; OCI will be taken into consideration at the task order level as well. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | H.1.c.1 | In the first sentence of RFP Section H.1.c.1, it refers to "activities" ("…the following activities are considered to be an actual, potential or apparent COI..."), while in the second sentence it refers to "relationships" ("The Contractor/Subcontractor shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer of any relationships with any of the following entities:"). Following in the next sentence, the RFP refers to "entity" ("…the Contractor/Subcontractor is an entity that--") are items (a) through (e) to be considered when identifying activities, relationships with other entities, or the Contractor/Subcontractor entity itself? | If any of the events or situations identified in (a) through (e) of Section H.1.c.1. are applicable to the Contractor or Subcontractor, it will be considered a COI and will need to be properly mitigated or resolved in accordance with the language in H.1. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | H.1.c.1 | The RFP states, "For the purpose of identifying entities with actual, potential or apparent COIs, at a minimum, the Contractor/Subcontractor is an entity that—(d) Is a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier providing services to a Medicare beneficiary enrollee or any individual or organization associated to a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier; or" Please define what is meant by "...any individual...associated to a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier." [empasis added] | A single person/sole proprietary associated to a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier. | ||
| Draft Solicitation and PEO Information Session Presentation | H.1.c.2; Slide #28 | Slide 28 states, "Under the PEO IDIQ award, there are certain CMS policy exclusions." Slide 28 and Solicitation Section H.1.c.2 state, "CMS is proposing to restrain future Contractor/Subcontractor activities as follows: CMS considers it a conflict to become a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier providing services to a Medicare beneficiary enrollee or any individual or organization associated to a Medicare enrolled provider or supplier at any time." (1) We would anticipate that this restraint for a Prime Contractor would not be at an IDIQ level, but at the task order level if the Prime Contractor's affiliate has an ownership interest in a provider or supplier currently enrolled in the Medicare program; can the agency confirm? (2) We would also anticipate a Subcontractor may be excluded at the task order level, but not for an IDIQ team, if the Subcontractor's affiliate has an ownership interest in a provider or supplier currently enrolled in the Medicare program; can the agency confirm? (3) We would expect the Contractor or Subcontractor, who has an affilitate with an ownership interest in a provider or supplier, could submit a mitigation plan for the Contracting Officer's consideration; can the agency confirm? | (1) No, this will be at an IDIQ level (2) The OCI of a subcontractor would be considered, if proposed, at the IDIQ level. (3) Correct | ||
| Draft Solicitation | H.1 | The draft solicitation identifies as a per se Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) relative to certain relationships between subcontractors or affiliates entities. It is requested that the draft solicitation be revised to address that no per se OCI will apply at the IDIQ level, and that any apparent or potential conflicts will be addressed by CMS and offerors at the task-order level. | There is no “per se” conflict of interest that will result in an offeror being excluded from consideration for award without the opportunity to propose a mitigation strategy for the Contracting Officer’s review and consideration. However, if the offeror is unable to demonstrate an acceptable mitigation strategy for a significant potential conflict of interest identified in Section H.1 of the Draft Solicitation, award of the IDIQ may be withheld based on the unmitigated/unavoided conflict of interest in accordance with FAR 9.504. The purpose of the IDIQ contract awards is to establish a group of qualified contractors to competitively bid on and perform the work within the IDIQ Statement of Work (IDIQ SOW). If a Large Business offeror is not capable of mitigating their OCI on any of the four anticipated unrestricted requirements, they would not be able to effectively demonstrate their ability to perform all of the anticipated unrestricted requirements conflict free. For the unrestricted portion of the IDIQ, CMS seeks contractors that are able to perform all four of the listed requirements. Specifically, Section M.6.2 requires that “Large businesses must be determined “Acceptable” for all anticipated unrestricted requirements to be considered for award.” If a firm is unable to perform one or more of the four listed requirements due to an outstanding OCI, the concern is that CMS may not have adequate competition in competing for these four requirements. It is in the Government’s best interest to ensure there is adequate competition on all requirements within scope of the IDIQ. Finally, CMS believes a conflict exists for the PEO-IDIQ holder to also be a provider or supplier enrolled in Medicare or any individual or organization associated (owner, managing employee, etc.) to a provider or supplier enrolled in Medicare. The PEO effort involves activities associated with the oversight of providers/suppliers and it is conceivable that an enrolled provider or supplier acting as a PEO contractor could alter the outcomes of enrollment decisions that may result in fraud, waste and abuse for the Government. | ||
| Draft RFP | H.9 Approval of Contract Acquired Information Technology (IT) | Does award of task order describing IT investments to be provided constitute written approval from the Contracting Officer, per subparagraph c? | The acqusition of IT investiments should be included in the Offeror's proposal and acceptance of the proposal and award to an Offeror will constitute as approval. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section H.10 (e) Post Badging Training Requirements | Will the government please clarify who is responsible for covering the cost of post-badge training? Is it a government or contractor expense? | See Draft Solicitation Section H.10 g. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | H.12 CMS Information Security | The last link in the clause does not work. | This has been corrected. | ||
| Draft RFP | L.1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE FAR 52.252-1 (FEB 1998), incorporates by reference FAR 52.215-20, Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data | Given the expectation of open and adequate competition, will the Government replace FAR 52.215-20 with FAR 52.215-20, Alternate IV (Oct 2010)? | CMS will take this into consideration. | ||
| Attachment 2 - Draft IDIQ Solicitation | L.5 General Instructions and Information | Under item B), " The Government intends to reserve a minimum of four MA IDIQ contracts from this solicitation for small businesses", does the term "contracts" equate to the specific task orders in the SOW (Fingerprinting, Site Verification, etc.)? | No, CMS will reserve a minimum of four MA IDIQ contracts, not task orders. CMS expects to have at least four small business MA IDIQ holders who can participate in unrestricted or small business set-aside task order procurements competed amongst the MA IDIQ holders. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | |||||
| Draft Solicitation | 3.2.1 Site Verification Services Requirements, 1., pg. 11 | ||||
| L.5 General Instructions & Information, A), paragraph 3, pg. 81 | Attachment 1 states, "1. This contract will consist of a single Contractor or multiple Contractors that will perform all provider enrollment site visits nationwide for Medicare Parts A, B, C, DME and/or Medicaid." |
| Bullet 1 states that the contract will consist of a single Contractor or multiple Contractors that will perform all provider enrollment site visits nationwide. However, page 81 of Attachment 2 states, "Please note that one Offeror will not be awarded both Site Verification Services’ task orders." Please clarify whether or not a single contractor or multiple contractors will be awarded for each region. Additionally, please confirm that a single contractor cannot be awarded both regions. | For the Site Verification Services, as described in the solicitation, two task orders will be awarded for each region. A single contractor cannot be awarded both regions/task orders for the Site Verification Services. | ||||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.5 (A) Site Verification Services – Eastern Region and Western Region | Although one prime Offeror will not be awarded both Site Verification Services’ task orders, will the government allow for a subcontractor to be awarded both Site Verification Services' task orders? | CMS does not forsee an issue with a subcontractor arrangement for the same entity on both Site Verification Services' task orders. | ||
| RFP | Section L.5 General Instructions and Information, A | This section states: "The ceiling value is estimated at $2 billion over ten years" and under B.3 Guaranteed Minimums and Estimated Maximums, it states: "Maximum amount not to exceed $2,500,000,000 (inclusive of all costs and fees," which is the correct amount? | Both are correct; although the estimated ceiling value is $2 Billion, CMS is including a maximum of $2.5 Billion. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.5.A | Could an offeror be awarded one of the regional site verification task order as a prime and also awarded the other regional site verification task order as a subcontractor? | There is no restriction as long as the company is capable of fulfilling requirements as needed and follow all requirements within the solicitation. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.12 (A) Organization, Copies, and Page Limit | Section L does not contain any instructions/formats for the Site Verification Services task order. Would the government consider releasing a draft version of the instructions to include the pricing template to assist offerors in making their bid deicsions and preparation for the proposal? | CMS will take into consideration | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.12 Factor 4 Past Performance and L.14.4 ternical Factor 4 - Past Performance, Definitions | Will CMS consider relaxing the past performance requirements for both large and small businesses to ensure a broader pool of contractors may compete for the IDIQ? The requirement for 8 past performances for large business and 6 for small business within 3 years of the solicitation is an unusually restrictive bar to meet. In addition limiting the admissable past performance to the prime negates a key benefit for large & small business to team on the behalf of CMS. | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Attachment 2 - Draft IDIQ Solicitation | L.13 Volume I, Section G Offerors Financial Capability | Under G.3 Line of Credit or Unsecured Credit Facility, is there a requirement that the contractor must have a line of credit or revolving credit agreement or unsecured credit facility in order to be awarded an IDIQ contract or a task order? | We are requiring this in order to determine responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.104-3(a); however, "Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement, that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to rent, purchase, or otherwise acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel." | ||
| Attachment 2 - Draft IDIQ Solicitation | L.13 Volume I, Section H.2 Other Administrative Data | Can CMS clarify the difference between what is requested in item 1, Provide evidence that the Offeror has the financial capability to operate on multiple task orders, and what is requested in Section G: Offeror's Financial Capability? | Lanaguage removed from Section H.2 and an additional statement has been added to Section G. | ||
| PE&O IDIQ Special Notice Attachment 2, Draft Solicitation - L13, Section E, page 90 | L.13, Section E entitled, "Indirect Cost Rate Agreements and Rate History | Within a contractor's overhead rate structure there are small % rates where such a 10% cap could be an issue. For example, a 2% rate would be capped at 2.2% while a 60% rate would be capped at 66%. The higher the rate the more manageable the cap would be. We would respectfully suggest that Government would take this dichotomy into consideration with release of the final/firm RFP. | We will take this into consideration. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.13 Volume 1, Section G., Offeror's Financial Capability, pg. 92-93 | If we follow the instructions as described in Attachment 2, H.3 starting on page 40, will the government honor our request to keep our private financial data (requested in Attachment 2, L.13, Section G) confidential? | Offerors can mark their data as such - see FAR 3.104. | ||
| Draft IDIQ RFP | L.14.1 Technical Factor 1 - Sample Task Order | Will CMS allow a company act as a subcontractor to multiple primes? | Yes | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.1 | ||||
| M.8 | Will CMS consider using one of the anticipated small business performance requirements as the Sample Task Order? | No | |||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.2 | To facilitate increased competition and offerors ability to compete on multiple task orders, will CMS allow large business to also respond to up to 2 performance requirements currently identified as small? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.2. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.14.2 Technical Factor 2 - Demonstrated Capability Narrative and Slides 50-53 | In addition to responding to all four unrestricted Performance Requirements, can large businesses also respond to the requirements currently designated for small businesses? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.2. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.2 Technical Factor 2 - Demonstrated Capability Narrative | CMS has required offerors for the IDIQ contract to demonstrate capabilities for all four functions in the draft solicitation expected to be unrestricted. The listed requirements represent capabilities not typically possessed one company. The draft RFP indicates offerors may select which of the requirements it intends to pursue. Does not responding to one of the requirements adversely impact an offeror's ability to be included in the IDIQ pool? | Yes, in accordance with the Draft Solicitation section M.6.2. each Large business must be determined "Acceptable" for all anticipated unrestricted requirements to be considered for award. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14 Volume II - IDIQ Technical Proposal, L.14.2 Technical Factor 2, pg. 99-100 | The draft RFP states, "The Offeror’s proposed organization shall have the capacity to accomplish the management and oversight of the PEO IDIQ requirements. The program management proposal shall demonstrate the ability to manage all aspects of work associated with providing services to the Government, to include the ability to concurrently execute and manage multiple task orders effectively." |
| Does the Government anticipate releasing an overall management task order which would provide management oversight of the entire PEO effort? Based on the RFP requirements for Technical Factor 2, it would appear that contractor(s) are responsible for individually managing TOs. Please clarify who is responsible for the coordination of all contractual efforts. | No, this should be able to be demonstrated based on the instructions in L.14.3 of the Draft Solicitation. This will not be a separate task, but will be an evaluation factor in determining if the Offeror is technically acceptable to receive an IDIQ award. The contractors will be responsible for the coordination of all task orders that are awarded to them. | ||||
| IDIQ Special Notice Attachment 2 Draft Solicitation | L.14.2 and M.6.2 Technical Factor 2 - Demonstrated Capability Narrative | Please clarify if a small business must include a bid on all performance requirements even though they need only be deemed "Acceptable" on a minimum of two of the small business requirement? | Small Businesses may propose to as many of the requirements they are capable of performing; however, a minimum of two of these requirements shall be from the anticipated small business requirements. For ex., a small business may propose to the Provider Enrollment Education and Outreach Services (unrestricted) as well as Provider Enrollment Accreditation Services, Enrollment Waiver for Moratoria Services, and Provider Enrollment Appeals and Rebuttals. This meets the requirement to propose on a minimum of two of the anticipated small business requirements. Under M.4 it states, "In addition, the Contracting Officer will take into consideration awarding MA IDIQs to small businesses who offer the most capability for requirements under the PEO IDIQ in order to allow for maximum competition." | ||
| Attachment 2 - Draft IDIQ Solicitation | L.14.2 Technical Factor 2 - Demonstrated Capability Narrative | Can CMS confirm that the requirements under Large Business mean that only large businesses can bid on these requirements and that the requirements under Small Business mean that only small businesses can bid on these requirements? | This is incorrect. All task orders will be determined either Unrestricted (small and large may propose) or set-aside (small business or specific socioeconomic status) at the time of issuance. For proposal purposes, CMS is giving industry the anticipated unrestricted requirements (small and large may propose) and anticipated small business requirements. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.14.2 | With large businesses only addressing their capabaility in four task areas and small businesses self-selecting two of the nine task areas, how will the government be assured that the awarded contreactors have the ability to cover all task areas? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.2. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ Solicitation | Section L.14.2, Technical Factor 2 - Demonstrated Capability Narrative | CMS has designated the “Provider Enrollment State Oversight Services” performance requirement as 8(a) only. Does this mean that CMS intends to award this performance requirement to an 8(a) IDIQ prime or is an 8(a) teaming partner eligible to be awarded this work with any IDIQ prime? | If two or more eligible 8(a) Offerors are awarded a PEO MA IDIQ that are capable of performing this requirement, it will be competed amongst them. If not, CMS may remove this requirement from the PEO IDIQ. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.2 TECHNICAL FACTORE 2- DEMONSTRATED CAPABILITY NARRATIVE pages 99-100 |
L.14.4 TECHNICAL FACTOR 4- PAST PERFORMANCE, page 103. "Small Businesses shall provide six relevant past performance references." Small business primes must bid and be favorably evaluated for two workstreams to be considered for award. At Industry Day, CMS indicated that smalls who bid more workstreams than less may improve their chance of award. The DRFP requires a small business prime to provide six past performances- but allows none from subcontractors or teammates. Small firms under $15M have inherently limited ability to provide their own past performance for more than 2 workstreams.
| We request that the RFP encourage small businesses to bid more than two areas by encouraging teaming and that evaluation criteria be aligned with this objective. To do so, we suggest that a small business prime be allowed to provide 4 past performances of their own, and that a ‘Core Subcontractor’ be allowed to provide 2, for the total of six. This could be where more than 2 workstreams are bid by a small prime. We further suggest that each such past performance be evaluated equally with that of the small prime. We suggest that, by definition, a "Core Subcontractor" be defined and required to provide 20% or more of a Task Area. | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12, L.14.2 and L.14.4. | ||||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.3 | Will CMS consider allowing large business to also submit past performance examples of subcontractors that demonstrate relevancy to the scope of the PEO IDIQ? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4 Technical Factor 4 - Past Performance | While a large business may have significant complex and relevant past performance, due to the nature of their contract portfolio they may not have 8 relevant individual contracts within the last 3 years. A cursory review of contractors providing enrollment related services indicate that requiring 8 past performance references will significantly disadvantage otherwise highly-qualified companies in the evaluation process. Will CMS set this requirement at 4 past performance references? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4 TECHNICAL FACTOR 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE | If the Government decides to reduce the number of Past Performance references, would the Government consider requiring this as a minimum number of references, and keeping the original number of references (e.g., LB = 8, SB = 6) as a maximum to be submitted and evaluated? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.12 (A): Large Business – past performance evaluations from 8 contracts from the Prime only – No Subcontractors. Section L.14.4 (B): This information is required for the Prime and for each different significant subcontractor that an Offeror submitted past performance references on. Section L.14.4 ©: This summary shall describe the role and efforts to be performed on this PEO IDIQ by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner for which past performance information is provided. | Section L.12 (A) of the Draft Solicitation (page 85) indicates that Factor 4, Past Performance, for large businesses requires the submission of 8 past performance references from the Prime only. However, Section L.14.4 (B) and Section L.14.4 (C) of the Draft Solicitation (page 103) are conflicting that subcontractor past performances may be used. Will the government please clarify if large business teams whose teams include small business subcontractors may use their subcontractors' past performances as part of the required eight past performances being submitted? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | L.12.A) Organization, Copies, and Page Limit | ||||
| L.14.4, Technical Factor 4--Past Performance, Subpart D) | The table in Section L.12.A) states “Large Business—past performance evaluation from 8 contracts from the Prime only—No subcontractors” and page 103, Organization and Content of Past Performance Information, states "Large Businesses shall provide eight relevant past performance references.” |
However, Section L.14.4 D) Past Perfomrance Information Spreadsheet, states "Tabs after Tab 2—For each Significant Subcontractor, separately fill out one tab for that Significant Subcontractor’s past performance information as indicated”.
Please clarify: Is it CMS's intention to evaluate only the Prime's past performance per L.12 A)?
Will CMS request and evaluate past perfomance contracts from subcontractors as well as from the Prime?
| Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation | |||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.14.4 (B) and (C, pg. 102 | Attachment 2 states, "(B) This information is required for the Prime and for each different significant subcontractor that an Offeror submitted past performance references on," and, "(C) This summary shall describe the role and efforts to be performed on this PEO IDIQ by the Prime Offeror and each significant subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner for which past performance information is provided." |
| There is no definition of "Significant subcontractor" in the Draft Solicitation. Will the government add the definition of “Significant subcontractor” as it relates to % of total cost or proposal value to help the Offeror comply with related “Significant subcontract” requirements. | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.4. | ||||
| Draft Solicitation | Section L.14.4 (C) and (B) Significant Subcontractors | There is no definition of "Significant subcontractor" in the Draft Solicitation. Will the government add the definition of “Significant subcontractor” as it relates to % of total cost or proposal value to help the Offerer comply with related “Significant subcontract” requirements. | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.4. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ Solicitation | Section L.14.4, Technical Factor 4 – Past Performance | Is the Past Performance limited to the IDIQ prime or can this be a combination from the team? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4 | Will CMS consider allowing large business to also submit relevant past performance examples valued less than $5,000,000? | No, the amounts specified in the Draft Solicitation are commesurate with the amounts that will be expected to be on the task order awards. See revision to L.14.4 for clarification. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14 Volume II - IDIQ Technical Proposal, L.14.4 Technical Factor 4, pg. 100 | Attachment 2 states, "Large Businesses shall provide eight relevant past performance references," and, "Small Businesses shall provide six relevant past performance references." |
| For both small and large businesses, the government has indicated that it will not consider subcontractor qualifications. Will the government consider relaxing this criteria to allow for subcontractor qualifications to be included? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | |||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4 TECHNICAL FACTOR 4- PAST PERFORMANCE, page 103. "Small Businesses shall provide six relevant past performance references." | In the situation where a small prime bids more than 2 of the enumerated performance requirements, would CMS allow 4 past performances by a prime and 2 from each core teammate who may provide more than (notionally) 20% in their desginated subject matter area? |
| Example: if a small prime bids three areas, they would provide 4 past performances for the first two areas PLUS 2 past performance from a Core subcontractor for a third performance requirement. If a prime were to bid 4 areas, potentially there could be 2 past performance for each "Core Subcontractor" (defined above) in each such workstream, for a total of 8. | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4. | |||
| Draft Solicitation | Small Business PP Requirement | a. Do all 6 past performances need to be prime experience for the SB proposer, or can the SB proposer include relevant work they have done as a subcontractor? |
b. Would the government consider lowering the amount of past performance experiences required for a SB?
c. Would the government consider reducing, or eliminating, the minimum contract value amount of $500,000? (Especially if it is required that all past performances must be work done as a prime.) a. Any relevant experience is acceptable whether as the prime or as a subcontractor
b. Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4.
c. No, the amounts specified in the Draft Solicitation are commesurate with the amounts that will be expected to be on the task order awards.
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4; M.6.4 | The RFP at L.14.4 states, “Past Performance Information submitted, either Governmental or commercial, must be for the same business entity proposing to perform the PEO IDIQ requirements,” and at M.6.4, it states, “Evaluation assessments will take into account past performance information regarding the Prime Offeror, predecessor companies, and subcontractors/team members/joint venture partners.” Will the agency modify these sections to permit the submission and consideration of past performance of any parent corporation or affiliated entity of an offeror, provided that the parent or affiliated entity will have meaningful involvement in execution of the awarded contract? | No | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.14.4 p. 100 | What is considered a significant subcontractor as used for Past Performance? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation section L.14.4. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.14.4 p. 100 | The offeror assumes partner past performance is counted towards the 6 past performances for Small Businesses. | Correct, please see the Revised Draft Solicitation sections L.12 and L.14.4 | ||
| Draft Solicitation | L.14.4 | The draft solicitation is ambiguous as to whether offerors may rely on the past performance of their affiliates. It is requested that the draft solicitation be revised to address that offerors may rely upon the past performance of their affiliated entities. | Each Offeror shall submit past performance information in accordance with Section L.14.4 of the Revised Draft Solicitation. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii), CMS’ evaluation will “take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition.” Therefore, past performance of affiliated entities will not be examined unless those affiliated entities are identified as teaming members/joint venture partners/significant subcontractors, predecessor companies or key personnel with relevant experience. It is in the Government’s best interest to review and analyze the past performance of the entities that will actually be performing the work prior to determining an offeror’s technical rating for the Past Performance Technical Evaluation factor. | ||
| RFP | Section L.15, p. 106 | Will CMS be releasing a DRAFT of the Sample Task Order for offerors to review and comment? | Uncertain at this time | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.15, p. 106 | Are offerors to assume Volume III supports the PEO IDIQ Submission and the CPFF Sample Task Order? | Volume III is for the submission of the Sample Task Order Business Proposal which will be included in the evaluation of the overall MA IDIQ. | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.15, p. 106 | Will the CPFF Sample Task Order be the same for both large and small businesses? | Yes | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.15, General | To ensure consistency of review and evaluation of offerors PEO IDIQ ceiling rates, will CMS consider establishing standard labor categories with descriptions, years of service and experience? | No | ||
| Draft Solicitation | RFP Document, Section L.15, General | Will CMS be releasing a DRAFT of the MS Excel spreadsheets for Volumes III, V, and VI for offerors to review and comment? | No | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | M.6.4 Technical Evaluation Factor --Past Performance | Section M.6.4, states "Evaluation asssessments will take into account past performance information regarding the Prime Offeror, predecessor companies, and subcontractors/team members/joint venture partners". | |||
| Please clarify; Will CMS request and evaluate past performance contracts from subcontractors as well as from the Prime? | Please see the Revised Draft Solicitation |
IDIQ SOW
| CMS Provider, Enrollment and Oversight - IDIQ SOW | 75FCMC19-PEO | ||||
| Document Name | Section Number and Name | Question/Comment | CMS Response | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Please provide a status on the PECOS redesign. When will it be functional? | PECOS 2.0 is still under development. The current target for initial release is Q4 calendar year 2019. | |||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | 75FCMC19 - PEO Special Notice [SUMMARY paragraph] | Recommend size standard threshold of $15 million be raised to allow more small business eligibility; alternatively, recommend consideration of NAICS code change from 541990 to 541519 | NAICS 541519 does not accurately reflect the services. The NAICS will remain 541990. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Industry Day Commentary | During the Q&A, it was stated that CMS intends to award the Site Visits task orders by the end of calendar 2018 – at the same time as the ID/IQ is awarded. It was also stated that the Site Visit sample task orders in the Draft RFP are only samples, and no award will be made from them. When does CMS intend to issue the final official request for task order response for Site Visits? | In accordance with the Draft Solicitation, CMS intends to award the Site Verification Services task orders with the MA IDIQs. The sample task order is separate from the Site Verification Services. Release of the final solicitation is anticipated for summer of 2018. | ||
| CMS website | Please see the information in the link below: | ||||
| https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Provider-Enrollment-and-Certification/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/ProviderEnrollmentRegulation.html | Will CMS please provide an appropriate link to obtain the Provider Enrollment Regulation? The CMS.gov website says, “please click on the hyperlink at the bottom of the page for the Federal Register;” however, the hyperlink will not open. | Please refer to https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/searchECFR?ob=r&idno=42&q1=424.500&r=&SID=e0931f01f4919dfd8b27421cac7438ee&mc=true. The provider enrollment regulations begin at 42 424.500. | |||
| Draft SOW PEO IDIQ | General | How will CMS operationalize oversight activities for the Contractors awarded one or more of the proposed requirement areas? Oversight evaluation services removed from updated DRAFT Requirements Document. | CMS will manage and evaluate the IDIQ and the task orders. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | General | Can CMS provide the anticipated period of performance for the Provider Enrollment and Oversight (PEO) IDIQ? | 10 years is anticipated for the IDIQ period of performance. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | General | Will CMS provide the expected small business utilization targets for the IDIQ? | Please see section G.9 of the Revised Draft Solicitation | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | General | Will the government please provide the names of the other contractors for which the contractor needs to have JOAs for operations? | This will be addressed in the individual task order SOWs. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | General | Would CMS contemplate revising provider enrollment requirements (processes) based on risk? For example, could processes be streamlined or expedited for enrollees deemed, through a risk scoring methodolgoy, low risk and then all or even enhanced steps for enrollees deemed higher risk? There are elements of a risk-based appraoch for enrolling DME suppliers. | This request is outside of the scope of these requirements. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | Please describe your plan for how the PEO IDIQ vendor(s) would fit into the current ecosystem of stakeholders and processes currently in place for Medicaid provider enrollment | Medicaid was included as a potential future task order and will be addressed in the task order SOW. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | PECOS 2.0 is under development. How does CMS anticipate the evolution of PECOS 2.0 and the PEO IDIQ requirements will align? CMS might consider requiring a technical sme and pecos integration/liaison in addition to the testing support, within the Provider enrollment contract to ensure alignment and ongoing particpation of the enrollment contractor in the deployment of with the development lifecycle. | CMS will define these requirements in the applicable task order SOWs if PECOS 2.0 integration is necessary. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | Would CMS consider adding a Special Task area that would provide for the scope needed to fund pilot or proof of concept innovations related to provider enrollment? | No. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | How does CMS envision the work covered by the PEO IDIQ aligning with the UPICs? | CMS will define these requirements in the applicable task order SOW if UPIC alignment is necessary. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | How does CMS envision the PEO IDIQ awardees working with the MACs? | If applicable, CMS will define MAC collaboration in the appropriate task order SOW. Specifically, if the Agency moves forward with a consolidated enrollment task-order, more details will be provided outlining the coordination activities that would need to ensue with affected MAC contracts. | ||
| Draft PEO IDIQ SOW | General | Will CMS consider expanding the technical requirements section of the draft sow for the support and innovation of workflow systems needed to mature the provider enrollment systems, within this IDIQ. | No. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | General Question | Part D is not mentioned in the SOW, EXCEPT under 3.9, Provider Enrollment Education and Outreach Services. Is Part D prescriber enrollment included in the SOW? If so, should the multiple places that speak to "Medicare Parts A, B, C, DME ..." be revised to "Medicare Parts A, B, C, D ..."? DMEPOS is a Part B benefit and would be subsumed by the Part B reference. | Part D prescriber enrollment is not included since the requirement to enroll was rescinded in CMS-4182F. All references to Part D have been removed. Please refer to updated IDIQ SOW. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Vision Statement | Will one contract be awarded or will there be contracts awarded for each service requirement? | A single task order or multiple task orders may be awarded for each of the service requirements. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Vision Statement and 3.4.1National Provider Enrollment Services Requirements | Will these functions be removed from the other contractors' (MACs, state agencies, etc.) statement of work (SOW)? If not, how will work be distributed to avoid duplication of effort by contractors and confusion by providers? | All future task orders will have transition periods for work currently being performed. | ||
| Attachment 1 - Draft IDIQ SOW | 1 Background | The Request for Information (RFI), posted July 15, 2017, emphasized CMS’ preference to maximize the use of small businesses and sought feedback from entities on ways to increase small business participation. Is maximized use of small businesses still a PEO IDIQ objective of CMS'? | Yes. | ||
| Attachment 1 - Draft IDIQ SOW | 1 Background | How does CMS plan to solicit task orders? Will the RFP include one of more sample task orders for bidders to include or will it just be an umbrella IDIQ? Does CMS plan to include workloads for each of the task orders, for example, types and volumes of enrollment applications received, to provide bidders with the details necessary to price the work? | Task Orders will be competed among the MA IDIQ holders. CMS may conduct market research among the MA IDIQ holders prior to a release of a task order RFP. Appropriate information will be provided in each task order RFP so that the MA IDIQ holders can propose to the specifc task order RFP released. | ||
| Attachment 1 - Draft IDIQ SOW | 1 Background | How does CMS intend to engage all 50 states for Medicaid? | CMS currenlty engages with all 50 states in some capacity. CMS is incorporating Medicaid into the IDIQ as a potential future task order and will address the Medicaid requirements in the task order SOW. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Background | Are all services currently being proveded? If so, how are they divided up among contractors or Government Personnel? | All services are currently being provided either through contractors or internal by CMS. No additional information will be provided at this time. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Section 1.1 Assumptions | Does CMS expect to provide estimated quantities for the types of provider enrollment and screening services that it requires? | Yes in the applicable task order SOWs. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | 1.1 Assumptions | Assumption 5 states "shall not use any proprietary processes, hardware, software, etc. unless approved by CMS." Will there be any software besides PECOS given to the Task Order awardees for site visit documentation collection, analysis results from reviews, or for education material collection? | Not at this time. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | 1.1 Assumptions | The draft SOW includes an assumption "The Subcontractor shall not use any proprietary processes, hardware, software, etc. unless approved by the Prime Contractor, and if applicable, CMS". |
• Can CMS further elaborate on the type of items considered proprietary for this assumption?
• Would a commercially available application that mines aggregated data sources to identify potential high-risk providers be considered proprietary?
| • Does CMS intend to include commercial off the shelf software within the meaning of proprietary software? | Proprietary products include those tools only accessible and available to the contractor. The contractor must utilize commercial off the shelf software which are not considered proprietary. | ||||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Section 1.1 Assumptions | Can CMS clarify the term "proprietary."? We interpret the word "proprietary" to describe the software in which it is licensed, and not the functionality of the software itself. When software is proprietary, we think it means that the source code and underlying intellectual property belong to the original developer, but does not impact how the software can perform, whether it is open or closed, or whether it uses open source software. Notably, many proprietary software solutions make extensive use of open source software; so the distinction between "open source" and "proprietary" or "commercial", would be of value to understand CMS's meaning or defintiion. | Proprietary products include those tools only accessible and available to the contractor. The contractor must utilize commercial off the shelf software which are not considered proprietary. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Section 1.1 Assumptions | When would CMS provide such "approval"? If before the release of solicitation, what would be the criteria for evaluating and granting approval of "proprietary processes, hardware, software, etc."? If after the release of a solicitation, how does CMS plan to expedite the approval process so that all bidders who have commercially available items that can meet the agency's requirements are able to bid and provide CMS with the best possible solution? | Proprietary products include those tools only accessible and available to the contractor. The contractor must utilize commercial off the shelf software which are not considered proprietary. If applicable, CMS would provide approval after the release of the solicitation. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | Section 1.1 Assumptions | Will CMS be willing to accept an appropriately broad license in products under "Sole ownership" as defined by the IP rights regime in FAR Part 27 for the PEO IDIQ contract? | The contractor must utilize commercial off the shelf software which are not considered proprietary. If this products meets those requirements, it would be acceptable for use. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW - Eastern/Western Region Site Verification Services | 1.2 Daily Extract from PECOS - In the future, CMS site visit reports will be exchanged directly to/from PECOS, with all site visit records stored in a centralized Provider Enrollment System | For the centralized provider enrollment system, will the government please clarify if they are referring to PECOS or some other system for the contract? If for another system, will the government please identify the system(s) to which they are referring? | Yes PECOS. | ||
| PE&O IDIQ Statement of Work | Pg 7, section 2.3.2 | May the task order kickoff meetings and/or project managegment plans be presented remotely, or should the contractor assume travel to Baltimore for this effort? | Meeting may be attended remotely or in-person; however, the Offeror can propose their strategy. If CMS determines travel is necessary it will be provided in the task order SOW. | ||
| Draft IDIQ SOW | 2.5 Contractor Personnel, Disciplines, and Specialties | Are there any predefined minimum eduction levels, or years of experience expected with the Project Manager or any Key Personnel? | This requirement will be addressed in the individual Task order SOWs. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.