Q and A RFP 75FCMC20R00008.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 75FCMC20R0008
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for Medicare Administrative Contractor services for Jurisdiction L. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is seeking proposals to administer Medicare claims processing and payment services for Part A and Part B in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and parts of Virginia. The incumbent contractor's period of performance is scheduled to end within 8-12 months. Proposers must address requirements for claims processing, medical review, appeals, provider enrollment and customer service across six mission-essential functions. The solicitation includes details on proposal organization, volumes, submission process, and a self-check tool to ensure proposal accuracy and consistency. Clarification is provided around staffing plan requirements, key personnel, basis of estimate templates, and the treatment of workload categories between proposal documents.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 79 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Questions and Answers |
| RFP # 75FCMC20R0008 |
| Question # | Document | Section | Page # references reflect prior amendment assignment & may or may not tie to the new updates | Question | CMS Answer/Action |
| 1 | Statement of Work | C.5.11.3.2.2 | 100 | Will CMS update the incorrect timeframe for processing tentative settlements in the SOW? | CMS confirms the J.1, Statement of Work (SOW) has been updated to state the accurate timeframe of 90 days. |
| 2 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | Standard Form 33 | 1, 137 | Block 12 of the Standard Form 33 of the JL RFP contains a statement that reads: "In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within 0 calendar days from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule." Will CMS allow Offerors to change the accepted within number of calendar days from "0" to another number of calendar days? Including "0" in this statement appears inconsistent with CMS' direction in Section L.15, of the RFP (page 137) where CMS instructs Offerors to stipulate in its business proposal that its proposal is firm and valid unless the offer is withdrawn by the Offeror, as well as in RFP Attachment J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions, #1 where CMS defines the expected award date of JL as within 8-12 months of receipt of proposals. Would CMS please clarify? | Based on our CAMS system the SF 33 Form defaults to zero. Therefore for stipulation instructions please follow Section L.15, pg 137 in the original solicitation document, and ignore the SF 33 block 12 for clarification. |
| 3 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | H.2 HHSAR Key Personnel (Dec 2015) | 43, 44 | H.2 of the RFP includes a chart listing the Labor Category of individuals consider as "key personnel" under the contract. Included in this chart is "Contractor Medical Directors (2) - 1 Designated as Executive Contractor Medical Director & 1 Medical Review Manager." However, the proposal Attestations (attachment J.24) only lists the Executive Contractor Medical Director as key personnel and the SOW C.5.4.1.11 lists the Executive Contractor Medical Director and also notes Supporting CMDs and states that the contractor shall employ 2 FTEs (can be fully dedicated or shared). Can CMS please confirm that Offerors are to propose 1 Executive Contractor Medical Director as key personnel and that the second CMD FTE is assigned to the contract but is not a named key personnel? | CMS confirms section H.2 has been updated to remove the Medical Review Manager language and clarify that CMS requires one Executive Contractor Medical Director (CMD) Key Personnel, as noted in the SOW section C.5.4.1.11 Executive Contractor Medical Director (CMD) and Supporting CMDs. The J.1 SOW and J.24 Attestation documents are accurate as provided. |
| 4 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | H.2 | 44 | Will CMS include the requirements for the Medical Review Manager in the J.1 SOW and J.24 Attestations | CMS confirms section H.2 has been updated to remove the Medical Review Manager language and clarify that CMS requires one Executive Contractor Medical Director (CMD) Key Personnel, as noted in the SOW section C.5.4.1.11 Executive Contractor Medical Director (CMD) and Supporting CMDs. The J.1 SOW and J.24 Attestations documents are accurate as provided. |
| 5 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 re: Vol 1 | 111-112 | Can the government confirm that Volumes I, II, V, and VI will only be required in PDF format? | CMS confirms Volumes I, II and VI shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat or PDF format only as described in section L.11.a. Further section L.11.a has been updated to require that Volume V be submitted in Word version 2013 or newer and Adobe Acrobat or PDF format. |
| 6 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 re: Vol 3 | 111-112 | Can the government confirm that the entirety of Vol III must be submitted in both Word and PDF? | CMS confirms Volumes III shall be submitted in Word version 2013 or newer and Adobe Acrobat or PDF format as described in section L.11.a. |
| 7 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L. 11 | 111-113 | The table on page 111 states that offerors are to submit one email per volume, however, page 112 states that each volume can be broken apart into separate emails as needed. Can the government please confirm that the table reference to one email actually refers to one copy of the proposal volume across multiple emails as needed? | CMS confirms the chart in section L.11.a has been updated to note the understanding that one copy of each volume is required and further each volume may require multiple email submissions. |
| 8 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 Submission, Delivery, Organization, and General Instructions, a. Delivery instructions, Item #6 | 113 | The information the RFP requires an Offeror to submit in each of the proposal volumes, for example, Volumes I and IV, may likely exceed the email file size limit stated in L.11, Item #6 of 25MB. Please confirm that if a volume is over the file size limit per email that an Offeror can split the volume and submit it in 2 or more emails. | CMS confirms the chart in section L.11.a was updated to note the understanding that one copy of each volume is required and further each volume may require multiple email submissions. |
| 9 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 | 112-114 | Page 112 states that all page sizes with the exception of Excel spreadsheets should be 8.5 x 11 and printable without additional formatting. Page 114 states that foldout pages (11 x 17) should count as two pages. Can the government confirm if 11 x 17 fold-out pages are permitted inside of the Technical volume? | CMS confirms the instructions relative to page sizes as stated, in detail, in section L.11.a and L.11.f. As instructed the Technical Proposal shall not contain 11x17 fold-out pages. |
| 10 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 | 114 | The government requires TABs to be used to separate sections. Should a blank page be inserted after these tabs to facilitate printing in either or both PDF and Word? If so, can the government confirm that these blank pages shall not be numbered or page counted? | CMS confirms it is not requiring a blank page be inserted after the tabs. Please note, electronic structuring of tabs correctly would not create additional pages. |
| 11 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 re: Vol 4 | 111 | Can the government confirm that ONLY attachments J.1.D, J.21, J.22, J.22.B, J.33-49 will be required in both Excel and PDF format? | CMS confirms attachments J.21, J.22, J.22.B and J.33-49 must be submitted in both Excel and PDF formats. Further, section L.11.a has been updated to remove attachment J.1.D. Attachment J.1.D is not required to be submitted, it is included as referenced in the SOW. |
| 12 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 re: Vol 4 | 112 | Can the government confirm that the narrative section of Volume IV will be required only in PDF format? | CMS confirms the narrative section of Volume IV shall be submitted in Adobe Acrobat or PDF format only as described in section L.11.a. |
| 13 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11 Submission, Delivery, Organization, and General Instructions, a. Delivery instructions | 112 | The RFP instructs that electronic copies of the Cash Collections Worksheet for HIGLAS Users (Attachment J.1.D) is to be included in the proposal submission but does not indicate in which Volume to include it. Where are Offerors to obtain the JL information to complete this worksheet? Please confirm that this worksheet is information to the Offerors only and not required to be submitted with an offeror's proposal. | CMS confirms section L.11.a was updated to remove attachment J.1.D. Attachment J.1.D is not required to be submitted. |
| 14 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.13.2 Basis of Estimate | 120 | CMS notes all FTEs reflected in the BOE must align with those shown in the technical proposal AND must be accounted for fully in the Business Proposal and in the cost templates. Each of these components request FTEs and hours a little differently. An example, is the staffing section instructs the Offeror to record total FTEs in the staffing charts (including ODCs, indirects, and G&A). The cost template requests, and includes a fill-the-blank for hours and FTEs for direct labor only. The cost templates do not include blanks for FTEs and hours for ODCs, indirects, or G&A. |
Question: FTEs and hours are recorded in the Technical Volume staffing charts, the J.21 CMS BOE, the J.21.B Historic&Proposed FTEs, Hours & Gross Cost Worksheet, and the Cost Templates (J.34-J.49). Depending on the directions for each section/attachment, we sometimes include only direct labor FTEs; and there are other times we add ODC FTEs, Indirect FTEs and G&A FTEs.
An example, on the staffing charts, the Offeror is to show Total FTEs, including Direct, ODCs, Overhead and G&A FTEs. Yet on the cost templates the Offeror includes only Direct Labor FTEs.
| How is an Offeror to reflect these differences on the J.21 Self-Check Tool? | CMS confirms section L.15.2 and the Cost Templates have been updated to request FTEs and hours for ODCs and Indirect Costs, inclusive of applicable service centers, so that Attachment J.21, Self-Check Tool, will function properly. CMS also confirms the RFP requirements highlighting the importance of proposal accuracy and consistency. Although the Technical and Business Proposals, BOE and Cost Templates do not all require the exact same level of detail for every data point, Offerors shall ensure that all data points that are duplicated and/or cumulative within each submission are consistent across all sections of the proposal. | |||||
| 15 | RFP solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.1 Proposal Organization | 123, 133, 136 | The Volume III Written Technical Proposal chart on page 123 lists the Mission-Essential Functions that are to be included in Tab F of the Offeror's proposal and the last column (Additional Proposal Instructions) of this chart references section L.14.5, Volume III, Tabs D-F, Additional Proposal Instructions. The Mission-Essential Functions listed in the chart on page 123 for Tab F are Implementation, Provider Customer Service Program, Claim Processing, Appeals, and Medical Review. However, in comparison to the RFP detailed instructions in section L.14.5.3, (page 129) it appears that Provider Enrollment and Audit and Reimbursement functions are missing from the chart on page 123 of the RFP. Can CMS please confirm that Provider Enrollment and Audit and Reimbursement are to also be included in Tab F of the Offeror's proposal? | CMS confirms that the table in section L.14.1 was updated to include Audit & Reimbursement and Provider Enrollment. | |
| 16 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.1 Proposal Organization | 123 | In the Volume III Written Technical Proposal Organization table in L.14.1, Provider Enrollment and Audit & Reimbursement have been removed from the Mission-Essential Functions section, however, section L.14.5.3 includes instructions for the Provider Enrollment and Audit & Reimbursement sections. Will the Government please confirm that these two sections should be includded in the Proposal Organization table? | CMS confirms that the table in section L.14.1 has been updated to include Audit & Reimbursement and Provider Enrollment. | |
| 17 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.2 Volume III, Tab E, Staffing Plan, Proposal Instructions | 128 | Under the second bullet, the RFP instructs Offerors to "provide an overview of all proposed sources of staffing (i.e., new hires, subcontractors, inter-organizational transfers, teaming arrangements, etc.), inclusive of the total number of FTEs per source, from contract award through final cutover to full operations (end of CLIN 0001)". Since the end of CLIN 0001 refers to the end of the Implementation period, can CMS confirm that this requirement is requesting the number of FTEs onboard and reporting time to, and incurring costs charged to CLIN 0001, by source? | CMS confirms that the second bullet in section L.14.5.2 is requesting all FTEs, by source; onboard, reporting time and incurring cost charged to CLIN 0001. | |
| 18 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.4 Volume III, Tab C, Past Performance Proposal Instructions | 125 | The instructions for providing Past Performance information state “The below table should be used when providing a summary of the past performance.” Based on the amount of information required under several of the table columns, is it acceptable for Offerors to provide this information in a different layout as long as Offerors use the same headers provided and that the response contains the same information as requested in the RFP, page 125 chart? Basically, is an alternative format containing this same information allowed? | No, CMS confirms its preference that all Offerors use the format prescribed in section L.14.4. | |
| 19 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.5.2 Staffing Plan | 128 | CMS requests that the Offeror submit a staffing plan that outlines the TOTAL proposed staffing to perform the work from implementation through contract end. TOTAL proposed staffing should include all the staff required to perform the SOW functions, including those accounted for as direct labor, as well as those that may be accounted for within other cost categories, such as ODCs, Overhead, or G&A. | ||
| Question: Both Overhead & G&A are totals that are normally allocated based on a percent to total to the current business base. They are truly indirect in nature. Including them on the staffing charts generates differences in the reporting of FTEs and hours from the other attachments and volumes in the proposal. Would CMS reconsider including them in the staffing charts? | CMS confirms the Offeror shall indicate all FTEs in the Technical Proposal, BOE and Cost Templates, regardless of source, so that the entire staffing required for the contract is clearly and accurately shown across all parts of the proposal. Although some sources of staff are indirect costs, the Offeror should be able to estimate reasonable staffing levels based on historic performance on similar contracts and indicate this to the government. | |||||
| 20 | RFP solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.14.5.2 Volume III, Tab E, Staffing Plan, Proposal Instructions | 129 | The Third paragraph on this page states "For each mission-essential function listed below in items (A)-(D), the Offeror shall separately provide the staffing information…...." However, the mission-essential functions listed are (A)-(F). Can CMS please confirm that "(A)-(D)" is a typo and Offerors should provide the RFP requested staffing information for functions (A)-(F), all six of the listed mission-essential functions? | CMS confirms section L.14.5.2 has been updated. The reference has been updated from (D) to (F). | |
| 21 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.17, Volume VI, Tab G, 508 Compliance and Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) | 145 | The final paragraph in Section L.17 indicates that “Attachment J.28 shall be included as part of Volume III (the Technical Proposal) as the final tab (Tab G). The VPAT is not included in the page count.” However, Section L.17 calls this Attachment out as Volume VI, Tab G, of the RFP. Can CMS please confirm as to where this information should be included in an Offeror’s proposal? | CMS confirms that section L.17 has been updated to remove the reference to Volume III. The VPAT shall be submitted in Volume VI. | |
| 22 | RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC20R0008 | L.11.b Proposal Volumes and L.17 Volume VI, Tab G, 508 Compliance and Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) | 145 | L.11.b Proposal Volumes indicates that volume VI is the VPAT Volume and that all volumes must be separate and complete. Section L.17 states that offerors should include the VPAT attachment J.28 as part of Volume III, as the final tab. Will the government please clarify if the VPAT attachment J.28 should be included in the Volume III email or in it's own email as Volume VI? | CMS confirms that section L.17 was updated to remove the reference to Volume III. The VPAT shall be submitted in Volume VI. | |
| 23 | J.21 Proposal Self-Check Tool, and | |||||
| Solicitation | Tab: Detailed WBS Level |
Column E - Technical Proposal
| L.14.5.2 Staffing Plan (bullet 4) | n/a | The Self-Check Tool requires input of total FTEs, Hours, and Workload at the fourth or fifth level of the WBS (based on the row description, i.e. C.5.5.1.1). Column E on the Self-Check Tool requires input of the FTEs, Hours, and Workload from the Technical Volume, but the Technical Volume instructions request the FTEs and Hours data at the third level of the WBS, i.e. C.5.5. | ||||
| How is the Offeror to complete the Self-Check Tool when the data is not consistent? Will the inconsistent data create a return of False? | CMS confirms the 'Detailed WBS Level' in Attachment J.21 requires input of total FTEs, hours, and workload at the fourth or fifth level of the WBS (based on the row description, i.e. C.5.5.1.1). The updated instruction to Offerors for the 'Detailed WBS Level' in Attachment J.21 states that, "If FTEs, hours and/or workload are not reported in the Technical Proposal at the Detailed WBS Level specified, then the cells for FTEs, hours and/or workload in the Technical Proposal column can be left blank" so that the data will not be inconsistent or create a return of False. | |||||
| 24 | J.21 Proposal Self-Check Tool | Both Tabs, Column E - Technical Proposal | n/a | Please confirm the reference to Column E - Technical Proposal on the J.21 Self-Check Tool is in reference to the staffing plan noted on Page 128 of the Solicitation. If not, please indicate the proper self-check point. | CMS confirms Column E - Technical Proposal for the 'Aggregate WBS Level' in Attachment J.21 is in reference to the Staffing Plan as described in section L.14.5.2 and found on page 128 of the original solicitation. | |
| 25 | J.21 Proposal Self-Check Tool | Both Tabs, Column F - Business Proposal | n/a | Please confirm the reference to Column F - Business Proposal on the J.21 Self-Check Tool is in reference to the Cost Templates. If not, please indicate the proper self-check point. | CMS confirms Column F - Business Proposal for the 'Aggregate WBS Level' in Attachment J.21 is in reference to the Cost Templates. | |
| 26 | J.21 Proposal Self-Check Tool | Tab: Detailed WBS Level | ||||
| Column H - Self-Check Result | n/a | Please confirm the formula is working properly in Column H - Self-check on the J.21 Self-Check Tool. The cell returns TRUE if column H is filled in, regardless if there is data input in the other columns. The formula appears to reference all checking to column H. | CMS confirms the formula is working properly in Column H - Self-Check for the 'Aggregate WBS Level' in Attachment J.21. Attachment J.21 has been updated to include instruction that Offerors shall not change any formulas. The cell returns TRUE if the data input in the other columns match. If there is no data input in the other columns, the columns match; therefore, the cell returns TRUE. Offerors shall input data in all applicable cells in Attachment J.21. | |||
| 27 | J.22 Basis of Estimate and Solicitation | Workload Category: All inquiries (C.5.7 and C.5.4.5) | ||||
| L.13.2 Basis of Estimate (BOE) | n/a | |||||
| Page 120 | CMS includes a combined Part A and Part B workload for all the inquiry workloads (C.5.7 and C.5.4.5). |
The Solicitation indicates the Offeror may not change the RFP Workload (Column E on the J.22) or the Proposed Workload (Column F) in the BOE template, except for Provider CSR-Handled Calls and Clerical Error Reopenings.
| Is the Offeror able to split the combined Part A and Part B inquiry workloads between Part A and Part B on the their submitted J.22 to reflect productivity and LOE by Part, as long as the combination of the Part A and Part B workload totals to the combined Part A and Part B workload on the J.22? | CMS confirms that an Offeror may split the combined Part A and Part B inquiry workloads between Part A and Part B for proposal purposes. | ||
| 28 | J.22 Basis of Estimate and Solicitation | L.13.2 Basis of Estimate |
L.14.5.2 Staffing Plan L.15 Business Proposal L.15.2 Cost Templates 120 138 CMS consistently notes that proposal accuracy and consistency across your technical proposal, business proposal, basis of estimate and all other RFP attachments are very important to CMS. All data across all parts of your proposal must be accurate and consistent. The RFP includes a Self-Check Tool, J.21, for you to use to ensure you submit an accurate and consistent proposal.
Question: CMS requests all data across all parts of the proposal: technical proposal, business proposal, basis of estimate and all other RFP attachments: be consistent. There are many inconsistencies in the level of detail of data requested in the multiple proposal volumes and attachments. Most notably is the difference in FTEs and hours. An example, for the cost templates does CMS plan to update to include the request of hours and FTEs for ODCs, indirects and G&A.
| CMS confirms section L.15.2 and the Cost Templates have been updated to request FTEs and hours for ODCs and Indirect Costs, inclusive of applicable service centers. CMS also confirms the RFP requirements highlighting the importance of proposal accuracy and consistency. Although the Technical and Business Proposals, BOE and Cost Templates do not all require the exact same level of detail for every data point, Offerors shall ensure that all data points that are duplicated and/or cumulative within each submission are consistent across all sections of the proposal. | ||||||
| 29 | J.22 Basis of Estimate and Solicitation | Example Tab | ||||
| L.13.2 Volume II, Tab B, Basis of Estimate (BOE) | 120 | The example on the J.22 BOE reflects a Proposal Workload different than the RFP Workload for Part A Redeterminations. Yet, the Solicitation states other than Provider CSR Handled Telephone Inquiries and/or Clerical Error Re-openings, the Offeror shall not change the Proposal Workload. | ||||
| Please clarify if the example is valid. | CMS confirms the example in the Example tab in Attachment J.22 has been updated. | |||||
| 30 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | All | All | Are offerors permitted to change the Basis of Estimate SOW WBS Crosswalk to reflect the SOW provided within Attachment J.01 Statement of Work (SOW) - Jurisdiction L and historical SOW charging in CMSARTS? For example, Congressional Inquiries are mapped to SOW WBS Crosswalk C.5.7 in Attachment J.22 Basis of Estimate while within Attachment J.01 Statement of Work JH AB MAC Congressional Inquiries are listed under SOW C.5.4.6. | CMS confirms that Offerors may update the SOW WBS Crosswalk column in the Attachment J.22. | |
| 31 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | Bills/Claims Part A and Bills/Claims Part B | Base and all Option Year Tabs | Workload identified as “Bills-Electronic & Paper” has a year over year increase significantly less than 1%. Given the aging population of US citizens should this workload have a year over year increase? | CMS confirms the Bills - Electronic and Paper workloads in the BOE. CMS has considered many factors in determining the workload estimates, including the future Medicare population. | |
| 32 | J.22.B Historic&Proposed FTE Hours&Gross Costs | Both PM and MIP tabs | ||||
| Column B & C Workload | n/a | Per J.22.A, instructions for the J.22.B, Column C appears to be the 12 months prior to the historic baseline and Column B appears to be 12 months prior to Column C. To clarify, is that correct? Is CMS intending the Offeror to include 3 years of historic data on the J.22.B. | CMS confirms the instruction, in Attachment J.22.A, directing Offerors to provide three years of historic data in Attachment J.22.B. Offerors shall provide three full years of historical data on the baseline contract it is using to substantiate its proposal. If the baseline contract does not yet have three full years of historical data, only then shall the Offeror provide as many full years of historical data on the baseline contract as is available, and also provide historical data on another similar contract for the remaining historic year(s) to fulfill the three year requirement. | |||
| 33 | J.22.B Historic&Proposed FTE Hours&Gross Costs | Both PM and MIP tabs | ||||
| Column D Workload | n/a | Please confirm Column D on the J.22.B agrees with the J.22 Basis of Estimate, tab Option Year 1, column O. This represents the baseline proposed workload. | Yes, CMS confirms that Column O of Attachment J.22 and Column D of Attachment J.22.B. are the same data. Accordingly, Attachment J.22.A has been updated to provide that information. | |||
| 34 | J.22.B Historic&Proposed FTE Hours&Gross Costs | Both PM and MIP tabs | ||||
| Column E Workload | n/a | Please confirm Column E on the J.22.B agrees with the J.22 Basis of Estimate, tab Option Year 1, column F. This represents proposed workload for Option Year 1. | Yes, CMS confirms that Column F of Attachment J.22 and Column E of Attachment J.22.B. are the same data. Attachment J.22.A has been updated to provide that information. | |||
| 35 | J.23.A GPPA Audit and Reimbursement Tables | Estimated Annual Workloads - Table 22 | Column F | S-10 review workload is identified and included in table 22, however, there are no SOW requirements or instructions for an Offeror to reference in completing this workload. Will the SOW and the RFP be updated to include the requirements for performing the S-10 reviews? | At ths point in time, CMS is drafting future SOW revisions for all A/B MACs on this subject. This solicitation will require Offerors to address the S-10 review workload included in table 22 of Attachment J.22.A and as such CMS confirms that Attachment J.23, Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA), has been updated to include S-10 review requirements. | |
| 36 | J.23.A GPPA Audit and Reimbursement Tables | Estimated Annual Workloads - Table 19 | Column F | The estimated annual workload for appeals identified in table 19 appears to be the open inventory of JL appeals. Please clarify if this workload is the annual workload that Offerors are to use in preparing their proposal. | CMS confirms the workloads provided in table 19 of Attachment J.23.A are accurate as stated and represent the annual workload for Cost Report Appeals. The workload number resembling appeals open inventory is a coincidence. | |
| 37 | J.33 Cost Template Summary Sheet | Summary Tab | Summary Tab | Attachment J.33, Cost Template Summary Sheet, includes Non EM AMB PA CLINs 0017 through 0023 listed on the Summary Tab. However, the JL RFP does not include CLIN-specific Cost Proposal Template attachments for these CLINS, workloads associated with them, or a SOW reference. Does CMS intend to update the Cost Template Summary sheet (Attachment J.33) to remove these CLINs since this information is not otherwise provided in the RFP? | CMS confirms the Attachment J.33, Cost Template Summary Sheet, has been updated to remove CLINs 0017-0023. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .