Solicitation 75FCMC21R0002 Questions and Responses.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 52 KB Posted Jun 4, 2021

Attached to: Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Jurisdiction N (JN) Solicitation
Solicitation number: 75FCMC21R0002
Issued by: Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Dec 28, 2023

This document contains questions submitted by offerors and answers provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002 for the Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) for Jurisdiction N. Key details include that Jurisdiction N encompasses the state of Florida and territories of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. CMS seeks to award a contract to provide Medicare claims processing and payment administration services. The solicitation response date is not provided. Offerors must follow proposal instructions for staffing plans, past performance, and cost templates. CMS clarifies requirements regarding staffing breakouts, home health and hospice exclusions, and medical review analysis. The incumbent contractor must have a minimum of three full-time equivalent Contractor Medical Directors.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
RFP 75FCMC21R0002 Redline Attachments for Amendment 1.zip	ZIP file	Jun 4, 2021
RFP 75FCMC21R0002 Attachments for Amendment 1.zip	ZIP file	Jun 4, 2021
75FCMC21R0002 (SF30 Amendment 1).pdf	PDF	Jun 4, 2021
75FCMC21R0002 JN RFP Amendment REDLINE.docx	DOCX document	Jun 4, 2021
JN MAC 75FCMC21R0002 Section J Attachments.zip	ZIP file	May 3, 2021
75FCMC21R0002 (1).pdf	PDF	May 3, 2021

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

A. Section B-K

Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	Standard Form 33	1, 120	Block 12 of the Standard Form 33 of the JN 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 120) 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 JN as within 8-12 months of receipt of proposals. Question: Would CMS please clarify?	CMS confirms that SF 33 Form is updated to show 365 days in block 12. Moreover, Offers shall follow Section L.15, pg 120 in the original solicitation document as well as the Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA), Attachment J.23, #1.
75FCMC21R0002.pdf	F.2 Period of Performance Table	Page 16	The period of performance table does not include calendar dates. Will these dates be provided or should the offeror make an assumption for the effective date of contract award?	CMS confirms, the Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA), J.23 language, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) anticipates awarding the Part A and Part B Medicare Administrative Contractor (A/B MAC) contract for Jurisdiction N (JN) 8-12 months from receipt of proposals. Specific dates will not be provided, the accurate length of each period of perofrmance (POP) is provided in the GPPA. At the time of award all dates will be clearly specified.

B. Section L-M

Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.11 Submission, Delivery, Organization, and General Instructions, a. Delivery instructions	95	The table on page 95 states that offerors are to submit one email per volume, however, page 95 also states that volumes, due to size constraints, may be submitted in multiple email transmissions. 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 as stated in section L.11.a, Offerors shall submit one copy of each volume, due to size constraints, volumes may be submitted in multiple email transmissions.
RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.11 Submission, Delivery, Organization, and General Instructions, a. Delivery instructions, Item #6	96	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 as stated in section L.11.a, Offerors shall submit one copy of each volume, due to size constraints, volumes may be submitted in multiple email transmissions.
RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.14.5.2 Volume III, Tab E, Staffing Plan, Proposal Instructions	111	The first bullet in this section reads:

"Identify the total number of FTEs at the CLIN/SLIN level (total FTEs by SLIN totals, no WBS breakouts) for all CLINs (CLINs 0001 - 0030)." However, there are only 0001-0023 CLINs in the JN RFP.

Please confirm that the CLINs represented should be 0001-0023, not 0001-0030.	CMS confirms that section L.12.5.2 has been updated to state CLINs 0001-0023.
	RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.14.5.2 Volume III, TAB E, Staffing Plan, Proposal Instructions	112	After the three bullets on page 112, the third paragraph contains a statement "…provide the staffing information.....including the Offeror's consideration of the Home Health and Hospice requirements provided in Section 1.4.4 of the SOW." However, Section 1.4.4. of the SOW included in the JN RFP states "Reserved". Please confirm that there is no Home Health and Hospice requirements in the SOW or need for Offerors to address Home Health and Hospice in this RFP requirement.	CMS confirms JN is not a Home Health and Hospice jurisdiction. Section L.14.5.2 has been updated to remove the references to Home Health and Hospice and the SOW.
	RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.14.5.2 Volume III, TAB F, Mission-Essential Functions, Proposal Instructions	114	The first paragraph of the RFP instructions contains a statement "The Offeror shall address the following Mission-Essential Functions by providing information specific to each of the following mission-essential SOW functional areas including the Offeror's consideration of the Home Health and Hospice requirements provided in Section 1.4.4 of the SOW." However, Section 1.4.4. of the SOW included in the JN RFP states "Reserved". Please confirm that there is no Home Health and Hospice requirements in the SOW or need for Offerors to address Home Health and Hospice in this RFP requirement.	CMS confirms JN is not a Home Health and Hospice jurisdiction. Section L.14.5.2 has been updated to remove the references to Home Health and Hospice and the SOW.
	RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.14.5.3.3 Volume III, Tab F, Mission-Essential Functions, Proposal
Instructions	116	Understanding the need to safeguard beneficiary and provider information, and to further strengthen controls related to access to MAC technology, will all "Emerging Technology" be required to be fully compliant with CMS security guidelines?	CMS confirms all existing and emerging technology is required to be fully compliant with CMS security guidelines.
	RFP Solicitation Number 75FCMC21R0002	L.14.5.3.6 Medical Review	117	The 4th bullet under RFP Section L.14.5.3.6, Medical Review, that reads " What types of anaysis are conducted and how frequently is this performed?", appears to be a duplicate of the sub-bullet under the 2nd bullet in this section. Please confirm if the 4th bullet should be deleted. If not, please clarify how the 4th bullet differs from the sub-bullet under the 2nd bullet in this section.	CMS confirms the fourth bullet should have been indented, thus a sub-bullet under the 3rd bullet. The same additional detail is requested for the second and third bullets. Section L.14.5.3.6 has been updated accordingly.
	RFP	L.9	94	The electronic version of the email address included in the RFP in Section L.9, for Offerors to use in submitting questions does not appear to be valid. The typed version in the RFP appears to be correct but when you clink on the link, the electronic version appear to have a "by" at the end of the address. Would CMS please confirm that the valid email address for Offerors to use to submit questions is MAC_Procurement@cms.hhs.gov	CMS confirms the valid email address for the submission of questions and proposals is MAC_Procurement@cms.hhs.gov. Christopher.Hagepanos@cms.hhs.gov and Courtney.Garnes@cms.hhs.gov should also be copied on those submissions.
	RFP	L.11	95	The electronic version of the email address included in the RFP in Section L.11.a, for Offerors to use in emailing it proposal to CMS does not appear to be valid. The typed version in the RFP appears to be correct but when you clink on the link the electronic version appear to be missing the underscore "_" between MAC and Procurement. Would CMS please confirm that the valid email address for Offerors to use to submit it proposal is MAC_Procurement@cms.hhs.gov	CMS confirms the valid email address for the submission of questions and proposals is MAC_Procurement@cms.hhs.gov. Christopher.Hagepanos@cms.hhs.gov and Courtney.Garnes@cms.hhs.gov should also be copied on those submissions.
	RFP	L.14.5.2	112	The first bullet on RFP page 112, instructs Offerors to: "Identify the total number of FTEs required for CLINs 0002, 0010 and 0017 (Base Year) and CLINs 0003, 0011, and 0018 (Option Year 1) of the contract across the prime and subcontractor(s) broken out by labor category at the third level of the WBS (e.g., C.5.5, C.5.8, etc.). Additionally, for CLIN 0002 (Base Year) and CLIN 0003 (Option Year 1) Offerors shall also break these numbers out by the following SLINs: PM A, PM B, MIP A, MIP B, RAC A and RAC B."

We interpret this requirement to mean that CMS is requesting the TOTAL number of FTEs to be broken out in the stated categories (i.e., by labor category, by WBS, by prime, by subcontractor, by each noted CLIN) and (per the second sentence) the same information to be further broken out by Part A and Part B for CLINs 0002 and CLIN 0003.

We project that to provide the FTE data requested in the last sentence (that begins with “Additionally,”) of this requirement (data broken out for CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003, by SLINs: PM A, PM B, MIP A, MIP B, RAC A and RAC B, AND by labor category, AND by WBS AND by prime and subcontractor), will consume an additional 12 pages over and above the 5 pages we project are needed to respond to the first sentence of this requirement. In total we project the charts needed to respond to this one RFP requirement will consume approximately 17 pages of the total 125 pages that CMS has designated for Volume III, Tabs D through F. Requiring this detailed FTE information without increasing the Volume III page count would have the unintentional consequence of swaying the evaluation criteria to these Staffing Plan charts, as Offerors will need to use approximately 17 pages of the 125 page limitation for this one RFP Tab E Staffing Plan requirement, and in doing so, may not adequately address all the other RFP Volume III requirements in the limited pages remaining. In addition, we highlight that the Business Proposal cost templates for CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 already include FTE data by CLIN, summarized by SLIN (PM A, PM B, MIP A, etc.), broken out by labor category, and by WBS, for direct labor.

To provide CMS with a page count perspective,

• Exhibit #1 (attached, to be treated as confidential and proprietary information for CMS only review), demonstrates a version of the charts needed that we interpret meets the requirements of the first sentence of the above RFP requirement. These charts consume 5 pages.

• Exhibit #2 (attached, to be treated as confidential and proprietary information for CMS only review), demonstrates a version of the charts needed that we interpret meets the requirements of the second sentence of the above RFP requirement. These charts consume 12 pages.

• Collectively these two Exhibits showing the RFP required data elements consume 17 pages.

Would CMS please clarify what information and summary information CMS expects Offerors to provide to satisfy this RFP requirement?

We recommend the following for CMS' consideration:

• Allow Offerors to provide the FTE information, for this one Tab E Staffing Plan RFP requirement, in charts/tables in an appendix within Tab E and exclude the pages in the appendix from the Volume III, Tabs D-F 125-page count limit, OR

• Increase the Volume III page count limitation by 17 pages, OR

• Change the RFP requirement to only require FTEs broken out by labor category and WBS for CLINs 0002, 0010 and 0017 (Base Year) and CLINs 0003, 0011, and 0018 (Option Year 1); delete the RFP requirement (the second sentence) for FTEs for CLIN 0002 (Base Year) and CLIN 0003 (OY1),by SLINs: PM A, PM B, MIP A, MIP B, RAC A and RAC B, by labor category, and by WBS; and maintain the current Volume III page count limitation of 125 pages, OR

• Have Offerors include the detailed FTE charts for the second sentence of this RFP requirement in the Volume IV Business Proposal rather than Volume III Technical Proposal."

CMS confirms that section L.14.5.2, bullets 4 and 5 have been updated to remove the request for additional FTE and new hire FTE information for CLIN 0002 (Base Year) broken out by SLIN.

75FCMC21R0002.pdf L.15.3 Volume IV, Tab C, Written Narrative and Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data, Direct Labor Page 123 The recent release of the Executive Order increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour was effective April 27, 2021 and shall apply to all new solicitations. The RFP for Jurisdiction N was released on 5/3/2021. Does this Executive Order apply to JN, as the solicitation was released after the effective date of 4/27/2021? Due to the Executive Order (EO) implementation date of January 30, 2022, the EO WILL apply to the JN solicitation. Please incorporate all EO minimum wage requirements (including labor and escalation conformance) in your proposal(s) accordingly. EO non-compliance will result in a upward adjustment as part of cost realism.

75FCMC21R0002.pdf	L.14.4.b Past Performance Instructions	Page 108-109	Can the past performance template be changed to a vertical table from the horizontal format included in the instructions to improve readibility for submission?	CMS confirms that the past performance template shall not be changed to a vertical table. CMS is requing all Offerors complete the past performance information in the horizontal format provided in section L.14.4.b.
75FCMC21R0002.pdf	L.14.5.3.1.(2) Implementation	Page 115	This section states - "As part of this plan, the Offeror may not propose an implementation approach that adjusts or reduces the need for build-out of eight (8) CICS production and eight (8) UAT regions." We currently understand that there are 4 Production and 4 UAT regions in the JN MAC contract. Can CMS please clarify?	CMS confirms there are 4 CICS Production regions and 4 CICS Test Regions in JN. Section L.14.5.3.1 has been updated accordingly.

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

C. Section J.1 SOW

Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
J.01 Statement of Work	C.5.4.1.11 Executive Contractor Medical Director (CMD) and Supporting CMDs	48-50	The SOW states that, "The Contractor shall employ a minimum of 3.0 full-time-equivalent (FTE) Contractor Medical Directors for this A/B MAC contract. The Contractor may meet the minimum FTE requirement by assigning fully-dedicated CMDs to this contract, by dedicating a portion of the time of several shared CMDs to this contract, or by assigning a combination of fully-dedicated and shared CMDs to this contract." In reviewing the SOWs from past RFPs, the number of CMDs required for Part A/Part B MAC Jurisdictions appears to vary between 1 and 3, with no apparent correlation between size of the jurisdiction and the number of CMDs required. Would CMS please confirm the number of CMDs required for JN?	CMS confirms SOW section C.5.4.1.11, the JN MAC shall have a minimum of 3 full-time equivalent (FTE) Contractor Medical Directors (CMDs).
J.01 Statement of Work (SOW) - Jurisdiction N.docx	C.5.6.4 Transitioning LCDs	Page 94	Can CMS please clarify if it is the expectation that LCDs be consolidated prior to the cutover or if the LCD consolidation will take place post cutover following the customary notice and comment period.	CMS confirms specific direction on Local Coverage Determinations (LCD) consolidation is provided in the MAC Implementation Handbook. MAC Implementation Handbook section 7.2.3.1 states Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs) should be in place at jurisdiction cutover.

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

D. Sections J.1-J.11 Document Section Page # Question CMS Answer/Action

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

E. Section J.22 BOE

	Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
	Attachment J.22.B Historic & Proposed FTE, Hours, & Gross Cost Worksheet	Tab - PM Table 1 - cells E42 and E47
Proposed Workload for Option Year 1	N/A	Please confirm that cell E42 and E47 should be a sum of the WBS listed below?	CMS confirms Attachment J.22.B has been updated, lines have been added to the PM Table 1 tab to get additional granularity for Part A and Part B Suspended and Investigated Claims and Suspended but not Investigated Claims; and Part A and Part B of A, and Part B Redetermination Requests Adjudicated and Dismissed. Cells E42 and E49 (formerly cell E47) in the PM Table 1 tab shall not be a sum of the sub-rows beneath them.
	Attachment J.22.A – Historic & Proposed FTE, Hours, & Gross Cost Instructions & Narrative	Additional Narrative Details	3	For point Number 7, should this reference MIP Tables versus PM?
For example: 7. See MIP Table 2. Provide an explanation if any of your Proposed PM MIP Part A Total Gross Cost per Unit data in Column U do not align with your corresponding Historic PM MIP Part A Total Gross Cost per Unit data in Columns R though T.	CMS confirms Attachment J.22.A has been updated to replace the PM references with MIP references for point number 7.
	J.22.B Historic & Proposed FTE, Hours & Gross Cost Worksheet.xlsx	PM Table 1 and MIP Table 2	Both workbook tabs	Can you please confirm that the only historic and proposed data to be included on the J.22.B worksheet for Option Year 1 is the C.5 WBS codes included on the worksheet in the solicitation and that the offeror does not need to include any other WBS codes in the areas of analysis column?	CMS confirms Offerors shall not add additional WBS codes to the Areas of Analysis column in Attachment J.22.B. Only historic and proposed data shall be provided for the C.5 WBS codes listed in the Areas of Analysis column.

With regard to the aggregate rows in the PM Table 1 and MIP Table 2 tabs, Offerors shall provide complete Part A and Part B totals, including any WBS code not specified in the Areas of Analysis column in Attachment J.22.B. The proposed FTE levels in Attachment J.22.B shall match the total proposed FTE values in the Technical Proposal, BOE, and Business Proposals by SLIN for Option Year 1. The proposed cost values in Attachment J.22.B shall match the total cost values in the Business Proposals by SLIN for Option Year 1.

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

F. Section J.23 GPPA

	Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
	J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA) / J.23. A GPPA Audit & Reimbursement Tables
J.22 Basis of Estimate	Item #5, Jurisdiction Estimated Annual Workloads / Estimated Annual Workloads	5, 6 /

Table 19 In Attachment J.23. GPPA Assumptions, Item #5, Jurisdiction N Estimated Workloads, the instructions state that various annual workload numbers are for informational purposes only and are highlighted in light blue in the GPPA tables. Table 19, in Attachment J.23.A, has total appeal workload of 564 which includes Individual Appeals workload of 164. The Individual Appeals workload is highlight light blue, which indicates that workload is informational only. Is it CMS's intent that MACs not consider the Individual Appeals workload as yearly workload as it is currently not included in the total appeals workload of 401 noted in J.22 Basis of Estimate. CMS confirms that Attachment J.23.A has been updated to include a fifth tab for “Additional Information” and all informational/non-workload counts have been moved to this new tab. On the “Additional Information” tab, CMS is providing jurisdictional information specific to existing audits for JN. For proposal purposes, Offerors shall review the additional information that is relative to the estimated annual workload expectations and consider this information to provide accurate and pragmatic proposals for the audit activity in JN.

	J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA)	Item #28, Jurisdiction Estimated Annual Workloads	13, 14 /
Table 30	In Attachment J.23. GPPA Assumptions, Item #28, Table 30, RSNAT Annual Workloads, the annual workloads provided do not include the number of Claims Suspensions. Is it CMS's intent that MACs not consider that as a yearly workload and not include it in the BOE?	CMS confirms MACs shall consider RSNAT claims suspensions as annual workload. CMS is not providing an annual claims suspension workload specific to RSNAT. The RSNAT listed workloads provided in the GPPA, J.23, are not all-inclusive of every RSNAT activity. RFP section L.13 was updated to inform and direct Offerors that only key workloads have been provided in the GPPA for RSNAT. Offerors shall forecast ancillary workloads not provided, such as suspensions for RSNAT. Further, as noted in section L.13, "The Offeror is REQUIRED to complete the cost templates, in full, for the entire WBS structure of the MAC contract as it is represented in the cost templates."

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

G. Section J.23.A-J.32 Document Section Page # Question CMS Answer/Action

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

H. Section J.33-J.49

Document	Section	Page #	Question	CMS Answer/Action
Excel files J.35 CLIN 0002 and J.36 CLIN 0003 Cost Proposal Templates	Each individual SOW Tab	See Tab C.5.3 and C.5.4 as an example for this question	Can you please clarify which cells on the cost templates should contain the blue shading. On the C.5.3 tab, the shading is included on the rows for total cost categories such as direct labor, subcontractor, all direct costs and grand total. In addition, there is blue shading in columns E and I for the cost. These SOW codes are not rollup codes. This is inconsistent with the C.5.4 tab where these columns are NOT shaded in blue. This inconsistency occurs throughout the workbook.	CMS confirms that cost templates Attachments J.35 and J.36 have been updated to fix the blue shading inconsistencies.

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

I. Cost Realism Document Section Page # Question CMS Answer/Action

J. Other TBD Document Section Page # Question CMS Answer/Action

&D &14Jurisdiction F

&12&A &9&P

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jun 4, 2021.