The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Questions
| RFP Questions | | | | |
| Section | Subsection | Page number | Contractors Question | CMS Response |
| A | Technical Proposal Instructions, Factor 6 Key Personnel and Staffing Plan | 58 of 90 | Is it acceptable to place the Staffing Plan chart in an appendix outside of the 40-page limit? | The Government is agreeable to placing the Staffing Plan chart in an appendix. |
| A. | Technical Proposal Instructions, Factor 7 Administrative Plan | 59 of 90 | This section, Factor 7 states: "The Offeror shall provide an administrative plan that defines and details the Offeror's capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the Government's requirements." | |
| Please clarify whether offerors should describe our approach to developing the Administrative Plan, or provide the actual plan. | The actual plan is not required; the Offeror should describe the operational approach to meet the program management tasks and administrative requirements necessary to ensure timely and accurate deliverables and performance requirements, as outlined in the SOW. | | | |
| A. | Technical Proposal Instructions, Factor 7 Administrative Plan | 59 of 90 | This section, Factor 7 states: "The Offeror shall provide an administrative plan that defines and details the Offeror's capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the Government's requirements." |
| Please confirm that the Adminstrative Plan outlined in factor 7 is not a formal deliverable for the contract. If it is formal deliverable, please confirm if this plan is the "Project Plan" from Task 2 (Deliverable number 2 in Appendix A: Schedule of Deliverables on page 52 of the SOW). | Factor 7 is not a formal deliverable, nor is it the Project Plan From Task 2. | | | |
| A. | Technical Proposal Instructions, Factor 7 Administrative Plan | 59 of 90 | This section, Factor 7 states: "The Offeror shall provide an administrative plan that defines and details the Offeror's capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the Government's requirements." |
If the Administrative Plan is to be included with proposals, will CMS allow contractors to place it in an appendix? The Offeror does not need to submit a formal plan, so there is no need for an appendix.
Factor 7's title has been revised to "Operational Approach" .
A Technical Proposal Instructions, Factor 7 Administrative Plan 59 of 90 In the RFP, Factor 7, Section 7.4 states: "Plan for obtaining an annual Statement of Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16 Type II" The SOW General Requirements, under B. Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements, it states: "Each RAC shall be required to complete an annual Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements Number 18 (SSAE 18 Type II Audit)."
| Can the Government confirm the standard that CMS wants to use is SSAE No. 16 or SSAE No. 18? | RFP Technical Factor 7.4 will be revised to reflect SSAE No. 18. | | | |
| E.7 | Phase 1, Factor 1-Legisplative Requirements | 62 of 90 | This section provides that: “Offerors' submissions of the three Legislative Requirements under Factor 1 will be evaluated in this phase. Those Offerors who receive a rating of "Meets All Requirements" will move on to Phase 2 of the evaluation.” Also, that “Preference will be given to Offerors who demonstrate three or more years in accordance with Social Security Act, Section 1893(h)(6)(C) as follows:..." |
| Can the Government confirm that the Offeror is required to meet all three subfactors (1.1, 1.2, and 1.3) under Factor 1 – Legislative Requirements in order to receive a rating of "Meets All Requirements"? | RFP language has been updated to reflect the requirement of meeting all three subfactors. | | | |
| E.7 | Phase 2 | 63 of 90 | This section provides that: “Offerors rated "Meets All Requirements" in Technical Evaluation Phase 1- Legislative Requirements, will be evaluated on the remaining of their Technical Proposal Factors 2-8 (Factor 9 awardee only), Business Proposal, and Conflict of Interest submission.” |
| Does the order of Proposal Factors 2-8 indicate relative importance, or are factors weighted equally? | The Factors are weighted equally. The RFP has been updated accordingly. | | | |
| E.7 | Phase 2 | 63 of 90 | This section provides that: "The ratings from Phase 2 will be used in making a "Best Value" decision. |
| Can the Government provide the full rating scale with definitions for the ratings? | CMS will use a rating system of (High Confidence, Moderate Confidence or Low Confidence ) to evaluate Factors two through eight. The RFP has been updated accordingly. | | | |
| E.8 | Factor 6 - Key Personnel, Staffing Plan, and Organization Chart | 66 of 90 | This section provides that “The Offeror will be evaluated on how well the educational background, professional experience with a project of similar size or scope, and special qualifications, relate to the |
SOW for the following key personnel:
| — | Project Manager (PM) |
| — | Contractor Medical Director (CMD) |
| — | Chief lnformation Officer (CIO) |
| — | Systems Security Officer (SSO) |
In addition, the fully qualified backup (including a CMS User ID and access to the RACDW), will be evaluated on how the backup will ensure the continuity of operations.
The SOW under Section IV Personnel Requirements, indicates that only the Program Manager and Contract Medical Director (CMD) are required to have a fully qualified backup.
Can the Government confirm in the RFP, that the fully qualified backup is not required for the Chief Information Office and the System Security Officer? As per the SOW, a fully qualified backup is required for all key personnel. The following is the language as stated in the SOW:
The SOW StatesAt a minimum, the RAC shall designate a Project Manager (PM), Contractor Medical Director (CMD), Chief Information Officer (CIO), and Systems Security Officer (SSO) as key personnel. The RAC may designate additional key personnel at its discretion. The RAC shall submit a CMS approved contingency plan and designate fully qualified (meets the required experience and education requirements) backups for each key personnel role (including a CMS User ID and access to the RACDW). The designated backup personnel shall ensure, to the greatest extent possible, continuity of operations and minimal interruptions in the event of an unexpected departure of key personnel. All backup positions, while working in the backup capacity, may be a part-time RAC employee, but must work full-time while serving in a key personnel position.
| E.7 | Phase 2:, |
| Factor 7 | 66 of 90 | This section provides that: "The Center for Medicaid and Medicare's (CMS) Contracting Officer will award one firm fixed contingency-fee type contract resulting from this solicitation for Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) Region 2 using the tradeoff process to determine which proposal represents the "Best Value" to the Government". Following this, under "Phase 2:" (page 63 of 90), this section provides that: "The ratings from Phase 2 will be used in making a "Best Value" decision." |
| Can the Government confirm that historical recovery audit performance results, such as total amount recovered, accuracy score, or average finding per claim would be considered as part of the best value decision in the evaluation for Factor 2 - Identification of Improper Payments (2.3, 2.4) in evaluating an Offeror's knowledge and experience in successfully performing all specifications regarding Medicare claim reviews and/or for Factor 7 - Administrative Plan (7.1, 7.2) in evaluating the Offerors' capabilities to successfully manage, perform, and execute the Governments' requirements? | Factor 8- Past Performance The Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s past performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this procurement. The CMS reserves the right to limit its review of past performance information to what has been determined to be relevant. | |
| E.7 | Phase 2:, |
| Factor 7 | 66 of 90 | This section provides that: “7.2 The Offeror's knowledge and history of utilizing effective, disciplined approaches to project management/change management to ensure the integrity of deliverables and high quality results within specified timeframes. |
| Can the Government clarify that recovery audit performance results, such as accuracy score would support demonstration of knowledge and history, as described in this section? | Within the narrative description, the Offeror may include any data or examples that support their operational approach. | | | |
| E.8 | Evaluation of Business Proposal | 67 of 90 | Under Section E.7 (B Business Proposal Instructions, (a) RFP Section D (complete/submit as applicable):), The Government indicates that Attachment D.4 Responsibility Questionnaire is to be completed and included in the submitted Business Proposal. |
| Can the Government clarify how the Responsibility Questionnaire will be evaluated, and will this be evaluated as part of the Business Proposal evaluation prior to a Best Value determination? | As stated in Attachment D.4 Responsibility Questionnaire, in order to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility as required in accordance with FAR 9.104-3(a), the Government will review responses provided to the questions in Attachment D.4 to determine overall best value to the Government. | | | |
| E.8 | Evaluation of Business Proposal | 67 of 90 | Under Section B. Business Proposal Instructions, (c) Financial Capability): This section (page 61 of 90) provides that: “The offeror's business proposal (Volume II) must also demonstrate that the offeror has adequate financial resources to sustain operations without any payment from CMS during the initial phases of the contract (at least one year) or for any period of work stoppage.” |
Given the contingency fee nature of the RAC program and history of work stoppages over the last 15 years, how will the Government evaluate offeror’s financial resources and ability to sustain operations for at least one year? As indicated in the solications, CMS will review the financial information to make sure Offerors have adequate financial resources to sustain operations without payment from CMS during the initial phases of the contract (at least one year) or for any period of work stoppage E.8 Evaluation of Business Proposal 67 of 90 Under Section B. Business Proposal Instructions, (c) Financial Capability): This section (page 61 of 90) provides that: “The offeror's business proposal (Volume II) must also demonstrate that the offeror has adequate financial resources to sustain operations without any payment from CMS during the initial phases of the contract (at least one year) or for any period of work stoppage.”
| Will the government evaluate an offeror’s financial resources as a either a strength (or weakness) in its best value determination, where an offeror is either able (or unable) to adequately maintain staff during periods of stoppage to support the RAC program or invest adequately in the program to meet CMS’ expected review volumes? | CMS will not be assigning strengths or weaknesses for the business proposal. However, an Offeror that can not meet the Financial Capability requirement will not be eligible for contract award. This would put the Government at risk for not having a financially capable offeror. | | | | | |
| Factor 9 | 508 Compliance | 60 | Does Factor 9 508 Compliance need to be included with the proposal or provided upon contract award? | Factor 9 is part of the propsoal evaluation and should be submitted with the proposal in accodance with the solicitation. RFP has been updated accordingly. | |
| E.10 | 52.209-7 Information Regarding Responsibility Matters (OCT 2018) | 68 | Does the following statement from Page 68 Section E.10 Subsection 52.209-7 need to be included in the proposal? If so, where? "(b) | The Offeror □ has □ does not have current active Federal contracts and grants with total value greater than $10,000,000." | This should be included within the business proposal narration. RFP has been updated accordingly. |
| SOW Questions | | | | |
| Section | Subsection | Page number | Contractors Question | CMS Response |
| V | Task 4: | | | |
| Section C | 19 of 55 | Would CMS consider reducing or eliminating MR reimbursement of providers who upload records directly to a secure portal? | The RAC shall pay the provider for medical records in accordance with the current guidelines prescribed in the PIM (IOM Pub. 100-08, currently located in section 3.2.3.6), unless otherwise directed by the CMS RAC COR. | | |
| V | Task 5: | | | |
| Section C | 23 of 55 | In this section, CMS references applying extrapolation to low dollar audits. | | | |
| Would CMS consider an extrapolation audit for any provider type scenario, such as high-volume or systemic issues? | The RAC may use extrapolation for some claim types when all requirements are met. | |
| V | Task 10: |
| Section D | 38 of 55 | This section provides: "If a provider files an appeal disputing the overpayment determination and the appeal is adjudicated in the provider’s favor at ANY level, the RAC shall repay Medicare any contingency fee payment that it received for that recovery. |
| Please confirm the intent is for the RAC to repay only the overturned portion of the fee when an overpayment finding is partially overturned on appeal. | Confirmed: when an appeal results in a partial overturn, the RAC will repay the overturned portion of the contingency fee. | | | |
| VI | B. Remedies for Unsatisfactory Performance or Non-Compliance | 51 of 55 | This section cites the following performance standards: "Failure to meet performance standards, for example: |
― Not performing the amount of required claim reviews ― Not reviewing all claim/provider types"
| Can CMS provide a required review volume for Region 2, or provide a baseline expectation for 2022 corrections across the program? | No, the SOW does not include a required number of reviews. | | | | |
| MISC Questions | | | | |
| Section | Subsection | Page number | Contractors Question | CMS Response |
| | | | Is this was a follow-on requirement. If so, would it be possible for you to provide the incumbent information (we need the contract number and contractor). | |
| This is a reprocurement of a current contract and all information partaining to this initiative can be found in the Federal Procurement Data System. | |
| Is the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation posted as solicitation number 75FCMC21R0018 will be a follow-on requirement to any work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement? |
If possible, can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number? This is a reprocurement of a current contract and all information partaining to this initiative can be found in the Federal Procurement Data System.