QandA Solicitation 75FCMC22R0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Durable Medical Equipment (DME) Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Jurisdiction B Synopsis/Draft RFP
- Solicitation number
- 75FCMC22R0002
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding solicitation number 75FCMC22R0002 for the Durable Medical Equipment Medicare Administrative Contractor for Jurisdiction B. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services seeks to award a contract to provide specified health insurance benefit administration services including Medicare claims processing and payment services in support of the Medicare Fee-for-Service program. Jurisdiction B covers the states of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. The questions clarify details regarding staffing plan data requirements, existing system customizations, congressional inquiry volumes, and the appropriate statement of work for congressional inquiries.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| J.22 Basis of Estimate_Redline.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA) 03302022.docx | DOCX document | |
| 75FCMC22R0002 DME MAC JB RFP Draft rev 1.pdf | ||
| J.01.C Fee-for-Service Shared System Base Functions 03302022.docx | DOCX document | |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate_Clean.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 75FCMC22R0002 DME MAC JB RFP Attachments Draft.zip | ZIP file | |
| JB DME MAC synopsis.pdf | ||
| 75FCMC22R0002 DME MAC JB RFP Draft.pdf |
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
Sheet1
| Questions and Answers for Solicitation No. 75FCMC22R0002 | ||||
| Question No. | Document | Section, Page No | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Solicitation | pg. 119 | The forth and fifth bullets in this section of the RFP proposal instructions, include verbiage noting that the offeror should identify the number of FTEs required for CLINs 0002 and 0010, (Base Year) and CLINs 0003 and 0011 (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., E.4.7, E.4.12, etc.). Additionally, for CLIN 0003 (Option Year 1) Offerors shall also break these numbers out by the following SLINs: PM B, MIP B and RAC B. The forth bullet requires Total FTEs in this format, and the fifth bullet requires new hires in this format. |
The third level of the WBS has 62 different SOW sections. We estimate that providing FTEs at this level of detail, considering this data also needs to be broken down by prime and subcontractors, by labor category and by PM, MIP and RAC, would result in approximately 6-8 pages of data to satisfy the RFP requirement in the fourth bullet and another approximately 6 pages to satisfy the data in the fifth bullet. We interpret that providing FTE data at this micro level of detail will have the unintended consequence of swaying the evaluation to the Staffing Plan as offerors will need to to allocate page count away from other sections of the Technical Proposal where they are to describe their proposed solution.
Would CMS revise the RFP requirement to allow offerors to provide the FTE data requested in the fourth and fifth bullets of this section, at the second level of the WBS rather than the third level of the WBS.
CMS updated the RFP direction in section L.14.5.2, the Offeror shall address the requirements in the 4th and 5th bullets of L.14.5.2 in a separate document. This separate document does not count toward the 125-page limit for Tabs D-F. The Offeror shall submit this separate document in either WORD or EXCEL format. This update does not apply to any other staffing plan requirements in section L.14.5.2.
The WBS requirement remains the same.
2 Solicitation Pg. 128-129 This section of the RFP proposal instructions, includes verbiage noting that if customizations are being proposed they should be documented in Tab F if they are not already addressed in this RFP. The proposal instructions also note that the offerors are required to document, within Tab F, a list of existing customizations, currently part of its historic baseline contract directed towards customer service, improper payment rate reduction, etc. and which of these are being proposed.
Please confirm that the customizations in Tab F should only include items an offeror is proposing for JB and that are not outlined in another section of the offeror’s proposal.
| CMS confirms the language in section L.14.5.4 in directing Offerors to document, within Tab F, a list of existing customizations, currently part of its historic baseline contract(s) directed towards customer service, improper payment rate reduction, etc. and further to indicate which of the listed customizations are being proposed for this jurisdiction. Current MAC contract holders are directed as a first step, to list all customizations currently in use on current contract(s) whether they are are proposed for JB or not. The second step requires Offerors, that are current MAC contract holders, to clearly document which of the customizations are being proposed for JB. CMS confirms the Offeror shall list all customizations, both existing and proposed, but need not list requirements from the SOW or RFP. | ||||
| 3 | Correspondence and Customer Service | Pg. 8 | The Shared System Supplied column of this attachment references Graphic User Interface (GUI) based MCS Desktop Tool (MCSDT), if desired, which is the Part B shared system. Additionally, this section references a base letter file selected from an existing shared system user. The Part B standard system no longer contains a base letter writing solution. There are no references to VMS which is the DME shared system. The systems provided for DME MAC usage on Attachment J.01.C appear to be the Standard Part B systems. Would CMS please clarify the systems to be provided for DME MAC Jurisdiction B. | A replacement Attachment J.01.C is included. Please disregard the previous one. |
| 4 | Workloads | OY1 - line 39 | Can CMS verify the volume of 2 Congressional Inquiries in each of the option years as this volume seems low? | |
| CMS confirms the Congressional Inquiries workload for Base Year and all Options for Provider Congressional Inquiries. | ||||
| 5 | Workloads | OY1 - line 39 | The J.22 BOE lists the Congressional workload under WBS D.5.2, however the Statement of Work has - Responses To Congressional Inquiries - under D.6.4. Please verify the appropriate Statement of Work for Congressional Inquries. | CMS confirms the information provided on the Instructions tab of the Basis of Estimate (J.23) in rows 11 and 13. Offerors may change the WBS in the BOE to clearly and effectively communicate the labor, etc. proposed for the workload provided by CMS. |
| 6 | ||||
| 7 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .