Consolidated Q and A Phase 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- National Provider Directory (NPD) Data Sourcing, Aggregation, and Quality Assurance Services
- Solicitation number
- 75FCMC26R0063
About this file
This is a Consolidated Questions and Answers document (Phase 2) for the National Provider Directory (NPD) Data Sourcing, Aggregation, and Quality Assurance Services solicitation (75FCMC26R0063) issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).
The Q&A addresses critical clarifications regarding contract structure, pricing, data sourcing requirements, and performance metrics. Key pricing details include: CLIN 0003 (base year Time & Materials) converts to Firm Fixed Price at year-end to establish pricing for CLINs 0006, 0009, 0012, and 0015 (option years 1-4); offerors must submit pricing for CLIN 0003 and all option periods in initial proposals, though option-period pricing need not be identical to base year; CLIN 0003 covers data licensing and upstream processing costs priced as direct pass-through without additional fee or profit; and delivery frequency adjustments within the weekly baseline are accommodated within existing CLINs without modification. Data sourcing requirements clarify that clinician population includes MDs, DOs, APRNs, and PAs; Government-Furnished Information sources (NPPES, PECOS, Lantern, APS, data.cms.gov) do not count toward the five-source Initial Operating Capability requirement and should not be included in pricing; and the active, directory-relevant clinical population is estimated at 2+ million unique practitioners resolved across licenses and jurisdictions. Constraint 4 requires independently structured NPD-specific source agreements regardless of pre-existing contractor relationships with sources, with full Year 1 negotiation and legal review costs priced accordingly. Critical performance metrics include: Provider Population Coverage measured at unique provider level for any correction or enrichment activity completed; Output Quality Assessments required for all six required dataset categories per Program Increment; and Correction Acceptance Rate measured at individual field level for multi-field corrections. The Minimum Public Field Schema and WA B write-back API specifications will be finalized during the first Program Increment post-award, with offerors expected to propose field-level tier classification approaches and assume programmatic batch submission and disposition retrieval capabilities for planning purposes.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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 Question Number SOO/RFQ Section and/or Page Number Question (for Respondent use) Response (for CMS use)
| 1 | Anticipated Data Sources and Service Providers (page 24) | Our understanding and recommendation is to include DOs, MDs, APRNs, and PAs within the scope of the "clinician" definition. Can CMS please confirm? | |
| CMS confirms that the clinician population for Work Area A includes physicians (MD and DO), advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), and physician assistants (PAs), consistent with the provider types enumerated in NPPES and the NPD program's directory objectives. Offerors may propose additional clinician types where supported by authoritative source relationships and the SOO's supplemental dataset framework. | |||
| 2 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf, Pricing and Award Structure, pages 67-68 | The new “Contract Type Conversion – CLIN 0003” clause added to the amended SOO at pages 67-68 states that “At the end of the base year, the contractor shall update and submit a Firm Fixed Price proposal for CLIN 0003 for each option year….” Will CMS please confirm that the reference to “CLIN 0003 for each option year” is specifically referring to CLINs 0006, 0009, 0012, and 0015? | CMS confirms that the Firm Fixed Price proposal developed through the CLIN 0003 conversion process is intended to establish the fixed pricing basis reflected in CLINs 0006, 0009, 0012, and 0015 (Option Periods 1–4 Datasets CLINs), consistent with the CLIN structure defined in the True-Up Clause. |
| 3 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf, Pricing and Award Structure, pages 67-68 | Are offerors required to submit proposed pricing for CLIN 0003 / Dataset for each option year as part of their initial proposal? Or should offerors only submit pricing for CLIN 0003 based on the requirement of the amended SOO that the contractor shall submit a FFP proposal for the Dataset CLIN for each option year at the completion of the base year? | Yes, offerors shall submit proposed pricing for CLIN 0003 and each associated option year. |
| 4 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf, Pricing and Award Structure, pages 67-68 | If offerors are required to submit proposed pricing for CLIN 0003 / Dataset for each option year as part of their proposal, will CMS please confirm that for purposes of the initial offer the Dataset price for each option year must be identical to the base year (excepting any anticipated annual escalation of prices)? | Proposed prices for each option period is not required to be identical, however, Offeror's should propose each option period based on current information. |
| 5 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf, Pricing and Award Structure, pages 67-68 | The Contract Type Conversion – CLIN 0003 clause in the amended SOO states “If the parties cannot reach agreement on a FFP price for CLIN 0003 at option exercise, CMS reserves the right to exercise the option at the government’s proposed FFP price….” Is this language intended give CMS the right to require the contractor to perform a currently-unknown scope at a price unilaterally determined by the government? | This clause is not intended to authorize CMS to require performance of undefined or new scope at a unilaterally-set price. In the event a revised price cannot be agreed upon, the CLIN will be exercised at the FFP for the datasets previously established. |
| 6 | Solicitation - 75FCMC26R0063.pdf, Special Contract Requirements, pages 15-16 | The True-Up Clause at pages 15-16 of the solicitation document makes several references to the “unit rates established in the Contract attachment.” Will CMS please clarify what these unit rates are and where they may be found? Will CMS please further clarify what is meant by the term “Contract attachment”? | The 'Contract attachment' referenced in the True-Up Clause has not yet been developed and does not currently exist within the solicitation package. This attachment, which will establish the unit rates used in the annual Dataset Scope and Pricing Report process, will be created and incorporated into the contract prior to award. |
| 7 | Solicitation - 75FCMC26R0063.pdf, Special Contract Requirements, pages 15-16 | The True-Up Clause also makes reference to “the dataset scope originally defined in the Task Order Attachment.” Will CMS please clarify what is meant by the term “Task Order Attachment”? | The term 'Task Order Attachment' refers to the same document identified in the True-Up Clause as the 'Contract Attachment' which is the attachment establishing the dataset scope, quantities, and unit rates used for pricing purposes. |
| 8 | Solicitation - 75FCMC26R0063.pdf, Special Contract Requirements, pages 15-16 | The True-Up Clase requires the contractor to submit a Dataset Scope and Pricing Report no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current period of performance. Among other things, the report must include “a proposed fixed price for the forthcoming option period based on the anticipated dataset scope….” Is this report and proposed fixed price intended to be the same as the proposed fixed price required by the Contract Type Conversion – CLIN 0003 clause in the amended SOO, or are those meant to be 2 separate deliverables? | These are two separate mechanisms serving different purposes. The Contract Type Conversion clause governs a one-time conversion of CLIN 0003 from T&M to FFP at the end of the base year, establishing the initial fixed price and unit rates for Option Period 1 (CLIN 0006). The True-Up Clause's annual Dataset Scope and Pricing Report is a separate, recurring deliverable that applies only to CLINs 0006, 0009, 0012, and 0015, and uses those established unit rates to adjust pricing for each subsequent option period. |
| 9 | Solicitation - 75FCMC26R0063.pdf, Special Contract Requirements, pages 15-16 | The True-Up Clause stats that following the annual scope review and receipt of the Dataset Scope and Pricing Report, the contracting office may unilaterally adjust the fixed price and scope of the Datasets CLIN for the forthcoming option period. Will CMS please confirm that any such adjustment to the price would be in accordance with the contractor’s proposed pricing? Is this language intended give CMS the right to require the contractor to perform a currently-unknown scope at a price unilaterally determined by the government? | See answer 5 above. |
| 10 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf page 15 | When will CMS publish the draft Minimum Public Field Schema (the set of fields that must be in the Publish tier)? Will this be available before award, at kickoff, or only during the first Program Increment? | The Minimum Public Field Schema will be developed collaboratively during the first Program Increment (PI1) following award, consistent with Consolidated Q&A response 15. It will not be published before award. Offerors should propose their field-level tier classification approach in their Phase 2 submissions as the basis for PI1 collaboration. |
| 11 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf page 15 | What is the planned technical interface and service-level agreement for the CMS-designated storage location? What are the expected volume, frequency, and retention requirements for WA A deliveries and WA E corrections? is the interface native to AWS or Custom created? | CMS-designated storage will be an AWS-native environment consistent with CMS cloud infrastructure standards. Specific interface specifications, volume requirements, delivery frequency parameters, and retention requirements will be defined during the onboarding period and documented at contract start. Offerors should propose their delivery architecture based on the weekly baseline cadence established in the SOO and size for flexibility to accommodate CMS direction to increase frequency. |
| 12 | Attachment 2 - Statement of Objectives (NPD Work Area A and E) (Tracked Changes).pdf page 24 | Will Government-Furnished Information sources (NPPES, PECOS, data.cms.gov holdings, Lantern, APS, etc.) be available at award, and how should they be treated relative to the five-source IOC requirement and required dataset coverage? | Government-Furnished Information (GFI) sources identified in SOO Table 3, including NPPES, PECOS, data.cms.gov holdings, Lantern, and APS, do not count toward the five-source Work Area A Initial Operating Capability (IOC) requirement. CMS already has access to these sources and they are not procurement targets under this contract. GFI sources will be made available to the contractor as needed for contract performance, subject to contractor onboarding completion and execution of applicable data use agreements. Offerors should not propose GFI sources as qualifying sources for the IOC threshold and should not include GFI acquisition costs in their pricing. |
| 13 | SOO, Context (p. 6) and Statement of Need (p. 17), "2+ million active providers" | The SOO frames the program around 2+ million active providers, while primary sources (FSMB 2024 physician census, AANP, NCCPA, HRSA workforce data) place the licensed, directory-relevant clinical population closer to 3.5 million, and NPPES holds over 9 million enumerated records. Can CMS clarify the anticipated covered population for Work Area A, and confirm the counting basis (unique practitioner resolved across licenses and jurisdictions, versus individual license records)? | CMS estimates the active, directory-relevant clinical population at more than 2 million providers. This estimate reflects unique practitioners resolved across licenses and jurisdictions not individual license records or total NPPES enumerated records. The CMS estimate draws on active enrollment data in PECOS, active licensure records in FSMB, and active claims-based provider activity, applying a threshold for clinical activity within a recent period to distinguish active from inactive or historical records. CMS recognizes that alternative population estimates exist depending on the counting methodology, provider type scope, and activity threshold applied. Offerors are encouraged to propose and document their own population sizing logic in their Phase 2 submissions, including the provider types included, the activity or status criteria applied, and the source data used to derive the estimate. CMS will review offeror-proposed population assumptions as part of the Phase 2 evaluation and will work with the selected contractor to establish a mutually agreed counting basis during the onboarding period. |
| 14 | SOO, Initial Operating Capability (pp. 64-66); Deliverables Summary (p. 54) | Beyond the 30-day Work Area A IOC milestone, does CMS have a desired phase-in sequence for dataset population coverage (for example physicians first, then advanced practice providers, then the broader clinician types typically included in a directory), or will CMS accept an offeror-proposed sequencing in the PWS as the contractual baseline for each Program Increment? | The SOO establishes a 30-day IOC milestone for Work Area A requiring data from at least five of the six required dataset categories. CMS does not prescribe a specific phase-in sequence beyond this requirement. Offerors may propose their own sequencing in the PWS, which will serve as the contractual baseline for Program Increment planning subject to CMS concurrence at kickoff. |
| 15 | SOO, Table 1, Required Dataset 3, Board Certification (pp. 24-26); Table 2, Supplemental Datasets (pp. 27-29) | Required Dataset 3 identifies ABMS member boards as the authoritative source for physician board certification. Please confirm whether certification issued by the AOA certifying boards for osteopathic physicians and by ABPS is in scope for Required Dataset 3, or whether non-ABMS physician certification should instead be proposed under the supplemental dataset series. | Required Dataset 3 (board certification, physicians MD/DO) encompasses certification issued by ABMS member boards, AOA certifying boards for osteopathic physicians, and ABPS where applicable to the physician population. Non-physician board certification (e.g., nursing, allied health) should be proposed under Supplemental Dataset 10, not Required Dataset 3. |
| 16 | SOO, Pricing and Award Structure, Cost Drivers (pp. 67-68); Constraint 1 (pp. 34-36); Award Structure, CLIN 0003 (p. 69) | The Cost Drivers provision directs that upstream processing services required to achieve license-free output compatibility be priced within CLIN 0003 and separately itemized per source. To ensure consistent presentation across the source portfolio, please confirm that the per-source itemization should present source acquisition cost and upstream processing cost — collection, extraction, normalization support, and provenance engineering — as distinct elements, and advise whether CMS prefers these shown as separate line items within CLIN 0003 or as a composite per-source unit rate with the breakdown supported in the basis of estimate. | Offerors may structure their price proposal to support necessary costs associated with each offeror's individual approach. Offerors are only required to support proposed prices with information as required by the contract. |
| 17 | SOO, Constraint 1, License-Free Output and Field-Level Publication Model (pp. 34-36); Definitions, Minimum Public Field Schema (pp. 15, 36); Consolidated Q and A, responses 15 and 95 | Q and A response 15 states the minimum public field schema will be developed collaboratively during the first Program Increment, with offerors proposing their field-level tier classification. Please confirm that Work Area A license-free deliverables are limited to normalized status and provenance fields (issuing source, license or certification status, certain identifiers) are required deliverables under Constraint 1, and if there is anything else that would need to be separately scoped and priced post-award via contract modification. | Constraint 1 establishes license-free output as the Government's preference and implements a field-level publication model. Work Area A deliverables must include normalized status and provenance fields sufficient to populate the Minimum Public Field Schema developed in PI1. Fields that cannot be published under the public tier must be designated Use Internally Only or Do Not Use per the field-level publication model. Any scope beyond the six required dataset categories requires a contract modification and/or pre-award negotiation. The specific field set will be finalized collaboratively in PI1. |
| 18 | SOO, Constraint 1, field-level provenance requirements (pp. 34-36); Data Rights and Portability (pp. 39-40) | For published fields, will CMS permit source attribution to the contributing Work Area A data supplier within the field-level provenance record, consistent with the license-free preference, given that downstream consumers would face no licensing restriction on use or redistribution of the published data? | Yes. CMS will permit source attribution to the contributing Work Area A data supplier within the field-level provenance record. Source attribution is a required element of the provenance framework under Constraint 1 and does not create a downstream licensing restriction on published data. Downstream consumers of published NPD data face no licensing obligation to the contributing source. |
| 19 | SOO, Category 2, WA A Data Normalization and Delivery, delivery cadence (p. 19); Deliverables Summary (p. 54); Award Structure, CLIN Structure table (p. 69) | The SOO establishes weekly data file delivery as the baseline cadence for Work Area A, or more frequently as directed by CMS, while Work Area A services are priced firm fixed price. Please confirm whether a CMS direction to increase delivery frequency beyond the weekly baseline for one or more data categories is executed within the existing CLINs as priced, or via bilateral contract modification. | The SOO's deliverable frequency for WA A Data Files is defined as 'weekly or as specified by CMS,' and this variability is intended to be reflected in the offeror's FFP pricing proposal. Accordingly, CMS direction to adjust delivery frequency within the range reasonably contemplated by this baseline is executed within the existing CLIN structure and does not require a bilateral modification. Should a directed change in frequency exceed the general scope of the priced effort, the contractor may request an equitable adjustment consistent with the contract's Changes clause. |
| 20 | SOO, Category 1, WA A Ground Truth Data Access and Licensing (p. 18); Constraint 4 (pp. 37-38); Constraint 5 (p. 38); Award Structure, CLIN 0003 NTE ceiling (p. 69) | Many state licensing agencies do not expose bulk, machine-readable license status today, and establishing NPD-grade bulk access can require funding source-side build-out and ongoing maintenance, sometimes reliant on federal mandate for state agencies to provide. Where a priority source requires funded build-out to deliver bulk verified primary-source status data, will CMS treat those third-party build-out and maintenance costs as allowable CLIN 0003 pass-through other direct costs, subject to Constraint 5 approval and, where needed, a bilateral NTE ceiling adjustment? | CMS will not confirm in advance how third-party build-out costs would be treated; offerors should propose their own approach for achieving bulk access to priority sources, and any resulting costs will be evaluated for allowability under the contract's terms, conditions, and applicable regulations as they arise. |
| 21 | SOO, Table 1, Required Dataset 2 (pp. 24-26); Constraint 1 publication tiers (pp. 34-36); Constraints 4 and 5 (pp. 37-38); Consolidated Q and A, responses 17 and 95 | Certain national access routes to licensure data carry terms that bar redistribution and derivative use. For those populations, please confirm CMS will accept phased coverage in which the affected records are initially delivered under the Use Internally Only tier, or sourced directly from individual boards under public-record and FOIA mechanisms per Q and A response 17, with license-free publication contingent on NPD-specific agreements negotiated post-award under Constraints 4 and 5. | Yes. CMS will accept phased coverage for populations where redistribution-restricted source terms prevent immediate public-tier publication. Affected records may be delivered under the Use Internally Only tier initially, with license-free publication contingent on NPD-specific agreements negotiated post-award under Constraints 4 and 5. Offerors should identify affected populations and proposed negotiation timelines in their Phase 2 submissions. |
| 22 | SOO, Table 2, Supplemental Datasets, Dataset 10 (pp. 27-29); Instructions to Offerors, Phase Two, Price (p. 16) | The SOO directs that offerors shall not include supplemental datasets in their price proposals, and CMS has confirmed supplemental datasets may be incorporated post-award via contract modification. To support CMS planning, will CMS accept a modification-ready readiness statement in the PWS for Supplemental Dataset 10 (non-physician board certification, spanning 100+ certifying bodies and roughly hundreds of credentials), including an offer to furnish a per-source unit-rate schedule promptly, within reason, upon CMS request post-award, without any supplemental figures entering the evaluated price? | Yes. CMS will accept a modification-ready readiness statement in the PWS for Supplemental Dataset 10 (non-physician board certification), including an offer to furnish a per-source unit-rate schedule upon CMS request post-award. No supplemental dataset pricing should be included in the evaluated price proposal. |
| 23 | Attachment 1, Instructions to Offerors, Phase Two, 3. Price, Basis of Estimate, commercial price support (p. 16); FAR 15.403-1(b) | The basis of estimate instructions require support for proposed commercial prices, including published price lists, historical sales, and discounts offered to other customers. For subcontractor-provided data services, will CMS accept summarized market-price support (published price lists, comparable federal schedule rates, and anonymized historical sales bands) in lieu of customer-identified, transaction-level discount data, given the competitive sensitivity of commercial pricing terms? | CMS confirms that summarized market-price support, including published price lists, comparable federal schedule rates, and anonymized historical sales bands, is generally acceptable to support price reasonableness for subcontractor-provided commercial data services. Offerors should ensure the summarized data is sufficiently specific (e.g., date ranges, volume tiers, service comparability) to allow CMS to assess reasonableness. |
| 24 | SOO, Constraint 4, Independent Licensing Requirement (pp. 37-38); Pricing and Award Structure, Cost Drivers, Year 1 costs (pp. 67-68); Award Structure, CLIN 0003 (p. 69) | Constraint 4 requires all NPD source agreements to be independently structured and prohibits extending an existing license funded under another HHS or CMS contract to cover NPD use, and the Cost Drivers provision states that Year 1 costs shall reflect the full cost of establishing independent NPD-specific agreements, including legal review, negotiation, and onboarding. Please confirm that this Year 1 cost treatment applies to every NPD-specific instrument the contractor must establish, including where the contractor team already holds a pre-existing commercial agreement or established relationship with the same source, since Constraint 4 itself requires a new, separately negotiated NPD instrument in those cases. Offerors respectfully request that any affirmative response be effected by amendment to the solicitation. | CMS confirms that the Year 1 cost treatment described in the Cost Drivers provision applies to every NPD-specific instrument the contractor must establish under Constraint 4, regardless of whether the contractor or its team holds a pre-existing commercial agreement or relationship with the same source. Constraint 4 requires a new, separately negotiated, and independently-priced NPD instrument in all such cases, and offerors shall price Year 1 costs on that consistent basis. |
| 25 | SOO, Constraint 4 (pp. 37-38); Data Rights and Portability (pp. 39-40); Contract Transition In/Out, Termination Assistance; Consolidated Q and A, responses 74 and 77 | The SOO's assignability, step-in, annual portability drill, and Transition Readiness Package obligations ensure continuity of the NPD program. Consistent with Q and A response 74, which confirms Constraint 5 approval authority reaches only the NPD scope of a pre-existing agreement, and the confirmed background IP framework, please confirm that these assignability, step-in, and portability obligations attach solely to the NPD-specific source agreements and NPD deliverables, and do not extend to, encumber, or create any Government or successor right to assume, manage, or receive assignment of the contractor team's pre-existing commercial source agreements, nor require transfer of background collection and verification infrastructure beyond the government-purpose license already established. Offerors respectfully request that any affirmative response be effected by amendment to the solicitation. | CMS confirms that the assignability, step-in, portability drill, and Transition Readiness Package obligations described in the SOO attach to the NPD-specific source agreements and NPD deliverables established under this contract, consistent with Constraint 4's requirement for independently structured NPD instruments. These obligations do not extend to the contractor's separate, pre-existing commercial source agreements that exist independently of this contract, nor do they require transfer of background collection and verification infrastructure beyond the government-purpose license and associated audit rights already established. CMS reserves the right to require documentation and cooperation reasonably necessary to ensure continuity of the NPD-specific data flow in a step-in scenario, including where an NPD-specific agreement or data feed depends on a broader contractor relationship. |
| 26 | SOO pp. 9–10 & Phase 1 Q&A #24 | In your response to Question #24 in the Phase 1 Questions and Answers, CMS stated that “WA B is currently operational, supported through a separate CMS contract.” Can you please identify the existing Contract under which that work is being performed? While WA B might be currently operational, it is important for us to consider whether there may be a possible vendor transition in the fi rst 2 years of the WA A / E contract. | CMS does not identify contract numbers for separate, unrelated procurements in response to this solicitation's Q&A process. CMS confirms that no vendor transition is anticipated for the WA A/E contract awarded under this solicitation during the first two years of performance. |
| 27 | SOO p. 49 | Will CMS communicate directly with the authoritative data sources named in the solicitation regarding this eff ort and with specifi c direction? | CMS will provide letters of introduction to authoritative data sources upon contractor request and will engage directly with sources where federal agency authority or existing CMS relationships can facilitate agreement terms. However, the contractor is responsible for independently negotiating and executing all NPD-specific source agreements under Constraint 4. CMS's facilitation role does not substitute for the contractor's independent licensing obligation. |
| 28 | SOO pp. 66–67 | To address the years: CLIN 0003 – Pass-Through Costs, Indirect Costs, and Profi t: The SOO states that CLIN 0003 includes data licensing and acquisition costs, including upstream processing services required to achieve license-free output compatibility. Please clarify whether CMS expects WA A source costs under CLIN 0003 to be priced as 100% pass-through costs, or whether off erors may apply indirect costs and/or profi t or margin to account for the costs and risk associated with managing these sources, including internal management, administration, and compute costs. Please also clarify whether this treatment diff ers between the Base Year T&M ODC structure and the FFP structure for the option years. | CMS confirms that CLIN 0003 is intended to primarily reimburse the actual licensing fees paid to data providers on CMS's behalf, and offerors should propose these direct licensing costs without applying additional fee or profit. This treatment applies consistently across the Base Year T&M ODC structure and the FFP option-year structure, recognizing that the FFP price negotiated at conversion inherently reflects the contractor's cost basis and any associated risk premium as negotiated at that time. |
| 29 | SOO p. 69 | Nothing confi rms CMS will accept a non-labor-based FFP element under CLIN 0002. How does CMS want a commercial platform license presented in the pricing template? | Offerors are allowed to modify the pricing template to support their quote. |
| 30 | SOO p. 36 | Will CMS publish a specific data dictionary or schema ahead of Phase 2 deadline so we can better negotiate with the sources? | CMS will not publish a complete data dictionary or schema before the Phase 2 deadline. The Minimum Public Field Schema will be developed collaboratively in PI1. Offerors should use the field-level examples and dataset descriptions in SOO Table 1 and the Consolidated Q&A to inform their Phase 2 proposals and source negotiations. The field-level publication model in Constraint 1 provides the framework for pre-award source negotiations. |
| 31 | SOO p. 35 | For Internal-Use-Only designated data, the SOO provides examples of permitted internal purposes (enrollment validation, fraud detection, network adequacy assessment) but does not provide an exhaustive list. Some authoritative sources require clarity on the complete scope of permitted uses before agreeing to participate. Can CMS provide a defi nitive, exclusive list of permitted internal uses for Internal-Use-Only data that vendors can share with authoritative sources during licensing negotiations? | CMS will not publish an exhaustive, exclusive list of permitted internal uses for Use Internally Only data before award. The SOO examples (enrollment validation, fraud detection, network adequacy assessment) are illustrative, not exhaustive. Permitted internal uses will be defined in the contract and data use agreements. Offerors may represent to sources that IUO data will be used for CMS program operations purposes consistent with the NPD program objectives and applicable data use agreements. |
| 32 | SOO p. 36 | The SOO states that contractors shall not propose or execute source agreements that result in a Do Not Use designation for any fi eld that CMS has identifi ed as essential to the public-facing NPD. However, the minimum public fi eld schema is not published until the fi rst Program Increment post-award. For sources where all fi elds are designated as either Internal-Use-Only or Do Not Use, should those sources still be included in the proposal given that off erors cannot currently confirm whether any Do Not Use fi elds would confl ict with the minimum public fi eld schema? | Yes. Sources where all fields are designated Use Internally Only or Do Not Use should still be included in the proposal where they provide coverage for a required dataset category. The Minimum Public Field Schema is not finalized until PI1, and a source that currently cannot support public-tier publication may be able to do so following NPD-specific agreement negotiation. Offerors should document the current field-level designation and proposed path to public-tier publication in their Artifact 1 submissions. |
| 33 | SOO Appendix C | SOO Appendix C: requires ≥50% / ≥75% / ≥90% population coverage but does not define “covered.” CMS Q187: establishes the planning population at approximately 2 million active providers, but does not clarify what activity counts toward the coverage metric. |
| Provider Population Coverage: Appendix C defines Provider Population Coverage as the percentage of the NPD provider population “covered by at least one WA E correction or enrichment activity during the PI.” Please define when a provider is considered “covered.” Does coverage occur when WA E assesses the provider record, generates a correction or enrichment candidate, submits a correction or enrichment, or only when the correction or enrichment is accepted and applied through WA B? Please also confirm whether a provider is counted once regardless of the number of fields or data categories addressed. | A provider is considered "covered" for purposes of the Provider Population Coverage metric when Work Area E has completed at least one correction or enrichment activity (assessment, candidate generation, submission, or acceptance) for that provider record during the Program Increment. Coverage is counted at the unique provider level regardless of the number of fields or data categories addressed. CMS will confirm the specific counting basis in the QASP finalized at contract award. | ||
| 34 | SOO Appendix C | SOO Appendix C: requires 100% coverage of “NPD provider record categories” each PI but does not enumerate those categories. CMS Q108: says the initial quality baseline will cover the six required dataset categories. CMS Q125: separately confirms NPD provider records include individual practitioners, organizational entities, practice locations, and facilities, creating ambiguity as to which categories are meant here. |
| Output Quality Assessment Denominator: Appendix C requires WA E to complete at least one output quality assessment during each PI for 100% of NPD provider record categories. Please clarify what constitutes the denominator “NPD provider record categories.” Does this refer to the six required dataset categories in Table 1, provider/entity types such as practitioner, organization, practice location, and facility, or another CMS-defined taxonomy? | The denominator "NPD provider record categories" for the Output Quality Assessment metric refers to the six required dataset categories in SOO Table 1. Offerors should plan to conduct at least one output quality assessment per PI for each of the six required dataset categories. Provider/entity type taxonomy (practitioner, organization, practice location, facility) is a separate dimension and does not define the denominator for this metric. | ||
| 35 | SOO Definitions | SOO Definitions, p.13: defines a correction as a data record proposing a change to one or more fields. SOO p.22 / Appendix C pp.82–83: measures acceptance against submitted corrections using difficulty weighting, but does not define partial acceptance. CMS Q113: says the difficulty-weighting methodology will not be established until PI1. |
| Partial Acceptance of Multi-Field Corrections: Where a single WA E correction proposes changes to multiple fields and WA B accepts some fields but rejects others, how will that correction be counted for the Appendix C Correction Acceptance Rate? Will acceptance be measured at the correction-record level, provider-record level, individual field/data-point level, or another unit? How will partial acceptance interact with difficulty weighting? | Correction acceptance will be measured at the individual field/data-point level for multi-field corrections. Where a single correction proposes changes to multiple fields and Work Area B accepts some fields but rejects others, accepted fields count toward the Correction Acceptance Rate and rejected fields do not. Difficulty weighting methodology will be established in PI1 as confirmed in Consolidated Q&A response 113. Offerors should propose their correction package structure to support field-level acceptance tracking. | |
| 36 | SOO pp.65–66: identifies NPD API write-back specifications as a CMS-controlled dependency and requires WA E to deliver at least one batch at IOC. CMS Q44: confirms write-back is being developed under the separate WA B contract. CMS Q117/Q118: confirms WA E will receive acceptance/rejection decisions, rejection codes, and pipeline rejection information. CMS Q161:says final API specifications will not be available until PI1, leaving the batch/disposition interface assumption unresolved for proposal sizing. |
| WA B Write-Back Planning Assumption: For proposal planning and staffing purposes, should offerors assume that the WA B write-back mechanism will support (a) programmatic batch submission of WA E corrections and enrichments and (b) programmatic receipt or retrieval of correction disposition status, including accepted/rejected status and rejection category? | For proposal planning and staffing purposes, offerors should assume the Work Area B write-back mechanism will support both (a) programmatic batch submission of Work Area E corrections and enrichments and (b) programmatic receipt or retrieval of correction disposition status including accepted/rejected status and rejection category. Final API specifications will be provided in PI1 as confirmed in Consolidated Q&A responses 117 and 118. Offerors should size their Work Area E staffing and tooling to accommodate a programmatic batch interface. | |||
| 37 | Work Area A — Ground Truth Data Sourcing and Licensing | Given CMS's emphasis on direct relationships with authoritative sources, what role should contractors expect CMS to play in establishing or expanding source agreements needed to support National Provider Directory (NPD) data redistribution requirements? | See response to Q27. CMS will provide facilitation support, including letters of introduction and direct engagement where federal authority applies, but the contractor bears independent responsibility for negotiating and executing all NPD-specific source agreements under Constraint 4. CMS's role is facilitative, not contractually obligatory. | |
| 38 | Solicitation - 75FCMC26R0063, Page 31 | "The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. However, the Instructions to Offerors do not identify a subcontracting plan as a required proposal volume. Please confirm whether offerors that are other-than-small businesses must submit a subcontracting plan with their proposal, and if so, at what phase and in what format." | CMS confirms that other-than-small business offerors must submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan consistent with FAR 52.219-9 as part of Phase 2 response submission. | |
| 43 | ||||
| 44 | ||||
| 45 | ||||
| 46 | ||||
| 47 | ||||
| 48 | ||||
| 49 | ||||
| 50 | ||||
| 51 | ||||
| 52 | ||||
| 53 | ||||
| 54 | ||||
| 55 | ||||
| 56 | ||||
| 57 | ||||
| 58 | ||||
| 59 | ||||
| 60 | ||||
| 61 | ||||
| 62 | ||||
| 63 | ||||
| 64 | ||||
| 65 | ||||
| 66 | ||||
| 67 | ||||
| 68 | ||||
| 69 | ||||
| 70 | ||||
| 71 | ||||
| 72 | ||||
| 73 | ||||
| 74 | ||||
| 75 | ||||
| 76 | ||||
| 77 | ||||
| 78 | ||||
| 79 | ||||
| 80 | ||||
| 81 | ||||
| 82 | ||||
| 83 | ||||
| 84 | ||||
| 85 | ||||
| 86 | ||||
| 87 | ||||
| 88 | ||||
| 89 | ||||
| 90 | ||||
| 91 | ||||
| 92 | ||||
| 93 | ||||
| 94 | ||||
| 95 | ||||
| 96 | ||||
| 97 | ||||
| 98 | ||||
| 99 | ||||
| 100 | ||||
| 101 | ||||
| 102 | ||||
| 103 | ||||
| 104 | ||||
| 105 | ||||
| 106 | ||||
| 107 | ||||
| 108 | ||||
| 109 | ||||
| 110 | ||||
| 111 | ||||
| 112 | ||||
| 113 | ||||
| 114 | ||||
| 115 | ||||
| 116 | ||||
| 117 | ||||
| 118 | ||||
| 119 | ||||
| 120 | ||||
| 121 | ||||
| 122 | ||||
| 123 | ||||
| 124 | ||||
| 125 | ||||
| 126 | ||||
| 127 | ||||
| 128 | ||||
| 129 | ||||
| 130 | ||||
| 131 | ||||
| 132 | ||||
| 133 | ||||
| 134 | ||||
| 135 | ||||
| 136 | ||||
| 137 | ||||
| 138 | ||||
| 139 | ||||
| 140 | ||||
| 141 | ||||
| 142 | ||||
| 144 | ||||
| 145 | ||||
| 147 | ||||
| 148 | ||||
| 149 | ||||
| 150 | ||||
| 152 | ||||
| 153 | ||||
| 154 | ||||
| 155 | ||||
| 156 | ||||
| 158 | ||||
| 159 | ||||
| 160 | ||||
| 161 | ||||
| 162 | ||||
| 164 | ||||
| 166 | ||||
| 167 | ||||
| 168 | ||||
| 169 | ||||
| 170 | ||||
| 171 | ||||
| 172 | ||||
| 173 | ||||
| 174 | ||||
| 175 | ||||
| 176 | ||||
| 177 | ||||
| 178 | ||||
| 179 | ||||
| 180 | ||||
| 181 | ||||
| 182 | ||||
| 184 | ||||
| 186 | ||||
| 187 | ||||
| 188 | ||||
| 189 | ||||
| 190 | ||||
| 191 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .