Draft RFP 75FCMC27R0001 QAs - additional QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 106 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Jurisdiction 8 (J8) - Synopsis/Draft RFP / Presolicitation
- Solicitation number
- 75FCMC27R0001
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for RFP 75FCMC27R0001, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Jurisdiction 8 procurement for Indiana and Michigan. The Q&A document addresses 139 clarifying questions submitted by potential offerors regarding requirements, proposal formatting, workload assumptions, staffing, cost estimation, and evaluation criteria outlined in the draft RFP and supporting attachments.
Key clarifications from CMS responses include: telephone systems and IVR hardware/software are required contractor-furnished property despite Amazon Connect migration plans; the TCEDI Gateway will be implemented before contract start; supplementary activity costs must be labeled separately but roll up into total proposed costs; MSP workload volumes of 178,304 (Part A) and 135,760 (Part B) are confirmed as accurate; forecasting methodology documentation is required in both the Basis of Estimate (BOE) template and Volume II Tab C; Government-provided workload volumes in the BOE must be used exactly as presented without modification, except for three specific workload categories (Provider Customer Service Telephone Inquiries, Clerical Error Reopenings, and Non-Clerical Error Reopenings); FAR citations have been updated to reflect the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul; RSNAT, KX Modifier, and CRWI are separately priced CLINs; contract award is anticipated in September 2027; and remote employees are permitted but subject to wage determination requirements. The document also addresses evaluation criteria, staffing plan requirements, small business subcontracting goals (5% of total contract value and HHS Departmental prescribed goals), AbilityOne participation (minimum 1%), technical approach flexibility regarding automation and AI technologies, and cybersecurity responsibilities. CMS confirmed certain workload volumes are accurate as provided and confirmed that only the prime contractor must submit a subcontracting plan.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| J.22 Basis of Estimate - Updated 9_18_2026 (Redline).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| HHS Subcontract Plan Template.docx | DOCX document | |
| J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (GPPA)(002) Redline.docx | DOCX document | |
| Solicitatation 75FCMC27R0001 redlined documents.zip | ZIP file | |
| Draft RFP 75FCMC27R0001 QAs.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Solicitation - 75FCMC27R0001.pdf | ||
| J8 RFP Attachments_Draft RFP.zip | ZIP file | |
| J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean.docx | DOCX document |
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
RFP Questions
| RFP # 75FCMC27R0001 |
| Questions and Answers |
| Question # | Document | Section | Page # | Question | CMS Response | |
| 1 | J.06 Contractor Furnished Property | C.5.3 Infrastructure Requirements | ||||
| C.5.7 Provider Customer Service Program | C.5.3 Page 1 | |||||
| C.5.7 Page 5 | Requirements C.5.3 and C.5.7 list Telephone systems and Interactive voice response (IVR) hardware and software as Contractor Furnished Property. Please confirm these are required for J8 considering TDL-260190 directing MACs to migrate to CMS's Amazon Connect | CMS confirms that Telephone systems and IVR hardware and software listed in J.06 sections C.5.3 and C.5.7 are still required for J8. Offerors should include telephony and/or IVR costs in their proposals. | ||||
| 2 | J.01 Statement of Work | C.5.3.2.1 Telecommunications for Electronic Data Interchange | 39 | Please confirm that offerors should assume that the TCEDI Gateway contemplated by Change Request (CR) 14082 – Medicare Administrative Contractor (MAC) Testing of The Technical Consolidation of Electronic Data Interchange (TCEDI) Gateway for Professional Claims, will not be implemented. | CMS confirms offerors should expect and propose for the TCEDI Gateway to be implemented before the contract starts. Attachment J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions has been updated to reflect this. | |
| 3 | RFP | L.15.2 Volume IV, Tab B, Cost Templates | 155 | The RFP did not provide separate cost templates for supplementary activities and offerors are instructed to copy any necessary cost templates to create and use for the proposed supplementary activities. Please provide guidance on the appropriate attachment numbering that should be used (ie, if copying J.36 CLIN 0003...). Would the supplementary cost template be labled as still J.36 CLIN 0003 with Supplementary at the end or some other manner or would it be a cost template added at the end after J.65? Would the supplementary cost template still roll up under PM, MIP, RAC, etc. in the J.33 Cost Template Summary Sheet and other attachments used for reconciling (J.21; J.22.B; Staffing plan tables, etc.)? Since it is supplementary activity proposed, would these costs be excluded from the total proposed costs in the J.33 Cost Template Summary? | CMS confirms there is no separate set of Cost Proposal Templates for supplemental activities. As CMS explains in J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions (#26), Offerors shall copy the applicable provided Cost Proposal Templates and create a separate set of cost templates for each supplemental activity – whether proposed or not. CMS also confirms there is no limit to the number of supplementary cost templates that may be submitted. Supplementary cost templates should be labeled with the base attachment number followed by "Supplementary" (e.g., J.36 CLIN 0003 Supplementary). Supplementary costs roll up under the applicable CLIN category in J.33 and other reconciling attachments (J.21, J.22.B, Staffing Plan tables). Supplementary activity costs are included in total proposed costs. | |
| 4 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | C.5.14.3, Identification and Adjudication of MSP Claims | The BOE states 178,304 for Part A and 135,760 for Part B, which seem to be higher than anticipated. Please verify these are accurate. | CMS confirms the MSP workload volumes of 178,304 for Part A and 135,760 for Part B as provided in the J.22 BOE template are accurate and reflect CMS's projected workload for the J8 jurisdiction. Offerors shall use these Government-provided workload volumes in their proposals. | ||
| 5 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean |
J.22.C BOE Instructions L.13.3 VOLUME II, Tab C, Offeror Proposal Assumptions
S. Basis of Estimate 138
12 L.13.3 states: "The Offeror shall document in Tab C a description of the forecasting methodology used to determine workloads and/or level of effort for the SOW/WBS workloads not provided in the BOE."
In J.22.C BOE Instructions, it states: "The Offeror shall provide a summary, narrative explanation to support its proposed staffing plan, especially any variances between its proposal elements and its own history. The Offeror may also provide additional narrative in support of this summary in Volume II, Tab C, Offeror Proposal Assumptions. If the Offeror provides additional narrative in the Offeror Proposal Assumptions, the Offeror shall include a page reference to the additional narrative within the summary in the column titled “BASIS OF ESTIMATE." [Emphasis added]
In L.13.3, it appears to be required to provide the explanation in Tab C. However, in J.22.C it appears providing the explanation in Tab C is optional but providing the explanation in J.22 is required.
| Can the CMS clarify if this forecasting methodology must be explained in the Tab C narrative? OR if it is only required to provide this explanation in the J.22 BOE in Column "Basis of Estimate" but optional to provide this explanation in the Tab C Narrative? | CMS confirms that the forecasting methodology must be documented in both the J.22 BOE (column titled "BASIS OF ESTIMATE") and in Volume II, Tab C, Offeror Proposal Assumptions. The BOE entry is required; the Volume II, Tab C narrative is also required because it provides additional supporting detail. If the Offeror provides additional narrative in Volume II, Tab C, the Offeror shall include a page reference to that narrative within the BOE. | ||||
| 6 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | L.13.3 VOLUME II, Tab C, Offeror Proposal Assumptions | 138 | L.13.3 states: "The Offeror shall document in Tab C a description of the forecasting methodology used to determine workloads and/or level of effort for the SOW/WBS workloads not provided in the BOE." |
| Can CMS clarify this instruction? Is this instruction limited to situations in RFP Attach. J.22 - Basis of Estimate - where the offeror proposes labor hours on a BOE line item that did not contain a CMS provided Workload Volume, such as BOE Item Number 96 - Local Coverage Determinations? | CMS confirms that the instruction in L.13.3 requiring documentation of forecasting methodology in Vol. II, Tab C applies to all other significant proposal assumptions Offeror used in its technical and business proposals, not otherwise identified or described in other parts of Offeror’s proposal. Offeror may use Vol. II, Tab C to provide additional narrative in support of Offeror’s completed BOE, Attachment J.22. CMS also confirms that Vol. II, Tab C should be used by Offer to describe the forecasting methodology used to determine workloads and/or level of effort for SOW/WBS workloads not provided by CMS in the BOE, Attachment J.22, including SOW/WBS listed in BOE without CMS provided workload volume as well as those not listed in BOE but used by Offeror. | |||||
| 7 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | All | All | Can CMS confirm all of the FAR Citations in this solicitation have been updated to the new Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) citations? | CMS has updated the FAR citations to reflect the Revolutationary FAR Overhaul, and is continuing to monitor any additional changes as a result before the final solicitation is released. Please see the J8 Sections B-M document Q&A revised document with updates noted in tracked changes. | |
| 8 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | B.6 BOE/Cost Templates Schedule of Supplies/Services | 2 | The RFP lists RSNAT, KX Mod (P.1.29/MIP), and CRWI as separate CLINs. The cost templates are consistent and have separate templates for those CLINs. The BOE includes RSNAT, KX Mod, and CRWI in MIP. Should these be treated as separate CLINs or as part of the MIP CLINs for Pricing? | CMS confirms that RSNAT, KX Modifier (P.1.29/MIP), and CRWI are separate CLINs for pricing purposes, consistent with the cost templates (J.35 through J.53). Although these workloads appear within the MIP section of the BOE (J.22), offerors shall price them as separate CLINs in the cost proposal templates. | |
| 9 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | F.2 | 13 | F.2 provides the period of performance for the contract, stating that CLIN0001begins on the date of contract award. Sam.gov states, "Award is anticipated approximately September 2027." The CMS Forecast for 8/1/2026 states that the Planned Award Date is 10/29/2027. |
| Can the government provide the Award Date to use as an assumption? | There is a potential that the award may not be finalized until October 2027, but please use September 2027 as the start date. | |||||
| 10 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | G.19 1.c Provisional Billing Rates (Provisional Billing Rate Proposal Submission) | 32 | At the end of February 2026, an email was received from cas-bethesda@psc.hhs.gov providing notification that the inbox would be replaced by the Indirect Cost Allocation System (ICAS) system for Provisional Billing Rate Proposal submissions. The noted section of the RFP states that the Provisional Billing Rate Submission Proposal should be submitted to the Acquisition Division of Frinancial Services mailbox, along with cas-bethesda@psc.hhs.gov for contracts awared to State and local governments, colleges and universities, hospitals, and other nonprofit organizations (pg 31). Please clarify if the Provisional Billing Rate Proposal submissions are to be to submitted to the inboxes listed in the RFP or if contractors are to submit via ICAS. | Unfortunately, CMS has not yet been notified of the change in the Provisional Bill Rate Proposal submissions, so please continue to submit to the inboxes listed in the RFP until CMS formally changes the language in G.19.1 | |
| 11 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | H.4 HIPAA Business Associate Clause | 48 | This link to the Incident Handling Procedures in paragraph 3.v.A is not active. Will this link be updated? | This link will be updated as soon as possible, and will be operational for the resultant contract. | |
| 12 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | I.1 Contract Clauses | 99 | Please clarify if Clause 52.222-90 addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors should be included in the solicitation. | FAR 52.222-90 has been added to the solicitation. Please see the J8 Sections B-M document Q&A revised document with updates noted in tracked changes. | |
| 13 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | K.6 FAR 52.215-6 Place of Performance | 116 | If contractors utilize remote workers, please clarify if Contractors are required to list the city/address of all direct remote workers. Also, FYI internally, FAR 7.108b prohibits agenies from unfavorably evaluating contractors for the use of telework. | FAR 52.215-6 is required in the solicitation as place of performance is not specified by the Government (see FAR 15.110(f)). If the offeror has another plant/facility that it will utilize during the course of the contract, then it is required to fill out the information requested in FAR 52.215-6. However, the offeror does not need to list all remote employees in the format required in FAR 52.215-6. It is noted that remote employees are subject to wage determinations and the offeror will need to provide CMS its list of geographic areas that will require a wage determination to be a part of the contract. |
CMS confirms it will not unfavorably evaluate a contractor for the use of telework.
14 J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean L.13.2 136 The Offeror is REQUIRED to use ALL of the Government-provided RFP Workloads in the BOE template, Attachment J.22, when preparing its business and technical proposals and its BOE. The Offeror may not change the RFP Workloads in the BOE template (Column J). The Offeror may not change the Proposal Workloads in the BOE template (Column K), except for 1) Provider Customer Service PM Part A and Part B Telephone Inquiries and 2) Clerical Error Reopenings and 3) Non-Clerical Error Reopenings, all of which are indicated by double- bordered cells in Column K of the BOE template, Attachment J.22. In the BOE template, Column J and Column K reflect the same workload number, except for the Telephone Inquiries Proposal Workload, as described in Attachment J.23.B, and Clerical Error Reopenings and Non-Clerical Error Reopenings. If the Offeror changes any RFP Workloads, except for the three workloads noted above, the Government has the right to determine the proposal as unacceptable and remove the Offeror’s proposal from consideration.
| Can the Government confirm that Offerors are strictly required to use all Government‑provided RFP Workloads and Proposal Workloads exactly as presented in Attachment J.22 (Columns J and K), without modification, except for the three specifically permitted workload categories (Provider Customer Service PM Part A and Part B Telephone Inquiries, Clerical Error Reopenings, and Non‑Clerical Error Reopenings)? Additionally, can the Government confirm that any unallowed changes to these workloads will result in the proposal being deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration? | CMS confirms that offerors are strictly required to use all Government-provided RFP Workloads and Proposal Workloads exactly as presented in Attachment J.22 (Columns J and K), without modification, except for the three specifically permitted workload categories: (1) Provider Customer Service PM Part A and Part B Telephone Inquiries, (2) Clerical Error Reopenings, and (3) Non-Clerical Error Reopenings. | ||||
| 15 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | Various | Various | RFP Section E.1, F.1, K.1, L.2, M.1 state that the clauses and provisions incorporated by reference can be found at https://www.acquisition.gov/far/. However, this web address is for the FAR as opposed to the Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) deviations which are found at https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul. |
RFP Section I.1 states that the clauses incorporated by reference can be found at the RFO website https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul.
Can CMS clarify if offerors should be using the FAR or the RFO FAR Deviations for clauses and provisions incorporated by reference?
| If offers should be using the RFO FAR Deviations, can CMS update the applicable citations throughout the solicitation, including the web addresses identified above? | Offerors should be using the RFO FAR Deviations for clauses and provisions incorporated by reference. CMS has udpated the listed sections with https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul. Please see the J8 Sections B-M document Q&A revised document with updates noted in tracked changes. | |||||
| 16 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean | L.14.3.1 | 142 | RFP Section L.14.3.1 states that the offeror is to provide the physical location of the employees. For remote employees (i.e., employees that telecommute), is it acceptable to identify an employee’s location as “remote employee”? | Please provide the physcial locations of all employees, including those that work remotely, as the physical location will determine the a potential Wage Determination location. | |
| 17 | J.23.B CSR-Handled Telephone Inuturies Table.docx | Table 1 | 1 | Row A of Table 1 states shows the CMS Projected General Claims Volume. The table states that the provided workload should match BOE, Column J, Sum of Item Numbers 136, 141, and 146. | ||
| Will CMS please confirm the numbers in column A of Table 1 as they do not match the corresponding workloads identified in the BOE. | CMS confirms that the workload numbers in Column A of Table 1 of J.23.B have been updated to match the corresponding workloads identified in the BOE (Column J, sum of Item Numbers 136, 141, and 146). | |||||
| 18 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
J.22 Basis of Estimate Section I. BOE Overview Instructions
Section B. SOW/TD WBS Code
Section G. Workload Subcategory
Column "Instructions" 1, 2, & 5
The BOE Instructions state that offerors may add rows to the BOE (Page 1, Section I), and that the SOW/TD WBS Code column is intended to facilitate direct crosswalks between the BOE and the offeror's business proposals (i.e., Cost Proposal Templates) (Page 2, Section B). However, the BOE template contains several line items with a high-level SOW (e.g., C.5.5) with the instruction to include all FTEs that are in the cost templates but not in the lower level SOWs / Workload categories on the BOE template.
Can the government clarify if all FTEs proposed to lower level SOWs in the Cost Templates but are not associated with a workload category on the BOE template should be aggregated and reported on the BOE template under this higher-level SOW (e.g., BOE Line Item 27)? OR Should offerors add rows to the BOE with the specific SOW numbers from the cost templates so that CMS can cross-walk between the BOE and cost schedules?
Page 1, Section I. BOE Overview Instructions of the BOE Instructions state: "The Offeror shall copy-paste additional rows, as necessary, including any formulas and formatting from a similar row"
Page 2, Section B. SOW/TD WBS Code of the BOE Instructions state: "The purpose of this column is to indicate the Statement of Work (SOW) or Task Directive (TD) Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) code to allow for direct crosswalks between the BOE, the Offeror's technical and business proposals, and other available relevant historic data."
Page 5, Section G. Workload Subcategory of the BOE Instructions state: "If the Offeror proposes FTEs in a cost template with no correlating workload in the BOE, the Offeror shall indicate these FTEs in the BOE using a row with the relevant SOW WBS code containing the following or similar guidance in the column titled “Instructions”: "Offeror should include all FTEs not included in the staffing plans below for this SOW WBS code in this SLIN. Offeror should leave this row blank if not applicable." The Offeror shall use generic rows to ensure its BOE, technical proposal and business proposal staffing plan numbers align."
Instructions: “Offeror should include all FTEs not included in the staffing plans below for this SOW WBS code in this SLIN. Offeror should leave this row blank if not applicable.” (Example: See BOE Line Item 27) CMS confirms that offerors should use the high-level SOW WBS codes provided in the BOE (e.g., BOE Line Item 27) to document FTEs proposed as lower-level SOW WBS in Cost Templates, when the lower-level WBS is not available on the BOE.
Offerors may add rows to the BOE when proposing FTEs for more than one Labor Category for each row with a specific SOW WBS Category and/or Subcategory, since two labor categories cannot be listed on one row of the BOE. In that case the Offeror shall copy-paste additional rows, as necessary, including any formulas and formatting from a similar row, and complete them as instructed.
19 J.22.C BOE Instructions
J.22 Basis of Estimate Section I. Detail Required 6 Per the BOE Instructions: For each row indicating "Labor Mix" in this column, the Offeror shall complete all unshaded cells across the row. Specifically, the Offeror shall provide all required details by labor category, as instructed for the remaining columns.
| Several BOE Line Items are marked “Labor Mix” in the Detail Required column, but the Labor Category column is shaded. (See BOE Lines 357-361, 363-367, 369-373, etc.). For these situations, can the Government clarify if the Labor Category column should be unshaded or if the Detail Required column should be marked "Total FTEs"? | CMS confirms that for BOE Item Numbers 357–361, 363–367, 369–373 for UPIC workloads (C.5.13) are correctly marked “Labor Mix” in the Detail Required column. Offerors should provide proposed FTEs and Hours in the appropriate columns that best reflect their estimated LOE based on historic data, if available. Offerors should complete all unshaded cells for rows marked “Labor Mix”. Offerors may remove shading in the Labor Category cells for those rows, if Offerors feel the need to include the additional detail, provided all formulas and formatting remain the same as other rows requiring Labor Mix details with unshaded Labor Category cells. | |
| 20 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate | Section J. RFP Workload | |
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | 6 | In the J.22 BOE Template, the Government estimated workload volume for BOE Line Item #224 (SOW C.5.11.3.4) File Maintenance is 0. |
| Can the Government confirm that CMS no longer wants offerors to perform this work? | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume of 0 for BOE Line Item #224 (SOW C.5.11.3.4 File Maintenance) reflects current workload projections. | |
| 21 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate | Section J. RFP Workload | |
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | 6 | In the J.22 BOE Template, the Government estimated workload volume for BOE Line Item #358 (SOW C.5.13) Number of Edits Installed at the Request of the UPIC is 0. |
| Can the Government confirm that CMS no longer wants offerors to perform this work? | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume of 0 for BOE Line Item #358 (SOW C.5.13 Number of Edits Installed at the Request of the UPIC) reflects current workload projections. | |
| 22 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate | Section J. RFP Workload | |
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | 6 | In the J.22 BOE Template, the Government estimated workload volume for BOE Line Item #360 (SOW C.5.13) UPIC Suspensions Received is 0. |
| Can the Government confirm that CMS no longer wants offerors to perform this work? | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume of 0 for BOE Line Item #360 (SOW C.5.13 UPIC Suspensions Received) reflects current workload projections. | |
| 23 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate | Section J. RFP Workload | |
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | 6 | In the J.22 BOE Template, the Government estimated workload volume for BOE Line Items #377 & #384 (SOW C.5.14) Follow-up with BCRC (Part A & Part B) is 0. |
| Can the Government confirm that CMS no longer wants offerors to perform this work? | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume of 0 for BOE Line Items #377 and #384 (SOW C.5.14 Follow-up with BCRC, Part A and Part B) reflects current workload projections. | |
| 24 | J.22.C BOE Instructions |
| J.22 Basis of Estimate | Section J. RFP Workload | ||||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | 6 | In the J.22 BOE Template, the Government estimated workload volume for BOE Line Item #390 (SOW C.5.14.6) Debt Collection and Referrals is 0. | |||
| Can the Government confirm that CMS no longer wants offerors to perform this work? | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume of 0 for BOE Line Item #390 (SOW C.5.14.6 Debt Collection and Referrals) reflects current workload projections. | ||||
| 25 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | B. SOW/TD WBS Code | 2 | In the BOE instructions, under SOW/TD WBS Code, it states that "Offeror should update these numbers only as necessary to accurately reflect where it has charged costs for a given workload in its historic baseline contract." [emphasis added] |
For costs that were charged to one SOW under the historical baseline contract but would be charged to a different SOW under this contract if awarded, can CMS confirm whether offerors should reference the historical SOW or the new SOW that will be used going forward?
| Using the historical SOW could create inconsistencies between the Basis of Estimate (BOE) and the Cost/Price Schedules, which will reflect the new SOW structure. | CMS confirms that for costs charged to one SOW under the historical baseline contract that will be charged to a different SOW under the new contract, offerors should reference the new SOW WBS code that will be used going forward in the BOE. Offerors should note any such realignments in the "BASIS OF ESTIMATE" column and in Volume II, Tab C, to ensure transparency and facilitate CMS's crosswalk review. | |||
| 26 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | R. Total FTEs (Proposed) and Z. Total FTEs (Historic) | 11 | |
| 17 | In the BOE Instructions, under Sections R and Z it states: "For each workload subcategory that CMS indicated as "Labor Mix" in the column titled “Detail Required” the Offeror shall NOT alter the contents of this column, as these cells will auto-populate. " |
However, there are several rows on the BOE where it is marked "Labor Mix" in the column titled “Detail Required” but there is no formula in the Total FTEs (Historic) or Total FTEs (Proposed) columns. (See BOE Line Items 1, 3, 218, 357, etc.).
| Can the Government confirm they do not want offerors to complete these columns in these scenarios - i.e., leave them blank? | CMS confirms BOE item numbers are correctly marked “Labor Mix” in the Detailed Required column. Offerors should provide proposed FTEs and Hours in the appropriate columns that best reflect their estimated LOE based on historic data, if available. Offerors should complete all unshaded cells for rows marked “Labor Mix”. Offerors may remove shading in the Labor Category cells for those rows, if Offerors feel the need to include the additional detail, provided all formulas and formatting remain the same as other rows requiring Labor Mix details with unshaded Labor Category cells. | ||||
| 27 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | S. Basis of Estimate | 13 | The BOE Instructions state: "The Offeror shall use a minimum of 12 months of historic hours and production data as the baseline for this contract (i.e., Offeror’s most recent performance). If the Offeror chooses to use a productivity baseline period of less than 12 months’ duration, the Offeror shall provide detailed rationale to support the use of the shorter baseline period for its proposed productivity metrics. Moreover, when electing a shorter baseline period, the Offeror shall still provide its historic month-by-month hours and production performance for the full 12 consecutive months’ time span, highlighting the months actually used by the Offeror for the BOE. This is to ensure that CMS may view the proposed limited historic baseline in the context of a full 12 consecutive months’ worth of performance. The Offeror should place this additional data in Volume II, Tab C, Offeror Proposal Assumptions." [Emphasis added] |
| Volume II Tab C has a 30-page limit. The information requested by this instruction is voluminous (i.e., 12 columns of monthly data and numerous rows for each labor category for each workload subcategory) and my quickly exceed this 30-page limit. In these instances, would it be acceptable to the Government to add a tab to Volume II Tab B Basis of Estimate (i.e., RFP Attach. J.22) with this historical monthly information as opposed to adding this information to the narrative in Volume II Tab C that is limited to 30-pages? | CMS confirms that the 12-month historical data required by the BOE Instructions (Attachment J.22.C, Section S) may be provided as an additional tab within Volume II, Tab B (Attachment J.22) rather than in the Volume II, Tab C narrative, given the voluminous nature of the data and the 30-page limit on Tab C. Offerors should include a reference in the BOE "BASIS OF ESTIMATE" column directing CMS to the additional tab. | ||
| 28 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | Section I. BOE Overview Instructions |
Section B. SOW/TD WBS Code 1 & 2 The BOE Instructions state that offerors may add rows to the BOE (Page 1, Section I), and that the SOW/TD WBS Code column is intended to facilitate direct crosswalks between the BOE and the offeror's business proposals (i.e., Cost Proposal Templates) (Page 2, Section B).
| If an offeror proposes hours / FTEs to a SOW/TD WBS code in their Cost Proposal Template, but that SOW/TD WBS code is NOT on the Government-provided BOE template, should offerors add a row to the BOE with this information to help the Government facilitate the cross-walk between the BOE and the Cost Proposal Template? | CMS confirms that Offerors are required to propose all WBS listed in the BOE (Attachment J.22). As instructed in Attachment J.22.C, BOE Instructions, Offeror can add rows to the BOE for multiple labor categories applicable to one WBS subcategory, provided the same formulas and format are copied. Other WBS with historic workload and FTEs could be added to parent WBS and then explained in the BOE and Vol. II Assumptions to ensure FTEs proposed in BOE match FTEs proposed in Cost Templates. | ||||
| 29 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | Section S. Basis of Estimate | 15 | The BOE Instructions state: "Notwithstanding whether Offeror is changing its Proposal Workload for the Clerical Error Reopenings (CER) and Non-Clerical Error Reopenings (NCER) from the CMS pre-populated workloads, the Offeror shall provide the basis for the Offeror's proposed CER and NCER volumes performed by FTEs in the column titled “BASIS OF ESTIMATE”. If Offeror changes these workloads, then Offeror shall explain its rationale and assumptions for the change in the column titled “BASIS OF ESTIMATE” and in volumes II and III of the technical proposal." |
| Can CMS clarify if an offeror is required to provide an explanation if they intend to use the CMS pre-populated workloads associated with CERs & NCERs? | CMS confirms that an offeror is required to provide a basis of estimate in the "BASIS OF ESTIMATE" column for CER and NCER workloads. | |||||
| 30 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | T. | Historic Workload | 14 | The BOE Instructions state: "For each workload subcategory that CMS indicated as "Labor Mix" in the column titled “Detail Required”, the Offeror shall identify the historic workload (12-month baseline) for the respective labor category (inclusive of existing staff, direct labor, inter-organizational transfers, subcontracts, etc., as applicable) that impacted its proposed productivity and level of effort. An Offeror shall repeat (copy/paste) its 12-month history baseline data from the Base Year (CLIN 0002) into the tabs for all of the Option Years." |
However, there are 9 BOE line items where Column I is “Labor Mix” but the Historic Workload column U is shaded.
| Can the government confirm we do not need to complete the Historic Workload column for these 9 BOE Line Items (See BOE Line Items 1, 3, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, & 218) | CMS confirms BOE item numbers are correctly marked “Labor Mix” in the Detailed Required column. Offerors should provide proposed FTEs and Hours in the appropriate columns that best reflect their estimated LOE based on historic data, if available. Offerors should complete all unshaded cells for rows marked “Labor Mix”. Offerors may remove shading in the Labor Category cells for those rows, if Offerors feel the need to include the additional detail, provided all formulas and formatting remain the same as other rows requiring Labor Mix details with unshaded Labor Category cells. | |||||
| 31 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | T. | Historic Workload | 14 | The BOE Instructions state: "For each workload subcategory that CMS indicated as "Labor Mix" in the column titled “Detail Required”, the Offeror shall identify the historic workload (12-month baseline) for the respective labor category (inclusive of existing staff, direct labor, inter-organizational transfers, subcontracts, etc., as applicable) that impacted its proposed productivity and level of effort. An Offeror shall repeat (copy/paste) its 12-month history baseline data from the Base Year (CLIN 0002) into the tabs for all of the Option Years." |
However, there are 52 BOE line items where Column I is “Total FTEs” but the Historic Workload column U is not shaded.
| Please confirm we do not need to compete the unshaded cells in the Historic Workload column for these 52 BOE Line Items (See BOE Line Items 9-11, 13-14, 20-25, 226-227, etc.) | CMS confirms BOE item numbers are correctly marked “Labor Mix” in the Detailed Required column. Offerors should provide proposed FTEs and Hours in the appropriate columns that best reflect their estimated LOE based on historic data, if available. Offerors should complete all unshaded cells for rows marked “Labor Mix”. Offerors may remove shading in the Labor Category cells for those rows, if Offerors feel the need to include the additional detail, provided all formulas and formatting remain the same as other rows requiring Labor Mix details with unshaded Labor Category cells. | ||||
| 32 | J.22.C BOE Instructions | U. % Workload Processed with Direct Labor (Historic) | 14 | The BOE Instructions state: "For each workload subcategory that CMS indicated as "Labor Mix" in the column titled “Detail Required”, the Offeror shall identify the percentage of the historic workload (12-month baseline) for each workload subcategory processed by the respective labor category..." |
There are 24 BOE Lines in which "Labor Mix" is in the column titled “Detail Required”; however, this % Workload Processed with Direct Labor (Historic) column is shaded.
| Please confirm CMS does not want offerors to complete this column for these 24 BOE line items? See BOE Line Items 1, 3, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 218, 357- 361, 363 – 367, & 369 - 373. | CMS confirms BOE item numbers are correctly marked “Labor Mix” in the Detailed Required column. Offerors should provide proposed FTEs and Hours in the appropriate columns that best reflect their estimated LOE based on historic data, if available. Offerors should complete all unshaded cells for rows marked “Labor Mix”. Offerors may remove shading in the Labor Category cells for those rows, if Offerors feel the need to include the additional detail, provided all formulas and formatting remain the same as other rows requiring Labor Mix details with unshaded Labor Category cells. | ||
| 33 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | ||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | n/A | In the J.22 BOE Template, can the government confirm the proposed workload numbers for BOE Line Item #139 and #149 (SOW C.5.8.3) Suspended claims? Based on past experience and based on size and scope of the contract, the workload numbers do not match expectations. | CMS confirms that the Government estimated workload volume for BOE item numbers #139 and #149 (SOW C.5.8.3 Suspended Claims, Part A and Part B) reflects current workload projections. |
| 34 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | ||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | N/A | In the J.22 BOE Template, can the government confirm the proposed workload numbers for Item BOE Line Item #193, SOW P.1.42 for BP, OY 1 and OY 2? Based on past experience and based on size and scope of the contract, the workload numbers do not match expectations. | CMS confirms the proposed workload numbers for BOE Line Item #193 (SOW P.1.42) for the Base Period and Option Years 1 and 2. These workload volumes reflect CMS's projected activity for the J8 jurisdiction. Offerors shall use the Government-provided workload volumes as provided in Column J of the BOE. |
| 35 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | ||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | N/A | In the J.22 BOE Template, can the government confirm the proposed workload for BOE Line Item #205 (SOW C.5.11.3.2.7) Reopenings (Completed). Based on past experience, and acknowledging the the number of providers in the J8 contract, the proposed workload numbers are higher than expected. |
| Are there any atypical or nonrecurrent workload volumes included that are potentially driving the volume higher? For example, 2024 and 2025, there were a significant amount of completed units resulting from the SSI Realignment and SSI Amendments nonrecurrent projects. | CMS confirms the proposed workload for BOE item number #205 (SOW C.5.11.3.2.7 Reopenings Completed) reflects current workload projections. | ||||
| 36 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | ||||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | N/A | In the J.22 BOE Template, can the government confirm the proposed workload numbers for BOE Line Item #207 (SOW C.5.11.3.2.8) Cost Report Appeals - Preliminary Position Papers Due PRRB? Based on past experience, size and scope of the contract, the workload numbers do not match expectations. | CMS confirms the proposed workload numbers for BOE Line Item #207 (SOW C.5.11.3.2.8 Cost Report Appeals — Preliminary Position Papers Due PRRB). These workload volumes reflect CMS's projected activity for the J8 jurisdiction based on historical data and program trends. Offerors shall use the Government-provided workload volumes as provided in Column J of the BOE. | ||
| 37 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | ||||
| Column K: "RFP Workload" | N/A | In the J.22 BOE Template, can the government confirm the proposed workload numbers for BOE Line Item #210 (SOW C.5.11.3.2.8) Cost Report Appeals - Administrative Resolutions? Based on past experience, size and scope of the contract, the workload numbers do not match expectations. Administrative Resolutions are a non-preferred settlement method by the government, and the proposal volume has not been experienced cumulatively from the beginning of OY1 through current (volume=7). | CMS confirms the proposed workload volume for BOE item number 210 (WBS C.5.11.3.2.8Cost Report Appeals – Administrative Resolutions) reflects current workload projections. | ||
| 38 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | N/A | N/A | The OPD PA requests Initial Review and the OPD PA Requests - Resubmissions workloads outlined in the Basis of Estimate (BOE) encompass multiple request types with significantly different productivity requirements. |
| To ensure bidders can provide a precise weighted productivity proposal, would CMS please provide the estimated volume for each specific type of PA request? | CMS confirms the proposed workload volume for BOE item numbers for OPD PA Requests (WBS C.5.12.2.21) reflects current workload projections for each subcategory listed. | |
| 39 | J.22 Basis of Estimate |
J.36 CLIN 0003 Cost Proposal Template - OY1 C.5.11 N/A There are several instances in which the CLIN Pricing Schedules (i.e., RFP Attach. J.33 thru J.42) requires staffing and cost estimates at a lower Statement of Work (SOW) level than the BOE is requesting. For example, BOE #185 (FM of Trust Fund Dollars) is requesting staffing for C.5.11 and RFP Attachment J.36 requests staffing for C.5.11.1 through C.5.11.10.
| Would CMS prefer offerors to change the SOW reference in the BOE to match the SOW in the cost/price schedule? | CMS confirms Offerors should propose to the SOW WBS listed in the BOE. Offeror’s LOE proposed in the BOE should match its proposed LOE in the Cost Templates. Details proposed for lower-level SOW WBS in the Cost Templates that are not listed on the BOE should be rolled into the higher-level SOW WBS on the BOE and explained in Vol. II Assumptions as well as column S in the BOE. | |||||
| 40 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | C.5.11.4 - Demand Letters | N/A | Are the estimated Demand Letter workload volumes (RFP Attach. J.22, BOE line #197), comparable to recent annual Demand Letter workload volumes performed by the J8 MAC? If so, are there any atypical or nonrecurrent drivers that are causing estimated workload volumes to increase? Are there any other workloads that are not reflective to steady state workload volumes? | CMS confirms that the estimated Demand Letter workload volumes in BOE Line Item #197 (SOW C.5.11.4) are comparable to recent annual Demand Letter workload volumes for the J8 |
MAC. Any atypical or non-recurring drivers contributing to volume changes will be reflected in the Government-provided workload. Offerors shall use the Government-provided workload volumes as provided in Column J of the BOE.
| 41 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | Column E: "Line of Business" | N/A | There are 128 line items in the J.22 BOE template labeled Part A/HH&H. Because Part A/HH&H does not apply to Jurisdiction 8, should these rows be removed before submission, or should they remain in the BOE with blank cells? | CMS confirms that the 128 BOE line items labeled Part A/HH&H that do not apply to Jurisdiction 8 should remain in the BOE template with blank cells (i.e., offerors should not remove these rows). Offerors should leave all cells blank for Part A/HH&H line items that are not applicable to J8. |
| 42 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | N/A | N/A | For BOE Line Items 27, 29, 106-109, 132, 134, 151, 152, 162, 163, 248 & 250 the "Proposal Workload" column (K) contains a double bordered cell that is not shaded. However, these same BOE Line Items have a "RFP Workload" column (J) that is shaded. |
| Can CMS confirm offerors are NOT to populate the "Proposal Workload" column for these BOE Line Items. | CMS confirms that specific item numbers in the BOE have the cells in the RFP Workload column shaded while the other cells on the same rows are not shaded. As explained in the Instructions cell (column H) for those rows, Offerors should include all FTEs not included in the Staffing Plans for those SOW WBS workloads, or leave the cells blank. | ||||
| 43 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | N/A | N/A | BOE Line Items 27, 29, 106, 107, 108, 109, 132, 134, 151, 152, 162, 163, 248, and 250 have the following instruction in in the column titled “Instructions”: "Offeror should include all FTEs not included in the staffing plans below for this SOW WBS code in this SLIN. Offeror should leave this row blank if not applicable." |
In addition, these BOE Line Items have "Labor Mix" in the column titled "Detail Required." As a result, the BOE template is requiring workload-based support (e.g., proposed workload volumes, labor category workload allocations, historical workload volumes, productive hours, productivities, etc.). In other words, offerors cannot provide proposed hours or FTEs without providing a proposed workload.
Can CMS clarify how offerors should propose hours/FTEs where a workload is not associated with the hours and are not otherwise represented in the staffing plans for the applicable SOW WBS code and SLIN?
| Can offerors add a row detailing the Labor Mix for hours not associated with a workload? | CMS confirms that specific item numbers in the BOE have the cells in the RFP Workload column shaded while the other cells on the same rows are not shaded. As explained in the Instructions cell (column H) for those rows, Offerors should include all FTEs not included in the Staffing Plans for those SOW WBS workloads, or leave the cells blank. Offerors should use only those workloads provided in the BOE and the Cost Templates. The Offeror’s LOE proposed in the BOE should match the LOE proposed in the Cost Templates. | ||||
| 44 | J.22 Basis of Estimate | N/A | N/A | There are 197 rows on the BOE Template in which the column labeled "CMS Workload Assumption" is "No." For 183 of these 197 rows, the "Proposed Workload" column is shaded. However, the remaining 14 rows the "Proposal Workload" is unshaded. |
| Can CMS confirm they would like offerors to propose a workload for these BOE Line Items (See BOE Line Items 27, 29, 106, 107, 108, 109, etc.) | CMS confirms that specific item numbers in the BOE have the cells in the RFP Workload column shaded while the other cells on the same rows are not shaded. As explained in the Instructions cell (column H) for those rows, Offerors should include all FTEs not included in the Staffing Plans for those SOW WBS workloads, or leave the cells blank. Offerors should use only those workloads provided in the BOE and the Cost Templates. The Offeror’s LOE proposed in the BOE should match the LOE proposed in the Cost Templates. | ||||
| 45 | J.05 Government systems provided for Use.docx & J.06 Contractor Furnished Property | N/A | N/A | CMS has contracted with Amazon Connect to take over call center telephony and IVR for all MACs however this is not listed in J.05.Telephony and IVR are both listed as contractor furnished property listed in J.06. |
| Is it CMS's intent for MACs to include the cost of the Customer Service Telephony and IVR even though CMS is expected to take over these functions? | CMS confirms that Telephone systems and IVR hardware and software listed in J.06 sections C.5.3 and C.5.7 are required for J8. Offerors should include telephony and/or IVR costs in their proposals. Attachment J.23 Government Provided Proposal Assumptions has been updated to reflect this. | ||||
| 46 | J.01 Statement of Work | C.7.19 High Risk Fraud, Waste, or Abuse Areas (JE, JH, JK, JN and J8) | 177 | There RFP states, "The Strike Force will submit requests for data directly to the MAC point of contact on the appropriate uniform data request form (attached)." And also states, "The MAC shall provide the CMS Strike Force Liaison with an updated report of all Strike Force data requests on a regular basis. The report shall include the elments listed on the Tracking Report for HEAT Strike Force Data Requests (attached)." |
| The two documents referenced were not provided with the draft solicitation attachments. Please provide those two documents so that offerors can review them. | CMS confirms the two references to attachments have been removed from the Statement of Work. | |
| 47 | J.22 Basis of Estimate |
| J.36 CLIN 0003 Cost Proposal Template - OY1 | BOE/Cost Templates | N/A | The government has BOE item 218 mapped to a MIP SLIN (SOW C.5.11.3.3.2). The Cost Proposal Templates has it in the PM SLIN in SOW C.5.11.3.3. Can CMS confirm which is correct? | Response: CMS confirms that the Cost Templates contain A&R WBS C.5.11.3.3 for PM workloads and A&R WBS C.5.11.3.2 for MIP workloads. CMS also confirms that the BOE contains A&R WBS C.5.11.3.3.2 as SLIN AB (which is MIP) and A&R WBS C.5.11.3.3.3 as SLIN AA (which is PM). Offeror’s proposed LOE in the Cost Templates should match its proposed LOE in the BOE. Lower-level WBS should be rolled up into higher-level WBS when the lower-level WBS is not found on the CMS provided BOE or Cost Templates. | |
| 48 | J8+Draft+RFP+Backpages.docx | L.14.4 Small Business Utilization Proposed Approach, Proposal Instructions | 150 | Section L.14.4 Small Business Utilization Proposed Approach, Proposal Instructions (page 150), Item #3 indicates that "an Offeror is to submit their respective subcontracting plan electronically using the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Small Business Customer Experience (SBCX) system (https://osdbu.hhs.gov)." |
| Can CMS please provide an electronic plan template that we may use to document our plan as submitted in addition to the SBCX submission should there be an issue with the SBCX system? | The subcontracting plan link on the SBCX portal is now active. A electronic plan template (not up to date for the J8 soliciation) has been attached for the offeror to use however it sees fit, but please note submitting this template in lieu of the SBCX system electronic submission is not permissible and will not be accepted by CMS. | |||||
| 49 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean.docx | Section I - FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Alternate II); FAR 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan | 100 | The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Alternate II), and FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan. If the Prime Contractor awards a first-tier subcontract to an Other Than Small Business (OTSB) subcontractor that will perform the entirety of its subcontracted scope using its own employees and does not anticipate awarding lower-tier subcontracts, is that OTSB subcontractor still required to maintain an individual subcontracting plan and submit ISR/SSR reports for its role in the J8 contract? If so, please clarify CMS's expectations regarding the content of the subcontracting plan and applicable reporting requirements. | Only the prime contractor is required to submit a subcontracting plan for the J8 MAC. | |
| 50 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean.docx | Section I - FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Alternate II); FAR 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan | 100 | The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Alternate II), and FAR 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan. Will CMS please confirm the prime contract holder is monitored for adherence to small business contracting goals, and that any OTSB subcontractor is not required or monitored for fulfillment of small business subcontracting goals. | Only the prime contractor is required to submit a subcontracting plan for the J8 MAC. | |
| 51 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean.docx | L.12.6 Tab F, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | 132 | We note the inclusion of two sets of small business goals. One goal is 5% of total contract value while the other goal is 25% of total subcontracted dollars, with breakout goals for various small business categories. |
The inclusion of two sets of goals is likely to cause challenges for contractors and CMS in measuring and monitoring achievement of goals as these two measurements will net different subcontracting goal dollar amounts. Further, we understand that CMS has elected to shift assessment of current contracts away from the 5% TCV goal to instead monitor against the percentage of total subcontract revenue instead.
To simplify the administration and ongoing monitoring of contractor performance, we request that CMS choose to measure contractors on one standard or the other. We further recommend that CMS adopts 25% of total subcontractor spend as the J8 small business subcontracting goal as this seems best aligned with CMS current monitoring approach. CMS is not changing the wording of this section or the standards being evaluated. Offerors are being evaluated on the goal of 5% of total contract value going to small businesses, as well as being evaluated on meeting the Health and Human Services (HHS) Departmental prescribed small business subcontracting goals.
It is noted that the information that is to be submitted into the SBCX portal is based upon the available subcontracting dollars and the HHS Departmental prescribed small business subcontracting goals.
| 52 | J8 Sections B-M Final Draft clean.docx | L.12.6 Tab F, Small Business Subcontracting Plan | 132 | Offerors are required to submit a small business subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternate II using the link provided: https://osdbu.hhs.gov/subcontracting/e51b67f8-0eea-47a8-8425-84fac649a383. The Subcontracting Plan is not presently available via the SBCX Portal, preventing bidders from preparing these materials in advance of the bid response submission due date. Could CMS facilitate earlier access for bidder to the SBCX Portal to enable bidders to be adequately prepared well in advance of the submission due date? Past submissions have revealed challenges in mapping all required elements of the Subcontracting Plan to the available data elements via the SBCX Portal and additional time to access these materials help ensure bidders are responding to the solicitation by the due date. | The subcontracting plan link on the SBCX portal is now active. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .