Att G - Q&A - Responses posted 5.27.26.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 26-85965
- Issued by
- Marion County, Indiana
About this file
This is a Question and Answer Response document for RFP 26-85965 issued by the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH), Chronic Disease, Primary Care and Rural Health Division, addressing inquiries regarding data management and claims adjudication services for the Indiana Breast and Cervical Cancer Program (IN-BCCP) and Indiana WISEWOMAN program. The RFP seeks a qualified contractor to develop and implement a single integrated, web-based system capable of managing clinical and claims data, processing provider reimbursement, and supporting nurse case management for approximately 4,000 IN-BCCP women and 500 WISEWOMAN women annually, with anticipated growth of 5 percent annually for IN-BCCP and steady enrollment for WISEWOMAN. The system must achieve operability by July 31, 2026, and the contract term spans five years with one optional one-year renewal. The pre-proposal conference was held April 29, 2026, the written question deadline was May 6, 2026, with responses posted May 27, 2026, and proposals were due May 28, 2026, at 3:00 PM Eastern Time. The current incumbent vendor is OxBow Data Management Services, and the new vendor must migrate the entire historical dataset comprising approximately 145,000 client records and 68,000 patients since program inception in 1992, provided in CSV format.
The anticipated contract costs are $230,000 or less annually for IN-BCCP claims adjudication and data management services, plus approximately $950,000 annually for actual claims payments, and $30,000 or less for WISEWOMAN management services, plus approximately $63,000 annually for claims payments. This is a federally funded project with state dollars added only for client services rather than vendor services. The procurement requires 8 percent Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) subcontracting, 11 percent Women Business Enterprise (WBE) subcontracting, and 3 percent Indiana Veteran Owned Small Business (IVOSB) subcontracting. Vendors must demonstrate compliance with Indiana's GovRAMP policy based on NIST 800-53 Revision 5 standards and provide annual security audit results and incident response plans; SOC2 certification alone does not satisfy this requirement. The system must accommodate approximately 772 current users with anticipated growth to 1,400 users within five years, with varying access levels including provider, claims, regional coordinator, evaluator, administrator, nurse, and system administrator roles. As of May 2026, the State had not determined whether Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) services would be required, with that decision to be made following vendor selection.
View the file
Other files
Show all 22
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
Question & Inquiry Form
| Attachment G | ||||||
| Question and Answer Template | ||||||
| RFP #26-85965 Wisewoman & INBCCP Data Mgmt and Claims Adjudication | ||||||
| Please submit your questions in the form below (yellow shaded area) per RFP Section 1.24. | ||||||
| Click the dropdown in the RFP Document Column to select topic. | ||||||
| No. | RFP Document | Section Number | Page | Topic | Question | State Responses |
| 1 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | GovRAMP | The RFP states “Respondents must provide evidence of compliance with Indiana GovRAMP and furnish annual security audit results, encryption standards, and an incident response plan as part of their proposal.” Does a SOC2 certification meet this requirement or evidence of compliance with NIST 800 controls? | No, SOC2 does not meet the GovRAMP requirement. |
For an RFP, the "easy button" answer is the vendor needs to be on that list, and/or make a meaningful declaration that they are aware of the Indiana RAMP policy and begin taking steps to comply. These steps will include registering and becaming a GovRAMP member, start progress with identifying and contracting a third-party auditor to begin carrying out this assessment, make sure vendor provides the list of deliverables to GovRAMP via the continuous monitoring component of that engagement.
| 2 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Current System | What is the system that is currently being used for the scope of this project? | Currently, IDOH uses a system called Med-IT which is owned by OxBow Data Management Services. |
| 3 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Current System | Who is the incumbent of your current system? Are they able to resubmit a proposal for a potential award? | OxBow Data Management Services is the incumbent. They are able to resubmit a proposal. |
| 4 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Current System | Are there any areas of improvement you are looking for when getting a new system? | The nurse consultants on the IN-BCCP program have asked for greater connection of navigation notes (specifically to not have to open mulitple screens to follow a patient.) Both WISEWOMAN and IN-BCCP are always looking for greater efficiency and ease of entry and are open to any proposed innovation. |
| 5 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Scope of Project | Is this RFP asking for vendors to provide software and software-related support services only, or is it also expected that selected vendors process claims, provide reimbursement, interact with providers to answer queries about payments, etc. (i.e. is it software plus ongoing outsourced services)? | It is expected that the selected vendors will process claims, interact with providers to answer queries about payments, etc. |
| 6 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Budget | Is there an established budget for this project? If yes, can the State reveal the budget? | It is anticipated that cost for services for claims adjudication and data management for BCCP will be $230,000 or less. This does not include the funds in the contract that are earmarked to pay for actual claims which varies based on claims and numbers served and is estimated at approximately $950,000 annually. These dollars can only be used to pay for claims for BCCP services for clients not data and claims management. Indiana WISEWOMAN costs for services for claims adjudication and data management will be $30,000 or less. This does not include the funds in the contract that are earmarked to pay for actual claims which varies based on claims and numbers served and is estimated at approximately $63,000 annually. These dollars can only be used to pay for claims for WISEWOMAN services for clients not data and claims management. |
| 7 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Funding | If there is established funding for this project, is it supported by federal or state funding? | This is a federally funded project. State dollars are added only to pay for client services and not for vendor services. |
| 8 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | User Count | Can the State confirm the number of users that will require access to the system? | As of May 18, 772 people have some access to at least some of the functions for the program. It is anticipated that this could grow to 1400 over the next five years. |
| 9 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | User Access | Can the State elaborate on the levels of access that different user groups may require? | Provider access is limited to seeing claims for individual clients that the provider served. Claims access is limited to billing and claim notes for clients served in their clinics. Regional coordinators can access client records on both claim and clinical services for clients served in their provider region (along with some other access to other counties/providers). The evaluator can access aggregate data across time and access all query tools. Administrator access can access at all levels including administrative functions, reporting tools, user reports, and minimum data element access. Nurses have access to client service data and patient notes along with functions related to correcting the minimum data element fields. Administrator level data can see both administrative and client functions along with access to edit programming. Data entry limits the fields that can be accessed to those needed to enter and enroll clients. System admin is maintained by vendor and allows for system program changes. |
| 10 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Timeline | Is there a strict timeline/go-live date for this project? | The system must be ready function to assure continuing client services no later than July 31, 2026. |
| 11 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Current System | Is the reason for the new system dissatisfaction with the current system or is the RFP is the current contract expiring (or some other reason) ? | The contract is expiring. |
| 12 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | N/A | N/A | Legacy Data | Is legacy data needing to be imported and can you provide a rough magnitude of that data if so, and in what format? | Legacy data will need to be imported. It would come in a CSV format. There are records for approximately 145,000 clients in the system at this time. |
| 13 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The SOW states IN-BCCP currently serves approximately 4,000 women annually and IN-WISEWOMAN serves approximately 500, while the Database Management section references a minimum of 4,600 IN-BCCP women and 500 IN-WISEWOMAN women. Could IDOH confirm the projected annual volumes (clients, encounters, and claims) the proposed solution should be sized for in Year 1, and the anticipated growth curve over the 5–6 year contract term so we can scale infrastructure and staffing appropriately? | IN-BCCP is required to project 5% growth annually. Projected growth for FY 26-27 is 4,341 clients. For FY 27-28, projection will be 4,558. For FY28-29, projection will be 4,786. For FY29-30, projection is 5,025. These numbers are dependent on availability of funds and previous growth, so there is quite a bit of projection in their development. WISEWOMAN is projected to maintain a steady enrollment of 500 clients for the same five year period. | |||
| 14 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The SOW notes IN-BCCP has served over 68,000 patients through approximately 145,000 unique visits since inception. Could IDOH confirm (a) whether the full historical dataset (since program inception) must be migrated into the new system, or only an active/recent subset (e.g., last 3–5 years), and (b) the cut-off rules for what constitutes 'active' records for migration? | The entire data set since it's inception in 1992 must be migrated. There is no cut off for records migration. | |||
| 15 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The SOW requires use of one of the State's contracted payment processors per IC 5-27-3-2 if subcontracting payment processes, with two models available (Convenience and Merchant). Could IDOH clarify (a) which model is preferred or required for this engagement, (b) whether payment processor fees are paid by IDOH outside the contract value or must be included in the Cost Proposal, and (c) whether an in-house ACH / check disbursement capability operated by the Vendor (without a third-party processor) is acceptable? | a) The State does not have a preference between convenience and merchant. b) Payment processor fees must be included in the cost proposal. c) In house ACH/check disbursement capability operated by the Vendor with or without a third process is acceptable and expected. | |||
| 16 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The bullet on retaining provider agreements ends mid-sentence ('… correct payment, refund allocation and …'). Could IDOH provide the complete intended requirement, including any specific refund-handling, recoupment, or overpayment-recovery capabilities that must be supported by the system? | IDOH does consider refund handling, recoupment and overpayment capabilities to be required for the system. The completed sentence should read "Explore ongoing methods to assure correct payment, refund allocation and reconciliation." | |||
| 17 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The SOW requires safe and secure linking with the Indiana Cancer Registry to track missing IN-BCCP cases. Could IDOH provide (a) the frequency of the data exchange, and (b) any data use agreements that the Vendor will need to execute? | This occurs twice a year. These are both IDOH data sets and as such data sharing agreements are not required. | |||
| 18 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | Could IDOH describe the current/incumbent system landscape including (a) the name and vendor of the existing data management and claims adjudication system, (b) approximate volume and format of historical data (clients, encounters, claims, provider agreements, navigation records) to be migrated, (c) whether the incumbent will provide structured data extracts and the contractual timeline for handover, and (d) the expected cutover approach (big-bang vs. parallel run)? | a) The current Vendor is Oxbow Data management who handles both data management and claims adjudication. b)Last month, 139,851 cycles were archived. c) If handover is necessary, the incumbent will provide a timeline for handover during July 2026. d) At this time, we do not anticipate a parallel run. | |||
| 19 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | Could IDOH share the expected implementation timeline post-award, including (a) target go-live date, (b) any required parallel-run period with the incumbent, and (c) whether interim/temporary operation of the incumbent system by the new Vendor during transition is contemplated? | At this time there are no plans for parallel operation and we expect a go live date by July 31, 2026. | |||
| 20 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | The SOW requires a web-based patient navigation database for IN-BCCP Nurse Consultants. Could IDOH clarify (a) whether this is expected to be a distinct module within the same platform as data management/claims, (b) approximate number of nurse consultant, regional coordinator, and provider users (per role), and (c) whether mobile/tablet access is required for field navigation activities? | a) Although it is not expected, the current concept for the nurse navigation portion has historically worked best as a separate system which provides data from the main data base as those clients who receive navigation are a subset who diagnostic services from the entire client base. b) Currently there are 9 people with admin access, 228 with Billing/claims access, 2 who have data entry only access, 5 who have evaluator access, 78 who have access to clinical and claim records, 3 who have access to nurse navigation records, 15 who have regional coordinator access and 7 who have system admin access. All of these numbers include active and inactive users. In the current systems, users are deactivated automatically if they have not used the system in 30 days. | |||
| 21 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | Do you have any existing "Provider Demographics" database that can reused for the Claim adjudication system or does it require to maintain Provider Demographics with in the newly proposed system? | The provider list is part of the current data base. Although IDOH maintains signed agreements with providers and has paper copies of these records, updates and full information is housed within the current data base and would need to be recreated or moved if a new vendor is selected. | |||
| 22 | RFP Document | IV&V services may be added with IV&V approval required prior to vendor payment for contracts entered into, renewed, or amended after June 30, 2026. Could IDOA/IDOH confirm (a) whether IV&V will in fact be deployed for this engagement, (b) the expected IV&V review cycle time per deliverable so respondents can build realistic invoicing and cash-flow assumptions, and (c) whether IV&V scope and cost is borne by the State separately? | The State has not yet determined whether IV&V services will be required for this engagement. The State will assess the need for IV&V after vendor selection. If the State engages IV&V and it is determined that deliverable approval is needed, review cycles will vary based on factors that include the nature and complexity of individual deliverables. The State manages IV&V scope and cost separately from this procurement. | |||
| 23 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | On Page 5 under 'Data Review, Entry, and Management Indiana WISEWOMAN,' one bullet reads 'Support data submission and assure' and appears truncated. Could IDOH provide the complete intended requirement (e.g., assure patient confidentiality, assure data quality, etc.)? | The sentence should read "to support data submission and assure patient confidentiality." It is identical to the statement for IN-BCCP. | |||
| 24 | Attachment K – Scope of Work | Are there standardized patient navigation workflows currently used by IN‑BCCP nurse consultants, or should vendors propose optimized workflows? | There are current standard operating procedures that guide workflows. Although IDOH is always interested in continuous program improvement and applying suggestions, development of optomized workflows is not a contract requirement. | |||
| 25 | ||||||
| 26 | ||||||
| 27 | ||||||
| 28 | ||||||
| 29 | ||||||
| 30 | ||||||
| 31 | ||||||
| 32 | ||||||
| 33 | ||||||
| 34 | ||||||
| 35 | ||||||
| 36 | ||||||
| 37 | ||||||
| 38 | ||||||
| 39 | ||||||
| 40 | ||||||
| 41 | ||||||
| 42 | ||||||
| 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 |
| Attachment A MWBE Commitment |
| Attachment A1 - IVOSB Commitment |
| Attachment B Sample Contract |
| Attachment C Indiana Economic Impact Form |
| Attachment D Cost Proposal Template |
| Attachment E Business Proposal Template |
| Attachment F Technical Proposal Template |
| Attachment H Reference Form |
| Attachment I Pre-Proposal Network Opportunities Form |
| Attachment J Attestation Form |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .