Questions_and_Answers_-_FY15_SECOP_Seattle_Solicitation_DOL-OPS-15-R-00019.pdf

Solicitation Number DOL-OPS-15-R-00019

Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers Submitted For

Fiscal Year 2015 Medical Second Opinion and Medical Examination Services (SECOP) for the Seattle District Office (District Office 14)

Department Of Labor (DOL) Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP)

Division of Federal Employees’ Compensation (DFEC)

1. QUESTION: The Request for Proposal (RFP) refers to the “New York District Office.” Is the correct reference the “Seattle District Office?” If not, please clarify.

Reference: Section C, Part 1, Performance Work Statement, C.1.10, Page 10; and Section H.14, Page 75.

ANSWER:

The RFP should refer to the “Seattle District Office.” Therefore, Section C.1.10 has been corrected to read Seattle District Office in lieu of New York District Office; and Section H.14 has been corrected to indicate Seattle District Office.

2. QUESTION: Is the Doctor of Podiatric Medicine (DPM) degree acceptable in addition to the requirement that all physicians shall possess an M.D. or a D.O. degree?

Reference: Section C, Part 1, Performance Work Statement, C.1.1.B(1)a, Page 15; and Part 5, Specific Tasks, Task 3 (1)a, Page 43.

As applicable, all physicians shall possess a M.D., D.O., or DPM degree.

3. QUESTION:

Section C.1.14.B(4) states in part: “Within these listed Metropolitan Areas, no one Orthopedic

Surgeon shall conduct more than 20% of the examinations for that medical specialty per annum;

neither shall one Otolaryngologist or one Psychiatrist conduct more than 33% of the examinations for those medical specialties per annum.”

Please provide information regarding the maximum acceptable level of referred cases to be supported by an individual specialist, and the specialties, as the RFP content is inconsistent across sections. Is the information / content in “Section C.1.14.B(4)” correct? If not, please clarify.

Reference: Section C, Part 1, Performance Work Statement, C.1.14, B, Item 4, Page 16; Part 5, Specific Tasks, Part Five, Task Three, Item (4).b, Pages 44-45; and Part 5, Specific Tasks, Technical Exhibit 1, PRS #1, Performance Threshold Column, Page 60.

Sections C.1.14(b) Item 4; Part 5, Task 3, Item (4)b, and Part 5, Technical Exhibit 1 have been corrected to reflect that the maximum acceptable levels of referred cases and examinations to be supported by an individual specialist should not exceed 33% per annum.

4. QUESTION: Please provide clarification on the reasonable commuting distance for urban areas.

Specific Tasks, Task Three, Item (4).a, Page 44; and Section J, Attachment J.1, Item H, Page

108.

The reasonable commuting distance for urban areas should not exceed 30 miles or 45 minutes.

5. QUESTION: Please provide clarification on the reasonable commuting distance for rural areas.

Specific Tasks, Task Three, Item (4).c, Page 44; and Section J, Attachment J.1, Item H, Page

108.

The reasonable commuting distance for rural areas should not exceed 60 miles or 1.5 hours.

6. QUESTION: What specific Federal Security Training Requirements are mandated for this contract? Do the Federal Security Training Requirements only apply to onsite Contractors?

Do the Federal Security Training Requirements also apply to Subcontractors who are not employees?

How do Offerors obtain a Government signed waiver agreement?

Reference: Section C, Part 1, Performance Work Statement, C.1.21(a), Page 26.

The Government will provide specific Federal Security Training Requirements to the successful

Offeror at time of award.

7. QUESTION: Do internal training programs conducted by the Offeror meet the requirements for providing proof of recent training in the application of the AMA Guides 6th edition for the

Quality Assurance Analyst?

Reference: Section C, Part 1, Performance Work Statement, C.1.28, Page 29.

Although internal training programs may be used to provide proof of recent training, the

Government reserves the right to review the training program to ensure that it meets AMA

Guides 6th edition for the Quality Assurance Analyst.

8. QUESTION: Can the Government provide clarification on the solicitation requirement that:

“For the purposes of this contract, all physicians shall be engaged in an active medical practice with no less than a minimum of 240 hours of direct patient care over the previous XX months.”

The solicitation is inconsistent with values of six (6) months and twelve (12) months.

Reference: Section C, Part 5—Task Three, Item (1).d, Page 44, Second Paragraph; and Part 5—

Specific Tasks, Task Three, Item (3), Page 49.

The solicitation was revised to indicate the following:

For the purposes of this contract, all physicians shall be engaged in an active medical practice with no less than a minimum of 240 hours of direct patient care over the previous twelve (12) months.

9. QUESTION: Does the solicitation contain a typographical error in Part 5—Specific Tasks, Technical Exhibit 1, PRS #1, Standard Column (Page 60) which states that:

“The Contractor is required to have five (5) “required” physician specialty and ability to arrange examinations with specialties outside the 5 must haves.”

Should the number listed in the Standard Column for Technical Exhibit 1 be six (6) instead of five (5)?

Yes. Technical Exhibit 1 has been corrected to indicate six (6).

10. QUESTION:

It is understood that the Contractor will submit bills/invoices to OWCP in accordance with the

RFP and therefore will enroll in the Medical Bill Processing System / EFT System.

The actual SECOP Providers are Subcontractors and their invoice processing is performed by the

Prime Contractor and therefore do not need to be enrolled in the OWCP system.

Please clarify the requirements for enrollment in the Medical Bill Processing System / EFT

System since only the Contractor will submit bills/invoices to OWCP.

Reference: Section C, Part 5, Specific Tasks, Technical Exhibit 1, PRS #5, Page 62; Section G, G.4, after C.2; Section H, H.11, Paragraph 4; and Section J, Attachment J.2.

The successful Offeror (Prime Contractor) shall be enrolled in OWCP’s Medical Bill Processing

System and the EFT System and will be responsible the processing of all bill/invoices as outlined in OWCP’s Medical Bill Processing Procedures and Attachment J.2. The actual SECOP

Providers do not need to be enrolled in WCMBP / EFT System(s). Part 5 Exhibit 1, G4, H.11 and Attachment J.2 have been revised to reflect the clarification.

11. QUESTION:

Is it correct to assume that this requirement is not intended to constrain specialists in active practice from providing services that do not create a conflict of interest situation (i.e. claimant is a patient)?

Additionally, is it correct to assume that specialists who provide services on this contract:

(A) Cannot perform workers’ compensation medical second opinion services for other

Federal Government agencies.

(B) May perform workers’ compensation medical second opinion services for private sector entities.

(C) May provide other medical services for other Federal Government agencies and other entities, e.g. disability exams for military service members.

Additional Consideration: Please note that in certain geographic areas and specialties there could only be only one (1) provider available that meets the RFP requirements. However, according to the solicitation, that one (1) provider would not be eligible because they performed a “medical examination service” for another Federal Government Agency which is not related to

DOL Workers’ Compensation Exams.

Yes, the interpretations / assumptions listed above are correct. Additionally, the Government will examine each case to determine its unique circumstances and the availability of adequate and sufficient numbers of required specialists / providers within a geographical location.

12. QUESTION:

Would the Government consider removing the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Clauses from the solicitation?

A. FAR 52.203-5

B. FAR 52.249-4

Yes. Both FAR 52.203-5 and FAR 52.249-4 were removed from the solicitation.

13. QUESTION:

Would the Government consider removing the following Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

Clauses from the solicitation?

A. FAR 52.215-2

B. FAR 52.222-41

C. FAR 52.222-43

D. FAR 52.222-51

E. FAR 52.222-52

No. The clauses will remain in the solicitation and will only be applied as applicable.

14. QUESTION:

Please provide clarification on how to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Section I.9 of the solicitation states in part that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be submitted “as part of the Contract Volume.”

Can the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be provided as part of the Price Volume?

Offerors shall submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan as part of the Price Volume.

15. QUESTION: Would the Government consider increasing the page count for Volume I –

Technical?

Yes. The page count for Volume I – Technical was increased from not to exceed (NTE) 20

Pages to NTE 30 Pages.

16. QUESTION:

Please provide clarification on how to submit provider documentation (i.e. CV, license, Board

Certification).

Can provider documentation be provided in the form of separate volumes as an addendum to

Volume I?

Is the Government willing to accept only digital copies of physician/specialists’ experience and qualifications documentation (i.e. CV, license, board certification, etc.)?

Please note that “hardcopy” submission of provider documentation may result in a voluminous submission requiring multiple binders.

Are Offerors required to submit a redacted version of physician/specialists’ documentation?

Submission of the provider documentation can be submitted in the form of separate volumes as an addendum to Volume I.

Additionally, Offerors shall submit only digital copies (three) of the physician/specialists experience and qualifications documentation.

No redacted version of the physician/specialists’ documentation is required.

17. QUESTION:

Please provide the information (point of contact information) that is missing from Attachment

J.5; Attachment J.6; and Section L, L.2.D (4) – Past Performance Questionnaire?

Attachment J.5; Attachment J.6; and Section L, L.2.D (4) – Past Performance Questionnaire were revised to include the e-mail address for the Contract Specialist. The point of contact information for the Contract Specialist is as follows:

Contract Specialist E-Mail Address: johnson.james.m@dol.gov

18. QUESTION:

Is a signed Transmittal Cover Sheet required when submitting Past Performance

Questionnaires?

If so, will the Government provide the Transmittal Cover Sheet?

A signed Transmittal Cover Sheet is not required when submitting Past Performance

Questionnaires.

19. QUESTION:

The solicitation requires a minimum quantity of one (1) and a maximum quantity of 1000

Medical Second Opinions (MSO) for the Base Year of the contract and each Option Year.

Can the Government provide an accounting of the actual number of MSOs for each of the past five (5) years for District Office 14?

No. The information requested regarding Contractor Fees is exempt under Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) Exemption 4.

20. QUESTION:

Who is the incumbent Contractor? Is this procurement considered to be a new requirement?

This requirement is re-compete of existing services. The incumbent Contractor currently providing services is MES Solutions.

21. QUESTION:

What is the Contract Number for the current contract? What was the award value for the current contract?

Current Contract Number: DOLJ109E30203

Contract Award Value: NTE $4,542,875.00

22. QUESTION:

Can the Government please indicate the current Contractor’s fees for each of the following?

a. Medical Second Opinion Services

b. Schedule Awards

c. Supplemental Reports

d. Follow-Up Reports

e. File Review Only

No. The information requested regarding Contractor Fees is exempt under Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) Exemption 4. Therefore, the Government will not release any information related to Contractor Fees for “Item a” through “Item e.”

23. QUESTION:

Can Vendors offer different pricing for Alaska than for the other states?

Reference: Section B8, Page 2.

Yes. The Offeror may offer different pricing for Alaska than for the other states.

24. QUESTION:

Is this contract intended to be awarded to a Small Business as a Small Business Set-Aside?

The requirement for Medical Second Opinion and Medical Examination Services (“SECOP”) for

District Office 14 -- Seattle, shall be competed utilizing Full and Open Competition—no Set-

Asides shall be used.

As a result, all businesses—regardless of size designation, can compete for the contract.

25. QUESTION:

What is the period of performance for this requirement?

The solicitation was revised to include the following period of performance:

Base Period: 12/01/2015 – 11/30/2016

Option Year 1: 12/01/2016 – 11/30/2017

Option Year 2: 12/01/2017 – 11/30/2018

Option Year 3: 12/01/2018 – 11/30/2019

Option Year 4: 12/01/2019 – 11/30/2020