QUESTIONS_(Autosaved).xls
XLS spreadsheet 51 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MEDICAL SECOND OPINION (BOSTON)
- Solicitation number
- DOL-OPS-16-R-00015
About this file
Q As
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DOL-OPS16-R-00015-0002.pdf | ||
| DOL-OPS16-R-00015-0002.pdf | ||
| DOL-OPS16-R-00015.pdf | ||
| DOL-OPS16-R-00015.pdf | ||
| OWCP_MEDICAL_SECOND_OPINION_SERVICES_Q As.xls | XLS spreadsheet |
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
Sheet
| DOL/OWCP MEDICAL SECOND OPTION SERVICES (BOSTON) QUESTIONS SUBMISSION | ||||
| Identifier | Question Title | Section Number | Question Detail | Government Comment |
| What are the 4 required specialties - or are there 5? | 3.1.13 | There are inconsistencies within the solicitation specific to the medical specialties considered as “required”. Section C.1.13 references “… the physicians/specialists are geographically located within he Seattle District Office MSA…” and then goes on to note that the four (4) required specialties are: Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Psychiatry, and Neurological Surgery. The Definitions and Acronyms section of the solicitation also includes the same four specialties noted above. Under Task 3 – “Qualified and Appropriate Medical Specialists” the solicitation states “no one specialist shall conduct more than 33% of the examinations for that medical specialty in any one MSA per annum; neither shall one orthopedic surgery, neurology, psychiatry, and pulmonology specialist conduct more than 33% of the examinations for those medical specialties in any one MSA per anum.” It is our assumption that the Boston District Office intended to include the four (4) required specialties of: Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Psychiatry, and Neurology. In our experience, there is rarely a need for 3 or more Pulmonary Medicine specialists in an MSA for SECOPs. Likewise there are far more Neurology requests than Neurological Surgery requests for SECOP examinations. Please confirm. | CORRECTION: The four (4) required specialties are: Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Psychiatry, and Neurological Surgery | |
| What needs to be redacted? | L.2.C | p. 120 of the solicitation notes that the physician/specialist CVs do not need to be redacted. Do any portions of the proposal need to be redacted, such as the technical proposal? | CORRECTION: There are no redacted copies required. | |
| Does "three digital copies of each CV" mean 3 copies of each email, or will one copy of each email suffice to meet the submission requirement? | L.2.C | p. 120 also notes that experience and qualifications documentation may be submitted as digital copies (three) – since we are required to submit the entire proposal by email with no hard copies submitted, does this mean that we need to send three copies of each email to reach this total? Or would one copy of each email only meet the requirement? | one copy of each email will fulfill this requireent | |
| Late cancel costs | B.5 "Payment for "No Show/Canceled Appointments" | We note that the government offers 50.00 for a no-show and late cancellation fee. With rare exception, providers require payment of at least half their fees for a no-show. Thus any vendor must bear financial risk with each no-show. Would the government consider increasing this fee to a higher amount? | RESPONSE: No further consideration will be provided. | |
| Past Peformance Questionnaire and Submission Instructions | J.2 and J.6 |
L.2.D, Volume II(4)
| RFP pg 97 and pg 122 | The Past Performance Questionnaire is incomplete. Please provide the Contract Specialist email address where the Questionniare will be returned to the Government. Additionally, the second part of the Questionnaire (identified as Attachment J.6, Past Performance Questionnaire in Attachment J.2) is missing. | CLARIFICATION: No Past Performance Questionnaire is required. The Government will however, use information from the Contractors Performance Assessment Report System (CPARs). | |
| District | C.1.13 | ||
| RFP page 10 | It is our assumption that "Seattle" is an error and that the physicians/specialists are geographically located within the Boston District Office MSA. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | CORRECTION: All references to Seattle are hereby removed. The services are required for the Boston District Office MSA: Connecticut, Maine, Massachuseets, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. | |
| Required Specialties | Task 3; 5.3.1(2)a.(4)b. Technical Exhibit 1 PRS #1 | ||
| RFP pages 31 and 50 | These sections refer to orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, neurology, psychiatry and pulmonology specialists as the required specialties; however in the Definitions and Section C.1.13 on page 10, the four required specialties are orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, psychiatry and neurological surgery. It is our assumption that the four specialties listed in the Definitions is correct. Is this assumption correct? Please clarify the required specialists. | CORRECTION: The four (4) required specialties are: Orthopedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Psychiatry, and Neurological Surgery | |
| States Covered | 5.3.3.a | ||
| RFP page 34 | This section refers to Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont as the states covered by the Boston District Office. Please clarify if the state of Massachusetts is included in the Boston District Office. | CORRECTION: The Boston District Office covers the MSA of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. | |
| Federal Security Training | PWS Part 1, Item C.1.24 | ||
| RFP page 14 | What specific Federal security training requirements are mandated for this contract? Does this requirement only apply to onsite contractors? What about subcontractors who are not employees? What is the process to obtain Government signed waiver agreement? | RESPONSE: This information will be provided at time of award. | |
| Project Management | PWS Part 5, Item 5.1.3 | ||
| RFP page 24 | Please clarify the “Project Management (exempt position)”. |
| It is our assumption that the Project Management requirements are the responsibility of the Program Manager key personnel positions. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | RESPONSE: Project Management is typically the responsiblity of the key personnel position of Project Manager. | ||
| AMA Guide Training | PWS Part 5, Item 5.1.3 | ||
| RFP page 25 | It is our assumption that 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. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | CLARIFICATION: The offerors internal training programs may serve as proof of recent training in the application of the AMA Guides 6th edition for the Quality Assurance Analyst. | |
| Medical Specialist Requirements | PWS Part 5, Task 3, Item 5.3.1(1).d |
RFP page 30-31
PWS Part 5, Task 3, Item 5.3.1(5) RFP page 31 Please clarify the intent of this requirement and provide examples of acceptable and unacceptable scenarios.
It is our interpretation 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).
It is our interpretation that specialists who provide services on this contract:
(1) Cannot perform workers’ compensation medical second opinion services for other federal government agencies.
(2) May perform workers’ compensation medical second opinion services for private sector entities.
(3) May provide other medical services for other federal government agencies and other entities, e.g. disability exams for military service members.
Are these interpretations correct? If not, please clarify.
| For additional consideration, in certain geographic areas and specialties there could only be only one provider available that meets the RFP requirements and would then not be eligible because they performed a “medical examination service” for another federal government agency which is not related to DOL worker’s compensation exams. | RESPONSE: Yes, the interpretations listed for 1,2,3 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. | ||
| Audit Clause | Section I, Item I.1 | ||
| RFP page 69 | Since this is a commercial item contract please delete 52.215-2, as provided in FAR 15.209(b)(1)(iii). Please also note that no certified cost or pricing data is required here. | Clause has been removed | |
| SCA Clause | Section I, Item I.3(c)(1) and (2) |
RFP page 77
Section I, I.12
| RFP page 85 | Please delete FAR 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards, FAR 52.222-43, FAR 52.222-17 and FAR 52.222-52. This is a contract to be performed overwhelmingly by physicians, who are not “service employees.” In addition, Wage Determination(s) are not provided with the RFP. | Clauses will NOT be removed | |
| Flowdown Clause | Section I, Item I.3(e)(1) | ||
| RFP page 78 | Section I.3(e)(1) of the RFP requires the Service Contract Act clause as a flow down to subcontractors. Offeror requests removal of the Service Contract Act and related clauses. This is a contract to be performed overwhelmingly by physicians, who are not “service employees.” |
Since the Act requires the payment of minimum compensation for work performed under the contract, and recordkeeping to prove that such compensation was paid, the compliance burden for the average medical practice would be burdensome. The flow down of the Act will make it very difficult to obtain medical practices as subcontractors.
The physicians themselves are exempt from the Act as “professionals.” 29 C.F.R. § 541.304 (a) & (b). Moreover, some nurses and physician assistants are also exempt. 29 C.F.R. § 541.301(e). Other nurses and medical technicians are apparently covered, and will have to be paid the minimum compensation in the wage determination applicable to their locality. These individuals may work for the prime and/or a subcontractor. In addition, other individuals performing duties on the contract may be exempt as “administrative” workers.
| Request removal of FAR clauses 52.222-41, 52.222-51 and 52.222-53 from the RFP. These clauses are not included in the prime contract per Section I.3(c). | CORRECTION: FAR Clauses 52.222-41, shall remain checked FAR clauses 52.222-51 and 52.222-53 shall remained unchecked. | ||
| Electronic Proposal Submission | Section L.2 | ||
| RFP page 119 | It is our assumption that only an electronic proposal submission is required (i.e. no hardcopies). The RFP posted on February 3, 2016 stated in FedBizOpps "PLEASE SUBMIT RESPONSES PER THE RFP INSTRUCTIONS BY 10:00AM ET, FRIDAY, MARCH 4, 2016, TO | ||
| ELVIS R. COLBERT AT COLBERT.ELVIS.R@DOL.GOV." Is this assumption correct? If not, please provide further clarificaton on proposal submission instructions. | CORRECTION: Only one electronic copy of the proposal is required. | ||
| Proposal File Format | Section L.2 | ||
| RFP page 119 | It is our assumption that Portable Document Format (PDF) file format is acceptable for the proposal Volume electronic format. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify the acceptable electronic file formats. | All volumes of the proposals Shall be submited in PDF or MS Word format | |
| File Size | Section L.2 | ||
| RFP page 119 | Please provide information on any file attachment size limitations for submission of the proposal electronically via email. For example, no larger than 20 MB. | ||
| Number of Files | Section L.2 | ||
| RFP page 119 | The physician/specialist addendum typically consists of several very large electronic PDF files. It is our assumption that this addendum will be split into multiple files based on the maximum DOL email attachment file size and submitted in multiple emails. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | CLARIFICATION: Only electronic proposals submissions are required for this RFP and this may include multiple files based on the maximum DOL email file size limitations for attachments. | |
| Number of Addendum Copies | Section L.2.C | ||
| RFP page 120 | Please clarify instructions on submission of the physician/specialist experience and qualifications documentation and number of digital copies. It is our assumption that one (1) electronic copy shall be submitted via electronic mail. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | CLARIFICATION: Only one electronic copy of the proposal addendum is required to be submitted for the physician/specialist experience and qualifications. | |
| Removal of PPQs | Amendment 0001 RFP |
Section G.8, RFP page 63
Attachment J.2 RFP pages 95, 97-98
Section L.2.D, Volume II, (4) RFP page 122
Section M, Volume II RFP page 128 Amendment 0001 posted on February 4, 2016 stated in FedBizOpps that "Updated Solicitation removing Past Performance Questionnaire submission requirement. No PPQs are required to be submitted with offeror's proposals." The RFP posted with Amendment 0001 still contains references to the use of PPQs as outlined in prior column. It is our assumption that all these RFP references will be removed. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. REMOVED
&L&F&C&A &C&P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .