ESBD_File_328573_Addendum 2_Attachment 2_Q&As.pdf

Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

C:\Users\Fnesbitt01\Pictures\images.png

PCS 134

Form Revision Date 05/10/2021 Release Date 06/26/2015 Vendor Questions and Answers +/- Rows Reference Vendor Question HHS Response 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229 Respondents are required to provide a portal solution along with detailed security provisions that meet the compliance standards of TX-RAMP Level Two. See Addendum 2_Attachment 1_Revised RFQ HHS0013244, Section 1.2, Section 2.4.1 (B)(13), Section 2.13. See also additional exhibits included in RFQ Article IX and attached to Addendum 2: Exhibit- M HHSC Information Security Controls, Exhibit N – Insurance Security Assessment External Entities, and Exhibit O – HHS Information Security and Privacy Requirements.

For security control information see response to question 1.

Respondent should detail the level of authentication that their portal will provide and ensure they meet Texas Department of Information Resources requirements, including TX-RAMP certification. See Addendum 2_Attachment 1_Revised RFQ HHS0013244, Section 1.2, Section 2.4.1 (B)(13), Section 2.13. At a minimum vendors shall authenticate access to the portal with a combination of user ID and password for both internal and external users. Multi-factor authentication will also be considered but is not required.

See Addendum 2_Attachment 1_Revised RFQ HHS0013244, Section 1.2, Definitions. Click the link in this definition. At the resulting page, click TX-RAMP Manual 2.0. Consult Appendix D of this manual to determine whether a product or service is a cloud computing service subject to TX-RAMP.

Article II, Scope of Work requirements do not need to be individually affirmed unless the specific requirement references attestation. An aggregate affirmation in the “Executive Summary” that references all Scope of Work requirements is sufficient. Furthermore, the Respondent’s response to RFQ Sections 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 should address all requirements in the Scope of Work.

While there is no maximum, HHS OIG expects the contractor to complete a minimum of two calls to the provider to request medical documentation for all Complex Scenarios.

The “other reports” in RFQ Section 2.2.3, (B) (11) do not have an anticipated number or type but, rather, is intended to allow for ad hoc reports that are not currently envisioned but may be needed to address program needs, legislative inquiries, open records requests, or other information during the term of the contract. If the reports in RFQ Section 2.2.3 (B) (1)(10) are robust and comprehensive, ad hoc reports should be a rare occurrence.

The SPA [State Plan Amendment] for the Medical Director does not expire. HHS OIG anticipates that this exception will continue through the term of this contract.

The online portal is solely for work done under this Scope of Work.

Yes, the portal must support the upload of additional documentation and the application of HHS appeal policies and procedures.

Yes, unless an alternative, interim option is approved by HHS OIG. See RFQ Section 2.6 (C) Deliverables.

See Exhibit B HHS UTCs Vendor v3.3 Section 5.2 Contractors Pre-Existing Works.

No, HHS OIG will not consider adding this language.

No, HHS OIG will not consider adding this language.

HHS OIG is open to discussing this requirement during negotiation and, further, would depend upon the state’s acceptance of the turnover plan and the amount of outstanding recoveries at contract expiration.

No, HHS OIG will not agree to change the phrase “will be assessed” to “may be assessed.”

The language in RFQ Section 2.8.1 (G), already says “may.”

The percent of appeals in RFQ Section 2.8.1 (G), is not based on the total of overpayment amounts identified. This requirement is based on the number of appeals overturned compared to the total number of appeals processed for a given period.

No, HHS OIG will not change this requirement since the selected contractor has the ability to request an extension to the deadline as specified in RFQ Section 2.8.1 (K).

The Texas RAC Program currently operates in a fee-for-service (FFS) environment only.

The figures below are approximate and based on a state fiscal year (September 1 – August 31) rather than calendar year. Since “audits” is not a defined term, only recovery amounts are presented. Recoveries are net, already reduced by contractor contingency fees.

• SFY 2022: $52,000,000 recovered

• SFY 2021: $40,000,000 recovered Yes, refer to RFQ Section 3.5.2 Page Limit and Supporting Documentation.

No, minimum qualifications are considered supporting documentation per RFQ Section 3.5.2.

Yes, the project plan in RFQ Section 5.3 should address how the Respondent will meet the requirements detailed in the Scope of Work. The Respondent has the latitude to submit the response in the manner of their choice, if it adheres to the requirements in Article II.

This is confirmed, it is not included in the 25-page limit. See RFQ Section 3.5.2 Page Limit and Supporting Documentation only applies to Article 5 Statement of Qualifications.

Yes, all this is confirmed per RFQ Section 8.1.5 Public Information Act (A) (3). Claimed exemptions must be clearly identified on the Original Solicitation Response, not a copy.

The state is open to discussing this during negotiations.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E. See also Exhibit B – HHS UTCs Vendor v 3.3, Section 5.2 Pre-existing works.

This will be directed by System Agency at time of request.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Any existing SaaS must meet the definition of NIST as specified in by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Special Publication No. 800-145 (https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/145/final).

See response to question 35 regarding the use of a SaaS system. Also requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

Requested modifications of the HHS Uniform Terms and Conditions should be advanced as exceptions in Exhibit E.

The link to HHS standards for date management are published here: https://dir.texas.gov/information-security/texas-risk-and-authorization-management-program-tx-ramp

a) No, HHS OIG will not consider striking “any liability.”

b) No, HHS OIG will not consider striking “additional named insured.”

This is a procurement of services from the Contractor. FFATA is optional.

HHS OIG is open to discussing this requirement during negotiation.

HHS OIG is open to discussing this requirement during negotiation.

HHS OIG is open to discussing this requirement during negotiation.

a. Would HHS OIG consider striking “any liability” from this clause as it could conflict with the contractor’s policy endorsements and/or exclusions?

b. Would HHS OIG consider striking “additional named insured” from this clause as most insurers typically will not grant clients all the same policy rights as the insured?