Amendment_1_Attachment_1-Responses_to_RFP_Questions.pdf

10/01/2014 Jurisdiction B

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section A 1

ID Section Page number Question Answer/Action A - 01 Solicitation, Offer and Award Block 3 Block 3 reads HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0096. We believe this should read

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069. Please verify the correct solicitation number.

The accurate RFP number is HHSM-500-2014- RFP-0069. This will be addressed in the amendment.

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section J.1 2

ID Document Section Page number Question Answer/Action J.01 - 1 SOW J.01 – Section

D - 1.1.5 75 Per the RFP and Statement of Work, the Contractor shall be responsible for setting up and maintaining Electronic Funds Transfer Authorization Agreement information for the supplier.

Specific workload estimates for EFT application volume are not included in the RFP. Should workload volumes for EFT applications be provided?

CMS does not believe that this workload will materially affect overall DME MAC B cost. (DME MACs nationally process fewer than 15,000 EFT agreements annually). Offerors should not include costs for this activity in their proposals.

J.01 - 2 J.01 SOW Section 5.6.

Support of the Recovery Audit Program’s Operations

68 Please provide anticipated quantities for Other Recovery Audit Program Support Activities, specifically: 1. Number of Sample Validation Packages (reference CR7733) 2. Number of cancellation files

CMS does not believe that this workload will materially affect overall DME MAC B cost. Offerors should not include costs for validation packages or cancellation files in their proposals.

J.01 - 3 J.01 SOW Section 5.6.

Support of the Recovery Audit Program’s Operations

68 What are the estimated workload quantities for claims processing requests associated with ZPIC prepayment edits? Specifically workload for: Moving a claim from one location to another location when documentation is received. Processing claims in accordance of direction provided by the ZPIC medical review

The Offeror should propose these workloads based on their historical experience, technical approach, and value-added business processes. The Offeror shall document its proposal assumptions on this question in Volume II, Tab C.

J.01 - 4 Attachment J-

D.3.3 96 The RFP does not specify a telephone reopening workload. Should bidders assume that the volume is included in the Clerical Reopening Workload? If not, please provide the telephone reopening workload.

CMS confirms that the telephone reopening workload is included in the Clerical Reopening Workload provided in the BOE.

J.01 - 5 Attachment J-

D.5.2.1 101 The workload description indicates that EDI inquiries are included in the provided workload.

However the RFP indicates that a CEDI contractor will handle all EDI related work. Please advise as to how bidders should account for EDI calls and clarify whether or not the workload is included in the RFP.

The CEDI Help Desk will answer questions and provide support for CEDI Enrollment and provide technical support to Trading Partners and vendors including the following:

• Support for Electronic Formats

• Testing Support for Vendors and Trading Partners (Electronic Submitters)

• CEDI Password Resets

• Free/Low Cost Software Support

• Verification of the receipt of files

The DME MAC will be responsible for providing support for the following:

• Claim Status Inquiry (CSI, VPIQ and/or PINQ) o Enrollment or setup status; Logon or User ID; Password resets

• Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) o Setup Status; questions regarding payments or banking information

• Status of claims in the NGS VMS processing system o Amounts paid, deductibles, coinsurance, denied claims

.Questions regarding the adjudication and content of claims & ERAs

• Questions regarding CMN edits returned on the VMS CMN Rejection Report

• Requests for copies of paper remittance advices

• Requests for ASCA waivers The above DME MAC inquiries are included within the RFP volumes for supplier inquiries (Basis of Estimate, Attachment J.18).

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section J.18 7

ID Document Section Page number Question Answer/Action J.18 - 1 Basis of

Estimate Attachment J.18

N/A For redeterminations, only claims cleared is provided as workload, should the offeror assume a percentage of invalid cases that involve effort but would not be accounted for in the current proposal?

For the Non-RA redeterminations, Offerors shall assume that 5% of the claims are either withdrawn or dismissed. This workload does not include incomplete redetermination requests as this workload is minimal. Offerors should not include any costs relating to incomplete redetermination requests in their proposals.

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section J.19 9

ID Document Section Page number Question Answer/Action J.19 -1 Attachment J-

19, Section 9 Section L.13.3 5 DME Coordination Meetings – this section states that “Offerors need to include the cost of scheduling, coordinating, and facilitating two DCM meetings per year.” However section E.4.8 (DME Coordination Meetings – DCMs) of the SOW states that “There shall be, at a minimum, a total of two DCM meetings per year. The DME MAC shall coordinate on a rotating basis which DME MAC will schedule, coordinate, and facilitate these meetings.” Please clarify as to how many DCM meetings bidders should price each year. There is also no reference to “hosting” the meeting. Please specify if bidders should include costs associated with hosting (facility rental, catering costs, etc) each event.

Offerors should include costs for scheduling, coordinating, facilitating and attending two DCM meetings per year in their proposals. CMS has committed to hosting all DCMs in Baltimore, Maryland. Therefore, Offerors should not propose any costs related to hosting these events (facility rental, catering, etc.).

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section L 11

ID Section Page number Question Answer/Action

L-01 TECHNICAL APPROACH

EVALUATION FACTOR STAFFING

PLAN ELEMENT, Section L.14.5, 110 Reference TECHNICAL APPROACH EVALUATION FACTOR STAFFING PLAN ELEMENT, Section L.14.5, Written Technical Proposal Instructions, Volume III, TAB E.

The Offeror shall submit a staffing plan that outlines the TOTAL proposed staffing (inclusive of existing staff, direct and indirect labor, inter-organizational transfers, subcontracts, etc., as applicable) to perform the work from implementation through contract end. Please confirm (1) if indirect support is in fact required and (2) if it is, what the method of calculation should be to ensure that all offerors approach the question with a consistent methodology.”

Pursuant to RFP Section L.14.5, Technical Approach Evaluation Factor Instructions, Staffing Plan Element, Volume III, TAB E, the Offeror shall submit a staffing plan that outlines the TOTAL proposed staffing (inclusive of existing staff, direct and indirect labor, inter-organizational transfers, subcontracts, etc., as applicable) to perform the work from implementation through contract end.

L-02 L.12.2 TAB B, Acronym Dictionary 95 L.12.2 TAB B, Acronym Dictionary - The Offeror is requested to provide one acronym dictionary that identifies each and every acronym used in any of the five written proposal volumes.Would the offeror be allowed to provide an acronym list for each individual volume to facilitate an easier review? If so, can volume acronym lists be excluded from the page count?

Pursuant to RFP Section L.12.2, TAB B, Acronym Dictionary, the offeror is requested to provide one acronym dictionary that identifies each and every acronym used in any of the five written proposal volumes.

L-03 Compliance Matrix N/A To facilitate an easier review we would like to provide a Compliance Matrix in addition to the TOC for each individual volume. This will provide reviewers the ability to easily locate specific information. Can Compliance Matrices be excluded from the page count?

As long as the Compliance Matrix remains STRICTLY a compliance matrix, with no additional information, CMS is agreeable to allowing a Compliance Matrix as an addition to the TOC, and the Compliance Matrix will be exluded from the page count.

L-04 RFP Section L-14.5 TECHNICAL

APPROACH EVALUATION FACTOR

STAFFING PLAN ELEMENT

110 As directed, Contractors are to provide information on proposed staffing across the various CLINs. Detailed information is requested on the labor categories down to the third or fourth level of the WBS. Because of the rather significant scope of this effort, naturally, a large number of labor categories are involved. Correspondingly, quite a few WBS line items are needed in order to adequately capture cost data for a comprehensive, well-defined activity. The net result is that presentation of the information sought, even if 11 x 17 paper is used, will require quite a few pages.Would the Government consider then permitting this specific information to be provided as an annex, the pages of which are not included within the page count limit? Relief here would enable contractors to provide this detailed information in more user-friendly format without compromising the integrity of the procurement and without placing an undue burden on the Government.If the Government is not inclined to permit this information being presented in an annex, then would the Government consider permitting this information to be presented on 11 X 17 paper, that for this section, would be counted as a single page rather than two? Relief here would not compromise the integrity of the procurement nor place an undue burden on the Government.

Pursuant to RFP Section L.14.5, Technical Approach Evaluation Factor Instructions, Staffing Plan Element, Volume III, TAB E, all of the bullet points provided in the RFP shall be included in the 50-page limit, including the information in this question.

L-05 L.10, Section e, Item g, #2, 5, 7 & 8 92 Please define what is considered a “no compression” font. May the offeror use Arial Narrow 10 pt. font for tables and graphics? Arial Narrow is not considered a condensed font.

Pursuant to RFP Section L.10, Written Proposals - Proposal Submission, Delivery and Organization, g. Page Size, Typing, Spacing, and Page Numbering, 7. Table text shall be no smaller than 10-point Arial, single-line spacing, and no compression. CMS expects all offerors to use the normal compression settings.

L-06 L.10 N/A

Should the offeror include a title page and cover letter for each Volume, can we assume this will not go against page count?

Pursuant to RFP Section L.10, Written Proposals - Proposal Submission, Delivery and Organization, e. Binding and Labeling, a binder cover sheet shall be affixed to each volume, which clearly identifies each volume, volume number, copy number (i.e., copy 2 of 4), jurisdiction, the solicitation identification number, and the offeror's name.

L-07 L.12.8.f 100 Please confirm the order of Section L.12.8. Subset E appears to be missing from this section. List order goes directly from D to F, excluding subset E.

Section L.12.8, TAB H, Responsibility Determination, is updated to reletter Accounting System from f. to e. and Financial Capability from g.

to f.

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section L 12

L-08 L.15.3

Can CMS provide the estimated workload volumes tied to the numbers of individual mailings?

Offerors need to follow the instructions provided at L.15.3. Offerors should provide their assumptions, based on their historic operational experience where feasible, concerning the number of mailings (e.g., Remittance Advices, Medicare Summary Notices, etc.). Offerors may frame their projections based on trends in their operational experience, for instance, trends in the ratio of MSNs to processed claims, etc.

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section L 13

L-09 L.11 92 Bidders are required to submit an advanced copy of any written presentation materials or handouts via email to CMS. In our experience, the file size for presentation materials is too large to submit via email as a single file. To minimize the impact to bidders and CMS, may presentation materials and handouts be submitted via to CMS by mailing a CDROM? If so, please provide the due date and mailing address for CDROM submittals.

CMS will only accept the presentation materials via email as noted in the RFP. The Offeror may use as many emails as needed to ensure delivery of all materials.

L-10 L.11 92 This section indicates that, “Government will NOT consider any written presentation material ,handout or slide in its review and evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal unless the written presentation material, discussed above, and (2) specifically addressed during the oral presentation.” Instructions handout or slide was both, (1) provided in advance electronic copy in previous CMS RFPs indicated that “addressed” meant that the slide was projected on the screen and verbally referenced. We want to ensure we meet the Government’s expectation regarding, “specifically addressed,” and would appreciate further guidance/clarification as to the definition of “addressed” for oral presentation material, handouts and slides.

Information on each page of written documentation must be specifically addressed by the offeror as part of their presentation in more than a passing manner. For example, if a page contains several bullet points, it would be CMS' expectation that each bullet point would be discussed, at least quickly, in the offeror's oral presentation. Any page in which nothing is referenced by the offeror in their presentation would not be considered.

L-11 L.12.6 97 The RFP states 33% of the total subcontracted dollars should go to Small Businesses.

The RFP then provides a recommended breakdown of the 33% to various subcategories of small businesses. However, J.03 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template (December, 2013) requires the small business subcategory (e.g. small disadvantaged) calculation be based on the total subcontracted dollars, not the 33% that went to small businesses. Please clarify the calculation to be used when calculating small business subcontracting dollars – should the calculation be based on total subcontracted dollars, or total small business subcontracted dollars?

The calculation should be based on the total subcontracted dollars.

L-12 L.14.5 108 Please note that the first bullet for the Technical Approach Evaluation Factor, Mission Essential Functions Element, Section L.14.5, Written Technical Proposal Instructions - Medical Review (page 115) is identical to the Technical Approach Evaluation Factor, Mission Essential Functions Element, Section L.14.5 - #5 Medical Review (page 117) requirements. Is it CMS’ desire to see that first bullet repeated during the oral presentation? We would typically assume that for sections that both require a written and oral response that the oral presentation would be a subset of the material and merely supplement the written technical proposal. However, the instructions for Volume III, Tab G (Written Technical Proposal) Medical Review (page 115) indicate that, “The Offeror shall address…” The Oral presentation supplement instructions that cover Medical Review (116) indicate that, “The Offeror shall address…” and “…the Offeror shall fully describe…” Does this language indicate the Government’s requirement for a more detailed oral presentation approach than what is contained in the written technical proposal?

CMS intentionally repeated the first bullet of Section L.14.5, Written Technical Proposal Instructions - Medical Review (page 115) in the first bullet of the Section L.14.5, Oral Presentation (Supplement) Instructions - Medical Review (page 117). CMS is not requiring Offerors to provide a more detailed approach during the oral presentation than what they provide in the written technical proposal; however, the oral presentation should contain as much detail as the written proposal. (However, Offerors have the discretion to elaborate further during their oral presentation if they so choose.)

HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0069 Section M 17

ID Section Page number Question Answer/Action M-1 M.6 129 For the purposes of completing the reasonableness and the realism of the proposed cost, per the FAR, will the evaluation team have access to and utilize Tab B of the Technical Proposal (J18 document) as well as the business proposal?

Offerors are to provide a completed Basis of Estimate (Attachment J.18) as Tab B of their Proposal Assumptions Volume (Volume II), not as part of their Technical Proposal (Volume III). CMS will review all proposal volumes, including the Basis of Estimate, in its evaluation. CMS will utilize the Basis of Estimate in its evaluation of the reasonableness and realism of the proposed cost.