Attachment 1 JD RFP Q A 12.23.14.xls
XLS spreadsheet 1 MB Posted
- Attached to
- DME MAC Jurisdiction D
- Solicitation number
- HHSM-500-2015-RFP-0101
About this file
JD DME RFP Amendment 2 (December 23 2014) Attachment
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
Section H.1
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| H-1 | Solicitation | H.1 | 28 | The Key Personnel table does not match the SOW listing of the required Key Personnel. Should the table have Medical Review Manager and Statistical Expert while removing Audit and Reimbursement Manager/Director and Executive Contractor Medical Director? | CMS confirms that the Key Personnel listing in the DME MAC D SOW is correct. A full-time Medical Director dedicated to Jurisdiction D is a Key Personnel position. CMS has amended the table in RFP Section H.1. to conform to the SOW. |
| H-2 | Solicitation | H.3 | 34 | CMS has expanded the "Family Member or Personal Relationship Disclosure" requirement to include (but not limited to) "Fiancé or Fiancée, roommate, any other person living with you or with whom you have a personal relationship, or any person close to you in a situation that may create an actual or perceived conflict of interest". Will CMS provide definitions and examples of “personal relationship” and “any person close to you in a ‘situation”? Can CMS confirm that the individual completing the Disclosure and Acknowledgement Statement is responsible for reporting such relationships and that the offeror is responsible for review/analysis/mitigation of any disclosed relationships posing a risk of a conflict of interest? | CMS believes the explanation of family members provided in the clause H.3 provides sufficient examples of personal relationships. The individual completing the Disclosure and Acknowledgement Statement is responsible for reporting such relationships and that the offeror is responsible for review/analysis/mitigation of any disclosed relationship posing a risk of a conflict of interest. |
| H-3 | Solicitation | H.19 | 47 | RFP section H.19 lists MCS and FISS but not VMS. The current JD contract includes CWF, CMC, IRIS and PECOS as the system of records. CMC is missing also. | CMS confirms that the VIPS Medicare System (VMS) and the Carrier Medical Claims Records (CMC) should be included in the listing of Systems of Records utilized by the DME MAC. CMS has amended the listing in RFP Section H.19. |
&CJurisdiction D &CJurisdiction D &CJurisdiction D &CJurisdiction D
Section J.1
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| J.1 - 1 | Statement of Work | Statement of Work, Section B.11, Medical Director | 26 | There is a requirement that the Medical Director, “…shall be a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) position for this MAC Jurisdiction. (JD only)”. This SOW section further states, “See PIM Chapter 1, Section 1.4 for further Medical Director’s requirements.” PIM 1.4 indicates the need for 2 FTEs. Please clarify which requirement takes precedence. | CMS confirms that the full requirement has two components: first, one (1) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Medical Director as a Key Personnel position; and second, in keeping with the PIM provision, a minimum of two (2) Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Contractor Medical Director's (CMD) assigned to the contract (of which the Key Personnel position would represent 1 FTE). |
| J.1 - 2 | Statement of Work | Section C.3.3, Internal Controls | 43 | This section states, “The scope of the audit begins October 1st of each fiscal year and ends no earlier than March 31 (6 months).” According to Attachment J.19, Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions, #2, Table of Estimated Dates for CLINs 0001 - 0007, page 3, the first period of performance during which the Contractor will have performed during the October 1 – March 31 time period is estimated to be CLIN 0003 - OPTION 1 (9/1/2016 – 8/31/2017). Please confirm that the initial SSAE 16 audit for JD would occur during CLIN 0003 - OPTION 1, with the first final SSAE 16 report to be issued by July 1, 2017. | CMS confirms that the initial SSAE audit will occur during CLIN 0003- Option Year 1. |
| J.1 - 3 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | Is the intent to “pay all” based on ARD (similar to how disaster claims are handled), or is the intent to truly apply Medicare “processing rules” to these claims? | For proposal purposes, Offerors should assume that normal Medicare DME MAC “processing rules” will be applied to DMEPOS claims submitted by suppliers on behalf of beneficiaries entitled under the MPPARD. For a very small number of claims, that involve services falling outside the normal Medicare DMEPOS benefit category and coverage criteria, the DME MAC will furnish a copy of its denial notice to the A/B Jurisdiction F MAC for possible coverage under the MPPARD. For the DME MAC D, the annual MPPARD beneficiary-related claims, appeals, and inquiries volumes are very small (see Attachment J.19, item 15), and these workloads are embedded within the larger Basis of Estimate workload levels for these workload categories (Attachment J.18). CMS is not differentiating these various MPPARD beneficiary-related workloads in the Basis of Estimate, and Offerors are not expected to do so. Offerors should propose based on their historic productivity experience and their general technical approach to the DME MAC workloads. |
| J.1 - 4 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | We believe there may be a need for Shared System Maintainer involvement to determine the best solution in terms of overriding/bypassing certain elements not normally processed under Medicare. | The Jurisdiction D DME MAC will apply the normal VMS system processing logic to claims for DMEPOS submitted by the small number of Jurisdiction D beneficiaries enrolled in the MPPARD. |
| J.1 - 5 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | Can CMS clarify more specifically what types of edits will and will not apply to the ARD claims? For example, ZPIC? RAC? Other eligibility criteria at CWF or FPS? | For proposal purposes, Offerors should assume that the DME MAC will apply the same edits to DMEPOS claims submitted on behalf of MPPARD-enrolled beneficiaries as will be applied to DMEPOS claims submitted for aged, disabled, and ESRD beneficiaries. For a very small number of claims, that involve services falling outside the normal Medicare DMEPOS benefit category and coverage criteria, the DME MAC will furnish a copy of its denial notice to the A/B Jurisdiction F MAC for possible coverage under the MPPARD. |
| J.1 - 6 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | How will these beneficiaries be identified? Will the supplier submit a modifier on the claim that allows VMS to bypass certain edits (similar to how we handle disaster claims)? Or is the intent to provide a list to the MAC via TDL (similar to how we handle beneficiaries who require special Medicare Summary Notices)? Has the Shared System Maintainer determined the best solution in terms of identifying these beneficiaries in VMS? Has an indicator been added to the Beneficiary Master file? A separate list maintained outside VMS (similar to a SuperOp Value Set)? | The small number of beneficiaries involved in the MPPARD, who are not otherwise entitled based on age or disability, are identified as eligible to enroll by the Social Security Administration. A special "H" indicator reflects the status of these beneficiaries on the Enrollment Data Base and the Common Working File. Offerors should review CMS Change Requests # 7370 and 7358 to get further understanding of this systems infrastructure. Entities that want to review copies of these two Change Requests may contact the Contracting Officer to request this documentation. Entities requesting said documentation may be asked to execute a non-disclosure agreement with CMS |
| J.1 - 7 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | Item #2 states that if a claim for an ARD beneficiary is denied or reduced, the MAC should submit to the pilot for consideration, but item #12 states that the MAC should accept and process appeals. Can CMS clarify the following: By “submitted to the pilot,” does CMS mean the Jurisdiction F A/B MAC? When should the MAC submit a denial to the pilot vs. process the denial? | The DME MAC will forward a small number of reduced/denied claims to the A/B MAC Jurisdiction F MAC for possible coverage under the MPPARD, where the reason for the reduction/denial relates to Medicare DMEPOS benefit category and coverage criteria. The DME MAC will otherwise process redetermination requests for these beneficiaries under its “regular” DMEPOS processing rules. The “regular” redeterminations workload related to these beneficiaries is very small (Attachment J.19, item 15) and is embedded within the annual appeals workloads contained in Attachment J.18, Basis of Estimate. CMS is not differentiating these MPPARD beneficiary-related appeals workloads in the Basis of Estimate, and Offerors are not expected to do so. Offerors should propose based on their historic productivity experience and their general technical approach to appeals. |
| J.1 - 8 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | The VMS Shared System does not currently have a base system solution for coordinating payment information with an A/B MAC, nor do the DME MACs have the ability to produce HIPAA-compliant outbound files; all X12 translator activities are handled by the CEDI contractor. Is the intent to send a HIPAA-compliant X12 837 transaction (secondary-payor claim) through CEDI? Or is the intent to send a HIPAA-compliant X12 835 remittance (similar to the RFP for VA claims processing) through CEDI? Or is the intent to use an “837-like flat file” (similar to what is created for the BCRC for crossover claims)? Would the Shared System then be updated to send this “flat file” to the JF A/B MAC? Or is the intent for the MAC to create a non-base process for coordinating claim payment information? | Please reference the response to Question ID # J.1-7. In addition, CMS has determined that any further response to this question will not impact the ability of an offeror to submit a complete proposal. |
| J.1 - 9 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | na | What is the expected length of time for the Medicare Pilot Project for Asbestos Related Disease, and is there any historical trending data that can provide the year-over-year rate of enrollment? | The MPPARD initiative began in 2011, and, for proposal purposes, Offerors should assume that the MPPARD continues for the full span of the DME MAC D contract that will ensue from this solicitation (CLINS 0002-0006). Offerors should also assume that the number of enrollees remains constant at the level provided in Attachment J.19, item 15. |
| J.1 - 10 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | 89 | Please provide data supporting the volume of claim payments made to beneficiaries using Part A HIGLAS, including initial claim determination payments and payments to beneficiaries after appeal. | Since its inception in July 2011, the MPPARD has maintained a fairly consistent level of approximately 1100 enrollees. Through the first 41 months of the MPPARD project, on a cumulative basis, the A/B Jurisdiction F MAC had processed approximately 12,300 claims outside of normal Medicare payment rules for MPPARD beneficiaries, and had issued approximately $3.2 M in payments for such MPPARD-related claims. Very few of these MPPARD claims and payments related to claims initially submitted to and processed by the Jurisdiction D DME MAC. |
| J.1 - 11 | Statement of Work | Section D.1.8, MPPARD | 90 | This page states, in part, that a claim must be appealed within 120 days from the date on the Medicare Pilot Program for Asbestos Related Disease EOB. Please confirm that this metric applies to Remittance Advices. | For proposal purposes, Offerors should assume that the special 120 day MPPARD appeals deadline also applies to Remittance Advices. |
| J.1 - 12 | Statement of Work | Section D.5.1 | na | This SOW section is shown on the cost templates as both PM and MIP. In the Jurisdiction D cost templates, the AA SOW summary tab does not have a roll-up for D.5; however, there are D.5, D.5.2, and D.5.3 tabs under AA. Should the roll-up for D.5 be included in the AA SOW summary tab? | CMS confirms that a roll-up for D.5 (which will include D5.2 and D5.3) should be included in the SLIN AA summary tab. Offeror should use the revised cost templates provided in the RFP amendment. |
| J.1 - 13 | Statement of Work | Section E.4 | na | Please provide the year-over-year historical MIP funding amount for Jurisdiction D from 2010 – 2014 | CMS has determined the information provided for in the RFP is sufficient for submission of a complete proposal. CMS will not be providing additional information regarding the "historical MIP funding amount for Jurisdiction D from 2010-2014. |
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
Section J.1.G
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| J.1.G-1 | MRA VA SOW | na | na | In several places, the VA section talks about allowing the VA to “initiate adjustments” or “accepting VA initiated adjustments.” Can CMS clarify what they intend by “initiate adjustments”? a. Does it mean that the MAC must provide real-time access into the VMS VA system to VA staff so they can initiate their own adjustments? b. Or does it mean the VA will submit a request for adjustment and the MAC will effectuate that adjustment on behalf of the VA? Examples of this statement include VA Operations and Standards #7 (page 3) and MAC Requirements/Tasks #10 (page 4). | CMS intends that VA will submit a request for adjustments, and the DME MAC will process the adjustment on behalf of the VA. |
| J.1.G-2 | MRA VA SOW | na | na | Since the VA processing will be national, is the intent for all pricing of VA-submitted claims to be handled by Fee Schedule? Or will CMS provide jurisdiction-specific pricing to the MRA VA DMEPOS MAC for loading into VMS? | CMS intends that the DME MAC will maintain jurisdictional fee schedule files for each of the 4 DME MAC jurisdictions, and will price each VA claim according to the applicable jurisdiction. |
| J.1.G-3 | MRA VA SOW | na | na | Will the VA claims be excluded from Recovery Audit review, or will the VA region need to be set up to process Informational Unsolicited Responses (IURs) from the CWF based on the RA concepts? | CMS confirms that VA claims will be excluded from all “post payment” review efforts, including but not limited to ZPIC, RA, and IUR. The VA will conduct its own post-payment reviews. |
| J.1.G-4 | MRA VA SOW | Requirements | page 2, #11 | This item states that the MAC is the sole tester performing beta and UAT on the VA MRA process. For beta testing, is it permitted to use providers in the jurisdiction in the beta test group; and when performing end-to-end testing to include interface partners (e.g., VDC, CWF, etc.)? | Providers will not be a part of the testing process. Only VA submitted claims will be used for testing. This will include all systems impacted/involved in VA DMEPOS claims processing. This includes, but is not limited to: CEDI, VMS, and CWF. |
| J.1.G-5 | MRA VA SOW | Requirements | page 3, Table 1 | The table reflects a projected release schedule with an implementation end date of 12/31/16 (Go Live 1/1/17). Does CMS intend to plan to cut over on Friday, 12/30/16, continue implementation activities through New Year’s weekend, ending on Sunday, 1/1/17, with a Go Live date of 1/2/17? | CMS’ intention is that the DME MAC shall be prepared NLT January 1, 2017, to accept and process VA MRA Project claims. The exact timing of DME MAC readiness activities required in order to meet the implementation date as stated in the Table 1 of the SOW will be scheduled in the DME MAC's project plan. For instance, the DME MAC has discretion to complete its readiness activities in advance of CMS's required project implementation date. |
| J.1.G-6 | MRA VA SOW | MAC Requirements/Tasks | page 4, #9 | This section states, “The MAC will reject and return to the VA all VA MRA claims that do to comply with the applicable…” Should that state, “The MAC will reject and return to the VA all VA MRA claims that do not comply…”? | CMS confirms that the wording "...claims that do not comply…" should be substituted into this sentence. Offeror should refer to Attachment J.01.G., as amended. |
| J.1.G-7 | MRA VA SOW | MAC Requirements/Tasks | page 5, #12 | This section states, “The MRA for each DMEPOS claim will be sent to the VA clearinghouse (Emdeon). The MRA will be in the X12 835 Health Care Claim Payment and Remittance Advice format. Standard Medicare messages will be used for the MRA.” Would CMS please confirm the following: a. Will the MAC follow standard VMS “gap filling” logic when the inbound claim was received on paper to ensure a compliant X12 835? b. Given the MAC has no special transmission requirements for delivering VA claims directly to Emdeon (outside CEDI), will the MAC file be sent through the normal VMS standard system logic to CEDI, who in turn will create the compliant X12 835 and send it to the VA clearinghouse (Emdeon)? | a). CMS confirms that the VMS shared system will use the same gap fill logic as it does for regular Medicare claims – i.e., 835 compliant. b). CMS also confirms that CEDI will return the same reports and response transactions to Emdeon for VA claims as are returned for Medicare claims. This includes the 999, 277CA and 835, as well as the report produced by GDIT showing all claims received in the cycle. |
| J.1.G-8 | MRA VA SOW | MAC Requirements/Tasks | , page 5, #13 | This section refers to MAC Requirement #20 (“This initial number is based on MAC Requirement 20, which states the VA can submit claims with dates of service up to one year prior…”). However, MAC Requirement #20 is about mass adjustments. Timely filing is MAC Requirement #21. Please verify that item #13 should refer to MAC Requirement #21. | CMS confirms that DME MAC requirement #13 on page 5 of Attachment J.01.G should reference requirement #21 instead of #20. Offeror should refer to Attachment J.01.G., as amended. |
| J.1.G-9 | MRA VA SOW | MAC Requirements/Tasks | page 5, #19 | This section states, “The MAC will not maintain any claims history on VA DMEPOS claims on behalf of the VA.” We assume the MAC should maintain some level of history needed for claims processing (for example, in order to avoid paying true exact-duplicate claims). Please verify if our assumption is correct. | CMS confirms that, because the VA does not receive actual payment for VA DMEPOS claims from Medicare, the DME MAC contractor will not be required to maintain claims history in order to avoid processing duplicate claims. However, CMS does expect that if any duplicate claim(s) is/are received with in a single transmission, the duplicate claim(s) should be denied as per MAC requirement #16. |
| J.1.G-10 | MRA VA SOW | MAC Requirements/Tasks | 5 | For #13 under the MAC Requirements/Tasks in the MRA VA DMEPOS SOW, it states that the VA will be submitting paper CMNs for the first claim that requires a CMN. Certain types of DME claims require a DME Information Form (DIF) to be submitted either electronically or on paper for the first claim or when revisions are needed to the DIF. Will the VA be required to submit DIFs, similar to CMNs? If so, please provide an estimated volume of DIFs that will be submitted? | CMS confirms that the VA will be required to submit DIFs, for External Infusion Pumps and Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition. CMS expects the initial receipt volume for DIFs (January 2017) to be approximately 5,000; CMS expects that the DME MAC will receive about 200 DIFs per month thereafter. |
&CJurisdicction D &CJurisdicction D &CJurisdicction D &CJurisdicction D
Sections J.11-J.17
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| J.11-1 | Basis of Estimate | Attachments J.12-J.16 Cost Proposal Templates | na | Per the instructions included in the BOE template, the Offeror is to “use the workload category names provided.” Certain SOW codes in the cost templates do not appear to have corresponding workload categories in the BOE template. Which workload categories should be used for the hours proposed for those SOW codes? | The Offeror should not add any new workloads to the Basis of Estimate Template. Offerors should utilize Volume II, Tab C, to document and explain additional SOW workload assumptions and related costs that (1) are not in the BOE; and, (2) the Offeror includes in the cost templates.” |
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
Section J.18
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| J.18-1 | Basis of Estimate | na | na | If a bidder’s accounting system does not direct charge indirect staff to SOW codes, will a listing of indirect staff in the BOE suffice? Are we able to tie the Government’s response to question #25 to this response as well? | CMS confirms that the BOE must include all proposed staff including direct and indirect. Pursuant to L13.2, page 103, “….The Offeror shall document all proposed labor categories, workload-driven and non-workload-driven estimating factors, direct and indirect labor factors, proposed and historic productivity factors, and all other data required by the BOE form and its instructions.” |
| J.18-2 | Basis of Estimate | Web Portal Inquiry Volume | na | When compared to the other recent DME RFP, the JD Web Portal Inquiry volume is significantly different. Please provide a definition for the web portal inquiry and an explanation for the (comparatively) higher workload. | While each DME RFP is different, CMS is providing an answer specifically to this RFP; Web Portal Inquiries are the monthly total of written inquiries submitted through the secured messaging feature of the Internet Portal. This includes secure messaging help desk inquiries related to the portal. Offerors shall use the workload estimates as provided in the Basis of Estimate. |
| J.18-3 | Basis of Estimate | Option Year 1, cell E74, Routine Reviews | na | CMS provided a workload of 335,060 for MR Routine Manual Reviews in OY1. This volume appears to be in excess of what we would expect given the size and population of Jurisdiction D. Please confirm the accuracy of the RFP volume and provide drivers that contribute to this (comparatively) higher workload. | CMS believes the Basis of Estimate (BOE) workload to be accurate and are not aware of any unique drivers. Offerors shall use the BOE workloads in preparing their proposal. |
| J.18-4 | Basis of Estimate | MSP Prepay Volume | na | When compared to the other recent DME RFP, the Claims Edits Resolved / “I” Records Resolved seems extremely high. Please confirm the accuracy of the RFP volume and provide the drivers that contribute to this (comparatively) higher workload. Does this workload include MSP claims, or are they actually “I” records requiring manual setup? | While each DME RFP is different, CMS is providing an answer specifically to this RFP; CMS confirms that the Basis of Estimate workload includes MSP claims processed successfully, as the DME MAC contractors provide in the MSP savings report: the number of MSP edits encountered that were resolved, and the number of “I” records that the contractor created. Offerors shall use the workload estimate as provided in the Basis of Estimate workload. |
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
Section J.19
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| J19-1 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | Header | This attachment indicates the Jurisdiction D solicitation number is “HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101” while the rest of the solicitation indicates, “HHSM-500-2015-RFP-0101.” Please verify which solicitation number is correct | CMS confirms that the correct RFP number is HHSM-500-2015-RFP-0101. Please refer to amended Attachment J.19. | |
| J19-2 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | VA MRA | 2 | This section specifically excludes the VA MRA DMEPOS Project from the JD Implementation timeline and further references a separate implementation timeline on page 3. Is it CMS’ expectation that the VA MRA project be handled as a separate implementation with separate deliverables (e.g., JIPP, Communication Plan, Risk Plan, Cutover Plan, Test Plan, etc.)? | CMS confirms that the VA MRA project will be handled as a a separate implementation. However, CMS is not requiring all of the standard MAC implementation deliverables for the VA MRA project. Offereor should refer to Attachment J.01.G. for expected deliverables. |
| J19-3 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | Records Retention | page 5, #6 | Item #6 states, “…the Offeror shall assume a total of 551,659 boxes of hard copy Medicare records.” Throughout item #6, the volume of records is measured in “boxes.” Since records management costs are sometimes based on boxes (or cartons) and sometimes based on cubic feet and the industry-standard conversion is that one box equals 1.2 cubic feet, we request confirmation that Offerors should assume that 551,659 boxes equal 661,990.8 cubic feet. | CMS confirms that the industry standard conversion of 1.2 cubic feet per box should be used. Attachment J.19. has been amended to reflect the correct number of boxes. |
| J19-4 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | DME Coordination Meetings | page 6, #9 | This section states, “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, “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 how many DCM meetings bidders should price each year. There is also no reference to “hosting” the meetings. Please specify if bidders should include costs associated with hosting (facility rental, catering costs, etc.) each meeting. | Two DCM meetings will be hosted by and at the CMS Headquarter facility per year. DME MAC shall coordinate on a rotating basis which DME MAC will schedule coordinate, and facilitate these meetings. |
| J19-5 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | Provider Outreach and Education – Direct Mailings | page 7, #11 | Does the reference to two (2) direct mailings a year to DMEPOS suppliers include implementation welcome packets and MPPARD education mailings? | The two (2) direct mailings per year do not include welcome packets and MPPARD education mailings. |
| J19-6 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | 2 | 2 | The Base Year Period of Performance is 6.5 months as indicated within Attachment J.19 as well as the J.18 Attachment on the Base Year Tab. However, in J.18 on the tab for Option Year 1 it states "NOTE: The estimated base period used to calculate the workloads below is 7.5 months." Please confirm all workloads are based on a 6.5 month Base period. | CMS confirms the Base Year has an expected duration of 6.5 months. The note on the Option Year 1 tab is invalid. Offeror should refer to amended Attachment J.18. |
| J19-7 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | Provider Outreach and Education – Direct Mailings | 4,7 | The total number of suppliers listed on page 7 of Attachment J.19 indicates 7,566. However, the total suppliers calculated within the table of page 4 is 21,425. Please indicate which number is correct. | CMS confirms that the total number of suppliers in Jurisdiction D is 21,425. Offerors should refer to amended Attachment J.19. |
| J19-8 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | Records Retention | page 5, | Can CMS verify the number of boxes of hard copy Medicare records? The number provided, 551,659, seems improbable as it is many times higher than given for the three most recent MAC RFPs: JB (52,254), J15 (97,231), and JM (293,346). | CMS confirms that the number of Jurisdiction D boxes in an offsite storage facility should be 41,640. Offeror should refer to amended Attachment J.19. |
| J19-9 | Government-Provided Proposal Assumptions | na | na | Washington has a business and occupation tax on gross receipts. The Washington Department of Revenue is the agency responsible for administering and collecting these taxes. Can CMS provide an assumption for the costs offerors should include in their proposals for this tax? | Offerors are referred to FAR 31.205-41, Taxes, for information on the allowability of taxes applicable to estimating proposals and accumulating costs. |
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
Section L
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Question | Answer/Action |
| L-1 | Solicitation | Section L.11, Oral Presentations, d. Presentation Materials | 96 | This section states that “the 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, handout or slide was both (1) provided in the advance electronic copy discussed above and (2) specifically addressed during the oral presentation.” Instructions 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 materials, handouts and slides. | CMS confirms that the information on each page of the written documentation must be addressed by the offeror as part of its oral presentation. It is CMS's expectation the contractor will address all of the content on the slides within the time allotted as specified in the RFP. Pages/slides not verbally presented in the time allotted will not be considered. |
| L-2 | Solicitation | Section L.14.1, Written Proposal Organization | 106 | With the addition of the MRA VA project to the Jurisdiction D solicitation, will CMS permit bidders to increase the page limit on the Volume III, Written Technical Proposal from 50 pages to 55 pages to allow for adequate space to include a description of the approach to accomplishing and integrating the MRA VA project? | CMS confirms that the page limit for the written technical proposal will be 55 pages, due to the inclusion of the VA MRA project. The RFP instruction relating to the written technical proposal (Section L) has been amended accordingly. |
| L-3 | Solicitation | L.10-L.14 | na | Can offerors use a compliance matrix for each volume in addition to a Table of Contents? 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? | The RFP gives specific proposal instructions in Section L with regards to a Table of Contents for each volume. A compliance matrix, or similar additional information, submitted in addition to and with the Table of Contents will not be considered in the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. CMS does not believe a compliance matrix for each volume in addition to a Table of Contents will provide an additional benefit nor is it required. If the offeror chooses to submit the additional pages, it will count towards the page limitation. |
| L-4 | Solicitation | L14.5 | 116 | Per this section, offerors are not required to submit with their proposal a copy of any internal "white papers". If an Offeror chooses to submit, will it count against the 50 page limit? | CMS confirms that internal "white papers", if submitted, will count against the 55 page limit for the written technical proposal. |
| L-5 | Solicitation | L.15 | 122 | Subcontractor Related Questions - if we currently have services out on RFP and will not be complete by time propose is due how would CMS like to see those costs presented? | Offeror’s proposals submitted in response to this RFP must reflect negotiated (by the prime) subcontract costs and/or prices. Section L.15.3 of the RFP requires that the Offeror submit copies of the Subcontract Agreement and the Subcontract Negotiation Memorandum reflecting the negotiated subcontract costs and/or prices. Offerors are referred to Section L.15.3 of the RFP for cost or pricing data requested for subcontract costs |
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
&L&D&C&14Jurisdiction D&10
&L&9HHSM-500-2014-RFP-0101&C&12&A&R&9&P
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .