HRSA_CICP_FY27.pdf

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) and

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE (SSN)

Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) Reconsideration Panel Support Services

RFI/SSN Number HRSA_CICP_FY27

Issue Date October 29, 2026

Response Due Date December 4, 2026; 5PM ET

NAICS Code 541611 - Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (subject to validation through market research)

Set-Aside Status Seeking Small Businesses but also information from other businesses - Market Research Only

Issuing Agency U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Healthcare Systems Bureau (HSB)

Points of Contact Hillary A. Marshall, Contracting Officer, hmarshall@hrsa.gov; Earl Smith, Contract Specialist, ESmith1@hrsa.gov

Contract Type Under Consideration Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), including potential hybrid structure as supported by market research

1. Notice and Purpose

Notice. This a combined Request for Information (RFI) and Sources Sought Notice (SSN) issued solely for market research and acquisition planning purposes for the CICP requirement. In an effort to reach the widest audience, this Notice may be cross posted on other Government buying platforms such as GSA eBuy or others. This Notice is not a solicitation, Request for Proposal, Invitation for Bids, or commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation or award a contract. Responses are voluntary. The Government will not reimburse respondents for costs associated with preparing or submitting a response. Respondents should clearly identify proprietary information.

Purpose. HRSA is conducting market research under RFO Part 10 to support acquisition planning for Countermeasures Injury Compensation (CICP) Reconsideration Panel Support Services. The current requirement is fulfilled under a Time-and-Materials (T&M) contract No. 75R60223D00002. For the purposes of this notice HRSA is seeking industry and small business feedback to:

1. Understand the types of businesses including small businesses who are capable of fulfilling the requirement. For small businesses, this notice seeks to specifically identify capable 8a, HUBZone, SDVOSBs, WOSB and other small businesses.

2. Assess the feasibility of transitioning some or all of these services to a performance-based Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) structure , consistent with Executive Order 14402, CICP Reconsideration Panel Support Services RFI/SSN

Promoting Efficiency, Accountability, and Performance in Federal Contracting, dated April 30, 2026, which establishes fixed-price contracts with performance-based considerations as the default and preferred method of Federal procurement, to the maximum extent consistent with law. This Notice seeks industry feedback regarding whether the requirement, in whole or in part, is sufficiently defined to permit realistic FFP pricing and reasonable allocation of performance and cost risk. HRSA also seeks feedback regarding alternative or hybrid contract structures where FFP may not be appropriate for portions of the requirement, as well as performance measures, pricing methodology, workload assumptions, transition requirements, and small business capability.

3. Obtain general feedback on the CICP requirement.

The Government may use the information received to refine the acquisition strategy, Performance Work Statement (PWS), Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), and any future solicitation. The Government is seeking sufficient information to support these acquisition-planning decisions and is not requesting proposals at this time.

2. Requirement Overview

The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), authorized under section 319F-4 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6e), compensates eligible individuals who sustain serious physical injury or death as a direct result of administering or using covered countermeasures. Individuals who disagree with an initial decision may request reconsideration. Independent panels review eligible reconsideration requests and provide recommendations to the Government through Reports of Findings.

Under the anticipated requirement, the contractor will provide operational support for the reconsideration process. Key activities are expected to include:

• Coordinating administrative, medical, insufficient-documentation, and, when required, benefits reconsideration panels;

• HRSA will provide the contractor with a list of U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) officers available to participate on reconsideration panels. The contractor shall maintain and update the list, conduct outreach to USPHS officers, and coordinate their participation on panels;

• The contractor shall also maintain a cadre of qualified consultants with appropriate professional and clinical expertise to supplement panel composition when USPHS officers are unavailable or when specialized expertise is required;

• Coordinating telephone panel deliberations, including participation by an HHS Office of the General Counsel (OGC) attorney;

• Preparing Reconsideration Receipt letters and Draft Reports of Findings, addressing Government review comments, and finalizing required documentation;

• Preparing Letters of Acknowledgment for volunteer panelists; and

• Maintaining complete and current case and contract documentation in the Government-owned Salesforce case management system.

The Government will determine eligibility for reconsideration, assign eligible cases, determine the required panel type, review contractor-prepared Reports of Findings, approve final documentation, and issue final determination letters. Salesforce will remain the Government system of record and primary workflow/performance-monitoring environment. The Government will provide authorized contractor access to Salesforce and the USPHS volunteer roster.

3. Historical Workload and Key Assumptions

The following historical workload helps industry assess the feasibility of FFP pricing, evaluate potential contract and CLIN structures, and identify additional information needed to develop realistic pricing assumptions.

Fiscal Year Total Requests Received

Total Cases Empaneled

Of Empaneled Cases - Administrative Cases

Of Cases Empaneled - Medical Cases

Other Panels

FY 2024 351 347 302 45

4 Insufficient Documentation

FY 2025 392 283 179 56

48 Insufficient Documentation

FY 2026 (YTD) 383 360 68 206

85 Insufficient (Administrative and Medical Insufficient Documentation combined); 1 Benefits

Key workload assumptions currently include:

• Administrative/Timing cases: the Request for Benefits or Letter of Intent was not filed within one year of the date of the administrative or use of a covered countermeasure that is alleged to have caused the injury.

• Medical cases: the Program did not find compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence that the administration or use of countermeasure vaccines (typically COVID-19) received directly caused the alleged injury.

• Administrative and Insufficient Documentation: Administrative panels generally review approximately 15 cases per panel.

• Medical and Insufficient Documentation: Medical panels generally review approximately 4 cases per panel because of increased clinical complexity.

• Benefits reviews are infrequent and may require larger multidisciplinary panels with specialized expertise.

• Eligible cases are assigned through Salesforce and generally processed in first-in, first-out (FIFO) order unless otherwise directed by the Government.

• The historical case mix is evolving; administrative requests have declined while medically complex requests have increased.

4. Proposed Performance Framework

HRSA is considering a performance-based FFP structure focused on measurable outcomes rather than prescribed staffing levels or labor hours. The following framework and standards are preliminary and are provided specifically for industry comment. Respondents are encouraged to identify any standard that would create material pricing or performance risk and to recommend an alternative that better supports measurable, performance-based outcomes.

Outcome Proposed Standard Primary Measurement

Timely Case Processing

Reconsideration Receipt within 2 business days of Government assignment; records complete and current.

Salesforce workflow data and case records

Effective Panel Administration

Panel convened no later than 6 months after case assignment;

appropriate panel type, materials, scheduling, OGC participation, and backup panelist coordinated.

Salesforce workflow data, panel schedules, COR review

Qualified Panel Composition

Maintain required professional qualifications; medical panels include at least one physician (MD/DO); use consultants when volunteers are unavailable.

Panel rosters and Salesforce records

Reports of Findings

Submit the draft report within 10 business days after panel deliberations; address Government comments within 1 business day.

Salesforce milestone tracking and Government acceptance

Volunteer Acknowledgment Prepare the acknowledgment letter within 3 business days after the panel discussion.

Salesforce timestamps and COR review

Quality, Records, and Information Protection

Internal quality controls; complete records; compliance with applicable privacy, security, and record-management requirements.

Government oversight, QA review, Salesforce records, incident reporting

Anticipated deliverables may include a Monthly Status Report, Panel Schedule, Panel Roster, Reconsideration Receipt, Draft Report of Findings, Letter of Acknowledgment, quality/performance reporting, case tracking information, and a transition plan. HRSA seeks industry feedback on whether these deliverables and frequencies are appropriate for an FFP environment and whether any changes would improve priceability, measurability, or allocation of performance risk.

5. Information Requested from Industry

Respondents are requested to provide concise information sufficient to address the following market research topics. Where a recommendation differs from the proposed approach, explain the basis for the recommendation and any material assumptions.

1. Performance Framework. Are the proposed performance outcomes and standards clear, measurable, reasonable, and achievable under an FFP contract? Identify recommended changes or additional measures.

2. Deliverables. Are the anticipated deliverables and reporting frequencies appropriate to demonstrate successful performance without creating unnecessary administrative burden? Identify recommended changes.

3. FFP Feasibility and Contract Structure. Based on the draft PWS, identify which tasks, deliverables, functional areas, or portions of the requirement contain sufficient information to permit realistic FFP pricing. For any portion that cannot reasonably be priced on an FFP basis, explain the specific reason(s), including any uncertainty regarding workload, case complexity, Government dependencies, volume, performance standards, or other factors. Identify any additional information or changes to the PWS that would enable that portion of the requirement to be priced FFP. If complete FFP conversion is not practicable, recommend an appropriate hybrid contract/CLIN structure and identify which portions should be FFP and which portions, if any, should use another contract type.

4. Pricing Assumptions and Historical Data Sufficiency. What workload, case-mix, volume-band, surge, or other assumptions would industry need to develop realistic FFP pricing? Are the historical workload data provided sufficient? If not, specifically identify the additional historical information required, such as monthly volumes, panel cancellations or rescheduling, processing times, panelist utilization, consultant costs, Government review times, or workload variability.

5. Risk Allocation. What material risks should HRSA consider when evaluating and structuring an FFP or hybrid requirement, including risks associated with workload variability, medical case complexity, volunteer availability, or Government-dependent actions? Identify which risks are reasonably within contractor control and which are primarily Government- or demand-driven. Recommend reasonable approaches for allocating or mitigating those risks.

6. Transition. What transition period and Government-furnished information, access, or onboarding activities would be necessary for successful performance at contract start?

7. Commercial/Industry Practices. Are comparable services customarily performed using FFP or another pricing structure? Identify relevant commercial or Federal practices that HRSA should consider when developing the acquisition strategy. If another pricing structure is more commonly used, explain why and identify what changes to the requirement, data, or risk allocation would be necessary to make FFP practicable.

8. Operational Efficiency. Within the Government-provided Salesforce environment, what operational or workflow practices could improve quality, timeliness, or efficiency? HRSA is not seeking recommendations for Salesforce redesign or system enhancements.

9. Small Business Capability. Does your company have the capability and capacity to fulfill this requirement as a prime contractor? Identify your small business type (e.g. small business, 8a, HUBZone, SDVOSB, WOSB, etc.) and describe your relevant experience supporting comparable Federal or healthcare-related programs and identify any anticipated teaming arrangements.

10. Competition. Are any aspects of the proposed requirement, performance standards, or contract structure likely to unnecessarily restrict competition or create a material barrier to participation? If so, recommend an alternative.

11. NAICS. Is NAICS 541611 appropriate for the anticipated requirement? If not, recommend a more appropriate NAICS code and explain the basis.

12. Pricing Impact and Risk Premium. Would transitioning some or all of this requirement from T&M to FFP be expected to result in contractors incorporating a material contingency or risk premium into proposed prices?

If so, identify the principal drivers of that pricing risk and any Government actions, data, workload bands, or contractual mechanisms that could reasonably reduce it.

13. ROM Pricing. If willing, provide a non-binding rough-order-of-magnitude (ROM) price or pricing range for the recommended contract structure. Identify the principal workload, volume, case-mix, staffing, consultant/panelist, transition, and risk assumptions incorporated into the estimate. If recommending a hybrid structure, identify the approximate allocation of price between the proposed FFP and non-FFP portions. For ROM purposes, respondents may include pricing for a Base and four one-year option periods.

The ROM is a non-binding vendor cost estimate for market research purposes only.6. Response Instructions

6. Company and Capability Information

• Company name and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI);

• Business size and socioeconomic status, if applicable;

• Point of contact, email address, and telephone number;

• Brief description of relevant experience and capability to perform the anticipated requirement;

• Experience with performance-based and/or FFP service contracts; and

• Anticipated teaming arrangements, if any.

7. Submission Format

• Responses should address the questions in Section 5 to the extent applicable and clearly identify material assumptions. Responses to all questions is not required.

• Maximum response length: 10 pages, excluding a cover page and basic company information.

• Use 11-point font or larger and 1-inch margins.

• Submit in Adobe PDF or Microsoft Word format.

• Email subject line: RFI Response - CICP Reconsideration Panel Support Services - [Company Name].

• Submit electronically to the Point of Contact identified in Section 1 by the stated response due date.

8. Administrative Notice

This RFI/SSN is for planning and market research purposes only. It does not commit HRSA to issue a solicitation, use a particular acquisition approach, or award a contract. Information received may be used in acquisition planning and development of future solicitation documents. Responding to this RFI is not a prerequisite for participating in any future procurement. The Government has no obligation to respond to submissions or conduct discussions. Respondents are responsible for appropriately marking proprietary or confidential information.

8. Administrative Notice