Questions_ _Answers_1.29.2016_1336_-_Amendment_000009.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- TRICARE Managed Care Support Services
- Solicitation number
- HT940215R0002
- Issued by
-
Defense Health Agency
About this file
Offeror questions and Government responses for Amendment 000009.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 124 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
owssvr
| Question Number | QUESTION RECEIVED FROM OFFEROR | FINAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO OFFERORS |
| FPR-1 | Based on the changes in data and Amendment 8, will the Government provide a two-week extension? | |
| The proposal due date remains unchanged. | ||
| FPR-2 | Will the Government be issuing an amendment to clarify the final direction on deleting records from the TEDNI file when the contractor number is equal to "73"? | |
| On this TEDNI file issue, offerers were provided direction via e-mail notification from the Contracting Officer. The RFP will not be amended to reiterate this direction. | ||
| FPR-3 | Please confirm that the IMS needs to only be submitted in an electronic version. | |
| Offerors may submit the IMS in electronic version only. The IMP, however, must be submitted in both electronic and paper. See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.8. | ||
| FPR-4 | Given the limitations of Microsoft Project, will the DHA accept a column that indicates changes in lieu of tracked changes? | |
| Offerors shall use red bold font to indicate changes in the IMS. Changes will not be made in a separate column but within the original text. See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.8. | ||
| FPR-5 | For the IMS, will the DHA consider allowing the usage of the Microsoft Project's default font - Calibri 11? This helps facilitate a cleaner formatting of the project plan. | |
| This is acceptable for the IMS only. | ||
| FPR-6 | Confirm the page count limitation, including additions and deletions, only apply to the written technical proposal. | |
| Page limitations for each volume are as stated in Section L.4.5. With respect to the technical volume, the page limitations apply to the "clean copy," not the copy containing "track changes." | ||
| FPR-7 | The RFP has required timelines for initial meeting with the MTF Commanders and eMSM Managers during transition. These meetings with the MTF Commanders and eMSMs we understand have several focuses but are significantly to be used for initiating MOU development. Based on this we would like clarification on current timeline requirement that are reflected in the RFP and TOM guidance. For example; the RFP and TOM guidance regarding the Site visits/meetings with eMSM Managers are to be within 30 days following Transition Specification Meeting (T2017 Transition Update 2.6.1.1); site visits/meeting with MTF Commanders are to be complete within 100 days following Transition Specification Meeting (T2017 Transition Update Para.2.6.1.1). The timeline for meeting with each MTF Commander/eMSM Manager is within 60 days following contract award to develop an MOU with each MTF/eMSM (TOM Ch. 2, Sec 6, Para 1.1). Also the changes in CDRL A120, impose different and tighter timelines for the draft submission to the MTFs and final execution. For example; the new CDRL is in conflict, timeline requires a draft MOU provided to the MTFs 4 days after the initial meeting with the MTFs; and 36 days prior to the completion of the initial visits to the MTFs. There are similar inconsistencies with both the TRO and USCG MOUs. Can these timelines and requirements be established whereby we gain consistency of action in order to be more efficient coordinating and meeting with MTF/eMSM staff? We would suggest that in order to maximize effectiveness and efficiency of all staffs that the government establish a timeline which is consistent with the MTF meetings occurring 100 days from the TRANSPEC. This will fully align with all MTF commander's and eMSM's meetings and requirements | |
| See Response to FPR Question 28. | ||
| FPR-8 | CDRL M340 shows in the CDRL Zipped File as reflecting a change on 11.25.15. A compare of the prior version (4.16.15) against the newest version (11.24.15) does not appear to have changed. Please clarify how this CDRL was updated. | |
| In Amendment 000008, the CDRL was updated in Block 16 from "PHI/PII: No" to "PHI/PII: Yes" | ||
| FPR-9 | CDRL Q040 shows in the CDRL Zipped File as reflecting a change on 11.4.15. A compare of the prior version (4.6.15) against the newest version (11.4.15) does not appear to have changed. Please clarify how this CDRL was updated. | In Amendment 000008, the CDRL was updated in Block 16, CONTENT DETAILS, first paragraph after the listing. The term "referred cases" was changed to "fraud cases." |
| FPR-10 | CDRL M320 is a new requirement. The CDRL content makes reference to "Format and content of data (Pivot Table). See attachments: (1) MTF Directed Referrals |
Summary Template Example (2) MTF Directed Referrals Detail Template Example, and (3) MTF Directed Referrals Report Definitions."; however, there is only one page associated with the CDRL. Can the attachments be provided for further assessment of the requirement?
| In Amendment 000009, the CDRL has been updated to include the attachment. | ||
| FPR-11 | Could the government please provide the number of TQMC findings (average or max expected) for the R240 quarterly report? | The Government will not estimate the expected number of TQMC findings. See response to FPR-38. |
| FPR-12 | Can the Government please confirm that 30 Defense Medical Information System (DMIS) IDs were deleted in the West region? | The PSA and BRAC sites for the West region are as listed in Amendment 000008, Attachments J-2 and J-4. |
| FPR-13 | What does the government mean by a clean copy? Does that include change bars or not i.e., a conformed copy? | See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.7. |
| FPR-14 | Amendment 8 indicates that that offerors should take into account the ENs and discussions. Section L.2.5 requests FPRs with the Offeror's best terms and serves to clarify certain aspects of the proposal. It goes on to say that "under no circumstances will the Offeror revise its offer in response to clarification questions; any such revision will not be considered." Can the Government please clarify? | Offerors may revise any aspect of their proposal in the Final Proposal Revisions. The language at issue pertains to "clarifications" and was originally set forth in the context of award without discussions. It has been deleted in Amendment 000009. By removing this text, however, the Government is not waiving its right to obtain clarifications on the Final Proposal Revisions, if warranted. |
| FPR-15 | With the edits to L.2.5 and deletion to L.2.6, it appears the government intends to reserve the right to clarifications, but does not intend to engage in further discussions. Can the government clarify it's intent or revise Section L.2.5 to provide greater clarity? | See Response to Question FPR-14. |
| FPR-16 | Will the DHA evaluate our FPR based on the clean copies or the tracked change volumes? | In the event of an inconsistency between the clean copy and the copy with track changes, the clean copy will take precedence. The track changes copy is requested to assist the Government in identifying changes to the proposals. |
| FPR-17 | Are offerors required to resubmit Volume V in its entirety or only provide new information if it has become available? | Offerors may supplement their Volume V with any new Financial Data without resubmitting the entire Volume V. |
| FPR-18 | Amendment 8 requires 6. SECTION K, REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS updated FAR/DFARS provisions. An update to ORCA Certifications and Representations are required at time of FPR submission. Will the DHA provide an updated Section K? | See response to FPR-26. |
| FPR-19 | L.1, Clause DFARS 252.225-7003 Report of Intended Performance Outside the United States and Canada--Submission with Offer references the (OCT 2010) version. Will the Government update the Solicitation to reflect the Oct 2015 version? | This clause has been updated. See RFP Amendment 00009. |
| FPR-20 | Will the Government update FAR and DFARS clauses contained in the contract to comply with amendments to the FAR and DFARS since the prior submission, including but not limited to changes to thresholds of applicability of clauses and requirements to flow the clause to subcontractors? | FAR and DFAR clauses were updated via Amendment 00008. |
| FPR-21 | Are we required to submit a updated Guaranty Agreement? | No, offerors are not required to submit an updated Guaranty Agreement for Corporate Guarantor, if the parties referenced in Section L.9.3 have not changed. |
| FPR-22 | TOM Ch 2 Sec 6 referenced as changed is not included in the TOM revisions provided by the Govt. Can the government provide an updated TOM Chapter 2 Section 6? | See Response FPR Question 28. |
| FPR-23 | The TOM Ch 8, Sec 5, Para 6.1.5, requires the MCSC to send the servicing provider a copy of “clinical information furnished by the referring provider.” The paragraph also lists what needs to be included in the notice to the beneficiary, and doesn’t mention the clinical information. However, Section C (C.2.2.3.) of the T2017 RFP states the following: “The Contractor shall make a copy of the referral/consult and authorization letter electronically accessible and printable to the beneficiary and provide hard copies upon request.” We assume that the intent of the requirement in Section C, Para C.2.2.3. of the RFP is to mirror the TOM requirement for the MCSC to make electronically accessible to the beneficiary (and hard copy upon request) a copy of the referral/authorization letter itself, and not the original detailed care request and clinical information sent to the provider. Please confirm our interpretation. | Your interpretation is correct. The content of the notice to the beneficiary is clearly spelled out in TOM Chapter 8, Section 5, Paragraph 6.1.5, it states: “shall contain the UIN and information necessary to support obtaining ordered services or an appointment with the referred to provider within the access standards. The notice shall also provide the beneficiary with instructions on how to change their provider, if desired.” Any additional clinical information provided by the referring provider is to be assumed that it’s directed to the consulting provider for his/her benefit in rendering the requested services. |
| FPR-24 | TRICARE Operations Manual, Chapter 2, Section 4, 2.4.2, states that the incoming contractor shall obtain information from the outgoing contractor on fees that are being paid monthly (i.e. by allotment or Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) and transition these monthly payment types in the least disruptive manner for the beneficiary in a way that does not require the beneficiary to personally stop and restart their electronic payment(s). Will the outgoing contractor be required to transfer credit card and/or banking account information to the incoming contractor so the beneficiary doesn't have to stop and restart their electronic payments? | TOM Chapter 2, Section 4, Paragraph 2.4.2 will be revised to require the incoming contractor to transition monthly payment types in the least disruptive manner for the beneficiary. For the purpose of proposal preparation, consider this change incorporated into the TOM. |
| FPR-25 | With the change to RFP paragraph L.2.8 to update contact information, is the Offeror also required to resubmit their Organizational Structure 15 days prior to the proposal submission date? | No, offerors are not required to resubmit their organizational structures, if there are no changes. |
| FPR-26 | Section K references that an update to ORCA Certifications and Representations are required at time of FPR submission. Should ORCA be changed to the System for Award Management (SAM), which “is the Official U.S. Government system that consolidated the capabilities of CCR/FedReg, ORCA, and EPLS”? See: https://www.sam.gov/portal/SAM/##1 | Yes, the System for Award Management (SAM), referenced in Section K, is the correct system. The SF 30 reference to "ORCA" should read "SAM." |
| FPR-27 | The page limitations table indicates a 30 page maximum for the “Past Performance Narrative.” Please confirm that the limitation only applies to the information required by the instructions in L.7.2. | Yes, as set forth in L.4.5., the 30 page limitation applies to the past performance narrative, which is described in Section L.7.2. Information submitted, for example, pursuant to Sections L.7.3 (data breach), L.7.7. (information of affiliates and joint venture members), or L.7.9 (utilization of small business concerns) may be submitted separately from, and will not count towards, the 30-page narrative. |
| FPR-28 | The revised CDRLs relating to MOU submission reference an initial submission of 180 days before the start of service delivery. The subsequent submission due date referenced is 90 days before the start of service delivery. As a result, it appears that the MOU is due both at 180 and 90 day mark before the start of service delivery. This language applies to multiple MOU related CDRLs. |
Will the DHA please clarify the requirement for the MOU initial and subsequent submission due dates?
Further, the Amendment 000008 Summary of Changes states that the "Due date for draft MOU was changed" within TOM Chapter 2, Section 6. However, updated sections of TOM Chapter 2, Section 6 were not provided, and the specific MOUs referenced and specific MOU due date was not included.
Will the DHA confirm that the offeror can rely on the CDRLs provided with Amendment 000008 (and the corresponding answer to the above question) in regards to treatment of MOU due dates? MOU due dates have been reconciled between CDRLs, Section C and the TRICARE Operations Manual.
With respect to CDRLs A120 (MOU with MTF/eMSM), A140 (MOU with TRO), and A190 (MOU with Coast Guard), the CDRLs have been revised to the prior version. No change has been made to TOM, Chapter 2, Section 6. Offerors should disregard the notation in the TOM Summary of Changes in Amendment 000008 which indicated that the due date for the draft MOU was changed. See updated CDRLs.
With respect to CDRLs A150 (MOU with East/West Contractor), A160 (MOU with the TPharm contractor), A170 (MOU with the TDEFIC contractor), A180 (MOU with the TOP contractor), these have been revised to reflect a First Submission requirement 90 days prior to start of service delivery. See updated CDRLs. In addition, RFP Section C.2.7.12 has been revised to be consistent with this timeline; the language “60 days prior” has been changed to “90 days prior.”
Please be advised that the following CDRLs have been added, consistent with the requirements of Section C.2.7.12 and its subsections: A191 (MOU with Nurse Advice Line contractor), A192 (MOU with TRICARE Claims Review Services contractor), A193 (MOU with Air Force Medical Services Referral Management Suite contractor), A194 (MOU with Active Duty Dental Program contractor), A195 (MOU with TRICARE Dental Program contractor), and A196 (MOU with TRICARE Retiree Dental Program contractor).
| FPR-29 | The RFP at Section L.6.2.7 indicates that "the IMP and IMS shall be submitted in Microsoft Project 2010 Standard". Please confirm this requirement applies to the IMS only and that the IMP can remain a narrative document. In addition, is the offeror required to submit a printed copy of the IMS? | The Microsoft Project format applies only to the IMS. Section L.6.2.7 has been revised In Amendment 000009. Offerors may submit the IMS in electronic copy only. See Section L.4.8. |
| FPR-30 | The submission requirement states that for Volume II, 25 hardcopies with all changes tracked. The government requires an IMP/IMS Microsoft Project file submission, which is not conducive to tracking changes. If a hardcopy of the Microsoft Project file is required, please confirm that the government does not require tracked changes of the IMS for the FPR submission. | See Section L.4.8 of Amendment 000009. |
| FPR-31 | CDRL Q040 was provided in the "Updated CDRL" files. However, the CDRL provided is the same date as previously provided, and no specific changes are apparent. Is there an updated CDRL to be provided or are there no changes to CDRL Q040? | In Amendment 000008, the CDRL was updated in Block 16, CONTENT DETAILS, first paragraph after the listing. The term "referred cases" was changed to "fraud cases." |
| FPR-32 | Will the government provide "check files" or other summarized data elements to allow the offeror to ensure data tapes received are loaded fully and accurately? | The following files within the updated hard drive issued with Amendment 000008 contain record and byte counts along with summary data: T-2017_East_FileList_201512.xlsx and T-2017_West_FileList_201512.xlsx. |
| FPR-33 | Estimated Underwritten Healthcare Costs included in attachments L-5e and L-5w did not change from the original RFP to Amendment 000008. However, actual reductions to the DMEPOS fee schedule effective January 1, 2016 were significant. Also, our interpretation of the fee schedule change indicates there will be future adjustments to the DMEPOS fee schedule later in 2016 and beyond , both of which, will also reduce Underwritten Healthcare cost allowable charges. |
| Because the contractor is at risk for the effect of this change on their discount guarantee, will the Government be updating the estimated underwritten healthcare costs within the Price Evaluation Templates contained in attachment L-5e and L-5w to reflect the significant reductions to the DMEPOS fee schedule effective January 1, 2016 and beyond so that we may make the proper adjustment? | The Government estimated underwritten healthcare costs set forth in the Price Evaluation Template will not be revised. As explained in Section L.8.19.4, Offerors accept "all risks of future conditions that may impact the Offeror's ability to obtain provider discounts." In proposing discounts, Offerors should carefully consider both known conditions and future risks. | |
| FPR-34 | The updated L.4.7. states, "...For Volume II (Technical), in addition to the 35 clean copies, provide 25 hardcopies with all changes (additions and deletions) tracked." |
1- Please confirm that is it the Government's intention to receieve one (1) Original version without tracked changes, 35 copies without tracked changes, and 25 copies with tracked changes?
2- Is a summary list of changes required to be submitted with Volume II?
| 3- Do the page limitations shown in L.4.5. include the strike-through (i.e. deleted) language in tracked changes? | 1- Yes; your understanding of the RFP proposal requirements for Volume II is correct. 2. No, a summary of changes is not required to be submitted with Volume II. Changes will be evident in the track changes version. 3. The page limitations for the written technical proposal, set forth in Section L.4.5, applies only to the clean copy of Volume II, not the track changes copy. See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.7. | |
| FPR-35 | Section L.4.7. indicates that a list of changes for Volumes I, III, IV, and V should be provided, but it doesn’t say where to insert the list(s). |
| 1- Do we interpret this to mean that all volumes should include a list of changes in the front of the binder? | Yes, the list of changes for Volumes I, III, IV and V, should be included in the front of the binder. See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.7. | |
| FPR-36 | Section L.4.7. indicates that a list of changes for Volumes I, III, IV, and V should be provided, but does not require offerors submit revisions either in 'blue' font for spreadsheets or 'tracked changes' for the narrative components. |
1- We understand the instruction as it relates to the Price Evaluation Template and Excel-based templates. However, does this instruction apply to the Price Narrative and other Word-based appendices? Or, shall we use the standard "Tracked Changes" function for any Word-based documents?
2- Regarding the list of changes, should offerors identify as a change only the cell/data point that an input was updated or would this also be for the cells that are based upon that calculation? It is likely a change in a few rates would lead to nearly every line item changing. 1 - With respect to Volume III, Offerors shall provide a list of changes as indicated in Section L.4.7 in Amendment 000009.
2 - For any changes to the Price Template, Offerors may indicate changes via red bold font, in lieu of a list. See revised Section L.4.7, permitting this option.
FPR-37 The Government removed the requirement to limit the IMS/IMP, for the purposes of the proposal, to a Level 3 work breakdown structure.
1- Is it the Government's intention for offerors to still resubmit the IMS/IMP at the same level as provided in the original submission, taking into account the feedback received during Discussions? Or, is the Government requesting a more detailed IMS/IMP that includes Level 4+?
2- Should changes to the IMP/IMS be printed in “blue” font in the same manner as the Price/Cost Volume IV, since tracked changes are also not conducive to Microsoft Project files? 1 - As stated in RFP Section L.6.2.7.1, the IMS must be "congruent with and reference all contract transition requirements and Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) with due dates prior to the start of healthcare delivery." Offerors should also ensure that the IMS incorporates the offeror's response to any relevant evaluation notice. The Government will not evaluate whether this required information is set at a specific WBS level.
2 - See Amendment 000009, Section L.4.8.
FPR-38 The updated CDRL R240 has frequency listed “as required”, but the TQMC reports are released on a quarterly basis.
| Will the Government confirm the expectations regarding frequency of submission for this CDRL? | In Amendment 00008, TOM Chapter 7, Section 3 was revised to indicate that this CDRL submission is a quarterly requirement. This CDRL has been moved from an “As Required” report to a “Quarterly” report and is now designated as CDRL Q160. | ||
| FPR-39 | Will the government supply additional workload data that was originally in sections L-3, L-9, L-12 and more current referral counts by Region? | Attachments L-3, L-9, and L-12 will not be updated. | |
| FPR-40 | Should bidders add the additional CDRLS to their pricing models or will the Government be issuing an updated consolidated list for the supplied government template? | Offerors should add any additional CDRLs to the CDRL tab in their Attachment L-5 response. | |
| FPR-41 | Are offerors required to re-submit Volumes III and V if there are no changes made? | No, offerors are not required to resubmit Volumes III and V if no changes are made. See also Question FPR-17 (pertaining to supplemental financial data in Volume V) | |
| FPR-42 | In Section L.4.7, it states, "For the final proposal revision (FPR), offerors shall additionally provide the following: For Volumes I (Executed Offer), III (Past Performance), IV (Price/Cost), and V (Financial Data), a list of any changes made from the initial offer to the FPR. For Volume II (Technical), in addition to the 35 clean copies, provide 25 hardcopies with all changes (additions and deletions) tracked." |
For paper copies, we understand that Volumes I, III, IV, and V are to be provided without additions and deletions tracked (“clean copies”) and must include a list of any changes made from the initial offer to the FPR. With respect to Volume II, it is our understanding that the Government is requesting 60 copies – 35 clean copies and 25 hard copies with additions and deletions tracked. Is our understanding correct?
| We understand that electronic copies are required for each Volume. With respect to Volume II , does the Government prefer the "clean copy" version to be on a separate disk from the second version containing the additions and deletions tracked or does the Government perfer both versions of Volume II be on one disk? | Your understanding is correct. The Government is requesting an original plus 60 copies of the Technical Proposal--35 clean copies and 25 with changes tracked. With respect to the electronic version, Offerors may submit the clean copy and track changes copy on either one disk or on separate disks. | |
| FPR-43 | In Section L.4.7, it states, "For the final proposal revision (FPR), offerors shall additionally provide the following: For Volumes I (Executed Offer), III (Past Performance), IV (Price/Cost), and V (Financial Data), a list of any changes made from the initial offer to the FPR. For Volume II (Technical), in addition to the 35 clean copies, provide 25 hardcopies with all changes (additions and deletions) tracked." |
We understand that Volumes I, III, IV, and V hardcopies have a list of any changes made from the initial offer to the FPR.
| Is it the Government's intent for a list of any changes be provided with our Volume II (Technical) FPR? | The Government does not require a list of changes to Volume II. As stated in Section L.4.7 of Amendment 000009, changes will be identified via the tracked changes in the 25 copies showing these changes. | |
| FPR-44 | Section L.4.5 states, "For Volume II (Technical), in addition to the 35 clean copies, provide 25 hardcopies with all changes (additions and deletions) tracked." |
Additionally, L.6.2.7.1. states, "The Offeror shall provide an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) which details the Offeror's approach to meeting transition requirements. The IMP and IMS shall demonstrate the Offeror's approach to the Integrated Product and Process Development framework. The IMP and IMS shall be submitted in Microsoft Project, 2010 Standard."
| The IMS and IMP are located in Volume II. The Government has requested a version of Volume II includes tracked additions and deletions. Microsoft Project does not have a Track Changes feature. Therefore we will identify changes and provide a list of any changes made from the initial offer to the FPR similar to Volumes I (Executed Offer), III (Past Performance), IV (Price/Cost), and V (Financial Data). Please advise if this is acceptable. | Changes to the IMP and IMS shall be identified in accordance with RFP Section L.4.8 of Amendment 000009. A list of changes is not requested. | ||
| FPR-45 | For Amendments 000001-000007 as submitted in Volume I, Section 2.0 of our initial submission on July 23, 2015, are new signatures and dates required for the FPR submission or are copies of the original signatures and dates for each Amendment acceptable? | Offerors are not required to resubmit signed Amendments 000001 through 000007. | |
| FPR-46 | Does the Government required a newly signed Guaranty Agreement with our FPR submission, or is a copy from the original submission acceptable? | See response to FPR-21. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .