RFP Number OPM049-08-R-0002 - Second Round of RFP Questions and Answers.doc

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

FEDERAL LONG TERM CARE INSURANCE PROGRAM

RFP NUMBER OPM049-08-R-0002

SECOND ROUND OF RFP QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Profile of Employees and Retirees

1. Question: With respect to the lapse rates provided, we would like to understand the following:

a. Does it reflect only voluntary lapse or does it also include terminations due to mortality and/or benefit exhaustion?

Answer: Lapse rates provided in Table 3A reflect voluntary lapse experience only.

b. Does the data for Duration 5 reflect a continuation of the trend observed thus far?

Answer: Yes. The downward linear trend is continuing for each age group.

Plan Design

1. Question: Has OPM received any response to the letter it sent to the State Medicaid Directors regarding treatment of certain FLTCIP insureds under state Partnership Programs? If so, can you please provide us with this feedback?

Answer: Over the last several years we received responses from about four State Medicaid Directors or insurance department counseling programs inquiring into our timeframe and intentions for offering Partnership-qualified packages under the FLTCIP. No substantive discussions have taken place given that we decided not to pursue Partnerships further during the current contract term.

2. Question: There seems to be an inconsistency between question 10 in the Plan Design Section (page 66) and the position OPM has taken in its letter to the State Medicaid Directors referenced above with respect to the effect of variations in state Partnership requirements on Partnership treatment of certain FLTCIP insureds. Can OPM please provide clarity as to its position on this issue and, in particular, whether it considers a state’s certification of the FLTCIP plan design as compliant with its Partnership requirements to be a prerequisite to offering Partnership-compliant coverage to FLTCIP enrollees in that state?

Answer: At the time we sent the letter to State Medicaid Directors, we assumed development of a Partnership option during the current contract term. As we enter into a new contract term, we are interested in receiving information from offerors on how they would structure a Partnership offering, taking into account various state requirements and our desire for uniformity across the FLTCIP. We are open to ideas from offerors on how to go about accomplishing this.

3. Question: Will the Alternate Insurance Plan also be subject to the 25% rate increase limit? If not, is there a different limit that OPM has contemplated?

Answer: Yes. Proposed premium increases should be limited to 25% for individual Current Enrollees, including Alternate Insurance Plan enrollees.

4. Question: Should OPM agree that a rate increase is warranted, what communication strategies would OPM suggest to help mitigate any negative reactions on the part of current and future insureds?

Answer: We expect offerors to propose whatever communication strategies they believe would be appropriate. (See Section L, Page 66, Question 17). We will work with the successful offeror after contract award on specific communications.

Contract Clauses

1. Question: In light of the inclusion of FAR 52.222-26 Alternate I, can OPM provide its guidance as to the particular terms in FAR 52.222-26 which are waived for this contract?

Answer: FAR Clause 52.222-26 Alternate I is not applicable to this solicitation and has been deleted in Amendment Number 0002 to the RFP.

General

1. Question: Would OPM consider exempting the new carrier and/or its sub-contractors from the Federal Government Contractor requirements?

Answer: No, we will not consider exempting the Contractor or any subcontractors from the requirements specified in the RFP.

PAGE