RFP 26-87449 Teleconsult Att G - Q&A Template_with state answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 30 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP 26-87449
- Issued by
- Indiana
About this file
This is a Question and Answer Template document issued by the Indiana Department of Health for RFP 26-87449, a comprehensive Teleconsult/Telehealth Landscape Assessment conducted under the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) Initiative 7. The RFP solicits a single contractor to conduct a statewide mixed-methods needs assessment evaluating current telehealth and teleconsultation services across Indiana's healthcare landscape, with key deliverables including a Project Management Plan, Assessment Methodology and Instruments, Stakeholder Engagement Summary, National Models and Evidence Scan, Gap Analysis and Needs Identification Report, and a comprehensive Indiana Statewide Telehealth and Teleconsultation Plan with baseline key performance outcome measurements. The pre-proposal conference was held April 22, 2026, written questions were due April 27, 2026, with responses posted by May 6, 2026, and proposals were due May 18, 2026, by 3:00 PM Eastern Time through the Supplier Portal. The contract term is one year from execution with potential for optional one-year renewals through year five, and evaluation on a 103-point scale begins May 27, 2026, with oral presentations potentially occurring June 1, 2026.
The state provided no specific budget ceiling or funding range for this engagement; cost will be evaluated during the award determination process. The RFP includes set-aside participation goals of 8 percent for Minority Business Enterprises (MBE), 11 percent for Women Business Enterprises (WBE), and 3 percent for Indiana Veteran Owned Small Businesses (IVOSB), with all proposed subcontractors requiring current certification at time of proposal submission. No incumbent vendor has been identified. The contract is funded entirely through the Rural Health Transformation Program, a five-year federal grant of $206,927,896.80 provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, though only the initial budget period has secured funding with subsequent periods subject to future federal funding awards. Respondents must comply with data protection standards aligned with the Indiana Office of Technology Information Security Framework and NIST 800-53 Revision 5 compliance, maintain Federal Bureau of Investigation background checks for all employees and subcontractors, and utilize specified cloud hosting solutions preferably through state-owned Microsoft Azure or Amazon Web Services tenants. The state clarified that respondents may serve as prime contractors or subcontractors on multiple RHTP projects simultaneously if they maintain appropriate policies to prevent duplicative work and billing, and follow-on implementation work is not precluded for the selected vendor.
View the file
Other files
Show all 28
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
Question & Inquiry Form
| Attachment G | |||||||
| Question and Answer Template | |||||||
| RFP # 26-87449 | |||||||
| Please submit your questions in the form below (yellow shaded area) per RFP Section 1.24. | |||||||
| Click the dropdown in the RFP Document Column to select topic. | |||||||
| No. | RFP Document | Section Number | Page | Topic | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Attachment E Business Proposal Template | General | The RFP is silent on preclusion. Is it correct to assume the selected vendor for this assessment would not be precluded from competing for any follow-on or implementation work related to this initiative? | For this opportunity, if a respondent has staff/contractors who may be involved in other RHTP activities as a subrecipient, grantee, vendor subcontractor, or other engagement with any RHTP initiatives, the respondent must articulate how that involvement can remain independent without introducing any duplicative work and or billing based on multiple initiative involvement. The respondent should commit to maintain appropriate policies to ensure tracking of activities aligns with the expectations of each procurement in which they are engaged. | |||
| 2 | General | Can a vendor serve as the Prime on multiple RHTP projects simultanously? | For this opportunity, if a respondent has staff/contractors who may be involved in other RHTP activities as a subrecipient, grantee, vendor subcontractor, or other engagement with any RHTP initiatives, the respondent must articulate how that involvement can remain independent without introducing any duplicative work and or billing based on multiple initiative involvement. The respondent should commit to maintain appropriate policies to ensure tracking of activities aligns with the expectations of each procurement in which they are engaged. | ||||
| 3 | General | Can a vendor serve as a subcontractor on multiple RHTP projects simultanously? | For this opportunity, if a respondent has staff/contractors who may be involved in other RHTP activities as a subrecipient, grantee, vendor subcontractor, or other engagement with any RHTP initiatives, the respondent must articulate how that involvement can remain independent without introducing any duplicative work and or billing based on multiple initiative involvement. The respondent should commit to maintain appropriate policies to ensure tracking of activities aligns with the expectations of each procurement in which they are engaged. | ||||
| 4 | Budget | Is there a budget for this project, either in full or annually, that the State can share? | There is no specific budget. Cost will be evaluated when determining the RFP award. | ||||
| 5 | Scope of Work – Final Report | Is the contractor expected to produce detailed system architecture diagrams, data models, and integration specifications as part of the final deliverable? | Detailed system architecture diagrams and data models are out of scope for this proposal. Integration specifications may need to be documented depending on the telemedicine solution(s) identified throughout the engagement of the landscape assessment. | ||||
| 6 | Data Gathering & Analysis | What specific datasets will be made available by the State (e.g., Medicaid claims, HIE data, telehealth utilization, provider data)? | The full scope of available data sets are still to be finalized. Likely this would include, but is not limited to, data from Medicaid claims, and utilization (if available) from the Indiana All Payers Claims Database (APCD). | ||||
| 7 | Data Gathering & Analysis | Will the State facilitate access to external data sources such as IHIE, MCOs, or providers, or is the contractor responsible for securing these data-sharing agreements? | The state is open to facilitating these agreements as necessary. | ||||
| 8 | Final Report – KPO Baselines | Does the State have predefined methodologies or preferred approaches for establishing baseline KPO measurements (e.g., risk adjustment, county-level normalization)? | There are no predefined methodologies or preferred approaches at this time - vendor suggestions based on industry best practices are welcomed. | ||||
| 9 | Stakeholder Engagement | Is there an expected or recommended stakeholder engagement coverage percentage that vendors should plan for? | While specific engagement metrics are open to recommendations and negotiation, preliminary expectations for total target percentage will be tired and depend on the stakeholder type. Minimum requirements for all stakeholders would be at least 35% engagement. High priority stakeholders would be expected to have 60% engagement. | ||||
| 10 | Telemedicine Workgroup | Can the State provide expectations regarding the size, composition, frequency of meetings, and decision-making role of the Telemedicine Workgroup? | There are no explicit expectations for the size, composition, and frequency of meetings for this workgroup - that will be established upon initiation of the project. As of now, the intent of the workgroup will only be a review and advisory group rather than an decision-making authority. | ||||
| 11 | Technical & Interoperability | Can the State share information on current telehealth platforms, EHR systems, and HIE integrations in use across the State? | We do not have that level of information available and is a primary requirement of the initial discovery phase of this landscape assessment RFP. | ||||
| 12 | Technical & Interoperability | Should the interoperability assessment include detailed future-state architecture (e.g., FHIR-based integration models), or remain at a capability/maturity level? | Both should be considered as we are looking to create a strategic roadmap for teleconsult and telehealth across the state for the duration of the RHTP program and beyond. | ||||
| 13 | Billing & Reimbursement Assessment | Will the State provide access to payer contracts, reimbursement data, or policy documentation required for this analysis? | This will likely depend on statutory and agency (FSSA, IDOH) related policies for the sharing of this information, but will share this information if authorized. | ||||
| 14 | Coordination with Other Vendors | The RFP references coordination with other RHTP vendors. Can the State clarify who these vendors are and how responsibilities will be divided? | Vendors are still to be determined as the other procurements are ongoing. Initiatives that may have vendors conducting similar work include Initiative 3 (Interoperability) and Initiative 1 (MOCC). | ||||
| 15 | Deliverables | Are contractors expected to provide raw datasets, dashboards, or visualization tools along with reports? | Dashboards and visualization tools are not an explicit requirement of this project but may be a nice to have feature. There may be expectations to provide aggregated datasets to the state, but that will be evaluated on a case by case basis. | ||||
| 16 | AI Policy | Is the use of AI (e.g., for analytics, modeling, or insights) encouraged as part of this engagement, and if so, in which areas? | Respondents may propose the use of AI as part of their responses. If included, respondents must provide a detailed Attachment L. | ||||
| 17 | AI Policy Compliance | Will the State provide guidance or templates for completing the AI Readiness Assessment if AI tools are proposed? | Respondents may propose the use of AI as part of their responses. If included, respondents must provide a detailed Attachment L. | ||||
| 18 | Project Timeline | Are the milestone dates fixed, or is there flexibility for vendors to propose alternative timelines based on approach? | There will be flexibility for vendors to propose alternative timelines based on approach. | ||||
| 19 | Cost Proposal | Is there an estimated budget range or funding ceiling for this engagement? | There is no specific budget. Cost will be evaluated when determining the RFP award. | ||||
| 20 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.3.1. Final Report | 7 | Baseline Data | The SOW states that “The State shall provide available baseline data and access to other data sources where applicable to support the establishment of baseline KPO measurements.” Which data sources does the state intend to share with the contractor? |
o Relatedly, is the state looking for an all-payer assessment of telehealth and teleconsultation? Or would a Medicare- and Medicaid-only approach be sufficient?
o If an all-payer approach is desired, would the state’s All Payer Claims Database be available for this analysis?
| o Several of the KPOs — particularly HbA1c/blood pressure control and timeliness of access — require clinical data that typically isn't available in claims. Does the state anticipate the contractor would be leveraging HIE or EHR-derived data to establish these baselines? | Ideally the state is looking for an all-payer assessment of telehealth and teleconsultation. We will engage the Indiana Department of Insurance as necessary to discuss what data they will be able to provide from the All Payer Claims Database to support this work. Those KPOs that require clinical data would leverage data from an HIE, as available. If that is not feasible for the state to collect, alternative KPOs may be suggested by the vendor. | ||||||
| 21 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 5. Ownership | 12 | Public accessibility of deliverables | Will the final products of the work be made publicly accessible? | The final deliverable (Indiana Teleconsult and Telehealth Roadmap) will be publicly available once complete. | |||
| 22 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.1. Objectives of Engagement | 3 | ROI Evaluation/Analysis | What is the state seeking to learn from the proposed ROI analysis? Would an approach leveraging existing literature be sufficient? | Yes, an approach leveraging existing literature would be sufficient. The state is also interested in understanding, if feasible, areas of opportunity for both short and long term cost savings across critical health outcomes (ex: chronic disease, mental and behavioral health, maternal and infant health). | |||
| 23 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.1. Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness | 4 | Stakeholder population survey | Can we assume that the State will provide stakeholder contact lists — or connect the Contractor to appropriate provider associations, payer organizations, public agencies, and other stakeholder groups — to support stakeholder outreach and survey distribution? | Yes, this is a correct assumption. | |||
| 24 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Cost Summary | N/A | Total budget | Can the state provide the total amount it has budgeted for this scope of work? | There is no specific budget. Cost will be evaluated when determining the RFP award. | |
| 25 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness / Section 8 Key Performance Indicators | 4, 14 | Stakeholder engagement scope | For proposal purposes, should Respondents propose a stakeholder engagement approach that balances breadth, feasibility, and the eight-month project timeline, or does the State have minimum engagement assumptions Respondents should use when developing their proposals? | Respondents may propose a stakeholder engagement approach they deem most feasible for the proposed project timeline. | |||
| 26 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness / Section 8 Key Performance Indicators | 4 | Coordination with other RHTP vendors | The SOW references coordination with other RHTP vendors conducting similar assessments. Can the State provide additional detail on those vendors or parallel assessments, including their scopes, timelines, expected coordination mechanisms, and any shared data collection or reporting requirements? | Vendors are still to be determined as the other procurements are ongoing. Initiatives that may have vendors conducting similar work include Initiative 3 (Interoperability) and Initiative 1 (MOCC). | |||
| 27 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness | 4 | Telemedicine Workgroup | Can the State clarify operational expectations for the Telemedicine Workgroup, including whether the State will identify and invite members, the expected size or composition of the group, anticipated meeting cadence, and whether the Workgroup will serve in an advisory capacity or have a formal role in approving deliverables or recommendations? Would the state be open to including experts outside the state of Indiana in this Working Group? | There are no explicit expectations for the size, composition, and frequency of meetings for this workgroup - that will be established upon initiation of the project. As of now, the intent of the workgroup will only be a review and advisory group rather than an decision-making authority. The state is open to including experts outside of the state of Indiana as appropriate depending on the expertise of other participating workgroup members. | |||
| 28 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | 4 | Section 3.2.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness -- Project Management and Coordination | How much of this work does IDOH expect to be conducted on-site versus remotely? Are there specific activities (e.g., formal presentations to State executives, stakeholder engagement) that require in-person facilitation? | The state anticipates that most of this work may be able to be conducted remotely. There will be specific onsite activities that will require in-person facilitation including the items referenced (formal presentation of final deliverables, and periodic stakeholder meetings). The state is open to vendor recommendations as to what they feel may be most beneficial for other specific on-site activities as well. | ||
| 29 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.1 Stakeholder Engagement and Readiness | 3, 8 | Stakeholder Engagement, Key Performance Indicators | The SOW states the Contractor and State will "mutually agree upon a target percentage of the total identified stakeholder population to be surveyed." Does IDOH have a preliminary expectation for this target percentage (e.g., 30%, 50%, 80%), and can the State provide a rough estimate of the total identified stakeholder population size (e.g., 50, 200, 500+ organizations or individuals)? Understanding the expected number of stakeholders to be engaged will enable us to design an appropriate engagement strategy, staffing plan, and budget. | The initial stakeholder list, depending on the breadth of outreach, would roughly be at least 400 entities if not more. Preliminary expectations for total target percentage will be tired and depend on the stakeholder type. Minimum requirements for all stakeholders would be at least 35% engagement. High priority stakeholders would be expected to have 60% engagement. | |||
| 30 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.2 National Models and Evidence Scan | 4 | National Models and Evidence Scan | Does the State expect this research to rely primarily on publicly available information, or should it also include interviews with leaders from national model programs? | The State would prefer research to incorporate both publicly available information as well as interviews with leaders from national model programs. | |||
| 31 | RFP Document: Attachment K - Scope of Work (cell to the left does not include this as option in the pulldown menu) | ||||||
| Section 3.2.2.2 Gap Analysis and Needs Identification | 5 | Gap Analysis and Needs Identification | The RFP includes assessing the current provider landscape and programs. Could the State share whether there is a contact list available to support qualitative outreach and inform a more detailed understanding of existing telehealth and teleconsultation programs and infrastructure? | There will be a broad stakeholder list available, but the state currently does not have data related to the current scope and utilization of telehealth or teleconsult across the state. | |||
| 32 | Attachment E Business Proposal Template | 2.3.15 | 5 | Extending Pricing to Other Governmental Bodies – Indicate your willingness to extend prices of awarded products and/or services to other governmental bodies per RFP section 2.3.17. | Can the State please verify what RFP section 2.13.17 refers to? Both the RFP Document and Attachment E end at Section 2.3.16. | The correct reference is RFP section 2.3.15 (Extending Pricing to Other Governmental Bodies). | |
| 33 | RFP Main Document (cell to the left does not include this as option in the dropdown menu) | 33 | Evaluation Criteria | Can the State verify that total Price points available is 30 points, with the lowest cost proposal being granted an additonal five points? | Total price points available is 30 points. The lowest cost proposal receives 30 points and all other proposals receive points based on the formula in RFP section 3.2.3. No bonus or "additional" points are available through cost scoring. | ||
| 34 | RFP Main Document (cell to the left does not include this as option in the dropdown menu) | ||||||
| Cost Assumptions, Conditions and Constraints | 27 | Format and packaging for submission | Can the State clarify if "Attachment D" and "Cost Assumptions, Conditions and Constraints” should be combined into one document or submitted separately as two separate documents? | Either approach is acceptable. | |||
| 35 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.3.1 | 7 | Baseline Data Availability | Which of the KPO metrics in Section 3.2.3.1 have data currently available? |
Are there other baseline data which the State will include in the baseline data to the contractor?
| Can you provide a list of available data sources which will be made available? | The baseline data will need to be established by the vendor. Available data sets may include Medicaid as well as the Indiana All Payor Claims Database. It may also include clinical data from an HIE, if available. Upon initial assessment, the State also would welcome alternative KPOs to measure if infeasible to collect the currently identified metrics. | ||||||
| 36 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.3.1 | 7 | Baseline Data Availability | Are there known gaps in the available data which the contractor should account for in primary data collection (for example, missing counties, or no data for rural or independent healthcare providers)? | There is limited baseline data currently available the contractor may be asked to help with an initial fesability assessment from the sources we may have access to including All Payor Claims Database, etc. | |
| 37 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.3.1 | 7 | Data Collection Approach | Is the contractor expected to work with individual-level data (PII/PHI) and/or population-level, de-identified, or aggregated data only? | This work will likely require a combination of patient-level and population-level datasets. | |
| 38 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.2.1 | 4 | Stakeholder Engagement Coverage / Scoping | For the to-be agreed upon stakeholder engagement coverage KPI, can the contractor assume survey outreach to around 800 to 1,200 organizations and up to 4,000 individual providers, targeting a 35 to 40 percent survey response rate and 60 to 80 one-on-one interviews is appropriate for scoping and pricing? | The state was anticipating at least 400 entities at a minimum, but if incorporating individual providers this would be a correct assumption. | |
| 39 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.2.1 | 4 | Stakeholder Engagement Coverage / Scoping | If the above assumption is not directionally aligned, can the state provide a target range for the stakeholder engagement coverage so the contractor's responses can be appropriately priced? | Preliminary expectations for total target percentage will be tired and depend on the stakeholder type. Minimum requirements for all stakeholders would be at least 35% engagement. High priority stakeholders would be expected to have 60% engagement. | |
| 40 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.2.1 | 4 | Stakeholder Engagement Coverage / Scoping | Does the State anticipate surveys will be distributed by the State or directly by the contractor? | Surveys may be developed by the contractor, but will be sent out directly from the State. | |
| 41 | Attachment K Scope of Work | 3.2.2.1 | RHTP Vendor Coordination | Will the State set up a formal process for vendors working on different RHTP initiatives to share information and coordinate their work? | Yes that is the current intent. | ||
| 42 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Executive Summary | RHTP Vendor Coordination | How will the timelines for Telehealth Assessment (Initiative 7) and Initiative 8 align so contractors can share assumptions and estimates on future workforce needs? | This RFP will serve as the landscape assessment for both teleconsult and telehealth (Initiative 7 and 8) so there will be one vendor selected. | ||
| 43 | Attachment K Scope of Work | Does the contractor need to align on a shared data framework and joint stakeholder engagement touchpoints with other RHTP evaluation vendors? | This is unknown at this time. There may be alignment for stakeholder engagement for similar initiatives such as Initiative 1 or Initiative 3, but vendors have not been selected for that work at this time. | ||||
| 44 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | 1 | Cost Proposal Tab | Budget Allocation | The RFP does not specify a budget ceiling or funding allocation for this contract. Can the State confirm whether a budget ceiling or anticipated range exists for vendor services under this engagement, and if so, what that amount is? | There is no specific budget. Cost will be evaluated when determining the RFP award. | |
| 45 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | 1 | Cost Proposal Tab | Should travel costs for statewide stakeholder engagement be included in the total bid price in Attachment D, or listed as a separate reimbursable line item with a spending cap? | Travel costs should be included in the total bid price. | ||
| 46 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | General | The RFP is silent on preclusion. Can the state confirm follow-on work is not precluded for contractors bidding on or winning this work? | For this opportunity, if a respondent has staff/contractors who may be involved in other RHTP activities as a subrecipient, grantee, vendor subcontractor, or other engagement with any RHTP initiatives, the respondent must articulate how that involvement can remain independent without introducing any duplicative work and or billing based on multiple initiative involvement. The respondent should commit to maintain appropriate policies to ensure tracking of activities aligns with the expectations of each procurement in which they are engaged. | |||
| 47 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | General | As the nature of the work is an assessment for program design and improvement, would the Department of Health confirm that it is exempt from IRB? | ||||
| Yes, this would be exempt from IRB to our knowledge. | |||||||
| 48 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | General | If the work requires an IRB, does the Department of Health have their own IRB that would provide an exemption for the vendor? | The state does not have our own IRB at this time | |||
| 49 | Attachment F Technical Proposal Template | General | Are only within-state telehealth and teleconsultation models in scope or also cross-state provider models for this RFP? | Cross-state provider models, may be considered depending on the current gaps in care in the rural setting. | |||
| 50 | Attachment D Cost Proposal Template | Cost Proposal | 1 | Budget | Will the State please share the maximum budget that has been planned for this scope of work? | There is no specific budget. Cost will be evaluated when determining the RFP award. | |
| 51 | |||||||
| 52 | |||||||
| 53 | |||||||
| 54 | |||||||
| 55 | |||||||
| 56 | |||||||
| 57 | |||||||
| 58 | |||||||
| 59 | |||||||
| 60 | |||||||
| 61 | |||||||
| 62 | |||||||
| 63 | |||||||
| 64 | |||||||
| 65 | |||||||
| 66 | |||||||
| 67 | |||||||
| 68 | |||||||
| 69 | |||||||
| 70 | |||||||
| 71 | |||||||
| 72 | |||||||
| 73 | |||||||
| 74 | |||||||
| 75 | |||||||
| 76 | |||||||
| 77 | |||||||
| 78 | |||||||
| 79 | |||||||
| 80 | |||||||
| 81 | |||||||
| 82 | |||||||
| 83 | |||||||
| 84 | |||||||
| 85 | |||||||
| 86 | |||||||
| 87 | |||||||
| 88 | |||||||
| 89 | |||||||
| 90 | |||||||
| 91 | |||||||
| 92 | |||||||
| 93 | |||||||
| 94 | |||||||
| 95 | |||||||
| 96 | |||||||
| 97 | |||||||
| 98 | |||||||
| 99 | |||||||
| 100 |
| Attachment A MWBE Commitment |
| Attachment A1 - IVOSB Commitment |
| Attachment B Sample Contract |
| Attachment C Indiana Economic Impact Form |
| Attachment D Cost Proposal Template |
| Attachment E Business Proposal Template |
| Attachment F Technical Proposal Template |
| Attachment H Reference Form |
| Attachment I Pre-Proposal Network Opportunities Form |
| Attachment J Attestation Form |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .