RFP S697 Actuarial Q and A.xls
XLS spreadsheet 59 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Actuarial Services
- Solicitation number
- 40DHHS-S697
- Issued by
- Churchill County, Nevada
About this file
This document is an excerpt from a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Nevada Department of Health and Care Financing Policy (DHCFP) for Actuarial Services. The RFP seeks a vendor to provide a range of actuarial services, including developing capitation rates for Medicaid managed care organizations, supporting waiver applications and renewals, calculating risk adjustment factors, and conducting various analyses. The contract term is for an initial four years, with potential renewal options.
The RFP provides detailed scope of work requirements, including specific tasks and deliverables across areas such as rate setting, waiver support, data management, risk adjustment, and risk mitigation strategies. Vendors are required to submit comprehensive cost proposals that outline their annual budgets for each scope area, as well as hourly rates for potential ad-hoc services. The state currently has several Medicaid waivers in place that may require vendor support, and is open to considering additional waivers in the future. The selected vendor will be expected to work collaboratively with the incumbent actuarial firm during the transition period.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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
Bid Q&A for Export Report
| Bid Q&A | |||
| QUESTION # | QUESTION | QUESTION | ANSWER |
| 1 | General | Please indicate a reason for going out to bid including any specific criteria that the state is hoping to meet and that is not being met by the incumbent. | The State requires RFP's to be resloliced every four years. |
| 2 | Competition | Please provide the names of vendors who submitted questions. If the State is unable to provide the names, please provide the number of vendors who submitted questions. | This information in not public. |
| 3 | Section 2.1.3.1.B and 2.1.3.1.F | When a Vendor receives data from a State?s data processor/fiscal agent, that data has typically been through internal State data edits and other program integrity controls whereas data supplied directly from MCOs/Vendors will have by-passed the State?s data processing procedures. There can be a substantial amount of additional time and resources required to validate data the by-passes a State?s internal data processing requirements including assurances to CMS. While our firm has done this before for other States, the impact on our Annual Cost estimates in Attachment G can be impacted. To what degree does DHCFP anticipate data needing to be supplied directly from MCOs/Vendors as opposed to being provided by your MMIS data vendor/fiscal agent? | Currently, MCOs submit encounter data directly to the actuarial firm via data extract(s) from DHCFP/DXC. The DHCFP anticipates transitioning to housing encounter data from the MCOs with the new MMIS. Modernization(interChange) to comply with CMS requirements. The rate build for CY 2021 rates, the DHCFP or its Fiscal Agent vendor will provide this information to the actuarial firm. |
| 4 | Section 2.1.2 | Section 2.1.2 makes references to ?cost effectiveness? and ?budget neutrality?. Cost effectiveness is typically associated with 1915b waivers, budget neutrality with 1115 waivers and cost neutrality with 1915c waivers. Each of these work processes can involve substantially different time and resource requirements (1115 waivers can involve significant negotiations with CMS or be more streamlined that are difficult to predict time/cost requirements). Can the State please add more specificity to the Section 2.1.2 work requirements as follows: |
1. Nevada does not currently have an 1115 waiver. Is the State intending to develop a new 1115 waiver and if so, when, for what population and what is the main goal/purpose of obtaining 1115 authority?
2.The State?s current MCO program is authorized via a 1932a SPA. Is the State intending to do a 1915b waiver and if so, when and for what populations?
3. Is the Vendor required to support Nevada?s 1915c waiver cost neutrality calculations as part of this contract and if so, for which of the State?s 1915c waivers?
4. For purposes of providing an Annual Cost Estimate in Attachment G, what waivers should all Vendors assume the State will have in the CY 2020 work year that will require the Vendor?s services/support? Nevada currently has the following waivers:
1. 1915 (b) waiver for Certified Community Behavioral Health Organization (CCBHO) for fee for service application to limit freedom of choice for the number of providers in Washoe and Clark counties.
2. 1915(b) waiver Dental Benefits Administrator for the mandatory enrolled population
3. 1915(c) waiver Frail/Elderly, Physically Disabled and Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities.
4. At this time no other 1115 or 1915 waivers are planned, however the state may consider more waivers in the future.
| 5 | Section 2 | Can the State provide the monthly invoice charges from the current actuarial Vendor for each of the most recent 24 months? If practical, please delineate the monthly charges by work areas that align with the major work areas in Section 2. | Refer to the Attachment Tab within NevadaEPro: Invoices by project by month in attachment named: RFP question 5. |
| 6 | Section 2 | Compared to the work the current actuarial vendor is doing, what parts of this new Scope of Work are not required in the current actuarial vendor contract? | The entire Scope of Work for RFP S697 is required. |
| 7 | Section 2.1.3 | Section 2.1.3 includes a long list of data-related work activities with some items indicated ?may? be required or open-ended such as providing strategic planning services. To ensure comparability and fairness in evaluating Annual Cost Estimates, are Vendors permitted to propose a not to exceed annual budget for all items in Section 2.1.3 that will result in working collaboratively with the State to determine the prioritization and scope of specific projects that fit within that annual budget estimates? | No, Vendors should provide their best cost proposal as per the RFP instructions. |
| 8 | Section 2 and Attachment G | Is DHCFP aware of any material data problems such as missing claims data or invalid financial fields (e.g., paid, allowed, TPL) that Vendors should be aware of and consider when developing Annual Cost Estimates for Attachment G? | Please refer to the SFY 2017-2018 Encounter Data Validation Study located here: http://dhcfp.nv.gov/Resources/AdminSupport/Reports/CaseloadData/ The Agency is actively working to resolve any issues. |
| 9 | Section 2.1.4 | Is the State intending to change from using the CDPS risk adjustment model for developing risk adjustment factors in the foreseeable future? If yes, please provide more details on intended changes. | The model currently used is the most recent version of the Combined Chronic Illness and Pharmacy Payment System (CDPS+Rx) available at the time risk score calculations begin. |
The State has no plan to change the current model at this time.
| 10 | Section 2.1.5 items A, B and D | What is the frequency for computing the Stop Loss, VLBW Risk Pool and Pharmacy Risk Corridor payments, respectively (e.g., semi-annual interim with final settlement, annual only, quarterly, other)? | Currently the State has an annual schedule, however, the State's goal is to improve practices and efficiencies. The Agency is open to consider a change if it is in the best interest of the state. |
| 11 | Section 2 | Throughout the Scope of Work there are several references to activities that may occur or technical assistance required on additional projects (e.g., expansion of mandatory MCO coverage, pharmacy carve-out, NEMT rate setting, other initiatives that may or may not happen). Will these types of additional activities and additional projects be completed as Ad Hoc work even if not specifically listed in Section 2.1.6? | The state would expect that any policy changes would be considered part of the normal rate setting activities. Ad Hoc work are projects outside of the normal rate setting process and/or considered to be any new initiatives. Refer to the Attachments Tab within NevadaEPro for response. |
| 12 | Section 2 and Attachment G | The Scope of Work described in this RFP is broad and includes references to work on additional projects that may or may not occur (e.g., 2.1.1.1 ?Vendor may also be required to develop capitated rates for other Medicaid populations and services such as the aged, blind, and disabled and non-emergency transportation services.?). |
1. Is there a maximum annual budget that the State can provide for each of the major Task Areas in Attachment G excluding any potential Ad Hoc work?
| 2. Is there a maximum annual budget for this contract inclusive of all Task Areas and any potential Ad Hoc work | No to questions 1 and 2 | ||||
| 13 | Section 2.1.1.6 and Attachment G | In Attachment G, there are Task Areas A-E under 2.1.1 which appear to align with Sections 2.1.1.1-2.1.1.5. However, Section 2.1.1.6 Policy and Fiscal Impact does not appear on Attachment G under 2.1.1. Since Section 2.1.1.6 includes performing ?various analyses? that shall either be ?completed fully by the Vendor or by Vendor review and comment? on work done by DHCFP: | |||
| 1. Will any work that may be required in Section 2.1.1.6 be considered Ad Hoc services for budgeting purposes (Note: in the footnote in Attachment G ?Legislative Session Fiscal Impact Requests? were included in the Ad Hoc services description)? | Refer to question 11 of this amendment. | ||||
| 14 | Section 2.1.1.6 and Attachment G | 2. If not Ad Hoc services, can DHCFP provide more specification and details regarding the volume of policy and fiscal support required to enable an assessment of a reasonable cost estimate and also provide guidance on what line item of Section 2.1.1 in Attachment G should this cost be included in? | Any services other than those listed in Section 2.1.1 - 2.1.5 will be considered Ad Hoc services. | ||
| 15 | Attachment G | Since this contract will be for multiple years, will the State permit an annual inflation factor on the Annual Cost Estimates and Ad Hoc hourly rates? If so, how should this inflation factor be documented in the Cost Proposal? | No | ||
| 16 | Section 2.1.4 | Different states produce risk adjustment factors at different intervals (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually, annually). What is Nevada?s current frequency for producing risk adjustment factors and are any significant changes expected to this frequency schedule in the foreseeable future? | 1. Risk adjustment factors are produced annually. 2. Refer to question 9 and 10 of this amendment. | ||
| 17 | Section 10 | Is the State willing to consider some modifications to the contract terms and conditions? If Yes, how should proposed modifications be communicated (e.g., submitted as part of the Technical response, addressed during the negotiations process after award, other)? Will submission of proposed contract modifications negatively impact the scoring/evaluation process? | Vendors are encouraged to provide their best solution. | ||
| 18 | Section 10 | Is the State willing to consider a mutually acceptable limit of liability? | Refer to question 18 of this amendment. | ||
| 19 | Section 2.1.7 | According to Attachment G, the General Obligations described in Section 2.1.7 do not have a separate budget, but are assumed to be included in the budgets for items 2.1.1-2.1.5 of Attachment G. Most of the items described in Section 2.1.7 are reasonably part of the normal work described; however, Section 2.1.7.3 Appeals includes assisting the State through all stages of potential litigation including providing expert testimony. Litigation support is extremely difficult to accurately estimate the potential cost to support. Can the State please consider litigation support as Ad Hoc Services? If not, please describe the history of litigation support that has required the involvement of the State?s actuary over the last 10 years and if litigation support is expected to be needed during the course of this contract. | Litigation support would be considered Ad Hoc Services. | ||
| 20 | Section 2.1.7.2 | The RFP indicates that project managers must be credentialed actuaries (e.g., ASAs or FSAs). Our firm has used non-credentialed actuaries to manage work flow, coordinate team activities, timelines and so on to be more cost effective to our clients and utilize staff with applicable skills and experience (e.g., Project Management Certification, years of experience). Will Nevada permit non-ASA/FSA individuals serve in a workflow/team coordination role if those individuals have relevant skills and experience as long as credentialed actuaries remain responsible for the quality of the work product? | Refer to question 24 of this amendment. | ||
| 21 | Attachment G | The footnote on Attachment G for Ad Hoc Services notes ?Demonstration Waiver Feasibility? as an example of Ad Hoc Services. Section 2.1.2 describes Waiver Support. It seems that these descriptions can lead to different interpretations and significantly different Annual Cost Estimates from interested Vendors. Therefore, can the State please provide greater clarity and specificity on what services will be part of the Annual Cost for Section 2.1.2 versus what will be considered Ad Hoc Services? | Refer to question 11 of this amendment. | ||
| 22 | Section 8.5.1.2 | Our assumption is that the reference to section 3.1.11 in 8.5.1.2 should be 3.1.10. Is our assumption correct? | Yes. 8.5.1.2 should read: Vendors shall place the information required per Section 3.1.10 in this section. | ||
| 23 | Section 8.2.2.5 | Section 8.2.2.5 requires written responses to Section 2 Scope of Work. Several parts of Section 2 are related to general obligations, deliverables and a plan which may be interpreted as informational to interested Vendors. To ensure our response is concise and straightforward per Section 8.1.10, can the State please clarify if Vendors can acknowledge compliance with the items in Sections 2.1.7, 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 or does each of the sub-items in Sections 2.1.7. 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 (i.e., 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.9.3) require an individual written response? If an acknowledgment is permitted, will any points be lost in scoring? | Yes | ||
| 24 | Attachment G | The Ad Hoc hourly rates in Attachment G appear to only be limited to credentialed actuaries, actuarial trainees of administrative/clerical staff. We have found in our engagements with other states that Medicaid Agencies often want the input and support of other qualified professionals such as accountants and clinicians with subject matter expertise and years of relevant experience. If allowed, how should can we provide Ad Hoc hourly rates for these other skilled and experienced professionals? | Yes, vendors should provide Attachment F Proposed Staff Resume for all staff included in the RFP. | ||
| 25 | Attachment G | Can the State please clarify the intent of the first footnote on Attachment G that reads ?Work performed in CY2019 will consist of working collaboratively with the current vendor to finalize CY 2020 rate building? given that Section 7 of the RFP indicates that the start date for this contract is 1/1/2020? Is the selected vendor expected to start work before the contract is approved? | 1. Work and billing would begin 1/1/2020 and will consist of working collaboratively with the current Actuarial Vendor to transition any outstanding work in progress. 2. Work product may pertain to prior years. | ||
| 26 | Section 8.2.2.5 | Section 8.2.2.5 requires written responses to Section 2 Scope of Work. Several parts of Section 2 are related to general obligations, deliverables and a plan which may be interpreted as informational to interested Vendors. To ensure our response is concise and straightforward per Section 8.1.10, can the State please clarify if Vendors can acknowledge compliance with the items in Sections 2.1.7, 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 or does each of the sub-items in Sections 2.1.7. 2.1.8 and 2.1.9 (i.e., 2.1.7.1 through 2.1.9.3) require an individual written response? If an acknowledgment is permitted, will any points be lost in scoring? | Refer to question 23 of this amendment. | ||
| 27 | Attachment G | The Ad Hoc hourly rates in Attachment G appear to only be limited to credentialed actuaries, actuarial trainees of administrative/clerical staff. We have found in our engagements with other states that Medicaid Agencies often want the input and support of other qualified professionals such as accountants and clinicians with subject matter expertise and years of relevant experience. If allowed, how should can we provide Ad Hoc hourly rates for these other skilled and experienced professionals? | Refer to question 24 of this amendment. | ||
| 28 | Attachment G | Can the State please clarify the intent of the first footnote on Attachment G that reads ?Work performed in CY2019 will consist of working collaboratively with the current vendor to finalize CY 2020 rate building? given that Section 7 of the RFP indicates that the start date for this contract is 1/1/2020? Is the selected vendor expected to start work before the contract is approved? | Refer to question 25 of this amendment. | ||
| 29 | Scope of Work-Annual Expenditure | What is the annual expenditure for the current actuarial services contract, and is the scope of work materially different than what is outlined in the RFP? | 1. Refer to question 5 of this amendment. 2. No. | ||
| 30 | Deliverable Date | What would be the desired deliverable dates (or deliverable months) for the preliminary estimates of the capitation rates to be provided to the State? | Preliminary rates would be would be expected at the beginning of August of each year for discussion with the Agency. The final version is expected by September 1 of each year to allow for internal review prior to submitting to CMS. | ||
| 31 | Section 2.1.6. Ad Hoc Work | Can you please provide some examples of the projects that may be requested under scope of work 2.1.6? | Refer to Attachment G of the RFP for a list of projects that may be requested. Other Ad Hoc analysis/projects may be required for any new initiatives. | ||
| 32 | Cost Proposal | Does the cost proposal reflect vendor costs for 2020 only or does it reflect the average cost over the term of the contract and therefore should reflect the future annual increases in billing rates over the term of the contract? | The cost proposal should be submitted with the total contract term amount as well as the annual amounts. | ||
| 33 | Scope of Work - Section 2 | Is the proposed scope of work in the RFP materially different than the scope of work performed by the current / existing vendor for the past two contract periods? If so, please explain the differences. | The scope in the RFP is comparable to the current vendors scope. | ||
| 34 | General | Please provide the number of hours billed by the current vendor by major task (rate setting, waiver support, HIPF, and reporting etc.) and the annual dollar value of the work be provided for the past two contract years? | Refer to the Attachment Tab within NevadaEPro: Named RFP Question 5 and RFP Question 11 | ||
| 35 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.4 | What type and version of risk-adjustment is currently used (e.g. Medicaid Rx, CDPS etc.)? | Refer to question 9 of this amendment. | ||
| 36 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.3 | As of today, is the encounter from the Medicaid managed care organizations submitted to the State Medicaid Management Information System or is the actuarial services vendor receiving encounter data directly from the managed care organizations? If so, is there a timeline when managed care organizations will submit all encounters to the MMIS? | Refer to question 3 of this amendment. | ||
| 37 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.1.5 | How often are capitation rate modifications made because of CMS or DHCFP questions or concerns? | Refer to Attachments tab within NevadaEPro History of Rate re-casts. | ||
| 38 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.2 | Please provide the dates when cost effectiveness and/or budget neutrality analysis for existing waivers will be required? | Nevada does not currently have waivers requiring actuary analysis, but may consider them in the future. | ||
| 39 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.3 (B) | How often, (monthly, quarterly or other frequency), does the current vendor request and receive encounter data from the managed care organizations? Is the same frequency expected to continue? | Refer to question 3 of this amendment. | ||
| 40 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.7.2 (A) | Why is the project manager required to be a credentialed actuary (ASA or FSA) as opposed to a credentialed actuary or qualified non-credentialed actuarial consultant with substantial Medicaid managed care rate setting experience? | Refer to question 24 of this amendment. | ||
| 41 | Scope of Work - Section 2.1.5.1 and Attachment G - Cost Proposal | The scope of work 2.1.5 includes description of risk mitigation strategies. We assume that these risk mitigation strategies are included in the actuarially sound rate setting. Please clarify whether the cost proposal entry should reflect the cost associated with including these risk mitigation approaches in the actuarially sound rate development or should it only reflect the cost associated with evaluating the risk pool and risk corridor in Section 2.1.5.1 (A), Section 2.1.5.1 (C) and 2.1.5.1 (D). | Vendors should submit a cost proposal that separates out the costs pertaining to risk mitigation. | ||
| 42 | Attachment G - Cost Proposal | Please clarify the difference between the use of the term ?risk scoring? included under Cost Proposal Task 2.1.1. (B) and Risk adjustment under Cost Proposal task 2.1.4. Are they the same or different tasks? Can you clarify the difference, if applicable? | Risk Scoring is part of the risk adjustment process. Costs pertaining to risk scoring should be calculated within Item 2.1.4 Risk Adjustment. | ||
| 43 | RFP Evaluation - Cost Proposal | Please describe how the score for the cost proposal will be determined by offeror. Will the proposed cost be evaluated for each task area or in total? Additionally, please describe how points will be awarded (lowest bidder or ratio to lowest bidder, or other)? | This information can be found within the RFP Section 9 Proposal Evalution and Award Process. | ||
| 44 | 3.3 Business References | We previously submitted a response to RFP #99SWC-S472. Our references remain consistent with that proposal. In an effort to respect the time of our current and previous State client reference contacts, would it be possible to use the completed reference questionnaires which they each submitted in that prior process? | No. | ||
| 45 | 6.1 Questions and Answers | Will responses to all questions submitted by all vendors be made available on Nevada Epro for reference? | Yes | ||
| 46 | 3.3 Business References | Which category of the scoring evaluation do business references fall into? | There is no specific category. | ||
| 47 | 3.3 Business References | Is the business reference questionnaire requirement scored on a pass/fail basis, or is there an expected scale on which the number and quality of submitted references will be scored? | Refer to question 46 of this amendment. | ||
| 48 | 3.3 Business References | What is the maximum scoring potential for business references? | Refer to question 46 of this amendment. | ||
| 49 | Rate certification | Can DHCFP provide a copy of the most recently approved rate certification for the Medicaid MCO and Nevada Check Up programs? | Refer to State Purchasing Public Records webpage for this information. It is listed under RFP 1873 | ||
| 50 | Incumbent contractor | In the most recent fiscal year, how many hours and total dollars were billed by the incumbent contractor? | Refer to question 5 of this amendment. | ||
| 51 | Cost proposal | The cost proposal shows a requirement for two FSAs which is not in alignment with the RFP. Please confirm that the project manager can be an FSA or ASA, MAAA per section 2.1.7.2 of the RFP. | The project manager can be an FSA or ASA, MAAA per section 2.1.7.2 of the RFP. The cost proposal attached to the RFP is a template only. | ||
| 52 | Attachment E: Reference Questionnaire 4-5-19 | Please confirm that the only incorrect information within the reference questionnaire is the title row indicating "Landscaping Services". We understand that such labels can be missed when updating templates like this, and so we just want to be certain that each of the questions themselves are appropriate for evaluation of actuarial service references. | Correct. This document has been corrected and replaced. The new Attachment E can be found under the attachment tab. | ||
| 53 | 5.2 Billing | Does the state presently use its Procurement Card Program to pay for the purchase of services, or is this program intended to be used for the purchase of services as well? | No. The agency will not use a Pcard to pay for these services. | ||
| 54 | 3.1.8 Vendor information page limits | Please confirm whether the five (5) page limit applies to the entirety of Section 3.1 Vendor Information, or if it is limited only to the discussion of our company background, history, and qualifications within this section. | Please refer to Section 3.1.8 of the RFP. | ||
| 55 | 8.2.2.4.E Vendor licensing agreements and hardware/software maintenance agreements | Please clarify if there are specific hardware or software maintenance agreements that are expected to be provided. Is this intended to refer to agreements that are expected between the awarded vendor under RFP #40DHHS-S697 and the State? | The successful vendor must comply with RFP S697 and the subsequent contract requirements. | ||
| 56 | 2.1.7.4.H.1 Disaster recovery | Is it sufficient to transmit a table of contents of our disaster recovery and business continuity plan for DHCFP review and approval? This is an expected limitation due to our requirements under our Milliman Information Security Policy. | Vendor would be expected to comply with the 2.1.7.4.H.1. | ||
| 57 | 2.1.7.4.H.1 Disaster recovery | Please clarify the steps of DHCFP's approval process and expected documentation for a satisfactory disaster recovery and business continuity plan to address recovery of business functions, business units, business processes, human resources, and the technology infrastructure. | The Plan is a Deliverable of the RFP S697 and would be reviewed for appropriateness. Review and approval of the Plan will be a part of Deliverable Review Timeline. | ||
| 58 | 2.1.7.4.I Cloud Service Model | We do not currently use a CSM, however we are always investigating the potential benefits to our clients of incorporating new technology into our business practices. What process to approval would DHCFP require in the event we intend to implement use of a CSM, and how much advance notification would be required to allow sufficient time for review and approval? | The successful vendor must comply with the RFP and subsequent contract. | ||
| 59 | Attachment J: Business Associates Agreement | If an awarded vendor holds a current BAA with DHCFP, would it need to be replaced with Attachment J, or would DHCFP be amenable to extending the terms of the current BAA? | A new BAA must be submited under this RFP. | ||
| 60 | Attachment J: Business Associates Agreement | Will the State consider any modifications to the terms of the Attachment J BAA? | Refer to question 17 of this amendment. | ||
| 61 | Attachment C: Contract | If an awarded vendor holds a current contract with DHCFP, would the State consider extending the terms of that contract or require a complete replacement? | A new response must be submitted uner this RFP. | ||
| 62 | Attachment C: Contract | Will the State consider any modifications to the terms of the Attachment C Contract? | Refer to question 17 of this amendment. | ||
| 63 | Attachments K & L | Are the caseload projection and demographic attachments provided for informational purposes as vendors review their qualifications for responding to RFP #40DHHS-S697, or are vendors expected to use these attachments within our response? | Caseload was provided for informational purposes. | ||
| 64 | Attachment G: Cost Schedule | For similar client work to that which is proposed under RFP #40DHHS-S697, we have conducted projects that require the expertise of non-actuarial healthcare consultants who can provide subject matter expertise that supports the actuarial work. Can additional staff professional levels be submitted within the proposed ad hoc hourly rates table? | Refer to question 24 of this amendment. | ||
| 65 | Attachment G: Cost Schedule | In preparing a quote specific to RFP #40DHHS-S697 in Nevada Epro, will each of the task areas identified in Attachment G be included as an "item" for which to select "no bid" or "see quote attachment", or are all tasks required in order to be considered as a potential vendor? | Vendors are to check see quote attached. | ||
| 66 | Attachment G: Cost Schedule | In preparing a quote specific to RFP #40DHHS-S697 in Nevada Epro, will the proposed ad hoc hourly rates table be a separate "item" for which to select "no bid" or "see quote attachment", or is it all included as one "item" within the quote? | Refer to question 65 of this amendment. | ||
| 67 | Attachment G: Cost Schedule | Related to Scope of Work section 2.1.2 Waiver Support, four sub-categories of work are identified in the RFP document, however only one request for cost proposal is indicated. The cost proposals for supporting a waiver application, supporting a waiver renewal, developing cost effectiveness documentation, preparing CMS 372 experience monitoring exhibits, and preparing documentation reports all have different resource requirements. Can DHCFP consider expanding the cost proposal section to reflect these separate sections, as not all waivers will require each task? Alternatively, can DHCFP clarify if the intent of the cost proposal for this section is intended to cover all possible cost of waiver support within a year, recognizing that the cost of preparing a renewals may be significantly less than an initial application? | The State does not currently have waivers requiring actuary analysis, but may consider them in the future. Future waiver services will be requested as Ad Hoc services. Vendors should provide their best cost proposal as per the RFP instructions. | ||
| 68 | Attachment G: Cost Schedule | Please clarify what formula will be used to attribute a score to cost proposals. What percentage of the cost proposal score will be attributable to each task area, and how much of the cost proposal score will be attributed to proposed ad hoc hourly rates? | Refer to question 43 of this amendment. | ||
| 69 | Section 8.4, Part II - Cost Proposal | Is the expectation that proposed annual budget estimates for each Scope task will be an average over the initial four years of the contract? Or is the expectation that the annual amounts identified will represent not-to-exceed budgets for each year of the initial four years of the contract? | Refer to question 32 of this amendment. | ||
| Vendor must sign and return this amendment with proposal submitted. | |||||
| Vendor Name: | |||||
| Authorized Signature: | |||||
| Title: | Date: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .