RFP-CMS-2007-0018Amendment1.doc

RFP-CMS-2007-0018

Amendment 000001

The Data Center Option is hereby deleted from the solicitation. As a result, the following revisions have been made to the Statement of Work, solicitation and attachments:

1. Reference Section B.4, Established Cost and Award Fee, CLIN 0008 – Option Data Center, is hereby deleted.

2. Section C.8, Contract Options, and C.8.1, Contractor Furnished Data Center Service Option, of the Statement of Work are no longer applicable and have been deleted.

3. Section F.2 Period of Performance, CLIN 0008 Option-Data Center is hereby deleted.

4. Reference section L.11 – Proposal Assumptions, #7a. EDC Requirements has been deleted and replaced with the following language:

7. EDC Requirements:

a. The offeror’s technical and business proposal shall assume that the EDCs will be fully operational prior to the MAC’s earliest segment implementation start date.

5. Section L.13 Written Technical Proposal Organization, Tab 8 is hereby deleted in its entirety.

6. Section L.14 Written Technical Proposal Instructions, the last paragraph is revised to read as follows:

For ease of proposal preparation, the specific written technical proposal instructions and evaluation factor instructions (Tab 3 through Tab 7) are outline in Section M.3, as combined sections entitle “Evaluation Factors for Award and Proposal Instructions,” where the proposal instructions immediately follow the evaluation factor.

7. Section M.2 General Procedures, d. Technical Evaluation is revised to delete the Contractor Furnished Data Center Option evaluation criteria. M.2.d is hereby deleted and replaced with the following-:

d. Technical Evaluation: The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will evaluate the Technical Proposal (Volume I) by applying the evaluation factors outlined below. Each technical proposal will be evaluated qualitatively and categorized using adjectival ratings in relation to the evaluation factors and sub factors listed below and in Section M.3. To determine a rating for each offeror, the TEP will identify each proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The Government will consider the degree to which the offeror demonstrates its ability to meet or exceed the requirements in the Statement of Work (SOW) as they relate to the evaluation factors. The TEP will evaluate the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors in the following descending order of importance using the weights provided:

1. Technical Understanding (30%)

2. Personnel (25%)

3. Implementation (20%)

4. Past Performance (15%)

5. Information Security Plan (10%)

8. Section M.2 General Procedures, e.Business Evaluation, is revised to delete the last sentence. Section M.2.e is revised to read:

e. Business Evaluation: The business proposal will be analyzed and evaluated, but not assigned an adjectival rating to determine the reasonableness and the realism of the proposed cost/price. The purpose of this cost realism will be to determine what the Government should realistically pay for the proposed effort, if the offeror’s proposed costs reflect the offeror’s understanding of the Government’s requirements, and if the proposed costs are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal. The proposed cost/price for the base year requirements will be added to the proposed cost/price of the four, one-year options to come up with a total proposed estimated cost/price.

9. Section M.3.a Combined Technical Evaluation Factors for Award and Technical Proposal Instructions, is revised to read as follows:

a. The technical evaluation factors below are in descending order of importance using the weights provided: Technical Understanding (30%), Personnel (25%), Implementation (20%), Past Performance (15%), and Information Security Plan (10%) All sub-factors are equal in importance.

10. Section M.3.e Combined Technical Evaluation Factors for Award and Technical Proposal Instructions is revised to read as follows:

e. Technical Evaluation Factors:

1. Technical Understanding (30%)

A. Program Management

B. Claims Processing

C. Provider Customer Service Program

D. Audit and Reimbursement

E. Provider Enrollment

F. Fraud and Abuse

2. Personnel (25%)

A. Key Personnel

B. Staffing Plan

3. Implementation (20%)

A. Jurisdiction Implementation Project Management Approach

B. Jurisdiction Implementation Project Plan (JIPP)

C. Implementation Personnel

D. Implementation Risk Management Plan

4. Past Performance (15%)

5. Information Security Plan (10%)

Note: Cost is not a weighted factor.

11. Reference section M.3 – Combined Technical Evaluation Factors for Award and Technical Proposal Instructions, Item X – Tab 8, Contractor Furnished Data Center Services Option Evaluation Criteria, and Item XI – Tab 8, Contractor Furnished Data Center Services Option Instructions, are no longer applicable and have been deleted.

12. In Attachment J-8, Cost Proposal Instructions, the following line has been removed under number 1: Attachment J-12 – CLIN 008.xls for Data Center Option.

13. Attachment J-12, CLIN 0008 Data Center Option Cost Template, is no longer valid and has been deleted.

14. Any other references to the Data Center Option not specifically stated in this amendment are also hereby deleted.