JE AB MAC Question Responses 1-10-12.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted Jan 11, 2012

Attached to: Jurisdiction E Part A and Part B Medicare Claims Administrator
Solicitation number: RFP-CMS-2011-0026
Issued by: Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

About this file

From the source

JE AB MAC Question Responses 1-10-12

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Amendment 000002.pdf	PDF	Jan 18, 2012
AB_MAC_Jurisdiction_E_RFP-CMS-2011-0026_redline.docx	DOCX document	Jan 18, 2012
AB_MAC_Jurisdiction_E_RFP-CMS-2011-0026_final.docx	DOCX document	Jan 18, 2012
J-01 Statement of Work_JE_Jan-6-2012_redline.docx	DOCX document	Jan 11, 2012
Amendment 000001.pdf	PDF	Jan 11, 2012
AB_MAC_Jurisdiction_E_RFP-CMS-2011-0026_final.docx	DOCX document	Jan 11, 2012
J-01 Statement of Work_JE_Jan-6-2012_final.docx	DOCX document	Jan 11, 2012
AB_MAC_Jurisdiction_E_RFP-CMS-2011-0026_redline.docx	DOCX document	Jan 11, 2012
RFP-CMS-2011-0026	—	Dec 5, 2011
SF-33_for_RFP-CMS-2011-0026.pdf	PDF	Dec 5, 2011
AB_MAC_Jurisdiction_E_RFP-CMS-2011-0026.docx	DOCX document	Dec 5, 2011

Show all 11

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Section B

ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section C

ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section F

ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section G

ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section H ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section J

Section	Question	Answer/Action
J-07 Basis of Estimate, Column H	The instructions for J-07 specify the following: “Where applicable, for each workload category identified in Column A, the Offeror shall identify in Column H the percentage of the annual workload (Column B) that will be processed by a Service Center. Offerors shall ensure that all service center labor is included in this submission.” Should Column H be used to designate percentage of workload processed through automation?	CMS confirms that the purpose of column H in the J-07 attachment is to indicate the percentage of workload that is allocated to labor, either direct labor or labor charged by a service center. As such, the Offeror should not include percentage of automation using column H. Rather, Offerors are advised that Column J should be used to identify assumptions around automation, inclusive of percentages of workloads that the Offeror proposes to process through automation.
J-01, SOW, Cost Templates p. 124	SOW C.5.11.7 REFUNDS appears to be omitted from the cost templates (J-12 through J-16), though the associated workloads appear in L.10.f. Please advise where to include these costs.	CMS confirms Offerors should spread these costs across all the C.5.11 WBS codes as an ODC.
J-01 SOW, C.5.4.8 p. 57	SOW C.5.4.8 PARTICIPATION IN CHANGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS: Are the 36,000 change management hours are reflective of the base year time frame – 6 months for Part B and 7 months for Part A? Or is the 36,000 a full year amount and we need to adjust the 36,000 down for the partial base year?	CMS confirms the 36,000 change management hours are reflect a full twelve month contract year, and should be prorated for the base year time frame of 7 months. Note that Amendment #1 to J-01 SOW C.5.4.8, changes the 36,000 hours to 46,200 hours per contract year.
J-01 SOW, C.5.3.2.7 p. 38	C.5.3.2.7 CMS Alternate Front End Program: Please comment on the expected level of effort and schedule for the incoming contractor.	CMS confirms that for proposal purposes, Offerors should not include costs for this activity in their proposal.
RFP, L.15.a.(2); TAB F1 p. 123-126	L.15.a.(2) specifies projected travel amounts be used for all CLINs. Tab F.1 requests detailed rationale for all required travel. Please confirm that Offerors are to use the projected amounts in L.15.a.(2).	CMS confirms Offerors shall use the travel amounts in L.15.a(2) in submitting their business proposal. The travel costs listed in Section L.15 are intended to capture all travel costs , as well as any other travel required to perform the SOW.

	RFP, Section L.8; L.9.i; Section L.15.a.(8) p. 83, 87, 124	Section L.8 states: One (1) original and five (5) copies of Volume IIA Business Proposal Cost Templates (this will also include the Basis of Estimate document, Attachment J-07) in hard copy and 1 CD-ROM; L.9.i states: (b) Volume IIA Business Proposal – hard copy (to include the Basis of Estimate); and Section L.15.a.(8) states: CD Only.
Please confirm that J-07 is only to be included electronically and not printed out for the hard copy.	The Offeror shall submit the Basis of Estimate (Attachment J-07) using the CD-ROM only. The RFP has been updated accordingly.
	RFP, Section L.9 (l) p. 88	Section L.9(l): The price proposal template is to be printed on an 11x17 page. Double-sided printing for paper of this size is problematic. Please confirm that the price sheets on 11x17 paper does not need to be printed double-sided.	Consistent with FAR 52.204-4, if it is not practical to print 11x17 double sided, the Offeror may print these documents single sided.

RFP, Section L.8; L.9(l) p. 83 & 88 Please clarify the type of paper to be used.

Section L.8, p. 83—required to use “recycled paper

Section L.9(l), p. 88—requests use of “high-grade paper which can be recycled”.	Consistent with the FAR, CMS requires proposals to be printed and copied double-sided on recycled paper to the greatest extent practicable. The RFP has been updated accordingly.
	RFP, L.9.i p.88	L.9.i - Please confirm that Sealed Packages from subcontractors should also be included in each of the boxes.	Sealed packages from subcontractors shall be included in the appropriate prime Offeror box.
	RFP, Section L.10.f p. 96	Of the telephone inquiries, what percentage will be calls into the IVR?	The Offeror shall develop its own assumptions regarding the IVR usage rate for its bid proposal. CMS may consider the reasonableness of any proposal assumptions in its evaluation.

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section L

	Section	Question	Answer/Action
	L.10 workload tables, pgs 95 & 96:
"Special Part B Revalidation Project- chart provides a Part A workload of 377 and part B workload in the base period of 68,623	Is it clearly CMS' intent that Offerors propose to complete the 377 Part a and the 68,623 Part B revalidation workload in the Base Period? This is a significant workload for any period. It will disproportionately inflate the costs for the BY and will require a very specific unique staffing pattern not required by the remaining period workloads. We recommend that the Government delete the "Part B Special Revalidation Project" in the BY for evaluation purposes	CMS has modified the special revalidation timelines and has made appropriate changes to the provider re-validation workloads. Please see revised workloads.
	L. 18 (h)(4)(b) Paragraph which states: "The offeror shall discuss the WBS as submitted in the written technical proposal	The instructions for the written technical proposal do not include a requirement for submission of the WBS. Our understanding is that the WBS used for the proposal is the SOW paragraph structure allocated to the specific CLIN/SLIN areas identified in the cost proposal templates. Please confirm our understanding regarding the WBS and confirm that a WBS is not required for submission with the written technical proposal.	CMS confirms that a WBS is not required for submission with the written technical proposal. The RFP has been amended accordingly.
	L. 15 p. 123
"Instructs offers to use specified travel projections for each CLIN. Item #2 of the Attachment J-09 instructs Offerors to complete the travel schedules for each CLIN	As the offeror will be proposing a predetermined amount for travel costs, is the offeror to complete the detailed travel schedules located in each CLIN for Attachments J-11 through J-17?	CMS confirms the Offeror is not required to prepare a complete and detailed travel template in the cost proposal templates. As stated in Attachment J-09, Cost Proposal Instructions, Offerors should submit cost information provided in Section L.15 at the CLIN level only (as is found under the first tab of the CLIN Templates, titled "CLIN-000X") and the ODC worksheet (found under the second tab in the cost templates, titled "ODC"). The other tabs on the cost templates are for informational purposes only.
	L. 10f Workload Charts (pgs. 94 & 99)
	The provider count for SNF and ESRD providers appears to have been duplicated for the out-of-jurisdiction providers resulting in possible overstatement of workload in Provider Audit & Reimbursement. Provider Audit and Reimbursement workload (cost report acceptance, tentative settlements, desk reviews, audits, interim rates, and cost report settlements) is driven by the number of providers filing cost reports. If the 703 out-of-jurisdiction providers are duplicative of the count of providers, it has overstated workload.	CMS confirms that the SNF and ESRD provider counts have been decreased. See the revised Audit and Reimbursement workloads.
	RFP Document, , Paragraph L.13.d, Tab D: Jurisdiction Implementation Project Management Approach, Page 119

1) Attachment J-01, Statement of Work, Paragraph C.5.1, Workload Implementation Requirements, Page 17;

2) CMS Referenced document, “MAC Workload Implementation Handbook,” paragraph 4.3.1 page 4-2

RFP Paragraph L.13.d states, “The Offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of its understanding of implementation activities and its ability to resolve any issues that may arise regarding the A/B MAC Statement of Work.” In addition, SOW Paragraph C.5.1 requires Offerors to utilize CMS’ “MAC Workload Implementation Handbook “as a guideline for MAC Implementation wherein paragraph 4.3.1 states, "The JIPP is submitted as part of the MAC’s proposal and developed using the information/dates provided in the Request for Proposals (RFPs).” Given the difference in level of detail required to respond to the L.13.d requirements and that required for the JIPP, can we assume that the initial JIPP is to be submitted as an appendix to the proposal, thereby falling outside of the 60 page constraint? May we assume also that an outline of the JIPP sufficient to show understanding of the implementation activities should be submitted and not the complete JIPP?	CMS confirms that Offerors are not required to submit a JIPP for proposal purposes, however the successful offeror is required to submit a JIPP at contract award.
Section L.10. f. Proposal Assumptions, page 92	Does the workload provided for Effectuation of QIC decisions include the workload for RAC Effectuations of QIC Decisions?	CMS confirms the Effectuation of QIC decisions workload category is inclusive of the workload for RAC Effectuations of QIC Decisions.
Section L.10. f. Proposal Assumptions, page 92	Does the workload provided for effectuations of redeterminations include the workload for RAC Effectuation of Redeterminations?	CMS confirms the Effectuation of Redeterminations (Claims) workload category is inclusive of the workload for RAC Effectuation Redeterminations.
Section L.10. f. Proposal Assumptions, page 92	Does the workload provided for effectuations of ALJ decisions include RAC Effectuation of RAC ALJ decisions?	CMS confirms the Effectuation of ALJ decisions workload category is inclusive of the workload for RAC Effectuations of RAC ALJ Decisions.
Section L.10. f. Proposal Assumptions, page 92	Does workload provided for QIC requests Supported include RAC QIC Request Supported?	CMS confirms the QIC Requests Supported is inclusive of the RAC QIC Requests Supported work.
Section L.10. f. Proposal Assumptions, page 102	As a MAC contactor MR Data requests are an important tool to manage MR. The present numbers are 0 for data request, how would CMS like us to address this workload?	The CMS confirms that the workloads for MR data request have been amended. See MR workloads in Section L.10.G of the RFP.
Section L.15. a. Business Proposal Cost Template Instructions, page 122	For proposal purposes, the Offerors are to use the provided projected costs for travel as indicated on page 122. However, the travel templates within attachments J-10 – J-17 require detailed travel cost schedules be completed. Please provide direction on how to fill in the required data on the spreadsheet using the projected costs Offerors have been directed to use.	As stated in Attachment J-09, Cost Proposal Instructions, Offerors should submit cost information at the CLIN level only (as is found under the first tab of the CLIN Templates, titled "CLIN-000X") and the ODC worksheet (found under the second tab in the cost templates, titled "ODC"). The other tabs on the cost templates for informational purposes only.
Section L.18.b6. Oral Presentation Instructions, page 137	CMS requests an ISO or similar certification. In other recent solicitations CMS has indicated a CMMI SVC level 3 certification. For consistency, which certification would CMS prefer?	CMS does not require any specific quality control or process improvement certifications in this solicitation. However, CMS requests that in that portion of the Offeror oral presentation where the Offeror will provide details of its quality control plan, the Offeror provide CMS with information relating to any certifications they have reflecting the Offeror quality control procedures.
	The Part A and B workload for web applications is set at approximately 20% of the workload volume. Over the last several months, CMS has communicated via contractor teleconferences and in communications to providers that a number of enhancements are being made to PECOS that will improve usability, especially for large groups, in an effort to improve usage of web applications. Why doesn’t the proposed workload demonstrate an increasing percentage of web applications over the life of this contract?	CMS confirms that, based upon expected increase in the use of PECOS web, the workloads have been adjusted to reflect 30% increase in the base year and 40% increase in the option years. Please see the revised provider enrollment workload.
L.10.f	A revalidation workload is referenced for the base year only. Recent communication from CMS indicates this project will be extended through 2015. Shouldn’t this workload be included in each year up to 2015? In addition, why is this workload identified as paper only, and not web as well?	CMS confirms that, beginning in January 2013, the JE MAC awardee should expect to receive a listing of 7,681 Part B revalidations to be completed each quarter (January through March and April through June). Beginning in July 2013, JE should expect to revalidate 46,091 Part B suppliers and 683 Part A providers annually through all contract years. Please see the revised provider enrollment workload.
L.10.f	Both the Part A & B Provider Inquiries identify as a category of inquiries - Telephone (including IVRs). Does this number include calls completed within the IVR and calls completed by customer service representatives?	CMS confirms the Part A and Part B Provider Inquiries – Telephone (including IVRs) workload numbers include calls completed within the IVR and calls completed by customer service representatives.
L.13	Paragraph (c) of L.13 indicates that, "In determining the overall rating for the technical understanding evaluation factor, CMS will consider the findings in relation to four aspects: Customer Service, Financial Management, Operational Excellence, and Innovations and Technology." This is similarly also stated in paragraph (b) of

L.13 for the Past Performance evaluation. Article M.3 on page 145 indicates for each of the four aspects that CMS may consider a host of items. For example, the Customer Service aspect delineates that, "CMS may consider the Offeror's ability to maintain a high level of service and satisfaction…CMS may consider the Offeror's ability to maintain effective provider education…CMS may also consider the Offeror's ability to work collaboratively with CMS…"

We would respectfully request that CMS clearly and definitively convey to Offerors how each aspect will be evaluated.	The four aspects referenced in the question are not evaluation factors or subfactors and are therefore not evaluated. They are elements for CMS' consideration when evaluating the three evaluation factors, Past Performance, Technical Understanding, and Implementation. The RFP indicates that with respect to each evaluation factor, CMS will consider its evaluation factor findings in relation to one or more of the four aspects.
	L.13	Will the Technical Evaluation Panel be using a LOCAR scoring approach for the J-E Technical Evaluation?	The RFP, as allowed by FAR 15.304, does not specify the scoring approach. However , the general approach CMS intends to use is described in the RFP.
	L.18 (c)	Paragraph (c) indicates that, "Only members of the Contractor or subcontractor in-house staff shall participate in the oral presentation, with the sole exception being that proposed Key Personnel may be in attendance even if not yet hired by the Contractor/subcontractor." Can those Key Personnel who have executed a letter of commitment consistent with RFP L.13, Tab C.1.1 present and answer questions at the oral presentation rather than be limited simply to attendance?	The response to the question is Yes. However, the Offeror should be mindful of the RFP Section L.18 (c ) requirement that "Contractor (or subcontractor) senior or general managers or other employees who are not key personnel or managers on this contract may not participate in the oral presentation in any area other than the introduction." Further, consistent with the question below, key personnel may confer with non key personnel to answer a question.
	L.18 (f)	The Oral Presentation Questions and Answer Session indicates that, "… key personnel must answer questions during the question and answer period." Please confirm that consistent with paragraph (c) answers to questions could come from key personnel or members of the Contractor or subcontractor in-house staff or managers on this contract as they will be participating in the oral presentation.	The RFP at Section L.18 (c ) indicates that "Contractor (or subcontractor) senior or general managers or other employees who are not key personnel or managers on this contract may not participate in the oral presentation in any area other than the introduction." However, key personnel may confer with non key personnel to answer a question.

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

Section M

ID Section Question Answer/Action Responsibility Lead Analyst Amendment 1? Amendment #

&D A/B MAC Jurisdiction E

&9RFP-CMS-2011-0026 &9&A &9&P

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Nov 14, 2017.