Attachment_J.6_-_Ammendment_2_RFP_Questions_1.26.17.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Workers Compensation Review Contractor Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- RFP-CMS-2016-8A-0008
About this file
Amendment to Attachment J.6
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Workers Compensation Review Contractor has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Solicitation Q&A
| ID | Document | Section | Page number | Comment | CMS ANSWER | RFP Amended? | |
| 1 | RFP | B.3 | 5 | What forms the basis of the “Optional WCMSA Recommendations Additional Quantity”? Does the contractor have the option to elect to review these, or is the contractor required to review these if received? Are these the same type of WCMSA proposals as the "WCMSA Recommendations"? | Exercise of optional CLINs/SLINs is the unilateral right of the Government, provided the Government gives the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend the services within the time period specified in FAR 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) - See Solicitation Section I.5. Yes, Optional CLINs/SLINs for WCMSA Recommendations will be for the same type of WCMSA proposals requiring the same type of recommendation as the initial work. | No | |
| 2 | RFP | B.3 | 5 through 7 | Does CMS expect to see a single unit price per case for each SLIN, or may proposed pricing be in increments depending on exceeding certain volume levels? For example, would unit pricing for the first 5,000 cases in a SLIN, then a different unit price for cases over 5,000 in the same SLIN be acceptable? | The Government will evaluate the proposed prices. Should an Offeror propose discount pricing based upon volumes, this will be factored into the price analysis. | No | |
| 3 | RFP | F.2 | 11 | On F.2 Period of Performance, the contract PoP is listed as TBD. In the table below, the period of performance is listed as 5 years. Please confirm that we should assume 5 years for pricing purposes | Yes. The resulting contract will include a 1-year base period and 4 1-year optional periods. If all options are exercised, the contract will run for a total of 5 years. | No | |
| 4 | RFP | K.3 | 63 | In what city is the work to be performed specifically? (e.g.- Place of Performance) | The place of performance is not specified by the Government. The solicitation is amended to incorporate Section K.10, Provision FAR 52.215-6 Place of Performance (OCT 1997). Offerors shall indicate whether performance of the resultant contract from this solicitation will include the use of one or more plants or facilities located at a different address from the address of the Offeror as indicated in this proposal. | Yes, K.10 is added. | |
| 5 | RFP | L.6 | 81 | In regards to the HHS Section 508 Product Assessment Template (PAT), which Contractor Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) products/deliverables does CMS anticipate requiring submission. | The requirement for the submission of a HHS 508 Product Assessment Template (PAT) is based upon the Department of Health and Human Services Acquisition Regulation (HHSAR) Provision 352.239-73 Electronic Information and Technology Accessibility Notice (DEC 2015), See Solicitation Section L.6. The purpose of the template is to assist HHS acquisition and program officials in determining whether proposed EIT supplies conform to applicable Section 508 accessibility standards The accessibility standards for this solicitation are found in Section I..11 HHSAR 352.239-74 (c). | No | |
| 6 | RFP | L.11; Tab C; b | 87 | Is there a set limit as to how many contracts we are to submit for CMS contracts/ Task Orders? Is there a limit to the number of contracts to be submitted for all relevant agencies? Please clarify as to the number of past performances needed from the Prime and subcontractor? | Please refer to Solicitation Section L.11. There is no set limit; however, the narrative includes guidance to assist offerors in determining the past performance information that should be submitted. For example, past performance information shall be limited to that with a period performance end date within the last 3 years of the date of this solicitation for all CMS contracts and task order greater than the simplified acquisition threshold along with all relevant contracts/task order entered into with other Federal, State, Local Agencies, or Commercial customers. | No | |
| 7 | RFP | L. 11, Tab C | 88 | Will CMS permit minor formatting changes to the Past Performance table provided, in order to improve Past Performance response real-estate on the page & overall readability? | As indicated Solicitation Section L.11 pertaining to Instructions for Tab C of the technical proposal, the table should be used when providing a summary of the past performance information. Minor formatting changes are acceptable so long as the substance of the table, including the order in which the criteria appear, remains unchanged. | No | |
| 8 | RFP | L; Tab F | 90 | Shall a subcontractor submit Attachment J.2 Cost Template? | There is no requirement for the submission of separate cost template(s) for subcontractors. The proposed firm fixed price reflected in the Attachment J.2 Cost Template submitted by a prime contractor shall be inclusive of subcontractor costs/prices. | No | |
| 9 | RFP | L; Tab G | 90 | Will CMS clarify the value of the responsibility determination made in Tab G and its factor value for Section M? | Responsibility determination is a requirement. In accordance with FAR 9.103(b), no purchase or award shall be made unless the contacting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In correlation with the response above Section L.12 is amended to remove TAB G requirements and Section M.2 is amended to clarify that the contract will be awarded to the Offeror deemed to be best value provided the Offeror is deemed responsible. | Yes, Section L.12 and M.2 | |
| 10 | RFP | L; Tab G | 91 | For Sections a-f, are these figures ONLY for the Prime Contractor or are these values inclusive of Subcontractor counts / values as well? | Solicitation Section L.12, is amended to remove the Tab G requirements | Yes, Section L.12 | |
| 11 | RFP | L.11 | 91 | Can you please clarify if it is acceptable and/or desired to include relevant corporate experience of significant subcontractors within Tab E Corporate Experience? | Yes, Solicitation Section L.11, Tab E is amended to reflect the following: The Government will evaluate the Corporate Experience of the Offeror and proposed significant subcontractors as deemed appropriate. If applicable any evaluation of subcontractor corporate experience will focus on the relevance of the Corporate Experience to the role the subcontractor is proposed to perform. As a result of the answer above Section M.3, Tab E is also amended. | Yes, L.11 and M.3 | |
| 12 | RFP | H and L | H (p 29), L (pp 84 and 91) | In the RFP, Section H.1.d.2.b. (page 29), there is language that says Attachment J.4 (Contractor Personal Conflict of Interest Disclosure) should be obtained from each Manager or Key personnel who will be involved with the performance of the contract, Governing Body Members (e.g., Board of Directors, Trustees, etc.); and Principals of the organization. This section goes on to state (as do the instructions on Attachment J.4) that “Personal COI information obtained from the above individuals shall not be submitted to the Government”. However, in RFP Section L.10(a)(3) (page 84) and L.13 (page 91), it indicates that Completed Attachment J.4 Contractor Personal Conflict of Interest forms are to be included behind Tab C of Volume III – Business Ethics, Conflicts of Interest and Compliance. L.13 also states, “… Attachment J.4 Contactor Personal Conflicts of Interest Financial Disclosure Template contain[s] the proposal submission requirements for Volume III”. In the instructions contained at the top of Attachment J.4, it states “Personal Conflict of Interest Financial Disclosure information shall NOT BE submitted to CMS.” Could CMS please provide clarification on whether submitters should include completed Attachment J.4 Contactor Personal Conflicts of Interest Financial Disclosures in Volume III or include a statement that confirms completed forms have been received and reviewed by the submitter’s Compliance Officer to identify potential conflicts of interest? | Offerors are not required to submit Contractor Personal Conflict of Interest Financial Disclosures. Solicitation Sections L.10, L.13 and M.5 are amended to remove the requirement of the submission of Contractor Personal Conflict of Interest Financial Disclosures. However, should any personal conflict of interests be identified, a mitigation strategy shall be disclosed within the required COI Mitigation Plan. See Solicitation Section H.1.d..2(a) and Section C.1.2 of Attachment J.5 Contractor Business Ethics COI and Compliance Program Requirements. | Remove all J.4 except in H.1 | |
| 13 | RFP | L.13; Tab C | 92 | ||||
| (Ref. page 29) | It states that Volume III is to include Tab C - Personal COI, Completed Attachment J.4. - However on page 29, it clearly states that 'Attachment J.4, Contractor Personal Conflict of Interest Financial Disclosure Template is provided as a “sample” for the Offeror/Contractor to follow when identifying, analyzing and mitigating actual, potential, or apparent Personal COIs for this contract. Not withstanding, Personal COI information obtained from the above individuals shall not be submitted to the Government'. Are we to go with the instructions on page 29 and simply retain the PCIO, 'in-house' until the Gov't makes a request or are we to submit them with our proposal? | Yes the contractor is required to retain the personal conflict of interest financial disclosure statements in house. | No | ||||
| 14 | RFP | L.15 | 94 | What defines the "competitive range" and "efficient competition" in the process of selecting contractors for oral presentations? | FAR 15.306(c)(1) explains that a competitive range is a subset of offerors 'comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals.' See also FAR 15.306(c)(2) and L.15. | No | |
| 15 | RFP | M.5 | 99 | Does CMS plan to award separate Prime contractors the work for WCRC and Solicitation # HHSM-500-2017-RFP-0001, Medicare Secondary Payer Integration Contractor? | Yes. CMS is conducting two separate acquisitions with intentions of awarding two separate contracts. | No | |
| 16 | SOW | C.4.2 | 32 | Are Contractor's Key Personnel required to work onsite at a designated client location (CMS Specific location), or can they work remotely from Contractor location in another state within the Continental United States (CONUS)? | The place of performance is not specified by the Government. The solicitation is amended to incorporate Section K.10, Provision FAR 52.215-6 Place of Performance (OCT 1997). Offerors shall indicate whether performance of resultant contract from this solicitation will include the use of one or more plants or facilities located at a different address from the address of the Offeror as indicated in this proposal. | Yes, K.10 is added. | |
| 17 | RFP | SF33, L.9 | 1, 82 | Will CMS consider extending the due date of proposals to allow for additional time after answers to questions are received? | Yes, the due date for proposals is extended from 10:00 AM EST on January 30, 2017 to 10:00 AM EST on February 8, 2017. | Yes, the SF33 and Section L.9 are amended | |
| 18 | RFP | H; H.1; c | 27 | Does current or past work as a Prime or Subcontractors on the Medicare Secondary Payer Integration Contract (MSPIC) or any of its component contracts outside WCRC (BCRC, CRC, MSPSC) constitute a potential or actual conflict of interest with work on WCRC? | RFP Section H.1.c.1.e is amended to remove the word current to clarify a potential or actual impaired objectivity conflict of interest will occur if the same entity serves as both the WCRC and MSPIC. | Yes, H.1 is amended | |
| 19 | RFP | I.1 | 51 | Is it appropriate for FAR clause 52.215-15 Pension Adjustments and Asset Reversions (OCT 2010) to be included in the solicitation? | No, this clause was included by accident. CMS has removed it from the revised RFP. | Yes, I.1 is amended | |
| 20 | RFP | L.3 | 79 | Please confirm that CMS intends to award this contract after conducting discussions. | CMS has determined that the appropriate clause is not FAR 52.215-1 ALT 1 but instead the standard FAR 52.215-1 clause. The non-alternate clause states that "The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offerors initial proposal should contain the Offerors best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary." | Yes L.3 is amended | |
| 21 | RFP | B.3 | 5 | Does CMS require pricing to demonstrate cost of the maximum possible cases (11,000) in the optional task? | Offerors shall propose based on the total number/quantity of cases per subcontract line item number (SLIN) as identified in section B.3 of the RFP. This shall include proposed prices for the quantities associated to all optional SLINs. It is noted that the basis for the reference of 11,000 is unclear. | Yes, RFP Section B.3 and Attachment J.2 are amended. | |
| 22 | RFP | L; Tab F | 90 | Does CMS still require or allow for a SEALED BID for subcontractor rates? | CMS does not require the submission of a sealed bid for a subcontractor but would accept it. Considering CMS intends to award a firm fixed price contract based upon competitive acquisition procedures, there is no need for offerors to provide separate cost elements to illustrate the build-up of proposed firm fixed prices. Accordingly, it is not necessary for subcontractors to provide separate cost elements, such that it would include contractor proprietary information and therefore would need to be sealed to protect such information. Typically, proposed subcontractors submit separate proposals directly to the Government to avoid disclosing proprietary information (e.g. indirect rates), but in a firm fixed price situation, the need for the separate proposal is not apparent. It is imperative, however, that prime contractor pricing include any subcontractor price/cost. | No | |
| 23 | RFP | B.2 | 5 | Do travel receipts need to be submitted with the invoices, or is it sufficient if the receipts are available upon request? | No, CMS does not anticipate the need for travel for the performance of this work. The SOW does not specify the need for travel. | No | |
| 24 | RFP | B.3 | 5 | This section indicates that travel costs billed shall be supported with receipts. Are travel costs to be billed to the government separately or are travel costs supposed to be built into our unit costs for MSA reviews? | No, CMS does not anticipate the need for travel for the performance of this work. The SOW does not specify the need for travel. | No | |
| 25 | RFP | B.3 | 5 | Does the minimum guaranteed number of recommendations mean that the contractor will be paid for this quantity even if fewer MSA proposals are received? |
| The minimum guaranteed amount is the minimum quantity CMS anticipates being received for each contract year. The contractor is guaranteed to receive this amount of work. However, the contractor will only be paid for the cases that are completed. A completed case is defined as an accepted recommendation. | Yes, B.3 is amended along with Attachment J.2 | ||||||
| 26 | RFP | B.3 | 5 through 7 | Does the WCRC receive payment for determining that a case cannot be worked, such as because of ineligibility, commingled files, or insufficient information after development failure, or for cases that are partially worked, then removed from the WCRC workload by CMS or one of its contractors for any reason? Are each of these considered "recommendations?" | No, a recommendation is considered an amount recommended to CMS to ensure that the Medicare Trust Fund is covered based upon complete review of the submitted case. Development failure and unfinished cases are expected, as indicated in Solicitation Section L.14 Proposal Assumptions. Assumptions regarding the number of cases that will not result in a recommendation should be factored into the proposed unit prices. Offerors are directed to section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for additional information in regards to the number of cases that will not result in a recommendation. | Yes, section L.14 and the SOW at section C.3.1 are updated. | |
| 27 | RFP | B.3 | 5 through 7 | If the answer to the above question is No, please estimate the number of cases per month that the WCRC can expect to receive in he WCCCS that would not result in a recommendation, as CMS defines that term. | Offerors are directed to section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for additional information in regards to the number of cases that will not result in a recommendation. |
| Yes, section L.14 and the SOW at section C.3.1 are updated. | ||||||
| 28 | RFP | B.3 | 5 through 7 | Please confirm that the funding sources for payment (MIP funds v. Part D funds) are unrelated to the contractor's fixed unit price per recommendation. In other words, is a contractor paid the same per recommendation regardless of whether a recommendation has a Part D component? | Yes, the contractor will be paid based upon a unit price per recommendation. The unit price will be split based upon the following ratio of funding sources: 63% (MIP) and 37% (Part D) regardless of the make-up of the recommendation. Accordingly for each recommendation submitted and accepted, the contractor will bill two SLINs based upon Schedule B. | No |
| 29 | RFP | H; H.1; c | 27 | Does current or past work as a Prime or Subcontractors on the Medicare Secondary Payer Integration Contract (MSPIC) or any of its component contracts outside WCRC (BCRC, CRC, MSPSC) constitute a potential or actual conflict of interest with work on WCRC? | Offerors should review section H.1 of the RFP. As indicated in the clause, if there is a organizational or financial relationship between the WCRC and the Medicare Secondary Payer Integration Contract (MSPIC) a significant impaired objectivity conflict of interest could arise. Any potential significant conflicts of interest must be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated before contract award. | No |
| 30 | RFP | L.14 | 92 | This paragraph states “In addition, the contractor shall document its evaluation of the case file and recommend an independently priced WCMSA amount to CMS.” What is the expectation related to ‘… document its evaluation …’? | A recommendation sheet along with notes and all necessary documentation for rendering that recommendation is part of the provided WCCCS system. See attached Reference Guide. | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. In addition Attachment J.1.5 WCMSA Reference Guide is added. |
| 31 | RFP | L.14 | 93 | Does CMS anticipate a workload carryover from the incumbent contractor? If so, please detail size and type of case. | See SOW section C.3.1 Assumptions and RFP Section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for more specific numbers. These are based on current actual workloads. | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 32 | RFP | L.14 | 93 | Does CMS expect there to be a backlog of claims for review at the start of the operational period? | See SOW section C.3.1 Assumptions and RFP Section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for more specific numbers. These are based on current actual workloads. | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 33 | RFP | L.14 | 93 | What estimated number of claims should the contract expect to be available for review at the start of the operational period? | See SOW section C.3.1 Assumptions and RFP Section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for more specific numbers. These are based on current actual workloads. | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 34 | RFP | L.14 | 93 | Will claims be in various stages of processing at the start of the operational period, that is, will some have gone through development, others not started, re-evaluations, etc.? | Yes; however, assume the outstanding cases may never be fully developed such that a recommendation may never be made. See SOW section C.3.1 Assumptions and RFP Section L.14 Proposal Assumptions for more specific numbers | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 35 | RFP | L.14 Tab A | 96 | Will CMS clarify the apparent inconsistency in the estimated number of new WCMSA proposals: RFP states: “for staffing and other resources considerations, the contractor shall anticipate receiving 1800 new WCMSA proposals per month, which represents forty-two (42) percent of the average workload on hand. The additional 58 percent of cases on had represent those cases where information has needed previous development or the submitter has requested re-review.” However, the SOW states on page 8 “for staffing and other resources considerations, the contractor shall anticipate receiving 1600 new WCMSA proposals per month, which represents forty-two (42) percent of the average workload on hand.” The RFP goes on further to state: “During transition, in addition to the 1,800 new receipts each month, it is estimated that approximately 1,300- 1,500 cases will be transferred on the start work date, defined as the official cutover date from the previous contractor. This date is anticipated to be within 2-4 months after the award date. The workload will be approximately 450 Development cases, 700 Development Received and 80 Re-review cases. | CMS believes the inconsistencies are from a previous version of the RFP. Please review RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 36 | RFP | L.14 | 95 | Though this section states that optional workload would likely not be exercised until CLIN 2, it provides several assumptions specific to WCMSA proposals/cases. Can you provide similar assumptions for NGHP workload since the Offeror is required to provide a technical approach description and pricing for this work? | Please refer to the same workload assumptions for the WCMSA found in sections L.14 of the RFP and Section C.3.1 in the SOW. These assumptions shall be applied when establishing pricing for the Other Non-Group Health Plan work (Optional Task 1 in the SOW). | Yes, RFP Section L.14 and SOW Section C.3.1 are updated. |
| 37 | RFP | L.15 | 96 | Please reconsider the restriction on a maximum of eight individuals attending the orals presentation. This restriction favors a team incorporating participation from the incumbent contractor. | Due to space limitations accommodating a greater number of Offeror representatives at the Oral presentations presents challenges. The restriction to 8 people will be applied across the board, to ensure no offerors are advantaged or disadvantaged by this limitation. | |
| Yes, RFP Section L.15 is amended. | ||||||
| 38 | SOW | Table of Contents | 1 | The SOW is dated September 15, 2015; Could CMS confirm that this is the version intended for this solicitation? | The SOW has been amended, and dated January 24, 2017 and should be the basis for any proposals. Offerors shall continually monitor the Federal Business Opportunities website (www.fbo.gov) to ensure proposals are submitted based upon the most current and applicable version of the RFP/Solicitation, inclusive of the current version of the SOW. | Yes, Attachment J.1 SOW is amended |
| 39 | SOW | All Deliverables | 2,3 | Related to SOW, Appendix B: Contractor Deliverable Schedule contains page and reference inconsistencies. In the description column for each of the 15 Deliverables, the reference citation is for a section that does not align with the subject Deliverable. For example, Deliverable # 8: Draft Quality Assurance (QA) CQI Plan see Task 6 at Section 6.1.7. Task 6 is HIPAA Systems Security; it does not contain 1.7; and its does not contain mention of a QA/CQI Plan. Please clarify all 15 SOW citations in the Appendix B | Attachment J.1.2 Appendix B is updated to correspond with the SOW. | Yes, Attachment J.1.2 Deliverable Schedule is amended |
| 40 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Can the assumptions in this section be applied to NFMSAs and LMSAs? | Yes, the assumptions found in Section C.3.1 should also be applied to NFMSAs and LMSAs. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. |
| 41 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Will WCCCS be available over the internet versus CMS net? | No, the WCCCS system will only be available over CMS net at this time. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. |
| 42 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Will the WCRC be able to get an electronic data feed from the WCCCS? | Yes, an electronic data feed from the WCCCS will be available. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. |
| 43 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Will the WCRC be able to transmit data electronically to the WCCCS? | No, They are sent to a different Contractor via fax. See SOW section C.3.2.10 TASK 9- Interfaces. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. |
| 44 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Will the WCRC be able to transmit scanned images electronically to the WCCCS (e.g., by a fax server) versus manually uploading them? | No, They are sent to a different Contractor via fax. See SOW section C.3.2.10 TASK 9- Interfaces. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. |
| 45 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | Is the response time of the WCCCS different during different times of the day and day of the week? | Yes. Response times are stable enough for consistent response times. |
| Connection is stable enough for consistent response times. | No | ||||||
| 46 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | How often is the WCCCS system backed up? | Nightly. | No | |
| 47 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | What is the recovery time objective of the WCCCS system in case of system failure? | This is not a requirement of the WCRC. However, the objective is to restore system integrity in less than 4 hours. | No | |
| 48 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | Will all additional information be received by the WCRC contractor and scanned into the WCCCS or will some additional information be received by the Benefits Coordination & Recovery Center (BCRC) or some other contractor and scanned into the system? | Rarely does the WCRC receive documentation. However, if they do, it should be sent to the BCRC via fax. See SOW Section C.3.2.10 | No | |
| 49 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | Will 1 dedicated fax machine be sufficient to handle the volume? | Yes, a single dedicated fax machine is sufficient. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. | |
| 50 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | This section states that "All software and hardware supporting the contractor’s systems is maintained at the contractor’s facility." e Can the contractor use Amazon Web Services (AWS), a FedRAMPed cloud used by other CMS contracts to host its servers? | So long as they meet all IT requirements as listed in the SOW. | No | |
| 51 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | 1st bullet states, in part: “All software and hardware supporting the contractor’s systems is maintained at the contractor’s facility …” Is the WCRC permitted to have remote workers whose computer systems are located in their homes provided sufficient security controls are in place or must all work be done at the offices of the WCRC? | Yes, the WCRC is permitted to have remote workers whose computer systems are located in their homes provided sufficient security controls are in place. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended. | |
| 52 | J.2 Cost Template | N/A | N/A | Are there any supporting cost templates required other than Attachment_J.2? | No, Offerors are only required to submit the attachment J.2 Cost Template. | Yes, RFP Section B.3 and Attachment J.2 are amended. | |
| 53 | J.2 Cost Template | N/A | N/A | Please clarify what sections of the SOW correspond to SLINs AE, AF, AG and AH. | SLINs AE, AF, AG, and AH correspond to SOW section C.3.2.2 Optional TASK 1 Procedures for Processing Other Non-Group Health Plan (NGHP) MSAs. Other NGHP MSAs correspond to LMSA and NFMSA. Due to other revisions these SLINs now include AK through AT. | Yes, RFP Section B.3 and Attachment J.2 are amended. | |
| 54 | J.2 Cost Template | N/A | N/A | Shall a subcontractor submit Attachment J.2 Cost Template? | There is no requirement for the submission of separate cost template(s) for subcontractors. The proposed firm fixed price reflected in the Attachment J.2 Cost Template submitted by a prime contractor shall be inclusive of subcontractor costs/prices. | No |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .