Attachment_J.6_-_Ammendment_4_RFP_Questions_2.7.2017.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Workers Compensation Review Contractor Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- RFP-CMS-2016-8A-0008
About this file
Amendment 000004 for 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 | |
| 55 | RFP | H.4 | 38 | Does the Project Director need to be provided by the Prime contractor? | Due to the importance of the Project Director role, having the authority to interact with the Government and lead the project it is preferred that the Project Director be a member of the prime. | No | |
| 56 | RFP | H.4 | 41 | List of Key personnel includes the Litigation Contact. The SOW specifies that all Key Personnel must be assigned full-time to fulfill their WCRC responsibilities. Based on the description of duties, we do not believe the Litigation Contact would require a full-time commitment. Would CMS consider either removing this position as a Key Position, or alternatively, removing the requirement for it to be full-time (see SOW section C.4.2.5, page 34). Additionally, as stated in a corresponding question regarding the SOW (Section C.4.2.4, page 34), would CMS consider a less-than-full-time commitment of the Network Administrator/Hardware Specialist? | Litigation Contact duties may be assigned as an additional duty to one of the Key Personnel. The object is to have one person specifically identified that is always available. Requirements have been moved to C.3.2.5 to alleviate confusion. A less-than-full-time commitment for the Network Admin/Hardware Specialist may be accepted; however, the request must be approved prior to that schedule as listed in the SOW. See C.4.2 "Changes in key personnel positions shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer in writing for approval prior to any change" | Yes, SOW Sections C.3.2.5 and C.4.1 are amended. | |
| 57 | RFP | H.7 | 42 | Section H.7.a states, "The Contractor shall (1) Include FIPS 201- 2 compliant, HSPD-12 card readers with the purchase of servers, desktops, and laptops; and (2) comply with FAR 52.204-9, Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel." What CMS systems, which the WCRC will access, requires PIV card identification? What is the process for obtaining PIV cards from CMS and integrating card readers with CMS systems? | PIV cards will be coming in the future for all internal and contract network access. Currently, an implementation schedule has not been established. | No | |
| 58 | RFP | H.7.c | 43 | Would the residency requirements under H.7 c, CMS Security Clause apply to all Medical Reviewers working on this contract? If yes, does there need to be attestation that the successful offeror will abide by this requirement? | |||
| Yes it does apply to all Medical Reviewers working on the contract. The contractor is responsible for vetting their employees to these requirements. A separate attestation is not required however, as prescribed in RFP Section H.7.c.i. | No | ||||||
| 59 | RFP | L.10, L.11, and M.3 | 84, 91, 100 | CMS requests a Draft Operational Plan (Tab D) in conjunction with a Technical Approach (Tab A) and staffing Plan (Tab B). Can CMS provide more specificity as to the specific content desired in Tab D? | Offerors should refer back to RFP section L.11 Volume I: Technical Proposal Instructions Tab D for information regarding what is expected in the Project Implementation Plan. Tab D shall be a Draft Project Implementation Plan for startup through initial operations addressing schedule. The name has been changed throughout the RFP to match the deliverable of Project Implementation Plan. Tab A addresses methodology. Tab B addresses Staffing to ensure the right personnel are in the correct function. | Yes, references in RFP Sections L.10, L.11 and M.3 to the Draft Project Operational Plan have been amended to read Draft Project Implementation Plan. | |
| 60 | RFP | GENERAL | N/A | On 9/16/2016, FPDS.gov reported that Provider Resources was compensated in the amount of $3,381,939. Will CMS please confirm that this data is accurate and the most current? Will CMS please provide the workloads associated with this action obligation? Will CMS please provide the level of effort (hours) with this action obligation? | The amounts reported on FPBDS are the amounts obligated to the contract or the amounts to be obligated should all options be exercised. This does not necessarily represent the amounts paid to the contractor. CMS will not disclose the level of effort associated with the amount obligated as this is based on the current SOW and the current contractor's technical approach. CMS is unable to specify workloads associated to the dollar amount in questions. | No | |
| 61 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | In addition to maintaining the WCCCS, does MSPSC also host the system? If not, please indicate who hosts the system. | Yes, the MSPSC hosts the WCCCS system. | No | |
| 62 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | By what mechanism will an electronic data feed be supported - APIs, file upload, or through direct access to the database? | File upload. | No | |
| 63 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | This section states that "the contractor shall have documents scanned into the WCCCS and append these documents to the appropriate case." Does this requirement apply potentially to all records requiring development or only occasional records that are misrouted? | SOW section C.3.1 is updated to reflect that this is referring to misdirected documents to be forwarded to the BCRC, not expected to exceed 10 pages per month. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended | |
| 64 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | This section states that "the contractor shall have documents scanned into the WCCCS and append these documents to the appropriate case." How many pages per month will the contractor have to scan? | SOW section C.3.1 is updated to reflect that this is referring to misdirected documents to be forwarded to the BCRC, not expected to exceed 10 pages per month. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended | |
| 65 | SOW | C.3.1 | 10 | The third bullet requires a contingency plan in the event of system downtime exceeding 4 hours. If all cases are in a government controlled system, if the WCCCS is not accessible to the contractor through no fault of the contractor, how is the contractor able to access and process the cases? | The third bullet is removed to clear up confusion. | Yes, SOW is amended. | |
| 66 | SOW | C.3.1 | 10 | The third bullet requires a contingency plan in the event of system downtime exceeding 4 hours. Will the government consider allowing the contractor to download cases from its systems nightly so that work is available even if government systems are inaccessible? | The third bullet is removed to clear up confusion. | Yes, SOW is amended. | |
| 67 | SOW | C.3.1 | 10 | The third bullet requires a contingency plan in the event of system downtime exceeding 4 hours. What remedies are available to the contractor for payment of its costs when systems are inaccessible for a delayed period of time? | The third bullet is removed to clear up confusion. | Yes, SOW is amended. | |
| 68 | SOW | C.3.2 | 10 through 32 | Please confirm that all tasks should be priced in SLIN AA and AB on Attachment J.2 Cost Template. | Yes, all SOW tasks should be factored into the Schedule B SLINs with the exception of Transition Period. | No | |
| 69 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 11 and 12 | Please clarify which of the following 4 categories of cases are considered a separate unit for billing/payment purposes under this contract: Approved, Re-reviewed, Developed, Closed. That is, if a case if Developed, then Approved at a later time, is it billed as 2 separate cases? If not, are the only categories eligible for billing Approved, Re-reviewed, and Closed cases? For pricing purposes, what percentage of cases should the contractor assume will require Development? What percentage of cases will be Closed? | Only approved and re-review cases will be invoiced. This shall include only those cases where a recommended MSA amount has been delivered to the submitter. There will not be partial billing for cases. Assume 26% development. Development will include those cases that would be closed for failing to respond. | No | |
| 70 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 12 | How is “calculation error” defined? Historically, this was defined as a calculation error made by the contractor. | Yes. It has always been defined as a calculation error made by the WCRC during review. | No | |
| 71 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 12 | For the purposes of this section, may a calculation error made by an entity other than the contractor be eligible for re-review? | No, as the re-review is based upon all calculations sent out as the recommendation by the contractor. See Reference Guide. | No | |
| 72 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 12 | The SOW makes reference to an Appendix E, but no Appendix E has been provided. Can CMS please provide a copy of Appendix E? | Reference has been removed. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 73 | RFP | B.3 | 5 | Will there be a guaranteed minimum for liability and no fault cases? What percent of those cases should we assume require a cursory review? | There is no guaranteed minimum number of cases/proposals for liability and no-fault cases. Cursory review has been removed as it will be handled through system-automated processing. | Yes, SOW is amended. | |
| 74 | RFP | H.4 | 38 | Does the Project Director need to be provided by the Prime contractor? | Yes | No | |
| 75 | SOW | C.3.1 | 8 | What is the response time of the WCCCS when accessing pages, entering data, looking up information in pages of a WCCCS submission, etc. This information is important to estimating level of effort to review a case. Are there provisions allowing for cases to be downloaded to the WCRC contractor’s internal system or must all review work be done on the government’s system? | The average response time from page to page is within 2 seconds. Retrieval of 200 page docs in .pdf form is within 1 minute. | No | |
| 76 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | If another contractor will be receiving additional information for scanning into the system, what number of cases and page volume should the WCRC expect to receive by fax? | SOW section C.3.1 is updated to reflect that this is referring to misdirected documents to be forwarded to the BCRC, not expected to exceed 10 pages per month. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended | |
| 77 | SOW | C.3.1 | 9 | This section states that "The contractor shall maintain a dedicated fax machine for additional information that submitters fax to the contractor, and the contractor shall have these documents appended to the appropriate case." How many pages will the contractor receive by fax per day? | SOW section C.3.1 is updated to reflect that this is referring to misdirected documents to be forwarded to the BCRC, not expected to exceed 10 pages per month. The dedicated fax requirement is for HIPAA compliance. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended | |
| 78 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 10 | The SOW states "the contractor shall ensure that any subsequent documents…are accepted by fax". Can CMS provide the volume and size of the documents that will be transmitted via fax? | SOW section C.3.1 is updated to reflect that this is referring to misdirected documents to be forwarded to the BCRC, not expected to exceed 10 pages per month. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.1 is amended | |
| 79 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 11 and 12 | For pricing purposes, what percentage of cases should the contractor assume will require development? | 26% Refer to C.3.1 | No | |
| 80 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 11 and 12 | For pricing purposes, what percentage of cases will be closed? | This is not systematically tracked. Systems may set status to close for multiple reasons during processing of a case, but it does not affect the number of cases available for processing. Closure is only a status, and is not included in the proposed work values. Refer to WCMSAP User Guide for closure reasons. | No | |
| 81 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 13 | The SOW states "If the case has previously settled, the contractor will not proceed…" Does CMS have an estimated volume of cases that meet this criteria? | This is not tracked systemically. Expect less than 12 per year. | No | |
| 82 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 13 | The SOW states "Developed cases will include a received case where the contractor must contact the submitter...". Can CMS provide an estimate of the number of cases that require additional development? | Annually, there are about 5,000 cases developed; however this number represents cases that might be developed multiple times. Refer to C.3.1 | No | |
| 83 | SOW | C.3.2.2 | 13 | Is the contractor responsible for sending mail with the case result to the submitter or will the contractor simply enter results into WCCCS and another contractor will mail letters out? | Another contractor sends them out from WCCCS system outputs. | No | |
| 84 | SOW | C.3.2.1 | 13 | The SOW states "…forwarded the information to the systems contractor for change in CWF file status." Does WCCF system allow this connectivity or is this a contractor notice system? What has been the historical method of forwarding this information? | Normally, this happens in the regional office, but occasionally, submitters send their documentation to the WCRC. It is faxed to the BCRC like any other documentation. The rest is transparent to the WCRC, as it is done systematically. The SOW is updated to reflect this. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 85 | SOW | C.3.2.2 | 13 | Please explain how the WCRC contractor will receive NGHP MSA cases including the entity responsible for submission to the WCRC and the mode of transmission. | All LMSA/NFMSA processes shall mimic existing processes nearly identically through the establishment of threshold values. | No | |
| 86 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | In regards to the workload estimates for Cursory Review case, is it possible to narrow the workload estimate to ensure that a cost estimate is more accurate? | Cursory review has been removed as it will be handled through system-automated processing. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 87 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | The SOW states "The contractor shall participate in testing…" What is the frequency and scope of the testing that will be required? | This is user acceptance testing to happen no more than quarterly for two week intervals. See SOW C.3.2.3 | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 88 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | The level of effort to participate in a system test is an administrative function that is not tied specifically to a review of cases. Is the level of effort for this activity expected to be covered under the compensation of each case unit? | This is user acceptance testing, expected to happen no more than quarterly for two week intervals. See SOW C.3.2.3. Yes, the level of effort expected for this activity should be factored into unit prices. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 89 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | The level of effort to participate in a system test is an administrative function that is not tied specifically to a review of cases. What is the anticipated frequency of system testing each year? | This is user acceptance testing, expected to happen no more than quarterly for two week intervals. See SOW C.3.2.3. Yes, the level of effort expected for this activity should be factored into unit prices. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 90 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | The level of effort to participate in a system test is an administrative function that is not tied specifically to a review of cases. What is the anticipated duration of each system test? | This is user acceptance testing, expected to happen no more than quarterly for two week intervals. See SOW C.3.2.3. Yes, the level of effort expected for this activity should be factored into unit prices. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 91 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | What is the involvement of the WCRC going to be in the testing assistance outlined in this section? Will the WCRC be performing Systems or User Acceptance Testing? Is the WCRC or another contractor responsible for the Test Plan, Test Cases and Test Report? What kind of skill sets will be required for this effort? Will the WCRC or another contractor coordinate issues found during testing? | This is user acceptance testing, expected to happen no more than quarterly for two week intervals. See SOW C.3.2.3. Yes, the level of effort expected for this activity should be factored into unit prices. | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 92 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | Is the WCRC Contractor expected to provide some level of testing support for the WCCCS? | Generally only as an end-user when system upgrades happen. | No | |
| 93 | SOW | C.3.2.3 | 14 | is the WCRC Contractor expected to provide local area network support? | Yes. See SOW C.3.2.3 | No | |
| 94 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 14 | What volume of written inquiries daily, weekly, and monthly should be anticipated under this contract for pricing purposes? Is the level of effort for this activity expected to be covered under the compensation of each case unit? | Expect no more than 10 written inquires per month. This should be included in the unit pricing. See C.3.2.4 | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 95 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 14 | What is the expected monthly volume of incoming inquiries? | Expect no more than 10 written inquires per month. This should be included in the unit pricing. See C.3.2.4 | Yes, the SOW is amended. | |
| 96 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 16 | The solicitation states to anticipate about 2,000 calls per month. What are the peak volumes by time of day, day of week, and time of year? | CMS does not track call statistic times. Contractor should assume typical call center peaks. | No | |
| 97 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 16 | This section states "The contractor shall be available to callers between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST/EDT, Monday through Friday". Does this include holidays? | This is addressed in the SOW. C.3.1. | No | |
| 98 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 16 | The SOW provides call answering and wait times. Can CMS provide the average call handling time? | Data on average call handing times is not collected. Only abandonment and wait times are tracked. | No | |
| 99 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 16 | Can you please provide a count of average calls received per month from Spanish speaking callers requiring a bilingual CSR to handle? Can you please provide the actual number of Spanish speaking callers that contacted the WCRC in the last 12 months? | Data on the average number of calls received per month from Spanish speaking callers is not collected. Only abandonment and wait times are tracked. However, only one is required to be available during office hours as listed in the SOW. | No | |
| 100 | SOW | C.3.2.4 | 16 | Can you please confirm that 2000 incoming telephone calls per month is an accurate figure as it is our understanding that the current call volume at the WCRC does not match this figure? Can you please provide the actual number of calls received by the incumbent per month for the last 12 months? | Current figures may not match expected figures. Assume as listed in C.3.2.4 | No | |
| 101 | SOW | C.3.2.5 | 17 | The recent SOW includes requirements for potential litigation. Are there any current holds/lawsuits pending against CMS and/or the WCRC in relation to the administration of this Program? | No | No | |
| 102 | SOW | C.3.2.5 | 17 | Does the contract require the storage for prior contractor's records? If so, what is the volume and where are the documents currently stored? | No | No | |
| 103 | SOW | C.3.2.5 | 17 | Wouldn’t all records pertaining to a litigation hold be stored in the WCCCS? If not, please clarify what expectation the government has for the WCRC contractor to store case files in its own systems and why the government expects the contractor to have a separate system from the WCCCS? Does the WCCCS only serve as a portal for receiving cases and entering final results pertaining to a case? | No | No | |
| 104 | SOW | C.3.2.5 | 17 | This section states "The contractor shall retain WCMSA proposal records indefinitely." Does this apply to paper records as well or can paper records be destroyed once they are scanned in? | No See C.3.2.5 Updates | Yes, SOW Section C.3.2.5 is amended | |
| 105 | SOW | C.3.2.5 | 17-18 | Could CMS please further define what is meant by "retain WCMSA proposal records indefinitely?" | |||
| Would CMS consider 6 months active storage with a move to offline storage and a set time for records retrieval of 72 hours as satsifactory fulfillment of this "indefinite" retention requirement? | Yes. See C.3.2.5 Updates | Yes, SOW Section C.3.2.5 is amended | |||||
| 106 | SOW | C.3.2.6 | 18 | This section addresses QA of WCMSAs. Can you please clarify whether similar processes would need to be followed for LMSAs and NFMSs? | Yes. See C.3.2.2 | No | |
| 107 | SOW | C.3.2.6 | 19 | In regards to the statement "…QA/CQI applications shall randomly be applied to no more than 5% of the WCMSA cases…", can you please clarify as to whether this is to be performed on cases prior to submission to the regional office? | This shall be done prior to regional office submission. See C.3.2.6 Update. | Yes, SOW Section C.3.2.6 is amended | |
| 108 | SOW | C.3.2.6 | 19 | This section states "Government shall have access to reports developed as part of the Continuous Quality Assurance process." Is it acceptable for the contractor to email them to the government on demand or does the government require live access to the system? | Electronic delivery is acceptable. | No | |
| 109 | SOW | C.3.2.6 | 20 | This section requires a biannual sample of 5% of cases to be re-reviewed by the WCRC in order to substantiate a satisfactory level of performance. Does this mean that the government expects this sample to be drawn throughout the period of performance and reported upon 2 times per year or that the contractor will actually draw the sample 2 times per year and review what is ready for submission but has not yet been finalized? If the former, then should the contractor expect to be reviewing for quality control reporting purposes 960 cases per year? If the latter, what estimate of the number of cases should the contractor assume be the 5% sample size for pricing purposes? | This would be expected throughout the period. See C.3.2.6 | No | |
| 110 | SOW | C.3.2.6 | 20 | The SOW states "Biannually, the contractor will randlomly select five percent of completed cases…". The biannual selection of cases over a period of time or the selecting 5% of six months of work that occurred in a single month or over a period of time? | This would be expected throughout the period. See C.3.2.6 | No | |
| 111 | SOW | C.3.2.7 | 21 | Will the WCRC internal systems be subject to the continuous monitoring program mandated by OMB (M-11-33) and CMS? | See OMB M-11-33 Q&A number 42 on page 17 of the memorandum. | No | |
| 114 | SOW | C.3.2.7 | 23 | RFP TEXT: • IRS Publication 1075, section 11.7 The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services IRC Section 6103(l)(12)(C)-- Under this provision, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is authorized under IRC Section 6103(l)(12) to disclose any FTI it receives from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to its agents for the purpose of, and to the extent necessary in, determining the extent that any Medicare beneficiary is covered under any group health plan. A contractual relationship must exist between CMS and the agent. The agent, however, is not authorized to make further disclosures of IRS information. | |||
| Question: In oder to help ensure compliance with IRS Publication 1075, how will CMS identify any FTI it receives from the Social Security Information? | FTI requirement removed for lack of use. | Yes, SOW is amended. | |||||
| 115 | SOW | C.3.2.7 | 23 | Can you please explain what specific Federal Tax Information (FTI) the WCRC receives, handles and stores? | FTI requirement removed for lack of use. | Yes, SOW is amended. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .