A.09.03_Government_Responses_062817_W81K04-17-R-0001.pdf

Document Pg # Para # Question Government Reponse

W81K04-17-R-0001 117 Para 4

(Discussions)

The solicitation doesn't appear to address the requirement for submission of Final Proposal Revisions (per FAR 15.307), nor how the FPRs will be evaluated. Please explain how you anticipate this process will work. How long will offerors have to respond with an FPR once notified by the Government?

See FAR 15.307 for Final Proposal Revision procedures; each offeror within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a

FPR by a common cutoff date and time IAW FAR

15.307(b).

W81K04-17-R-0001 117 Para 4

(Discussions)

The solicitation states that discussions may be required if technical evaluations determine that none of the offeror technical proposals are technically acceptable; and that in this case discussions will only be held with those offerors that the Government determines can become technically acceptable with minor changes. The solicitation also states that discussions may be held with offerors in the competitive range. So, will the Government also hold discussions even if one or several offerors' technical proposals are determined to be technically acceptable?

FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors, B.1.b., Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the government reserves the right to make an award based on initial proposals received, without discussion of such proposals.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Travel CLINs Travel CLINs

Travel CLINs in the solicitation are cost-type. FAR 16.301-3 requires that a cost reimbursement CLIN may only be used when

"(3) The contractor’s accounting system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order; "

Compliance with this requirement may be difficult for a SB firm.

FAR 16.301-3 also says "The use of cost-reimbursement contracts is prohibited for the acquisition of commercial items (see Parts 2 and 12)." Question: Can the offeror propose a firm-fixed-price arrangement for Travel CLINs?

No. The Government is unable to provide sufficient travel information for contractor to propose FFP. This is a commercial acquisition with FFP and CR CLINs; is not considered cost-reimbursement contract.

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 Paragraph 4.3.2.5 Is Trend Micro Anti-Virus an acceptable equivalent to McAfee

Anti-Virus software?

McAfee Anti Virus only

W81K04-17-R-0001 113 Paragraph 6. a. b.

For the Offeror who has entered into a Teaming arrangement / commitment with a sub-contractor, does the Government want to see the legal and binding teaming agreement between the parties, included into the Offeror's response, or will a letter memorandum signed by both parites stating such an agreement exists meet the requirement of "full disclosure" as requested.

IAW Paragraph 2.a.(6)(b), Offerors proposing a contractor team arrangement shall include a statement that fully discloses the contractor team arrangement and company relationships pursuant to FAR Subpart 9.603, Policy.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Government Responses 062817

W81K04-17-R-0001 40 - 48 & 124 -126 52.222-59 &

52.222-60

FAR 52.222-59 Compliance with Labor Laws and 42.222-60 were repealed on March 17, 2017. Please confirm that the section title 52.222-57 [sic] Representation Regarding Compliance with

Labor Laws (Executive Order 113673 (DEC 2016) does not need to be completed and the relevant FAR clauses will be removed from the contract.

No. The subject clauses have not been deleted from FAR.

W81K04-17-R-0001 105 PWS Section 5, Attachment 2

Attachment 2 - Estimated Workload Data - Outpatient records, Item 12 - 0060 - BLANCHFIELD ACH-FT. CAMPBELL shows the quantity for base Year 1 is 413,785 and the quantity for Years

2 through 5 is 756,140. However, the quantity for each year for all other sites on this attachment are the same for all five years.

QUESTION: Can the Government verify the Year 1 quantity for this MTF 0060 - BLANCHFIELD ACH - FT. CAMPBELL?

Year 1 is correct for MTF 0060 - Blanchfield

ACH - Fort Campbell.

W81K04-17-R-0001 107 PWS Section 5, Attachment 3

Attachment 3 - Estimated Workload Data - APV, Item 9 - 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH-FT. CAMPBELL shows the quantity for base Year 1 is 320 and the quantity for Years 2 through 5 is 3,341.

However, the quantity for each year for all other sites on this attachment are the same for all five years. QUESTION: Can the

Government verify the Year 1 quantity for this MTF 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH - FT. CAMPBELL?

Year 1 is correct for MTF 0060 - Blanchfield

ACH - Fort Campbell.

W81K04-17-R-0001 108 PWS Section 5, Attachment 4

Attachment 4 - Estimated Workload Data - IPSR, Item 8 - 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH-FT. CAMPBELL shows the quantity for base Year 1 is 737 and the quantity for Years 2 through 5 is

16,744. However, the quantity for each year for all other sites on this attachment are the same for all five years. QUESTION: Can the Government verify the Year 1 quantity for this MTF 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH - FT. CAMPBELL?

Year 1 is correct for MTF 0060 - Blanchfield

ACH - Fort Campbell.

W81K04-17-R-0001 109 PWS Section 5, Attachment 5

Attachment 5 - Estimated Workload Data - ED, Item 8 - 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH-FT. CAMPBELL shows the quantity for base Year 1 is 14,492 and the quantity for Years 2 through 5 is

59,289. However, the quantity for each year for all other sites on this attachment are the same for all five years. QUESTION: Can the Government verify the Year 1 quantity for this MTF 0060 -

BLANCHFIELD ACH - FT. CAMPBELL?

Year 1 is correct for MTF 0060 - Blanchfield

ACH - Fort Campbell.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112

Instructions to

Offerors, 1.

General

Instructions, k.

In Table 1.k. - Proposal Organization, there is a note ***80 for page count for Volume III. However, the note states: ***80 page limitation for Volume II, Technical Acceptability includes:

General Requirements, PWS Section 1; Sample Quality Control

Plan (Supplement A-1); Contractor-Furnished Materials, Equipment, and Qualifications, PWS Section 4; Sample Staffing

Chart (Supplement B-1); Sample Equipment List (Supplement B-

2); Specific Task Requirements, PWS Section 5; and Sample

Monthly Status Report (Supplement C-1). QUESTION: Is

Volume III, Technical Acceptability the only volume subject to the

80 page limitation, and not Volume II?

Yes, the referenced "***80 page limitation for

Volume II" has been corrected to "Volume III" below Table 1.k. in Amendment 0007 for subject paragraph.

W81K04-17-R-0001 114

Instructions to

Offerors, 2.

Proposal

Content, c.

Volume III (1)

(1) The offeror shall sanitize one (1) virus-free CD-R by excluding any information that would identify their company (i.e., name, address, telephone numbers, employees’ names, etc.). The sanitized Volume II proposal shall contain the Offeror’s

Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code on the top right corner of each page of each copy for identification purposes.

QUESTION: Is Volume III the only proposal Volume that needs to be sanitized? Please confirm that Contractor is not required to provide a "sanitized Volume II, and should only submit a sanitized

Volume III of the proposal.

The referenced "sanitized Volume II" has been corrected to "Volume III" in Amendment 0007 for subject paragraph.

W81K04-17-R-0001 115

Instructions to

Offerors, 2.

Proposal

Content, c.

Volume III (4)

The solicitation states: "(4) The technical proposal (Volume II) shall not make reference to price data". QUESTION: Pursuant to the Instructions and the Table 1.k. - Proposal Organization, Volume III is labeled " Factor 2- Technical Acceptability". Please confirm that Volume III is the technical proposal volume.

The referenced "Volume II" has been corrected to

"Volume III" in Amendment 0007 for the subject paragraph. Volume III is the technical proposal.

W81K04-17-R-0001 2 Anwser #4

When directed by the KO, CSPs shall complete all such training in a paid status (5-day average for training attendance) as part of the normal services required and billed under the contract. The contractor shall be responsible for contractor travel to MTF locations for unique training (e.g., Essentris, AHLTA, CHCS, CCE, and MHS Genesis) on a cost reimbursable (See PWS 1.16

Travel.) The answer to the follwoing question (c. Should salaries for the training be included in the price per record or will it be a pass through reimbursement?) was "Included in price per record".

QUESTION - How can the contractor build this cost into their per record price across all 4 encounter type CLINs not knowing if the

5 training will be directed by the Gov't POCs? Also with this being

LPTA and leaving this up to the bidders without clear direction could result in unfair competition or risk to the Gov't that a bidder does not adequately cover this in their bid price?

PWS 3.2.1 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 22 (4)

The determination of relative overall price for each anticipated contract will be etablished by totaling the proposed prices for each

CLIN for the entire five years. Q: SF 1449 Continuation sheet consist only of one set of CLINs for the whole contract period instead of 5 sets of CLINs for each year of the contract. Please clarify whether the contractor supposed to provide only one set of price for the whole 5 years contract period or a separate set of prices for each year of contract.

Instructions to Offerors, FAR Addendum 52.212-

1, Paragraph 2.b.(4)(a) has been revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001

Q/A Released by Gov on

May 23, 2017

Paragraph 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the

PWS

As of the QA released on May 23, 2017, the Government had not made a final determination as to whether or not every CSP would be required to travel for onsite training (per paragraph 3.2.1 of

PWS). Has the Government decided if it will allow the contractor to develop a training program where the trainer(s) would receive the onsite training and then pass that information along to all new

CSPs via remote training? Paragraph 3.2.2 indicates that this may be an option. Additionally, will CSPs with DoD experience who have already been trained on the use of these systems be required to attend the training again prior to performing services?

PWS 3.2.1 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 2.a.3

Vol. I Administrative includes a requirement to include

"completed provisions." A number of locations in the conformed solicitation can be interpreted to be provisions, e.g., pages 74, 82, 83, 110, etc. Can the government confirm exactly which pages in the RFP we are required to complete and insert for the Provisions section?

The following provisions in FAR Addendum

52.212-1 are required for submission: 52.209-2;

52.209-7; and 52.209-11. The following provision is required for submission in FAR Addendum

52.212-2: 52.212-3.

W81K04-17-R-0001 114 2.b.4

The stated requirements for Vol. II Price require completion of the data contained in the SF 1449 continuation pages (a.k.a. Schedule

B), which are at the CLIN level. Please confirm that a completed

Schedule B is the only requirement for Vol. II, i.e., the government does not require any other narrative or details, including an additional price breakdown such as FTE levels by location as required in Supplement B-1 for the Technical volume.

FAR Addendum, Paragraph 2.b.4 revised under

Amendment 0007.

W81K04-17-R-0001 115 2.c.i

The RFP instructions for Vol. III Technical Acceptability, Section

A / General Requirements, state that we are to "provide specific narrative details and/or descriptions of its technical approach with actual methods, processes, and procedures that demonstrate the offeror’s compliance and understanding of general requirements in

PWS Section 1." A number of subsections under PWS Section 1 contain information that can only be acknowledged versus requiring actual methods and processes, such as Background, Scope, etc. We believe that the PWS sections to address in Section

A are PWS 1.4 through 1.8 inclusive (PWS 1.9 - 1.10 are to be addressed in Supplement A-1). Please confirm that our Section A technical approach is limited to PWS sections 1.4 through 1.8.

FAR Addendum, Paragraph 2.c.(5)(a)(i) revised under Amendment 0007.

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 PWS 5.2.2

PWS 5.2.2. states that the contractor shall perform the following tasks: "Identifies the correct primary diagnosis and primary procedure based on physician's medical record documentation and established sequencing rules and applicable guidelines. Ensures proper sequencing of ICD-10-CM codes and CPT/HCPCS to obtain proper resource for outpatient records and ICD-10-PCS procedure codes. Identify additional diagnoses/procedures; i.e., complications, co-morbidities, therapeutic procedures and diagnostic procedures."

QUESTION: ICD-10-PCS codes are IP facility procedure codes reported on the SIDR record. Since this RFP is strictly for OP encounter types reported on the CAPER, can the government confirm whether we should or should not include information pertaining to ICD-10-PCS codes as stated in paragraph 5.2.2?

No ICD PCS codes

W81K04-17-R-0001 75 PWS 1.7.2.1.2

The PWS states: "The preparation and submission of the Tier 1 shall be at the expense of the Government, upon commencement of services. The contractor shall advise their employees that a positive report is needed as a condition of employment under this contract. If the results of the Tier 1 investigation result in derogatory findings, the Contractor shall be responsible for and pay all costs associated with the Tier 1 investigation. The

Government will not reimburse these costs." QUESTION: Can the government clarify what mechanism or process will be used for

"not reimbursing these costs"?

IAW Department of Treasury Procedures

W81K04-17-R-0001 Can you explain the difference between a Unsanitized CD-R and

Sanitized CD-R?

The sanitized CD-R does not contain any information that would identify an offeror's company IAW FAR Addendum 52.212-1, Paragraph 2.c.(1).

W81K04-17-R-0001 25 2.d.(1) - 2.d.(3)

The Government states that offerors are to submit past and/or current performance information for up to three contracts. Would the Government please advise what information we are required to submit for each contract?

See FAR Addendum 52.212-1, Paragraph

2.d.(1)(a) - (b).

W81K04-17-R-0001 25 2.d.(1) - 2.d.(3) Is a narrative summary required for the three past and/or current performance references submitted?

Yes, IAW FAR Addendum 52.212-1, Paragraph

2.d.(1)(b) Section 2 - Past and/or Current

Performance.

W81K04-17-R-0001 25 2.d.(3)

Can the Government confirm that the list of past and/or current performance customer reference points of contact in paragraph 3 are to be POCs only from the three past and/or current performance references described in paragraph 1?

Yes, IAW FAR Addendum 52.212-1, Paragraph

2.d.(2).

W81K04-17-R-0001 25 2.d.(1) - 2.d.(3)

Can the Government confirm that a maximum of three (3) past and/or current performance references can be submitted inclusive of prime contractor and major subcontractors? Meaning that no more than three references may be submitted no matter how many major subcontractors an offeror is proposing?

Yes, IAW FAR Addendum 52.212-1, Paragraph

2.d.(1).

W81K04-17-R-0001 25 2.d.(1)

Paragraph 1 states: "Only those subcontractors that meet the definition of a major subcontractor, as defined as performing more than 25% of any resultant contract arising from this solicitation, will be used in the offeror’s past and/or current performance assessment."

By more than 25%, does the Government mean that a subcontractor must perform at least 26% (twenty-six) to be considered a major subcontractor? Or would performing exactly

25% be considered major?

Defined in solicitaiton as "...performing more than

25% of any resultant contract arising from this solicitation…"

W81K04-17-R-0001

May we use Times New Roman font size 10 for tables, charts, and graphics?

Except for the reproduced sections of the solicitation document, the text shall be New Times

Roman and shall be no less than font size 12 IAW

52.212-1, Paragraph 1.m.(1).

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 1.1 Are legible tables, charts, graphics and figures excluded from the page limits of all volumes?

Yes, page limits are not applicable to legible tables, charts, graphs and figures used wherever practical to depict organizations, implementation schedules, plans, etc IAW 52.212-1, Paragraph 1.l.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 1.1 Are legible tables, charts, graphics and figures excluded from the page limits of the Technical Volume?

Yes, page limits are not applicable to legible tables, charts, graphs and figures used wherever practical to depict organizations, implementation schedules, plans, etc IAW 52.212-1, Paragraph 1.l.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 1.1

It seems that the Government will have a difficult time arriving at an accurate page count if some pages are a mix of text (included in page count) and figures (excluded from page count).

Since tables, charts, graphics, and figures are excluded from volume page limits, are offerors required to place all such items at the end of each volume in an appendix?

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 1.1

Is the sample staffing chart (Supplement B-1) excluded from the

Volume III page limit along with all other charts, graphics, tables, and figures?

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 2.b.3

Can the government please clarify what is being sought after with

"verify the accuracy of prices?" Is the government looking for a statement, or specific clauses?

Contractor shall ensure prices are accurate.

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 4.3.2

Can the governemnt please provide examples of "desktop management software for remote deployment and security patching?"

No, the government cannot prescribe a patch management, it is up to contractor because they are using their own equipment

W81K04-17-R-0001 112 1.1

Will the government please specify if they would like any additional information in the pricing volume other than Schedule

B CLINS and prices?

FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph 2.b revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 4.3.2 Will the government accept versions newer than Microsoft Office

2010 Standard on the required hardware?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 4.3.2

Can the government please specify what the requirements need to be met for the"desktop management software for remote deployment and security patching?"

No, the government cannot prescribe a patch management, it is up to contractor because they are using their own equipment

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 5.1

Can the government please clarify whether or not remote coders will have to visit the MTF they are servicing at any point throughout the contract.

No, they do not have to visit.

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 5.1 Are remote coders permitted to be located outside the state of the

MTF?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 of 150 5.1.2 Will the government please provide a standard for sampling size of

Audits the Auditor will be required to do?

No, offeror shall use best commercial standards and practices for technical approach.

W81K04-17-R-0001 93 of 150 5.2.9 Will the government please clarify if there is a system in place to collect data on charts for monthly summary reporting?

There will be multiple systems that will be used to pull data.

W81K04-17-R-0001 105 of 150 Attachment 2

In order to provide pricing per encounter to the government, will the government please specify whether we should base pricing off of the Workload data or what is in schedule B?

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) in Schedule

B were corrected; use numbers from CLINs.

W81K04-17-R-0001

Sample Staffing Chart: Given the federally mandated 56 hours of sick leave, should the proposed staffing FTE levels be based on 1864 hours per year instead of 1920 hours per year?

Yes, revised in Amendment 0007.

W81K04-17-R-0001

Can the Government consider increasing the total number of pages for the technical response given that staffing levels and quality control plan, etc., now must account for four (4) regions instead of the original three (3)? This will require some additional space.

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will the Government provide for IT-related help desk support, or will the contractor need to have its own IT Support?

No with exception to PWS 1.5.2.5.4.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will the Government provide for travel to the MTFs for obtaining

Security Clearances?

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001

Given the number of MTFs per RHC will the Government consider increasing the nuber of transition days from 30 to 60 to ensure a smooth contract start?

No, there is no transition. This is a new requirement.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Can the Government confirm if the flow of medical records from

MTFs is even across the year or does it vary significantly?

See Attachments 2 - 5, Estimated Workload.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will task orders from individual MTFs have their own start-up and ramp-up time?

Yes.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will the access to each MTF be similar or different? This is

Access to each MTF may be different.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will the coders be required to visit the MTFs they are supporting?

No

W81K04-17-R-0001 How will the communication of the coders with the providers be facilitated/supported?

Communications will be facilitated through MTF

CORs.

W81K04-17-R-0001 What is the expected number of initial Tos to be issued by region?

This will drive the initial cost, specifically on the overhead staffing of CM, ACM, Auditors, Quality Control, and Help Desk.

One task order for each region will be initially awarded.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Does the Government have a preference for span of support for each Auditor / QC Person? Industry standard is 20-25.

No, offeror shall use best commercial standards and practices for technical approach.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 Is the 5 days of training described in PWS paragraph 3.2 yearly?

PWS 3.2 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 Is the 5 days of training described in PWS paragraph 3.2 5 days in a row or can those days be spread out?

PWS 3.2 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2

Must every coder receive this training personally, or is it acceptable for individuals trained by the Government to then train contractor personnel? i.e. the Government would take the role of

"training the trainers"

PWS 3.2 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 Will the CSPs have to go to the MTF they're working for to receive the training, or can they go to other MTFs?

PWS 3.2 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 In cases where a CSP is working for more than one MTF, will that

CSP have to go to each MTF to receive training, or is receiving training at only one MTF sufficient?

PWS 3.2 revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 Can the Contractor bill all travel costs associated with this training to the Government?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 93 of 150 5.2.9

Will the Contract Manager and Contract Manager Alternate have access to Government systems to validate data for the Monthly

Status Report (MSR)?

Yes, they will have access.

W81K04-17-R-0001 For each MTF, will auditors or compliance managers have administrative rights to CCE so they can pull the records?

No, due to overloading the system

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 of 150 5.2.4.1

Can the coders send the incomplete information individually or does it have to be a cumulative, complete list provided the next day?

PWS 5.2.4.1 Revised.

W81K04-17-R-0001 93 of 150 5.2.4.4

PWS 5.2.4.4 states "The contractor shall provide a written list to the MTF-specific COR at least once per week of records coded, and by the fifth workday after the end of the month for reconciliation and billing."

Should this list contain the actual records coded, or is it only the number of records coded?

Numbers coded, and any outstanding records

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will contractors receive access to a current CCE user guide?

Yes, CCE User Guide can be furnished for reference and educational purposes.

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 of 150 5.2.3

Last sentence of PWS 5.2.3 states "Analyzes and verifies the reason for the encounter, including cause(s), primary diagnosis, primary procedure(s), performed and significant related conditions to assure record contents meet the CMS Physician Documentation

Guidelines (95 and 97), Joint Commission, and Army regulation requirements for the highest attainable quality. "

These regulations are Army specific. Will we also have to comply with regulations from any other branches of the military, since the

MTFs serve more than the Army?

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001 93 of 150 5.2.7 Is the date of assignment the date when the provider closed the record AND officially assigned it to the coder?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 of 150 5.2.1

Regarding all medical records, given the administrative work in

PWS 5.2.1, which is typically not included in industry standards, does the Government still expect productivity levels to be at industry standards?

Offeror shall use best commercial/industsry standards and practices to meet PWS requirements.

W81K04-17-R-0001 In what format are ED records received -- TSWIFT and/or directly from ESSENTRIS?

Essentric, or HAIMS

W81K04-17-R-0001 Regarding IPSR, is date of assignment the discharge date or the date of service?

Determined by MTF policy, yes the contractor can request a copy of the MTF policy

W81K04-17-R-0001 93 of 150 5.2.7 Can you clarify what date of assignment means in PWS 5.2.7?

Next day

W81K04-17-R-0001

For IPSRs, does coding the physician rounding include picking up the surgical procedures? (This can have a significant impact on productivity.)

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 Regarding APVs, IPSRs, and ED, how will the contractor receive the work list? (this will have a significant impact on productivity).

Each coder will be assigned their own MEPRS work list

W81K04-17-R-0001 Regarding IPSRs, are physician consoles included in the IPSR process?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 Is the contractor responsible for coding the consult or does the provider code the consult?

Provider

W81K04-17-R-0001 Is 99199 still used to code APVs?

Yes

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will MEDCOM provide any tools for auditing?

Yes, Army Leveling tool

W81K04-17-R-0001 Will we have access to CCE for productivity and work lists? If not, how would that be provided to us?

Yes, provided by COR at the site

W81K04-17-R-0001

Based on record type, how will we receive the work lists? The worklist should be provided to the contractor and discussed with the Contract Project Mgr on a weekly or as-needed basis.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 3.2.1 Regarding the 5-day training, will each person have to attend in person at the MTFs or can it be done remotely?

Paragraph 3.2.1 revised

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 of 150 3.2 What exactly does the training described in PWS 3.2 entail?

Paragraph 3.2.1 revised

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 of 150 5.2.4.1

PWS 5.2.4.1 states "On a daily basis, the contractor shall provide the MTF-specific COR with a report of encounters determined to have incomplete information."

Question: If there are no encounters determined to have incomplete information on a given day, must we still provide this report to the COR stating no incomplete information?

Yes, reporting will be required regardless of incomplete versus, complete.

W81K04-17-R-0001 Monthly Status Report: How will the Contractor receive the data necessary to complete the MSR?

MTF Coding Manager / PAD should be providing this information to the Contractor

W81K04-17-R-0001 34 52.217-8

52.217-9

(Page 34 of 150: 52.217-8 and 52.217-9) Please clarify the potential total duration of the contract. 52.217-8 refers to the option to extend 6 months. However, 52.217-9 limits the duration to a maximum of 60 months, including all options.

The contract duration is 60 months. The option to exercise FAR 52.217-8 to extend services is not included in the 60 month duration.

W81K04-17-R-0001 72 1.5.1.1

1.5.1.3

(page 72 of 150: 1.5.1.3.) Are these two recurring monthly maintenance windows included or excluded in the 99.6% uptime quoted in 1.5.1.1? If that time was excluded, would the inclusion have an impact on the uptime, and if so, how much? Will AVHE uptime/downtime data be availability to the contractor?

As stated in PWS 1.5.1.3, the AVHE maintenance is considered non-impactful and does not result in an outage at an AVHE site as all of the AVHE components (servers, etc.) are highly available so a single server can be patched while the other takes on the load. AVHE uptime/downtime is not available to the contractor.

W81K04-17-R-0001 73 1.5.2.5.3 (page 73 of 150: 1.5.2.5.3) Does Army MEDCOM have a preferred vendor and model number for the smart card reader?

No, see PWS 5.3.1.5.

W81K04-17-R-0001 74 1.6.1.9 (page 74: 1.6.1.9) Is the revalidation done virtually or in person?

Virtually.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 3.2.1

(Page 89: 3.2.1) Is there a limit on the number of participants who can participate in the MTF-specific onsite training? In the monthly

VTC training?

No limit, clear understanding that no CEU's.

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 5.2.2 (Page 92: 5.2.2) Is the E/M calculator required to be used or only in certain circumstances, and if so, when is its use appropriate?

Yes.

W81K04-17-R-0001 92 5.2.9.1.3

(Page 92: 5.2.9.1.3) If the Army is buying & being invoiced for services on a per record basis, why is reporting productivity required?

To ensure billables are being closed and to ensure that the records are being closed based on metric timelines.

W81K04-17-R-0001 95 5.3-QCIR

(Page 95: 5.3 QCIR) Is this a separate report or may it be combined with the MSR process?

PWS 1.9.3 removed

W81K04-17-R-0001 115 and 128 Addendum to

52.212

(Page 115: 2.c(5)(a)) Technical Acceptability -- Will the proposed technical approach to managing two, three, or four regional contracts affect the evaluation of the individual regional proposals? If so, how? For example, if the offeror bids on more than one regional contract, and the government deems the proposed approach to be acceptable in all areas except the management of multiple contracts, how will the evaluation of each individual regional proposal be affected?

FAR 52.212-1, 2.c.(5)(a)(i) revised. The offeror shall provide a technical approach that addresses how it intends to manage each regional contract.

W81K04-17-R-0001 7 2 Item 0001A - Request for CMR: As this is a non-personal contract will a CMR be needed? (question is for all regions)

Yes.

W81K04-17-R-0001 90 4.2.3.1

The Solicitation names SPECIFIC degrees. Can a Bachelors

Degree in ANY speciality and xx years of experience be acceptable?

No.

W81K04-17-R-0001 91 4.3.1

In other Remote Coding Contracts the Government has provided the Hardware and Software. As this contract states the

CONTRACTOR must provide the computers, will there be a rapid process for Government Acceptance of Contractor equipment on the Government Network? What will be the process and turnaround time for approval if so?

The contractor will have not access to nor be working on Government network; this is no requirement for "Government Acceptance of

Contractor equipment." The contractor must meet the requirements of contractor-furnished equipment identified in PWS Section 4.

Question 1:

Addendum to FAR 2.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items, October 2014, page 126 of 150 of the RFP is unclear and ambiguous and inconsistent in that it appears to confuse price realism and price reasonableness. This section should be revised, for the reasons set forth below, to clarify that price realism will be used as an evaluation factor.

Subparagraph 4a(1), Factor 1-price of this section states:

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques to determine reasonableness:

Adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness of the Price factor.

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness:

- comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items or services;

- comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices;

- comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through with market research; and/or, analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

Note: the three elements above are part of single paragraph but have been broken out for ease of reading.

The first sentence of this section states price reasonableness will be determined by “adequate price competition.” The second sentence goes on to list a number factors that will be used to determine reasonableness. Since the paragraph starts by stating reasonableness will be determined by “adequate price competition, the remainder of the paragraph is inconsistent.

It appears the second sentence seems to be discussing realism but misstating it as realism and that the RFP should be revised to put offerors on notice that price realism will also be an evaluation factor.

In this solicitation, realism is a key factor as the Service Contract

Act rates called for the in the solicitation identify “coders” as technicians (Page 37 of 150) showing rates ranging from $11.80 to

$23.52 The starting rate for technicians is substantially less than

1126W81K04-17-R-0001 The Government is not using price realism as an evaluation factor.

Question 1:

Addendum to FAR 2.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items, October 2014, page 126 of 150 of the RFP is unclear and ambiguous and inconsistent in that it appears to confuse price realism and price reasonableness. This section should be revised, for the reasons set forth below, to clarify that price realism will be used as an evaluation factor.

Subparagraph 4a(1), Factor 1-price of this section states:

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques to determine reasonableness:

Adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness of the Price factor.

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness:

- comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items or services;

- comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices;

- comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through with market research; and/or, analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the offeror.

Note: the three elements above are part of single paragraph but have been broken out for ease of reading.

The first sentence of this section states price reasonableness will be determined by “adequate price competition.” The second sentence goes on to list a number factors that will be used to determine reasonableness. Since the paragraph starts by stating reasonableness will be determined by “adequate price competition, the remainder of the paragraph is inconsistent.

It appears the second sentence seems to be discussing realism but misstating it as realism and that the RFP should be revised to put offerors on notice that price realism will also be an evaluation factor.

In this solicitation, realism is a key factor as the Service Contract

Act rates called for the in the solicitation identify “coders” as technicians (Page 37 of 150) showing rates ranging from $11.80 to

$23.52 The starting rate for technicians is substantially less than

1126W81K04-17-R-0001 The Government is not using price realism as an evaluation factor.

W81K04-17-R-0001 89 3.2.1

Section 3.2.1 indicates : The government may elect to provide unique government training to contract CSPs who are performing services under this contract. If the government elects to provide such training, the government will provide such training at no additional expense to the contractor or to the CSP. When directed by the KO, CSPs shall complete all such training in a paid status

(5-day average for training attendance) as part of the normal services required and billed under the contract. The contractor shall be responsible for contractor travel to MTF locations for unique training (e.g., Essentris, AHLTA, CHCS, CCE, and MHS

Genesis) on a cost reimbursable (See PWS 1.16 Travel.) The contractor may coordinate with the regional COR for CSP participation in the PASBA VTC monthly education sessions; the

Government will not provide Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for CSP participation in monthly education sessions.

Question 2: For pricing purposes and to ensure productivity requirements please advise to if the training consists of 2 travel days and 3 training days for the coder or is it 2 travel days and 5 training days. Will the training require all FTEs to travel to the training or will the training be a train the trainer scenario for MHS

Genesis? Will the training be offered regionally or be held in one geographical location?

PWS 3.2.1 revised