Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Independent Verification & Validation Services for Medicaid
Document #:  0A1180


Question:   Our firm uses an accrual based method of accounting is that a sufficient “equivalent” method?

Answer:   Yes, that is a sufficient “equivalent” method.

Date: 10/20/2016

Inquiry: 39786


Question:   Will the State provide IT equipment for contractor use in order to satisfy the information security requirements contained in Supplement 2 as it applies to the protection of State Data?

Answer:   The State will not provide IT equipment for Contractor use in order to satisfy the information security requirements contained in Supplement 2 as it applies to the protection of State Data.

Date: 10/20/2016

Inquiry: 39780


Question:   In Section 1.1 Services to Provided it states: “The Contractor will also provide a monthly current position report as specified by the State”. There is no additional definition of this report provided in the SOW. Can you clarify the purpose and content of this report?

Answer:   The purpose of this report is to provide a monthly update on the current position, from an IV&V perspective, of the MMIS project.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39760


Question:   Would the State consider a one week extension?

Answer:   The State is not willing to consider a one-week extension.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39736


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 39 in the Confidentiality section:

Paragraph Three: In line seven, after “agency,” insert “or as otherwise required by law or applicable professional standards,”

Answer:   The State will approve inserting, " or as otherwise required by law." However, the State is not willing to add "or by applicable professional standards."

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39764


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 39 in the Confidentiality section:

• Paragraph Three: In line seven, delete “immediately” and substitute “promptly”

• Paragraph Three: In line eight, after “effort to” insert “cooperate in the States’ attempt to”

• Paragraph Three: At the end of paragraph three add the following: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, or any other term in this Contract, Contractor may retain a single copy of all such confidential information in its work papers (which are the property of Contractor) in order to comply with applicable professional standards, provided that such information is maintained in accordance with the confidentiality and disclosure provisions contained herein. Information stored on routine back-up media for the purpose of disaster recovery will be subject to destruction in due course. Latent data such as deleted files and other non-logical data types, such as memory dumps, swap files, temporary files, printer spool files and metadata that can customarily only be retrieved by computer forensics experts and are generally considered inaccessible without the use of specialized tools and techniques will not be within the requirement for the return of confidential materials as set forth in this Contract.

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Confidentiality section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39764


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 39 in the Confidentiality section:

• In line one of paragraph two, insert “unauthorized” before “third”

• Paragraph Three: In line seven, before “and” insert “(unless prohibited by law from doing so)”

• In line one of paragraph five, after “subcontractors” insert “or vendors”

Answer:   Yes, the State is willing to make the changes listed for the Confidentiality section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39764


Question:   Is Offeror able to request changes to Attachment Ten: Data Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement in order to comply with Offeror’s existing approach and processes? If modifications are permitted, how does Offeror submit proposed changes?

Answer:   Offerors may propose changes to Attachment Ten by striking through the language to which it disagrees and clearly identifying the newly proposed language.

However, the State has the right to reject any Proposal if the offeror takes exception to the terms and conditions of this RFP, includes unacceptable assumptions or conditions in its Proposal, fails to comply with the procedure for participating in the RFP process, or fails to meet any requirement of this RFP.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39757


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 40 in the Insurance section:

• "Remove” Incident from the following sentence - (d) Professional Liability insurance covering all staff with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 per claim incident and $3,000,000 aggregate. If the Contractor’s policy is written on a “claims made” basis, the Contractor must provide the State with proof of continuous coverage at the time the policy is renewed. If for any reason the policy expires, or coverage is terminated, the Contractor must purchase and maintain “tail” coverage through the applicable statute of limitations.

• Add - but only to the extent Contractor solely caused the loss. - to the following sentence - The Contractor shall, for each policy required by this Contract, provide the State with 30-days prior written notice of cancellation, material change, or non-renewal, except a 10-days’ notice of non-payment of premium. And the Contractor’s Commercial General Liability must be primary over any other insurance coverage, but only to the extent Contractor solely caused the loss.

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Insurance section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39778


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 78 in the Article X section:

• In line three, insert “tangible or real” before “property”"

• In lines three and four, delete “or for any liability or claims under ARTICLE XI, Business Associate Requirements Under HIPAA, below, and/or any other time of claim”

• In line five, insert “negligence or willful misconduct of Awarded Vendor in the” before “performance.”

• In line seven, delete “ODM” and substitute “either party”

• In line eight, delete “ODM” and substitute “that party”

• Add a new fourth sentence: “Further, Awarded Vendor’s liability shall be subject to the Limitation of Liability Term in Part Four of the General Terms and Conditions contained in the parties’ contract.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Article X section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39776


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 76 in the Article III section:

• Section B: Add the following at the end: “Awarded Vendor may retain a single copy of all such data in its work papers in order to comply with applicable professional standards, provided that such information is maintained in accordance with the confidentiality and disclosure provisions contained herein. Information stored on routine back-up media for the purpose of disaster recovery will be subject to destruction in due course. Latent data such as deleted files and other non-logical data types, such as memory dumps, swap files, temporary files, printer spool files and metadata that can customarily only be retrieved by computer forensics experts and are generally considered inaccessible without the use of specialized tools and techniques will not be within the requirement for the return of data as set forth in this paragraph.”

• Section G: Add at the end: “, provided, however, that Awarded Vendor may disclose such information when required by law, legal process, or applicable professional standards.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Article III section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39775


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 45 in the Additional Terms and Conditions section:

• Active Spreadsheets and Electronic Files – Contractor may use models, electronic files, and spreadsheets with embedded macros created by Contractor to assist Contractor in providing the services under the Contract. If the State requests a working copy of any such model, electronic file or spreadsheet, Contractor may, at its discretion, make such item available to the State for the State’s internal use only and such item shall be considered a deliverable (subject to the requirements herein) provided that the State is responsible for obtaining the right to use any third party products necessary to use or operate such item. • State Vendors -- The State is aware that Contractor may be providing assurance, tax and/or advisory services to other actual or potential vendors of the State. Contractor will perform an internal search for any potential client conflicts relating to any of the State’s vendors identified by the State as having a role in connection with Contractor’s performance of this Contract. The State hereby agrees that a vendor’s status as a Contractor client does not impact Contractor’s engagement to perform this Contract. Contractor will advise the State of any conflicts of interest that could prevent it from performing the Contract. However, Contractor is a large firm that is engaged by new clients on a daily basis and as a result it cannot guarantee that, following its conflict search, an engagement for any other related party will not be accepted somewhere else in Contractor’s firm. Should any new information come to Contractor’s attention, Contractor will promptly inform the State. Contractor shall perform this Contract in accordance with applicable professional standards. • Disputes - The parties agree that any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to the Contract or the services provided there under shall first be submitted to non-binding mediation as a prerequisite to litigation. Mediation may take place at a location to be designated by the parties using the Mediation Procedures of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, with the exception of paragraph 2 (Selecting the Mediator). If, after good faith efforts, the parties are unable to resolve their dispute through mediation within 90 days after the issuance by one of the parties of a request for mediation, then the parties are free to pursue all other legal and equitable remedies available to them. Nothing herein shall preclude Contractor from filing a timely formal claim in accordance with applicable Ohio law provided, however, that Contractor shall, if permitted, seek a stay of said claim during the pendency of any mediation. Either party may seek to enforce any written agreement reached by the parties during mediation in any court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the Governing Law provision herein.

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Additional Terms and Conditions section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39773


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 45 in the Additional Terms and Conditions section:

• Third Party Usage – Notwithstanding any other term in this Contract, any advice, recommendations, information, Deliverables or other work product provided to the State under this Contract is for the sole use of the State, and is not intended to be, and may not be, relied upon by any third party, and all advice, recommendations, information, Deliverables, or other work product may be marked to so indicate. Except for disclosures that are required by law or that are expressly permitted by this Contract, the State will not disclose or permit access to such advice, recommendations, information, Deliverables, or other work product to any third party without the Contractor’s prior written consent. • Electronic Communications – Contractor may communicate with the State by electronic mail or otherwise transmit documents in electronic form during the course of this engagement. The State City accepts the inherent risks of these forms of communication (including the security risks of interception of or unauthorized access to such communications, the risks of corruption of such communications and the risks of viruses or other harmful devices). The State agrees that the final hardcopy version of a document, including a deliverable, or other written communication that Contractor transmits to the State shall supersede any previous versions transmitted electronically by Contractor to the State unless no such hard copy is transmitted.

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Additional Terms and Conditions section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39772


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 45 in the Additional Terms and Conditions section:

• Management Decisions – The State acknowledges and agrees that Contractor’s services may include advice and recommendations but all decisions in connection with the implementation of such advice and recommendations shall be the responsibility of, and made by, the State. The Contractor will not perform management functions or make management decisions for the State.

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the change listed for the Additional Terms and Conditions section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39771


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 42 in the Limitation of Liability Section:

• In line four, insert “annual” before “Not-To-Exceed”.

• In line five, after “Contractor” insert “under this Contract”

• In line six, at minimum, insert “gross” before “negligence” and “intentionally” before “tortuous.” As an alternative: delete “negligence” and substitute “recklessness” and inset “intentionally” before “tortuous.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Limitation of Liability section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39770


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 40 in the General Warranties section:

• In line one of paragraph three, delete “merchantability, and fitness”

• In line five of paragraph three delete “a breach of these warranties” and substitute “infringement by the Deliverables of third party intellectual property rights.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the General Warranties section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39769


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 39 in the Publicity section:

• At the end of the section add: “Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may lists this contract as a past performance reference when responding to third party solicitations for future work without obtaining any further approval from the State.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the change listed for the Publicity section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39766


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the contract language on page 38 in the Changes section:

• In line nine of paragraph two, after “section” insert “and the Contractor has agreed to the terms of a Change Order"

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the change listed for the Changes section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39765


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 34 in the Suspension and Termination section:

• At the end of paragraph four insert: “The Contractor shall not have any liability as a result of the State’s use of any partially completed or draft Deliverables or other materials that are furnished to it.”

• In line six of paragraph five, after “cause” insert “subject to the Limitation of Liability term in Part Four, below.”

• In line five of paragraph seven, after “performed” insert “that caused the suspension of the Project.”

Answer:   No, the State is not willing to make the changes listed for the Suspension and Termination section.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39763


Question:   Would the state be willing to modify the following contract language beginning on pg. 34 in the Replacement Personnel section:

• In line two of the second paragraph, after “reasons” insert “or because the person is unavailable due to illness, disability, leave of absence, personal emergency circumstances, resignation, or other circumstance beyond Contractor’s reasonable control.”

Answer:   Yes, the State is willing to make that change.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39762


Question:   In Attachment Seven, The terms Offeror, Contractor and Service Provider are used. Can you please define them.

Answer:   Amendment 3 was posted to the Procurements Website on October 19, 2016. Amendment 3 updated the Offeror Profile Forms and replaced the term "Offeror" with "Customer," where appropriate. Offerors must use these replacement forms in their responses.

For Attachment Seven, "Offeror" is defined as the bidder submitting a response to this RFP. "Contractor" and/or "Service Provider" refers to the company that performed work for the customer listed on that specific Offeror Profile Form.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39713


Question:   Attachment 7 - Offeror Profile: Please clarify some of the fields on the Offeror Profile form. A - Who is considered the "offeror" on this form - the bidder? The project being referenced? B - Who is supposed to be the contact name, title, phone, and email - the bidder? The project being referenced?

Answer:   Updated Response: Amendment 3 was posted to the Procurements Website on October 19, 2016. Amendment 3 updated the Offeror Profile Forms and replaced the term "Offeror" with "Customer," where appropriate. Offerors must use these replacement forms in their responses.

On the Offeror Profile Forms, the Customer is the company/agency for whom the work was performed. The project being referenced is the project performed for that company/agency that meets the requirement on that page. The contact information is the person whom the State can contact in order to verify that your firm has performed the work described.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39432


Question:   In Attachment One (Page 17) How do you define Meets and Exceed in evaluation?

Answer:   The State has defined the evaluation criteria in Attachment One as the standard by which the offeror's response will be evaluated. The evaluation team will determine to what degree the offeror's detailed response addresses the evaluation criteria. In general, “Meets” is defined by the evaluation team and typically indicates that the offeror-provided response includes sufficient evidence to demonstrate satisfying the state’s requirement completely. In general, “Exceeds”, also defined by the evaluation team, typically indicates that the offeror-provided response includes sufficient evidence to demonstrate going beyond satisfying the state’s requirement completely and is perceived as added value by the evaluation team. The Standard for applying Meets and Exceeds is set by the evaluation team during the evaluation process and is applied consistently across all proposals.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39713


Question:   In the cost workbook, why are there 12 occurrences for 2 of the items although one is an annual report?

Answer:   The number of occurrences are for evaluation purposes only.

Also, please note that the State posted Amendment #2 on October 17, 2016, which removes the word "annual" that was associated with the Milestone Reports. Offerors must use the amended Cost Workbook, when responding to this RFP.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39713


Question:   Would a bidder be precluded from award under this IV&V contract if they have, or are currently providing non-system integration support on the Eligibility and Enrollment System and/or the Pharmacy Benefit Management System?

Answer:   The IV&V Contractor will be providing the oversight of the Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) of any and all modules associated with the MMIS Project. If Provider Enrollment or Pharmacy Benefit Management are identified as a module of the MMIS Project, the Contractor will be providing the IV&V oversight of the DDI of that module. Per the conflict of interest language from CMS, “Any contractor (and its subcontractors) serving in the role of independent validation and verification (IV&V) service contractor/provider to the State MMIS project is prohibited from soliciting, proposing, or being awarded any project management, quality assurance, software design, development, or other manner of planning, design, development, or implementation phase activity on the MMIS project for which these IV&V services are being procured.”

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39723


Question:   Will the state be willing to negotiate future year pricing for both deliverable rates and the staff rate card prior to the commencement of field work for those years. e.g. 2018, 2019, etc.

Answer:   Supplement One, Section 2.3 states, “Offerors must provide a Rate Card, by project personnel role and experience level as well as Technical role and experience level that is binding over the Contract term.”

The State expects an offeror to provide its best pricing at the time of Proposal submission. An offeror must not submit a Proposal assuming that there will be an opportunity to negotiate any aspect of the Proposal, and any Proposal that is contingent on the State negotiating with the offeror may be rejected.

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39782


Question:   Is Offeror able to request changes to the Insurance section of Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions in order to comply with Offeror’s existing insurance program? If modifications are permitted, how does Offeror submit proposed changes?

Answer:   According to the RFP, "Offerors must include the entire content of Attachment Four as a single section in their proposal. Offerors must include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the offeror has read, understands and agrees to the General Terms and conditions contained in Attachment Four."

However, if the offeror feels that it cannot accept Attachment Four in its entirety, page one of the RFP states, "In lieu of taking exceptions to RFP requirements, including but not limited to terms and conditions, scope of work statements, service levels requirements, etc., or providing assumptions that may be unacceptable to the State, offerors are strongly encouraged to use the inquiry process in Part Three of the RFP."

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39755


Question:   What modifications, if any, may be made by Offeror to the terms and conditions of Attachment Four: General Terms and Conditions? If modifications are permitted, how does Offeror submit proposed changes?

Answer:   According to the RFP, "Offerors must include the entire content of Attachment Four as a single section in their proposal. Offerors must include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the offeror has read, understands and agrees to the General Terms and conditions contained in Attachment Four."

However, if the offeror feels that it cannot accept Attachment Four in its entirety, page one of the RFP states, "In lieu of taking exceptions to RFP requirements, including but not limited to terms and conditions, scope of work statements, service levels requirements, etc., or providing assumptions that may be unacceptable to the State, offerors are strongly encouraged to use the inquiry process in Part Three of the RFP."

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39754


Question:   Is Offeror able to request changes to Supplement 2: Architecture and Computing Standards, Security, Privacy and Data Handling Requirements in order to comply with Offeror’s existing approach and processes? If modifications are permitted, how does Offeror submit proposed changes?

Answer:   According to the RFP, "Offerors must include the entire content of Supplement 2 as a single section in their proposal. The offerors must include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the offeror has read, understands and agrees to the Requirements contained in Supplement 2."

However, if the offeror feels that it cannot accept Supplement Two in its entirety, page one of the RFP states, "In lieu of taking exceptions to RFP requirements, including but not limited to terms and conditions, scope of work statements, service levels requirements, etc., or providing assumptions that may be unacceptable to the State, offerors are strongly encouraged to use the inquiry process in Part Three of the RFP."

Date: 10/19/2016

Inquiry: 39759


Question:   Cost Workbook: Is the rate card solely for additional IDA projects?

Answer:   Yes, the rate card is solely for additional IDA projects.

Date: 10/18/2016

Inquiry: 39647


Question:   Cost Workbook: Will the contract renewals be based upon the rates included in the rate card?

Answer:   Supplement One, Section 2.3 states, “Offerors must provide a Rate Card, by project personnel role and experience level as well as Technical role and experience level that is binding over the Contract term.”

Date: 10/18/2016

Inquiry: 39646


Question:   Page 52, "MANDATORY REQUIREMENT #2: The offeror must have at least two (2) projects that demonstrate IV&V experience with state/federal partnerships within the past 60 months." Please define state/federal partnership

Answer:   A state/federal partnership is a partnership for a project where the offeror worked with both state and federal agencies or departments – for example, working with a state Medicaid agency and CMS.

Date: 10/18/2016

Inquiry: 39629


Question:   Page 2, Background, Will the IV&V Vendor perform oversight over the provider enrollment functionality of MITS?

Answer:   The IV&V Contractor will be providing the oversight of the Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) of any and all modules associated with the MMIS Project. If Provider Enrollment is identified as a module of the MMIS Project, the Contractor will be providing the oversight of the DDI of that module.

Date: 10/17/2016

Inquiry: 39622


Question:   Page 2, Background, Please clarify whether the Decision Support System is inclusive of program integrity functionality and analytics.

Answer:   At this time, the Decision Support System is not inclusive of Program integrity functionality and analytics.

Date: 10/17/2016

Inquiry: 39625


Question:   Page 2, Background, Will the IV&V Vendor perform oversight over the Decision Support System?

Answer:   The IV&V Contractor will be providing the oversight of the Design, Development, and Implementation (DDI) of any and all modules associated with the MMIS Project. If a Decision Support System (DSS) is identified as a module of the MMIS Project, the Contractor will be providing the oversight of the DDI of that module.

Date: 10/17/2016

Inquiry: 39624


Question:   Cost Workbook - The Rate Card includes an addition section titled “Offeror’s Response” after Position, Rate/hour, #of hours and Totals are calculated. Can the State clarify the expectations for the “Offeror’s Response” section?

Answer:   Offerors must list all labor categories and rates/hour for each category for the future IDA work. It is up to the offeror to apportion the 500 hours – and all 500 hours – among these labor categories as they anticipate IDA work to be completed. These positions and rates, but not the hour distribution, will be binding for the term of the contract.

The positions, rates, and distribution of 500 hours above the "Offeror's Response" were provided as an example only.

Date: 10/17/2016

Inquiry: 39605


Question:   Cost Workbook, Tab 1: The Number of Occurrences in Column C seems to be inconsistent with the deliverable description in Column A. Please verify that the Number of Occurrences is correct.

Answer:   Milestone reports should just read “Milestone Reports”, not “Milestone Reports (annual)”. The estimated number of occurrences is for evaluation purposes only.

Date: 10/14/2016

Inquiry: 39504


Question:   Page 23 of 81. Are “core business hours” the same as M-F from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST?

Answer:   Yes. However, these hours may change at ODM’s discretion.

Date: 10/14/2016

Inquiry: 39507


Question:   Cost Workbook, Tab 2: Are we able to list all labor categories for the future IDA work or just the list provided in the example? If so is it up to our discretion for apportioning the 500 hours among the labor categories or is the State anticipating a specific distribution methodology?

Answer:   Yes, offerors can list all labor categories for the future IDA work. It is up to the offeror to apportion the 500 hours – and all 500 hours – among these labor categories as they anticipate IDA work to be completed. These positions and rates, but not the hour distribution, will be binding for the term of the contract.

Date: 10/14/2016

Inquiry: 39506


Question:   Supplement 1 appears to be a detailed description of the scope of work. In order to meet the requested page limit of 24 pages, could the state please indicate which main headings or subsections should be replied to as indicated in the technical proposal instructions?

Answer:   In responding to Supplement One, offerors must ensure that all sections and subsections of Supplement One are addressed. Offerors can determine if they want to provide a response after each paragraph or after each major heading.

Date: 10/14/2016

Inquiry: 39496


Question:   The RFP indicates that “Chicago Systems Group (CSG) was selected by the state through a competitive RFP process (MMIS Procurement Support Services 0A1159) to assist in ODM’s procurement and adoption of a new MMIS.” CMS MECT V2.1 requires that the IV&V vendor “represents the interests of CMS, and as such, provides an independent and unbiased perspective on the progress of MMIS development and the integrity and functionality of the system”. As the IV&V vendor will be providing independent review of the state procurement process and the development and content of RFPs, can the State please confirm that CSG, the current MMIS procurement support vendor, will be precluded from conducting IV&V services as a result of this IV&V solicitation?

Answer:   Based on MECT and CMS Region V guidance, the MMIS Procurement Support Services vendor will be precluded from conducting IV&V services for the MMIS project.

Date: 10/13/2016

Inquiry: 39490


Question:   There are three templates in Attachment 7 that have no scoring based on the criteria given on pages 17 and 18 of the RFP. Should the offerer assume that no points will be awarded for knowledge of health and human services (p 67), existing business relationships in OH (p. 68), and HHS contracts in the last 5 years (p.69)?

Answer:   Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria describes the items that will be scored. Although no points will be awarded for the items on pages 67 through 69, offerors are still required to provide detailed responses for the requested information.

Date: 10/13/2016

Inquiry: 39489


Question:   In the Supplement 2, Section 3 - General State Security and Information Privacy Standards and Requirements, Contractor’s responsibility
“Provide vulnerability management services for the Contractor’s internal secure network connection, including supporting remediation for identified vulnerabilities as agreed. As a minimum, the Contractor shall provide vulnerability scan results to the State monthly.”
Given the IV&V vendor would not exchange sensitive data with the state’s data centers, please clarify the scope and depth of the vulnerability scan for the IV& V Contractor’s internal networks?

Answer:   Even though the exchange of sensitive data may not occur directly with the state's data centers, there still may pose a potential risk if state data resides on the Contractor's network.
The reviewing of the vulnerability reports will provide a level of assurance that vulnerabilities are appropriately managed and resolved.
The State defined frequency is weekly scans along with weekly and monthly reporting. The State utilizes 800-53 Rev 4 along with CIS Critical Security Controls. CSC 4.1 control states to run vulnerability scanning tools against all systems on a weekly or more frequent basis.
More frequency in scanning and reporting would provide a consistent posture of the risk.
However, evaluation will occur on a case by case basis depending on the level of initial risk identified to determine appropriate scanning and reporting requirements.

Date: 10/12/2016

Inquiry: 39417


Question:   With reference to the question about "Conflict of Interest Language" page 22, your answer only provide clarification about the nature of work. My question is who will be precluded for bidding, if they are providing such services, prime vendor or named partner company or subcontractor or an individual? Please clarify.

Answer:   The Conflict of Interest Language in the RFP is from the CMS MECT and states (emphasis added) “Any contractor (and its subcontractors) serving in the role of independent validation and verification (IV&V) service contractor/provider to the State MMIS project is prohibited from soliciting, proposing, or being awarded any project management, quality assurance, software design, development, or other manner or planning, design, development, or implementation phase activity on the MMIS project for which these IV&V services are being procured.”

Date: 10/12/2016

Inquiry: 39447


Question:   Can you please advise when the Medicaid Information Technology Architecture (MITA) 3.0 Tracking System project will move forward? How much longer do you expect the evaluations of the RFI #ODMR16171015 responses to take?

Answer:   The inquiry process is available to ask questions regarding the specific RFP that has been released. Questions regarding other projects should be handled through a request for information from the Ohio Department of Medicaid.

Date: 10/12/2016

Inquiry: 39444


Question:   What are the 7 modules that will be procured as part of the MMIS project? Can you provide a brief description of what each module will do? Will one vendor provide all 7 or will those be separately procured? Will RFPs be released to procure the modules and if so, when do you expect those to be released?

Answer:   ODM is still in the planning phase of developing a procurement strategy for the MMIS project. While some modules have been identified as potential needs, nothing has been finalized. The approach of the MMIS project is “modular,” so the expectation is that there will be different vendors for each module(s). RFPs will be issued for each potential module and the timeline of these RFPs being released is still to be determined.

Date: 10/12/2016

Inquiry: 39443


Question:   Would the state consider a 2 week extension on the due date?

Answer:   The State will not consider a two week extension to the due date.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39411


Question:   Conflict of Interest Language, page 22, states that Any contractor (and its subcontractors), does it mean named subcontractor or any subcontractor who are providing IV&V service to state of Ohio? Please clarify Thanks

Answer:   This language refers to any IV&V work on the MMIS project and any other project within the department [ODM] that may interact with or otherwise provide services to the MMIS project or to the department [ODM] during the full term of this Contract.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39406


Question:   Section 1.5 - Dashboard Reporting: In the release notes for MECT 2.1 CMS guidance it says “Removed reference to CMS dashboard.” Does this negate the requirements in the RFP?

Answer:   The State does not feel that this negates the RFP requirements at this time.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39390


Question:   Page 2 - Part One (Executive Summary): Does DAS expect the IV&V vendor to provide any oversight or other activities related specific to the Eligibility and Enrollment System (“Ohio Benefits”) and the Decision Support System?

Answer:   The State expects the IV&V Contractor to provide IV&V services for the entire MMIS replacement project.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39389


Question:   Cost Workbook: Do you anticipate each individual CMS progress report to include assessments of multiple projects/vendors, or separate progress reports for each project/vendor?

Answer:   The State anticipates that all Periodic progress reports will assess all in-progress modules while Milestone reports will be module specific. However, if multiple modules will be released together then these modules may be included in one Milestone report.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39388


Question:   Cost Workbook: How many potential vendors/projects do you anticipate will be involved in the MMIS replacement project?

Answer:   At this time, the State estimates that there will be at least 7 modules included in the MMIS replacement project.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39387


Question:   Would the state accept a USB thumb drive instead of a CD as part of the submission?

Answer:   Yes, the state accept a USB thumb drive instead of a CD as part of the submission.

Date: 10/11/2016

Inquiry: 39412


Question:   Offeror Organization Overview - Item 4 (page 26): This requirement states that proposals must include all HHS contracts in the last 5 years. Would DAS be willing to revise this requirement to limit this list to only those HHS contracts which are similar in scope to this RFP (i.e., IV&V contracts, MMIS contracts, etc.)?

Answer:   Yes, offerors can limit this list to include HHS contracts which are similar in scope to this RFP (e.g. IV&V and MMIS Contracts).

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39355


Question:   Staffing Capabilities (page 27): The first paragraph states that “proposed staff must have IV&V experience and have performed IV&V on previous State and/or federal projects.” Does this requirement apply to all proposed staff, or only those the Bidder would consider key staff?

Answer:   This requirement applies to all proposed staff.

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39356


Question:   Proposed Solution - Supplement 1 Response (page 28): Can DAS please explain in more detail how the response to this section should be laid out? Are Bidders required to provide a response after each paragraph? After each major heading?

Answer:   Offerors can determine if they want to provide a response after each paragraph or after each major heading.

However, in responding to Supplement One, offerors must ensure that all sections and subsections of Supplement One are addressed.

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39358


Question:   Reference: Pages 50 – 69, Attachment 7: What is the page limit for Attachment 7 in its entirety?

Answer:   There are no page limits for Attachment 7.

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39348


Question:   How is an offeror’s technical approach being evaluated? The scored criteria appears to be based on experience only.

Answer:   The offeror's technical response will be evaluated as defined in the Mandatory and Scored Criteria Evaluation Table in Attachment One.

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39347


Question:   Reference: Page 17, Attachment 1, Evaluation Criteria
The highest point total for the technical proposal is 800 points. However, the maximum total points according to the table is 595 (“weight” x “exceeds points”). How is the State totaling up to 800 points?

Answer:   Once all of the technical points have been determined for each offeror, they will be plugged into the formula described in the RFP:

Technical Proposal Points = (Offeror’s Technical Proposal Points/Highest Number of Technical Proposal Points Obtained) x 800

Example: If the highest-ranking response received 100 total points, its final score would be calculated in the following manner: (100/100)*800 = 800

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39347


Question:   Reference Page 24, Attachment Three: What is the page limit to the offeror’s response to Supplement 1? The RFP states “Offerors are required to page limit their responses to Supplement 1 and Supplement 2 to be no longer than three times the State provided page count for Supplement 1 and 2.” However, the example provided only takes Supplement 1 into consideration.

Answer:   Since Supplement One is 8 pages in length, the page limit for Supplement One is 24 pages.

The RFP states, "The offerors must include a statement at the beginning of the section indicating that the offeror has read, understands and agrees to the Requirements contained in Supplement 2." Therefore the offeror does not have to address the sections in Supplement 2.

Date: 10/5/2016

Inquiry: 39345


Question:   Is there an incumbent to the IV&V services being solicited? If so, who is the incumbent?

Answer:   There is no incumbent for this work.

Date: 10/4/2016

Inquiry: 39318


Question:   Independent Verification & Validation is one of the awarded Categories within the DBITS contract. Could you please let us know the reason behind not using DBITS contract for this need?

Answer:   The State determined that DBITS was not the appropriate vehicle for this procurement because the future work for various modules has not been determined. The current RFP will be a combination of deliverables and time and materials work, so DBITS would not have qualified. DBITS was set up for fixed-price deliverable based work that has been defined by an agency.

Date: 9/27/2016

Inquiry: 39289


back

Inquiry period ended:  10/19/2016 8:00:00 AM