Opportunity Detail

Questions and Answers

Advanced Data Analytics Tool (ADAT)
Document #:  0A1260


Question:   1. With regard to requirement ADAT-010.000.065, does the State expect the ADAT solution to propose its own API gateway or integrate with States existing setup/Gateway? 2. With regard to requirement OMES-120.010.010, can the State confirm if this requirement is about the auditing capabilities to track user actions? Or is it about having an exclusive document storage or collaboration tool offered as part of solution? 3. With regard to requirement OMES-130.000.002, will the ADAT solution directly access EDW to pull data in the defined format? Or will the extract generation be managed by EDW and orchestrated by SI via SFTP?

Answer:   "1) The ADAT solution will be accessing the EDW through the System Integrator and work with that contractor to access its needed information. 2) Yes. 3) Generally, the information within the ADAT solution should mimic what exists within the EDW. However, if the proposed Solution (a COTS product) requires the information in a different format, these differences will need to be addressed to the satisfaction of both."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82860


Question:   Question 1 - Document 0A1260, page 7, section 2.3 Key roles. Question - RFP requires PMI Certified Project manager. Are other Project Management certifications, such as PAHM, acceptable? Question 2 - Section 3.3.2.6, document 0A1260, page 10, -- Is Fedramp a non negotiable requirement for SaaS partner? Can other certifications such as HIPAA, Hitrust, NIST certified and Soc -II be substitute and deemed sufficient. If not, is there a grace period allowed for Fedramp compliance following bid award?

Answer:   "Question 1: If the Offeror wishes to propose vendor wishes to provide candidates with alternative certifications, that they would need to demonstrate specifically how these alternative certifications either meet or exceed the PMI certifications that are stated in the RFP. If concerns are noted, a grace period may be granted. Question 2: FedRAMP is not a requirement. The requirement is that the proposed solution is compliant with NIST 800-53 Current version (moderate baseline), MARS-E 2.0, and HIPAA. Alternate certifications which meet these requirements are acceptable."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82859


Question:   Base RFP - Page 40 Table 2 – Scoring assigned to the Technical Proposal and the Cost Proposal Since the incumbent vendor will have little to no implementation cost awarding 50 points for the lowest implementation cost seems to give the incumbent vendor an advantage, will the State please consider excluding the implementation cost from the cost evaluation? In the alternative, will the State consider evaluating total cost instead of evaluating the implementation cost separately?

Answer:   The functionality of the proposed Solutions account for 75% of the evaluation and Maintenance & Operational Cost is 20%. If Proposals are close in scores, the top 2 Offerors will be brought in for presentation of their proposed solution. Base RFP page 26.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82858


Question:   Section 1.2 page 6 &7 Provide a complete listing of the current data feeds (by MCP, by system) that will be continued from current MCPs. Indicate the number of data feeds that support the Behavioral Health carveout. Provide additional data feeds that are being considered under the new integrated health programs Section 1.1 page 4 Provide the number of analyst users that are using the system for adhoc queries, a profile of their average utilization by number of queries and CPU secs consumed

Answer:   "The Solution should be sourcing its information from the EDW through the System Integrator. Accessing information directly from a Tradin Partner is not expected. If information necessary for the proposed COTS solution requires access to data not presently in the EDW, ODM will work with the Contractor to find the best way to have access to that data (either ingest it into the EDW or a temporary pull from nother location (not desired)). Please see p. 47 of Supplement One. Up to 60 analysts at one time."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82857


Question:   Page 22 5.4 User Interface OMES-130.020.050 Will the Department please quantify the number of files and volume of records in the existing EDW that will be pushed to the ADAT solution?

Answer:   Please see LOADHHS_TABLES_COLUMNS_DATATYPES_2021January.xlsx for the list of files currently received by the QDSS. The volume is as indicated in the Base RFP.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82856


Question:   Can you share the estimated scope of the services required to create the analytics reports or adjustments needed? Also, do you anticipate any additional services needed in addition to the services for the transition plan?

Answer:   The scope is defined by the RFP. COTS products meeting the requested functionality would indicate whether additional services are needed.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82855


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.3 Data Management, OMES-130.020.050, p. 22 How many data sources does the State anticipate will be in scope for this project? Are those sources exclusively claims or are other types of data sources in scope? How many unique tables/files/extracts per source? How many years of historical data will be in scope?"

Answer:   The source is expected to be the EDW. The Solution should not be accessing files from other sources. The EDW will hold up to 10 years of information (claims).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82854


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.1 Systems and Application, OMES-100.050.070, p. 30 Will the state please indicate what are the defined SLAs for the different priorities?"

Answer:   Please see page 44 of the Base RFP.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82853


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.5 Security, OMES-150.000.110, p. 30. Will there be files sent directly from the IRS, SSA, or from the client containing Tax Forms of Individuals?"

Answer:   The source is expected to be the EDW. The Solution should not be accessing files from other sources.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82852


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.5 Security, OMES-140.020.140, p. 27. This requirement references NIST SP 800-053. What section of 800-53 is the state referring to in regards to the online reporting section?"

Answer:   The Offeror's solution is required to provide a system's dashboard including critical security elements that demonstrate compliance with NIST 800-53.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82851


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.2 Tech Services, OMES-120.010.020, p. 20. Will the State provide an explicit list of all the electronic attachments the  system  is supposed to attach, index and retrieve? e.g. Correspondence (what kind of correspondence are these), Claims Attachments (supporting Medical Records), Analytics Reports, DW reports, Eligibility Reports, Prior Authorization Approvals, Audit Logs, Queries, etc.?

Answer:   The user and their records being referenced in this Solution are the analysts and their access to the Solution. In other words, their reports, code, etc, needs to be saved. The overall requirement takes on different characteristics based upon which part of the OMES Solution is being addressed. Prior Authorizations, for example, live in a different part of the OMES and would not be accessible to the analysts through this solution.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82850


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.9 OME Integration, OMES-110.010.070, p. 37. Will the State please clarify whether the time frame is related to a specific range of time (i.e., normal business hours) or within a threshold of time (i.e., less than 2 minutes to complete)?"

Answer:   The requirement referenced is regarding "within a threshold of time".

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82849


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.9 OME Integration, OMES-110.010.070, p. 37. Will the State please describe a use case and/or specific example of what is intended by “invoke a service.”"

Answer:   "Inasmuch as the OME System is a multi-modular system, the various parts may need to 'speak' to each other for operational purposes. It is not likely that the Solution sought in the RFP will be needed for such a transactional purpose. However, since the system will be connected through the System Integrator, such a possibility may occur. If such a transaction is necessary, ODM with work with the Contractor so that the system works together in a coordinated manner. The System Integrator currently is supporting or is planned to support web-service calls, publish subscribe messaged queues, and Secure File Transfers. The Offerors proposed solution must support those mechanisms."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82848


Question:   "RFP References: Base RFP Section 6.1, Table 2, Scoring Assigned to Technical Proposal, Global Criterion #3 – Implementation Requirements, “Template A, Offeror’s Ohio Presence,” p. 38 and Template A, Offeror’s profile, Section 2.4 Existing Business Relationships with Ohio. Will ODM please confirm that Template A, Section 2.4 Existing Business Relationships with Ohio will be part of the evaluation with a value of 15 points?"

Answer:   The RFP is seeking information as to whether the Offeror has a business presence within the State of Ohio. Please see Base RFP p. 55 for details. Yes, this information should be included in the Offeror Profile / Template A for consideration in the evaluation (worth 15 points).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82847


Question:   "Value-Added Services RFP Reference: Base RFP document, Section 6.3, Attachment Three: Requirements for Proposals, “Proposal Requirements and Format,” p. 53 The RFP states “The offeror must describe in detail any Value-Added Services included in their Proposal above the minimum requirements.” Will ODM please indicate in which Tab/Section the offeror should place this content?

Answer:   Please place as indicated in Supplement One, Section 4.3.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82846


Question:   "RFP References: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Table of Tables, p. 3 Two tables on this list are missing from the Scope of Work document, Table 19, ""CMS Certification Requirements"" and Table 22 ""Compliance Requirements."" Will ODM please confirm these table are not intended to be a part of this RFP?"

Answer:   This element was inadvertently not removed. Respondents will not need to submit information in response to this requirement.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82845


Question:   "RFP References: Base RFP Section 6.1, Table 2, Scoring Assigned to Technical Proposal, Global Criterion #4 - Maintenance and Operations Requirements, Compliance” p. 38 and Supplement One – Scope of Work, Section 7, Global Criterion #4 - Maintenance and Operations Requirements, pp 49-56. The Base RFP on page 38 lists ""Compliance"" as a scored component of Global Criterion #4 with a value of 20 points. However, the Scope of Work document does not include ""Compliance"" as a subsection of Section 7. Will ODM please provide clarification around this seeming conflict?"

Answer:   This element was inadvertently not removed. Respondents will not need to submit information in response to this requirement.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82844


Question:   "RFP References: Base RFP Section 6.1, Table 2, Scoring Assigned to Technical Proposal, Global Criterion #3 – Implementation Requirements, “Template A, Offeror’s Ohio Presence,” p. 38 and Supplement One – Scope of Work, Section 6.4 CMS Certification, p. 49. Will ODM please confirm that 6.4 CMS Certification is not a requirement of this RFP and will therefore not be evaluated? "

Answer:   This element was inadvertently not removed. Respondents will not need to submit information in response to this requirement.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82843


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One, page 52, requirement EDI-350.000.090 states “The Contractor must provide helpdesk hours of operation that meet ODM business needs, consistent with State-defined SLAs.” As this is an EDI labeled requirement, and as there are no other helpdesk requirements in the ADAT RFP, can the state please confirm that this was an EDI RFP requirement only? Will ODM please confirm that the ADAT contractor is to provide technical support as outlined in the SLAs, however an ADAT helpdesk is not required? "

Answer:   The RFP is for a COTS solution. As indicated within the RFP, a future request or RFP may be issued for support services, which could include a more robust helpdesk. The nature of that request will be framed by the Solution selected. However, it would still be expected that, when system issues occur, that ODM has a reliable point of contract to assist in resolving the issue.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82842


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 4.2 Claims & Eligibility, ADAT-020.000.110, p. 14 Will the State please clarify how the system should be accessible? "

Answer:   Analysts should have access to information through the various tools that they use. To limit extractions and other time-consuming activities, the underlying information within the Solution should also be available, if needed. Presently, SAS, SQL Developer and COGNOS are tools that are used.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82841


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 4.2 Claims & Eligibility, ADAT-020.000.110, p. 13 Will the State please define what you mean by “must be accessible” to other systems? "

Answer:   Analysts should have access to information through the various tools that they use. To limit extractions and other time-consuming activities, the underlying information within the Solution should also be available, if needed.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82840


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 4.3 Clinical and Health Metrics, ADAT-030.000.010, p. 15 Will ODM please indicate if the State is ingesting clinical data today? Or is this a planned future capability? "

Answer:   This is a desired future state.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82839


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, Section 5.2, p. 20 OMES-120.020.010. Will the State please provide a list of basic or detailed requirements the Workflow Management functionality should have in order to support ADATs business functions and operations ?"

Answer:   This functionality is based upon the Solution providing data / reports to the state. It is probable that the importation of data from the EDW into the Solution would be monitored. The Solution should indicate how it monitors the successful transition of data, or other such activities, to assure the Solution is operational and up-to-date.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82838


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement One - Scope of Work, p. 3, Table of Tables, Table 19 - CMS Certification Requirements (listed as being on page 65 of RFP Supplement One) and Table 22 (listed as being on page 77 of RFP Supplement One). Will ODM please confirm these tables are not a part of this RFP #0A1260?"

Answer:   Compliance will be a future part of CMS Certification. This solution does not fully meet those requirements. This element was not removed (oversight). Respondants will not need to submit information here. All will receive maximum points for this section.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82837


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.9 - OME Integration: Page 37 OMES-110.010.110: Can the State please provide further explanation of what is meant by “configurable tasks” in this requirement as pertaining to the ADAT solution?

Answer:   Configurable tasks reference automated processes which must be supported by the Offeror's solution. Since the solution sought is a COTS solution, functionality changes should be easily configurable through the solution to meet customer needs (solution should be configuration-based as opposed to customizing the application).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82833


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.9 - OME Integration: Page 37 OMES-110.010.080: Can the State please give an example of what is meant by “invoking services in a variety of protocols” in this requirement as pertaining to the ADAT solution?

Answer:   "Inasmuch as the OME System is a multi-modular system, the various parts may need to 'speak' to each other for operational purposes. It is not likely that the Solution sought in the RFP will be needed for such a transactional purpose. However, since the system will be connected through the System Integrator, such a possibility may occur. If such a transaction is necessary, ODM with work with the Contractor so that the system works together in a coordinated manner. The System Integrator currently is supporting or is planned to support web-service calls, publish subscribe messaged queues, and Secure File Transfers. The Offerors proposed solution must support those mechanisms."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82832


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.9 - OME Integration: Page 37 OMES-110.010.070: Can the State please give an example of what is meant by “service” in this requirement and what is meant by “locally or remotely” in this requirement as pertaining to the ADAT solution?

Answer:   "Inasmuch as the OME System is a multi-modular system, the various parts may need to 'speak' to each other for operational purposes. It is not likely that the Solution sought in the RFP will be needed for such a transactional purpose. However, since the system will be connected through the System Integrator, such a possibility may occur. If such a transaction is necessary, ODM with work with the Contractor so that the system works together in a coordinated manner. The System Integrator currently is supporting or is planned to support web-service calls, publish subscribe messaged queues, and Secure File Transfers. The Offeror's proposed solution must support those mechanisms."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82831


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.2 - Technical Services: Page 20 OMES-120.010.010: Are there any files besides reports and data extracts that the State has in mind as to store, index and retrieve as part of the ADAT solution?

Answer:   Nothing additional to what is listed in the RFP.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82830


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.2 - Technical Services: Page 20 OMES-120.000.020: Is the State asking that our solution invoke the States Single Sign-On (SSO) system for authentication and group/role assignment?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82829


Question:   CLARIFICATION Supplement 1: Section 5.3 - Data Management Page 21 OMES-130.010.020: Does the State want to review audit log reports or the audit logs themselves? Can the State please provide the ODM-IPP 4501 Records Management policy referenced in this requirement?

Answer:   All new information systems being implemented by the State of Ohio require an audit log, to provide assurance to state citizens that their personal information is secured. ODM will review audit reports for security review, but must be abe to access audit logs upon request. Please see file "ODM IPP 4501.pdf".

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82828


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.9 - OME Integration: Page 36 EDI-140.000.020 Is the term “Trading Partners” applicable to this RFP? If so, how?

Answer:   The Solution should be sourcing its information from the EDW through the System Integrator. Accessing information directly from a Tradin Partner is not expected. Again, is information necessary for the proposed COTS solution requires access to data not presently in the EDW, ODM will work with the Contractor to find the best way to have access to that data (either ingest it into the EDW or a temporary pull from another location (not desired)).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82827


Question:   Supplement One: The solution must provide real-time notifications when State-defined system thresholds are met and communicate the findings via an agreed upon method and frequency. Q: Does ODM have examples of the thresholds they are tracking? What is the desired frequency of the notifications?

Answer:   These parameters will be determined between Contractor and Agency. The principle is that the Solution should align with the source of truth (EDW) and when errors occur (e.g. an incomplete load) that the issue is noted and communicated.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82826


Question:   Supplement One: The solution must provide a Managed Care Summary report upon request. Q: Does ODM have redacted sample reports of managed care summaries for reference?

Answer:   Requested report is unavailable. However, this is would be simple basic informational report (e.g. number of clients by rate cell, county, demogaphics, total payments, number of claims received, etc.)

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82825


Question:   Supplement One: The ‘quick access’ solution must include natural language processing queries (e.g. ‘Google-like’ searching parameters). Q: Is this in reference to measures and dimensions? Or is ODM asking for a search function on the entire solution?

Answer:   This is primarily in reference to the "Pre-Aggregated Reporting" noted on page 10 in the Base RFP and Section 4.1 in Supplement One. If the entire solution is able to be searched in this manner, the better (but not expected).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82824


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 6.2 - Testing: Page 46 OMES-220.050.020 The Contractor must perform Operational Readiness Testing that includes a test of actual data processing in a fully operational environment. End-to-end MMIS functionality must be fully tested, including other State-identified system component Could the State clarify what they mean with regard to MMIS functionality for this RFP?

Answer:   In this case, the ingestion of data is from the EDW. The Solution should match the source system. Thus, Operational Readiness is the validation of the Solution being consistent with the source data (EDW).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82823


Question:   Supplement One: The solution must be updated weekly to support near real-time reporting. Q: Is ODM flexible on the refresh timing? Carriers typically do not send weekly claims files, rather monthly.

Answer:   Presently, the EDW loads weekly (processed transactions from the previous week). If a Carrier submits monthly, the files would be ingested during the week received.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82822


Question:   ARTICLE IX - LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, P 172, main RFP Document. Is there a dollar amount associated with the limit of liability?

Answer:   There is no dollar limit on liability for claims under the Business Associate Agreement.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82821


Question:   Supplement One, p. 4 All analytic tools use the ODM Enterprise Data Warehouse for a ‘Single Source of Truth’. Q: Will ODM being sending aggregated data files directly from the DW?

Answer:   The EDW may be used to send aggregate files, if necessary, based upon the reporting function. However, it is unsure that this is needed within the scope of the RFP request.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82820


Question:   Supplement One, p. 4 - The Data Warehouse is designed to be ‘tool agnostic’ allowing multiple tools to produce the same, consistent result Q: What other tools would be accessing the DW?

Answer:   Presently SAS, SQL Developer and Cognos also can access the EDW.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82819


Question:   Do we need to send 2 separate flash drives in addition to the hard copies?

Answer:   Per page 18 of the RFP, "Proposal must be sealed and contain one (1) originally signed technical section and seven (7)additional copies of the technical section, and the package with the cost section also must be sealed and contain Two (2) complete copies of the cost section of the Proposal...Included in each sealed package, the Offeror also must provide an electronic “searchable” copy of everything contained within the package on a flash drive (portable storage device) in Microsoft Office (native format), Microsoft Word (native format), Microsoft Project (native format), Microsoft Excel (native format) and Adobe Acrobat format, as appropriate."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82818


Question:   Would ODM being interested in pricing for a longer term contract? 3 or 5 years?

Answer:   Please see Tab numbered 2 in the Cost Proposal Workbook. Pricing is requested for a total of six years.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82817


Question:   Does ODM have specific cloud vendors in mind (AWS, Azure, etc)?

Answer:   No, but the State does have existing relationships with AWS and Azure.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82816


Question:   General: Are vendors allowed to submit attachments to their responses?

Answer:   Additional materials may be submitted with proposals. Please be specific in where these materials are applied.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82815


Question:   Are there any encryption requirements for PHI such as member identifiable data? Does ODM have a specific encryption formula ready to be implemented?

Answer:   "The State of Ohio has defined encryption standards. Please see: https://das.ohio.gov/Portals/0/DASDivisions/InformationTechnology/IG/pdf/ITS-SEC-01.pdf?ver=HiKaRw_un4i6MddTIdpLlQ%3d%3d"

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82814


Question:   Are there limitations on operating systems and web browsers for end users?

Answer:   We require vendor applications to be able to support current versions (and previous 3 major versions) of Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and Safari.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82813


Question:   Supplement 1 Section 5.3 - Data Management: Page 21 OMES-130.010.020: Can the State please provide the ODM-IPP 4501 Records Management policy referenced in this requirement?

Answer:   Please see file "ODM IPP 4501.pdf".

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82812


Question:   Ohio MBE Certification. The MBE must maintain its certification throughout the term of the Contract, including any renewals. Failure to maintain such certification will be considered a breach of the Contract. Q: Will the contractor (Milliman) be penalized if the MBE fails to renew its certification during the life of the contract?

Answer:   The contractor is required to maintain their MBE requirements throughout the life of the contract. If a selected MBE loses certification, they would need to be replaced by an active certified MBE.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82811


Question:   Metric: ADAT Solution is reconciled 100% to control totals. Any and all discrepancies are resolved within 10 calendar days of the transfer of the weekly / monthly automated ADAT Solution tables. Q: Can ODM elaborate on the source of the control totals? Are these coming from the finance department? Or is ADAT reconciliation being measured against the source claims files?

Answer:   The EDW is the source of the control totals (i.e. the EDW and the Solution should match).

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82810


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 4.2 - Clinical & Health Metric: Page 14 Are these responses required?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82809


Question:   Organizations or vendors that consume data to support business functions include: Automated Health Systems (AHS), CareStar, CBOSS, Change Healthcare, International Business Machines, Health Management Systems (HMS) Q: Can ODM summarize how/if each organization will be involved in the project?

Answer:   The RFP is seeking to replace a product used internally. Those organizations doing work on behalf of ODM for other functions should not be affected.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82808


Question:   Managed Care Plans provide health administration services for 90% of the Ohio Medicaid population. Currently, the MCPs are: Aetna, Buckeye, CareSource, Molina, Paramount, United Q: Is ODM able to share any layouts from the carriers listed above?

Answer:   The data source for the solution is expected to be the EDW. If there are data needs that presently do not exist in the EDW that are necessary in the proposed COTS solution, ODM will work with the selected vendor to populate those elements into the EDW.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82807


Question:   Is the ODM project management group comprised of ODM staff? Or are there other vendors in the project management group?

Answer:   Other vendors assist ODM staff for project management.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82806


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.2 - Technical Services: Page 20 OMES-120.020.010: Can the State please provide a use case for Workflow Management in the context of ADAT?

Answer:   No workcases are presently available. However, this functionality is based upon the Solution providing data / reports to the state. It is probable that the importation of data from the EDW into the Solution would be monitored. The Solution should indicate how it monitors the successful transition of data, or other such activities, to assure the Solution is operational and up-to-date.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82805


Question:   Is there any source data reliance on the existing MMIS system?

Answer:   The source is expected to be the EDW.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82804


Question:   Which vendor does ODM currently use for HEDIS measures?

Answer:   Please see Inquiry #82724.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82803


Question:   Outside of the behavioral health redesign, are there specific measures and dimensions that ODM finds important?

Answer:   For the purposes of this RFP, no.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82802


Question:   “Integration of physical and behavioral healthcare and enhanced quality of care delivered to Ohioans through the Behavioral Health Redesign." Are there specific reporting needs or metrics ODM is looking to implement/customize?

Answer:   For the purposes of this RFP, no.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82801


Question:   Is MDS a required data source?

Answer:   The RFP is seeking a COTS solution. The solution is to analyze health care information, generally meaning enrollment and claims payment. However, additional information may be included into the EDW. If the offered product includes the utilization of MDS, the inclusion of that data will be considered.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82800


Question:   Is there an expectation that physicians will log into the proposed solution?

Answer:   No.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82799


Question:   Regarding Inquiry # 82726 Could the State confirm that wet signatures are not needed and vendors can use electronic signatures in place of wet signatures.

Answer:   That is correct. Electronic signatures or images of signatures may be used in place of wet signatures.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82797


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 6.2 - Testing: Page 42 OMES-220.000.040: Temporal testing is typically used to test claims and eligibility rules processing and may have been intended for EDI or claims processing in OMES. Should this requirement be removed from ADAT? If not, will the state describe how it intends for its testers to use time-shifted testing in the ADAT environment?

Answer:   The testing of the EDI will occur as a different process and can be removed from this RFP.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82796


Question:   Supplement 1: Section 5.1 - Systems and Application: Page 17 OMES-100.030.030: If the Trading Partner Management Requirements table referenced as Table 6 in the Table of Tables is not included in the Scope of Work, should the Trading Partner Management Plan be removed from this requirement?

Answer:   The Trading Partner Management Plan can be removed.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82795


Question:   Supplement 1: Scope of Work: Table of Tables: Page 3 The following tables are referenced but not included in the document: Table 1: Monthly EDI Transaction Volumes Table 6: Trading Partner Management Requirements Table 19: CMS Certification Requirements Table 22: Compliance Requirements Can the State provide these tables with their content or confirm that they are intentionally excluded?

Answer:   These three tables are intentionally excluded but inadvertently left on the Table of Tables.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82794


Question:   Supplement 1, Section 5.1 - Systems and Application: Page 19 OMES-100.040.110: What is meant by the term “transaction” in this context?

Answer:   In terms of this requirement, a transaction are the original and subsequent changes to a claim record.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82793


Question:   Supplement 1: Section: 3 - Requirement Response Instructions: Page 10 Should the Capability Assessment Response Values for the Optional Requirement Type be the same as those listed for the Functional Requirement Type?

Answer:   Yes, the same values can be used for both.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82791


Question:   Will the State please confirm that no response is necessary for Supplement Four – System Retirement and Transition Plan?

Answer:   The only response necessary is confirmation of acceptance of the Supplement. Per page 1 of Supplement Four, "The Contractor must acknowledge that the component services provided must be continued without interruption. The Contractor must also acknowledge that, upon termination of the Contractors’ Contract, the Contractor must work with ODM to successfully transition to the successor and must agree to the specific transition tasks outlined in this document."

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82787


Question:   Template A - Offeror Profile - Is the subcontractor overview table required for an MBE business that is already certified by the State?

Answer:   All MBE businesses are already required to be certified by the State.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82786


Question:   1) With regard to Requirement OMES 120.020.010 in Supplement 1, the RFP states the vendor must provide Workflow Management functionality to support the modules business functions and operations as required by the State. Can the State please share some use cases for the workflow management functionality? 2) It appears there is a Compliance response section missing from Supplement One, based on scoring criteria for Section 7 on page 38 of the RFP and the Supplement One Table of Tables on page 3 of Supplement One, which lists Table 22 as Compliance Requirements. Will the State please provide the compliance requirements for this section? Alternatively, if it was removed intentionally, we respectfully ask the State to recalculate its proposed scoring in Table 2 on pages 36-38 in the primary RFP document.

Answer:   1) Unfortunately, no workcases are presently available. However, this functionality is based upon the Solution providing data / reports to the state. It is probable that the importation of data from the EDW into the Solution would be monitored. The Solution should indicate how it monitors the successful transition of data, or other such activities, to assure the Solution is operational and up-to-date. 2) Compliance will be a future part of CMS Certification. This solution does not fully meet those requirements. This element was not removed (oversight). Respondants will not need to submit information here. All will receive maximum points for this section.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82782


Question:   General Is renewal of the contract at the States sole discretion or is it mutual?

Answer:   The State may renew this Contract for up to two (2) additional two (2) year term(s), subject to and contingent on the discretionary decision of the Ohio General Assembly to appropriate funds for this Contract in each new biennium for a maximum contract term expiring June 30, 2027. Any such renewal of all or part of the Contract also is subject to the satisfactory performance of the Contractor and the needs of the State.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82781


Question:   General: Will vendors be receiving Federal Tax Information as part of this project?

Answer:   The RFP is seeking a COTS solution. The solution is to analyze health care information, generally meaning enrollment and claims payment. However, additional information may be included into the EDW. If the offered product includes the utilization of Federal Tax Information, the inclusion of that data will be considered.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82780


Question:   RFP Main: Minority Business Enterprise: Page 10 A yearly or by invoice 15% requirement for a Minority Business Enterprise can be challenging with a cloud-based, subscription technology offering. Would you be willing to allow for a 15% Total Contract Value structure instead of 15% yearly structure?

Answer:   The agency is required by law to meet this 15% MBE spending threshold every fiscal year, therefore, the 15% requirement in the resulting contract must be based on the fiscal year.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82779


Question:   RFP Main: Section 6.1-Attachment One: Evaluation Criteria: Page 36 Under Technical Evaluation Phase (750 Points), only Supplement One is mentioned, How are Supplement Two and Supplement Three evaluated?

Answer:   Supplement Two and Supplement Three provide the system requirements necessary to operate within the State of Ohio system. If the proposed solution cannot meet these requirements, the solution will not be acceptable.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82778


Question:   Section 3-Requirement Response Instructions: Supplement 1: Page 10 “Not Available” is described as a Response Value in one of the bullets but is not listed as a valid Response Value for any of the Requirement Types. Is “Not Available” considered the same as “Not Supported” in terms of the response instructions? If not, should it be an additional Response Value for all Requirement Types?

Answer:   For the purposes of this RFP, "Not Available" can be considered the same as "Not Support".

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82777


Question:   RFP Main: Technical Proposal Instructions: Page 54 Page 54 requires The offeror to attach a letter from the subcontractor, signed by an individual authorized to legally bind the subcontractor, and having the same content as that listed above. Is the “listed above” refer to the content under Cover Letter?

Answer:   Yes.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82776


Question:   RFP Main: Technical Proposal Instructions: Page 57 Is the subcontractor required to submit proof or certificate of insurance identified in Attachment Four?

Answer:   The contractor is required to assume the requirements of the contract. If the subcontractor does not have proof or certificate of insurance, the liability would then fall on the contractor for that portion of the subcontract. Please see page 66 of the Base RFP.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82775


Question:   Section 6.1: Supplement 1 Page 39 There is a numbering duplication for OH ADAT: OMES-200.000.100 The Contractor must provide a deliverable walk-through within 5 days of the first 10 day review period. OMES-200.000.100 The Contractor must make project documents available to the State and Contractor staff, utilizing a State-approved repository. Please advise.

Answer:   Please make the second reference (the State-approved repository requirement) OMES-200.000.105.

Date: 1/19/2021

Inquiry: 82774


Question:   Cost Proposal Template - Annual Subscription Tab -Row 13 does not contain a formula. Should it?

Answer:   No, Row 13 should mirror Row 11 (no formula is necessary).

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82739


Question:   Cost Proposal Template - Implementation Tab - Column G in rows 58, 64 and 70 contain the word "delete". Should the Offeror include a price in these rows?

Answer:   No, a price should not be included (can either delete the row or have the price a $0). These delverables are no longer requested.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82738


Question:   Cost Proposal Template - Column G in rows 58, 64 and 70 contain the word "delete". Should the Offeror include a price in these rows?

Answer:   No, a price should not be included (can either delete the row or have the price a $0). These delverables are no longer requested.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82737


Question:   "RFP Attachment One - Scope of Work, Section 6.2, Testing, p. 45, OMES-220.020.080, ""The Contractor must provide a process for masking, sanitizing, scrambling, or de-sensitizing sensitive data PHI/PII/SSI, when extracting data from the production environment into State-specified non-production environments for purposes such as training. "" Will the EDW include multiple environments such as non-prod training, UAT and possibly other environments?  If so, we recommend meeting this requirement by leveraging the masking of the source EDW rather than creating a second masking process.  Would this approach be acceptable?"

Answer:   The EDW does contain multiple training environments and levels of role-based security to access the data. An user who only has access to the non-PHI environment in the EDW should not be able to circumvent this security level by extracting data via the ADAT tool. Although this requirement is in the Section 6.2 – Testing, the general principle is that the proposed solution, whether it is being used to extract data, using data (live or redacted) for training, testing and validation, etc. should not allow a user access to information outside of their permission levels. To say another way, the question is whether a user can 1) circumvent their security level through an extract through the solution, or 2) whether the offeror’s solution creates a potential security issue through the creation of a new environment where the information in that environment can exceed the security level of the person accessing the data.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82736


Question:   "RFP Attachment One - Scope of Work, Section 5.3, Data Management, p. 21, OMES-130.020.050. ""The Contractor must convert all required data from existing data sources into the solution in a format that supports all State-defined business processes."" How many data sources does the State anticipate will be in scope for this project?  Are those sources exclusively claims or are other types of data sources in scope?"

Answer:   For the ADAT Solution, it is anticipated that the Enterprise Data Warehouse should be the sole source of the information. Since the solution is expected to be a COTS solution, ODM recognizes that certain solutions may expect information that doesn't presently exist in the EDW. If this occurs, ODM will work with the selected vendor to include the information into the EDW. Please assume a single source for the purposes of the RFP.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82734


Question:   "RFP Template B, Cost Proposal workbook.xlsx, Tab 1. Instructions. Row 12 states ""The Annual Subscription price is made up of the yearly subscription rate. Annual transactional costs are calculated using the States estimated transaction volume and the Offerors proposed transactional price. This is added to annual service costs for the total Annual Cost."" There is not a place anywhere on the Annual subscription charges tab to include a transactional cost. Should Offeror provide an annual subscription charge on tab 4. Annual subscription charges, or a price per transaction?"

Answer:   The Annual Subscription price is a single annual cost based on a best estimate on the yearly transactional cost and the magnitude of the system requirements identified on page 10 of the RFP. The actual contract cost is based upon this estimate, not actual number of transactions.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82733


Question:   "Attachment Ten: Business Associate Agreement Placement in Response RFP References: Base RFP document, Proposal Requirements and Format, indexing and organizing of technical binder, pp. 50-51 and Section 6.9, Attachment Ten: Business Associate Agreement, p. 167 On pages 50-51, Offerors are instructed to include a tabbed section in the Technical Volume titled Attachment Ten – Business Associate Agreement. The RFP states on page 167 under 6.9. Attachment Ten: Business Associate Agreement, “This document is being provided for information and review purposes only. Offerors are not required to submit this form with their responses.” Wil ODM please indicate what content Offerors should place behind Tab 10, Attachment Ten - Business Associate Agreement?"

Answer:   The Offeror may include a page acknowledging Attachment Ten was reviewed and understood in their proposal.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82732


Question:   "RFP Reference: Base RFP Document, Section 3.4, Proposal Submittal, p. 18. The RFP states “Included in each sealed package, the Offeror also must provide an electronic “searchable” copy of everything contained within the package on a flash drive (portable storage device) in Microsoft Office (native format), Microsoft Word (native format), Microsoft Project (native format), Microsoft Excel (native format) and Adobe Acrobat format, as appropriate.” Will ODM please confirm it will accept one bookmarked pdf of the entire Technical Volume, one MS Project file containing the Work Plan, one pdf of the Network Diagram, and one excel spreadsheet of the Cost Volume as the searchable electronic proposal deliverables?"

Answer:   A digital copy of everything contained within the proposal is required.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82731


Question:   "RFP Reference: Base RFP Document, Section 6.3 Attachment Three: Requirements for Proposals, Page 50. Under “Proposal Requirements and Format,” the RFP states “All pages, except pre-printed technical inserts, must be sequentially numbered.” Is it reasonable to deduce that this requirement pertains to each section of the proposal, versus the entire proposal? And if so will ODM please confirm that sequential proposal page numbering is applicable by section only?"

Answer:   Numbering by total proposal instead of by section is preferred.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82730


Question:   "RFP Reference: Base RFP Document, Section 6.3 Attachment Three: Requirements for Proposals, Page 50-51. Under “Proposal Requirements and Format,” the RFP states "" Each Proposal must be organized in an indexed binder with tabs labeled and ordered in the manner listed below.” The order includes Template B – Cost Proposal Workbook (Must be separately sealed) within the Technical Volume tabs ordering. Will ODM consider rearranging the bullets to place Template B as the last bullet outside the Technical tabs to facilitate the separately sealed requirement for the Cost Volume?"

Answer:   No, the Offeror can add a page after the Cost Proposal Workbook tab indicating that the Cost Proposal Workbook is included as a separate sealed document.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82729


Question:   RFP Reference: Base RFP Document, Section 6.3 Attachment Three: Requirements for Proposals, pages 50, 52, and 58 “Acceptance of Attachment Four – General Terms and Conditions.” Page 50 instructs offerors as to the organization of the Technical Binder and lists the second tab as “Terms and Conditions.” Page 52 states ""Additionally, 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. Page 58 of the listing of Technical Proposal Sections states “Offerors must include the entire content of Attachment Four 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 General Terms and Conditions contained in Attachment Four. Will ODM please confirm that the Offerors should place Attachment Four, General Terms and Conditions, prefaced by a Statement of Understanding behind the second tab in the Technical Proposal binder listed as listed on page 50?"

Answer:   Correct, the Offerors should place Attachment Four, General Terms and Conditions, prefaced by a Statement of Understanding behind the second tab in the Technical Proposal binder

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82728


Question:   "RFP Reference: Supplement 1 Scope of Work Section 2.5 Proposed Work Plan and Schedule, Page 9. The RFP states that the Work Plan must include a network diagram showing the planned start and end dates for all tasks and subtasks indicating the interrelationships of all tasks and subtasks and identifying the critical path. Will ODM please confirm that an electronic only copy of the Network Diagram portion of the Work Plan is acceptable and is not required in the printed portion of the proposal deliverable due to its significant page count?"

Answer:   Section 3.4 requires that the proposals be submitted in hard copy. Perhaps such a lengthy Work Plan can be rolled up into sectional headings to reduce the page count? If the proposal is selected, ODM could ask for the additional detail during the contracting phase.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82727


Question:   Will the State please provide a list of all production reports utilized in the States current system?

Answer:   The system being replaced is generally used as an ad hoc query / report generator. Although it can be used to generate production reports, most of those types of reports are being generated in operational data systems or in dashboards (accessing the EDW). The ADAT Tool is also focused on analytics and ad hoc reporting. However, the solution is expected to be able to create, create and then regularly rerun reports (with minor adjustments ans a new time period), if necesary. Present examples include Refugee Assistance reports (for another agency) and child enrolment counts (for for particular counties monitoring the progress of their program). It also produces information by which other reports are adjusted or created (annual reports such as the "Pregnant Women, Infants and Children Report", MBIWD reports, and program reports).

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82724


Question:   With regard to Requirement ADAT-030.000.0101 in Supplement 1, who is the States current vendor for NCQA-certified HEDIS metrics?

Answer:   The state often allows their managed care vendors to independently provide NCQA-certified HEDIS metrics to NCQA for the MCP-specific submission. ODM does not manage those specific interactions, other than requiring that NCQA must be statisfied that the methodology and process are NCQA approved. For other activities using HEDIS metrics, ODM currently uses CareAnalyzer (an NCQA-certifies product through SS&C Health) through IBM Watson Health (our current Decision Support System vendor).

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82724


Question:   With regard to Requirement OMES 130.000.002 in Supplement 1, can the State please share the data schema for the data stored in IOP and the ODM EDW that resides on IOP? Can you also please confirm that all of the data to support the States requirements will be available on IOP at the beginning of the contract period?

Answer:   For the ADAT Solution, it is anticipated the the Enterprise Data Warehouse should be the sole source of the information. Since the solution is expected to be a COTS solution, ODM recognizes that certain solutions may expect information that doesn't presently exist in the EDW. If this occurs, ODM will work with the selected vendor to include the information into the EDW. Assume the the information will be available at the beginning of the contract period. If gaps exist, ODM will work with the selected vendor to acquire the data into the EDW. Please see the file “LOADHHS_TABLES_COLUMNS_DATATYPES_2021January.xlxs” on the RFP procurement web page.

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82724


Question:   With regard to Section 1.1 - Executive Summary in the primary RFP Document (Part 1), is the State looking for a Software as a Service or Platform as a Service offering?

Answer:   Software as a Service (the solution is not dependant upon ODM applications).

Date: 1/7/2021

Inquiry: 82724


Question:   Has the State seen their ideal solution for this RFP in place at another government agency? If so, which agency?

Answer:   No similar solution was found during the creation of the RFP.

Date: 1/5/2021

Inquiry: 82751


Question:   Which vendors, if any, did the State work with to develop the requirements for this RFP?

Answer:   No outside vendors were used in developing the requirements for this RFP.

Date: 1/5/2021

Inquiry: 82751


Question:   "RFP Reference: Base RFP Document, Section 3.4 Proposal Submittal, Page 18 Section 6.3 Attachment Three: Requirements for Proposals, Page 57. Section 3.4 states that ODM requires one (1) originally signed technical section and Section 6.3 states the offeror must submit at least one originally signed W-9 and indicate on the outside of the binder which Proposal contains the originally signed W-9. Will ODM accept electronic signatures in lieu of ""wet"" signatures and amend the requirement for marking the outside of the technical binder, given the logistical challenges caused by current COVID closures and restrictions in place due to the coronavirus pandemic?"

Answer:   The W-9 submitted must contain either a signature, an electronic signature, or an image of a signature. However, one binder should still be marked as "Original" and the others "Copy" for certification purposes.

Date: 1/4/2021

Inquiry: 82726


Question:   Supplement 1 6.4 CMS Certification: Page 49 What MECT checklist will this RFP’s scope of work fall under for this project’s certification?

Answer:   See response to Inquiry #82638. Additionally, portions of the ADAT system will be used to complete the Decision Support System Checklist certification at some point in the future. As the specific timing of this certification is dependent on other parts of the procurement effort being complete ODM cannot know for certain which METC will apply, but ODM expect’s it to either be version 2.3 or an outcomes based process.

Date: 12/28/2020

Inquiry: 82640


Question:   Supplement 1 4.3 Additional Functionality: Page 14 Should the vendors’ cost workbook include the expense for optional offerings described in 4.3 Additional Functionality? If so, where should these optional costs be included?

Answer:   In order to preserve comparability between proposals, it is critical that the main cost workbook only include those costs associated with the implementation of the core services indicated in the RFP. If there are additional services responses to Supplement One - Section 4.3 the vendor may include them through one of the following two methods. First, if the additional functionality does not adjust the price of the proposed product to meet the RFP (i.e. it does not require any additional personnel or implementation cost that would otherwise be reported in the cost workbook tab 3 - rows 11-77, or Tabs 4 and 5) then the additional functionality and cost can be reported on Tab 3 rows 79-83. Please add an asterisk to each item in rows 79-83 to indicate the item is an additional functional in response to Supplement 1, section 4.3. Second, if the additional functionality would change the price of the base product by requiring additional personnel or implementation costs, then the additional functionality should be included in a second cost workbook that clearly indicates it is prepared in response to Supplement 1 section 4.3.

Date: 12/28/2020

Inquiry: 82639


Question:   Supplement 1 6.4 CMS Certification: Page 49 What are the estimated hours required for the vendor to support CMS certification efforts? Will the vendor be allowed to invoice these hours separate from the awarded contract?

Answer:   The ADAT tool will, by itself, not be sufficient to meet current CMS certification requirements. Upcoming system developments will add functionality to complete the additional requirements necessary for CMS certification. The selected vender will be asked to support this product and its functions that meet particular certification requirements at the time of certification application. These hours will occur outside of the implementation process. These hours will be included in the M&O portion when that time is appropriate. Please do not include an estimate for these hours within this RFP proposal. These hours will be added at the appropriate time.

Date: 12/28/2020

Inquiry: 82638


Question:   Will the state host a bidders conference or similar event so that interested bidders may identify potential teaming arrangements? If not, can the state provide information on how to identify interested bidders?

Answer:   A bidders conference was not included in the schedule for this solicitation. For MBE providers, a list of potential partners can be generated by Procurement or Business type at https://eodreporting.oit.ohio.gov/mbe-certification.

Date: 12/21/2020

Inquiry: 82633


Question:   Template A Section: 2.1.2 Mandatory Qualification #2 –MBE Subcontracting: Page 6 Where would the State like vendors to submit their Subcontractor Plan?

Answer:   Please see Template A: Offeror Profile, Section 2.1.2

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82613


Question:   RFP Part 3: Ownership and Handling of Intellectual Property and Confidentiality information: Page 86 The numbering on this section is off. Could the State please address the numbering issue in this section.

Answer:   An amendment will be issued to address the numbering on page 86. The first item starting after "The Commercial Software may be" should be numbered 1.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82612


Question:   Supplement 1 Section 4.3 Additional Functionality: Page 14 Is there a response needed for 4.3 Additional Functionality? If so, where would the State like vendors to provide input?

Answer:   In Supplement One, Section 4.3, there is an area for response under the column "Capability Assessment"

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82611


Question:   Supplement 3 Section 1.5 Data: Page 6 Is there a response needed for 1.5 Data?

Answer:   Section 1.5 defines "State Data" and "Sensitive Data" and does not require a response.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82610


Question:   Section: 1.1 Supplement 3 1.1 The Offerors Responsibilities: Page 2 Is there a response needed for 1.1 The Offerors Responsibilities?

Answer:   A response to Section 1.1 and 1.2 can be submitted in the response area under Section 1.2.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82609


Question:   Supplement 1 6.4 CMS Certification: Page 49 Is there a response needed for 6.4 CMS Certification?

Answer:   This section does not require a response.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82608


Question:   Section 3.4 Proposal Submittal Page 17 Based on the current health environment relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and guidelines from Local and State Government entities, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and World Health Organization (WHO), we ask that the State consider amending the RFP response requirements to allow for electronic submissions only and not require hard copies. This will allow vendors to protect their workforce and continue to practice social distancing as recommended by health officials. IBM appreciates your consideration and will abide by your decision on submission requirements.

Answer:   The State requires hard copy proposals per Section 3.4. The proposals should be shipped to the address in Section 3.4 and allow sufficient time for the proposals to arrive by the due date and time.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82607


Question:   Section 1.5 Calendar of Events Page:12 Would the State consider an extension due to the holiday season?

Answer:   No. The schedule was created with holidays considered.

Date: 12/18/2020

Inquiry: 82606


back

Inquiry period ended:  1/8/2021 8:00:00 AM