With State Technology Advisory Group Collaboration
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform Request for Proposals (RFP) Guide
White Paper
v-2.0, Final, January 5, 2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
Table of Contents
1.
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
3.
Overview of Committee ........................................................................................................................ 2
4.
Challenges/Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 3
5.
Next Steps/Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 11
Appendices:................................................................................................................................................. 13
A.
Identified Best Practices.............................................................................................................. 13
B.
State Survey Results ................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A – Best Practices ...................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix B – State Survey Results ............................................................................................................ 35
ii
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
1. Abstract
The purpose of this White Paper is to capture the perspectives of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS), States and private sector vendors in the government health technology industry on the topic of
considerations for developing a Uniform Request for Proposals (RFP) Guide. This guide can assist in
streamlining the procurement process for Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) modules,
enhancements, and replacements. A Uniform RFP Guide is intended to reduce RFP development costs and the
risk of cancelled Request for Proposals (RFPs), while increasing the likelihood of RFPs meeting CMS
objectives and MMIS procurements achieving successful completion.
2. Introduction
Nationally, the Medicaid program is in a period of extreme change. The number of beneficiaries, services and
size of expenditures are growing. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Report of April 2014,
“CBO and [Joint Committee on Taxation] JCT project that substantially more people will be enrolled in
Medicaid and CHIP than would have been the case in the absence of the ACA—7 million more in calendar year
2014, 11 million more in 2015, and 12 million to 13 million more people in each year between 2016 and 2024.”
It is a challenge for states to support this expansion. At the same time as this population expansion, the
managed care payment model is proliferating, including coverage of the most costly, complex recipients. States
are also testing many new delivery models, including Patient-Centered Medical Homes, Health Homes,
Accountable Care Organizations, and new pricing structures, such as Episodic (Bundled) payments. Sharing
best practices and proven approaches can help the states improve their MMIS environments and address new
challenges.
CMS, States, and the Private Sector Technology Group (PSTG), collectively known as the Uniform RFP Guide
Committee, are working collaboratively to provide a multi-dimensional perspective on opportunities to improve
the RFP development and overall procurement process for state Medicaid agencies, including a review of state
and federal processes, with the goal of reducing project costs and risks while streamlining the process for
bidders, states, and CMS.
The Uniform RFP Guide Committee is addressing the following questions:
•
Are there practices states might consider adopting to assist them in the development of requirements for
their Medicaid Management Information Systems (MMIS) RFPs? This includes functional system
components of the MMIS, as well as operational services needed to support the Medicaid program.
1
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
What common elements of MMIS RFPs and procurement best practices may reduce the cost and time
for States’ RFP development, vendor proposal responses, and CMS approval?
How can the overall procurement cycle, from Advance Planning Document (APD) development and
approval, RFP development and proposal response period, evaluation, selection, and contract
negotiations/project be streamlined and structured to reduce implementation risks and costs?
Do current funding policies and/or regulations support or hinder states from seeking creative MMIS
solutions and vendors from supplying them?
Are there common best practices that can be incorporated into the RFP (or procurement process), to
reduce the costs and risk of implementation/contract performance?
What lessons learned and major challenges from recent procurements should be shared in a Uniform
RFP Guide to benefit other states starting the procurement process?
3. OverviewofCommittee
The Uniform RFP Guide Committee was formed to explore this topic through a White Paper, and the
development of a Uniform RFP Guide. The White Paper addresses the current environment in which Medicaid
systems and services are procured, including factors that affect these types of procurements, as well as
considerations for the development of a Uniform RFP Guide. The goals of a Uniform RFP Guide are to:
•
•
•
•
•
Help state Medicaid Agencies streamline the development of Medicaid systems and services RFPs
Reduce RFP development costs
Reduce risk of cancelled RFPs
Facilitate the sharing of existing RFP guidance, checklists, tools, templates by collecting and combing
these into a single document available to all states
Increase the likelihood of RFPs receiving timely CMS approval
2
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
4. Challenges/Recommendations
As RFPs and systems move to more modular and commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software based approaches,
procurement of large-scale systems and implementations and the associated timeframes from planning through
to operations needs to be reconsidered. While guidance provided in the Enhanced Funding Requirements:
Seven Conditions and Standards has been impactful in articulating the elements necessary for funding approvals
and modernizing systems, CMS, States, and private sector vendors in the government health technology
industry all recognize that as Medicaid systems and programs evolve, improvement opportunities exist within
the procurement process, including existing regulations.
Regulatory and Policy Changes and Recommendations
As the Uniform RFP Guide Committee began its work, it was evident that existing regulation regarding
Medicaid Information Technology (IT) and more specifically MMIS, were incompatible with current thinking
and direction for Medicaid Enterprise Systems, by CMS, the States, and the vendor community. In fact, those
regulations provided financial incentives to the States to make decisions and follow system design and build
processes that were in conflict with the MITA framework and tenants, the Seven Conditions and Standards, and
CMS guidance. Those incentives were leading States to expend State and Federal dollars that could be better
used to provide additional services for members or to expand and cover additional members.
Because regulations and policy are a significant topic on their own, and recognizing CMS is currently assessing
Medicaid policies on an ongoing basis, this topic was excluded from the scope of this White Paper.
The PSTG separately, formed a Regulatory and Policy Subcommittee, whose assignment was to review the
existing regulations, and make suggestions for change of those regulations going forward that would re-align
the incentives to support the direction of recent CMS guidance.
The results of the PSTG review and the recommendations are presented in a separate white paper, entitled,
Considerations for Regulatory and Policy Revisions Affecting Medicaid Procurements White Paper.
Procurement Challenges and Recommendations
The Uniform RFP Committee solicited input from CMS leadership, analysts, and contractors, and polled States
through a web-based survey. As a result, the Uniform RFP Guide Committee identified a number of challenges
and recommendations.
Challenge: Overall Awareness of and Ease of Access to Existing RFP Materials from CMS and Across
States. While there are a number of materials available from CMS for use in RFP development, many
individuals surveyed were not aware of what was available or how to access the materials. In addition, while
3
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
there are some efforts through the S-TAG and on an ad-hoc basis, there is not a standardized forum or avenue
for states to share information on procurement lessons learned or to reach out to a broad group of peers for
assistance.
Recommendation O-1: Create a single portal for all procurement related resources for states which is easy to
reach and access, including an index within the site (similar to the Medicaid Community on the federal platform
Collaborative Application Lifecycle Tool (CALT)). Implement a communications “campaign” to broadcast the
initial establishment of the site and materials available as well as regular (quarterly) reminders and
communications when any materials are significantly changed, removed or added. Create a regular (perhaps
quarterly) forum strictly on procurement related topics to foster cross-State communication and sharing. The
National Medicaid Enterprise Hub is another collaboration platform that can be leveraged to support multi-state
collaboration activities. Visit www.nmehub.com for more information. Update: As of the finalization of this
white paper, CMS is in the process of establishing a CALT Community to support Medicaid MMIS/MES
procurements.
Challenge: State Procurement Objectives. As state Medicaid procurements differ in complexity and scope,
multiple barriers hinder reuse across state programs as it relates to procurements and RFPs. For example, states
may have differing opinions on what a “module” is or how to define “COTS”. The CMS regions also have
different checklists to approve an RFP. The RFPs themselves also contain language that can create barriers for
entry for new vendors, even as the landscape changes from large-scale implementations to modular approaches.
Recommendation SP-1: Create a CMS lexicon to help stakeholders understand and use common terminology
across state Medicaid programs. This would also help States during their procurement planning processes. For
example, a State would be able to define to what level an RFP or set of RFPs could be considered “modular” or
what is considered “COTS,” and “shared services.” This would provide all stakeholders with common
definitions and understanding of critical words such as COTS and modularity to help focus RFPs on both
present and future business process needs.
Recommendation SP-2: Create a common CMS checklist for RFP approval across the 10 regions. This would
help with reuse of RFP language across states and potentially accelerate the RFP approval process.
Recommendation SP-3: Create and maintain a State Profile in the collaboration portal (SP-1) that summarizes
state Medicaid programs. This can be leveraged by states as pre-planning activities begin on MES technology
initiatives to identify states with similar demographics for comparison purposes, sharing of best practices, and
leveraging lessons learned.
4
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Challenge: RFP Requirements (Scope of Work/DDI). Often, the day-to day Medicaid program staff may
not be involved in developing RFP requirements, or the requirements are taken from old RFPs that do not align
with current business or technical needs. At the same time, States are unable to procure what they really want
due to procurement rules that need to be followed by vendors as they propose solutions. While leveraging reuse
is a primary focus for RFPs, the following recommendations are made as the focus moves to modular RFPs and
modular systems.
Recommendation SOW-1: Allow the vendor to propose a proven and transparent implementation methodology
and timeline consistent with the type of system being bid and require that the deliverables (submitted
electronically) be appropriate to the implementation methodology. As discussed in the Enhanced Funding
Requirements: Seven Conditions and Standards document, the Systems Development Life Cycle (SDLC)
“should have distinct, well-defined phases for inception through close-out; include planning that describes
schedules, target dates, and budgets; should exhibit controls over the life of the project via written
documentation, formal reviews, and signoff/acceptance by the system owner(s); and should have welldocumented, repeatable processes with clear input and output criteria (e.g., artifacts).” Procurements look to
hire vendor expertise. Allowing vendors to propose the most effective implementation methodology would
help to ensure the project moves forward and focuses on the right outcomes.
Recommendation SOW-2: Develop requirements based on business needs and desired results, “what” is
needed, and not prescribing “how” the results are to be achieved. While it is important for states to understand
how a vendor is going to deliver on business objectives, historically, there has been a focus on RFPs asking how
a system operates or how a vendor must provide delivery (for example, requiring all personnel on site when this
may not be necessary). With the movement to modular, component-based, COTS solutions, consider a
statement of objectives / statement of work focused RFP that would allow vendors more latitude in providing
innovative solutions for consideration. This focuses requirements on what business objectives and outcomes the
system must support as opposed to how it must support them. Allowing vendors to define how the solution will
meet the State’s business requirements enables States to focus on Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and
measurements of success to ensure vendor performance. This also holds vendors accountable for delivering
solutions that meet defined state business needs. To fully realize the benefits of COTS solutions, states should
be open to modernizing their Medicaid policies to conform to national payer standards.
Recommendation SOW-3: Engage the day-to-day/“on the ground” Medicaid operations and program staff in
developing the RFP requirements. If technical advisory or RFP development consultants are engaged, have
them focus on eliciting current and future requirements/objectives from the current staff, as opposed to using a
baseline/standard set of requirements from other states that are then validated.
5
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Recommendation SOW-4: Explore new options for managing the inherent problem of scope management
during design, development and implementation (DDI). Delays caused by the protracted negotiations of
changes often have a disproportionate impact on project success. Consider the establishment of a pool of hours
for DDI, much like that often used during operations to cover enhancements that are unknown at the beginning
of operations. Require vendors to price optional additional resource costs in the proposal by labor category to be
deployed only after review by the change control board and approval by the state’s project manager. Include in
the RFP clear definitions for maintenance versus modifications versus enhancements. A pre-established pool of
hours with established rates provides CMS-approved hours for scope management, if needed.
Recommendation SOW-5: Use the new certification checklists as part of the RFP scope. While the focus
should be on outcomes (as listed in Recommendation SOW-2), providing the new certification checklists as part
of the RFP would give vendors an understanding of the expectations for each step of the process, help to refine
scope, and thus provide more realistic costs within proposals. The CMS checklist with CMS gate reviews
allows for review as the State goes through each process so at the end, all work has been done, the system is
aligned with levels of maturity, MITA 3.0, Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT), Seven
Conditions and Standards, etc. This allows any issues to be resolved as they arise and saves time and effort
throughout as opposed to a certification delayed at the end – adding additional time and costs.
Recommendation SOW-6: Design RFPs to accommodate inevitable changes that will occur during the life of
the project. For example, being specific about the scope of future federal and/or state mandates would help to
keep bid costs lower. Vendors are unable to predict future federal and/or state mandates, and requiring these to
be priced as part of the base bid causes pricing to be inflated.
Recommendation SOW-7: States should begin the procurement process by spending time to understand their
procurement rules (state statutes and regulations) and engage procurement officers/staff from the start, as well
as central Information Technology (IT) staff. Meeting with State procurement and IT staff to assess the existing
programmatic rules and their applicability to the desired procurement approach (e.g., the difference between
procuring goods vs. procuring services) could alleviate potential pitfalls during the course of the RFP
procurement. In the event the existing guidelines do not permit the desired framework, explore alternatives or
waivers to work to align the procurement structure with the business goals.
Challenge: Cost Model. Often, RFPs have cost models that break out scoring of various parts of the process
(for example, DDI, operations, maintenance) with differing weights to these scores. This can produce issues in
understanding the true costs of any one component as bidders shift costs between the lower and higher point
areas to obtain a higher evaluated score in their price proposal. In addition, pricing templates can require a low
level of detail and/or prescriptive structure which is not consistent with the type of contract being awarded.
6
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Recommendation CM-1: Avoid the use of pricing scores by lifecycle phase. Using a total cost of ownership
(TCO) approach should result in more accurate vendor pricing. This aligns with Recommendation #S-17 from
the Modernizing Medicaid Managed Care white paper published July 2014 which recommended considering
value based pricing. The incentive aspects of these models offer States an effective tool to reward vendor
creativity, innovation, and “extra effort.” The most rewarding concepts include pricing models offering
additional revenue-generating opportunities or the potential for cost savings over the life of the contract/system.
It is important to note, that even with a TCO pricing approach, a certain level of detail is required to separate
DDI costs from Maintenance and Operations (M&O) to ensure proper cost allocation of federal and state funds.
Additionally, with the shift to the procurement of modular solutions, a state may choose to issue one RFP, with
components and/or services as major Statements of Work (SOWs) that a vendor may propose a solution(s) for
one, some or all SOWs. In this circumstance, Evaluation Strategy should address separate scoring by SOW, as
well as major phases that have different cost allocation requirements.
Recommendation CM-2: Streamline and simplify the required pricing submission. Request only the
information that will be evaluated/assessed as a part of awarding the contract; or that will be used in the contract
going forward (such as change order rates, if required). Requiring low-level details for fixed price contracts can
actually result in inflated costs as vendors are required to adjust or restructure cost models to comply with
details required by the State templates.
Recommendation CM-3: Acknowledge that operational pricing is based on volumes and that those volumes
are likely to change. Provide vendors with the opportunity to provide pricing within bands or specify the
volumes that all vendor-pricing should be based upon for a more accurate assessment.
Challenge: Project Management and Governance. While RFPs and available procurement libraries
typically show a Medicaid agency organization chart, it is often difficult to decipher the state resources that are
available for the DDI effort. When planning during the APD process, consider the number of individuals that
are available for the entire DDI effort, their roles, and the amount of time they will be able to dedicate to the
effort. These resources are critical to the success of the project.
Recommendation PMG-1: Plan and commit the state resources (project management, subject matter experts,
and decision makers) to support the DDI effort. Communicate these roles and the role of the state Chief
Information Officer (CIO) and the state’s overall enterprise architecture as it relates to the procurement in the
RFP. Knowing this, the vendor can better plan the system implementation timing, ask fewer questions during
the Question and Answer (Q&A) process, and make fewer assumptions within proposals and during
negotiations or the project.
7
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Recommendation PMG-2: Align the Project Management Office (PMO) resources to the State’s business
objectives and requirements of the project. Thoughtful Program Management is crucial for clear lines of
communication and accountability between the state, vendors and contractors, and between the state and federal
government. With modular procurements, defined procedures for integration and mitigation strategies and
conflict resolution are also needed. States, vendors and contractors must work together, all participating in a
more holistic manner. If there are any state specific requirements, standards, and/or tools for managing
technology projects, it is importing to refer to these in the RFP.
Challenge: Key Personnel. While it is important for RFPs to include guidelines for key personnel, the trend
has been to ask for resumes of key personnel who may not be staffed onto the project until the operations years
and RFPs asking for resumes of a large number of key personnel relative to the number of people that may be
staffed in total. Some key personnel requirements also become overly prescriptive, causing vendors to ask for
relief during the Q&A process.
Recommendation KP-1: Suggest no more than five to seven named key staff resumes essential to the
implementation project with relevant experience appropriate to each position. Asking for a high number of
resumes and commitments, especially for those starting at operations presents barriers to new competition as
well increases costs to the State.
Recommendation KP-2: Promote flexibility in RFP-defined qualifications. Named key staff comparable job
experience should be allowed to offset college degree requirements based upon Department of Labor guidelines
to promote the best candidates. Additionally, it is important to specify the number of years of experience in a
similar role to measure proficiency of the proposed resource in doing similar work, but overly expansive
requirements may limit vendor responses. These suggestions may result in more consistent and competitive bids
from all vendors and in a larger pool of qualified candidates.
Challenge: Contract Standards. Often times, the contract that is included with an RFP can unnecessarily
increase prices proposed through the inclusion of language that unduly burdens vendors, and thus results in
higher prices to states to cover that risk. Reasonable provisions would protect States and increase competition.
Recommendation CS-1a: Contractual language should be reasonable based on project size, scope, and
purpose. Items like actual damages, liquidated damages, performance and bid bonds, SLAs, payment retention,
and general contract terms should protect the state and vendor. For example, “Limit of liability to be 12 months
of fees” specifies an amount that protects State interests while being reasonable to potential bidders.
Recommendation CS-1b:
As part of this recommendation, states recognize that limited liability language established through the states’
procurement offices may be antiquated and out of date. Funding for these projects is 90% federal match for DDI
8
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
phase, so it is recommended that CMS propose model language on limited liability, performance and bid
bonds, and payment retention so that states may initiate conversations with procurement offices and affect
policy changes.
Recommendation CS-2: Allow bidders to list clarification items in their proposals, and be willing to discuss
them with the selected vendor during final contract negotiations. Due to the complexity of MMIS contracts, a
final contract negotiation provides for an agreement that works best for the specific partnership between the
state and selected vendor. This allows the state to review any concerns the vendor has with the state terms.
Recommendation CS-3: As previously discussed in the Modernizing Medicaid Managed Care white paper,
and in recognition of the desire to shift to more modular and COTS-based solutions, revise the State Attestation
on system ownership. Modifying the definition of ownership to recognize vendor Intellectual
Property/Ownership permits greater latitude for State selection of COTS and hybrid solutions.
Recommendation CS-4: Align software license requirements with standard practices in the software industry.
As there is an effort to move to more COTS-based and Software-as-a-Service solutions, requiring vendors to
sign non-negotiable or proprietary licensing agreements often precludes competition as product vendors cannot
sign up to the required conditions. Starting with end-user license agreements (EULA) provided by software
vendors creates a more commercially acceptable RFP open to competition.
In analyzing and implementing this recommendation, it is important to note some nuances and trends taking
place in the software industry. Licenses are not shareable; however, the IP of the software vendor
configurations should be shareable. The trend to be cautious of is productizing consulting IP on top of COTS
software. These can come in two forms. One form is an accelerator which should lower the cost of
implementation the other form can come as a product that would require individual purchases by each State and
will carry an annual maintenance fee.
Challenge: State Procurement Process. States vary in the needs of their Medicaid systems and complexity
of their RFPs. Each RFP and vendor responses must be clear and concise to meet state objectives. For example,
an RFP for a specific system or less than a full replacement may meet a state’s goals; and a custom build may
only be supported if no other option can be shown. Further, as states create RFPs, the challenge of not knowing
what the market has to offer to help identify technology and services, as well as vendors not knowing what State
current and future needs are can lead to RFPs and responses that do not fully meet the needs of the stakeholders
involved.
Recommendation SPP-1: Streamline the response structure to avoid submission of duplicative information and
clearly communicate what is expected to be contained in the response – tying this to the evaluation criteria. This
9
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
reduces the volume of material and ensures that what is desired in terms of response can be found, allowing for
an easier evaluation process.
Recommendation SPP-2: Provide realistic page limitations according to response structure. Also specify those
sections excluded from page limits. Anticipated page limits should be included in a draft RFP for vendor
comment.
Recommendation SPP-3: As allowed by procurement regulations, limit the number of RFP response paper
copies to those required for contractual obligations and request electronic media versions for evaluators (e.g.,
USB, CD, or tablet). If possible, large ancillary documents like corporate financials should be limited to the
electronic versions of the proposal. While numerous printed versions were typically required in years past,
electronic versions of responses greatly facilitates evaluator access to materials with the ability to search and
make notes. This also helps with environmental conservation efforts, decreases costs, and increases response
quality.
Recommendation SPP-4: Schedule multiple rounds of questions and answers, or a rolling response timeframe
such that vendors can review an initial set of answers and seek clarification if necessary. This would provide
less ambiguity in responses.
Recommendation SPP-5: Allow vendor demonstrations early in the procurement planning process (prior to
finalizing the RFP). This will often help to refine requirements for a new system by allowing participants to
understand current technology available in the health technology industry, how various systems meet specific
business objectives, the level of system flexibility to support future needs and program goals, and enables
individuals to visualize innovations that could be incorporated into the RFP.
Recommendation SPP-6: Provide as much data as possible as early as possible in the pre-RFP process in a
document library; this may inform vendor demonstrations discussed in SPP-5. Access instructions to the
document library should also be referenced in the RFP. Material could include items like historical performance
and trend data, MITA State Self-Assessment (SS-A) results, the APD, internal and external interfaces,
operations volumes (i.e. claims, prior authorizations, providers, members by program, etc.) and state staffing
models. Providing this library of information allows questions and strategies to be developed, which results in a
more competitive procurement and allows vendors to prepare more comprehensive responses. Vendors often
ask for this type of material during the RFP Q&A phase, so having it available early reduces the likelihood of
having to extend proposal submittal dates as States typically give more time to review complex materials.
10
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Recommendation SPP-7: Issue a Draft RFP (preferable by vendors over an RFI) to allow vendors to provide
feedback. This opportunity provides additional input to the process to promote a competitive environment and
enables the State to understand how certain portions of the Draft RFP could affect potential proposed solutions.
5. NextSteps/Conclusion
There are various ways that the procurement process can be streamlined, at both the federal and state level, as
suggested in this white paper. The Committee continues to refine the Uniform RFP Guide, which provides a
common structure for states’ MMIS/MES procurements that allows for flexibility and customization at the state
level to account for variances in procurement rules and procurement approach preferences. The Uniform RFP
Guide is anticipated to be released in early 2015.
11
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
UniformRFPGuideWhitePaperContributors
CMS
James Gorman
PSTG
Accenture, Kathy Higgins and Todd Marker
APS, Patty Lynn
BerryDunn, Edward Daranyi
CNSI, Michelle Faletti and Leigh Ann Brown
CSG Government Solutions, Robin Chacon, Co-Chair
Ekolu Associates, Arlon Sturgis
HewlettPackard, Kris Stutz
HTMS, Curtis Boyd
Molina Healthcare, Julie Walsh and Gwen Williams
Netlogx, April Allen and Faye Makishima
Oracle, Donna-Mae Shyduik
White Hat Proposals, Elizabeth Place, Co-Chair
Xerox, Kathleen Henry and Steve Reynolds
S-TAGSTATES:
Alabama – Paul Brannan
Arizona – Dan Lippert
Florida – Gay Munyon, David Powers
Kansas – Louann Gebhards
Montana – Stuart Fuller
Nebraska – Don Spaulding
New Mexico –Russell Toal, Sean Pearson
Oklahoma – Lynn Puckett
Texas – Hope Morgan
Virginia – Frank Guinan, Bhaskar Mukherjee
12
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Appendices:
A. IdentifiedBestPractices
B. StateSurveyResults
13
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
AppendixA–BestPractices
Introduction
A state’s goals and objectives need to be carefully considered as it navigates the RFP development process. As planning
for a new system begins, this focus would help align the APD, RFP, and resulting contract to these goals.
As Medicaid programs vary by state, the level of complexity within state RFPs varies as well. While some of this can be
tied to procurement law, some is determined by the state Medicaid agency. Complex RFPs increase the risk of the agency
not receiving what they truly want from the procurement. During the initial review of methods by which states could
provide commonalities across the RFP process, the following recommendations and associated benefits were noted.
This compilation of “Best Practices” for RFP development focuses on Medicaid enterprise system DDI and fiscal agent
RFPs, but these practices can be used across other segments of the MMIS market. These recommendations could enhance
the RFP experience for CMS, states, and vendors alike. Knowing there is agreement on various aspects of the RFP, the
process, and the expected document would help to create certainty and uniformity, which leads to savings of time and
costs while reducing risks for all involved. Common standards are possible, from the state’s initial consideration of the
need, through development of the APD and RFP, the bidding and selection process, and into contract, implementation,
and operations.
BestPractices
KnowledgeSharing
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
01.01
Knowledge
Sharing
01.02
Knowledge
Sharing
Include vendor demonstrations
as part of the procurement
planning process. Provide
vendors the opportunity to
present demonstrations of
system capabilities prior to the
RFP being released.
Provide a draft RFP for vendors
to review and provide
comments and
recommendations. Allow
vendors to meet one-on-one
with state staff familiar with
the RFP content and purpose to
discuss ideas and alternatives
to the RFP language.
Vendor demonstrations will
often help refine the
requirements for a new
system. Visualizing the
system facilitates the
participants’ understanding
of the system.
This opportunity provides
additional input to the
process to promote a
competitive environment
and ensure instructions are
clear prior to the short
response period. It permits
the incorporation of
approved suggestions into
14
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
the final RFP and has the
potential to reduce questions
during the RFP response
process.
01.03
Knowledge
Sharing
Provide as much data as
possible as early as possible
(pre-RFP) in a document library
such as:
• Historical performance and
volume trend data
• Targeted level of claims or
member populations on which
to base vendor pricing
• MITA self-assessment results
• APD (as permitted by state
guidelines)
• List of agencies providing
reference data
• List of planned changes and
any preliminary work that is
already defined
• All external and internal
interfaces
• Available state staff to
support the DDI effort
15
• Providing additional time to
review relevant data allows
questions and strategies to
be developed, which results
in a more competitive
procurement and allows
vendors to prepare more
comprehensive responses.
• Volumes not shared
provide an unfair advantage
to an incumbent and can
result in increased cost
submissions from
competitors.
• Targeted volumes help
ensure that all vendors use
the same information for
base pricing and enable
reviewers to evaluate each
vendor’s costing equally.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Proposal Organization / General Content
Number
Category
Recommendation
02.01
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Provide evaluation criteria
aligned with the proposal
organization.
02.02
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
02.03
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
02.04
Benefit
This allows vendors to clearly
address the areas of most
importance, while facilitating
easier evaluation of the
response.
Clearly define acceptable use of Almost all vendors maintain
offsite and offshore resources. offsite and offshore technical
and operations centers that
have the potential to reduce
costs while maintaining the
same level of quality.
Streamline the response
This reduces the volume of
structure to avoid submission
material submitted and
of duplicative information and
eliminates repetitive
clearly communicate what is
information. It also ensures
expected to be contained in the that desired responses are
response.
provided while providing for
an easier evaluation process.
Consider using statements of
A statement of objectives
work and statements of
and statement of work(s)
objectives instead of
response allows vendors
prescriptive requirements.
more latitude in supplying
innovative solutions for
consideration. RFPs
requiring a
question/response format
can often be overly
prescriptive and stifle
opportunities to provide the
state creative solutions.
16
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
02.05
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
02.06
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Suggest no more than five to
seven named key staff resumes
that provide key staff essential
to the project beginning at
implementation as well as
relevant experience
appropriate to each position.
Named, key staff's comparable
job experience should be
allowed to offset college
degree requirements based
upon Department of Labor
guidelines to promote the best
candidates, not just the best
resumes.
02.07
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Include a system
demonstration as part of the
oral presentation during the
evaluation process.
02.08
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
RFP requirements should not
include conditional statements
such as "to be approved by …"
and “but not limited to …”. For
example, an RFP requirement
for a predictive modeling tool
should not read, "Provide a
predictive modeling tool to be
approved by the state."
A high number of required
resumes, especially for
positions starting later in the
project (operations
positions), generally favor an
incumbent and discourage
competition.
Flexibility in RFP-defined
qualifications as well as
requesting reasonable and
appropriate staff
qualifications results in more
consistent and competitive
bids from all vendors and
results in more qualified
individuals proposed for the
project.
A system demonstration
allows evaluators to
experience how the
proposed solution meets
requirements.
Any exceptions taken with
proposed solutions can be
resolved during contract
negotiations. Conditional
statements increase vendor
risk and price.
17
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
02.09
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Allocating a specific number
of pages to each section
encourages vendors to focus
on sections deemed most
important.
02.10
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Page limitations should be
realistic according to how
responses are to be structured.
Specify those sections that are
excluded from the page
limitation. Anticipated page
limitations should be included
in the draft RFP so vendors
have the opportunity to
suggest improvements.
As allowed by procurement
regulations, limit the number
of RFP response paper copies
to those required for
contractual obligations and
request electronic media
versions for evaluators (e.g.,
USB, CD, and tablet). If
possible, large ancillary
documents like corporate
financials (e.g., SEC Form 10-Ks)
should be limited to the
electronic version of the
proposal.
02.11
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Schedule multiple rounds of
questions and answers so that
vendors can review the
answers to the initial round of
questions and, if necessary, ask
follow-up questions in
following rounds of questions.
Additionally, consider a floating
18
While numerous printed
copies were typically
required in years past,
allowing vendors to submit
proposals in electronic
format often greatly facilitate
reviewers’ access to
materials with the ability to
use search features of
various products (e.g., Adobe
Acrobat Reader, Microsoft
Word). This also helps with
greening efforts, decreases
costs, and increases response
quality as less time needs to
be built into the response
process for print production
efforts.
The more clearly the
requirements are stated, the
more precise the responses
will be.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
submission of questions and
answers to better allow for
timely access before the cutoff
period.
02.12
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
02.13
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
02.14
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
If amendment(s) are issued
close to the response
submission date, provide
vendors with additional
response time so that they can
react appropriately to the
amendment(s).
Require vendors to achieve a
minimum of 70 percent of the
available technical points, or
another reasonable threshold,
in order to proceed to cost
proposal evaluation, orals,
and/or site visits.
Using the term “real time” for
items such as eligibility, an
automated voice response
system (AVRS), Web portals, or
user interfaces without
providing explicit definitions
and conformance
measurements in the
procurement causes vendors to
speculate on definition and
conformance, potentially
leading to an increased design,
development, and
implementation (DDI) and
19
Allowing ample time to react
to amendments helps
improve the quality of
vendor responses.
Setting a minimum technical
threshold allows focus on
vendors that will best meet
the state’s needs.
Reduces risk. Likely to result
in lower pricing if vendors
have a clear definition of the
requirements (or vendors
could propose requirements
during the question and
answer period that would
decrease cost).
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
operations price.
02.15
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Consider including the
following in the RFP:
• Define the contract
negotiation approach and
process to ensure vendor
awareness and facilitate
vendor planning
• Define the duration of the
contract negotiation period
• Include a draft contract
• Allow vendors to take
exceptions to contract terms so
that vendors can clearly define
any areas of concern during the
proposal process
• Specify which attachments
and deliverables are required
at contract signing
• Define requirements that
must be met for go live
• Include a process to handle
the addition or reduction in the
scope of work for DDI and for
operations, which would
eliminate lengthy post-contract
signing renegotiations.
20
Results in more accurate
technical and cost proposals.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
02.16
Proposal
Organization/
General Content
Ensure that each subcontractor
currently used by the state or
the incumbent is listed in the
RFP and whether it is expected
that the bidders continue to
these established relationships.
For example, if a current
contract with a TPL vendor
exists and the TPL vendor’s
contract scope is expected to
be included in the vendors’
responses, note this specifically
and include all tasks in the
RFP’s scope of work.
Provides clear scope.
21
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Pricing and Proposal Evaluation
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
03.01
Pricing and
Proposal
Evaluation
Using a total cost of
ownership approach could
result in more accurate
vendor pricing.
03.02
Pricing and
Proposal
Evaluation
03.03
Pricing and
Proposal
Evaluation
03.04
Pricing and
Proposal
Evaluation
Avoid the use of component
pricing scores (i.e., scoring the
DDI costs, operational costs,
and optional solution costs
separately).
The cost model instructions
should provide clear guidance
to vendors about where costs
are to be assigned so reviewers
can easily review and score the
cost sheets.
Vendors estimate pass-thru
costs differently. Provide
vendors with a fixed estimate
of the pass-thru costs so they
can incorporate estimates into
their cost model. If pass-thru
costs are not required to be
included in vendor pricing, it
should be stated clearly.
Include payment terms with a
reasonable basis, such as fixed
monthly payments or progress
payments based on
deliverables.
22
Clear definition of the cost
sheets and the costs to be
included in each area ensures
that reviewers compare the
same activities, deliverables,
and resources.
Responsiveness in
completing cost sheets is
increased.
This practice is conducive to
helping vendors prepare for
cash flow challenges typically
experienced during DDI.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Contract
Number
Category
04.01
Contract
04.02
Contract
04.03
Contract
Recommendation
Actual damages should protect
the state and vendor as well as
be reasonable based on size,
scope, and purpose of the
project contract. Examples of
contract terms that protect both
parties are: “Limit of liability to
be 12 months of fees”; or
“Limit of liability to be 1x
annual reoccurring revenue
(ARR)”. These types of
contract terms specify an
amount that protects the state’s
interests while not unduly
burdening the vendor which
would result in a higher price to
the state to cover extreme risk.
Liquidated damages should be
reasonable based on size,
scope, and purpose of the
project contract.
Performance and bid bonds, if
required, should be relative to
the size of the procurement
and not excessive. Anywhere
from five to 20 million dollars
based on the size of the state,
the RFP price, and the
complexity of services
rendered. Also, performance
bonds must be able to be
23
Benefit
When excessive, these types
of provisions significantly
increase vendor risk, which
results in increased costs to
cover that risk. The inclusion
of reasonable provisions
protects the state and
increases competition.
When excessive, these types
of provisions significantly
increase vendor risk, which
results in increased costs to
cover that risk. The inclusion
of reasonable provisions
protects the state and
increases competition.
When excessive, these types
of provisions significantly
increase vendor risk, which
result in increased cost to
cover that risk. The inclusion
of reasonable provisions
protects the state, but does
not unduly burden vendors,
thus increasing competition.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
renewed annually.
04.04
Contract
States should not use
proprietary software licensing
requirements.
04.05
Contract
Litigation reporting, past or
current performance, and legal
issues should be limited to the
bidding entity's business
segment and limited to 3-5
years past history.
04.06
Contract
Ownership requirements
should be clear and indicate an
understanding that proprietary
or trade secret software cannot
be owned.
24
Aligning software license
requirements with standard
practices in the COTS
software industry provides a
more commerciallyacceptable RFP. States
should start with the enduser license agreement
(EULA) provided by COTS
vendors.
Since most bidders'
businesses contain multiple
business segments, limiting
this type of reporting to the
business segment bidding
provides a true reflection of
each vendor's capabilities.
Aligning software ownership
requirements with standard
practices in the COTS
software industry results in a
more commerciallyacceptable RFP.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
04.07
Contract
Be willing to negotiate final
contract terms and conditions.
The RFP response should allow
bidders to list their negotiation
items.
04.08
Contract
Payment retentions and
holdbacks should be avoided.
04.09
Contract
04.10
Contract
04.11
Contract
Deliverable acceptance criteria
should be clearly stated,
including the deliverable
review duration.
Contract change order
requirements and procedures
should be clearly stated and
defined as to what each
includes.
Allow innovative cost saving
alternatives such as the use of
a vendor's enterprise license
agreements and the use of a
vendor’s private cloud storage.
Due to the complexity of
MMIS contracts, a final
contract negotiation provides
for an agreement that works
best for the specific
partnership represented by
the state and chosen vendor.
This allows the state to
review any concerns vendors
may have with the state’s
terms and conditions or
other items during the
proposal evaluation period.
Avoiding retention and
holdbacks eliminates
excessive financial carrying
costs and risks to potential
bidders.
Clearly stated deliverable
acceptance criteria and
timing sets expectations
properly.
Clearly stated change order
requirements and
procedures sets expectations
properly.
25
Sharing a vendor's enterprise
license agreement(s) and
leveraging vendor private
cloud storage results in
reduced costs for software
licenses and data storage
during the life of the
contract.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
04.12
Contract
Performance standards, or
SLAs, are most effective when
limited to only those items
critical to the success of a state
Medicaid program and the
benefit of its stakeholders.
Fewer than 20 performance
standards/SLAs can typically
achieve this goal. Consider
placing a monthly cap on SLA
penalties and/or waiving SLAs
for a period of time
immediately after the new
system goes live, to allow for a
stabilization period.
Saves money and highlights
priorities.
26
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Configure and Design (DDI) – State Resources
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
05.01
Configure and
Design (DDI) State Resources
Sufficient, dedicated state
resources are critical to
project success. Adequate
coverage needs to be
provided by MITA business
area and for the duration of
the project. By
acknowledging possible
insufficient state resources,
vendors can plan accordingly
05.02
Configure and
Design (DDI) State Resources
If the state’s organization plan
to support the DDI effort exists,
be specific in the RFP. Clearly
define the level of state
resources committed to the
DDI project and their areas of
expertise. Where possible,
consider resource leveling of
allocated state resources,
including any state activities
outside of the DDI effort. If
sufficient resources are not
available, this needs to be
clearly acknowledged in the
RFP.
Define the role of the state CIO
and their overall enterprise
architecture as it relates to the
MMIS.
27
Understanding the state's
architectural direction and its
impact on the MMIS
procurement enables
vendors to prepare a
responsive proposal.
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Configure and Design (DDI) - Approach
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
06.01
Configure and
Design (DDI) Approach
Allow the vendor to propose a
transparent implementation
methodology and timeline
consistent with the type of
system being bid and require
that the deliverables be
appropriate to the
implementation methodology.
Today’s systems are
deployed using much more
modern, effective
methodologies that deploy
functionality in small pieces
throughout the
implementation.
Requirements and business
rules are stored in electronic
tools accessible by all vendor,
state, and IV&V team
members. The same is true
for test cases and scenarios.
DSDs are often obsolete
because COTS products are
deployed, not custom coded
solutions. A state benefits
from a relevant and current
set of electronic
“deliverables” housed in
project tools by focusing on
the functionality delivered on
a daily or weekly basis
throughout the project and
ensuring the system is
deployed properly. Most
corrections are able to be
completed with the state
working side by side with the
vendor project team.
28
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
06.02
Configure and
Design (DDI) Approach
Require that vendors include in
their bid a system
demonstration environment at
the beginning of the
requirements phase.
06.03
Configure and
Design (DDI) Approach
Explore new options for
managing the inherent
problem of scope management
during the DDI. Consider the
establishment of a pool of
hours for DDI, much like that
often used during operations to
cover enhancements that are
unknown at the beginning of
operations. Require vendors to
price optional additional
resource costs in the proposal
by labor category to be
deployed only at the written
request should the need arise.
Include in the RFP clear
definitions for maintenance
versus modifications versus
enhancements.
Access to an actual system
environment is beneficial for
the state to understand the
solution and how the
components interact to meet
requirements. This is
extremely helpful for the
requirements sessions since
the solution can be
demonstrated.
A pre-established pool of
hours with established rates
provides CMS-approved
hours for scope
management.
29
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Configure and Design (DDI) - Deliverables
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
07.01
Configure and
Design (DDI) Deliverables
Allow vendors to propose
deliverable content where
appropriate, recognizing that
some project deliverable
content varies based on the
solution components and
implementation methodology.
07.02
Configure and
Design (DDI) Deliverables
Allow vendors to submit
deliverables electronically via a
collaborative online tool versus
printing hard copies.
This approach allows
evaluators to understand the
difference in deliverable
content based on solution
components. For example,
COTS products are
configured to meet
requirements, but the
product "design" is not
variable. This means that the
content of a DSD is different
for a customized solution
than for a COTS product.
This approach supports
information sharing and
version control (where
everyone views the most
current file). It also increases
timeliness and decreases the
cumbersomeness of printed
deliverables.
30
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Configure and Design (DDI) – Requirements and Enhancements
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
08.01
Configure and
Design (DDI) Requirements
and
Enhancements
Provide RFP requirements in
spreadsheet format organized
by MITA business area and
business process with
applicable CMS certification
checklist numbers. Leverage
the spreadsheet format for
vendors to identify whether
requirements are out-of-thebox, configurable, or require
customization.
08.02
Configure and
Design (DDI) Requirements
and
Enhancements
As states consider how to
incorporate current and future
federal enhancements and
requirements into their RFPs,
be as specific as possible about
the intended scope. Avoid
including vague and unknown
future requirements such as
mandating future CMS
requirements be included as
part of the base bid.
This spreadsheet approach
allows evaluators to quickly
review the compatibility of a
system solution with the
requirements. Organizing
the requirements by MITA
business process initiates a
standard structure that can
be used throughout the
implementation, including
CMS status reports and
certification review. It also
provides a structure to
identify state-specific
requirements that are
outside the standard MITA
business processes.
Vendors are unable to
predict future federal
mandates. Requiring
vendors to cost unknown
future requirements as part
of the base bid causes pricing
to be inflated.
31
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Care Management
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
09.01
Care
Management
Provide specific requirements
regarding the level of support
desired for care management
on a statewide basis. Detailed
requirements should include
what specific functionality the
state wishes to see, who is to
perform care management
activities, for whom, in what
time frame, and from where
precisely the data is expected
to come (i.e., another vendor’s
system). Examples include
claims data metrics already
developed and in use, HIE data
not yet defined, eligibility data
already defined and developed
into a MMIS data feed.
The level of detail ensures
proposals are received for
solutions and services that fit
needs and are accurately
priced.
32
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
Category
Recommendation
Benefit
09.02
Care
Management
Context provides vendors the
information necessary to
correctly assess the state’s
current status and goals. It
further allows vendors to
submit proposals that
leverage current
circumstances and align with
state’s planning and
development goals. A clear
articulation of goals requires
an understanding of the
current environment.
09.03
Care
Management
The requirements presented in
the RFP should be placed in
context. For example:
• What is being accomplished
today with data delivered to
providers and to state
employees?
• What does the state wish to
accomplish regarding care
management and how does
this flow logically out of what is
happening today? Is this an
incremental movement or a
transformational one?
• What is the role of the HIE
that the state envisions in
providing data to support care
management activities?
• What clinical metrics are in
widespread use today for
programmatic evaluation that
are to be used in the evaluation
of this care management
effort?
• Is a clinical dashboard used to
track progress in real time? If
yes, what are the current data
feeds to this dashboard? What
are the desired data feeds?
What additional metrics should
be included on the dashboard?
How will these metrics drive
system change?
Provide details regarding the
extent of the current
partnerships and stakeholders
33
Helps ensure that proposals
received take into account
any current partnerships and
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
With S-TAG Collaboration
Number
09.04
Category
Care
Management
Recommendation
Benefit
that need to be leveraged as
part of the project (e.g., public
health, CIO, TPL, UM, DUR,
PBM vendors). The RFP should
be specific regarding the
bidder's scope as it relates to
working with these entities.
The RFP should provide
accreditation requirements and
to which services the
accreditation is applicable.
Accreditation requirements
should be generally inclusive in
nature (i.e., do not limit
participation to a single
accreditation requirement – for
example URAC, NCQA, QIO,
QIO-Like, etc.)
present programs that
leverage these relationships
in achieving the state’s
vision.
34
Narrow and limited
accreditation requirements
could limit the number of
qualified vendors submitting
proposals, which could result
in a decrease in competition.
With S-TAG Collaboration
Considerations for Developing a
Uniform RFP Guide
Whitepaper
Published Date: 01/05/2015
AppendixB–StateSurveyResults
PSTG developed a fourteen (14) question survey to gather information on state’s perspectives,
needs, and areas of concern. Questions were developed in conjunction with CMS. The Survey
was released online by CMS via SurveyMonkey to seventy-nine (79) state participants in
conjunction with the S-TAG. Thirty-three (33) responses were received from twenty-three (23)
different states.
High-level feedback showed that states are receptive to the idea of an RFP guideline and a more
standardized approach to RFPs. State responses have been used to inform the challenges and
recommendations section within the White Paper.
Survey questions and responses are provided in this appendix, without ad-hoc comments, to deidentify states and individuals. Responses to Questions 8, 11, 12 and 14 have been fully redacted
for de-identification purposes.
Page 35
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q1 Would you like to see an MMIS/MES RFP
template be created by CMS and provided
for state use as a starting place for
MMIS/MES RFP replacement/development?
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Yes
No
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Yes
93.94%
31
No
6.06%
2
Total
33
1 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q2 Do you think that you would benefit
from the availability of a standard
MMIS/MES RFP template?
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Yes, very much
Yes, a little
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Yes, very much
39.39%
13
Yes, a little
33.33%
11
No
12.12%
4
Not sure
15.15%
5
Total
33
2 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q3 If you are not directly involved with the
RFP development process, do you believe
that the individuals who are directly
involved in the process would welcome/use
a standardized template as a starting point
for the RFP development?
Answered: 27
Skipped: 6
Yes, very much
Yes, a little
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Yes, very much
51.85%
14
Yes, a little
29.63%
8
No
7.41%
2
Not sure
11.11%
3
Total
27
3 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q4 When you start the process to create an
RFP, which of the following materials does
your organization draw on: (Select all that
apply)
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Existing CMS
materials/te...
IV&V/Other
Vendor-provi...
State
procurement...
Other State
RFPs
None
Other (please
specify)/Com...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Answer Choices
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Existing CMS materials/templates (e.g., Part 11 of the SMM, MECT, Seven Conditions and Standards)
84.85%
28
IV&V/Other Vendor-provided templates/materials
63.64%
21
State procurement office templates
81.82%
27
Other State RFPs
81.82%
27
None
0.00%
0
Other (please specify)/Comments
12.12%
4
Total Respondents: 33
4 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q5 Which of the following items would be
useful to you or your state if they were
available in a standardized template?
(Select as many as apply)
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Response
instructions...
Medicaid
Enterprise...
Key personnel
qualifications
Statements of
Work (SOWs)
Terms and
Conditions...
Best practices
list
None
Other (please
specify)/Com...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Answer Choices
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Response instructions to bidders
51.52%
17
Medicaid Enterprise Certification Toolkit (MECT) checklist for requirements traceability matrix (RTM)
87.88%
29
Key personnel qualifications
78.79%
26
Statements of Work (SOWs)
78.79%
26
Terms and Conditions (allowing State-specific changes as necessary to meet procurement laws)
60.61%
20
Best practices list
87.88%
29
None
0.00%
0
Other (please specify)/Comments
6.06%
2
Total Respondents: 33
5 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q6 What is the time it takes for the
following MMIS/MES RFP-related activities
(in months)?
Answered: 30
Skipped: 3
Assembling
business and...
Creating the
Implementati...
Receiving CMS
approval for...
Drafting the
RFP
6 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Receiving CMS
approval for...
Receiving CMS
approval for...
0%
10%
1-3 months
20%
30%
40%
3-6 months
6-9 months
1-3 months
Assembling business and technical requirements
Creating the Implementation APD
Receiving CMS approval for the Implementation APD
Drafting the RFP
Receiving CMS approval for the RFP
Receiving CMS approval for the contract
50%
3-6 months
60%
70%
9-12 months
6-9 months
80%
90% 100%
12+ months
9-12 months
12+ months
Total
6.67%
2
36.67%
11
30.00%
9
13.33%
4
13.33%
4
30
51.72%
15
31.03%
9
13.79%
4
3.45%
1
0.00%
0
29
55.17%
16
41.38%
12
3.45%
1
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
29
10.34%
3
34.48%
10
27.59%
8
17.24%
5
10.34%
3
29
48.28%
14
51.72%
15
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
29
68.97%
20
31.03%
9
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
29
7 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q7 How easy/difficult is it for you to use the
current materials available from CMS in
creating MMIS/MES RFPs?
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Very easy
Somewhat easy
Mixed bag
Somewhat
difficult
Very difficult
Don't use them
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Very easy
0.00%
0
Somewhat easy
9.09%
3
Mixed bag
54.55%
18
Somewhat difficult
15.15%
5
Very difficult
3.03%
1
Don't use them
18.18%
6
Total
33
8 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q8 Is you state bound by procurement law
during the evaluation process to have
technical, cost, and oral presentation
scores (if applicable) at certain
percentages? If yes, could you share what
these percentages are? If no, would you be
willing to share the main factors for your
scoring within your MMIS/MES
procurements?
Answered: 24
Skipped: 9
9 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q9 Is your state open to an objectivesbased approach to RFP development where
you would provide a statement of
objectives (SOO)/statement of work (SOW)
and vendors would provide their response
to “how” they would do the work, as
opposed to a standard task-oriented RFP
response that drives how vendors
respond?
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Yes
No
Not sure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Yes
57.58%
19
No
3.03%
1
Not sure
39.39%
13
Total
33
10 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q10 Is your state Medicaid team (as
opposed to a vendor or the procurement
office) involved with creating the following
sections of an MMIS/MES RFP? Please
check all that are applicable:
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Scope and
Overview...
Approach
Project
Management...
Functional
Requirements
Operational
Requirements
Key Personnel
Requirements
Past
Performance...
Performance
Standards
Evaluation
Criteria
Other (please
specify)/Com...
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Scope and Overview Sections
96.97%
32
Approach
90.91%
30
Project Management Requirements
90.91%
30
Functional Requirements
93.94%
31
96.97%
32
Key Personnel Requirements
90.91%
30
Past Performance Requirements
75.76%
25
Operational Requirements
11 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Performance Standards
90.91%
30
Evaluation Criteria
87.88%
29
Other (please specify)/Comments
24.24%
8
Total Respondents: 33
12 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q11 Are there any best practices or lessons
learned from your RFP development
process that you would like to share?
Answered: 18
Skipped: 15
13 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q12 If you have recently completed the RFP
process, what would you do differently next
time/in the future?
Answered: 14
Skipped: 19
14 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q13 What is your role in RFP development
or MMIS/MES-related procurements?
Answered: 33
Skipped: 0
Procurement
official
Proposal
evaluation/v...
Provide
business/req...
Approver
Other (please
specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Answer Choices
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Responses
Procurement official
9.09%
3
Proposal evaluation/vendor selection
57.58%
19
Provide business/requirement inputs
69.70%
23
Approver
33.33%
11
Other (please specify)
27.27%
9
Total Respondents: 33
15 / 16
Uniform MMIS Request for Proposal (RFP) Template
Q14 Would you be willing to discuss this
with the committee as part of a follow-up
phone call? If so, please provide your name
and the best number/times to reach you.
Answered: 18
Skipped: 15
16 / 16