Annise D. Parker
MayorP.O. Box 1562
Houston, Texas 77251-1562
Telephone – Dial 311
www.houstontx.gov
July 21, 2014
SUBJECT:Letter of Clarification No. 5 City of Houston Human Resources
“Medicare Advantage, Medicare Supplement and Prescription Drug Services” RFP
REFERENCE:Request for Proposal (RFP) No. S37-T25089
TO:All Prospective Proposers
When issued, Letter(s) of Clarification shall automatically become a part of the proposal documents and shall supersede any previous specification(s) and/or provision(s) in conflict with the Letter(s) of Clarification. All revisions, responses, and answers incorporated into the Letter(s) of Clarification are collaboratively from both the Strategic Purchasing Division and the applicable City Department(s). It is the responsibility of the proposers to ensure that it has obtained all such letter(s). By submitting a proposal on this project, proposers shall be deemed to have received all Letter(s) of Clarification and to have incorporated them into this proposal.
10.21. Question: We are requesting clarification regarding the proposal formatting/outline in the City's introduction document Solicitation S37-T25089's Special Instructions to Proposers and the required incorporated sections of the Proposal Tech responses. For example, in the Solicitation, it refers to Company Overview as section 3.3 but in the online RFP, it is called 4.1.2. As another example, the Solicitation document asks us to label the Data and Reporting Requirements questionnaire as Section 10.0. However, the Data and Reporting section online is listed as 3.2 and is one of the first sections in the online RFP. As a final example, Section 9.0 in the Solicitation is titled RFP Questionnaire. But, we are already printing out the online questionnaire and placing it into the individual sections (3.3.1, 3.4.1.1, 3.6, 3.7, etc.). If we follow the order in the Solicitation, we would be printing out the online RFP twice (in section 3.0 and section 9.0). Please provide clarification as to which outline respondents should follow and how they should organize the table of contents and sections of the hard copies proposal submissions in order to meet the goals of the evaluation committee to obtain the maximum degree of comparability?
Answer: Please follow the outline in the online RFP.
10.22. Question: Attachment 4 - Census: Can you please provide the Key Code for the Plan column (Column C) so that we can have a clearer picture of which plans the retirees are enrolled in?
Answer: See below:
MAESAetna Medicare ESA PPO
MKCHKelseyCare Advantage HMO
MKCPKelseyCare Advantage POS
MTHSCigna HealthSpring Medicare HMO (formerly Texas HealthSpring)
MTXPTexanPlus Medicare Advantage HMO
MUHSUnited HealthCare Med. Supp. Plan F + PDP
10.23. Question: Evaluation and Selection Process, Section 8 Format of Pricing (Exhibit III), Item 8.1: Can you please clarify what you mean by providing our pricing proposal in a separate envelope? Does this mean that you want our Exhibit III Price Proposal to be entirely separate from the rest of the documents in the RFP response binders including Attachment 2 - MA Price Proposal along with any other supporting pricing documents?
Answer: See response to question 10.15 in Letter of Clarification #4.
10.24. Question: Exhibit I - References: Do the four termed references being requested on this form need to be from customers that previously had experience and history with MA-PD and/or Medicare Supplement + PD benefits? Do these references need to be from similar government agencies like the City of Houston?
Answer: Yes, the four former customers should have been MA-PD and/or Medicare Supplement + PD plan clients. It is preferable that the references be government entities similar in size to the City of Houston. If this is not possible, you may provide former private industry customers of comparable size to the City.
10.25. Question: We were wondering when responses to questions would be posted. During the pre-bid conference, they mentioned 48 hours. Please advise when this will occur?
Answer: Responses to questions from the pre-proposal conference were posted on Wednesday, July 16th. Responses to questions 10.7 – 10.20 on the Proposal Tech website were posted on Thursday, July 17th
10.28 Question: Was information provided detailing the format and parameters mentioned in Question 3.1.1.d? Please provide or direct us to where in the proposal these guidelines might be. (3.1.1.d. The selected vendor's systems, data files, physician and hospital information must be provided in the format and parameters specified by this RFP.)
Answer: The response to this question will be provided at a later date.
10.29. Question: Will the City accept additional supporting attachments to be included with responses?
Answer: Yes, the City will accept additional supporting attachments, providing the information is pertinent to the explanation or response. Marketing materials should be included in a separate section or binder.
10.30. Question: Thank you for providing the Medical and RX claims data in Attachment 9. Can you also please provide the UHC monthly paid medical and pharmacy claims, similar to the data in this attachment that covered all of the other vendors currently in force?
Answer: See response to question 10.19(A) in Letter of Clarification #4.
Sincerely,
Gerri R. Walker
Gerri R. Walker
Assistant Director, Human Resources
Page 1