vendor pre-conference questions

Together for Quality (TFQ) RFPVendor Pre-Conference Questions

Alabama Medicaid AgencyPosted 7/19/07

The responses are in bold italics. Please review each answer in its entirely as it may have changed from the initial posting. To the extent possible, the answer indicates revision.

1. Through this RFP, are you looking to select an HIE consulting services company, with the vendor for the HIE infrastructure and tools selected through subsequent RFPs? It is the Agency’s intention to select a vendor through this procurement that will develop and implement the components specified in the RFP – not a consultant. Subsequent RFPS related to TFQ are not anticipated.

2. Is an HIE vendor (i.e., a company that provides HIE software, hardware and services), as opposed to a consulting company/systems integrator, eligible to respond to and win this RFP? If so, is that vendor precluded from bidding on and winning the subsequent RFPs for software and hardware? Refer to Question #1.

3. Is a proven COTS HIE solution suite tailored to ALMA’s needs preferable to a totally custom-built suite? The State does not have a preference. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

4. REVISED: Must the hardware and the applications reside in Alabama? There is no restriction on where the hardware and applications reside as long as the operational and ownership requirements in the RFP are met. Are ASP-provided solutions preferred to locally hosted and state-managed solutions? Not preferred or desired.

5. “The vendor’s proposed solution must utilize the state’s infrastructure for connectivity and interoperability among Alabama’s HHS agencies.” What portions must be used and what do you see as their functions within the HIE? How is BizTalk currently used and is its role in the HIE? When the HIE connects and accesses data with any Alabama HHS agency data system it must conform to the state policy and procedures concerning security and operations. BizTalk is not currently used by the HHS agencies but is the selected middleware to define the data systems and how they will be accessed and shared.

6. Are you looking for the responding vendors to detail their recommended COTS HIE solutions in this RFP response? Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP whether it a custom-built or COTS approach.

7. On pg. 41 (Corporate Background and References): Is this for the responding consulting company, their HIE partner (i.e., the company with the infrastructure and the tools) or both? This RFP is to secure vendor, not consultant, services; therefore, the corporate background should reflect information on the vendor submitting a proposal.

2007-TFQ-01 Vendor Pre-Conference Questions Posted 7/19/07 1

8. Is state funding currently allocated for the period thru 9/09? Various models for long-term sustainability are being reviewed and addressed through the TFQ Finance Workgroup.

9. Will preference be given to prime contractors headquartered in Alabama? No.

10. Please advise: On pg 45, the proposal guarantee is $50,000; but on page 57 it is stated as $200,000. The $50,000 is the guarantee for the proposal submission. The successful vendor will be required to post a performance guarantee in the amount of $200,000.

11. Does the prime submittor have to be on any state or federal buying services, such as a GSA scehdule? Also, are there small-business, minority owned business, etc., stipulations associated with this RFP? No to both questions. Vendor responses must include the disclosure form along with other required contract documentation.

12. I am reviewing RFP and wondered if there will be pop up windows to remind physicians of preventative opportunities: such as if someone smokes - a window that reminds physican to counsel patient or refer them to state quitline. I also know that some systems allow for downloadable PDF. Will this be built in as well. It is the Agency’s intention that the ECST tool will contain information on preventive tools/behaviors. Vendor solutions should include the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP and may set forth additional features that support the goals of TFQ articulated in the RFP.

13. Acceptance of Standard Terms and Conditions : Where should this statement be included in the proposal? Should it be a separate signed document? If so, will this statement count toward the page limits for the proposal? This statement should be included in the proposal overview and will count towards the page limits.

14. Adherence to Specifications and Requirements : Where should this statement be included in the proposal? Should it be a separate signed document? If so, will this statement count toward the page limits for the proposal? This statement should be included in the proposal overview and will count towards the page limits.

15. Does the RFP Cover Sheet count towards the proposal page limit? No.

16. Does the RFP Proposal Guarantee count towards the proposal page limit? Yes, it should be counted in the limits for attachments.

17. May vendors use a font smaller than 11 points for charts, diagrams,tables, graphics, and gantts as long as readability is not compromised and the actual proposal narrative is in 11 points or larger? Yes, in the charts, diagram tables, etc.

18. Will the signed acknowledgement of addenda pages count towards the proposal page limits? No, these will be separate documents.

19. Unit and Integration Testing (i) completed by February 4, 2007. Please confirm that the year should be 2008. The year should be 2008.


20. Submission of Training Materials (j) by January 7, 2007. Should this be 2008? The year should be 2008.

21. REVISED: For Pricing Schedule 2 - Hardware and software - RFP instructs on page 40: "Vendor is required to list all software and hardware that must be purchased by the State of Alabama to successfully implement the proposed solution. Vendor is NOT to list costs in their proposal. This list must include a complete description of the hardware and software, whether it is proprietary, and its purpose." However, on RFP page 80 Pricing schedule 2, the instructions indicate "list the cost of all hardware components separately" and "list the cost of software license(s) per # of users." Please confirm that no costs for hardware and software should be shown on Schedule 2. The vendor should not submit any cost on Pricing Schedule Two except for proprietary software. Pricing Schedule 2 will be revised via RFP amendment.

22. Please confirm that (1) no hardware and software costs should be included in the firm and fixed project cost on Schedule 1, Hardware and software costs that are part of your professional solution should not be itemized on Pricing Schedule One; (2) no hardware / software costs should be listed on Schedule 2, Refer to Revised Pricing Schedule 2 and (3) only professional services costs associated with software should be included in the total cost. Hardware and software costs that are part of your professional solution should not be itemized on Pricing Schedule One.

23. Will the contractor be paid in equal monthly installments for ongoing support and maintenance? Vendor should submit their total cost for the period. It is the Agency’s intention to pay these costs in equal, monthly installments.

24. With respect to hardware and software, the RFP states "The State will independently verify costs and may use the expected cost as part of the evaluation process." Does the State intend to estimate the hardware and software costs of the Contractor's listed products and add this total to the total firm and fixed price to get the evaluated price from a scoring perspective? Yes.

25. Please confirm that only Pricing Schedules 1 and 3 should contain authorized signatures. With the revision of Pricing Schedule 2, all three schedules will require signature.

26. Please confirm that the data repositories required for integration are existing data sources available to ALMA. Data repositories will be available for integration. Those data repositories that are not currently available to ALMA will be made available.

27. Is the vendor required to use the existing databases to obtain the required data? For example, it appears that much of the data contained in the Infosolutions database is available in the claims data. Could such a source also be leveraged? Refer to Question #47.


28. Is data from the Partnership Hospital Program provided in the same manner and format as other data sources (i.e., claims data)? If not, please provide more information on the format and content. Yes, it is part of the existing claims data.

29. Do providers participating in the Maternity Care Program submit claims and/or encounter data for program participants that is available for this project? Primary Contractors for the Maternity Care Program submit claims for services upon the patient’s delivery. The claim contains a delivery code indicating the type of delivery (.e.g c-section or vaginal). For services paid outside the global, the individual provider of service submits their claim to EDS. Hospitals submit inpatient claims for services. These inpatient claims are processed as encounter data claims. All these claims are part of the existing claims data.

30. Please provide more information on the population of recipients enrolled in the Patient 1st program. For example, are Maternity Care Program participants enrolled in Patient 1st? Medicaid eligibles with the exception of Medicare-Medicaid eligibles, SOBRA adults, institutionalized individuals and those that are individually exempt from Patient 1st are enrolled in the Patient 1st Program. You may have women that participate in both the Patient 1st Program and Maternity Care Program if they are in an aid category other than SOBRA adult.

31. Given the current state of the surety market for performance bonds, it is unlikely that performance bonds can be obtained for periods greater than one year. Will the State accept a performance bond written for an initial one year term with annual renewals? Yes.

32. The RFP notes that work is beginning concerning developing electronic patient records for individuals who are uninsured. Is there any information on what data these records are projected to include and what data formats they are expected to be developed in? Is the vendor selected for this RFP expected to develop such a system or only be able to coordinate with whatever is developed? Specifics regarding these records have not been decided. The Vendor’s solution should propose how this repository would be created and accessed.

33. Due to the aggressive timeframes for the implementation of the Interoperability components, would the State be willing to accept a phased implementation for the EMRs and allow the Contractor to develop the phased implementation schedule? No.

34. REVISED: What is the final deadline to submit questions after the Vendor Conference? Monday, July 16th at 9:00 am CDT. Due to the extension for additional questions, follow-up to the conference and questions will be posted to the WEB no later than Thursday, July 19, 2007.

35. Are Vendors required to submit pricing for any proprietary software used in their solution? If so, where in the proposal should the pricing be provided? Please refer to Question #21.


36. Please elaborate on the software described in the table on page 35. Who are the users ( hospitals, clinics, public health nurses etc.) ? What are the primary functions ( HIS, Ambulatory Management, Case management etc.)? Is the software hosted within the current state network. If not, are there existing links into the State network? An informal poll was taken of family medicine physicians to give potential vendors an idea of existing EMR systems. These are physician office systems. These systems are not housed within the State network nor are there existing links.

37. The Alabama campus network components are identified as including Microsoft BizTalk, the email network, and SQL Server database(s). The requirement is also listed to utilize these resources. Is the respondent required to utilize only these technologies, or simply integrate with them where needed? Integrate and utilize them where needed.

38. The RFP states that TFQ will build upon existing technologies and solutions, and will not reconstruct existing data repositories that reside within Alabama, and that TFQ will leverage existing repositories. Has provision been made for these originating systems to manage the increased user load driven by a federated architecture, or is this a part of the vendor's responsibilities? How would this impact the performance delivery/penalties referenced in the RFP? (Also reference page 15, item 7 - these queries could generate a significant additional load on the existing systems). All stakeholders involved in TFQ efforts are aware of the additional requirements that will be made on existing data repositories. Refer to Question #133.

39. The goals stated on pages 9-10 include development of a Health Information Sharing network, and an ECST front end. Business Intelligence is not a stated goal, yet is implied in many of the proceeding requirements. For example, analysis for improving outcomes must typically be measured across a population, which would require a data source and front-end for analytics. Can you clarify the role of Business Intelligence in the RFP? Business Intelligence is not a listed goal but is inherent in the RFP objectives.

40. The RFP identifies needs for data normalization and terminology mediation (page 22) in the exchange, ECST, and perhaps business intelligence functions. Has this been addressed in the existing repositories within the state (e.g. Infosolutions)? If so, how, and to what degree? If not, is this the responsibility of the vendor within the desired hybrid model? (This issue is similar to the CCI referenced on pages 17-18, but beyond Customer Identification - normalization and mediation for patient clinical information and vocabularies listed on page 21). The data normalization and terminology mediation is important to business intelligence requirements. The vendor can utilize the help of 3rd party modules but the functionality must be a part of the project. In particular, data stored in the repository must be mapped to accepted terminologies used in healthcare. The solution must be able to handle incoming data from participating systems that are transmitting structured information (i.e hospitals, laboratories, EHRs).

41. Page 10 of the RFP states that [Microsoft] SQL Server and BizTalk must be utilized by vendors for connectivity and interoperability. Does this mean that solutions must be developed on Microsoft platforms only? Is preference to be given to Microsoft solutions? What national standards are supported in this network, per the vision statement in the


preceding paragraph? Solutions do not have to be predicated on nor is preference given to Microsoft solutions. Page 10 of the RFP; however, states that connectivity and interoperability between state HHS agencies must use the state infrastructure.

42. Page 8, item 4 refers to the common goals of the Medicaid Patient 1st Program. What are these common goals? Is there additional detail on how these goals are to be achieved? The goal of the Patient 1st Program is to create a medical home for the patient. TFQ supports the medical home by providing claims based information to the provider augmented with clinical indicators.

43. Page 18 states that the Vendor must ensure that the proposed solution safeguards access to data and modules. If the Finance-ISD administers the Microsoft Exchange/BizTalk/Active Directory-based network, is the Vendor responsible only for security design (vs. administration)? The intent of this section is to ensure that the solution does not pose a security risk to the state network. The solution must follow the adopted state security guidelines. The vendor will be required to administer appropriate security roles and functions.

44. The ability to connect multiple data sources and a Service-Oriented Architecture solution are mentioned on page 19. What is the expected role of the Microsoft BizTalk system in this goal? The role is that BizTalk will choreograph these connections and broker the SOA data exchange that makes up the overall solution.

45. Is the State's Microsoft BizTalk and Exchange network supporting the ADSS system functions described on page 22? If so, to what degree? Not that I am aware of, but these lab reports and how to access them can be defined into BizTalk. Page 22 does not refer to ADSS system functions. Please clarify the question.

46. Page 47, item T states that vendors may only participate in a single bid (including subcontractors). Each response would most likely contain technologies and services from the vendor community, and overlap is most likely unavoidable. How will you administer and determine the disqualifications, based upon this clause? The Agency did not intend to restrict participation to this extent. An amendment to the RFP will be issued.

47. On page 8, Alabama states that they do not want to reconstruct existing repositories. A federated (integrated) approach seems more daunting from an integration effort, especially given the list of systems they have on page 35. Can we introduce a new repository, or is the State only interested in a federated approach? The objective of TFQ and this RFP is to build upon existing databases that are established and maintained. It is not the Agency’s intention to create new repositories of information. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

48. On page 10, the State mentions SQL Server as the state standard. Since our solution does not use SQL Server can we propose an alternative to SQL Server? Yes, another database can be proposed but the long term support of this database will have to be considered during evaluation.


49. On page 10 the State lists the following number of Medicaid recipients and transactions (i.e. 960,000 Eligible lives in 2005, 11.6 Million Scripts in 2005, 420,000 patient 1st participants). Does the State have any growth projections for these numbers? In FY 2006 there were 988,678 eligible lives. Agency projections for FY 2007 and 2008 are 917,574 and 897,879, respectively. Prescriptions, including refills, numbered 8.5 million in FY 2006 and are projected to be 7.6 million in FY 2007. No projection of the number of prescriptions are available for FY 2008. There were 409,000 Patient 1st enrollees in FY 2006, and there are expected to be 398,000 in FY 2007.

50. On page 14 they mention rural and non-connected users. How many do they expect for the pilot? How many are there in general? It is anticipated that there may be up to 500 users in the pilot. The Agency is conducting a survey of primarily Patient 1st Providers along with specialists and emergency rooms to determine the exact number of users, their level of connectivity, their locality as well as other types of information such as patient load. At this point, it is unclear where all these providers will be located. It is the Agency’s intention to have a broad spectrum of provider representation to ensure valid testing of the tool. All providers selected to participate will be required to sign an agreement for participation which will outline their commitment to the use of the tool. The Agency will develop the agreement and begin the process of having providers sign the agreement, but it will the Vendor’s responsibility to ensure that all agreements are in place at time of implementation/training.

51. On page 15, the State mentions using a rules engine to query results from various systems. Is the State expecting the doctors to input query criteria and have the rules engine resolve where to get the data? Is this really a record locator function? The system should automatically populate existing fields in the EMR or ECST and alert the provider that new data exists.

52. On page 15, the RFP mentions a notification engine. Which systems will feed this notification process? This would be dependent on the Vendor’s solution.

53. On page 19, will the State please provide what standards the systems listed support for data exchange. The RFP mentions several times that the solution should be able to ‘reach in’ to these systems. This implies direct access, instead of message based integration. Which approach is the State requesting to be implemented? Refer to Appendix C for system details. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

54. On page 21, the State looks that they are planning on using HL7 messaging. Will the State please identify which systems support HL7 and what release of HL7 they currently have installed? It is not clear that the systems listed on pg. 19 support these messages.

Immunization data Source system is working toward HL7 implementation in 2nd quarter of FY08.

Demographic, Claims and Lab BCBS is in the process of converting


Data the majority of the data feeds to HL7 version 2.3.1.

On-Line Disaster Network Not an established database.

Emergency Patient Information EPI was developed in house by BCBS so it uses proprietary messages however they are in the process of analyzing and plan to convert to PHR standards when they are finalized.

AIMS No.

Pharmacy Prior Authorization No.

55. On page 23, components #1 and 2, how do they intend to ‘access’ AIMS database? Access implies direct query versus message exchange. Which approach is the State requesting to be implemented? This would be accomplished through BizTalk.

56. On page 23, components #4, in what format will the claims data be ‘accessed’? This information is currently available through direct access to the Medicaid AMMIS. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

57. On page 23, component #7-10 appear to be BI reporting requirement. Is this correct and does the State have a standard BI tool that they use? The State does not have a standard BI tool. The HHS Interoperability is a new initiative for the State; therefore there are no standard tools.

58. On page 25, the RFP mentions that the EHR is claims based, yet all the integration specs show HL7 2.4 or higher. Does the State want claims or clinical data in the EHR? Both claims and clinical data should be available.

59. Pg 33 (top) - The RFP talks about one of the sites may be fax based today and needs to move to tablet environment during the pilot. Who is responsible for getting them to a tablet approach? This will be a joint effort by the State and Vendor. It is anticipated that the State will initially identify the pilot sites including current and future needs. The Vendor will then work with these sites to implement the ECST in the most advantageous form to the provider realizing that some providers have not moved from a paper environment due to lack of resources which will now be available through TFQ.

60. USE CASE Appendix E, page 77. In the Use Cases in Appendix E there is an example of a transmission of script to pharmacy is mentioned. Is this part of the pilot? If yes, what format will this be? NCPDP? NCPDP Script Standard Format 8.1 is currently used.


61. REVISED: Appendix G page 79. The percentage of overall budget for Integration is not representative of a typical eHealth implementation. Given the complexity of the integration the State is requesting would the State consider different allocations (%) than outline in the RFP? The State would be willing to review alternative allocations given that no one area is excessive. Any changes to the allocation schedule would have to be clearly defined. Price evaluation will based on the total firm and fixed cost as well as anticipated equipment costs as determined by the State based on Pricing Schedule 2. Pricing Schedule 1 will be revised via RFP to allow for alternative allocations.

62. How many test sites will be in the Pilot? Refer to Question #50.63. Does the Alabama “low bid” law apply to this procurement? No. Price will be considered as part of the overall proposal evaluation.

64. Has the State already been working with a vendor to plan the activities associated with this procurement? If so, who is the vendor? No.

65. Are there plans to open the ECST tool and other facets of this project to all providers – NOT just limited to Medicaid providers? If so, when is that expected to occur? During this initial phase, use will be limited to just Medicaid providers. The long-term goal of TFQ is that all providers, regardless of payor source, will utilize the information available.

66. Is an EFT Strategy part of the project vision for provider reimbursement? No.

67. Will the Hospital Capitation program include a risk sharing structure? Not applicable to this RFP.

68. Will Health Coach & Advisor services be delivered via a Help Desk? No. The Help Desk function will be for technical use of the tool.

69. Is their priority or urgent initiatives that need to be taken into consideration in the sequencing of the design? It seems that the RFP is written more from a big bang approach? The priority dates are outlined in the Schedule of Deliverables.

70. Will there be regional operations that will be linked state wide. This is a statewide initiative.

71. Will this initiative address interoperability across state lines and accumulate data for care received out side of the State of Alabama? At this point, the interoperability across state lines will involve providers who may be out of state using this tool. The data will reflect all care received and filed through the claims system regardless of where it has been provided.

72. What Mandatory reporting requirements have to be met through the design? Can you give us an idea of the number of reports. At a minimum, the Vendor will be required to submit the weekly project reports. Additional


reports may be required for quarterly federal reporting.

73. Will historical data and clinical information be imported into the EHR and other records? How many years will be part of the initial load? Historical claims based data currently resides in the InfoSolutions® database and should be incorporated into the ECST. How many years will be part of the initial load? The Agency believes there will be no need for an “initial load” based on the information currently residing in the databases identified to which the vendor is required to provide interfaces.

74. Item #7: What technology does the agency anticipate using for the rules based query tool that will fit within the Microsoft technology stack? The State does not have a preference for what technology is used on the web based query tool (ASP/Java/....) we prefer an open standards XML based approach.

75. Item #8: Does the Agency or State currently have a notification platform that can be utilized? Perhaps the State Health alert network? If so, can the state provide some specifications? Notification platform does not currently exist; thus solution should be included in the proposed design.

76. Is the Certification by CCHIT mandatory for components of the system? No.

77. “Medicaid desires to implement a hybrid EHR whereby limited data is held in a centralized data repository while most patient data is held by the system in which it is created” As per this statement: What are the common data tables/elements that would be part of the repository? At a minimum, the State anticipates this repository would hold the CCI information and possibly the clinical information entered by the provider. The Vendor’s solution should propose additional elements that may be necessary.

Also is the State interested in Federated Query capabilities as part of the solution to support queries into the source systems? Yes, this would be an option for consideration.

78. All vendors are aware of the $7.6M in funding for this initiative, but what is the anticipated budget for this “pilot phase” of the project? The original grant proposal allotted $2.2m each grant year. These dollars must account for the entire solution, including the hardware and software to be purchased by the State.

79. Section I.A., page 8 – Built Upon Existing Technology The RFP indicates that the State intends that TFQ will build upon existing technology and solutions and will not reconstruct existing data repositories. Does this mean that the State will not entertain a solution that extracts the data from existing systems to form an integrated database to support the ECST? Refer to Question #47.

80. Section III, page 14 – Open Systems and Proprietary Components


The ability to use established, proprietary, commercially developed software tools and products enable a customized solution to be much more cost-effective than if all the components are developed from scratch using only public domain components. Would the State allow the offerors to propose solutions that include commercially-available proprietary off-the-shelf software components that are well-proven and widely available in the marketplace if they are developed using open systems standards? Yes.

81. Section III, page 16 – Cost of Hardware and Software Since the cost of the component hardware and software is not to be included in the proposal, how will the State make a determination of the bid having the lowest overall cost? The State is required to procure hardware and software through existing state contracts. The cost of vendor proposed hardware and software will be evaluated by determining the total costs of these products through the State contract in relation to the overall firm and fixed cost.

82. Episodes of Care The RFP does not mention organizing the data by episode of care. Is it the State’s intent to be able to see data on the patient’s health care history arrayed by discrete episodes? If the claims data are not organized by episode of care, it is very difficult for clinicians and case managers to see at a glance how bouts of illness or injury have progressed and been treated. Also, organizing the data by episode greatly improves the value of the data for disease management purposes. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

83. Centralized Data Repository for Retrospective Analysis Does the State anticipate the eventual establishment of an integrated data repository from which population-wide data analysis could be conducted on this newly integrated data? Without a central repository organized for in-depth analysis, it will be difficult to leverage the EMR to do the types of system-wide analysis needed to support pay-for-performance, disease management, and similar programs. Medicaid anticipates the use of a database that aggregates data to perform population analysis but is not committed to a specific solution. The Agency website contains information about the Patient 1st Profiler which is currently being used to report provider’s performance in key areas. With regard to terminology mediation, see response to question #84.

84. There are many requests throughout the proposal to normalize data and facilitate terminology mediation. Please reconcile this with the request on page 8 point 4 instructing the vendor not to reconstruct existing data repositories. The reconciliation and terminology mapping should allow for the incorporation of data into the ECST regardless of the terminology used in the system from which the data is obtained.


Terminology mapping and the mediation process should allow the information to be viewed in the requested formats.

85. Please clarify by diagram exactly how you would like ALAHIS to utilize BizTalk. Will BizTalk facilitate the communication among various HL7 messaging ranging from v2 to v3 and communicate that with other agencies? BizTalk will have a HL7 adaptor to facilitate the communication between agencies and third party applications. Vendor solutions must be open enough to communicate with BizTalk and be able to share information with defined state agencies. The diagram is Attachment One.

86. There is a request to specify all hardware and software so that Alabama can purchase independently of this RFP process. Please specify software? Does this include application software or simply operating system and RDBMS? (pg. 40) Any software that the state and/or Medicaid is required to provide ongoing maintenance and support on should be purchased independently. This may include application software.

87. Please specify how ALMA would like vendor to allocate software and hardware if vendor hosts solution in order to reduce costs and enable private party participation in Alabama program? (pg. 40) This question is unclear. If the vendor is hosting then it would be part of vendor’s firm and fixed proposal.

88. REVISED: Will ALMA be including private organizations’ data into the solution as the program progresses? If solution owned and managed by ALMA, will ALMA manage private organization data as well? BCBS data will be available during the pilot phase as well as data entered by the individual provider of service.

89. There is a reference to Common Client Index (CCI). Is the CCI already in place and built? Does it need to link to a CCI? Or does the solution need to become the CCI? The CCI is not currently in place. Vendors should submit their solution to creating a CCI as part of their proposal.

90. Also, please clarify the timetable for exchange capabilities referred to on Page 17, paragraph 1, 3rd sentence – “While some of these exchange capabilities will be required immediately, others will be demanded as Alabama’s healthcare information infrastructure develops”. This paragraph is an overview of the healthcare exchange movement. All database exchanges referenced in Appendix C should be available immediately with the exception of the On-Line Disaster Network and Health Records for the Uninsured.

91. There is a reference on page 18 to the state managing access to the system and network access. Does this mean that the state will manage all provider requests and access to the system including management of role based access privileges at each location? In addition, will the state manage clinician denial of access as well as provider personnel transitions? The State will define user roles however, it will be the Vendor’s responsibility to implement security privileges. Refer to Question #43.

92. The RFP states on page 19 that Medicaid desires to implement a hybrid HER whereby limited data is held in a centralized repository while most patient data is held in


system which it is created. This is not a question. The State assumed that it was meant to be part of Question #93.

93. Please specify what data you would like stored remotely vs. centrally? This is important because decision support is unreliable in an RLS environment where data cannot be normalized and terminologies cannot be mediated. Refer to Question #77.

94. Please elaborate on what data types will need to be supported and what functions the Disaster Network will entail. At this time that level of information is unknown. It is anticipated that the Vendor will be able to work with the data repository once established.

95. The terminology mediation requirement on page 22 appears to be inconsistent with the desire for a federated model on page 19. The solution will pull data from disparate sources which will need to be incorporated into the ECST. The data in the tool must be translated into a common terminology and may require terminology mediation. Refer to Question #84 and #40.

96. Item 7 on page 24 appears to be something that would be inherent within an existing Case Management system. Does the existing case management system provide these alerts and pass them along to ALAHIS or is the intent for ALAHIS to provide the alert and notify other agencies? There is not an electronic case management system in place. It is the intent for ALAHIS to provide the alert notification feature through BI.

97. There is a request for a Provider Profiler and Peer to Peer Clinical Support on page 26. In the RFI released earlier this year this capability was already in place and the solution needed to be linked to this existing system. Is that still the case or does the ALAHIS solution need to include provider profiling based on the QI measures? The vendor’s solution should include Provider Profiling based on the QI measures. The existing provider profiling is limited to measures specific to the Patient 1st Program.

98. Please provide a use case for the specific referral management system needed. Which parts of referral management are already in place and which will need to be provided by the new ALAHIS solution? Based on the referral management referenced on page 27, the State anticipates that this would be a messaging type function driven by provider input.

99. REVISED: How many beneficiaries will the solution cover? Refer to Questions #30 and #49.

100.REVISED: Please reconcile the difference on the grant timeline of Dec 31, 2008 and the contract term expiration of Sept. 9, 2009. The transformation grant effectively ends December 31, 2008; however, the State has the ability to enter into a contract for two years. Refer to Question #8.

101.There are several penalties in place for vendor timeline delays. How does vendor manage timeline delays that are a result of ALMA personnel or systems? The Agency does not intend to assess damages for delays for which it is responsible.


102.Does the current Prior Authorization process offer real-time web services integration into ALAHIS? Does PA for meds need to be real time? The RFP requirement on page 25, strictly refers to a messaging notification of approval or denial. The PA process is not changing.

103.There is a request to obtain uninsured data from primary care and hospitals. Will the ALAHIS solution need to obtain data via interfaces from those facilities or will that data reside in InfoSolutions or some other staging area? Refer to Question #32.

104.REVISED: There is an indication that providers will be entering problems and be including ICD-9 codes. Please reconcile this desire with the same ICD-9 codes that will be coming to ALAHIS via InfoSolutions. A replacement of Appendix D will be posted via RFP amendment. The last page was inadvertently omitted from the original RFP.

105.On pg. 9 it appears that ALMA wishes to extract clinical data from interfaced EMRs. Who will be responsible for obtaining sharing agreements from providers? This will be the vendor’s responsibility.

106.Does ALMA intend to include a PHP facility (facilities) amongst the 500 providers? (pg. 11) Refer to Question #50.

107.Will all 500 providers be contained within a contiguous region of the state or will they distributed throughout the entire state? (pg. 13) Refer to Question #50.

108.If limited to a single region of the state, will the exchange be limited to only those clients in that region, or will the exchange include all 960,000 Medicaid citizens. (pg. 13) Refer to Question #50.

109.How will the 500 providers be chosen and how does ALMA intend to solicit their participation? (pg. 13) Refer to Question #50.

110.Currently, CCHIT only certifies full featured, comprehensive EHRs and not components. Since the ECST and modified EHR are not comprehensive, can ALMA clarify what it is anticipating in terms of CCHIT certification? (pg. 15) It is not required that the system be CCHIT certified, rather the Agency just wants to know if the proposed system is CCHIT certified.

111.ALMA seems to suggest that some exchange “will be required immediately” and others will come along later? Does ALMA have a specific timetable with priorities? (pg. 17) Refer to Question #90.

112.Goal 2 suggests a hybrid of a repository and federated model with “limited data” in a repository. Does ALMA have specific preferences for the nature and volume of the data in the repository? Is this left to the contractor? (pg. 19) Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.


113.ALMA is requesting predictive modeling, which requires a sizable repository of information of claims data, and, in the future, clinical data. How should this be reconciled with the request for a predominantly federated model? (pgs. 19 & 26) Predictive modeling and risk stratification is needed for Agency quality and care management activities. The Agency acknowledges the need for the creation of a new database to allow for data mining. Medicaid anticipates the use of a database that aggregates data to perform population analysis but is not committed to a specific solution. Refer to Question #83.

114.REVISED: Is it possible to acquire the specific form data elements contained within AIMS? (pg. 23). Yes. Attachment Two represents the data elements contained within AIMS.

115.Will a vendor enhance its score by offering more than the minimum QI measures specified on page 26? The evaluation process takes into account through higher scoring any vendor offering more than the minimum in the areas of technical requirements, interoperability and interface, the ECST, project management and vendor experience.

116.The RFP mentions ~1M covered lives in 2005. Please provide an estimate of the number of members which will be included in the pilot. Also, how far back from present day must data be accessible via the ECST? There are approximately 400,000 eligibles enrolled in Patient 1st. It is anticipated that the pilot users will be predominately Patient 1st Providers. The claims data; however, will be representative of all Medicaid covered lives hence the 1M covered lives. The tool will not be restricted to just those enrolled in the Patient 1st program. The existing repositories will dictate how much data is available. Appendix D explains the level/amount of detail that must be available through the ECST.

117.Much of the analytic and decision support functionality described in the use case are not compatible with a purely federated data model. In order to deliver the level of real time decision support, provider quality analytics, etc., member data would have to be aggregated in advance. Will ALMA consider responses which mirror data stored in existing source systems? Refer to Question #47.

118.What is the timeframe by which ALMA expects that the technology and infrastructure will be in place to support the scenario described in the use case? March 2008.

119.The RFP states that solutions must utilize the state’s infrastructure for connectivity and interoperability. Can you provide a diagram or schematic of the network and its components? (pg. 10) Please refer to RFP page 18 for a list of state infrastructure assets. The selected vendor will receive a more detailed schematic, but the State is reluctant due to security reasons to post a detail network schematic to the public.

120.The RFP states the solution must be based on open systems technology where proprietary components and solutions are avoided and must address all requirements identified in this RFP. What is ALMA’s position on the use and custom configuration of COTS products? (pg. 14) Refer to Question #6.


121.REVISED: Does ALMA anticipate owning and operating the solution (hardware and software) or are you considering an ASP solution? ALMA anticipates owning and operating the solution. Refer to Question #4. Is your answer the same for the pilot as well as the statewide implementation? Refer to Question #8.

122.Technical requirement numbers five and six require a list of hardware and software the state must purchase for the solution. These requirements will be very different for the pilot vs. a statewide solution. Do you require lists for both? Yes.

123.A purely federated solution in which all or most data is maintained in source systems and aggregated on demand will likely not meet clinician’s performance expectations in terms of speed. Would ALMA consider solution which mirror portions of existing data bases (possibly the 3-12 months most recent data) in discrete data stores? Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

124.Technical requirement number 8 describes a notification service which must interact with a wide variety of tools. Does ALMA currently have a notification system in place, or are you asking us to include such a solution in the proposed design? Refer to Question #75.

125.The RFP describes a Common Client Index. Does ALMA currently have such a system, or is the description conceptual of the functionality of such a system? (pg. 17). Refer to Question #89.

126.The RFP states that in support of goal number two, Medicaid desires to implement a hybrid EHR whereby limited data is held in a centralized repository while most data is held by the system in which it is created. Each solution must exchange information with the following databases further described in appendix C. Can you please outline your expectations of the delineation between data held centrally and data retained by existing source systems? (pg. 19) Refer to Question #77.

127.The requirements for the Agency Interoperability pilot are very specific and involve several existing systems. Without much more detail, it is very difficult to propose a solution under the terms of a Fixed Price contract. Noted.

128.Is real time connectivity expected with all of the databases listed in Appendix C? Section VI, ECSTIn reference to event (M) in IX. Implementation Schedule/Deliverables, Interface with HHS Agency, what specifically needs to be accomplished by 5/1/08? Page 34. Refer to Question #90.

129.Page 23 – page 24 states that, “At a minimum, the electronic information exchange system must consist of the following components.” What is the timetable associated for these items? This deliverable is due May 2008.


130. Will the State consider negotiating event dates after the contract is signed as the event schedule is contingent on a completed contract? The State is aware that due dates may have to be negotiated depending on when the actual contract is signed. The contract awarded through the RFP has to be reviewed by the Legislative Contract Review Committee (LCRC) (see timeline in RFP). In the event there are delays meeting LCRC timelines for consideration at the September meeting, the contract award can be delay up to 45 days. ALMA does not anticipate a delay, so vendors should be willing and able to meet the aggressive schedule outlined in the RFP. Vendors should submit all completed contract documents required by the RFP as part of their proposal.

131. For example, page 3 states that the approximate award date based on a one month contract negotiation is 9/13/07. Given that this date is approximate, does the State expect vendors to commit to firm dates such as submitting a Final Project Plan (pg. 34) on 9/14 (five business days prior to due date). It appears that the vendor project team has one day after contract award to submit this deliverable. Are the final deliverable dates to be set as a result of a completed and mutually agreed-on Final Project Plan, or are they the dates outlined in Section A. Schedule of Deliverables on p. 34? The deliverables are the dates as outlined in the Schedule of Deliverables and have been established to comply with timelines for mandatory review of the contract by the Legislative Contract Review Committee. The Agency will begin the evaluation process on August 2, 2007, and will complete the process as expeditiously as possible in an effort to give as much notice as possible to the selected vendor. Regardless, Vendor should be willing and able to meet the aggressive schedule outlined in the RFP.

132. Please specify which event deliverables, as highlighted in Section A. Schedule of Deliverables on p.34, are committed delivery due dates for the vendor versus ALMA? These are all vendor due dates.

133. What recourse does the vendor have if ALMA and affiliated agencies and partners are unable to provide information and/or interfaces in the timeframes set forth in Section A Schedule of Deliverables on p.34? The State and all affiliated stakeholders are committed to delivering requested and necessary information in order to meet deliverable dates. If, for some reason the Vendor is unable to meet a deadline due to the State’s inability to provide necessary information and/or interfaces, then the Vendor would not be held responsible.


134. It has been our experience that a final project plan can be completed once all of the project team (project sponsor, additional agencies, and multiple vendors) have had a chance to meet and review project requirements, current capacity of client and affiliated client resources, and to validate system and data requirements and capabilities. Would there be an opportunity for the vendor team to meet with ALMA and affiliated agencies to review the above project components prior to the planned Vendor Meeting on 9/19/07? The State would be willing to meet with the selected Vendor as soon as the contract selection is made contingent on the Vendor agreeing that payment could not actually be made until such time that the Contract is approved by the Legislative Contract Review Committee.

135. Development of Clinical Tool: Does this event represent a mock-demonstration of the ECST tool capabilities prior to full development? The Agency is expecting a visual representation of how the tool would appear and its proposed functionality. Approval will be given before the full development phase.

136. Please define expected functional capabilities and design of “initial version” of HIS and ECST that would be complete by 12/10/07 prior to any unit and integration testing (to be complete by 2/10/08). Does this event refer to system requirements for the HIS and ECST versus an actual complete solution? It is anticipated by the date, the vendor will have a visual representation of the system, will have reviewed each existing repository and have developed a testing plan for development and implementation, including identification of needs from each existing repository.

137. Please further define elements related to the Submission of Training Materials event. Many of the items listed on page 37 are dependent upon successful testing of the solution—not to be completed until after this event date is scheduled. The tools and plan should be based on the proposed and approved solution. It is understood by the State that the tools may change depending on successful testing.

138. End-User Training (pg. 37) Please further define the scope of user training, including an estimate of the number of users to be trained, their affiliation and roles, and the expected training methodologies. Please define expected functionality for training as the solution is not planned for implementation until after the training is complete. It is the Agency’s intention that the Vendor will as part of their proposal submit their initial training plan. In that the pilot group has not been determined, then the Agency does not have an estimate of how many end-users. Keep in mind that up to 500 providers may be selected for the pilot, however these provider sites may have multiple users. The training scheduled for the month of February 2008, is to prepare the end-user for the actual implementation of the tool March 2008. It is anticipated that during the training phase, users will use the tool in a test environment.

139. Does the planned Pilot not include a completed interface to the HHS agency as outlined in I. Unit and Integration Testing? The interface with the HHS Agency is scheduled for May 2008.


140. Please further define this event and elaborate why the interface to the HHS agency would not be complete during event G or H. The clinical tool and HIS will be used primarily by providers throughout the State. The interface with the HHS Agency is a single entity that will use this tool in conjunction with the Medicaid Agency.

141. The State intends to post question between 7/9 – 7/12, and to post final answers by 7/17. Will the State allow submission of follow-up questions after 7/17? Refer to Question 34.

142. As the vendor is required to bid a fixed price based on the requirements and information supplied by the State, it appears inequitable to for the State to take the position presented on page 12 of the RFP that the vendor shall have no relief or ability to amend its proposal to the extent that the information provided by the State in the RFP is inaccurate or incomplete and such errors or omissions have a material impact the cost or ability to perform with the required timeframes. It is requested that the State amend this requirement to allow the change control process to address any mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, or omissions in the RFP. The RFP contains numerous provisions regarding amending the contract and dispute resolution, including Part XV Section D. Contract Amendments; Section Y. Disputes and Litigation; Section II. Cooperation; Section KK. Conformance with Contract; and Section OO. Alternative Dispute Resolution. It is presumed that both parties will operate in good faith in resolving any disputes that arise during the term of the contract.

143. RFP states: “A technical architecture diagram of the HHS agency inoperability solution.” Please clarify. Does the State mean interoperability solution? The correct term is interoperability.

144. Regarding the “rules-based query engine”: would the State please identify query engines already in place and used by ALMA, if any? There are none currently in place. Refer to Questions #51 and #52.

145. It is unclear how the vendor should price in the cost of maintenance for State owned and procured software and hardware. Additionally, it is unclear how the vendor can provide maintenance to software licensed by the State. Also, providing maintenance on hardware may impact the State’s warranties under such hardware. Please clarify this requirement. Maintenance of any hardware and/or software purchased by the State will be the responsibility of the State.

146. What are your primary objectives and requirements for a new State system to track uninsured individuals? Refer to Question #32.


147. The RFP states a requirement to interact with the minimum listed EMR systems seamlessly. Is the expectation that interfaces for the systems that don't have IHE profiles with CCHIT 2007 certification would have to be constructed for each of the participating clinician’s EMR? What versions of these EMR systems would need to be supported? It is the Agency’s intention that the information available through the ALAHIS system could be pulled into a provider’s existing EMR system without having to access the information through another portal. For example, if a provider is utilizing DocWorks® then the claims information, alerts, etc. available through ALAHIS would appear through the DocWorks® system. EMR systems should at a minimum be able import and export a delimited text file format.

148. If an existing interface is found to be inadequate or nonexistent, or is not currently procurable for an existing ALMA source system, what process or group will govern the definition development and implementation of the new source system interface? Members of the TFQ Stakeholder Council and Steering Committee will govern the definition development and implementation of the new source system interface if needed.

149. What are the application and network architecture for the following clinical databases that will need to be accessed by ALAHIS: Refer to Appendix C of the RFP. Additional information will be provided to the successful vendor as necessary.

Immunization dataDemographic, Claims and Lab DataOn-Line Disaster NetworkEmergency Patient InformationAIMSPharmacy Prior Authorization

150. What level of support will be given by the owners of the following clinical databases to ensure that data is passed correctly to the ALAHIS: The State and all affiliated stakeholders are committed to delivering requested and necessary information in order to meet deliverable dates.



151. Are data-sharing agreements already in place with the owners of the following clinical databases to legally share data with ALAHIS? The Vendor will have to obtain data-sharing agreements with the owners of the databases.


152.Please clarify what these “pilot agreements” contain and what Contractor responsibility, if any, they will contain. Refer to Question #50.

153.The RFP precludes discussions or alternative contract terms from being proposed. The inclusion of mandatory acceptance of all terms and condition or non-negotiable terms and conditions essentially prevents any dialogue from occurring—dialogue that could permit each party to view the other side’s requirements and concerns and potentially make mutually agreeable changes. Is the State willing to consider allowing alternative terms and conditions or exceptions that can be resolved during negotiations? The State will retain the power to disagree with a vendor’s contractual exceptions or proposed language.

154.Please clarify that the requirement to sign to the contract will still allow the parties to hold discussions. The advance signature requirement is due only to a short time frame to submit all materials to the Legislative Contract Review Committee. Discussions will be held before finalization of the contract.

155.Are tabs, other dividers, a table of contents, or a cover letter to be included or omitted as part of the restricted sheet count of 75? Tabs or other dividers, a table of contents and a cover letter would not count against the restricted sheet count of 75.

156.Will the State accept technical architecture diagrams as 11 x 14 fold-outs? Will the State omit such large diagrams from the restricted sheet count of 75 sheets? The State will accept larger sheets for diagrams, but these sheets will count against the restricted sheet count.

157.It is unclear why the State has limited the recovery of certain indirect costs in the event of a termination of convenience; please consider clarifying this requirement to allow the recovery of costs consistent with federal law. Do not understand the question.


158.Please clarify that the indemnification in sub-section T. Indemnification (items 1 and 2) excludes medical-related claims which shall be excluded from the indemnification. This question is unclear given the nature of this RFP.

159.Please clarify the indemnification is subject to sub-section HH. Limited Liability (page 62) of the contract. Correct.

160.Please clarify that the Contractor will not be responsible for any Medical care-related claims. This question is unclear given the nature of this RFP.

161.Given the fixed-price nature of the required contract, please confirm that only those records necessary to verify the accuracy of the vendor’s invoices and its compliance with the contract will be subject to review. The citation in XV. Z regarding retention of records is incorrect. It should be 45 CFR §74.53. As stated in this regulation and the RFP, only financial records that are pertinent to the contract performance and costs are required to be made available.

162.Is the State open to negotiating alternative dates and penalties? As to dates, see answer to #130. Regarding damages, subject to the maximum amounts stated, the amount of liquidated damages assessed and any waivers are at the Agency’s discretion.

163.Please clarify the vendor’s liability to the State under this contract for any and all actions or claims are limited to an amount not to exceed 150% of the total base contract cost. Correct.

164.RFP Section II, Identification of Pilot Stakeholders, Page 13 states: As many as 500 Medicaid providers to be determined by ALMA will be included in a pilot to test the ECST. It is the intention of ALMA to obtain a broad representation of Medicaid providers, primarily physicians, federally qualified health centers, rural health clinics and hospital emergency rooms by including providers from urban and rural populations and providers currently utilizing no information technology to practices/clinics utilizing custom and off-the-shelf EMR systems. This is not a question.

165.Section III, Page 16 states that the State shall provide annual maintenance on software and equipment purchased by State to satisfy the awarded solution and the hardware and software cost must not be included in the total cost. The next paragraph states that cost of maintenance of equipment and software must be included in proposal. Please clarify. Refer to Question #145. The second paragraph on that page deals with professional services which may include vendor provided software.

166.In the RFP, Section VI page 25, the vendor is asked to propose their solution for the ECST; however, the RFI, Appendix 1 references target penetration rates for the ECST, implying that this application exists. Can the State please clarify? The RFI was for information gathering. Vendors should base their proposal on the requirements outlined in the RFP.


167.Section VI page 25,A single ECST tool from one vendor may not provide all the functionality requested. Can the Offeror propose an integrated ECST solution that combines other products? Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

168.RFP Section VI, Electronic Clinical Support Tool (ECST), Page 25, Lists a variety of functions/capabilities for the ECST. Are these all expected to be going live by the Pilot test date of March 08? Yes.

169.RFP Section VI, Electronic Clinical Support Tool (ECST), Page 26, Provider profiling and disease and care management. Does ALMA consider the ECST to be the primary system for analysis or is this expected to integrate with other state disease mgt and/or profiling systems in use? It is anticipated that the patient risk scoring, predictive modeling, and provider profile and peer to peer comparisons will be performed in a tool proposed by Vendor. Medicaid currently generates a quarterly Provider Profile for Patient 1st providers and has limited experience with existing disease management software products. Medicaid anticipates the establishment of a new database that aggregates data but is not committed to a specific solution. Vendor should base their proposal on the requirements outlined in the RFP.

170.Is it mandatory for the proposed ALMA HIE architecture to use only BizTalk as the middleware solution, Active Directory for authentication, and Visual Studios .NET for portal view development? Can the Offeror propose an architecture with alternate industry standard middleware component that has been used widely in the HIE space as well as in several RHIOs and the NHIN prototype architecture? Refer to Question #174.

171.Does ALMA expect to have identified and selected this physician group prior to the start date? Will this include an inventory of current systems in use, or will that need to be conducted as part of the work order? Refer to Question #50.

172.Who is responsible for developing interfaces as necessary for connectivity between all 500 providers and the pilot ECST? That will be the vendor’s responsibility.

173.Given that there has been a substantial change in scope from the RFI, will the issuer consider adjusting the timeframe for response submission, and if so, by how much? The RFI was for information gathering. Vendors should base their proposal on the requirements outlined in the RFP, including the Proposal Due Date and Schedule of Deliverables.

174.The RFP indicates a strong preference towards solutions based on Microsoft technologies. Will equal consideration be given to solutions that are based on other technologies, including Oracle/MySql, and Linux/Unix? If so, do you have existing infrastructure in terms of licenses and support for any of these alternate technologies? Other solutions are welcome, but access to state agency data will be with Microsoft technologies, so these solutions must work closely with BizTalk and SQL. No matter what technology is proposed, licenses and support will have to be purchased through the state of Alabama purchasing department. The RFP has no preferred


solution and all solutions will be considered. For HHS Agency Interoperability, the vendor must utilize the state’s existing infrastructure and architecture described on page 18.

175.On page 79, in Appendix G, the pricing to be included in Pricing Schedule 1 is not clear to us. Do you want to include “Software” on Schedule 1? You request to have Ongoing Support and Maintenance in “N”—we presume this is related to Software Pricing. Could you please clarify? Ongoing support and maintenance is the monthly fee that the vendor will charge to support their solution once implemented. Please refer to Question #23.

176.On page 15, in item #1, could you better define what you mean by the question, “Describe in detail your solution for collecting data and input for HIS development and maintenance”? The State is looking for the system development life cycle methodology the vendor uses in their proposed solution to develop and maintain this HIS solution.

177.On page 23, in item #1, what is the database behind the ADSS AIMS database system? The data is stored in a Microsoft SQL database.

178.On page 19, in item #1, please clarify: Does data need to persist on each EMR or will the EMR provide a “link” to launch a viewer? State has no preference. Vendor should propose the solution they perceive best meets the objectives stated in the RFP.

179.On page 36, in Section I: For the EMR, what is the requirement for viewing? From EMR only? (Page 36 states, “Test and validate seamless integration of EHR to EMRs and EMR to EHRs.) Can you please describe the requirement for the viewing of data in more detail? It is the intention of the Agency that the proposed solution will allow for seamless integration into existing EMR systems. The Vendor is responsible for assessing the EMR capabilities of the systems identified through the pilot survey, designing the interface, deploying and testing the connectivity. The Agency will coordinate the actual adoption by the EMR system and the provider.

The Vendor will then be required to work with other providers identified through the pilot that utilize the identified EMR systems to establish connectivity.

It will be the responsibility of the Vendor to develop specifications for additional EMR systems to interface with the solution.

The Agency will be issuing an RFP amendment removing the table of EMR systems. Through the pilot survey, the State will identify a small, core group of EMR systems.

180.Section R, Page 46 of the response document. By stating there should be no more than 75 total pages submitted to ALMA, we are assuming that the limit of 100 front and back pages for the proposal is actually 50 pages front and back and the attachments are actually 25 pages front and back. Correct.


181. Can a company submit an RFP response for parts of the solution described with the understanding that they would become part of a larger Prime Contractor agreement after the award? The RFP is requiring that a complete solution be presented. If your company is unable to provide all required services, you will need to partner with another company prior to the RFP response being submitted.

182. Is it possible to participate in the vendor conference remotely? No.

183. May a vendor participate as a subcontract in more than one response? Refer to Question #46.

ATTACHMENTS:One – Question #85 – BizTalk DiagramTwo – Question #114 – AIMS Database Elements


Attachment One

BizTalk Diagram


Attachment Two

The following forms represent the various data elements that are available through the AIMS database.


vendor pre-conference questions

Technology

hie vendor

rfp proposal guarantee

quality tfq rfp vendor

rfp response

proposal page limit

proposal overview

withthe vendor

secure vendor