Request for Proposals Work Measurement Time and Motion Study County Medical Services Program County Eligibility Administration

Transcription

1 Request for Proposals Work Measurement Time and Motion Study County Medical Services Program County Eligibility Administration Questions and Answers from Potential Bidders Updated as of 11/22/06 12:00 pm PDT Q1. Are you looking for a local company to complete the work? A1. No. The vendor does not have to be local to complete the work. Q2. What is the expected budget for this project? A2. A formal budget has not been established by the Governing Board. Each vendor is required to develop a proposed budget for the study as part of the RFP. The proposed budget should address the two alternatives presented in the RFP for the number of counties to be studied. Q3. What is the timeframe in which the Measurement is expected to be completed? A3. The Governing Board hopes to see completion of the entire study by June 1, 2007 with the final report presented to the Board by July 30, However, the specific timeframe for completion of the work described in the RFP is to be proposed by the bidder. Q4. What is the number of workers to be impacted in each of the eight (8) potential counties? A4. It appears the question is asking, What number of workers will be studied in each county? Presuming this is the question, the answer is that the Governing Board expects the bidder s proposal to present a recommended number of workers to be studied in each study county and the rationale for that recommendation. Q5. What is the evaluation and scoring criteria for the proposals? A5. The evaluation and scoring criteria for the proposals are as follows: A. Previous experience conducting similar studies 15% Previous experience conducting similar studies. Presentation of one or more sample reports of similar studies that have been completed by the bidder. Background of the specific consultant staff carrying out the reporting and statistical analysis. B. National or state reputation 5% Bidder s professional reputation. C. Timeline for completion of activities 20% 1

2 Assessment of the bidder s ability to complete the study in an acceptable time frame. Comprehensiveness of the bidder s timetable and supporting explanations. Bidder s previous track record for completion of such studies. D. Cost/Budget 35% Bidder s overall study budget, including compliance with budget submission guidelines and effectiveness in addressing all areas of the study. E. Proposal Content 25% Proposal follows RFP instructions. Proposal meets the goals of the RFP. Bidder submits all appropriate documentation to support proposal, including budget and timeline. Bidder submits compelling presentation and documentation for proposed study approach and data collection methods. Q6. Cost will constitute what percentage of the evaluation score? A6. Cost is an important consideration that will be contextual to the overall quality and effectiveness of the study proposal. The percentage of the evaluation score that will constitute cost is 35%. Q7. Do you expect the individuals completing the Measurement to be housed at the CMSP Board Office? A7. No. It is anticipated that consultants conducting the study will not be housed at the CMSP Board Office. The bidder will be required to have in place or otherwise establish appropriate office operations to undertake the study. In addition, the bidder will be required to incorporate consultant travel and lodging as part of the bidder s overall proposed budget for the study. Q8. How many staff would be involved in the processing of CMSP eligibility applications and reapplications in all of the participating counties? A8. A ballpark estimate of full-time equivalent eligibility workers processing CMSP eligibility applications and reapplications in the 34 CMSP counties is approximately 300 workers. However, since county staffing patterns vary widely some counties have workers dedicated to CMSP, others combine CMSP workload with Medi-Cal workload, and others have so-called generic workers who conduct eligibility for all forms of public assistance this estimate has limited meaning. With regard to individual case processing, the number of eligibility workers that are directly involved in processing an application is typically 1-2. However, clerical support staff in some counties provide support these eligibility workers. 2

3 Q9. How many staff would be involved in the processing of CMSP eligibility applications and reapplications in the counties selected under each of the options? A9. Until the counties are selected, please see the answer to question #8 above. Q10. What system(s) are in place in the Counties, if any? A10. Most counties generally have in place for line eligibility staff and supervisors. Q11. Do the counties currently utilize any time and effort reporting systems (time sheets, random moment sampling, etc)? A11. Currently, counties report their time during the middle month of each quarter for all case carrying activities carried out during the month. This time reporting is used for allocation determination purposes across the programs administered by the welfare department. Q12. Other than the obvious differences of utilizing different automated systems, are there any other commonly known differences among the counties in their approaches to eligibility determination? A12. See answer to question #8 above. Q13. Are similarly qualified staff performing eligibility determination/redetermination duties among all of the counties? A13. Yes. In addition, some counties utilize additional staff to support the process (i.e. screeners asking basic questions to help identify the correct program, such as Medi-Cal versus CMSP). Q14. Do county employees have access to any handheld electronic devices? To cell phones or other telephones? To PC s or laptops? A14. County employees do not have access to handheld electronic devices or cell phones. Staff does have access to telephones and PC s/workstations. Some county staff members do not have Internet access. Q15. The RFP does identify the need to start the study on April 1, but does not seem to identify the duration of the study, or the time frame by which all results must be available. Has a deadline for results been established? A15. See answer to question #3 above. Q16. The RFP focuses on current processes and procedures for establishing a baseline time standard for CMSP eligibility processing that incorporates all CMSP eligibility processing activities associated with CMSP applications and reapplications (pg. 8). Is there any intent to identify ways to improve processes and/or procedures so as to reduce the time standard, or is the goal of the project ONLY to identify the baseline with current processes and procedures? 3

4 A16. The CMSP Governing Board is interested in both documenting the time required to process eligibility under current processes and procedures AND identifying efficiencies and changes in county business practices that can reduce the time required to complete eligibility processing in a timely and accurate manner. Q17. What approach would need to be taken if the study were to find significant variation in the baseline times from one county to the other? A17. Variations in the time required in counties to complete the eligibility process will need to be documented by the vendor. This documentation needs to include an analysis of the underlying reasons for differences in the amount of time required between counties, such as a county s staffing structure, business practices, automation interface, other. The approach for addressing these matters needs to be proposed by the bidder, including the bidder s recommended strategy for taking these variations into account when determining a base time standard for county groupings. Q18. Have any audits or other documents identified best practices that should be considered in establishing baseline times for applications or reapplications? A18. CMSP conducted an audit of all 34 counties eligibility processing in 2005 and The audit findings for the individual counties will not be made available to bidders but the overall audit report will be provided to the winning bidder. Q19. Have there been any studies of the CMSP program in general or of eligibility determination specifically that we should consider in developing our proposals? A19. No. Q20. What are the current workload standards used to determine resource requirements? A20. Workload standards are not currently used in determining resource requirements. Q21. Are current workload standards actually utilized to request staffing changes? A21. No. Q22. Would the selected vendor be assured access to staff in each of the counties to be studied, at appropriate times? A22. Yes. It will be the responsibility of CMSP to work with the county welfare directors to ensure the selected vendor has appropriate access to staff during the requested time study periods. It will be the responsibility of the selected vendor to present a timeline for the time study periods that provides CMSP appropriate lead-time to contact the chosen counties for study and set up the time study periods. Q23. Do all counties have the same work hours? 4

5 A23. Most counties work 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with standard federal and state holidays but some counties limit days for interviews. When the counties are selected, the selected vendor will be provided with the full schedule of the counties. Q24. Do all counties have similar supervisory structures and organizational structures for eligibility determination/redetermination? A24. While county structures can differ, the general hierarchy of the supervisory structures is similar in most counties, i.e. line eligibility workers, supervisors, and managers. What varies most is whether worker activities are dedicated to CMSP, combined for CMSP and Medi-Cal, combined for CMSP and another aid program, such as General Assistance, or all eligibility work is carried out by generic workers. Q25. How is the staffing currently calculated? Is it a ratio based on the eligible population, or is done using historical information (~40,000 average monthly enrollment as stated in the RFP)? A25. Staffing levels are determined by each county, based upon caseload projections, union agreements, and available revenues. CMSP eligibility administration funding is allocated to counties based primarily upon historical payment levels to the counties. There is currently no allocation methodology that ties workload, time required, and FTE cost. It is expected that one outcome of the work measurement study is data that can be utilized in this type of methodology so that funding allocations can be developed on the basis of workload. Q26. What is the current staffing in regard to CMSP eligibility administration per county? A26. Please see answer to #25 above. Q27. What is the transaction volume on a monthly basis by transaction type? A27. The transaction volume varies greatly by county. The number of beneficiaries per month is as follows: NOTE: This statement references a number but the table provides percentage. Aid Code Approximate % % % % 89 Less than 1% % 8F 0.10% 5

6 Q28. What is the mix of new applicants to reapplicants? A28. The mix of new applicants to reapplicants varies by county. The typical mix is 60% reapplicants and 40% new applicants. Q29. Are telephone logs available for review? A29. No. Q30. Do CMSP Aid Codes affect the length of time it takes to process an application? A30. No. Q31. Do CalWIN and ISAWS have a performance reporting function? Will these standards be used for individual performance evaluation? A31. No. Q32. Will CMSP select the counties for participation as outlined in General Information, section 2, or will consultant select the counties as requested in Proposal requirements, section 4? A32. CMSP will select the counties for participation. However, CMSP will be seeking recommendations from the vendor for consideration. Q33. Are there different county requirements for each that uses CalWIN? If so, please explain? A33. No. Q34. Are there different county requirements for each that uses ISAWS? If so, please explain? A34. No. Q35. Can potential vendors get sample organizational charts of offices to determine how tasks may be organized? A35. Not at this time. However, once the counties have been selected for study, the selected study counties will be asked to provide these types of organizational charts. Attachment D identifies Clerical Staff, Reception, Eligibility Workers, MEDs Clerks, and CMSP training staff all involved in the identified tasks. How are they organized and is it standardized for all offices? Each county is organized according to their own county business practices. There is no standard model that all counties follow. Q36. If not, and workflow differs by location (size of office), can you expand on how the differences impact the work design and workflow? A36. The workflow remains the same for all the counties, as described in Attachment D. What differs is the way that workflow is staffed. For example, work activities 6

7 that are completed by reception staff in one county may be completed by clerical staff or eligibility workers in another county. Q37. Do all Eligibility Workers do all types of work (mail in application, telephone interview, face-to-face interview, faxed in applications)? A37. How the workload is distributed in each county depends on how the county has organized staff activities. Eligibility Workers may complete any or all of these activities, depending on the county. Q38. The Internet is not mentioned as a channel for applications. Is this planned for the near future; and, if so, should work standards be developed for it? A38. The Internet is not a current channel for applications. There are no current plans to utilize the Internet in this manner. Q39. Is there a Work (Task) Distribution Chart that can be shared with the vendors to identify if there are areas of specialization by task or types of tasks that are not clearly identified in Schedule D? A39. No. Q40. Are there any current documented workflow diagrams that can be shared with vendors? A40. No. Q41. Will it be possible for potential vendors to visit a sample office to view the procedures in advance of proposal submission to get a clear picture of the work layout and the variability of the tasks? A41. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, this is not possible prior to proposal submission. Q42. The RFP notes 40,000 members enrolled monthly in the system. What is the percentage of applications denied? A42. The percentage of applications denied is approximately 25% of all applications on hand in a month. Q43. The Goals and Objectives listed in the RFP note that the study will establish baseline standards for CMSP eligibility applications and reapplications. What is the system-wide proportion of applications to reapplications? Does the ratio vary much by county office? A43. See answer to question #28 above. Q44. What are the percentages of application types system-wide (telephone, face-toface, mail in application, and faxed in application)? A44. CMSP does not have data on how applications are taken at the county level. Q45. Are there material changes to either of the systems planned that will impact the work requirements in the next two years (system or data integration)? 7

8 A45. No. Q46. Do we need to anticipate the impact of these changes in the work standards either by developing additional standards based on the planned changes or by segmenting standards so that they can be easily modified in the future? A46. No. Q47. What is the downtime for the operating systems (ISAWS, CalWIN) during work hours, and are there paperwork trails that take over when this occurs? A47. Typically, downtime occurs only when there is an outage of some kind or a system failure. Counties are capable of processing paper forms to calculate SOC and determine eligibility by hand in extreme circumstances, but the information needs to be entered into the system to actually make the client eligible. Is there a recovery process to either re-enter or activate data when this occurs? Do we need to develop recovery standards for this? No. Q48. Attachment B, ISAWS Systems Components / Functionality, identifies a Workload Management module. Is this where the work standards are currently stored, and will it make sense to structure the standards identically (times for tasks identified) so that it will make the transition to new standards seamless? If so, can we get the current task list from the system? (It may provide additional insight to Attachment D.) A48. No. The Workload Management module is where the eligibility cases get assigned out to workers within the department. Q49. Do you want vendors to recommend obvious work improvements or just establish standards on the current process design? A49. The CMSP Governing Board is interested in both documenting the time required to process eligibility under current processes and procedures AND identifying efficiencies and changes in county business practices that can reduce the time required to complete eligibility processing in a timely and accurate manner. Q50. The Objectives and Scope identify the standards developed on applications and reapplications, but Schedule D lists Caseload Maintenance in ongoing tasks (including: processing overpayments, change in citizenship, granted SSI, add a person applications, etc.). Are standards to be developed for case management and maintenance in addition to applications and reapplications? If so, do you have frequencies of occurrence that can be shared on each of the additional tasks? A50. Caseload maintenance should be taken into account of overall workload of workers. These tasks are considered periodic. 8

9 Q51. Are the work processes and tasks standardized in the state system currently, or do we have multiple processes beyond the CalWIN and ISAWS systems differences? A51. No. The two systems are the only two systems in use currently. Q52. Does CMSP have training documentation for the tasks that standards are to be developed on, and can you share it with vendors? A52. CMSP does not have documentation of training conducted by county training staff. However, CMSP does have documentation of training recently conducted to address problem areas identified through the recent quality control audits of county eligibility activities. Further, it is anticipated that counties selected for study will be able to provide documentation of training provided to county staff. 9