Question - Solicitation 0974-27-01MH (Mental Health Services, Central San Diego), Section C, Local Services, project code 6010, which states: "The program must have access to staff that are fluent in the Spanish language."

Does access to a contracted professional interpreter satisfy this requirement, or must Spanish-fluent clinical staff be employed directly by the program?

ANSWER: Contracted professional interpreters satisfy local services.

Question – Background Disclosure (Section 2a)

Section 2a, Background Disclosure, states: "Offerors who are currently awarded an agreement are not required to provide copies of monitoring reports of the USPO/USPSO conducting the solicitation but shall provide copies of monitoring reports from other USPO/USPSO agreements." Should we take this to mean that if we currently provide both Pretrial and Post-trial services, that for this current Pretrial solicitation you would like us to provide monitoring reports from our Post-trial USPO/USPSO for the past 5 years?

ANSWER: Correct, post-conviction monitoring reports must be provided with packet.

Question – Electronic Signatures

Are electronic signatures acceptable for all required forms and final contract documents submitted in response to this RFP?

ANSWER: All proposals must be signed by a representative authorized to commit the offeror to contractual obligations. Electronic signatures are accepted.

0974-27-01SA & 0974-27-01MH:

1. Third-Party Billing

Section C.3(e) references compliance with regulations pertaining to financial transactions, billing insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare.

Could you please clarify whether vendors are expected to bill available third-party payers (e.g., commercial insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid/Medi-Cal) for authorized services prior to invoicing the Judiciary, or whether this language is intended solely to address compliance with applicable billing regulations when such billing occurs?

If third-party billing is required, please clarify whether the Judiciary intends to function as the payer of last resort and how vendors should invoice the Judiciary when third-party claims are denied, partially paid, or otherwise unresolved.

ANSWER: Vendors are not expected to bill third party payers. This language is intended to address compliance with applicable billing regulations, if such billing occurs. The agency funds the services under this contract directly.  As outlined, the vendor’s active financial responsibilities are strictly limited to itemizing, lodging, tracking, and reporting the direct co-payment collections (if any) due from the clients.

Third-party billing is not required, and our office is the primary payer, not the payer of last resort. Vendors should submit their invoices directly to us for standard payment processing without involving external insurance networks.

2. Collection of Outstanding Co-Payments

Section C.3 requires vendors to maintain systems to follow up on outstanding co-payment balances and submit an Outstanding Co-Payment Due Report.

Could you please clarify the Judiciary's expectations regarding collection efforts?

Specifically, what level of follow-up is expected to satisfy this requirement? For example, are vendors expected to maintain reasonable internal billing and follow-up procedures, or is the Judiciary expecting more formal collection activities beyond documenting and reporting outstanding balances?

ANSWER: Per the contract guidelines, the vendor is expected to make standard, good-faith efforts to collect co-payments directly from clients. The agency does not expect the vendor to act as a debt collection agency; rather, your focus should be on routine administrative management, tracking and communication with our office.

3. Scope of Vendor Financial Responsibilities

The reimbursement section includes requirements related to co-payment collection, outstanding balance reporting, and compliance with insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid billing regulations.

Could you please clarify whether these provisions are intended to expand the vendor's financial responsibilities beyond collecting authorized co-payments, or whether the Judiciary's expectation is limited to reasonable billing, documentation, and reporting efforts associated with defendant/person under supervision financial obligations?

ANSWER: The provisions are not intended to expand the vendor’s financial responsibilities beyond collecting authorized co-payments. The judiciary’s expectation is limited to reasonable billing, documentation and reporting efforts associated with defendant’s financial obligations.

4. Section L – Proposal Submission

Section L, Page L-3, Paragraph 2 states that Offerors shall not submit Sections C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J as part of the proposal.

Could you please clarify which sections of the solicitation are expected to be submitted as part of the proposal? Specifically, should Offerors submit the entirety of Sections K, L, and M, or only those pages, attachments, certifications, and forms that require completion by the Offeror?

ANSWER: As reflected in Section L, Offerors must submit Sections A, B, K, L and the required Attachments (A-D). Section M is completed by our office to evaluate all proposals. Please make sure to fully read Section L and follow the directions set forth.

5. California Program Licensure/Certification

While the Statement of Work identifies practitioner credentialing requirements, we did not identify any requirement regarding California program licensure or certification for the treatment provider.

Could you please clarify whether, as a condition of award or contract performance, vendors are required to obtain and maintain licensure or certification issued by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) or any other California regulatory agency for the provision of outpatient substance use treatment services? If so, please identify the applicable licensure and/or certification requirements.

ANSWER: As reflected in Section L, Offerors must comply with all applicable business and/or operating licenses as required by state and local laws and regulations.

6. Coordination of Medication Management Services

The Statement of Work references referrals for psychiatric evaluations when clinically indicated; however, we did not identify language addressing the ongoing coordination of medication management services, including psychiatric medications and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT).

Could you please clarify the Judiciary's expectations regarding the treatment provider's responsibilities when a defendant/person under supervision requires medication management?

Specifically:

• Is the treatment vendor expected to coordinate referrals for psychiatric medication management and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT) when clinically indicated?

ANSWER: NO. VENDORS ARE EXPECTED TO NOTIFY OUR OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WHEN PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT AND MEDICATION MANAGEMENT IS BEING RECOMMENDED. OUR OFFICE WILL WORK JOINTLY WITH VENDOR TO COORDINATE REFERRAL, AS NECESSARY.

• If medication management services are provided by an outside medical provider, is the treatment vendor expected to coordinate care, communicate with the prescribing provider, monitor treatment compliance, and document medication-related services as part of the contracted treatment services?

ANSWER: THESE ACTIVITIES ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SOW AND THEREFORE NOT REQUIRED. OUR OFFICE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING MEDICATION MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE AND NOTIFY CONTRACTED VENDOR OF PROGRESS.

• Are these care coordination activities considered part of the contracted counseling services, or are they outside the scope of the Statement of Work?

ANSWER: THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE SOW.