UC HATL Preferred Provider Program FAQ

1. Questions and Answers. Can I submit questions now? If so, when and in what format can I expect an answer?
   
   We will make reasonable efforts to respond to all questions within two business days. Questions that are complex or require us to make a significant policy decision will likely require more time.
   
   
2. Extensions. Can I get an extension? My marketing department is very busy and the due date is right after Labor Day.
   
   No. We need you to submit your response on time in order to give us every opportunity to complete the process before year’s end. If we do decide to grant an extension, we will post that decision on this page. Please check back as the submission date draws near.
   
   
3. Blanket Future Waivers. My firm will not be able to represent the University without a blanket limited waiver for a narrowly defined set of matters that have nothing to do with the subject matter of this RFP, and the University previously issued one to us. Can you tell us whether you will accept our terms now?
   
   No. You should complete your application. The acceptability and scope of a future waiver will be the subject of negotiation should we name your firm a finalist. Please note that your need for such a waiver will be among our considerations in deciding which firms will be finalists.
   
   
4. Current Panel Firms. Will current health law panel members or members of other University panels have an advantage or disadvantage in the first stage of the process?
   
   Not necessarily. Our objectives are clearly stated in the RFP. The primary consideration for us in identifying finalists will be the substance of your written responses to our questions. However, it is also true that if your response is not great but we know you to excel in a particular area; or if your response is perfect and we know you to be weak, then our experience may well have some bearing on the success of your application.
   
   
5. Small Firms. We are a very small boutique firm without a major marketing department. This keeps our rates low but it also creates a significant burden for us in responding to the RFP. Can any adjustments be made to reduce that burden?
   
   First, we promise, we do not care about what your response looks like, we just care about the answers. You do not need to use full sentences or pretty formatting. And if your firm really focuses in a narrow area, then focus on where your proposed team excels and why your firm should be a preferred provider in that niche.
   
   
6. Volumes. What is the expected volume of work that will be available?
   
   We do not know for sure. In FY 2017-2018, our spend in health law was approximately $10,000,000, excluding spend on matters covered under our risk programs and certain litigation matters where we were responsible for the engagements. We also suffered no serious cybersecurity events and our transactions volume was moderate. These numbers also exclude academic research work and non-health related technology and cybersecurity advice.
   
   
7. Immigration Practice. We are a boutique immigration practice. Are you interested in advisory work, preparation of petitions, or both? If you are interested in preparation of petitions, what volume can we expect?
   
   Please provide bids for advisory work only and for preparation of petitions plus advisory work. Please also provide a bid for I-9 audits. We are unsure about volumes but will update this answer, if feasible, in the coming days. If an update is not posted, please provide pricing for high, moderate, and low volumes of petition work. Thank you.
   
   
8. Response Details/Depth. When responding to group specific questions, specifically for Group III, should we respond to every bullet, meaning, not only our experience related to the first bullet, such as Academic Affairs, but also each of the sub-bullets underneath, so Faculty-Administration Relations/Shared Governance; Faculty Practice plan; Graduate Medical Education; etc?
   
   You may respond to every bullet separately or to a category (and you may adjust the categories if these do not align with your practice groups). We recommend that if you choose to respond to a category of expertise rather than to individual bullets, make sure to highlight or note within your response in some way each sub-specialty where you believe you have expertise so that we do not make an assumption that you do not have that expertise at your firm.
   
   
9. Group IV Pricing Guidance. In light of the fact that you have provided specific guidance regarding the required structure of pricing arrangements for Groups I, II and III in the PROGRAM requirements (p6 of the RFP), do you have any similar guidance for Group IV scope pricing?
   
   No, we do not.
   
   
10. Electronic Submissions. We will need to submit early to address various scheduling challenges. Do you know yet whether you will definitely be posting an electronic submission form to your website and if so, if it might be any earlier than the stated deadline of August 31?
    
    We do not yet know that but if you need to submit before we have posted the electronic website, please submit via PDF to Brigid Saulny.
    
    
11. Annual Legal Expenditures. Historically, what has been OGC's approximate annual legal expenditure on Group I matters? An answer to this question will help our Firm to craft appropriate value-based fee arrangements, as well discounts for any work OGC would like performed on a billable-hour basis.
    
    We do not currently maintain the data in a way that would yield auditable results, but we estimate that, due to in-house staffing efforts and expertise, 75-80% of our total spend historically has been on Group I and high-end ( > $1MM per year) Group II matters. While we aim to minimize the total number of firms on our panel through this project, our past experience may not predict future spending patterns, and occasionally as matters of first impression arise, we may veer off-panel.
    
    
12. Data Breach/Privacy Litigation. With respect to data breach / privacy litigation, would OGC be required to work with insurance panel counsel?
    
    We are required to work with insurance panel counsel for covered cybersecurity, general liability, and professional liability cases and activities. However, this does not include sometimes significant regulatory response and defense costs. A firm at a minimum would have to be on the litigation or health law panel to handle a data breach even for just non-covered matters or activities. Currently, on the privacy side, most work is not cybersecurity-related and involves regulatory advice or support in administrative proceedings that can be handled in-house or by Group III type firms with high levels of expertise and lower rates. Virtually none of that work requires in-person attendance.
    
    
13. Pricing. Are the value-based pricing structures exclusive of third-party costs?
    
    It depends on what types of third parties you are considering. For example, the pricing structures are exclusive of eDiscovery costs but inclusive of costs normally undertaken by a firm. Please be clear in your proposal regarding any exclusions.
    
    
14. Templates for Discovery/Due Diligence in Group II Matters. For Group II matters, will UC provide a template to participating firms in order to provide pre-set Discovery pricing (similar to the one provided in the UC Litigation Preferred Provider Program RFP)?
    
    Please provide pricing for template development and for projects following template development (whether in house or via your firm) in any areas where you are offering expertise.
    
    
15. Volume Estimates. For Group III matters, can you please provide an estimate of advisory hours per month that will be required of firms that are chosen for the following matter types [limited list provided]. In addition, please identify the most significant detailed/sub-matter types within each matter type and the estimated advisory hours per month for each.
    
    These can vary tremendously over time and so it is difficult to estimate. For example, if UC Health develops a new funds-flow model, we may review it in-house and send outside for a quick validation; or we may send the whole thing outside depending on what other fires we are handling at that moment. We have gone whole years needing very limited privacy, confidentiality and security support from outside counsel but in the last year or so have spent an average of $10k-$15k every month, more if you include GDPR work. We have been working to increase our ability to handle small and mid-size regulatory/internal investigations in-house, but again depending on bandwidth or occasionally on subspecialty expertise needs, may need to send to outside counsel. When a new executive order or presidential memorandum is issued on immigration policy, or drug policy, for example, this may produce significant work specific to the health and/or research enterprise, at least for a short time. As noted elsewhere, we estimate that approximately 20-25% of our total spend is on Group III work. We have experienced a steady upward trend in total outside counsel spend over time, unsurprising at a time of rapid change, increasing risks, significant transactional and entrepreneurial activity within UC Health, and rapid growth.
    
    Please contact Brigid Saulny for an attorney-client privileged and confidential summary of significant legal/regulatory issues we have identified where we feel it likely that we will need to rely in whole or in part on outside counsel in the coming year. When you make the request, please acknowledge in writing that you understand that the information is subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, and that you will destroy it within 30 days after panel decisions are made, unless you are selected to participate on the panel. Thank you.
    
    

16. Immigration Portfolio. In Group III, Regulatory/Internal Investigations/White Collar section, there is a mention of immigration. Are we correct that the University is not seeking a legal provider to handle its portfolio of immigration applications/cases, but rather anticipates needing advice on immigration issues in the context of investigations or regulatory matters?
    
    We had not originally intended to issue the RFP for routine petition work but do face unique issues in the health and academic enterprises. We welcome responses that would cover immigration work of both types. Please see Question 7 above and its response. Ordinarily we would not represent individuals in immigration enforcement cases, but circumstances may call for such representation in some cases. See Regents Policy 4202 regarding our indemnification practices for most employees.