DHA_MSS_QA_V11.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Medical Support Services Final RFP Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 110515MSS01
- Issued by
- Defense Health Agency
About this file
DHA MSS Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 42
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
10 Aug 17
| # | Category | Volume | Topic | Company Reference | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Row 85 | Cells in Columns J-P are locked so you cannot enter the information for the reference/contract used for Other High Demand Performance Locations. Please correct the Technical Worksheet and release a Volume 9 with this corrected. | The Technical Worksheet has been revised. Please reference version 9. |
| 2 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Row 71 | Column A has no letter, so cannot follow the naming convention for the supporting document file. Please correct the Technical Worksheet release a Volume 9 with this corrected. | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 3 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 1: Table - Proposed Organization, Volume II, Table 4c - Magnitude (Total Contracts) will allow up to 40 Pages. | Request an increase to the page limit for this document as it will require at least more than 2 pages per contract to ensure contract relevance is supported and proposals are not penalized due to lack of supporting documents. Please raise to at least 80 pages. | The Government declines this request. The Government does not require all pages of contracts or task orders for claimed items; extract only those pages that support the claimed items. The 40 page limit should be sufficient for this purpose. |
| 4 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | General | General | On the basis of the number of questions and answers, changes to the solicitation, time required time for the response for questions, the hard copy submission, and a second round of questions, will the Government grant an additional 14-day extension? | Proposals are due by 1:00 PM Eastern time on 7 Sep 17. |
| 5 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Instructions | Page 12 of the Amended RFP, Section 2, General Instructions, Paragraph h. | The solicitation reads: “All documents shall be submitted in portable document format (PDF) format that is created to be searched and copied with the EXCEPTION of the unique files in the Government specified format (See Table 1). DO NOT submit any documents in PDF format that are copied as ‘images.’” The issue is on page 20, paragraph c, the solicitation states: “This documentation will be a scanned pdf file and will follow the required naming convention shown in Table 1. Offerors will highlight (by color or circling) the information in the document(s) that validate their claimed technical capability.” Any documents that are scanned are automatically a copied image in PDF format. And is therefore the text is NOT able to be searched or copied. Is a converted PDF, rather than scanned an acceptable form of submission? | A converted PDF is an acceptable form of submission. |
| 6 | Instructions | Solicitation as amended | Clauses | FAR Clause 52.222-42 | It is recognized that the Government has removed the reference to FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires in the amended solicitation; will the Government confirm that this is not applicable to the pricing of this solicitation? | The subject FAR Clause has not been removed and remains applicable. |
| 7 | Instructions | Solicitation as amended | Clauses | FAR Clause 52.222-42 | In the pre-amended solicitation, the Government included FAR 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires; if still applicable, were this inclusive rates that included fringe costs? Or are they just hourly labor rates? | The subject FAR Clause has not been removed and remains applicable. These include fringe benefits. |
| 8 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Follow-up to question/response 5c | The scoring sheet does not distinguish between “key” or “major” and non-key subcontractors. For small business, “subcontracting plans” are not generally required. Further, because a subcontracting plan is not required, there is not normally a requirement to list subcontractors on CPARS. Normally, Government Contracting Offices are not involved with subcontractor arrangements of small businesses since the Prime contractor is responsible for the contracted work and would be unwilling to sign a letter about the Prime contractor’s subcontract arrangements. Would the Government consider the following as a means to satisfy the requirement to evidence "managed subcontractors" - a copy of a duly-executed Subcontract/Purchase Order plus an invoice(s) from the subcontractor evidencing work performance thus showing management of a subcontractor? | The Government may accept a subcontractor agreement or similar document. However, offerors are cautioned that they are responsible for demonstrating performance in the area claimed on the technical self-scoring worksheet. |
| 9 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | Section L, Instructions for Volume I, Tab 4, Certifications and representations. Specifically, the requirement "Mentor-Protégé Agreements and 8(a) Joint Venture Certifications". | If a company is bidding using an existing Joint Venture, under an SBA-Approved Mentor-Protege Agreement, with active contract award(s), will the copy of the currently active Mentor-Protege Agreement satisfy this requirement? The language in the Tab 4 instructions suggest at one point, with the use of the "and/or" language, that there must be an SBA approval for the Joint Venture, including any that may not be an 8(a) joint venture. | Yes offerors may submit active Mentor Protégé Agreements. |
| 10 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Row 85 | Please unlock columns j through p so data can be added where needed. | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 11 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | Reference Section 2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS, paragraph i. The instruction states, “The documentation must be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in Block 17a of the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, with a corresponding Cage Code and DUNS Number.” | For contractors proposing as a JV, the documentation proof for each area will be in one of the partner company names. Therefore, the company name, DUNS and Cage Code will be different than the information entered on the SF1449, block 17a. Please change the wording of this instruction to allow for JV partners to submit their proof data under their respective names, DUNS and Cage Codes. | A new joint venture needs a unique CAGE Code and DUNS number. |
| 12 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | Reference SF1449 and instructions, Amendment 01, Section 3.1 Volume I – Contract Administration, Tab 1. The instructions state, “Complete blocks 12, 17a, 17b (if applicable), 23, 24, 30a, 30b, and 30c of the RFP Section A, SF 1449. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K.” Contractors are providing a pricing template that includes a Total Evaluated Price | What pricing data does the Government want to be included in blocks 23 and 24 of the SF1449 given that block 20 says “See Schedule”? | Offerors are instructed to leave Blocks 23 and 24 blank. |
| 13 | Instructions | Amendment 1 | Submission Instructions | RFP HT0014-17-R-0010, Amendment 1, there are two copies of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 in the document that appear to be identical, one is on pages 10-22 of 222, and the other is on pages 39-51, and it appears that 52.212-3 was left out of the document. | Is this intentional on the Government’s part? Was the intent for Amendment 1 be a conformed copy? | Disregard duplicate Addendum to 52.212-1. A software malfunction resulted in the duplicate. |
| 14a | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | Reference, RFP Amendment 1, Section 3.1 – Volume I – Contraction Administration, Tab 2c, Teaming/Organizational Structure (Attachment 1). The last four sentences of the instruction state, “…Therefore, the offeror needs to provide the name of the teaming partner/subcontractor for each Product Service Code grouping listed. If more than one company will provide the service category, each service category. The plan will ensure at least 50% of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees/services provided by the concerned. The contractor’s plan must demonstrate and describe compliance with all legal requirements, including but not limited to, FAR 52.219-14 – Limitations on Subcontracting, 13 CFR 124-510, 13 CFR 125.6, 15 USC 64.” Reference: ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph 2.k states contractors must use the Government template format for Attachment 1. | If proposing as a Joint Venture, do this set of instructions apply to the JV partners or just to non-partner subcontractors, since the JV partners are the "concerned"? | As specified in the Contractor Teaming/Organization Structure, Joint Venture partner data goes in the upper table. Also, amendment 3 is issued revising the last 2 sentences in the Tab 2c instructions under section 3.1 Volume 1. |
| 14b | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | See 14a above | Where in Attachment 1 are the Product Service Code groups supposed to be provided for each subcontractor? There isn't an area included on the form. | The Contractor Teaming/Organization Structure has been revised. |
| 14c | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | See 14a above | For each sentence "If more than one company will provide the service category, each service category." Are service categories the same as Service Types? If so, where on the form are we to provide this information? There isn't an area included on the form. | Amendment 3 is issued changing the service category to product service code. Tab 2c instructions under section 3.1 Volume 1. |
| 14d | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | See 14a above | Please also clarify whether the Government requires a subcontracting plan other than the information completed in Attachment 1 to ensure at least 50% of the cost of contact performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees/services provided by the concerned. | A subcontracting plan is not required. |
| 14e | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | See 14a above | Please clarify where offerors are to "describe compliance with all legal requirements…" as the offeror is not allowed to modify Amendment 1. | Amendment 3 is issued removing the word "plan" in RFP Tab2c section 3.1 Volume 1. |
| 14f | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | See 14a above | Is the Government asking for additional information that should accompany Attachment 1? | No additional information is required for this question. See response to question 19. |
| 15 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Reference revised Pricing Worksheet 2 – SVC Type 1, Workload Tab. the labor category ‘Medical Records Technician’ was changed to ‘Medical Records Clerk’ however the labor category in the PWS is Medical Records Technician. | Was this an error by the Government or are contractors to price a Medical Records Clerk? If the latter, please revise the labor category description and qualifications in the PWS. | Worksheet 2 has been revised to change "Clerk" to "Technician" on row 2 column AB. |
| 16 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | II - Technical Capability | Submission Instructions | Reference DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1, Question 81. The answer states that except for Element 4.c, offerors should be able to include the required proof of claimed items in 10 pages or less. Element 4.b requires the ability to show at least 60 FTEs to get max credit. We have more than 60 FTEs; but, most of our task orders are for less than 6 FTEs each. The required documentation (a signed contract page and the associated FTEs) would be more than 10 pages (typically 2 pages of documentation per task order). | Request that the number of pages allowed be increased to 30 pages for Element 4.b. | Page limitations remain unchanged. |
| 17 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | II - Technical Capability | Submission Instructions | Reference DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1, Question 136. The response refers to Q6 but the Q6 answer does not answer the Q136 question. It references a clarification but there isn’t any clarification in the Instructions to Offerors in para 3.2.b or 3.2.c for Row 56, nor is there any additional clarification in the Worksheet Instructions tab. | What clarification is the Government referencing? Please provide and answer that addresses Q136. | The Government has revised the technical self-scoring worksheet to remove the reference to a 'single contract or order' on row 52. |
| 18 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Submission Instructions | Reference Technical Exhibit 4 and the Pricing Template. There are labor categories that are associated with work at AFMOA and AFMSA. | Can contractors claim medical administrative related positions that were conducted for these organizations on the Technical Worksheet? | These positions may be claimed in rows 9-17. Claimed items must meet the healthcare setting criteria specified in the instructions for rows 36-44. |
| 19 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | Reference DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1, Question 64 | Question 64 indicates that the submitted prices will not be considered contract ceiling rates. Will the rates submitted in the Pricing Template be used only for award evaluation or will they also be used in determining any initial task order awards? | Rates submitted in the Pricing Template will be used only for evaluation purposes. |
| 20 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | I - Contract Administration | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | The revised Attachment 2 Worksheet requires that at least one Hard-to-Fill location must be from the prime. | If the prime contractor does not have any contract in the hard-to-fill locations, must all the locations be marked as “no” even if the subcontractor has them? That is a major change in the requirements and places a large disadvantage on small businesses. | Yes, if the prime contractor has not been awarded a contract whose performance is in "hard-to-fill" locations, the offeror is instructed to input 'X' for 'no' in the worksheet. |
| 21 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Row 85 | Row 85 (Other Location) on the revised Spreadsheet does not appear to be fillable from columns J-P. | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 22 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Rows 56 and 60 | Amendment 0001 now requires Magnitude on the technical worksheet to be provided by the prime offeror only. Please consider modifying the requirement to include commercial contracts on rows 56 and 60, as opposed to services to the government only. | The Government declines this request. |
| 23 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 1: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 1 states in part, “Tab 5 - Letter of Credit: Offerors must include a Letter of Credit, issued by a bank or other financial institution, shall provide the offeror a line of credit for a minimum of $2 million. The Letter of Credit may be contingent upon award of this contract. The Government will accept Letter(s) of Credit for any member of the team.” | Will documentation of an existing line of credit in excess of $2 million for any team member be acceptable in lieu of a letter of credit? | Yes, documentation of an existing line of credit in excess of $2million in lieu of a letter of credit is acceptable. |
| 24 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 5c: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 5c states, “For proof of present or past subcontractor relations, the Government would consider a required subcontracting plan, a CPARS that lists subcontractors (in Key Subcontractors and Effort Performed section), or a signed/dated letter from the Government or company CEO for civilian efforts.” | I am not aware of nor are my teaming partners aware of any CPARS that list subcontractors. Also, as a small business I have not had to do a subcontracting plan for any awarded contract. Will the government accept a signed/dated letter from the company CEO/President for Federal contracts to document management of subcontractors? | See response to question 8. |
| 25a | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 36: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 36 states in part, “Paragraph 2.1.3. Per 2.1.3.3, the Government may take the percentage of work into consideration from Attachment 1, Contractor Teaming/Organizational Structure, when assigning the overall confidence rating.” | What will determine if the Government takes the percentage of work into consideration from Attachment 1, Contractor Teaming/Organizational Structure when assigning the overall confidence rating? | The percentage of work performed by the prime compared to the percentage of work performed by the subcontractors may be considered when assigned the overall confidence rating. |
| 25b | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | See 25a above | If the Government takes the percentabe of work into consideration from Attachment 1, Contractor Teaming/Organizational Structure when assigning the overall confidence rating, will this be done for all Offerors in order that all proposals are evaluated on equal basis? | Yes - if the percentage of work is considered when assigned the overall confidence rating, it will be considered eqaully across all offerors. |
| 26 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 37: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 37 states in part, “Per 3.3 Volume III - Past Performance, Tab 1 and Tab 2, three (3) references must be for the prime offeror and up to five (5) for teaming partners/subcontractors.” | In cases where contract/task order being referenced for past performance is a subcontract, please confirm the Past Performance Questionnaire should be sent to the prime contractor. | This language refers to the response to question 20, not to question 37 of the Q&A from amendment 1. The offeror is responsible for providing all completed and signed questionnaires in the Past Performance Volume of their proposal. |
| 27 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 40: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 40 states, “Yes, other documentation would be acceptable as long as it demonstrates performance in the area claimed on the Technical Self-Scoring worksheet.” | In cases in which the contract/task order being referenced in Attachment 2 –Technical Wksht V8 is a subcontract and a copy of the government’s award has not been provided by the prime contractor, will the government accept a fully executed subcontract agreement as other documentation? | See response to question 8 above. |
| 28 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 55: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 55 states in part, “Yes, only an electronic version on DVD-R is required.” | Will the government accept a single CD? | The Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 specifies a single DVD-R. |
| 29 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 61: The answer to Amendment 0001, question no. 61 states, “It would be important to consider the Pricing Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 7, which states: Applicable wage determinations for this sample task order are the versions available and effective on theCaution-www.dol.gov < Caution-http://www.dol.gov > website as of the release of the solicitation.” The Department of Labor issued an all agency memorandum on 25 July regarding the 2017 Service Contract Act Health and Welfare Benefit (see attached) that changes the payment amount significantly. Coinciding with the release of the memorandum, all of the current Wage Determination Schedules posted to Caution-www.dol.gov < Caution-http://www.dol.gov > were updated and reflect this change to the Health and Welfare Benefit. | Should Offerors use the new schedules to reflect “price realism” of proposals? How will proposals be evaluated for “price realism” if some Offerors use outdated Wage Determination Schedules while others use the current schedules posted to Caution-www.dol.gov < Caution-http://www.dol.gov > . | Offerors are instructed to use the most current wage determination. |
| 30 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 70: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 70 states, “The proposal due was extended due to the RFP clarifications.” The period for asking questions was reopened to 21 AUG. | Request an extension to the proposal due date so that Offerors may consider answers provided by the government and incorporate any new information into their proposals. | Proposals are due by 1:00 PM Eastern time on 7 Sep 17. |
| 31a | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 70: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 70 states in part, “Part 1, Paragraph 1.19 states Applicable wage determinations will be provided at the task order level and references FAR 52.222-43 and 44.” Also, FAR 52.222-41 is incorporated into the solicitation. | Are Offerors Offerors required to bid all labor categories listed as part of Wksht 2 – SVC Type I Workload in Attachment 3 – Pricing Template V2 issued with Amendment 0001 as Service Contract Act labor categories? | Offerors are required to propose on all labor categories listed in Attachment 3 Pricing template which all correspond to Service Contract Act labor categories. |
| 31b | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | See 31a above | If so, are Offerors required to conform those labor categories for which there is not an appropriate corresponding Service Contract labor category? | See response to question 31a above. |
| 32 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 70: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 70 states in part, “IAW FAR 52.222-42 requirements, the information provided is monetary wage and fringe benefits.” | The Statement of Equivalent Rates presented references Medical Transcriptionist as GS-05. The Department of Labor’s Directory of Occupations list the labor category as a GS-04. Please confirm the Statement of Equivalent rates in the solicitation should be GS-05. | The Statement of Equivalent Rates is correct and remain unchanged. |
| 33 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 70: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 70 states in part, “IAW FAR 52.222-42 requirements, the information provided is monetary wage and fringe benefits.” | The position description of Medical Supply Logistics Technician and Medical Supply Logistics Specialist provided in Technical Exhibit 4 have qualifications that very similar to those listed in the Directory of Occupations for Supply Technician. The GS grade for these two positions in the solicitation is GS-11. The GS grade for Supply Technician in the Directory of Occupations is GS-7. Please confirm the Statement of Equivalent rates in the solicitation for Medical Supply Logistics Technician and Medical Supply Logistics Specialist should be GS-11. | See response to Question #32 above. |
| 34 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 70: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 70 states in part, “IAW FAR 52.222-42 requirements, the information provided is monetary wage and fringe benefits.” | The Statement of Equivalent rates cites the GS grade for Beneficiary Services Representative (aka PEBLO) as GS-09. The Statement of Equivalent rates cites the GS grade for PEBLO Assistant as GS-09. Please confirm the GS grade for the MSS labor categories for PEBLO and PEBLO Assistant should both be GS-09. | See response to Question #32 above. |
| 35 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 85. The answer to Amendment 0001, question no.85 states, “Not all states have a sick leave requirement at this time. Therefore, 1920 billable hours will remain for evaluation purposes.” Executive Order 13706, Paid Sick Leave for Workers on Federal Contracts, applies to all new contracts on or after 1 January 2017. Additionally, The Department of Labor issued an all agency memorandum on 25 July regarding the 2017 Service Contract Act Health and Welfare Benefit (see attached) that changes the payment amount significantly. Coinciding with the release of the memorandum, all of the current Wage Determination Schedules posted to Caution-www.dol.gov < Caution-http://www.dol.gov > were updated and reflect this change to the Health and Welfare Benefit. | Should Offerors use the new schedules to reflect “price realism” of proposals? | See response to Question #29 above. |
| 36 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question/Answer No. 108: The answer to Amendment 0001 question no. 108 states in part, “Offerors should provide the following information for the prime offeror: company, division, street address, facility code, CAGE and DUNS, TIN and labor suplus (sic) [area].” | Please define what the government wants for an Offeror’s labor surplus area. | Amendment 3 is issued removing the requirement for labor surplus and facility code. |
| 37 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Submission Instructions | Instructions Attachment 2 Technical Wksht V8 posted to FBO.gov on 17 AUG includes rows 85 and 86 for other high demand performance locations. | Will the government provide guidance/clarification as what would be considered a high demand performance location? | The Government declines this request. |
| 38 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Submission Instructions | Amendment 0001, Section 3.2 Volume II – Technical Capability instructs Offerors to provide information on contracts/task orders performance in the last five years. Past Performance evaluation criteria paragraph 2.1.3.1 restricts the past performance to three years. | Please make the evaluation criteria for technical capability and past performance consistent in regards to the period that performance experience can be cited. | The Government declines this request. |
| 39 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Amendment 0001, Question 5a, Row 7, Amendment 1: Table 1 - Proposal Organization, Volume II, Tab 4c - Magnitude (Total Contracts) will allow up to 40 Pages. | ||
| Request an increase to the page limit for this document as it will require at least 2-4 pages per contract to ensure contract relevance is supported and proposals are not penalized due to lack of supporting documents. Please raise to at least 140 pages, as we have 34 active contracts to submit. | The Government declines this request. | |||||
| 40 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Technical Worksheet V8 released in Amendment 0002, Row 71. Under the High Demand Performance Locations (Section 5) on the Technical Capability Self-Sourcing Sheet, California (Row 71) does not have a section number letter designation in Column A. | How should offerors name their support information file for this item? | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 41a | RFP | Amendment 1 | General | HT0014-17-R-0010 Solicitation | Considering the changes made in Amendment 1 and the changes that may be necessary due to the following questions would the Government consider extending the proposal due date 10-14 days to allow adequate time to make the necessary corrections to a response? | Proposals are due by 1:00 PM Eastern time on 7 Sep 17. |
| 41b | RFP | Amendment 1 | General | See 41a above. | If agreeable, would the Government kindly consider immediate notification of such an intention due to travel costs likely to be incurred by contractors? | The Government declines this request. |
| 42 | Instructions | Amendment 1 | Submission Instructions | Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 beginning on page 10 is also included again beginning on page 39 including all attachment (1-8). | Can the Government clarify if this is intentional, an error or if there are other pages which should be included in this Amendment? If intentional, can the Government provide a summary of the difference between the first inclusion on pages 10-39 versus pages 39 – 67? | A systems error resulted in a duplicate Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 in the solicitation amendment. |
| 43 | Instructions | Amendment 1 | Submission Instructions | RFP_HT0014-17-R-0010_Amendment_1, Section 3.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY, item C. third paragraph, 2nd bullet states: “For Commercial Contracts: Provide a signed and dated letter from the customer that confirms the claimed element on the worksheet. A clear name, title, address and phone number for the customer must be on the letter.” | Could the Government confirm if a signed subcontracting agreement with the required information (#FTEs, Contact Information, etc) will be acceptable documentation of services performed? | See response to Question #8 above. |
| 44a | Evaluation | Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 | Price | 2.1.4 VOLUME IV – PRICE FACTOR , Para 2.1.4.2. states: “Reasonableness. The Government will conduct a price analysis. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price analysis to ensure that awarded prices are fair and reasonable.” | Can the Government please provide clarification of “awarded prices” such as what information will be used and how rates will be determined based upon the limited information being provided by bidders on the pricing template? Referencing the pricing worksheet and answers to questions, it does not appear that bidders are providing rates for which future work will be awarded. | The Government issued amendment 3 replacing the words "awarded prices" to "evaluated prices" meaning future prices are fair and reasonable. |
| 44B | Evaluation | Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 | Price | See 44a above | Can the Government confirm that all future task orders will be bid based upon requirements of the facility as outlined in the task order proposal request and current market and Department of Labor rates? | Correct. Future task orders will be based on requirements provided by task order proposal requests from individual ordering offices, considering the market and Service Contract Labor Standards when applicable. |
| 45 | Evaluation | Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 | Price | Section 2. EVALUATION, para 2.1.3.5.1. States: “If three (3) references are not available from the offeror as a prime contractor, reference(s) as a teaming partner/subcontractor may be provided or key personnel; however, the Government will consider performance as the prime contractor more relevant than performance as a subcontractor. Performance as a sub-contractor is considered more relevant than performance of key personnel” | Could the Government please clarify what supporting documentation is required for a key-personnel past performance? Will a resume provide the necessary information of Key Personnel? | Key Personnel past performance requires a completed past performance questionnaire. |
| 46 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | DHA_MSS_Instructions_Attachment_2_Technical_Wksht_V8: In the Complexity (Geographic Coverage) section, when placing an “X” in cell D85 for Other High Demand Performance Locations, the spreadsheet does not allow any data entry in cells J85 to P85 | Would the Government please provide an updated spreadsheet which allows entry in these cells? | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 47 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | DHA_MSS_Instructions_Attachment_2_Technical_Wksht_V8, Row 114: “Subcontractors managed on medical support services efforts”. The contractor has the option to choose either 1 or 2+. Placing an “X” in cell D114 assigns 10 points, Placing an “X” in cell E114 assigns 15 points. However, the maximum score available shows as 25 (See cell H112). As we’ve been instructed that we may only select one column, the contractor is unable to receive the maximum points available for this section. | Could the worksheet please be updated so that the maximum available score can be achieved when selecting “2+”? | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 48 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Attachment 2 – Technical Worksheet, item 5c, row 114, Complexity states that supporting documentation for proof include a subcontracting plan, CPARS, or signed letter from the government or commercial client. | As small businesses are not usually required to have a small business plan and most contracts do not require reporting of subcontractor personnel separate from the prime personnel, will the government allow the offeror to submit a teaming agreement, subcontract/work order, or invoice as proof for row 114? | See response to Question #8 above. |
| 49A | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Attachment 2 – Technical Worksheet, item 4b, row 56. Reference Answer to Question 6. This answer states that Offerors can submit the total number of FTEs across all active MSS contracts/orders within a 5 year period. The instructions in the technical worksheet state that the total MSS FTEs placed for the government in the last 5 years is required. | The technical worksheet still states an offeror can only use a single order or contract (in red on line 52). Please clarify if an offeror can use more than one contract or order to fulfill this requirement of total number of MSS FTEs placed? | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 49b | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | See 49a above | If the acceptable period for demonstrating experience is 5 years, and a contract/order ended this FY 2016-2017 or within the 5 year period, will it still be considered as proof? Or, do the contracts/orders used as proof have to be currently ongoing/active? Please remove reference to ALL ACTIVE or clarify further what is appropriate proof. | "Active" refers to a contract for which the performance takes place not earlier than 5 years prior to the release date of the solicitation, as specified in RFP section 3.2 volume 2. Note, RFP release date is 18 July 2017. |
| 50a | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Attachment 3 - Pricing Worksheet | Medical Records Technician and APV Medical Coder are defined in Technical Exhibit 4 but are not represented in the Pricing Worksheet. Please confirm that the government is not asking for pricing for these 2 labor categories for this proposal submission. | For the Pricing Worksheet, provide pricing information on all the 39 positions specified in the Pricing Worksheet. |
| 50b | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Attachment 3 - Pricing Worksheet | Technical Exhibit 4 does not have a job description for a Medical Records Clerk. However, the Pricing Worksheet requests pricing for this labor category in column Z of Worksheet 3. | See response to Question #15 above. |
| 51 | Evaluation | III - Past Performance | Past Performance | Volume III, Past Performance Relevancy, p. 98, para. 2.1.3.2-4 and Table 2 and Reference Question 53 | Can the government clarify what change was made to the past performance relevancy criteria in Amendment 1? Currently, it does not appear to be any different than in original RFP release. | Offerors are instructed to review amendment 3 for the most current addendum to FAR 52.212-2. |
| 52 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Attachment 2 - Technical Worksheet. Line 85, Columns J-P. | Columns J-P are currently locked and an offeror cannot enter supporting information in those columns. Please provide updated worksheet | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 53 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Pricing PWS – Sample Task Order, Reference sections 1.2, 2.2, 2.4.5.1, 2.4.5.3, 2.4.5.6, 2.4.12, and 2.4.16.1. | Since Offerors are not submitting pricing or a SOW for Service Type II type task orders in this proposal submission, we recommend that you delete all references to Service Type II requirements from the Pricing PWS/Sample Task Order to reflect the requirement for fully burdened rates as a Service Type I task order. | The Government declines this request. |
| 54 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Attachment 2 - Technical worksheet, Lines 92-100, Complexity - Hard-to-Fill Performance Locations. | Amendment 1 changed the requirement to require a prime contractor/offeror to have at least one claim in the hard to fill performance locations. As a small business and prime offeror that has met the capability of filling contracts for 60+% of the high demand locations but not yet received contracts for the 5 hard to fill locations, we feel that this requirement is unnecessarily stringent on small businesses under the size standard ($15M). Offerors have been building teaming arrangements to meet the hard to fill requirements and to ensure we have a structure to support the overall contract. We request that the government reconsider the requirement for a prime offeror to have at least one of these 5 hard to fill locations for submission. | The Government declines this request. |
| 55 | RFP | Amendment 1 | General | HT0014-17-R-0010 Solicitation | Based on the information requested in the above questions and updates required to the past performance relevancy determinations, technical worksheet and labor category descriptions, we request that you extend the proposal submission date for 7-14 days. | Proposals are due by 1:00 PM Eastern time on 7 Sep 17. |
| 56a | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1 (q&a Government Responses Questions #41 and #61 Response, RFP Amendment 1 section 3.4.1, page 50 of 222 (VOLUME IV - PRICE) . Clarification received in the answers to questions 41 and 61 along with the solicitation instructions in Amendment 1 section 3.4.1 indicate that the pricing provided is a sample task order and the locations identified are requirements to consider when developing the hourly rates for pricing purposes. The instructions go on to say that the offerors should develop a single fully burdened rate by labor category using the Pricing Template worksheet and this will create the total evaluated price for evaluation. Language was also removed indicating the use of a Not-to-exceed (NTE) hourly rate. We have two resulting questions from this. | Is the offeror to assume that the hourly rates provided for the 42 labor categories in Worksheet #3 of the Pricing template, while taking into account the performance locations identified in order to develop those hourly rates, will be used for evaluation purposes only and will not create a rate card for use on future task orders after award? | Yes. See response to question 44b above. |
| 56b | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | See 56a above | If the answer to number 1 is yes, can the government please clarify the offeror may proposes rates on task orders, that may exceed the rates provided in Worksheet #3 of the Pricing template used for evaluation? | Yes. See response to question 44b above. |
| 57 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1 (Q&A Government Responses) Questions #125 and RFP AMENDMENT 1 SECTION 3.2, PAGE 45. | ||
| We are currently on the USAF MSS multiple award IDIQ with 50+ independent task orders at different locations with different labor categories. Since each of these task orders are individual competitive task orders under a single contract, can the government please clarify if the offeror is allowed to use these different task orders to claim points for different labor categories? For example, can one task order be used to claim points for Certified Medical Support Positions, another task order for Specialized/Technical Medical Support Positions, another task order for Medical Administrative/Clerical, and so on? | Yes. Offerors may use the same task order(s) to claim points for different labor categories. | |||||
| 58 | Instructions | III - Past Performance | Past Performance | Reference solicitation pg. 48, Volume III – Past Performance, Tab 2 -At least three (3) references of the eight (8) maximum references must be for the Prime offeror. | Can the Government please clarify how past performance references are “weighted” in terms of evaluation? Will an offeror unable to submit a maximum of 8 references be rated with less confidence than an offeror who submits 8 references? Will all offeror’s Volume III ratings be balanced as per the number of references submitted, in terms of confidence, provided all references are otherwise valid as relevant? | The Government will not provide information beyond what is stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2. |
| 59 | Instructions | III - Past Performance | Past Performance | Reference solicitation pg. 48, Volume III – Past Performance, Tab 2 -At least three (3) references of the eight (8) maximum references must be for the Prime offeror. | Can the Government please clarify the MAXIMUM number of past performance references the prime offeror can submit with one or two subcontractors as teaming partners. | The maximum past performance references is eight (8). |
| 60 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Reference Answers to Questions (DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1), Question 20 –If 8 references are not available, provide what you have in the proposal. | Can the Government please clarify the phrase “What you have in the proposal?” Does this pertain to Volume II – Technical Self Scoring worksheet? | "What you have in the proposal" refers to the number of past performance references provided in your proposal in accordance with Section 3.3 VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. |
| 61 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Reference Answers to Questions (DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1), Question 40 and Question 101 –Other documentation would be acceptable as long as it demonstrates performance in the area claimed on the technical self-scoring worksheet (Question 40). | As referenced in question 101, would a signed and dated letter from the customer confirming a claimed contract reference for the Technical Self-Scoring worksheet be applicable for Government contracts as well as commercial contracts? | Offerors are responsible for demonstrating that performance in the area claimed on the technical self-scoring worksheet is substantiated. |
| 62 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Question 140, line 153 of the Q&A Spreadsheet states “ Row 17 is for services that are NOT medical support services that fall into the Q6, Q7, Q8 or Q9 PSCs (see Part I- PWS, Paragraph 1.4 Table)’ where the table language states “ Medical Administration Specialist or other medical support services not in Q6, Q7, or Q8” | Which one is correct? | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 63 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Row/Column 1e, Other Labor Category/Service | For 1e "Other Labor Category / Service" can it include any Medical Ancillary, Physicians, Dental or Nursing labor categories? | Yes offerors may include any Medical, Ancillary, Physicians, Dental, or Nursing labor categories. Refer to Attachment 2 - Technical Worksheet Instructions for row 17. |
| 64 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Row/Column 1d, "Other Medical Support Positions (PSC Q999)" | For 1d, “Other Medical Support Positions (PSC Q999)”, please provide example of positions that can fall in this category. | The Government declines this request. |
| 65 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | General | None provided | Are contractors allowed to add short comments to Technical Supporting document, not submitted as one of the past performance for PPI; to be able to provide rationale for position mappings to one of the 42 labor categories? | Offerors are instructed to comply with the RFP including Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. |
| 66 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Per Question 53, line 66 of the Q&A, Page 99: “Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT, to be relevant, Performs in at least two (2) states.” | The contracting office reply states “Amendment 1 to the RFP revised the relevancy criteria”. The revised version, however, did not change the requirement for performance in at least two states to make the PP be rated as “relevant”. Would the government consider relaxing the multi state requirement down to one state since majority of task orders typically provide MSS services to one MTF | The Government declines this request. |
| 67 | Instructions | III - Past Performance | Past Performance | Paragraph 3.3, page 22 of amended solicitation states “No page limitation applies as it is dictated by the PPI tool. Offerors will not print and scan the information; the Government requires the database in its entirety”. Immediately below, under the “complete past performance reference consists of”, it states: Past performance information sheet printed from PPI tool (Attachment 4)”. | Is it required to submit both, the entire database and printed copies of the PPI for each specific reference? Please clarify. | No, the Government requires the database in its entirety. |
| 68 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Answer to question Question 13, line 24 states; “There are 42 labor categories. The Pricing PWS was corrected in Amendment 1.” The Attachment 8, Pricing PWS was indeed corrected in Amendment 1, however, Attachment 3 Pricing Template V2 now only shows 39 labor categories. | Can you please confirm which number is correct? If the statement on Attachment 8, Pricing PWS is correct, which are the three missing labor categories? | Both are correct. Also see response to question #50a above. |
| 69 | Amendment 0001 - Q&A - DHA_MSS_QA_v3.1.wlsx | Questions and Answers | Instructions | Answer to Q&A provides clarification for 4b to include all contracts for total FTE count for MSS positions; however the red comment in row 52 of Revision 8 of Technical scoring sheet still states “Enter an X in the cell associated with the largest number of FTE’s on a single order or contract” | Does the Q&A take precedence over instructions in Revision 8 of technical scoring sheet? | See response to Question #1 above. Question is no longer applicable. |
| 70 | Instructions | Solicitation as amended | Clauses | FAR Clause 52.222-42 | Plase confirm in section 52.222-42 of the solicitation for “Statement of Equivalent Rates” that rates provided includes the $4.27 of fringe benefits in the single rate provided for Monetary Wage-Fringe rate provided in the solicitation. | While fringe benefits are included the Government is not quantifying the fringe amount. Reminder; statement of equivalent rates is not a Wage determination nor does it necessarily conform to a wage determination. |
| 71 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | General | None provided | For Technical Support documentation on Firm Fixed Price contracts having "Month" or "Year" as the Unit instead of the hours, would the government accept Offeror added notes on Technical Support Documentation (TSD) to be able to provide explanation and methodology in providing FTE count? The limit of eight total past performances and their related PPIs would not allow TSDs to be included in PPI as the place to provide offeror comments. | This data can be included in the Program Details tab of the Past Performance Information tool (see Attachment 4, step 15- "Provide a brief description of the service provided and actual work performed under this contract reference") |
| 72 | Instructions | Hand delivery | General Instructions | How does a designated company representative access Area B at WPAFB to deliver our proposal to the designate. | Offerors who are hand-delivering their proposal are instructed to email Mr. David Green at david.d.green7.civ@mail.mil for arrangements NLT 7:00 AM Eastern time on 5 Sep 17. Offerors are advised that security is stringent. Offerors are responsible for the timely receipt of the proposals to Dave Green at Defense Health Agency, 2776 C Street, Area B, Building 6, Suite 200, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433. |
Color Font Key
| cells highlighted in yellow should be reviewed further by PM, KO, Bridget. |
| cells highlihgted in orange should be reviewed further by KO |
| answers in cells with no highlight are PM questions |
| answers in cells with blue highlight are CO-NCR questions |
| cells with red font include recent changed responses. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .