DHA_MSS_QA_V3.1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 50 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 QA V3.1 (Questions and Government Responses)
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
16 Aug 17
| # | Category | Volume | Topic | Company Reference | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Letter of Credit | 1. RFP Page 74 (Letter of Credit) | 1. Please clarify that the letters/lines could also be to the individual joint venturers in the case that the offeror is a Mentor/Protégé JV. Under the SBA’s rules, Mentor/Protégé JVs are not permitted to have any contract HCWs, so it truly is the individual venturers that will need to have the liquidity available to make payroll for a few months until the JV begins receiving payments from the Government. | 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. Prior to award, questions concerning an offeror's responsibility may be referred to the SBA by the Contracting Officer. |
| 2 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Letter of Credit | 2. RFP Page 74 (Letter of Credit) | 2. Please also clarify that an offeror’s bank letter stating that the offeror maintains at least $2 million in liquidity satisfies this requirement. | See response to Question #1 above. |
| 3 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Letter of Credit | 3. RFP Page 74 (Letter of Credit) | 3. To minimize the cost to offerors of procuring such a letter (e.g. many banks charge a fee in the neighborhood of $1,000) please consider requiring this prior to contract award but not necessarily as part of the proposal, as the Government did during its competition for the M QS contract. | The requirement for the Letter of Credit to be included in Volume I remains so that the Government has some level of assurance that the offeror may obtain credit if needed. |
| 4 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | 4. RFP Page 76 (Supporting Documentation) | 4.The Government is encouraging teams to submit proposals; however, teammates on this proposal are competitors on other proposals and reasonably will not want to disclose their pricing strategies to the prime offeror in the form of unredacted continuation pages to SF 1449s, SF33s, and DD1155s. Where a Government contract constitutes the supporting documentation for points claimed, will the Government permit the offeror to submit documents that redact the unit and total prices (but not the unit quantities)? | Yes, prices may be redacted. |
Additionally, in regard to comments regarding competitors, the Government reminds offerors that cross-teaming is prohibited as stated in Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph c.
| 5 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Rows 36/38 (Setting) | 5. Please clarify whether the Government means the types of MTFs were served by the services or where the personnel providing the services we located? For example, if the contractors were located off premises and provided medical appointing services to OP clinic MTFs. | Setting refers to where the services were performed. If an MSS service is performed remotely, it would not be a valid contract to support capability and experience in a Outpatient Clinic or Hospital performance setting. |
| 5a | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Page Limit | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Row 60 (Magnitude) | 5a. Please clarify what supporting documentation the Government expects to receive to validate the “[t]otal number of active contracts or order providing medical support services to the Government”? The RFP appears to explicitly limits supporting documentation to a single contract and, in any event, no more than 10 pages. | Amendment 1: Table 1 - Proposal Organization, Volume II, Tab 4c - Magnitude (Total Contracts) will allow up to 40 Pages. |
| 5b | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Supporting Documentation | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Row 60 (Magnitude) | 5b. Please clarify whether this calculation is limited to the prime offeror or the team as a whole. | For Technical Capability, supporting documentation may be for either the prime |
or team partner(s)/subcontractor as reported on the Teaming/Organization Structure (Attachment 1).
However, Amendment 1 was issued to require at least one (1) supporting documentation in each of the section (Scope, Complexity and Applicability) to be for the prime offeror and Magnitude is limited only to the Prime Offeror.
| 5c | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Row 114 (Complexity) | 5c. Please clarify what supporting documentation the Government expects to receive to validate the offeror has managed subcontractors on a medical support services prime contract? | 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. |
| 5d | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Rows 121-129 (Applicability) | 5d. Please clarify how the Government would require offerors to answer if the offeror’s supporting contract is performed in service of a multi-service eMSM—for example, the COR and program manager are USAF, the Contracting Officer is USA, and the end users are both USAF and USA MTFs. | If services are for multiple MTFs in an eMSM, the customer would be DHA. If the services are only for a single MTF, then the customer would be based on what service owns that MTF. |
| 5e | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Rows 121-129 (Applicability) | 5e. Please confirm that work performed under a subcontract does not support claiming points for items on these rows 121-129. | See response to Questions 5.b.above |
| 6 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | DHA MSS Instructions Attachment 2 Technical Wksht V6, Row 56 | 6. Instructions state "Row 56, Total Medical Support Service FTEs placed for the Government in the last 5 years. Place an “X” in the appropriate Column D, E, F or G." QUESTION: Is this the total FTEs across all contracts within the 5 year period across the team or just the Prime; or just on a single order/contract within the 5 years? | This is the total FTEs across all active Medical Support Service contracts or orders within the 5 year period for the prime offeror. See clarification in amended RFP. |
| 7 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Attachment 1, Team composition worksheet | Attachment 1, Page 80, Paragraph 1 | 7. What is meant by “Location Coverage”? States we have offices or States where we have performed over the past 5 years? | This refers to states where the company will perform Medical Support Services under this solicitation. |
| 8 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | RFP – Volume 1 – Contract Administration, Page 73, Paragraph 3.1 | 8.RFP states: “The “Original” copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punched holes” | |
| This paragraph was revised in the amendment. Proposal are required to be electronic IAW Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 2.h. Therefore, there is no "original" or "separate cover". | ||||||
| 8a | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | RFP – Volume 1 – Contract Administration, Page 73, Paragraph 3.2 | a. Does the above statement mean that the offeror should complete a hard copy of 1449 as original in addition to the soft copy on DVD-R and submit it along with the proposal Package? | See response to Question #8 above. |
| 8b | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Submission Instructions | RFP – Volume 1 – Contract Administration, Page 73, Paragraph 3.3 | b. Please clarify the government reference in the above statement to “separate Cover” | See response to Question #8 above. |
| 8c | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | SF1449 | RFP – Volume 1 – Contract Administration, Page 73, Paragraph 3.4 | c. Please provide the exact location of paragraph 3.b.(i) | The correct reference for consideration is Paragraph 2.b.(i). |
| 9a | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Page 3 & 4, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, 3.4 – Volume IV – price and Attachment 3 Pricing worksheet, Worksheet 3 (P79) | 9. RFP states that: … To complete Worksheet 3, offerors…as well as the projected FTEs by labor category and Performance Location on Worksheet 2. a. Worksheet 3 does not have any location. Does this mean that the offeror should propose only one hourly rate for each labor category that is reflective of a reasonable price for those locations in aggregate? | Yes. The Government seeks one fully burdened rate after offeror's consider of the FTEs and locations provided in Worksheet 2. |
| 9b | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Page 3 & 4, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, 3.4 – Volume IV – price and Attachment 3 Pricing worksheet, Worksheet 3 (P79) | b. There is no mention of completing SF 1449 Continuation Sheet as part of pricing proposal. Please confirm that there is no need for completed SF1449. | There is no need for the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet. The Pricing Template (Attachment 3) is to be used for the price. |
| 9c | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Page 3 & 4, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, 3.4 – Volume IV – price and Attachment 3 Pricing worksheet, Worksheet 3 (P79) | c. If the answer to b above is otherwise, please clarify if only the total price should be reflected in the “MAX AMOUNT” for CLIN 0001 | See response to Question #9b above. |
| 9d | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Page 3 & 4, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, 3.4 – Volume IV – price and Attachment 3 Pricing worksheet, Worksheet 3 (P79) | d. There is no pricing for “Medical Service Support Service Type II” under CLIN 0002 | There is no Service Type II pricing required. |
| 10 | RFP Part I | IV - Price | Travel | Page 3 & 4, SF 1449 Continuation Sheet, 3.4 – Volume IV – price and Attachment 3 Pricing worksheet, Worksheet 3 (P79) | 10. Does this requirement include transporting personnel in Contractor purchased rental vehicles during temporary duty assignments? | For the Pricing template, offerors should consider the position descriptions in Part 8 and the Pricing Performance Work Statement (PWS) at Attachment 8 when developing their fully burdened rates. The Pricing PWS, Paragraph 2.4.1.1, states "For this sample task order, no travel is required." |
| 11 | RFP Part I | IV - Price | Pricing PWS/Part 1 | None Given | 11. How often should the contractor provide the Government with an updated Quality Control Plan? | The requirement for the Quality Control Plan is determined at task order level. However, Part 1, Paragraph 1.6.1 states: The plan should be updated at least annually on the anniversary of the order unless otherwise stated in the task order. |
12 RFP Part 8 IV - Price PD Qualifications Position Description 12. Education/Certifications. The following certifications:
1.2.1 Registered Health Information Technologist (RHIT), Registered Health Information Administrator (RHIA), Certified Professional Coder (CPC), Certified Coder Specialist – Physician (CCS-P) with the appropriate level of experience.
| Question: Are those the only acceptable credentials for this labor category? There are a number of other credentials offered by AHIMA and AAPC, such as Certified Outpatient Coder (COC) from AAPC and Certified Coding Specialist (CCS) from AHIMA that are appropriate and relevant to this labor category but are not listed. Please clarify. | For pricing purposes, the certifications in the PDs are the requirement. | |||||
| 13 | RFP, Part 1 | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Pricing PWS | 13. Description of Service: “…with the pricing proposal is requesting 43 labor categories…” however the Work Sheet 3, Services Type 1 has only 42 labor categories. | |
| Please confirm that the Worksheet 42 labor category is correct. | There are 42 labor categories. The Pricing PWS was corrected in Amendment 1. | |||||
| 14 | Sample PWS | IV - Price | Price | 13. Pricing Proposal – PWS, Page 1, Paragraph 2.0 | 14. Pricing Proposal – PWS, Page 2, Paragraph 2.2 | |
| Service Type II: The contractor shall provide the complete full service/operational activity by performance location in the pricing template. However in 3.4 Volume IV – Price only 42 Labor categories of Service Type I requested. Please clarify if there is no need to provide pricing for Service Type II, otherwise | See response to Question #9d above. |
15a Instructions I - Contract Administration Section K Volume I – Contract Administration, Page 72, Paragraph 3.1 Tab 3 15a. States: Complete the necessary fill-ins and certifications in Sections D through K. Section K shall be returned in its entirety. For Sections D through I, the offeror shall submit only those pages that require a fill-in.
Question: 52.212.3 (page 16) states that "The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM).
| Offerors are instructed to follow the instructions in FAR 52.212-3. | ||||||
| 15b | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Certs & Reps | Volume I – Contract Administration, Page 72, Paragraph 3.1 Tab 4 | 15b. Question: Should offeror provide the representation and certification in its entirety as suggested in Tab 3 instruction or if already registered in SAM, only provide paragraph (b) per FAR 52.212.4 | Offerors are instructed to follow the instructions in FAR 52.212-3. |
| 16 | Instructions | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Pricing PWS | 16. In Paragraph 2 of the Pricing Proposal Performance Work Statement (PWS) Medical Support Services (MSS) we read that "This sample order to be used with the Pricing Section of the proposal is requesting 43 labor categories using the position descriptions at Part 8 Attachment 4 and 5 services using the 5 Statement of Objectives at Part 8, Attachment 5." However, Attachment 3 Pricing Template only lists 42 labor categories. Was this an error? Please confirm labor categories. | See response to Question #13 above. |
| 17 | RFP, Part 1 | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Atch 4 | 17. The following labor categories are listed in Attachment 4, but not included on Attachment 3: Inpatient Medical Coding Auditor, Modernization Study Coding Compliance Specialist, Pharmacy Supply Technician and Medical Office Clerk. Was this an error? Please confirm labor categories. | The requirements in the Pricing Template for Inpatient Medical Coder and the LPN - Appointment Clerk do not require pricing. The Outpatient Medical Office Clerk was combined with the position called Medical Office Clerk and the Outpatient Medical Coder (Lead) requirements was removed. |
| 18 | RFP, Part 1 | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Atch 4 | 18. The following labor categories are listed in Attachment 3, but not include on Attachment 4: Inpatient Medical Clerk, Licensed Practical Nurse-Appointment Clerk, Outpatient Medical Office Clerk and Outpatient Medical Coder. Was this an error? Please confirm labor categories. | See response to Question 17 above. |
| 19 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Attachment 3, Pricing Template | 19. Attachment 3 Pricing Template does not include any worksheets for Service Type II pricing. Does the Government require Service Type II pricing for this evaluation? | See response to Question #9d above. |
| 20 | Instructions | III - Past Performance | References | None Given | 20. Is the Past Performance required from the prime contractor or can sub-contractors fulfill the requirement(s). | See Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 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. A maximum of 8 total references can be provided to the Government. If 8 references are not available, provide what you have in the proposal. |
| 21 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Attachment 3, Pricing Template, Column G | 21. Column G is labeled as greater than or equal to 7 and should be greater than only, per the instructions. | This is corrected in Amendment 1 - Technical Self-Scoring worksheet. |
| 22 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Sections a-d and 1.e. | 22. 1.e – Since all labor categories requested under this RFP are covered in sections a-d, what other types of medical support services labor categories would be applicable to this contract? | The contract is for Product Service Codes as outlined in Part I, Paragraph 1.4. For technical capability, supporting documentation should support the offeror's claim for other services not within those product service codes. |
| 23 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | 4.b | 23. 4.b – Should this calculation include all Government contracts within the past 5 years? If so, would an IDIQ contract be accepted for this requirement? | See response to Question #6 above. |
| 24 | RFP | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | 6.b | 24. 6.b – What facilities in Minnesota would be included in this contract? | Per Part 1, Paragraph 1.5.2, Performance locations include all DHA facilities and all Air Force, Army and Navy MTFs/organizations. Amendment will change Minnesota to North Dakota. |
| 25 | RFP | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | 7.b | 25. 7.b – Must the Prime’s performance as a subcontractor be related to medical support services only? | 3.2 - Volume II - Technical Capability, last paragraph states: "the supporting documentation must match the services of this solicitation." Additionally, see Amendment 1, Paragraph 3.2.a for further clarification. |
| 26 | RFP | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | 8,a, | 26. 8.a – What kind of documentation does the Government require to prove management of subcontractor(s) since standard contracts do not list subcontracts? | See response to Question 5c above. |
| 27 | Instructions | IV - Price | Pricing PWS | None Given | 27. Medical Coding – are the Medical Coding Specialists/Coders required to be located remote or onsite? | For Pricing purposes, all FTE workers will be performing onsite |
| 28 | Instructions | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Pricing Worksheet/RFP | 28. Please provide position descriptions for the Inpatient Medical Clerk and the LPN Appointment Clerk referenced on the pricing worksheet. These positions are not referenced in the RFP in any sections however, they do appear on the pricing worksheet. | See response to Question #17 above. |
| 29 | Instructions | IV - Price | SF1449 | None Given | 29. The SF1449 Continuation Sheet, CLIN 0001 indicates that pricing is by labor category, fully burdened hourly rate by location. Attachment 3 Pricing Template, however, requests pricing by labor category position only. Please confirm that only Attachment 3, with pricing by position and not by location, is all that is required. | See response to Question # 9.b above |
| 30 | Instructions | IV - Price | SF1449 | None Given | 30. The SF1449 Continuation Sheet 0002 indicates that Service Type II pricing is by service unit rate by location. However, Attachment 3 Pricing Template, does not request any service unit pricing. Please confirm that service unit pricing is not required. | See response to Question # 9.d. above |
| 31 | Part 1 | PWS | Duty Hours | Part 1, Paragraph 1.5.7 | 31. Section 1.5.7 of the Description of Services indicates that MSS personnel may be required to work on federal holidays. Are all positions expected to work holidays? If no, which specific positions are required to work? How often is holiday work required, on average? | Specifics on duty schedules, hours and locations are defined during the ordering process and each subsequent task order. If for pricing consideration, per the Pricing PWS, the duty hours are a consecutive 8 hours (with a non-billable one (1) hour lunch period) day shift, such as 0730-1630, Monday through Friday, excluding weekends and federal holidays [ as outlined in the Department of Labor’s Wage Determinations]. All other days will be considered work days. |
| 32 | Part 1 | PWS | Duty Hours | 32. Is shift work required? If yes, please specify which positions require shift work. | See response to Question #31 above. | |
| 33 | Part 1 | PWS | Duty Hours | 33. Is weekend work required? If yes, please specify which positions required weekend shifts. | See response to Question #31 above. | |
| 34 | Instructions | Past Performance | References | None Given | 34. Please clarify the past performance requirement. Is 3 a minimum number that must be submitted by the prime contractor? Is 8 the maximum number for both prime and subcontractors? | See response to Question #20 above. |
| 35 | Instructions | Past Performance | References | None Given | 35. Please clarify how many past performance references are required if there is only one teaming partner. If there is one subcontractor and the workload percentage is 51/49, should we submit 3 Past Performance references for the prime and two for the subcontractor? | See response to Question #20 above. |
| 36 | Instructions | Past Performance | References | None Given | 36. Is past performance by the subcontractor/teaming partner rated equally as past performance by the prime? | Each reference is evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality IAW Addendum 52.212-1, 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. |
| 37 | Instructions | General | Submission Instructions | Page 70, Paragraph j and k | 37. The solicitation defines a "page" on page 70, 2.j as being numbered Sequentially. Is the offeror expected no number each page? | Offerors should number pages of supporting documentation as needed. The exclusions noted in Para k do not require page numbering. |
| 38 | Instructions | General | Submission Instructions | Page 70, Paragraph j and k | 38. As an extention on question #1, the directions for the Past performance tool indicates that PPI that there should be no numbering, line spacing on font restrictions on this attachment. Does that mean that the instructions on Page 70 defining a page (Page Numbering, Font, Margins, tables graphs and illustrations, Page layout, etc) do not apply to PPI files? | Same response as that provided in response to Question #37 above. |
| 39 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Worksheet 5 | 39. The instructions refer to a worksheet 5, however I do not see a tab for Worksheet 5. Can the government confirm that nothing is needed for this worksheet? | Worksheet 5 was in the draft RFP and the second draft, but is no longer present in the Final RFP. |
| 40 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Non-FTE | Supporting Documentation in Excel File & Para 3.2.c. | 40. In providing Technical Capability supporting documentation for Government Contracts the only allowed information is: For Government Contracts: Provide a signed copy of the SF 1449, SF33 or DD1155 along with other contract pages that show clearly detail the claimed item (labor category, FTE, location, dollar value, etc.). |
Several of our references are Firm Fixed price non-personal service contracts in which the Contract does not define FTE number of personnel.
Question: Will the government allow another form of documentation for the Technical Capability (e.g. Past Performance document Attachment 5) given that not all contracts define the FTEs? Yes, other documentation would be acceptable as long as it demonstrates performance in the area claimed on the Technical Self-Scoring worksheet.
41 Instructions IV - Price Price Attachment 3, Pricing Template, Worksheet 2 41. When comparing Attachment 3 (Worksheet 2) and Technical Exhibit 3 in the solicitation, there seems to be a slight difference in performance locations. Technical Exhibit 3 in the solicitation includes McClellan AFB, Pope AFB, USAF Academy, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, McChord AFB, Fort Shafter, Fort Sam Houston, and Fort Detrick. Attachment 3 (Worksheet 2) does not.
| Question: Do we only need to price the locations currently on Attachment 3 (Worksheet 2) or do the other locations from the Technical Exhibit 3 need to be included? | Attachment 3, Pricing Template - Worksheet 2 provides offerors with a sample task order with FTEs by labor category and performance location. Those are the requirements to consider when developing your prices for Worksheet 3. Note: Worksheet 3 does not require prices by location. | ||||||
| 42 | RFP | PD | PD Qualifications | Position Description | 42. The position descriptions for the Coder positions indicate that ICD will be utilized. Can the government clarify if these positions will utilize and be required to have experience in ICD-9 or ICD-10? | ICD-10 is effective for all healthcare services. | |
| 43 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Row 9 | 43. Self-Scoring Sheet, Row 9 (Certified med Support) - Does the Gov’t classify a Medical Records Clerk (USAF contract) as a Medical Records Technician? | Offerors are instructed to review the PD requirements to ensure the two are providing the same duties/services. | |
| 44 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Row 18 | 44. Self-Scoring Sheet, Row 18 (Other Labor Category) | ||
| Please confirm that the item claimed be for any other labor category. | See response to Question #22 above. | ||||||
| 45 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Non-FTE | Self-Scoring Sheet, Row 24 (Referral Clerk) | 45. If the offeror supplies clerks who push Clear and Legible Reports from the referral network into HAIMS but the contract awarded specifies the quantity of CLRs and not the labor hours, how would the Government prefer to receive supporting documentation? | See response to Question #40 above. | |
| 46 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Row 56 (Magnitude) | 46. Where the Government asks for “Total” FTEs placed, is the total limited to a single contract/TO or in aggregate? And is this limited to a single team member or for the team as a whole? | See response to Question #6 above. | |
| 47 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Technical Self-Scoring worksheet | Self-Scoring Questionnaire Row 56 (Magnitude) | 47. Please note that the letter in Column A appears to be missing. | Offerors are advised to ensure that they are using the final RFP Technical Self-scoring Worksheet, which was posted 18 July 2017. | |
| 48 | Instructions | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Attachment 3, Pricing Template | 48. The following positions listed in Attachment 3, Pricing Template are missing job descriptions in Technical Exhibit 4. Please clarify and/or provide job descriptions: |
a. Inpatient Medical Coder
b. LPN - Appointment Clerk
c. Outpatient Medical Office Clerk
| d. Outpatient Medical Coder (Lead) | The requirements in the Pricing Template for Inpatient Medical Coder and the LPN - Appointment Clerk do not require pricing. The Outpatient Medical Office Clerk was combined with the position called Medical Office Clerk and the Outpatient Medical Coder (Lead) requirements was removed. | |||||
| 49 | Instructions | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Attachment 3, Pricing Template | 49. The following positions contain job descriptions in Technical Exhibit 4, but are not included in Attachment 3, Pricing Template. Please clarify whether they should be priced: |
a. Medical Office Clerk
b. Ambulatory medical coding auditor
c. Pharmacy Supply Technician
d. Inpatient Medical Coding Auditor
e. Modernization Study Coding Compliance Specialist
| See response to Question #48 above. The Medical Office Clerk was corrected in the pricing template and will require pricing. The others are possible under the DHA MSS, but will not require pricing for evaluation purposes for contract award. | |||||
| 50 | RFP & Instructions | IV - Price | Duty Hours | Part 1, Paragraph 1.5.7 | 50. “(2) Offerors who determine that the technical requirements of this RFP require clarification(s) in order to permit submittal of a responsive proposal are requested to submit all questions in writing on or before 17 July 2017. These questions shall be directed to the KO identified above. The Government will issue RFP Questions and Answers on fbo.gov and amend the RFP if required to clarify RFP requirements.” |
Page 107: Part 1, 1.5.7, Holidays – “MSS personnel may be required to work on federally recognized holidays as outlined in the task order. A complete list of the recognized Federal Holidays in accordance with the Department of Labor Wage Determination requirements for the ordering location will be provided during the ordering process.”
| Question: Given that "MSS Personnel may be required to work on federally recognized holidays as outlined in the task order..." is it acceptable for Contractors to submit bid pricing that assumes flexibility in offering alternative holidays? | See response to Question #31 above. | ||||||
| 51a | Evaluation Criteria | Basis for Contract Awards | Evaluation Process | Page 95, Section 1.2 | 51a. Can the government define what the determining factor will be for proposals to be evaluated either concurrently or sequentially? Will the bidders be notified of the governments’ final evaluation methodology at the time? | No. There are many factors and variables that go into this decision. Therefore, when all the information is available, the Government will determine the most efficient method (concurrently or sequentially) to complete the evaluation process. | |
| 51b | Evaluation Criteria | Basis for Contract Awards | Evaluation Process | Page 98, Para 2.1.3 | 51b.Page 98: 2.1.3. Volume III, Past Performance. “If proposals are evaluated sequentially, it is the government’s intent that only proposals with the highest score on the Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2) will proceed to Step 3, Past Performance Evaluation.” | Yes, as stated in Para 2.1.3, If proposals are evaluated sequentially, it is the Government’s intent that only proposals with the highest score on the Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2) will proceed to Step 3, Past Performance Evaluation. If the Government evaluates proposals concurrently, the government will evaluate all offerors. | |
| 52 | Past Performance | III - Past Performance | References | Page 77, Para 3.3 | 52. Page 77: 3.3 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE - TAB 2 – “References for Teaming Partner/Subcontractor, considering the sub (or Subs) shall submit PP’s based on the % of work they intend to perform under the prime.” |
Question: Please confirm if a Prime has one Subcontractor (estimated up to 49%), the Prime shall submit three (3) Past performances and the sub shall submit two (2) references, thus the total required past performance references for a Prime with one Sub is five (5). ASSULMPTION: Offeror is NOT a Mentor-Protégé or Joint Venture
See response to Question # 20 above.
53 Past Performance III - Past Performance Relevancy Page 98, Para 2.1.3.2 53. Page 98: 2.1.3.2. “The most relevant contracts will be those which most closely match the scope, magnitude, complexity and applicability of the contract. …… Complexity considers the nationwide geographic locations [at least two states] and the business relationship between the prime and the subcontractor(s).”
Page 99: “Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT, to be relevant, Performs in at least two (2) states.”
| Question: Most individual Task Orders are for work performed in a single state. Would contracting consider removing this criteria so a past performance would still be considered “Relevant” if only performed in one state and still fulfills the remainder of the “Relevant” criteria? | Amendment 1 to the RFP revised the relevancy criteria. | ||||||
| 54 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | SF1449 | Pg 70, para k. | 54. RFP p.70, Item #k states that the SF1449 and all amendments must be submitted as a MS Word document (*docx). These documents must signed, therefore, may the Offeror submit these documents as PDF files? | Yes. Pdf is preferred per 52.212-1 amendment, Paragraph 2.h. | |
| 55 | Instructions | General | Submission Instructions | Pg 74, Para 3.1, Tab 1 | 55. RFP p. 74, Section 3.1, Tab 1 – SF 1449 states “the original” copy should be clearly marked under separate cover and should be provided without any punch holes. This statement implies a hard copy submission. Please confirm DVD-R submission type and remove this statement requiring hard copy. | See response to Question #8 above. Yes, only an electronic version on DVD-R is required. | |
| 56 | Instructions | I - Contract Administration | Letter of Credit | RFP Page 74 (Letter of Credit) | 56. RFP p. 75, Tab 5 - Letter of Credit. Offerors must include a Letter of Credit to demonstrate the offeror’s financial health and capacity to cover startup expenses for this requirement. The document, 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 shall include contact information of the issuing organization and the Letter of Credit may be contingent upon award of this contract. The date of the letter can be issued anytime between release of the RFP and proposal due date. Offerors may submit a Letter of Credit with an initial expiration date to cover the entire performance period (5-years) or a letter with an initial expiration date that is a minimum period of one year from the date of issuance. If valid for the first year, the letter will be required to be renewed and provided to the contracting officer annually. The document, issued by a bank or other financial institution must include contact information for the issuing organization. Will the government please clarify if they are looking for a Line of Credit Letter or Letter of Credit from a financial institution to fulfill this requirement? Financial institutions generally look at these 2 letters as very different. | See response to Question #1 above. | |
| 57 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | Non-FTE | Supporting Documentation in Excel File & Para 3.2.c. | 57. RFP p. 78, Item c, bullet 1. For government contracts, it requires the Offeror to submit contract pages that show that the claimed item (labor category, FTE, location, dollar value, etc.). For example, an Offeror may have a contract that is FFP and performance based – no labor categories called out in PWS and no number of FTEs called out either – yet the Offeror may provide an MSS type labor category and number of FTEs under said performance based contract (similar to service type II task orders under this procurement). What documentation (i.e., original offeror proposal justification of staffing, letter from the government CO, etc.) should the Offeror submit to demonstrate claim of the number of FTEs or labor categories it provides under said contract to fulfill this requirement? | See response to Question #40 above. | |
| 58 | Past Performance | III - Past Performance | References | Page 79, Tab 2 | 58. RFP p. 79, Tab 2 – References for Teaming Partners/Subcontractors. The example provided in this section details a 2 teaming partner scenario that equates to 10 total references versus 8 total references. The other scenarios only allow 8 total references. Please confirm the correct number of references allowed in a proposal response. | See response to Question #20 above |
| 59 | RFP, Part 1 | IV - Price | Position Descriptions | Page 79, Para 3.4 | 59. RFP p. 79, Section 3.4, Volume IV – Price. This section states there are only 42 labor categories. However, Technical Exhibit 4 shows 43. Please confirm and correct as appropriate. | See response to Question #13 above. |
| 60 | Evaluation Criteria | IV - Price | Price | Pg 103, Para 2.1.4.1 | 60. RFP p. 103, Section 2.1.4.1 – Completeness. This section states that the government will review pricing submissions for completeness of all hourly and unit rates as well as TEP. In Attachment 3, Pricing Worksheet #3 only requires hourly rates. Where will Offeror’s be submitting unit pricing for Service Type II SOO’s in accordance with the Pricing PWS and 5 Statement of Objectives in the RFP? Please provide updated pricing sheet and instructions for unit pricing. | See response to Question #9d above. |
| 61 | Evaluation Criteria | IV - Price | Price | Pg 102, Para 2.1.4.3 | 61. RFP p. 103, Section 2.1.4.2.3 – Realism. This section states that proposed fully burdened hourly rates will be compared to the SCLS requirements and the highest wage determination rate for the nation. |
a. Is the government asking the offeror to submit hourly rates for each labor category based on the highest WD in the nation for each labor category? This option would require extensive research on each county in the United States for each labor category.
b. Or, do offeror’s use the pricing worksheet performance locations and the project FTEs by performance location to determine the highest WD for each labor category by requested performance location? For example, the A&D Clerk is projected to have 14 FTEs across 4 performance locations. Would the offeror determine which of the 4 performance locations has the highest WD and price based on that location? Evaluation Criteria in Section 2.14.2.3 is how the Government will determine realistic pricing, if conducted. Offeror's should use Instructions Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph 3.4.1 to develop their prices. 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 the www.dol.gov website as of the release date of the solicitation.
| 62 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Attachment 3, Pricing Template | 62. Pricing PWS p. 2, Section 2.2 and 2.4.5.1 – Service Type II. These 2 sections reference the contractor providing a complete full service/operational activity by performance location in the pricing template. We are unable to find a place within the pricing template to insert our Service Type II unit prices for each of the five SOO’s provided in the RFP. Please clarify where in the worksheet an offeror should provide this pricing. | See response to Question 9d above |
| 63 | PWS & Pricing PWS | IV - Price | Pricing PWS | PWS Para 1.5.15 & Pricing PWS Section 2.4.3 | 63. Pricing PWS p. 4, Section 2.4.3 – Health Requirements. This section states that the contractor has 7 calendar days prior to personnel start date to provide complete employee qualification documents/records. RFP p. 109, PWS 1.5.15 states that the contract has 10 calendar days prior to personnel start date to provide complete employee qualification documents. We understand the overall contract may require one thing, and a task order specify something different. However, since we are required to track this metric based on contract surveillance methods and it affects overall contractor performance on the contract, we would request that the timeframe stay with the 10 days – at the contract level requirement. Please confirm which timeframe is required. | 10 calendar days will be allowed at contract level. For pricing purposes, the Pricing PWS will be changed to also allow 10 calendar days. However, on subsequent task orders, the ordering contracting officer may have a different requirement. NOTE: Part 8, Exhibit 1.a, Contract Level Performance Objectives Summary tracks compliance with task order level requirements which would include health requirement submission as defined in the order. |
| 64 | Evaluation Criteria | IV - Price | Price | Pg 79, Para 3.4 | 64. Attachment 3, Pricing Template and RFP p. 79 Section 3.4 Volume IV – Price (second paragraph) that states, “NTE rates should be rounded to the nearest-two decimal format (i.e., $15.32).” |
a. Are the fully burdened hourly rates provided in Worksheet #3 going to be Not To Exceed (NTE) rates for the overall contract that the Offeror will have to meet across the contract period and performance locations?
b. Is the government requesting a single NTE rate for each labor category at the performance locations called out in Worksheet #2 under the respective labor category? a. There will be no not-to-exceed rates at contract level
b. See responses to Questions #41 and #61 above.
| 65 | Instructions | IV - Price | Price | Exhibit 3 | 65. Pricing Template and Technical Exhibit #3. Can the government clarify why there are variations in the Performance Locations listed within Technical Exhibit 3 on pages 142-147 and the performance locations included on Worksheet 2 of the Attachment 3 Pricing Template? For example, DH-HQ is not listed in Technical Exhibit 3 and Navy Medical Center – Portsmouth, VA is listed as an AF location in the Exhibit 3 and not in the pricing template. | Not every location that can order on the DHA MSS will be in the sample requirements for pricing purposes. |
| Evaluation Criteria | Basis for Contract Awards | Evaluation Process | Pg 98, Para 2.1.2 | 66. RFP p. 98, Section 2.1.2, last sentence of paragraph. How does the government determine if Step 3, Past Performance, will be evaluated concurrently or sequentially, as mentioned on page 98, 2.1.2? | See response to Question #51a above. | |
| 67 | Evaluation Criteria | III - Past Performance | Relevancy | Pg 100, Table 2 | 67. RFP p. 100, Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Assessment. Relevant is defined in the table to efforts that provide: (1) 1 MSS full service/operation activity or 2 different MSS labor categories; (2) greater than 2 FTEs; (3) contract is a FFP contract and value is greater than or equal to $70K annually; (4) performs in at least 2 states; and (5) customer is DoD. We believe this relevancy determination to be restrictive and limiting to competition. On the two previous AFMS MASS and AFMS MSS contracts, the majority of task orders – about 85-90% of task orders – issued under these contracts historically would only have: (1) one labor category, (2) one state of performance, and/or (3) 1-2 FTEs to a single task order. Yet, incumbent contractors performed successfully under these requirements. Further, per current RFP requirements (RFP p. 99, Section 2.1.3.2), to receive a Relevant past performance rating, an offeror is unable to combine Task Orders under an IDIQ to demonstrate multiple states, labor categories and/or number of FTEs. By not allowing offerors to combine task orders for similar scope work from a single IDIQ contract the government is limiting the competition of potential contractors that could successfully perform under this contract. We request that the government either: |
a. Allow offerors to combine task orders under a single IDIQ contract or BPA contract to meet the relevancy standards. OR
b. Add a Very Relevant category that has multiple state, labor categories, and number of FTE requirements and reduce the current Relevant rating to 1 or more states, 1 or more labor categories. OR
c. Change the current Relevant from perform in at least 2 states to perform in at least 2 MTFs, hospitals, clinics or departments.
| See response to Question #53 above. | ||||||
| 68 | Extending due Date | All | Submission Instructions | None given | 68. Based on the clarifications, pricing template inconsistencies with PWS and clarification on type of financial institute letter, we request that the government extend the proposal due date 7-14 days. | The proposal due was extended due to the RFP clarifications. |
| 69 | Instructions | II - Technical Capability | PSC | Attachment 2 & PWS Para 1.4 | 69. Reference: Attachment 2 – Technical Self Scoring Worksheet, Scope Section. The PSC codes used in the Section (Q601, Q602, Q603, Q701, Q702, Q801 and Q802) are new codes established and included in the FPDS system on 10/1/15. Since offerors are allowed to use past experience within the last 5 years to attest to the capabilities in this section, some of their contracts won’t reflect these new codes. Would the Government accept written rationale for relevancy if a different PSC code (related to medical services) is used on an awarded contract having one or more of the labor categories required by the solicitation? |
- Beneficiary Service Representatives in one of our contracts are under PSC Q403 instead of one of the new codes above.
| - Referral Clerks in one of our contracts are under PSC Q201 instead of one of the new codes above. | The new PSC codes effective 1 Oct 2015 will not be reflective on supporting documentation for awards prior to that date. No written rationale is necessary. | ||||||
| 70 | Instructions | IV - Price | Wage Determination | None given | 70. Based on the solicitation stating that WDs will be incorporated at the task order level and that offeror’s proposed prices will be considered ceiling rates for the base and option years. Will the Government be allowing price adjustments to ceiling rates based on updated WDs? If so, how will be price adjustments be executed? | 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. The Government is not apply ceiling rates. |
There are no not-to-exceed rates at contract level. All requirements will be deferred to the task order.
71 FAR references IV - Price Wage Determination 52.222-42, Pg 48 71. As part of 52.222-42, page 48, STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 2014) the government has provided equivalent rates, but not separately indicated the fringe benefits. Does the rate provided in this section include the fringe rates or are these just the base wages? IAW FAR 52.222-42 requirements, the information provided is monetary wage and fringe benefits. The referenced paragraph states: In compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and the regulations of the Secretary of Labor (29 CFR part 4), this clause identifies the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages and fringe benefits payable to each if they were employed by the contracting agency subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 5341 or 5332.
| 72 | Part 1 | PWS | Duty Hours | Part 1, Paragraph 1.5.7 | 72. Page 108: Part 1, 1.5.7, Holidays – “MSS personnel may be required to work on federally recognized holidays as outlined in the task order. A complete list of the recognized Federal Holidays in accordance with the Department of Labor Wage Determination requirements for the ordering location will be provided during the ordering process.” | See response to Question #31 above. |
| 73 | Evaluation Criteria | Basis for Contract Awards | Evaluation Process | Page 95, Section 1.2 | 73. Page 96: Source Selection Section 1.2: “The Government will make a best value decision using a 4-Step evaluation process that includes responsiveness (submission and administrative requirements), technical capability, past performance and price (see Figure 1). The Government may conduct evaluations on all four steps either concurrently or sequentially.” |
Page 98: 2.1.3. Volume III, Past Performance. “If proposals are evaluated sequentially, it is the government’s intent that only proposals with the highest score on the Technical Self Scoring Worksheet (Attachment 2) will proceed to Step 3, Past Performance Evaluation.”
Can the government define what the determining factor will be for proposals to be evaluated either concurrently or sequentially? Will the bidders be notified of the governments’ final evaluation methodology at the time?
| See response to Question #51a above. | |||||
| 74 | Past Performance | III - Past Performance | References | Pg 78, para 3.3 | 74. Page 78: 3.3 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE - TAB 2 – “References for Teaming Partner/Subcontractor, considering the sub (or Subs) shall submit PP’s based on the % of work they intend to perform under the prime.”. |
| Question: Please confirm how many past performance references are required to achieve the Government's maximum past performance evaluation score in the case of the following proposed teaming arrangement: the prime has one (1) teaming partner/subcontractor? What are the minimum and maximum numbers of references for each party (prime and subcontractor) and what is the Government's recommended formula to translate workload into proportional numbers of references which must be provided as whole numbers, i.e. integers? For example, if the workload in this example is split 60/40 would the prime provide 3 references and the subcontractor 2 references? In this example with one teaming partner/subcontractor, what are the proportional reference requirements if the prime-to-sub workload percentages are 55/45 or 51/49? If this is incorrect, please provide the appropriate quantity of past performances for prime and for sub in this scenario. | See response to Question #20 above. | |||||
| 75 | Instructions/Evaluation | III - Past Performance | Relevancy | Pg 99, para 2.1.3.2 & Table 2 | 75. Page 99: 2.1.3.2. “The most relevant contracts will be those which most closely match the scope, magnitude, complexity and applicability of the contract. …… Complexity considers the nationwide geographic locations [at least two states] and the business relationship between the prime and the subcontractor(s).” |
Page 99: “Table 2 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT, to be relevant, Performs in at least two (2) states.”
| Question: Most individual Task Orders are for work performed in a single state. Would contracting consider removing this criteria so a past performance would still be considered “Relevant” if only performed in one state and still fulfills the remainder of the “Relevant” criteria? | See response to Question #53 above. | |||||
| 76 | Instructions | III - Past Performance | References | Pg 76, para b, Rows 9-18 | 76. Page 76: Section b, Rows 9-18, Labor Category/Service Product Service Code Placement. |
| In cases where past performance contracts reference medical support services in different PSC codes than specified in the solicitation (ex. FPDS) but include relevant labor categories, what validating documentation will satisfy the evaluation of that past performance. | See response to Question #69 above. The PPI tool allows explanation/rationale under Program Details Tab - The Offeror is advised to explain how performance is relevant to the performance of this contract |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .