FBO_Questions_for_HRSA_Solicitation_(v_3)_19-250-SOL-00063_.pdf

# Question Section of RFP Page # Government Response (To Be Provided)

Block 9 states a due date and time of 05/10/2019 at 1700 ES. However, the cover letter and Section L.1.3 state a due date of May 13, 2019 no later than 5:00 PM EST. Can you confirm the due date is May 13, 2019?

SF 33, Cover Letter, L.1.3 SF 33, 1 of 52,40 of 52 Proposals are due on 5/28 at 5:00 PM. Submit proposals to Biji John at Bjohn@hrsa.gov

Should the ceiling rates table in Section B.2 be completed and included in the Contractor’s proposal? If so, please confirm that it should be included in Volume II Business.

B.2 3 of 52 Yes, include in the busines proposal in Volume II

Please confirm that the ceiling rates table should be the maximum unloaded hourly rates and that the government is defining unloaded to mean that the rates should not include Contractor’s fringe, overhead, G&A, and fee.

B.2 3 of 52 Yes, that is correct

Section B.2 states “Each task order awarded under the contract shall include one or more of the labor categories in Section B.2.1 proposed labor rates for specific contracts shall not exceed the maximum rates set forth in B.2.” Please confirm that this is in reference to the table in B.2 as there is not a section B.2.1 in the RFP.

B.2 4 of 52 Yes, see correction

Should the Fixed Ceiling Contract rates table provided in Section B.4.D.2 be completed and included in the Contractor’s proposal? If so, please confirm that it should be included in Volume II Business.

B.4.D.2 6 of 52 Yes, in Volume II (Business Proposal)

Section E.4 FAR 52.246‐6 Inspection Time‐and‐Material and Labor‐Hour (May 2001) is not applicable to this contract as Section B.2 states that “The Government may award Individual Task Orders on a Cost Reimbursement or Firm Fixed Price basis” and Section L.12 states “This contract will allow for Firm Fixed Price or Cost Reimbursement Task Orders or Contracts.”

E.4 10 of 52 Time and Material and Labor hour will be applicable to this contract

Item 4 Weekly Progress Report in the deliverables table has a delivery date of “Within ten (10) business days of award expiration date.” Can you confirm that this is the expected delivery date for the Weekly Progress Report?

F.7.(d) 15 of 52 Wrong Section is referenced. Please Review section 1.4 for all the requirements of the Weekly Progress Report.

Item 13 Section D – Incident Response in the deliverables table – should the Item title be Item 13 Section D – Incident Report? Also, under the delivery date should “without reasonable delay” read “without unreasonable delay?”

F.7.(d) 15 of 52 Titles are correct, Correcton made to the date column "unreasonable".

Section I lists 52.230‐5 Cost Accounting Standards – Educational Institutions. This clause is not applicable for this solicitation as it is a small business set‐aside.

I.1 24 of 52 This does not apply to small business, see correction

10 Is the place of performance to be at HRSA or at Contractor’s facility? N/A N/A The majority of the panels are held remotely via teleconferences. The place of performance for the contractor for Teleconference and Fields is the Contractor's facility or done remotely.

For Volume III Past Performance, should the Contractor include all completed CPARS reports even for those contracts not being submitted as one of the three past performance references?

L.6.2 44 of 52 No, only submit CPARS reports that are applicable.

Questions to pose about HRSA Solicitation : 19‐250‐SOL‐00063

12 Please clarify the number of key personnel? N/A N/A

For every Teleconference ORC, there needs to be one senior manager, one project director, one SSO and one program manager (see key personnel description for details), it's up to the contractor to hire as many Project Assistant, Administrative Assistant or any other support they may need to be fully functional and ready for each and every ORC.

Is it assumed that the Contractor would managed the Application Review Module (ARM)? If yes, is there an annual fee the contract should budget for?

SOW Background 2 DIR manages ARM. It is expected that the contractor understands the ARM navigation and is proficient in the use of ARM. Training will be provided.

14 What is the typical number of panel rooms needed? SOW 2.2.2 11

The number of panel rooms depends on whether the ORCs are conducted completely remotely (reviewers and HRSA staff are remote). Most ORCs are conducted remotely, however, the number of panels depends solely on the number of applications and reviewers needed for each ORC. On average, there are 4 panels per ORCs.. they can range 1 or 15 panels depending again on the number of applications.

Sections 2.2.2 states "attend all HRSA/Reviewer Orientation meeting via Skype or Adobe Connect". Not sure the correct section is referenced here.

Can you please clarify, does this mean that a staff will be assigned by the COR for entering scores, etc. or is the Contractor to provide this staff?

SOW 4.1.21 21

The contractor will enter scores for FTF. Please note that we haven't had a FTF since 2013 but need to make sure the capability is there just in case there is a change in policy.

16 What is the typical number of days for the FTF? SOW 4.2.3 23 We haven't had a FTF since 2013. One of the last ones that we conducted had 15 panels for 4 days.

17 How many staff offices do you anticipate? SOW 4.1.21` 21 The question is not clear. 4.1.21 refers to arrangement of lodging for the participants. Not sure what staff offices means?

18 How many attendees do you anticipate? SOW 4.2.1 23

The number of participants does not necessarily represent the number of review participants. However, the number of participants (reviewers) depends on the number of applications, which derives the number of reviewers. Clarification of the term "participants" is needed to provide an accurate response.

19 Please describe how the review works in Task Area 3 with no Chair or SSO. SOW 3.1 14

Field reviews are conducted differently than TC and FTF reviews. For Field reviews , the reviewers review each application and enter their comments and scores independently in ARM. No panel is convened therefore, no Chair or is required. However, should there be a necessity to to convene the reviewers for clarification or discussion of outlier scores and/or contradictory statements, small panels are convened by the contractor.

20 Do the reviewers directly enter the scores in to ARM? SOW 3.1 14 Yes.

21 Are there discussions between that reviewers that need to be coordinated? SOW 3.1 14 Yes, for Field reviews call backs are required when the scores have discrepancies outside the desired range and/or budget discrepancies.

22 Most computers no longer support CDs, is a USB drive acceptable? Section J, Attachment B There are external CD drives available in the market. USB drives however are acceptable.

Section L.1.4 states “Proposals shall be submitted no more than 75 single‐spaced pages in length, printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper…” Please confirm that the “75 single‐spaced page” limitation is specific to Volume I Technical Proposal.

In addition, please confirm that Volume III Past Performance is limited to 25 pages.

Please confirm that there is not a page limitation for Volume II Business Proposal?

L.1.4 41 of 52 Volume I‐ Technical Proposal‐75 pages and appendix, Volume II‐ Business Proposal‐ no page limit Volume III‐ Past Performance‐ 25 pages

Section M.5.1.E.1 under Approach to the Hypothetical Reviews states “The Offeror shall present a hypothetical cost proposal with narrative for each hypothetical RFS including with this RFP.”

Please clarify that the hypothetical cost proposal (valued at 10 points of 50 points) should be included as part of Volume I Technical Proposal as indicated in the evaluation criteria.

M.5.1.E.1 49 of 52 Hypothetical cost proposals should be included under volume 2(business proposal).

See M.5.1.E.1 Hypothetical technical shall be included in Technical Proposal

Is there a standard format that you would like offerors to use for the cost proposal? And will you require it in MS Excel format?

Section_L5_Business Proposal Instructions 42 MS Excel format is acceptable with documentation that support proposed cost.

Is there a specific credit line amount that you can provide that meets the below financial capacity to support the estimated yearly contract amount requirement?

Any lines of credit and amounts established with lending institutions (actual letter shall be provided). The Offeror must have the financial capability to support the estimated yearly amount of the contract. The Offeror shall be prepared to answer questions concerning financial resources and working capital

Section L.5.2_f5 Administrative and Management Data

See B2. The yearly amount is 4 million.

RFP L.6.2 requires Offerors to submit copies of their CPARS ratings for contracts included in Volume III (Past Performance). Is a questionnaire still required for contracts where CPARS data exists?

RFP L.6.2 44

No, If CPARS report are submitted.

28 Is the offeror free to propose additional labor categories based upon their solution?

Section_J_Attachment_C_- _Labor_Categories All

Yes

Is there a reason why the task order end date for Hypothetical Review 3 (face‐to‐face) does not align with the 9/30/19 task order end date for the other TOs? Or is this arbitrary?

Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project 5

This is an artibary date

The following Contractor Staff Types are listed on page 6 of Attachment B:

• Summary Statement Operators (SSOs)

• Grants Technical Assistants (GTAs)

• Contract Review Administrators (CRAs) (for More Than One Panel)

• Data Entry

• Contract Manager Can you please provide descriptions for any labor categories not listed in Attachment C – labor categories?

Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project 6

Labor categories that are not listed, are not required for the TC and Field Reviews. For FTF, GTA ensures all panels are properly connected and resolves any technical issues. CRA acts a program manager overseeing the entire ORC to ensure all is in order.

Can you please explain why the contractor is not required to “E‐mail Availability Letter to Potential Reviewers” for Hypothetical Review 3? Should we assume that HRSA will provide the contractor with a list of available and qualified reviewers for this review?

Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project 6 Yes. The list of potential reviewers will be provided to you by HRSA, the contractor however will query reviewers and confirm availability.

Should we assume that Hypothetical Review 1 (teleconference) and 2 (field) require all of the pre‐review, review, and post‐review activities listed in the SOW under Task Area 2 and Task Area 3 respectively; or are we missing an addendum to their RFSs like that on Pages 6‐9 provided for Hypothetical Review 3 (onsite).

Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project 6 to 9

All Reviews require the steps listed in the SOW. Pre‐review, review and post review activities are listed.

33 The RFS contains the acronym ORC, as in ORC days – can you please define this acronym? Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project All

Objective Review Committee (ORC)‐ Page 3, section V.

34 Has the incumbent already costed these exact scenarios? Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project All

No

For cost purposes, what number/percentage of applications should we assume will be awarded

v. declined for each of the hypothetical reviews?

Section_J_Attachment_B_- _Hypothetical_Project All

Awards are not factored in the contractor costs. It's a HRSA function.

Can you please confirm that HRSA estimates approximately 3,000 applications will require Objective Review?

SOW 2

HRSA receives as many as 6,000 applications per year for up to one hundred (100) competitive grant and cooperative agreement programs. Each year, approximately half of those applications require an objective review that is planned and carried out by the Division of Independent Review (DIR). The number varies from year to year.

Can you please provide an estimated number of reviews that will be conducted each year, disaggregated by type (i.e., teleconference, field review, and face to face)?

SOW 2

The number of HRSA reviews depends on approved FY budgets and appropriations. In FY18, there were 70 WTCs and 8 Field Reviews. FY19‐ 71 WTCs and 5 Fields on the DIR Schedule as of 4/25/19.

We understand that each application must be reviewed by 3 reviewers. Can you please confirm the number of reviewers on each panel?

SOW 2

The overall number of reviewers for each Program is determined by calculating number of applications times 3 divided by the number of applications assigned per reviewer which is normally 6. The number of reviewers for each panel depends on the number of applications that are going to review. At a minimum the average is 3 to 9 per panel.

39 Does the Chairperson score applications? SOW 4 NO. The Chair facilitates the discussion and will not score applications. They also certify the results in ARM.

What documentation should be provided to the COR to “Verify potential reviewers’ and alternates’ qualifications as provided in their resume (e.g. employment and degrees earned)”?

SOW 2.1.13. 10

A spreadsheet with the potential list of reviewrs to query is provided by the COR. The contrator is expected to track and monitor availability along with Conflict of Interest/Confidentiality certifications prior to HRSA confirming the avalable reviewers. A final participant list is expected for the ORC and in the Official File documents.

The contractor is to “Send the comments, but not the scores, of the three (3) primary reviewers for each application to the respective panel via email at least two (2) business days prior to the discussion of that application before the review begins.”

• Can you confirm that we are able to export comments associated with specific applications using an automated report/extract feature in ARM?

• Who, other than the 3 primary reviewers, should the comments be sent to?

SOW 2.1.17. 10 Yes, the comments will be available in ARM and expected to be merged by the contractor for dissemination to the reviewers and the Lead RA.

42 Can you confirm that HRSA makes panel assignments? SOW 2.1.18 10 Yes. In some cases however depending on the complexity of the ORC, this function is done in collaboration with the contractor.

43 What web‐sharing software is employed by HRSA? SOW 2.1.22 11 Currently we use Adobe Connect and Skype.

Is the contractor responsible for maintaining any HRSA‐wide reviewer, application, and/or panel databases? If so, can you please describe this requirement?

SOW 2.2 11 No. That is a HRSA function that is maintained in the ARM system.

Is the contractor responsible for maintaining any review‐specific reviewer, application, and/or panel rosters? If so, can you please describe this requirement?

SOW 2.2 11 For each ORC, a panel roster is created by the contractor and a final participant list for each panel. These lists are should align with the COIs and final list for the Official File. The contractor is expected to comply with HHS's Records Management requirements.

46 Will the contractor be permitted access to the website created by DIR? SOW 2.2.1 11 Yes.

47 Who is responsible for operating the reviewer orientation platform/software? SOW 2.2.2 11 The contractor.

Can you please further explain the contractor’s role in supporting the orientation webinars? For instance ‐ do you require a recording or transcription? Do we develop or deliver any content?

Do you require the contractor to take notes or report attendance?

SOW 2.2.2 11

It is expected that the contractor provide any administrative logistical instructions to the panel. Recording of the session and setup is conducted by HRSA. The contractor is expected to attend and have a presentation of the logistics of the ORC.

SOW, page 12 requires the contractor to “ensure that panel discussion is captured when no consensus can be reached on a particular review criterion;” – are notes taken by the SSO sufficient, or does the government intend for deliberations to be recorded or transcribed?

SOW 2.2.7 12

Panel discussion is recorded live while panel is in session by the SSO and it's done in ARM.

Do panels formulate and approve a formal consensus summary statement in real time? Or does the SSO formulate the consensus statement for Chair review and approval?

SOW 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 12 Yes, this is done real time.

Can you please clarify what activities are required to “Complete final scoring by the panel when requested by the Chairperson”

SOW 2.2.8 12

If there is an issue with a particular reviewer who for any reason is unable to score in ARM, the contractor will assist to make sure the final scores are captured in ARM.

52 Can you provide a draft or template for a compilation report? SOW 2.3 12 See attachment

53 Can you provide a draft or template for a summary statement? SOW 2.3 12 See attachment

54 Does summary statement editing need to conform to any particular style guide? SOW 2.3.1 12 Yes. American Psychological Association (APA)

55 What forms must review participants submit to be eligible to receive their honoraria? SOW 2.3.5 13 W‐9 once a year, and whatever identity verification the contractor needs to make the payment.

Can you confirm that you require the contractor print and mail hardcopies of the official grant folder documents to the COR in addition to scanning the electronic documentation?

SOW 2.3.7 13 No printed documents are required for the OffIcial File. All documents are scanned currently, i.e. COIs, Roster.

Does HRSA require assistance monitoring and tracking field reviewers’ scores and comments in ARM? Or is that a HRSA role?

SOW 3.0 14

Yes, the Contractor is responsible for contacting reviewers as necessary to monitor and track scoring as well as comments during the independent evaluation period.

Can you please identify the topics that the contractor will address on callbacks? Will any HRSA personnel be on those calls as well?

SOW 3.2.1 16

HRSA facilitates call backs. The contractor needs to be present from an administrative logistics standpoint regarding scores or revisions to comments that produce ARM resubmissions.

Does the contractor or HRSA pay for the lodging rooms and meeting space directly to the venue?

SOW 4.1.21 21

The contractor makes all payments and will invoice HRSA for the expended cost.

For Task Areas 5 and 6 – is it sufficient to acknowledge the requirements and certify our compliance with the applicable policies and guidance, or should substantive space be dedicated to addressing these task areas in detail?

SOW 5.0 and 6.0 28-36

HHS guidance regarding accessibility of documents can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/web/section‐508/making‐files‐accessible/index.html. Tthe

Offeror doesn’t need to submit anything with their offer. They do need to make sure all of their deliverables are Section 508 Compliant. The should follow the HHS guidance at the link above.

Please can the government clarify what cost information should be included in the Technical Volume for the hypothetical projects? There is a conflict between Section M.5.1 Technical Evaluation Criterion E . and Section L.1.2 . Section M.5.1 Technical Evaluation Criterion E. states, "The Offeror shall present a hypothetical cost proposal with narrative for each hypothetical RFS included with this RFP ." Section L.1.2 states, "Volume I–Technical Proposal must not contain references to cost.... "

RFP, Section M.5.1 Technical Evaluation Criterion E (p. 49) and RFP, Section L.1.2 (p. 40)

40, 49

See revison to M.5.1 E, hypothesiall cost narative proposal shall be included in volume 2 business proposal

In multiple locations, the due date of the proposal is not specified as the same date. Specifically, page 1 of the form 33, box 9, states 05/10/2019. Page 1 of the RFP, paragraph 3, states the due date as May 13, 2019. Also, Section L, page 40, 3.0, 2nd paragraph states May 13, 2019.

Please clarify.

See Question 1

In order to submit a compliant proposal, is the contractor required to respond to the Attachment B ‐ Hypothetical Project (as presented) and the 6 tasks in the SOW OR Must the contractor respond to the Attachment B and interlace the 6 task requirements within the Attachment B reply?

Please clarify.

You must address each factor as stated in M 5

Page 41, paragraph 4, font size is stated as "11 or 12 Times New Roman" AND page 42, paragraph L.4.4. states "using Times New Roman 12 point font…"

Please clarify. 41 12 Times New Roman

Are the following pages excluded from the response page count? Title page, table of contents‐ figures‐exhibits, section tabs, appendices, acronym lists, and compliance matrix pages.

Please clarify.

Yes

Please confirm that the cost breakdown for the three hypothetical projects should be included as part of the Technical Volume with the narrative, and not in the Business Volume.

RFP L.13. Hypothetical Project 45

Business Volumen with narrative, See question 61

Cost proposals are addressed in the business volume and hypothetical scenarios. Please advise how these will be evaluated in both volumes.

See responses 24, 61 and 66

68 Are the “consolidated comments” the same as the “consensus summary statements”?

SOW –

II. OBJECTIVE REVIEW

COMMITTEE (ORC)

PROCESS OVERVIEW

Yes

69 Can you please provide a link to the DIR Review Administrator (RA) Handbook?

SOW –

II. OBJECTIVE REVIEW

COMMITTEE (ORC)

PROCESS OVERVIEW

No, RA Manual is an internal document.

Is a field review conducted only when there is a disparity in scores among the original review panel?

SOW – 3.1. Pre-Review Tasks 16 Field reviews are another mode (option) to conduct an objective review. DIR in collaboration with the program determines if a particular Program is eligible for this approach.

71 Will the DIR create a review‐specific website for each Task Order? SOW – 3.1. Pre-Review Tasks 16 Yes

Please confirm that Past Performance questionnaires are not required when CPARs ratings are available.

RFP - L.6 Past Performance – Volume III 44

That is correct no questionnaires, if you include CPARS report

Can narrative sections be crossed referenced within the responses to hypothetical reviews or must they read as stand‐alone responses?

RFP - E. APPROACH TO

THE HYPOTHETICAL

REVIEWS

stand alone response

74 Who is the incumbent contractor? SOW I 2 Humanitas Inc.

75 Is the Incumbent eligible to bid on this procurement? SOW I 2 Yes

76 What is the planned number of WTC Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 FY18, there were 70 WTCs. FY19‐ 71 on the DIR Schedule as of 4/25/19

77 What is the planned number of Field Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 FY18‐ there were 8 Field Reviews. FY19‐ 5 Field Reviews as of 4/25/2019

78 What is the planned number of FTF Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 None that we are aware at this time. The last FTF was held in 2013.

79 Are the documents provided by DIR to the contractor already 508 compliant? SOW 2.2.4 11 We use all Microsoft applications, and PDFs. But we expect all the document that are produced by the contractor to be 508 compliant.

80 Will the contractor be required to format documents received from DIR into 508 compliance? SOW 4.3.8 28 All documents must be 508 compliant. Please refer to OIT clearance requirements of the solicitation. See Question 60

Please clarify Section B.2 second paragraph: “The maximum unloaded hourly rates (specified below) are ceiling rates for the life of the contract. These should be loaded rates, correct?

B.2 3 No, Unloaded hourly rates

“Contractor shall verify potential reviewers’ and alternates’ qualifications as provided in their resume (e.g. employment and degrees earned), and provide that verification email to the COR.”

Please clarify if open source verification is acceptable. If not, please provide guidance on requirements of proper/acceptable verification of information.

SOW II 3 We are entertaining ways to conduct this verification and wanted the flexibility of including this in the RFP for future implementation. We are open to ideas and will collaborate with those that offer the best proposal to accomplish this activity.

83 Do all kick off meetings need to be in person or will teleconferencing work? SOW 1.3.1 7 It will be teleconferences.

“Arrange for common carrier local transportation from reviewer lodging to the meeting facility if such transportation is not provided by the hotel or HRSA.” Is Uber/Lyft acceptable and reimbursable?

SOW 4.1.23 22

Yes

For FTF Reviews, if the venue selected does not provide on‐site AV, can the contractor procure the AV through a vendor and get it reimbursed on the contract?

H.2 22 If faced with that situation, HRSA will work with the contractor to accommodate our needs.

However, in our experience hotels typically provide audio visual capabilities.

86 What was the average number of WTC Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 The average number runs around 71 but subject to change depending on appropriations.

87 What was the average number of Field Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 The average numbers runs around 7 but subject to change depending on appropriations.

88 What was the average number of FTF Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 In FY12, there were 5 FTF reviews conducted. In FY13, there were 3. There hasn't been a FTF on DIR Schedule since FY13.

89 How many times were concurrent competitions held on the same day? SOW II 3 39 overlaps occurred in FY18 and 44 in FY19

90 What is the average number of panels per WTC Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 On average, 4 panels. The number of panels depends on the number of applications received. We have experienced up to 14 panels over a two week period.

91 What is the average number of panels per Field Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 Panels for Field Reviews exists only in the system with 3 reviewers on each application resulting in one merged document of comments. The total number depends on the number of applications.

92 What is the average number of panels per FTF Reviews per contract year? SOW II 3 On average about 15 panels. However, we haven't had a FTF since 2013.

Will DIR provide a list of suspended or debarred individuals in advance of each ORC; Will contractor track these individuals for this period of performance?

SOW II 4 The list of potential reviewers that will be provided to you will not contain suspended or debarred reviewers.

94 What is the preferred type of meeting facility for FTF Reviews? SOW II 4 Hotel conference rooms.

Will DIR provide a list of venues where FTF Reviews have been conducted for the past period of performance?

SOW II 4

Yes , Last FTF was in 2013.

Can DIR share a list of experienced Summary Statement Operators that are proficient at supporting the ORC process and working with ARM?

SOW II 4

The SSOs are employees of the contractor. HRSA doesn't keep a list.

97 Will there be extensive hardcopy mail out requirements for any reviews? 2.1.21 11 No

98 Please clarify the Field Review callback process and how Field Reviews differ from WTC Reviews. 3.2.2 16

Please review section 2.0 and 3.0 for the differences between TC and Field Reviews. Call backs are determined by DIR to the contractor for making arrangements with the reviewers.

This is required when any given score(s) or budget information are outliers or clarification is required.

Please clarify if one internet connection is authorized per each panel for use at the meeting facility or at the onsite administrative center.

4.2.3 23 It's the contractor's responsibility to ensure all panels have all that they need to operate.

Please clarify if the ARM system compiles the reviewers’ comments inside the system or if the SSOs will create and format the Consolidated Summary Statement in a word document outside of the ARM system.

1.3.3 7 ARM caputures all comments and then the contractor will merge the comments via ARM for the panel review. The final summary document is formatted into a word document outside of the ARM system and produced for DIR.

Please clarify “The Offeror must have the financial capability to support the estimated yearly amount of the contract.” Is DIR seeking a contractor with a $10M line ofcredit or just the financial capability to support a contract of this size?

L.5.2 f. 5. 44 $4 million, line of credit for each year

Are the reusable direct signs provided by DIR or do they need to be created and printed by the Offeror?

4.2.1 23 The contractor will need to provide as part of logistics.

Can the Government provide an historical cost analysis of the spending levels for the conferences and events?

SOW II 2

No

104 Will the Government provide an ODC amount for the proposal? L.5.1 42 No, offerors must propose based on their expertise.

105 What is the required number of FTEs? SOW II 2 offerors must propose

In all reviews as applicable, prior to the pre‐review conference call, the Contractor shall verify potential reviewers’ and alternates’ qualifications as provided in their resume (e.g. employment and degrees earned), and provide that verification via email to the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR).

Questions:

• How would the Contractor receive the reviewer’s resumes to verify qualifications?

• Would confirmed reviewers need to be verified for each individual grant review program, or verified annually for each Bureau/Office, or verified once per year for all HRSA grant reviews?

• How long before the pre‐review conference would the Contractor get the reviewers to verify, and/or can verification documentation be submitted as they are completed?

SOW

II. Objective Review Committee Process Overview

We are entertaining ways to conduct this verification and wanted the flexibility of including this in the RFP for future implementation. We are open to ideas and will collaborate with those that offer the best proposal to accomplish this activity. Please propose solution.

On page 4 of the SOW ‐ Individuals that have been suspended or debarred are prohibited from participating in reviews. Per Part H: Chapter 4 ‐ Enforcements and Appeals, “…OPDIVs cannot conduct business activities with individuals that have been suspended or debarred.”

Question:

• Does this apply to HRSA reviewers? If so, how would the Contractor access information on the status of reviewers who have been suspended or debarred?

SOW

II. Objective Review Committee Process Overview

The list of potential reviewers provided by DIR will have been screened and will not contain suspended or debarred reviewers.

Should the proposal be submitted in 11 or 12 point font? L.1 #4 states 11 or 12 point font, but L.4 #4 states 12 point font.

RFP L.1 #4 and L.4 #4 41, 42 see question 64

Section J, Attachment B, Hypothetical Project, for hypothetical Teleconference states the number of ORC Days is “1;” however, in the dates, it indicates December 12‐14, 2019, which is 3 days.

Question:

• Should the number of ORC Days be 3 or 1?

RFP Section J, Attachment B, #1 J.B.1

3 days

I am trying to ascertain if this RFP is open for bid or closed. The dates on FBO.gov seem to suggest that it is open by the Amendment. However, the response date has passed.

Can you advise? See Question 1

111 Is this a new opportunity or follow on to existing work? It is a re‐compete

If it’s existing work, what is the current contract number and what is the current level of effort? HHSH250201400079I‐ Parent IDIQ number, Humanitas Inc.‐ Vendor

113 Will past performance be a source selection criterion? See M6 114 What type of contract will be used for task orders on the IDIQ contract? All types of cost reimbursement and fixed price

FBO contains requirements similar to any work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement? See Question 111

116 can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number? See question 112 117 Is there an incumbent? Yes

What was the previous award amount, again, if there is an incumbent doing the work now?

See Question 74 and 112, Historically value for the past five years has been $14,743,473.86 as of May 2019

119 What will be the contract value for this opportunity? See Question 118

If so, would it be possible for you to provide the incumbent information (we need the contract number and contractor). See question 74 and 112

121 Is there an incumbent to this contract? See question 74 122 If so, what was the previous contract award number, amount and incumbent name? See question 74, 112 and 118

Are there current employees filling this position that might intend on remaining with a new contractor? No

Does the Service Contract Act (SCA) apply to this contract? If so, can you please provide the applicable Wage Determination for this location that will be used. Yes, Rockville, Maryland

If this Solicitation is covered under the Service Contract Act, what are the WDOL classifications for this position? See Question 124

Can you please provide us with a particular proposal due date for this opportunity? See Question 1

What contract vehicle are you using for this procurement? The solicitation will be issued, as a total small business set‐aside for a single‐award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract

This question is not clear. This is a total small business set aside for a single award

IDIQ.

128 I was curious if this was a follow‐on requirement. If so, would it be possible for you to provide the incumbent information (we need the contract number and contractor). See Question 74,111 and 112

129 Could you please advise which contract vehicle will HRSA use to release this requirement? Also, who is the incumbent? This question is not clear and see question 74

130 Would you be able to tell me if there is an incumbent contractor for this requirement? If so, could you please provide the contractor name and the contract number that was awarded?

See Question 74, Question 112

131 Do you know if the contact person for past performance questionnaires for the 0063 solicitation is pmauro@hrsa.gov or it is you? Please send past performance questionnaires to Bjohn@hrsa.gov.

132 Can you please confrim that you are the POC to whom PastPperformance Information Survey Questionnaires should be sent? see Question 131

SF33 provided has a proposal due date of may 10th and the rest of the proposal package has a due date of may 13th. Can you confirm which date is final? Will there be a mod to update the date to make them match? See Question 1