36A79719Q0002-0001011.pdf

Vendor Q&A

Transition to Generic Specifications Pre-solicitation Call November 7, 2018

36A79719Q0002

1. The requirement for a system manager manual conflicts with the existing contract clause and may also conflict with FAR 12.211. The FAR states that the Government shall acquire only the technical data customarily provided to the public with a commercial item.

The base contract states the vendor shall provide “all service manuals, schematics, diagrams, diagnostic software, other special tools and hardware keys equivalent to what the contractor field service representatives have available to diagnose, troubleshoot, repair and maintain the equipment.”

The Service and Operator Manuals specification is listed as follows:

2. Service and Operator Manuals – The vendor shall provide the following documentation for the proposed systems:

a. Two (2) copies of operator instruction manuals (one (1) electronic and one (1) physical copy)

b. Two (2) copies of a system manager (super user) manual outlining back-up procedures, managing privilege group limits, routine tasks, etc.

This specification has been updated to read as follows:

2. Service and Operator Manuals – The vendor shall provide the following documentation for the proposed systems:

a. Two (2) copies of operator instruction manuals (one (1) electronic and one (1) physical copy)

b. Two (2) copies of a service manuals (one (1) electronic and one (1) physical copy)

2. How will the requirement for off-site training be used in the evaluation, considering the NAC does not plan to award off-site training?

Customers will review current vendor offerings for clinical and technical off-site training to ensure selection of equipment for which the vendor can supply training to meet facility needs. Off-site technical training should be equivalent to training offered to OEM field service engineers. Though off-site training may not be included in the initial delivery order, it may be included as a future modification or follow-on task order. Currently vendors have been proposing training as an optional item; this is no change to the current process.

3. Regarding section D1 “VPN/Remote Access”, it is inappropriate to demand future items be provided “at no additional cost.”

VPN/Remote Access is only required during the warranty period. Any future remote diagnostic service program is requested as an “Add Option” that may have a cost associated with it.

The VPN/Remote Access specification is listed as follows:

“VPN/Remote Access – The vendor shall provide, at no additional cost, any and all equipment service programs, such as remote diagnostics, during the warranty period. The vendor shall provide post-warranty remote diagnostic service program as an “Add Option” with the offer. The system shall provide vendor remote diagnostics via VPN. The vendor shall either utilize the VA national site-to-site VPN or work with the Office of

Cyber and Information Security and the VAMC Information Systems Security Officer to establish a client-based

VPN.”

This specification will be updated to read as follows:

“VPN/Remote Access – The vendor shall provide any and all equipment service programs, such as remote diagnostics, during the warranty period. The vendor shall provide post-warranty remote diagnostic service program as an “Add Option” with the offer. The system shall provide vendor remote diagnostics via VPN. The vendor shall either utilize the VA national site-to-site VPN or work with the Office of Cyber and Information

Security and the VAMC Information Systems Security Officer to establish a client-based VPN.”

4. “Version/platform long-term plans” are requested in the statements of work. Such long-term plans are by definition not subject to firm commitments. How will this information be used in the line item evaluation?

The specification for providing “Version/platform long-term plan” has been moved to the “Added Value” section.

Specifications listed in the added value section are not required, but preferred. Vendors who do not include the added value information in the submitted offer will not excluded from consideration.

5. There are other facilities using generic specifications outside the pilot group. Is the same format required for proposals for these requirements?

The VA welcomes use of a compliance matrix similar to the one provided with the generic specifications pilot requirements but does not require its use outside of the pilot group. Vendors are responsible for following the naming requirements for all documents submitted with proposals to ensure consideration.

6. Will the compliance matrix provided with the pilot requirements always be pre-filled with the technical requirements? Some requirements were posted with a blank compliance matrix.

Posted compliance matrix spreadsheets will always be pre-filled with technical requirements. Vendors are only responsible for filling out columns E, F, and G. If any requirements have been posted with a blank compliance matrix, vendors are encouraged to bring it to the attention of the VA for correction.

7. Will a Vendor Workup spreadsheet be required in addition to the compliance matrix?

Yes, a Vendor Workup spreadsheet will still be required. Refer to the Instructions for Offerors for full guidance on required documentation.

8. Will the VA extend the timelines for the questions period and submission period to account for the additional time needed for the pilot requirements?

The VA will incorporate lessons learned, including any adjustments to the timeline, to future consolidations.

9. Are the technical requirements intended to be minimum requirements? How will these requirements be evaluated (e.g. pass-fail, trade-off)?

The technical requirements are minimum requirements and must be met. Exceeding minimum requirements may result in a stronger technical evaluation. Any added value/incentive items will allow for trade-off evaluations for best value. The NAC welcomes questions from vendors during the questions period to alleviate any issues with requirements that may limit competition.

10. How will the “added value” specifications be evaluated for best value justifications? Will vendors continue to receive the best value evaluation form?

The best value justification includes an overview of the requirements and how they are met as well as a narrative describing the best value evaluation. VA anticipates no change to the best value evaluations from previous requirements. The evaluation criteria are outlined in Section 4.6 of the Instructions for Offerors.

11. Multiple documents are being requested within each VISN (e.g. product brochures, DICOM conformance statements, etc.). How should vendors organize the documentation requested?

Vendors can provide the requested documentation in the Information folder.

12. Some items in the statements of work duplicate or conflict with language within the NAC base contract (e.g.

service operator manual and minimum warranty requirements).

Any repetition of requirements is merely for the convenience of vendors and VA. The VA is evaluating the statements of work for conflicting language and issuing updates as necessary.

13. Multiple documents are requested repeatedly across requirements. Is the NAC open to a solution where vendors provide these documents once (i.e. at contract award)? How will VA use the requested documents (e.g. DICOM conformance statement, FIPS compliance, 6550 Appendix A etc.) in the evaluation?

Maintaining a database for these types of documents would require extensive collaborative work between vendors and the VA and may be a future solution but is unachievable at this point in time. Vendors can provide links to their websites that house this information.

The 6550 has been requested during previous consolidations and will continue to be a submission requirement. The additional documents (i.e. product brochures, technical data sheets, DICOM conformance statements, IHE integration statement, FIPS certification, etc.) have also been requested and supplied by vendors in previous consolidations. These will be used to gauge the technical acceptability of the equipment in meeting the VA’s needs.

The VA does not plan to use the requested documents to evaluate specifications outside what is detailed in the compliance matrix.

14. Will this pilot affect how inspections will be conducted?

The VA anticipates no change to how inspections are conducted.

15. Is Column F of the compliance matrix requesting a page number on the quote or location within product brochures for additional information?

VA is requesting the page number on the quote where the specified requirement is met. If the information is not on the quote, provide the location within the supporting documentation.

16. Are vendors allowed to include with proposals additional added-value items not specified on the statements of work that may be of benefit to facilities?

The compliance matrix is an opportunity for vendors to showcase their offering and how well they meet and exceed the minimum requirements. Vendors are welcome to include additional added-value items for VA to consider.

17. Did VISNs participating in the pilot have visibility to the price book when compiling the requirements?

The statements of work were developed based on facility needs, not with access to a price book. Note that proposed systems must be on contract to be considered for award. If a vendor proposes a system not on contract, it is the vendor’s responsibility to add the system to the contract.

18. Reference to manuals in section E of the statements of work implies that copies of operator and service manuals are required with proposals. Is the intent to only require copies of manuals after award?

Copies of manuals are only required at time of delivery. Any reference to manuals in section E “Other Information/Documentation Requested” have been removed from the revised statements of work.