Q_A - SPRUCE RFP 36C10B24R0005 to post with A0002.pdf

Questions and Answers in response to RFP 36C10B24R0005 - SPRUCE

*Note(s):

-The answers provided below are for informational purposes, to assist potential offerors in preparation of proposing in response to an impending source selection, and such answers should not be considered a substitute for the requirements outlined in the final Solicitation. To the extent that any answers provided below conflict in any way with the Solicitation, the final Solicitation will take precedence.

# Reference Question Response

1 General When are questions and answers due to the

Government.

The deadline for questions to be submitted was 10AM EST on Wednesday

December 6, 2023.

2 RFI Q&A

and Page 106

Proposal submission instructions

Questions 9, 64, 91, and 109 of the Draft Q&A stated:

"The final RFP will be updated to allow Offerors to utilize a case study from the Prime or the

Subcontractor for TF1 and/or TF2." However, the

Final RFP was not updated to allow a subcontractor

Use Case for TF1. Based on this statement, SDVOSBs established teams and made investments to that end. Would the Government please update RFP to reflect the contractor’s choice to use a subcontractor?

See updates made in Amendment 0002

3 Page 106

Proposal submission instructions

Requirements for TF1, the solicitation states:

"Offerors shall submit one case study describing a project supporting either a Government or a commercial client, performed by the proposed Prime offeror for SPRUCE” and further states "NOTE: Case

Studies submitted in response to Technical Factor 1 must represent work conducted by the Prime offeror only.” However, in the Q&A document released on

10/23/2023, the answer to question 64 (page 17) states

"The final RFP will be updated to allow Offerors to utilize a case study from the Prime or the

Subcontractor for TF1 and/or TF2.” Has the

Government reversed its decision to allow TF1 case studies to be submitted from a subcontractor? If not, will the Government consider revising the RFP to allow a case study for TF1 to be submitted from a major subcontractor?

See updates made in Amendment 0002

4 Proposal

Submission instructions

Regarding proposal delivery and review schedule, is the expectation to submit Technical Factor 1 and

Technical Factor 2 by 12/13 for Pass/Fail determination or is they entire proposal volume

(Technical Factors 1-3 + Pricing) expected to be delivered by 12/13?

5 Proposal instructions

We need to identify major subcontractors by the submission date?

Yes

6 Extension Can the Govt please extend the due date for submission of proposals to the first week of January

2024?

The Government is extending the RFP due date to December 21st, 2023 at

10:00AM ET.

7 VOLUME I –

TECHNICA

L FACTOR

1—CASE

STUDY (c) -

Screenshot of

Live Product

If utilizing a backend development project, there is no

Gui or screenshot that can be shown. How would the

VA like to see an example of the Product that was developed?

Offerors must select a case study that it determines most relevant to the requirements of Technical Factor 1. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine what artifacts are most appropriate.

8 TECHNICA

L FACTOR 2

– CASE

STUDY #2.

13 CFR 124.513(f) refers to SBA 8(a) rules, while similar to the SDVOSB rules we think the correct reference should be 13 CFR 128.402(f), can you confirm?

Confirmed

9 (i) VOLUME

I –

TECHNICA

L FACTOR

1—CASE

STUDY

Please confirm the interpretation of 13 CFR

124.513(f) and 13 CFR 128.402(f). In the case of a non-mentor protege Joint Venture the SBA interpretation is typically that the government must evaluate the work of any member of the Joint Venture as if it is from the Joint Venture offeror itself (Prime).

Therefore, the government can not require a case study from specific members of the Joint Venture. In addition, in the case of a multi-member Joint Venture containing more than 2 members the current language would not evaluate each member of the Joint Venture, therefore the evaluation would not be equal between offerors. Can the government confirm any member of a non mentor protege joint venture can provide case studies?

124.513(f) refers to 8(a) contracts “Under what circumstances can a joint venture be awarded an 8(a) contract?”; SPRUCE is not an 8(a) effort. Reference to 125.513(f) was in error. See Q8 response. See

Amendment 0002

10 TECHNICA

L FACTOR 2

– CASE

STUDY #2.

In sub-bullet (1) the document suggests that a case study will be seen as more favorable if the work of the case study was performed by the SDVOSB prime offeror. Can the government confirm that in a situation where an SDVOSB Joint Venture (non mentor protégé JV) any member of the Joint Venture can provide the case study and receive the more favorable scoring as would be intended by 13 CFR

128.402(f)?

See updates in Amendment 0002.

Although any member of the JV can provide the case study (which the RFP already acknowledges), the Agency will not change the opportunity for an Offeror to increase the Government’s confidence based on the relevancy (as provided in the

RFP) of the case study.

11 (ii) VOLUME

II –

TECHNICA

L FACTOR

2—CASE

STUDY

Since the content being reviewed in case study #1 and

#2 is substantially different will the government allow the Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 to be from the same project as it did with CEDAR?

As per the solicitation, the Technical

Factor 2 case study must be "from a different project than was discussed in

Technical Factor 1".

12 Our organization currently works in the VA environment, and all teams use GitHub as the research repository for research plans, findings, and other related links. The RFP states that the Usability

Research Report has a max of 10 pages. Is it

As per Amendment 0002, all artifacts shall be PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you allowable to send the Research Findings GitHub link?

Can we send multiple links, such as a link to the research plan (1 page) and the research findings (1 page)? If not, how do we quantify web pages?

can "HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does NOT intend on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

13 Can explanatory graphics (e.g., design process) be added within the Technical Factor 1 & 2 Case

Studies?

Yes, one-page Artifact Reference document or the case study itself may include explanatory graphics.

14 The Q&A document stated that PDFs would be allowed as a submission format, but the final RFP states Microsoft Word. Can we submit our case studies as PDFs?

Offerors shall submit the Case Studies as

.doc as per section E.10. Artifacts shall be submitted as PDFs.

15 The RFP states that the design file has a max of 3 pages. Is it allowable to include a link to an interactive prototype with multiple pages? For instance, a prototype will have multiple screens to simulate state changes (e.g., a button turns a different color), and so will that denote pages?

As per Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can "HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

16 Our company, categorized as an Economically

Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Small Business

(EDWOSB) and recognized as a Non-Traditional

Defense Contractor, operates within a Historically

Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone). Given these classifications, we are keen to understand our eligibility for participating in the Service-Disabled

Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) Set-Aside under FAR 19.14, specifically in relation to the

SPRUCE IDIQ contract.

Could you please provide clarification on whether our company's status aligns with the eligibility criteria for the SDVOSB Set-Aside under this solicitation? Your guidance is crucial for us to determine our next steps and to ensure compliance with the necessary requirements.

SPRUCE is a 100 percent Service-

Disabled Veteran-Owned Small

Businesses (SDVOSBs) set aside under

NAICS code 541519 with a size standard of $34 million for small businesses.

17 Do Offerors and their subcontractors have to submit

Organization Conflict of Interest Letters?

The RFP includes an OCI clause (C.18) and VAAR 852.209-70, putting Offerors on notice of potential OCIs and that they may be restricted from certain follow-on work, to be determined by the CO at the time.

18 Basis for

Award, TF1, Artifact 2

As offerors must describe the relationships of the artifacts in d) Case Study, may offerors add figure numbers or page numbers (no descriptive text) in a)

Artifact 1 – Design File, b) Artifact 2 – Usability

Research Report and c) Artifact 3 – Screenshot so that offerors can refer to specific figures / pages in d) Case

Study writeup to make it easier for the government reviewer to quickly reference the Artifact?

Yes, this is allowable.

19 Proposal

Submission

Instructions, 2a Page 99

Government requests that “All files will be submitted as either a Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or

Microsoft Excel (.XLS or .XLSX) file.” Would it be possible to also allow .pdf files for Volume I, II, III, and IV as this will ensure for no formatting issues when exporting to .doc/.docx from Google Suite products?

Offerors shall submit the Case Studies as

.doc as per section E.10. Artifacts shall be submitted as PDFs.

20 Basis for

Award, TF1, page 17 and

TF1 focuses on PWS 4.0 Technical Functional Area 1.

Software development and operation, however, a)

Artifacts 1 – Design File and b) Artifact 2 – Usability

Research Report are heavily related to PWS 4.0

Technical Functional Area 3. Service design and user research studies (Page 17).

Would the Government consider evolving the requirement in “(i) VOLUME I – TECHNICAL

FACTOR 1—CASE STUDY” on Page 106 stated

“SPRUCE PWS paragraph 4.0, Item 1, related to

Software development and operation” to include

Technical Functional Area 3. Service design and user research studies to be more inclusive of the artifacts requested?

No.

21 Page 106, item (i)

Page 107, item (ii)

The government references 13 CFR 124.513(f) in requiring that the protégé in an MP JV must submit one of the 2 Case Studies required for Phase 1 and 2.

One of the intents of the Mentor-Protégé program, and the specific clause sited in (f), is to allow the protégé small businesses to effectively compete in areas that may otherwise out of reach for the small business alone, with the mentor companies bringing capabilities and experience necessary for program success. As such, (f) indicates the government should consider the experience and capabilities of either JV member to meet the requirements for the JV as a whole, and that “A procuring activity may not require the 8(a) Participant to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract.”

Under this language, the requirement that the Protégé company must provide one of the case studies can be read to be in conflict with the requirements that they

See revisions in Amendment 0002.

Past Performance is not an evaluation factor.

Offerors are reminded to include sufficient information in their Business

Relationship Narrative.

not require the protégé participant to individually meet the same criteria of other offers generally, and that the JV in aggregate, not individually, must demonstrate the capabilities and experience to perform the contract.

Requiring a case study from the Protége means considering their qualifications individually.

Additionally, Protégé companies are also often subcontractors who provide valuable contributions to similar contracts but without the ability to claim full ownership of a project and the necessary artifacts.

This could constitute requiring them to meet the same evaluation of other offerors generally.

We respectfully request the government reconsider the requirement that the protégé company must provide one of the Case Studies. The SBA program and required reporting, and all required JV documentation in the RFP can assure that the Protégé company is in fact acting as the managing partner with the required workshare.

To alleviate the government’s concern about the

Protégé companies’ ability to effectively run the contract as a managing partner, we suggest the inclusion of a past performance requirement to ensure their credibility as a prime contractor. To make it equal, the requirement could be for a past performance of each JV member as well as major subcontractors.

22 Extension We are requesting an 1 week extension to the current

12/13/23 deadline for SPRUCE IDIQ response due to significant changes in the final RFP from information provided in the October Q&A responses.

The Government is extending the RFP due date to December 21st, 2023 at

10:00AM ET.

23 D. Proposal submission instructions, 2

Proposal Files,

b. Content

Requirements page. 100

Will the Government allow offerors to submit multiple screenshots (up to 3 pages) of different product features that stemmed from the Artifact 2 -usability research report from TF1? This allows VA to see multi-faceted product improvements that stem from a single report.

Yes, as long as the submission still meets the page limits and they are all specific to the case study being proposed.

24 D. Proposal submission instructions, Introduction page. 98

The use of hyperlinks or embedded attachments in proposals is prohibited except for the artifacts in

Technical Factor 1 (TF1) and Technical Factor 2

(TF2).

Can the Government clarify whether we can include hyperlinks to those artifacts in the Artifact Reference

Guide

As per Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can "HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

25 E.10 -

Additional

Notes section iii

After receiving the Code Challenge scenario document, will there be an opportunity to meet with the Government to ask clarifying questions? If so, can you please confirm that this session will not be evaluated?

No

26 E.10 -

Additional

Notes section iii

At the end of the 7 day Code Challenge period, will the Government schedule a meeting for the Offerer to present its solution as well as answer any questions?

If so, can you please share details of the format and the Government's expectations of this meeting?

No such meeting will be scheduled.

27 C.2 - The Offeror may also increase the

Government’s confidence based on the relevancy of

Case Study #2 and associated artifacts considering, but not limited to, and in no particular order: (1) whether the case study reflects work of the SDVOSB prime offeror rather than a major subcontractor, (2) whether the work of the case study reflects work of the small business partner/protégé of a Joint Venture

(as defined in 13 CFR 124.513(f)), and (3) whether the work was conducted in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

If a SDVOSB is the majority owner of a JV and that

SDVOSB is bidding SPRUCE as a Prime, can the artifacts created by the JV be considered as Prime work for the SDVOSB?

Yes. Offerors are reminded to include

28 Proposal

Can the Government please provide a means by which vendors can submit Controlled Unclassified

Information (CUI) artifacts?

Unfortunately, the Government cannot allow for this.

29 Proposal

Submission

Will the Government confirm that Technical Factor 2 should consist of (1) a 2-page description of the effort

(or each effort depending on whether or not more than one can be included in TF2) (2) a single page Artifact

Reference Document that lists all of the artifacts, akin to a table of contents, (3) up to five pages of artifacts for each of the six areas of evaluation, (4) a title for each artifact that provides sufficient description to identify the artifact.

There is a total page count not to exceed number of 33. However, as identified in

RFP Section E.10.D.2 “Proposal Files” the following page limitations are included for each submitted item in response to Volume I:

• Case Study – 2 pages;

• Summary Page (Not included in page count)

• Artifact Reference document – 1 page;

No limit to the number of artifacts submitted for TF2, however, the below page counts apply per element (30 pages max):

• Element a Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element b Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element c Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element d Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element e Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element f Artifact – 5 pages;

30 Proposal

Submission

Can the Government confirm that offerors are permitted to provide links to artifacts? If "yes" does each page of those artifacts count against the five page limit?

As per Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can "HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

31 Proposal

Submission

Can the Government confirm that each artifact is a single screenshot of the content vs. a collection of documents in a linked file.

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

32 Basis for

Award

Can the Government clarify if Joint Venture partners should present themselves as major subcontractors to the JV. Specifically, for Volume 5 should each JV partner be listed as a major subcontractor?

Offerors must make this decision.

See also RFP, Proposal Submission

Instructions. “A major subcontractor is defined as one who will be meaningfully used during performance of the contract in at least one of the following areas:

Software development and operation;

Technical advising and architecture planning; Service design and user research studies; Data science and data analytics; Product support operations.”

33 Could you clarify if there is a minimum size of a team that you require for any TO and/or this procurement process?

Team sizes will be determined at the task order level and will vary depending upon the specific requirement.

34 Would the TO's be sent across over e-mail to all authorized firms within the procurement process, will it be posted, or..?

In accordance with PWS Section 9.3 and

9.4.2, the VA ATOMS portal will be utilized for the award of each resultant TO and TEP submission.

35 How many vendors do you plan on onboarding through this process?

As stated in Section E.10, The

Government intends to award eight (8) contracts resulting from the SPRUCE solicitation; however, the Government retains the right to increase or decrease the number of awards should it be determined in its best interest.

36 We are confirming that remote teams that are based in our offices but available and accessible for meetings is acceptable and in-person, in-office teams at the VA is not required?

Currently, work is largely performed remotely. However, specific place of performance requirements will be determined at the task order level, and may include on-site work.

Extension Could we request an extension to the submission deadline?

The Government is extending the RFP due date to December 21st, 2023 at

10:00AM ET.

38 Could you let us know if you have a local preference or are you open to a Canadian agency that has done similar work with clients across the United States, with some currently being the States of California, Colorado and Wyoming?

Contractor employees must be physically located in the US to obtain account access approvals and successfully complete background checks and/or investigations.

Suggest you seek professional legal advice.

39 Extension Would the VA TAC consider an extension to the proposal due date to January 5, 2024, to allow offerors the opportunity to prepare Volume III: Code

Challenge responses after the New Year?

The current schedule presents a challenge for offerors to staff during the holiday season as many are on approved vacations.

Further, the current schedule for VI, and VII drives a quick evaluation period, 3 days for notification and the possibility that VII: Code Challenge could be due on December 25th.

The projected schedule for requesting submission of Technical Factor 3 will be in calendar year 2024.

40 Volume III

TF3

Would the VA TAC please provide more information on Volume: III Technical Factor 3: Code Challenge and Technical Approach to include the expected level of effort required. For example, does VA TAC require a POC Website, and/or design mockups? Will offerors be required to conduct Data Science and Analytics or provide technical advice? Will a development environment need to be built, or does the government plan to evaluate a live production environment? could be due on December 25th.

Not at this time, any additional information related to TF3 will be provided in the scenario.

41 Volume III

TF3

Will the VA TAC, please clarify what roles would be most pertinent to have standing by during the holiday period to ensure we are adequately staffed to complete the Coding Challenge?

The projected schedule for requesting submission of Technical Factor 3 will be in calendar year 2024.

42 PWS 3.1 Please provide specification or more information on the VA’s TEch Stack to ensure that offerors can provide case studies that align closely to the existing

VA infrastructure?

VA has many tech stacks. VA.gov is open source on GitHub.

43 Section D.2.b. Please confirm the Volume I shall not exceed 19 pages + 1 Summary Page not included in the page count?

Correct. There is a total page count not to exceed number of 19. However, as identified in RFP Section E.10.D.2

“Proposal Files” the following page limitations are included for each submitted item in response to Volume I:

count)

• Artifact Reference document – 1 page;

Limited to the following 3 artifacts for

TF1 with associated page limitations:

• Design File – 3 pages;

• Usability Research Report – 10 pages;

• Screenshot – 3 pages.

44 Section D.2.b. Please confirm that Volume II shall not exceed 33 pages +1 Summary Page not included in page count.

Correct. There is a total page count not to exceed number of 33. However, as identified in RFP Section E.10.D.2

“Proposal Files” the following page limitations are included for each submitted item in response to Volume I:

• Artifact Reference document – 1 page;

No limit to the number of artifacts submitted for TF2, however, the below page counts apply per element (30 pages max):

• Element a Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element b Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element c Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element d Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element e Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element f Artifact – 5 pages;

45 Pg 95 For case study 1, artifact 3, the criteria mentions that the screenshot must be of the live product or feature in a production environment. If the feature of the application has been deployed to production and is being used by users in the live production environment but is secured behind protected entry points in the live production environment, can we provide screenshots of the live product in a lower non-production environment?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

46 Will the Government confirm artifacts are to be submitted as separate standalone files? And if so, what would you prefer the file name convention to be?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

47 Given that project deliverables seldom conform to solicitation structure and limitations, can offerors reorganize existing artifacts to conform to the requirements of the RFP (e.g., page count, readability, etc.)?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

48 Can offerors have more flexibility in page count assignment within respective Technical Factors, and instead provide a total page limitation (e.g., 20 pages for Technical Factor 1)?

No

49 As Figma is design software, its canvases do not follow a traditional page structure. As offerors Design

Files created in Figma would not conform to the solicitaiton requirements, would the Government remove page limitations for any artifacts submitted in a native Figma file format?

No

50 Can files counts be used in lieu of page counts for non-Microsoft based artifacts?

No

51 Should designs created in Figma be delivered as exported Figma files, exported images combined into a DOC, or hyperlinks?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

52 Can relevant portions of Figma design files be exported or extracted for ease of evaluation?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

53 Will the Government allow offerors to redact information on deliverables submitted to other customers (such as PII, CUI, etc.) to allow their submission as artifacts to be absent of customer proprietary information?

Offerors shall not submit PII, PHI, CUI, or other types of sensitive data. Offerors may choose to submit artifacts where such data is redacted. The Offeror should ensure that the redaction doesn’t detract from the appropriateness of the artifact in a way that would ultimately affect the

Government’s evaluation.

54 Artifacts for TF1 and TF2 represent customer information. Several government customers require offerors to request permisison to release this information. Will the government please extend the due date for the first round of submissions by ten (10) working days to allow for offerors to gain approval to submit case study information?

No.

55 Page 100 of 110 states that there is a 30 Page maximum for artifacts in support of TF2 and that each element artifact is alloted 5 pages. Page 108 of 110 states that an offeror may, "...include any number of artifacts, each artifact shall not exceed 5 pages…" indicating that the 5 page limit is for individual artifacts. Will the Government clarify the number of pages allowed for each element, the number of allowable artifacts per element, and the total page count of artifacts for TF2?

There is a total page count not to exceed number of 33. However, as identified in

RFP Section E.10.D.2 “Proposal Files” the following page limitations are included for each submitted item in response to Volume I:

• Artifact Reference document – 1 page;

No limit to the number of artifacts submitted for TF2, however, the below page counts apply per element (30 pages max):

• Element a Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element b Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element c Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element d Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element e Artifact – 5 pages;

• Element f Artifact – 5 pages;

56 On page 100 of 110, the elements of TF2 are referred to using letters (a-f), while on page 108 of 110 these same elements are referred to using numbers (1-6).

Will the Government please clarify how they would like offerors to refer to these elements (letters or numbers)?

57 The instructions of Attachment 001 (Price Evaluation

Spreadsheet) state in #3 "Labor rates … shall be at or below the maximum fair and reasonable labor rates listed in column I; and in #4 "Ensure all cells are populated so no color shading is remaining …"

However, when inputting labor rates in columns C-G that are equal to the maximum Fair and Reasonable

Labor Rate (column I), the cells in columns C-G are being highlighted in yellow. In accordance with the instructions, 1) rates equal to column I are considered fair and reasonable; and 2) there should be no highlighting in the offeror's submission. Would the

Government revise the Price Evaluation Spreadsheet to not highlight cells in columns C-G when the rate is equal to the maximum rate in column I?

The pricing spreadsheet has been revised.

See updates in Amendment 0002.

Specifically, “Attachment 001 - Price

Evaluation SpreadsheetV2”

58 The RFP Price Evaluation Approach (E.10(C)(2)) states "Proposed labor rates, including all proposed fully burdened Labor Rates, Material Handling Rate, and Travel Handling Rate, will be evaluated to determine whether the proposed Rates are fair and reasonable . The section further describes the method for which proposed labor rates will be evaluated, however does not describe how the Material Handling

Rate and Travel Handling Rate will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. Would the Government please describe its method for evaluating the fairness and reasonableness of the Material Handling Rate and

Travel Handling Rate?

The Government is not disclosing its technique for determining fair and reasonableness of proposed Material

Handling Rates and Travel Handling

Rates at this time.

59 If an offeror has an approved Cost Accounting System from a Government agency (for example, the Defense

Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)), if an offeror proposes a Material Handling Rate and Travel

Handling Rate consistent with its accounting practices and most recently submitted provisional rate request, will those rates be automatically considered fair and reasonable?

The Government is not disclosing its technique for determining fair and reasonableness of proposed Material

Handling Rates and Travel Handling

Rates at this time.

60 As proposed labor rates and Material Handling and

Travel Handling rates are only being evaluated for fair and reasonableness, will the Government confirm that as part of its evaluation, proposed labor rates, Material

Handling Rates, and Travel Handling Rates will not be adjusted by the Government during the evaluation?

The Government will not be adjusting the proposed Labor Rates, Material Handling

Rates, or Travel Handling Rates during the evaluation.

61 Can subcontractors be added to the Prime Offeror’s team after award?

62 Can Major Subcontractors be added to the Prime

Offeror’s team after award?

Yes

63 Will offerors be evaluated based on the robustness of subcontractors/major subcontractors?

No

64 On page 98, the solitication reads, "The use of hyperlinks or embedded attachments in proposals is prohibited except for the artifacts in Technical Factor

1 (TF1) and Technical Factor 2 (TF2), and within the response to the Code Challenge (as further specified in the Code Challenge scenario document provided to

Offerors who are selected to compete in Technical

Factor 3)."

Does this mean that artifacts (such as Figma design files) can be referenced via link alone?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

65 Questions 9, 64, 91, and 109 of the Draft Q&A stated

: "The final RFP will be updated to allow Offerors to utilize a case study from the Prime or the

Subcontractor for TF1 and/or TF2." However, the

Final RFP was not updated to allow a subcontractor

Use Case for TF1. Based on this statement, SDVOSBs established teams and made investments to that end. Would the Government please update RFP to reflect the contractor’s choice to use a subcontractor?

66 PWS 3.1 ”Share your documentation, development processes, and lessons learned publicly” We would like to ask that the Government remove the statement regarding the sharing of documentation and development processes from the RFP. We recognize that it is desirable to obtain reusable processes, but if the

Government wants that they should state that at the

TO level so firms can decide how they will perform the Task. Generally, firms achieve industry best practice levels by investing in methods and tools that deliver better results faster, which is a major goal of the VA. To ask firms, on a blanket basis, to then share how they do this is to ask that they give up their competitive advantage. To avoid this, firms will adjust what they do and the result becomes a lowering of the level of performance of the solution. We realize there is a balance to be achieved, but a blanket requirement to go public is likely to hamper performance. By discussing this in advance before a TO is issued the

Government and contractors can discuss the trade-offs relative to the potential approach and the Government can then decide what the priority is, and the contractors can decide how they want to participate.

No

67 PWS 3.1 Can the VA confirm all work submitted within the proposal will be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed outside of this RFP without the contractor's consent?

Yes

68 C.1 The RFP States on page 99 paragraph a. that the only file formats that will be accepted in an RFP Response are Word and Excel formats. C.1 states we must submit the actual design file used in the project and that it can be in any file format. Does the VA want us to submit the original design files or copy and paste samples from the design files into Word?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

69 C.1 If the VA requires we send our original Design Files and not screen shots in Word, we will have to embed our proprietary statements within the files to protect them which will cause the date of the files to be updated. Will we be penalized for any reason if our design files show a more recent date?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

70 C.1 “Please note, Offerors must not write explanatory text in the artifact files because all artifacts must be original slides/readmes/screenshots of tools from the actual project discussed in the case study.” This note does not appear in Case Study 1. Do you want us to apply the concept in this note to the Artifacts in Case

Study 1 as well are can we add explanatory text into the Artifacts in Case Study 1?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

71 C.1 How does the VA want us to show the artificats submitted are the oringal artficats used in the project if we are taking screenshots and pasting them into

Word?

VA assumes that by submitting a proposal, Offerors are asserting that these artifacts were used in an actual project.

72 C.1 Can we label each image included in the 5 page artifact document so we can identify in our write ups which image we are referencing in our write-up?

Yes

73 TF2 We would like to suggest that the Government remove this section from the RFP. While it makes perfect sense that Case Study #1 should be from the

SDVOSB Prime, in the Governments own words the

#1 goals of SPRUCE, as stated on Page 12 of the RFP is to: "access to exceptional companies that specialize in the development of digital services using modern technologies", "expanding access to exceptional vendors with more diverse skillsets", "rapidly adopt commercial technology and design-industry best practices", it would seem that the Government would be interested in knowing what other capabilities each team will be bringing to the VA to reflect commercial industry best-practices in the design of healthcare solutions rather than revisiting what the VA already has. It would seem the VA's goals would be better served by having Case Study #2 judged on the basis of how it reflects design-industry best practices, demonstrates the presence of firms with expanded skillsets, and reflects efforts of other companies that have modernized healthcare.

74 Price

Evaluation

We would like to suggest that the Government simply state that the labor rates provided by the Government will serve as the ceiling rates for the contract, since there is not going to be an evaluated price and there are several issues with trying to establish pricing given there are no descriptions provided for the labor categories and many of them do not exist in current salary surveys. The actual pricing will occur at the

Task Order level when discounting will be expected and there will be actual descriptions of the work which can be aligned to whichever LCAT a bidder feels is appropriate both in terms of the work to be accomplished and the related ceiling rate.

Pricing at this time would necessitate the Government providing LCAT definitions if there is to be any equity in the resulting submissions.

There will be no changes to the price evaluation approach. Offerors may propose rates up to the Government provided maximum labor rate for each labor category. Proposed rates that are equal to or less than the Government provided maximum labor rates will be considered fair and reasonable and serve as the ceiling rates on awarded contracts.

75 Price

Evaluation

Is pricing going to be used as a discriminator between companies with different LCAT rates if they all comply with the Maximum Fair and Reasonable

Labor Rates defined by the VA in "Attachment 01

Price Evaluation Spreadsheet.xlsx?"

In accordance with the solicitation, there will be no tradeoff between any of the three (3) Technical Factors and Price.

76 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

There is mention of "original design files" and it is stated that embedded files are permitted, but it appears all materials are to be in a WORD document with appropriate headers and footers. Does the Government intend for original files to be embedded into the

WORD file or are the artifacts to be shown on the pages of the WORD documents as un-altered images taken from the original files?

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

77 C. “The Offeror must submit a Subcontractor Letter of

Commitment for each proposed major subcontractor, as well as any parent company, affiliate, division, or subsidiary identified in the Offeror’s proposal. The intended use of such letters is to support Government validation of any subcontractor experience or proposed performance an offering prime identifies in response to this solicitation. The Government will not consider experience, proposed performance, or certifications from subcontractors identified by

Offerors for which there is not a conforming

Subcontractor Letter of Commitment.”

No.

Does this mean that there cannot be any mention of the role or capabilities of a non-major subcontractor anywhere in the proposal?

78 C. Would the VA look unfavorably at a submission in which all subcontractors were listed as major subcontractors and if so, why?

VA will evaluate in strict accordance with the solicitation

79 Extension Will the VA grant an extension through 22 Dec so we have time to review answers to questions and properly prepare our responses?

The Government is extending the RFP due date to December 21st, 2023 at

10:00AM ET.

80 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

Would the VA consider a 1-week extension of the submission deadline?

The Government is extending the RFP due date to December 21st, 2023 at

10:00AM ET.

81 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

Would the VA consider submission of Adobe PDF files in addition to Microsoft Word and Excel? We believe this would allow for easier review of the various artifacts submitted by vendors, as well as reduce file size.

An artifact is a single artifact from delivery of the project described in the case study, e.g. a research report. That artifact can be represented with multiple screenshots. However, please note, as per

Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be

PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a PDF), you can

"HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the

Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

82 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

Do the artifact files need to be submitted as separate/individual files or can they be combined into a single Word/PDF document?

Please note, as per Amendment 0002, all artifacts must be PDF documents and while having a link in the proposal is acceptable (as we do not want artifacts to be modified beyond transferring them to a

PDF), you can "HAVE" a link in an artifact, but the Government does intent on clicking the link nor will we evaluate what's on the other end of the hyperlink.

Further, artifact files can be submitted as individual files or one combined file, given the artifact files are compliant with page count restrictions.

83 8.0 Security and Privacy

Section 8.2 Personnel Security Requirements states:

All contractor personnel who require access to VA sensitive information/computer systems shall be subject to background investigations and must receive a favorable background investigation from VA prior to TO Award.” Since personnel may not be hired until after the TO is awarded and new personnel may be added after award, would the government consider changing this language to read: All contractor personnel who require access to VA sensitive information/computer systems shall be subject to background investigations and must receive a favorable background investigation from VA prior to beginning work on each project.”

Please see Amendment 0002, updated

PWS, section 8.2, which updates this language.

84 8.2 Personnel

Security

Requirements

Item b. states” Contractors shall ensure they comply with the requirements of Section 6.1.3 above for all awarded TO”. There is no section 6.1.3 in the RFQ.

Would the government consider changing the language to correct the reference?

Reference to PWS Section 6.1.3 has been removed.

85 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

The RFP states, “...to ensure the Government is considering the work and qualifications of each partner of a Joint Venture, should the work from one of the members of the Joint Venture be proposed in response to Technical Factor 1, work and/or qualifications of the other member of the Joint

Venture, or of the Joint Venture itself, must be proposed in response to Technical Factor 2.”

We would like to confirm that it would be acceptable to submit a Case Study 1 of an experience where both

Joint Venture members delivered together (one JV

Member as prime contractor, one JV Member as subcontractor), rather than needing to submit a Case

Study 1 that covered the experience of one Joint

Venture member only. This would demonstrate a history of the JV members working and delivering together successfully, which increases confidence of successful performance and reduces risk to the government.

That is acceptable.

86 D. Proposal

Submission

Instructions

For the Usability Research Report required in Case

Study 1, can offerors submit excerpts from a larger report that best explain the research and findings that led to the implementation of a change to the product?

Yes

87 Page 13 of

110, Reference

Section 2.0

Scope

Can the VA please provide the most current copy of, or a link to, the Strategic Mission and Objectives that are being referenced in this paragraph?

va-strategic-plan-2022-2028.pdf https://department.va.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/va-strategic-plan-2022-2028.pdf

88 Page 15 of

110, Reference

Section 3.1 (4) references

Communities of Practice

(CoP)

Can the government please provide a list and description of the Communities of Practice that are being referenced in this section? There are many CoP.

“Participate in Communities of Practice

(CoP) activities for Product, Design, Engineering, and Data where applicable.”

89 Page 99 of

110 Page

Limitations for Case

Studies 1 & 2

The current page limitation for Case Studies 1 and 2 is currently set at 2 pages. Will the government please consider allowing 3 pages for each case study to enable the Offerors to provide a more detailed alignment to the artifacts and functional areas listed in

4.0 of the RFP?

Page limits for TF1 and TF2 will remain as stated in the solicitation.

90 Page 4 of 110, A.2, iii

Combined

Synopsis/Soli citation, Notice of total

Service-

Disabled

Veteran-

Owned Small

Business

(SDVOSB)

set-aside

Would the government consider one set aside for an

SDVOSB that is also a HubZone as there is president for this on the recent T4NG2 IDIQ?

No. SPRUCE is a 100% SDVOSB set aside. T4NG2 had reserve awards;

SPRUCE does not.

See also 13 CFR 128.404(d): “Prohibition on combined set-asides. A procuring activity cannot restrict an SDVOSB competition (for either a contract or order) to require certifications other than

SDVOSB certification (i.e., a competition cannot be limited only to business concerns that are both SDVOSB and 8(a), SDVOSB and HUBZone, or SDVOSB and WOSB)” 91 Page 4 of 110, A.2, iii

Combined

Synopsis/Soli citation, Notice of total

Service-

Disabled

Veteran-

Owned Small

Business

(SDVOSB)

set-aside

Would the government consider Veteran hiring percentage into its evaluations since there is a precedence on other IDIQ. For example, potentially average Veteran hiring percentage of prime offeror over preceding three months prior to solicitation due date

Veterans Employment is not an evaluation factor at this time, but may be included as an evaluation factor at the Task Order level.

92 Page 96 or

110 of the

RFP,

Evaluation C

(d) Technical

Factor 2

The government states 3 ways to increase the confidence based on cumulative relevancy 1.TF2 from

SDVOSB, 2. TF2 from JV or 3. Work done in TF2 in support of VA.

Will the government also consider VA work performed by an SDVOSB Offeror in the Office of

OIT is within VA

Information Technology (OIT) as cumulative relevance, as OIT is relevant to the goals of 1.0

Objective, Secure, Performant and Reliable.

93 Quality Assurance Metrics: Could you provide…