36C10G18R0093-00001001.pdf

QUESTION # RFP

SECTION/P

ARAGRAP

H

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 SECTION

5.4.1

States that orders under $3,500 (i.e., micro purchases) will be issued by Prosthetics. Please confirm that such micro purchases will be distributed equitably among SAC IDIQ contract awardees (i.e., the identified qualified suppliers) in conformance with FAR 13.203(a)(1).

Orders issued against contracts awarded under this solicitation are decentralized (at field level). It is the expectation that the field will comply with regulatory guidane provided in FAR part 13.203 (a)(1).

2 SECTION

5.4.8.1

Provides that “the CO will give each Awardee a ‘fair opportunity’ to be considered for each order in excess of $3,500 unless one of the statutory exceptions applies in FAR 16.505 (b)(2).” RFQ Section 5.4.8.5 further explains that “The CO will issue a written DOPR and will forward it to all Awardees unless one of the statutory exceptions applies.” Please detail how the CO intends to ensure that the VA will not create an urgency exception through lack of planning as has happened in the past.

It is the expectation that the field will comply with regulatory guidance provide in FAR unless one of the statutory exception applies in FAR 16.505 (b)(2).

3 SECTION

5.4.8.2

States that delivery order proposals “will be evaluated by analysis of the Price and Other factors (to be determined by the CO).

Such factors will be made known to the contractors via evaluation instructions provided within the Delivery Order Proposal Request (DOPR).” Please describe the factors that may be used by the CO to evaluate proposals.

Orders issued against contracts awarded under this solicitation are decentralized (at field level) and evaluation factors shall be determined by the CO at each respective site. However, an example may include past performance.

4 SECTION

E.3

Proposal Submission Instructions, please confirm that the VA will accept evidence that the offeror will have an uninterrupted source of supply from which to satisfy the Government's requirements for the contract period in lieu of letters of commitment from the manufacturers.

The VA will NOT accept evidence that the offeror will have an uninterrupted source of supply from which to satisfy the Government's requirements for the contract period in lieu of letters of commitment from the manufacturers. The contractor shall provide a letter of supply and authorized distributor letter as outlined in section E.11 of the solicitation.

5 SECTION

E.3

Proposal Submission Instructions, the RFQ Price Proposal instructions state that “The offeror shall provide Most Favored Customer (MFC) price, Most Favored Government (MFG) price, commercial catalog price, proposed price without Service Level Agreement (SLA), SLA fee, and proposed price with SLA. The MFC/MFG is the commercial/Government customer who receives the best net price regardless of terms and conditions.” Many potential offerors under this SAC RFQ also hold FSS contracts issued by the NAC, which has more favorable terms and conditions (e.g., shipping to OCONUS or homes not included in the base price, lower fee, etc.). Please confirm that the SAC recognizes these differing terms and conditions and will take them into account when evaluating price proposals

Yes, the SAC recognizes this solicitation has different terms and conditions vice the terms and conditions in the FSS.

However, if an Offeror proposes the same pricing offered on their FSS that pricing will be evaluated as outlined in section E.14 Evaluation Factors.

6 SECTION

C.13

Please state the basis for establishing the current SLA that applies to this contract action at 3.0%, which is considerably higher than the NAC IFF of 0.5%.

The fee is based on the proposed contract type which is reviewed and negotiated by the Supply Fund Board each fiscal year. See C.13 SAC 16-01 Service Level Agreement Fee and Submission of Quarterly Sales Reports; Open Market (January 2016) for additional details.

7 SECTION

C.13

The RFQ states that the 3.0% SLA fee will be remitted to the SAC quarterly. At the same time, the RFQ allows for purchases to be via a “Government wide commercial purchase card,” i.e. a credit card that charges the seller a fee. Thus, the supplier will lose money by paying the credit card fee on the SLA fee it then has to remit to the VA. Offeror suggests that the RFQ be revised to reduce the SLA fee amount to be remitted by the amount of any credit card fee imposed. If such a revision is not made, please confirm that the SAC recognizes this price penalty and will take it into account when evaluating price proposals.

The method of payment should not impact the SLA fee. The SLA fee is added to unit price of the device and/or accessories resulting in the extended unit price.

8 SECTION

E.6

The RFQ includes FAR 52.225-5 and -6. FAR 52.225-6 states that “The Government will consider for award only offers of U.S.-made or designated country end products unless the Contracting Officer determines that there are no offers for such products or that the offers for those products are insufficient to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation.” Please confirm that the CO will not award offerors contracts for non-TAA compliant products.

Potential products that were non-TAA compliant have been removed. See revised Attachment B for details. However, all products submitted will be reviewed for TAA compliance in accordance with FAR regulations.

9 SECTION

5.6.1

The RFQ that delivery shall be made Free on Board for Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) usually there is a separate price allowed to absorb the shipping cost. Will a separate OCONUS price tier column be added or are you requesting Offerors' to absorb the OCONUS delivery cost. Also, can you please provide the breakdown of what % of orders will be CONUS

vs. OCONUS

We are requesting Offerors to respond to solicitation as specified. See revised solicitation section 5.6 for details.

10 SECTION

5.6.2

The RFQ that delivery shall be made Free on Board for alternate delivery locations usually there is a separate price allowed to absorb the shipping cost. Will a separate OCONUS price tier column be added or are you requesting Offerors' to absorb the ALTERNATE DELIVERY cost. Also, can you please provide the breakdown of what % of orders will be CONUS vs. Alternative Delivery

We are requesting Offerors to respond to solicitation as specified. See revised solicitation section 5.6 for details.

11 Section E.13 The RFQ states ALL or None however some of the requested items are not TAA complaint. Are non-TAA complaint items be accepted under this RFP? Will an updated spreadsheet be release to remove non-TAA complaint items prior to RFP close date.

See Government response to question no. 8.

12 SECTION

C.13

THE RFQ answered questions states "GSA IFF is not applicable to this acquisition. The only fee applied is the SAC Service Level Agreement (See SAC 16-01 SAC Service Level Agreement Fees and Submission of Quarterly Sales Reports; Open Market for details)." Will additional guidance be provided to the FSS contractor if awarded to approve the Diverting of fees from the VA NAC to the SAC? Contractor have to have clear concise requirement to ensure data systems will direct sales made under the right contract. Purchasing Agent are not the best source to rely on to properly provide the appropriate contract vehicle, especially for orders under the micro-purchase threshold (nor required). In the past National contracts were place against FSS contract so that the fee still remain with the VANAC. Please clarify new process?

See Government response to question no. 6.

13 C.9 VA

NOTICE OF

TOTAL

VETERAN-

OWNED

SMALL

BUSINESS

SET-ASIDE

(JUL 2016)

(DEVIATION

We are very interested in submitting a proposal for this solicitation. Unless the Contracting Officer has performed a determination and findings to exempt this solicitation from the non-manufacturing rule, there is no VOSB or SDVOSB that will be eligible for award as they will be in violation of the Limitation on Subcontracting Clause. Joint Ventures would not be allowed because the NAICS size standard is 1,000 employees and ResMed has 5,000 employees; Respironics is a subsidiary of Philips with well over 1,000 employees; Fisher and Paykel as well as Devilbiss are large businesses. Have the the Contracting Officer has performed and write a determination and findings to exempt this solicitation from the non-manufacturing rule.

This solicitation is being released under an approved individual SBA Non-Manufacturer Waiver.

14 NAICS Code. Evaluation Factor 1. This solicitation calls for the awardee(s) to provide a continuous supply of CPAP and other similar medical supplies and equipment to the VA nationwide. It does not call for manufacturing of this type of equipment. It is also set aside for a SDVOSB/VOSB suppliers. As the VA knows, there are no SDVOSB/VOSB providers that manufacture PAP products and none of the brand name providers is SDVOSB/VOSB. As such, the SDVOSB/VOSBs awarded under this solicitation must be resellers, distributors, and wholesalers for large PAP companies (either the brand names specified or equal).

NAICS 339112 is for Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing. In addition the 2017 Census NAICS table lists the definition for 339112 as: "This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing medical, surgical, ophthalmic, and veterinary instruments and apparatus (except electrotherapeutic, electromedical and irradiation apparatus).

Examples of products made by these establishments are syringes, hypodermic needles, anesthesia apparatus, blood transfusion equipment, catheters, surgical clamps, and medical thermometers."

Section E.14 of the Solicitation states that all offerors shall be certified in SAM under NAICS 339112. Given that none of the offerors will be manufacturers of the products themselves, we would posit that the SDVOSB/VOSB requirement and the NAICS 339112 requirement coupled with the Brand Name or equal requirement preferring certain large manufacturers are inconsistent and make it impossible for any offerors to comply in good faith with all requirements of the Phase 1 of the Evaluation Factors.

How and on what basis does the VA reconcile these conflicting provisions?

See Government response to question no. 13.

15 Evaluation Factor 2. States: "Technical acceptability shall be evaluated for conformance with the requirements in the solicitation. The offer shall be evaluated to determine the extent in which the products proposed meet the brand name or equal requirements identified in Attachment B, corporate capability, letter of supply and authorized Government distributor letter required in the solicitation."

Why is the VA describing the "salient characteristics" in Attachment B as word-for-word marketing literature from each preferred manufacturer's website or brochure, including terms that are proprietary and exclusive to each manufacturer, and not terms of function, performance, or essential characteristics (FAR 11.002(a) and VAAR 81.104-70(f): Except as noted in paragraph (d) of this section, the specification writer must not include in a purchase description either minimum or maximum restrictive dimensions, weights, materials, or other salient characteristics that are unique to a brand name product or that would tend to eliminate competition or other products that are only marginally outside the restrictions. However, the specification writer may include in a purchase description restrictive dimensions, weights, materials, or other salient characteristic if: (1) The user determines in writing that the restrictions are essential to the Government’s requirements; (2) The specification writer includes the brand name of the product in the purchase description; and, (3) The contracting officer makes all other determinations required by 811.105.)?

Below are just a few examples of unique and exclusive brand name features for each of the stated manufacturers. Please explain how these features exclusive to the brand names specified reference function, performance, and/or essential characteristics:

Below are just a few examples of unique and exclusive brand name features for each of the stated manufacturers. Please explain how these features exclusive to the brand names specified reference function, performance, and/or essential characteristics:

ResMed (36995 Tubing):

TUBING,CPAP/BIPAP,HEATED CIRCUIT,LENGTH 6 FOOT 6 INCH,CORRUGATED,DIAMETER 15 MM. ClimateLine Heated

In accordance with VAAR 811.104-70 When necessary to adequately describe the item required, the contracting officer may use an applicable commercial catalog description or pertinent extract if the description is identified in the solicitation as being that of the particular named manufacturer, producer, or distributor.

16 We note that no Brand Name or Equal designation (neither FAR 52.211-6 nor VAAR 852.211-73) is included anywhere in the solicitation. On what statutory or regulatory basis or authority is the VA conducting a Brand Name or Equal procurement? On what basis did the VA select the 4 preferred brand name providers over other providers in the marketplace? Has the VA completed a J&A for this Brand Name or Equal procurement?

FAR part 11 and VAAR 852.211 Describing Agency Needs allows for the use of brand name or equal purchase descriptions. FAR 52.211-6 is listed in the provisions of this solicitation. VAAR 852.211-73 was indaverentaly omitted.

See updated solicitation for details. All regulatory documentation has been completed. FAR part 6 is not applicable to this requirement.

17 Evaluation factors, Phase 3: Price. The factors state: "Price shall not be evaluated adjectivally. The Government shall evaluate the proposed price to determine whether it is fair and reasonable. The Government shall evaluate price reasonableness using price analysis techniques as prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 (b)(2). The offeror’s initial proposal shall contain the best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to make no award as a result of this solicitation.

The Government shall evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s)."

Section E.11, Basis of Award states in part: "This acquisition is Veteran Owned Small Business set-aside and is being conducted in accordance with the procedures in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items.

Award will be made on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (brand name or equal) offer meeting or exceeding acceptability standards for non-price factors, which shall represent the best value to the Government." FAR 15.101-2 states:

15.101-2 -- Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process.

(a) The lowest price technically acceptable source selection process is appropriate when best value is expected to result from selection of the technically acceptable proposal with the lowest evaluated price.

(b) When using the lowest price technically acceptable process, the following apply:

(1) The evaluation factors and significant sub factors that establish the requirements of acceptability shall be set forth in the solicitation. Solicitations shall specify that award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. If the contracting officer documents the file pursuant to 15.304(c)(3)(iii), past performance need not be an evaluation factor in lowest price technically acceptable source selections. If the contracting officer elects to consider past performance as an evaluation factor, it shall be evaluated in accordance with

15.305. However, the comparative assessment in 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. If the contracting officer determines that a smal business’ past performance is not acceptable, the matter shall be referred to the Small Business Administration for a Certificate of Competency determination, in accordance with the procedures contained in Subpart 19.6 and 15 U.S.C. 637(b)(7)).

(2) Tradeoffs are not permitted.

(3) Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors.

(4) Exchanges may occur (see 15.306).

Please explain what you mean by the sentence "Price shall not be evaluated adjectivally."

Adjectival ratings indicate the degree to which the offeror's proposal has met the standard for each factor evaluated.

Award will be made on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (brand name or equal) offer meeting or exceeding acceptability standards for non-price factors, which shall represent the best value to the Government.

While it is expected that adequate competition exist to determine price reasonableness, the Government shall use price analysis techniques as prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 (b)(2) to evaluate price reasonableness.

18 64 paragraphOur reading of the IDIQ RFP is that the Government is going to select qualified VOSBs that can provide the listed items (or equivalents) at a “fair and reasonable price”. If so, should the language on page 64, para E.11 BASIS OF AWARD referencing Lowest Price Technically Acceptable be deleted? If not – please clarify under what circumstances the Government will be using LPTA as the basis for award?

See Government response to question no. 17.