36C10G18R0123-0001003.pdf

ATTACHMENT I

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SOLICITATION NO: 36C10G18R0123

Question 1: I was reviewing the solicitation for walkers and noticed that it now takes you to the pre solicitation. Was it pulled back or am I having issues with the website?

Answer 1: Please note that the FINAL Solicitation was posted on July 17, 2018. You can find the link below at:

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=226543a5e4efd78f07eee 15f72330040&tab=core&_cview=1

Question 2: On July 17 you stated this is not a draft, changes on July 18 go back to using "DRAFT"4 times. Is this a real solicitation due Aug 10?

Answer 2: Yes, this is the FINAL solicitation.

Question 3: This line states the seat height however MTR 11 gives the seat to floor height which would be the same ting.

Answer 3: MTR “Seat to Floor Height to 23” under groups 3 and 4 were removed from the solicitation under Amendment A0001.

Question 4: Does MTR 9 mean to give the seat depth?

Answer 4: No. The MTR is for seat height (Group 3 & 4)

Question 5: Was the invoice inquiry format document and CDR given for information purposes only?

Answer 5: Attachment 2 - Contractor Discrepancy Report (CDR) was submitted for informational purposes only. Attachment 1 - Invoice Inquiry Format will be removed under Amendment A0001.

Question 6: Are we able to offer 2 products from different mfg within the same group?

Answer 6: Yes, vendors may offer more than one product; however, a full proposal must be submitted for each product.

Question 7: Will the required Small Business Subcontracting Plans (SBSP) from large businesses be reviewed by OSDBU, the SBA Procurement Technical Representative, and the Contracting Officer as required?

Answer 7: Proposed subcontracting plans go through an internal review and approval process.

https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=226543a5e4efd78f07eee15f72330040&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=226543a5e4efd78f07eee15f72330040&tab=core&_cview=1

Question 8: Will the VA check the electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) to determine if any proposed SBSP is credible and responsible given the small business subcontracting performance data on the offeror in eSRS?

Answer 8: Contractors are required to report all subcontracting achievement through the eSRS. If your actual percentage achievement in any category falls short of your percentage goals, then you are required to provide an explanation in eSRS. Your narrative would be similar to that provided in the justification letter submitted with your subcontracting plan.

See www.eSRS.gov for additional information.

Question 9: Will your evaluation of Past Performance check eSRS to see if an offeror’s small business subcontracting efforts are satisfactory on relevant contracts?

Answer 9: In accordance with Proposal Submission Instructions, Volume II Performance Risk, The Government may also consider past performance information obtained through other sources. Past performance, information will be utilized to determine the quality of the offerors past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. The Government may use information provided by the offeror in their proposal submission, information in both Government and commercial databases, and other available information that VA determines is reasonable.

Question 10: How will a company’s previous or current failure to meet similar SBSP goals impact the evaluation? Will such plans be found unacceptable for award, or will such offerors be found to be not responsible, or will their Past Performance be found unacceptable?

Answer 10: In accordance with the proposal submission, how credit will be applied is defined under VAAR clause 852.215-70, Section E.

Question 11: What are the minimum SBSP goal requirements? VAAR 852-219-9 VA Small Business Subcontracting Plan Minimum Requirements states: “the minimum goals for award of subcontracts to service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns and veteran-owned small business concerns shall be at least commensurate with the Department's annual service-disabled veteran-owned small business and veteran-owned small business prime contracting goals for the total dollars planned to be subcontracted.”

The VA’s prime contracting goals established by the Secretary are 10% SDVOSB and 12% VOSB.

To meet the requirement to be “commensurate”, must the proposed small business subcontracting goals for SDVOSBs and VOSBs therefore be 10% and 12%?

Answer 11: This question is not relevant to the RFP. No response is provided, as this question relates to the agency’s SDVOSB and VOSB contracting goals.

http://www.esrs.gov/

Question 12: 6. What is the overall minimum Small Business goal for any acceptable SBSP?

Answer 12: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 13: What is the minimum Woman-Owned Small Business goal for any acceptable SBSP?

Answer 13: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 14: What is the minimum HUBZone Small Business goal for any acceptable SBSP?

Answer 14: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 15: What is the minimum Small Disadvantaged Business goal for any acceptable SBSP?

Answer 15: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 16: If an offeror provides a previously approved Corporate SBSP for this contract, will that plan be revised to meet current VA Small Business Subcontracting goals and VAAR prior to approval for use on this contract?

Answer 16: All small business contracting plans must be reviewed and approved prior to use for each contract.

Question 17: The 2017 SBA Scorecard for the VA shows that VA large business primes only achieved 0.5% towards their SDVOSB subcontracting goal. Given that the new VA SDVOSB subcontracting goal is now 10%, it is important that the VA emphasize the importance of meeting this goal.

Answer 17: These statements are not questions. Therefore, no response is provided.

Question 18: Will the VA check and insert the clause 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages- Subcontracting Plan in the RFP? The clause is required by FAR and required in order for the VA to recover damages from any large business that fails to make a good faith effort to meet all SBSP goals. The current 0.5% performance by large business does not reflect a good faith effort.

Answer 18: Yes, 52.219-16 will be added under Amendment 0001 as a reference.

Question 19: Will the SAC CO use CPARs to assess the performance of large businesses against the SBSP submitted for award of this contract—whether the plan is a corporate or individual plan?

Answer 19: Past Performance is addressed in section E. of the solicitation.

Question 20: Is the VA required to provide the maximum practicable opportunities for small business?

Answer 20: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 21: This RFP opportunity is open market, despite the fact that many SDVOSBs can supply the required items if the VA would only obtain a non-manufacturer rule (NMR) waiver from the SBA.

Answer 21: This statement is not a question. Therefore, no response is provided.

Question 22: Given the items required and the MTRs specified, it is most unlikely that are any U.S.A. small business manufacturers of these items that need protection under the SBA’s NMR rule.

Therefore, an SBA NMR waiver seems quick and easy to obtain for this solicitation. Did your market research confirm the lack of small business manufacturers?

Answer 22: Information pertaining to an agency’s research and decision-making or deliberative process is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure. Therefore, no response is provided.

Question 23: Given the requirement to maximize practicable opportunities for small business, why is it not practicable for the VA to request and obtain an NMR waiver for this high value solicitation?

Answer 23: See the Governments response to question number 22.

Question 24: 14. Was this $102M solicitation reviewed and approved by VA OSDBU?

Answer 24: The agency’s review and approval process is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure. Therefore, no response is provided.

Question 25: The VA CCST site confirms that 29 small businesses have been awarded VA NAC FSS contracts to sell walkers to the VA on FSS contracts/orders. The VA FSS Sales Query site shows that the VA acquired $16.6M of walkers in 2017. This is close to the $20M per year estimated value of this proposed new SAC walker contract. Most of the previous VA FSS awards for walkers on FSS were to small businesses, including multiple SDVOSBs. The VA now plans to consolidate and bundle these previous small business contracts into an open market competition. Has the VA publicized this plan to consolidate/bundle and received approval from the SBA?

Answer 25: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 26: Previously, VA facilities could order a walker from a small business on FSS at an added VA cost of 0.5%. The new SAC contract will increase that VA added management cost to 3%.

Has the VA considered continuing to use the FSS contracts—or to conduct this competition, but limit it to FSS small business contract holders? The savings in VA added fees would be over $2.5M.

Answer 26: No response is being provided, as this question is not relevant to the RFP.

Question 27: 17. The OSDBU Director recently briefed industry of plans to use Tiered Evaluation to provide small businesses with better opportunities, while avoiding VA procurement delays. Why isn’t his Tiered Evaluation approach being used on this high value, open market contract?

Answer 27: Information pertaining to an agency’s research and decision-making or deliberative process is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure. Therefore, no response is provided.

Question 28: Why is clause 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns not checked/included? This clause is mandatory given your open market approach.

Answer 28: Clause 52.219-4 Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns was added. See Amendment 0001 for changes.

Question 29: Solicitation number is different, the last digit is not there, is that intentional? This is important as we have to put that number on the bottom of every page submitted. What solicitation number do we use, 36C10G18R012 or 36C10G18R01123?

Answer 29: The correct solicitation number is 36C10G18G0123.

Question 30: In the changes you now have the solicitation number as 36c10G18R012, is this a new number? The last digit is not there now.

Answer 30: The correct solicitation number is 36C10G18G0123.

Question 31: In the above mentioned solicitation on page 14 your mention of SDVOSB and VOSB factors. Does that mean you are only considering offers from SDVOSB or VOSB business? I am a WOSB with a contract number of V797P-2147D. Thank you for your prompt response.

Answer 31: There is no mention of SDVOSB or VOSB on page 14. This solicitation will remain unrestricted.

Question 32: Will this procurement be set-aside for SDVOSB as there are two or more SDVOSB to fulfill this requirement as I am sure your market research will support.

Answer 32: This solicitation will remain unrestricted.

Question 33: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 requirement of </= 8 lbs. without the front wheels?

Answer 33: Group 5 - MTR 7 was changed from </=8 lbs. to </=12 lbs. with wheels.

See changes under Amendment 0001.

Question 34: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 (</= 8 lbs.) a typographical error as this value is the same that is listed for Group One and Group Two walkers, yet the Walker is expected to handle a weight capacity of 450 lbs.?

Answer 34: See the Governments response to question number 33.

Question 35: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 requirement of </= 8 lbs. the weight without the front wheels?

Answer 35: See the Governments response to question number 33.

Question 36: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 (</= 8 lbs.) a typographical error as this value is the same that is listed for Group One and Group Two walkers, yet the Walker is expected to handle a weight capacity of 450 lbs.? Higher weight capacity require a stronger material to hold the greater weight capacity

Answer 36: See the Governments response to question number 33.

Question 37: Please provide more information on the delivery of samples. Since this is noted as a phase 2 process will only offers that pass phase 1 be contacted and provide the address/delivery requirement of the requested samples?

Answer 37: Yes, according to Table 1, VOLUME, TITLE, AND PAGE LIMITATIONS, on page 41 of the solicitation, “Notification will be provided to Offerors who pass Phase 1, 7 days before physical evaluations. Location and Date to be provided.”

Question 38: Will this be a cascading award review? Meaning if there are two or more SDVOSB to fulfil the requirement will the category be restrict to SDVOSB for award?

Answer 38: See the Governments response to question 32.

Question 39: Will this procurement be set-aside for SDVOSB as there are two or more SDVOSB to fulfill this requirement.

Answer 39: See the Governments response to question 32.

Question 40: Page 43 C. FDA Documentation: It is our belief that the products being called for in this solicitation are 510k exempt as evidenced in the attached FDA documentation. Will the VA consider removing the 510k letter requirement?

Answer 40: The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in 890.9. Hyperlink listed below.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=890.3825

The FDA documentation for literature review will be removed under Amendment 0001.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=890.3825

Question 41: Will the VA accept 1 rollator that meets or exceeds the minimum technical requirements for both groups 3 and 4? In other words, can a contractor propose one rollator for groups 3 & 4 as long as it meets or exceeds the minimum technical requirements for both?

Answer 41: See the Governments response to question number 6.

Question 42: Will the VA consider awarding one product group to more than one company? History has shown that the VA has experienced delays in shipments from some manufacturers as they couldn’t keep up with demand. Awarding more than one vendor per group would allow the VA to ensure that adequate supply would be available to meet the demand of this contract.

Answer 42: In accordance with the Basis of Award, the Government may make up to five single awards (per walker group) resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to establish as many or as few awards as determined appropriate based on the results of this competition.

Question 43: "Reported sales must include all sales made to all authorized contract or agreement users, whether shipped directly to the users or through Prime Vendor contractors." Are vendors required to participate in the Prime Vendor Program for this contract?

Answer 43: No, vendors do not have to participate in the Prime Vendor Program to participate in this contract.

Question 44: If a bidder has multiple offerings for a group, how should this be submitted? Volume 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 would all be the same with the exception of the product and Volume IV (Price).

Answer 44: If a vendor has multiple offering for a group, a full proposal must be submitted for each offering.

Question 45: "Basis of Award" states that there may be as many as 5 awards or as few as determined appropriate. However, when an award is made to a vendor for a group, will that award be considered a mandatory buy throughout the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Answer 45: All national contracts issued under the Strategic Acquisition Center are considered mandatory.

Question 46: Are the leg attachments included in the total maximum weight of the walkers?

Answer 46: Yes, leg attachments are included in the total maximum weight of the walkers.

Question 47: Are the leg attachments and the wheels included in the total maximum weight of the walkers?

Answer 47: Yes, leg attachments and wheels are included in the total maximum weight of the walkers.

Question 48: Are the leg attachments and the wheels included in the total weight requirements?

(These questions relating to maximum weight are asked because the industry has a very limited, if any, TAA-compliant heavy-duty wheeled walkers that meet the specification of 8lbs or less. Heavy duty walkers are reinforced with extra materials in order to bear a higher weight capacity. In addition, heavy duty walkers primarily come with double front wheels that increase the overall weight of the product).

Answer 48: See Government response to question number 46.

Question 49: Because the cost of delivery and set-up when delivering directly to a veteran will increase the contractor's cost, does the VA have an estimate of the percentage of items that must be shipped directly to a veteran (requiring set up, assembly, and testing) versus to a VAMS facility?

Answer 49: (Set up, Assembly and Testing) under Section 6.6 Delivery Requirements was removed. No, the VA does not have an estimate of items that will be shipped directly to the Veteran versus to a VA medical facility by item; however, the “Estimated Quantities” tab of Attachment 3 of the solicitation has the five year estimated quantities listed.

Question 50: If our only intent is to be a SDVOSB Subcontractor, do we have to submit a bid?

Answer 50: Please refer to the “Basis of Award” in the solicitation.

Question 51: Does the Department of Veteran Affairs assist in connecting SDVOSB subcontactrators with Large Business Offeror's?

Answer 51: Vendors can reach the VA’s Small Business Utilization Center at https://www.va.gov/osdbu/programs/index.asp for more information. For advice on potential procurement opportunities in your local area, contact your local VA Small Business Liaison at https://www.va.gov/osdbu/about/contacts.asp#sbl.

Question 52: The RFP states on the cover page that the procurement is “unrestricted” yet on Page 45 of the RFP, under the discussion for proposal Volume III, there is a reference to a “preference” for SDVOSB and VOSB concerns. Does this mean that this procurement is being conducted as a cascading set-aside where offers from non-SDVOSB or VOSB firms will only be considered after evaluating the possibility of awards on a set-aside basis to SDVOSB or VOSB firms?

Answer 52: This procurement is unrestricted and Volume 3, Factor 3 is for socio-economic consideration only. The credit is defined under VAAR clause 852.215-70, Section E.

Question 53: If the procurement is not a cascading set-aside, what is the nature of the “preference” for SDVOSB and VOSB concerns referenced on Page 45 of the RFP?

Answer 53: See the Governments response to question number 52.

https://www.va.gov/osdbu/programs/index.asp https://www.va.gov/osdbu/about/contacts.asp#sbl

Question 54: If the procurement contemplates the award of contracts to SDVOSB or VOSB concerns on a preferential basis, has a waiver of the Non-Manufacturer Rule (see FAR 19.102(f)) been granted or approved for this procurement?

Answer 54: This solicitation will remain unrestricted. The information requested is internal information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure.

Question 55: In the absence of a waiver of the Non-Manufacturer Rule, please confirm that any SDVOSB or VOSB concerns that desire to compete for award as a prime contractor and receive the “preference” referenced on Page 45 of the RFP must either (a) offer products that they themselves manufacture or (b) must offer the product of a domestic (U.S.) small business manufacturer.

Answer 55: This procurement is unrestricted and Volume 3, Factor 3 is for socio-economic consideration only. The credit is defined under VAAR clause 852.215-70, Section E.

Question 56: The RFP indicates at Page 26 & 27 indicates that both the Buy American Act clause (FAR 52.225-1) and the Trade Agreements Act (TAA) clause (FAR 52.225-5) apply to the procurement. Given that the value of this procurement will certainly exceed the dollar threshold at which the TAA supersedes the BAA, how can both apply? Sourcing product and components to meet the BAA involves very different considerations than TAA sourcing, and invocation of BAA requirements as opposed to TAA requirement may radically affect an offeror’s proposed price.

Answer 56: Clause 52.225-5 is applicable. TAA Compliant refers to the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. & 2501-2581), which is intended to foster fair and open international trade. TAA requires that the U.S. Government may acquire only “U.S. – made or designated country end products. All products submitted will be reviewed for TAA compliance in accordance with FAR regulations.

Question 57: Page 46 of the RFP further states that “Non-Veteran Owned firms that subcontract 7% or more of the contract value to a SDVOSB or 10% or more of the contract value to VOSB will also receive evaluation credit.” What is the evaluation credit? Is this a pass/fail requirement that must be met to be eligible for award?

Answer 57: The credit is defined under VAAR clause 852.215-70, Section E.8.

Question 58: How will the VA validate that proposed SDVOSB or VOSB subcontractors are receiving either 7% or 10% of the contract value? Are formal teaming agreements setting forth such contract value percentages required?

Answer 58: Information pertaining to VA’s evaluation methodologies is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure

Question 59: If offerors are required to provide formal teaming agreement to establish the contract value of planned subcontract awards to SDVOSB or VOSB teammates, will the VA extend this solicitation to provide the establishment of such teaming relationships and agreements?

Answer 59: Information pertaining to VA’s evaluation methodologies is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure. The submission date of proposals will remain the same and not be extended.

Question 60: What basis is the 7% or 10%, is that financial based on invoice, or quantity of purchase orders fulfilled, or quantity of product shipped?

Answer 60: The information requested is internal information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure.

Question 61: It is our understanding that this is a competitive procurement wherein multiple offerors will be submitting firm pricing for the required rollators and walkers? Given this competitive environment, what is the basis for requesting that offerors provide “Most Favored Customer (MFC) price” information, “Most Favored Government (MFG) price” information, and “commercial catalog price” information as part of their Price Proposals? See RFP at Page 46.

Answer 61: The information requested is internal information that is privileged and exempt from disclosure.

Question 62: What role will “Most Favored Customer (MFC) price” information, “Most Favored Government (MFG) price” information, and “commercial catalog price” information play in the price evaluation? Is the Government seeking to evaluate which offeror supplies the best discount off its commercial catalog price as opposed to which offeror has proposed the overall lowest price?

Answer 62: Information pertaining to the agency’s evaluation, evaluation methodologies and evaluators is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure.

Question 63: In regards to Physical Evaluation (Phase 2), who is evaluating? What are the qualifications of the evaluator?

Answer 63: Information pertaining to the agency’s evaluation, evaluation methodologies and evaluators is internal information which is privileged and exempt from disclosure.

Question 64: The "Standard Delivery" section refers to delivery to VAMS which may be OCONUS, which would be substantially more expensive than delivering to CONUS sites. Does the VA have an estimate of the percentage of items that must be shipped to OCONUS sites versus CONUS sites?

Answer 64: Based on our data, an estimate qty of 600-800 walkers were purchased last year in the Puerto Rico area alone. For additional information you must submit a FOIA request.

Question 65: Generally, the setting up, assembly, testing and fitting of walkers is not the responsibility of a nationwide. Usually, each Veterans Center or hospital has its own means on a local level in which set up, assembly, testing and fitting is taken care of. Would the VA consider removing the set up. assembly, testing and fitting from this solicitation?

Answer 65: See the Governments response to question number 49.

Question 66: Many of these products are listed on general FSS contracts. If an awarded contractor has these products on an FSS contract, must the contractor pay both the SLA fee and the IFF fee?

Answer 66: If the contractor is awarded a walker contract with the SAC, the contractor is required to pay the SLA fee. See C.13 SAC 16-01 Service Level Agreement Fee and Submission of Quarterly Sales Reports; Open Market (January 2016) for additional details. Please contact the FSS CO with questions regarding the IFF fee.

Question 67: This VA clause does not specify the period of the guarantee (it is missing the noun after "one"). What is the period of the guarantee?

Answer 67: The solicitation will be corrected under 36C10G18G0123, 0001.

Question 68: What was the basis of the VA’s determination to conduct this acquisition under full and open competition rather than as a tiered evaluation?

Answer 68: See Governments response to question # 27.

Question 69: Under the specifications you require within the 7 day delivery, set-up, assembly and testing, when delivery is direct to veteran. Without previous knowledge of locations or volume, how do you propose this additional labor and transportation costs be factored in? this includes establishing delivery schedule with veteran or caretaker, technician's transportation to veteran's home, time in home for assessment, adjustment and training.

Answer 69: See Government response to question number 49.

Question 70: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 requirement of </= 8 lbs. without the front wheels?

Answer 70: See the Governments response to question number 33.

Question 71: Is the Group 5 MTR 7 (</= 8 lbs.) a typographical error as this value is the same that is listed for Group One and Group Two walkers, yet the Walker is expected to handle a weight capacity of 450 lbs.?

Answer 71: See the Governments response to question number 33.

Question 72: Is the company who is awarded the contract just to ship the ordered items to VA facilities (including hospitals, clinic, and CBOCs) or will they required to ship the items to the Patients’ homes?

Answer 72: The equipment shall be shipped to the location specified by the facility clinician who submitted the order. Equipment will be shipped to a patient’s home or a medical facility.

Question 73: Is there any consideration for additional charges for shipping the items outside of the continental United States (e.g. Guam, Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands)?

Answer 73: No, this is a firm-fixed price contract.

Question 74: Will the VA facility allow direct ship from the manufacturer or must they be shipped from the awarded company’s own facility?

Answer 74: The awardee is responsible for all shipments and ensuring on-time delivery of products ordered.