4_-_VA_MSPV_-_P.R._Q_and_A_-_36C10G19R0003_-_Final_-_12-21-2018.docx

Questions and Answer for Puerto Rico RFP 36C10G19R0003

1. Within Volume II – Past Performance (a) it states “Offerors shall demonstrate a minimum of 5 Year’s relevant Past Performance with at least three years recent experience”. Our question is will current MSPV-NG facilities be considered acceptable Past Performance references since they have only been in effect for the last 24 months; 12/1/2016 thru 12/2018?

Answer: Yes prior performance with MSPV is relevant to this requirement.

2. Within the Past Performance Questionnaire, section “G” states “Describe how the work under this contract is related to experience cited in number of end users and coverage requirements and devices provided”. Can the Government please clarify what this question is specifically seeking. Several of our customers that we have asked to complete the Questionnaire are not certain what this question is seeking and uncertain on how to respond. Could the Government please provide clarification as to what specifically is needed from the Past Performance references.

Answer: Offerors are required to demonstrate how the experience, work performed, under past contracts is related to this current requirement by outlining things like the number of end users and coverage requirements and devices provided.

3. In the “Instructions to Offerors”, section 3.3 Socio-Economic Evaluation Approach, part 3.3.2, f. Small Business Subcontracting Plan; we understand that large businesses proposing on this RFP must provide a plan, but the questions we have are:

· If the Plan has to be specific to this RFP/award is the plan due when we submit our proposal or upon award?

· If the Plan is due with proposal submission, which section does the Plan fit into; Technical, Past Performance, Price/Socio-Economic, Reps and Certs, or some other section?

Answer: There is a need for “two” plans. The corporate plan which addresses the overarching business processes of the prime vendor. The second is a plan for the catalog vendors. Small Business Subcontracting Plan is due at time of proposal submission and fits with the socio-economic Volume V added per this amendment.

4. Will answers provided as part of the December 19, 2018 pre-proposal conference be published so that parties that are unable to attend/participate will have access to the answers? Will transcripts from the pre-proposal conference be made available and when (e.g., via FBO.gov, etc.)?

Answer: All Q&As, that are received timely, will be publicized via FBO.

5. In the Solicitation Cover Sheet it states, “…Offerors may submit additional questions… no later than 12:00 pm EST December 21, 2018.”. When does the Government anticipate providing/posting responses to these questions?

Answer: All Q&As will be publicized no later than 12/21/18.

6. Within Section B.1 (CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA), section 2 (Period Of Performance), “Option Period One” is listed twice. Can the Government please confirm that Option Period Two Period of Period of Performance is: 12/1/2021 through 11/30/2022?

Answer: Yes there are two option periods. Option one period of performance is 4/1/2020 through 11/30/2021 and Option two period of performance is 12/1/2021 through 11/30/2022.

7. Section B.3.a of the solicitation reads, “The current SLA which applies to this contract action is {3.0% 0.5%}.” Can the Government please explain why there are two different percentages provided and also provide clarification as to when and how each percentage should be utililzed in connection with the contract.? Note - Section 50.5 appears to suggest that the 0.5% should be used. If both percentages are applicable, could the Government please provide clarification as to when and how each percentage should be utilized in connection with the contract.

Answer: The correct SLA that will be utilized is 0.5% and will be built/imbedded into the cost of each supply.

8. Section B.3.a of the solicitation reads, “In order to facilitate SLA reimbursement, offerors must include (imbed) the SLA fee into their prices; therefore, the fee will be reflected in the total amount charged and transparent to ordering activities” What exactly do offerors need to do to make this “transparent to ordering activities” (e.g., there is no SLA Fee column within any of the pricing attachments)?

Answer: Offeror will add a column to the spreadsheet to notate the SLA fee.

9. Section B.3.a of the solicitation states, “This SLA Fee shall be imbedded in the awarded contract/agreement price(s), and offers submitted in response to this solicitation shall include this SLA Fee in the price of every line item offered.” From a pricing perspective:

a. Should Distribution Fees be applied to Product Cost including or excluding the applicable SLA fee? Should the SLA Fee be applied to Product Cost including or excluding the applicable Distribution Fees?

Answer: The Distribution fee should be applied to the product cost excluding applicable SLA. The SLA fee should be applied to product cost in including applicable Distribution fee.

b. Can the Government please provide the specific formula and/or an illustration of how exactly offerors are to “imbed” the SLA fee into their prices in order to avoid any confusion / inaccurate pricing?

Answer: There is no specific formula.

10. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 1.0 (Background) has several references to the “U.S. Virgin Islands”, in addition to Puerto Rico; however, the rest of the RFP, including Attachment 1 (CURRENT MSPV PROGRAM FACILITIES/DELIVERY ADDRESSES PUERTO RICO) only reference Puerto Rico. Can the Government please confirm that medical/surgical supplies and services under the awarded contract will be for direct use by the Federal healthcare facilities listed in Attachment 1 (located in Puerto Rico) and that there is no expectation for any future Federal healthcare facilities to be included that will reside in the U.S. Virgin Islands?

Answer: There is no location in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

11. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 2.7 (Scope) the reference to paragraph 2.7 does not appear to be correct. It appears that the correct reference should be 2.6 – can the Government please confirm?

Answer: The correct paragraph reference is 2.6.

12. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 2.8 (Scope) states, “…If the Contractor fails to provide medical supplies off of the Government provided master listing of approved medical/surgical supplies, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages for the full cost of the item(s) that the Government negotiated in the electronic catalog per medical supply item per day plus shipping costs as reasonable compensation for the harm that is caused by not being in compliance with ordering off of the Government electronic catalog.” Can the Government make a modification to this language that clarifies/excludes issues relating to the unavailability of product from manufacturers?

Answer: No amendment will be issued to exclude issues relating to the unavailability of product from manufactures, since the PV will be proposing the source of supply.

13. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 5.0. (Prime Vendor/FSS Contractor - Dual Role), the reference to paragraph 5.0 does not appear to be correct. It appears that the correct reference should be paragraph 6.0 – can the Government please confirm?

Answer: The correct paragraph reference is 6.0.

14. Under section 5.0. Prime Vendor/FSS Contractor - Dual Role, the statement “In instances whereby the resultant MSPV is also a supplier of medical/surgical supplies under existing Federal Contracts (as provided in paragraph 5.0), product prices are Freight on Board (FOB) destination and the product price includes the delivery fee” is not completely accurate. It may be accurate in relation to the 48 Contiguous states, but the potential offeror’s FSS may have the statement of “Port of Exportation” for Alaska, Hawaii & Puerto Rico. In this specific instance is the vendor able to charge Freight for getting those items to Puerto Rico?

Answer: The awarded MSPV for Puerto Rico won’t be an FSS contract so that statement is not applicable.

15. This question has to do with product vendors that have an FSS which states “FSS product prices are Freight on Board (FOB) destination to the contiguous 48 states and are Port of Exportation” to AK, HI & PR”. What experience does the SAC have in terms of working with these product vendors and getting their products to the awarded MSPV in Puerto Rico? This would be a potential issue if this contract is awarded to a current MSPV under the Next-Gen contract if the vendor’s items are already on the formulary and do not incur any Freight charges that would likely be charged when shipping to Puerto Rico. Would the Government please clarify what and how the shipping costs will coordinated for purposes of those FSS items that do not currently provide for shipment to Puerto Rico.

Answer: The SAC does not have any involvement with the FSS product vendors and getting their products to the awarded MSPV in Puerto Rico. That agreement is established between the Prime Vendor and product supplier.

16. Within Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), there appears to be inconsistent use of the terms “Fill Rate” and “Unadjusted Fill Rate” and associated (Unadjusted) Fill Rate Percentages, including:

a. paragraph 6.3.1 (Conventional/Bulk Delivery Method) notes “Fill-rate: 95% - Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies”

b. paragraph 6.3.2 (LUM) notes “Unadjusted Fill-Rate: 95% - Recurring Medical/surgical supplies”

c. paragraph 6.7.1 (Conventional/Bulk Delivery Method) notes “Unadjusted Fill Rate: 97% - Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies”

d. paragraph 6.7.2 (LUM) notes: “Unadjusted Fill Rate; 97% - Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies.”

Can the Government please confirm that “Unadjusted Fill Rate” (not just “Fill Rate”) is appropriate in all references and then also clarify what the appropriate measure (95% or 97%) should be? Note – Attachment 2 (CLIN PRICING STRUCTURE SHEET) uses “97% Unadjusted fill-rate” in all instances.

Answer: Fill Rate and Unadjusted Fill Rate are two different things. The required unadjusted fil rate is 95% and adjusted fill rate is 97%.

17. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 6.4 states, “Coverage: CLIN VISN 8 (Puerto Rico only). Estimated value of supplies and contract maximum for the 43- month period is MIN & MAX Values $54,750,858.00.” Can the Government please clarify or restate what this sentence is trying to communicate? Is the “$54,750,858.00” amount an “Estimated value”, “contact maximum”, “MIN Value” or other?

Answer: The correct Min and Max values for the contract, base and two options, are $220,000 and $54,750,858.00 respectively.

18. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraphs 6.4 and 6.6 appear to have similar / duplicative language, but with inconsistencies. Can the Government please revise and/or consolidate to remove duplicative and conflicting language?

Answer: The two areas are not duplicates.

19. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraphs 6.5, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 appear to have similar / duplicative language as paragraphs 6.2, 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 (respectively). Are there supposed to be any differences in language between the referenced paragraphs?

Answer: Section 6.5, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 are duplicated and will be removed from the RFP and marked as “reserved” as to not effect numbering.

20. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 6.11 (Emergency Deliveries), it states, “Emergency deliveries shall be made within 12 hours after receipt of order” – Can the Government clarify whether there any known major infrastructure issues that could make the “within 12 hours” requirement unreasonable / impractical? Also to the extent that there are any known infrastructure issues, could the Government please clarify what these are so that offerors are aware for planning and solutions to be included in proposals. For example if any main roads, highways, bridges, etc. are inaccessible that would pose logistical issues for delivery of product under the contract.

Answer: At present, there are no known infrastructure issues that make 12hr delivery unreasonable or impractical. Offerors are advised to take note and be aware Puerto Rico’s vulnerability to disasters both manmade and natural.

21. Is there any significance/difference in the Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 7.1 term “Non-Recurring Items” and paragraph 7.2 term “Non-Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies” (e.g., are the terms “Items” and “Medical/Surgical Supplies” used interchangeably throughout this RFP doc)?

Answer: No there is no difference. The terms “items” and “medical/surgical supplies” are used interchangeably.

22. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 8.0 (Applicable Documents), suggests that there are documents (in addition to standards) that form part of the statement of work; however, no documents are provided or referenced (there appear to be only standards) -- are there any “documents” currently missing from the RFP?

Answer: Only standards have been identified. There are no documents listed at this time.

23. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 8.1 (Industry Standards), appears to contain language that is duplicative in paragraph 8.2 (Applicable Standards) – is there supposed to be any significance/difference in the paragraph 8.1 language vs. 8.2?

Answer: It is duplicated language. Paragraph 8.2 will be removed from the RFP and marked as “reserved” as to not effect numbering.

24. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 10.2 (Non-Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies) appears to have similar / duplicative language as paragraph 7.2 (Non- Recurring Medical/Surgical Supplies) – is there supposed to be any difference between paragraphs 10.2 and 7.2?

Answer: It is duplicated language. Paragraph 10.2 will be removed from the RFP and marked as “reserved” as to not effect numbering.

25. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 12.1 (Fill-Rate Calculation) states, “Number of Core Line Items Shipped in Full on the Scheduled Delivery Date per month plus the total number of lines with a manufacturer back order plus the total number of lines reduced or rejected because the 30-day usage level was exceeded by 10% Divided by Total Number of Core Line Items Ordered Per month” -- is the term “lines” (identified in red font above) supposed to represent “Core Line Items” or All Line Items (Core & Non-Core)?

Answer: There is no red font in the question. Please identify the red font as noted in the question. As clarification the unadjusted fill-rate metric used shall be calculated using an unadjusted methodology (i.e. any medical/surgical supply item not completely filled at the time of request for any reason counts against this measure. Unadjusted fill rate is the raw fill rate at the line item level that are for core/recurring items only. Manufacturer backorders and usage spikes are not to be excluded from the calculation. The unadjusted fill rate performance standard shall be equal to or greater than 95%.

26. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 17.1 (Continuous Supply Support during Catastrophes) states, “…If more than one MSPV provider is chosen, then they will be required to collaborate, create and submit one national contingency continuity plan to VHA P&LO..” – this language suggests that there might be more than one MSPV chosen for this contract; whereas the rest of the RFP suggests that there will only be one MSPV – can the Government please clarify?

Answer: Only one prime vendor award will be made for the MSPV Puerto Rico contract.

27. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 17.1 (Continuous Supply Support during Catastrophes) appears to have similar / duplicative language as paragraph 25 (Continuous Supply Support during Catastrophes) -- is there supposed to be any material difference(s) in language contained within each of these paragraphs?

Answer: There should be no material difference between the two areas.

28. Within Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 23.1 (Fill/Kill), can the Government please further define what the term “fault” means in the context of the paragraph?

Answer: The term fault, in this instance, is referring to the reason/cause for the kill situations.

29. Within Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 26 (Drop Shipments); We understand and agree with this section’s verbiage related to being the MSPV, but the questions we have are related more to how formulary vendors currently drop shipping under the formulary today (to the 48 contiguous states) going to handle drop shipping to the VA Puerto Rico? if there is an additional charge those vendors will charge for drop shipping to Puerto Rico, how is the awarded MSPV supposed to deal or plan for that?

Answer: Drop Shipments will be handled the same way, PV is responsible for all transportation costs on drop shipments.

30. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 39.1 (Contractor error and shipping damage) states, “…Facilities shall notify the MSPV within two business days of receipt of shipping damage, including concealed shipping damage, medical/surgical supplies with an initial expiration date or shelf life of less than six months, and at least 75% shelf life dating shall remain at time of delivery to the ordering facility.” – As currently written, the language in red font is difficult to follow. Can the Government please reword or restate the intent of this sentence (e.g., should the end of the sentence read… or less than 75% shelf life dating remaining, etc.)?

Answer: Need additional information to clarify information in “red font”.

31. Within Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 39.2 (Disposition Instructions) would the Government consider updating the “48 hours” and “72 hours” references to “two business days” and “three business days” (respectively), to adequately accommodate instances where a customer provides a return notification at the very end of the business week and/or before a federal holiday?

Answer: The language is revised to state two business days and three business day respectively.

32. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 44.12 states, “MSPV shall provide a CSR to Puerto Rico five days a week for eight hours to resolve contract service issues, including resolving open invoices.” Can the Government please confirm that our interpretation of reading the red font language as “five days a week for eight hours per day” is accurate?

Answer: Yes

33. We read paragraph 44.12 (“MSPV shall provide a CSR to Puerto Rico five days a week for eight hours to resolve contract service issues, including resolving open invoices.”) as a requirement; whereas, we read paragraph 6.9 language (“An on-site representative shall be available for five (5) days per week for eight (8) hours a day to follow up with back orders, per facility , take new orders work in conjunction with the item manager to increase the usage of the formulary and have the capability to work with invoicing issues”) as a Value Add service that will only be provided if asked / requested. Based on this language:

a. Can the Government please clarify what the total weekly CSR hour amount is that is mandaroty vs. what the potential max CSR hours can be to support all PR facilities that will be part of this contract?

Answer: 40 hours a week.

b. Our current understanding is that at a minimum, 1 CSR needs to provided but offerors also must also be able to flex up to a total of 3 CSRs (if requested) to cover the 3 facilities in Attachment 1. Assuming this understanding is accurate, should offers include the potential cost to flex up to 3 CSR’s as part of its proposed pricing (even though it may not be requested) or will the MSPV be able to get a future modification to the contract at a later time, if/when additional CSRs are needed?

Answer: 1 CSR is required.

34. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 51.7 (Credit and Rebill Report) states, “…This report shall include at a minimum the following fields:”; however, no fields are currently listed in the RFP language --- can the Government please confirm that the fields included in Attachment 11 are the minimum fields to be included and/or provide a listing of what the minimum fields are?

Answer: Yes.

35. Section B.9 (STATEMENT OF WORK), paragraph 52.6 states, “If mutually agreed upon between the MSPV and a VISN, the MSPV will aggregate all sales within the VISN, then divide by the number of On-Site resources within the VISN to determine the annual purchase tier in the below matrix.”; however, there does not appear to be any matrix provided – can the Government please provide the referenced matrix or revise the language accordingly?

Answer: Section 52.6 should be removed from the solicitation.

36. Are the supporting Volume I Technical documents part of the 20 page limitation?

Answer: Yes

37. 14.3 Buy Back Requests – The buy-back request is limited to 14 days of inventory. It takes 4 weeks to ship to Puerto Rico. Because of the shipping time, we will be carrying more than 14 days of inventory for those items stocked in Puerto Rico for the VA. Can this number be increased to reflect the average number of days we will be carrying in inventory at the branch?

Answer: To be changed 45 days

38. Will Core/ Non-core definitions replace all other definitions of inventory?

Answer: No inventory is not just tied to core and non-core definitions. Each instance needs to be taken in context of the document.

39. On page 37 Section 12.1 Fill-Rate Calculation, the description of the calculation includes categories that are also listed in under the Fill-Rate calculation exclusions on section 12.2. Can the Fill-Rate Calculation be revised to exclude them?

Answer 39: Section 12.1 and 12.2 are changed to read

12.1 Unadjusted Fill-Rate Calculation.

12.2 Adjusted Fill-rate calculation exclusions

40. For example;

i. “Fill-rates shall be calculated as:

ii. Number of Core Line Items Shipped in Full on the Scheduled Delivery Date per month plus the total number of lines with a manufacturer back order plus the total number of lines reduced or rejected because the 30-day usage level was exceeded by 10% Divided by Total Number of Core Line Items Ordered Per month” Should the calculation read minus? - ii. Number of Core Line Items Shipped in Full on the Scheduled Delivery Date per month minus the total number of lines with a manufacturer back order minus the total number of lines reduced or rejected because the 30-day usage level was exceeded by 10% Divided by Total Number of Core Line Items Ordered Per month”.

Answer 40: Please see the answer to question 39. It should read plus.

41. Please specify and elaborate if there is more than 1 definition of Fill-Rate

Answer 41: Please see the answer for question 39.

42. On page 29, section 6.3 Delivery Requirement, states the same metric for fill rate and unadjusted fill rate as the same number.

Answer 42: Section 6.3.2 and14.7 should be changed to read

6.3.2 Unadjusted Fill-Rate: 90% - Recurring Medical/surgical supplies

14.7 Unadjusted Fill Rates which states: The unadjusted fill rate performance standard shall be equal to or greater than 90%. Page 77 row 14.7 should be changed to read 90%.

43. We understand that the metric should be focused on adjusted fill rate because is the one that the Prime Vendor can control. Prime vendor has no control over manufacturer operations, so it is very difficult to establish a metric the MSPV cannot control.

Answer 43. The Government understands both these scenarios.

44. In section 14.3 page 39 Buy-back requests; it establishes a limit of 14 days of inventory buy back on products discontinuation. Given PR is an island and most products need to be imported, the logistics involved in such proceedings will require to keep an inventory level greater than 14 days of inv to comply with the service level requirements. Will it be possible to reconsider this limit to be aligned with acceptable industry standards on inv management which will include logistics and lead-time requirements for the inv level calculation?

Answer 44. To be changed to 45 days.

45. On section B.3 – a. Service Level Agreement Fee, page 8, establishes a range of SLA (3.0%0.5%). Please clarify how is the final amount of SLA fee percent determined and when is it disclosed?

Answer 45: The SLA is 0.5% that is imbedded into cost.

46. Will the VA consider a fixed annual cost for the Customer Service Representative fee instead of a percent of sales?

Answer 46: No.

47: On page 52 section 32, states that; Distribution and on-site Customer Service Representative (CSR) fees will be tracked and paid for via an estimated certified invoice. The funding obligation for fees may be sent EDI. The order will be created to cover at least one month of estimated fees. Invoicing will be no less than once per month. The use of an Estimated Certified Invoice will create processes of PO generation and reconciliation to the Local VA facilities personnel and the awarded MSPV. It will also complicate the credit process in case of discrepancies. Will the VA consider alternate fee invoice procedures such as: Distribution fee (Drop fee, LUM fee and CBD fee) imbedded in the product’s price? Submitting a Certified Invoice via EDI with the costs of the incurred distribution fees on the previous month. Both these options eliminate reconciliation efforts.

Answer 47. No, fees must be separated.

48. On page 69, section 52.2 – 1.; Customer Service Representative Qualifications – It Is Stated that “Knowledge of SAP is a plus, Changes in these requirements require VA/VHA Facility management approval.”

Answer 48: No.

49. If the candidate does not have SAP knowledge, will the VA consider the possibility of training the candidate at VA Local Facilities?

Answer 49: No.

50: On page 69, section 52.2 – 2.; Customer Service Representative 2. Work Schedule/Place of Performance - It is stated that "The CSR is required to report for duty Monday through Friday, from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM local time (30-minute lunch, and a 15 minute AM break, 15-minute PM break) unless the VA/VHA Facility management agrees on an alternate schedule." However, further down, on the first bullet it is stated that; • CSRs are required to perform duties during the following prescribed core hours from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM. Please clarify the expected work schedule of the Customer Service Representative.

Answer 50: Contractors hours are between 7:30am to 4:00pm local time, contractor’s employees will take their allotted breaks and lunches at the discretion of the CSR, during those hours.

51. Since this is still a draft RFP and since your initial Q&As and subsequent SAC MSPV 2.0 RFIs have raised multiple new issues, will you extend the current RFP Q&A period—or must further industry questions be held until a final Puerto Rico RFP is issued? Answering industry questions now would seem to avoid any further delays once the final RFP is released.

Answer 51: Please refer to the posted RFP in Federal Business Opportunities (FBO)

52. What market research been performed and documented for the file for this significantly revised Puerto Rico PV acquisition?

Answer: Market Research was performed in accordance with FAR Part 10 and the requirements of 41 U.S.C 3306(a) (1) and 41 U.S.C. 3307.

53. Can those market research results in the file be posted or made available through FOIA?

Answer: Yes.

54. Given that this Puerto Rico PV acquisition was previously awarded to a small business, how has your market research changed so significantly to now support a full and open competition?

Answer: MSPV-PR is not the same requirement.

55. Has the performance of the initial small business contractor caused this shift to full and open?

Answer: No.

56. Was the original small business MSPV award for Puerto Rico terminated for cause, or for convenience?

Answer: It was not terminated for cause or convenience.

57. Will you reconsider your full and open strategy and comply with VetsFirst by making this a 100% SDVOSB set-aside? Please explain your decision.

Answer: The RFP is full and open. SDVOSB’s will have the opportunity to bid on the full and open competition.

58. Please identify the SBA PCR for this acquisition.

Answer: Please contact SBA to reach the PCR.

59. Did the SBA PCR concur with the acquisition strategy in a formal Form 70?

Answer: OSDBU concurred.

60. Can that SBA Form 70 be made available on FBO or through FOIA?

Answer: The form may be requested through FOIA.

61. Will PV orders for available supplies under VA Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs), Locally and Nationally Awarded Contracts and other VA approved contracts be counted VA prime contract orders to FSS and other suppliers as they have been in the past? This approach will continue to earn the VA small business prime contractor credit when awarded to a small business.

Answer: Yes

62. Will the PV also place orders against VA SAC DAPAs, or only against actual VA prime contracts?

Answer: No, the PV will be ordering items from the master list, see Section 2.0 Scope.

63. Under the SBA’s Non-manufacturer rule, for small business set-aside supply contracts, the prime contractor that is supplying products to the government is required to cover at least 50 percent of the cost of manufacturing those products. Since MSPV formulary products will be provided under VA approved prime contracts such as FSS, please confirm that no NMR requirement for small business is applicable to these supplies—if you determined that this acquisition should be set-aside for small business. Clearly, there is no possibility for a small business to manufacture or supply products given that these products and their suppliers have already been pre-selected by the VA. There is also no ability or need for small business to cover 50% of the cost of these supplies.

Answer: There is no NMR for the requirement.

64. The Q&As state that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) will be required. The current VAAR says the subcontracting goals for any SBSP are to be the same as the current prime contracting goals established by the VA Secretary. Please confirm this requires any SBSP to meet a 10% SDVOSB goal and a 12% VOSB goal.

Answer: A good faith effort to meet SBSP goals will be required.

65. Please confirm that the above 10% and 12% SD/VOSB goals apply to any commercial or individual SBSP—and that either type of plan will be reviewed for compliance to these goals.

Answer: SAB.

66. Please confirm that any good faith failure to meet a commercial SBSP is subject to the Liquidated Damages--Subcontracting clause.

Answer: The clause is included in the solicitation.

67. Please confirm that a good faith effort under any commercial or individual SBSP requires any goal shortfalls to be proactively addressed in the required annual SBSP updates—for both commercial and individual plans.

Answer: The Contracting Officer will follow the requirements of the FAR and VAAR.

68. Please explain why the current large business contract has no SBSP?

Answer: The current MSPV contractor has a SBSP.

69. Please confirm that the SBSP will need to address how any SD/VOSB subcontractors will perform against the SOW to meet the required 10% and 12% goals.

Answer: The subcontracting Plan will be reviewed by the CO and the SBA.

70. Are the SBSP goals required to be based on total PV contract dollars, or only on total subcontracted dollars?

Answer: Total PV contract amount.

71. If a PV decides not to subcontract any distribution efforts, does this reduce the SD/VOSB goal to zero dollars, or is there a requirement for a certain minimum percentage of total contract dollars to be subcontracted to SD/VOSBs in order to comply with the VA’s requirement to maximize SD/VOSB subcontracting?

Answer: The subcontracting Plan will be reviewed by the CO and the SBA.

72. If the SBSP goals are based only on total subcontracted dollars, it is vital to understand whether PV orders are considered subcontracts to ensure the requirements for 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages-Subcontracting Plan are understood. Please explain what PV efforts are to be considered subcontracts.

Answer: PV SBSP goals are based on the total amount of the orders placed. The subcontracting Plan will be reviewed by the CO and the SBA.

73. Will an offerors prior failure to meet MSPV or MSPV NG SBSP requirements be considered in your evaluation and award process?

a. Will eSRS data be reviewed?

b. Will SBA or OSDBU review these plans and past performance? The RFP has no mention of any such evaluation.

Answer:

a. Yes

b. Yes

74. How does your current strategy implement the FAR requirement to maximize prime and subcontracting opportunities for small business?

Answer: The solicitation includes FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and VAAR 852.219-9, VA Small Business Subcontracting Plan Minimum Requirement.

75. How does this current strategy implement the requirement for SD/VOSB priority and preference under VetsFirst?

Answer: The solicitation is in alignment with the requirements of the FAR, VAAR, and required regulations.

76. Given that the VA has pre-established its specific product requirements on a formulary that identifies both manufacturers and part numbers of the VA requirement, has the contracting officer determined that no small business manufacturer reasonably can be expected to offer these products meeting specifications (including period of performance) required by this particular solicitation? If not, why not?

Answer: This question isn’t applicable to the solicitation.

77. If the contracting officer has or will make the above determination, has the contracting officer requested approval from the SAC HCA for an Individual NMR waiver from the SBA?

Answer: There is not an Individual NMR waiver from the SBA.

78. Has the HCA approved that Individual NMR waiver request? Since such a waiver would further encourage small business offerors, and since the VA is required to maximize opportunities for small business, please explain your decision on requesting and approving an Individual NMR waiver. While requesting such as waiver is optional, maximizing small business opportunities is not optional. SBA approval of such a waiver, given the situation, seems assured, but still requires the CO to submit a request. If you will not request this individual waiver, please explain why?

Answer: There is not an Individual NMR waiver from the SBA.

79. The Federal Register on November 29, 2018 recently announced VA plans to change VAAR 826.201-2 Evaluation preference to state:

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8128 and if market research does not support an SDVOSB or VOSB set-aside, the contracting officer shall consider including evaluation factors in accordance with 815.304 and the evaluation criteria clause prescribed at 815.304–71(a), 852.215–70, Service- Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran- Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors.

Please explain why your current evaluation process does not include a Socioeconomic Evaluation Factor? Isn’t award to a small business part of any VA best value award process and also required by VetsFirst??

Answer: Socioeconomic is an evaluation factor in this solicitation.

80. Please explain why your evaluation of Past Performance does not include any mention of a VAAR required evaluation of Past Performance in meeting SBSP requirements on similar acquisitions?

Answer: Socioeconomic is an evaluation factor in this solicitation.

81. While the VA SAC seems to have chosen to ignore large business PV failures to meet past/current SBSP requirements and elected not to enforce the contract Liquidated Damages--Subcontracting clause, why does the VA feel it also is not necessary to evaluate large business performance in this critical SBSP area?

Answer: The question is not related to this solicitation.

82. Has the VA OSDBU reviewed and approved this major acquisition strategy and the shift from small to large business?

Answer: The OSDBU has reviewed and approved the unrestricted RFP.

83. Page 22, paragraph 6. refers to “generally accepted commercial practices among PVs in the medical/surgical industry”.

a. Can a list of these practices the VA finds acceptable be provided?

Answer: No.

b. Can a list of unacceptable practices be provided?

Answer: No.

c. Does the list include allowing PVs to negotiate and accept rebates from FSS and other VA contract holders?

Answer: No.

d. Must the PV disclose any such rebates and their value to the VA? To the VA OIG?

Answer: N/A.

e. Are PV Distribution Agreements subject to VA or VA OIG review?

Answer: N/A.

84. What VA ordering and contractor performance data is available on the current and previous MSPV contracts for Puerto Rico? Can this data be posted to FBO?

Answer: Not relevant for Q&A to this solicitation.

85. The VA NAC has recently revised the 65 IA RFP to include a new and improved method for obtaining and evaluating SBSPs. It is contained in pages 7-13 of this document. Recommend the SAC adopt this improved VA process.

Answer: Will take this into consideration.

M5-Q50A-03-R8-000 1001.docx

pg. 1 image1.png