36C10G19R0050-0001001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C10G19R0050
About this file
36C10G19R0050 0001 ATTACHMENT E - Questions and Answers - FINAL.xlsx
View the file
Other files
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
ATTACHMENT E
| ID | Paragraph (please reference RFP, SOW, or Attachments) | Page Number | Section Title | Paragraph Number | Offeror's Questions | Government Response |
| 1 | Will this solicitation include spinal implants and biologics (under surgical), diagnostics, and bracing (under orthopedics)? | This RFP is strictly for PV distribution services. The supply RFQ's are a separate solicitation that can be located on FBO. | ||||
| 2 | RFP Socioeconomic Concern | 43 | Volume 5 | E.6.8.6 | If a MSPV collects $1 million in fees related to distribution services and subcontracts $200,000 to other businesses, is the small business goal of 17.5% based on the $1 million or the $200,000? | If the MSPV is a Large Business, the Prime's Subcontracting Plan shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth in column 2 of Table 3 of the solicitation. If the MSPV is a large business and subcontracts work out to another large business, the subcontracted large business shall meet the subcontracting percentage goals listed within column 3 of Table 3 of the solicitation. The Prime Contracting Goal shall be calculated based on the percent of total subcontracted dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies. As an example, Large MSPV must subcontract 15% of the percent of total subcontracted dollars to SDVOSBs. If the MSPV has a large business subcontractor, the subcontractor shall allocate 5% of the percent of total contract dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies to SDVOSBs. |
| 3 | E.6.8.6 | RFP Section E.6.8.6 states that Subcontracting Plans “shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth below. Offerors whose subcontracting plan does not meet the requirements below shall clearly identify why the goals are not attainable.” Table 3 then lists separate goals for “Prime Contracting” and “Subcontracting.” Please confirm our understanding that the “Prime Contracting” goals are the goals that are applicable to the prime contractor, and the “Subcontracting” goals are the goals applicable to large business subcontractors | Correct. “Prime Contracting” goals are the goals that are applicable to the prime contractor, and the “Subcontracting” goals are the goals applicable to large business subcontractors. | |||
| 4 | RFP C.2. | 14 of 69 | C.2 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2019) | 46 | RFP includes FAR 52.225-1 Buy American – Supplies. |
| Based on dollar value of the contracts awarded from this solicitation, this clause is not applicable. Will the Government remove this clause? | FAR 52.225-1 is applicable and will remain as prescribed in FAR 25.1101(1)(a). See RFP Section B.5. | |||||
| 5 | RFP C.2. | 15 of 69 | C.2 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2019) | 1 | RFP includes FAR 52.222-17 Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers. |
| As this contract is not subject to the Service Contract Labor Act, shouldn’t this clause be excluded? | 52.222-17 will be removed. See Amendment A0001. | |||||
| 6 | RFP C.4(d) | 18 of 69 | C.4 52.216-19 ORDER LIMITATIONS (OCT 1995) | d | This paragraph contains a typo regarding the timing for the rejection of an order exceeding the Maximum Order Limitation. The RFP states the following: |
“…returned to the ordering office within two hours days after issuance.” [emphasis added]
| Can the Government please clarify whether this requirement is “hours” or “days”? | This requirement is for two hours. See Amendment A0001. | |||||
| 7 | RFP C.5(d) | 19 of 69 | C.5 52.216-22 INDEFINITE QUANTITY (OCT 1995) | d | In the last sentence of this paragraph, the RFP states the following: |
“…the Contractor shall not be required to make any deliveries under this contract after January 31, 2020.”
| We do not believe that this is accurately stated as this would be at the beginning of the contract. Can the Government clarify what the correct date above should be? In the prior solicitation, this was September 30, 2029 (i.e., 6 months after Option Period 2 – the end of the contract). | FAR Clause 52.216-22 will be updated with the correct date of September 30, 2029. See Amendment A0001. | |||||
| 8 | RFP C.7(c) | 19 of 69 | C.7 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) | c | Language in this paragraph, last sentence, states the following: |
“The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause shall not exceed 108 months.”
108 months = 9 years, which is the same as the Period of Performance (i.e., Base Period through Option Period 2) of this contract per RFP Section B.1. RFP C.7 is incorporating FAR 52.217-9 which provides for the Government to extend the term of the contract beyond the contract Period of Performance. Accordingly, should this clause state a period of time beyond 108 months?
| NOTE: The prior proposal listed 114 months, which provided for a 6-month extension of the contract. | FAR Clause 52.217-9 will be updated to reflect 114 months. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 9 | RFP C.11(c) |
RFP E.6.2.3
RFP E.6.8.4 21 of 69
43 of 69 C.11 VAAR 852.219-9 VA SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (DEC 2009)
E.6.2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.
| E.6.8. VOLUME V – SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERN | C.11(c) |
| RFP Section E.6.2.3 states that: |
“Failure to provide proposals in compliance with the instructions specified in this Request for Proposal (RFP) shall render the Offeror’s proposal non-compliant and that proposal shall not be further evaluated for an award. Within this solicitation “shall” means “must always.”’
RFP Section C.11 states that for both the offeror’s individual subcontracting plan or the offeror’s commercial subcontracting plan:
| “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” [emphasis added] | 1. FAR clause 52.219-9 and VAAR clause 852.219-9 drive the language used in Section E.6.8.6. Per Section E.6.8.6, "The Subcontracting Plan shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth in Table 3. Offerors whose subcontracting plan does not meet the requirements in Table 3 shall clearly identify why the goals are not attainable." However, Section E.6.8.4. states "If the Offeror proposes subcontracting goals that differ from those identified in Solicitation Table 3, the Offeror shall describe how and why its proposed goals are set at levels that realistically represent the maximum practical small business subcontracting goals consistent with efficient contract performance." Therefore Section E.6.2.3 will be revised to state "Failure to provide proposals in compliance with the instructions specified in this Request for Proposal (RFP) may render the Offeror’s proposal non-compliant and that proposal may not be further evaluated for an award. See Amendment A0001. | |
| RFP Table 3 | ||
| RFP E.8 (Factor 4) | 44 of 69 | |
| 49 of 69 | Table 3. VA Socioeconomic Subcontracting Goals |
E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION— COMMERICAL ITEMS
Factor 4– Veterans’ Involvement:
Table 3. VA Socioeconomic Subcontracting Goals
Factor 4– Veterans’ Involvement: RFP Table 3 (pg. 44) states that the VA’s Prime contracting goals are 15.0% and 17.0% for SDVOSB and VOSB, respectively.
However, RFP E.8 Factor 4 states that “Non-SDVOSB/ VOSB Contractors proposing to subcontract five percent or more of the value to a verified SDVOSB concern or seven percent or more of the value to a verified VOSB concern will receive partial evaluation credit.”
Questions:
1. Can the Government please clarify if a contractor is ineligible for award if their subcontracting goals are less than the VA’s Prime contracting goals of 15.0% and 17.0% for SDVOSB and VOSB, respectively?
| 2. Can the Government please clarify if the offeror will receive partial credit for achieving subcontracting goals at 15% and 17% per RFP C.11 and RFP Table 3 or if the offeror will receive partial credit for achieving subcontracting goals at 5% and 7% per RFP E.8? | 2. Per section E.6.8.6, "Large businesses shall submit a Subcontracting Plan pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 and VAAR 852.219-9." As stated under Section E.8 Factor 4– Veterans’ Involvement: "The Government will assign full evaluation credit for a Contractor (prime contractor) which is a Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) registered and verified SDVOSB and partial credit for a verified VOSB prime contractor. Non-SDVOSB/VOSB Contractors proposing to subcontract five percent or more of the value to a verified SDVOSB concern or seven percent or more of the value to a verified VOSB concern will receive partial evaluation credit. Subcontracting percentages shall be calculated based on the percent of total contract dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies." | |
| 10 | RFP E.6.8.1 | |
| RFP E.6.8.6 | 43 of 69 | |
| 43-44 of 69 | E.6.8. VOLUME V – SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERN | E.6.8.1. |
| E.6.8.6. | Per RFP E.6.8.1, the page limit for the subcontracting plan is 25 pages. However, E.6.8.6 states that offerors may submit an individual plan if no corporate plan exists. |
Can the Government confirm that an individual plan would be required for each VISN proposed?
| If so, how can offerors meet this requirement E.6.8.6 if there is the 25-page limit and they are proposing on multiple VISNs? Can the please Government clarify if this is a 25-page limit per VISN? | The Subcontracting Plan is not based on each individual award but is based on the overall award to the awardee, whether that be single or multiple VISNs. Only one subcontracting plan is required. For all large businesses proposing as a Prime, The Prime Contracting goals listed in Table 3 shall be calculated based on the percent of total subcontracted dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies. For all large businesses proposing as a Prime who are subcontracting out work to another large business, the subcontracted company is required to meet the Subcontracting goals listed in Table 3 shall be calculated based on the percent of total contract dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies. | |||||
| 11 | RFP E.6.8.6 | 43 of 69 | E.6.8. VOLUME V – SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERN | E.6.8.6. | E.6.8.6 states that “ Offerors may submit approved commercial subcontracting plans or an individual plan if no approved commercial plan exists.” |
E.6.8.6 also state that the “The Subcontracting goals listed above shall be calculated based on the percent of total contract dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies.”
Questions:
1. Can the Government confirm that it is only appropriate to submit an individual subcontracting plan if an approved commercial plan does not exist?
| 2. If the offeror’s approved commercial plan includes supplies, can the offeror submit a proposed commercial plan or proposed individual plan that excludes supplies and only includes distribution services? | 1. It is the Offeror's business decision as to whether an approved commercial subcontracting plan or an individual plan is submitted. 2. Supplies will not be considered. The only portion of the plan to receive consideration would be the plan for the distribution services. | |||||
| 12 | RFP E.6.8.6 | 43 of 69 | E.6.8. VOLUME V – SOCIOECONOMIC CONCERN | E.6.8.6 | The RFP states: “[t]he Subcontracting goals listed above shall be calculated based on the percent of total contract dollars for distribution services only, excluding supplies.” |
| We understand that materials are excluded, however, can the Government confirm that services other than distribution services (e.g., On-Site Service Reps) can be included in the offerors Subcontracting goals? | Yes, all services proposed may be included in the Offeror's Subcontracting Plan in order to reach the socioeconomic subcontracting goals listed in Table 3 of the solicitation. The only exclusion is supplies. | ||||||
| 13 | RFP E.6.3.1 | 37 of 69 | E.6.3. PROPOSAL PREPARATION | E.6.3.1 | Can the Government confirm that offerors are required to submit pricing on both Attachment A and Attachment B if they are proposing as both a Primary and Alternate for a single VISN? | Yes, all offerors proposing as a PV and Alternate must submit both Attachments A and B. - See Section E.6.7.1 | |
| 14 | RFP E.5.(c) | ||||||
| RFP E.6.4.3. | 32 of 69 | ||||||
| 40 of 69 | E.5 52.212-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2018) |
| E.6.4. VOLUME I - COMPLIANCE | c | Section E.5. indicates that offers need to be honor its proposal for 30 days from date of proposal submission. Section E.6.4.3. is stating that offerors proposal needs to be 180 days period for acceptance by the Government. Need the Government to clarify which period of time the Contractor needs honor their proposal to the Government. | 180 calendar days is required. Section E.5 52.212-1(c) Period for acceptance of offers states: The offeror agrees to hold the prices in its offer firm for 30 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an addendum to the solicitation. Section E.6.4.3 of the addendum states "Evaluation of offers received in response to the Solicitation is projected to require up to 180 calendar days to complete. Therefore, the Offeror shall provide at least 180 calendar days Minimum Acceptance Period." | |||
| 15 | RFP E.7(a) | 45 of 69 | E.7 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) | a | The language currently included in RFP Section E.7(a) appears to be incomplete. More specifically, the RFP states: “Technical and past performance, when combined, are .” |
| Can the Government please clarify whether the language in this RFP Section is complete as stated or provide the updated/corrected language for this Section. | RFP will be updated. See Amendment A0001. | |||||
| 16 | RFP E.8 | 46 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION— COMMERICAL ITEMS | Award without Discussions | The RFP States: |
“Award without Discussions: …Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, price, past performance, socioeconomic, and Veterans’ involvement...”
This sentence lists 5 factors; however, there are only 4 factors listed in E.8, including: technical, price, past performance, and Veterans’ involvement. Can the Government please clarify the language in this section? Section E.8 will be revised to consistently state the Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of technical approach, price, past performance, and Veterans' involvement, as prescribed in Section E of this solicitation. Section E.8 Award without discussions will be corrected to state: "Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms in regards to technical, price, past performance, and Veterans’ involvement."
Section E.8 Alternate PV will be revised to state: "Alternate PV awards will be based on a distinct and separate tradeoff process where award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of technical approach, price, past performance, and Veterans' involvement IAW the evaluation criteria and methodology described in Section E.8 of the solicitation." See Amendment A0001.
17 RFP E.8 Factor 2 -Price 48 of 69 E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION— COMMERICAL ITEMS Factor 2 – Price Per the RFP, the total evaluated price will be calculated by extending the amounts in Attachment G by the Offeror’s proposed prices. However, Attachment G does not provide volumes for all CLINs.
More specifically, Attachment G does not provide the amount that will used to extend the Value Added Bulk CLINs (e.g., xxxxAB thru xxxxAF) and Value Added LUM CLIN's (e.g., xxxAH thru xxxxAL).
Will CLINs xxxxAB thru xxxxAF and xxxAH thru xxxxAL be excluded from the Total Evaluated Price? If not, can the Government please provide the amounts that will be used to evaluate CLINs xxxxAB thru xxxxAF and xxxAH thru xxxxAL?
| Finally, how will the Additional Value Added Serviced proposed by the Offeror (e.g., CLINs xxxxAA thru xxxxAB) be incorporated into the Total Evaluated Price? It is not possible for the Government to provide volumes for these CLINs as offerors will propose different Value Added Services. Will they be excluded from the Total Evaluated Price? | Per Section E.8 Factor 2 - Price, Total evaluated price will be calculated by applying the Offeror’s proposed fixed price (percentage/flat fee) to the respective CLIN (VISN) projected annual Medical/Surgical Supply Spend for Medical/Surgical Prime Vendor (MSPV) 2.0 as outlined in the table provided in this section. All CLINS proposed for Additional Value Added Services (CLINs AX-BB) by Offeror are excluded from the total evaluated price. | ||||||
| 18 | RFP 52.219-14 | 12 of 69 | C.2 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2019) | 52.219-14 | 52.219-14 is checked but does not apply because this is not a small business set aside | 52.219-14 will be removed. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 19 | RFP 52.222-54 | 13 of 69 | C.2 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2019) | 52.222-54 | 52.222-54 is checked but this is a commercial item procurement so the clause is not applicable | 52.222-54 will be removed. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 20 | RFP 52.225-1 and 52.225-5 | 14 of 69 | C.2 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OR EXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (MAY 2019) | 52.225-1 and 52.225-5 | 52.225-1 and 52.225-5 are both checked. One or the other applies, never both. The solicitation should not include 52.225-1 since the procurement is not set aside for small business; 52.225-5 is appropriate | Both clauses will remain to ensure compliance with either the Buy American Act (BAA) in accordance with (IAW) 41 U.S.C. Chapter 83 or Trade Agreement Act (TAA) IAW 19 U.S.C. 2501 as determined by award of BPA and subsequent inclusion on the MSPV Product List. - See Section B.5 Commercial Agreements with Product Suppliers. | |
| 21 | RFP 52.217-8 | 19 of 69 | C.6 52.217-8 OPTION TO EXTEND SERVICES (NOV 1999) |
| C.7 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000) | 52.217-8 | 52.217-8 is not needed; 52.217-9 covers the need | Both clauses will remain. FAR clause 52.217-9 allows the government to exercise the options on the contract. FAR clause 52.217-8 allows for the extension of services because the award of contracts for recurring and continuing service requirements are often delayed due to circumstances beyond the control of contracting offices. Both clauses will remain. | ||||
| 22 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Will any of the evaluation factors Technical, Past Performance references, Price and Socio-economic be weighted for evaluation and assigned a percentage value? | No, per Section E.8 Award Based on Best Value Tradeoff to the Government: Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a Best Value Tradeoff analysis of price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted. | |
| 23 | RFP E.8 | 45 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS | E.8. AWARD BASED ON BEST VALUE TRADEOFF TO THE GOVERNMENT | How does the VA plan to evaluate offeror proposals that may vary by VISN? Will it perform an individualized assessment of each VISN, or instead evaluate the offerors’ proposals as a whole? | Per Section E.8 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government plans on awarding one (1) IDIQ contract per VISN. Each VISN will be evaluated independently of other VISNs. However, the Government reserves the right to consolidate awards for an Offeror that is awarded multiple VISNs. | |
| 24 | RFP E.8 | 45 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS | E.8. AWARD BASED ON BEST VALUE TRADEOFF TO THE GOVERNMENT | How does the VA intend to assess each offeror under RFP (i.e., use acceptable/unacceptable, adjectival ratings). | Per Section E.8 Award Based on Best Value Tradeoff to the Government: Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a Best Value Tradeoff analysis of price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted. | |
| 25 | RFP | 48 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS | Factor 2 – Price: | The RFP States: "Offers proposing lower distribution fees and value-added service fees will be evaluated more favorably." The RFP goes on to state: " Price will not be evaluated adjectivally or assigned a score." (RFP at 48.) |
| How will the VA evaluate these value-added service fees? | Price will be evaluated as stated in Section E.8 Factor 2 – Price. | |||||||
| 26 | RFP | 48 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS | Factor 2 – Price: | On what basis will proposals that offer lower fees be "evaluated more favorably?" | Price will be evaluated as stated in Section E.8 Factor 2 – Price. | ||
| 27 | RFP | 48 of 69 | E.8 ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS | Factor 2 – Price: | How will VA determine whether a given vendors’ price is fair and reasonable? | Price will be evaluated as stated in Section E.8 Factor 2 – Price. | ||
| 28 | Industry fully understands the pressure to award these contracts on a specific schedule to avoid having to execute the ill-performing MSPV NG options. However, without a timely VA success in parallel awards for MSPV 2.0 supplies, the impact on the available PV formulary/supplies and its impact on MSPV 2.0 execution will be major. If industry is to propose to be prepared for early awards on your planned schedule, it requires putting resources in place in order to execute these major contracts. Meanwhile, the PV contracts have no significant guarantees and the supporting supply chain awards appear to be significantly delayed by both their complexity and multiple protests. Request the SAC provide industry its assessment of the likelihood that the supplies required for MSPV 2.0 execution will reasonably be available on a parallel schedule that justifies the current MSPV 2.0 proposal schedule. | The current MSPV 2.0 Supply BPAs schedule aligns with the MSPV 2.0 PV schedule. | ||||||
| 29 | The revised RFP makes no mention of how the recent DMLSS/DAPA agreements between the VA and DOD may or will impact the MSPV 2.0 program. Will MSPV 2.0 suppliers be able to order from DLA DAPAs? Will the fees the PVs can negotiate on those DAPAs be capped at 5%? | This solicitation is for distribution only. Awardees of this solicitation will be required to purchase supplies from those VA-contracted authorized suppliers awarded under the MSPV 2.0 supply BPAs. - See Section B.5 Commercial Agreements with Product Suppliers. | ||||||
| 30 | RFP | 45 | E.6.8.6 | The clause states: “Subcontract,” as used in this provision, means any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a Federal Government prime contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract, unless the type of agreement is expressly excluded. (A) Are we to understand that the MSPV 2.0 commercial agreements for supplies are not subcontracts, and are therefore excluded from meeting the MSPV 2.0 subcontracting goals? (B) Does this mean that any large business must propose to subcontract 17.5% of the distribution services only (excluding supplies) in order to meet the small business subcontracting goal? (C) Since large business cannot control the awards to small business suppliers, it seem to make sense that the 17.5% applies to the control of the distribution services which the large business does absolutely control. Do you agree? (D) Since the SAC has retained the option to combine VISN awards into a single contract, does this mean that any SBSP proposed must be able to meet both a single VISN award, and a multi-VISN award contract that allows a prime to meet goals based on subcontracting across VISNs at different levels? | (A) | Yes | ||
| (B) | If the MSPV is a Large Business, the Prime's Subcontracting Plan shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth in column 2 of Table 3 of the solicitation. If the MSPV is a large business and subcontracts work out to another large business, the subcontracted large business shall meet the subcontracting percentage goals listed within column 3 of Table 3 of the solicitation. | |||||||
| (C) | Correct, the Socioeconomic subcontracting goals listed in Table 3 of the solicitation applies to the control of the distribution services which the large business control. | |||||||
| (D) | See response to question #10 above. | |||||||
| 31 | RFP | 45 | E.6.8.6 | Page 45, paragraph E.6.8.6 allows offerors to submit “approved” commercial subcontracting plans. Given that any previously approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan is most unlikely to meet the specific MSPV 2.0 RFP requirements placed on these plans, request this section be revised to state that only approved plans that also fully meet the RFP requirements may be submitted. | No change will be made. Section E.6.8.4 states If the Offeror proposes subcontracting goals that differ from those identified in Solicitation Table 3, the Offeror shall describe how and why its proposed goals are set at levels that realistically represent the maximum practical small business subcontracting goals consistent with efficient contract performance. Also, according to Section E.6.8.6, the Subcontracting Plan shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth in the chart provided. Offerors whose subcontracting plan does not meet the requirements shall clearly identify why the goals are not attainable. | |||
| 32 | How will the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plans (SBSPs) be evaluated? (A) Will an offeror's prior subcontracting performance as shown in eSRS, especially for relevant past performance contract, be used to assess the acceptability of the proposed plant? (B) Will VA OSDBU or SBA lead the review? (C) Will an offeror be allowed to correct/improve a plan after award or will an unacceptable SBSP make an offeror not awardable and not a responsible offeror? | (A) Per Section E.6.8.7. Under all CLINs evaluation preference will be given to those Offerors having SDVOSB and VOSB socio-economic status, and those Offerors who propose to meet SDVOSB, VOSB, small business subcontracting goals. (B) Members of the source selection team will be evaluating the plans submitted. Section E.6.8.7.1. (1) and (2) provides guidance on how evaluation preference is received for both SDVOSBs/VOSBs and Non-SDVOSBs/VOSBs. (C) Per Section E.6.8.7.1(2) The Government requires the Contractor to honor the evaluation factor commitment to the SDVOSB/VOSB concern throughout the life of the Task Order/Contract and any subsequent orders, or to substitute one or more SDVOSB/VOSB businesses for subcontract work of the same or similar value (percentage) in accordance with VAAR 852.215-71 Evaluation Factor Commitments. | ||||||
| 33 | RFP | 22 | C.11 | VA SBSP Minimum Requirement. This clause 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. However, Table 3 shows the VA Prime contracting goal for SDVOSB is 15% while the VA Subcontracting goal for SDVOSBs is only 5%. The 5% subcontracting goal is not "commensurate" with the 15% prime contracting goal for SDVOSBs. VA should increase the SDVOSB subcontracting goal to at least 15%. | No change will be made. If the MSPV is a Large Business, the Prime's Subcontracting Plan shall meet the minimum VA subcontracting goals set forth in column 2 of Table 3 of the solicitation. If the MSPV is a large business and subcontracts work out to another large business, the subcontracted large business shall meet the subcontracting percentage goals listed within column 3 of Table 3 of the solicitation. | |||
| 34 | RFP | 42 | E.6.5.1 | Please explain why the names of the offeror and subcontractor are now required to be redacted? While seemingly a simple editorial change, it is not. If we want to explain in Technical that a specific technical process proposed is one that a successful incumbent has already implemented with specific and measured performance results, it is vital to our proposal’s fair evaluation that the name of that incumbent be referenced to provide credibility to the assertion and to its low risk. For example, compare these two statements: (a) The offeror's phone is the best selling smart phone and has been since its introduction in 2007. The offeror's use interface is build around the devices' multi-touch screen, including a virtual keyboard. The offeror's phone supports over 2.2 million applications from the offerors store and 2.2 billion have been sold. (b) The Apple iPhone is the best-selling smart phone and has been since Apple introduced in 2007. Apple's user interface is built around the devices' multi-touch screen, including an Apple virtual keyboard. The Apple iPhone support over 2.2 million application from the Apple Application Store and 2.2 billion Apple iPhone have been used. | According to Section E.6.2.5 Proposals will be evaluated on the written information submitted by the Offeror. Furthermore Section E.6.5.1 states that the Offeror shall clearly describe the technical solution and overall approach to the solicitation requirements as identified in the solicitation which will be evaluated against the rating criteria specified in solicitation. This information may be considered in the evaluation of specific technical approaches and related technical proposal risk. Redaction of the Offeror and Subcontractor's names after the first usage in the Technical proposal insures anonymity of offerors in order to achieve an unbiased evaluation of the technical solution and overall approach to the solicitation requirements. The risk for past performance is not evaluated during the technical evaluation. The Offeror's names within the past performance volume are not redacted therefore risk assessment will not be an issue. The solicitation will be further clarified to include the following information which shall be redacted within the Technical Proposal only: • Prime Offeror company name – Shall be redacted after first usage |
• Subcontractors company name(s) – Shall be redacted after first usage
• Prime Offeror individual personnel name(s) – All mentions shall be redacted
• Subcontractor individual personnel name(s) – All mentions shall be redacted
• Information identifying the Prime Offeror or any proposed subcontractors' status as a current incumbent on the MSPV-NG contract vehicle shall be redacted
| 35 | Please confirm that there no longer are any requirements to submit Wage Data for any proposed VISNs. | There is no requirement in this solicitation for the submittal of a Wage Determination. | ||||
| 36 | RFP | 40 | E.6.3 Proposal Preparation | E.6.3.16 | Under what circumstances can the customer utilize the Alternate PV? | See SOW Section II D. 2 - Should the contract for a Primary PV for a VISN be terminated, the Alternate PV shall assume the responsibilities of the Primary PV for that VISN as required. Any Alternate PV will be put into effect only by written authorization via Modification to the Contract from the CO. Only contractors receiving Primary PV awards are eligible to serve as an Alternate PV. |
a. In the event of non-performance on the part of a Primary PV, the Alternate PV may be called upon at any time to provide support for the non-performing Primary PV’s VISN. No later than 60 days from notification, the Alternate PV is required to be ready to accept and execute customer orders.
b. Alternate PV performance will be assessed against the same contract requirements as the Primary PV Performance upon written authorization via modification to the contract from CO.
| 37 | RFP | 40 | E.6.3 Proposal Preparation | E.6.3.16 | Please further explain the role and responsibilities of the Alternate PV within an awarded VISN. | See response to question #36 above. | |
| 38 | RFP | 24 | Section E: Instruction of Offerors | Paragraph E.6.5.1. | The solicitation instructions for the Technical Proposal requires the offeror “to redact any reference to its full legal company name and shall reference itself as “Offeror” after the first usage of the company name.” Does this requirement only apply to the writing technical proposal or does it also apply to other written proposal documents, specifically the Price Narrative and Small Business Plan. | See response to question #34 above. | |
| 39 | 13 | Section III | A.3 | In the previous RFP the order cutoff was listed as 12pm. In this version it has been changed to 1pm. Would the VA consider changing this back to the commercial standard of 12pm? | No SOW change will be made. | ||
| 40 | 15 | Section III | A.9.b.i | For non drop ship supplies, may a PV refuse a cancelation request if product is already in transit? Our recommendation for this situation would be to have a customer initiate a return after receipt. | SOW changed: For non-drop ship supplies, the customer can initiate a cancellation request at any time up to shipment to the facility. See Amendment A0001. | ||
| 41 | 21 | Section IV | A.5.c | Why aren’t the Buyout requirements equivalent to the Core stocking requirement of 30 calendar days’ worth of inventory? | No SOW change will be made. | ||
| 42 | 32 | Section IV | Q.1 | Please clarify why two months worth of consumption data is required? What is meant by “report will not be updated retroactively”? | SOW changed: one month worth of consumption data is sufficient. Retroactively means that the report cannot be changed in the future once it is submitted. See Amendment A0001. | ||
| 43 | RFP | 43 | E.6.2.9. Proposal Submission | 5th paragraph labeled E.6.2.9.2. | Offeror recently participated in solicitation # 36C10G19R0022 that was submitted in July 2019 and later cancelled. For this solicitation we asked our customers to fill Past Performance Questionnaires as well. Will it be acceptable for the government to use the answers submitted by our customers recently? If so, will submitting Past Performance References suffice? | No, offerors must submit new Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). PPQs shall be submitted in accordance with Section E.6.6 Volume III Past Performance References. | |
| 44 | RFP | 46 | Alternate PV: | 6 | Can an offeror be considered an Alternate PV if its holding company is awarded PV of other VISNS? | According to Section E.8 Alternate PV: To receive consideration as an Alternate PV, the Offeror must receive an award as a Primary PV for at least one CLIN (VISN). Primary and Alternate PV evaluations will be conducted independently. For a given CLIN, the Government will first evaluate all offers and make Primary PV award determinations. Subsequently, the Government will evaluate offers received for Alternate PVs from the Primary PV awardees. | |
| 45 | The MSPV 2.0 Prime Vendor Distribution RFP 36C10G19R0050 includes the terms noted below. These terms essentially allow the awarded PV’s to charge the distribution fee to the VA’s as well as demand better pricing than the published formulary list price from the BPA holders. If these BPA’s are awarded first and the PV’s are awarded second then the PV’s are going to go to all the BPA holders and demand the max 5% because they will have the upper hand. Yet, in the lab supplies solicitation, 36C24C19Q0035, one of the interested vendors specifically asks about this 5% capped fee and the government’s response was that the question is not applicable to this Supply RFQ. How is the question not applicable if it will directly impact the pricing that each vendor is offering for the items they are quoting for these MSPV 2.0 product category solicitations? Such fees were not allowed with MSPV NG. In addition, with the MSPV NG, the prices billed between MSPV’s and authorized suppliers for supplies was the formulary price listed on the formulary product file. Are the awarded BPA suppliers going to be forced to offer better than their BPA awarded prices to the MSPV’s awarded for MSPV 2.0? | Per SOW Section I.B.1.e PVs are authorized to charge commercial fees to suppliers, capped at 5%. This fee and all other terms and conditions will be agreed-upon between those parties based on commercial costs and any agreed-upon commercial fees, see SOW Section I.B.1.c. Additionally, the PV is required to bill the Goverment for all products at the stated price on the MSPV 2.0 Product List, which will be the price established under the MSPV 2.0 Supply BPAs, see SOW Section I.B.1.f | |||||
| 46 | SOW core list maintenance removing supplies | 22 | Section 4 | 3bii | The cancelled RFP allowed buyout up to 30 days, but this RFP is 15 days. Was this intended, since 30 days helps with fill rates. | Yes, 15 days is intentional. | |
| 47 | SOW scope | 5 | Section 1 | B1e | States 5% cap on supplied volume. Is the 5% cap based on the product list contract price or WAC price? If 5% is used on WAC, it could result in the equivalent of 10% on the product list contract cost. | SOW changed: The fee is 5% of the price on the MSPV 2.0 Product List. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 48 | SOW II.D.2 | ||||||
| SOW IV.D. | 12 of 71 | ||||||
| 24 of 71 | Section II. MSPV Business Processes |
Section IV. Work Requirements for Prime Vendors D.2
| D. New Authorized Customer Joining a Region during PoP | When a new Authorized Customer that joins a Region, the PV is allowed a 120-day implementation period for a new customer. However, per SOW Section II.D.2, if the Alternate PV is awarded a VISN, the Alternate PV will only have 60-day implementation period. Given that implementing an entire VISN is much larger undertaking than implementing a new Authorized Customer, would the Government consider extending the 60-day implementation period requirement to a 120-day implementation period requirement in SOW II.D.2? | SOW changed: new customer implementation is 60 days. See Amendment A0001. | |||||
| 49 | SOW | 4 and 5 | Scope | Section 1 B,(1) c&e | It is unknown what billing price will be required from the PV's in their commercial agreements. Typically commercial terms would standardize that cost at the manufacture's published WAC, but that it not always available. This has a significant affect on fees, as it is a question of, 5% of what? WAC can be 50% or higher than the contract price, more than doubling the fees in dollars and also as a percentage of the PV sales. This dynamic will greatly disadvantage some and overly advantage others both within the product suppliers and within the prime vendors (PV’s who choose to require inflated sale prices from Authorized Suppliers vs PV’s who would allow a SDVOSB to sell at their contracted price without chargeback). What will be done to control this significant issue? | See response to question #47 above. | |
| 50 | SOW | 10 | MSPV Business Processes | Section 2(B) | Removing the 60 day period to obtain a Commercial Agreement between PV and Authorized Supplier, with a requirement of notification within 2 days is unrealistic, especially since most current suppliers are under an NG agreement, which will have different terms as per MSPV 2.0. | No SOW change will be made. | |
| 51 | SOW | 9 | MSPV Business Processes | Section 2 (A) 2 | Since BAA purchases from small businesses do not need to meet TAA requirements, small business suppliers are able to propose non-TAA compliant supplies. Will PVs be able to accept and provide these BAA but not TAA compliant supplies on MSPV 2.0? | Requirement is defined in SOW and RFP; refer to SOW Section II.A.2. and RFP Section B.5. | |
| 52 | SOW | 12 | Section II. MSPV Business Processes | Paragraph D. #2. | In regards to a PV having the option to propose as an Alternate PV. If a PV is awarded an Alternate, is there any requirement to provide “back up” support to the Prime or is will the Alternate PV only provide support upon contract default? | No, backup support is not required; refer to SOW Section II.D. | |
| 53 | SOW | 30 | Section IV. Work Requirements for Prime Vendors | Paragraph O. # 3 Fill/Call | Fill/Call is not a typical commercial practice. Can you please give detail around the meaning of this requirement and why this is not an added value service that can be charged for? This is a significant increase in a manual process to call the customer and review each line that is back ordered and cancel remaining quantities. This now becomes more manual intervention that needs to be accounted for in customer service support. Back Order reports are typically given to the customer and the customer would review this information to coordinate killing of any remaining lines or quantities on back order. This also allows the product on Back Order to meet ESD's. | SOW changed: Fill/Call removed and Fill/Kill language revised. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 54 | SOW | 30 | Section IV. Work Requirements for Prime Vendors | Paragraph O. # 4 Fill/Kill | Fill/Kill in the commercial market is Fill all lines or kill the entire order. Not partial fills. Outside of not meeting the ESD of an order what is the difference between Fill/Call and Fill/Kill. To alleviate any confusion wouldn’t it make sense to combine the Fill/Call and Fill/Kill requirements under one requirement and allowing the backorder a chance to meet the ESD? If this remains a separate requirement than why would this not be charged for since this now becomes more manual intervention that needs to be accounted for in customer service support. | SOW changed: Fill/Call removed and Fill/Kill language revised. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 55 | SOW | 42 | Section V. MSPV 2.0 Program Spend | Directly under Table 2. | Why is VISN 20 an optional CLIN? | CLIN structure is designated as needed to meet the Government's requirements. | |
| 56 | SOW | 13 | Section III. VA Ordering Procedures | 2 | Minimum PO Order amount “Offerors shall include a minimum purchase order amount as a part of any proposal” and the minimum PO will be established in the PV contract upon award. The minimum order amount is made within the technical proposal of said offeror. Should this also be included in Attachment A and B for the CLIN Pricing? | SOW changed: offer shall include a minimum purchase amount in their technical volume/proposal. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 57 | SOW | 10 | Section II | C.1 | Since the VA has changed the way LUM can be loaded to core at the lowest UM from the last RFP, but PV’s must purchase from the supplier at the BULK UM, the potential exists for PV’s to get stuck with a lot of extra inventory that would not be able to be returned or resold. For example, if a VA is buying one EA of a case of 100, the PV could get stuck with 99 EA that could not be returned, resold, or otherwise used by the VA. Would the VA consider either adjusting the core LUM quantity to be equivalent to the UM a PV must purchase from a product supplier, or increasing the Buy-out requirements for the VA facilities to address this risk? | No SOW change will be made. | |
| 58 | SOW | 33 | R. Authorized Supplier Utilization Report | b. i. | When and how will the OEM be avialable to the prime vendor? Will the SAC provide this information for new product additions? | Refer to SOW Section IV.C for how MSPV 2.0 Product List will be managed. | |
| 59 | SOW | 36 | T. Fill Rate | 4th paragraph labeled 2. b | Metrics for order accuracy are divided into Core and Non Core, however, the unadjusted fill rate has the same calculation methodology for both item types. Will the SAC divided fill rate results according to core and non core? | Yes, two metrics use same formula, but they are two distinct and separate metrics. | |
| 60 | SOW | 41 | A. Estimated Program Spend | 3rd paragraph labeled 2. | This section mentions CLIN pricing for PR, however, attachments A & B CLIN pricing sheets have maps that include PR and US Virgin Islands. Please confirm in PR should consider US Virgin Islands when quoting. | PR is included, but US Virgin Islands is not; refer to SOW Attachment 1. | |
| 61 | SOW | 10 | A. Commercial Supplier Agreements for Medical Surgical Supplies | 2nd paragraph labeled 6. a. | This section states that; "if a supply is removed from the MSPV 2.0 Product List the PV may continue for up to 90 days from date of removal to distribute any units already of that supply in stock. These sales must be at the contract price in the MSPV 2.0 product list at the time of removal". Can the government clarify that this contract price will include the distribution fee? | The contract price in the MSPV 2.0 Product List does not include the distribution fee. However, if a PV distributes a product the associated distribution fee will be applied (CBD, LUM, etc.). | |
| 62 | SOW | 22 | 3. Core List Maintenance - Removing Supplies | 5th paragraph labeled b. ii | Buy-out requests are now limited to 15 calendar days worth of inventory (previously was 30 days). Will this requirement apply to overseas facilities? Transit times for merchandise increase with overseas shipping. | Yes, this requirement will apply to overseas facilities. | |
| 63 | SOW | 34 | S. Metrics | 3rd paragraph Description of section S. | The SOW states that the Prime Vendor and Alternate Prime Vendor performance will be assesed against 8 performance metrics. For Alternate Prime Vendor, cand the goverment confirm that performance measurement will begin once the Alternate Prime Vendor is notified and 60 days of implementation have passed? | SOW changed: metrics for alternate service do not begin until after the period of 60 days. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 64 | SOW | 10 | Supply Classification | C-1 | At what point is an item considered core for metric reporting? Please confirm: At the point that it is recognized it should be a core item by the PV or authorization from the facility? | Requirement is clearly defined in SOW; refer to Section IV.B.2. | |
| 65 | SOW | 10 | Supply Classification | C-1 | What is the timeline for the facility to authorize item? The facility's response time impacts the PVs ability to meet this requirement | Requirement is clearly defined in SOW; refer to Section II.C.1. | |
| 66 | SOW | 11 | Supply Classification | C-1a | Is the expectation that if one customer identifies item as Core all other facilities serviced from that distribution center get added as their core item as well? | SOW changed: Section has been moved from II.C.1. to II.C.2 and revised to clarify that these items will be treated as Non-Core. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 67 | SOW | 11 | Supply Classification | C-1a | What metric is PV held to for other facilities? In other words, if a facility identifies an item as core, but another facility serviced by the same distributin center has identified the same item as non core, which metric applies? | These items will be treated as Non-Core. The PV will be held to the Non-Core metrics. | |
| 68 | SOW | 11 | Supply Classification | C-1a | If other customers are purchasing this as a non-core item and the PV has consolidated usage, who is responsible for the inventory; the facilitiy who authorized or all facilities purchasing the item? | The PV is responsible for consolidating usage and managing inventory. | |
| 69 | SOW | 11 | Supply Classification | C-1a | Who has the final authority? See recommendations. | The PV is responsible for consolidating usage and managing inventory. | |
| 70 | SOW | 11 | Non-Core List: | C-2a / C-3a | Applies to both Core / Non-Core lists - Given that PV and facility are expected to work together, we request a requirement be included in the contract that the PV and the facility work jointly on this process and that a protocol be established to do so with timelines. Without a requirement for both sides to work together, this imposes a requirement on the PV over which they have no control. We can make the effort to work jointly and no response from the facility will delay and impede this process. Will there be a requirement that the PV and the facilities work together to establish a core/non core list? | No SOW change will be made. | |
| 71 | SOW | 12 | PV backorder protocol | D-1a | Any supplies not filled on the next scheduled delivery shall be held on backorder - is there intent to utilize this for Fill/Kill customers as well? | If authorized customer elects Fill/Kill there will be no backorders. SOW changed: Fill/Kill language revised. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 72 | SOW | Pg 12-13 | Contract/Delivery Orders | A-1a | Will the facility meet all requirements with Austin FSC and has tested to confirm EDI transactions flow thru FSC prior to submitting their request to the PV add location to our system. | Refer to SOW section III.A.1. | |
| 73 | SOW | Pg 12-13 | Order Cut-off Time | A-3 | Does this mean received by prime vendor by 1pm local VA facility time zone? | Refer to SOW section III.A.3. | |
| 74 | SOW | Pg 12-13 | Delivery | 10a i-ii | Is the contract being held to the preferred delivery hours or as stated on Page 16 Section 2a? Given that there are uncontrollable situations such as Accidents, Traffic, etc-- is it feasible to require a set time without a time period range embedded into the process? For example, under MSPV-NG the window for LUM delivery is within two hours. What are the exceptions to delivery hours other then perferred delivery time? | SOW changed: the times the facility has listed as their preferred window is the time the PV is required to deliver by. See Amendment A0001. | |
| 75 | SOW | 15 | Delivery | C-10 -a(i) | Clarify the by close of the next scheduled delivery day? what time is end of day? | This is established by PV and the facility; refer to SOW Section III.A.10. | |
| 76 | SOW | 19 | Contract Phase-in/out | A-2a | What is the facility timeframe to respond back to PV and provide the information Core and Non-core List medical/surgical supplies? | Refer to SOW Section II.B.1. | |
| 77 | SOW | 19 | Contract Phase-in/out | A-2d | In situations where the PV cannot form a commercial agreement, the PV must within two consecutive days provide to the Government a written report detailing those authorized suppliers that are not under commercial agreement. When does the two consecutive days start? | SOW changed: the PV must provide report within 2 consecutive days after knowing the commercial agreement cannot be formed. See Amendment A0001. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .