36C10G19R0050-0003001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C10G19R0050
About this file
36C10G19R0050 0003 Attachment 1 - Question and Answers - 25 Feb 2020.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 1
| ID | Paragraph (please reference RFP, SOW, or Attachments) | Page Number | Section Title | Paragraph Number | Offeror's Questions | Government Response | |
| 1 | Amendment 2 | 4 | 6 | Should the word "will" be changed to "may" or "should" in the following sentence? | |||
| If only one acceptable offer is received from a responsible, Small Business Concern, the CO will award directly to that firm, prior to the dissolution of the Small Business Set-Aside. | No changes will be made to the Solicitation. | ||||||
| 2 | Amendment 2 | 4 | 6 | What criteria will determine if a Small Business concern is "responsible". | Responsibility determinations for all prospective contractors will be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1. | ||
| 3 | Amendment 2 | 4 | 6 | What market research was utilized to determine the number of VISN's now designated as Set-Aside? | The Government utilized all market research completed in the the previous 12 months. | ||
| 4 | Amendment 2 | 3 | 2 | Why has the base period of performance changed from 10/1/2020 to 9/1/2020? Won't this cause an overlap between the Bridge and 2.0? | The base period start date was changed from 4/1/2020 to 9/1/2020. This change was necessary because of delays in the solicitation process. | ||
| 5 | Amendment 2 | 4 & 5 | E.6.1 | All | From reading this, the MSPV 2.0 solicitation is going back to the evaluation on the original solicitation 36C10G19R0022. Is this correct? | Solicitations 36C10G19R0022 and 36C10G19R0050 (Amendment 0002) have similar evaluation criteria, but not identical. All offerors shall adhere to the requirements prescribed in Solicitation 36C10G19R0050 only. | |
| 6 | 36C10G19R0022 Amendment E "Questions and Answers, Final" | All | Do the Government answers on this document apply to the statement of work for Amendment 2? | Solicitation 36C10G19R0022 is a cancelled solicitation. Offerors shall use Solicitation 36C10G19R0050 for all proposal and Statement of Work requirements. The most recent Statement of Work is contained in Amendment 0001. | |||
| 7 | The Government has two statements of work on the solicitation on beta.SAM.gov | All | There are two statements of work; one dated September 27, 2019 and the other dated October 18, 2019. Which one do we use? | The October 18, 2019 Statement of Work is the current version, incorporating changes from Amendment 0001. | |||
| 8 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | Page 52, paragraph E.6.8.6 allows offerors to submit “approved” commercial subcontracting plans. a. What is required if the "approved" plan does not include the specific requirements (i.e. percentages) of the MSPV 2.0 RFP? b. Should this section be revised to state that only approved plans that also fully meet the RFP requirements may be submitted? | If an offeror submits an approved commercial plan that does not meet the goals identified in Section E.6.8.6. they are required to clearly identify why the goals are not attainable per Section E.6.8.6. | |
| 9 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | How will all proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plans (SBSPs) be evaluated? | All subcontracting plans will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the Solicitation and pursuant to FAR 52.219-9 and VAAR 852.219-9. Prior to any award, VA OSDBU will review subcontracting plans. | |
| 10 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | Will an offeror’s prior subcontracting performance as shown in eSRS, especially for relevant past performance contracts, be used to assess the acceptability of the proposed plan? | Subcontracting plans will be evaluated as submitted by an offeror. eSRS may be used while conducting past performance evaluations. | |
| 11 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | Will VA OSDBU or SBA lead the reviews? | The Contracting Officer will lead the reviews. However, VA OSDBU will review subcontracting plans before any award is made. | |
| 12 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | 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? | All subcontracting plans will be approved prior to award. | |
| 13 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | We 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. Is that correct? | Yes, that is correct. | |
| 14 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | Does this mean that a large business must propose to subcontract 17.5% of the distribution services only (excluding supplies) in order to meet the small business subcontracting goal? | Yes, that is correct. | |
| 15 | RFP | 52 | Small Business Exception to Subcontracting Plan | E.6.8.6 | Since the Government 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 awarded contract, and a multi-VISN awarded contract that allows a prime to meet goals based on subcontracting across VISNs at different levels? | Yes, that is correct. | |
| 16 | s | 22 | VA Small Business Subcontracting Plan Minimum Requirements (Dec 2009) | C.11 | 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 SDVOSBs is 15% while the VA Subcontracting goal for SDVOSBs is only 5%. How are these widely divergent SDVOSB goals considered to be “commensurate”? This clearly appears to be at variance with the VAAR requirement. Is this an error? Was a deviation approved? | The subcontracting goals outlined in Table 3 represent the goals published by VA OSDBU. Please see - https://www.va.gov/osdbu/library/accomplishments.asp | ||||||
| 17 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | a. Why was this requirement added? b. What is the government’s legitimate minimum need that is met by the requirement to redact company names, personal names, and incumbency information? | This is not a new requirement. The requirement was in the initial release of Solicitation 36C10G19R0050 and was amended in Amendment 0001. Redaction after the first usage in the Technical proposal ensures anonymity of offerors in order to achieve an unbiased evaluation of the technical solution and overall approach to the solicitation requirements. | |
| 18 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | How will the government fairly and rationally consider the technical risk of a proposal if it excludes evidence of a technical proposal’s record of success as an incumbent? | In accordance with Sections E.6.6. and E.8 Factor 3 - Past Performance, performance as an incumbent will be evaluated in the past performance evaluation | |
| 19 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | How will the government ensure offerors are treated equally and no offerors are given an unfair competitive advantage if non-incumbent experience can be specifically identified in the proposal but incumbent experience must be redacted | In accordance with Section E.8 of the Solicitation, experience is not being evaluated for an offeror's technical proposal. Technical proposals are being evaluated for Feasibility of Approach, Understanding of the Requirement, and Completeness. | |
| 20 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | Do offerors need to redact incumbent information from past performance references? If so, how will the government accurately access the relevance of a past performance efforts if all references to incumbency are redacted? | No, there is no requirement to redact any information from the past performance references. | |
| 21 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | How should offerors interpret the requirement to redact “Information identifying the Prime Offeror or any proposed subcontractors' status as a current incumbent on the MSPV-NG contract vehicle”? "information identifying" depends on how well one knows a contractor, as well as many other factors. Does this require removal of any information that could possibly? probably? likely? directly? indirectly? be considered "identifying information"? | In accordance with Section E.6.5.1. of the Solicitation, any information identifying the Prime Offeror or any proposed subcontractors' status as a current incumbent on the MSPV-NG contract vehicle shall be redacted. | |
| 22 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | How can the incumbent describe its successful technical approach in the similar incumbent effort under such a requirement? | As stated in question 19 above, all offeror's technical proposals are being evaluated for Feasibility of Approach, Understanding of the Requirement, and Completeness. | |
| 23 | RFP | 49 | Technical Proposal | E.6.5.1 | How can the incumbent describe its “transition plan” (E.6.5.6) and not reveal that it is the incumbent? | The requirements of the Draft Transition Plan required in Section E.6.5.6. and further described in Section IV.A.2 of the Statement of Work can be clearly described without revealing an offeror's status as an incumbent. |
&"-,Bold"&20ATTACHMENT I MS Excel Question and Answer Template
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .