36C10X18R0141-00001000.docx

FedBizOpps Amendment to a Previous Combined Solicitation

CLASSIFICATION CODE

SUBJECT

CONTRACTING OFFICE'S

ZIP-CODE

SOLICITATION NUMBER

BASE NOTICE TYPE

RESPONSE DATE (MM-DD-YYYY)

ARCHIVE

DAYS AFTER THE RESPONSE DATE

RECOVERY ACT FUNDS

SET-ASIDE

NAICS CODE

CONTRACTING OFFICE

ADDRESS

POINT OF CONTACT

(POC Information Automatically Filled from User Profile Unless Entered)

DESCRIPTION

See Attachment

AGENCY'S URL

URL DESCRIPTION

AGENCY CONTACT'S EMAIL

ADDRESS

EMAIL DESCRIPTION

ADDRESS

POSTAL CODE

COUNTRY

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

GENERAL INFORMATION

PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

* = Required Field FedBizOpps Amendment to a Previous Combined Solicitation Rev. March 2010 R CONTRACT: OSDBU Verification Transformation Support Services - Onboard contractor 21703 36C10X18R0141 06-15-2018 N 541611 Strategic Acquisition Center - Frederick Department of Veterans Affairs 321 Ballenger Center Drive, Suite 125 Frederick MD 21703 Corey Mann corey.mann@va.gov Robert Cody robert.cody2@va.gov 36C10X18R0141 0001

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE

7. ADMINISTERED BY

2.

AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE

OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF

CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE

CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV.

11/2016) is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office.

is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITE M 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR

43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes r eference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

BY

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14.

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME

AND TITLE OF SIGNER

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30

PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243 (Type or print) (Type or print) (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (If other than Item 6) (Specify type of modification and authority) (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS

OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer) 00001 Strategic Acquisition Center - Frederick Department of Veterans Affairs 321 Ballenger Center Drive, Suite 125 Frederick MD 21703 Strategic Acquisition Center - Frederick Department of Veterans Affairs 321 Ballenger Center Drive, Suite 125 Frederick MD 21703 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C10X18R0141

X X See CONTINUATION Page The purpose of this modification is to provide responses to vendor questions and remind offerors that they must comply with the requirements of VAAR 852.209-70 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (JAN 2008)

See Continuation pages for responses to vendor questions.

Page 1 of

CONTINUATION PAGE

VTSP On-Ramping Vendor Questions and Responses

1. Is an incumbent contractor currently performing these services or if this is a new requirement. If there is an incumbent, could you please provide the contract number?

RESPONSE: Yes, there is an incumbent contractor currently providing these services. The relevant contract number is VA119A-17-D-0024.

2. I don’t understand the solicitation. Is it to recertify ones company as a SDVOSB OR VOSB? Is it to become one who guides companies through the process of certification? If the later, what business advantage does this give?

RESPONSE: A description of the work is contained in the solicitation Performance Work Statement

3. If there is an incumbent who are they and how long have they been performing these tasks?

RESPONSE: GCC Technologies is currently the only contract holder under the IDIQ.The contract has been active for approximately 1 year and 3 months.

4. What is the historical expenditure on the previous contract supporting this initiative?

RESPONSE: All publically available price information can be found in the Federal Procurement Date System – Next Generation (FPDS-NG).

5. This is a multiple award IDIQ, how many (#) of awards are planned?

RESPONSE: Two contracts were originally awarded under this IDIQ on February 15, 2017, which was the intended number of awards. One of the two contract holders is no longer a contract holder under the IDIQ. Therefore, there is currently only one IDIQ contract holder currently performing under the IDIQ. The purpose of the current solicitation is to on-ramp an additional contract holder to participate with the existing contract holder under the IDIQ, returning the IDIQ to the intended two contract holders.

6. It is stated that " It is preferred that the contractor facility be located within 50 miles of 12th Floor, 801 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20001." and "Work at any other location (telework) requires a waiver approved in writing by the COR". Our primary facilities are not in Washington, DC although in the United States what are the exceptions that allow for telework to be supported?

RESPONSE: Telework may be granted only after all training and certification is accomplished as a minimum. All training and certification testing is accomplished in Washington DC. Training can take up to 45 days or longer depending on individual skill. All contractors must have the ability to train and complete testing in Washington DC in person. Further, teleworking can be granted and then revoked if contract deliverable standards are not being upheld. Extra training may be required in Washington DC if individual certifications are revoked. As such, it is “preferred” that the contractor be within 50 miles to help facilitate training and certification requirements. Even more, all Government furnished equipment must be picked up in Washington DC. This can be a multiple day process. Finally, all telework requests will be granted and maintained on a case by case basis.

7. After reviewing the detailed process chart, we have the following questions:

a. Step 100.1D does not add to 100% requests. Sum of Re-verification (10.86%) + New Cases (83.72%) + Change Requests (0.14%) = 94.72%. Could the Government clarify? RESPONSE: Generally it is an average: In general Reverification: 10 % New Cases 85% Change Request 5%.

b. Step 400.0 Case Analyst Creates a system task for the intake analyst is missing times. Could the Government provide? RESPONSE: Assigning a task should take no more than 5 minutes

c. Step 400.1 Case Analyst Conducts Full Assessment is missing times. Could the Government provide? RESPONSE: A full assessment time is difficult to provide due to numerous variables. Depends on experience and diligence of the Case Analyst (CA), complexity of case, Veteran issues, number of cases assigned to the CA, and timeliness and ability of CA to get accurate answers from Senior Analysts (SA) or Team Leads. In general we have found that an experienced CA with a fairly straight forward case can complete about .6-.7 cases a day. Newly trained CA’s sometimes can only do .25 to .4 cases a day. Highly skilled CA’s have been known to complete 1.1 cases per day. This does not include time waiting for Veteran responses.

d. Step 400.2D needs percentages for escalation. Could the Government provide? RESPONSE: Over the Past 6 plus years escalation is required on 30-40% of the cases.

e. Step 300.4D needs percentages for yes/no. Could the Government provide? RESPONSE: None available.

f. Step 300.3 Portfolio Manager reviews case is missing times. Could the Government provide? RESPONSE: Case Review can take as little as 1 hour in a simple case and up to 6-8 hours on a complex case.

g. Step 400.5D Clarifying documents needed divides into 50% Yes and 5% No, missing 45%. Could the Government clarify or adjust? RESPONSE: These are accurate numbers.

8. Reference: Attachment B Training Certification Criteria/ Training Plan, A. Initial Certification Process, 1. “contractors shall not be permitted to prepare case equivalent work or have unsupervised access to the applications prior to certification.”

a. With adequate supervision, what components of the process can analysts support without Certification? RESPONSE: None.

b. What defines supervised versus unsupervised access to the applications? RESPONSE: Means that before working a case all must be certified

9. Reference: Attachment B Training Certification Criteria/ Training Plan, A. Initial Certification Process, 6. “The contractor shall complete initial training and certification of staff members to include VA credentialing, onboarding, and badging within 45 calendar days of award of the contract.”

a. What is the anticipated length of time to complete the initial CVE sponsored Training and obtain Certification? RESPONSE: At a minimum 45 days as described above. However if the individual has trouble with certification principles or the process it can be much longer. Learning the process and the regulation principles takes some longer than others. In the past CVE has seen individuals become proficient as quickly as 30 days or less (Usually those with legal experience). Others have taken as long as 6 months. Some never became qualified.

b. How long does it take for the average suitability determination to happen? RESPONSE: See Prior response

c. If a contractor employee completes training and certification, what activities can they support before suitability is established (and therefore gaining system access)? RESPONSE: Training only.

10. Reference: Section E.1 Instructions to Offers Volume II Performance Risk “The contracts may be held by any member of the proposed vendor structure.” And Section E.14 Evaluation Approach Volume II Performance Risk “Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as prime contractor experience or past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement.” These statements appear to contradict each other and the second statement is not clear.

a. Can the Government please clarify the meaning of the second statement? RESPONSE: According to Section E.14, “The Government will consider experience and past performance for the proposed prime contractor to be significantly more important.” The statement, “Projects performed by contractors other than the offeror, such as teaming partners or subcontractors, will not be evaluated as prime contractor experience or past performance, unless those other contractors are part of a joint venture offeror as demonstrated by a signed joint venture agreement”, means that past performance submitted for ONLY the contractor identified in Block 14 of this SF 1449 will be considered “significantly more important” as the prime contractor for this current requirement, except in the case of Joint Ventures with a signed joint venture agreement.

b. Is it the Government’s intention to not count subcontractor past performance at all as a part of the evaluation? RESPONSE: See above response. The solicitation states that “The contracts may be held by any member of the proposed vendor structure.” However, only past performance from the prime contractor (contractor identified in Block 14 of this SF 1449) will be considered “significantly more important.”

c. Is it the Government’s intention to not count work performed AS a subcontractor as past performance? RESPONSE: The solicitation states that “The contracts may be held with Federal, State, and local governments or private entities and may represent prime contracts, task/delivery orders, or subcontracts.”

d. As there are many larger businesses with highly relevant experience who wish to mentor growing SDVOSB businesses, it seems advantageous for subcontractor past performance to be evaluated. Many larger businesses participated in earlier iterations of this program and could offer support and experience that would greatly reduce the risk of the program. Would the Government please consider evaluating subcontractor past performance? RESPONSE: See above responses.

11. Reference: All. Question: What companies provided an RFI response?

RESPONSE: The Government will not release that information.

12. Reference: All. Question: What companies provided acquisition support for the RFI and/or RFP?

RESPONSE: See response to question # 29.

13. Reference: All. Question: What companies have an Organizational Conflict of Interest due to their participation in support of the RFI or RFP?

RESPONSE: See response to question # 29.

14. Reference: Contractor Personnel Security Requirements. “The contractor shall bear the expense of obtaining background investigations.” To establish our cost of doing business, what is the cost of each investigation when submitted through the COR?

RESPONSE: The cost for Tier 2S (Standard MBI) is $1,747.

15. What contractors are currently performing Quality Assurance reviews over the process?

RESPONSE: None. QA is done by Federal Workers.

16. Do these contractors have an organizational conflict of interest that prevents them from performing this work due to their need for unbiased review of the program results?

RESPONSE: See response to question # 15.

17. Reference: Section B.3 PWS requires that all work be performed in VEMS which replaces VCMS. Attachment H, Federal Comprehensive Case Completion Report (CCCR) Review Process, is dated October 26, 2016 and is based on use of VCMS. Changes in workflow and capabilities affect contract PKIs and contractor payments which have a direct and significant impact on proposed prices, contractor risk and contractor ROI. Paragraph 3.1 identifies areas of substantive areas. Please provide examples of interpretive disagreements and what criteria/thresholds form the basis of reasonable justification and a determination that an interpretive disagreement cannot be reasonably justified.

RESPONSE: An example of a substantive objective interpretive disagreement that would not be justified:

A case where factors of undue influence are clearly present but never discussed by the CA or SA. For example: A case exists where both the Veteran Owner company and the minority non Veteran owner has a company that share a work space, workers, phone number, equipment, and has shared contracts/work that has possible pass through implications that is not discussed in the case findings or questioned back to Veteran for further explanation. Although this case issue is a subjective issue the case fact patterns clearly show a requirement for further exploration, and so if it is not “dealt with” in the case review by the contractor and a Federal Reviewer identifies the problem, the case will most likely be deemed a rejection.

18. A detailed analysis model of the process, workflow and effort using VCMS was provided as an attachment to the original RFP. These models are critical to accurate projection of contractor staffing and, therefore, costs. How will VEMS affect these models?

RESPONSE: All the documentation necessary to project contractor staffing and costs are included in or attached to the current solicitation.

19. Reference: RFP Section B.1.E – Future Competitions. Paragraph B.1.E states that in performing this IDIQ that contractors may gain access to procurement sensitive or program specific information.

a. Can the Government please clarify the types of procurement sensitive or program specific information that contractors may gain access to? RESPONSE: All Cases contain procurement sensitive or program specific information due to the required business documents (taxes, Operating Agreements etc.) - as well as PII and Veteran sensitive information.

b. In which specific steps of the process will contractors be exposed to in performance of this contract? RESPONSE: All steps.

20. Reference: RFP Section B.1.D Interrelationships of contractors states that contractors may be required to coordinate with other contractors providing services.

a. Are these other contractors OSDBU contractors, CVE contractors or both? RESPONSE: Both

b. How will these requirements be provided to the IDIQ contractor and other contractor? RESPONSE: Through the COR

c. Will the COR provide these requirements to the IDIQ contractor(s)? RESPONSE: Yes

21. Reference: Section 8.2 – Task 2 – MYVA Verification Application Processing; Paragraph 9.0 Case Equivalents and Definitions: VEMS. Paragraph 8.2 requires the contractor to process verification applications utilizing the Government Designated System and store all artifacts and documentation on the Government designated system. The VEMS definition notes that VEMS generates standard and ad hoc reports.

a. Do these reports include the CCCR and all reports identified in the definition description of VEMS, Paragraph 8.2.1.13 as well as the tables in Paragraph 9.0 for Case Equivalents and Case Multipliers? RESPONSE: VEMS and other required templates will be included for all necessary functions discussed.

b. Will IDIQ contractors have access to the aggregate data that will be required to prepare invoices for Case Equivalent payments as well as to QA and verify/validate information collected in the system? RESPONSE: Yes

22. Reference: Paragraph 9.0 Case Equivalents and Definitions. For case equivalents determined to be unacceptable on initial submission, are the CE multipliers the final payment or is a full payment invoiced after rework submission and acceptance?

RESPONSE: If a CCCR is rejected, any cases not accepted on first submission or which do not meet the required delivery timelines and/or standards shall be invoiced in accordance with the Case Equivalent Multipliers as notated in table for CEs Unacceptable on Initial Submission

23. Reference: All. The RFP, PWS and attachments have extensive reference to contractor interactions with VEMS.

a. Has the Government tested sufficient caseloads in a pilot-type environment sufficient to establish a baseline for estimating level of effort, timelines and skill/experience requirements? RESPONSE: Yes, see response to question 7.c

b. If not, will the Government provide a walkthrough of contractor interactions so that offerors can adequately prepare a cost, risk and price proposal? RESPONSE: No.

24. Reference: 8.2.1.10.b. What is an “authoritative” recommendation for approval? RESPONSE: An “authoritative” recommendation is one with a high degree of confidence.

25. Reference: Work Instructions, workflow and labor categories

a. Task Closure: In VEMS, what constitutes a “Task?” How are tasks initially assigned? RESPONSE: Task is any assignment in VEMS within the process. Tasks are assigned by VEMS.

b. What is a “Case Worker” and how does it map to the PWS labor categories? RESPONSE: Case Worker is a general descriptive phrase to include all contract workers within the process (Intake Analysts, CA, SA, Team Lead, etc).

c. The labor categories’ descriptions provide detailed responsibilities requiring extensive and continual interaction with VCMS (VEMS). How do the functions/capabilities in each of the labor category descriptions interact with VEMS and map to work instructions? RESPONSE: Please review the work instructions. Explanation for each labor category can be derived there.

26. Reference: VEMS

a. Please confirm that VEMS collects and tracks contractor case performance metrics used for evaluation of individual case equivalents and overall contractor QA performance. RESPONSE: VEMS will provide capability to collect and track case performance metrics.

b. Will the contractor have access to enable verification and validation of this data? RESPONSE: Yes

27. Reference: B.3.12.0 Personnel Requirements Senior Analyst. We recognize that in some exceptional fact patterns, interpretive justifications may require legal advice or opinions. However, the labor category descriptions for Senior Analyst do not appear to require the Senior Analyst to provide either legal opinion or legal advice.

a. Please clarify what Senior Analyst tasks, guidance or decisions can only be addressed by a Juris Doctor that could not be addressed by an experienced team leader, experienced Verification Assistance Counselor or equivalent? RESPONSE: Senior Analysts and Team Leads must be JD’s to answer the complex case questions. The government has found this is the best way to maintain efficiency.

b. Would the Government please consider removing the Juris Doctor requirement for the Senior Analyst? RESPONSE: The Government will not remove the requirement.

28. Reference: B.3.12.0 Personnel Requirements Team Leader. We recognize that in some exceptional fact patterns, interpretive justifications may require legal advice or opinions. However, the labor category descriptions for Team Leader do not appear to require the Team Leader to provide either legal opinion or legal advice.

a. Please clarify what Team Leader tasks, guidance or decisions can only be addressed by a Juris Doctor that could not be addressed by an experienced team leader, experienced Verification Assistance Counselor or equivalent? RESPONSE: See answer 27a.

b. Would the Government please consider removing the Juris Doctor requirement for the Team Leader? RESPONSE: The Government will not remove the requirement.

29. Reference: Acquisition process and current OSDBU/CVE contractors. There are numerous steps and documents in the VA acquisition process that may be either performed or supported by contractor personnel. We recognize that not all efforts will create organizational conflicts of interest or access to information that will provide an unfair competitive advantage. Please provide a list of all OSDBU and CVE contractors and what role(s) they played in support of each of the acquisition process steps and document(s) preparation including all phases of market research, PWS development, RFP attachment development, budget preparation, preparation of acquisition documentation, etc.

RESPONSE: Contractors were not involved with activities such as Market Research, PWS Development, or Budget Preparation Activities that would provide an unfair competitive advantage. While contractor support was utilized to develop Work Instructions and Work Flow, these are now provided with the RFP and all contractors have equal access to this information.

30. Reference: PWS, Labor Categories and Workflow. The PWS specifies that all work is to be performed in VEMS. How does a contractor employee access a document, review the document, collect comments and submit comments?

RESPONSE: Log into VEMS and follow the Work instruction. VEMS is a Microsoft based Customer Relation Module (CRM).

31. Is there QA/QC review process in VEMS for a contractor to submit his/her review to contractor CMT or QA/QC personnel for review and correction prior to preparation and inclusion in a required report?

RESPONSE: Contractor is required to have a QA/QC process in house. Each deliverable will then be given to a Federal Reviewer for review.

32. What capabilities exist within VEMS to support the collection of data/documents for inclusion in each of the required Reports?

RESPONSE: Most reports can be built within VEMS.

33. Are there companies being off-boarded from the current IDIQ contract, if so, why?

RESPONSE: See response to question # 5.

34. Why is the government adding 2 additional companies to the current IDIQ?

RESPONSE: See response to question # 5. The Government will only be awarding one contract via this solicitation.

35. What are some of the most significant challenges the government and/or current IDIQ awardees are experiencing on the current IDIQ?

RESPONSE: The biggest challenge to any contractor is finding, training, and retaining the right people that can accomplish the process accurately and on time with the required customer service to the Veteran business population. CA’s must have great attention to detail, learn the regulation and interpretations by fact pattern, be able to efficiently follow a complicated process, understand how business documents are viewed in terms of the applicable regulations, be able to professionally articulate findings verbally and orally to Veterans and juggle 15-20 cases in a queue at any one time. SA’s and Team Leads must be able to do all of the aforementioned, give advice as necessary, handle and finish the harder complex cases, and support subordinate workers (CA’s). Contractor senior management should be prepared to have a constant hiring plan to replace outgoing (leaving or non-performing workers). In A case load of more than 16-20 cases per worker at any one time usually overloads the worker and leads to case stall. If contractor management does not maintain qualified Case Analysts to keep queues below 15-20 cases per Case Analyst, the possibility of failure increases significantly. Further, during initial training periods 1-3 cases per worker is desirable to allow workers to learn and become proficient before ramping up to 16-20 case load per analyst. Success depends on proper oversight (management) of each case ensuring cases never stall leading to a backlog. Internal training, QA/QC and feedback from Federal reviews is important to ensure accuracy. Meeting regularly with Federal Leadership to discuss and follow remedies for issues concerning timeliness and accuracy.

36. Page 8, Paragraph (7), states “The anticipated case load will be divided amongst the two IDIQ awardees, with each receiving a task order award. The anticipated initial case load is 900 cases (650 Case Equivalents) per month for four months.” -- Initial case load of 900 VS. 650 Case Equivalents per month X 4 months = 2,600 Case Equivalents. Will the government please clarify the number of Case Equivalents?

RESPONSE: The correlation of cases-to-CEs is an ever-evolving ratio based on complexity (and exit point) of any given case. The ratio of 1.3846 cases-to-a-CE (or, 900 cases to 650 CEs) will constantly be captured/reviewed/evaluated. In addition, for purposes of this solicitation, contractors should focus attention on the following language from Paragraph (7), “When an award results from the onboarding of a contractor, an initial task order will be issued at the time of award in an amount necessary to at least satisfy the minimum IDIQ guarantee. Cases will be assigned at the Program Office’s discretion based on the on-ramped awardee’s mission capability after the 45 day ramp up period has expired. The initial case load will be used to determine the readiness of the awardee to respond to subsequent TOPRs.”

37. Page 9, Paragraph C. (2), states “the maximum aggregate value of all awards and task orders under this program totaled $58,000,000.00 of which $25,393,939.88 has been obligated as of May 15, 2018. The ceiling is neither divided nor multiplied by the number of awardees. The remaining value is $32,606,060.12.” -- If there are 4 remaining years left on the current IDIQ:

a. Was the government’s burn rate $25,393,939.88 for one year? RESPONSE: No

b. If so, with 4 remaining years on the IDIQ:

i. does the government see a significant decrease in anticipated burn rate so as to not exceed the $58M ceiling, or; RESPONSE: Reference response (a) above.

ii. does the government anticipate the need to increase the IDIQ contract ceiling to ensure continuity of services throughout the life of the IDIQ, another 4 years, or; RESPONSE: Reference response (a) above.

iii. does the government anticipate resoliciting and issuing a new IDIQ contract once the ceiling of $58M is reached and if so; RESPONSE: Reference response (a) above.

iv. When does the government anticipate reaching the $58M ceiling? RESPONSE: The Government anticipates the contract will go to its full term without exceeding the $58M ceiling.

38. In the base year IDIQ contract, how many CE’s were completed?

RESPONSE: In the base year of the IDIQ, approximately 6509 were completed.

39. Since inception of the current IDIQ, what percentage of CE’s have been found to be unacceptable on initial submission requiring contractor discounts for work performed to the government?

RESPONSE: Since the inception of the current IDIQ, there have been approximately 95 rejected CCCRs.

40. Since inception of the current IDIQ, what percentage of the unacceptable CE’s have been based on late submission vs. not meeting expected standards?

RESPONSE: Since the inception of the IDIQ, approximately 47 CEs were unacceptable based on late submission.

41. Will the government consider a proposal submission from a SDVOSB – CVE certified - Joint Venture (JV) created and approved through the All-Small Business Mentor/Protégé program? Both organizations with which comprise the JV are also CVE-certified SDVOSB’s.

RESPONSE: Submissions from Joint Ventures may be accepted; however, joint ventures must meet all statutory and regulatory requirements as a VIP verified entity in order to be eligible to propose as an SDVOSB. See https://www.va.gov/OSDBU/docs/UnderstandingJointVentureMentorProtegeAgreementEligibility.pdf for guidance.

42. Will awardees of this solicitation be excluded from consideration of the VA OSDBU CVE Verification on-site verification opportunity?

RESPONSE: There is no blanket exclusion from the VA OSDBU CVE Verification on-site verification opportunity.

43. How many certified VOB does the CVE currently have?

RESPONSE: There are currently 14,046 verified firms in VIP as (5/22/18)

44. How are these certifications and renewals distributed over time? Assuming a 3 year recertification cycle: How many would come up for recertification in the first 12 months after contract placement? How many in the period between 12 months - 24 months? How many in the period between 24 months and 36 months?

RESPONSE: All cases are assigned on time to the contactor to start processing.

1st Year REV’s average 1600-2000 2nd Year REV’s average 1800-2400 3rd Year REV’s average 1900-2500

45. Based on past experience, how many new applications are submitted each year? How many lapse/expire? I know they have some percentages on the flow chart diagram, but I'd like them to answer the questions directly. The bid document states that 900 - 1200 cases per month are the anticipated workload. However, they can demand higher or lower on demand.

RESPONSE: The average is between 5700-6600 submitted within the past 2 years.

46. Must the bid proposal adhere to the existing process as outlined in the bid package or will they consider different methods that increase efficiency without decreasing accuracy as well as potentially lower cost? Would we need to submit one proposal that addresses their processes as is and another that offers alternative methods?

RESPONSE: Bid proposal must follow current process as outlined in solicitation

47. Would they be willing to allow us direct (electronic on demand) access to any required records (DD214, OPM , etc.)? In other words, would they allow us to directly request records on the Vet's behalf? Right now, only certain persons can make direct requests. And/or, would they grant us permission to use expedited document request channels (sometimes referred to as "emergency priority access") with the various records agencies and locations as a standard operating procedure (every day--not just exceptions)?

RESPONSE: Bid proposal must follow current process as outlined in solicitation.

48. The flowchart shows that PTAC's have a role in this process. Does that role have to stay with the PTAC or does KKA have to provide that role in this proposal? If PTAC's are to continue to be included as part of the delivery process, could one PTAC do this for the entire county--like Flint? After all, a case could be made that they are the "best PTAC" in the country. Who would fund this? Bottom line, it's hard to figure out where the bidder's responsibility begins and ends. How many of the existing roles (other organizations) are required to be a retained as part of the proposal vs which roles can be supplied by the bidder using our own personnel?

RESPONSE: Bid proposal must follow current process as outlined in solicitation.