36C10X20R0002-0008001.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet Posted
- Attached to
- VHA Integrated Healthcare Transformation (IHT)
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X20R0002
About this file
This is a solicitation for the VHA Integrated Healthcare Transformation (IHT) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) multiple award contract. The solicitation seeks proposals for a full range of integrated healthcare transformation services across three functional categories: Strategic Planning and Organizational Change; Data Analytics and Program Evaluation; and Health Services Research. The VA intends to award up to five IDIQ contracts with a five-year base period and five one-year options. Offerors must propose a Veteran Integrated Team led by a VITAL that demonstrates capability across all areas of Functional Category I. Price will be evaluated for labor rates and the sample task order.
36C10X20R0002 0008 AMENDMENT 0008 - ATTACHMENT 1 - PHASE II QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.xlsx
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 69 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Questions for CO
| Attachment I- RFP Questions.xls | ||||||
| Phase II Vendor Questions and Government Responses | ||||||
| Item (Add rows as needed) | RFP Section (A,B,C,D,E) | Document (PWS, RFP Attachment A, E.1 Quote Submission Instructions, etc.) | RFP Page | paragraph/ section | Question for Contracting Officer | Government Response |
| example | C-Contract Clauses | Clause C.1 | 148 | 1 | Describe Question Here | |
| 1 | D | RFP Attachment D, Proposal Forms | Att. D page 23 | D.4 Capability Narrative (PP) | The fillable form cannot be completed as requested. When the 'Prime' or 'Subcontractor' button is marked in the categrory "WORK WAS PERFORMED AS THE:", then marking a button in the "Was a CPARS/PPIRS Completed?:" category results in the Prime or Subcontractor button becoming unmarked. Only one of the five available buttons can be checked, when two are requested/required (one in each category). Will a revised form be issued? | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. |
| 2 | Sample Task Order | RFP, Amendment 7 | Sample Task Order | N/A | Are Letters of Commitment required for the Sample Task Order? | No, letters of committment are not required as this a "SAMPLE" Task Order. |
| 3 | D | RFP Attachment D, Proposal Forms | 5, 6 | D.4 Capability Narrative (PP) | Some small business teaming partners are new companies, but are led and managed by seasoned professionals with highly relevant experience. Will the Government allow small business teaming partners to use the individual professional experience of their owners, executives and/or managers to be used as Past Performance? | Yes, since that member is a part of the company, that means they are able to use that experience. To demonstrate competence in a capability area, teams should submit their best team member example of related work and successes. Past performance should reflect the capability area. See Attachment "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" from Amendment 7, Page 95. |
| 4 | D | RFP Attachment D, Proposal Forms | 5, 6 | D.4 Capability Narrative (PP) | Would the Government please provide clarification on the difference between the 'Capability' section and the 'Past Performance' section in solicitation Attachment D4. This form seems to imply separating capabilities from the proof that shows in past performance. Is the Government asking vendors to only state capabilities in the 'Capability' section without adding supporting proof points? | Please refer to 36C10X20R0002 0007 AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 7 - ATTACHMENT L - CAPABILITY AREA CRITERIA.docx "When possible demonstrate capability by referencing successful past efforts, techniques employed, goals and outcomes (large-scale, integrated healthcare effort in a Government setting)." |
The Government will determine capability of VIT members based upon the quality of the technical capability and relevance of past performance information provided in the CAPABILITY NARRATIVE form. Page 95 Solicitation (Conformed)
| 5 | D | RFP, Amendment 7 | Attachment D | Proposal Forms, Page 4. | The instructions state, "For FCI only, a second capability form from another VIT member may be provided, if needed, to demonstrate more robust capability." Will the Government accept more than one additional capability form from other VITs? If yes, is there a limit to the number of additional capability forms the Government will collect? | In addition to the VITAL, one additional team member submission for Funtional Category I Capability Areas may be provided. See attachment "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" Page 90. |
| 6 | D | RFP, Amendment 7 | Attachment D | Proposal Forms, Page 4. | The instructions state, "For Functional Categories II and III the submission can be from any member of the VIT (to include VITAL) and should represent the strongest submission for the team. Only ONE capability form will be reviewed." Will the Government grant a higher rating for a submission from a VITAL as opposed to a non-VITAL team member? | For Functional Categories II and III, a VITAL submission will not be weighted higher than other team members. Each VIT will submit its strongest example |
(Capability from 1 team member) for each capability area regardless of proposed team member status.
7 D RFP, Amendment 7 Attachment D Proposal Forms, Page 4. The instructions state, "For Functional Category I (FC I) capability areas the submission must be from the VITAL. For FCI only, a second capability form from another VIT member may be provided, if needed, to demonstrate more robust capability. However, remember the VITAL must be found capable in all FC I capability areas to serve as VITAL. For Functional Categories II and III the submission can be from any member of the VIT (to include VITAL) and should represent the strongest submission for the team. Only ONE capability form will be reviewed." What is the maximum number of forms the Government will accept for all three Functional Categories combined? FC 1 - Two submissions (VITAL REQUIRED, one additional submission to demonstrate robustness permitted) FC 2 - One submission per capability area FC 3 - One submission per capability area
| 8 | Summary of Changes | RFP, Amendment 7 | Summary of Changes | Page 4 | The instructions state, "Therefore, based on the submission of the VIT PROPOSAL TEAM SUMMARY, and associated CAPABILITY NARRATIVE forms, and TASK ORDER submission the Government will evaluate the proposed VIT to determine the team’s level of robustness." How does the Government define level of robustness? With all things being equal, would the Government rate a team with more partners to support the Sample Task Order as more robust than a team with fewer partners to support the Sample Task Order? | For definition of robustness please refer to "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" page 96 Solicitation (Conformed) For the purposes of this evaluation, robustness refers to the quality and number of VIT members vetted and experienced in the various FCs and capability areas available to support multiple concurrent task orders simultaneously. |
| 9 | Summary of Changes | RFP, Amendment 7 | Summary of Changes | Page 5 | The instructions state, "Task 6. Implementation (Optional Task)" and "Include Task 7. National Deployment VAMC Site-Specific Implementation Plans (Optional Task) and Deliverables." Will the Government please explain its intent with the words "Optional Task"? | Optional Task - Refers to an Optional CLIN to be exercised at the discretion of the Government. |
| 10 | Summary of Changes | RFP, Amendment 7 | Summary of Changes | Page 5 | The instructions state, "Task 6. Implementation (Optional Task)" and "Include Task 7. National Deployment VAMC Site-Specific Implementation Plans (Optional Task) and Deliverables." Does the Government require/desire the Sample Task Order proposal to provide an approach to the Optional Tasks? | Yes |
| 11 | Summary of Changes | RFP, Amendment 7 | Summary of Changes | Page 4 | The instructions state, "Include additional language under Section D. Proposal Evaluation Approach, Phase II – Veteran Integrated Team (VIT) Proposal, Full Mission Capability include, “Each VIT will submit its strongest example (Capability from 1 team member) for each capability area. SDVOSB submissions will be weighted more favorably.” How will the Government measure weight in this context? Will SDVOSB past performance be evaluated more favorably than non-SDVOSB past performance even if the SDVOSB past performance were smaller in contract value (magnitude)? | SDVOSB submissions will be weighted more favorably has been removed. |
Revised to read as "Each VIT will submit its strongest example (Capability from 1 team member) for each capability area, regardless of Socioeconomic status."
See Summary of Changes for Amendment 0008
| 12 | Sample Task Order | RFP, Amendment 7 | Sample Task Order | Page 3 | The instructions state, "The Project Management Plan (PMP) portion will be included in the overall Healthcare Integration Plan and delivered within 10 calendar days after award or two (2) calendar days prior to k/o meeting. Health Systems Quality Control Plan (HSQCP) incorporating healthcare quality and safety elements that are identifiable, integrated with all other quality elements, and measurable." Does the Government require the HSQCP with the Sample Task Order proposal response, or is the HSQCP only required if/when the Sample Task Order is awarded in the future? | No, the HSQCP is a deliverable under Task 1 of the Sample Task Order. All tasks for the Sample Task Order would be completed after TO award (if this was a real task order). |
| 13 | Sample Task Order | RFP, Amendment 7 | Sample Task Order | Page 3 | The instructions state, "Place of Performance. Contractor must be able to support central Program Offices located in Washington DC as well as various VAMC s throughout the continental United States. Contractor will be notified of all locations and duty stations prior to solicitation." The solicitation has already been released; when will the Government provide the VISN locations for the Sample Task Order? | This is a sample task order. For actual task orders requiring work outside of the Washington, DC metro area travel will be reimbursed. |
| 14 | Price Workbook | Price Volume | All | All | Direct labor rates will vary throughout the country based on the cost of living, among several factors. In order for the Government to evaluate proposals on an equal basis, would the Government like vendors to choose a particular location/city (e.g., Washington, D.C. metro area) as a basis for direct labor rates? | Vendors should utilize their own basis for direct labor rates. The place of performance will be specified in each task order; task orders may require key personnel to be present in the DC area. Refer to "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" Page 17 . |
| 15 | Sample Task Order | RFP, Amendment 7 | Sample Task Order | Page 3 | It is anticipated that travel will be required for the initial evaluation and to monitor the implementation of projects at multiple VAMCs through the Continental United States. A travel schedule will be identified during the PM planning phase. Travel may be required with short notice to the contractor. Contractor must be able to accommodate dynamic and changing requirements that may entail travel to various VHA and VAMC facilities. " The solicitation has already been released; when will the Government provide the VISN locations for the Sample Task Order in order to allow the opportunity to determine travel and related costs? | Proposed travel expenses are not required as part of Sample Task Order pricing submission. |
| 16 | RFP | RFP | beta.sam.gov | N/A | An Amendment file was published to bet.sam.gov on December 2, 2019, but it is not accessible. The file does not have a description. Our staff cannot download that file. We have attempted to access the file from numerous computers in numerous locations. Will the Government please make the file accesible? | This requirement was being tested from the Federal Service Center Help Desk with attempting to show us how the new beta.sam.gov operates. This attachment is grayed out because it is inactive. The attachment was uploaded and immediately deleted but it still shows on the website. Vendors shall disregard this specific document attachment for it is the already posted as a link under amendment 0007 which was released on 11/22. |
| 17 | Sample Task PWS | 4 | 3 | Would the Government please clarify how the Master Schedule and Final PMP deliverable for Task 4 - Comprehensive Project Plan differs from the PMP deliverable for Task 1 - Healthcare Integration and Project Management Plan (HIPMP)? | Task 1 is the contracter PMP - the plan for accomplishing the individual tasks of the sample task order. Task 4 is the PMP to implement the findings from tasks 2 and 3. | |
| 18 | Sample Task PWS | 6 | Delivery Schedule | Would the Government please confirm the quantity of VISN Reports required as deliverables for Task 3? The table states that there are 5 VISN reports, however, the Scope section on page 2 states that the pilot will be at two VISNs rather than 5. | This is an error and will be corrected. |
The document should read "2" VISN reports.
| 19 | Sample Task PWS | 4 | Task 6 | Will the 5 VAMCs for the pilot implementation be from the same VISN? | Yes, the intent is that each of the two VISNs in the Sample Task Order are comprised of 5 VAMCs. | |
| 20 | Sample Task PWS | 6 | Delivery Schedule | (a) What is the expected duration for the Optional Task 6? The Weekly Update Brief is a FFP deliverable with a quantity of 1 per week for the duration of the Optional Task. | ||
| (b) Would the Government please provide additional information so offerors can determine the quantity and price appropriately? | For the purpose of the Sample Task Order, use a period of 6 months as estimated duration for Task 6. | |||||
| 21 | Sample Task PWS | 5 | Task 7 | (a) Would the Government please provide the quantity of VAMCs that will be included in Optional Task 7 - National Deployment VAMC Site-Specific Implementation Plan? | ||
| (b) Is the Government expecting that the SPS quality system will be implemented at the remaining ~160 VAMCs within a 12-month period? | For the purpose of the Sample Task Order, (a) National deployment would include all VAMCs - approximately 172. |
(b) Yes
| 22 | Sample Task PWS | 7 | Delivery Schedule | (a) Would the Government please provide additional information on the total quantity of FFP deliverables for Optional Task 7? The Program Implementation deliverable and Change Management Plan deliverable are FFP with a quantity of 1 per VAMC. | ||
| (b) How many VAMCs will be included in Task 7? | 172 | |||||
| 23 | Sample Task PWS | 7 | Delivery Schedule | The FFP Weekly Update Brief (6 months) has a quantity of 26. For pricing purposes, should offerors assume the duration of the Optional Task is 6 months? | The Sample Task Order has been updated to reflect bi-weekly update briefs (Qty 26). The Optional Task PoP is 1 year. | |
| 24 | Sample Task PWS | 7 | Delivery Schedule | The FFP Weekly Update Brief (6 months) has a quantity of 26. Is it the expectation that each individual VAMC will have a 6-month implementation period? | The Sample Task Order has been updated to reflect bi-weekly update briefs (Qty 26). The Optional Task PoP is 1 year. The offeror shall determine the implementation time period per VAMC, not to exceed a year. | |
| 25 | Sample Task PWS | 7 | Delivery Schedule | The Task 7 Final Report deliverable has a quantity of 1. Would the Government please clarify whether this quantity is 1 per VAMC or 1 total for the full option period? | 1 report summarizing the National deployment. | |
| 26 | Sample Task PWS | 2 | Scope | It is our understanding that the Scope includes supporting operations that adhere to ISO standards. Would the Government please confirm that obtaining ISO certification is not included within the Scope? | ISO Certification is not required but is preferred. | |
| 27 | Sample TO | 2 | Scope | What analyses currently exist with respect to sterilization processes, procedures, and other factors that we can use in our analysis? | The Government has no additional information at this time. | |
| 28 | Sample TO | 2 | Scope | To what does "provide support of healthcare executive correspondence and documentation" refer? | Please reference "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" Page 21, FC 1. 3.3.1.8 "Strategic Communications and Executive Support" | |
| 29 | Sample TO | 2 | Task 1 | The deliverable for Task 1 state: "1. Health Systems Quality Control Plan (HSQCP) incorporating healthcare quality and safety elements that are identifiable, integrated with all other quality elements, and measurable." With what other quality elements, plans, or initiatives must the evaluation interface? | The Government has no additional information at this time. | |
| 30 | Sample Task Pricing | Sample TO LOE tab | The pricing spreadsheet has only one row for Task 6, which includes both LH and FFP deliverables. How should offerors separate and price out the individual FFP deliverables? | Please see amended pricing worksheet posted. | ||
| 31 | RFQ - Sample Task Key Personnel | 87 | C. Proposal Submission Instructions | Will the government allow Sample Task Order key personnel resumes to be excluded from the 20-page allocation? | No. | |
| 32 | RFQ - IDIQ Key Personnel | 29 | 6.0 Key Personnel | (a) Would the Government please confirm that, at the IDIQ level, only the IDIQ Contract Manager is Key Personnel? | ||
| (b) Will the IDIQ Contract Manager's Key Personnel Biography (form D5) be the exclusive source of information to evaluate Key Personnel at the IDIQ level? | Key Personnel at the IDIQ level is the Contract Manager. On page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" the bullet should read as follows "The key personnel designated for this contract includes: |
• IDIQ Contract Manager, and
• One additional key personnel proposed by the VIT for base contract support.
33 RFQ - IDIQ Key Personnel 96 c. Key Personnel (a) In addition to the IDIQ Contract Manager, does the Government have a limit on the number of Key Personnel that can be submitted at the IDIQ level (e.g., NTE 10 staff)?
(b) How will additional IDIQ Key Personnel be evaluated?
| (c) Is there an advantage to providing additional IDIQ Key Personnel? | One additional Key Personnel may be identified and submitted. Key Personnel will be evaluated in accordance with Page 97, D. Proposal Evaluation Approach, Phase II VIT Proposal, C. Key Personnel. | ||||
| 34 | RFQ | 96 | d. Contract Management and Administration | (a) During Phase 1, offerors presented a response to "Contract Management and Administration." During Phase 2, should offerors provide any new or additional information? | |
| (b) How will the resubmission of responses for "Contract Management and Administration" be used in the Phase 2 evaluation? | Phase II is a seperate evaluation process. Phase II submissions for Contract Management and Administration should be drafted in response to Page 96 of the Soliciation (Conformed) and reflect a VIT approach | ||||
| 35 | RFQ | 91 | 10. Additional Instructions | (a) During Phase 1, offerors presented responses to each of the Functional Category 1 capability areas. During Phase 2, should offerors provide any new or additional information? | |
| (b) How will the resubmission of responses for Functional Category 1 capability areas be used in the Phase 2 evaluation? | (a) A response for FC 1 capability areas is required from the VITAL for Phase II. The same submission from Phase I may be used, or the vendor may modify the response. |
(b) Responses to FC1 capability areas will be evaluated as part of the criteria on page 95 of the solicitation (a. Full Mission Capability). Attachment L includes criteria to guide submissions.
| 36 | Attachment D Form | 23 | CPARS/PPIRS and Work Performed As | On page 23 of Attachment D (Capability Narrative (PP) form, offerors are unable to click the button next to "Yes," "No," or "Unknown," in response to the question "Was a CPARS/PPIRS Completed?" without resulting in the form changing our response to the question, "Work was performed as the," 6 rows above. Would the Government please consider adjusting the form? | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. | |
| 37 | D5: Key Personnel Biography Form | 8 | Key Personnel Role and Letter of Commitment | The bubbles to select the key personnel role and the letter of commitment appear to be linked. Offerors are unable to select one option from each field. Would the Government please consider adjusting the form to allow users to select a choice from each field? | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. | |
| 38 | D5: Key Personnel Biography Form | University, Level/Type of Degree, and Major/Field cells | In the university, level/type of degree, and major/field cells, offerors are unable to input content into the right-hand column. Would the Government please consider adjusting the form to allow text input into those fields? | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. | ||
| 39 | D3B: Capability Area - Team Summary Form | 7 | VIT Number | Would the Government please consider amending the form to make the VIT number an editable field? It is currently written into the template, and as such, does not currently allow for more than 12 partners without duplicating VIT number. Amending the form will enable better clarity on which VIT members are providing capability narratives and past performance. | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. | |
| 40 | D3B: Capability Area - Team Summary Form | 7 | CVE Verified checkbox | The CVE Verified checkbox checks or unchecks all boxes for all rows. Would the Government please consider amending the form to separate these check boxes? | Yes, this has been revised. See revised Proposal Form D. | |
| 41 | D3B: Capability Area - Team Summary Form | 7 | List capability areas to perform (e.g. 1A, 2D, 3H) | Would the Government please clarify that subcontractors are not limited to providing services to only those areas indicated in the last column, in which offerors list capability areas to perform? | The subcontractors are limited to providing the services indicated on D3B. | |
| 42 | n/a | n/a | n/a | How will the Government evaluate VITALs found to be non-viable during Phase 1? Will they be evaluated as a separate pool, or will they be evaluated against VITALs who were found viable in Phase 1? | All offerors will be evlauted in accordance with the criteria included in section D. Phase II - VIT proposal starting on page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007". Phase II is a distinct evaluation. All offerors will be evaluated in the same manner regardless of their viability assessment. | |
| 43 | E | E.3.B | 91 | 10.c | Capability Narratives - New business enterprises have very high capability that is valuable to supporting the VA's mission. THis contractor has experience with other VA provurements that allows NEw Entities to use the recent experience of the contractor's personnel as a referenceable past performance. Can the government elaborate on how new business enterprises should illustrate past performance, and should that past performance POC be the cognizant government contracting/program officer, or should the POC be the business at which those individuals were working? | The inclusion of past performance of contractor personnel is permitted. The absence of past performance for a new entity will not be evaluated negatively. Please refer to Form D4: Past Performance for required POC information. This should be the information for the entity for which work was performed. |
| 44 | E | E.3.B | 89 | What evaluation criteria did the government use to determine the viability of prospective VITALs in Phase-1? Was there a ranking/scale used to determine viability of prospective VITALs in Phase-1? If yes, what was it? | Please see Section D. Phase I - Viability Assessment starting on Page 92 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" for Phase I criteria. | |
| 45 | E | E.3.B | 89 | Because the government has not providing information to support their opinion of Phase-1 submittals, is the evaluation of Phase-2 submissions based only on the data provided at Phase-2? | All offerors will be evlauted in accordance with the criteria included in section D. Phase II - VIT proposal starting on page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007". Phase II is a distinct evaluation | |
| 46 | E | E.3.B | 89 | Does the government's opinion of Phase-1 have any weight, bearing, or influence - either positive or negative - on evaluations in Phase-2? | All offerors will be evlauted in accordance with the criteria included in section D. Phase II - VIT proposal starting on page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" Phase II is a distinct evaluation | |
| 47 | E | E.3.B | 89 | Will all submissions in Phase-2 be reviewed equally regardless of the results from Phase I? Will Phase I results have any bearing on source selection evaluation? | All offerors will be evlauted in accordance with the criteria included in section D. Phase II - VIT proposal starting on page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007". Phase II is a distinct evaluation | |
| 48 | E | E.3.B | 89 | How will the government rate the overall strength of the team (including subcontractors) for a company that did not receive a viable VITAL rating? | All offerors will be evlauted in accordance with the criteria included in section D. Phase II - VIT proposal starting on page 95 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007". Phase II is a distinct evaluation. | |
| 49 | E | E.3.B | 89 | Did the government have more confidence of an offeror's Phase-1 submission if they are a Joint Venture with a large business partner? | Please see Section D. Phase I - Viability Assessment starting on Page 92 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007" for Phase I criteria. Item 2. on page 94 specifically discusses JV submissions. | |
| 50 | D | 2 | Narrative | Would the government consider increasing the character counts for the Capability statements to 10,000 characters to allow adequate space to address the new requirements from Amendment 007? | At this time the character count will remain at 5000 per Capabilty Area. | |
| 51 | E | E.3.B.9 | 90 | How is the Sample Task Order evaluation weighted in relation to the overall source selection evaluation to determine an award of the IDIQ contract to an offeror? | The Sample Task Order is fifth in order of importance. See section E.3.A, Basis for Award, para 1 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007". | |
| 52 | E | E.3.B | 91 | 10.c | VIT members have many referencable commercial healthcare customers. The VIT members are under strict NDA and cannot disclose the name of their customer, sometimes due to the sensitive nature of the work the contractor is providing to remediate operational deficiencies. What is the government's experience or recommedation to submit this past performance while keeping the customer's name confidential, yet not receive a "neutral" past performance rating from the government becuase the reference is confidential? | In that instance please provide non confidential information such as contract: size, scope of work, award value, and geographical location. |
The Government will only accept past performance information/references that contains data sufficient to independently verify the accuracy of the submitted information.
| 53 | E | E.3.B | 91 | 10.c | Will the government treat all past performances equally even without CPARS? | Offerors submittals are not compared to each other. They are evaluated strictly in accordance with the information provided in section E of the solicitation. |
| 54 | E | E.3.B.9 | 90 | Sample Task Order - are the cover page, table of contents and figures, acryonmn list, and resumes outside of the defined page count? | No. | |
| 55 | E | E.3.B.9 | 90 | Sample task order - would the government add 3 extra pages to enable submitters to adequately address the new Task Area 7? | Not at this time. | |
| 56 | E | E.3.B | 91 | 10.c | Does the government need the PDFs to be submitted in an editable format? | An editable format is not required, please ensure complete response is viewable. |
| 57 | Unknown | SAM dot Gov site | The solicitation, in "Beta dot SAM dot Gov", was updated on Dec 2, 2019, to includes document 36C10X20R0002 0007.docx as an Attachment. All other files, to date, have been a Link to a document. The Dec 2 file is designated as "Public" but it is not retreivable from the Sam web site. Does this document contain relevant information to the solicitation? If so, please review and update to the solicitation in SAM so that contractors can download the file. | This requirement was being tested from the Federal Service Center Help Desk with attempting to show us how the new beta.sam.gov operates. This attachment is grayed out because it is inactive. The attachment was uploaded and immediately deleted but it still shows on the website. Vendors shall disregard this specific document attachment for it is the already posted as a link under amendment 0007 which was released on 11/22. | ||
| 58 | N/A | Attachment D | 3 | N/A | The D3A form only allows for only Joint-Venture information. Where should the VITAL enter their info? Should the VITAL enter the info as Member #1? | See revised Proposal Form D. |
| 59 | N/A | Attachment D | 5 | N/A | The D4 section requires a "Member Number (from Team Summary Table on Page 7)" for each Functional Capability Area. It is unclear if the VITAL should be included in the D3A form. Please clarify that the D3A summary should include both the VITAL and all VIT Members. | See revised Proposal Form D. |
| 60 | N/A | Attachment D | 7 | N/A | The D3B section appears on page 7 of the Adobe file. May we resort the forms in our Attachment D submission pages so it appears following Section D3A? | See revised Proposal Form D. |
| 61 | N/A | Attachment D | All | N/A | Please clarify that the "character" limits includes both spaces as well as characters. | Yes, character limits include both spaces and characters. |
| 62 | N/A | Attachment D | 6 | N/A | It is unclear if the "Program Manager’s Name, Email and, Telephone Number" in the D4 section is for the VIT Member or the Customer/Client/Agency referene. Please clarify. | Program Manager should reflect the Customer/Client/Agency . |
| 63 | 2. Scope and Purpose | PWS | 2 | 1 | VHA requires contractor support to design and execute two simultaneous pilot Sterile Processing Quality Management systems at two geographically separated Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISN); would the Contractor be privy to exactly which two VISNs? | For the purposes of hte sample Task Order that information is provided. Travel expense is not part of criteria for evaluation. |
| 64 | Sample Task Order | Attachment 5/ Attachment 6 | 8 | 1 | It is anticipated that travel will be required for the initial evaluation and to monitor the implementation of projects at multiple VAMCs through the Continental United States. Is travel pricing required with the submission of the Sample Task Order Pricing? If yes, will the Government provide a plug number for offeror's to use? | Travel pricing is not required. |
| 65 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 2 | 2 Scope | Will the Government please provide the average number of monthly sterilization transactions (recorded/tracked sterilization activities) in a medium-sized VAMC? | No further information is available at this time. |
| 66 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 4 | Task 4 Comprehensive Plan | Will the Government please confirm Task 4 will require up to 10 separate plans (5 VAMC plans for 2 VISNs)? | Task 4 is a framework for SPS implementation in the VHA and as such, only 1 plan is required. |
| 67 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 4 | Task 4 Comprehensive Plan | Will the Government please confirm the implemenation of the plan(s) created in Task 4 will only occur in Task 6 (optional), Implementation Pilot Site? | The implementation of the plan would occur in Task 6. |
| 68 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 4 | Task 6 Implementation Pilot Site | The section states "...at five VAMCs." Will the Government please confirm the number of implementation sites; are there five, or up to 10? | Pilot implementation will occur in 2 VISNs, for a total of 10 VAMCs. Sample task order has been updated accordingly. |
| 69 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 5 | Task 7 National Deployment VAMC Site-Specific Implementation Plans | Will the Government please confirm that the number of facilities included in the optional task rollout "at all VAMCs nation-wide" is limited to the VAMCs (currently 170) and will not include program implemention at any of the 1,063 outpatient sites? | Yes. |
| 70 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order and Pricing Attachment | 4 | 4 Delivery Schedule | The Deliverables Table shows certain CLINS as being Firm Fixed Price (e.g. CLINS 1, 4, 6 and 7). Additionally, some tasks within CLINS appear to be LH and others FFP (e.g. CLIN 1 HIPMP is FFP and the goals task is LH). However, the pricing excel product only provides an hourly build up for each CLIN and doesn't provide a means to provide an FFP quote for tasks that are FFP. Is it the Government's expectation that pricing of the sample task will only look at estimated labor hours for each CLIN and not any potential saving from an FFP offering? | Please see updated Pricing Form. The answer to your final question is no. |
| 71 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 4 | 4 Delivery Schedule | The 3rd entry in the Delivery Schedule (Short and Long-term Plan for VHA SPS for RME) should be noted as Task 1 (currently reads Task 2). | The sampe task order and delivery schedule are correct as written. The 3rd entry matches the first deliverable under Task 2. |
| 72 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 4 | 4 Delivery Schedule Task 4 | The Lot number for Task 4 is "1". Does the Government wish to see a single comprehensive plan that addresses all 10 VAMCs? Or would the Government prefer 10 individualized plans, 1 for each addressed VAMC? | Task 4 is a framework for SPS implementation in the VHA and as such, only 1 plan is required. |
| 73 | N/A | Revised Attachment F, Sample Task Order | 8 | 11 b. Subject Matter Expert(s): Health Systems | The introductory sentence in paragraph 11 says staff can have either "...VHA Medical facilities and/or Private Industry Healthcare Systems". However, the text within the SME requirements infers a SME MUST have extensive Veteran and/or VHA-VAMC experience [The The Health Systems SME shall have proven and extensive experience in a large-scale Government Integrated Healthcare System with substantive programs focused on Veterans health care (e.g Patient Centered Medical Home; Mental Health; Prosthetics; Tele Health; Mental Health (including Residential Rehabilitation and PTSD); Women’s Health; Specialty Care; Veterans Homelessness, and Geriatrics and Extended Care). In addition, the HS must have extensive experience in/with VHA and VHA Medical Center Operations; working knowledge of the Veterans Service Integrated Network (VISN); experience with/knowledge of clinical and business processes within the VHA.].Given the need to introduce non-current protocols into the VAMCs, limiting staffing to only those who have served in VHA/VISN/VAMCs will not provide VHA with the broad experiences and large-facility SPS experience needed for this transformation effort. Will the Government please confirm SMEs for the Sterile Processing Task Order do not require VHA/VISN/VAMC experience? | VHA/VISN/VAMC experience is not required but preferred. |
| 74 | N/A | RFP Attachment 1, E3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach | 87 | B. General Instructions | Will the government exclude key personnel resumes in the page limit for the Sample Task Response? | No. |
| 75 | N/A | N/A | 27 | 3.4 Labor Categories | Amd 0007 states that "The Ordering Contracting Officer for the affected TOPR must identify such work in the task order solicitation and make a determination as to whether service contract wage determinations are to be applied or not." An updated labor category rate attachment was provided and the labor categories Data Entry Operator II, Graphic Artist, Training Scheduler are still showing with WD numbers. Will the Governement provide a revised attachment which removes the wage determination or provide the applicable wage determinations that are to be used in creating these rates? | The LCAT Pricing Spreadsheets have been updated to remove any number references. |
| 76 | D | D4: CAPABILITY NARRATIVE (TECHNICAL) | 6 | 2. Past Performance | Would the government confirm that submitting details for the Contracting Officer alone is acceptable if no Project Manager exists as part of the past performance reference? Is it permissible to list "N/A" if the contract referenced never had the role of Project Manager? | Program Manager should reflect a representative of the Customer/Client/Agency. |
| 77 | Sample Task Order | PWS form | 9 | Section 12 | Could the government please clarify the deletion of the QASP customization language? Does the government want the completed QASP table as part of the Sample Task Order (STO) response? | No the Government does not want the completed QASP table as part of the Sample Task Order response. |
| 78 | D | Attachment L - Capability Area Criteria | In Attachment L, the government states below each functional sub-category “When possible demonstrate capability by referencing successful past efforts, techniques employed, goals and outcomes (large scale, healthcare effort in a Government setting).” This is at odds with RFP section 1.2 SCOPE when it says “Much of this work is complex and agile and is best supported through the use of expert contractors who provide critical market‐based healthcare industry skills that augment the internal activities of the VHA program offices.” Additionally, this seems to be a departure from one of the 4 problems the government listed it was trying to solve through this vehicle during the industry day “Problem: Access to Private Healthcare Expertise Many initiatives require focused healthcare expertise of Large National Private Sector Healthcare Consultants” as well as the desired team composition the government listed to resolve the need for “Anticipated access to Leaders in Healthcare Consulting, Universities/Research, and non-profits” – these entities primarily have market-based / commercial healthcare expertise. Can the government please advise if it will grade large scale, healthcare efforts in a market-based / commercial healthcare setting lower as this has implications for removing team members who primarily bring expertise in market-based / commercial healthcare best practices and innovation. |
| Will the government provide clarity regarding commercial healthcare experience? Will the government review past performance regarding large scale transformations for Commercial Healthcare providers / clients? | The Government will evaluate past performance in both government and commerical healthcare settings equally. | ||||||
| 79 | D | Attachment D5 - Key Personnel Biography | 8 | Could the government provide clarity regarding the use of the Key Personnel Resume PDF template in the Sample Task Order Response? Should the PDF format in Phase II, section D, be utilized for the Key Personnel in the Sample Task Order Response? Additionally, this template requires more space than a word formatted resume. Would the government consider making Key Personnel Resumes in the Sample Task Order outside of the 20 page count restriction? | For the Sample Task Order there is no templated form. Key Personnel should be identified within the 20 page limit. | ||
| 80 | D | Section D3B: Capability Area - Team Summary, Status (e.g. SDVOSB, VOSB, SB, LB, NFP) | 7 | If SDVOSB, CVE Verified | The PDF template, page 7, section D3B: CAPABILITY AREA - TEAM SUMMARY: | ||
| The template forces an auto format of checked boxes for either ALL responses under column "STATUS", or none. Could the government please confirm if this is intentional, or provide a revised PDF template? | See revised Proposal Form D. | ||||||
| 81 | D | D3B | Does the government wish to better understand the capabilities of individual team members. If so, would the government consider revising D3B to provide a field that permits a 1-2 sentence description of each team member | Not at this time. | |||
| 82 | C | Proposal submission instructions | 91 | Section 10, f. (i) a-e | In the amendment releasing Phase II, the government indicated that information grayed out was no longer applicable to the Phase II response. Could the government confirm this applies to the response requirements mentioned on page 91, section 10,f. (i) a-e? Specifically: |
a.signed SF forms, b.Statement of VAAR Clause, c.Reps & Cert d.Any proposed terms & conditions
| e.Copy of each subcontracting teaming agreement between VITAL and each VITEP/VISTO? | Information regarding page 91, section 10, f.(i) a-e are Phase II instructions and shall still be followed. | ||||||
| 83 | D | D3B | 7 | Currently the Phase II template provides no space on form D3A for the VITAL to list the FC it will support. Will the government consider adding this to the Phase II response template? | See revised Proposal Form D. | ||
| 84 | C | Proposal submission instructions | 90 | section 8 | Would the government please provide clarification regarding what counts against page restrictions in the Sample Task Order? For example, TO responses typically include a cover / cover page, table of contents and or a letter of transmittal. Would the government consider these three items being excluded from the 20 page overall task order response? | TOTAL page count for Sample Task Order is 20 Pages - Inclusive - all - everything. | |
| 85 | Sample Task Order | PWS | pg. 2; vs. pg. 4 | Sect 2.0; vs. Sect 3.0 Task 6 | Section 2.0 Scope or Purpose states "VHA requires contractor support to design and execute two simultaneous pilot Sterile Processing Quality Management systems at two geographically separated Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISN), based on recognized international healthcare SPS standards. There are approximately 5 medical centers per VISN that must all pilot the Sterile Processing Quality Management system." However, Section 3.0 Task Statement and Deliverables, Task 6 Implementation Pilot Site (Optional Task) states "pilot implementation of the systems of systems approach for SPS at five VAMCs." Can the Government clarify the number of sites to implement the QMS is 5 VAMCs within one VISN, all 10 VAMCs across two VISNs? | The Sample Task Order has been revised to include language for two VISNs and a total of 10 VAMCs | |
| 86 | Sample Task Order | PWS | pg. 6; vs. pp. 2, and 4 | Sect 4.0 Task 3; vs. Sect 2.0, and Sect 3.0, Task 6 | Section 4.0 Delivery Schedule, Task 3 indicates "5" VISN Summary Report and Recommendation" deliverables. However, Section 2.0 Scope or Purpose states "two simultaneous pilot Sterile Processing Quality Management systems at two geographically separated Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISN)... There are approximately 5 medical centers per VISN. Meanwhile, Section 3.0 Task Statement and Deliverables, Task 6 Implementation Pilot Site (Optional Task) states "pilot implementation of the systems of systems approach for SPS at five VAMCs." Can the Government clarify the number of VISN-level Summary Reports to deliver for Task 3? | This is an error and will be corrected. |
The document should read "2" VISN reports.
| 87 | Sample Task Order | PWS | pg. 4 and pg. 6 | Sect 3.0 Task 2 and Sect 4.0 Task 2; vs. Section 4.0 CLIN Summary | Section 3.0 Task Statement and Deliverables, Task 2 Develop VISN Gap Analysis Protocols includes "Short-term and Long-term Plans/Goal for SPS in VA," and Section 4.0 Delivery Schedule, Task 2 includes "Short and Long-term Plan for VHA SPS for RME.” However, Section 4.0 CLIN/Task/Description includes "Short-term and Long-term Plans/Goal for SPS in VA" as part of CLIN 0001 and Task 1. Can the Government clarify the appropriate Task and CLIN for this deliverable? | This is an error and will be corrected. See revised Sample Task Order. |
| 88 | E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach | Solicitation Sect E - Solicitation Provisions | p. 95 | f. Price | Given that the Government will "determine price reasonableness...for the base and option period. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the proposed (sample) task order pricing. For the sample task order, the Government will analyze the offer for unbalanced pricing...", could the Government provide additional details into the scope of Task 7, which was added as part of Amendment 7? There are a variety of delivery models that VHA could choose in implementing a nation-wide deployment, and we feel that the ambiguity in the Task as currently presented will lead to wide-variances among the bidders | The Government does not have a model that must be used. The offeror shall address their approach in their response document and submit pricing information accordingly. |
| 89 | Sample Task Order | PWS - Key Personnel | page 8 | Key Personnel | Can the government confirm the Sample Task Order Key Personnel are only the: a.) SPS Program Manager and b.) Health Systems SME? | Correct. |
| 90 | Proposal Forms | Capability Narrative (Technical and Past Performance) | pages 5&6 | FC1 | The government’s intent for including supplemental capability narratives from the VIT to the FC1 responses is unclear. Does this supplemental submission only pertain to VITALs that didn’t pass Phase I in order to improve their viability? If so, do those VITALs that were deemed viable in Phase 1 need to submit supplemental narratives from VIT members for FC1? | Per Page 91 of "AMENDMENT 0007 ATTACHMENT 1 - 36C10X20R0002 CONFORMED FOR A0007", "a second capability narrative from another VIT member |
may be provided, if needed, to demonstrate more robust capability"
| 91 | Solicitation | 10. CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL SECURITY REQUIREMENTS | Page 69 | part (a) i | Page 69 part (a) indicates that Contractors are responsible for the expense of obtaining a Background Investigations. It is our understanding that VA policy no longer requires Contractor to bear this expense. Please advise if this clause is still applicable? | As of the date of this amendment, this clause still applies as this policy has not been incorporated VA-wide and SAC-F does not fall under the purvue of VHA; however, should additional information become available, the solicitation will be amended accordingly. |
| 92 | Solicitation | Amendment 7, Section 4.n, | Ref: Amendment 7, Section 4.n, | Ref: Amendment 7, Section 4.n, “Each VIT will submit its strongest example (Capability from 1 team member) for each capability area. SDVOSB submissions will be weighted more favorably”. |
The new evaluation weighting for SDVOSB submissions may contradict already established evaluation criteria (D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION APPROACH, Phase II- Veteran Integrated Team (VIT) Proposal, p. 93) that led to specific teaming decisions, notably Team Robustness. Furthermore it introduces significant ambiguity on how to make tradeoffs between large business and SDVOSB capability descriptions. For example if there is an option to use a very robust large business capability description versus a more modest SDVOSB capability description, it is impossible to know which to choose because the weighting and evaluation criteria are not clear and transparent. Finally, there is no other mechanism to convey the robustness and full mission capability of the overall team. Will the government remove the weighting on SDVOSB submissions for FC2 and FC3? SDVOSB submissions will be weighted more favorably has been removed.
Revised to read as "Each VIT will submit its strongest example (Capability from 1 team member) for each capability area, regardless of Socioeconomic status."
See Summary of Changes for Amendment 0008
| 93 | Proposal Template | CAPABILITY NARRATIVE (PAST PERFORMANCE) | On the form, the vendor must select if the work was performed as a prime or subcontractor. Below, the vendor must respond yes or no if a CPARS has been completed. When you select an option regarding the CPARS, it wipes out the selection regarding how the work was performed (as a prime or subcontractor.) | See revised Proposal Form D. | ||
| 94 | Proposal Template | CAPABILITY NARRATIVE (PAST PERFORMANCE) | Do we need to submit a CAPABILITY NARRATIVE (PAST PERFORMANCE) form for each completed CAPABILITY NARRATIVE (TECHNICAL) form? | Yes | ||
| 95 | Attachment D5: Key Personnel Biography | Attachment D5: Key Personnel Biography | N/A | N/A | Based on the November 22nd update to the Key Personnel Biography template (D5), it doesn't indicate if the letter of commitment is required for each key personnel biography. There is also no mention of the letters of commitment in the RFP document. Will the Government clarify if key personnel letters of commitment are required for all key personnel, to include current employees, or just for contingent hires? | Letter of committment is not required for Key Personnel at the IDIQ level at this time. |
| 96 | D - Contract documents | Attachment A - IHT Labor Categories | 15 |
41 Rows 3-4 Row 3 Rows 1-3 Row 3
| Row 1 | Attachment A describes the Research Manager and Research positions as being required only in Functional Category (“FCAT”) III, but responsibilities include managing the research associates and data analyst positions that will be working in FCAT II and III (Research Analyst and Research Assistant positions) and all three FCATS (for the two Data Analyst positions). Additionally, shouldn’t the Research Manager or Researcher positions also manage the statistician positions that also are required for all three FCATs? Is this an error if the Research Manager or Researcher positions are required to manage positions in FCAT I and II? | The LCAT document will be amended to ensure consistency. LCATs may be proposed at the Task Order level as needed. | |||||
| 97 | D - Contract documents | Attachment A - IHT Labor Categories | 37 | Row 3 | The qualifications for the Researcher position is a Ph.D and 8 years of experience. May we substitute an MBA with 20 years of professional experience? | At the task order level the Government will consider waivers for education and/or experience, for other than key personnel. | |
| 98 | B | PWS and Labor Category Attachment | 29 | 6.0 Key Personnel | Specifies the "IDIQ Contract Manager" must have a minimum education of a bachelor's degree in a business or program related field and a minimum of 10 years of experience managing programs, projects, or contrats of comparable size, scope and complexity to this procurement. However, in the Labor Categories The "Program Manager" has 10 years of experience in healthcare areas relevant to the tasks defined in this PWS....a master's degree and experience relevent to the task order requirement.....Additionally, contractor personnel shall possess a Project Management Professional (PMP) certification or similar in quality with a minimum of six years experience supporting a large corporation or government agency. Can you please clarify the requirement for the IDIQ Contract Manager: specifically related to education and PMP? | Please propose the best candidate as determined by your team as IDIQ Manager. | |
| 99 | Sample TO Cost Model | LOE LM Tab | P8 thru P13 are missing formulas | Pricing spreadsheet will be amended to include formulas. |
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 .