S06 36C10X22R0004 0002 Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Q403-MDE International
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X22R0004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to solicitation number 36C10X22R0004 for Medical Disability Examinations (MDE) International services. The incumbent contractor is Veteran Evaluation Services, Inc. under contract number VA119A-16-D-0039. Key details include that the work involves performing examinations in various countries outside of the United States as outlined in the Performance Work Statement. The Service Contract Act clauses were included in error and have been removed. Various questions seek clarification on examination locations, record review procedures, reimbursement currencies, and educational requirements for key personnel. The responses provide additional details on these requirements and scope of work items.
View the file
Other files
Show all 19
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
Sheet1
| Question No. | RFP Section | RFP Page # | Question or Recommendation | Government Response |
| 1 | N/A | N/A | Could you inform me if this is a new requirement or a follow-on to an existing contract? If the latter, could you please provide me with the Contractor Name and Contract #? | The previous contract number is VA119A-16-D-0039. The incumbent contractor is Veteran Evaluation Services, Inc. |
| 2 | SF1449, Block 8 | 1 | Request an extension to the proposal submission due date and time as the International opportunity requires coordination across time zones and countries, many with different holidays than the United States. The timeline from solicitation release to proposal submission is only 12 United States business days. In order to prepare a proposal and support adequate competition, a 30-day extension is requested. | The Government will extend the due date for proposals to 08:00 AM ET on Monday January 24, 2022. |
| 3 | SF1449, Block 8 | 1 | Request an extension to the proposal submission due date and time as the International opportunity requires coordination across time zones and countries, many with different holidays than the United States. The timeline from solicitation release to proposal submission is only 12 United States business days. In order to prepare a proposal and support adequate competition, a 30-day extension is requested. | See response to question 2 |
| 4 | PWS 1.3.1 | 7 | The RFP notes that performance will be required in the Inuit Islands. Are the Inuit Islands part of the continental shelf lands or other United States possessions such that the Service Contract Act will apply to work performed in that locale? | The Inuit Islands are not part of the continental shelf lands or other United States possessions. |
| 5 | PWS 1.3.1 | 7 | Can you confirm whether the Service Contract Act applies to any jurisdictions other than the Unites States, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands? Our understanding is that it does not apply elsewhere. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. |
| 6 | PWS 1.3.1 | 7 | There are many uncertainties regarding the places of performance of work of subcontractors, providers, and teleworkers. Consequently, performance may occur almost anywhere in the United States and certain possessions. Will you be physically incorporating wage determinations into the solicitations for each locale for which offerors advise you that they may be performing service work in? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. |
| 7 | PWS 1.3.1 | 7 | Where there are large nation-wide business competitors performing services across the country at numerous and often indeterminable locales, the US Department of Labor will issue special wage determinations if asked to do so. These wage determinations can be a single nationwide schedule of rates or they can be broken up into several regions. Will you please consult with the US Department of Labor regarding the issuance of either a single nation-wide wage determination or regional wage determinations? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. |
| 8 | PWS 1.3.3.2 | 8 | Request volume estimates on how often claimants use the AME process. | The Government is unable to provide this information. |
| 9 | PWS 2.1.4.2.3 | 17 | Does the Contractor send reimbursement in US currency? | VBA assumes the Vendor is referencing reimbursement for use of the AME process. In those instances, Vendors are to provide VBA with a reimbursement form, and the Vendor shall provide the currency exchange rate, the conversion rate, and the total US dollars invoiced. |
| 10 | PWS 2.6 | 21 | This VBA MDE International RFP states that providers may review records presented at the examination and document in the remarks section of the DBQ what evidence was considered indicating that the evidence was presented at the time of the examination. |
The Pre-Discharge RFP further states that, if the evidence submitted during the examination is more than 10 pages (and is not in VBMS), the examiner shall direct the Veteran to send the records to VA for further consideration.
Is this a special consideration for the Pre-Discharge Contract? MDE Regional Contracts note that providers may review but shall not consider the evidence contained in the medical records unless provided by the VARO.
| What is the significance of reviewing only 10 pages of records? | There is no special consideration for the Pre-Discahrge contract. The PWS is updated to reflect the examiners are to review records brought to a VA exam regardless of page count. | ||||
| 11 | PWS 5.5.8 | 50 | The education requirements for the Key Personnel, Training Director are a degree in an education or clinical field. It is our assumption that degrees in healthcare administration and scientific fields meet this requirement. Is that assumption correct? If not, request expansion of the degree fields to include healthcare administration and scientific fields. | A degree in Heatlhcare Administration or a scientific field would fulfill the educational requirement. Additionally, the Training Director must posess at least 5 years’ experience in designing, planning, and implementing training programs, policies, and procedures that include distance learning modalities. | |
| 12 | PWS 13 | 68 | Exams are performed in countries outside of the United States and OSHA and ADA are U.S. requirements. It is our assumption that these do not apply to International exams. Is this correct? If not, please clarify. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 13 | C.18 | 97 | In accordance with FAR 22.1007(a), is the government planning to amend the solicitation to add in the applicable wage determinations? If not, does the government intend on incorporating wage determinations in the resultant contract? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 14 | C.19 | 103 | Will you be completing the information required by the FAR Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires clause before requesting final offers? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 15 | C.20 | 104 | Can you confirm that a Service Contract Act price adjustment will only be furnished for nonexempt workers employed in the United States, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands? In other words, please confirm that there will be no option year Service Contract Act price adjustments for other workers engaged in foreign countries and offerors should build those wage and benefit cost escalations into their proposal price? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 16 | C.24 | 113 | Will you be putting the Executive Order FAR clause into the solicitation in full text (i.e. FAR clause 52.222-55 implementing the Minimum Wage Under EO 13658 provision) versus solely referencing the Executive Order? Can you confirm that this clause will not apply to workers located in foreign countries? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 17 | C.24 | 113 | Will you be putting the Executive Order FAR clause into the solicitation in full text (i.e. FAR 52.222.62 for paid sick leave provision) versus solely referencing the Executive Order? Can you confirm that this clause will not apply to workers located in foreign countries? | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 18 | C.24 | 114 | The Service Contract Act (“SCA”) has an exemption for direct medical providers and contracts or subcontracts that are principally performed by exempt personnel. The Department of Labor uses a rule of thumb that if the contract is 80% to 90% exempt services, it is not covered by the SCA. Can you please confirm that direct medical service subcontracts for MDE services requiring a medical opinion or determination have been deemed to be exempt from the SCA coverage, and consequently the SCA clauses and wage determinations issued for the for MDE prime contracts do not need to be flowed down to medical service provider subcontractors. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 19 | C.24 | 114 | The Service Contract Act (“SCA”) has an exemption for direct medical providers and contracts or subcontracts that are principally performed by exempt personnel. For the MDE International program all the exams are performed outside of the United States. Please clarify how, and if, the SCA would apply to direct medical providers in foreign countries. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 20 | N/A | N/A | To avoid speculation and bidding contingencies regarding wage and benefit inflation world-wide, would you consider use of a special clause like that set forth in the DOD FAR Supplement (DFARS) that permits an economic price adjustment to cover the increased cost of wages and benefits that are controlled by a foreign Government? See DFARS § 252.216-7003. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 21 | E.1.A | ||||
| E.1.B.1 | 121 | ||||
| 123 | The RFP states “Regardless of the number of geographic regions for which an Offeror competes, Offerors shall submit only one Administrative Information Volume which shall be applicable to all geographic regions for which the Offeror proposed.” And in Section E.1.A it states “Offerors may submit proposals for either or both Pre-Discharge and International acquisitions. Each of the geographic regions will be the subject of a separate evaluation and award decision by the Government.” |
The Pre-Discharge and International regions are being procured under two separate solicitations with different solicitation numbers, Standard Form 1449s, some differences in the RFP content and PWS Attachments, and could have different Amendments. In addition, the subcontracting plan can differ due to the significant difference in the two different covered geographic locations.
| Request that the instructions are revised to submit a separate Volume V, Administrative Information Volume specific to each solicitation. | The Government revised the instruction to allow for separate volumes. | |
| 22 | E.1.B.2.Volume I |
E.1.B.2.Volume II E.1.B.2.Volume III 126 130 The RFP proposal instructions state that if an Offeror is proposing on multiple regions (i.e. Pre-Discharge and International) that proposal content that is unique for a region is marked to clearly make this evident within its proposal.
The two regions are being procured under two separate solicitations and have inherent differences in requirements, such as location of services, that create notable differences in the proposal content. Including an indication of all differences will require space to do so in a clear manner thus impacting the ability to provide required information within the page limitations.
| Recommend that instructions to mark differences within the proposal content be revised to require a matrix of the differences in the front matter outside of page limits (e.g. matrix after the Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms). | The Government determined this to be unneccessary | |
| 23 | E.1.B.2 | |
| E.1.B.2.Volume IV | 125 | |
| 131 | Please clarify the Volume IV, Price file names for the completed RFP Attachment E and Attachment F. It is our assumption that the file names are: |
VendorName_Price_International.xlsm VendorName_ProfComp_ International.xlsx
| Is this assumption correct? If not, please provide the file names for submission. | IAW the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section B, Volume IV is to be named: VendorName_Price_PreDischarge.xlsx/pdf/docx | ||||
| 24 | E.1.B.2.Volume V | ||||
| E.1.C.3 | 133 | ||||
| 134 | The goals for small business subcontracting for VOSB and SDVOSB entities are inconsistent. It is our assumption that the goals on page 130 are correct (i.e. 5% VOSB and 3% SDVOSB). Is that correct? If not, please clarify. | The small business goal as stated in the Administrative Information Submission Instructions are assigned by the Small Business Administration and are separate from the socio-economic considerations factor for evaluation. Offerors are evaluated IAW the instuctions and methodologies stated. | |||
| 25 | E.2 | 149 | The solicitation does not include wage determination attachments. Are the offerors to submit information on expected work locations and ask for the applicable age determinations? If not, please clarify. | The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 26 | C.13 |
C.15 C.16 C.17 C.24 E.1.B.2 E.1.B.2 E.1.B.2 E.1.C.3 94
| 134 | Request removal of the Subcontracting Plan as the place of performance for the exams is overseas and therefore the vast majority of subcontractors are not United States entities and U.S. small business classifications do not directly apply. FAR 19.7 exempts small business subcontracting plans from contracts performed entirely outside of the U.S. and the majority of the work on the International program is performed in foreign countries. | IAW 48 CFR § 52.219-9, "Only subcontracts involving performance in the United States or its outlying areas should be included in these reports". Therefore the reports are only required to cover work under this contract (if any) preformed inside the United States. Please see revised instructions. | |||
| 27 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+B+-+D.2+-+PPQ RFP Number | 1 | The provided Request for Proposal No. 36C10X21R0070 does not match the current Solicitation No. It is assumed offerors can edit the PPQ to reflect the correct solicitation number. Is this correct? If not, please clarify. | Solicitation 36C10X22R0004 is a Request for Proposal for MDE Pre-Discharge. Solicitation 36C10X21R0070 is the Request for Proposal for the MDE Region 4 On-Ramp. Should a vendor wish to use the same PPQ for both submissions, yes, kindly revise the solicition number to match the RFP for which you are using the PPQ and resubmit. | |
| 28 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+B+-+D.2+-+PPQ Submission email addresses | 1 | The instruction to send completed PPQs only lists two of the four email addresses from the RFP (reference Section E – Volume II (4), RFP page 126). It is assumed offerors can edit the PPQ to include all four email addresses for proper submission. Is this correct? If not, please clarify. | The Government updated Solicitation Attachment B to include all four email addresses. | |
| 29 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Price Schedule and Sample Task Order tabs | CLIN 0001C | CLIN 0001C and its Sub-CLINS (0001CA-0001CD) – General Medical – Separation Health Assessment for Shared Examinations for VA/DOD (including BDD, IDES, and Examinations) are within scope of the PWS. Spreadsheet Rows 15-19, have no input cells for pricing these Sub-CLINs as they are marked as “N/A”. Please correct to allow for pricing input. |
| Additionally, the corresponding cells in the Sample Task Order tab have no estimated quantities or support calculations. Please correct. | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated | ||||
| 30 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Price Schedule tab | CLIN 0017 | The entry in cell D133 is formatted as a dollar value and should be a percentage value. Please correct to support required input. | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated | |
| 31 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Sample Task Order tab | 0022BA-0022BO | Sample Task Order tab: Sub-CLINS 0022BA-0022BO (spreadsheet rows 169-183) calculated sample task order pricing is not a direct product of quantity times price. For example, a $1.00 pricing times the quantity of 67 yields a sample task order pricing of $66.67. Is this the actual intent of the sample task order Sub-CLINs? If not, please correct. | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated | |
| 32 | Attachment B - Workload Volume - International | Request historic and projected workload volume by each country in PWS Section 1.3.1 in order to inform the development of the proposed solution and pricing. | The Government is unable to provide this information. | ||
| 33 | Volume V: Administrative Information | 132 | Is Solicitation Attachment D excluded from the page count? | Solicitation Attachment D is a self certification and is not included in the Volume 1 Technical Approach. | |
| 34 | Solicitation Attachment A | 129 | Solicitation Attachment A is referenced in the Volume II: Past Performance requirements. The attachment was not included with any of the attachments. | The solicitation attachment referenced should read "Solicitation Attachment B". The RFP has been updated to reflect this. | |
| 35 | Solicitation Attachment B – D.2 PPQ | The Solicitation Number: 36C10X21R0070 on the form does not match the Pre-Discharge RFP Solicitation Number: 36C10X22R0004. | The Government updated Solicitation Attachment B to revise the RFP number. | ||
| 36 | Solicitation Attachment D | The Solicitation Number: 36C10X21R0070 on the form does not match the Pre-Discharge RFP Solicitation Number: 36C10X22R0004. | The Government updated Solicitation Attachment B to revise the RFP number. | ||
| 37 | SO3 Attachment E Price Schedule | Since this solicitation includes Pre-Discharge examinations, Should CLIN codes 0001CA-0001CD be included? Presently these are "NA" and not included in the Sample Task Order. | Yes, Attachment E Price Schedule is updated to reflect change. | ||
| 38 | SO# Attachment E Price Schedule | Should CLIN Code 0009C be removed from this attachment since the Prostate DBQ has been eliminated and combined with the Male Reproductive Organ Conditions DBQ? | Yes, Attachment E Price Schedule is updated to reflect change. | ||
| 39 | Attachment E Monthly Status Report 2.1.4.1.2 | Clarification Response Event Package states that ‘ESRs with clarification requests without responses pending greater than 10 calendar days shall be identified in the monthly status report (Attachment E – Monthly Status Report)’ however the referenced attachment does not include a tab for reporting this information. Will the MSR template be modified to reflect this requirement or will the contract be modified to remove this requirement? | A monthly status report requiring the identification of ESRs with clarification requests without responses pending greater than 10 calendar days is no longer a requirement. The PWS has been modified to reflect this change. | ||
| 40 | 13 | 68 | Reference is made to ADA and OSHA. Since these are foreign locations, would it make sense to add something to the effect "… or similar standards as applicable for the country in which the examination takes place. | See response to question 12 | |
| 41 | 1.3.3.1 Single Source Sub Contracted Exam | 7&8 | The language reads that in the event of an SSSCE, the contractor should cancel the ESR but goes on to say they should then complete the IMO and/or DBQs. Will VBA be sending a new ESR for the SSSCE after the cancellation is processed? | The process is not to cancel the ESR, but to send a clarification request for the ESR to be cancelled for the reason outside contracted "site jurisdiction". VA will resend ESR for the SSSCE. | |
| 42 | 2.1.4.2.2 and 2.1.4.2.7 | 16 & 18 | If the Veteran is not available during a substantial portion or all of the 20 day window, would it be appropriate to cancel citing the reason "Claimant Unavailable". If so, is there a certain number of days into the 20 day period such as 11 or more where this would be appropriate? | There is no certain number of days cited. Contractor must review scheduling requirements. | |
| 43 | 82 and SO3 Price Attachment E | 82 & SO3 Price Attachment E | The PWS lists CLIN 0027 and 0028 as TBD pricing which makes sense as it seems these would be billed for DBQs and/or IMOs as well as any claimant reimbursement. However, the SO3 would seem to expect a flat price be plugged in for SSSCE and AME services. Please confirm VBA is expecting a flat fee be bid for handling SSSCE or AME services based on the extra administrative processing requirements involved that is in addition to the DBQs and/or IMOs? | No, the Government is not expecting a flat fee for handling SSSCE or AME. This needs to remain at TBD as prices per location will vary. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .