S06 36C10X22R0005 0002 Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Q403-MDE Pre Discharge
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X22R0005
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a federal solicitation for Medical Disability Examination services pre-discharge. Key details include that the solicitation is for MDE services for active duty military and veterans within the continental US, Hawaii and Alaska. The services include general medical exams, specialty exams, and ancillary services. The document provides clarification on attachment templates, past performance requirements, pricing tables, and small business subcontracting goals. Extension was granted to the response date to allow bidders to update proposals based on the questions and answers.
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 # | RFP Language | Question or Recommendation | Government Response |
| 1 | B.2 Price Schedule & S03 Solicitation Attachment E Price Schedule Attachments to the RFP | 73 / Tab 1 | N/A | Both Section B.2 and Attachment E of the RFP show "NA" for CLIN 0001C (General Medical - Separation Health Assessment) and the excel cells are locked. Will another template be released to allow bidders to enter that information? | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated to allow input in CLIN 0001C. |
| 2 | S03 Solicitation Attachment E Price Schedule Attachments to the RFP | N/A | N/A | Given that the pricing excel is locked and we are not able to add additional rows / tabs, where would the Government like bidders to include pricing assumptions/methodologies? |
| If the Government expects this to be in the professional compensation plan - would the Government consider expanding the 3 page count limit? | Offerors may submit their pricing assumptions/methodologies with the professional compestion plan (exclusive of the 3 page count limit for the compestion plan). Offeror's assumptions/methodologies may not exceed 5 pages. Please see the updated instructions. | |||||
| 3 | 1.3 & Attachment B (PWS) Scope of Work / Attachments to the PWS | 7 | "Sites currently participating in the BDD and/or IDES programs are included in Attachment AG." | Attachment AG was not previously included in BOX. Can the Government please provide? | The Government verified that Attachment AG is uploaded to box.com | |
| 4 | 1.3 & Attachment B (PWS) Scope of Work / Attachments to the PWS | 7 | "For detailed data regarding anticipated ESR volume for this contract, see Attachment B - Workload Volume Pre-discharge." | Attachment B only lists a total workload volume. Can the Government please provide workload volumes by MTF as it has in the past to better allow bidders to access needs by location? | The Government is unable to provide this information. | |
| 5 | 1.3 & Attachment B (PWS) Scope of Work / Attachments to the PWS | 7 | "For detailed data regarding anticipated ESR volume for this contract, see Attachment B - Workload Volume Pre-discharge." | In order for bidders to determine network needs by location, will the Government provide historical completion and projected request data for each DBQ/Specialty type (Gen Med, BH, Audio, Opto, TBI, Dental) as well as specialized requests/ancillaries such as Sleep Studies and Level 5 consults broken down by location? | The Government is unable to provide this information. | |
| 6 | 1.10Ramp Up Performance | 11 | "For New Contractors | |||
| The VA requires contractors to be able to accept the full workload of ESRs NLT 180 calendar days after award…." | Is it correct to assume, that besides the incumbent contractor, all other bidders are considered New Contractors? | yes, that is correct. | ||||
| 7 | 1.10Ramp Up Performance | 11 | "h) Details around any partial workload ESR rollout…" | The RFP states that the Ramp-Up plan at a minimum should cover plans for "details around any partial workload ESR roll-out". Can the Government please clarify if this is intended to be related to appointment type/scope (i.e., providing some services but not all during initial ramp-up)? | No, during the Ramp-Up the Contractor will need to provide all appointment types. Partial workload would incorporate phasing in locations. | |
| 8 | 1.10Ramp Up Performance | 11 | "i) Preparing to accept all ESRs across the entire region." | The RFP states that the Ramp-Up plan at a minimum should cover plans for "preparing to accept all ESRs across the entire region". Can the Government please clarify if this is intended to be related to locations/geography (i.e., providing services at some locations across the region but not all during initial ramp-up)? | Yes, Ramp-Up can be phased in by location. | |
| 9 | 2.1 MDE Appointment Scheduling | 13 | N/A | Are there any differences in the scheduling process between Active Duty Military and Veteran claimants other than the 100 mile proximity to their assigned MTF? | There is no difference in the scheduling process other than beneficiary travel considerations. | |
| 10 | C.18 Contract Clauses | 94 | C.18 Clauses | Was it the Government's intent to add the Service Contract Act clauses back into the PWS after removing them with a previous modification? | No. The SCA clauses were included in error and have been removed. | |
| 11 | E.1 Instructions to Offerors Proposal Submission Instructions - Volume II Past Performance | 122 | "3 pages, including Volume II, Sections 1-4 (as described below)" | In order to include all of the required past performance contract description information and narrative, would the Government consider increasing the page count for the past performance volume? | No. The past performance volume page limits are determined to be sufficient. | |
| 12 | E.1 Instructions to Offerors Proposal Submission Instructions - Volume IV Price | 123 | "3 Pages for Professional Employee Compensation Plan Supplemental Information plus" | What should the file submission name be for the Professional Compensation Plan (i.e., VendorName_ProfComp_Predischarge.docx/pdf)? | IAW the addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Section B, Volume IV is to be named: VendorName_Price_PreDischarge.xlsx/pdf/docx | |
| 13 | E.1 Instructions to Offerors Administrative Information Submission Instructions and Paragraph 3 Socio-Economic Considerations Factor Evaluation Methodology | 130 and 131 | "To the maximum extent feasible, the Contractor and any Subcontractors shall comply with VA’s VOSB, SDVOSB, socioeconomic, and other small business goals, including, but not limited to, 38 U.S.C. § 8127. At a minimum, each offer shall confirm intent to comply with the following small business subcontracting goals during performance of any contract awarded under this solicitation: 17.5 % Small Business, including; 5.0 % VOSB; 3.0 % SDVOSB; 5.0 % Small Disadvantaged Businesses (including Section 8(a)); 5.0 % Women-Owned Small Business; and 3.0 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Businesses." | The Socio-Economic Considerations Factor Evaluation Methodology, paragraph 3 on page 131, indicates "Non�Veteran Owned Offerors proposing to subcontract 5% or more of the contract value to a SDVOSB or 12% or more of the contract value to VOSB will receive partial evaluation credit. Non-Veteran Owned Offerors that propose to subcontract less than 5% of the contract value to a SDVOSB or less than 12% of the contract value to VOSB will receive no credit. For proposals submitted by non-small business prime contractors, the Government will also assure that the proposal contains a statement by the offeror committing to comply with all small business subcontracting goals identified in this solicitation." |
| The percentages used in the Evaluation Methodology on page 131 of the RFP are not consistent with the goals listed on page 130. Can the Government please clarify the goals for VOSB and SDVOSB categories? | 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. | |||||
| 14 | General | N/A | N/A | Given some of the requested attachments / data, will the Government consider providing an extension of the proposal due date to allow bidders to update content based on questions and answers received? | The Government will extend the due date for proposals to 08:00 AM ET on Monday January 24, 2022. | |
| 15 | 2.7.16.1 & 2.7.16.2 | 25 & 26 | (not provided by vendor) | The PWS refers to a certification by HHS and we are unable to identify such certification, and our research shows that HHS does not provide certifications. Requesting clarification, or revision, of this requirement. |
The RFP is updated to state that the Contractor shall ensure software and technology includes all the necessary privacy and security safeguards to meet the requirements of HIPAA.
| 16 | PWS 3.1.1 | 34 | (not provided by vendor) | References to timeliness are inconsistent. The second paragraph identifies 20-calendar days and the fourth identifies 30-calendar days. It is our assumption that the timeliness standard is 30-calendar days. Is this assumption correct? If not please clarify. | The timeliness standard should read "30-calendar days". Section 3.1.1 has been updated. |
| 17 | PWS 5.5.8 | 48 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. |
| 18 | C.18 | 94 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. |
| 19 | C.19 | 100 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. |
| 20 | C.20 | 101 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 solicitation 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. |
| 21 | C.20 | 101 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. |
| 22 | C.24 | 111 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 an exam, medical opinion and/or diagnostics 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. |
| 23 | E.1.A & E.1.B.2 | 118 & 120 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | |
| 24 | E.1.B.2.Volume I |
E.1.B.2.Volume II E.1.B.2.Volume III 123 127 (not provided by vendor) 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 | ||
| 25 | E.1.B | 123 | |
| 128 | (not provided by vendor) | 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_PreDischarge.xlsm VendorName_ProfComp_PreDischarge.xlsx
| Is this assumption correct? If not, please provide the file names for submission. | See response to Question 12 | |||||
| 26 | E.1.B.2 | |||||
| E.1.C.3 | 130 | |||||
| 131 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | See response to Question 13 | |||
| 27 | E.2 | 146 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | |
| 28 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+B+-+D.2+-+PPQ RFP Number | 1 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 36C10X22R0005 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. | |
| 29 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+B+-+D.2+-+PPQ Submission email addresses | 1 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | |
| 30 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Price Schedule and Sample Task order tabs | CLIN 0001C | (not provided by vendor) | 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 to allow input in CLIN 0001C. | |||||
| 31 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Price Schedule tab | CLIN 0017 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 to be a percentage value. | |
| 32 | S03+Solicitation+Attachment+E+Price+Schedule Sample Task order tab | 0022BA-0022BO | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | |
| 33 | Volume V: Administrative Information | 125 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 | 126 | (not provided by vendor) | 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 | (not provided by vendor) | The Solicitation Number: 36C10X21R0070 on the form does not match the Pre-Discharge RFP Solicitation Number: 36C10X22R0005. | The Government updated Solicitation Attachment B to revise the RFP number. | ||
| 36 | Solicitation Attachment D | (not provided by vendor) | The Solicitation Number: 36C10X21R0070 on the form does not match the Pre-Discharge RFP Solicitation Number: 36C10X22R0005. | The Government updated Solicitation Attachment B to revise the RFP number. | ||
| 37 | SO3 Attachment E Price Schedule | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated to allow input in CLIN 0001C. | ||
| 38 | SO3 Attachment E Price Schedule | (not provided by vendor) | Since this solicitation includes only Pre-Discharge work – Should the following CLIN codes be "NA" and removed from the Sample Task Order: 0001 AA-AD, 0001 BA-BD, 0001 DA-DD, 0001 FA-FD & 0001 FA-FD. | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated. | ||
| 39 | SO3 Attachment E Price Schedule | (not provided by vendor) | 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? | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated so no input is required, and CLIN Code 0009C is marked as reserved. | ||
| 40 | 3.5.2 Incentives and Negative Incentives … | 37 | (not provided by vendor) | There is mention of excluding AME and SSSCE from the performance metrics. Please confirm that AME and SSSCE are not part of this Solicitation. | AME and SSSCE are not part of the PreDischarge solicitation. Please see updated PWS | |
| 41 | 2.1.4.2.2 & 2.1.4.2.7 | 16 & 17 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. | |
| 42 | SO3 Attachment E Price Schedule | (not provided by vendor) | Since the scope of this solicitation involves the continental United States, HI & AK, should CLINS 0027 and 0028 which pertain to OCONUS be "NA" for pricing and removed from the sample task order? | Attachment E Price Schedule has been updated. | ||
| 43 | Attachment E Monthly Status Report | 2.1.4.1.2 | (not provided by vendor) | 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. Please see the updated PWS. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .