The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
PHASE II- QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (Q&A)
| ID # |
| RFP Section (A, B, C, D, E) |
| Document (PWS, E.1 Quote Submission Instructions, etc.) |
| Attachment? |
| RFP/Doc Page |
| Paragraph/ Section |
| RFP Questions |
| Government Response |
| 1 |
| C Proposal Submission Instructions |
| RFP |
| Attachment Y2.2 |
| 91 |
| 2 |
| In anticipation of a positive Advisory Letter, we have been using an earlier version of Attachment Y2.2 Letter of Commitment (dated 3/25). Given that the updated version (dated 4/18) has minimal changes, will the government accept the previous version, or will all VIT members need to complete the latest version? |
| The Govt will accept the 3/25 version - because the 3/25 version was provided as a Word file, it is the responsibility of the offeror to confirm accuracy of content and adherence to the character limits. |
| 2 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| RFP PHASE II: VIT PROPOSAL – VITAL SERVICES (DELIVERY OF SERVICES, HEALTHCARE INTEGRATION, AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT & ADMINISTRATION) |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 93 |
| Row 1 Instructions |
| The instructions for the VITAL Services component states "If a contract vehicle is being cited for experience, provide the requested information (value, PoP, scope) for each referenced delivery/task order as it relates to the relevance of that capability area." The items to be evaluated in VITAL Services are related to how the VITAL can deliver across a large complex contract vehicle (IDIQ or BPA) and therefore the performance of all awarded TOs on that vehicle would be relevant. 1) Does the VITAL need to provide all the TO numbers? It could be over 50 different TOs. 2) Can the VITAL provide the total $ value for its awarded TOs? |
| If more than 2 TOPRs will be included in citing awards, the total number of TOPRs can be reported along with total value of said TOPRs along with POP of earliest TOPR and POP of latest TOPR. Summarized TOPR info should be included in the "Contract Number", "Dollar Value/Scale" and "Period of Performance" rows in the Example detail table above the narrative section. (see example below) |
If one or two TOPRs will be included in citing awards, those dollar values and POPs can be described individually in the "Dollar Value/Scale" and "Period of Performance" rows in the Example detail table above the narrative section.
Contract Number: 36xxxxxxxxx IDIQ (17 TOPRs awarded <or> TOPR xx & TOPR yy) Dollar Value: $175M across 17 TOPRs <or> TOPR xx: $1.8M; TOPR yy: $12.3M Period of Performance: Earliest TOPR xx/xx/xxxx-yy/yy/yyyy; latest TOPR xx/xx/xxxx-yy/yy/yyyy <or> TOPR xx: mm/dd/yyyy-mm/dd/yyyy; TOPR yy: mm/dd/yyyy-mm/dd/yyyy;
| 3 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| PHASE II: VIT PROPOSAL – FULL MISSION CAPABILITY Y1.4, Y1.5 PPQ Instructions Functional Category 4 |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 89 |
| If a VITAL or its partner is using the same contract/project as the past performance example for multiple FCIV capabilities, please confirm that we can provide one PPQ and reference the multiple capabilities areas in the "Relevant Experience Example for Capability Area (select from FC IV areas 4A-4X)" row on the PPQ. Providing only one with multiple capabilities referenced will reduce the burden on our clients. |
| Confirmed, one PPQ is acceptable for a FCIV past performance example that is being used for multiple FCIV Capability Areas if it is clear the PPQ is for an example supporting multiple capability areas. |
| 4 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| RFP, E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| Attachment Y2.2 |
| 86 & 92 |
| PHASE II: GENERAL & Table 2B |
| PHASE II: GENERAL (pg. 86) reads “To be responsive, the proposal must utilize and complete all forms required (unaltered). |
Table 2B, TEAM ROBUSTNESS Y2.2 (pg. 92) reads “Save all Letters into a single file titled "Ph2_Robustness_VIT-LOC_<offeror name>.pdf", and submit with Phase II Proposal”
However, the provided Attachment Y2.2 - Letter of Commitment contains extended features in Adobe Acrobat Reader that do not allow files to be combined unless you save a copy that removes the extended features.
Please confirm that removing those PDF restrictions does not qualify as altering proposal forms.
Alternatively, please provide revised Letter of Commitment forms that do not contain this restriction.
Form Y2.2 combination for extra page 2s tested and confirmed to be working for version dated 4-18.
Use of the combine tool in adobe is acceptable and does not qualify as altering this proposal form.
| 5 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| RFP PHASE II: ATTACHMENTS |
Y1.1 - Y1.4 & Y3 Attachment Y3
| Narrative Text Boxes |
| We have run multiple tests to ensure that each of the Adobe forms allow for the prescribed maximum 2500 characters in each text box. We have found we cannot always fit the maximum allowable characters in the boxes due to various issues (e.g., certain character width (such as i compared to h) affect the space constraints, and paragraph spacing, and bullet symbols create limitations). Given this, can the Government alter the forms, so they are consistently able to include the maximum allowable characters when using the forms in the Adobe application? |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 6 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| RFP, E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 95 |
| File naming instructions at bottom of section |
| At the bottom of the instructions for section 2C VITAL Services (Attachment Y3) it gives the following file naming instructions: " Save completed Attachment Y4 form into a single file titled: “Ph2_VIT – VITAL Services_<offeror name>.pdf” and submit with Phase II proposal." - Please confirm that we should submit Attachment Y3 for section 2C VITAL Services. |
| Yes, submit Y3 for section 2C VITAL Services. See updated RFP instructions. |
| 7 |
| E- Solicitation Provisions |
| RFP PHASE II: ATTACHMENTS |
Y1.4
| Attachment Y1.4 |
| 2 |
| Part 2. Contract Details Table |
| The current capability forms do not have the option to denote if cpars are available for the cited project. Can the government amend the form to include a field confirming whether CPARs are available or a ppq will be provided |
| See form Y1.4 sections "Relevant Experience Examples" for boxes to select CPARS/PPIRS completed |
| Phase II form |
| RFP pg. 87 |
| Table Phase II: General |
| In multiple spots, the RFP states "For Phase I submission, must use provided character-limited Proposal Forms (do not convert, do not alter)" or words to that effect. Attachments X2 and X3 imposed a 2,500-character limit (including spaces). In Phase I, we diligently drafted responses of 2500 characters or less, according to MS Word character count application. However, when we pasted these responses, verified at 2500 characters or less, into VA's Attachments X2 and X3, words (and sometimes whole lines) are cut off. Can the government please amend Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, Y1.3, and Y1.4 to enable a true entry of 2500 characters or less in applicable areas? |
| Forms updated to accommodate the full 2500 characters, see updated forms. |
Attachment S2
| Attachment S2, Section 12.1.1 requires that the STO2 TO Manager have at least the qualifications of the Sr. Program Analyst. Att A lists 8 years of experience for the Program Analyst - Sr. Attachment Y6.2 requires the STO2 task order manager have a BS/BA and a minimum of 12 years of specialized experience. Please clarify the position of STO2 Task Order Manager requires 12 years of experience and provide an updated LCAT that aligns to this level of experience. |
| The TO Manager must have at least the qualifications of the Sr. Program Analyst as described in Attachment S2, Section 12.1.1 and Attachment A, Program Analyst - Sr. Y6.2, Experience header is updated. |
| 0 |
| 91 |
| Table 2A |
| When can we expect the demo criteria for the Phase 2 released to the IHT 2.0 Phase 2 vendors? |
| Scenario criteria will be provided two business days before the scheduled demo (occurs after proposals are submitted). |
| 91 |
| Table 2A |
| Request that the VA provide criteria for the Demo Platform, Tools, and technologies for IHT 2.0 Phase 2 participants as soon as possible so that vendors can align the resources and tools to effectively develop and show the demonstration. |
| Scenario criteria will be provided two business days before the scheduled demo. (Demo will occur via teams after proposals are submitted) |
| 91 |
| Table 2A |
| Request that the VA produce a DRAFT of the evaluation criteria for IHT 2.0 Demo. |
| Scenario criteria will be provided two business days before the scheduled demo. (Occurs after proposals are submitted). The following evaluation language has been added to the right column of the table for FMC-- "During the technical demonstration, the Government evaluation team will determine its confidence in the offeror’s capability in the seven FC IV areas included in Phase I. This evaluation will consider the VIT members’ understanding of the scenario, viability of solutions, and communication/ mitigation of risks." |
| 91 |
| Table 2A |
| Request that the VA define rules and process for submitting the Demo. And Request that the VA explain if the demo includes oral |
| Scenario Criteria will be provided two business days before the scheduled demo. Demo will occur via Microsoft TEAMS and will be oral presentation/screen share in nature. Offerors will be provided an opportunity to submit "summary of plan for demonstration"/slides/ outline for use during the presentation. However, these documents will not be evaluated separately (what you share during your 90-minutes is what counts). |
Phase II form
| In Attachment Y2.2, the field for signatory's title, partner name, and phone number cuts off the bottom half of all letters. Please provide a form that allows all text to be seen. |
| Form tested and confirmed to adjust sizing to fit text as more is added. Please ensure you are using current form dated 4-18 |
| 15 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| Attachment Y1.5 |
| 1 |
| 2 |
| In instances where the same past performance example is used for multiple capabilities, would the government confirm that, in the highlighted box next to "Relevant Experience Example for Capability Area (select from FC IV areas 4A-4X): ", we can enter multiple capability areas? |
| See Question ID Number 3 |
| 16 |
| RFP Factor 2E.3.A |
| Attachment Y.2.1 |
| Attachment Y2.1 |
| 73 |
| 2E.3.A |
| Should the 1,000-character writeups be submitted for teammates only or should the VITAL also submit? |
| If the VITAL is planning to support Capability Areas, that they did not submit an experience example on as part of the Full Mission Capability submission (Attachment Y1.1 to 1.4), then yes, a write up should be submitted. |
| 17 |
| RFP Factor 2E.3 |
| Attachment S1 |
| 20 |
| 1 |
| Please clarify the nature and composition of "Councils." As written, it is not clear whether these are EHRM councils or something else specific to OHI. |
| This references the EHRM councils. |
| 1 |
| Block 8 |
| Will the government extend the proposal submission date by one week to May 14? This will provide offerors time to meaningfully incorporate new teammates that did not receive positive advisory letters and generally provide sufficient time to complete quality control reviews on a large number of proposal deliverables. |
| No proposal due date extension is being provided with RFP Amendment 0007 |
| The RFP states "For each Capability Area identified within the respective attachment (with exception of 1I. Artificial Intelligence), offeror shall provide information requested within the form(s) reflecting the capability and experience of its two strongest team members within each Capability Area." Is it the government's intent that a company may only submit one project in a specific capability area, not two or three? |
| The offeror should submit one (1) project per company (VITAL or VITEP or VITSO) utilizing examples from their strongest team members for the Capability Area. |
| 20 |
| RFP Factor 2A |
| Attachment Y1.5 |
| Attachment Y1.5 |
| Please confirm that offerors need only have customers submit a single past performance questionnaire for a project, even if the project is being cited for multiple FMC Capability Areas. |
| See Question ID Number 3 |
| 21 |
| Attachment A |
| Labor Category Descriptions |
| Attachment A |
| 3 |
| Each Agilist requires SAFe SPCT certification according to the table. The Certification requirement on this link shows the requirement of certification being 10 years of experience: https://scaledagile.com/safe-certification/safe-expert-programs/become-an-spct/. However, the table's years of experience requirement shows fewer years required than the base requirement. Can the government please provide clarification around exact years of experience required for these positions? Are offerors to assume 10 years’ experience as a certified SAFe SPCT? |
| The LCAT table lists specific types of experience and years required which must be documented. |
No, SAFe SPCT does not supersede the LCAT table experience requirement. Experience requirements are specific to each position.
| 22 |
| E.3 |
| RFP, E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y8 |
| 100 |
| Past Performance; 3) Section 3 - Subcontracts |
| Section 3 - Subcontracts states: "To allow the Government to make a determination of whether proposed subcontractors are “major subcontractors” as defined in the column to the right, offerors shall provide specific information within the technical approach staffing plan. The information provided for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor shall include the entire company name, company address, UEI number, socioeconomic status, and type of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS section number." Because the Technical Approach instructions on page 97 (1. Technical Approach) does not mention the requirement of including whether proposed subcontractors are "major subcontractors" and the corresponding details (name, address, UEI, etc.), can the government please confirm that offerors do not need to respond to this requirement in the Technical Approach Staffing Plan? |
| See updated 2E Table which expands on Technical Approach Staffing Plan requirements to identify subcontractor participation. Notably, the following language is added: "2) provide a breakdown of planned subcontractor participation on the effort. To allow the Government to make a determination of whether proposed subcontractors are “major subcontractors”, this section should include specific information as follows-- for the prime offeror and each proposed major subcontractor, include the entire company name, company address, UEI number, socioeconomic status, and type and extent of work to be performed by citing the applicable Government PWS section number(s)." |
Attachment Y5.1
| When we check one of the "KEY PERSON LETTER OF COMMITMENT" boxes (YES or NO) for one candidate and move on to the next candidate and check the appropriate YES or NO box, the checkmark disappears from the preceding key person's YES/NO box. Only one YES/NO box can be checked at one time on the entire set of forms. Can the government please correct this problem and provide updated forms? |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
Attachment Y3
| Will the government provide updated an updated template for Attachment Y3? The character limits for Y3 VITAL SERVICES don't allow the full required character limits, specifically for Contract Management narrative. Additionally, the JV tables appear linked so we are unable to complete each table with varying JV information (it will erase previous content as the cells are linked). |
| Form updated, see amended form. |
JV tables are based off the offeror and should not change page to page. The JV table is for government evaluator reference.
Attachment Y5.2
| Will the government provide a template update for Attachment Y5.2? The character limits appear incorrect for the various Contract Narratives (i.e., doesn't allow for 2,500 characters). |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
Attachment Y6.1
| Will the government provide a template update for Attachment Y6.1? The character limits appear incorrect for the STO2 Labor Hour Performance Risk Narrative (i.e., doesn't allow for 2,500 characters). |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
Attachment Y1.5
| Can a single Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) be used for a project example that spans multiple capability areas in FC IV? |
| See Question ID Number 3 |
Attachment Y1.4
| Can the government confirm that performance examples for FC IV can be work that is EITHER prime contract work OR subcontractor work? |
| yes, this is accurate. |
Attachment Y1.5
| Given that subcontractor past performance may be used, can the government confirm that PPQs must be completed by the government or commercial end client and not from the vendor's prime contractor. |
| If work was performed by a small business as a first-tier subcontractor on a contract where a subcontracting plan was used, the prime contractor (or Government Client) may provide a rating of the subcontractor's past performance. This may be delivered directly to the Government by the prime contractor or to the small business concern by the prime contractor for the contract on which the concern was the first-tier subcontractor, then from the offeror directly to the Government. It should be clear on the completed PPQ who completed the form and whose performance was rated. |
Attachment Y3
| Would the government consider adding a field to include the specific task orders being referenced when Offerors cite a contract vehicle for VITAL Services? |
| Refer to response for Question ID Number 2 |
Attachment Y7.3
| Please confirm offerors are only required to provide a unit price for CLINS X001-X007 and X017, as there is no Level of Effort section to support the Unit prices. |
| Unit price is required for CLINs X001-X005 and X017. |
| 32 |
| 2G |
| RFP, 2G Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y7.2 |
| 103 |
| Instructions, Paragraph 2 |
| RFP states: "2. Offeror shall complete Attachment Y7.2: Price Spreadsheet – STO1 by providing proposed fully burdened hourly rates for STO1 LH support as well as proposed rates and proposed number of hours basis for firm-fixed price tasks." Can the Government clarify if "STO1 LH support" is defined for evaluation purposes as the hours proscribed on p. 46 of the STO1 PWS (SCHEDULE FOR DELIVERABLES)? Or should bidders propose different levels of effort? |
| Yes, STO1 LH support is defined as hours prescribed on Schedule for Deliverables. They should propose fully burdened hourly rates and their proposed firm fixed price for associated firm fixed price tasks. |
| 33 |
| 2G |
| Attachment S1 (STO1 PWS) |
| Attachment S1 |
| 46 |
| Schedule for Deliverables |
| Referencing p. 46 of the STO1 PWS (SCHEDULE FOR DELIVERABLES): Can the Government confirm if the Level of Effort for Clinical SME and System and Data SME (624 hours each) should be included with CLIN X005 (Tasks 5.2)? |
| yes, they align with Task 5.2 |
| 34 |
| 2G |
| RFP, 2G Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y7.2 |
| 103 |
| Instructions, Paragraph 2 |
| Cells P12 and P29 state "Note LH used for estimating purposes and actual ceiling will be established by Government in Task Order (if awarded).". Does the Government mean for "evaluation purposes"? |
| Yes, "evaluation purposes" is correct. The Instructions section of the RFP has been updated to incorporate this correction. |
| 35 |
| 2G |
| RFP, 2G Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y7.2 |
| 103 |
| STO1 Pricing |
| The evaluation criteria states: "The Government will evaluate the proposed STO1 pricing for reasonableness." Are offerors allowed to submit a pricing narrative to substantiate the reasonableness of their FFP CLIN pricing? Would such a pricing narrative be considered as part of STO1 price reasonableness evaluation? |
| No, but offerors can explain in the technical proposal how their resourcing strategy fits the requirements |
| 36 |
| 2G |
| RFP, 2G Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y5.1 |
| 98 |
| Instructions, Key Personnel |
| The RFP instructions require bidders to submit four (4) resumes for Human Factors Engineer, Expert and three (3) resumes for Human Factors Engineer, Senior. Attachment S1, STO1 PWS, p. 46 (SCHEDULE FOR DELIVERABLES) lists 6,912 hours for Human Factors Engineer, Senior and 5,760 Human Factors Engineer, Expert. Can the Government confirm these hours are correctly aligned to these LCATs for base and option year? |
| Hours are correct, but it should read 4 resumes for Human Factors Engineer, Senior and 3 resumes for Human Factors Engineer, Expert |
| 37 |
| 2G |
| RFP, 2G Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| Attachment Y7.2 |
| 103 |
| STO1 Pricing |
| The evaluation criteria states: "The Government will evaluate the proposed STO1 pricing for reasonableness." Does the Government consider the hours listed for Task 5.2 in Attachment S1, STO1 PWS, p. 46 (SCHEDULE FOR DELIVERABLES) reasonable for the purpose of evaluation? |
| As per the RFP, "For firm-fixed price CLINs, the Contracting Officer will consider the appropriateness of the level of effort and labor mix proposed as the basis for its fixed-price CLINs as well as the rates proposed. For both fixed price and labor hour tasks, the Contracting Officer will confirm that the labor rates proposed within Attachment Y7.2 are at or below proposed rates from Attachment Y7.1 - Price Spreadsheet - IHT 2.0 LCATs." Hours proposed here won't be used for price reasonableness determination purposes. |
| 38 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.1 |
| Attachment Y1.1 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Relevant Experience Example "If a contract vehicle is being cited for experience, provide the requested information (value, PoP, scope) for each referenced delivery/task order Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 as it relates to the relevance of that capability area". |
Question: Will the government provide us a place on Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 Admin/contract data section to record the value, PoP, and scope for TOs if a contract vehicle is being cited? These might require many characters to list if a company has multiple TOs that are applicable to the experience example.
Refer to response for Question ID Number 2
| 39 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.2 |
| Attachment Y1.2 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Relevant Experience Example "If a contract vehicle is being cited for experience, provide the requested information (value, PoP, scope) for each referenced delivery/task order Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 as it relates to the relevance of that capability area". |
Question: Will the government provide us a place on Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 Admin/contract data section to record the value, PoP, and scope for TOs if a contract vehicle is being cited? These might require many characters to list if a company has multiple TOs that are applicable to the experience example.
Refer to response for Question ID Number 2
| 40 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.3 |
| Attachment Y1.3 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Relevant Experience Example "If a contract vehicle is being cited for experience, provide the requested information (value, PoP, scope) for each referenced delivery/task order Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 as it relates to the relevance of that capability area". |
Question: Will the government provide us a place on Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, and Y1.3 Admin/contract data section to record the value, PoP, and scope for TOs if a contract vehicle is being cited? These might require many characters to list if a company has multiple TOs that are applicable to the experience example.
Refer to response for Question ID Number 2
| 41 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.1 |
| Attachment Y1.1 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, Y1.3, and Y1.4 Full Mission Capability - Part 1 Capability Description |
Question: The approach text box in the Adobe form now has a 2500- character limit, however, the form is locked to roughly 27-28 lines of text which in some cases may cut off less than 2,500 characters per write up. Will the Government unlock the line limits within the provided Adobe form?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
| 42 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.2 |
| Attachment Y1.2 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, Y1.3, and Y1.4 Full Mission Capability - Part 1 Capability Description |
Question: The approach text box in the Adobe form now has a 2500- character limit, however, the form is locked to roughly 27-28 lines of text which in some cases may cut off less than 2,500 characters per write up. Will the Government unlock the line limits within the provided Adobe form?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
| 43 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y1.3 |
| Attachment Y1.3 |
| 88 |
| Section 2 |
| RFP Reference: Attachments Y1.1, Y1.2, Y1.3, and Y1.4 Full Mission Capability - Part 1 Capability Description |
Question: The approach text box in the Adobe form now has a 2500-character limit, however, the form is locked to roughly 27-28 lines of text which in some cases may cut off less than 2,500 characters per write up. Will the Government unlock the line limits within the provided Adobe form?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
| 44 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH & Attachment Y4 |
2D PHASE II: VIT PROPOSAL – KEY PERSONNEL (IDIQ)
| Attachment Y4 |
| 96 |
| Paragraph 1 4th bullet |
| RFP Reference: Experience Narrative – Dates(chronological)/Company/Experience examples shall collectively demonstrate (not just state) a minimum of 10 years of experience managing programs, projects, or contracts of comparable size, scope, and complexity" |
Question: The instructions state to list experience in chronological ordering. Is it Newest to Oldest or Oldest to Newest? (Traditionally, resumes begin at the top with the most recent experience) Either, as long as dates are aligned with experience
| 45 |
| E |
| Attachment Y4 PHASE II: VIT PROPOSAL – KEY PERSONNEL (IDIQ) |
| Attachment Y4 |
| 1-2 |
| 10th row on each form |
| RFP Reference: Instructions on Form Y4: "Experience (List relevant experience to the role of the key person being proposed. Experience should be listed chronologically and include dates, position, company, and relevance " |
Question: Does the Government want a full resume or a summary of experience for each Key Personnel? The text box is character locked to 2,000 characters which will be very difficult to showcase our personnel's breadth of experience relative to the positions. Would the Government consider unlocking the form to allow the Experience section to flow onto multiple pages or expand the experience examples to two pages?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
| Attachment Y5.1 STO1 Key Personnel |
| Attachment Y5.1 |
| 1-9 |
| 10th row on each form |
| RFP Reference: Instructions on Form Y5.1: "Experience (List relevant experience to the role of the key person being proposed. Experience should be listed chronologically and include dates, position, company, and relevance " |
Question: Does the Government want a full resume or a summary of experience for each Key Personnel? The text box is character locked to 2,000 characters which will be very difficult to showcase our personnel's breadth of experience relative to the positions. Would the Government consider unlocking the form to allow the Experience section to flow onto multiple pages or expand the experience examples to two pages?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
| Attachment Y6.2 STO1 Key Personnel |
| Attachment Y6.2 |
| 1-4 |
| 10th row on each form |
| RFP Reference: Instructions on Form Y6.2: "Experience (List relevant experience to the role of the key person being proposed. Experience should be listed chronologically and include dates, position, company, and relevance " |
Question: Does the Government want a full resume or a summary of experience for each Key Personnel? The text box is character locked to 2,000 characters which will be very difficult to showcase our personnel's breadth of experience relative to the positions. Would the Government consider unlocking the form to allow the Experience section to flow onto multiple pages or expand the experience examples to two pages?
Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007.
2. Key Personnel – (See STO2 PWS, 12.1) STO2 requires as Key Personnel a Task Order (TO) level Manager as well as a Rapid Response and Triage Team (RRTT).
| Attachment Y6.2 |
| 101 |
| 2. Key Personnel – Paragraph 1 |
| RFP Reference: "The TO Manager will have qualifications consistent with a Senior Program Analyst (additional or substitute LCATs may be proposed with justification)". |
Question: Although the Government has allowed offerors the change to propose alternative LCATS and provide our rationale, the instruction above did not specify where that rationale shall be provided nor where offerors should provide the alternative LCAT. Can the Government clarify where offerors shall provide this information? If offerors are to provide this information in the Experience section, it will drastically reduce the available characters that are needed for offerors to explain their key personnel's experience. Can the Government provide an alternative place within the form for offerors to provide the additional or substitute LCATs with their justification?
Form Y6.2 STO2 - Key Personnel shall be used for all information. Follow instructions per RFP and form.
| 49 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 98 |
| 2E - Y5.1 |
| RFP Reference: "3.4 Labor Categories Attachment A, IHT Labor Categories, provides a comprehensive list of labor categories, descriptions, minimum education and experience requirements, as well as identification for which Functional Category(s) the labor categories are applicable. Individual Task Orders may provide additional requirements for experience or education, including certifications. |
It is expected that the minimum education and experience will be in a field or specialty that directly relates to the labor category and task order requirements. The CO reserves the right to grant waivers for the education and experience requirements. Waivers for education may be based on additional years of experience, industry certifications, or equivalent trainings. Waivers for experience may be based on additional years of education and exceptionally specialized experience. Individual Task Orders may cite additional equivalencies that will be recognized. Contractor’s request for waiver must be provided in writing to the CO, and the CO’s authorization must be provided in writing to the contractor”.
Question: The Human Factors Engineer, Expert Key Personnel position for STO1 requires 12 years of experience and a Doctorate Degree. Will the Government accept alternative education/experience such as a master’s degree and 15 years of experience with direct VHA experience?
The Government will consider this substitution acceptable. Note, however. that KP with the specified education and experience may result in higher Government confidence.
| Attachment Y2.1 Robustness Spreadsheet |
| Attachment Y2.1 |
| Column E |
| RFP Reference: “enter NAICS established in subcontract” |
Question: The Robustness Spreadsheet, Column E states “enter NAICS established in subcontract”. Will the Government provide clarification on which subcontract NAICS should be used? Is the Government expecting IHT 2.0 IDIQ subcontracts NAICS (541611), or was it the Government’s intent for VIT subcontractors to provide the NAICS under which they performed the previous work which they cite?
NAICS under which work is to be performed (may be other than 541611) as established it the subcontract agreement.
| 51 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 102 |
| 2E - Y6.2 |
| RFP Reference: "Using Attachment Y6.2, the Offeror shall complete and submit a single file reflecting the proposed STO2 TO Manager and STO2 RRTT (minimum 3 proposed personnel)." |
Question: For STO2, offerors much provide at least 3 RTT members, however if offerors provide more than that, are they considered Key Personnel?
Yes - members of rapid response triage team are all considered Key Personnel
| Attachment Y6.2 STO2 Key Personnel |
| Attachment Y6.2 |
| 2-4 |
RFP Reference: "Using Attachment Y6.2, the Offeror shall complete and submit a single file reflecting the proposed STO2 TO Manager and STO2 RRTT (minimum 3 proposed personnel)."
Question: Although the Government is allowing offerors to submit more than 3 personnel for the RTT, the Key Personnel attachment is locked, and offerors are unable to duplicate the forms for additional team members.
Additional Form "Attachment Y6.2 RRTT additional" has been posted for use. Form Y6.2 may then be combined with the additional pdf(s).
Use of print to pdf and the combine tool in adobe is acceptable and does not qualify as altering this proposal form.
| 53 |
| E |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 7 |
| D. Exclusivity |
| RFP Reference: "All teams are exclusive, with all partners/ subcontractors specific to one, and only one Veteran Integrated Team (VIT). No individual firm may be associated with more than one VIT, unless specifically provided for at the TO level." |
Question: Most large research universities have multiple departments/colleges/labs that function independently from one another and may appear on multiple VITs. At what level do the exclusivity requirements apply to academic institutions and/or universities? Traditionally, individual departments/colleges/labs within the same university are treated as independent entities for purposes of contract exclusivity. " In general, exclusivity requirements of "Individual firms" in this RFP reference does apply at the institution/university level and not separated at departmental levels within the same university/institution.
| 54 |
| E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| RFP, C. Proposal Submission Instructions |
| N/A |
| 87 |
| 6-7 |
| The solicitation states "For FC I Capability Areas of 1A--Program and Project Management, 1F--Change Management, Organizational Transformation and Assessments, and 1H--Strategic Communications and Executive Support, one of the (up to) two companies reflected must be the VITAL using its previous prime contractor performance (a second example may come from the strongest partner). For all other FC I, II, or III capability areas, the offer may reflect the capabilities of any team members (the strongest member(s) within the capability area." Can the VITAL use its own previous prime contractor performance for the other capability areas besides 1A, 1F, and 1H? |
| Yes |
| 55 |
| Attachments |
| Attachment A |
| Attachment A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Please consider adding the associated Functional categories for each of these labor categories: for FC1: Computational Linguistic Expert, Sr., Cloud Engineer, Sr., and Software Engineer, Sr.; for FC II - Research Manager, and for FC IV Trainer, Jr. and Sr., Training Scheduler |
| The Government will consider inclusion at a future time. |
| 56 |
| Attachments |
| Attachment A |
| Attachment A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| For all above category descriptions, does the government allow substitution of years of experience in lieu of degree. For example, how many years of experience would equate to a bachelor’s or master’s degree in addition to the minimum years of experience required? |
| Substitution will be considered with justification on a case-by-case instance at the task order level. |
| 57 |
| B-Continuation of SF 1449 Blocks |
| B.1 IDIQ - Contract Administration Data |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 7-8 |
| C.1.G Replacements |
| Any partner being removed from a VIT or who voluntarily withdraws from its VIT will be unable to join an existing different VIT for a period no less than six (6) months.... A VITEP or VITSO that has not been used on a task order for one-year may withdraw from the VIT and may join an existing VIT after a reduced 3-month waiting period. Does the reduced 3-month waiting period refer to all removals/withdrawals? |
| The reduced 3-month waiting period applies to a VITEP or VITSO that has not been used on a task order over the previous 12-months or longer. |
| 58 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y1.5 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| For projects listed in Attachment Y1.4 that do not have a completed CPAR/PPIRS and require a PPQ, if the work was done as a subcontractor should Offerors request Attachment Y1.5 Past Performance Questionnaire (FC IV) be completed by the prime contractor or the ultimate government client? If the subcontractor does not have direct access to the ultimate government client, would a PPQ from the prime contractor suffice? |
| If work was performed by a small business as a first-tier subcontractor on a contract where a subcontracting plan was used, the prime contractor (or Government Client) may provide a rating of the subcontractor's past performance. This may be delivered directly to the Government by the prime contractor or to the small business concern by the prime contractor for the contract on which the concern was the first-tier subcontractor, then from the offeror directly to the Government. It should be clear on the completed PPQ who completed the form and whose performance was rated. |
| 59 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y2.1 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Is a letter of commitment required from the VITAL? Attachment Y2.1 Robustness Spreadsheet includes the option to answer "Yes" to the question about the letter of commitment in the row designated for the Offeror (see cell G12). If so, are VITALs only required to complete the first page or are they required to write the page 2 write ups (the 1,000-character LOC supplements) for each applicable capability area? |
| A letter of commitment is not required of the VITAL. |
If the VITAL is planning to support Capability Areas, that they did not submit an experience example on as part of the Full Mission Capability submission (Attachment Y1.1 to 1.4), then yes, a write up must be submitted for contributing towards robustness in those additional capability areas.
| 60 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y1.1 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| For the contract details included in the Y1.1, Y1.2, Y1.3 and Y1.4 forms, may Offerors include "Confidential" for information that is not available, either because the client is a commercial client and the Offeror/partner is unable to disclose the information, or because the Offeror/partner was a subcontractor on the referenced work. |
| Yes, but limitation on information provided may impact Govt confidence as it relates to the evaluation criteria. |
| 61 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y4 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Can the government please provide an updated version of Attachment Y4 - Key Personnel IDIQ? In this form, if you check the box next to "Yes" referencing the Letter of Commitment, as soon as you move to another page of the file or save and close the file, the box unchecks. |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 62 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y5.1 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Can the government please provide an updated version of Attachment Y5.1 STO1 Key Personnel? In this form, if you check the box next to "Yes" referencing the Letter of Commitment, as soon as you move to another page of the file or save and close the file, the box unchecks. |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 63 |
| Attachments |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y6.2 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Can the government please provide an updated version of Attachment Y6.2 STO2 Key Personnel? In this form, if you check the box next to "Yes" referencing the Letter of Commitment, as soon as you move to another page of the file or save and close the file, the box unchecks. |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 64 |
| Attachments |
| Price Spreadsheet IHT2.0 LCATS. |
| Attachment Y7.1 |
| N/A |
| Tab 1 |
| Could you please confirm that the government's IDIQ rate request is for a single set of rates independent of location (i.e., government or contractor site)? |
| Correct |
| 65 |
| Attachments |
| Price Spreadsheet STO2 |
| Attachment Y7.3 |
| N/A |
| Tab 4 |
| Cells D4, E35, and D65 are all missing the NTE LH CLIN amounts specifically CLIN 22 and CLIN 24. In addition, the FFP CLIN 17 is included in the LH CLIN. Can the government provide an updated spreadsheet to make sure the numbers are included correctly, or can offerors make the correction? |
| Update has been made in Rows 5, 35 and 65 in file version dated 4-30. Offerors shall utilize updated pricing spreadsheet provided in Amendment. |
| 66 |
| Attachments |
| Price Spreadsheet STO2 |
| Attachment Y7.3 |
| N/A |
| Tabs 2 & 4 |
| The description of services for CLINs 0004, 1004, and 2004 specifies that they are provided bimonthly and in quantities of 26. Attachment S2 (STO 2 PWS (Delivery Schedule 3.4.2., pg.18-19, Delivery Date column) indicates "Twice per month." Should the Description of Services be semi-monthly, with a quantity of 24 or bi-weekly to match the quantity of 26? |
| Update has been made in Cells D9, D40 and D70 in file version dated 4-30. (CLINs x004 should have a quantity of 24). Offerors shall utilize updated pricing spreadsheet provided in Amendment. |
| 67 |
| Attachments |
| Price Spreadsheet STO2 |
| Attachment Y7.3 |
| N/A |
| Tab 4 |
| For FFP CLINs 17s - Optional Contractor Project Management Planning (Supports xx18-xx25), is the scope of the support comparable to or used as an extension of CLIN 6 – Rapid Response and Triage Team (PWS 3.3)? |
| The scope of CLINs x017 is comparable to activities of CLINs x002. |
| 68 |
| Attachments |
| PWS |
| Attachment Y7.2 |
| B2 |
| Lines 0003 and 1004 |
| The B2 Price Schedule tab shows at lines 0003 and 1004 a quantity of 12 while the PWS deliverables table shows 11. Can the Government confirm the quantity? |
| CLIN 0003 and 1003 have been updated on the price schedule to be a quantity of 11, CLIN 0004 and 1004 have been updated to a quantity of 1 |
| 69 |
| Attachments |
| PWS |
| Attachment S1 |
| 27 |
| Section 6 |
| Can the government please confirm that the government will set the price for ODCs after the award and that contractors are not expected to provide an ODC estimate in their proposals? |
| Offerors need to propose a projected ODC for requirement listed in 5.1 for Usability Testing and Simulation Taskings |
| 70 |
| E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| RFP, C. Proposal Submission Instructions |
| N/A |
| 95 |
| 2 |
| Can the government please clarify that the form referred to on page 95 that should be titled: “Ph2_VIT – VITAL Services_<offeror name>.pdf” is the Y3 and not the Y4 as referenced at the bottom of the table? |
| See Question ID Number 6 |
| 71 |
| E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| RFP, C. Proposal Submission Instructions |
| N/A |
| 87 |
| 6 |
| The solicitation states "Offeror shall also provide Past Performance Questionnaires supporting the FC IV capability Area relevant Experience Examples if no formal CPARS exists." May Offerors request a PPQ in the situation that a CPAR exists, but the Offeror believes the PPQ will provide a better representation of the customer's experience with them than the CPAR? |
| PPQs may be submitted in addition to noting CPARS is available, not instead of. CPARS is viewed as the official performance assessment of record, but PPQs may also be submitted for consideration of additional information. If conflicting information exists between the two sources, CPARS will trump PPQ. |
| 72 |
| Attachments |
| STO1 |
| N/A |
| 2 |
| 5.2 |
| Would the Government allow the Offeror to adjust the labor hours proposed for the key personnel listed in the deliverables schedule (i.e., below the 60% LOE)? |
| Dedicated Resources must be allocated at least 60% FTEE availability |
| 73 |
| Attachments |
| VHA IHT 2.0 Labor Categories. |
| Attachment A |
| N/A |
| HR Specialist Sr., (Page 27) and Human Capital Expert, (Page 28) |
| The HR Specialist Sr. and Human Capital Expert LCATs do not have any specified years of experience. Will the Government provide years of experience equivalent for these LCATs? |
| Refer to the description for both LCATs. The years of experience is described. The government will update the form to provide relevant information in the minimum years’ experience column. |
| 74 |
| E.3 Instructions and Evaluation Approach |
| RFP, C. Proposal Submission Instructions |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| If the government provides updated forms as part of future amendments, could the government explicitly identify if Offerors are required to use the updated versions of those forms or if Offerors can use the forms provided in Amendment 0005 (the forms ending in 4-18)? |
| Use of the most up-to-date form is requested to ensure a proper proposal. Note that previous PPQ and Letter of Commitment versions posted to SAM.gov on 3-18-24 will be accepted, however, the offeror is responsible for ensuring accuracy of information and adherence to character limitations. For future amendments, the Government will specify if an updated version of a particular form must be used. |
| 75 |
| SECTION E - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| Attachment Y2.1 |
| Row 113 |
| Columns J-BQ |
| The formulas for the number of Vetted Partners per CA are incorrect in these columns. Will the Government change the formula from "=COUNTIF(J12:J111, "X")" to ="COUNTIF(J12:J111,"FMC-X")", please? |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 76 |
| SECTION E - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 96 |
| Key Personnel - Letter of Commitment |
| The government states that "Personnel submitted in Attachment Y4 cannot be fictional examples and must be real people who are actively employed by the VITAL (at the time of submission and evaluation) or a prospective employee to be hired by the VITAL in the key personnel role, with a valid Letter of Commitment that must be added to the Letter of Commitment pages of Attachment Y4." |
Attachment Y4 does not have "Letter of Commitment pages." Will the government provide a revised Attachment Y4 that includes Letter of Commitment pages?
No, Attachment Y4 will not be updated to include Letter of Commitment pages. Merge the Y4 form with any Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel. As stated on page 96 of the RFP, "Save completed form as a single file titled: “Ph2_VIT - KP_<offeror name>.pdf” and submit with Phase II proposal." There is no specified format for the letters of Commitment from Key Personnel.
| 77 |
| D. Contract Documents, Exhibits or Attachments |
| ` |
| Attachment Y1.4 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| FCIV 4A. 1.2 Part 2 Relevant Experience Example template is missing field for "Agency" |
| Form updated, see revised attachment provided with RFP Amendment 0007. |
| 78 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| Attachment Y5.2 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| Attachment Y5.2 STO1 Past Performance, 1. Section 1, Contract Descriptions Contract 1, 2 (Optional), 3 (Optional), the template does not allow for the entry of contract 2,3 optional information (company name, project title). Fields do not prompt for identification of Offeror and VITEP or VITSO. |
| See RFP instructions. Government tested form and all fields allow for proper entry. |
| 79 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| N/A |
| 88 |
| Table 2A |
| What is the expected timing of the technical demonstration for planning purposes? |
| The technical demonstration is tentatively planned for the week of May 13th, but this is subject to change. |
| 80 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| N/A |
| 88 |
| Table 2A |
| When will additional guidance/details be provided after the 7 May submission? |
| Scenario criteria will be provided two business days before the scheduled demo. Demo will occur via Microsoft TEAMS. |
| 81 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| N/A |
| 88 |
| Table 2A |
| Government Requirement: Prior to the technical demonstration, all offerors still in the competition will be provided details of the scenario and all specific instructions for documentation (anticipate condensed summary of plan for demonstration) and participation requirements (anticipate a 90-minute virtual presentation with limited two-way dialog). Question: Will the Government confirm all Phase 2 Offerors will participate in the Technical Demonstration so the Quoter can properly prepare in advance of notification? Or will this be a down select of offerors in the competitive range? |
| The Government intends on having all responsive and timely Phase 2 Offerors meeting eligibility requirements participate in the technical demonstration. There will be no down select from Phase I offer for the purposes of the technical demonstration. |
| 82 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| N/A |
| 89 |
| Table 2A |
| Is the text on the bottom of page 89 and top of page 90 detailing experience examples relevant to the technical demonstration itself? |
| No. The text cited relates to overall mission capability of the Offeror and does not relate to the Demonstration |
| 83 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| Attachment Y1.1 |
| 3 |
| 1.a.1.2 |
| The government asks for the "Describe relationship to contract awardee if not same company name:", then "Contract Awardee:". If the VIT member providing the performance example is not the contract awardee (i.e., subcontractor), should the remaining fields be for the prime contract or for the subcontract (contract number, value, and POP)? |
| Fields are to be completed with information pertaining to the subcontract (contract number, value, and POP). The narrative must describe only the subcontract work performed, as to not to claim work performed by other companies. |
| 84 |
| E.3 INSTRUCTIONS AND EVALUATION APPROACH |
| C. Proposal Submission Instructions, b. Phase II |
| Attachment Y6.1 |
| N/A |
| N/A |
| If the table in Attachment Y6.1, STO2 Performance Risk is duplicated for the 2nd and 3rd examples, because the field names are identical, those fields pre-populate with the performance risk 1 content and do not allow for different content. If the three examples are entered into separate PDF files and flattened (i.e., printed to PDF file), those 3 PDF files can then be combined without issue. Would the government prefer this method, or will the government provide an updated form that includes all three tables with necessary field naming structure? |
| Printing to pdf and combining is acceptable. |
| 85 |
| C Proposal Submission Instructions |
| RFP |
| Attachment Y2.2 |
| 91 |
| 2 |
| In anticipation of a positive Advisory Letter, we have been using an earlier version of Attachment Y2.2 Letter of Commitment (dated 3/25). Given that the updated version (dated 4/18) has minimal changes, will the government accept the previous version, or will all VIT members need to complete the latest version? |
| The Govt will accept the 3/25 version, however, the offeror is responsible for ensuring accuracy of information and adherence to character limitations. |
| 86 |
| C Proposal Submission Instructions |
| RFP |
| RFP (SF1449) |
| 89 |
| 4 |
| Can the government please provide an update on when you expect Technical Demonstrations to take place? |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
