Q-A - BPA 36C10X24R0038.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MLRM External Clinical Review BPA
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X24R0038
About this file
This document is a Q&A related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Strategic Acquisition Center Frederick. The BPA is for external clinical review services under NAICS code 813920 and PSC R499, with a 5-year period of performance from October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2029.
The key details include: the VA will award multiple BPAs for peer review, management review, medical advisory opinions, executive summaries, reports, and inter-rater reliability studies; contractors must complete onboarding by October 1, 2024 to begin receiving cases; socioeconomic credit will be given for SDVOSB and VOSB firms; and the total estimated number of reviewers is 1,000, to be split among successful offerors. Offers are due by July 2, 2024, and the VA will not consider late submissions. Interested parties should monitor SAM.gov for any amendments or updates to the solicitation.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
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 # | Question | Response | Amendment Required? | Which Section | ||
| 1 | RFP Text: The period of performance of this BPA is for five years (October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2029). Question: Will the contractor begin receiving cases on October 1, 2024? | Contractors who have completed all required paperwork and background investigations will be able to accept work on October 1, 2024. | no | BPA Page 15, section 5.2 | ||
| 2 | Question: What is the current, average unit price for Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 AUD, FRR, MAN, and MAO reviews? | Will not be offered. | no | BPA Page 32 Section B.4 | ||
| 3 | Question: What is the current average unit price for onboarding? | Will not be offered. | no | BPA Page 32 Section B.4 | ||
| 4 | RFP Text: The Government intends to award multiple Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs). Question: How many BPAs will be awarded? | P. 83 "The Government reserves the right to establish as many or as few BPA’s as determined appropriate based on the results of this competition." | no | BPA page 83, Basis for Award | ||
| 5 | RFP Text: 3. Socio-Economic Considerations - The offeror shall complete a Subcontracting Plan as well as the following table to receive credit. Question: The VA provided Attachment M for the offeror to respond to the 1) Technical Approach and 2) Past Performance; however, there does not appear to be a section in Attachment M for the offeror to respond to 3) Socio-Economic Considerations other than “Area for additional details, if needed (4,000 Character limit).” Is that the section in Attachment M that the VA wants the offeror to include their response to Socio-Economic Considerations or should the offeror provide a separate document/file for their Socio-Economic Considerations response? | The offeror will complete a subcontracting plan and the table in section 3. "Socio-Economic Consideration" P. 84 of the solicitation. | no | BPA page 84-85 Evaluation Approach | ||
| 6 | Question: Will reviewers who currently have a PIV card (have gone through onboarding), be required to go through onboarding again? | Reviewers who do not have a break in service will be able to continue on their current background investigation. Depending on expiration dates, reviewers may need to pick up a new PIV card. | no | Attachment B | ||
| 7 | RFP Text: The following shall be submitted in addition to this proposal form: 1. | Signed SF 1449 and amendment(s), if any. An authorized official of the VITAL submitting the response shall sign the SF 1449, amendment(s) and all certifications requiring signature. | ||||
| 2. | Offeror’s statement(s) as required by paragraph b. of the VAAR Clause, E.2 VAAR 852.209-70 Organizational Conflicts Of Interest and any applicable OCI Mitigation Plans. | |||||
| 3. | Paragraph b of 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications. | |||||
| 4. | Paragraph (a)(4) from 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (May 2015) Alternate 1 (May 2014) must be completed, if applicable. | |||||
| 5. | Any proposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions upon which the proposal is predicated. Offerors are hereby advised that any offeror-imposed terms and conditions and/or assumptions which deviate from the Government’s material terms and conditions established by the solicitation may render the offeror’s proposal unacceptable and thus ineligible for award. | |||||
| 6. | Completed Price Schedule (Section B.4 of this solicitation) | |||||
| Question: Can the offeror submit their responses for #1-5 (above) in a single document, or does the VA prefer five separate documents for #1-5? That is, their response to #1 in its own document, their response to #2 in its own document, their response to #3 in its own document, etc. | Items 1,2,3 (Item 4 has been updated and re-purposed as "Additional Details"), and 5 may be submitted as one document. | no | Attachment M page 15 | |||
| 8 | On-Boarding 0001 - POP begins 7/28/24 (approximately one month after proposals are due) and POP ends 09/30/2024. Please confirm bidders must include on-boarding costs for the indicated period of performance in pricing. | Confirmed. Please include pricing for on-boarding for CLIN 0001. | no | Solicitation, Section B.4. Price/Cost Schedule, page 32 | ||
| 9 | The heading for this item states that onboarding will take place July 28, 2024 – September 30, 2025; however, the description states the POP is from 07-28-2024 to 09-30-2024. Please clarify. | Heading for CLIN 0001 should read July 28, 2024 - September 30, 2024. Amended accordingly. *CLIN 0009 is for recurring onboarding during the regular period of performance. | yes | Solicitation, Section B.4. Price/Cost Schedule, page 32 | ||
| 10 | On-Boarding 0001 - Does the quantity of 1,000 indicate the number of reviewers that the VA anticipates ideally being needed to respond to the volume of cases? | Total number of reviewers estimated for the VA's External Clinical Review Requirement. This number will be split between successful offerors. | no | Solicitation, Section B.4. Price/Cost Schedule, page 32 | ||
| 11 | On-Boarding 0009 - Please confirm bidders must include on-boarding costs for the Base Contract Period in pricing. | CLIN 0009 is for recurring onboarding during the regular period of performance. This is separate from the initial onboarding CLIN 0001, and the offeror should propose pricing. | no | Solicitation, Section B.4. Price/Cost Schedule, page 36 | ||
| 12 | Submission Requirements #4 indicates that "Paragraph (a)(4) from 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (May 2015) Alternate 1 (May 2014) must be completed, if applicable." FAR 52.212-4 appears to have been updated November 2023, and Alternate 1 of this section appears to have been updated November 2021. Please confirm that these more recent versions of FAR 52.212-4 are the correct versions for bidders to reference for their proposals. | Submission requirement #4 has been removed. Call orders will be FFP, thus FAR 52.212-4 Alt 1 not applicable. | yes | Solicitation, Section E.2 FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), page 82 | ||
| 13 | Submission Requirements #4 indicates that "Paragraph (a)(4) from 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (May 2015) Alternate 1 (May 2014) must be completed, if applicable." The most recent version of this FAR section at paragraph (a)(4) contains the following language: "At any time during contract performance, but not later than 6 months (or such other time as may be specified in the contract) after acceptance of the services or materials last delivered under this contract, the Government may require the Contractor to replace or correct services or materials that at time of delivery failed to meet contract requirements. Except as otherwise specified in paragraph (a)(6) of this clause, the cost of replacement or correction shall be determined under paragraph (i) of this clause, but the "hourly rate" for labor hours incurred in the replacement or correction shall be reduced to exclude that portion of the rate attributable to profit. Unless otherwise specified below, the portion of the "hourly rate" attributable to profit shall be 10 percent. The Contractor shall not tender for acceptance materials and services required to be replaced or corrected without disclosing the former requirement for replacement or correction, and, when required, shall disclose the corrective action taken. [Insert portion of labor rate attributable to profit.]"Please confirm that, to comply with this submission requirement, a bidder is to simply provide the portion of its labor rate attributable to profit. | Submission requirement #4 has been removed. Call orders will be FFP, thus FAR 52.212-4 Alt 1 not applicable. | yes | Solicitation, Section E.2 FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), page 82 | ||
| 14 | Submission Requirements #6 indicates that bidders are to provide a completed Attachment M: Proposal Form, which appears to include the majority of bidders' technical approach narrative. However, this form only allows text to be entered. Please confirm that bidders may provide figures and tables in an appendix. | Additional context may be offered on pg. 8 of attachment M or limited to 10 pages as a part of the re-purposed Submission Requirement #4 "Additional Details" | no | Solicitation, Section E.2 FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014), page 83 | ||
| 15 | What types of additional details are expected on this page? | The Offeror may use this page for any additional details if feels necessary. | no | Attachment M: Proposal Form, Additional Details, page 8 | ||
| 16 | Are the estimated reviews listed in this section the total for the whole BPA, or is that an estimate for each successful BPA holder? | Total for the entire VA requirement to be split amongst the awardee(s). | no | RFP, Section 1.3, Page 5 | ||
| 17 | Does an offeror have to have one reviewer per specialty prior to submission of an offer to be awarded a BPA, or is that a requirement for each BPA call? | This requirement is for each BPA Call. | no | RFP Section 2.1, Page 8 | ||
| 18 | Historically, what is the percentage of reviews that facilities request additional considerations due to perceived inaccuracies? | Historically, less than 1% of cases are returned for perceived inaccuracies. | no | RFP Section 2.1. Page 8 | ||
| 19 | The form asks offerors to describe “Depth in All Labor Categories,” yet no list of labor categories is provided as an attachment. Is the Government asking for depth in the specialties provided in Attachment A, or are labor categories a separate item? | The Government is looking for depth is the labor categories listed in Attachment A. | no | Attachment M: Proposal Form and RFP Section E.2, Technical Approach | ||
| 20 | Paragraph (a)(4) from 52.212-4 Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items (May 2015) Alternate 1 (May 2014) must be completed, if applicable.” Please clarify what is required for compliance with the requirement. | Submission requirement #4 has been removed. Call orders will be FFP, thus FAR 52.212-4 Alt 1 not applicable. | no | RFP Section E.2 Submission Requirements Attachment M | ||
| 21 | The current text of VAAR 852.219-72 is the VAAR clause for notification of Section 8(a) direct award, not the "mentor-protege evaluation credit" clause. The "mentor-protege evaluation credit" the solicitation references appears to be from a prior version of the acquisition regulations. Is it the government's intent to give credit to a bidder with a mentor-protege relationship? | Yes, ensure No 3. Socio-Economic Considerations table is completed as well. | no | RFP Section E.2 | ||
| 22 | How will the government evaluate a bidder that presents a documented mentor-protege relationship as part of its bid? Is it, for example, that all else being equal, a bidder with a mentor-protege relationship will be awarded the contract over an equally evaluated bidder without a mentor-protege? Is it an adjectival evaluation? Is it a scored evaluation? and what is the weight of the credit given to a mentor-protege relative to the weight given to other factors in the evaluation? | The Government will evaluate Small Business Participation Plan using the following adjectival ratings: |
| Adjective | Explanation |
| Full Credit | SDVOSB prime. |
| Partial Credit | VOSB prime. |
| Consideration | Large with 35% or more SDVOSB/ 50% or more VOSB subs |
| No Consideration | Large with less than 35% SDVOSB/ 50% VOSB subs |
| Adjective | Explanation | |||||
| Achievable | SDVOSB/VOSB 51% of effort achievable | |||||
| NOT Achievable | SDVOSB/VOSB 51% of effort NOT achievable | yes | RFP Section E.2 | |||
| 23 | Is the mentor-protege credit cumulative, meaning can a bidder receive more credit for two or the maximum three mentor-protege relationship? Or is it that the existence of one or more mentor-protege relationships results in the bidder being awarded the same credit? | See answer to question above. | yes | RFP Section E.2 | ||
| 24 | There is no requirement in the solicitation that a protege under an approved mentor protege is required to participate in this contract, is it the government's intent to award credit for the existence of a mentor-protege agreement regardless of whether the protege participates in this contract? The mentor in a mentor-protege agreement need not be a large business, will this evaluation credit be granted for a mentor-protege agreement where the mentor qualifies as a small business? | See answer to question No. 22 above. | yes | Reference Section E.2 | ||
| 25 | The VA will assign evaluation credit for an Offeror (prime Contractor) that is an SDVOSB or VOSB - same questions as for the mentor protege. What is the credit that will be given relative to the other evaluation factors, is the credit numeric, is it adjectival, is it binary ("yes or no"). Is the credit differentiated between SDVOSBs and VOSBs? Where, for example, a VOSB prime contractor gets some evaluation credit, but an SDVOSB prime contractor gets greater evaluation credit than a VOSB? | See answer to question No. 22 above. | yes | Reference Section E.2 | ||
| 26 | If there is a requirement that to get credit for the mentor-protege relationship, the relationship has to be a part of the bid, is it that only the protege can be a proposed partner or subcontractor? mentor-protege agreemets allow for the creation of VOSB and SDVOSB joint ventures, could the joint venture be the participant? If a joint venture is allowed to participate and the bid receives mentor-protege credit as a result, is it cumulative, meaning the bid receives more credit if both the protege -and- the joint venture participate? | See answer to question No. 22 above. | yes | Reference Section E.2 | ||
| 27 | Regarding receiving credit for the mentor-protege arrangement, the government writes: "the Offeror must provide with its proposal a copy of a signed letter issued by the VA Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization approving the Offeror’s Mentor-Protégé Agreement" It is our understanding that the VA OSDBU no longer approves SDVOSB mentor-protege agreements and that it is the SBA that approves those agreements? Can the government advise whether an SBA letter of approval of a mentor-protege agreement is sufficient to prove its existence? The sample Medical Advisory Opinion (MAO) provided has 9 attorney questions in the Section “Attorney’s Questions and Responses to Each:”. Is 9 the average number of questions per MAO? | Yes, SBA letter of approval of a mentor-protege agreement is sufficient to prove its existence. | The average number of questions, including sub questions and explanations, per MAO is 19. | yes | Reference Section E.2 Attachment G1 | ||
| 28 | What is the most number of attorney questions ever asked in this section of the MAO on the current contract? | The most questions has been 64, including subquestions and requested explanations. | no | Attachment G1 | ||
| 29 | Is there a VA small business subcontracting plan or minimum, percentage requirement that we should be aware of? | Section E.2, "Basis for Award" - Socio-Economic Considerations - section 6. 6)The VA will assign evaluation credit for an Offeror (prime Contractor) that is a SDVOSB or VOSB. Non-Veteran owned firms that subcontract 7% or more of the contract value to a SDVOSB or 10% or more of the contract value to VOSB will also receive evaluation credit. | no | Page 84, Evaluation Approach | ||
| 30 | What source of truth does the government utilize to compare to for standards of care based on industry recognized standards such as MCG or InterQual or are standards of care based on VA developed standards for peer reviews/management review reports? | A standard of care is a diagnostic or treatment process that a practitioner should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance. It is how similarly qualified practitioners managed a patient's care under the same or similar circumstances. The expert's comparable education, training, experiences, licensure, clinical privileges, and scope of practice should serve as the metric. | no | Page 13, Section 4.1 | ||
| 31 | Does the government utilize an independent system or VA environment tool to conduct peer reviews for peer reviews/management review reports? | The VA has a system of data management mechanisms and user interfaces that streamline the Risk Management Peer Review submission and management process. The system allows staff to collect, track, query and develop reports on historical and real time data accumulated through the process from a single secure source. | no | Pages 5, 9, Section B.2 | ||
| 32 | Do the contractor RN’s need any special certification for medical advisory reviews since this is an Attorney Level Summary (Legal Nurse Consultant, etc.)? | No, they do not need to be a Legal Nurse Consultant. If a specific type of RN is requested, such as wound care, the reviewer would need that experience or certification. | no | Page 14, Section B.2, 2.1.8 | ||
| 33 | Does the Government require the Contractor to complete IRR Studies/Task Order Report by a Physician? Does this require Physicians from different specialties to provide different opinions? | The Government requires IRR studies to be completed for each call order. It is imperative that each reviewer is compared to their peers in the same specialty. For example, Primary Care MD is compared to Primary Care MD, and Orthopedic Surgeon is compared to an Orthopedic Surgeon. It would be inappropriate to have different specialties perform interrater reliability together. | no | Page 14, Section B.2, 2.1.8 | ||
| 34 | Does the Government require the Contractor to complete IRR Studies/Task Order Report by a Physician? Does this require Physicians from different specialties to provide different opinions? | The Government requires IRR studies to be completed for each call order. It is imperative that each reviewer is compared to their peers in the same specialty. For example, Primary Care MD is compared to Primary Care MD, and Orthopedic Surgeon is compared to an Orthopedic Surgeon. It would be inappropriate to have different specialties perform interrater reliability together. | no | Page 14, Section B.2, 2.1.8 | ||
| 35 | Can the government confirm that the Executive Summary is considered a “special” project with very low volume and requires Physician sign off? | Yes, an executive summary is historically a very low-volume request. They require the signature of the same credential and specialty as the involved practitioner. | no | Page 6, Section B.2 | ||
| 36 | Can the Government confirm that all reviews and deliverables required in the PWS will only be used for quality assurance of internal clinical determinations and clinical performance and not influence changes to previous medical diagnosis or treatment plan of a current patient? | Deliverables will be used as described in the PWS. They will not be used to influence changes to previous medical diagnoses or treatment plans of a current patient. | no | Page 7, Section B.2, 2.1 | ||
| 37 | Does the Government requirement RN’s to be licensed in a particular state? Or could they work under the license from there “Home” state? | RNs need to be licensed by a state licensing board. No specific state is required. | no | Page 14, Section B2, 4.1.2 | ||
| 38 | May the government provide further clarification regarding the systems used for conducting medical record reviews and report templates? | The VA has a system of data management mechanisms and user interfaces that streamline the Risk Management Peer Review submission and management process. The system allows staff to collect, track, query and develop reports on historical and real time data accumulated through the process from a single secure source. |
The Electronic Health Record, Joint Longitudinal Viewer, is the permitted health record for this contract, as written in the PWS.
| no | Page 8, Section B.2; Page 20, Section B.3, 4.0 | ||||
| 39 | Will the Government consider physicians reviewers that are experienced and performing health-care oversight and/or adjacent duties, but are not in active practice 20 hours per month? | Short-term exceptions to this requirement will be considered on a case-by-case basis. | no | Page 14, Section 4.1.1 | |
| 40 | Will the Government consider non-physician reviewers that are experienced and performing health-care oversight and/or adjacent duties, but are not in active practice 20 hours per month? | Short-term exceptions to this requirement will be considered on a case-by-case basis. | no | Page 14, Section 4.1.2 | |
| 41 | Does the Government expect that the Key Personnel Medical Director will have experience in all the areas (medicine, surgery, mental health, primary care, emergency medicine) or just some? | The expectation is the Medical Director will be able to speak to all areas, and if not, be able to meet with the reviewer and adequately and accurately represent the reviewer's statements. | no | Page 15, Section B.2, 4.3 | |
| 42 | May the government clarify how the physician or clinician can recuse themselves from a review if a conflict of interest is identified? | The Reviewer would inform the Vendor, who would then notify the COR via the data management system. | no | Pg 13, Section 4.0 and Pg 14 Section 4.3 | |
| 43 | Please confirm that the Government does not require submission of resumes for Key Personnel as there is no reference noted to this in the solicitation. If resumes are to be included, please advise if they should be included as attachments. | Confirmed. Resumes are not required for submission. | no | Solicitation, Section E.2 | |
| 44 | Please confirm the intentional omission of Attachment L. | Confirmed. Attachment L intentionally omitted. | no | Solicitation, Section D | |
| 45 | Please advise if the Government expects to see tables within the response template? If yes, how should they be considered in the character count? | Additional context may be offered on pg. 8 of attachment M or limited to 10 pages as a part of the re-purposed Submission Requirement #4 "Additional Details" | no | Attachment M | |
| 46 | In regards to the expected character count, does this include spaces? | Character count does not include spaces | no | Attachment M | |
| 47 | As indicated in Item 1, please define the term VITAL as used in the document? | Updated to "company" | yes | Attachment M | |
| 48 | Are the Technical Approach Factors in descending order of importance? | There is no particular order. | no | Attachment M | |
| 49 | Subsequent to page 7, the pagination appears to be incorrect. Will the Government please update the page numbers. | Updated | no | Attachment M | |
| 50 | Area for additional details, if needed. Is this area available for all of the technical questions on pages 2 through 7, or is it just one 4,000 character space for all 5 Technical responses above? | Additional context may be offered on pg. 8 of attachment M or limited to 10 pages as a part of the re-purposed Submission Requirement #4 "Additional Details" | no | Attachment M | |
| 51 | Each Past Performance Reference allows for a total of 10,000 characters. Given that this section has more characters than the technical is Past Performance weighted heavier than Technical Approach in this Solicitation? | No | no | Attachment M | |
| 52 | Will any socioeconomic credit be given for WOSB or HubZone businesses? | Socio-economic credit will be given to SDVOSB and VOSB concerns only | no | Solicitation | |
| 53 | Would the Government please confirm whether the six listed requirements/items (SF 1449, OCI, Reps and Certs, Section B.4, etc.) are to be submitted as separate attachments/documents or consolidated into one volume titled SF 1449, AMENDMENTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS | Items 1,2,3 (Item 4 has been updated and re-purposed as "Additional Details"), and 5 may be submitted as one document. | no | Attachment M - SF 1449, AMENDMENTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS | |
| 54 | Please confirm that there are no page limitations or specific formatting requirements for the six listed requirements. | Requirement 4. Additional Details: The Offeror may submit up a maximum of 10 pages (Single Space – 12-point font) of additional details as a continuation of page 8, Attachment M. | no | Attachment M - SF 1449, AMENDMENTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS | |
| 55 | What is the definition of each unit as referenced under item number 0001 (On-boarding)? | Total number of reviewers estimated for the VA's External Clinical Review Requirement. This number will be split between successful offerors. | no | Solicitation, Section B.4 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .