S05 Government Responses to Vendor Questions_Phase 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C10X25R0001
About this file
This document is a set of Government Responses to Vendor Questions related to a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Disability Examination (MDE) contract for Regions 1-4. The key details are:
The RFP will be a multiple-award IDIQ contract under FAR 15 and FAR 12 for MDE services. The Government has addressed vendor questions on topics such as invoice submission timeframes, contractor and veteran portals, pricing format and attachments, quality assurance plan, and proposal page limits. The Government has also provided updated attachments referenced in the RFP, including the Roster of Existing Exam Providers, Professional Compensation Plans, and Sample Task Order. The proposal due date has been extended to September 23, 2024. Vendors are instructed to submit pricing information and past performance separately for each proposed region.
View the file
Other files
Show all 44
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
Sheet 1
| Page # | RFP Section Reference | Question | Answer |
| N/A | PWS Attachment: Attachment X - Monthly Invoice Template Mini Mod | Current industry standards for other VA programs, including VA Community Care Network, allow claims to be submitted up to 180 days after the date when services were provided. Based on this, is the goverment willing to extend the submission period to 180 days? There are many instances related to DBQ updates, changes in CMS rates, directed system or process updates that require system development and UAT, and working with examiners to ensure their coding is accurate before we bill it to the government that could delay invoicing more than 90 days. Additionally, invoicing could be delayed leading to item(s) missing an invoice cycle(s) and because we can only invoice once every 30 days, that could push some items past the 90 day mark. This creates risk that vendors may not be reimbursed for work completed under the contract. | The government maintains its position that indicates that invoices must be submitted NLT 180 days after the date when services were provided. Services should be invoiced NLT 180 days upon delivery to the Government based upon the Contention Completion (RAP) Date or Service/Appointment Date. |
| N/A | PWS Attachment: Attachment X - Monthly Invoice Template Mini Mod | How do RAP dating and document IDs pertain to various travel such as special transportation or incarcerated vet? | Travel CLINs do not require a RAP date or Document ID |
| N/A | Attachment AR - Claimant Daily Appointment Log | Will the government confirm that an updated AR attachment will be provided that matches the current report and data dictionary? | A revised PWS Attachment AR is attached to this Amendment 0003. |
| Amendment 1, S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx | S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx |
| Row 102 | Can the government provide the page count limitations for the Price Narrative needed to substantiate the realism of the CLIN prices (or is the 3-page limit for Professional Employee Compensation Plan Information intended to be inclusive of this additional Price Narrative information)? | The 3 page limit was inclusive of this additional price narrative information. However this page limit is increased via this modification. | ||
| File Name: S02+B.2+MDE+Reg+1-4+PWS | ||||
| 22-23 | File Name: S02+B.2+MDE+Reg+1-4+PWS | Whether the contractor and veteran portals exist or need to be design and created, can the Govt confirm that the ATO for these systems will need to be coordinated with the VA (or another contractor working with the VA on ATO of various VA systems)? | The Veteran Portal and Contractor Portal should be included as part of the ATO for the entire system vs. separate systems. Portals should be included in the system boundary. Conceptually, the portals should be web-facing controlled/limited access to the system, based on the intended users for each portal, and meet the system ATO requirements. | |
| 74-75 | File Name: S02+B.2+MDE+Reg+1-4+PWS | Does the VA have a preference regarding whether the contractor and veteran portals managed by the contractor should be hosted on-prem/data center or the cloud? | VA does not have a preference. The location of the portals is dependent on each vendor's design and location of their system. | |
| 13 | File Name: S02+B.2+MDE+Reg+1-4+PWS | The contract period of performance is for 1 year, but if the contractor requires time to complete the ATO process, can the period of performance be adjusted to have a full year of services? | The POP for this contract is to remain a 12-month base with one 12-month options and an option to extend services up to an additional 6 months. | |
| File Name: S06+36C10X25R0001_0001 (from Amendment 0001 release on 08/23/24) | ||||
| 36C10X25R0001, pg 30 | SECTION D - CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS, OR ATTACHMENTS |
| See attached document: S02 Solicitation Attachment G – Quality Assurance Plan Template | The Amendment 1 solicitation includes a reference to an “Attachment G – Quality Assurance Plan Template.” This document was not included in the government’s list of published attachments. Can the government provide this attachment if it is relevant for Phase 2 evaluation? | Solicition Attachment G - Quality Assurance Plan Template is attached to this amendment 0003 |
| Amendment 1, S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx | S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx |
| Row 13 | Amendment 1 indicates that Attachment C has been updated. Can the government provide this updated Attachment? | Solicition Attachment C - Roster of Existing Exam Providers Sample is attached to this amendment 0003 |
| Amendment 1, S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx | S05_Government_Responses_to_Vendor_Questions.xlsx |
| Row 102 | Amendment 1 indicates that Attachment F has been updated. Can the government provide this updated Attachment? | Solicition Attachment F - Professional Compensation Plans is attached to this amendment 0003 | |
| 2 | SF 1449, Block 8 | Based on the timeline for Phase 2 questions (due 09/09/24) and the proposal submission date (due 09/16/24), we respectfully request an extension to the proposal submission date. |
| It is understood that responding to the set of questions requires adequate time from VBA. And an adequate timeframe is also needed for offerors to incorporate responses into the Phase 2a and Phase 2b submission. Therefore, we respectfully request the final due date to provide 10 business days from release of the final Amendment and any solicitation revisions. | The due date of Phase 2 proposals is extended to 09:00 AM ET on Monday September 23, 2024. | |||
| 30 | Section D | Section D lists a S02 Solicitation Attachment G – Quality Assurance Plan Template and this file was not included in Amendment 0001, or Amendment 0002. This Attachment is not cited elsewhere in the solicitation, i.e., no guidance or instructions. It is our assumption that the Solicitation Attachment G is not required, and that a Quality Assurance Plan is not included in the Phase 2 proposal submission and is due post-award according to the PWS Section 6 Schedule of Deliverables. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify and provide the file and associated instructions as needed. | Solicition Attachment G - Quality Assurance Plan Template is attached to this amendment 0003 | |
| 38 | Proposal Submission Instructions, Table | The proposal instructions table states the page limitation for Volume II, Past Performance is a total of 4 pages for Sections 1 to 4. The Government Responses to Vendor Questions row 7 states "The instructions are revised to increase the page limit to 4 pages per reference." Please clarify the page limitations for Volume II. | The page limitation in the solicition remains correct, 4 pages, incuding Volume II, Sections 1-4 plus a maximum of 3 PPWs. | |
| 38 | Proposal Submission Instructions, Table | File names for Volume IV, Price do not include a Region designation (i.e., file names do not contain "_R#"). It is our assumption that all four files that comprise a Volume IV are to be named with the Region number to align with the naming convention for Volumes I to III, and that a set of the four files is to be submitted for each proposed Region. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | This assumpetion is incorrect. Only one Volume IV is to be provided using the nameing convention provided. The Offeror is to complete the tabs within the workbook which align with the Regions for which it is proposing. | |
| Amendment 0001 RFP; p. 38 | Phase: 2a | |||
| Factor: Full Mission Capability | Will the Government consider changing the RFP instructions to align with the current Attachment C Roster of Existing Exam Providers (i.e., remove Name, City, and number of hours they will perform exams)? | Solicition Attachment C - Roster of Existing Exam Providers Sample is attached to this amendment 0003 | ||
| Amendment 0001 RFP; p. 38 | Phase: 2a | |||
| Factor: Full Mission Capability | If the current instructions remain and Attachment C is updated, would the government consider removing the requirement to include number of hours? This is not a fixed amount and will vary based on examination volume/specialty required/geographic location. |
| If the hours requirement is kept, how should that information be presented when the number of hours a provider may perform exams is variable? | Column G is revised to "Estimated Number of Hours (they will perform exams) per month" to account for the variability | ||
| Amendment 0001 RFP; p. 38 | Phase 2B Volume II | ||
| Factor: Past Performance | The instructions for Past Performance require the response to be broken into four (4) different sections that bundle information about all references in more than one section. Can the government confirm an overall page count for Volume II to clarify page count logistics between sections? | ||
| The page limitation in the solicition remains correct, 4 pages, incuding Volume II, Sections 1-4 plus a maximum of 3 PPWs. | |||
| Amendment 0001 RFP; p. 39 | Phase 2A | The RFP states, "If the proposed Ramp-Up Plan is identical to that for any other geographic region proposed, in all respects other than location of the geographic region to be serviced, the Offeror shall clearly note this information within the first two pages of the volume." |
| Will the Government confirm it is seeking geographic variances for only the Ramp-Up Plan portion of the 2A response, or should Offerors include geographic variance for describing the Mission Capability? | The Government is seeking geographic variance for both the Ramp-Up Plan and describing the Mission Capability. | ||
| Amendment 0001 RFP; p. 41 | Phase 2B | The RFP states, "The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited." |
| Does this apply to navigational bookmarks in the table of contents and list of tables/figures that use hyperlinks to navigate to sections and exhibits within the file? | No, navigational bookmarks to navigate within a file are acceptable. | |||
| pg. 46 | Pricing Submittal Instructions | The instructions state, “In addition to the materials referenced above, the proposal shall include a Professional Employee Compensation Plan that identifies each proposed medical professional position, the local area in which the employee will perform contract work, and the proposed compensation rate inclusive of fringe benefits.” Since each region comprises a large amount of staff in many different locations, is it the Government’s intent that offerors add rows in Attachment F to cover the large geographic span and location requirement? If this is the case, it could mean that Attachment F could consist of anywhere between 500 to 1,000 rows per region. | The Government's intent is that the offer will add rows as necessary. | |
| 45-47 | Proposal Submission Instructions, | |||
| Volume IV - Price | The proposal instructions for Volume IV, Price state that the "Offerors shall complete three spreadsheets; Excel Spreadsheet 1 (B.3 Price Schedule), Excel Spreadsheet 2 (Solicitation Attachment E), and Excel Spreadsheet 3 (Solicitation Attachment F)." Each of these Solicitation Attachment MS Excel files contain a tab for each of the four Regions (i.e., not Region-specific files). It is our assumption that for a proposed Region, only the corresponding tab in each spreadsheet will be completed and submitted. For example, proposal for Region 1 contains the following files: |
VendorName_Price_R1.doc/docx/pdf VendorName_Price_R1.xlsx VendorName Sample_TO_R1.xlsx VendorName_Prof_Comp_plans_R1.xlsx
| Where only the Region 1 tab in the three spreadsheets is completed. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify. | This assumption is correct. | |||
| File Name: S06+B.3+Price+Schedule+9.3.24 (from Amendment 0002 release on 09/04/24) | ||||
| N/A | All Region tabs, SLIN 0021Q | SLIN 0021Q, Administrative Site Reviews contains an entry of "NSP" for both the base year and option year 1 unit price columns. These two cells are highlighted in light blue, indicating a price is required. In addition, SLIN 0021Q was clearly to be priced in the original and Amendment 0001 Price Schedule and the Amendment 0001 Solicitation Attachment E, Sample Task Order. It is our assumption that the offeror is to proposal prices for SLIN 0021Q. Is this assumption correct? If not, please clarify and provide a revised Price Schedule and Sample Task Order files as needed. | No, the offerors are not to propose prices. A revised Solicition Attachment E, Sample Task Order and B.3 Price Schedule are attached to this Amendment 0003 | |
| N/A | All Region tabs | PWS Section 6, Schedule of Deliverables contains Item 22 for PWS Section 2.5 Telephone Access and a corresponding Contractor Call Review Deliverable. CLIN 0021, Deliverables does not contain an entry for this Deliverable. Request a new SLIN 0021"X" be added to the Price Schedule (and Sample Task Order) with the description "Contractor Call Review in accordance with Section 2.5 of the PWS." | To clarify, the vendor is not conducting the call review. The vendor will send the call recording to the Government to perform its review of the vendors' calls. No CLIN will be added. | |
| File Name: S02+Solicitation+Attachment+C+-+Roster+of+Existing+Exam+Providers+Sample (from draft RFP release on 08/08/24) | ||||
| N/A | N/A | A revised Solicitation Attachment C was not released with Amendment 0001 as indicated in the Government Responses to Vendor Questions row 13, which stated "Attachment C is updated to reflect the requirements of the instruction table." Request provision of the revised Solicitation Attachment C that matches the instructions, i.e., addition of a column for "number of hours they will perform exams." | Solicition Attachment C - Roster of Existing Exam Providers Sample is attached to this amendment 0003 | |
| File Name: S06+Solicitation+Attachment+E+-+Sample+Task+Order (from Amendment 0001 release on 08/23/24) | ||||
| N/A | All Region tabs, SLIN 0018A | The formula for SLIN 0018A, SME Opinions for the OPT YR 1 TOTAL PRICE column entry appears incorrect in all the Region tabs. Based on the calculations for the other SLINs, expected the calculation to be column E times column G for the column I value. Request validation of the calculation and a revised Solicitation Attachment E with a correction. | The formula is corrected. A revised Solicition Attachment E, Sample Task Order is attached to this Amendment 0003 | |
| N/A | Region 3 tab, SLIN 0025A | Region 3 tab, SLIN 0025A, Examiners Costs does not contain an entry in the Est Qty per Year column. The other Region tabs contain a quantity of 12 for this SLIN. Request a quantity be provided in a revised Solicitation Attachment E. | The qty should be 12. A revised Solicition Attachment E, Sample Task Order is attached to this Amendment 0003. | |
| N/A | Region 3 tab, SLIN 0025B | Region 3 tab, SLIN 0025B, Mobile Units does not contain an entry in the Est Qty per Year column. The other Region tabs contain a quantity of 12 for this SLIN. Request a quantity be provided in a revised Solicitation Attachment E. | The qty should be 12. A revised Solicition Attachment E, Sample Task Order is attached to this Amendment 0003. | |
| N/A | All Region tabs | Amendment 0002 included a revised S06+B.3+Price+Schedule+9.3.24 file and did not include a revised Solicitation Attachment E, Sample Task Order. As the Price Schedule and the Sample Task Order are to contain the identical price structure, a revised Solicitation Attachment E was expected. Request provision of a revised Solicitation Attachment E including all revisions to the Price Schedule and Attachment E due to the vendor questions and solicitation Amendments. | A revised Solicition Attachment E, Sample Task Order is attached to this Amendment 0003. |
&"Calibri"&10&K0000FF Categorization | Private&1#_x000D_
_x000D_&1#&"Calibri"&8&K000000 2024 © LoyalSource.com
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .