Amendment 0003_ Questions and Answers_FINAL.docx

VENDOR QUESTIONS - RFQ 36C24126Q0547 - VAMC WHITE RIVER JUNCTION - BULK OXYGEN v.1

1. CONTRACT TYPE: As the NAICS for this RFQ is 325210 Industrial Gas Manufacturing, please confirm whether this is a Service Contract or a Supply Contract. This is a supply contract

1. CURRENT CONTRACT INFO: What is the current contract number for this same requirement? 36C24125P0327

1. FOB DESTINATION: Please confirm that the contract resulting from this solicitation will be FOB Destination. confirmed

1. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: What is the anticipated period of performance for the base year? PG 5 of 21 (Section 1.2) in the RFQ states that “The base contract period for all contracts awarded under this solicitation will be from date of award through a one-year period with four continuing option years to equal the term of five years.” However, a start date for the base year is not provided (i.e., will the awarded contract potentially have a short base year depending on the date of award?). The base year will be one year from date of award

1. CLINs:

· What is the utility purpose of having lump sum CLINs for Fill/Rental of (1) JB & (1) EA, when invoicing is monthly, instead of utilizing the more industry common format of itemizing each supply/service function by its own CLIN? How are offerors to price a lump sum CLIN to ensure all offerors are pricing off of the same format, and how does the awardee invoice for the exact amount of oxygen product delivered per 100/Compressed Cubic Feet (CCF) at a specific contracted price rate?

· Recommended **Example** CLIN Structure which allows offerors to more accurately bid as well as the awardee invoice for exactly what is delivered/rented:

0. Oxygen per CCF

0. Monthly Tank Rental per (12) MONTH

0. Monthly Telemetry Monitoring (being a contract requirement) per (12) MONTH

0. Emergency Delivery per EACH (typically delivery required within 24 hours, after hours, weekends, or holidays; Emergency Delivery is mentioned as required within 24 hours of receipt however there are costs associated with this request if the emergency is not due to fault of the contractor; QTY would be whatever the GOV deems appropriate for funding).

1. SITE VISIT: What are the provisions for a site visit? There will be no site visit

1. TANK SIZES / USAGE INFO:

6. Tank Sizes: What are the tank sizes (Main & Reserve)? This is not specified in the RFQ yet is critical info for pricing monthly tank rental (especially if tank install is required). The SOW does hint that the Reserve is made up of cylinders but is not concrete. The main tank is 3000 gallons and the reserve tank is 500 gallons. The bottle reserve is not important to this contract as bottle delivery is already covered under a separate contract.

6. Tank Set Points: Please confirm the Tank Level Set Points (in inches) for the Main & Reserve Bulk Oxygen tanks. Pictures of the tank gauges/placards notating the tank levels will suffice.

6. Estimated # of deliveries: Approximately how often does the bulk oxygen tank site require fill (e.g., weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc.)? We see a delivery about every other month.

6. Annual Oxygen QTY: Please verify the estimated annual QTY of Bulk Oxygen as there appears to be a missing digit/typo in the SOW

3. We have typically carried a total volume on the contract of 6,055,000 SCF to ensure the Firm Fixed Price contract has enough volume for the year. This past year we used about 1,648,896.60 SCF. Any remaining SCF on the contract will be de-obligated at the end of the PoP.

3.

1. EVALUATION: The Evaluation addendum is presented twice in the solicitation documents, once in a separate PDF attachment and again on PGs 16-17 of the RFQ Word document. There are conflicting differences between the (2) provisions for Evaluation. More specifically, the separate PDF attachment does not list that “Certifications” are an evaluation factor, but the clause in the RFQ does list “Certifications” as an evaluation factor. Additionally, the FAR 52.212-2 clause in the RFQ document states that this opportunity is being evaluated on a comparative evaluation basis, but then it states that this is LPTA below the clause on PG 17. Notably, the PDF clause does not state that this will be LPTA, only comparative evaluation. Additionally, PG 15 states that “Award will be based upon a comparative evaluation of quotes in accordance with the Simplified Acquisition Procedures of the FAR. Comparative evaluation is the side by side pairwise comparison of quotes based on factors resulting in a Contracting Officer decision for the quote most favorable to the Government.” Will the GOV please confirm which FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation clause is correct and should be considered by offerors for this opportunity, including confirming that bids will be evaluated on a comparative evaluation basis and whether Certifications will be an evaluation factor. If Certifications are a factor, please clarify if this requirement is referencing Certifications/Representations in SAM. Please note that the comparative evaluation approach is recommended to ensure the VA receives the best possible offer/service instead of just awarding to the offeror with the lowest price that meets the minimum technical requirement.

1. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: There is no mention of required liability insurance in the Solicitation. How is the GOV going to validate that offerors are properly insured for NAICS 325120/221210 – the actual requirement for this work to comply with the RFQ? How do offerors confirm to the GOV that they have the correct type of Liability Insurance, and does this need to be affirmed at the time of bid submission (if not, an awarded firm could be turned down or not be able to afford this coverage in the amounts the GOV requires, respective to NAICS 32512s0)? I thought this was a requirement for all contractors to have liability insurance, but yet they should provide proof to the CO.

1. CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI): Will the contract resulting from this solicitation include any CUI (or any other term/acronym that refers to sensitive contract material within in the VA) – as it pertains to a CMMC certification for federal contractors? No

1. AWARD ELIGIBILITY:

10. To ensure uninterrupted delivery of medical-grade gases to the VAMC and to avoid post-award delays that could impact patient care, will the GOV revise the solicitation to require SDVOSB offerors to submit, with their proposal submission, evidence that they currently hold all applicable federal, state, and local licenses required for the distribution and delivery of medical-grade gases, including gases classified as prescription drugs, as a definitive responsibility criterion? Yes, offerors should submit all applicable federal, state, and local licenses required for the distribution and delivery of medical grade oxygen. Including but not limited to FDA certifications for CGMP, appropriate certifications for transportation from appropriate DOT’s.

10. Given that medical oxygen and other medical-grade gases are life-sustaining products regulated as prescription drugs, does the GOV intend to limit competition to offerors that are already legally authorized to distribute and deliver such products at the time proposals are submitted, in order to avoid delays in commencement of performance following award? No, the Gov should only select vendors with the appropriate certifications to distribute and delivery medical oxygen.

10. Will the status of an offerors’ license (in this case, a registered wholesaler of drugs and/or devices in the state of Vermont) be evaluated as a definitive responsibility criterion during the consideration of offers? It should be, yes.

10. How will the GOV evaluate a proposal submitted by an offeror that does not possess an active and applicable medical gas distribution license at the time of proposal submission but proposes to obtain or rely upon such licensure after award? No, any offeror who does not possess the proper certification puts the Government at significant risk and will not be evaluated.

1. FAR/VAAR COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT: Please confirm the GOV POC who enforces and ensures post-award compliance with FAR 52.212-4 (Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Products and Commercial Services) as well as VAAR 852.219-76 (Limitations on Subcontracting for Supplies and Products/Certificate of Compliance)? Contracting Officer - David Valenzuela

1. LICENSING COMPLIANCE FOR THE SDVOSB OFFEROR: Will the GOV please confirm that the required federal and state of Vermont licenses and certifications applicable to the SDVOSB offeror must be provided in the name of the Prime Contractor at the time of bid submission (and cannot be delegated to a subcontractor), which is required of an SDVOSB offeror in order to comply with the applicable federal, state, and local regulations in order to meet the requirements of the Statement of Work in this RFQ (wholesale distribution of medical-grade oxygen/compressed gases where medical-grade oxygen is defined by the FDA as a prescription drug)? Yes

1. The SOW references maintenance and monitoring of the existing bulk liquid oxygen distribution system, including the primary and reserve bulk tanks, reserve bottle bank, local alarm panel, and telemetry monitoring system. Can the Government provide the current system configuration, including the number and size/capacity of the primary bulk tank, reserve tank, and reserve bottle bank? Size and configuration can be confirmed via attached photos of name plates.

1. Are the existing primary/reserve tanks and associated equipment currently Government-owned or contractor-owned? Contractor owned.

1. If the existing tanks/equipment are contractor-owned, will the awardee be required to replace the current system, or may the awardee coordinate with the current provider to continue using the existing system? It is up to the offeror to provide their best solution to the Government.

1. The SOW requires a minimum of 96 hours of reserve capacity. Can the Government confirm the current reserve capacity and whether the existing system already meets this requirement? The existing system meets this requirement.

1. For the pricing schedule added in Amendment 0001, should offerors provide the Bulk Oxygen Supply Services CLINs as annual lump-sum pricing based on the estimated annual usage listed in the SOW, with the Tank Rental Services CLINs priced separately as annual rental/service pricing? The offerors may provide the costs as such mention in the question. Please see above for further information on the pricing schedule.

1. The SOW lists the estimated annual oxygen requirement as 6,055,00 SCF. Can the Government confirm whether the intended annual estimate is 6,055,000 SCF? We have typically carried a total volume on the contract of 6,055,000 SCF to ensure the Firm Fixed Price contract has enough volume for the year. This past year we used about 1,648,896.60 SCF. Any remaining SCF on the contract will be de-obligated at the end of the PoP.

image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image4.png image1.png