Questions Asked and Answered.docx

1. CURRENT CONTRACT NUMBER: Can the GOV provide the current Contract number (prior to any 6-month extensions, to include the Contract value for the original 5-year period)? This will allow Vendors to review the GOV expenditures for this contract via www.fpds.gov.

Answer: The current contract number is 36C24218D0143

1. PRICE/COST SCHEDULE: PG 73 of 92 (Addendum to Instructions to Offerors) requires offerors to fill out the Price/Cost Schedule in an Excel spreadsheet, specifically the “Items” tab that includes line items for each facility. An Excel spreadsheet for the Price/Cost Schedule has not been provided via SAM.gov (https://sam.gov/opp/ab3efdaa6f3a466abe4058c418ef3128/view). When will the required Excel version of the Price/Cost Schedule be provided?

Answer: No excel spreadsheet will be provided. Please provide your quote in the Price/Cost Schedule Section B.2 starting on page 18 of the final RFQ

1. TECHNICAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: PG 73 of 92 (VOL TWO - Technical) requires offerors to submit both a redacted and an unredacted copy of the Technical submission. Will the GOV please confirm if any other submission Volumes are required to be submitted as redacted and unredacted, or is it only Volume Two Technical?

Answer: Only volume 2

1. TIERED EVALUATION PARMETERS/PROCEDURES: Can the GOV clarify the procedures for “Tiered Evaluation” when this is an SDVOB Set-Aside? The SF1449 includes a “Solicitation Notice of Tiered Evaluations including Large Businesses,” but there is no mention of Tiered Evaluation or a breakdown of the tiers anywhere in the RFQ. Normally, there is a detailed description of how the GOV will utilize a tiered evaluation (which was done on the VISN 23 MED CYL Solicitation – see example below). PG 75 of 92 (Evaluation) makes no mention of the Tiered Evaluation requirements/procedures clearly stated in the FAR. How is the GOV going to determine an award cannot be made at the first tier? Additionally:

3. What is the GOV’s rationale to use a Tiered Evaluation? There is no mention of VAAR 819.7010 Tiered Set-Aside Evaluation, which states:

(a) Pursuant to the authority of 38 U.S.C. 8127 and under limited circumstances as set forth in this section, contracting officers may consider using a tiered set-aside evaluation approach to minimize delays in the re-solicitation process.

(b) Tiered evaluation of offers is a procedure that may be used in competitive negotiated acquisitions, including construction and acquisitions for commercial products and commercial services when the VA Rule of Two (see 802.101) determination indicates a set-aside is required, but other circumstances preclude a confident conclusion that an award can be made at the SDVOSB or VOSB tier. The contracting officer -

(1) Solicits and receives offers from targeted tiers of small business groups, with SDVOSB as the first tier and VOSB as the second tier;

(2) Establishes a tiered order of priority for evaluating offers that is specified in the solicitation; and

(3) If no award can be made at the first tier, evaluates offers at the next lower tier, until award can be made.

(c) Market research, which shall be conducted and documented in advance of issuing the solicitation, will inform which of the following types of tiers will be included in the solicitation:

(1) Tiered evaluations limited to SDVOSBs or VOSBs;

(2) Tiered evaluations including 8(a) and HUBZone small businesses; or

(3) Tiered evaluations including all other small business concerns.

(d) The tiered order of priority shall be consistent with 819.7005. Consideration shall be given to HUBZone and 8(a) small business concerns before evaluating offers from other small business concerns.

Parent topic: Subpart 819.70 - The VA Veterans First Contracting Program

· REFERENCED EXAMPLE: The VISN 23 MED CYL Solicitation (RFQ 36C26320Q0540) included the following breakdown for “Tiered Evaluations Including Large Business Concerns”:

Answer: The procedures for a tiered evaluation are set forth in VAAR 815.1 and will move to the next tier in accordance with VAAR 815.101.370 Tiered set-aside evaluation (Deviation). Priority of the tiers will be 1.) SDVOSB’s and VOSB’s, 2) all other small businesses and 3.) other than small businesses.

1. ORDERING / TANK SET POINTS: PG 8 of 92 (Section 7) states that “VA Safety and/or Engineering personnel reserve the right to establish different fill point settings for the bulk liquid oxygen tank systems.”

0. Have there been any historical problems with the current refill/alarm set points?

0. What is the GOV’s rationale to allow the facility to provide their own reorder point?

0. If the VA desires to set their own refill points, a Delivery Fee CLIN is requested, only to be utilized if the VA sets their own refill/alarm points. There are actual costs associated with this change in the middle of a contract as suppliers may have to make additional deliveries than what was bid/estimated, and Distribution is the largest cost in the Medical Gas Industry.

0. NOTE: The GOV setting refill points is not standard in the industry or in the VA, especially given telemetric monitoring. As a practical matter, vendors are bidding on the GOV’s estimated usage calculating the frequency of reordering/delivery, based on common industry set points.

Answer: The government intends to use the setpoint suggested by the vendor but reserves the right to set it should the need arise.

1. DAILY USE: What is the estimated daily usage (in inches) for each location – Buffalo and Batavia?

Answer: The estimated daily usage for Buffalo is 125.29 CCF/day and the estimated daily usage for Batavia is 26.5 CCF/day. CCF is the requested unit as such here is the daily usage.

1. INVOICING: Please confirm whether the VA wants the Bulk Liquid Oxygen invoiced in CF or CCF as there are contradictions in the RFQ:

6. PG 17 of 92 (Section 17) states that “The invoice that is submitted must match the delivery quantity on the POD document and must be invoiced in CFs.”

6. CLINs 0001 and 0003 list CCF as the Unit for Bulk Oxygen.

Answer: Please invoice in CCF

1. SET POINTS: What are the current tank set points for Main and Reserve (in inches) for FULL TRYCOCK, REORDER POINT, REFILL POINT, AND LOW-LEVEL ALARM for each location – Buffalo and Batavia?

Answer: The government asked the incumbent, and they are having difficulty locating it. These will be given to the awardee when they are found.

1. DELIVERY FREQUENCY: Can the GOV provide the current refill frequency (e.g., weekly, every two weeks, etc.) for each location – Buffalo and Batavia?

Answer: Both facilities usually get filled about once every 3 weeks. The delivery is scheduled when the tank level dips below a certain point. Most months, it’s once a month, and occasionally it’s 2. Batavia usually gets scheduled at the same time; however I don’t know if they’ve ever gotten low enough in product to require a fill before Buffalo.

1. COR DESIGNATION: PG 6 of 92 (Section 5) states that a “Contracting Officer Representative has been designated for Bath facility.” Will the VA please clarify this COR designation statement given VAMC Bath is not included on this contract?

Answer: Please ignore the entire first sentence PG 6 of 92 (Section 5) - Contracting Officer Representative (COR) has been designated for Bath facility

1. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS: PG 10 of 92 (Section 9) includes the requirement that each delivery’s certificate of analysis must include the “Prime Contractor’s name and complete address.” What is the purpose of having the Prime Contractor’s information on the certificate of analysis when this is highly nonstandard for scenarios where an SDVOB Prime Contractor is subcontracting the Bulk Oxygen gas delivery to another vendor? In that scenario, the COA is not going to have the Prime Contractor’s name and address. Will the GOV please remove this bullet/requirement?

Answer: The government will not remove this.

1. TELEMETRY: PG 12 of 92 (Section 11) states that “The contractor shall provide telemetric equipment to take daily tank readings automatically … for all facilities which have contractor-owned tanks, this is a mandatory requirement,” but there is no CLIN provided for Telemetry. Is telemetry currently in use at both locations? Is resupply currently being initiated by telemetry for both locations? Will a CLIN be added for offerors to price telemetry monitoring?

Answer: The use of telemetry is a requirement, however because it is automatic there is no requirement to monitor it monthly therefor there will be no additional CLIN for it.

1. LICENSING: What specifically are the submission licensing requirements for the Prime Contractor/Offeror? The State of New York requires the Awardee/Prime Contractor to have a Distribution License for medical gases for human/veteran consumption. Referring to Applicable Regulations and Standards, PG 11 of 92 states: “The contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that ALL products, bulk tank systems, and services provided under the contract are in compliance with applicable current Federal, State and Local regulations.” Does the Offeror have to submit a copy of their license to distribute medical gases with their bid? Succinctly, will the GOV validate the offeror must be licensed to distribute medical gases in the state of New York, consistent with the RFQ on PG 16 of 92, which states that “Throughout the term of this contract, contractor shall maintain all federal, state, and local licenses applicable to the contractor as well as any required FDA certifications.”

Answer: The licensing requirements are laid out on page 15 of 92 section 13 and the Instructions to Offerors starting on page 72

1. PAD STRUCTURAL RATING: What size tank (weight/gallons) are the support pads at each facility rated to support? Normally, the as-built schematic denotes what size (gallons) bulk tank the pads are rated for and signed by a Certified Project Engineer (industry standard). This is important because PG 13 of 92 describes the option of expanding tank capacity (i.e., the pad must be rated to support a larger tank, which does increase capacity – a need that was magnified with the COVID 19 response).

Answer: The pads have been in place for some time, and we were unable to locate this information, should we look to expand tank size a thorough study/survey will be conducted

1. DEFINITION OF MINOR MAINTENANCE: PG 13 of 92 states: “The contractor is also responsible for performing minor maintenance on all contractor-furnished bulk tank systems. Minor maintenance from the contractor shall include validating that the fittings are securely fastened to the system, testing, minor de-icing, and adjusting alarms as required. Training staff on de-icing is required for stations that reserve the right to de-ice. If false alarms are pinging from the tank system, the contractor shall fix and resolve the issue at no cost to the Government.” What is the GOV’s intent here? If the problem is contactor-related (contract tanks), it is the contractor’s responsibility; however, the GOV “owns” the internal (inside the hospital) alarm system to include the wiring up to the connection on the Pad (installed by VA electricians on new installs). De-icing requirements are normally the function of undersized tanks being used / engineered beyond the system capacity. Is the GOV amenable to adding a de-icing CLIN, as this is not deficient equipment?

14. NOTE: This highlights the importance of tank upgrades (in relation to pad ratings) to ensure the hospital is adequately engineered. Restated, the RFQ mentions “a detailed quote” to be approved by the GOV; however, in these situations, it is better to have a de-icing CLIN so that there is an established requirement and an expeditious response is available.

Answer: Minor de-icing does occur and does not require any significant amount of work during regular maintenance. In the event of major ice-buildup the contractor is required to submit a quote for the removal of major ice-buildup.

1. INSURANCE REQUIREMENT: PG 48 of 92 – FAR 52.288-5 “Insurance Work on a Government Installation” is stated for this requirement. How is the GOV going to discern that the offeror is properly insured for NAICS 325120/221210 – the actual requirement for this work to comply with the RFQ and not just the dollar value threshold listed on PG 16 of 92? PG 16 conflicts with PG 48, where paragraph (a) requires the offeror to have the types of insurance for the work being performed (not relegated to an undefined dollar threshold). PG 16 of 92 is not definitive and conflicts directly with PG 48 of 92. In sum, the requirement is to be insured for NAICS 325120/221210, so how must offerors depict/validate they have the correct type of Liability Insurance for this requirement? Succinctly, how is this affirmed to the GOV at the time of bid submission?

Answer: Please reference section 14 of the SOW on page 16 of 92 and the Instruction to Offerors starting on page 72.

1. RISK ASSESSMENT: PG 17 of 92 states that “The contractor shall complete a risk assessment for the bulk oxygen storage & supply system location.” Will the awardee be provided with a copy of the Facilities Safety Office Risk Assessment upon award?

Answer: The Government will provide this information upon award.

1. EVALUATION: Can the GOV please clarify the Evaluation Language on PG 49 of 92?:

C.15 VAAR 852.215-71 EVALUATION FACTOR COMMITMENTS (OCT 2019)

(a) The offeror agrees, if awarded a contract, to use the service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSBs) or veteran-owned small businesses (VOSBs) proposed as subcontractors in accordance with 852.215–70, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors, or to substitute one or more SDVOSBs or VOSBs for subcontract work of the same or similar value.

(b) Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8127(g), any business concern that is determined by VA to have willfully and intentionally misrepresented a company’s SDVOSB/VOSB status is subject to debarment for a period of not less than five years. This includes the debarment of all principals in the business.

(End of Clause)

Answer: See 852.215-71

1. HUB ZONE PRICE EVALUATION: PG 32 of 92 includes FAR 52.219-4 “Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZONE Small Business Concerns.” Given a Tiered Evaluation, and since this clause was included, how will it be applied in the evaluation?

Answer: See section C.5 on page 32 this is answered in the Clause

1. EVALUATION FACTORS: Can the GOV please clarify the Evaluation process found on PG 75 of 92, which includes “Technical and Price” as the evaluation factors? What are the Past Performance requirements, as a Responsibility Determination alone does not always ensure the offeror is capable of supporting (2) VAMCs (one 49th in the nation by size), to include Limitations on Subcontracting?

Answer: Please see 52.212-2 Evaluation of offers (page 75 paragraph a) is amended to read:

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, on a lowest-priced, technically acceptable basis. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

The government has determined that the use of the LPTA evaluation method is sufficient to meet the government needs.

1. PROTEST: The RFQ did not have FAR 52.233-2 and related clause(s) for “Service of Protest.” Can these be added to an amendment as this RFQ has significant foundational conflicts? Some of those conflicts include the following: Small Business Set-Aside with a Tiered Evaluation, Offeror/Prime Contractor Medical Gas Distribution Licenses, insurance requirement for this type of work (vice a dollar threshold for an undisclosed type of work insured), the facility setting their own Set Points (nonstandard), and the lack of an Emergency Delivery CLIN to facilitate expeditious response in emergency situations (happened often during the COVID 19 response).

Answer: The government will add this provision to the RFQ.

1. ANNUAL INSPECTIONS: What are the dates the most recent annual inspection was completed for each site, and will the VA provide copies of these? If only the date is permissible, that if fine. This should have been reported by the current contractor to the facility, hence this info (given a bid) is derived from the GOV – not any other entity – as all offerors should have access to this information.

Answer: Most recent inspection of both facilities was done on 11/28/2023.

1. EMERGENCY SUPPLY REQUIRMENTS: PGs 17-18 of 92 (Section 19) states the following: “The contractor shall furnish evidence that it has sufficient quantities of portable emergency, 50 psi tank or bulk system trucks to provide in an emergency which renders the hospital’s liquid bulk oxygen system non-operational. Evidence shall include how many such trucks are available in their region, the extent of their region, and the minimum amount of time it would take to have a truck on-site, barring a natural disaster which affects multiple hospitals. Contractors which do not have adequate back up emergency vehicles available as deemed by the VA will not be considered for this solicitation. A minimum response time would be 8 hours.” Please confirm if this is a requirement to be addressed during the bid submission process or upon award? The provided language does not indicate when the “evidence” is required to be furnished.

Answer: This is required as part of your submission

1. EMERGENCY DELIVERIES:

23. Please add a CLIN for Emergency Deliveries (standard in Medical Gas Industry). What are the RFQ procedures for emergency delivery situations that are facility-driven (not the fault of the contractor or due to environmental factors)? Emergency delivery situations (typically same day, outside delivery window, weekends, or holidays) don’t often occur, but sometimes they do, and there needs to be a best practices method available to the facility that is authorized by the COR or Ordering Officer.

23. PG 9 of 92 requires the Contractor to respond, “within one hour to confirm receipt of emergency notification to ascertain the nature of the emergency.” Will the GOV amend this language to respond “within (4) hours” to the emergency delivery request to account for various factors that may impact a 1-hour response window? Emergency deliveries can still be made within 24 hours after receipt of an emergency request, as required.

Answer: No CLIN will be added, to date the VA has not had an emergency delivery. You can quote it in your submission, but any emergency delivery fees will be handled via government charge card.

image1.png