36C24226R0075 0001.pdf

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

1 4

NA

36C242

Department of Veterans Affairs

Network Contracting Office (NCO) 2

3495 Bailey Avenue

Building 3, 2nd floor

Buffalo NY 14215

36C242

Department of Veterans Affairs

Network Contracting Office (NCO) 2

3495 Bailey Avenue

Building 3, 2nd floor

Buffalo NY 14215

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C24226R0075

X

X X

This amendment is issued to respond to questions received. Please see the continuation page for responses.

****End of Changes****

1. Contract Type

The solicitation identifies this requirement as a firm-fixed-price IDIQ contract, under which the

VA agrees to pay a predetermined amount for specified services. This structure works well where the project scope, design, and requirements are clearly and fully defined. We would appreciate clarification on how the utilization rate is intended to function under the revised terms, as it is not currently well defined.

Our question stems from a practical cost-recovery concern. A substantial portion of the program’s operating cost is incurred as soon as the first Veteran is referred and does not vary with census — rent, staffing, security, utilities, insurance premiums, transportation, and administration. Whether a single Veteran or the program maximum of 40 Veterans is referred, the program must maintain full capacity and readiness at all times.

The previous contract addressed this through a minimum utilization rate of 90%, which allowed the basic operating costs to be covered. At 100% utilization, which was rare, the profit margin was approximately 10%, and average utilization generally fell below 95%. During the COVID-19 period, utilization dropped significantly, and the minimum utilization provision is what allowed our program to remain financially viable.

Without a minimum utilization rate, proposed pricing would need to account for the risk of sustained underutilization, which would result in substantially higher rates. Would the VA anticipate being able to determine pricing developed on that basis to be fair and reasonable?

We understand the VA’s position that compensation is tied to days of bed care for Veterans actually referred to the program. We would ask the VA to consider that the readiness requirement itself — 40 beds, along with staffing, security, food, transportation, and supplies available at all times — cannot be scaled back if the VA utilizes only 50% of the program. Fixed costs would therefore need to be recovered across a much smaller number of billable days, which drives the proposed rate upward considerably.

By way of illustration: if an airline were asked to keep a 40-seat aircraft on standby but were compensated only for the passengers who actually flew, the price per passenger would necessarily be very high in order to cover crew, fuel, and maintenance. If the basic cost of readiness were covered, that per-passenger price could be calculated far more reasonably.

Request: We respectfully request that the VA either retain the minimum utilization rate or set the minimum order at 90% of the contract value, so that pricing can remain reasonable. We would ask that this language apply not only to the base year but to all exercised option years. Our goal is simply to be able to evaluate our costs accurately and offer the VA a fair and competitive price.

RESPONSE: The VA remains available to review pricing, however, a minimum utilization rate will not be set for this solicitation.

2. Staffing Requirements

The PWS has been revised to require higher-level case managers and a lower case manager-to-Veteran ratio. Has the VA assessed the effect these changes will have on the basic operating cost of the program, and will that be reflected in the Government’s cost expectations?

Additionally, would the VA consider allowing grandfathering in both current case managers who do not meet the new credentialing requirements to continue in their roles? Both have multiple years of experience in the HCHV Low Demand Safe Haven program and have helped place hundreds of Veterans in permanent housing. Retaining them would preserve continuity of care for current and future Veterans enrolled in the program.

RESPONSE: The VA remains open to review pricing to meet the updated staffing education requirement. The VA upholds the updated staffing education requirement to meet the needs of the complex veterans served.

Question #3

The term “appetizing” is subjective and does not appear in the national HCHV program guidelines. Because what is appetizing to one person may not be to another, we are concerned that proposed meal plans could be assessed inconsistently against this criterion. Would the VA consider removing this term or replacing it with an objective standard?

RESPONSE: The VA declines to remove the term and provides additional clarification to refer back to PWS 7.1.23:

Appetizing" describes foods, beverages, or aromas that stimulate the desire to eat. Meals should also be nutritionally balanced and sufficient.

A VA dietitian may assess printed menus as well as Veterans’ satisfaction with meals and the actual consumption of food offered in determining the contractor’s success in meeting this requirement during annual facility inspection or at any point during the contract period.

Question #4

Section 8.8.4.3, Case Management Ratio

The PWS states that the case management ratio may not exceed 1:13.3. Since a Veteran cannot be divided into thirds, would the VA clarify how this ratio is intended to be applied — for example, whether it is intended as a maximum caseload per case manager? Clarification would help ensure that staffing and pricing are calculated accurately.

RESPONSE: The case manager to veteran ratio is clarified as not to exceed 1 to 14.

Question #5

Addition ADA Requirements

The revised Bronx Low Demand Safe Haven solicitation increases the number of ADA-accessible beds required. Our facility is prepared to undertake the modifications necessary to meet this requirement. We respectfully request clarification on the timeframe the VA will allow for completion of these modifications — specifically, whether full compliance is required at the time of award, at the start of the period of performance, or within a defined transition period following award.

RESPONSE: The VA will grant a period of 6 months after solicitation is awarded for the agency to meet ADA accessible requirements and pass inspection. The VA will not place veterans at the facility prior to passing full inspection and requirements.

Question #6

Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

RESPONSE: Yes, there is an incumbent vendor, and this opportunity is a recompete. The current contractor is Patriot First Professional Services, with contract number

36C24226D0022 (Bridge).