36C25721R0028 0004.docx

SW San Antonio/ RFP: 36C25721R0028 – Questions and Answers (2nd Round and Final) Point of Contact: Hassan Wilson, Contract Specialist – Hassan.wilson@va.gov

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) none 04-19-2021 36C257 Department of Veterans Affairs VHA Regional Procurement Office West El Paso Contracting Office, NCO 17 11495 Turner Road El Paso

TX

79936-1372 36C257 Same as Item 6

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C25721R0028 04-19-2021

X x x The purpose of this amendment is to post answers to questions received in support of the subject solicitation.

Proposal due date is unchanged and as follows: 4 May 2021 at (5PM) 17:00 hrs., MST.

All other information listed within RFP: 36C25721R0028 remain unchanged.

Marisela Galarza Contracting Officer Question # 1:

On page 16 paragraph 2.2 Physician Director of the Solicitation states, “Contractor’s Physicians performing under this contract shall be board certified (or board eligible)….” On page 17 paragraph 2.3.1 Option 1: Physician (MD): Qualifications under the Primary Care Teamlet Staffing states, “Physicians performing under this contract shall be board certified…” Is it acceptable to the VA if the physicians are board certified or board eligible regardless of whether they are the Physician Director or a physician as part of the Primary Care Teamlet staff ?

Answer: Yes

Question # 2:

On page 105 paragraph 4.9.20 of the Solicitation states, “Closed Circuit Television (CCTV): Shall be provided by the Contractor to monitor building entrances, restricted areas, mission critical asset areas, and alarm conditions. CCTV system shall be used for surveillance and observations of defined exterior areas, such as site and roadway access points, parking lots, and building perimeter, and interior areas such as hallways, common areas and waiting areas, CCTV system will be viewed from a VA location determined by the VA Physical Security Officer. The design, installation, and use of CCTV cameras shall support the visual identification and surveillance of persons, vehicles, assets, incidents, and defined locations. The Contractor shall contact the VA Physical Security Officer at STVHCS prior to installation of CCTV system to ensure proper placement.” The requirement for the VA to be able to monitor the CCTV activities remotely appears to be intended for a VA leased and operated facility as opposed to a contractor operated and leased facility. Current contracted CBOC facilities across the U.S. utilize high resolution CCTV security cameras for both interior and exterior monitoring and routinely have recording capability of up to 30 days. This is the only specification that requests the government to monitor these cameras which require cellular based services and special equipment to accomplish. Was it the VA’s intent to utilize this level of monitoring by the government, as opposed to the contractor responsibility, to monitor the camera activities at the privately leased contracted facility? Was this requirement placed in the specification in error as it is not normally utilized. Will you please clarify?

Answer: Yes, VA’s intent to utilize this level of monitoring by the government.

Additionally, the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible for providing telephone circuit and telephone equipment.

Question # 3:

In the Instructions to Offeror paragraph 1.c on page 164 of the Solicitation states, “Offerors to submit one electronic e-mailed copy of their subcontracting plan (large businesses only, Section D attachment D.24.” Is it acceptable with the VA, if we replace the template included as Attachment D.24 Small Business Subcontracting Plan Revised 01/26/2017 with the VA FSS Subcontracting template revised 10/20/2020? This is the template we are required to use to submit our Small Business Plan for approval by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Federal Supply Schedule Services, Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction, Hines, Illinois.

Answer: It is acceptable to use the VA FSS subcontracting plan template, which was revised on 10/20/2020.

Question # 4:

In Section E.11 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items under Sub-factor (A) – Experience/Management Plan on page 172 it says, “identify all relevant company experience in providing the same/similar types of services identified in this solicitation, including VA experience, and other government and/or private sector experience. Provide a clinical and administrative contact point for each experience episode provided.” Is the VA looking for a list of all relevant contract experience and the point of contact? With the number of contracts we have along with the page limitations outlined in the RFP, it is physically impossible to include all this information. Would the VA consider removing the page limitation or reducing the amount of relevant company experience requested? Is this point of contact information requested in Part 1 Technical Proposal different than the 3 references and point of contact information provided in Part 3 Past Performance? Please clarify what the difference is?

Answer: No, on removing the page limitation or reducing the amount of relevant company experience. No difference in Factor 1 and Factor 3.

Question # 5:

The boundaries map in D.31 provided as an attachment references zip codes in Northwest San Antonio and not Southwest San Antonio. Will the VA provide the zip codes in the Southwest boundaries where the facility will be located?

Answer: SW SA CBOC area: 78211, 78221, and 78224.

Question # 6:

Amendment 0003, Question 13 and 25 states, “How many Veterans using the SW San Antonio CBOC are currently on the Primary Care Billable roster?” The VA answered 2,005. The latest verified billable roster was 1,899 Veterans, is the 2,005 listed the actual PCMM count, not the true billable roster?

Answer: 2,005 is the actual PCMM Count, Billable is 1,889

Question # 7:

In reference to Amendment 0003 question 55, for further clarification on the use and application of the Davis Bacon Act, we ask and provide the following information. The use of the Davis- Bacon specification and clause is normally utilized in GSA/VA facilities based contracts, and not in service contracts that are paid by PMPM rate with the facility and all other services and components inclusive in the PMPM rate for each billable enrollee. In short, there is no construction contract vehicle, as part of the specification, in this personal services contract vehicle being solicited and procured by the government. Davis Bacon unintentionally, is being utilized out of context for this type of service contract procurement. CBOC procurements across the U.S. have not utilized the Davis Bacon requirement as it was determined that it was not related or relevant to this type of service contract procurement and raises construction costs by over 50% unnecessarily. Based on this information and cost affect for all bidders, would the government consider removing its Davis Bacon Act requirement from this CBOC solicitation as it appears to not be applicable and saves substantial costs in startup?

Answer: CBOCs are not considered personal service contracts and the Government will not consider removing its Davis-Bacon Act requirement from this CBOC solicitation. Below is the reason as to why.

Historically, community-based outpatient clinic (CBOC) procurements have been considered services contracts and logically included clauses for wages required under the Service Contract Act (SCA). This practice was questioned in a June 2020 GAO protest in which a potential vendor, alleged the CBOC solicitation should also include wages required under the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA). The Protester's argument was that, although it was primarily a services contract, the solicitation also included construction work that the VA would pay for indirectly; further, that the buildout of the proposed facility must be constructed pursuant to VA's very specialized requirements. As a result of the protest, OGC District Contract Law National Practice Group (DCNPG) contacted the Department of Labor (DOL) to request its opinion on inclusion of the DBA.

DOL policy and legal staff advised that the protested CBOC solicitation should have included the DBA. In addition to adding DBA language and clauses to solicitations still in the planning stages, DOL advised that any applicable CBOC procurement in which construction was ongoing should include the DBA.

Question # 8:

Proposed contractor’s facility must be located within Southwest San Antonio, Texas. Parent facility is the South Texas Veterans Health Care System (STVHCS). A site visit may be conducted as part of the evaluation process.

Reference: D.31 Bexar County Map (See SW Boundaries)

The San Antonio solicitation refers to Attachment D. 31 for clarification on the Southwest boundaries of Bexar County, but the documents is labeled “Northwest” and some of the zip codes included in that attachment are in/around Leon Valley (Northwest). Will the Government please clarify whether the proposed location must be located in the zip codes listed in the attachment or can be located within other zip codes within Bexar Country?

Answer: SW SA CBOC area: 78211, 78221, and 78224

Question # 9:

Please confirm the VA only requires three offices for its employees in the clinic. This matches the requirements of the Southeast San Antonio CBOC but the enrollment and projected growth is significantly different for that CBOC.

Answer: Confirmed 3 Offices

Question # 10:

Question number 25 is answered 2005, however question 47 states, “latest billed” enrollment is 1899, please clarify which number is correct?

Answer: 1,899

Question # 11:

Current enrollment seems to be approximately 8% lower than CLIN will the VA consider adjusting the CLIN?

Answer: Yes

Question # 12:

Option year four CLIN is 2685, 786 above current billed enrollment, the VA answered a question stating the clinic averages enrollment growth of 75 per year or 375, will the VA adjust the CLIN to align with historical growth?

Answer: No

Question # 13:

What percentage of the most recent billable roster contains veterans with a qualifying vesting visit past 12 months?

Answer: 96% with the past 12 months, but it can vary month to month

Question # 14:

Thank you for your previous response regarding vaccinations. Unfortunately, your response provided no actionable information with which to properly estimate the number of vaccinations required in the new contract. Would the VA consider providing an estimate as to the number of enrollees on a percentage basis that would require vaccinations? If all potential offerors use the same basis of estimate it would offset the historical knowledge advantage of the incumbent contractor and level the playing field.

Answer: Historical data could not be obtained.

Question # 15:

The zip codes referenced in question 20 of the previous amendment appear to be for South East San Antonio. Please specify the area in which the boundaries in which the clinic is to be located.

Answer: SW SA CBOC area: 78211, 78221, and 78224

End of Document