S02 - 36C26324R0072 0001 Solicitation Amendment.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 6

36C263

Department of Veterans Affairs

NETWORK 23 CONTRACTING OFFICE

316 Robert Street N. STE. 506 St. Paul MN 55101

Department of Veterans Affairs

NETWORK 23 CONTRACTING OFFICE

316 Robert Street N. STE. 506 St. Paul MN 55101

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C26324R0072

05-30-2024

X

X

See CONTINUATION Page

X - one -

The purpose of this amendment is to address the following:

1. Vendor Questions (see attached questions).

2. Revise PWS and QASP as noted within the attached responses to Vendor Questions.

3. Include Notice of Tiered Evaluation in Block 20 and on Page 84.

4. VAAR Clause 852.219-74 VA Notice of Total Set-Aside for Verified Veteran Owned Small Business has been added.

5. E.2 Proposal Preparation Instructions (Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) has been revised.

6. E.3 Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services has been revised.

Michael Casper Contracting Officer

VISN 23 LAB REFERRAL QUESTIONS (36C26324R0072)

1. For solicitation 36C26324R0072, is this a brand-new solicitation; or are these services currently being performed by an incumbent? If not brand new, please provide the current contract number and the incumbent.

RESPONSE: The referenced solicitation for Lab Referral Testing Services for the VISN 23 Midwest Health Care Network represents an on-going need. The existing contract is 36C26322D0003. The Incumbent is Quest Diagnostics.

2. Can we add columns to “Attachment 5 – 2024 VISN 23 Schedule of Services” to provide additional information?

RESPONSE: An additional “Description of Change” column may be added to describe a Test change, Change in test Description, Test Replacement, Change in testing panels, etc.

3. B.1 Contract Administration Data (p. 5) – It states for item L) The Contractor shall be reimbursed upon receipt of a proper invoice. Invoices must contain the following information:

a) Total number of listed Veterans from the previous month's invoice;

b) New Veterans added to the billable roster since the previous month's invoice;

c) Veterans removed from the billable roster since the previous month's invoice;

d) Number of Veterans (if any) whose disenrollments generate a credit, the amount of the credit, and the calculation(s) used to arrive at the credit;

While our invoices will include the patient’s name, we do not understand why the above information would need to be included on the invoice. Also, these requirements are not consistent with those stated in the PWS, section 7.3.1. Invoice Requirements and Supporting Documentation. Please clarify.

RESPONSE: This information has been removed from Section B.1

4. Regarding the Subcontractor Reporting Requirements (sections 7.1.13 and 7.2.8), we have the following questions:

What is the difference between 7.1.13 and 7.2.8 (other than the word “Deliverable”) in the title of 7.1.13?

RESPONSE: There is no difference. The word was included as it is noted on the Deliverable schedule on “Table 1 – Deliverable Schedule”.

What is the purpose of these clauses? We ask because we have not seen them before.

RESPONSE: This requirement was added to the PWS ensure compliance with Subcontracting limitations IAW VAAR 852.219-75.

What are the timing requirements for submission of the Reports? For example, how many days after the end of the calendar quarter? Due to the timing of receipt of invoices from TSO labs and payment from same, there needs to be a cutoff date for what is included in the report.

RESPONSE: 7.1.3 – 7.1.13 has been revised for clarity. Initial monthly reports will be due either on the 5th or 10th day of the month following the close of the reporting month. Final or Quarterly report reports will be due IAW 7.1.10.

These clauses speak in terms of contractor and subcontractor “spend” for the applicable quarter. The Solicitation requires the contractor to submit monthly invoices to VISN 23.

Those invoices include all testing performed by the prime contractor lab and includes subcontracted TSO labs. These clauses appear to be duplicative and a burdensome paperwork requirement. We request that they be removed from the Solicitation.

RESPONSE: 7.1.13 and 7.2.8 requirements were added to the PWS ensure compliance with Subcontracting limitations IAW VAAR 852.219-75.

5. Proposal Preparation Instructions (p.78), just to confirm, the naming conventions for each part of the Offerors proposal should begin with “S10 – 36C26324R0072,” and not “S10 – 36C26324R0051.

RESPONSE: The solicitation has been amended to reflect the correct Solicitation number.

6. Due to current market challenges out of our control to include but are not limited to supply chain disruption, staffing challenges and reagent issues, we ask that you consider moving the TAT target in the QASP (Attachment 1) to 80%.

RESPONSE: 5.3.2 of the PWS has been amended to 80%, as well as 10 – Turn Around Time of the QASP.

7. Please consider how you measure turnaround time (sections 1.5.71. and 3.13.1.). Our published documentation included in our Directory of Services, provides published turnaround times that are measured from time of accessioning in testing laboratories to time of final result report and are based on test setup days and times. Our published TAT does not include time of transport from VAMC until arrival in testing laboratory.

RESPONSE: Both sections of the PWS have been revised to include “Accessioning of specimen from the contractors’ laboratory”

8. Thank you for designating the VISN 23 solicitation 36C26324R0072 as an SDVOSB set-aside. However, after additional research, we respectfully request reconsideration of the tiered evaluation approach. Our concern stems from the agency's did perform adequate market research, which determined that the procurement should indeed be set aside for SDVOSBs. The "Rule of Two" was met for this solicitation, rendering a cascading evaluation legally untenable. The government may resort to cascading tiered evaluation only if the "Rule of Two" is not satisfied or if market research fails to properly identify 2 or More SDVOSBs, as specified in FAR 19.502-2. Did the Market research that the government performed for solicitation 36C26324R0072 find 2 or more SDVOSB’s?

RESPONSE: Yes.

9. Beyond the significant policy considerations, The Department of Veterans Affairs' use of cascading evaluation raises pertinent legal questions: Does the Department of Veterans Affairs possess statutory or regulatory authority to employ this procurement method?

RESPONSE: Yes.

10. How does the Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States case (requiring the

Department of Veterans Affairs to adhere to the Rule of Two) apply when market research identifies 2 or more SDVOSBs willing to participate?

RESPONSE: This is a legal question. The Government cannot dispense legal advice.

11. How does the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims address issues regarding legal authority? In reference to if the if The Department of VA has the authority to utilize Tiered Evaluations when 2 or more SDVOSB’s have been identified by your market research?

RESPONSE: This is a legal question. The Government cannot dispense legal advice.

12. While Congress sanctioned cascading evaluations for agencies within the Department of Defense, such authority may not extend to the Department of Veterans Affairs. there is not a known blanket statutory authority explicitly granting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) the same discretion to use the tiered evaluation process that has been granted to the Department of Defense (DoD).

(The authority for the DoD to use cascading evaluations was provided through specific legislation. For example, Section 825 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) authorized the use of cascading evaluations for multiple-award contracts by DoD contracting officers. However, such explicit authorization may not extend to other agencies like the VA unless similar legislation specifically grants them that authority. Has “New” legislation been passed that allows The Department of Veterans Affairs to utilize specific legislation from the DOD in regard to Tiered Evaluations?)

RESPONSE: This is a legal question. The Government cannot dispense legal advice.

13. We request the that the Government removed the tier evaluation process from this solicitation- Will the Government follow the law and remove the TIERED EVALUATION

INCLUDING LARGE BUSINESS CONCERNS?

RESPONSE: Based on the Governments Market Research and consideration of relevant regulations, the CO has determined that the utilization of the tiered set-aside evaluation approach is warranted.

14. What is the current overall monthly spend?

RESPONSE: Approximately $192,000.00

15. Is the Government utilizing Covid-19 pandemic numbers? For the volumes?

RESPONSE: No, this is the current volume.

16. The Contractor shall have an operational interface connection with all facilities within 30 days of the contract award, . The establishment of the test menu will be the responsibility of the Government and will begin as soon as the Contractor notifies the Government of an operational interface connection. The validation of the test transmission through the interface connection will be the joint responsibility of the Government and Contractor. Will the government increase the timeframe to 90-days as 30 days may not be a reasonable expectation?

RESPONSE: The PWS has been revised to 90 days.

17. Number of lost specimens by vendor: 1 per month per facility, Currently what is number of monthly specimens being lost per month?

RESPONSE: This is a current PWS requirement under the existing contract as well as the QASP, which is being met with less than 1 (< 1) specimen lost per facility, per month.

18. Standard: All (100%) All Staff shall be appropriately licensed/accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP), The Joint Commission or (other Accreditation Body). In addition, the laboratory must be certified and maintain certifications meeting the requirements of the Department of Health and Human Services Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act of 1988 Acceptable Quality Level: 100% meet Standards (No Deviations)

Staff is not Licensed by the none of the above at 100%! It appears that that this question would refer to the laboratory, Should this statement be removed?

RESPONSE: PWS Sections 2.2, 8.3.2 and QASP 2 – Qualifications of Key Personnel have been revised for clarity.

19. 8.3.6. Measure: Telephone Consultation (PWS Section 3.14) Performance Requirement: The

Contractor shall provide a Pathologist to conduct telephone consultation with the assigned point of contact for each participating facility (identified in Section 1.2), requesting Clinician, or designee as needed. Standard: 100% The Contractor shall have an assigned POC for each of the participating facilities identified in Section 1.2.

to request that any laboratory lose the contract based on a Standard of 100% for Telephone Consultation is harsh and not in accordance with industry standards as there are many factors involve with identifying and location Government personnel to whom the laboratory should need to communicate with. Should this requirement be modified within industry standards of potentially 90%, would the government lessen this standard which is not in alignment for this acceptable standard Quality level 90%?

RESPONSE: This is a current PWS requirement under the existing contract, which is being met. The identified standard is reasonably necessary to meet the Government’s minimum needs.

20. On the Pricing Schedule what is required or meant by this request DC.02.03.01: Performing Laboratory from Summary of Lab Information? Requesting clarification?

RESPONSE: The Offeror needs to identify the Laboratories that will be performing the indicated tests. In the Pricing Schedule, the offeror shall populate the information on the summary tab.

21. We have a trusted subcontractor who is able to provide the required services, since (Vendor) does not own a laboratory we would like to know if we still eligible to bid on this opportunity.

RESPONSE: The VA cannot dispense legal advice. Please review Section E with respect to Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria, as well as Limitations on Subcontracting Clauses.