S06 QNA 36C26326Q0197.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Network Contracting Office 23

4801 Veterans Drive Saint Cloud, MN 56303

Date: 08/19/2026

SUBJECT: Questions and Answers for Solicitation 36C26326Q0197

All responses from the Government are in blue.

1. TYPE OF CONTRACT: 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.

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

The contract resulting from this solicitation shall be FOB Destination.

3. 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 Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) for federal contractors?

The contract resulting from this solicitation is not anticipated to include any CUI or another other term/acronym that referes to sensitive contract material within the VA as it is pertains to a Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC).

4. FACILITIES REQUIRING SERVICE:

a. CLARIFICATION ON HIDDEN ROWS – ATTACHMENT A: In the Attachment A Excel document, the GOV has listed (6) VAMCs and their healthcare system’s associated CBOCs that will require service under the contract resulting from this solicitation. However, there are hidden rows featuring additional CBOCs/Clinics under the following healthcare systems: Fargo (3 locations), Omaha (1 location), Des Moines (6 locations) and Iowa City (14 locations). Will the GOV please confirm that the hidden CBOC/Clinic locations (shaded in peach/pink) will not require service under this contract?

That is correct, the hidden locations will not require service under this contract at this time.

Please note Amendment Addition 1.5.3.

b. CLARIFICATION ON FACILITY ADDRESSES – ATTACHMENT A: There are several CBOC/Clinic locations listed throughout Attachment A that we have been unable to identify by provided address on VA.gov. Will the GOV please confirm or correct the following addresses:

• VA FARGO HCS – these addresses are not listed on the HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 766 Elks Dr, Suite 6H, Dickinson, ND 58601. Please note that the Dickinson VA Clinic listed on the site is at 3275 West Ridge Dr, West Ridge Market Center, Suite P, Dickinson, ND 58601.

o 1542 16th St West, Suite 300, Williston, ND 58801. Please note that the Williston VA Clinic listed on the site is at 3210 27th St West, Harvest Plaza, Suite 206, Williston, ND 58801.

• VA SIOUX FALLS HCS – these addresses are not listed on the HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 2001 South Summit Ave, Sioux Falls 57197

• VA MINNEAPOLIS HCS – these addresses are not listed on the HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 6636 Cedar Ave South, Richfield, MN 55423

• VA NEBRASKA-WESTERN IOWA HCS – these addresses are not listed on the Omaha HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 11111 S 84th St, Papillion, NE, 68046. Please note that the Sarpy VA Clinic listed on the site is at 1330 Jersey St, Papillion, NE 68046.

• VA CENTRAL IOWA HCS – these addresses are not listed on the Des Moines HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 520 South Pierce Ave, Suite 150, Mason City, IA 50401.

Please note that the Mason City VA Clinic listed on the site is at 478 Tiffany Dr, Mason City, IA 50401 o 101 Iowa Ave West, Marshalltown, IA 50158. Please note that the Marshalltown VA Clinic listed on the site is at 201 East Merle Hibbs Blvd, Marshalltown, IA 50158 o 2519 2nd Ave North, Fort Dodge, IA 50501. Please note that the Fort Dodge VA Clinic listed on the site is at 530 South 25th St, Fort Dodge, IA 50501

• VA IOWA CITY HCS – these addresses are not listed on the HCS locations page at VA.gov:

o 25 South Grand Ave, Iowa City, IA 52246. Please note that the Iowa City VA Clinic listed on the site is at 400 South Clinton St, Iowa City Federal Building, Iowa City, IA 52240

The Government thanks you for your due diligence.

5. ATTACHMENT C PRICE SCHEDULE:

ANNUAL CYL AUDIT CLIN: Per PG 10 of 75, para 3.12.1, “Stations will complete an Inventory/Audit with the Vendor once annually and/or within 3 months at the end of the period of performance,” but there is no Annual Audit CLIN provided in order for offerors to account for the expenses incurred to meet the requirement of annual audits VISN-wide. Will the GOV please add a CLIN for an Annual Audit per VAMC/HCS as there are actual costs associated with having the Prime Contractor send a POC each contract year to perform cylinder audits for (6) VA Health Care Systems all within the final (3) months of the contract (travel, lodging, etc.)? It is common in the industry in VA multi-year contracts for Contractors (especially VISN-wide contracts) to be able to charge/account for these annual audit costs via a provided CLIN when the GOV requires this added service function. These are fixed costs to provide this added service and it cannot be incorporated into the offeror unit price of the gas/rentals as these annual usage QTYs are only estimates (not guaranteed), supported by PG 6 of 75 (Section 1.5) where the RFQ explicitly states that “The contract items and quantities shown in Attachment B are estimates of each annual requirements.

There is no express or implied guarantee that these quantities will be purchased.

The Government does not intend to add a separate Line Item Number (LIN) for the annual inventory audit. Offerors are responsible for proposing pricing that accounts for all costs associated with performance of the contract requirements, including the required annual inventory audits. As stated in the solicitation, estimated quantities are provided for evaluation and planning purposes only.

“It is common in the industry in VA multi-year contracts for Contractors (especially VISN-wide contracts) to be able to charge/account for these annual audit costs via a provided CLIN when the GOV requires this added service function.”

On the contrary, it is NOT common in the industry, and contracts of this size and caliber are all inclusive, and in actuality also very commonly include maintenance, supplies, training, consumables and support all in their pricing. The government shall not determine the travel, lodging and incidentals of contractors..

This is a contract for Medical Gas, and the Government shall reimburse the contractor’s cost of doing business through the provided LINs. The prices shall be all inclusive.

GFE Cylinder Types & QTYs Owned: Will the GOV please verify how many of the following GFE Fill CLINs does each respective VAMC/CBOC own on its property books (facility with respective GFE usage QTYs notated in BOLD per the ATTACH B)?

(GFE) CB 4% CD/ 16% OX/ NI E C/O, SIZE E – VAMC IOWA CITY -

NONE

(GFE) LUNG DIFFUSION: 3% GAS CERTIFIED - 0.3% CARBON

MONOXIDE/ 0.3% METHANE/ 21% OXYGEN/ BAL NITROGEN, SIZE

175 – VAMC FARGO - NONE

(GFE) NITROGEN NF, SIZE K – NO FACILITY NOTATED – Not Applicable

(GFE) NITROGEN NF, SIZE K 6PK – VAMC MINNEAPOLIS – 5 Each (6 Packs)

(GFE) NITROUS OXIDE 99.5% CR 10# - W/EDUCTOR TUBE (COC

ONLY) – NO FACILITY NOTATED – Not Applicable

(GFE) NITROUS OXIDE USP, SIZE 32 - NO FACILITY NOTATED – Not Applicable

(GFE) NITROUS OXIDE USP, SIZE 64LB - NO FACILITY NOTATED –

Not Applicable

(GFE) NITROUS OXIDE, SIZE K/56LB - VAMC MINNEAPOLIS – 18

Each

(GFE) OXYGEN POST VALVE, SIZE E ALUMINUM (GRAND ISLAND) -

NONE

(GFE) OXYGEN USP, SIZE K – NO FACILITY NOTATED – Not Applicable

PSI Clarification: Will the GOV please verify the PSI required for the following CLINs?

0025: Liquid Nitrogen, 160 Liter Cylinder – Low Pressure 22 PSI

0034: LIQ NITROGEN, LOW PRESSURE, TANK ON WHEELS, 230

LITER CYL MRI – Low Pressure 22 PSI

0036: Liquid Nitrogen, low pressure, tank on wheels, 230 Liter Cylinder – Low Pressure 22 PSI

0078: LIQUID CO2, SIZE 300LB VGL (180 LITER) – With primary safety relief valve set to 350 PSIG

0130: HELIUM LIQUID LT250 VOLUME (250LITERS) – Very low nominal relief pressure setting of 1 PSIG (0.07 bar)

Cylinder Clarification:

Please confirm if the following CLINs are required to be medical or industrial grade?

0013: Carbon Dioxide 200 CGA 320 Tank product - Medical

0051: Helium, Size K Cylinder - Medical

0081: NITROGEN, SIZE Q- Medical

0087: OXYGEN, SIZE R - Medical

0088: OXYGEN, SIZE S - Medical

0103: CARBON DIOXIDE, SIZE 20 - Medical

0107: NITROGEN, SIZE T - Medical

0118: HELIUM, SIZE T - Medical

0132: NITROGEN, SIZE R - Medical

0137: OXYGEN, SIZE Q - Medical

0147: AIR USP, SIZE Q - Medical

General Clarification:

Potential duplicate: What is the material difference between CLINs 0044 & 0122? These appear to be for the same gas requirement (FDA certified UHP Nitrogen Size K), with 0044 possibly having a typo (FDE vs. FDA)

0044: NITROGEN 99.999% UHP K FDE CERT

0122: NITROGEN 99.999% UHP, SIZE K FDA – CERT

LIN: 0122 Shall be removed, all other LINs will be adjusted accordingly. 0044 has been amended from FDE to FDA

Please verify the following Abnormal Liquid Nitrogen Dewar Sizes, as Dewars typically come in Liter sizes at intervals of 5 (e.g.,. 10L, 25L, 35L, 50L)? The Attachment B Quantities does not specify a facility for any of the following (4) CLINs.

0052: LIQUID NITROGEN, SIZE 121LTR DEWAR

Amended to 120LTR DEWAR

0054: LIQUID NITROGEN, SIZE 44LTR DEWAR

Amended to 50LTR DEWAR

0057: LIQUID NITROGEN SIZE 34LTR DEWAR

Amended to 35LTR DEWAR

0059: LIQUID NITROGEN, SIZE 24LTR DEWAR

Amended to 25LTR DEWAR

6. DELIVERY FREQUENCIES: PG 6 of 75 (Section 1.2) in the RFQ states that “The contractor must comply with the delivery frequencies specified per delivery location as outlined in Attachment A.” This section points offerors to Attachment A to review delivery frequences, but the frequencies are not included in Attachment A. Will the GOV confirm if the delivery frequencies per location will be posted via an Amendment for offerors to review?

Section 1.2 has been rewritten to the following:

The contractor shall comply with delivery orders when requested by a location specified in Attachment A.

Frequency is determined by 8.1. “Delivery orders shall be ordered by an agreed-upon means between the contractor and the ordering activity.”

The lack of clarity was unintentional.

7. BARCODE REQUIREMENTS:

a. PROOFS OF DELIVERY / INVOICES: PG 8 of 75 (Section 3.2.1) in the RFQ states that “At a minimum the Cylinder Tracking Solution must include Serialized Bar Codes (affixed to the cylinder being delivered) for all cylinders.

The Bar Code Serial Number shall be printed on the delivery receipt. The Bar Code Serial Number shall also be printed on the receipt for returned Cylinders. The corresponding Bar Code Serial Numbers, both delivered and returned, shall be identified on the invoice of the date delivered and the date returned.” Will the GOV please confirm if the requirement to provide bar code serial numbers on invoices can be met through the provision of PODs that will accompany the monthly invoice submission? Bar code numbers on an actual invoice are abnormal, but the PODs (that do include the bar code numbers) can be submitted as an attachment alongside the invoice to meet this requirement.

The Government confirms that this will meet the minimum requirement.

b. CONTRACTOR-OWNED CYLINDERS: PG 10 of 75 (Section 3.11.2) states that “For cylinders that do not have a barcode label affixed to the cylinder by the contractor, the Government reserves the right to adhere to a barcode label to the cylinder.” We request the removal of this section in the RFQ.

Please note that the GOV affixing a bar code number to a contractor-owned cylinder is illegal since it is not the property of the VA, and the FDA has strict labeling requirements for the manufacturer. Additionally, unless the VA is using an internal inventory control system that correlates to a barcode identifying set of data within the hospital(s), what is the utility offered to the GOV in placing an isolated barcode on a contractor-owned cylinder? Lastly, because it’s a contractor-owned cylinder, there is no guarantee that the marked cylinder will ever return to that particular facility once it’s been picked up for a fill; the manufacturers/suppliers fill and distribute/circulate cylinders by type and by their own inventory system, which will not align with the GOV’s. Will the GOV please confirm it understands the logistics of the supply process for contractor-owned cylinders (a marked contractor-owned cylinder will not necessarily return to that facility) and that it understands the GOV cannot reserve the right to mark/barcode property that is not owned by the

VA?

Agreed, 3.11.2 has been amended to the following.

“For Government Owned Cylinders that do not have a barcode label affixed to the cylinder by the contractor, the Government reserves the right to adhere a barcode label to the cylinder.

8. WEB APPLICATION: PG 8 of 75 (Section 3.2.2) in the RFQ states that “The Contractor/Subcontractor shall establish and provide access to the on-line cylinder inventories through a 24 hour/7 days a week on-line application to validate on hand cylinder types, sizes, and quantities within 10 calendar day of award. The Contractor/Sub-Contractor shall provide through e-mail and access to the on-line, customer-facing, web application, within ten (10) business days after the end of the rental period, a monthly summary for each delivery location (sub-accounts) to the individual facility COR(s) showing the following: Beginning balance for the rental period, Cylinder Delivered by Date, Cylinders picked up by date, and Ending balance for the rental period. Cylinders shall be identified at a minimum by Bar Code Serial Number.”

Please see the below questions regarding the web application requirement:

a. Is SharePoint an acceptable format to provide the required information to the GOV? SharePoint allows for document uploads and folder organization for the VA facilities to have access to the requested information at any given time (i.e., 24/7). Please note, however, that the provided cylinder balances via a monthly summary will not be available in real time. The awardee will manually upload documents to the SharePoint site on the web on a monthly basis to ensure ready access to monthly summaries that include beginning balances for the rental period, cylinders delivered/picked up by date, and ending balances for the rental period. The provided cylinder balances will be updated via the monthly summary every (30) days, which will align with all deliveries/returns made during a given month. Will the GOV confirm cylinder balances updated/provided monthly via a web-based site with all requested information provided is acceptable?

The solution / format offered is acceptable so long as it meets the requirements stated in the solicitation.

b. The web application requirement quoted above requires this website to be functional and accessible within (10) days of an award being made. This is a stringent requirement in an RFQ set aside for SDVOSB offerors. A functional, customized website established at the time of award seems to favor large businesses. Will the GOV please confirm that it will allow an awardee an appropriate transition period to get this site built and customized for the VA’s use? More specifically, will the GOV allow a 60-day transition to meet this requirement (as detailed in Factor 3 under Evaluation on PG 64 of 75 in the

RFQ)?

The Government does not agree that the solicitation requirement favors any particular business size or socioeconomic category. However, in order to maintain consistency with the requirements in Factor 3, the government shall amend the 10 days to 60 calendar days after award.

The following verbiage has also been added to the following sentence. “Once an On-line application has been established,”

Will the GOV confirm its expectations for an offeror who plans to utilize an off-the-shelf product like SharePoint for this VISN 23 opportunity (e.g., does the VA expect (6) distinct SharePoint pages/links for each HCS or (1) page/link with each HCS’ information separately organized)?

The Government does not prescribe a specific solution. The Government expects, at a minimum, for the requirement to be met. It is the offerors responsibility to decide and demonstrate their innovative use of cylinder tracking and management systems and present their Best Value offers.

9. BULK OXYGEN LANGUAGE: PG 9 of 75 (Section 3.7) in the RFQ states that “Each ordering activity shall provide access to an electrical power source and hook-up to a facility-maintained alarm system. The Contractor shall perform the hook-up of contractor-owned equipment to the facility-maintained medical gas manifolds at no additional cost to the Government.” Additionally, PG 16 (Section 9.5) includes language referring to the requirements for a valid Certificate of Analysis, which is also a bulk oxygen requirement. The included bulk oxygen RFQ language included on PGs 9 and 16 of the RFQ seems to have been added in error; will the GOV confirm that these sections will be removed via an Amendment since this opportunity is soliciting medical gas cylinders?

3.7 has been amended to: “Each ordering activity shall provide access to an electrical power source and hook-up to a facility-maintained alarm system. Only VA Staff shall connect and disconnect/remove items from the system.”

9.5 has been amended to:

The Contractor shall make available upon request a certificate of analysis of specified Medical Gases, at a minimum the following shall be provided:

a) Supplier’s name and complete address

b) Name of the product

c) Lot number or other unique identification number

d) Actual analytical results for full U.S.P. monograph testing.

i. Documentation that only states the product meets the minimum purity of

99.5% is not acceptable

e) Test method used to perform the analysis.

i. A statement such as “Meets U.S.P. specifications” is not acceptable.

ii. A statement such as “Tested via Servomex” is not acceptable as the specific model number is not provided.

f) Signature and date of authorized supplier representative.

10. MONTHLY RENTAL PERIOD: PG 9 of 75 (Section 3.8) in the RFQ states that “Rental fees shall apply to contractor-owned cylinders in the possession of the ordering activity. The contractor shall submit invoices in sequential monthly cycles with the same start and end days of each month throughout the contract’s period of performance. For example, if the billing period start date is the 26th then the monthly rental cycles shall be from the 26th day of the month through the 25th day of the following month. The monthly rental start date shall coincide with completed phase-in as described in paragraph 4.1.” Will the GOV please clarify this section? The industry standard is to bill in arrears for calendar months throughout the term of the contract. For the first month of a contract, should services begin mid-month, the invoice would be for a partial month, which is accounted for in Section 3.8.1 on PG 9 where the GOV provides a prorate formula for rentals in a partial month. What is the utility of providing 30-day rental periods that do not align with the calendar month (quoting the provided example of the 26th of the previous month through the 25th of the following month)? Depending on when the phase-in transition is completed, a partial first month can be prorated followed by standard monthly invoicing. Please confirm the GOV is amenable to the industry standard of invoicing for partial months for the first month of a contract following phase-in transition and subsequent calendar months for the term of the contract.

The Government is amenable to whatever standard monthly invoicing the contractor and the respective site chooses to adopt. The above is simply an example of a nuanced situation.

11. LOSS OF USE FOR CONTRACTOR-OWNED CYLINDERS:

a. LOU FOUND CYLINDERS: PG 10 of 75 (Section 3.10) in the RFQ states that “For each contractor- owned cylinder lost or damaged beyond repair while in the

Government’s possession, the Government shall pay the contractor the replacement cost, less the allocable rental paid for that cylinder. These cylinders shall then become Government property. If any lost cylinder is located within six months from the date the replacement cost was paid by the Government to the contractor, the cylinder may be returned to the contractor, and the contractor shall refund the Government the replacement cost, less rental, for every thirty

(30) calendar days from date of payment from the Government to the date the cylinder was returned to the contractor. Changes to replacement cylinder costs may be proposed by either the Government or contractor and will be considered for contract modification only if proposal is in line with standard marketplace costs.” Will the GOV please clarify the rationale behind the requirement that cylinders located within (6) months following an audit shall result in a refund paid to the VA? This is highly nonstandard, but most importantly, the facilities will receive many deliveries within a 6-month timeframe. What internal inventory control system or program does the GOV have in place to determine/prove the “found” cylinders within a 6-month timeframe are cylinders that were paid as Loss of Use from a previous audit (that would result in a refund) rather than cylinders delivered since an audit was conducted? Please clarify how the GOV plans to account for the pickups/deliveries in determining the status of individual cylinders across the extensive time period following an audit.

The Government recognizes that (6) months grace period is a bit excessive. The time has been reduced to 1 month to fall in line with rental fees. Keep in mind that if the replacement fee was paid the cylinder is now Government property, the cylinder “may” be returned to the contractor. The key word is may, if the contractor accepts or wants the return, then the refund is required.

“What internal inventory control system or program does the GOV have in place to determine/prove the “found” cylinders within a 6-month timeframe are cylinders that were paid as Loss of Use from a previous audit (that would result in a refund) rather than cylinders delivered since an audit was conducted?”

The Government reminds the offerors that the inventory control system shall be provided by the offeror as part of their proposal. Please see 5.2 / Evaluation Factors.

b. LOU RENTAL FEES: PG 10 of 75 (Section 3.12.1) in the RFQ states that “Once the Inventory is completed, Cylinders identified as lost or missing shall have the rental fee stopped as of the date of the inventory. If the Contractor has invoiced for those fees; the Contractor shall credit the fees assessed on the next billing month invoice, back to the date of the inventory.” What is the GOV’s rationale for stating that the rental fee will stop as of the date of the inventory? Rental fees are removed from an LOU invoice once a PO has been issued for payment (not on the date of the audit), which provides the GOV’s intent to pay. There is no incentive for the GOV to pay their LOU invoice based solely on the completion of an audit that identifies lost cylinders. Will the GOV confirm if the provided LOU CLINs in the pricing schedule will be funded upon award, meaning a PO to bill against for LOU will have already been issued (allowing the contractor to comply with this language as written), or will the LOU line items require a separate PO to be provided to the contractor for payment following a completed audit? If a separate PO is required following the audit, will the GOV provide a determined timeline a contractor can expect to receive the PO following an audit?

“What is the GOV’s rationale for stating that the rental fee will stop as of the date of the inventory?”

The Government shall not continue paying rental fees for items it does not possess. The above simply states that the date recognized as the Stop Rental Fee Date is the “Date of the Inventory”. If the offeror chooses to continue billing for these items illegally, and receives payment from the Government for items it does not have, then the Government is entitled to that refund up to the day (Date of Inventory) that it was established that the Government did not possess those items.

Will the GOV confirm if the provided LOU CLINs in the pricing schedule will be funded upon award, meaning a PO to bill against for LOU will have already been issued (allowing the contractor to comply with this language as written), or will the LOU line items require a separate PO to be provided to the contractor for payment following a completed audit? If a separate PO is required following the audit, will the GOV provide a determined timeline a contractor can expect to receive the PO following an audit?

The PO shall be funded with every issued delivery order. Line items shall not require a new PO, however, a modification to increase may or may not be necessary depending on the situation.

• To protect Contractors who must front these charges with their suppliers in order to continue delivering medical gases, to ensure compliance with the Prompt Payment Act, and to establish accountability procedures for the VA, we recommend including the current LOU verbiage from the VISNs 9/10 Medical Cylinders Contract that does address payment procedures (36C77623D0910):

o NOTE: Just-in-Time invoicing is not included in this RFQ for the VISN 23; the above image is simply an example of the LOU PO language previously recommended to the VA.

The Government thanks you for your recommendation.

c. LOU INVOICES: PG 11 of 75 (Section 4.1.3) in the RFQ states that “Following the date the ordering activity and contractor agree all efforts have been made to locate and remove cylinders from the ordering activity location, the contractor shall be allotted sixty (60) calendar days to submit all outstanding invoices and claims for lost or damaged cylinders to each ordering activity.” Will the GOV please clarify this timeline as it is unclear when paired with the 6-month timeline requirement quoted above in Section 3.10 on PG 10? Is the GOV stating that the contractor has (60) days to submit LOU invoices from the date of the audit (signed/agreed upon by both the contractor and VA personnel)? If the contractor has (60) days from the date of the audit to invoice, what is the GOV’s deadline to pay that invoice once it’s been submitted? Additionally, if the VA and the contractor “agree all efforts have been made to locate and remove cylinders from the ordering activity location” prior to submitting the LOU invoice, how does the GOV justify an additional (4) months (for the 6-month timeline) to “find” cylinders that were missed? Industry standard is to allow (90) days to provide an LOU invoice following a joint audit between the VA and the contractor (due to processing times and data required from the manufacturer) Would the GOV be amenable to revising the requirement to allow an SDVOSB awardee (90) days to submit the LOU invoice?

The Government shall only have 1 month to “find” cylinders that were missed from the date of the inventory.

The following has been amended to the end of 4.1.3

(60) calendar day submission period shall commence the day after the VA completes their attempts to locate any lost or damaged cylinders. (30 days post Date of Inventory)

12. CONTRACT TRANSITION INVENTORY: PG 12 of 75 (Section 5.1) in the RFQ states that “During contract transition, the incumbent and incoming contractors shall conduct their own separate inventory audit at each ordering activity listed in Attachment A documenting the number of contractor-owned and Government-owned cylinders for each gas listed in Attachment C.” We request the removal of this section/requirement for an incoming contractor (other than the incumbent) to conduct a closeout cylinder audit. The incoming contractor would not audit the outgoing contractor’s cylinders, especially if the incoming contractor is hiring a new gas supplier. Additionally, it is the outgoing contractor’s and the VA’s responsibility to perform the closeout audit, which identifies any potential Loss of Use. Even if the incoming contractor is hiring the current gas supplier, the incoming contractor does not participate in the closeout audit and only accepts the cylinder balances agreed upon in writing by the VA and the outgoing contractor/supplier. Additionally, the contractor does not audit GFE cylinders in any audits (e.g., annual/closeout).

The Government agrees.

The above has been amended to:

During contract transition, the incumbent and shall conduct their own separate inventory audit at each ordering activity listed in Attachment A documenting the number of contractor-owned cylinders for each gas listed in Attachment C. The documentation shall have the contractor’s auditing personnel’s printed name, signature and date and be forwarded to the COR and ordering activity POC.

13. CYLINDER TRACKING PLAN: PGs 12-13 of 75 (Section 5.2) in the RFQ states that “The contractor shall submit an innovative plan with their proposal for tracking medical gas cylinders being delivered to and from the ordering activity. The cylinder tracking plan shall be provided by the contractor with no additional cost to the Government. The primary purpose of this plan will be to provide a mechanism to allow the ordering activity POCs on-demand access to view or extract data related to all cylinders, contractor-owned and Government-owned, that are moving in and out of their respective facility.” Will the GOV please remove the requirement that the cylinder tracking plan be required to account for data related to government-owned cylinders? While a cylinder tracking plan may reflect aggregated data for the number of GFE pickups in a month’s time, a contractor’s tracking plan won’t capture the total number of GFE cylinders in circulation or on site at the hospital at any given time.

Tracking GFE cylinders is the VA’s responsibility; tracking contractor-owned cylinders is the contractor’s responsibility. Will the GOV please revise the language in this requirement? Or will the GOV confirm that the data on GFE cylinder pickups in a month’s time will suffice to meet the GFE tracking requirement?

The Government shall leave this verbiage as is, but will clarify. The contractor shall submit an innovative plan with their proposal for tracking medical gases, both GFE and Contractor owned. The assumption that a Contractor can’t viably track a GFE while at their home station is correct and is also not expected. The expectation comes from the GFE leaving it’s respective facility through a Contractor pick up. The Contractor is responsible for keeping track of Government Property once they assume responsibility for it, as they would do their own.

The Contractor is not expected to track GFE that is currently in the VA’s possession. The Information being requested is already available and being executed through standard industry logistical practices. Items are received and signed for constantly and continuously by both parties. The Contractor is required to submit an innovative plan with their proposal for tracking medical gases, information that should already be at your disposal, the requirement now wants it available.

Or will the GOV confirm that the data on GFE cylinder pickups in a month’s time will suffice to meet the GFE tracking requirement?

If all transactions are done in the span of a month’s time then this is applicable. It is up to the Contractor to decide how they shall deliver the information being requested through their plan/proposal. Please note that logistically 30 days is a long time between transactions, if GFE leaves a facility on day one, will it take 30 days to reach a fill station? If so, your reasoning applies, however, I doubt this is the case. Within 30 days, the GFE would have at the very least arrived at a fill station (one tracked transaction) and possible left the fill station on its way back. This accounts for two total transactions / chain of custody.

14. ON-DEMAND REPORTING REQUIREMENT: PG 13 of 75 (Section 6.1) states that “The contractor shall submit in their proposal their available on-demand reporting capabilities for the CO, COR and/or ordering activities in relation to usage statistics, cost data, cylinder tracking and any other report types that may be beneficial for the Government.” Will the GOV please define what “on-demand reporting” is referring to? Is it on demand if the reports are uploaded to a SharePoint website for the VA facilities to reference on an as-needed basis? The requirements on PG 12 include data averages per week/month/year; will the GOV please confirm that these required reports can be consolidated monthly with weekly data broken out to reflect the weekly-specific information? An example of this may look like a monthly report completed by a contractor (with weekly data broken out/included in the report) posted monthly to a SharePoint website application for the VA facilities to review on an on-demand basis. In this example, the contractor would provide all the required information that is updated monthly and lessen the significant workload that would be required to aggregate/analyze the data and post weekly. Additionally, this requirement reflects an ongoing and labor-intensive data management responsibility on the contractor. What is the GOV’s rationale for requiring data management/aggregation/analysis of the contractor when the GOV is provided all the relevant information via PODs, invoices, monthly summaries, and a cylinder tracking plan? Will the GOV add a CLIN to account for costs in meeting the data management requirement detailed in this section?

The Government defines “On-demand reporting” as being available at any given time for the applicable VA Point of Contact to access. The Government, did not disclose specific time frames of how to approach reporting. A consolidated monthly or any other report would suffice so long as it met the requirements of 6.1. The Government declines to comment or direct the contractors on how to execute or propose this requirement as it is the responsibility of the contractor to propose an innovative plan.

What is the GOV’s rationale for requiring data management/aggregation/analysis of the contractor when the GOV is provided all the relevant information via PODs, invoices, monthly summaries, and a cylinder tracking plan?

The Government is not required to provide its internal rationale for each individual performance requirement. The solicitation identifies the Government’s minimum requirements, including the requirement for data management, aggregation, and analysis. Offerors are responsible for submitting proposals that demonstrate their ability to meet those requirements. The requirement remains unchanged.

The Government reminds offerors that this is a Veteran Integrated Service Network 23 wide contract, spanning multiple sites. Not a single site contract.

Will the GOV add a CLIN to account for costs in meeting the data management requirement detailed in this section?

The Government shall reimburse the contractor’s cost of doing business through the provided LINs. The prices shall be all inclusive as is common in the industry, and contracts of this size and caliber.

15. POD / DELIVERY SLIP REQUIREMENT: PG 18 of 75 (Section 9.10) requires delivery tickets to contain the contract number and the purchase order number.

Aligning with the 100% SDVOSB set-aside status of this opportunity, the POD from a small business’s subcontractor would not include any prime-contract-specific information, as the contract would between the GOV and the Prime Contractor. Will the GOV please remove/revise the requirement that PODs include the contract and purchase order numbers?

The Government agrees, 9.10 has been amended to:

a) Contractor Generated Identification Number

16. GFE CYLINDER DISPOSAL: PG 20 OF 75 (Section 10.2) states that “If the ordering (owning) activity chooses to have the contractor dispose of a cylinder(s), part(s), fitting(s) and/or any other appurtenances to include abandoned cylinders and appurtenances from other vendors, the contractor shall dispose of the item(s) at no cost to the Government.” We request the GOV to remove this requirement or add a CLIN for this service as it is highly nonstandard for a contractor to do this at no cost.

A contractor disposing of a facility’s GFE cylinders is not a free service and would require a CLIN or there would be an understood expectation from the GOV that a quote from the contractor will need to be provided in order to price the service at the time of need. Please confirm whether the GOV would prefer to add a CLIN or pay via P-card at the time of service for the disposal of GFE cylinders.

The Government agrees, 10.2 has been amended to:

The ordering (owning) activity may choose to have the contractor dispose of a cylinder(s), part(s), fitting(s) and/or any other appurtenances to include abandoned cylinders and appurtenances from other vendors, the contractor shall dispose of the item(s) on a case by case basis. Payment shall be determined after a quote is submitted to the respective facility through either Government Purchase Card or a bilateral contracting action. The contractor shall comply with CGA Publication [P-22] The Responsible Management and Disposition of Compressed Gases and their Cylinders.

17. ATTACHING OXYGEN CYLINDERS TO MANIFOLDS: PG 23 of 75 (Section 12.1) requires offerors to attach oxygen cylinders to manifold systems. Will the GOV please remove this language as this is nonstandard and vendors cannot perform this function due to liability reasons (damaging manifold or entering facility and possibly interacting with patients)? Standard industry practice is delivering to a centralized delivery point (e.g., loading dock) with distribution/hookup of cylinders within the facilities being the responsibility of GOV personnel. Vendors cannot be responsible for the hook-up of cylinders to any GFE manifolds/appurtenances due to liability, risk of damaging GFE equipment, and because drivers are not certified for this type of service. This function should only be performed by VA personnel who are more familiar with and properly trained on the systems unique to VISN 23. If the VA is adamant about the contractor providing this service, a delivery fee and a release of liability is often requested.

The Government agrees, “12.1(e) Attaching oxygen cylinders to manifold systems, when required;” has been removed. “f)” is now “(e)”

18. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN / POC: PG 23 of 75 (Section 14.1) requires a Project Management Plan that includes “Communications and task matrix providing point-of-contact information and identifying and delineating the roles and responsibilities of key contractor personnel and resources.” However, PG 24 (Section 14.2) states that “The contractor shall assign at least one (1) Project Manager at no additional cost to the Government.” These (2) requirements under Section 14 seem to contradict one another as Section 14.1 refers to the contractor providing a POC matrix while “delineating the roles and responsibilities of key contractor personnel,” but Section 14.2 requires “one (1) Project Manager” to primarily filter information through across departmental topics. Please clarify the requirement and confirm that offerors may offer multiple POCs via a global distribution email who will serve VISN 23 under the contract that will result from this solicitation (e.g., POCs for contract administration, customer service, operations/audits, and accounting), which is the recommended approach as a single POC will not be available every day of the contract term or have decision-making authority across departments as it relates to training, audits, orders, billing, deliveries, etc. (per the list of required functions on PGs 24-45).

The Government disagrees, 14.1 and 14.2 do not contradict each other. 14.1 requires the offeror to submit a plan and to meet the requirements for that plan.

14.2 requires only that the offeror assigns at least (1) Project Manager at no additional cost to the Government. How many project managers or personnel an offeror needs is up to the offeror.

19. POCs PERFORMING WORK ON GOV INSTALLATIONS: PG 25 of 75 (Section 15.4) states that “The contractor shall provide names of employees who will perform work on Government installations in performance of this contract. This information may be used by the Government to complete background investigations and contract administration. The contractor shall update this information as needed throughout the performance period.” Will the GOV please confirm if this requirement is referring to every delivery deliver that may deliver on behalf of an SDVOSB awardee’s subcontractor/supplier? As schedules/drivers may change, this requirement would require a significant effort to provide the personal information for background investigations of every driver that may deliver medical gases across the facilities requiring service in VISN 23.

This does not apply to delivery drivers, this requirement only applies to Contract Employees that will be performing any type of work on site, such as Program Managers or Contract administrators during audits or any other type of contract administration.

20. INSURANCE REQUIREMENT: 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 and not just a dollar amounts listed on PG 38 of 75? 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 325120)? This is important because there are very few underwriters that will insure small businesses for the distribution of compressed gases and why confirmation of the applicable NAICS is being requested, in accordance with paragraph (a) of FAR 52.228-5 – Insurance Work on a Government Installation – which is incorporated by reference on PG 54 of 75 in the

RFQ.

As stated in the Clause, the successful bidder need only present evidence of the general liability insurance.

21. FAR COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT: Please confirm who the GOV entity is that enforces and ensures post-award compliance with FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions—Commercial Products and Commercial Services (PGs 27-32 of 75 in the RFQ)?

As with all government contracts, the entity that enforces and ensures post-award compliance is the Contracting Officer.

22. AWARD ELIGIBILITY OF SDVOSB OFFERORS:

a. To ensure uninterrupted delivery of medical-grade gases to the VISN 23 facilities 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?

The Government incorrectly assumed the intention of Part 7 of the solicitation.

The Government agrees that a proper statement is made regarding continuity due to proper licensing.

The following amendments have been made to the solicitation.

7.3 has been added and reads as follows:

7.3 The Contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall possess and maintain all Federal, Sate, and local licenses, registrations, certifications, and permits required for the specific medical gas activities performed by that entity, including, as applicable, the manufacture, wholesale distribution, dispensing, transportation, and delivery of medical gases. The Contractor shall ensure all entities (Prime and all Subs) performing regulated activities are properly licensed in each jurisdiction in which those activities are performed.

7.3.1. Licenses and Permits. The Offeror shall submit, with its quotation, copies of all current Federal, State, and local licenses, registrations, certifications, and permits required to perform the medical gas services required by this solicitation. This requirement applies to the Offeror and any proposed subcontractor(s) that will perform activities requiring such licensure.

Documentation shall demonstrate that each entity is properly licensed for the activities it will perform and for each applicable jurisdiction in which performance will occur.

7.3.2. Failure to submit sufficient documentation demonstrating the required licensure may result in the quotation being determined technically unacceptable and ineligible for award.

b. 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?

Read response above.

c. Will the status of an offerors’ license (in this case, a registered wholesaler of drugs and/or devices in all applicable states within VISN 23) be evaluated as a definitive responsibility criterion during the consideration of offers?

Read response above.

d. 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?

Read response above.

23. LICENSING COMPLIANCE FOR THE SDVOSB OFFEROR: Will the GOV please confirm that the required federal and state licenses and certifications for all states represented in VISN 23 that are 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)? Please see the below reference information regarding regulatory language in the RFQ and compliance information per the FDA, CFR, and the states within VISN 23:

Read response above.