36C77624Q0232 0001.docx

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) 776-24-4-3250-0122 36C776 Department of Veterans Affairs Program Contracting Activity Central 6100 Oak Tree Blvd, Suite 490 Independence

OH

44131 36C776 Department of Veterans Affairs Program Contracting Activity Central 6100 Oak Tree Blvd, Suite 490 Independence

OH

44131 To all Offerors/Bidders

36C77624Q0232

X X X

X This amendment is being issued to provide responses to vendor questions received for the solicitation action stated in Section 9A.

All other terms and conditions remain unchanged. The response due date has not changed and remains Monday July 8 at

2 PM EDT.

Kymberly Morgan Contracting Officer Contractor questions submitted for RFQ #36C77624Q0232 - Healthcare Identity Management (HC IdM) and Program Responses Note: Some contractors submitted questions in the format of a chart. Information in parenthesis following a question notes a reference material or section in the chart that was associated with that question.)

Q1. Will the government want to approve the Contract Team Lead as a KP? (PWS 6.1 Minimum Qualifications) A1. Yes Q2. Will any of the personnel required for this be evaluated by the Government using any specific technical evaluation scoring? (PWS 6.1 Minimum Qualifications) A2. Meet the min req as described in 6.1 Q3. Does the Government have a favored specific style already agreed upon or used? (PWS 5.3 Task 3: Reporting on Tasks 1&2) A3. Yes, an example is provided. See Attachment 1 Contract Team Productivity Template.

Q4. “Estimated quantity per month [of ID trait verifications] up to 1600” – Can the Government describe the system process currently in use to determine this estimation/and the monthly actual requirements during the life of the contract?

A4. Verbiage should have been minimum versus ‘up to’ 1600. This is based off historical data via reporting functionality in the IdM Toolkit regarding what a competent employee could be expected to accomplish during that time period.

Q5. What is the duration of the VA internal training program for this Task? (PWS 5.4 Task 4 Training Plan) A5. Four to five months. A copy of the current federal training plan is provided. See Attachment 2 HC IdM Training Plan. Please note that contractors do not complete the Phase 4 training.

Q6. What are the levels of training? (PWS 5.4 Task 4 Training Plan) A6. Training is divided into 3 phases, training must be completed in order and all phases must be successfully completed.

Q7. What is the minimum level of acceptability at each level of training? (PWS 5.4 Task 4 Training Plan) A7. See Training Plan, the contractor advances to next level of training upon successful completion of each prior phase. This is based on trainer/mentor evaluation and contractor feedback.

Q8. Will the Government please explain what is required in the Offeror’s approach to address non-compliance of policies and procedures within the PWS? (RFQ E.1.F.1.a - Non-Compliance of PWS Policies and Procedures) A8. It is discretion of contracting company to ensure acceptable quality/quantity levels are achieved in order to maintain the contract.

Q9. Can the Government please confirm the roles of the Key Personnel? Based on our understanding of the RFP and the PWS, the Key Personnel roles are defined as the Contract Team Lead (6.1.A) and the Analyst (6.1.B)? Is that correct? Please confirm.

A9. Yes Q10. For the Analyst position (6.1.B), can the Government please confirm that the Registered Health Information Administrator (RHIA) degree is not a mandatory requirement?

A10. It is preferred, but not mandatory. In our experience, individuals with this level of knowledge acclimate to this work much more expediently with higher levels of understanding.

Q11. Can the government please clarify the font size for tables, pictures and graphs. We respectfully request a font size of 10 arial. (RFQ Page 49 Paragraph 4) A11. This verbiage is not specific to our contract, but the RFQ clearly states nothing smaller than Font size 12, on standard 8.5” x 11” pages. Therefore 12 would be the minimum size.

Q12. The work performed on this contract is highly sensitive and critical and as such, can the government please confirm that Past Performance submission must be from the Prime? (RFQ page 51, paragraph 2 – Past Performance) A12. Past performance will be reviewed for all references submitted for Past Performance submissions completed as a prime or subcontractor, per the RFQ, Section 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors, Item (F)(2), Past Performance Submission.

Q13. Can the government please clarify the number of federal holidays that apply to this solicitation? Paragraph 4.1 of the PWS states "Under current definitions, *four [holidays] are set by date..." but the corresponding list contains *five holidays. (PWS page 9, paragraph 4.1) A13. Five is accurate.

Q14. Can the government please clarify which Performance Metrics/Quality Acceptable Levels of Performance (ALP) are applicable to this work? The percentages cited in Attachment 1 - PWS Paragraph 6.5 do not match those listed in Attachment 2 - Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan paragraph 6. (PWS Page 23, Paragraph 6.5/Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan, Paragraph 6) A14. The PWS is accurate, please disregard that metric in the QASP.

Q15. Within the technical instructions, the government states the following: “The Offerors shall provide résumés for all proposed key personnel which address qualifications, education, availability, and experience directly related to the requirements to demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet all of the Government’s stated requirements for this effort.” Can the government please clarify which key personnel they are referring to here? (RFQ page 52, section c Staffing Plan) A15. At a minimum a resume is required for Contract Lead, optionally, resumes for proposed analysts can be included and are appreciated.

Q16. Can the Government confirm that we can designate as many Key Personnel as we deem appropriate?

A16. Yes Q17. Can we submit resumes for non-Key Personnel as an appendix to the proposal outside of page count?

A17. Yes Q18. Could the Government clarify if the Technical, Past Performance, Price, and Reps & Certs are to be included in a single volume? If it is not a single volume, can the Government clarify how many volumes they expect to receive?

A18. Single volume is acceptable.

Q19. Could the Government confirm the total Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) required, and which ones they consider key?

A19. We cannot designate the number required, but historically 8 has been sufficient to fulfill productions numbers in this contract.

Q20. Is the Government open to receiving innovative solutions or recommendations for potential improvements?

A20. Processes should be performed per the documents and procedures provided. If, in the course of performing the work, additional opportunities for improvements are discovered feedback, ideas and recommendations are appreciated.

Q21. Are there any financial penalties associated with not meeting the performance standards, or is it purely based on performance ratings?

A21. Performance ratings Q22. Is the report format and content requirements pre-determined or will we collaborate with stakeholders to develop and finalize?

A22. Predetermined, template provided. See Attachment 1 Contract Team Productivity Template. We are open to ideas for improvement as you become engaged and familiar with processes.

Q23. Are there any additional reporting requirements not explicitly mentioned in the QASP that we should be aware of?

A23. No Q24. Could the Government designate which format they want for each volume of the response (e.g., PDF, Excel, etc.)?

A24. Vendor has option to choose, however PDF is preferable.

Q25. PWS 5.1-Deliverable Task 1 A text states that a minimum of 300-350 duplicate requests/tasks per month by 8 experienced FTEs, but later in section 6.5 in the table and in section 7.0 the reference to productivity changes to state up to 350 duplicate requests/tasks is the deliverable. For clarity can the Government standardize the language between 5.1, 6.5, and 7.0 to ensure uniformity?

A25. All references should have stated minimum. Disregard the wording “up to.”

Q26. PWS 5.2-Deliverable Task 2 A text states that a minimum of 1,400-1,600 requests/tasks per month by 8 experienced FTEs, but later in section 6.5 in the table and in section 7.0 the reference to productivity changes to state up to 1,400-1,600 requests/tasks is the deliverable. For clarity can the Government standardize the language between 5.2, 6.5, and 7.0 to ensure uniformity?

A26. All references should have stated minimum. Disregard the wording “up to.”

Q27. Regarding PWS 5.3 Deliverable Task 3 B, in the discussion regarding the HC IdM Detailed Metrics Report, there is a reference to a number of external support requests/tasks. Please define external support, i.e. VA outside of the program, DoD, other Government employees, or 3rd parties outside the Government?

A27. Service Now (SNOW) Tickets, which are external versus the internal tickets in the IdM Toolkit Q28. Regarding PWS 5.4 Task 4-Training Plan, reference is made to minimum levels of acceptability at each level. Is our understanding that the table in section 6.5 of the PWS and the QASP under Section 6., outlines all minimum levels of acceptability?

A28. Documentation in the PWS is accurate, please disregard the QASP levels.

Q29. Regarding PWS 6.2.2 to 6.2.8, these sections look to be covering standards and guidance for use in software development projects. Are these sections relevant or not applicable to this solicitation which does not appear to involve software development?

A29. This is boiler plate language and is not specific to this contract.

See attached document: Attachment 1 Contract Team Productivity Template.

See attached document: Attachment 2 HC IdM Training Plan.

End of Document