0001 - Attachment - Gov Response to Vendor Questions Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- R605--Point of Care (POC) Information Resource
- Solicitation number
- 36C77624R0024
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for a point of care information resource subscription. The solicitation seeks a clinical decision support tool and drug interaction checker to be made available via the VA's electronic health record systems, including Cerner and VistA. It does not specify pricing terms or set asides. Evaluation criteria include a technical approach, platform usability testing, and past performance references from the last three years. Questions covered interface requirements, page limits, scoring of additional capabilities, and the treatment of confidential information from private contracts in past performance submissions. The Department of Veterans Affairs Technology Acquisition Center Austin is the contracting agency.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 36C77624R0024 0001.docx | DOCX document | |
| 0001 - Attachment - Summary of Revisions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 0001 - Attachment - 36C77624R0024.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment B - Compliance Spreadsheet - Point of Care Clinical Resource.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment A SOW_POC Resource_2nd Solicitation.docx | DOCX document | |
| 36C77624R0024.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Vendor Question (Questions due 1/15) | Government Response |
| 1 | A Summary of Recommendations with grading of quality of evidence and strength of the recommendations (such as with the GRADE system), where applicable, shall be included in the POC resource material presented to the user in a form and location that meets User Experience (UX) guidelines and best practices. Can you please provide a list of User Experience (UX) guidelines and best practices? | There are two of many sources of user experience guidelines and best practices. The first is based on Zhang’s heuristics for EHR usability, which is tailored for healthcare. Design Principles - General Design Principles & Guidelines - McWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics at UTHealth Houston The second is more general, but also more definitive. ISO 9241-11:2018 - Ergonomics of human-system interaction — Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts |
| 2 | The Background section contains the following: ‘The POC resource product shall be made available via the VA’s electronic health record systems in the context of VA’s ongoing Electronic Health Record Modernization (EHRM) efforts which currently include the VistA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and Oracle Cerner.’ Are there specific integration/linkout requirements w/r/t CPRS and Oracle Cerner? | There are no specific requirements. All library resources are available in Cerner through the Power Chart. It is simply a link to the resources as has existed in most instances of CPRS (access to library resources is not standardized in CPRS). |
Deeper integration (FHIR) into Cerner is not part of this contract.
| 3 | Does the government have a summary of the additional requirements/changes? | No, the vendor shall respond to current solicitation. |
| 4 | Do the contracts listed in Volume II Past Performance have to be contracts from the US and Canada or can we add relevant contracts from any territory? | Relevant contracts, regardless of locality. |
| 5 | How many people will be conducting usability testing/evaluation and will require access to the POC resource? | Please provide a single testing account that can be shared among any number of participants and members of the evaluation and support teams. |
| 6 | Why has a pediatric clinical scenario been selected as one of the criteria for procuring a CDS tool to meet the needs of an adult patient group? | The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospitals with emergency departments to provide a medical screening examination to any individual who comes to the emergency department and requests such an examination, and prohibits hospitals with emergency departments from refusing to examine or treat individuals with an emergency medical condition. |
| 7 | Does the government have a summary of the requirement changes/updates vs. the previously issued POC RFP? | No, the vendor must respond to current solicitation |
| 8 | Regarding the Technical Approach, requirement “ii A list of clinical calculators,” Can this information be included as an attachment, which would not count against the page count limit (30 pages)? | Yes, this can be included as an attachment and will not count against the 30-page count limit |
| 9 | Regarding Volume II: Past Performance, Item 1, which reads: Offerors shall submit a list of all contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) (prime contracts, task/delivery orders, and/or major subcontracts) in performance at any point during the three (3) years immediately prior to the proposal submission date, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. While Offeror is willing to provide information regarding its past performance of point-of-care subscription services (e.g., references), Offeror is concerned about the potential scope of Volume II: Past Performance. Offeror enters into a high volume of contracts in any given year with domestic and international governmental and private customers and may not be in a position to disclose the details of such contracts for confidentiality and/or commercial reasons. What contracts would be “relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation”? Are there specific US federal government customers about which the Department of Veterans Affairs is interested? | The VA complies with laws and regulations regarding confidentiality, in accordance with FAR Part 3.104-4. With regard to relevancy, the solicitation has been revised on Amendment 001 to define relevancy as contracts that are similar in size, complexity and scope to the requirements of the SOW. It is the offeror's responsibility to decide what past performance references are relevant to the solicitation. |
| 10 | Is a detailed narrative response required for Attachment A, Scope of Work requirements? | No |
| 11 | Can Offeror provide clarification/deviation details to its Attachment B/Compliance Spreadsheet response? | No, any deviations, exceptions, assumptions or new terms included within Attachment B will result in the proposal being determined unacceptable in its entirety and thus, no longer considered for award. |
| 12 | In the provided attachments titled, Attachment B – Compliance Spreadsheet. The compliance spreadsheet lists 27 points on with a simple “Yes/No” column for meeting the requirement. When components clearly exceed the stated requirements (i.e. offers additional capabilities at no extra cost), how will the government quantify or account for those additional capabilities, considering the “best value” approach? | Attachment B - compliance spreadsheet will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis only, as such, the Government will not quantify or account for any additional capabilities. However, the written technical approach will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence provided the Government with respect to the Offeror's methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely manner. |
| 13 | Considering the “Yes/No” nature of the evaluation matrix, for components of the technical proposal that exceed the requirement, how will the government award or determine the additional value for areas where capabilities exceed the requirements? | Attachment B - compliance spreadsheet will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis only, as such, the Government will not quantify or account for any additional capabilities. However, the written technical approach will be evaluated to determine the level of confidence provided the Government with respect to the Offeror's methods and approach in successfully meeting and/or exceeding the requirements in a timely manner. |
| 14 | Page 5 of the SOW states “The POC resource shall provide a drug interaction checker tool, or link(s) to one, to include options for drug-drug and drug-food interaction checking in response to entering one or more drug names into the checker’s search box.” As an example, our drug interaction tool checks for more categories than just the above listed options. In a “best-value” evaluation, how would the additional capabilities be graded or valued? | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) |
| 15 | Under Content requirements, subsection 3, Tab B. With 12-point font, when considering the complexity of the product the government is seeking, would the government increase the page limit on the technical response from 30 pages to 50 pages, or more? | No |
| 16 | Based on the phased evaluation, how will government determine the “equality of features” (as stated on page 47)? | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) |
| 17 | How will they grade components that may exceed the requirement or provide capabilities not expressly requested within this solicitation that could be determined to add value or superiority? | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) |
| 18 | On Page 47 under Basis of Award, it states “The POC resource platform usability testing & content review subfactor is more important than the technical approach subfactor” whereas on Page 48, under Evaluation Approach, General, it states that “All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions based upon the initial evaluation of proposals. The proposal will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its written content. ” This appears to be contradictory. While Page 47 states the usability testing is more important than the technical, Page 48 seems to imply that the technical proposal is more important. | Amendment 001 revises language under E.14 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021): (c) Evaluation Approach (1) General |
All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government personnel. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions based upon the initial evaluation of proposals. The proposal will be evaluated strictly in accordance with its submitted content. Proposals which merely restate the requirement or state that the requirement will be met, without providing supporting rationale, are not sufficient. Offerors who fail to meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation will be rated Unacceptable and thus, ineligible for award.
| Q1 : Can you clarify this requirement? Additionally, the POC resource platform usability testing & platform review subfactor is subject to computer literacy level of the evaluator(s) and any bias for the incumbent product. Based upon these subjective factors, the technical approach subfactors should be made more important than the testing. | No changes will be made to this evaluation criteria | |
| Q2: Will the government make the technical approach subfactor of greater importance than the POC resource platform usability testing & content review subfactor? | No changes will be made to this evaluation criteria | |
| 19 | There does not appear to be a separate methodology or structure for evaluating the POC resource platform usability testing & content review subfactor. | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) |
| Will the government provide a decision matrix or grading tool for content review during the POC resource platform usability testing & content review subfactor? | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) | |
| 20 | How will the government determine product superiority, based on the following excerpt?: “However, the Government will not make an award at a significantly higher price to achieve slightly superior features or features that provide little or no benefit to the Government. Moreover, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending on the equality of features of competing products. Where competing products are determined to be substantially equal, total price would become the controlling factor.” | See Section E.14 52.212-2 for evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) |
| 21 | For Past Performance you request a list of relevant all contracts from the prior 3 years. Our company has confidentiality agreements in place with a majority of our private sector customers and as a result cannot disclose their names or contract information. Would an example list of customers be considered as sufficient to meet the Past Performance requirements? | No. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance |
| 22 | Does the requested list of calculators count towards the page limit for the Technical Approach? Can this be submitted as a separate attachment or appendix? | No, if submitted as a list it will not count against page count. It can be submitted as an attachment or appendix |
| 23 | Do you want each Tab in Volume 1 listed as a separate document? Should vendors submit Volume 1 as a zip folder? | Vendor may submit separate documents, zip files are discouraged |
| 24 | Technical Approach, should it be outlined as it appears under E.4 Proposal Preparation Instructions, (b) (2) rather than in line for the Statement of Work? | Technical approach needs to be in accordance with the solicitation |
| 25 | For the Technical Approach, would cover art and a cover letter count towards the page limit? | No |
| 26 | What should file name for Tab D in Volume 1 be labeled as? | It is not a named file but rather, a link for the usability testing : The Offeror shall provide a link to the POC resource along with a username and password to enable the Government to obtain full access in order to conduct the usability testing and content review. The account should provide simultaneous access to multiple users and be available for 60 days. |
| 27 | Volume VI: Price states we should complete the Schedule of Supplies/Services of the Solicitation, however in the Table it asks vendors to submit pricing in Excel format. Can you please clarify which format should be submitted? | Amendment 001 revises language under E.2 52.212-1 ADDENDUM TO INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - E.4 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS - (3) Content Requirements Table 1: Volume IV Price, File Name: Price |
| 28 | On page 35, c, 1, Past Performance states: | |
| “Offerors shall submit a list of all contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) (prime contracts, task/delivery orders, and/or major subcontracts) in performance at any point during the three (3) years immediately prior to the proposal submission date, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. It also goes on to request on the next page under (H) the “Final or projected final price/cost” This reads as is the government is requesting confidential information on private commercial contracts, including pricing for private contracts. | The VA complies with laws and regulations regarding confidentiality, in accordance with FAR Part 3.104-4. Offerors are not limited to providing past performance information for private contracts. Offerors may submit past performance information for any federal, state and local government contracts and/or private contracts. The solicitation has been revised on Amendment 001. E.2 52.212-1 ADDENDUM TO INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - E.4 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS (c) Volume II: Past Performance. (See Amendment 001 - Attachments) | |
| Q1: We request that the full data requested on page 35 & 36 in Section (2), i. Section 1: Contract Descriptions (sub-bullets A through J) apply only to contracts that are available publicly. | ||
| Q2: Furthermore, we request that a list of privately held contracts be limited to the company name, supplied alphabetically | ||
| 29 | Would the government consider making this requirement a SDVOSB Set-aside, based on the “rule of two”? | As a result of extensive market research, the agency did not have a reasonable expectation of receiving two or more offers/quotes from eligible, capable and verified SDVOSBs/VOSBs, at a fair and reasonable price in accordance with 38 U.S.C 8127. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .