Attachment 2. 0001 - 36C77625Q0028 - Part 2 of 4.pdf

Q1: What are the recent and relevant Past Performance requirements? We did not see the mention of Past Performance submissions/questionnaires.

Q2: How is evaluation being conducted (i.e., is it an evaluation committee chaired by the MIDCON Program Manager)? The bid submission is restricted to the Contracting Officer, but will there be a summary report of recommendations by multiple committee members?

Q3: The fact that RFQ 36C77625Q0028 is a Tiered Evaluation means the record has shown at least (2) small business firms asserted they can provide services. As a result, if (2) responses were received to the sources sought notice – one of which was submitted by a responsible SDVOSB and at least one other submitted by a small business concern – why wouldn’t this opportunity be set aside for small businesses with evaluation giving points to SDVOSBs (which is required in all VA solicitations not set aside for SDVOSBs), rather than being solicited as unrestricted?

Q4: Since this is a Tiered Evaluation, please confirm if VAAR 852.208-70 – Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned and Veteran-Owned Small Business Evaluation Factors – is applicable when evaluating successive tiers?

Q5: Will the GOV please provide the VA 2268 and the 2268A required for this procurement, which should include how many respondents there were? Thank you in advance.

Q6: As an Annual Audit CLIN is not provided, what is the rationale for requiring the Contractor to conduct a total (9) annual audits for (8) VAMCs and (1) HCC at the Contractor’s expense, which estimates to about $150,000 in legitimate business expenses (travel, lodging, meals, etc.) for the duration of the 5-year contract, especially when the audits are mandatory in order to meet the SOW and be eligible for award? Audits are an inherent requirement within the medical gas cylinder industry and require actual costs in order to conduct, especially for (45) audits over the course of a 5-year contract term. The requirement for the Contractor to absorb these costs seems to be in favor of large businesses, since the expense and operations of annual audits would take a more significant toll on the budgets and personnel availability of small businesses. Please provide the GOV’s rationale, especially since Annual Audit CLINs were authorized in previous VISN 16 medical gas cylinder solicitations/contracts. What is the difference between costs for re-audits (which may not be required and for which a CLIN is provided) and annual inventories, which are required?

Q7: PG 5 of 89 (Section 5) states that the “VA shall review the invoice against its record. VA shall notify the contractor of invoice discrepancies. Upon the resolution of the discrepancies, VA shall approve the invoice and make payment to the Contractor.” Will the GOV please clarify what “against its record” is referring to? Specifically, what recordkeeping products and processes are currently in place within VISN 16 facilities that ensure each is maintaining accurate records (i.e., constituting “its record” that validates a vendor’s invoice is correct for payment)? Please provide a brief synopsis of how the facilities keep records to comply within VISN 16 currently as PG 23 of 89 (Section 14.2) in the RFQ references the VA’s “official record keeping software,” which is not explained in any detail or mentioned elsewhere in the RFQ.

Q8: What is the GOV’s rationale for not including facility-conducted internal audits during each contract year? Wouldn’t this be consistent with comparing a vendor’s invoice “against the facilities’ records” if annual inventories are required of the Contractor? This is important for offerors to understand because it equates to the provision of empirical evidence that invoices are “incorrect” should the VA contest any Loss of Use (LOU) invoices for contractor-owned cylinders lost while in the GOV’s possession.

Q9: Does the RFQ require Just-In-Time (JIT) ordering, specifically (1) PO per order generated from the facility’s IFCAP terminal? Why would the facilities not use the process in place with their IFCAP terminal as they are able do this currently (i.e., the facilities are EDI compliant with the FSC/3PP and submit JIT orders) instead of reengineering the entire ordering process? The requirement for a “customer-facing web application” contradicts what is already in place for VISN 16, especially given the “order specific” JIT Purchase Order.

Q10: PG 9 of 89 (Section 1.2) states that the “Contractor shall provide the VA access to an on-line, customer-facing, web application which allows VA staff to place orders, search for documents by name and ID number, and view and download the following: order confirmations, scheduled delivery dates, order history, create shopping carts for future purchases, check the in-stock status of products needed, download Proof of Delivery (POD)/delivery tickets, cylinder audit results/forms, current/past cylinder balances, current and past cylinder rental summaries, current available product lists, paid/unpaid invoices, and tutorials on how to use the site. This application shall be accessible on the internet and shall not have any contact with the VA information system.”

To focus/clarify this requirement, is the GOV seeking an Enterprises Resource Planning program (ERP), or the equivalent of an ERP, per the requirement on PG 9 of 89 in the RFQ?

The specifics of this requirement are consistent with an ERP, which is defined as a software that helps businesses manage and integrate key processes like accounting, customer service, contract administration, and operations all in one place.

Can the GOV please relate/equate how Page 9 of 89 (Section 1.1) aligns with the SOW and the contract requirements, which state: “The Contractor shall be responsible for providing, filling, transporting, handling, servicing, maintaining, delivering, picking up and storing medical gases and cylinders for all facilities located in Attachment D.2 – Facility Locations. All equipment and materials required to perform on the contract shall be provided by the Contractor except for any government-furnished cylinders a VAMC may choose to use.”

What is the linkage for such a comprehensive and intensive IT requirement that seems to represent “Contract Bundling” (i.e., trying to preclude the eligibility of SDVOBs/small businesses by incorporating incongruent requirements that large businesses might be able perform select elements/portions of but NOT providing a funding CLIN for a small business to implement the validated requirement)?

Lastly, adding context to the above ERP questions: The GOV is already provided the information/documentation required to be available in the web application during the Cylinder Ordering, Delivering, and Invoicing process; hence, this has the appearance of “stacking” a requirement that is essentially/fundamentally the facilities’ responsibility. Dedicated small business firms want to assist our VA Facility counterparts, yet recordkeeping and documentation retention are the responsibility of the designated facility personnel whose job descriptions include these tasks. It is conspicuous to not offer a funding CLIN to allow an offeror to conduct a cost estimate, especially considering how expensive of an undertaking the implementation of the application would be, not to mention that this requirement was not listed in the Sources Sought for this requirement. Will the GOV add a CLIN for starting up this requirement? Will the GOV add a monthly maintenance CLIN to institute and maintain such a wide-ranging IT platform that must be able to interface with the VA Finance Service Center and be compliant with EDI?

Q11: Is the “customer-facing web application” expected to interface with the TUNGSTEN Network or to replace the TUNGSTEN Network currently in place for invoicing?

Q12: Can the GOV please provide the projected interface (software, or 3PP) with the VA Finance Service Center (FSC) and the “customer-facing web application?” Can the GOV provide a POC at the FSC to coordinate with so that our proposals are in sync with what the GOV is requiring to ensure supportability/viability?

Q13: PG 9 of 89 states that the required web application “shall not have any contact with the VA information system.” Will the GOV please clarify this statement since the RFQ states that the web application will interface with the FSC regarding invoices and also specifies that the facilities will place orders via the required web application?

Q14: What is the origin for the web application/ERP requirement (i.e., please provide details from the GOV’s Market Research [what ERP platform(s)] so that offerors can research and price this significant additional requirement that deviates from the Medical Oxygen and Specialty Gas contract norms) that seemingly transfers recordkeeping and record retention responsibility from the GOV/facility to the vendor at no additional costs to the VA? More specifically:

Please provide what vendor(s)/platforms the GOV used in the GOV’s Market Research, consistent with fulfilling the GOV’s requirement. Select elements of this requirement exist within the NAICS 325120 industry but not the comprehensive requirement as outlined in the RFQ, which is consistent with IT-related NAICS Codes (e.g., NAICS 541511 - Custom Computer Programming Services; 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services; and 541519

- Other Computer Related Services).

Restated, this IT system requirement is not common in the industry and constitutes a significant deviation from industry contract norms as it is not found in any other NAICS 325120 solicitation. The fact that there is no start-up guidance or allowable costs for the awarded vendor is indicative of “bundling” a contract with prohibitive requirements, possibly making bidding financially difficult for small businesses.

As presented, the RFQ seems to favor large businesses, especially since PG 23 of 89 (Section 14.3) requires this system to “be in place” upon award with user training/tutorials being available within 20 days after an award. This is why we ask for the VA2268 and VA 2268A for this procurement be provided in Question #5 above.

Regarding the RFQ’s requirements as they are presented, how long does the awardee have to design, install/integrate, and test/validate a system of such wide-ranging complexity? How long does the awardee have to become operational on the web application? The SOW requires training on the online system 20 days after award; is it the GOV’s expectation that all vendors incur this cost prior to knowing if they are the awardee? Succinctly, if a vendor does not have web application in operation when submitting the bid, will they be evaluated as technically acceptable? Yes or no, please. If no, please explain. Thank you.

How is the GOV going to evaluate businesses who cannot fully meet the web application requirement (i.e., an offeror who may be able to provide some of the components but not all)?

Q15: Can the GOV explain the rationale for NOT putting the “customer-facing web application” into the Sources Sought for this procurement? The SOURCES SOUGHT solicited by the GOV in OCT 2024 only had a cover letter and a two-page questionnaire; why was there no mention of such a comprehensive, IT-specific requirement? Can the GOV clarify how this requirement has become an essential and evaluated element in a NAICS 325120 solicitation, to include the reason for omitting a CLIN funding the increased effort that’s not directly related to a vendor’s ability to provide an uninterrupted supply of Medical Oxygen and Specialty Gas cylinders?

Q16: Is the web application a hard requirement, or may a vendor propose/maintain a Tracking System currently in place? PG 17 of 89 (Section 9.3) states that “Orders will be placed via Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) if possible. If the vendor cannot set up EDI, specific ordering procedures will be modified into the contract after award.” Please clarify what this means for offerors as the statement seems to be a conflicting requirement to the web application. Per the RFQ’s statement on PG 17, may offerors offer a substitute to EDI ordering AND maintain a cylinder tracking process already in place? Are there any other applicable deviations from the web application, other than the ordering process verbiage authorizing “modification” into the Contract after the award?

Q17: Will the GOV clarify under what conditions a vendor could be awarded this contract without the capability to order via EDI (a requirement resulting from an Executive Order under the Obama administration to prioritize electronic transactions within governmental operations)?

Q18: How many of the (9) main VISN 16 locations – (8) VAMCs and (1) HCC – currently order via EDI in tandem with the IFCAP terminal and the VA’s Finance Service Center?

Q19: Is the current EDI Ordering System in place in VISN 16 sufficient to meet the GOV’s ordering requirements in lieu of the web application requirement?

Q20: Can the GOV please clarify the implications of the term POSITIVE VARIANCE as there is no such industry term? Where does the term originate from within the medical gas industry? Please note that the list of definitions found on Acquisition.GOV does not list POSITIVE VARIANCE in reference to any contract. More info: https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2

Q21: What is the relevance of the term “Positive Variance” in reference to offerors formulating their proposal? How does the term apply? If more cylinders are found in an inventory, these should be compared to the monthly summary requirement detailed on PG 15 of 89 (Section 7.5.4) as well as to the GOV’s records as mentioned on PG 5 of 89 (Section 5), so what is the purpose of emplacing a DEFINITION for Positive Variance when the Compressed Gas Association does not recognize the term. Additionally:

While it’s not a formal definition within the industry, variance, simply meaning a “difference,” whether positive or negative when compared to the most recent rental summary, is the reason that audits are required in the medical gas industry, which is a shrinkage industry by nature.

As a result, variance is to be expected, especially without proper internal inventory controls implemented by the VA facilities AND established training for VA personnel on how to conduct audits with the Contractor (e.g., where to take the Contractor POC to count cylinders), so https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-2 please clarify why the VA should expect credit for more cylinders found when the standard within the industry is to adjust rental quantities by the number of found cylinders and only invoice for the lost cylinders?

The GOV has not been paying rent on the “found” cylinders and has not been having them filled, so why is a Contractor expected to reimburse the VA via credit (at a loss to the Contractor) when the VA made no initial expenditure for the cylinder?

Q22: Please confirm that VAAR 852.219-76 (Certificate of Compliance for Supplies & Products) is applicable to this procurement, since the order of precedence is SDVOSB/VOSB?

Q23: PG 13 of 89 (Section 6.1) states that “Upon award of the contract the VA will inform the Contractor of the number of GFE cylinders the Contractor will take to maintain its inventory to account for approximately 30 days of usage for each particular gas for which the VA utilizes GFE cylinders. All GFE cylinders will be labeled with a unique cylinder identifier, colored, and tagged by the VA for identification and tracking purposes. The Contractor shall pick up the cylinders within two weeks after the Contract beginning date and store them securely at their facility to avoid mixing them in with the contractor-owned cylinders being processed.”

Please clarify what this section means and/or is requiring of the Contractor as it is unclear and appears as if the SOW is requiring the Contractor to manage the VA’s cylinders when this is the responsibility of each respective facility (and such verbiage is not found in any other 325120 contracts).

Since GFE cylinders are not ordered (i.e., empty cylinders are picked and accounted for on a Proof of Delivery/Return of GFEs), the Contractor does not stock additional GFEs at our facility. We only receive, inspect, and return GFEs in the normal rotation of cylinders. Because they are GFE, we can only return what we have picked up to refill. Because GFEs accrue no rental, the Contractor would only track the GFE fills and then bill the aggregate amount monthly, not track GFE quantities.

Do we interpret this language to mean that the GOV expects the vendor’s fill plant to stock 30 days’ worth of GFE cylinders? Shouldn’t this be stored at the facility as on-hand supply for use/cylinder management? Please confirm that it is a facility responsibility to manage, mark, and forecast the need of GFE cylinders and confirm what RPOC’s Policy is for maintaining on-hand stock?

Q24: PG 14 of 89 (Section 6.8) states that “If any GFE cylinders are found not to meet compliance the Contractor shall inform the COR and OO both in writing and by telephone to give them the opportunity to revise the order. The Contractor shall return the non-compliant GFE cylinders back to the ordering facility on the next delivery at no additional cost to VA with documentation and clear marking on the GFE cylinders to label it defective.” Please confirm this requirement is NOT inferring that cylinders are to be inspected when they are being returned; cylinders are not inspected until they are being filled at the fill plant. If there is any problem, we will notify the COR as to the repair/disposal status, and we can readily provide a cost estimate for the associated scenario. How does the GOV intend to pay for an approved repair of a GFE Cylinder?

Q25: PG 13 of 89 (Section 6.5) states that the “Contractor shall provide current inventory levels of GFE cylinders at Contractor’s facilities, as well as accurate GFE cylinder counts for both pickup and delivery upon each delivery. If the Contractor delivers fewer GFE cylinders than is ordered, then the Contractor shall annotate all backordered/undelivered GFE cylinders on the delivery slip.” What is the GOV’s rationale for this requirement? Please note that there is no ordering mechanism for GFE cylinders, nor would vendors be inclined to do this. The Contractor returns GFE cylinders based on when they become available for redeployment back to the facility, but it is the facility’s responsibility to manage PAR levels internal to the facility, hence it may require a facility to buy more cylinders in order to have on-hand availability. The place to conduct what the SOW is identifying is the hospital’s storage cage(s) so that the facility knows exactly what they have available/control over.

Q26: It appears there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the GOV’s part concerning GFE Cylinders as PG 13 of 89 (Section 6.2) states that “The VA will assemble empty GFE cylinders in a designated pickup area and the OO will issue a delivery order for each type of gas needed in quantities equal to the number of empty GFE cylinders of each type of gas and send it to the Contractor following the process in section 9 of this SOW. The contractor shall fulfill the order with cylinders from the GFE inventory at their location and exchange each empty GFE medical gas cylinder with a full GFE medical gas cylinder of the same type of gas as indicated in the Delivery Order at the prices listed in the D.1 Schedule of items.”

Please confirm that the GOV understands the following regarding GFE cylinder inventory control:

There is no GFE inventory under the Contractor’s control, nor can the vendors be expected to keep one sufficient so that when there is a need for a GFE cylinder, the GOV “places an order” for a GFE cylinder to be delivered from a projected repository of GFE cylinders at the awardee’s fill plant.

The awardee cannot be expected to manage the GOV’s cylinders in the same manner as we do our own. What normally happens in these cases is that a contractor-owned cylinder is ordered if the GOV has a shortfall, hence the facility being aware of their needs and the on-hand status of GFE cylinders.

Please note that the delivering branch is not always the fill plant, hence “turn time” is based on the production at the facility. It is common to have a one week “turn time” for GFE cylinders.

For example, the VAMC Jackson’s GFE Oxygen E Cylinders are refilled in Hattiesburg, MS, and the distribution runs are twice weekly (standard in the industry). So, the GOV expecting an Ordering Officer to place an order for GFE cylinders is unreasonable since we can only return filled cylinders for the number that we have received empty.

COMMENT: Section 6.3 on PG 13 of 89 is reasonable concerning GFE – with the facility managing their own cylinders/GOV property.

Q27: PG 13 of 89 (Section 6.7) states that “The final quantity of GFE cylinders lost will be determined at the end of the contract based on what quantities and types of cylinders the Contractor is unable to return. Final payment for lost or damaged cylinders shall be made within 30 days of the end of the contract.” Please confirm how the Facility is going to determine lost GFE cylinders. GFE cylinders are not captured on a Contractor’s annual inventories and are not the property of the Contractor, the only billed item for GFE cylinders is refills. As a result, the Contractor will not be able to determine what quantities and types of GFE cylinders are lost.

Q28: PG 14 of 89 (Section 7.4) states that “The Contractor shall provide training to VA staff upon request at no additional cost to the Government. The training shall insure that VA employees are proficient and able to safely operate medical gas cylinders and appurtenances in the event of equipment change, technology upgrades and/or any new system/manufacturer specification change.”

What are the expectations/parameters for training? The industry standard is to hold a beginning training session for Nurse Educators and warehouse/cylinder management personnel during transition to create an experienced pool of “train the trainers” and then, as required, provide annual sustainment training. Please confirm that phase-in transition training to key staff members and refresher training, as applicable, is the expected training to be provided by the Contractor as any new technology must be addressed situationally but in a timely manner to support Veteran Care. We understand this requirement for patient safety, consistent with Para 8.1 of the RFQ.

Q29: PG 15 of 89 (Section 7.5.4) states that “The Contractor shall provide through e-mail and 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) …” Will the GOV please revise the required timeline to provide monthly rental summaries and allow them to be submitted with the consolidated monthly invoice? The 10-day timeframe isn’t reasonable because Proofs of Delivery (PODs) for the last week of the preceding month are not available until at least (7) days into the ensuing month on the B2B platform. As a result, the consolidated products are not available until the last week of the month in order to align with the monthly invoices. As Just-In-Time orders for cylinder fills are per Order/PO, the data must be formulated and input, and the monthly rental summaries are provided with the invoices (in whatever form that takes: EDI, Tungsten, Web Portal) so that both the COR and Certifier have access to compare the PODs the GOV signs for upon delivery.

Q30: PG 16 of 89 (Section 8.1) requires an orientation meeting for each of the main VA facilities. Is this orientation synonymous with FAR 42.5, the Contracting Officer’s Post Award Orientation? Will the Contracting Officer be present at each of these facility meetings so as to provide clarification/implementation guidance? Please note that there is normally a VISN-level meeting followed by facility-specific meetings on another date.

Q31: What is the transition time allotted between contracts/contractors? Transition between contractors is discussed in Section 8 on PG 16 of 89 but no timeline parameters are identified in the RFQ (e.g., 60-90 days).

Q32: PG 20 of 89 (Section 10.3) states that “All orders shall be delivered in accordance with the delivery parameters set for at each location found in Attachment D.2 – Facility Locations. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to ensure that each facility receives their orders on the specified delivery dates.” Can we please confirm/validate the specific delivery schedule for each facility?

Attachment D.2 has Tuesdays and Fridays as the scheduled delivery days for ALL facilities in VISN 16, which is unusual and restrictive for (9) main locations and all associated CBOCs, especially since this is not what the facilities are doing currently.

Q33: How does a vendor address off-schedule deliveries that are not the fault of the Contractor when requested by a facility? Off-schedule, weekend, and holiday deliveries are normally Emergency Deliveries as they meet the Emergency Delivery parameters outlined on PG 20 of 89 (Section 10.12), which states that “Emergency deliveries shall be delivered within twenty-four (24) hours after being placed, including weekends and Holidays. Emergency status is determined by the Government.

Failure of the Contractor to remain current with the agreed delivery schedule and requirements does not constitute an “emergency” for purposes of charging an emergency delivery fee.” Please confirm off-schedule deliveries requested by the VA facilities that are not the fault of the Contractor will be considered as an Emergency Delivery and will incur an Emergency Delivery fee (i.e., days other than the identified TUES/FRI delivery days).

Q34: PG 21 of 89 (Section 11.1) states that “The Contractor shall provide a written action plan and have protocols in place to ensure compliance with the VA’s requirements under the contract, specifically, in the event of a declared National or State Emergency which may impact the Contractor’s ability to perform. In the event the plan is implemented, the Contractor shall provide notification of the implementation of the action plan and protocols within 48 hours of any declared National or State Emergency to the CO and COR.” We ask for the following:

Please clarify the differences regarding response time parameters between the emergency delivery requirements detailed in Section 10.12 and the above statement in Section 11.1 (i.e., does the 24-hour turnaround requirement change in the event of a declared emergency at the national/state level?).

What VISN 16 planning guidance will the VA offer to Contractors for implementing our Emergency Action Plan? Will the GOV share the VISN 16 Emergency Response Plan with offerors in order to formulate their Emergency Action Plan, even if it’s only for applicable annexes to account for VA specifics when proposing implementation of our Emergency Action Plan?

In order to devise a plan, we ask for the VA’s planning guidance and input so that the

Contractor’s plan aligns with the VA’s overall Emergency Action Plan. What are the evaluated RFQ submission requirements for the submission of a written plan? Is the plan due at the time of bid submission?

Q35: PG 20 of 89 (Section 10.2) states that the “Contractor shall provide access to the scanned copy of the delivery slip to the COR vie e-mail and must be made accessible through the on-line, customer-facing, web application. Where possible, through the capability of the Contractor or a Subcontractor, cylinders that are received and picked up can have their individual bar code or cylinder identifier scanned and recorded. This scanning shall be done at no additional cost to the Government. The data from these scans shall be made available to the VA in report form at the VA’s request.” What is the GOV’s rationale for this repetitive procedure? The VA facility representative signs for and receives a signed copy of the Proof of Delivery (POD) upon each delivery, which also lists cylinders being returned, including GFE cylinders, but the quoted statement also requires an electronic copy of the POD to be populated on the web application AND the Contractor must email the POD(s) to the COR as well? Why must vendors be required to perform the same task multiple times? For single orders, this is not a problem but when scaling this across (9) main locations and subordinate CBOCs, this becomes a data intensive task, especially when the GOV receives/signs for the POD at the point of delivery. Additionally, not all suppliers scan cylinders, so this capability is not industry standard.

Lastly, please clarify what constitutes the “report form” as required in Section 10.2? What type of report is being requested?

Q36: PG 24 of 89 (Section 16.2) states that “The Contractor representative shall be available regardless of ordering method. No later than 20 days after contract start date, VA shall be provided with a list of liaisons serving the VISNs covered under this contract. The contact list shall include name, phone, and email” while Section 16.3 states that “The name of the person shall be designated in writing to the Contracting Officer. The Contractor’s liaison shall have full authority to act for the Contractor on all matters related to…” The (2) statements contradict one another as Section 16.2 refers to a “list of liaisons” and Section 16.3 requires only (1) name/liaison. Please clarify the requirement and confirm that offerors may offer multiple POCs who will serve VISN 16 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.

Q37: PG 24 of 89 (Section 18) includes the following requirements:

“18.1. If the Contractor uses a subcontractor for any services under this contract and the subcontractor tracks any information or data while conducting any services then that information or data shall be shared with the VA in its original form. This information or data includes but is not limited to cylinder delivery data, cylinder pick-up data, cylinder on hand quantities for specific VA facilities, and cylinder audit results.

18.3. This information or data shall be shared at any time upon request by the VA.

18.2. If the information or data contains any pricing information, then that information may be redacted.”

We ask the following questions regarding Section 18:

Will the GOV please affirm that the contract will be between the awardee, which may be a small business, and the VA (not between the small business’ subcontractor and the VA)?

We ask for the GOV to state the legal authority for this requirement given the GOV lacks privity with an awardee’s subcontractor and this is an extremely abnormal request not found in other Medical Gas Contracts. As the contract is between the GOV and the awardee, not the awardee’s subcontractor, please provide the GOV’s rationale for including this language.

The responsibility for all requirements is on the awardee, not the awardee’s subcontractor, so the requirement for the GOV to have access to the awardee’s subcontractor’s information gives the appearance of the subcontractor being the predominant provider/recordkeeper for the contract that will result from this solicitation. Please provide an example of where similar contract verbiage can be found within RPOC or other regions within the VA system.

Q38: PG 61 of 89 (Section (d)) states that “Offerors are to describe how they intend to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation and how their total offer will meet the minimum needs of the specifications. The response should be concise and provide sufficient information to demonstrate the offeror’s capability to satisfactorily perform the objectives.” What is the GOV’s rationale for limiting an offeror’s Technical Proposal to (25) pages when they have to depict/prove capability and capacity for a VISN-wide contract, to include unique requirements not found in similar contracts (i.e., detailing/explaining the breadth/functionality of a customer-facing web application)? Will the GOV revise the restrictive page requirement and allow offerors more space to adequately describe “how they intend to fulfill the requirements of this solicitation”?

Q39: PGs 61-62 of 89 (Section (e) 3) states that “If the Quoter is not the medical gas manufacturer, the Quoter shall provide a draft agreement which will become the signed agreement OR a signed agreement between the Quoter and manufacturer of the medical gas that will be supplied under the contract, which affirmatively demonstrates that the Quoter is authorized by the manufacturer to resell 36C77625Q0028 the manufacturer’s medical gas. This resellers agreement must exclusively reference contract number 36C77625D0016, be less than one year old, and state that the Quoter is authorized to resell medical gas to the VA under this contract.” Will the GOV please revise this requirement to allow offerors to present their existing agreements with their manufacturing suppliers?

Most small businesses have long-standing agreements with their nationwide suppliers, and it is unreasonable to ask small businesses to renegotiate those existing agreements in order to address a specific RFQ number/requirement, which is also not the norm for other Medical Gas Contracts across the VA.

Q40: PG 62 of 89 (Section (e) 6) states that “The Quoter shall show by a recorded demonstration or documentation that their web-based portal meets the functionality requirements described in part 1.2 of the SOW.” How does the GOV intend to evaluate an offeror’s “recorded demonstration or documentation” of their web-based portal? What are the technical submission requirements to illustrate the portal’s functionality requirements (i.e., a video recording, a written description, screenshots of the portal itself)? Again, please provide the GOV’s market research considering this requirement?

Q41: What is the GOV’s rationale in submitting an offeror’s bid package to only (1) POC, Charles Morin? A bid of such size and complexity warrants alternate addresses. Please provide an alternate addressee for this bid so that we have duplicity in information sharing. At a minimum, will the GOV identify the Contract Specialist on this work so that we can include them on the bid submission email?

Q42: Will the GOV allow offerors to submit their administrative data (SF1449, amendments, contract clauses, contract admin data, etc.) in a separate email from their PRICE (Part 1) submission? PGs 59-60 of 89 require all contract admin and price data to be submitted in one part/email.

Q43: What is the GOV’s rationale for only allowing a 45-day window after the end of the POP/option year to conduct all audits for VISN 16 – as stated on PG 22 of 89 (Section 13.2)? Will the GOV modify this requirement to 90 days, allowing for 45 days before and 45 days after the completion of a POP? In doing this, the Contractor can schedule the density of the audits prior to the end of the POP so that all Loss of Use documentation is codified prior to the end of the POP, allowing for a clear delineation between LOU for each contract period/option year (or contract transitions). The way it is structured in the RFQ mandates/facilitates the LOU of cylinders being identified well into the ensuing period or a new contract.

Q44: PG 22 of 89 (Section 13.9) addresses audit/LOU discrepancies, but what documents/products does the GOV utilize to compare the on-hand cylinder balances being validated in an audit (comparing what is supposed to be in the facility against what is actually found during an audit) in order to address discrepancies?

Q45: PG 22 of 89 (Section 13.7) states that “The Contractor shall provide the LOU invoice within 15 days of the completion of each cylinder audit via e-mail and the on-line, customer-facing, web application.” As the LOU invoice preparation is an involved process and considering the overall inventory for a Healthcare System is not complete until the last CBOC audit is conducted (or sent to the Contractor in the event of the facility performing a self-audit), we request at least 30 days to prepare and submit LOU invoices.

Q46: The LOU CLINs provided in Attachment D.1 do not account for the replacement costs of specific cylinder types within each provided grouping. For example, CLIN 1063 is for lost cylinder sizes “A, B, C, D, & E,” but the replacement costs vary for all cylinders and are dependent on the type of cylinder being replaced. The standard for pricing LOU costs is to include an individual line item for each required cylinder type in order to appropriately price the requirement, rather than grouping cylinders together by size only. If offerors are required to price by size groupings, the price will reflect the highest cost cylinder within that grouping. It is more cost effective for the GOV to provide individual LOU CLINs for each cylinder type for offerors to price. Will the GOV amend the structure of the LOU CLINs in Attachment D.1 in order for offerors to provide the most advantageous price with their offers?

Q47: The following Line Items in the Attachment D.1 Schedule of Items are duplicates of other Line Items:

CLIN 1009 (Air Compressed, USP, 233 CF) is a duplicate of CLIN 1008 (Air Compressed, CGA Type 1, Medical, Size H/K Cylinder).

• NOTE: An Air size H/K Cylinder contains 233 CF of product.

CLIN 1031 (GOVERNMENT OWNED (GFE) LD 0.3% CM/0.3% ME/21% OX/BAL NI SIZE

200) is a duplicate of CLIN 1022, ((GFE) Lung Diffusion .3% Carbon Monoxide/.3% Methane/21% Oxygen/Bal NI, Size 200).

Will the GOV please remove the above duplicates from Attachment D.1?

Q48: CLIN 1044 is for a “Liquid Nitrogen, 180 Liter Cylinder.” What is the PSI required for this gas (standard is 22 PSI)?

Q49: CLIN 1047 is for a “Nitrogen, NF, 230CF, G Cylinder.” Please confirm that a size G is being requested as 230 CF is not consistent with a size G. A Nitrogen Size G Cylinder contains approximately 39 CF of product, and a Nitrogen Size H/K Cylinder (CLIN 1046, for reference) is approximately 228 CF.

Q50: Please note that CLIN 1057 is for “Medical Oxygen, E Cyl with Integrated Regulator USPEAWB

- MRI Compatible,” but the correct industry term is “MRI Conditional,” not Compatible.

Q51: PG 14 of 89 (Section 6.10) states that the “Contractor shall determine the need for hydrostatic testing based on the date code on the GFE cylinder and shall perform said testing for the price indicated in the LIN on this contract.” There is no CLIN provided to fund hydrostatic testing; will the GOV add CLINs for the 5- and 10-year inspections of GFE cylinders?

Q52: What are the procedures to account for Loss of Use (LOU) costs for contractor-owned cylinders lost while in the VA’s possession? There is provided language on PG 23 of 89 in the RFQ stating that “The COR will ensure payment of the approved LOU invoice occurs in accordance with the Prompt Payment Act,” but there is no language detailing HOW the GOV will ensure payment is provided (e.g., paid for via separate purchase order?). Restated, how will the vendor arrive at payment procedurally and be reimbursed in a timely manner for any lost cylinders?

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 and rental balances being removed once a PO has been issued by the VA (36C77623D0910):

Please also note that the following LOU verbiage from the current VISN 16 Medical Cylinders Contract also addresses removing rental balances once an LOU invoice has been paid (36C77620D0017):

Q53: 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 the dollar value threshold listed on PG 11 of 89 (Section 3.1) in the RFQ? How do offerors confirm to the GOV that they have the correct type of Liability Insurance? 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 45 of 89.

Q54: Is licensing of the offeror for wholesale distribution (in compliance with the FDA, CFR, and respective states) a precondition for award? If not, how long will the GOV allow the offeror to become licensed, as they cannot deliver a prescription drug (e.g., Medical Grade Oxygen) until they are adequately licensed for wholesale distribution, per those states that require licensure for which the work is being performed under this contract? Please keep in mind that being licensed in the offeror’s home state is a precondition for applying for an out-of-state license (i.e., up to two states cannot be applied for simultaneously). Additionally:

Please confirm that the SDVOSB offeror must comply with the FDA/Code of Federal Regulations at the time of bid submission 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) as the bid states multiple times that the offeror must be compliant with federal, state, and local regulations to include licensing:

PG 11 of 89 (Section 2.3)

“Throughout the term of this contract, Contractor shall maintain all federal, state, and local licenses applicable to the Contractor, as well as any required FDA certifications.”

PG 29 of 89 under FAR 52.212-4:

“(q) Other compliances. The Contractor shall comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws, executive orders, rules and regulations applicable to its performance under this contract.”

PG 43 of 89 under FAR 52.223-3:

“(g) Nothing contained in this clause shall relieve the Contractor from complying with applicable Federal, State, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations (including the obtaining of licenses and permits) in connection with hazardous material.”

INFO ONLY - REFERENCE INFORMATION REGARDING FEDERAL WHOLESALE

DISTRIBUTION LICENSING REGULATIONS BY THE FDA & IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA:

• CFR Code of Regulations, Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 – GUIDELINES FOR

STATE LICENSING OF WHOLESALE PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISTRIBUTOR:

o LINK: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-205 o https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-205

• Per the Food and Drug Administration, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 – Definition of a Wholesale Distributor: Based on the SOW and requirement of the offeror to sign VAR 852.219-76 (Certificate of Compliance affirming that the offeror takes ownership/possession of the product in accordance with industry standards), the SDVOSB offeror qualifies as being a Wholesale Distributor (restated, medical-grade/US Pharmacopoeia Oxygen is defined as a prescription drug).

o LINK: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=203.3 o

• Per Section 201(g) of the FD&C Act (21 USC 321(g)) provides that the term "drug" means:

o

• State of Mississippi Board of Pharmacy Wholesale Distributor Regulations (in accordance with CFR 21 Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 as there is no “federal” license):

• Per the Mississippi Pharmacy Practice Act Regulations, Definitions:

o LINK: https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201- 2012.pdf o

• Per the Mississippi Pharmacy Practice Act Regulations, Article XLI:

o LINK: https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201- 2012.pdf https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=203.3 https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201-2012.pdf https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201-2012.pdf https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201-2012.pdf https://www.mbp.ms.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/DEFINITIONS%20as%20of%201-2012.pdf

• State of Louisiana Board of Drug and Device Distributors (in accordance with CFR 21 Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 as there is no “federal” license):

• Per the Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 46 Professional and Occupational Standards, Part XCI. Wholesale Drug Distributors, Chapter 3 Wholesale Drug or Device Distributors, Section 301 (A):

o LINK: https://www.drugboard.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/Web-CurrentRuleText.pdf o

• Per the Louisiana Administrative Code, Title 46 Professional and Occupational Standards, Part XCI. Wholesale Drug Distributors, Chapter 3 Wholesale Drug or Device Distributors, Section 301 (G):

o LINK: https://www.drugboard.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/Web-CurrentRuleText.pdf o

• Per Louisiana Board of Drug & Device Distributors website:

o LINK: https://www.drugboard.la.gov/ https://www.drugboard.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/Web-CurrentRuleText.pdf https://www.drugboard.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/Web-CurrentRuleText.pdf https://www.drugboard.la.gov/

• State of Arkansas Board of Pharmacy’s Laws, Rules, and Regulations (in accordance with CFR 21 Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 as there is no “federal” license):

• Per Section F, Controlled Substances and Legend Drugs, Section 20-64-505, Wholesale Distributor – Permit Required:

o LINK: https://healthy.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Merged-Lawbook-2025-Jan-17.pdf o

• State of Florida Statutes; Title XXXIII; Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Investments, and Solicitations (in accordance with CFR 21 Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 as there is no “federal” license):

• Per Ch. 499, Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act, Section 499.01, Permits, Subsection (e):

o LINK:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400- 0499/0499/0499.html o

• State of Texas Department of State Health Services (in accordance with CFR 21 Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter C, Part 205 as there is no “federal” license):

https://healthy.arkansas.gov/wp-content/uploads/Merged-Lawbook-2025-Jan-17.pdf http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0499/0499.html http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes./index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0499/0499.html

• Per Texas Administrative Code, Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 229, Subchapter W, Rule 229.421, Definitions (29):

o LINK:

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=149 478&p_tloc=9733&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=421 o

229.424, Licensure Requirements (a)(b):

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tl oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424 o

229.423, Exemptions (d)(1):

https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=P&p_rloc=149 481&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424 o https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=149478&p_tloc=9733&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=421 https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=F&p_rloc=149478&p_tloc=9733&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=421 https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424 https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424 https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=P&p_rloc=149481&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424 https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=T&app=9&p_dir=P&p_rloc=149481&p_tloc=&p_ploc=1&pg=2&p_tac=&ti=25&pt=1&ch=229&rl=424