36C79119R0009-0004001.docx

Questions and Answers Solicitation Number: 36C79119R0009 Positive Airway Pressure Devices and Associated Accessories/Replacement Parts, Facial Interfaces and Mask Liners

1. Question: The solicitation refers offerors to “Section E.8” for information on the Cascading Set-Aside Procedures to be utilized. Section E.8 of the solicitation contains requirements regarding the system for award management. Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answer: the solicitation has been amended to change sections E.8 to E.9.

2. Question: The solicitation requires prices to “remain fixed for the 12-month base period and all four (4) 12-months option periods as identified in the Price Schedule.” The sample CLINs in the Price Schedule (Attachment E) list varying unit prices across periods of performance. Can the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation? Are offerors permitted to propose different unit pricing based on the different estimated quantities?

Answer: The unit prices offered may vary but will remain fixed once awarded

3. Question: The solicitation identifies a "CLIN 03" for Bi-Level Positive Airway Pressure Machine. The solicitation's Price Schedule (Attachment E) only includes related price worksheets for CLINs 03A-03C; it does not include a price worksheet for a CLIN 03. Can the agency clarify and/or amend the solicitation as warranted?

Answer: The Solicitation is correct. The CLINs are 03A thru 03C

4. Question: The solicitation provides that associated accessories and replacement parts can only be proposed in conjunction with offers for PAP devices and/or facial interfaces. The RFP does not identify a separate CLIN for these accessories and replacement parts. As the VA is aware, certain replacement parts, such as filters, will be required by VA patients with more frequency than the PAP devices themselves. Can the agency clarify how it intends to order accessories and replacement parts? Will they only be purchased when the DLC places orders for PAP devices and/or facial interfaces, or will they be ordered separate and independent from other devices?

Answer: DLC may order accessories separately but will only entertain accessories offered in conjunction with an offered/awarded PAP device and/or facial interfaces.

5.

a. Question: Can the agency please clarify what role, if any, the sleep clinicians will have in the placement of delivery orders?

Answer: Delivery orders under the resulting contract(s) will only be placed by CSAS contracting officers or designated ordering officers at the DLC or SDC. Clinicians and/or their local prosthetic representatives will use the DLC’s ROES system to order from stock maintained at the SDC.

b. Question: If the DLC will simply be placing delivery orders to “replenish depleted stock” (i.e., backfill its own inventory totals), what is the purpose of discussing in the solicitation the sleep clinician’s duty to select the best suited PAP devices for patients?

Answer: See exception to FAR-Required Fair Opportunity.

6. Question: It is unclear why the solicitation references FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B). Given that offerors likely will be offering many of the same makes and models of the PAP devices and accessories, can the agency clarify why it considers the devices to be “unique or highly specialized?”

Answer: Only one award per make and model will be awarded and the sleep clinician will choose which contracted items will best meet their patient’s needs.

7. It is unclear why the solicitation references FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B). Since no two contractors will be offering the same PAP devices and accessories, why does the government believe it needs to rely on an exception to the fair opportunity process? Does the agency believe that the awardees would otherwise be able to compete against each other even though no two contractors will providing the same devices and accessories?

Answer: The language is required by regulation.

8. Question: The solicitation requires that all items/devices offered be "state-of-the-art technology." Will the agency be evaluating whether products are state-of-the art as part of the award determinations?

Answer: Yes, the VA will be evaluating whether products are state-of-the art technology. The solicitation at section B.22 has been amended as follows: All items/devices offered shall be state-of-the-art technology. State-of-the-art is defined as Products in current production that are currently available from the manufacturer. Obsolete components and products are not acceptable.

9. The solicitation requires that all items/devices be "state-of-the-art technology." The solicitation also provides for award on an LPTA basis. The least expensive devices will be the older technologies. Can the agency clarify whether it intends to procure the least expensive products or state-of-the-art devices? Will the agency consider using an approach other than LPTA to provide the VA flexibility to procure more recent technology?

Answer: Refer to question and answer #8. There is no mechanism for trading off varying feature sets among offered products.

10. Question: The solicitation provides the agency the option to exchange previously ordered products, devices, and parts for a manufacturer's upgraded items, as well as for the contractor to request that upgraded items be substituted in the contract. The RFP's technology refresh and exchange provisions permit the agency to contract for specific devices at one price and change the make/model and price of the device during performance, without competition. This would appear to permit the agency to unlawfully change the entire scope of the contract during performance. An agency cannot solicit for one requirement, only to procure a different product during performance. How does the agency intend to comply with procurement regulation given the solicitation appears to allow for out-of-scope modifications to the contract? During performance, will the agency consider proposals from other vendors for upgraded products, devices, and parts?

Answer: 100% credit- there is no restocking fee for returned products. The substitute product will only be considered if the contracted product becomes obsolete and the substitute is a direct replacement for that product in the manufacturer’s product line. The Government is willing to increase the price of the upgraded item if the new (additional features) actually benefit the Government/patient.

11. Question: The solicitation requires that new technology products be available for a period of no less than 1 year. Can the agency clarify this restriction? Does the agency mean available for order?

Answer: Yes, it does mean available for order.

12. Question: The solicitation provides that if a product upgrade becomes available after award, the contractor may request that the upgraded items be substituted in the contract for the awarded product. This appears to permit an offeror to propose only the oldest, least expensive equipment and subsequently modify the contract after award without any price competition to include newer technology. How does the agency intend to prevent an offeror from "buying into" the procurement, only to substitute lower-priced products with more expensive models after award? Can the agency provide additional information regarding the technology refresh process?

Answer: See answer to #8. Section B.22 does not allow for “buying into” a contract. Additionally, the substitute product will only be considered if the contracted product becomes obsolete and the substitute is a direct replacement for that product in the manufacturer’s product line.

13. Question: In Section C.11, the solicitation includes the applicable VAAR SDVOSB provision. In C.15(b)(21), the SDVOSB FAR provision is not marked as applicable. Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to mark C.15(b)(21) as applicable.

14. Question: The “Detailed Information for Contract Line Items” (Attachment A) requests an explanation of comparable sizes. The applicable box refers offerors to “See Section E.5(d)(iii).” The solicitation does not include a subsection (d)(iii) under Section E.5. Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to make the following change: the following language in E.5 of the solicitation that reads as follows “EXPLANATION OF EQUIVALENT SIZES, See Section E.5 (d) (iii), (insert below or attach)” is now replaced with the following language “EXPLANATION OF EQUIVALENT SIZES, See Section E.4 (d) (iii), (insert below or attach)”.

15. Question: For the facial interface liners, the solicitation's Minimum Technical Requirements contain several "Materials" requirements, such as that "[a]ll materials used for the construction of interfaces must be independently certified as being medical grade, hypoallergenic substances, free from impurities which may cause allergic reaction." The requirements in this paragraph 8.5 are significant even though the liners are disposable on a weekly or even daily basis. Can the agency remove the restrictive requirement?

Answer: An answer to this question will be provided on a separate amendment.

16. Question: The RFP provides that only one award will be made for any specific make and model PAP device and/or Facial Interface make and model(s) selected. Given that no two awardees will be offering the VA the same items, and thus only one contractor will be able to fulfill delivery orders for specific devices, does the VA still consider this a traditional multiple-award contract such that each awardee deserves a fair opportunity to be considered for each delivery order?

Answer: In accordance to Section B.9 of the solicitation, as a result of the individual needs of the Veteran patients, the exception at FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i)(B) applies to all orders placed under this contract. This exception states: “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. Thus, after award, individual orders for these highly specialized items will be based on the unique circumstances and medical needs of each patient.

17. Question: The solicitation explains that “(B) Award will be made based on the lowest evaluated price for each technically acceptable make and model of PAP devices and Facial Interfaces.” Can the agency clarify whether it will determine lowest-price based on a comparison of all makes/models submitted under a particular CLIN, or only a comparison of the same makes/models submitted under a particular CLIN?

Answer: The lowest total evaluated price for each offered make and model of PAP device and Facial Interface will be determined by multiplying the unit prices with the estimated quantities for the base and each option period submitted under a particular CLIN.

18. Question: Attachment F is missing in its entirely. To date the DLC has not posted the missing attachment and critical. For this reason, we ask that an extension be granted to ratifying the reduced timing for preparation.

Answer: Attachment F has been attached via amendment to the solicitation and the solicitation has been extended until 09/20/2019.

19. Question: If International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 80601-2-70:2015: Medical Electrical Equipment-Part 2-70 standards were not in place when the PAP Devices went through the approval process for FDA and CE and the products are on Attachment F approved products listing will the products be accepted? Please note Most approved products were approve prior to this 2015 ISO update.

Answer: An answer to this question will be provided on a separate amendment.

20. Question: If ISO 80601-2-74:2017: Particular requirements for basic safety and essential performance of respiratory humidifying equipment standards were not in place when the PAP Devices went through the approval process for FDA and CE and the products are on Attachment F approved products listing will the products be accept? Please note Most approved products were approve prior to this 2017 ISO update.

Answer: An answer to this question will be provided on a separate amendment.

21. Question: Please correct spreadsheet. Chin strap are on each PAP tab as an accessory but are not listed on the interfaces tab as they should be. This error is causing delays in be able to complete this solicitation as it states bidders cannot change spreadsheet. Please extend deadline.

Answer: The chin straps are listed correctly as accessories to the PAP devices. However, the solicitation has been amended to clarify that associated accessories and replacement parts will only be considered if award is made for a corresponding CLIN for a PAP device (s).

22. Question: Please add additional lines for power cords. Only one line is provided Answer: Additional lines for accessories and replacement parts for PAP devices and Facial Interfaces have been added to Attachment E “Pricing Schedule”.

23. Question: Will bidders be penalize for leaving blank spaces for sizes or Kits that are not available under each CLIN?

Answer: Offerors shall provide pricing for all sizes or equivalent sizes of Facial Interfaces and Facial Interface Kits size configurations that are available from the manufacturer for the particular Make and Model Offered that are listed on the Schedule D. Any offerors that do not provide pricing for all sizes or equivalent sizes of Facial Interfaces and Facial Interface Kits size configurations that are available from the manufacturer for the particular Make and Model Offered may be excluded from further consideration.

24. Question: If a Kit configuration is not listed can the size description be changed on the spreadsheet to accommodate vendor specific kits?

Answer: Offerors shall provide pricing for all sizes or equivalent sizes of Facial Interfaces and Facial Interface Kits size configurations that are available from the manufacturer for the particular Make and Model Offered that are listed on the Schedule D. Any offerors that do not provide pricing for all sizes or equivalent sizes of Facial Interfaces and Facial Interface Kits size configurations that are available from the manufacturer for the particular Make and Model Offered may be excluded from further consideration.

25. Question: In the MTR’s for CLIN 001, 002, 003A, 003B, 003C, 004 under number 1 and 2, the VA is requesting ISO standards. If these ISO standards were not in place when the PAP Devices went through the approval process for FDA and CE marking, isn’t this requirement putting products that the VAMC’s currently buy at an unfair disadvantage to compete for this contract? Will the VA accept the ISO standards that the products were approved under and set the expectation for an newly FDA approved product to meet the new standards set forth in the MTR’s?

Answer: An answer to this question will be provided on a separate amendment.

26. Question: The solicitation encourages offerors to provide as many makes and models of devices and accessories, which comply with the Minimum Technical Requirements (“MTRs”). Are these MTRs written around a specific manufacturer brands and models? If so, which manufacture brands and models?

Answers: The MTRs are not written around manufacturers, makes, or models.

27. Question: Do the MTRs represent the “salient characteristics” of a particular device or accessory for purposes of determining its technical acceptability?

Answer: The MTRs do not represent any particular brand of device or accessory. The purpose of the MTRs is to ensure that the products offered to the VA meet or exceed the requirements of the VA and will be used in determining the technical acceptability of the products during the evaluation.

28. Question: Some manufacturers may not extend a warranty for their device if another manufacturer’s accessories are used. If true, does it render the device technically unacceptable?

It does not render the product unacceptable; however, it may be considered an unfavorable warranty provision (See Section B.5 of the solicitation).

29. Question: This solicitation does not define make and model of devices and accessories as previous solicitations of these items have in the past. These types of items on this solicitation are prescribed items that doctors and clinicians have familiarized themselves with particular brand and software function. As it is now, the solicitation is open to receive proposals on many different brands, both branded and “generic”. As it is understood that the purpose of this type of procurement is to expedite and improve the patient experience and streamline the current procurement of the most commonly used devices and accessories. But if a “generic” product is awarded how will this solicitation help streamline the current procurement of commonly used devices and accessories and improve the patient experience with working with the Department of Veterans Affairs? Shouldn’t this solicitation define the makes and models of devices and accessories to accomplish the goals?

Answer: The VA is open to any devices/products meeting the MTRs.

30. The MTRs include ISO requirements. If these ISO requirements are not met, does this render the device or accessory technically unacceptable even if the it meets all FDA requirements?

Answer: The VA is open to any devices/products meeting the MTRs.

31. Questions: Request you delete Contract Clause B.22, Technology Refresh and Exchange. Rationale- The clause is for consignment contracts and this solicitation is not for a consignment contract. Additionally, Clause B.22 gives VA the unilateral right to receive upgrades at no charge, which seems unreasonable and contrary to FAR 12.302 and the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to revise the language on B.22 to exclude the language allowing VA the unilateral right to receive upgrades at no charge.

32. Question: Did the VA intend to remove Attachment F, List of Approved PAP Devices and Associated Accessories. The solicitation includes conflicting language regarding the inclusion of the List of Approved PAP Devices and Associated Accessories. The List of Approved PAP Devices and Associated Accessories is appropriate in this procurement for commercial items that the VA is presently buying on a number of different contracts. Request the VA reinsert the List of Approved PAP Devices and Associated Accessories in solicitation 36C79119R0005.

Answer: The Solicitation has been amended to include attachment F “List of Approved Products”.

33. Shouldn’t the ISO requirements of this Solicitation be the same as what the FDA required to approve sleep apnea breathing therapy equipment and respiratory humidification for the current generation being bought by the VAMC’s today? Aren’t these VA Solicitation requirements going to limit the number manufacturers that can compete for this contract?

Answer: An answer to this question will be provided on a separate amendment.

34. Question: In response to the above referenced solicitation pg 6 says more than one award may be made for each Contract Line Item Number – which some of the CLINs are for the accessories. However, in the Technical Requirements, it looks as though only the accessories offered in conjunction with the offer of a device may be provided. Please clarify if an offer would be accepted for any accessories by themselves? Or, must the offer provide device as well as accessories to be acceptable?

Answer: In accordance with B.4 and E.1 (h) of the solicitation, Associated accessories and replacement parts will only be considered for a corresponding CLIN for a PAP device(s) for CLINs 1thru 4 and/or Facial Interface(s) for CLINS 5 thru 9, if an award is made for a PAP device(s) and or Facial Interface(s).

35. Question: Please confirm whether or not we can submit quotes for just Facial Interfaces, Mask Liners, and Facial Masks without submitting the Machines. It appears that CLIN 05 – CLIN 10 are individual products and therefore just wanted to confirm that we can submit our quote for just those CLINs.

Answer: Yes. You are correct, CLINS 05 through 10 are individual products and you may submit an offer for them without making an offer for CLINs 01 through 04. CLINS 05 Full Face Interfaces,06 Nasal Interfaces,07 Oral Interfaces,08 Nasal Pillow Interfaces,09 Total Facial Interfaces,10 Mask Liners are products that do not require award of a PAP device in order to be considered for award.

36. Question: This is my first solicitation response for the DALC – are there any sort of customer associated fees that we should be aware of? For example, the SAC has the SLA fee and the NAC has the IFF fee.

Answer: There is a markup cost that is associated with each product but does not affect the contractor.

37. Question: The solicitation provides that there will be no award considered for associated accessories and replacement parts unless an award is made for a corresponding CLIN. This provision unduly restricts competition as offerors are being precluded from selling required, necessary accessories unless the offeror can offer the lowest price for a different product. Will the agency revise this aspect of the solicitation to permit separate contract awards for associated accessories and replacement parts?

Answer: No. We will not consider separate contract awards for associated accessories and replacement parts. VA’s requirement is only for accessories and replacement parts that are compatible with the awarded line items.

38. Question: The solicitation advises that the quantities of supplies in the Price Schedule (Attachment E) are estimates only. The estimates appear to be lower than the quantities of these devices that the DLC ultimately will purchase. Only the government and the incumbent are privy to DLC’s historical ordering quantities of these devices. To permit offerors to bid on a relatively equal basis, can the agency provide historical ordering information? Historical purchasing information will also allow offerors to offer competitive prices based on volume discounts.

Answer: The DLC does not currently purchase these items and there is no incumbent contractor.

39. Question: The solicitation advises that the quantities of supplies in the Price Schedule (Attachment E) are estimates only. Given that the incumbent contractor that currently provides the majority of PAP devices and accessories to the DLC possesses the DLC’s proprietary purchase history for these items, providing that vendor an unfair competitive advantage in this procurement, what steps will the agency take to mitigate the incumbent contractor’s unequal access to information organizational conflict of interest?

Answer: See Question #38

40. Question: The solicitation encourages offerors to propose the “widest practicable variety of makes, models, sizes, and quantity-per-package for mask liners, and for various makes, models, sizes, and styles of facial interfaces.” The solicitation also warns offerors not to alter the Pricing Schedule (Attachment E). The Pricing Schedule contains rows for only 12 models of these accessories. Are offerors permitted to add additional rows to the Pricing Schedule, so they can offer the widest practicable variety of these accessories? If not, will the agency provide a revised Pricing Schedule with extra rows for additional accessories?

We have amended the Pricing Schedule to add extra rows for accessories and replacement parts.

41. Question: With respect to facial interface liners, the solicitation's Minimum Technical Requirements require that offerors "submit documentation that products meet United States FDA 510K Standard." Liners are classified by the FDA as 510(k) Exempt, "Fiber, Medical, Absorbent." Will the agency remove the requirement that the facial interface liners meet FDA 510(k) Standard?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to remove this requirement.

42. Question: The solicitation encourages offerors to “submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items.” The Price Schedule (Attachment E) does not permit offerors to propose more than 12 models for most CLINs. Pursuant to Section E.2(e), are offerors permitted to submit multiple proposals to offer the DLC a wider variety of makes and models of devices and accessories?

Answers: Yes. In accordance with Section E.2(e), Offerors are permitted to submit multiple proposals to offer the DLC a wider variety of makes and models of devices and accessories. The price schedule has been amended.

43. The solicitation warns that to be considered for award, all 17 makes of mask liners must be offered. The solicitation also instructs offerors to provide prices for all mask liner sizes customarily available in the commercial marketplace. Can the agency confirm that it considers each of the mask liner sizes identified in the Price Schedule (Attachment E) for the various mask liners (e.g., nine sizes for nasal mask liners) to be customarily available in the commercial marketplace?

Answers: In accordance with section E.9, the solicitation has been amended to state that each award will consist of various Makes of Mask Liners (consisting of the 17 sizes or equivalent sizes of Mask Liners for Nasal, Full Face, Nasal Pillow, and Total Face Mask) of various sizes described in Attachment E “Price Schedule”.

44. Question: The solicitation requires that offerors submit an Attachment A “Detailed Information for Contract Line Items” and provide standard product documentation and product descriptive literature for all offered products that are not listed in the Approved Products List (Attachment F). Will the agency be providing an Approved Product List? If not, the requirement to submit an Attachment A “Detailed Information for Contract Line Items” and provide supporting documentation for every item offered is unduly burdensome. Will the agency revise this requirement?

Answers: Attachment F “Approved Products List” has been added to the solicitation as an amendment.

45. Question: The “Size Description” instructions reference an "Attachment D Price Schedule." Attachment D contains the Minimum Technical Requirements; the Price Schedule is Attachment E. Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answers: This answer clarifies that attachment D “price schedule” should state Attachment E “Price Schedule in Section E.4 (d)(1)(iii).

46. Question: The “Kits” instructions reference a “Section E.1(m).” The solicitation does not include a “Section E.1(m).” Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answers: The reference should state Section E.1 (j). The solicitation has been amended to clarify.

47. Question: The solicitation advises that the agency may make a maximum of 36 awards under CLIN 01 through CLIN 04. This section refers to a CLIN 03, but the Pricing Schedule (Attachment E) does not include a CLIN 03; it only includes worksheets for CLINs 03A, 03B, and 03C. Can the agency please clarify whether any awards will be made under CLIN 03, and if so, revise the Price Schedule accordingly?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to remove CLIN 03.

48. Question: The solicitation provides for multiple awards to the offeror(s) that submits the lowest prices for the required PAP devices and associated accessories. While this may result in the award of many contracts, given the LPTA structure it could also result in the award of every device and accessory to a single vendor. Relying on a single company to provide these important medical devices is a risky approach. Even a minor performance issue could result in delivery delays or the inability to fulfill orders. This could have a significant, negative impact on the health and well-being of the agency’s veteran patients. Has the agency considered other acquisition approaches, such as ensuring the award of contracts to multiple vendors, so that the VA is not in the position of relying on a single contractor for the essential medical equipment? Will the agency consider limiting the number of contracts an individual offeror could be awarded under each CLIN?

Answer: The Government has considered other acquisition approaches and believe this acquisition approach will lead to the award of multiple contracts to multiple vendors.

49. The solicitation provides for awards “on the basis of Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable Product(s).” The solicitation also advises that the agency anticipates making multiple awards, and the agency reserves the right to determine how many awards it will make per CLIN. The agency separately reserves the right not to make an award on all makes and models of PAP devices and/or Facial Interface models offered. Will the agency only be awarding contracts for the acceptable makes and models of PAP devices that are lowest-priced? Or, does the agency have the discretion not to award a contract for a specific make and model of a PAP device and award a contract for a different make and model of a PAP device that is higher-priced? If so, what evaluation criteria will the agency utilize to decide which makes and models to put on contract?

Answer: In accordance with E.1(f) the Government reserves the right to determine how many awards it will make per CLIN, which may be less than the maximum number of awards identified in Section E.9. All products meeting the MTRs with the lowest price will be considered. In accordance with Section E.9 of the solicitation, up to the lowest priced number of products, as indicated in the solicitation for each CLIN, will be subjected to an evaluation to determine if the offered item is technically acceptable.

50. Question: The solicitation provides that there will be no award considered for associated accessories and replacement parts unless an award is made for a corresponding PAP device. As the VA is aware, there is a high probability that multiple awardees will be offering the same accessories. How will the agency determine which awardees' accessories to provide to patients? Does the agency intend to rotate orders for accessories in the event the same accessories are on multiple contracts?

Answer: Only one award per make and model will be awarded and the sleep clinician will choose which contracted items will best meet their patient’s needs.

51. Question: The solicitation provides: “If, however, the lowest priced offered model and make is evaluated as not Technically Acceptable during Phase I, the next lowest price Make and Model offered will be evaluated. If the lowest priced offered make and model is evaluated as Technically Acceptable, the next lowest priced make and model offered will be evaluated.” The second sentence explains that the agency will evaluate other than the lowest-priced make and model for technical acceptability. Can the agency clarify whether it intends to evaluate all makes/models for technical acceptability, or amend this aspect of the solicitation?

Answer: The lowest price products will be evaluated for technical acceptability. As an example, for CLIN One the 9 lowest priced products will be referred for technical evaluation. If any of the referred products fails the technical evaluation, the next lowest priced product will be referred and so on.

52. Question: The solicitation contemplates a cascading tiered evaluation limited to SDVOSBs, VOSBs, or small businesses. The solicitation also advises that the agency anticipates making multiple awards, and that the agency reserves the right to determine how many awards it will make per CLIN. Under the solicitation, the agency reserves the right not to make an award on all makes and models of PAP devices and/or Facial Interface models offered. Can the agency clarify whether it intends to make awards for all makes and models offered by SDVOSBs before it considers different makes and models offered by VOSBs or small businesses? Or, can the agency decide not to award a contract for a specific make and model of a PAP device offered by an SDVOSB, and instead award a contract for a different make and model of a PAP device offered by a VOSB or a small business?

Answer: In accordance with Section E.9 of the solicitation, the VA will evaluate the offers, if any, submitted by SDVOSB concerns that meet the requirements of the solicitation.

If the desired number of MAKES and MODELS per CLIN of PAP Devices and Facial Interfaces and desired awards for Mask Liners are not reached, the VA may proceed to set-aside for VOSB concerns for the remainder of Make and Models of PAP Devices and Facial Interfaces and awards for Mask Liners that were not awarded at the SDVOSB level.

53. The solicitation includes duplicative language on page 80 regarding cascade set asides to VOSBs. Will the agency please clarify or amend the solicitation?

Answer: The solicitation has been amended to eliminate the duplicate language.

54. Question: The RFP provides that the agency will evaluate unit prices for associated accessories/replacement parts for reasonableness. If prices are found to be unreasonable, the RFP states that no award will be made for "these items." Can the agency clarify what it means be "items"? Is the VA referring to the PAP device itself or solely the associated accessories/replacement parts?

The RFP has been amended to provide for associated accessories/replacement parts to be awarded to one offeror on a lowest price technically acceptable basis.

Nothing Follows