GOVERNMENT RESPONSE Attachment 10 - 36H79725R0003 DRAFT RFP Question Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 6525--Radiology & Imaging FY2025 Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- 36H79725R0003
About this file
This document is a Draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Radiology & Imaging Systems contract issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Acquisition Center (NAC) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Troop Support. The solicitation (36H79725R0003) seeks comprehensive radiology and imaging equipment and services, with a draft response deadline of July 17, 2025, at 12:00 PM Central Time. The contract will cover medical imaging systems including CT, MRI, X-ray, and related equipment, with requirements for DICOM compliance, FDA approvals, and integration with VA electronic health record systems.
Key terms include a potential 5-year base contract with one 5-year option period, warranty requirements, installation services, and strict compliance standards for medical device procurement. The solicitation is an unrestricted competitive procurement targeting medical imaging technology providers, with vendors required to submit detailed pricing, commercial sales data, and compliance documentation. The contract will support VA and DLA medical facilities nationwide, with specific provisions for equipment delivery, installation, training, and technical support. Vendors must provide complete functional systems, meet Trade Agreements Act compliance, and adhere to specific technical and commercial requirements outlined in the draft RFP.
View the file
Other files
Show all 16
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
| ATTACHMENT 10 - DRAFT SOLICITATION QUESTION/ INPUT MATRIX | |||||
| Please submit questions to LaTonya Whiteside at LaTonya.Whiteside@va.gov and Marissa Wright at Marissa.Wright@va.gov. Due date for questions/ comments is July 17, 2025 at 12:00PM CT | |||||
| Question/ Comments [Input by Prospective Offeror] | Reference -Specify document, page number(s), and specific section [Input by Prospective Offeror] *questions will not be answered with no reference. | Response to Question [Provided by Government] | Change to RFP based on Government Response [Provided by Government] | ||
| 2 | For OCONUS deliveries, we request adding the following underlined language to the sentence stating: "Delivery dates will be agreed on between the facility and ordering CO at the ordering level in consultation with the vendor." | Page 3. Section V, subsection (c). | Suggestion taking under advicement. | NO, change to RFP. | |
| For MR and CT modalities, we are asking you to consider excluding systems installed in mobile trailers from the delivery timeframe (180 or 150 days after date of order (ADO)), due to the longer leadtimes for procuring a mobile trailer | Page 4. Section V, subsection (f). | The delivery schedule shall be the minimum requirement for each order type unless the Government elects to use an alternate delivery schedule that is specified in the delivery order. Delivery date time frame in this section is always negotiable. | NO, change to RFP. | ||
| 3 | For INSTALLATION modality, propose removing reference to "After Date of Order (ADO) in the corresponding column. This is contingent on equipment delivery. | Page 4. Section V, subsection (f). | The statement says within 30 days of equipment delivery. | NO, change to RFP. | |
| 4 | For EXTENDED/TURNKEY INSTALLATION, propose removing reference to "WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EQUIPMENT DELIVERY ADO". This must be completed prior to equipment delivery. Propose "WITHIN 1,095 DAYS ADO" to correspond with HTM Memorandum. | Page 4. Section V, subsection (f). | Completion Time will be established per Delivery Order by the CO. | Update to the RFP. | |
| 5 | For TRAINING, it is administratively difficult to manage two different expiration timeframes for DoD and the VA. Propose adding a uniform requirement, as it would be preferred and likely in the government's best interest. | Page 4. Section V, subsection (f). | These are to different government agencies and there are regulations and policy in place that will differ per agencies. | NO, change to RFP. | |
| 6 | For TRAINING, VA ORDERS, the requirement states "WITHIN 365 DAYS OF WARRANTY EXPIRATION." It is not clear if this applies only to the standard 12-month manufacturer warranty which is required by the contract, or if it would also include any extended warranty. For more consistency, please consider revising this to "NO SOONER THAN 2 YEARS AFTER WARRANTY START." | Page 4. Section V, subsection (f). | This can but updated to state: No later than 2 years (730days)after warranty start. | Update to the RFP. | |
| 7 | Please advise if The NAC would consider adding language for delivery orders for multiple systems. Would the NAC consider issuing separate delivery orders for each system or separating each system into its own line items, similar to CLINs for DLA? | Page 5. Section VI. | If NAC customers are pursuing multiple systems, the requirements will be solicited accordingly. Depending on how the funding is allocated will determine if multiple delivery orders are necessary. Regardless, each system will have its own line item. RB | NO, change to RFP. | |
| 8 | Would the NAC consider providing information to all IDIQ vendors on awarded delivery orders, similar to what DLA provides via DIBBS? | Page 5. Section VI. | With respect to the NAC consolidations, a monthly report is produced, delineating the progression of awards as well as identifying awards made. This report is circulated to HTME contract holders via email. RB | NO, change to RFP. | |
| 9 | Please clarify what the following note means, including which Amendment 0016 is being referenced: "Note: Offers received after issuance of Amendment 0016 (CY 2025) are only eligible for a 5-year base contract with no option period. Furthermore, any language pertaining to Long Term Contract Options is applicable only to contracts awarded to solicitation opens prior to Amendment 0016." | Page 6. Section VII, subsection (a), and Section VIII. | This language will be removed. | Update to the RFP. | |
| 10 | Please clarify the following language and whether it is consistent with current practice, i.e., emailing the local customer and the NAC when the 80% invoice is submitted and asking the local customer to confirm that delivery has occurred: “For VA awards, evidencing of the items delivered may also constitute the contractor’s proof of delivery documents signed by the Government receiver.” | Page 7. Section IX, subsection (a)(1)(i). | To avoid protracted processing of invoices, specifically resulting from absent/lacking receiving reports, the NAC may proceed executing the invoice by utilizing the contractor’s proof of delivery as evidencing delivery of the HTME. This is current practice. RB | No, change to RFP. | |
| 11 | For VA delivery orders requiring installation, please consider allowing vendors to invoice 100% of separately priced turnkey/extended installation costs after equipment delivery, at the same time 80% of the equipment/system price is invoiced. By time of equipment delivery, turnkey and extended installation services will have been completed, and a vendor will need to pay its subcontractors for the work already performed. | Page 7. Section IX, subsection (a)(1)(iii). | The current CLIN / IPR structure do not allow the payments to be processed like this. This will be discussed with NAC’s Fiscal Office / FSC for further consideration. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 12 | Please consider adding language specifying that the facility's delay in beginning clinical use does not preclude the contractor from submitting the notice of readiness for inspection and does not extend the time the Government has to conduct the inspection. | Page 8. Section IX, subsection (b)(1). | The government will consider adding clarifying language. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 13 | Please considering clarifying the following by adding the underlined language: "Final payment will be made after all obligations under the delivery order have been satisfied. Invoices billing for underperformed work or undelivered items will be rejected; however, for VA orders, when paid training is bundled with the cost of the equipment purchase, it may be included in the equipment invoice once the vendor has made the training available for scheduling." | Page 9. Section IX, subsection (a)(1)(iii). | For VA orders-Training cannot be invoiced until completed. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 14 | Please clarify the significance of the term "Defect" as defined and how a "conditional acceptance" would impact invoicing and the warranty start date. Does the presence of any "defect," no matter how minor, preclude acceptance? | Page 9. Section IX, subsection (b)(2). | When defects or missing items are identified, the CO determines Acceptance, Acceptance with Offsets, Conditional Acceptance, or Rejection. Under Conditional Acceptance, the government may begin using the equipment while the vendor remedies the defects identified within the COs prescribed timeframe. The contractor may submit a request for payment after 30 days of Substantial Clinical Use, under Conditional Acceptance. The warranty begins when the vendor remedies all defects identified (satisfies condition) and the equipment is thereafter Accepted, or after Acceptance occurs following 30 days of Substantial Clinical Use. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 15 | The language stating that "Final payment is due 30 calendar days from the date of Government acceptance of the final invoice" is not consistent with the Prompt Payment Act. We request the language be revised to state: "Final payment is due 30 calendar days from the date of submission of a proper invoice following Government acceptance." | Page 11. Section IX, subsection (b)(7). | 30 calendar days from the date of acceptance is consistent with the Prompt Payment Act. The vendor should not invoice for final payment until after the products/services are delivered/performed and accepted by the government. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 16 | It is industry practice to differentiate between emergency service requests, in which a system is down and unable to be used for patient care, and non-emergency service requests. Please consider adding language that the requirement to provide warranty service within 24 hours should be limited to emergency service requests. | Page 15. Section X(b). | This section is for warranty services for non-emgerency. Section X(c) is for emgerency service. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 17 | We request that the following be clarified to add the underlined language: "All service manuals, schematics, diagrams, diagnostic software, other special tools and hardware keys equivalent to what the contractor field service representatives have available to diagnose, troubleshoot, repair and maintain the equipment shall be furnished to the government during training at no additional cost." Vendors should be permitted to set limitations and to charge reasonable prices for such proprietary materials when access is requested outside of training. | Page 16. Section XI, subsection (c). | No change to SOW. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 18 | We believe there is a typo in the following and the word underlined should be added: "This data will also be used to substantiate that prices under this contract are equal to or better than prices that are given to the commercial customers within similar purchasing environments." | Page 22. Section XII, subsection (b)(1). | SOW updated | Update to the RFP. | |
| 19 | Please clarify when and how often updates to Attachment 3 must be provided during the life of the contract. | Page 22. Section XII, subsection (b)(2). | When requested by the managing Contracting Officer | No, change to RFP. | |
| 20 | Please clarify what columns must be completed for service-related entries and when new systems are added, if different. | Page 22. Section XII, subsection(b)(3). | This will be specified in the SAM's posted soloicitation | Update to the RFP. | |
| 21 | Please clarify the order of precedence for price support information for Service offerings, for which GPO pricing is not available. | Page 22. Section XII, subsection(b)(3). | Order of precedence is the same for anything being added to the contract price book. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 22 | Is it sufficient if the commercial customer signs the vendor's quote, evidencing that the customer accepted the quote amount, if the customer does not issue a separate purchase order? | Page 22. Section XII, subsection(b)(3). | This is up to the Contracting Officers discretion. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 23 | Our commercial invoices for Service offerings include only net prices, not list prices. Please clarify if the requirement for invoices to show list prices applies only to Equipment offerings or also to Service offerings. | Page 23. Section XII, subsection(b)(3). | Yes, it applies to both. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 24 | Please consider deleting "dated within the last 12 months" because this time limitation was deleted from an earlier section as compared to the current IDIQ. | Page 23. Section XII, subsection(b)(3). | This section also states the contracting officer may consider older dated invoices if necessary. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 25 | We request that the following be revised to add the language underlined and to delete the stricken-through language for consistency with the rest of the SOW: "Outside of a properly prepared add request containing all information and appropriate price support (see below and attached) the vendor must provide a certification that all items being added have FDA approvals and that all items being added have offered pricing that is equal to or better than most favored commercial customers within similar purchasing environments." | Page 23. Section XII, subsection (b)(3). | The request is for pricing offered to your most favored commercial customer not just a customer within the similar purchasing environment. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 26 | With the intention of receiving approved price book add requests in a timely fashion, please consider adding language setting a reasonable timeframe for the Government to review and approve a properly prepared price book add request. Please also consider adding language for the Government to compile and submit to the vendor all of its initial questions at one time. | Page 24. Section XII, subsection (b)(3). | There are different COs working each contract and their workload my differ as well as the size of the price-book add request, along with the time to complete reviews according the agencies regulations and policies. This makes it difficult for the government to set timeframes for completion of these request. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 27 | Please clarify what columns must be completed for service-related entries and when new systems are added, if different. | Page 25. Section XII, subsection(b)(5). | Noted. | May result in an update to RFP. | |
| 28 | Please consider revising the first sentence of subsection (b) to state: "Any requested additions must be approved by the Contracting | ||||
| Officer before they may be awarded in any delivery order." | Page 29. Section XIII, subsection (b). | As it relates to this section, the contracting officer is reviewing the requestd additions for approval to be added to the vendor's price-book under the contract, not under a delivery order. | No, change to RFP. | ||
| 29 | Please clarify for what purpose the contractor should reference the listed website. | Page 32. Section XIV, subsection (c)(3)(iv). | The TIL is the VA Technical Information Library Management Sysytem. Visit the TIL CATALOG for comprehensive list of available standards for turnkey installation. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 30 | It may not be possible to ascertain prior to delivery order award whether a full electrical power survey is required. Please consider adding the following underlined language: "If the Contractor determines that a full electrical power survey is required to determine the adequacy of the existing power, the power survey shall be included in its extended or turnkey installation proposal, or added subsequently via modification." | Page 33. Section XIV, subsection (c)(3)(vi). | If the Contractor determines that a full electrical power survey is required to determine the adequacy of the existing power, the power survey shall be included in its extended or turnkey installation proposal, or if unknown at proposal time, the government may consider adding the requirement via a modification to the resulting delivery order. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 31 | Please clarify the requirement to provide a report to the facility and whether that applies even when the determination is performed by a Government physicist. | Page 34. Section XIV, subsection (c)(5)(ii). | The vendor only needs to provide the report to the government if their physicist performs the determination. If the government’s physicist determines the inspection, the report is not required to be provided to the government. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 32 | Please consider revising the following to add the underlined language: "Only systems which are DICOM compliant, or for which the vendor has committed to achieve DICOM compliance, shall be considered for award." | Page 36. Section XVII, subsection (a). | No, the system needs to be DICOM compliant as stated in the PWS. We are required to have the systems be DICOM compliant and cannot buy “promises” that the vendor will make them compliant after purchase. | No, change to RFP. | |
| 33 | The requirements for EHRM (Oracle/Cerner) have not yet been communicated to vendors. Please provide detailed information regarding what these requirements entail or consider removing this language. | Page 36. Section XVII, subsection (a). | Only systems which are DICOM compliant shall be considered for award. All imaging modalities must conform to the Joint VA/DoD DICOM Conformance Requirements. These modalities must support standard DICOM services including Verification, Storage, Modality Worklist (MWL), and Storage Commitment, with appropriate SOP Class UIDs and transfer syntaxes. All systems offered shall include DICOM output and meet requirements for VISTA and Federal Electronic Health Record (Oracle/Cerner). Computed Tomography and MRI systems must include software that supports the use of the DICOM CT and MRI objects and DICOM Radiation Dose Structured Reports for CT’s. Vendors are expected to provide a detailed DICOM Conformance Statement and pass validation testing to ensure seamless integration with both legacy and modern VA health IT infrastructure." | No, change to RFP. | |
| 34 | We believe there is a typo in the following and the word "no" should be revised to "not": "Failure to submit the Material Safety Data Sheet and their associated labeling and packaging requirements prior to award may result in the apparently successful offeror being considered no responsible and ineligible for award." | Page 53. Section XVIII, subsection (d). | Noted and updated. | Update to RFP. | |
| 35 | FAR 52.223-23 Sustainable Products and Services - recommend removal as medical devices are not subject to the referenced purchasing programs. | Page 83. C.2 52.215-5 | The prescription at FAR 23.109, it indicates that the clause should be included in all solicitation and contracts unless one the listed exceptions apply: |
(a) General. Insert the clause at 52.223-23, Sustainable Products and Services, in solicitations and contracts—
(1) Unless—
(i) The requiring activity has provided a written justification that it is not practicable to procure sustainable products and services (see 23.104(a));
(ii) An exception under 23.105 applies; or
(iii) An exemption under 23.106 applies; and
| (2) The scope of the written justification, exception, or exemption covers the entirety of the contract action requirements. | No, change to RFP. | ||||
| 36 | FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages- Supplies, Services, or Research and Development - recommend removal as Liquidated Damages cannot be reasonably determined in advance at the IDIQ level for Task Order requirements. | Page 92. C.9 | This amount is not required to be determined in advance.(a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the Government liquidated damages of $__________ per calendar day of delay. (b) If the Government terminates this contract in whole or in part under the Default-Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause, the Contractor is liable for liquidated damages accruing until the Government reasonably obtains delivery or performance of similar supplies or services. These liquidated damages are in addition to excess costs of repurchase under the Termination clause. (c) The Contractor will not be charged with liquidated damages when the delay in delivery or performance is beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor as defined in the Default-Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause in this contract. | No, change to RFP | |
| 37 | VAAR 852.211-72 Technical Industry Standards - recommend removal as medical devices are already regulated/cleared by FDA prior to offering to the Govt. | Page 93. C.10 | There are product additions constantly being added to the contract and the contractor is responsible for submitting proof of conformance to the standard in this clause. | No, change to RFP | |
| 38 | VAAR 852.212-71 Gray Market and Counterfeit Items - recommend inclusion of a statement in the Statement of Work that OEM refurbished parts that comply with applicable performance and reliability specifications are acceptable in accordance with standard industry practice. | Page 94. C.12 | This inclusion is to broad and would need to more specify. | May result in an update to RFP. | |
| 39 | FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commercial Products and Commercial Services - there are no evaluation factors or order of weighting supplied. When will they will be published? | Page 122. E.10 | (a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: | ||
| Technical and past performance | No, change to RFP | ||||
| 40 | For commercial item medical devices, why is the Attachment 4 Medical Marking Standard No. 1D required? | Attachment 4. | This is a DLA document and maybe removed. | May result in an update to RFP. | |
| 41 | Page 9: Not sure this should reference Amendment 0016 | Page 9: Not sure this should reference Amendment 0016 - Note: Offers received after issuance of Amendment 0016 (CY 2025) are only eligible for a 5-year base contract with no option period. Furthermore, any language pertaining to Long Term Contract Options is applicable only to contracts awarded to solicitation opens prior to Amendment 0016. | Yes, you are correct. This section will be removed. | Update to solicitation SOW. | |
| 42 | Page 23 does not list a contact or email: (6). National Radiology Program: | Page 23 does not list a contact or email: (6). National Radiology Program: | Noted. The gov. will add National Radiology Program contact information. | Update to RFP. | |
| 43 | Page 95: (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed two (2) years. | Page 95: (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed two (2) years. | Noted. The gov. will add correct the clauses contract duration. | Update to RFP. | |
| 44 | Emergency service within 4 hours, phone doesn’t count - what is considered "normal working hours"? Is that based on the offerors standard working hours and applicable time zone? | Page 15, paragraph C | All service covered by Warranty shall be provided during normal Government work hours as stipulated in the delivery order. | No change to RFP. | |
| 45 | Explain to me how this works, and what happens to old equipment if its not part of a trade in? And if it is part of a trade in how is that trade-in value used towards the overall evaluation of the offer? | Page 27 (f) Trade-in Discount/Credit | If there is no trade -in as part of a requirement, and old equipment is in the same space the station is responsible for it's removal. Trade-in credit shall be offered on a site-specific basis. Vendors shall provide supporting information for the value of the trade-in item(s), demonstrating a fair value is being offered to the Government. | No change to RFP. | |
| 46 | Does the VA consider radiology systems manufactured, branded, or assembled by a small business under private-label or OEM agreements to qualify as “commercial items” under FAR 2.101, and thus eligible under this solicitation? | Page 4, Section I – Statement of Work (SOW): Contract Scope | Yes, if it is — |
A product, other than real property, that is of a type customarily used by the general public or by nongovernmental entities for purposes other than governmental purposes, and– Has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public; or
| Has been offered for sale, lease, or license to the general public; | No change to RFP. | ||||
| 47 | Given that this is an unrestricted solicitation, how will SDVOSB status be factored into the evaluation process — is there any price preference, tie-breaker mechanism, or ordering priority (especially for VA orders under 38 U.S.C. 8127)? | Page 1, Block 10 of SF 1449 – Set-Aside Status | No, any vendor that means the requirements of the solicitation will be awarded a contract. | No change to RFP. | |
| 48 | Can you confirm whether components of a larger TAA-compliant system (e.g., foreign-made detectors, CT/X-Ray tubes, or parts) are allowed, provided the final assembled system meets TAA origin requirements? | Page 36, Section XV – Trade Agreement Act (TAA) Compliance | In the case of an article that consists in whole or in part of materials from another country, has been substantially transformed in an FTA country or least developed country into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was transformed. The term refers to a product offered for purchase under a supply contract, but for purposes of calculating the value of the end product includes services (except transportation services) incidental to the article, provided that the value of those incidental services does not exceed that of the article itself. | No change to RFP. | |
| 49 | What level of configuration detail is required in the price book for a system to be considered a “complete functional system”? Are bundles with third-party accessories (e.g., tables, batteries, printers) acceptable as long as they are commercially offered? | Page 22, Section XII(a) – Contract and Delivery Order Pricing Requirements | Systems shall be offered as complete and functional units capable of performing the functions specified. Contract price book item (part number) pricing and descriptions for all the components necessary to the final unit shall be provided in each offer. YES. Items which are not separately priced but included as part of a particular component (i.e. cables, brackets, etc.) shall be referenced in the component descriptions. | No change to RFP. | |
| 50 | For fixed radiographic systems, what specific types of site preparation (e.g., shielding, electrical runs, wall/floor structural work) will trigger FAR 22.402(b)(2) "incidental construction" thresholds — and who determines applicability pre-award? | Page 4, Section II – Contract Scope (incidental construction under FAR 22.402(b)(2)) | The Station's Boimed and site visit from the selected vendor. | No change to RFP. | |
| 51 | For awardees without current ECAT presence, what is the process, timeline, and required approvals to activate ECAT ordering under this contract? Can items be added later or only at initial award? | Page 66–71, Section XX – Electronic Catalog System (ECAT) Ordering | The process and requirements are outlined in the SOW. The timeline may vary. Only items on the vendors existing contract may be considered for upload to ECAT. The vendor must provide a written request and ECAT loader spreadsheet with the existing contract items that the vendor wishes to put on ECAT for review by the DLA Contracting Officer. The ECAT loader must meet the format guidelines specified in sub-section (c.) listed below and information/pricing shall match the vendor’s basic contract price book. Once the Contracting Officer determines that the items are acceptable for ECAT and meet all terms and conditions required by this section, the items will be uploaded into the ECAT system. To add/change items in ECAT, the items must be first added/changed under the basic contract. | No change to RFP. | |
| 52 | If we offer pricing equal to or better than GPO pricing, but lower than some past commercial sales due to anticipated VA volume, will that satisfy the Government's price reasonableness review? | Page 22–24, Section XII(b) – Pricing Support for Reasonableness | That is determine by each individaul CO. | No change to RFP. | |
| 53 | The SOW requires CT and X-ray tube replacement under warranty. Can you confirm whether mobile/portable X-ray systems are also required to include full tube coverage for the standard 1-year warranty? | Page 15, Section X(b) – Warranty – Service During Warranty | Yes. | ||
| No change to RFP. | |||||
| 54 | Will the Government allow progress payments or partial payments upon milestone completion or partial delivery/installation of equipment, rather than requiring full delivery and acceptance of all systems before any payment is authorized? | Page 22, Section XII. Contract and Delivery Order Pricing Requirements | No. | No change to RFP. | |
| 55 | The old contract was for five years with an option for another five. Is the duration of this contract two years with four two year options? | 36H79725R0003+RADIOLOGY+AND+IMAGING+DRAFT T&C, Page 92, Section C.7 52.217-9 OPTION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT (MAR 2000 (c) The total duration of this contract, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not exceed two (2) years. | No, it is the same, 5 year base and one 5 year option. | No, change to RFP | |
| 56 | Is this section negotiable? | 36H79725R0003+RADIOLOGY+AND+IMAGING+DRAFT T&C, Page 50, Section LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR DATA BREACH | No. | No, change to RFP | |
| 57 | Is this section negotiable? | 36H79725R0003+RADIOLOGY+AND+IMAGING+DRAFT T&C, Page 78, Section (l) Termination for the Government's convenience. | No. | No, change to RFP | |
| 58 | Is this section negotiable? | 36H79725R0003+RADIOLOGY+AND+IMAGING+DRAFT T&C, Page 79, Section (p) Limitation of liability | No. | No, change to RFP | |
| 59 | Is this section negotiable? | 36H79725R0003+RADIOLOGY+AND+IMAGING+DRAFT T&C, Page 93 Section C.9 52.211-11 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES Liquidation Damages clause for delays. | No. | No, change to RFP | |
| 60 | While the request for one year's worth of sales data is reasonable, a listing of each part number and pricing for each sale (including contractual pricing, if any, list, and net price) is excessive, especially for vendors who have exhibited strong contractual performance throughout the current HTME IDIQ contract, as well as the previous 10-year HTME IDIQ contract. Vendors who have exhibited strong past-performance and have been subject to multiple OIG audits by virtue of being an HTME IDIQ contract-holder for several iterations of the program should receive relief, perhaps in the form of a reasonable sample size, vice every sale made in a fiscal year. | Attachment 9, item 1 | All offerors with estimated annual sales under the program that exceed $10 million will be subject to a commercial pricing audit conducted by the VA OIG. This section also states "Preliminary review material that may be requested." All of your concerns will be taking into account by the review CO. | No change to RFP. | |
| 61 | Internal policies and procedures have no bearing on whether or not a vendor's cost or pricing data is current, accurate, and complete. Cost or pricing data is used to determine whether the vendor is providing pricing and general discounting to federal entities that match or exceed commercial pricing/discounting. That determination is not impacted at all by a vendor's internal price/discount establishment policies. Request removal of the requirement froml soliciation. | Attachment 9, item 4 | All offerors with estimated annual sales under the program that exceed $10 million will be subject to a commercial pricing audit conducted by the VA OIG. This section also states "Preliminary review material that may be requested." All of your concerns will be taking into account by the review CO. | No change to RFP. | |
| 62 | This request seems excessive given current standard practices DLA utilizes when when determining if items will be on contract. The government's soliciation provides terms and conditions (FAR, DFAR, DFARS, etc.) to vendors, which are generally non-negotiable and vendors are required to adhere to these terms and conditions. Terms and conditions of GPO contracts have no impact on the terms and conditions that will be agreed between the government and an HTME IDIQ contract holder. Further, pricing in GPO contracts is list price with set discounts for line items and establishes a "starting point" for pricing. That actual pricing and discounting the government will want to see will be provided via the myriad of commerical invoices required by DLA when vendors request line items be added to contract. The request, as written, is duplicative and will provide little value to OIG. Further, the request is largely redundant to Attachment 3. Request removal of requirement from soliciation. | Attachment 9, item 10 | All offerors with estimated annual sales under the program that exceed $10 million will be subject to a commercial pricing audit conducted by the VA OIG. This section also states "Preliminary review material that may be requested." All of your concerns will be taking into account by the review CO. | No change to RFP. | |
| 63 | Please provided a detailed definition of "customer class categories". | Attachment 3, item 4c | The customer class catergories are list under the section d of this attachment with full descriptions. | No change to RFP. | |
| 64 | What general time period should be used when responding to item 4 (past 12-months, past calendar year)? | Attachment 3, item 4 | This section states the past 12 months. | No change to RFP. | |
| 65 | Please clarify what "Indicate months for_____ parts (tubes, detectors, other glass, etc), and _____ labor." is requesting? Is the question how many months of parts and labor coverage are included in the warranty being offered? | Attachment 3, item 5 | Yes, that is correct. | No change to RFP. | |
| 66 | Are the shipping terms being evaluated only CONUS or are vendors to include OCONUS, as well? Is Medical Air Bridge usage for OCONUS going to be allowed (or at least considered) in this iteration of HTME IDIQ? | Attachment 3, item 7 | Both CONUS and OCONUS. | No change to RFP. | |
| 67 | would appreciate a more in-depth discussion around the "Medical Marking Standard No 1D" (Attachment 4). Can DLA/NAC provide a resource can reach out to for interpretation and general discussion? | Attachment 4 | This attachment will be removed. | Change to RFP | |
| 68 | Vendor cannot comply with the following requirement; “The contractor shall provide devices able to install and maintain VA-approved antivirus capabilities with the capability to quarantine files and be updated as needed in response to incidents. Alternatively, a VA-approved whitelisting application may be used when the contractor cannot install an anti-virus / anti- malware application.” DLA and NAC customers currently utilize vendor-default anti-virus, anti-malware, and whitelisting agents today and have for some time. Please remove requirement. | Attachment 8, page 8, Section 6-e | This information cannot be removed. | No change to RFP. | |
| 69 | Will Medical Air Bridge be considered as a shipping option under this impending HTME IDIQ? There are times when the most efficient and effective shipping method is the MAB. |
Under what conditions is MAB utilized?
| Are there specific items that are not allowed to be shipped through MAB? If so, is there specific listing that could be provided to vendors? | 36H79725R0003 RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING DRAFT, page 3, item c | DLA Only-Language maybe added to SOW | |||
| 70 | Please provide clarification as to what the following means to vendors "Note: Offers received after issuance of Amendment 0016 (CY 2025) are only eligible for a 5-year base contract with no option period. Furthermore, any language pertaining to Long Term Contract Options is applicable only to contracts awarded to solicitation opens prior to Amendment 0016."? | 36H79725R0003 RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING DRAFT, page 6, item a | This section will be removed from RFP. | Change to RFP | |
| 71 | There appears to be confusion in certain instances where VA employees are not approving acceptance documents because they feel training requirements need to be met prior to full acceptance. However, often times the customer won't schedule training (applications or BMET) for months. More direct communication regarding the 80%/20% could be issued in order to fully clarify the billing process with respect to training. | 36H79725R0003 RADIOLOGY AND IMAGING DRAFT, page 7, item 1 | The vendor should not invoice for final payment until after the products/services are delivered/performed and accepted by the government. For VA orders-Training cannot be invoiced until completed. | No change to RFP. | |
| 72 | Will the government review the statement "The contractor/subcontractor must store, transport, or transmit VA sensitive information in an encrypted form, using VA-approved encryption tools that are, at a minimum, FIPS 140-2 validated or most current FIPS wireless encryption standard". Please note NIST publications and VA/DoD requires every crypto modules to be FIPS140 validated. This is module specific and not encryption standard. So something can be most current and strong but if it has not undergone FIPS validation it would still not qualify and would be considered a deficiency during RMF. We reccommend strickening the provision eliminating "or most current FIPS wireless encryption standard". | IT Contract Security; Page 56 of 98. | This is being investigated. Any changes or updates can be added to the contracts later. | No change to RFP. | |
| 73 | Will the RFP provide specific language on when and if hard copy service manuals are to be supplied to the customer? Much of commercial industry uses electronic forms of manuals. | XI. EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS (c) All Other Training Page 16 of 146 "All service manuals, schematics, diagrams, diagnostic software, other special tools and hardware keys equivalent to what the contractor field service representatives have available to diagnose, troubleshoot, repair and maintain the equipment shall be furnished to the government at no additional cost. " | Yes. Upon delivery of the equipment. | ||
| No change to RFP. | |||||
| 74 | Will the RFP provide specific language to detail the process for making compensations claims to the government for delays caused by the government. Example cost increases in turnkey quotes where the government delays constuction past the quoted expiration date and additional costs have been incurred? | V. DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS (f) ADO Table Page 4 of 146 | No. This can be negotiated with the CO. | No change to RFP. | |
| 75 | Will the RFP provide specific language on how the contractor and the Task Order contracting officer will work together to eliminate delays attributed to the site? | V. DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS (f) ADO Table Page 4 of 146 | No. This can be negotiated with the CO. | No change to RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .