Attachment_6_RFP_Questions_Responses.pdf

ATTACHMENT 6 to RFP 70Z02324RHSWL0001 Amendment A001

QUESTIONS/RESPONSES to the RFP

Q1: We are not currently enrolled in E-Verify. Is E-Verify mandatory for this contract? If it is mandatory, do you want us to enroll before the award or after the award?

A1: E-Verify is mandatory for this contract (at this time). Offerors are not required to enroll prior to award. The timelines of FAR Clause 52.222-54 are clear and shall be followed unless otherwise notified by the USCG Contracting Officer. To be considered “compliant” for purposes of proposal submission with respect to E-Verify, offerors currently enrolled in E-Verify can show proof of enrollment. Offerors not enrolled shall acknowledge their requirements with respect clause 52.222-54.

The government reserves the right to withdraw the E-Verify requirement (if the government later determines compliance with E-Verify is not required). If the awarded offeror does not comply with clause

52.222-54 and its timelines, the government reserves the right to and MAY terminate the contract for default.

Q2: As we understand in the Q & A document sent, we are allowed to bill the alloy separately in addition to the base price of the product. Is that correct? If so, we understand that to mean for a High Noble

PFM crown, for instance, you will be dually charged: a base cost plus the cost of alloy per gram. Do you want us to add line clin items showing the alloy cost per gram?

NOTE: Q2 above is related to Q8 in Attachment 5 of the solicitation; there was an incorrect statement in the response. Please see A2 below.

A2: That is incorrect. High Noble PFM crowns have industry standards regarding alloys, and offerors shall adhere to those standards. There is no separate billing for alloys. The price, inclusive of labor and shipping (as previously described in the solicitation) shall be included in the product price. Do not add

CLINs. Do not list alloys separately or as separate line items.

Q3: Wanted to clarity on the past performance requirements. We plan to use a subcontractor with experience fulfilling the requested scope. Since they are a similarly situated small business, would their experience count towards our qualifications as the prime contractor? If not, will our experience managing previous contracts count as relevant experience, even if it is not specifically related to dentistry?

A3: Per Attachment 3 (Instructions to Offerors), at least one of the references must be while performing as the prime contractor. Read those instructions carefully, as it answers the question submitted. Since the instructions do not prohibit submission of proposed subcontractor past performance, yes one of the past performance submissions MAY be for a subcontractor. Offerors are encouraged to read Attachment 3 carefully, to include evaluation criteria and RISK.

Updated information regarding Q4 of Attachment 5 of the RFP:

Q4: Can we put 'not available' for products that we cannot supply?

A4: An offeror who cannot provide all the required supplies is at risk for non-compliance. If you cannot fill an item, offerors may propose substitutes. It is the offeror’s responsibility to describe any proposed substitutes for items they cannot fill, and it will be the government’s determination as to whether the proposed substitute is acceptable (or not).

ATTACHMENT 6 to RFP 70Z02324RHSWL0001 Amendment A001

UPDATE to A4:

Offerors who propose a substitute item (allowed ONLY for items they cannot fill) shall clearly identify this in their technical proposal (do not include any pricing information in the Technical Proposal Volume

I). Offerors shall also identify this in their Price Proposal (Volume 3) and ensure the proposed substitute is priced per the instructions for pricing.

This update to A4 is appended to the original A4, meaning the original A4 is still applicable.

Michael A. Bumgardner, Contracting Officer, 7-9-2024