AMENDMENT VENDOR QUESTIONS.docx

AMENDMENT

VENDOR QUESTIONS

INTERPRETATION SERVICES

75H70526Q00009

1. The pricing schedule does not include a line item for CART services and instead references a per minute rate for remote interpretation services. Could you please clarify whether CART services are expected to be provided on an on-demand basis, or if this requirement applies solely to ASL interpretation?

· The Government anticipates the need for a range of communication access services, which may include American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART). Services will be requested on an as-needed basis to ensure effective communication in accordance with applicable federal accessibility laws. Including pricing structure for CART services in proposal.

2. The solicitation outlines a background check requirement for each provider. Would this requirement be waived for on-demand services? We maintain a large network of on demand ASL interpreters and ensuring background checks for all providers may not be feasible. Additionally, as providers will not be accessing any internal systems, we respectfully request consideration of a modification to this requirement.

· The Government does not intend to waive background investigation requirements at this time. All contractor personnel may be required to complete background checks commensurate with the level of access to federal facilities, patients, and sensitive information.

The Government recognizes the operational challenges associated with on-demand services; however, contractors are responsible for ensuring that all personnel assigned under the contract meet applicable security requirements. Offerors are encouraged to describe their proposed approach to meeting these requirements, including any use of pre-screened or credentialed interpreter pools and risk-mitigation strategies for on-demand services. The Government will evaluate these approaches as part of the overall proposal.

3. The solicitation does not specify minimum service requirements or a cancellation policy. May the Vendor propose minimum service durations and cancellation terms as part of its response?

· The Solicitation does not currently define specific minimums or cancellation terms in order to allow flexibility in meeting varying operational and patient care needs. However, offerors may propose commercially reasonable minimum service durations and cancellation policies as part of their response.

4. There is no line item provided for in-person services. If the scope is limited to VRI on-demand services, could you please clarify how interpreter services will be effectively provided to Deafblind individuals in a remote environment?

· The current solicitation emphasizes on-demand remote services to support timely access; however, the Government remains responsible for ensuring effective communication for all patients, consistent with applicable federal accessibility requirements, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Offerors are encouraged to describe their capabilities and approaches for supporting Deafblind individuals, including any accommodations, technologies, or service models (e.g., on-site support, tactile interpreting, or other auxiliary aids) that may be necessary to ensure effective communication in various settings. The Government will evaluate proposed approaches for their ability to meet diverse patient needs. If required, additional service modalities may be addressed through contract administration or future solicitation updates.

5. Could you please clarify which platform will be used to connect this vendor’s CART providers? Alternatively, is it the Vendor’s responsibility to supply a secure virtual meeting platform (e.g., Zoom) for each CART request?

· The solicitation does not currently designate a specific platform for delivery of CART services in order to maintain flexibility across clinical and administrative settings. Any platform used must meet applicable federal requirements for privacy, security, and accessibility, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as applicable. Offerors are encouraged to describe their proposed approach to delivering CART services, including platform capabilities, security features, and any requirements for Government-furnished equipment or access. The Government will evaluate proposed solutions for compatibility, security, and ease of use in supporting effective communication.

6. The Statement of Work references remote and telephonic services for ASL interpretation and spoken Ojibwe but does not include line items for in person services. Please confirm whether the listed health center addresses are intended solely as service locations for remote delivery.

· The listed health center addresses identify potential service locations and points of service; however, they are not intended to imply that services will be limited exclusively to remote delivery. Offerors are encouraged to describe their capabilities across service modalities, including any ability to support in-person services if needed. The government will evaluate proposed approaches for their ability to meet operational needs and ensure effective communication.

7. The Solicitation provides estimated quantities in minutes for OPI and VRI services; however, minimum billing units for ASL and CART services are not specified. For scheduled ASL and CART services, standard industry practice typically reflects the following minimums: ASL Remote/Onsite: 2 hours minimum per assignment. CART Remote: 1-hour minimum per assignment. CART Onsite: 2 hours minimum per assignment. Could you please advise whether the Government would consider these minimum billing structure acceptable for proposal submission purposes?

· The Government recognizes that industry practice may include minimum billing increments for scheduled ASL and CART services. For proposal purposes, offerors may include proposed minimum billing structures, such as those identified in your message, provided they are clearly described and transparently reflected in the pricing submission.

· The Government will review proposed minimums as part of its overall evaluation of price reasonableness and compliance with the solicitation requirements.

8. Could the government please provide recent historical data for this requirement, including annual total hours utilized, the distribution between onsite and virtual services, and the frequency of urgent or on demand requests?

· The Government has not maintained detailed historical utilization data in the specific format requested (e.g., annual total hours, breakdown of onsite versus virtual services, or frequency of urgent/on-demand requests). Prior usage has varied depending on program needs, funding availability, and mission requirements.

· The estimated quantities provided in the solicitation represent the Government’s best approximation of anticipated needs for planning and pricing purposes. However, actual usage may fluctuate and could increase or decrease over the period of performance based on evolving operational demands.

9. The Solicitation references a Total Maximum Contract Value Not-to Exceed $100,000.00. Could you please clarify whether this amount applies to the base year only or the total contract value across the base and all option years?

· Total Maximum Contract Value Not-To-Exceed $100,000. This reference includes base year and all option years.

10. Who is the incumbent?

· There was no incumbent; there was never a contract prior. When required, Language Line and ASLIS were previously used.

11. Will IHS provide a proposal extension?

· The Solicitation will be extended until 4/2/2026 @ 1 pm CT.

12. Can the average number of calls per month and the average length of call and general time frames of calls be provided?

· The Government has not historically collected or maintained data on the average number of interpretation service calls per month, the average length of calls, or the general timeframes during which calls occur. Consequently, this information is unavailable, and offerors should develop their proposals using industry experience and reasonable estimating assumptions.

13. Do the interpreters need to be in the US?

· It is not specifically required that the interpreters/captioners need to be located in the US.

14. In the Schedule of Prices, there is no space to differentiate between CART, ASL, CDI and Spoken Foreign Language. Is it possible to change the format so we can quote accordingly?

· The Government anticipates the need for a range of communication access services, which may include American Sign Language (ASL) interpreting and Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART). Services will be requested on an as-needed basis to ensure effective communication in accordance with applicable federal accessibility laws. Please feel free to quote accordingly for services the company provides.

15. Regarding industry standards for language services, there is usually a cancellation fee covering the full duration of the scheduled assignment for services cancelled within 24 hours. Would the agency be open to adjusting the solicitation to reflect this standard?

· The solicitation does not currently define specific minimums or cancellation terms in order to allow flexibility in meeting varying operational and patient care needs. However, offerors may propose commercially reasonable minimum service durations and cancellation policies as part of their response.

16. For scheduled assignments, there is usually a 1 hour minimum in place. Would the agency be open to implementing that?

· The Government understands that a one-hour minimum is a common industry standard for scheduled assignments. We are open to considering a one-hour minimum, provided it is clearly defined in the offeror's pricing structure and consistently applied. However, final acceptance of such a minimum may depend on specific task order requirements, funding considerations, and the nature of the assignment. We encourage vendors to outline their proposed minimums and any associated terms in their response for further evaluation.