RFP 75H70527R00001 Amendment 0001 vendor questions.docx

RFP 75H70527R00001

AMENDMENT 0001

VENDOR QUESTIONS

1. SF 1449 (block 8) shows an offer due date of 11/12/2026, while the instruction letter and the SAM notice show 11/13/2026 at 1:00 PM Central. Which date applies, and to which email address should proposals be sent? The due date is 11/13/2026 at 1:00 pm Central Time. The proposals should be sent to mary.simon2@ihs.gov.

2. Is there a deadline for questions? There was no deadline set for questions.

3. The bid schedule quantities differ from the Performance Work Statement (for example CT 4,450 on the schedule versus about 2,400 in PWS section 2, and MRI 500 on the schedule with no MRI in the PWS). Which quantities should offerors use? Use the Performance Work Statement. MRI will not be required.

4. Will the Government consider the past performance, accreditation and radiologist qualifications of a proposed teaming partner or subcontractor that will perform the reads, under the past performance and technical factors? Yes. The Government will consider relevant past performance of a proposed teaming partner or subcontractor that will perform the radiology interpretations under the Past Performance factor, consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and the entity’s proposed role.

5. FAR 52.212-2(b) refers to an "all-inclusive hourly rate", while the bid schedule is priced per study. Please confirm pricing is per study as shown on the schedule. The pricing is per study as in the bid schedule.

6. PWS section 5 requires "a current teleradiology certification per Minnesota state requirements." What specific certification or license does this refer to? The Radiologists need to be licensed to practice in Minnesota.

7. In the FAR 52.212-5 checklist, the boxes for 52.219-6 and 52.219-14 are not marked. Please confirm whether the limitations on subcontracting clause applies to this acquisition. The instruction letter also cites "Section B.5", which we could not locate; please confirm which section is meant. This acquisition is a total small business set-aside, and FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting, applies, because the anticipated contract value, including options, exceeds the applicable simplified acquisition threshold. The Government will amend the solicitation to incorporate FAR 52.219-6 and FAR 52.219-14 and correct the clause sections. Offerors must ensure their proposed subcontracting arrangements comply with FAR 52.219-14.

8. Set-Aside Eligibility: The Instructions to Offerors identify this procurement as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. Can you confirm that non-Indian-owned small businesses, including SDVOSBs, are eligible to compete as prime contractors? Yes, this project is set aside for 100% SB.

9. Prime/Subcontractor Teaming: Would the Government accept a proposal from Black Stone Services as the prime contractor, with an established and qualified teleradiology provider serving as our clinical subcontractor, provided all applicable subcontracting and performance requirements are satisfied? If Black Stone is a SB, then yes, we would accept a proposal for consideration.

10. Past Performance: The solicitation requires three relevant teleradiology past-performance references. Would the Government consider the clinical subcontractor's relevant past performance when evaluating the prime contractor's proposal? The relevant past performance MUST be from the company who is submitting the proposal.

11. Proposal Deadline: The SF 1449 identifies November 12, 2026, while the Instructions to Offerors specify November 13, 2026, at 1:00 PM Central. Could you confirm the correct submission deadline? The proposal deadline is 11/13/2026 @ 1 pm CT, per the posting in SAM.GOV.

12. Pricing Structure: The pricing schedule requests per-examination pricing, while the evaluation section references all-inclusive hourly rates. Could you clarify which pricing format offerors should follow? The bid schedule requesting per examination pricing should be followed.

13. Given that the solicitation assigns 20% of the evaluation to past performance, would a small business without directly relevant teleradiology past performance receive a neutral past-performance rating, or would the absence of three directly relevant references render its proposal technically unacceptable? An offeror without relevant past performance, or for whom past-performance information is unavailable, will receive a neutral evaluation under the past-performance factor. The absence of three directly relevant teleradiology references will not, by itself, render the proposal technically unacceptable where the offeror has no such performance history. Offerors should submit available references consistent with the solicitation’s instructions and explain any absence of relevant past performance. All proposals must independently satisfy the solicitation’s technical requirements and any separately stated minimum experience requirements. The 20% weighting establishes the relative importance of past performance; a neutral evaluation does not guarantee award or a particular numerical score.