The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
80MSFC19R0041P0004
Attachment A - Post-Industry Day Questions and Responses
| Number |
| RFP Reference |
| Question |
| Response |
| 1 |
| VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Paragraphs (a) and (b) |
| Reading paragraphs Vol. II (a) and (b) together, if an unpopulated joint venture is proposed for this effort, then the managing partner is only required to provide one relevant past performance reference and can rely on the other team members (joint venture members or major subcontractors) for the rest; however, if an Offeror proposes a team that is the prime Offeror and then subcontractors (not a JV), then the Offeror must provide two relevant past performance references and can rely on the other team members for the rest. Thus, an unpopulated JV has an advantage in that the managing member only has to submit one relevant past performance reference. This gives a new JV an advantage. Is this what is intended? |
| Paragraph (a) will be revised to request a single reference from the Offeror in lieu of two. |
| 2 |
| VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Paragraph (b) |
| Paragraph Vol. II (b) provides that if one is a managing member of a populated JV performing relevant work, then you may not submit that work for evaluation - "Participation of an individual member in another populated joint venture will not be evaluated." Is this what is intended? |
| Paragraph (b) will be revised to remove evaluation language associated with participation of an individual member in a populated and an unpopulated JV from this section. Additionally, Volume II - Past Performance Factor Evaluation paragraph (b) is being revised to allow, under certain conditions, the evaluation of an individual member’s past performance in any JV. |
| 3 |
| VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Paragraph (b) |
| Is it the intent that paragraph Vol. II (b) applies only to Offerors for this effort who are JVs? |
| Yes. |
| 4 |
| VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Paragraphs (a) and (b) |
| Will the Government permit the managing member a populated joint venture to rely upon that contract experience for this effort? |
| Yes. See response to question 2 above. |
| 5 |
| Section H, CREDIT RESULTING FROM NO-COST MEDICAL SERVICES |
| The term ‘no-cost to the Government’ is not defined in the RFP. In order for the Offeror to accurately estimate the percentage of reimbursement of revenues, as outlined in Volume I, Price Evaluation Factor, can it be assumed that the definition of ‘no-cost to the Government’ is that medical operations performed in accordance to Section 9.0 of the RFP will be performed in a manner that no additional contractual cost is realized by the Government in the performance of these services? |
| Yes. |
| 6 |
| Attachment L-3 BACKGROUND AND HISTORICAL DATA, page L-3-1. |
| Is the referenced tasking by NASA Headquarters available for review by the Offerors to allow a better understanding of this MSFC’s unique approach to this RFP? |
| No. The Agency model documentation is considered to be internal NASA decision making material and is not considered appropriate or necessary for external release. However, the solicitation provides appropriate descriptions of the approach to allow for proposal development. |
| 7 |
| Attachment L-1, Excel Pricing Model (EPM) Tab PC Labor Calculations, page L-20 |
Clause MSFC 52.223-96 MEDICAL SERVICES (SEPT 2018)
Attachment J-1, PWS, Section 3.6, Medical Center Support
| The staffing levels of Attachment J-13 after Option Year 1 are likely insufficient to sustain the minimum level of clinic operations specified in PWS 3.6 Medical Center Support. The level of support by the contractor and Redstone community to the no-cost medical services of PWS 9.0 cannot be accurately predicted, nor will an Offeror’s approach to no-cost medical services be approved by NASA at the time of final price certification for the FFP portion of this contract. Can it be assumed that if a contractor is unsuccessful, or prevented by a future change in NASA regulations, in achieving adequate no-cost medical activity to sustain full time Clinic operations, that the Government will open the FFP Mission Services portion of the contract for renegotiation to either increase price or reduce service requirements? |
| The staffing levels provided in Attachment J-13 are considered sufficient to perform the technical requirements of the PWS, as these requirements are reduced over the life of the contract. These staffing levels exclude staffing required to perform PWS 9.0 effort which will be the responsibility of the selected contractor. |
| 8 |
| Section L, VOLUME I - PRICE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Section Attachment L-1 Excel Pricing Model (EPM); Tab PC – Labor Calculations, page L-20. |
| Can the Government confirm that the phrase “…required to provide no less than the WYE minimums specified…” refers to the proposal, and not the actual execution of the firm fixed price services contract, and that the Offeror will have the flexibility to adjust staffing in any manner necessary to provide the best and most efficient solution to the services described in the Statement of Work? |
| No. The minimum number of WYEs applies to both the proposal and to subsequent contract performance as these required staffing levels are specified in Attachment J-13, Minimum Required Staffing Levels. Subsequent to award, if the contractor proposes implementation of additional efficiencies while still meeting all requirements of the contract, the Government may entertain a downward adjustment to the firm-fixed-price value of the contract. |
| 9 |
| Section L, 1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION (JAN 2011) |
| Is it the intent of the Government that these elements be provided in the draft DRD LS-Logistics Support 1642LS-001 Government Property Management Plan required to be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal, and that this information be provided in addition to the elements of the DRD? |
| Yes. Offerors shall provide the information required by NFS provision 1852.245-80 as part of Volume III – Contract, Section II. This information is in addition to that required by the Government Property Management Plan also submitted in Section II. |
| 10 |
| Section L, 1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION (JAN 2011) (e), states “The Offeror shall disclose cost accounting practices that allow for direct charging of commercially available equipment, when commercially available equipment is to be used in performance of the contract and the equipment is not a deliverable.” |
| Is it the Government’s intent that ‘commercially available equipment’ is defined as any equipment that the Government does not own, and if so, can the Government provide an example of “direct charging” in such a manner that would have a cost impact to the Government in a firm fixed price contract structure? |
| The contractor will not be expected to provide any property or equipment necessary to perform PWS Sections 3.0 through 8.0, which is specified in Attachment J-8; however, the contractor will be required to furnish additional property or equipment necessary to perform PWS Section 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services, at the contractor’s expense. |
By requiring the disclosure of cost accounting practices that would allow a direct charge for equipment use with proposals, the Government can decide if the proposed equipment is to be made a contract deliverable.
| 11 |
| Section L, 1852.245-80 GOVERNMENT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INFORMATION (JAN 2011) Paragraph (f) |
| Is it the intent of the Government that any equipment purchased and/or utilized during the contract be approved by the Government in a firm fixed price services contract structure? Can the Government define what it means by “directly charge to the Government” in a firm fixed price services contract structure? |
| Paragraph (f) of this provision only requires that such property be identified as part of the proposal submission in Volume III – Contract, as this information allows the Government to be aware of any direct charges and potential use of such property on follow-on contracts. See also response to question 10 above. |
| 12 |
| Section L, 1852.245-81 LIST OF AVAILABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JAN 2011) Paragraph (a) |
| Is it the Government’s intention that this information be provided in the draft DRD LS-Logistics Support 1642LS-001 Government Property Management Plan required to be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal, and that this information be provided in addition to the elements of the DRD? |
| No. The solicitation will be revised to require submission of the affirmative or negative response as part of Volume III - Contract, Section II. |
| 13 |
| Section L, VOLUME I - PRICE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Section Attachment L-1 Excel Pricing Model (EPM); Tab PC – Labor Calculations, page L-20. |
| May the Offeror assume that the Government has no objections to alternate forms of compensation, such as paid time off, where allowed by labor law? |
| Yes, provided such compensation is consistent with the Offeror’s customary accounting practices and applicable labor laws such as Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS), Fair Labor Standards Act, and applicable wage determination. |
| 14 |
| Section L, Offeror Complexity Table, PWS 9.0, page L-23 |
| This section implies that private medical insurance billing is a mandatory element, however PWS 9.1 No-Cost Medical Services Mission Requirements, allows multiple options for cost recovery of services, for which private medical insurance is only one method allowed. Would the Government consider changing the term “along with” to “or”? |
| No. PWS 9.1, Paragraph (f) requires the contractor to offer private medical insurance billing. Additionally, Paragraph (f) will be revised to delete references to Medicare and Medicaid. |
| 15 |
| PWS 9.1(e) No-Cost Medical Services Mission Requirements, page J-1-26. |
| Can it be assumed that the concept of providing priority of services when scheduling only applies to initial scheduling protocol, and it would not be expected of the Offeror to cancel or re-schedule appointments made to support PWS 9.1 activity in order to accommodate a schedule request for missions services support? |
| Yes. Service priority protocols only apply to initial scheduling activities. |
| 16 |
| PWS 9.1(b) No-Cost Medical Services Mission Requirements, page J-1-26 |
| As this will involve use of contractor provided IT systems inside the NASA Clinic, may the Offeror assume that an external IT security plan will be supported for operations in the Clinic? |
| No. PWS 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services will not require submission of either an IT Security Plan or IT Security Management Plan as these services use contractor-owned IT that does not contain any NASA information, nor does it process any information for services provided on behalf of NASA. Compliance with all HIPAA, HI-TECH ACT, and other privacy laws and regulations for protection of sensitive data for performance of these services is the contractor’s responsibility. |
| 17 |
| Section G. 1852.245-71 INSTALLATION—ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (JUN 2018) (c), page G-4. |
| May the Offeror assume that in the performance of PWS 9.0 services that are intended to be ‘no-cost to the Government’ that the Offeror will be supported in utilizing contractor owned equipment where it is found to be more efficient? |
| Yes. The contractor may supplement Government-furnished equipment, provided that the contractor is responsible for all associated maintenance, repair, and/or replacement costs associated with the contractor-provided equipment. |
| 18 |
| Section H. MSFC 52.223-96 MEDICAL SERVICES (SEPT 2018), page H-8. |
| May the Offeror assume that providing no-cost medical services to contractors will be for any services the contractor may require, and not just limited to NASA-specific and OSHA required services? For example, may the Offeror provide Worker’s Compensation coverage, or contractor company specific medical requirements? |
| Yes. In accordance with PWS paragraph 9.1 (f)(iii), the contractor may offer, at its discretion, additional no-cost medical services to NASA and the Redstone Arsenal community. |
| 19 |
| PWS 4.8 Management of Medical Records, page J-1-12. |
| Can the Offeror assume that the official NASA medical record is to be maintained in electronic format and that paper records serve for historical record only? Additionally, can it be assumed that “transitioning existing health data into an Agency-wide electronic health record system as required” applies to paper records generated after contract start and that any legacy records will be performed under a separate IDIQ tasking? |
| No. The official NASA medical record is comprised of an electronic format and a paper format, as MSFC medical records are not totally paperless. There is no requirement to digitize all of MSFC’s historical medical records. However, the contractor will be required to scan and upload some historical medical records into the NASA Electronic Health Record System, which has been accounted for in the minimum required staffing levels. |
| 20 |
| Section L. VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, Section (c), pp L-22. This section states: “A referenced contract's size relevancy will be based on: Offeror references having an average annual contract value of $500,000 or greater; and proposed major subcontractor references having an average annual contract value of $300,000 or greater”. When describing relative past performance for PWS 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services, by the very nature of this work these contracts are smaller in individual size, but remain complex in execution. |
| May an Offeror be allowed to demonstrate size relevancy for PWS 9.0 using a collective number of no-cost medical services contracts as evidence of relevant performance for this component of the RFP, as long as that collection results in what the Government might consider substantial in both number and value? For example, more than 5 contract and no-cost medical performance in excess of $100,000? |
| No. However, Volume II - Past Performance Instructions, paragraph (c) (1) will be revised to remove size from consideration with respect to a sixth referenced contract relative to PWS Section 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services. Additionally, the page count for the Past Performance Volume will be increased to account for this sixth reference. |
| 21 |
| ACQUISITION APPROACH (a) The acquisition will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 and NASA FAR Part 1815 utilizing a Price Performance Tradeoff (PPTO) evaluation where there is a tradeoff between the factors of price and past performance. |
| The Government has indicated the intent to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal utilizing a Price Performance Tradeoff strategy, yet the Performance Work Statement is, as stated by the Government, a unique approach to providing these services. Due to the unique design of this approach, it is unlikely that the Past Performance, with the size and level of effort restrictions established in the RFP, will accurately represent the Offeror’s approach, especially in PWS 9.0. Therefore, would the Government consider one of the following options: |
a) Allow a Technical Approach to be included for evaluation.
b) Allow an additional section (number 6 in Section 1 of the Past Performance Instructions) that would describe how the Offeror intends to adapt its past performance to meet the MSFC unique requirements, using the Offeror’s proposed resources.
a) No. A streamlined acquisition utilizing a trade-off between the factors of Price and Past Performance renders a technical approach unnecessary.
b) No. A separate narrative regarding adaptation is unnecessary as Volume II – Past Performance Instructions, Section I, paragraph (2) requires Offerors to provide a description of “contract work performed that aligns with the contract work being proposed for this effort.” (See also Volume II – Past Performance Instructions, table entitled “PWS WYE Assignment Matrix Table.”)
| 22 |
| PWS 1.0, INTRODUCTION |
| Do we need to provide literature or lectures for the education/awareness programs? |
| Yes. Refer to Attachment J-1, Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 3.4(d). Also refer to Attachment L-3, Background and Historical Data, for information relative to outreach programs. |
| 23 |
| PWS 4.2 Occupational Urgent Care (b) |
| Can we provide non-narcotic over-the-counter pharmacy services, including the requisitioning or purchase, storage, safeguarding, accountability, and dispensing of all pharmacy supplies, drugs, and medicines necessary for the operation of the medical services facility from our own distributor? |
| Yes. |
| 24 |
| PWS 4.2 Occupational Urgent Care (e) |
| Should we as the Provider stock our own suture kits in the event the Dermabond is inadequate to close the superficial cuts/wounds? |
| Yes. Attachment J-1, PWS Section 4.2 (e) will be revised to include suturing procedures as necessary. |
| 25 |
| PWS 4.3 Preventive Health Services (b) |
| Could we include the Opioid Use Disorder Medical Assistant Treatment Program? |
| Yes, provided this does not involve the dispensation of medication. If medication dispensation is required, such services would be provided as “Additional No-Cost Medical Services” in accordance with PWS Section 9.1, Paragraph (f)(iii). |
| 26 |
| PWS 4.7 Clinical X-Ray and Laboratory Services (b) |
| Can the X-rays be sent to be read off site by a radiologist or do we need to have an on-site radiologist? |
| Yes. X-rays can be sent to an offsite radiologist; therefore, an on-site radiologist is not required. |
| 27 |
| PWS 4.9 Automated External Defibrillator (AED) |
| Is the contractor responsible for the medications appropriate cardiac medication? |
| Yes. While there are no contractor medication requirements in Section 4.9, the contractor is responsible for providing necessary cardiac medications for the clinic’s crash cart managed under PWS Section 4.2, Occupational Urgent Care. Additionally, PWS Section 4.2 will be revised to add the requirement to perform advanced cardiac life support services, provide any necessary supplies and medications, and maintain the clinic’s cardiac crash cart. |
| 28 |
| PWS 9.1 NO-COST MEDICAL SERVICES Mission Requirements, Paragraph (f) |
| Is there a cap on how many patients can be admitted to this No-Cost to the Government services? |
| No. |
| 29 |
| 1852.215-81 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS (APR 2015), sections (a) and (c) |
| Because Volume II doesn't allow additional page count for front matter (e.g., title pages, table of contents), the Offeror is dissuaded from including front matter. For ease of the reviewers, will the government please exclude front matter from page count for Volume II? |
| No. In accordance with NFS 1852.215-81, paragraph (c), there are no exclusions from the page limit established for Volume II - Past Performance. However, the Government will increase the total page limitation in paragraph (a) from 24 to 30 pages. |
| 30 |
| 1852.204-76 SECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES (JAN 2011) |
DRD 1642MA-003 Management Plan
| It's our understanding that implementation of the IT Security Plan can be expensive and a substantial burden to a small business. Will the Government please clarify whether one or both Plans are required for the successful OHS Offeror? In addition, will the Government please clarify the requirements for the security or trust relationship between NASA and the Offeror as it relates to the Cority Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and the EMR required for the PWS 9.0, no cost medical services? |
| The referenced clause and DRD require the submission of both plans. MSFC Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) resources will assist the contractor in preparing the IT security plan. |
A trust relationship as it relates to the Cority Electronic Medical Record (EMR) and the NASA EMR is not required in support of PWS 9.0.
ATTACHMENT J-4C
ATTACHMENT L-3, (d) 5.
| Influenza Vaccines, Flu Shot Clinics and Flu Vaccine Awareness are not included in PWS 4.0. Attachment J-4C includes pricing for influenza vaccines as part of the IDIQ work (PWS 8.0). In addition, L-3.d.5, states that flu shot clinics are included in No-Cost Medical Services (PWS 9.0). Will the government please clarify whether it's actually the intent to eliminate all annual flu program costs relating to PWS 1.0 through PWS 8.0? |
| Yes. All flu shot activities will be provided under PWS 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services. Attachment J-4C will be revised to delete prices for influenza vaccinations. Additionally, the Excel Pricing Model, Tab PE, will be revised to delete these prices. |
| 32 |
| ATTACHMENT J-1 PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) Sections 4.6 and 4.8 |
| The PWS requires epidemiology studies. Will the government please provide work indicators so this service can accurately be included in the proposal? |
| There are no available work indicators as conditions have not warranted epidemiological studies over the past eight years. Depending on the situation, the majority of epidemiological studies would be performed under PWS 4.6; however, if capabilities are required beyond the specified minimum staffing levels, PWS 8.0 Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Requirements, would be used. Refer to PWS 8.2 Occupational Medical IDIQ Requirements, paragraph (b). |
| 33 |
| Section I FAR Clauses VOLUME I - PRICE FACTOR EVALUATION |
| The Government has included the FAR Clause 52.222-41 in the solicitation, but omitted the SCA applicable price adjustment clause(s) for this FFP contract. Will the government consider including the FAR 52.222-43 and FAR 52.222-44 in the solicitation? |
| FAR Clause 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustments (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) will be incorporated in Section I of the solicitation. |
| 34 |
| Section L-3; Following Section M |
| The RFP includes several pages after Section M, numbers L-3-7 through L-3-15. Some of the provisions are duplicative and are located in Front Sections B-J of the solicitation with different content. (Note: MSFC52.237-91 Place of Performance). In addition, there is a section L-3 before Section M in the RFP that has page numbering L-3-1 through L-3-12, so there are two pages in the RFP numbered L-3-7 through L-3-15. Is it the government's intent to include these pages as additional requirements? Will the Government please clarify and renumber the RFP pages, if needed. |
| The section following Section M is the Phase-In Purchase Order, which is a separate contracting instrument awarded independent of the contract, and therefore is not duplicative. The Government will amend the solicitation to correct page numbers for the Phase-In Purchase Order. |
| 35 |
| PWS and Section J-2 DRD Requirements |
| Will Prime need to establish a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement (SAA) for use of the clinic facilities for no cost services under PWS 9.0? If so, will the reimbursement be in addition to the % of revenue returned to the Government for medical services? |
| No, a reimbursable space act agreement is not required. |
| N/A |
| The solicitation infers that the contractor will potentially have substantial revenue within the No-Cost Medical Services, performing fee-for-service. Industry Day Slides state “This Initiative is a Potential Lucrative Business Opportunity”. The solicitation also infers that there our potentially 45,000 fee-for-service patients, 39,000 of which are within the Redstone Arsenal community. Per NASA regulations, the NASA MSFC Medical Center is a secure, badged facility, which does not permit access to those 39,000 within the Redstone Arsenal community. As it is not feasible for 39,000 outside potential patients to get NASA badged, nor would they choose to as there are urgent care facilities just outside the gate and Fox Army Medical Center on Redstone Arsenal, does NASA guarantee to make the Medical Center an unsecure facility prior to day one of this new contract and for the life of the contract, allowing the Redstone Arsenal community complete and unfettered access to the relatively small MSFC Medical Center? |
| Yes. All civil service and contractor personnel having badge access to Redstone Arsenal will be provided with clinic access. |
| 37 |
| N/A |
| NASA Office of the Chief Health and Medical Officer (OCHMO), Health and Medical Systems Division, is responsible for the organization, planning and development of headquarters oversight as well as ensuring compliance with applicable regulatory requirements in the implementation of Occupational Health (OH) disciplines: Occupational Medicine, Environmental Health, Health Physics, Physical Fitness and Health Promotion, Federal Workers' Compensation, and Employee Assistance. The duties of the above are contracted out, compliance and oversight of NASA Medical Centers, including the MSFC Medical Center and all facets of this contract. These oversight and compliance functions are contracted, and as such, the NASA OCHMO contractor has been performing ongoing oversight and compliance audits and will continue to do so. Does NASA intend that any contractor or its affiliates holding the NASA OCHMO contract be disqualified from an award of this MSFC Occupational Health Services contract due to the evident Organizational Conflict of Interest? |
| Section L, Volume III – Contract Instructions, Section II, will be revised to require Offerors to identify any potential Organizational Conflict of Interest and summarize their proposed resolution strategy as part of Volume III – Contract, Section II. |
Section M, Eligibility Requirements, will be revised to require identification of any potential OCI and resolution strategy to be an eligibility requirement for award. If the OCI resolution strategy cannot be made acceptable to the Government, the proposal will be considered ineligible for award.
| 38 |
| In Volume III Contract Instructions Sections II, L-30, "The Offeror shall provide the following plan(s) in accordance with the associated Data Requirements Description (DRD): Response to 1852.245-80 Government Property Management Information. |
| Do we have to answer to (a) – (h) in section L-11 and L-12? |
| See response to question 9 above. |
| 39 |
| Section L, VOLUME III – CONTRACT INSTRUCTIONS, Section II |
| What Information do we provide in this section? |
| Offerors shall refer to the specific FAR and NFS sections referenced for specific information to be provided as part of Section II. |
| 40 |
| N/A |
| Is there any section where we need to provide Technical Narrative? |
| No, a technical narrative is not required. See response to question 21 (a) above. |
| 41 |
| N/A |
| During pre-solicitation discussions with MSFC, the justification for changing the NAICS code from 621999 Ambulatory Health Care Services to 561210 Facility Support Services was discussed. The reason given by MSFC for the NAICS code change during those pre-solicitation discussions was that MSFC has changed the primary mission of this contract from occupational medicine to Industrial Hygiene because MSFC has made the decisions to 1) significantly reduce the number of NASA-mandated/funded occupational medical exams, and 2) to introduce no-cost (to MSFC) medical services to MSFC. During the Dec 12th virtual industry day, MSFC instead stated the primary mission of the contract remains the delivery of occupational medical services, even though the number of NASA-funded/mandated occupational medical exams is forecasted to drop by 73% - from 1324 to 353 – over the up to 5-year period of performance of the contract. A key impact of the NAICS code change is the increase in the small business size standard. In that the primary mission of the contract as described on Dec 12th remains occupational medicine, as it has been under NAICS Code 621999, and not Industrial Hygiene as suggested during pre-solicitation discussions, what is the basis for the NAICS code change? |
| The notes provided to supplement the information on Chart 12 of the Virtual Industry Day Briefing relates to the focus of PWS Section 4.0, Occupational Medical Services, not to the contract effort as a whole. The OHS PWS contains three or more separate activities than can be associated with a specific industry; however, none of the separate activities account for more than 50% of the projected total contract value. Therefore, NAICS code 561210 Facility Support Services, is the correct classification. |
| 42 |
| N/A |
| In that the primary mission of the contract given by MSFC on Dec 12th is occupational medicine, not Industrial Hygiene, can a well-qualified comprehensive Industrial Hygiene services small business provider with a nearly 19-year history of successfully delivering at least two of the PWS areas, that is subcontracting the NASA-mandated/funded occupational medical role that diminishes by 73% over the life of the contract, be considered in compliance with the ostensible subcontracting rule? |
| The primary mission of the contract is not Occupational Medicine. See response to question 41 above. |
Refer to the provision entitled “Acquisition Approach” Paragraph (c) on page L-15 for information regarding the ostensible subcontracting rule, which should be considered when formulating subcontracting arrangements.
| 43 |
| ATTACHMENT J-17, Section 5.0 includes a line labeled IH air sampling - area (lab analysis required) followed by lines labeled Welding fume profile 150, Formaldehyde 75, Silica 100, etc. |
| Do the numerical values reflect the actual numbers of samples of each analyte collected annually or the number of annual sampling campaigns during any one of which multiple samples may be collected? This clarification is necessary to accurately complete Pricing Tab PF Row 31. |
| The numerical values reflect an estimated number of samples to be collected annually. |
| 44 |
| N/A |
| How many and what type of vehicles are currently committed to support the IH and HP functional areas of the contract? |
Are these vehicles GFE or to be supplied by the contractor?
None; however, Offerors may reflect transportation costs as part of their Excel Pricing Model (EPM), as an other direct cost (ODC). Historically, Industrial Hygiene, Respiratory Protection, and Health Physics require transportation, which is supplied by the contractor. The EPM, Tab PF, will be revised to reflect Fuel/Vehicle Lease/Mileage in lieu of Gas/Car Maintenance.
The Government will not provide vehicles for this effort.
| 45 |
| The ACQUISITION APPROACH included on page L-15 |
| To “ensure compliance with the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Ostensible Subcontractor Rule (reference 13 C.F.R. § 121.103 for how the SBA determines affiliation), all aspects of the relationship between the Offeror and any proposed subcontractor should be considered, including, but not limited to the following” ten requirements. However, none of the INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS for any of the three volumes allow for Offerors to address the ostensible subcontractor requirements. What will be the basis for MSFC’s determination as to whether there is an ostensible subcontractor issue? |
| Offerors are not required to address ostensible subcontracting requirements as part of the proposal and shall only consider them when formulating subcontracting arrangements. The SBA is considered the final authority for determining compliance. |
| 46 |
| N/A |
| The 24-page limitation for Volume II only makes an exception for the past performance questionnaires to be submitted under separate cover. Would MSFC consider excluding a cover page, and an index to the volume from page count limitations? |
| See response to question 29 above. |
| 47 |
| Under VOLUME II - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR INSTRUCTIONS, MSFC states “(3) Complexity - Complexity of each referenced contract will be assessed against the minimum annual actions required as delineated in the table below. For the Offeror and the Subcontractor(s), the average number of annual actions performed under a referenced contract within the applicable PWS element(s) shall be at least equal to the minimum number of annual actions as specified in the table below in order to be considered relevant in complexity.” |
| As long as the Offeror and Subcontractor(s) demonstrate across their own project descriptions included in the five permissible project descriptions that the minimum number of annual actions required in the applicable complexity table have been met, why is MSFC assessing each referenced contract against the minimum annual actions required? In fact, a small business may actually execute multiples of the minimum annual actions specified by MSFC, but over a larger number of contracts. Requiring an Offeror or individual subcontractors to meet the minimum number of annual actions required in the applicable complexity table on each referenced contract is an onerous and potentially misleading requirement. |
| In accordance with Section M, Volume II - Past Performance Factor Evaluation, paragraph (b), each referenced contract will be assessed in the areas of size, content, and complexity based on the thresholds established in the solicitation. Offerors should consider this evaluation methodology when formulating their subcontracting arrangements and work assignments and in selecting the referenced contracts to be provided in this volume. |
| 48 |
| N/A |
| The number of NASA-mandated/funded occupational medical exams are projected to decrease by 73% over the period of performance. As an offset, MSFC has included no-cost medical services at the MSFC Medical Center. As specified in Attachment J-1, para 9.1(f), MSFC is requiring the establishment of separate billing arrangements for no-cost medical services with on-site contractors, billing private medical insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, for services rendered along with other methods of payment (e.g., credit/debit card, cash, check) at the MSFC Medical Center. The occupational medicine provider’s proven experience in managing and administering highly complex private medical insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, is essential in meeting MSFC’s expectation for delivery of no-cost medical services. However, MSFC has omitted any discussion of such key experience from the proposal instructions or evaluation criteria. Given MSFC’s emphasis on no-cost medical services, and the expectation that the occupational medicine provider will smoothly establish the MSFC Medical Center during the phase-in period as a covered medical provider with requisite private insurers, and manage and administer complex private medical insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid, is MSFC concerned about an Offeror’s experience successfully doing so? If so, how will the Offeror’s ability to successfully do so be evaluated? |
| An Offeror or subcontractor’s experience in performing PWS 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services, will be evaluated as part of Volume II – Past Performance. Additionally, an acceptable No-Cost Medical Services Implementation Plan is an eligibility requirement for award. |
See also response to question 14 above.
| 49 |
| N/A |
| Does NASA maintain an agency-wide, or does MSFC maintain a Center-wide, radioactive waste transportation and disposal contract that the contractor will use in arranging and overseeing the disposal/transportation of all radioactive waste from MSFC? |
| No. The contractor is responsible for arranging for radioactive waste disposal and transportation as required under PWS Section 8.0, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Requirements. |
| 50 |
| N/A |
| Is MSFC the official generator of radioactive waste dispositioned by the contractor? |
| Yes. |
| 51 |
| N/A |
| Please provide the inventory of radioactive wastes, including matrix, isotope, activity and volume of each dispositioned waste lot over the past three years. |
| Since the beginning of 2016, five gallons of neutralized acid with a trace amount of depleted uranium have been disposed. |
| 52 |
| N/A |
| What are the sources of radioactive waste at MSFC? |
| Source of MSFC radioactive waste include: depleted uranium, tritium exit signs, and low-level sealed sources of various isotopes. |
| 53 |
| N/A |
| What is the annual estimated volume of radioactive waste? |
| It is anticipated that future waste would not exceed 10 cubic feet annually once the Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) project commences. All radioactive waste disposals will be performed under PWS Section 8.0, Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) Requirements. |
| 54 |
| N/A |
| Are the radioactive sources consistent? Or are new radioactive waste sources expected annually? |
| Yes, for those categories identified in question 52 above. The only additional waste stream anticipated is the LEU project. |
| 55 |
| N/A |
| Is any of the radioactive waste also mixed waste? |
| No. |
| 56 |
| N/A |
| What historical characterization data exist? |
| No historical characterization data exists. |
| 57 |
| N/A |
| Does the waste, if consistent, have established waste profiles to allow for disposal, or are new waste profiles to be expected? |
| No waste profiles exist and none are expected. |
| 58 |
| N/A |
| How many radioactive waste storage areas fall under the responsibility of the OHS contractor? |
| None. The Government is responsible for all radioactive waste storage areas at MSFC. |
| 59 |
| N/A |
| Does the MSFC have any special waste permits? |
| No. |
| 60 |
| Page G-4, Section 2, C-4. |
| MSFC indicates that “Supplies from store stock” are not included in what MSFC will provide to the contractor. Can MSFC provide a list of items and usage rates by the incumbent contractor for supplies from store stock? |
| No. The Government did not and does not provide supplies from store stock; therefore, no such data exists. |
| 61 |
| Page I-15. |
| The table indicates the estimated hourly wage of these employees, which doesn’t include benefits. Is MSFC requiring a non-incumbent contractor to carry over a hired incumbent employee’s unused paid time off (e.g., vacation & sick time)? |
If so, would MSFC provide a summary of the projected liability at the time of award?
No. MSFC cannot require a follow-on contractor to carry over a hired incumbent employee’s unused paid time off.
MSFC does not have access to this data.
| 62 |
| Page J-1-9; 4.2: Occupational Urgent Care. |
| In paragraph (b), MSFC mentions that the contractor shall provide pharmacy drugs. Can MSFC provide us with a list of drugs & usage for pricing purposes underpricing worksheet Tab PF, line 9? |
| PWS 4.2 (d) provides a list of commonly stocked medications. MSFC does not have access to this data. Inventory and usage is the responsibility of the contractor and is not maintained by the Government. |
| 63 |
| Page J-13-1 |
| In this section, MSFC mentions having staffing requirements; however, in Page L-3-3, MSFC indicates that the contractor will have discretion on staffing levels. In the event the contractor is able to achieve a greater level of efficiency than MSFC foresees, what discretion/flexibility will the contractor have with respect to staffing? |
| The Government seeks to minimize contract cost to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, the contractor is allowed latitude relative to the program management aspect of the contract as noted in Attachment L-3 (e). See response to question 8 above. |
| 64 |
| Page J-13-1 |
| In the event the contractor is able to achieve a greater level of efficiency than MSFC foresees, but MSFC is not willing to offer relief on minimum required staffing, will MSFC consider an equitable adjustment to cover the cost of the over staffing for which relief will not be granted? |
| See response to question 8 above. |
| 65 |
| Page J-1-7; 3.6 Medical Center Support |
| In this section, MSFC provides the hours of operation. To clarify, MSFC will be closed every other Friday? Also, will the clinic be allowed to close for lunch? |
| No. MSFC is not closed every other Friday; however, as a utility cost savings measure, a flexible work schedule has been implemented where only select Center buildings are open every other Friday, and a large number of civil servants and contractor support personnel telework. Therefore, a reduced demand for clinic services is anticipated on these days. The contractor also has the option of being open during this time to perform PWS Section 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services, if desired. |
No. The clinic cannot close for lunch. While the contractor has latitude in scheduling appointments during lunch, sufficient staffing must be available to perform, at a minimum, PWS 4.2, Occupational Urgent Care.
| 66 |
| N/A |
| During the onsite visit, it appeared that the lab services were provided by a 3rd party vendor (LabCorp). Are the laboratory services a direct contract with MSFC or with the Contractor? |
| Laboratory services are the responsibility of the contractor and are not a direct contract with MSFC. |
| 67 |
| N/A |
| Marketing for No-Cost Medical Services: In order for the no-cost medical services to produce a sufficient level of revenue to render an equitable business proposition, given the 73% reduction in NASA-mandated/funded occupational medical services, the ability of the contractor to deploy a full spectrum multimedia marketing program across RSA will be necessary. What restrictions will be placed upon the contractor in terms of marketing no-cost medical services on MSFC and RSA? |
Since this contract is with NASA MSFC, not the Army, will NASA MSFC be responsible for any gaining any necessary approvals from the Army for marketing initiatives on RSA?
Will the contractor be allowed to post directional signs on NASA property to direct No-Cost Medical Services clients to the Medical Center?
The following are current guidelines for NASA/MSFC media usage and NASA advertising:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html https://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/Advertising_Guidelines.html
These guidelines are subject to change. Attachment J-9 will be revised to include the links to the current guidelines for NASA/MSFC media usage and advertising.
Redstone Arsenal may have additional restrictions/guidance.
No. NASA will not be responsible for gaining any necessary approvals for marketing initiatives on RSA. However, the Government can assist the contractor in obtaining approvals for marketing initiatives and may act as a liaison.
Yes. The contractor will be allowed to post signs. Placement of signs must be coordinated through the U.S. Army Garrison Command and MSFC Facility Management Office.
| 68 |
| N/A |
| If the government-furnished equipment is not working or needs repair, who’s responsibility is it to service/repair? |
| The Government will be responsible for the service/repair of all Government-furnished equipment. |
| 69 |
| N/A |
| Section M, BASIS FOR AWARD, Step 4, (page M-2), NASA states “Once an offer is rated with a “Very High Level of Confidence,” no additional offers will be evaluated.” Does this mean if the first proposal evaluated achieved the stated rating, NASA will not continue with any further evaluations even though subsequent offers may merit the same rating? |
| Yes. Additional proposals would only be evaluated if they have the exact same total price of the lowest priced offer receiving this rating. |
| 70 |
| N/A |
| The Government solicitation proposes that in out years the contractors risk becomes greater each year, to the point that after a couple years the preponderance of the medical staffing cost is on the contractor. The Government has had multiple annual shutdowns over the past years and the theme of continuing resolutions and extended Government shutdowns is now the norm. Based on the fact that liability, medical malpractice insurance, electronic health records, etc., is costly and that well paid Doctors, providers, and medical professionals are expecting to be paid and in the private sector will not work unless paid, does the Government guarantee to reimburse all costs to the contractor for all periods of Government shutdowns, where the facilities are closed for contractor use and the absolute majority of all potential patients are home on furlough? |
| See NFS 1852.242-72 Denied Access to NASA Facilities (Oct 2015). |
In the event of a shutdown involving NASA, PWS Section 9.0, No-Cost Medical Services, may still be provided as long as Redstone Arsenal is not closed.
| 71 |
| Section M, Volume II – Past Performance Factor Evaluation |
| Will the Government evaluate a contract reference for a subcontractor assigned PWS 9.0 even if the subcontract does not meet the threshold for a major subcontractor? |
| Yes. In accordance with Section M, Volume II – Past Performance Factor Evaluation, paragraph (b), NASA reserves the right to evaluate past performance information for other subcontractors not listed as major subcontractors and from other entities that will substantially contribute to the proposed contract, or that have the potential to significantly impact performance of the proposed contract. |
| 72 |
| N/A |
| Based on recent experience with the NASA shutdown, is it still the Government’s intent to accept proposals at the NASA Education Training Facility? |
| Yes. In case of a NASA shutdown occurring during the due date for receipt of proposals, the location for hand delivery of a proposal will be the Redstone Arsenal Visitors Center at Gate 9 on Rideout Road. Please call the designated point of contact, Hervie B. Williford, with the time for delivery of the proposal at (256) 714-5541. |