Company E - Q and A.pdf

1. The inclusion of FAR 52.216-2, Economic Price Adjustment, is unnecessary and will have unintended negative consequences. Based on our deep historical knowledge on pricing these PAP devices and accessories, offerors will have sufficient information at the time of bidding to propose fixed unit prices across a 10-year period of performance without the need for price adjustments during performance.

Thank you for the information, it will be taken into consideration. To clarify, the EPA clause is meant as mutual consideration for awardees. Not just to ensure the business continues to stay have a return on investment on cyclic cost increases from the manufacturer, but to mitigate the risk of unforeseen market conditions that could occur throughout a 10 year period of performance. For example, a pandemic or war could have consequences on raw materials, negatively impacting manufacturers that could be passed down to distributors.

The government is taking into consideration requiring offerors to provide distributor pricing and or like sized customer pricing as other than certified cost data to ensure the scenario you speak of does not occur.

Removal is consistent with the rationale provided by the VA regarding the recently issued RFP No. 36C79125R0003, where the VA determined that “inclusion of an EPA clause in solicitation 36C79125R0003, or any resultant contract awards is not in the best interests of the Government due to the absence of compelling market evidence to justify the inclusion of the EPA clause in a commercial supplies acquisition utilizing a FFP IDIQ type contract vehicle for the procurement of commercial off-the-shelf [items].”

The government in this procurement does not intend to remove the EPA clause, but it will be considered.

Proposed revision: remove the EPA clause from Section B.6 PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE and Section C.

2. If the Government retains the EPA clause, we request changes to avoid an imbalance and ensure fairness between the parties. a. RFP page 15, § B.6(c)(3), Objectives revises the standard FAR EPA clause to limit contractors to one (1) upward price adjustment per ordering period. However, Section C.3 (page 43) retains the original EPA language requiring prompt downward adjustments. This creates an imbalance in the intent of the EPA provision.

The government does not intend to revise the clause from its original form in the FAR. There have been discussions about allowing 1 EPA per line item per year, considering a cost increase for all items may not happen simultaneously. However, that is in initial talks and not guaranteed to make it into the RFP.

Proposed update: Either allow one (1) downward adjustment per ordering period to mirror the upward adjustment limit or remove the restriction on upward adjustments.

This revision would balance the risk between industry and the government; if contractors are expected to absorb general increases in costs, the government should similarly assume the risk of market decreases during the same period.

b. RFP page 43, § C.3, limits upward Economic Price Adjustments (EPA) to a maximum of 10% over the entire 10-year contract term. We respectfully request that this cap be removed to restore balance between upward and downward adjustments—particularly since downward adjustments remain unlimited under the existing clause. This approach ensures fairness, adaptability to market conditions, and a stable pricing framework that protects both parties from disproportionate financial impact due to external economic factors.

The government is firm in its analysis of the 10% cap being more than enough for an upward movement in price to allow awardees to continue to remain profitable. Please note that the government realizes that devices and accessories will become obsolete over a 10-year period of performance. Hence, the inclusion of the additional items and tech refresh langue. These instances will allow the awardees to offer prices based on current market conditions. Please also note that the new prices will set a new precedent for whom the lowest priced offer is moving forward, as will EPA.

Proposed revision: remove the 10% cap on upward economic price adjustments.

3. RFP page 59, § C.19, incorporates FAR 52.229-3, FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAXES.

Can the VA please confirm that the Government anticipates the use of FAR 52.229-3 to address upward or downward adjustments as a result of tariffs?

The government will utilize FAR 225-8 Duty Free Entry to address tariffs.

4. RFP page 82, § E.1, states “Offerors must provide both purposed price . . .” Should that be “proposed price”?

Proposed price is the correct vernacular. Thank you for pointing out that spelling error.

5. RFP page 83, § E.2(d) requires offerors to submit an Authorized Distributor Letter, but without reference to this procurement.

The government has discussed this revision to include that the allocation to an authorized distributor from a manufacturer in relation to the VA’s PAP 2.0 contract be used solely for that contract. This will ensure that the manufacturer’s stock allocated for the VA’s PAP program is readily available for distribution from the authorized distributors at all times. This should mitigate any risk of backorders.

Proposed revision: please revise to state the Authorized Distributor letter must specifically reference this specific DLC 2.0 solicitation number and be dated.

6. RFP page 94, § E.10(a) requests (5) electronic copies of the technical proposal be emailed.

Is the request for (5) Volumes of electronic copies sent in separate emails an error?

The langue in instructions to offerors referring to 5 electronic copies will be revised to 1 copy.

Proposals will only be addressed to Jonathan.Saiz@va.gov and carbon copied to Maurice.walker@va.gov.

7. RFP page 96, § E.10(d)(9), requires the offeror to submit a copy of a Federal Supply Schedule Price List. Can the Government clarify what role in the evaluation or source selection the FSS Price List will play?

mailto:Jonathan.Saiz@va.gov mailto:Maurice.walker@va.gov

The FSS price list will provide a data point to evaluate price reasonableness if a proposed item is also on the offerors FSS contract.

8. RFP page 84-85, § E.1 Addendum 6.a., states that a tiered set-aside approach will be used.

The RFP also states in § B.15 that “orders will be awarded to the best priced offeror.” How will the tiered set-aside approach affect the placement of orders under the contract?

Evaluation approach of the RFP for base awards is governed E.15.2 Cascading Tiered Evaluations. The language in B.15 is specific to orders off of the base contracts.

The placement of orders has an order of precedence, but it will be based on the best price, set on the base awards. For example: The best priced offer per CLIN, per ordering period with be the primary contractor receiving the initial quantities required. The second best priced contractor will receive the quantities the best priced was unable to fill. As CLINS become obsolete and new items are competed amongst awardees, a new precedent may be set for best priced awardee moving forward

9. RFP page 97, § E.10(e)(1) describes various attachments to the Solicitation, but none of these attachments match the attachments included with Section D of the RFP. For instance, subsections (i) and (v) describe a “Technically Acceptable Product List” as “Attachment F,” whereas the RFP includes a “LIST OF TECHNICALLY ACCPETABLE PAP DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORIES” as Attachment E. Can the Government please clarify and confirm the documents referenced in § E.10? Several similar discrepancies appear elsewhere in the solicitation.

The discrepancies are noted and will be corrected in the formal RFP.

10. RFP page 101, § E.15 states that “Technical and past performance, when combined, are equal but less important than price.” How does the Government intend to use factor weighting in an LPTA procurement?

LPTA evaluation approach could only use past performance on a pass/fail basis. The LPTA portion of the evaluation is being considered for removal as GAO has determined stated in the past under case Data Monitor Systems, Inc., B-415761 (Mar. 6, 2018), that past performance in an LPTA evaluation is duplicative of the agencies responsibility determination. Please note that GAO denied the protest in this case.

11. RFP page 103, § E.15.1.3 contemplates an evaluation of an offeror’s Past Performance, but neglects to describe what is being evaluated or what is required for an “Acceptable” rating. Can the Government please elaborate on the nature of the Past Performance evaluation to be conducted?

If the government decides to keep past performance as a pass/fail aspect of the LPTA evaluation approach, the evaluation criteria will be further elaborated upon.

12. RFP Attachment I is a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). What role will responses to the PPQ play in the source selection process?

This questionnaire can be used to determine acceptable past performance in a pass/fail evaluation. If the government decides to keep past performance as a pass/fail aspect of the LPTA evaluation approach, the evaluation criteria will be further elaborated upon.

This questionnaire can also be used as part of the responsibility determination.

13. RFP Attachment I is a PPQ. However, the PPQ questions are non-responsive to a procurement for the delivery of medical devices. If the Government maintains use of PPQs, we request that the PPQ be tailored to provide useful information about a vendor’s performance delivering medical devices.

Making the past performance questionnaire more relevant to the PAP requirements can be done.

14. RFP page 13, § B.4, provides Invoice Submission Requirements that include “8. Signature, printed name, and title of Government receiving official, and date of delivery must be included or accompany with invoice.” Typically VA Warehouse Personnel only provide a signature on BOL and carrier records even though the printed name is requested on the document.

The same language appears in both B.3 Vendor Electronic Invoice Submissions and B.4 Electronic Data Interchange. The language is standard and will not be changed. Please note that EDI is not mandatory for this requirement, but it is highly encouraged.

If EDI is elected then ECB will establish requirements which contractor shall comply with.

Proposed revision: Signature of the Government receiving official and date of delivery must be included with or accompany the invoice. Printed name and title should be provided if reasonably available.

If the revision is not acceptable, we kindly request receiving personnel are reminded of this requirement to ensure compliance.

This can be addressed in the PO’s submitted by the Ordering Officials.

Attachment D Price Schedule:

1. CLIN Item Structure - The current Price Schedule lists each PAP device along with all associated PAP accessories for every PAP type. However, in the PAP industry, accessories are typically standardized across a manufacturer’s entire PAP series (e.g., DreamStation 2, S10, A11, etc.).

Proposed revision: To simplify bidding and proposal review, please revise the Price Schedule to group PAP CLINs by manufacturer, thereby reducing the repetition of identical accessories for each PAP type.

The government is unable to add brand specific information to the solicitation, as this is not a brand name requirement.

2. RFP page 82, § B, Proposal Sheet states that “Offerors must provide both purposed price and manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) on the Proposal Sheet found in section D.”

However, there is nowhere on the Pricing Sheet to include MSRP.

Proposed revision: please add an MSRP column to the pricing template.

This will be present in the formal solicitation.

Attachment E List of Approved PAP Device and Associated Accessories

1. The list of approved items appears to omit some products currently being procured by the DLC/DLS. Is this omission intentional or an oversight? Updating the list to include all currently stocked products would simplify the bidding and proposal review process by reducing the number of technical proposals and samples required for items already in stock but not listed as approved.

Proposed revision: please add all currently stocked products to the list of approved items.

This will be verified and can be taken into consideration.