Amendment_0004-Q&A_143-175_-_Final.docx

Military and Family Life Counseling Solicitation

D17PS00077

Questions & Answers (Q&A) 143 through 175 October 12, 2017

The Government is providing responses to questions 143-175. Question 1 was posted to FBO.gov on September 5, 2017. Questions 2-9 were posted on September 8, 2017. Questions 10-142 were posted on October 2, 2017.

143. Question: “Section L, Factor D - Past Performance, Tab 1 - Subfactor 1 - Organizational Experience” Based on the government's response to question number 58, does the same standard apply to subfactor 1, Organizational Experience as it relates to only citing affiliate experience if they will have meaningful involvement in the performance of the new contract?

The Q&A for #58 follows.

58. Question: "Section L, L.14, Past Performance" Can the offeror submit a recent and relevant past performance project performed by an affiliate of the offeror if the offeror entity plans to use the affiliate’s same capabilities or subject matter experts (e.g., for building and maintaining a network of providers) under the MFLC contract that is described for the past performance project by the affiliate?

Answer: In order to use recent and relevant past performance of an affiliate, offerors must also demonstrate sufficient evidence of the affiliate's commitment to successful performance of the new MFLC contract, and that the affiliate has meaningful involvement in the performance of the new contract.

Answer: This question was received during the extension period for questions related to Wage Determination No. 2017-0801. (Reference Amendment 0003.) The Government will not be answering this question.

144. Question: Regarding the answer previously provided for Question 32, we respectively request clarification. Please clarify if Prime offered are to submit a maximum of 3 past performance citations, or can they submit “at least 3” as stated in section M.

The Q&A for #32 follows.

32. Question: "Section L, L.14, Past Performance" Section L, Volume V, Tab 2 instructs the offeror to “provide descriptions of three recent and relevant past performance projects for the prime offeror.” Tab 3 states that the “offeror shall submit at least three questionnaire responses of past performance for the prime offeror, for the same references described in the Past Performance Descriptions.” Please confirm, consistent with subcontractor descriptions and questionnaires. Tab 2 instructions should be to provide descriptions of at least three recent and relevant past performance projects for the prime offeror.

Answer: Volume V Tab 2 requires the offeror to describe 3 past performance references for the prime offeror, and 2 references for each major subcontractor. Tab 3 requires the offeror to submit completed past performance questionnaires for each prime and subcontractor reference provided in Tab 2.

Answer: This question was received during the extension period for questions related to Wage Determination No. 2017-0801. (Reference Amendment 0003.) The Government will not be directly answering this question. Refer to Section M, Factor D - Past Performance, Subfactor 2 - Past Performance.

145. Question: Ref. the IDIQ pricing spreadsheet: Locations listed below are included in the footprint data but are absent from the IDIQ pricing spreadsheet. Please verify if the footprint data is accurate and the IDIQ pricing spreadsheet needs to be updated.

Answer: This question was received during the extension period for questions related to Wage Determination No. 2017-0801. (Reference Amendment 0003.) The Government will not be directly answering this question. Refer to Section B - IDIQ Pricing.

146. Question: Ref. Answers 51 and 52: Please clarify what OCONUS travel costs are reimbursable. For example, is housing, per diem, rental car, gas, etc. for the duration of an OCONUS assignment fully reimbursable?

Answer: This question was received during the extension period for questions related to Wage Determination No. 2017-0801. (Reference Amendment 0003.) The Government will not be answering this question.

147. Question: The completion of the Attachment 2 Scalable Capacity and Attachment 3 Pricing spreadsheets is extremely complex, and requires coordination across all teammates. Since the Government has made changes to both artifacts, we respectfully request an extension to adjust, finalize and package a complete proposal.

Answer: The Government does not anticipate an extension at this time.

148. Question: Professional Compensation Plan. Ref. answer 79 and 121: Compensation packages must be comparable with incumbents however that information is unavailable. As such, please verify that the hourly wage rate as referenced in the statement "Employee Class: Social Work Series 0185 – GS-9; Monetary Wage: $26.34 / hour." accurately reflects wages for Counselors supporting this requirement.

Answer: The hourly wage rate referenced in FAR Clause 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires is not based on incumbent employee compensation. The wage at 52.222-42 identifies the classes of service employees expected to be employed under the contract and states the wages that would be payable if those individuals were employed by the contracting agency. As such, the rate is not from incumbent compensation information. It is from the 2017 General Schedule, 9th pay grade, step 1, hourly pay rate.

The Government will not reveal the incumbent employee compensation rates.

Professional Compensation Plans may include - but are not limited to - salary surveys, salary trends, and studies that support the proposed salaries and fringe benefits. (Reference FAR 2.2203)

149. Question: Professional Compensation Plan & Service Contract Act. In reference to Answer 79: Section M Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees states that “…proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.” The introduction of the Wage Determination included with Amendment 2 presents a major conflict with regards to appropriate compensation levels to maintain program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of competent professional service employees. Considering the introduction of the Wage Determination issued with Amendment 2, will the Section M evaluation criteria be revised accordingly?

Answer: There is no conflict. The Wage Determination is for a different group of employees than those that meet the definition of professional employees, as described in 29 CFR 541. (Also reference FAR Subpart 22.11.) An Offeror’s solution may only involve employees covered by Wage Determinations under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute (also known as the Service Contract Act - SCA), the solution may only involve employees that are designated as professionals under 29 CFR 541, or the solution may present a mix of both. It is important to understand that there are differences for each group.

Professional Employees:

The Professional Compensation Plan provision at 52.222-46 is required for professional employees described in 29 CFR 541. The evaluation required for those individuals is NOT applicable to employees that are covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute. In other words, Offerors ONLY prepare Professional Compensation Plans for employees that meet the criteria to be considered professional employees and are NOT covered by SCA.

SCA-covered Employees:

The Wage Determination provided at Amendment 0002, applies to employees that are covered under the SCA. Program Management employees - where not exempt under 29 CFR 541 - may also be SCA covered employees. For SCA-covered employees, the Wage Determination provides rate and health & welfare minimums that covered employees must be paid for a particular area. Offerors may not compensate their SCA-covered employees below these minimum rates. Offerors may compensate their SCA-covered employees at levels above these minimum rates in order to ensure the counselor criteria described in Section C of the solicitation, Performance Work Statement, are met.

Answer:

Qualifications and Experience: Offerors must propose personnel with the mandatory qualifications and experience required to perform as defined within the Performance Work Statement. (Reference: D17PS00077, Section C, 4.2-4.4, pp 7-9). The Wage Determination description for “Military and Family Life Counselor” does not change the requirement as defined in the Performance Work Statement.

Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires: The Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires is advisory in nature, and is not related to either market rates for counselors, or to incumbent compensation for counselors. See the response to Question # 148 for more information regarding the source for the wage at 52.222-42.

Wage Determination Compliance: Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards statute (also known as the Service Contract Act - SCA) is only required where contractor personnel are determined to be SCA-covered employees. Where they are SCA-covered employees, the Wage Determination establishes minimum hourly and Health & Welfare rates. Offerors comply with SCA by not paying below the Wage Determination rates. There are no compliance issues created by paying wages and Health & Welfare rates in excess of those amounts stated by the Wage Determination. The Government expects Offerors to propose personnel and state a basis for the compensation of personnel with the mandatory qualifications and experience required in the Performance Work Statement (Reference: D17PS00077, Section C, 4.2-4.4, pp 7-9).

151. Question: Section M, paragraph (a) requires a price narrative that speaks to fringe benefits as well as national and regional compensation surveys and studies. However, the implementation of a Wage Determination mandates required compliance with the rates included in the WD and corresponding fringe benefits. As such, the need to identify salary surveys and fringe benefits plans is negated. Please revise Section M to take into consideration the inclusion of the Wage Determination or consider classifying Counselors in support of this unique MFLC program as Exempt from any Wage Determination.

Answer: The inclusion of the wage determination does not in and of itself mean that the Government has classified counselors as non-exempt service employees. Offerors have the action to determine if the personnel they are proposing meet the definition of a service employee as defined in FAR Clause 52.222-41, that is, if an executive, administrative, or professional exemption applies. If it is determined that an exemption to the definition of a service employee applies, then the provision at FAR 52.222-46 is applicable and the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees Section M evaluation criteria is applicable as well. For further information, reference the Wage Determination narrative in Amendment 0004, and the answer to Question # 149.

152. Question: Section M, paragraph (c) articulates the Governments concern with the quality and stability of the work force based on unrealistic professional compensation plans. However, the inclusion of a Wage Determination imposes a major risk as pay rates in compliance with the rates included within the Wage Determination will result in significant salary reductions to the current workforce, and furthermore, the low wages in the Wage Determination will greatly hinder recruitment efforts to staff positions with quality Counselors. This will have a tremendous negative impact on the quality of service being provided to Military personnel and their families. Please revise Section M to take into consideration the inclusion of the Wage Determination or consider classifying Counselors in support of this unique MFLC program as Exempt from any Wage Determination.

Answer: The inclusion of the wage determination does not in and of itself mean that the Government has classified contractor personnel as non-exempt service employees. Offerors have the action to determine if their employees meet the definition of a service employee as defined in FAR Clause 52.222-41, that is, if an executive, administrative, or professional exemption applies. If it is determined that an exemption to the definition of a service employee applies, then the provision at FAR 52.222-46 is applicable and the Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees Section M evaluation criteria is applicable as well.

Wage Determinations establish minimum wage and Health &Welfare rates for SCA-covered employees. The Wage Determination does not require compensation reductions. Offerors have every latitude to price at levels above the Wage Determination minimums to allow effective staffing and to ensure expected levels of personnel quality for SCA-covered employees. For further information, refer to Amendment 0004 and to the answer to Question #149.

153. Question: Given the introduction of a Wage Determination with 175 rates, offerors must now properly align each city, state location within the footprint to the corresponding county Wage Determination rate. This requires a totally restructured pricing approach and pricing strategy. It also requires a thorough review of our pool of counselors to ensure their salary expectations align with the corresponding wage rate for their location as specified within the WD. Introduction of the Wage Determination at this phase in the solicitation process introduces a material change and necessitates additional time to assess corresponding baseline/scalable capacities, and complete the Attachment 3 pricing worksheets. Therefore offeror requests an extension to the proposal due date.

Answer: The Government does not anticipate an extension at this time.

154. Question: We understand the current counselors, especially the embedded counselors, work in excess of 40 hours per week. Since the counselors must now be paid hourly per the new wage determination, will the government by reimbursing for overtime hours worked?

Answer: The understanding is incorrect. Counselors do not work in excess of 40 hours per week. Reference the response to question # 82.

155. Question: Will the government be reimbursing for time and half pay for hours worked on holidays as required under this wage determination and SCA non-exempt employees?

Answer: The Wage Determination does not specify time and one-half as a rate of pay for holidays. The Government does not directly compensate contractor personnel for holidays, sick leave, or vacation time under the Service Contract Labor Standards statute as Contract Line Item Numbers. Compensation is a matter between the contractor and their employees. The Government expects a fully burdened labor rate for services provided. Reference 29 CFR 4.174 - Meeting requirements for holiday fringe benefits.

156. Question: Is there a DOL-specific wage determination for the Military and Family Life Counselors working on the current contract?

Answer: At this time, there is not a DOL-specific wage determination for the Military and Family Life counselors working on the current contracts. The Department of Labor is expected to issue a retroactive Wage Determination for the current contracts.

157. Question: Will the government be providing the number of current incumbents that have worked under this contract for at one year (sic) since they will now be eligible for 2 weeks of paid vacation if they continue, per this wage determination?

Answer: A seniority list is required if contractors are performing work at Federal facilities and are to be replaced by a contractor that may hire some or all of the contractor’s employees. The departing contractor must furnish the Contracting Officer a certified list of all service employees on the contractor or subcontractor’s payroll during the last month of the contract, along with their anniversary dates of employment. This information cannot be required earlier than permitted by FAR 22.1020 and subparagraph (n) of the SCA clause (52.222-41)-- no later than 10 days before contract completion. The purpose of the information is to assist the new contractor in complying with SCA vacation requirements. The seniority list is not intended as an aid to offerors for contract bidding/pricing purposes and therefore should not be provided to any offeror or awardee prior to the beginning of contract performance.

158. Question: Wage Determination 2017-0801, rev. 1 provided for the MFLC program does not include counties and corresponding rates for over 100 cities in which MFLC services are to be provided as identified within the footprint data (Sec L – Attachment 1 – IDIQ Baseline Footprint). The rates for these missing counties are required to accurately price and comply with DOL regulations given these positions are now classified as subject to the Service Contract Act. For example, Eufaula, Alabama is located in Barbour County. However, the Wage Determination provided with Amendment 2 does not have a rate for Barbour County, Alabama. Please provide a revised Wage Determination that completely addresses and provides rates for all cities in which MFLC services are to be provided as identified in the Footprint data.

Answer: Amendment 0004 provides a plug rate that Offerors are to use for any location not specifically stated in Wage Determination 2017-0801, Revision 1 (Dated 10/2/2017).

159. Question: The omission of over 100 wage rates from the Wage Determination makes it impossible for the offeror to develop an accurate pricing proposal and therefore, no further action can be taken with completion of Attachment 3 until a complete Wage Determination is provided. Given the fact the Wage Determination issued with Amendment 2 is incomplete, the offeror request an extension be granted to the proposal due date of at least 2 weeks after a complete Wage Determination is provided.

Answer: Amendment 0004 provides a plug rate that Offerors are to use for any location not specifically stated in Wage Determination 2017-0801, Revision 1 (Dated 10/2/2017).

160. Question: The wage determination included with amendment 0002 sets wages for the Military Family Life Counselors roughly equivalent to GS09 (with several localities being below this rate at close to GS07). Given the education and licensure requirements for MFLCs, the wages on the WD are too low to recruit, hire and retain fully qualified employees. For example, the similar occupation of Advocate, governed by WD 2014-0042, sets a minimum wage equivalent to GS12 (with locality adjustments), yet the Advocate is only required to have a “Bachelor’s degree in case management or social work and/or three to five years of experience in case management or social work”. Another similar occupation, Victim Advocate, governed by WD 2013-0093, sets a minimum wage of GS09, and does not require any specific education or experience. The Master’s degree and licensure requirements for the MFLC warrant a higher minimum wage than either of the other cited occupations. Would the government consider increasing the minimum wage for the MFLCs to GS12?

Answer: The Government will not consider revising the rate referenced in FAR Clause 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires. Reference the answer to Question # 148 for further information.

161. Question: The MFLC wage determination does not include any education/experience requirements. Is it the government’s intent that the WD occupation description supersede the qualifications described in Section B, paragraph 4.2?

Answer: No. The qualifications described in Section C, Paragraph 4.2 represent the Government’s minimum qualifications for all non-medical counselors and are not superseded by the inclusion of the Wage Determination. Reference the answer to Question # 150.

162. Question: The proposal states that an MFLC counselor will be licensed in the state where work is performed. This requirement does not align with the labor category description. Could consideration be given to updating the WD labor category description to match this performance requirement?

Answer: The qualifications for a non-medical counselor as articulated in the Section C, Paragraph 4.2 of the Performance Work Statement were taken into consideration by the DOL in the development of the Wage Determination. Therefore, the Government will not consider requesting DOL to reconsider the labor category descriptions that are included in the Wage Determination. Reference the answer to Question # 150.

163. Question: Many of the minimum wages in the amendment 0002 WD are below the government equivalent rate of GS09 contained in FAR 52.222-42. For example, Jefferson County, Alabama has a wage of $19.81/hour, while the 2017 GS09 rate for Jefferson County is $23.85/hour; and the WD wage for Pima County, Arizona is listed as $20.79/hour, while the 2017 GS09 rate is $23.97/hour. Many other localities have rates that are below the 2017 GS09 minimum hourly wage of $23.85/hour. Could the government please clarify which wage is applicable to the MFLCs, the GS09 wage or the wage determination hourly rate?

Answer: The Government’s selection of the Social Work Series 0185 - GS-09 pay grade to include in FAR Provision 52.222-42 – Statement of Equivalent Rates for federal hires, was based on the Government’s analysis of the duties/responsibilities/and educational requirements associated with the Social Work 0185 job series at the GS-09 pay grade. The fact that the Wage Determination includes minimum hourly rates that are below the hourly wage associated with the equivalent rate for federal hires, does not take into account the additional $4.13 in Health and Welfare EO benefit that each employee is entitled to if the offeror determines that the employee is non-exempt from the Service Contract Labor Standards. In addition, the wage determination represents the minimum rate that the non-exempt employees shall be paid. Offerors are only constrained in that they cannot propose hourly rates lower than that minimum rate. However, offerors can pay employees more than the minimum rate specified in the Wage Determination.

164. Question: The Task Order pricing is by hour or by day, depending on the CLIN. Can the government please provide guidance on how SCA price adjustments due to DOL wage or health & welfare changes will be priced? That is, with no pre-determined set of hours or days how will the government estimate the cost of DOL WD adjustments?

Answer: This is a contract administration issue that will not be addressed at this time.

165. Question: The WD includes mention of EO 13706 establishing a sick leave allowance for Federal Contractors. Is it the government’s intent that offerors be required to provide backfill for any MFLC using their sick leave?

Answer: The Government will examine service needs as gaps in service occur, and may require backfill for instances when there are breaks in service delivery.

166. Question: DOL wage determinations often contain Good Friday as an additional holiday. For example, Hardin County, KY has Good Friday as an additional Federal Holiday. Are offerors only required to offer the 10 holidays listed in the WD? Or are offerors expected to conform with the local holidays expressed in other WDs that cover the locality as well?

Answer: The Wage Determination incorporated in the contract defines holidays for performance under the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract and subsequent task orders. Reference 29 CFR 4.174 for further information.

167. Question: The WD list of counties does not cover all of the locations listed in Section L attachment 1 - IDIQ Baseline Footprint. For example, Alexandria, VA; San Francisco, CA; Grissom AFB, IN; and Kansas City, KS do not have the counties they are located in listed on the WD. There are many missing locations. What should offerors use as a wage rate for the missing locations?

Answer: Amendment 0004 provides a plug rate that Offerors are to use for any location not specifically stated in Wage Determination 2017-0801, Revision 1 (Dated 10/2/2017).

168. Question: Referencing the Wage Determination (WD) provided with RFP Amendment 0002, the description for “Military and Family Life Counselor” in the WD does not include significant position description elements that are called out in the MFLC solicitation PWS. Specifically, the WD position does not include requirements for personnel with “a Master’s degree from an accredited graduate program in a mental health related field such as social work, psychology, marriage/family therapy, or counseling; a valid unrestricted counseling license or certification from a state, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or commonwealth that grants authority to provide counseling services as an independent practitioner in their respective fields; and demonstrated counseling competence preceding their employment with the MFLC program” as referenced in the referenced Section paragraph.

This raises a significant question regarding whether personnel provided under the wage and benefits stated in the WD are applicable for meeting specific MFLC labor requirements of the solicitation.

a) Please advise whether personnel who fully meet the job description provided in the WD are satisfactory for assignment under the MFLC contract.

b) Additionally, please advise if counselors who fully meet the requirements stated in Section C of the solicitation, that greatly exceed the position description provided in the WD, are not expected to operate under the terms of the provided WD.

Answer: a) The qualifications described in Section C, Paragraph 4.2 represent the Government’s minimum qualifications for all non-medical counselors. b) The inclusion of the wage determination does not in and of itself mean that the Government has classified any contractor personnel as non-exempt service employees. Offerors have the action to determine if their employees are proposing meet the definition of a service employee as defined in FAR Clause 52.222-41, that is, if an executive, administrative, or professional exemption applies. If it is determined that an exemption to the definition of a service employee applies, then the Wage Determination is not applicable. See the answer to Question # 150.

169. Question: In accordance with the MFLC RFP, Section B.5, fully burdened rates for MFLC support are inclusive of profit, fringe benefits, salary, general and administrative, program management, and indirect costs. Based on this, the Fixed-Unit Price for MFLC support will include the costs for the wage-determined MFLC wages and costs allocated for program management. Bidders will likely escalate their program management cost based on established corporate policies. As specified in FAR 52.222-43, incorporated into the contract, economic adjustments to the MFLC wage component are limited to changes in the Wage Determination over the life of the contract.

To simplify the process of implementing WD-driven adjustments to MFLC wage costs based on the Wage Determination that will occur at a various times over the life of the MFLC contract, we request that the Government establish a separate CLIN for Program Management and not include those costs as part of the MFLC labor CLINs.

Answer: This is a contract administration issue that will not be addressed at this time.

170. Question: With the issuance of this specific wage determination, is it the intention of the Government to classify the Military and Family Life Counselors as SCA non-exempt?

Answer: No. The inclusion of the wage determination does not in and of itself mean that the Government has classified any contractor personnel as non-exempt service employees. Offerors have the action to determine if the employees they are proposing meet the definition of a service employee as defined in FAR Clause 52.222-41, that is, if an executive, administrative, or professional exemption applies. See Amendment 0004 for information regarding the criteria that determine whether an employee is SCA-covered.

171. Question: The WD for Military and Family Life Counselors classifies them as non-exempt employees eligible for overtime, which is typically paid for hours over 40 hours per week or hours over 8 hours per day. Given that the Government has mandated a non-exempt status for MFLCs, we request that the Government modify the terms of the solicitation to permit invoicing of overtime rates as applicable for MFLC labor.

If the Government does not desire to include overtime pay as an acceptable cost under the contract, then we request that the Government modify the solicitation to indicate that the Government will not require MFLCs to work hours that will result in overtime compensation. Without inclusion of overtime pay as an acceptable cost – or the Government’s guarantee that MFLCS will not be required to work in situations where overtime pay is required – the Government would be in the position of requiring contractors to incur costs and then refusing to reimburse legitimate costs.

Answer: Reference the response to question # 82. Reference Section L, Tab 2, IDIQ Price Proposal - Section B - IDIQ Pricing Spreadsheet, p. 20. “A day is defined as eight hours of service.”

172. Question: The change introduced in Amendment 0002, incorporating the WD classifying MFLCs as non-exempt employees, introduces a wide variety of complexities into the bid. These complexities include areas such as: assessment and accounting for overtime in pricing, computation of Government-mandated leave and the reconciliation of the conflicts between the RFP functional requirement that require delivering a flexible 40-hour work week for the full period of rotational assignments and the mandated requirements for leave for non-exempt employees. As a result of these complexities AND the need for contractors to receive Government responses to questions related to RFP Amendment 0002, introducing the Wage Determination, we request that the Government extend the proposal due date to a time three weeks from the date Government responses to Amendment 0002 questions are released to offerors.

Answer: Overtime will not be available. Counselors are required to work a highly flexible 40 hour work week. (Reference the response to Question # 171.) The Government will not be extending the closing date/time of the RFP.

173. Question: It appears from the RFP and attachments that it is the Government’s intention to require CONUS MFLC Rotational counselors to work 5 days a week, 52 weeks per year. The number of days on the task order pricing is 148,090 and the corresponding footprint is 569. Note, 148,090/569=260 days. 260/5 days per week=52 weeks. Under the WD MFLCs are allowed holidays, sick time, and vacation days.

Given the Government-mandated classification of MFLCs to non-exempt status under the WD issued with Amendment 0002, MFLCs will be required to receive mandatory leave for vacation, holidays, sick leave, etc. With these statutory requirements, the Government has created an Impossibility of Performance situation with the current MFLC PWS by requiring basically full time, 40-hours/week performance by MFLCs and encouraging long term (i.e., multiple rotations for periods of 1-year or more) for MFLC counselors. The requirements to encourage continuity of service imply a single MFLC delivering service for an assignment. With the mandatory leave requirements, a single MFLC (i.e., a single individual) would not be able to deliver the required services over an extended periods (e.g., more than six months).

To correct this apparent flaw in the solicitation, we request that the Government modify the requirement of basically full-time, 40-hour/week attendance by MFLCs to a lower number of hours/week that accounts for the Government-mandated leave hours required by the Wage Determination. Alternatively, the solicitation could be amended to explicitly recognize that multiple personnel could be used to fulfil a rotational assignment, with the understanding that costs for all personnel required for fulfillment would be billable under the contract.

Answer: It is the Government’s position to have all positions filled for all of the available work days within a counselor’s assigned period of service. The contractor is expected to propose how they will utilize their network to provide coverage when a counselor is unable to provide services.

174. Question: Does the Government intend to incorporate 52.222-62, Paid Sick Leave Under Executive Order 13706 (JAN 2017) (E.O. 13706), in order to conform with the notice provided in the wage determination?

Answer: The clause 52.222-62 has been selected in 52.212-5. Section I of the solicitation has been amended.

175. Question: We are asking about the SCA? There is a disconnect between Section L Amendment 1 L.0, and Amendment 3. It appears to be what the government wants us to use; however, there is a massive disconnect with the rates compared to the current rates. It appears the DOL WD description and subsequent rates appear not to take into consideration the licensure and educational requirement identified in the RFP and does not support practices at the full clinical level of effort. Please confirm the WD is correct?

Answer: The Wage Determination provided by the U.S. Department of Labor has taken into account the licensure, educational requirement, and level of effort as described in the Performance Work Statement (Section C, Request for Proposal D17PS00077). See also the response to Question #150.