Questions and Answers FA301620R0058.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

FA301620R0058

1. Question: Is this a new requirement?

Answer: No

2. Question: If this is an existing requirement are the positions currently filled?

Answer: Yes

3. Question: 3. What is the previous contract number these services?

Answer: FA301617D0019

4. Question: Will CPARS be accepted instead of PPQs?

Answer: In accordance with (IAW) Section II of Attachment 6, “Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Procedures,” “Offerors shall submit the Past Performance List of

References, Attachment 3 and send blank Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), Attachment 4, to present and/or past Government/Industry customers for contracts considered relevant and recent.” CPARS will not be accepted instead of PPQs.

5. ? Question: Do you consider the Optometrist to be the only professional position requiring a comp plan?

Answer: The Professional positions requiring a compensation plan are listed in

Attachment 6, Section I – Administrative Plan.

6. Question: On the PPQ it states all PPQs have a due date of 6/15/2020 and it is also in a PDF form as with all other documents. Does the government object to us creating Word documents for these two forms: (Attachments 3 & 4)? or will the government be attaching editable formats?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, attachment 4, Amended PPQ form.

7. Question: The ITO (Instructions to Offerors) refers to turning in "All packages requiring fill-in information must be returned with the offeror’s proposal, unless otherwise changed via sol amendment." Is this referring to the first page of the SF 1449? (Will the amendments also be fill in?) and for the Administrative section do you require only the 1 "fill in" page be turned in with our proposal or do you want page 2 as well?

Answer: See the information added to the amended solicitation, Attachment 6, Section 1, “Administrative.”

8. Question: The ITO states that there are 4 sections "PROPOSAL PREPARATION

INSTRUCTIONS: Provide one (1) electronic proposal. The proposal shall be submitted in four

(4) sections: Administrative, Past Performance, Price, and Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees" but later in the ITO it states there are 3 Sections: Section I –

Administrative, Section II - Past Performance, Section III-Price. Does the government want 3 sections with the PECP placed in the Administrative portion after the SF 1449 and any SF 30's?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 6, Section IV. The PECP should be placed in Section IV. There is no longer a requirement to add it in Sections I and III.

9. Question: Does the government want a Comp Plan included with the Price sheet in section III for

Price? Can we use our own Comp Plan as long as it has all factors listed in the Price ITO section?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 6, Section IV. The PECP should be placed in Section IV. There is no longer a requirement to add it in Sections I and III. Section IV provides specific instructions on how the PECP should be submitted to ensure all required information is included.

10. Question: Attch 1 PWS: 1.5.7.5 Closures: The contractor personnel will work only for actual hours worked, Can the government give us an estimation of Training or Family Down Days?

Answer: We do not have projected down days this time for FY21. Based on prior year, we have Training days once a month (typically last Wed of the month).

As for Family days these are the days for FY 20:

the Friday before Memorial day, business day before or after 4th of July, Friday before Labor Day, Friday after Thanksgiving Day, Dec 24 (or Friday before or Monday after if the observed Federal Holiday is Dec 24 or 26 such as when Dec 25 falls on a weekend), Dec 31 (or the Friday before or Monday after if Dec 31 or Jan 2 is the observed

Federal Holiday such as when Jan 1 fall on a weekend).

11. Question: Who is the current incumbent contractor, what is the current contract number, what is the current and overall cost for the current contract?

Answer: One Source PCS, LLC, FA301617D0019

12. Question: Are there current contractor incumbent personnel working on this contract and can we get the number of years that each has worked in their position?

Answer: Optometrists:

1 FTE 16 yrs

1 FTE 13 yrs

Laser Center Associate Director/Research Assistant

1 FTE 20 yrs

Refractive Research Surgical technician:

1 FTE 19 yrs

1 FTE 10 yrs

1 FTE 18 yrs

Refractive Research Technician:

1 FTE 6 mos

1 FTE 1 yr

1 FTE 9 yrs

1 FTE 15 yrs

1 FTE 5 yrs

1 FTE 8 yrs

1 FTE 15 yrs

Administrative Service/Operations Manager:

1 FTE 6 mos

13. Question: Is it a requirement of this contract to provide 2, 3 or 4 weeks of vacation to the employee even if we hire Independent Contractors?

Answer: This contract has no vacation requirement for independent contractors.

14. Question: Do current employees receive bonuses as part of their benefits? What is the current requirement for CME reimbursement?

Answer: Receipts and proof of attendance documents such as their badge/pass are required for CME reimbursement.

15. Question: For evaluation purposes: it seems the government intends to award an LPTA. Does the government intend to award this LPTA? or will someone with EXCEPTIONAL past performance be considered?

Answer: IAW Attachment 6, FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, “Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than highest rated offeror in past performance… If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, past performance for the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order, by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, or if no offers are judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, until all offerors are evaluated. The CO shall then make an integrated assessment best value/tradeoff award decision.”

16. Question: ITO page 4 paragraph 2 states: The Government intends to issue a contract utilizing a best value/trade-off approach where past performance is significantly more important than price, but ITO page 4 paragraph 4 also states: For the purposes of identifying the order past performance evaluations will be conducted, offers shall be ranked according to price, from lowest to highest. Will the Government confirm that this solicitation is not an LPTA and will not use an

LPTA evaluation for this effort as it is currently indicated in ITO page 4 paragraph 4?

Answer: IAW Attachment 6, FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS, “Tradeoff considerations may result in the determination that it is in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than highest rated offeror in past performance… If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, past performance for the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order, by price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, or if no offers are judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating, until all offerors are evaluated. The CO shall then make an integrated assessment best value/tradeoff award decision.”

17. Question: ITO page 5, paragraph 2 states: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Past performance is significantly more important than price. Will the government confirm it will rank offerors past performance rating from Substantial confidence to unknown first before price evaluation?

Answer: The Government will follow the evaluation factors for award as written in the solicitation. For the purposes of identifying the order past performance evaluations will be conducted, offers shall be ranked according to price, from lowest to highest.

18. Question: The government instruction has several ambiguities with contradictory information around evaluation and basis for the award. The ITO references the best value and LPTO evaluation. To enable offerors, prepare proposals intelligently, will the government provide sufficient clarity to the evaluation factor and basis for an award for this solicitation?

Answer: There is no Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation in the process, as it is currently written in Attachment 6 of the solicitation.

19. Question: PWS page 8 (Optometrist) Degree/Education (5.2.4) : Doctor of Optometry Degree from an accredited 4 year college approved by HQ USAF/SG. Will the government also include the verbiage: Or Accreditation Council on Optometric Education (ACOE) accredited optometry program and possess a Doctor of Optometry degree (O.D.)?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 1, PWS. Part 5.

20. Question: Are the 4 sections requested to be in one volume or in 4 separate volumes?

Answer: IAW the solicitation, there is no requirement for volumes.

21. Question: There is no clarification on what we should include in the administrative volume.

What is discussed in the admin volume is the PECP info, but I believe that info should go in

Section IV - Compensation for Professional Employees. Can you please clarify?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 6, Section I, “Administrative” for instructions.

22. Question: Would you like the compensation plan(PECP) in Section I admin or Section III Price?

It is referenced in both sections.

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 6, Section IV. The PECP should be placed in Section IV. There is no longer a requirement to add it in Sections I and III.

23. Question: The return date listed on the past performance questionnaire has already passed.

Please confirm that completed past performance questionnaires are due back to the Government by the closing time of the solicitation rather than the date listed on the questionnaire.

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 4.

24. Question: Referencing Attachment 6, 52.212-1, Section II, b. on page 2 – The solicitation states that “evaluation of PPI will take into account past performance information regarding the offeror’s experience as a prime or subcontractor only.” We assume this would extend to prime past performance where the offeror was a member of a joint venture. Can the Government confirm that past performance where an offeror was a member of a joint venture will be considered?

Answer: IAW the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 6, Section I, a Joint

Venture (JV) will be considered a sole business entity, therefore, past performance as a part of a JV will be considered.

25. Question: PWS 5.4.4.1 states that the work schedule will be “0600 to 1700 Monday thru Friday flex schedule”. Can the Government provide an example of what a flex schedule would look like for these services?

Answer: Flex hours mean the employees can come in at various times as long as they come in within those hours (0600-1700, according to the schedule assigned by their clinic supervisor) and do not go beyond a total of 40 hours per week.

26. Question: Referencing PWS 1.5.8, can the Government provide historical information in regards to how frequently HCWs are reassigned to another location?

Answer: An example of time they have been "reassigned" was when the pandemic started and they had to be assigned to work from home.

27. Question: The PWS makes multiple references to the “Surgical Coordinator” position, however this position is not listed on the price sheet. Can the Government clarify which position this is on the price sheet or provide an updated price sheet reflecting this position?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 4, PWS and amended

Attachment 5, Pricing. The term “Surgical Coordinator” has been replaced with

“Operations/Administrative Manager” throughout.

28. Question: Are there any current vacancies on the present contract and if so, can the Government disclose which positions are currently vacant?

Answer: There are no current vacancies.

29. Question: The solicitation is currently awarded based on the lowest price with substantial confidence. The lowest offer could potentially result in the loss of long-tenured incumbents as offerors attempt to lower their prices. Will the government consider changing the evaluation strategy to a best value award?

Answer: IAW the solicitation, FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items, the

Government intends to issue a contract utilizing a best value/trade-off approach where past performance is significantly more important than price.

30. Question: The Solicitation states non-personal services include an Operations Manager. Yet the

PWS states non-personal the Surgical Coordinator. Can the Government please clarify what is non-personal service positions?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 4, PWS and amended

31. Question: Can the government clarify that Administrative Manager and the Operations Manager are the same position?

Answer: See the amended solicitation, amended Attachment 4, PWS and amended

32. Question: The PWS states for Optometrists (Credentialed), the Degree/Education (5.2.4): is a

Doctor of Optometry Degree from an accredited 4 year college approved by HQ USAF/SG. Can the government inform contractors where there is a list of approved college programs HQ

USAF/SG to avoid delays in submitting qualified candidates?

Answer: We are not aware of a list of college programs approved separately by HQ

USAF/SG. The Government approves the programs accredited by the official optometry accreditation body.