GRAMS-Attachment_8-Questions_and_Answers.xlsx

HT0011-15-R-0010

Q002 Are the resumes and letters of intent included in the 55 page limit for the Technical Proposal? No. There is no page limit for resumes for Key Personnel and letters of intent. See changes in amendment 01

Q003 Is there a page limit for each resume? No. See response to Q002.

Q004 The Key Personnel requirements have changed significantly from those listed in the draft RFP. By including the new requirement for all proposed Key Personnel to have a "Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification or documented equivalent" in addition to experience within a Federal Health system/organization for each position, the government appears to have already identified specific individuals and has drastically limited the competition for this opportunity. Will the government consider removing the "Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification" requirement to match the previous draft RFP specifications (those for which companies have already begun recruiting and/or now have these resources in place)? The Government has revised the requirements for key personnel and has modified the language in PWS 11 "Key Personnel and Staffing". See changes in amendment 01

Q005 If the certification requirements for key personnel remain in effect, will the government consider allowing proposed key personnel candidates with the required years of experience within a Federal Health system/organization to complete all necessary training/procure certifications within 3-months of contract award? See response to Q004.

Q006 For Key Personnel Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification requirement, which of the following training courses/certifications does the government consider as “documented equivalent?”

a) Completion of DAU Course CLR 101 (Joint Capabilities Integration & Development System)

b) Completion of DAU Course RQM 110 (Core Concepts for Requirements Management)

c) SMC / CSPO (Certified Scrum Product Owner)

d) PMI – PBA – Professional in Business Analysis Certification

e) IIBA – CBAP – Certified Business Analysis Professional

f) IIBA – CCBA – Certification of Competency in Business Analysis

g) Six Sigma Black Belt - IASSC Certified Lean Six Sigma Black Belt (ICBB)

h) PMP

i) Other (please specify) courses/certifications does the government consider as “documented equivalent?” See response to Q004.

Q007 Does the requirement for a secret clearance for 3 identified key personnel indicate the individuals must be able to obtain a secret clearance upon contract award, or indicate they are required to have an active secret clearance before contract award? Upon Contract Award as the DD254 will need to be staffed and signed by the winning offeror acknowledging the requirements of the contract. Offerors should propose personnel that they feel will have no issues obtaining a clearance.

Q008 Will the government consider extending the due date by 2-weeks, with proposals due by COB 13 April? See RFP amendment 01-New due date is April 06, 2015

Q009 Reference the GRAMS RFP Section 8.1, Organizational Conflict of Interest, Paragraph (2), Subparagraph (iv): This subparagraph states that DHA’s position is that any contractor or subcontractor directly supporting DHMS has an actual or perceived OCI which must be avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. We understand and concur that certain DHMS Contractors and Subcontractors may be performing development, integration, or other work that could constitute an actual or perceived OCI, if they are also performing on GRAMS, as defined in Special Instruction 001, Section (c) contained within the GRAMS RFP. However, we believe that Program Support contractors supporting DHMS fall outside the definition in Paragraph (c) of Special Instruction 001, and that some DHMS Program Management Support Contractors may NOT have an actual or perceived OCI if also supporting DHA GRAMS. Recommendation: Modify RFP 8.1 (2)(iv) to specify that this subparagraph applies to DHMS contractors performing work defined in Special Instruction 001, Paragraph (c). Alternatively, Section 8.1 (2)(iv) could also be modified to exempt or exclude DHMS program support contractors and subcontractors, unless some other form of actual or perceived OCI exists. No changes are being made to OCI clause in reference to this question. If an offeror believes there is an OCI, they are required to submit a mitigation plan.

Q010 referenced on page 128 of the RFP It is noted that Special Instruction 002, referenced on page 128 of the RFP under Key Personnel and Staffing, is not included in the RFP package. Please provide this section. Special Requirment Clause 002 is added, see amendment 01.

Q011 Under the provisions of RFP Section 8.1 Under the provisions of RFP Section 8.1 (4), may a DHMS program support contractor or subcontractor (as defined under Section 8.1 (2)(iv), and as defined in Special Instruction 001 (c)), who does not have an actual or perceived OCI based on the nature of their DHMS work, simply certify within their proposal that there is no actual or perceived OCI, and not submit an OCI Risk Mitigation Plan? DHA no longer requires OCI certifications. See RFP for OCI reporting requirement.

Q012 We understand the intent of the Government’s level of effort estimates is to give offerors some understanding of the effort required to perform the defined tasks at the anticipated workload levels. The following questions are presented to ensure that we have an accurate understanding of the Government’s estimate:

a) In the estimated level of effort table for the Transition-In and Transition-Out period on pages 55-56 of the RFP, one of the listed labor categories is for a Jr. Project Manager. This labor category is only listed in the transition-in/out periods and not in the other tasks. Is this a typo, or does the Government foresee a need for a Jr. Project Manager only during the Transition-In and Transition-Out periods?

b) In the estimated level of effort table for Optional Task 1, the estimated level of effort for the Base Period and Option Period 1 for the Sr. Business Process Reengineering Specialist and Mid System Architect is 3760 hours while in Option Periods 2 and 3 the hours jump to 6280. Is this an error, or does the Government foresee a need to increase the level of effort for these labor categories in this task in Option Periods 2 and 3?

c) The Total Hours listed for the Base Task and Optional Task 1 do not match the sum of the estimated hours listed for each labor category. We recommend the Government release an amendment with a corrected estimated level of effort.

d) The estimated level of effort for one Full –Time Equivalent (FTE) contractor for the Base Period (Base Tasks only) appears to be either 1,727 hours or 1,757 hours. Please clarify.

e) The estimated level of effort for one Full –Time Equivalent (FTE) contractor for Option Period 4 (both Base and Optional Tasks) appears to be either 1,727 hours or 1,757 hours. Please clarify.

f) In the Base Task, the Level of Effort for the Mid System Architect (non-Lead) for both Base Period and Option Period 4 is estimated at 120,890 hours (70 FTEs). Is this supposed to be 12,089 hours (7 FTEs)? 1. Is there an incumbent? If so, who is it?

We understand the intent of the Government’s level of effort estimates is to give offerors some understanding of the effort required to perform the defined tasks at the anticipated workload levels. The following questions are presented to ensure that we have an accurate understanding of the Government’s estimate:

a) In the estimated level of effort table for the Transition-In and Transition-Out period on pages 55-56 of the RFP, one of the listed labor categories is for a Jr. Project Manager. This labor category is only listed in the transition-in/out periods and not in the other tasks. Is this a typo, or does the Government foresee a need for a Jr. Project Manager only during the Transition-In and Transition-Out periods?

b) In the estimated level of effort table for Optional Task 1, the estimated level of effort for the Base Period and Option Period 1 for the Sr. Business Process Reengineering Specialist and Mid System Architect is 3760 hours while in Option Periods 2 and 3 the hours jump to 6280. Is this an error, or does the Government foresee a need to increase the level of effort for these labor categories in this task in Option Periods 2 and 3?

c) The Total Hours listed for the Base Task and Optional Task 1 do not match the sum of the estimated hours listed for each labor category. We recommend the Government release an amendment with a corrected estimated level of effort.

d) The estimated level of effort for one Full –Time Equivalent (FTE) contractor for the Base Period (Base Tasks only) appears to be either 1,727 hours or 1,757 hours. Please clarify.

e) The estimated level of effort for one Full –Time Equivalent (FTE) contractor for Option Period 4 (both Base and Optional Tasks) appears to be either 1,727 hours or 1,757 hours. Please clarify.

f) In the Base Task, the Level of Effort for the Mid System Architect (non-Lead) for both Base Period and Option Period 4 is estimated at 120,890 hours (70 FTEs). Is this supposed to be 12,089 hours (7 FTEs)? 1. Is there an incumbent? If so, who is it?

a. Yes, it was an error in the document and has been corrected. b. Yes, there were some errors in the LOE tables. Corrections have been made to all the tables c. Government agrees and the hours and totals have been adjusted d. It should be 1727 and hours have been adjusted in the LOE tables. NOTE: All the options tasks base year have been reduced from 12 months to 11 months and the LOE was changed in the modfied LOE tables. See changes in amendment 01

Q014 Section 11. Key Personnel and Staffing, page 128, refers to “Special Instruction 002,” however, the RFP only contains Special Instruction 001. Please provide 002. See response to Q010

Q015 Would the Government accept additional years of experience or education as a replacement for any of the certifications for the Key Personnel, considering that the Business Analysis, Requirements Management, and Enterprise Architect certifications are very rare. See response to Q004.

Q016 Almost all Key Personnel require experience in a “large federal health system/organization”. Please define what qualifies as a “large federal health system/organization”? The Military Health System, Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Q017 General Please confirm that Key Personnel resumes are excluded from the 55-page limit for Volume I – Technical. See response to Q002

Q018 General Is there a page limit for Volume 2 – Past/Present Performance? There is no page limit for past performance. See amendment 01

Q019 Page 47, item 6 refers to the use of indexes and dividers for hard copy volumes. However, Section 3.3 at the bottom of the page states that proposals are to be submitted electronically. Please clarify. Must be submitted electronically. See amendment 01

Q020 Considering the Key Personnel requirements and 55-page technical response, would the government consider extending the due date? See response to Q019.

Q021 Under the requirements and labor category descriptions for Key personnel, what is considered a “documented equivalent” to the certifications for the key personnel descriptions as follows:

· Enterprise Architecture Certification through the Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence (EACOE) or documented equivalent.

· Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification or documented equivalent.

See response to Q004.

Q023 52 / 7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/7.2-Total hours The total hours by line item support 46 FTEs, but the grand total on the bottom only supports 45 FTEs for each option period. Will the Government reconcile this conflict? See amendment 01 for changes.

Q024 49/4.0 (iii) Staffing Approach/Bullet 4, Key Personnel and Letters of Intent-Resumes of Key Personnel (IAW PWS paragraph 17) Will the Government identify the location of this reference (IAW PWS para 17? We do not find it in the RFP or in any of the attachments, paragraph listed as 17. See amendment 01 for changes.

Q025 52/7.2/Optional Task Hours-Base Hours plus Option 1-4 Hours Are the hours listed under each optional task separate and distinct FTEs from the hours listed in sub para (1)? Yes.

Q026 114/Section 5.0/ 5.15.2-Task 15, Subtask 2

5.15.2 Subtask 2 - Enterprise Architecture Publication Content Support

5.15.2 Subtask 2 - Business Process Publication Content Support Please clarify the two different titles for Task 15, Subtask 2 that appears on p. 114 of the RFP? Correct title is "Enterprise Architecture Content Publication Support". See amendment 01.

Q027 116/ 5.0/5.16.2-Task 16, Subtask 2

5.16.2 Subtask 2 - Management of The DHA Requirement Managers’ Business Architecture Documents and Artifacts

5.16.2 Subtask 2 - Task 16, Subtask 2 - Management of IM Business Architecture Documents and Artifacts (Deliverable 44) Will the Government reconcile the two different titles for Task 16, Subtask 2 that appear on p. 116 of the RFP? Correct title is "Management of DHA Requirement Managers’ Business Architecture Documents and Artifacts". See amendment 01.

Q028 48/3.4/3.4.1 -Volume 1-Technical Proposal (55 pages limit) Will the Government consider allowing resumes and LOIs to be outside of page count? See response to Q002. See amendment 01

Q029 128–132/11-Key Personnel and Staffing Can work experience substitute for the Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification and the Enterprise Architecture Certification? See response to Q004.

Q030 128–132/11-Key Personnel and Staffing Does the incumbent meet the Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification and the Enterprise Architecture Certification? Question is not revelent.

Q031 128–132/11-Key Personnel and Staffing Is it a requirement to complete the Business Analysis/Requirements Management Certification and the Enterprise Architecture Certification upon submission of the proposals, or can the key staff be enrolled in the course(s) upon submission of the proposal? See response to Q004. See amendment 01.

Q032 52/7.2-Estimated Level of Effort The RFP states, “Offerors may propose different NITAAC labor categories and quantities, but should also provide rationale in the technical volume for the proposed level of effort.”

Does DHA mean that the labor categories have to conform to NITAAC labor categories, as in CIO-SP3 although this is not a CIOSP opportunity?

The inclusion of NITAAC was an error. Labor Categories do not need to conform with NITAAC labor categories. See amendment 01.

Q033 50/6.0/6.2-Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only) Does DHA require that Ability One contractors and any of the other socio-economic category contractors supply one or more of the labor categories proposed, or can the small business subcontractors supply other types of items, such as supplies, and services that are not related to this work effort? Offerors are required to comply with small business participation plan requirement in the solicitation.

Q034 39-Clauses Incorporated by Reference Request that 252.227-7014 be added to the clauses incorporated by reference Clause does not apply to this solicitation.

Q035 39-Clauses Incorporated by Reference Request that 52.219-16, Liquidated Damages – Subcontracting Plan be removed Clause is required per FAR.

Q036 110/ 5.11 Task 11 - Support for DOD/VA HAIG/1-RFP PWS 5.11 requires support for DoD/VA Health Architecture Review Board (HARB) Our research indicates that the HARB has been “sunsetted” in the Heath Executive Council realignment. Will the Government confirm or deny that it requires support for HARB for Task 11? Support for HARB is required. See amendment 01

Q037 48, 3.4.1/C. Transition In and Out-RFP PWS 5.11 requires support for DoD/VA Health Architecture Review Board (HARB) Will the Government specify the number of days it considers optimal for Transition-In from Contract Award?

Will the Government specify the number of days allowed for Transition-Out upon re-compete Contract Award?

Both transition-in and transition-out will be for a period of 1-month.

Q038 55, 7.2, 11-Transition In (PWS 18) Transition Out (PWS 18)-Transition In and Out Will the Government confirm that the reference to PWS 18 in these instances refers to PWS 5.18? Transition activities are discussed in PWS 12. Items that refer to PWS 18 have been changed. See amendment 01.

Q039 129, 10.2, Quality Control Plan-The Contractor shall provide a QCP (Deliverable 55) in accordance with Technical Exhibit 5. Will the Government identify where Technical Exhibit 5 is located in the RFP/Attachments? The reference should refer to Attachment 2. Changes have been made see amendment 01.

Q040 79, 52.212-5, b, ii, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-(ii) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Dec 2010) (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(2) and (3)), in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities. If the subcontract (except subcontracts to small business concerns) exceeds $650,000 ($1.5 million for construction of any public facility), the subcontractor must include 52.219-8 in lower tier subcontracts that offer subcontracting opportunities. Is second-tier (“lower-tier) subcontracting allowed? The only mention in the RFP is in (ii) 52.219-8. At the offeror's descretion.

Q041 80, (iii) 52.222-17, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-(iii) 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified Workers (Jan 2013) (E.O. 13495). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (1) of FAR clause 52.222-17.

Note that the SCA (Service Contract Act) is flowed down. Will the Government be providing the wage determination list? Note that the exemption to SCA clause, which is also flowed down, mentions catalog price list. Will this be provided by the Gov’t? No, the Government deemed the labor categories as professional services.

Q042 80, (iii) 52.222-17, CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS-(iii) 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified Workers (Jan 2013) (E.O. 13495). Flow down required in accordance with paragraph (1) of FAR clause 52.222-17.

In order for the contractors to be compliant with Far 52.222-17, para 1, and develop a staffing approach, we need to know the number and LCAT distribution of personnel of the incumbent. Will the Government provide the existing staffing and distribution of contract personnel? The estimated level of effort is provided based on the existing contract, offerors are encouraged to propose the best solution.

Q043 52/ 7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/7.2 (1)-Configuration Management Specialist Will the Government provide qualifications and a description for this position? Is this position considered Key Personnel? Position is not key personnel. A brief description was added to PWS 11 in the revised PWS. See amendment 01.

Q044 53/7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/ (3) Optional Task 2 –Additional DHMSM Support-Project Manager Should this position be cited as Program Manager or Sr. Project Manager? If not, will the Government please provide qualifications? Is this position considered Key Personnel? Program Manager. Offeror should refer to the description of Program Manager under PWS 11 under key personnel for a general description. This is not key personnel and is an optional task.

Q045 55/7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/ 11, Transition In;-Jr. Project Manager (Project Control) Should this position be cited as a Sr. Project Manager (Requirements [Readiness])*? If not, will the Government provide qualifications for this position? Yes. A correction was made to the LOE tables in amendment 01. The Government has already provided qualifications under PWS 11.

Q046 55/7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/(9) Optional Task 9-Mid Project Manager Are the qualifications for this position the same as the qualifications for the Junior Project Manager? If not, will the Government provide the qualifications for this position? Is this position considered Key Personnel? It is not the same. Offerors should refer to the optional task to develop their staffing for this optional task. This position is not key personnel. No positions under optional tasks are considered key personnel.

Q047 55/7.2, Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (LCAT Chart)/(9) Optional Task 9-Sr. Database Management Specialist Will the Government provide a description and qualifications for this position? Is this position considered Key Personnel? Offerors should refer to the optional task to develop their staffing.

Q047 Page 52/LOE-7.2 Estimated Level of Effort The table indicates the hours for Mid System Architect is 120890 for the Base and Option 4. Are these hours correct?

If these hours are correct why is there such a significant decrease in the hours for Options 1, 2, and 3?

No. See amendment 01.

Q048 100, 106 / Travel-Travel – To Locations Several destinations do not include the sated or location? Aurora, IL or Aurora, OH or Aurora, CO. Please provide the exact destinations travel will be required Aurora, CO. See amendment 01

Q049 Page 56 / Travel-Travel: Estimated to be, and not to exceed, $20,000 in the base period and not to exceed $40,000 in the option periods. Travel will be required for the base and all option period.”

“Optional Travel: Estimated to be, and not to exceed, $10,000 in the base period and not to exceed $15,000 in the option periods.”

Is the NTE for the Option Periods, $40,000 per Option Period? Or is it $40,000 for all of the Option Periods, making it $10,000 per Option Period.

Same question for Optional Travel. $15,000 total or $3,750 per period?

See amendment 01.

Q050 RFP-General Should the Price Volume include the two (2) Copies of the SF 1449, Certificate of Independent Price Determination, Information Regarding Responsibility Matters, OCI Statement/Mitigation Plan, Signed Agreements with Subcontracts, Reps & Certs, Contractor business size representation, and any necessary price narrative?

If included in the Price Volume, please confirm that these items do not count towards any specified page number limitations.

No only one copy is required. See amendment 01

Q051 RFP-General What is the anticipated date of award of the DHA GRAMS contract? This is needed for pricing purposes Estimated contract award date is October 1, 2015 but could be awarded earlier.

Q052 HT0011-15-R-0010-GRAMS-RFP-02-26-15 (RFP) - Page 37-Prohibition on OCI, Special Instruction 001, Item © The RFP states: “Examples include concept exploration and development; system design; system development and integration; Commercial Off‐The‐Shelf (COTS) procurement and integration; internal development testing; deployment; installation; operations; and maintenance. Known, current tasks include end product developments for Defense Healthcare Management Systems. Modernization (DHMSM) and Defense Health Information Technology (DHIT).”

Please clarify what is meant by Defense Health Information Technology (DHIT) in this context.

See amendment 01

Q052 RFP – Page 46 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 2.5, General Instructions The Government is requesting the Offeror’s “anticipated organizational structure,” but does not specify where this information should be provided. Can this be included in Volume 4- Price which does not have a page limitation? Should be included in price volume. See amendment 01

Q053 RFP – Page 46 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 2.5, General Instructions The Government is requesting the Offeror’s “anticipated organizational structure” to include “the prime contractor and first-tier subcontractors.”

Please specify if this organizational structure is intended to depict the Prime contractor’s team at the corporate level or the Offeror’s proposed GRAMS project organization. If it is the GRAMS project organization, it would typically be an integrated project organization with personnel from across the Team. Thus, corporate affiliations are not relevant. Please clarify.

The Government wants the GRAMS project organization.

Q054 RFP – Page 46-Section 2.5, General Instructions (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) The Government is requesting the Offeror’s “anticipated organizational structure” to include “the prime contractor and first-tier subcontractors.”

If this is intended to depict the GRAMS Project organization, at what levels does the Government require the requested “addresses and telephone numbers?” Please specify.

Section 2.5 updated. See amendment 01.

Q055 RFP - Page 46-Section 3. Proposal Preparation and Submission (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) Will the Government allow Offerors to provide a brief Executive Summary section, and if so, can it be excluded from the page limitations? Offerors can provide an Executive Summary but it will not be excluded from the page count.

Q056 RFP – Page 47 and 51-Section 3.1 Proposal Format, Item 1, and Section 7 Price (Volume 4) Please confirm that, in addition to the Attachment_4-GRAMS-Pricing_Sheet in Microsoft Excel format, the Price Volume can also include a Word document that provides explanations/descriptions of the Offeror’s Price Proposal. Yes

Q057 RFP – Page 47 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 3.1, Proposal Format, Item 3 The instructions state “Pages shall be numbered sequentially by section.” Given there are only specified page limitations for each Volume and not by section within each Volume, will the Government delete the requirement for page numbering by section, and allow page numbering from page 1 to the specified page limitation for each Volume?: This will avoid confusion and extra effort by the Offerors and evaluators. Section 3.1 updated. See amendment 01.

Q058 RFP – Page 47 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 3.1, Proposal Format, Item 4 The RFP states “Page limitations are identified for each volume …, as described in 4.4 Proposal preparation below…” There is no 4.4. Please clarify. Section 3.1 updated. See amendment 01.

Q059 RFP - Page 47 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 3.3 Submission of Proposal (Due Date / Time) Item 6 references “hard copy volumes”, “tab indexes”, and “dividers.” Section 3.3, Submission of Proposal states that proposals shall be submitted electronically. This appears to conflict.

Please confirm that the hard copy references do not apply and that hard copy volumes are not requested or required.

Section 3.1 updated. See amendment 01

Q060 RFP – Page 48 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 3.3 Submission of Proposal (Due Date/Time) The instructions specify delivery of Offerors’ proposals by e-mail. Is there a file size limitation for e-mail submissions? No limitation in email file size. An email confirmation will be sent to offeror after receipt of proposals.

Q061 RFP – Page 48 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 3.4 Proposal Preparation, Subsection 3.4.1 Volume 1 Technical Proposal Will the Government consider the Quality Control Plan, Incoming Transition Plan, and Outgoing Transition Plan to be excluded from page count and attaching each as an appendix? Yes. See amendment 01.

Q062 RFP – Page 48 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 4.0 (i) Technical Approach The Government requires the technical approach to include specific methods and/or processes for addressing three “specific tasks” as defined under the PWS.

Please identify which specific PWS tasks (specifically, Tasks 1-17 described in PWS 5.1 through 5.17) the Government expects to be addressed for each of the three “specific tasks” identified in the instructions.

The RFP states: "The Offerors specific methods and/or processes for addressing the following specific tasks as defined under the PWS: Assisting the DHA Requirement Managers with developing and managing MHS IM/IT Functional Requirements; to include JCIDS processes and documentation; Supporting the IM/IT Governance process and Supporting the Architecture, Management and Review Process. These tasks are spread throughout the PWS and the offerors should understand how they relate.

Q063 RFP – Page 49 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-4.0 Technical (Volume 1), Subsection (ii.) Staffing Approach The 4th bulleted item states “Key Personnel and Letters of Intent. Resumes for Key Personnel (IAW PWS paragraph 17).

Are Letters of Intent required for only Key Personnel that are not currently employed by the prime contractor and its proposed subcontractors?

Letters of Intent are only required for "key personnel"who are not currently employed by the prime and/or subcontractors.

Q064 RFP – Page 49 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-4.0 Technical (Volume 1), Subsection (ii.) Staffing Approach The 3rd bulleted item states “…, but especially IAW PWS paragraph 17,” and the 4th bulleted item states “Key Personnel and Letters of Intent. Resumes for Key Personnel (IAW PWS paragraph 17). Please confirm that the PWS paragraph references are intended to read “PWS paragraph 11” rather than “PWS paragraph 17”? See response to Q001.

Q065 RFP – Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-5.0 Past Performance (Volume 2), item (ii)

The RFP states “A questionnaire will be used to solicit information from identified references.” Is it the responsibility of the Government or Offeror to disseminate the referenced questionnaire(s) to identified references? The Government will disseminate the questionnaire to the identified references.

Q066 RFP - Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-5.0 Past Performance (Volume 2), item (ii)

The RFP states “A questionnaire will be used to solicit information from identified references.” Please provide a copy of the Past Performance Questionnaire that will be used to solicit information from identified references. No the government will not provide the questionnaire however the same questionnaire will be used for all offerors.

Q067 RFP – Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-5.0 Past Performance (Volume 2), item (ii)

The instructions state that the Government may also consider information obtained through other sources.

Will the Government accept additional past performance sources provided by Offerors beyond the 8 references included in the Past Performance Volume 2, including customer testimonials, CPAR reports, etc., included as an Appendix to the Past Performance Volume? If so, will they be included in the past performance evaluation and be excluded from the page limitation?

No

Q068 RFP – Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 6.1, Small Business Participation (Small and Large Business), 2nd bulleted item This section requests the Offeror’s signed subcontracting agreements and/or other letters of intent with Attachment 7. The standard industry process is to sign Teaming Agreements and/or memorandums of understanding (MOU) prior to contract award and sign subcontract agreements after award of the prime contract to ensure the final subcontracts reflect the prime contract. Are signed Teaming Agreements and/or MOUs acceptable to meet this requirement? See amendment 01.

Q069 RFP – Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 6.1, Small Business Participation (Small and Large Business), 2nd bulleted item This section requests the Offeror’s signed subcontracting agreements and/or other letters of intent. Please clarify what the Government defines as “letters of intent.” Use industry standard definition. A commitment to work in the case the prime win the award.

Q070 RFP - Page 50 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) RFP - Page 63 (Evaluation-Commercial Items) and Attachment 7-Small Business Participation Plan-[Instructions] Section 6.2 , Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only) and [Evaluation] Section 5.2 Subcontracting Plan (Large Businesses Only) Section 5.1 Small Business Participation Plan (Small and Large Businesses), 1st Bullet Attachment 7

The requirements for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan included a minimum goal of 36.7% of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTING DOLLARS. The specified goals for the Small Business Participation Plan require offerors to meet the mandatory minimum Small Business Goals of 36.7% of TOTALCONTRACT VALUE.

Please confirm that the Small Business Participation plan should also be 36.7% of TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTING DOLLARS to comply with FAR requirements and amend the solicitation, specifically Evaluation Section 5.1 and Attachment 7, accordingly.

The small business participation plan and subcontracting goals are the same a minimum of 36.7%.

Q071 RFP – Page 51 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-7.0 Price (Volume 4), Item 2

The following bullets are referenced in the solicitation:

-Total Proposed Base Price (or Option Periods) -Total Proposed Base (or Option Years) period price Please clarify specifically what information the Government is seeking in response to these two bullets. What is the distinction?

See amendment 01

Q072 RFP - Pages 51 and 52 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 7 Price (Volume 4) Please confirm that long distance travel and ODCs are on a cost reimbursement basis. Yes, these items will be on a cost reimbursement basis.

Q073 RFP – Pages 51 and 52 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) and Page 132 (PWS)-[Instructions] Section 7 Price (Volume 4) and [PWS] Section (not numbered) titled “Travel” The Government specified travel on the referenced pages is different. Please clarify. Corrections were made. See amendment 01

Q074 RFP – Pages 51, 52, and 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 7 Price (Volume 4) Section 7.1 Item 3 (Travel and Optional Travel) The Government specified the long distance travel on pages 51 and 52. On page 56 long distance travel is also presented with a not to exceed amount in the base and option periods. This creates a degree of confusion. Please clarify.

For pricing purposes, will the Government consider providing a travel plug number that all Offerors must use for long distance travel?

Will the Government also provide a plug number for ODCs? A plug number for ODCs would also put all Offerors on an equal basis for pricing ODCs.

See amendment 01. The plugged amount of travel for the Base and Option Periods is $40,000 per period. The optional travel is $10,000 in the base period (if exercised) and $15,000 in the option periods (if exercised). The "plugged" amount should be the same for all offerors.

Q075 RFP – Page 52 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-7.2 Estimated Level of Effort The solicitation states that “Offerors may propose different NITAAC labor categories and quantities, but should also provide rationale in the technical volume for the proposed level of effort.” Please clarify the reference to “NITAAC labor categories?” See response to question Q032. See amendment 01

Q075 RFP – Page 52 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-7.2 Estimated Level of Effort, The Government’s Estimate Level of Effort table for (1) Governance, Requirement & Architecture Management Support (GRAMS) (PWS 5.0 – 5.17) includes a combination of hours in the Base Period and also in Option 4. Some of the hours estimates are 1,727 and some are 1,757. Please clarify the basis for this estimation? Should all 1,757 hour references be 1,727 hours? See amendment 01.

Q076 RFP – Page 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) RFP – Page 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-7.2 Estimated Level of Effort, The RFP states:

Travel: Estimated to be, and not to exceed, $20,000 in the base period and not to exceed $40,000 in the option periods. Travel will be required for the base and all option period.

Optional Travel: Estimated to be, and not to exceed, $10,000 in the base period and not to exceed $15,000 in the option periods. Optional Task 2 for the base and all option years will support DHMSM activities only, if exercised.

(a.) Should Offerors utilize the dollar estimates provided by the Government for Travel as proposal plug numbers when preparing proposal responses? ($20,000 Base Period/ $40,000 Option Periods) and Optional Travel ($10,000 Base Period / $15,000 Option Periods)?

(b.) Please confirm that the Government’s Travel estimate of $40,000 Option Periods and Optional Travel $15,000 Option Periods is applicable to each of the Option Periods present in the anticipated period of performance (PoP).

See response to Q074. See amendment 01

Q077 RFP - Page 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 8.0 (2), Organizational Conflict of Interest, second paragraph numbered “(iii)” Functional user testing, verification, or validation do not appear to be within the scope of GRAMS. Please clarify the Government’s intent. Was this sub bullet supposed to be deleted? See amendment 01.

Q078 RFP - Page 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 8.0, Organizational Conflict of Interest, (2)(iv), Is the Government specifically stating there is an OCI with the DHMS organization or the DHMSM product (EHR) acquisition? No, if there is a potential of an OCI, then the offeror is required to submit a mitigation plan. See addendum 52.212-1 section 8.0.

Q079 RFP - Page 56 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 8.0, Organizational Conflict of Interest, (2)(iv), RFP Section 8.0 Organizational Conflicts of Interest, subsection 2 lists “All contractors and subcontractors directly supporting Defense Healthcare Management System (DHMS)” as having an actual or potential organizational conflict of interest. Would vendors performing what is traditionally OCI Category 2 work be considered to have an OCI or would this solely apply to those vendors performing OCI Category 3 work? DHA no longer uses OCI categories, therefore offerors must determine if a potential or actual OCI exist in accordance with addemdum 52.212-1 section 8.0.

Q079 RFP - Page 57 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 8.0, Organizational Conflict of Interest, first item numbered “(3)” The Instructions state, “To avoid conflicts which may create biased ground rules, impair the Contractor’s objectivity, or give the Contractor an unfair competitive advantage, it is agreed that the Contractor shall not offer or accept a contract with the Government for development or production of an information technology product; or services for installation, maintenance, repair, and training procured for support of the product under the following conditions:…” Please confirm that this restriction applies if all of the conditions described in items (i), (ii), and (iii) apply rather than if any one of those conditions apply.

See amendment 01.

Q080 RFP - Page 57 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items) RFP - Page 57 (Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items)-Section 8.0, Organizational Conflict of Interest, (4) The Instructions state, “As a part of the proposal, the Offeror shall provide the Contracting Officer with information of previous or ongoing work that is in any way associated with this solicitation.” Please confirm that this information may be provided in an MS Word document as part of the Price Proposal (Volume 4), which does not have page limitations. If this is not acceptable, please state where this information should be provided in the proposal. Yes, it can be submitted with the price volume which has no page limitation.

Q081 RFP – Page 60 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-Section 6.1 Small Business Participation The Government is requesting “Resumes and Letters”. Are the requested “Letters” for only Key Personnel that are not current employees of the prime contractor and its teammates? See response to Q063.

Q082 RFP – page 64 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-Section 6.0 Evaluation Factor 4-Price The RFP states “Price realism will be evaluated for technical performance risk only and …. Downward.” Please elaborate on the technical performance risks that the Government will use in evaluating cost realism. The purpose of price realism in this solicitation is to ensure the offerors understand the requirement and price accordingly.

Q083 RFP – page 64 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-Section 6.0 Evaluation Factor 4-Price The RFP states “Price realism will be evaluated for technical performance risk only and …. Downward.” What may cause the agency to deem an otherwise acceptable proposal unacceptable due to a price which is too high or too low? The government may determine that the offeror's proposal is unacceptable based on lack of understanding of the requirement. Which poses a performance risk.

Q084 RFP – Page 65 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-6.0 Evaluation Factor 4 – Price, Page 65 The RFP states “Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.”

The Base Period associated with the Base Services, CLIN0001 DHA Requirements Managers Support, is defined as eleven (11) months. CLIN 0014, Transition In, is a separate one (1) month period from the Base Period associated with the Base Services. As referenced, the total evaluated price methodology described within the RFP states that “the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, etc.” Is the “base period”, as used in this instance, referring to the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN0001? Or, conversely, are the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN0001 and the one (1) month period associated with CLIN0014 being referred to collectively as the “base period”?

The base period is CLIN 0001 and 0014 combined for a total of 12 months.

Q085 RFP – Page 65 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-6.0 Evaluation Factor 4 – Price, Page 65 Is CLIN 0014, Transition In, a component of the Total Evaluated Price? If so, there may be an unfair price advantage to the current incumbent. The current incumbent could propose a price of $0 for CLIN 0014 as there is no Transition In. Please confirm that CLIN 0014 is not a component of the Total Evaluated Price. Yes, CLIN 0014 is part of the total evaluated price.

Q086 RFP – Page 65 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-6.0 Evaluation Factor 4 – Price, Page 65 The RFP states “Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.”

The Option 4 Period associated with the Base Services, CLIN4001 DHA Requirements Managers Support, is defined as eleven (11) months. CLIN 5001, Outgoing Transition, is a separate one (1) month period from the Option 4 Period associated with the Base Services. As referenced, the total evaluated price methodology described within the RFP states that “the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, , 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.”

Is the “4th option”, as used in this instance, referring to the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN4001?

Or, conversely, is the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN4001 and the one (1) month period associated with CLIN5001 being referred to collectively as the “4th option”?

Yes CLIN 4001 and 5001 are combined for a total of 12 months.

Q087 RFP – Page 65 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-6.0 Evaluation Factor 4 – Price, Page 65 The RFP states “Thus, the offeror's total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period, 1st option, 2nd option, 3rd option, 4th option, and 1/2 of the 4th option.” Further within the same RFP section it states “Providing pricing for the optional six-month extension period is required.”

Is “1/2 of the 4th option” price to be calculated based on just the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN4001 or should it be calculated based on the eleven (11) month period associated with CLIN4001 and the one (1) month period associated with CLIN5001?

See response to Q086.

Q088 RFP – Page 93 (Evaluation-Commercial Items)-Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 5. Specific Tasks, Page 93

This PWS section states “Performance of this task order will require the Contractor to provide day-to-day support to the DHA Requirement Managers.” Reference to a “task order” appears to be inapplicable to this solicitation. Will the Government please correct this reference? See amendment 01.

Q089 RFP - Pages 92-132 Performance Work Statement (PWS)-PWS – General Throughout the PWS, there are references to DHA Requirements Managers.

Please clarify the organization(s) within DHA through which the Requirements Managers are reporting.

Are the Requirements Managers employees organizationally aligned within the HIT Directorate?

The Requirements Managers are aligned with DHA Healthcare Operations Directorate.

Q090 RFP- Page 97 (PWS)-Section 5.3, Task 3 – Develop and Manage MS IM/IT Functional Requirements, 2nd bullet The 2nd bullet under the list of Government requirements under this task states, “Develop complete, accurate and well documented requirements packages following MHS guidelines, meeting quality criteria;” Please confirm that the “quality criteria” referenced is the “Quality Criteria” developed by the GRAMS contractor for Deliverable 14 (referenced on Page 101 in PWS Section 5.4.2). Yes. The Government will update and maintain the quality assurance criteria.

Q091 RFP- Page 97 (PWS)-Section 5.3, Task 3 – Develop and Manage MS IM/IT Functional Requirements, 3rd bullet The 3rd bullet under the list of Government requirements under this task states, “Capture functional needs, translate to understandable requirements and business processes, and monitor / track them throughout the entire acquisition life cycle;”

Please clarify what is meant by “monitor / track them throughout the entire acquisition life cycle.” Will the GRAMS contractor be required to maintain traceability of requirements to technical (derived) requirements, design, test, and implementation completed by other DHA contractors?

The GRAMS contractor will be required to maintain traceability of requirements to technical (derived) requirements through design, test, and implementation completed by other DHA contractors via the MHS Requirements Repository.

Q092 RFP- Page 98 (PWS)-Section 5.3.2, Task 3, Subtask 2 – Provide Project Management Support The 2nd bullet in this section refers to the “Government’s Architecture Contractor.” Please specify what contract/contractor this is referring to, what DHA organization(s) they support, and whether there is a conflict of interest between the GRAMS contract and contractor performing this work. This could be work performed under GRAMS or could be working with other DHA Architecture Support contractors. There is no conflict of interest.

Q093 RFP- Page 101. (PWS)-Section 5.4.2, Task 4, Subtask 3 – Develop Quality Assurance Guideline and Milestones Does the Government have existing documented process documentation and Quality Criteria for DHA Requirements Development and Management activities and for Architectural Products? If so, will the Government provide this information to all Offerors to enable them to review and provide innovative and beneficial recommendations to DHA to improve upon existing criteria as part of their proposals? This will also reduce the significant advantage the incumbent contractor who has ready access to these materials. The Government will not provide this information before award.

Q094 RFP- Page 104 (PWS)-Section 5.6.1.1, Analyze and Align MHS Systems/Services and Business Processes in to Enterprise Architecture The 3rd paragraph on page 104 says, “The Contractor shall collaborate with the DHA Requirements Managers’ contractors in performance of this task.” Please specify what contracts/contractors this is referring to, what DHA organization(s) they support, and whether there is a conflict of interest between the GRAMS contract and contractors performing this work. The Government works in a collaborative environment and there are multiple contractors and Government groups that the winning offeror will need to work with. Offerors will need to weigh their own internal risk in participating in the GRAMS solicitation.

Q095 RFP- Page 105 (PWS)-Section 5.7.1, Task 7, Subtask 1 – Provide Support for BPR and Process Improvement The 2nd paragraph in this section states, “Performance of this task will require the Contractor to coordinate with the DHA Requirement Managers’ contractors and HIT as the Requirements Management processes involve both the functional communities and HIT. Please specify what contracts/contractors the “Requirement Managers’ contractors” is referring to, what DHA organization(s) they support, and whether there is a conflict of interest between the GRAMS contract and contractors performing this work. See response to Q094.

Q096 RFP- Page 105 (PWS)-Section 5.7.2, Subtask 2, Provide Support for Pilot Projects Section 5.7.2 refers to “Requirements Managers’ Requirements Project Managers.” Please clarify who “Requirements Managers’ Requirements Project Managers” is referring to. Are these DHA personnel? There was a typo in this section. See amendment 01

Q097 RFP - Page 106 (PWS)-PWS Section 5.7.3 Task 7 Subtask 3 Does the incumbent currently provide a…