WF3.0_QA_4-21-21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Workforce 3. 0 - Managed Solution, Defense Healthcare Management Systems (WF3) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HT003821R0001B
- Issued by
- Defense Health Agency
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a draft request for proposals for a managed workforce solution. Key details include:
-
The opportunity involves a managed solution called Workforce 3.0 for the Defense Health Agency's managed healthcare systems. Questions and answers cover details of draft requirements, evaluation criteria, and pricing approach. Clarification is sought on areas like subcontractor experience, financial documentation requirements, word counts, and definitions. Estimated response and award dates are not provided.
-
Lot 1 involves a design-to-outcome task order and core task order for the first year. Lot 2 focuses on accelerator task orders. Requirements include gates on product prowess, transformation approach, and a behavior model. Pricing involves scenario-based inputs without substantiation required. Completeness and reasonableness will be evaluated but a price realism mechanism is not included.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 22
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A 21 Apr
| ID | Question | Industry Comment/Suggestion | Answer |
| 1 | Draft 2.99 restricts the Gate 1 criteria for Lot 2 to the prime only. This significantly changes bid / teaming strategies that we established based on Draft 2.0. The specific reference is on Page 55 of 73 - Line 2020 -- "Team member and/or sub-contractor experience WILL NOT BE accepted for this Gate...." Was this included in error or is this expected to be included in the final? | Previous versions had inconsistencies, but the intent is for Lot 2 - Gate 1 to be prime only. | |
| 2 | 1. The Government commits to responding to Questions within 5 business days of receipt. Since Questions are due by the 14th, and proposals are due the 20th, we recommend the PEO consider extending the proposal due date to May 27th (one week) to allow for Offerors to revise responses per Government Answers. | The Government will consider the timelines as the process plays out. | |
| 3 | 1. In regards to Gate 3, requirement #3; “Promoted (e.g., clearly-defined career advancement in alignment with standard firm structures OR adjustments in title that align in timing with advancements in responsibility) at least 14% of employees annually (i.e., total promotion count ÷ total employee count) OR issued at least 7% Year-over-Year total employee compensation increase (i.e., average total employee compensation increase ÷ average employee compensation) for the past 2-year period.” |
Question: With regards to the metrics above, the percentages for employee promotion and salary increase year over year would present a significant cost increase to the government. Potential primes for this opportunity have been executing on the National and Industry benchmarks of roughly 2-3% annual increase, and with compliance restraints with adjudicated GWACS, IDIQ’s and BPA’s promoting or changing responsibilities that would initiate a promotion for the population of project staff would present a significant risk. Meeting this percentage would require potential primes to modify or negotiate with government agencies in order to maintain compliance with Rate Schedules and Personnel capability to avoid penalty for non-compliance. Would the government consider reducing the promotion rate to 7% and the rate of annual increase to 3%? Market research indicates that digital transformation at this scale is rare, even moreso for the Government. Accordingly, the Governement has structured its strategy to emphasize the essential characteristics that differentiate successful transformations from unsuccessful ones. Because it is essential for PEO DHMS to adapt and improve how it delivers products, the Government is not seeking to benchmark itself against basic service GWACS or other vehicles. Successful digital transformation results in significant efficiencies in operations.
Further, for clarity, offerors do not have to meet both the promotion rate and year over year compensation each. Meeting one threshold is sufficient to receive an Acceptable rating.
| 4 | Offerors are required to create a BOE and WBS for the Core Task Order (CTO) without going through the Design-to-Outcome (DTO) task order first, where essentially the CTO will be designed, proposed, negotiated, and approved. Developing a BOE and WBS for the CTO without having gone through the collaborate process of the DTO with the Government will lead to an inaccurate BOE and WBS for the CTO. We recommend reconsidering this requirement. | Offerors are expected to propose BOEs that align to the proposed organizational design for the the first year of performance in Factor 2 and be able to justify/substantiate an estimated level of effort in a basis of estimate for the propsoed scenario. Exact real-world accuracy is not required for the proposal, and the approach is expected to mature in the DTO phase, but the BOEs should not be "inaccurate". |
| 5 | "Electronic submissions must be complete no later than May 20, 2021 at 12:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time." Can the Government clarify that this is the FACTOR 1: Gate Criteria submission deadline only to begin the down-select process? Can the government provide estimated timeframe(s)/date(s) for the remaining Factors 2-4? | This submission deadline for Lot 1 is for all parts of the proposals except Factor 5 and Volume VI, Section 6 for Lot 1. |
The submission deadline for Lot 2 is for all parts of the Lot 2 proposal.
| 6 | Draft RFP 2.99 states "the Government will evaluate whether the Prime provided details for an engagement that:" indicating that offerors may select a client service engagement of their choosing to meet the metric criteria 1 - 5. Evaluating the talent metrics for a single "engagement" would not help the Government meet the stated the requirement for a "high-agency talent pool" that will enable the broad and comprehensive mission of PEO DHMS. Only at the prime offeror level will the Government be able to make a determination as to the culture and level of innovation and personal incentives that will make Workforce 3.0 successful. | Recommend the Government revise the language on line # 2230 to read "For an Acceptable proposal, the Prime Offeror must have at the US firm level:" | This error is being corrected in the Final RFP. |
| 7 | Draft RFP 2.99 states "Solicitation Questions must be received no later than May 14, 2021 at 12:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time." The Government has also projected a proposal submission date of May 20, 2021. In the Government's fair and unbiased approach for Workforce 3.0 will you have enough time to evaluate and respond in a comprehensive manner to questions submitted potentially 6 days prior to proposal submissions? | Recommend the Government revise the language on lines #1447-1448 to read "Solicitation Questions must be received no later than May 7, 2021 at 12:29:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time." | Noted. |
| 8 | Can the Government please clarify if the deliverables listed in Attachment 11 Task Order Document Requirements for LOT 2 (PWS, CDRLs, QASP, and Other Supporting Attachments), are or are NOT required for the initial proposal submission? | All Lot 2 documents are required at time of initial proposal submission, including the task order documents delineated in Attachment 11. | |
| 9 | Will the Govenrment please consider expanding the response beyond the 6 pages for Volume 2 - Sample Task Order Response to 9 pages? | The Government believes detailed responses addressing the criteria are possible within the 6-page limitation. | |
| 10 | Please confirm the 6 pages allocated to the response for this subfactor is actually the overall approach to how the vendor would respond to any requested Ad-Hoc task order, not to the actual survey responses. | The response must address the theoretical scenario (survey results) presented as part of the sample task order challenge. | |
| 11 | Should offerors address Attachment 11 Section 1.2 specifically in the response to the Sample Task Order or is the Government looking for a generalized approach for WF3 LOT 2? | Attachment 11 delineates the requirements for the Accelerator task orders (for Lot 2), the scope of which covers the design process proposed by the offeror to address any hypothetical ad hoc requirement. | |
| 12 | Line 976 includes a table for the Outputs for Core and Ad-Hoc Task Orders in which documents are listed for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. This table lists documents other than the PWS, QASP, CDRLs, and Pricing, for Lot 2. Can the Government please confirm which documents are required as part of Lot 2 proposal submission? | The ordering guide Governs the issuance of orders, not the initial evaluation. Offerors are required to submit the documents delineated in 52.212-1, as supplemented by the appropriate attachments. In this case, Attachment 11 delineates the task order documentation required. Core and Ad Hoc task order documents are not required with proposal submission. | |
| 13 | Can the Government please allow at least 5 days between responses to questions and proposal submission so that changes can adequately be incorporated? | The Government will consider the timelines as the process plays out. | |
| 14 | In Subfactor 1.2 Product Prowess (Lot 1) the government is asking to demonstrate experience in two different areas: |
a) “Significant new technology products will create a new revenue stream that leads to increased profitability within a planned time frame and maintain its own Profit & Loss measurements. This is in contrast to a new feature that aims only to create a greater market share for the company’s existing product line.”
b) “Alternatively , the Offeror may demonstrate experience in successful rollouts ofsignificant new technology product internal to the customer’s operations that resulted in cost savings or Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for the customer organization”
| We suggest the government removes the second alternative option (b) since the capabilities and expertise required for new product development from inception to commercialization is very different of what is required for a rollout. If the government is looking to attract innovative players with strong product management capabilities, keeping this gate criteria narrow will allow the government to have better examples to evaluate. | Final RFP revises the language to more accurately describe the intent. | ||
| 15 | Subfactor 2.3: Basis of Estimate requests a narrative, but the format instructions request a .xls only. We propose that the format requested be amended to allow for .pdf as well, as is allowed in Factor 4: Pricing Narrative. | Final RFP revises the instruction to allow separate narrative submissions. | |
| 16 | In the proposal instructions for Behavior Model the government refers to different groups of individuals in questions 1, 3 and 5. Can the government confirm that these are exactly the same individuals in all three questions (referenced below)? We suggest the government makes the language consistent in all three questions to ensure comprehensive and accurate responses that address the needs of Contractor, Civilian and Military personnel groups. |
1) Demonstrate an understanding of human nature and the linkage between motivation and desired behavioracross Contractor, Civilian, and Military personnel in order to achieve a successful transformation as a component of WF3 scope.
3) Describe approach to motivate and influence the desired behaviorin WF3 team members (companies, individuals, and government) to facilitate a productive team environment that maximizes the capabilities of the full team in fostering and maintaining an innovative culture.
5) Describe an ability to shape WF3 personnel and Government personnel perceptions, behaviors, and understanding of the overall PEO 3.0 vision.
| Final RFP revises the language to more accurately describe the intent. | |
| 17 | We noticed discrepancy between question 4 in Factor 3 Behavior Model and the corresponding evaluation criteria. The question states: “Describe an approach to incentivizing contractor team member personnel across the engagement to seek positive, game-changing outcomes.” The evaluation criteria states: |
“(PERSONNEL INCENTIVES) The Offeror’s approach to financially incentivizing personnel of team members across the engagement to seek game-changing outcomes.” We recommend the government removes the word “financially” from the evaluation criteria to make it consistent with the instructions, and allow for broader discussion of incentives.
| Final RFP revises the language to more accurately describe the intent. | |||
| 18 | Our team believes that removing any requirement related to price realism may lead to PEO DHMS receiving several “Unrealistically Low Offers” (FAR 3.501). OSD Acquisition Guidance warns these offerors either underestimate the magnitude/complexity of the task (thus cannot perform successfully), or consciously understate the cost/price with the submittal of an unrealistically low price in order to win a contract (i.e., use a buy-in pricing strategy). These low offers would shift WF3 to a LPTA competition, which is out of sync with DoD guidance and the McCain Act of 2019. Since unrealistically low offers would create significant issues for PEO DHMS WF3 contract and mission success in the future, we ask that you incorporate some type of mechanism (price realism or other analysis) to ensure that these mistakes/tactics do not occur during submittal of WF3 Proposals. Many teams are likely to be dissuaded from participating if no such protections are put in place. | The Government is evaluating offeror understanding of the requirement in two non-price Subfactors. Further, the Government is evaulating prices for reasonableness by comparing the prices received across offerors. Unreasonably low prices that do not adequately explain/substantiate an abnormally low price, as compared to the other offerors, will not be considered reasonable. Finally, BOEs submitted in Subfactor 2.3 are linked to the pricing sheet to enable the Government to consider differences between the approaches for the purposes of reasonableness comparisons. | |
| 19 | For Lot 1 Factor 4: the “Price Eval Table – Lot 1” is still included in the Price Worksheet template provided and required, but instructions for Incentive and Gamechanger pools have been removed from Factor 4 section. Could the Government please provide updated instructions for Incentive and Gamechanger pool definition as was included in RfP 2.0 Factor 4, sub-section 4? In our view, a key mechanism of the contract is the move to a new way of working – specifically moving away from effort based payments, to more of a outcome based incentive model. As such, we are in favor of the retention of language that encourages fees at risk to incentivize shared outcomes for success. | The incentive and gamechanger pools are retained, but are now calculated by the Pricing sheet in accordance with the scenario-based pricing model. No offeror input is required for the incentive/gamechanger cells. | |
| 20 | The table states that the contract type is FFP, however, Section 4.3.1.1 states, "The approach shall include agreed-upon performance metrics to measure performance on the Core Task Order and inform contract profit calculations." What should the prime expect regarding these financial discussions? Does the Government want task orders to be true FFP, where the prime manages its own profit? | It is confusing to use the FFP contract type but engage in discussions on profit with the contractor. Will the Government rethink this strategy and how this will play out with contractors? | The Government is not analyzing profit as a separate element, but using this value-based input as a means to enable its scenario-based pricing for the incentive and gamechanger profit pools, only for Core Task Orders. The Government is seeking only a "value" in the pricing worksheet and is not requiring offerors to substantiate or explain these values in Core Task Orders. Profit input is not required for any other task order. |
| 21 | The solicitation states, "Team member and/or sub-contractor experience WILL NOT BE accepted for this Gate." Will the Government please allow subcontractors to contribute? | Previous versions had inconsistencies, but the intent is for Lot 2 - Gate 1 to be prime only. | |
| 22 | Prime offerors within the $16.5-million NAICS code revenue threshold may not meet these criteria for a "significant new technology product," given that the product must be an independent line of business, and recovering costs often takes longer (five to seven years), for small business. | Consider changing the threshold to align with the metrics, using a NAICS code with a threshold of at least $30-million. | NAICS codes were selected utilizing the FAR and SBA guidance, and have been coordinated and concurred with by SBA. |
| 23 | The solicitation states, "The Offeror shall also provide a simplified financial artifacts demonstrating the product measurements." Will the Government please require auditable financial documents? | If the Government asks for a simplified financial artifacts to demonstrate product measures, companies will tailor the artifacts to meet the criteria, whether or not they honestly meet the metrics. These documents should be independently audited. | The Government has no reason to expect offerors will act in bad faith in asserting their capabilities under the Gate attachments, and will evaluate the information presented to make a determination of whether the requirements have been satisfied in accordance with the solicitation. |
| 24 | There is no suggestion that industry product prowess should be healthcare-related. Should there be some sort of proof as to how products relate to healthcare? | Health IT product experience is not required. | |
| 25 | Will the Government please tell industry how many companies reported to PEO DHMS that they will bid on Lot 2 and Lot 1? Will you be asking once more after publishing the final requirements? | It will be helpful to know what the competition will be like, which is helpful for small businesses. | Letters of intent are non-binding and were privately submitted to the Government. Accordingly, any information released would have substantial probability of being incorrect. |
| 26 | For Lot 1 Subfactor 1.1, draft 2.99 reduced the number of narrative response fields but increased the word limit for a remaining field. For Subfactor 1.2, draft 2.99 reduced the number of narrative response fields but left the word count at 100 for the remaining field. Does the government intend to increase the word count for Lot 1, Subfactor 1.2: Product Prowess, narrative field describing differentiation of the new product, from 100 words to 400 words? | Increase the word count for Lot 1, Subfactor 1.2: Product Prowess, narrative field describing differentiation of the new product, from 100 words to 400 words. | The Government believes 100 words is sufficient to be responsive to this field. |
| 27 | Attachment 2 states that the transformation...must have resulted in enduring value... - can the government please define what it means by enduring value? | Provide definition of "enduring value" | Instructions to be updated in Final RFP |
| 28 | Can the government expand on the definitions provided for mid and back office functions by providing examples or other specifics of the functions that are expected to be provided? | Provide examples of functions | Attachment 12 provides a notional view of these functions, but it is not exhaustive and may include functions that are not required for an offeror's unique approach. |
| 29 | For Lot 1 Task Orders, could the Government please elaborate further on the Government’s vision, objectives, and major work areas for the Design-To-Outcome and Core Task Orders? | Please see Attachment 11. | |
| 30 | Line 2353, Completeness, states "A proposal is complete if the Offeror provides Price data for all solicitation requirements and the proposed prices are traceable and accurate. The proposed prices are traceable if they can be tracked from the Bases of Estimate (BOEs) (when required) to the Price formats as well as throughout any provided Price volume documents. Additionally, Line 2361, Reasonableness, states, "For a price to be reasonable, it must represent the price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business." However, Lines 1737, Factor 4, Price Proposal (Lot1), require a BOE only for Design to Outcome - Year 1 and Core - Year 1. |
For Lot 1, the Government provides Program Objectives (Section 1.3 Outcomes) and is requiring Offerors to respond to Gate Criteria, Transformation Approach, Behavior Model/Non-Price, and the Challenge scenario. Based on the Draft Solicitation, the Program Objectives and Factors are not required to be correlated to the Price Proposal. Therefore, how will the Government use Completeness (Line 2356) and Reasonableness (Line 2361) to form the basis for fair and reasonable pricing among Offerors, and use the total evaluated price to make a best value trade-off determination? Completeness in the context of Factor 4 applies only to the pricing artifacts, and whether all required data is submitted. Factor 4 does not require the submission of a basis of estimate, rather that each line in the basis of estimate is identified in the pricing model on the appropriate work sheet.
Reasonableness will be determined by comparing the prices received in response to the solicitation in accordance with 52.212-2. The same is true of total evaluated price. Fair and reasonable pricing and total evaluated pricing for a tradeoff decision are independent decisions.
31 Could the Government please provide an estimated price range for each of the Design-To-Outcome and Core Task Orders? This will help ensure Offerors' solutions are similar in mangitude and thus can form the basis for establishing a competitive range. Offerors are required to develop unique solutions and articulate their merits following the instructions in 52.212-1. The Government will assess the merits of proposals and make tradeoffs in accordance with 52.212-2 to establish a competitive range. Similarity in magnitude is not necessary to reach a competitive range determination.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .