Attachment A - Questions and Answers_RFP HT940824R0002_ Amendment 0002.pdf

Questions & Answers for HT940824R0002 – IRMAC FL Panhandle

Q1: In response to 5.1, "Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing recent and relevant past performance information for the prime contractor only", Will the Government please clarify if an Alaska Native Corporation’s (ANC) use of prior experience and/or past performance from an affiliate company will or will not be allowed (i.e., does an ANC's use of affiliate company experience qualify as the Prime Contractor's experience)?

A1: Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 5.1, each Offeror should provide past performance containing recent and relevant past performance information as a prime contractor, which can be an ANC affiliate company.

Q2: Are all positions filled in the existing contract? If not, how many vacancies are there at each location?

A2: The current contract, HT940824C0002, has 70 FTEs where three (3) Appointing Clerks are vacant at NHP; and one (1) Lead at Tyndall AFB.

Q3: The page limit for volumes II and III, is the cover page being counted as one of the pages?

A3: Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 2.10.1, page limitations shall be treated as maximums. Volume II is limited to 10 pages total and Volume III is limited to 3 pages total. Cover page is exempt per section

2.10.2. Volume II will increase to “Limited to 15 pages.”

Q4: What is the time period for contract transition (e.g., 30 calendar days from award date or other)?

A4: Per Attachment 2, 52.212-2, section 1.1, the Government will make award around 30 April 2024.

Period of Performance starts 1 June 2024, which leaves 30 days for contract transition. In the event of a delay in contract award, full performance will start 30 days after award date.

Q5: 4.1.1 – Recent. For a past performance reference, does the contractor need at least 6 months of performance on an ongoing contract for it to be considered recent?

A5: Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 5.3.1 Recent Contracts, “…an effort that is ongoing or has been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.”

Per Attachment 2, 52.212-2, section 4.1.1 Recency Assessment, “…the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevance or quality.” There is no minimum time frame that an Offeror must have been involved in performing the work described, as long as it occurred within the past three (3) years from date of solicitation.

Q6: 4.1.1 – Recent. Since the anticipated contract is for longer than 3 years, will the government consider allowing a contract performed within the last 5 years from solicitation issuance to be considered recent?

A6: No.

Q7: 5.0 Best Value Determination currently defines the evaluation method of only initially evaluating the lowest priced offer to determine technical acceptability. DHA has been direct to move away from lowest price technically acceptable evaluation methods. The statements/definitions provided in 2.0 and 3.0 define essentially LPTA determination method. Would the Government consider modifying the evaluation method to allow the TOP 5 (ranked lowest in price) to receive technical and past performance evaluations to ensure more effective price, past performance tradeoff method of evaluation?

A7: The Government is conducting a Price-Past Performance Tradeoff. The Government will evaluate Offers in the order of their Total Evaluated Price first, then for Technical Acceptability, and then Past Performance, until an Offeror is determined to be “Substantial Confidence” or until no Offerors remain.

If/when an Offeror is determined to be “Substantial Confidence,” evaluations will cease and no higher-priced Offerors will be considered/evaluated. If the lowest-priced Offeror is evaluated as “Substantial Confidence,” then that Offeror represents the best value to the Government (i.e., lowest price at best possible performance rating, since all like performance ratings are considered equal to each other).

In the event the lowest-priced Offeror receives other than a “Substantial Confidence” rating in Past Performance, the next lowest-priced Offeror will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability and if acceptable, move on to Past Performance. If that Offeror is rated as “Substantial Confidence,” then evaluations will cease, and the Source Selection Authority will make a tradeoff decision between those two (2) Offerors to determine which offers the best value to the Government. If other than “Substantial Confidence” for that Offeror, evaluations continue. Once a “Substantial Confidence” rating is achieved, the Source Selection Authority will perform a tradeoff between all Offerors evaluated up to that point.

Q8: Factor 3, 5.0, Past Performance. Will the Government consider allowing Offerors at least 2 pages per contract reference to ensure that work descriptions can adequately define work performed in relation to this solicitation’s PWS requirements (of which the PWS is 43 pages in length)?

A8: No. The Past Performance volume is limited to three (3) pages total.

Q9: PWS 1.10.4 In/Out Processing states, “reporting instructions will be provided to the Contract Agency upon qualification/approval of a CP.”

Q9a: Will the government please define the process and requirements for CP qualification and approval from the government?

A9a: The process and requirements for CP qualifications vary per MTF. MTFs will accept Preliminary Qualification Package to review for confirmation of minimum requirements.

Q9b: Will approval/acceptance be withheld indiscriminately for lengths of time?

A9b: No.

Q9c: How long does the government have to approve a candidate CP once a Contractor has submitted qualification information?

A9c: It varies per candidate status on immunizations and background check.

Q10: PWS 1.10.5 Health Requirements and Immunizations lists COVID-19 vaccination. Is this vaccination still required by the Government and in Florida?

A10: No. PWS updated as V2.

Q11: PWS 1.9.1 states that the Contractor’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) is required within 15 days of award. PWS 1.14.4 (table) states that the QCP is required “initially,” which is defined as at effective date of award. Please clarify the delivery timeline for the contractor QCP and update the PWS accordingly.

A11: The Contractor has 15 days after contract award to submit the QCP. Table in PWS, para. 1.14.4 updated. See PWS updated as V2.

Q12: PWS 1.15.1. Are CPs allowed to start work with an interim clearance at all performance locations?

Please specify, if not, which locations do and do not allow performance start with interim clearance.

A12: Yes.

Q13: PWS 5.1.5 Supervisor (SPV) and PWS 5.1.6.2 Service Provider Manager (SPM).

Q13a: Is the SPM/Deputy listed in PWS 5.1.6.2 considered to be the SPV?

A13a. No, these are two (2) different positions.

Q13b: The last sentence on page 28, PWS 5.1.6.2 states, “the onsite Supervisor and the four Leads will be diligent in the day-to-day oversight/coaching of all contractor personnel to ensure the work is completed with the spirit of excellence and professionalism.” Should this statement be in PWS 5.1.4.1 Lead position description and 5.1.5.2 SPV position description instead of in the position description of the SPM (5.1.6.2)? Please update PWS accordingly.

A13b: No. This is to emphasize that the SPM is responsible for the overall program but is not the daily supervisor. Adding same sentence to PWS, para. 5.1.4.2 and 5.1.5.2. PWS updated as V2.

Q14: PWS 5.3.5 states that, “the Contractor shall provide supporting documentation/qualifying factors no later than 14 calendar days from receipt of notices of government acceptance of proposed CP.” PWS

4.7.1 states that, “the Contractor shall provide qualifying documentation prior to the required start date as defined in the contract proposal request package but can be no less than 10 calendar days.” Please clarify the date that the qualifying documentation package is required and update the PWS accordingly.

A14: PWS, para. 5.3.5 is updated to read 10 calendar days. PWS updated as V2.

Q15: PWS 7.12 defines various leads – location lead, team lead, and lead. Are these LCAT titles to be assumed as the Leads defined in PWS 5.1.4?

A15: Yes.

Q16: For pricing purposes, are all clerks to be trained in appointing and referral management services?

Or, will the Contractor be allowed to define personnel job duties by medical appointing clerks and referral clerks?

A16: The Contractor may determine who fills which roles, as long as the Performance Objectives listed in the PWS are met. Whether personnel perform one or both sets of duties, the bill rate for everyone performing clerk duties is the same. They should be able to backfill each other and assist each other on the various roles (cross-train).

Q17: Will the Government considering allowing a week extension to ensure Offerors have time to process the answers to questions and incorporate changes into their proposal response?

A17: Amendment 0001 was issued on 19 March 2024 to extend the RFP closing date to 2 April 2024, 1400 CT.

Q18: Clarification on Best Value vs. LPTA: The document mentions a "best value determination utilizing a tradeoff source selection process" but also indicates a stopping point if the lowest total evaluated price (TEP) offeror has a "Substantial Confidence" rating. How does this align with the stated emphasis on past performance being "significantly more important than price"?

A18: Please see A7. This is a Price-Past Performance Tradeoff; it is not an LPTA.

Q19: Evaluation Process for Technical Acceptability: Given that the technical factor is a "gate criterion," can the Government provide more detail on what constitutes an "Acceptable" rating and how this criterion ensures consideration of qualitative factors beyond mere acceptability?

A19: Per Attachment 2, 52.212-2, section 3.0, Offeror must submit a Management Plan that meets the prescribed standard in order to be evaluated acceptable. That is, in order to be determined “Acceptable,” the proposal should “adequately demonstrate(s) a comprehensive and realistic business approach to support PWS requirements on a daily basis, including a reasonable approach to interfacing with the Government team, the incumbent Contractor, Contractor employees, and customers. The plan must also adequately describe an efficient and effective approach to staffing qualified personnel and for addressing deficiencies and complaints.” While the proposal does not need to address every individual paragraph in the PWS, when read as a whole, the proposal should be sufficient in detail enough to convince the Government evaluation team that an award to that Offeror will result in quality appointing and referral services being provided to the beneficiary population.

Q20: Past Performance Evaluation Weight: The document suggests that past performance is a significant factor, yet the evaluation process appears to potentially halt if the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror has a "Substantial Confidence" rating. How does this approach ensure that the past performance factor receives the emphasized consideration, especially when higher-priced offers might provide superior value based on their past performance?

A20: Please see A7. Also, as stated in paragraph Addendum to 52.212-2, paragraph 4.1.4, “For purposes of evaluation all like performance confidence ratings are considered equal.” That is, for example, all Offerors receiving a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating are equal to each other in this factor, all “Neutral Confidence” rated Offerors are equal to each other, etc. Since under this construct, any Offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” would be considered equal, there is no benefit to continuing to evaluate higher-priced Offerors once one Offeror has received a “Substantial” rating.

Q21: Evaluation of All Proposals for Best Value: If the evaluation can stop after finding a technically acceptable offer with substantial confidence at the lowest price, how does this methodology ensure that all proposals are fairly evaluated for potential best value contributions, particularly in scenarios where a slightly higher price might yield substantially better performance or innovation?

A21: Please see A7 & A20. It is possible that not all proposals will be evaluated; it is possible only one

(1) proposal will be evaluated, or some number in between.

Q22: Definition and Use of "Substantial Confidence": How is "Substantial Confidence" quantitatively and qualitatively assessed, and why is this the sole criterion for halting further evaluations, especially in the context of a best value determination that ostensibly considers multiple factors?

A22: There are three (3) evaluation factors: Price, Technical, and Past Performance. Past Performance, is an integrated rating that considers the recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance record, to include how well the Offeror performed (quality) on those efforts. The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective.

Q23: Process for Handling Offers Not Evaluated to Have "Substantial Confidence": If the initial lowest TEP offeror does not receive a "Substantial Confidence" rating, the document outlines a continuation of evaluation in price order. How does this reconcile with the emphasis on past performance over price and the potential for non-linear relationships between price, technical merit, and past performance in determining best value?

A23: Please see A7, A20 & A21. Past performance is significantly more important than price. The highest past performance rating possible is “Substantial Confidence,” The Government’s evaluation approach emphasizes past performance as the evaluation proceeds until an Offeror is identified with “Substantial Confidence,” the highest rating possible. Thereafter, an integrated best value award decision, trading off price and past performance will be made.

Q24: Will the Government please provide historical call volume data, including average call times?

A24: See historical workload data below.

EGLIN AFB:

Appointment Line: The appointment line receives approximately, 25,000 incoming calls and makes 10,000 outgoing calls monthly, while making approximately 20,000 appointment transactions.

IRMAC: New consults which historically amount to 7,000 a month, outgoing calls approximately 6,000 monthly, incoming calls of 16,000 monthly, walk in patients approximately 20 a month could increase if moved into the hospital/clinic for face-to-face customer service in turn, reducing total phone calls in and outbound.

RTPEC: The RTPEC (Registration and TRICARE Plus Enrollment Center) enrollment/ registration process estimates approximately 250 transactions. The Tricare Plus enrollment figures are estimated to be approximately 20 a month.

Clear Legible Reports: The Clear Legible Reports processes approximately 8,000 per month.

TYNDALL AFB:

Appointment Line: The appointment line receives approximately 2,900 calls per month for appointments and telephone consults.

IRMAC: The IRMAC processes approximately 600 referrals per month internally and externally.

Clear Legible Reports: The Clear Legible Reports processes approximately 2,500 per month.

HURLBURT FIELD:

Appointment Line: The appointment line receives approximately 7,500 calls per month for appointments and messages.

IRMAC: The IRMAC processes approximately 1,800 referrals per month internally and externally.

Clear Legible Reports: The Clear Legible Reports processes approximately 2,500 per month.

NAVAL AIR STATION PENSACOLA (NAS-P):

Appointment Line: The appointment line receives approximately 10,100 call per month for appointments and messages. This includes Naval Hospital Pensacola, Naval Branch Health Clinic (NBHC) Joint Reserve Base (JRB) Belle Chasse, NBHC NSA Millington (MID SOUTH), NBHC NAS Panama City, NBHC NAS Pensacola, NBHC NAS Whiting Field, NBHC NATTC Pensacola, NBHC Meridian Marine Corps Reserve (MARFORES) Clinic New Orleans, NBHC Gulfport, and NBHC Corry Station.

IRMAC: The IRMAC processes approximately 7,000 referrals per month internally and externally. This includes Naval Hospital Pensacola, Naval Branch Health Clinic (NBHC) Joint Reserve Base (JRB) Belle Chasse, NBHC NSA Millington (MID SOUTH), NBHC NAS Panama City, NBHC NAS Pensacola, NBHC NAS Whiting Field, NBHC NATTC Pensacola, NBHC Meridian Marine Corps Reserve (MARFORES) Clinic New Orleans, NBHC Gulfport. and NBHC Corry Station.

Clear Legible Reports: The Clear Legible Reports processes approximately 6,000 per month. This includes Naval Hospital Pensacola, Naval Branch Health Clinic (NBHC) Joint Reserve Base (JRB) Belle Chasse, NBHC NSA Millington (MID SOUTH), NBHC NAS Panama City, NBHC NAS Pensacola, NBHC NAS Whiting Field, NBHC NATTC Pensacola, NBHC Meridian Marine Corps Reserve (MARFORES) Clinic New Orleans, NBHC Gulfport, and NBHC Corry Station.

Q25: Please confirm it is permissible to provide items such as date, company logo, proprietary statements, security markings, page numbers, etc. within the defined margin areas?

A25: Yes.

Q26: Please confirm illustrations (e.g., graphic figures, graphs, tables, etc.) can be with font colors other than black and in font sizes 12, 11, and/or 10 pt. font?

A26: Yes.

Q27: Please confirm non-narrative content (e.g., section headers, call-out boxes, etc.) within the volumes can be colors other than black and font size greater than 12 pt. font.

A27: Yes.

Q28: Please confirm it is acceptable to use the font Arial for tables, figures, covers, headers/footers, call-out boxes and/or graphics?

A28: Yes.

Q29: Can the Government please provide the current fill rate by position?

A29: Please see A2.

Q30: Can the Government identify how long each of the incumbents have been in the positions?

A30: Employee Start Date List is provided with Amendment 0002.

Q31: Will the Government provide the number of current vacant positions per labor category?

A31: Please see A2.

Q32: If this is an existing/current contract, what is the contract number and/or incumbent contractor(s)?

How may positions have been hired/acquired from this contract?

A32: The current contract number is HT940824C0002 with 70 FTEs.

Q33: If this is an existing/current contract, what are the modifications made in the contract as compared to the new one?

A33: The current contract number is HT940824C0002 and the number of FTEs increased from 70 to 72.

Eglin changed from 32 to 34 FTE; Tyndall remains at 7 FTEs, Hurlburt Field remains at 8 FTEs; and NHP remains at 23. Eglin AFB added 1 FTE RN and 1 FTE LPN.

Q34: Can the Government confirm that the vendor will bill at the hourly rates proposed in the pricing file only for hours worked on the contract? Will the vendor be allowed to invoice for hours spent on mandatory training, and in-processing?

A34: This contract will be FFP-LOE and only hours worked will be paid. The Government will pay for hours spent on mandatory training and in-processing.

Q35: Has a wage conformance been completed to determine the correct Wage Determination labor categories for the three labor categories in the PWS? If so, can the Government provide the SCA mapping for the designated labor categories?

A35: Please see below Labor Categories:

01112 General Clerk II 12073 Licensed Practical Nurse III 12314 Registered Nurse III

Q36: Does the Government intend to review all proposal volumes for each proposal submitted before ranking proposals by Total Evaluated Price?

A36: Please see A7, A20 & A21.

Q37: Which of the positions are classified as SCA?

A37: All positions are classified as SCA.

Q38: What labor categories are you mapping for each of the positions?

A38: Please see A35.

Q39: Can Key Personnel Past Performance be considered?

A39: No. However, Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 5.1 will change to: “Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing recent and relevant past performance information for the prime contractor and/or partners of a JV, or ANC Affiliates. Subcontractors and Key Personnel will not be considered.”

Q40: Attachment 1, Section 5.1: the Government states “Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing recent and relevant past performance information for the prime contractor only.” Would the Government consider revising the stated rule that past performance will only be considered from the prime offeror, and instead permit past performance from first tier subcontractors performing at least 25% of the work?

A40: Please see A39.

Q41: Attachment 1, Section 5.3.1: the Government states “Recent is defined as an effort that is ongoing or has been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.”

Would the Government consider revising the recency requirement from 3 years to 5 years?

A41: Please see A6.

Q42: What is the current contract’s value, period of performance, contact number and incumbent name?

A42: Current contract value is $1,725,323.80 for period of performance 1 November 2023 – 31 March 2024 with a 2-month extension through 31 May 2024. Contract number is HT940824C0002 and incumbent is BG Consulting Services, LLC.

Q43: To assist with accurate pricing of the service contract workforce, what is the tenure of current staff?

A43: Please see A30.

Q44: Which of the positions are currently mapped to the Service Contract Act Work Classifications and which are not?

A44: Please see A37.

Q45: The incumbent contract appears to substantially support telework. Notwithstanding provision 1.7.3, does the Government anticipate continued use of telework under this contract?

A45: The incumbent Contractor does not offer telework to their personnel. Per PWS, para. 1.7.3, …”The Government may authorize situational telework on a case by case/situational basis. Telework will be approved by the Department Commander on DD form 2946 (Appendix A).”

Q46: What percentage of the incumbent staff is authorized for telework?

A46: Please see A45.

Q47: Which positions are currently telework? For those positions, is all GFE provided by the Government, or is the Contractor responsible?

A47: Please see A45. In addition, if positions are authorized for telework the Government will provide the GFE.

Q48: Past Performance References and Evaluation: All things being equal, if Company A provides the maximum of three (3) past performance references of similar size and scope, and Company B provides less than three (3) past performance references of similar size and scope, would Company A receive a higher confidence rating?

A48: Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 5.2, the Government intends to seek and use past performance information from other sources available to the Government in addition to the Past Performance Volume. The source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore this hypothetical question cannot be answered.

Q49: Does the number of FTEs delineated in 5.2 (72 FTEs) represent the current incumbent staffing? If not, what is the current incumbent staffing?

A49: Please see A2 & A32.

Q50: For the Pricing proposal response, do Offerors need to include any supporting documentation for how the pricing dollars were arrived at? Or should Offerors submit only the Excel spreadsheet?

A50: Offerors must submit Attachment 4, Price Sheet, and SF 1449; see Attachment 1, 52.212-1; section 3.2.

Q51: Inclusion of FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting: The clause is not present in those incorporated by reference. Additionally, the clause is not incorporated under FAR 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions. The document contemplates a small business set aside in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, to which FAR 52.219-14 typically applies. Are the provisions of FAR 52.219-14 applicable to this solicitation?

A51: Yes, please see Amendment 0002, FAR 52.219-14.

Q52: May Offerors submit a past performance reference with a single Government POC for multiple task orders issued under a single IDIQ contract program?

A52: Yes.

Q53: To enable consistent pricing among potential bidders, will the DHA provide a list of current contractor staff (by LCAT) and their tenure? WD determination staff with significant tenure may be entitled to greater amounts of leave.

A53: Please see A30.

Q54: Will the DHA provide the equivalent rate for Federal hires for each of the positions or the applicable Wage Determination position numbers?

A54: No, the applicable Wage Determinations may be used to determine appropriate rates at the appropriate locations.

Q55: Is the current contract level of staffing (number of FTEs) equal to the level of staffing in this solicitation (as noted on the price attachment)?

A55: Please see A2 & A32.

Q56: With the understanding that this solicitation is open to small businesses with NAICS code 621999 (business size of $20.5m), can you please confirm if a small, SBA approved 8(a) Joint Venture "JV" can also submit a proposal for this requirement?

A56: Yes.

Q57: If the 8(a) JV is approved to submit a proposal, can the past performance of one of the JV members be utilized to meet the Past Performance requirement of this solicitation?

A57: Please see A39.

Q58: Is this a new requirement or an existing contract that is about to expire?

A58: This is a follow-on requirement to an existing contract.

Q59: If this is an existing contract, can you please provide the Contract #/Task Order # of the current contract.

A59: Please see A2 & A32.

Q60: Can you please confirm if all of the positions are currently filled?

A60: Please see A2.

Q61: In PWS 1.8, Contractor Travel: Travel will not be at the expense of the Government.

Q61a: Does this mean that there will be no Government requested travel?

A61a: Please see para. 5.1.6.2 “…The SPM will travel between locations, at the expense of the Contractor, to ensure operations are running smoothly with standardized policies and procedures being executed with no degradation of services provided.” Frequency of travel is at the Contractor’s discretion.

Q61b: Can the Government confirm that CPs assigned to the contract will not be required by the Government to travel to other locations?

A61b: Yes. Only the Service Provider Manager (SPM) is required to travel between Eglin and Pensacola;

see PWS, para. 7.12. Frequency of travel to all locations is at the Contractor’s discretion.

Q61c: If the Government is requiring that the CPs travel, will the Government include a travel CLIN to reimburse travel at cost, following JTR?

A61c: No, please see PWS, para. 1.8. You may build travel costs into your SPM rate.

Q62: In PWS 1.10.8, The Contractor shall provide the COR with copies of CP resume and proof of background investigation prior to acceptance and in-processing. What type of background investigation is the Government expecting? It is difficult to obtain authorization from a person for a background check if they are not being offered a job. We respectfully request that the Government approves the candidate based on the resume, at which point the candidate can become an employee and go through a background check.

A62: Yes, the COR and credentialing office will review the candidate’s package to include resume and when accepted, the package goes to the security office for background check. See PWS updated as V2.

Q63: In PWS Service Provider Manager (SPM) (a) Will the Government issue a laptop for the SPM to use as equipment for the SPM to perform its duties? This is needed if the SPM is required to visit multiple locations; and (b) Will the SPM be able to access Government systems/applications from Eglin to monitor contract metrics at all locations?; and (c) Will the SPM have office space at locations other than Eglin?

A63: The SPM has a CPU (Central Processing Unit) on his/her desk, the CPU does not leave the site.

The supervisor at Eglin AFB and the four (4) leads each have their own access to their location and report to the SPM. The SPM receives daily info from the leads. The SPM has office space location at Eglin AFB and Naval Hospital Pensacola (NHP). The Government may issue a laptop to the SPM for travel.

Q64: In PWS 5.1.6.2, The SPM/D will travel between locations, at the expense of the Contractor, to ensure operations are running smoothly with standardized policies and procedures being executed with no degradation of services provided. (a) How often is the Government expecting the SPM to travel?

(b) Is travel at the discretion of the Contractor? (c) Can the Government clarify what does SPM/D stand for?

A64: Currently, the SPM makes monthly site visits or as needed at ALL sites but the travel is at the discretion of the Contractor. SPM/D (“Deputy”) will be removed from PWS. See PWS updated as V2.

Q65: In PWS 5.3.6.2, A copy of a valid, current, unrestricted state nursing license for RNs and LPNs.

Licensure rules of the State Board of Nursing of the state in which the MTF resides shall apply. Will the Government consider providing a waiver to allow a contractor with an out-of-state license to work while the contractor obtains an in-state license?

A65: This is a non-personal service contract and the licensing must be from the state where services are provided.

Q66: In PWS 5.3.6.3, Security training, investigation appointment schedule and any other pertinent information regarding the individual, schedule and performance start date. (a) What security training is the Government expecting contractors to complete before performance start date? (b) What security training is the Government expecting contractors to complete before they have a CAC?

A66: Required security training will be provided at time of in-processing when CAC is available.

Removing para. 5.3.6.3. See PWS updated as V2.

Q67: The past performance relevancy factors for the current requirement limit references to the Prime contractor’s references only and, to be considered relevant, the contract must reflect the same or similar scope (including PSC), magnitude, and complexity of the current requirement. The Government intends to award to the lowest price Offeror with a substantial confidence past performance rating, which is highly restrictive given this acquisition is set aside for small 8(a) Offerors. Capable small 8(a) Offerors are unlikely to have a 70+ FTE contract with a product service code of Q701 (Specialized Medical Support) or Q801 (Medical Appointing Services).

The stated main overview or objective of the 8(a) program is strengthening participating small business's ability to compete effectively in the American economy. To this end the SBA promotes teaming, collaboration and the leveraging of experienced and successful businesses to expand the capabilities of smaller businesses. Collaboration and teaming to provide capabilities necessary to perform tasks which the Government desires is commonplace in the federal contracting marketplace. It provides more robust capabilities and risk mitigation to the Government, to name only a few of the benefits.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Government consider allowing the inclusion of teaming partners past performance and/or reducing the relevancy criteria. This would better allow for capable 8(a) businesses to compete, ensuring the best value to the Government.

Is the Government able to disclose how many of the positions are currently filled?

A67: Please see A2 & A32, and A39.

Q68: Attachment 1 – FAR 52.212-1 Addendum Instructions to Offerors, Section 5.1 General states, “Each Offeror shall submit a Past Performance Volume with its proposal, containing recent and relevant past performance information for the prime contractor only.”

Please clarify what is intended by the reference to “prime contractor only”? Is this intended to exclude subcontractors past performance? Will past performance of affiliates, key personnel, or parent companies be considered?

We understand that a contracting officer has broad discretion on how to structure a solicitation, but we recommend consideration of FAR 15.305(a)(2) (iii) and GAO decisions that support evaluation of affiliate and parent company past performance. When the evaluation of past performance takes into account past performance information regarding affiliate and parent companies, key personnel, and subcontractors, this expands the opportunity for small businesses to qualify for and bid on an opportunity.

A68: Please see A1 & A39.

Q69: The solicitation does not provide/identify Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires (FAR 52.222-42, May 2014). Can the customer please provide this?

A69: Please see Amendment 0002, FAR 52.222-42.

Q70: Will the Government clarify the acronym definition of “AIF”?

A70: This is an error, in PWS, para 1.10 and should be AFI (Air Force Instruction). See PWS updated as V2.

Q71: Will the Government please clarify what is meant by “compliance with Florida Panhandle as outlined in Part 2”?

A71: Please see revised PWS, para. 1.10.1. See PWS updated as V2.

Q72: Per PWS 1.10.1.2 - CAC Requirements - The Government informs all contractors who will work in Government facilities, the Facility Security Officer (FSO)/Company’s Security point of contact (POC) will provide the Government all the required information per the DHA CAC request process current version 2.1, January 2018, or more recent when updated, and refers bidder to the process attached at Part 7 of the PWS. There is no CAC process outlined in Part 7. Will the Government either update this reference to include the location of the information or incorporate it into PWS Part 7?

A72: Information will be provided at time of in-processing. Each location may handle the CAC request process differently. Sentence in para. 1.10.1.2 removed. See PWS updated as V2.

Q73: Per PWS 5.1.3, can the Government please confirm that the Background/Experience for both RN and LPN are identical.

A73: Please see revised PWS, para. 5.1.3.1 See PWS updated as V2.

Q74: Per PWS 5.1.3, can the Government provide the education requirements for the RN and LPN positions?

A74: Please see revised PWS, para. 5.1.3.1 See PWS updated as V2.

Q75: Attachment 5, WD’s All, indicates that at least some of the positions on this contract will be subject to the service contract act (SCA) and the Wage Determination (WD) Tables included in the RFP. Can the Government clarify which labor categories on this project are considered to be non-exempt and subject to the SCA. Additionally, can the Government provide the mapping of the project labor categories to the appropriate WD occupation code in the Government’s estimation?

A75: Please see A35 & A37.

Q76: Per PWS 4.2 Key Personnel, Paragraph 4.2.1 States, “Contract level key personnel requirements will be identified during the contract proposal request process”. However, there are no key personnel requirements identified in the RFP. Was this an oversight, or are there no key personnel requirements for this solicitation? Please clarify.

A76: Removed para. 4.2.1. See PWS updated as V2.

Q77: Per PWS 5.1.6.2 Position Description, the Service Provider Manager (SPM) position description in paragraph 5.1.6.2 states, “Service Provider Manager/Deputy (supported by our PMO) will oversee day-to-day operations of all Contractor employees and compliance with all contractual matters”. This leads to a couple of questions:

Q77a: What does the term “supported by our PMO” mean?

A77a: Removed from para. 5.1.6.2. See PWS updated as V2.

Q77b: The title “Deputy” has not been mentioned elsewhere in the RFP and there is no labor category description for this position. Does the Government require a Deputy SPM on this effort? If so, is there a labor category description and hours for this position or is it a collateral duty of the SPV or another position currently identified in the RFP?

A77b: Removed from para. 5.1.6.2. See PWS updated as V2.

Q78: PWS paragraph 5.2 states the number of FTEs to bid on this effort. Attach 5, paragraph 3.5 states, “Offerors who change the quantities (FTEs or Productive Hours) stated in the solicitation will render the proposal ineligible for award”. Offerors are being asked to submit FFP proposals with a fixed number of FTEs, without receiving any historical workload data to support if those manning levels are sufficient to meet the Performance Objectives outlined in the PWS Part 7 Performance Requirements Summary.

Would the Government please provide the following historical workload data:

• Call volumes by site

• Outbound call volume and expectations

• Current handle time or talk time

• Current SL that is being met by site.

• Number of referrals to be processed annually/monthly/weekly/daily

• Number of CLR chasings that need to be processed

• Average occupancy

• Average shrinkage by site

If the Government is unable to provide the historical workload data, will the Government include a provision that if the workload exceeds a given threshold, then the contractor will be able to request additional staff and subsequent equitable adjustment?

A78: Please see A24.

Q79: Per PWS, Part 7, para. 7.1, Performance Objectives, are the Performance Objective metrics identified in the table on pages 35-37 currently being met at each location with the staffing identified in paragraph 5.2 Number of FTEs?

A79: Yes.

Q80: Per PWS, Part 7, para. 7.1, Performance Objectives, Task 4, Avg. Talk Time, the conversion to MHS Genesis has increased the average time required for a Patient Appointing Agent to properly field a call. Does the Average Talk Time objective of 180 seconds per call consider the increase in time now experienced with the conversion to MHS Genesis?

A80: New guidance with MHS Genesis has not changed the 180 seconds per call.

Q81: Is each location currently 100% staffed with the positions outlined in the table?

A81: Please see A2.

Q82: Per PWS 5.1.6.2, SPM is expected to travel between locations, is there a minimum standard associated with this expectation? Such as traveling to each location once/month etc?

A82: Please see A64. There is no minimum standard.

Q83: Per PWS 5.1.2.2, are clerks permitted to work at different locations based on availability and scheduling needs?

A83: That’s at the discretion of the Contractor as long as they have credentials and are willing to travel;

and not at Government expense.

Q84: Per PWS, Section 1.15.2 – Personnel Security, can the Government confirm that this is the responsibility of the Contractor?

A84: Yes.

Q85: Per PWS, Part 3, para 3.2, will the Government clarify the acronym definition of “MGI”?

A85: MGI = Medical Group Instruction. See PWS updated as V2.

Q86: Would the Government consider increasing the page limit of the technical proposal from 10 pages to 15-20 pages? We feel as though 10 pages may not be sufficient to incorporate all the information required for the solicitation, including the 4 sections of the management plan that would require a sizeable amount of information.

A86: Please see A3. Page Limit will be changed to 15 pages.

Q87: For pricing purposes, will the Government release anniversary dates for incumbent personnel by each location?

A87: Please see A30.

Q88: PWS 7.12 states that the Contractor appointed SPM will be located at Eglin and/or split time at Pensacola.

Q88a: Can the Government estimate how many days a week the SPM will be at Eglin versus Pensacola?

A88a: Please see A61, A63 & A64. The SPM is located at Eglin AFB and it is at the discretion of the Contractor for SPM to travel to Pensacola.

Q88b: Since travel is not allowed under PWS 1.8, will the SPM be required to Tyndall AFB (estimated 2 hours from rest of locations) on a regular basis? If so, how frequently and will travel expenses be allowed for these in-person meetings?

A88b: Travel is allowed but per PWS, para. 1.8, “…the travel will not be at the expense of the Government.” Travel is at the discretion of the Contractor.

Q89: PWS 5.1.5.1 SPV and PWS 5.1.6.1 SPM defined the Background/Experience for these two positions identically. Did the Government intend for these two positions to have the exact same level of experience, education, and skills/qualifications? If not, will the Government please update the PWS accordingly.

A89: Yes.

Q90: The PWS is 40+ pages in length and FAR 5.2.212-1 Instructions to Offerors (4.2) requires a technical volume response of no more than 10 pages that includes four distinct items – Business Approach to PWS Requirements, Approach to Interfacing, Approach to Staffing Personnel, and Approach for Addressing Deficiencies and Complaints. Will the Government consider increasing the page limit to 20 pages to allow Offerors to fully describe their capabilities/approaches to each of the four distinct PWS requirements?

A90: Please see A3 and A86.

Q91: Can the Government provide whom is the incumbent on the current RFP and if there is more than one incumbent?

A91: Please see A42.

Q92: Can the Government provide the cross-reference of Government labor categories to the Wage Determination cross-reference to ensure that we comply with all Government and SCA requirements.

A92: Please see A35.

Q93: We would like to request that the Government consider changing the past performance requirement, to allow subcontractors past performance to be evaluated as well, as an 8(a) most companies rely on teaming partners on a contract on this size and magnitude.

A93: Please see A40.

Q94: Will the Government allow Joint Venture’s for this requirement, no mention of JV’s etc., were mentioned in the RFP documents.

A94: Yes.

Q95: The Contractor Representative mentioned in the PWS, is it to be an on-site supervisor, or can it be a corporate representative, that is not chargeable to the contract?

A95: It can be an on-site supervisor or a corporate representative.

Q96: Is Telework allowed, the PWS has a telework agreement, if so, what positions?

A96: Please see A45.

Q97: Is this new work? However, asking for the Government to provide the incumbent information will ultimately cover that question.

A97: Please see A42.

Q98: Can the Government provide information as to why this requirement is recompeted in such a short time frame?

A98: Please see A42. The incumbent contract is from 1 November 2023 - 31 March 2024 with a 2-month extension through 31 May 2024. The follow-on contract (RFP HT940824R0002) will begin 1 June 2024.

Q99: It appears that staff need access to Government computers, if so, what level of security clearance will be needed?

A99: Please see PWS, para. 1.12.5, “…the CP requiring access shall successfully initiate a Tier 1 (T1) background investigation…” “All CP affected by this requirement must have completed an acceptable submission that complies with all directions within 30 calendar days of Contract Award or Notice of Award or they must have a current, favorable background investigation or a higher level investigation, i.e., a security clearance.”

Q100: What is the physical appearance requirement for the badges? (ie. Lanyards or pinned Badges) A100: Please see PWS, para. 4.3 and 4.4; no specifics as long as the badge is clearly and legibly identified as the contractor; and worn above the waistline during duty hours.

Q101: Please confirm that the Government will provide a specific process for submitting staff credentials.

A101: Yes.

Q102: For incumbent staff who will get 1st right of refusal, will the Government share the existing credential package, or is it the expectation the Contractor Awardee provide a completely new credentialling package.

A102: No. While the incumbent has the existing credential packages, and transfer between companies should allow for employee to keep their access and background checks, the awardee must provide their own credential package to the MTF.

Q103: What Occupation code on the Wage Determination should Referral Management Clerks be mapped to?

A103: Please see A35.

Q104: Are there any changes in scope and/or number of FTEs for this recompete?

A104: Yes. Please see A33.

Q105: Are there any vacancies for any of the positions?

A105: Please see A2.

Q106: Being this opportunity is LPTA and includes SCA positions, what is the longest employment timeframe of an incumbent staff and what is the average employment length of incumbent staff?

A106: This is not LPTA. Please see Attachment 2, FAR 52.212-2, section 1.1 “The source selection, a Price-Past Performance Tradeoff….” Please see A30 for employee start date.

Q107: Who is the incumbent Contractor Company on the current contract?

A107: Please see A42.

Q108: What is the Total Contract Value of the incumbent contract to include all modifications?

A108: Please see A42.

Q109: Do the Title Pages [Section 2.10.4] for each volume count towards the page maximums?

A109: Title page is considered cover page. Please see A3.

Q110: Is the Cover Page (listed as exempt from page counts) the same thing as the Title Page [Section 2.10.4]?

A110: Please see A3.

Q111: Do the Points of Contact [Section 2.10.5] for each volume count towards the page maximums?

A111: You may add the Points of Contact to your Title/Cover page; please see A3.

Q112: Should we place page numbers onto the SF 1449 and SF 30 documents [Section 3.2]? Or would you prefer that we insert images of the SF 1449 and SF 30 documents onto the numbered pages in our proposal?

A112: SF 1449 already lists pages; please complete and submit page 1 and 3-11 of the RFP in your Price Proposal. You may use the pages available in the PDF file.

Q113: Should we include all pages of the SF 1449 (i.e., page 2 and page 3, Continuation Sheet)?

A113: We do not need all pages of the SF 1449. Only the pages necessary, such as page 1, pages 3-11, and necessary provisions/clauses listed in Attachment 1, 52.212-1, section 3.3.

Q114: Is there a total attachment (file) size limitation for sending emails to the DHA? Is there an individual attachment (file) size limitation for sending emails to the DHA?

A114: Email size limit is 20MB.

Q115: PWS, para. 5.1.6.2 mentions the “Service Provider Manager/Deputy” and “SPM/D” – is this the same person as the “Service Provider Manager (SPM)”?

A115: Yes.

Q116: “Service Provider Manager/Deputy (supported by our PMO)” – What do you mean by “supported by our PMO”? In what way is this person supported by the PMO?

A116: Please see A64 & A77.

Q117: How much time is the Service Provider Manager required to be at each location? Will they be required to be onsite at a location every day, or will they work remotely at times, between visits to the locations, or work primarily from an office at Eglin? How often will they visit each location?

A117: Please see A61 & A64.

Q118: Do we submit the excel spreadsheet “Attachment 4 – Price Sheet” in addition to transferring the calculated Contract Line-Item Number (CLIN) totals from the Summary Tab into the RFP’s Schedule of Supplies/Services?

A118: Yes.

Q119: When we enter the Contractor Name and Date into the appropriate fields, do you want us to leave the words “Contractor:” and “Date:” in the fields (e.g., “Contractor: ABC, Inc.”, “Date: March 20, 2024”) or type over what is already in those fields (e.g., “ABC, Inc.”, “March 20, 2024”)?

A119: Please leave the words “Contractor” and “Date” and add your info behind the colon (:).

Q120: Should we provide a Title Page and Points of Contact in the excel file?

A120: No. Attachment 4 is part of the Price Proposal in Attachment 1, 52.212-1, Volume I, section 2.10.8, 3.0, and 3.5.

Q121: How many employees work on the current contract? Was this total number of employees who work on the current contract determined by the Government or the contract holder? How many employees are expected to transition to the new contract, e.g., rebadged.

A121: The current contract has 70 FTEs, which was determined by the Government. All filled positions may transition to the new contract.

Q122: Please provide a list of all prime contractors who have held this contact for the past seven years.

A122: This requirement was established in 2022 and services have been provided by BG Consulting Services, LLC.

Q123: Assuming bidders are not permitted to contact and interview employees currently working on this contract and in order to accurately determine pricing on the contract, a bidder is required to know the number of vacation weeks each employee on the current contract has accrued. While the name of the employee is not needed, the labor category and the anniversary date for each employee is necessary to determine an employee’s years on the contract to determine the number of vacation weeks for which the successor contractor (contract awardee) is responsible. As an example, two employees perform near identical functions. One has just been hired and will earn two (2) weeks of vacation after one year of employment. The second person holds the same position, has the same experience and credentialing as the first, does identical work as the first at the same location and works the same hours, however, this second person has worked on the contract for 12 years and has four (4) weeks of paid vacation for which the winning bidder will be responsible. To emphasize the importance of this requested information, the employee that worked on the contract for 12 years will receive ~$5,000 in vacation benefits/pay beginning on day 1 of the new contract while the new employee will not receive any vacation pay for the first year.

Without this information required in this “question”, only the incumbent can accurately determine the cost of performing this contract.

A123: Please see A30.

Q124: Please confirm that Executive Order 14026 generally applies to this contract.

A124: Yes.