Amendment 0005 Final.docx

M0026423R0006

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Technical Questions

We appreciate the need for the Government to evaluate personnel clearance eligibility. However, the requirement to furnish Attachment 20 is unduly burdensome to non-incumbent Offerors and therefore: 1) favors the incumbent and 2) eliminates fair competition/fair opportunity.

To promote fair competition for all Offerors, would the Government remove the Attachment 20 requirement and the requirement for demonstrating Secret Eligibility for all personnel?

This Amendment hereby removes the requirement for Attachment 20 in the proposal. This attachment shall now be provided to the Government after the contract award but before performance starts.

III.2.b states: "A Personnel Clearance Eligibility Attachment (Attachment 20) shall be provided with the proposal to substantiate personnel secret eligibility and to assist the Government in evaluating the Offeror's plan and assessing the risk associated with the Offeror's plan."

The current SCA program staff meets the threshold for "right of first refusal" employment on the contract, which requires incumbent capture for a successful bidder. Incumbent SCA staff are likely unwilling to engage in discussions with other Offerors and much less likely to share the required personal information (SSN, date of birth, and place of birth) needed to complete Attachment 20. Only the incumbent has the SCA incumbent staff roster for responding to this bid. This requirement to furnish Attachment 20 for SCA personnel is unduly burdensome to non-incumbent Offerors and therefore: 1) favors the incumbent and 2) eliminates fair competition/fair opportunity.

To promote fair competition for all Offerors, would the Government remove the Attachment 20 requirement and the requirement for demonstrating Secret Eligibility for all SCA personnel?

This Amendment hereby removes the requirement for Attachment 20 in the proposal. This attachment shall now be provided to the Government after the contract award but before performance starts.

"The proposed roles of management and team resource allocation to ensure oversight and control of performance execution for consistent quality of the performance tasks described in the PWS at Section 4."

However, the Government has assigned and described the management roles for this effort in the PWS. Can the Government please clarify what information Offerors can provide in addition to the tasks already described in PWS Section 4 for the PM, Ops Manager and Coast Leads?

The Government wants to evaluate how the Offeror will propose and perform the roles of management while providing oversight and control of performance execution required by the PWS Section 4.

"The proposal shall include all management personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope."

Does the Government expect all Management personnel to be identified prior to proposal submission?

Yes, the Offeror shall identify all offered Management personnel pertaining to this specific contract effort in their proposal.

"The proposal shall include all management personnel with a description of their work experience relating to projects similar in scope."

Can the Government please define "management personnel"?

Management personnel are defined in PWS Sections 6.1 through 6.1.3.

"The qualifications and capabilities (e.g., Secret Clearance Eligibility, experience, training, education, etc.) and capacities (e.g., process X number of transactions per hour per person) for each proposed individual..."

Does the Government require named personnel for all positions proposed?

The Government does not require “named personnel” for all positions, just those Critical/Key personnel described in PWS Sections 6.1 through 6.1.3.

The offered personnel in the staffing matrix is not required to be “by name. “However, the proposal shall demonstrate how the Offeror will maintain the required level of fully qualified support, as described in the PWS, throughout the contract performance period.

Critical/key personnel are not required to be included in the staffing matrix.

"The capacities (e.g., process X number of transactions per hour per person) for each proposed individual..."

Could the Government please identify (or define) the "transactions" to be addressed?

Transactions are interactions with Recovering Service Members. For example: working with the RSM and family to develop a comprehensive recovery plan (CRP), which identifies needs and defines the goals for recovery, rehabilitation, and reintegration or locating and educating RSMs about services and resources available to RSMs and their families / caregivers, etc.

The Offeror should be able to demonstrate knowledge of these types of interactions.

Can the Government please provide monthly caseloads, by location, for the past one year? Offerors have no way of knowing how many staff to propose without this information.

Section 3 of the PWS provides an average for each RCC at 25....but at no time will the RCC to RSM ratio exceed 1:40, and no less than 1:18. The contract awardee will decide how many cases per RCC and will maintain the scalability to increase and decrease the RCC personnel to accommodate the appropriate ratios outlined in the PWS Section 3. The Government (Multidisciplinary Complex Case Review Board) identifies complex cases, but it’s the contract awardee’s RCC Coast Lead who assigns an RCC to an RSM. The monthly caseload per RCC varies by type, location and complexity.

This Amendment hereby removes the requirement for Attachment 20 in the proposal. This attachment shall now be provided to the Government after the contract award but before the performance starts.

Currently all contractor clearances are maintained by the WWR in DISS. Will the government have “ownership’ of employees security clearances in DISS or will the contractor have to have a Secret FCL and DD-254 to maintain these clearances in DISS?

The Government will have ownership in DISS. No DD-254 will be provided or required for this solicitation.

Attachment 20 is removed.

Is an executive summary and compliance matrix required for the Technical Capabilities Proposal?

Yes, executive summary and compliance matrix are required for technical capabilities proposal. Please see 52.212-1 Addendum III.2.

Technical proposal page limitation has been expanded to 75 pages via this Amendment.

Is the Table of Contents excluded from the 50-page limit?

No, Table of Contents is not excluded as stated in II.2. Proposal Format. Please see 52.212-1 Addendum, II.2.

Technical proposal page limitation has been expanded to 75 pages via this Amendment.

WWRO 3000.1B SOP RCC Program detailing how RCC duties will be performed is available from various sources. Why is it necessary to include a version of this document in the proposal? Recommend this requirement of the proposal be removed.

The SOP is for the overall requirements of the program. The Government wants to see a daily “battle rhythm” of day-to-day activities to support the requirements of the WWRO 3000.1B

Technical proposal page limitation has been expanded to 75 pages via this Amendment.

If the government does not remove the requirement to include SOPs, recommend expanding the page limit of the technical proposal by 25 pages.

Technical proposal page limitation has been expanded to 75 pages via this Amendment.

All reports, materials and information, in whatever form, developed or created under this contract, and all associated intellectual property, shall become the property of the Government with full access and usage rights.

Past Performance Questions

III.3.c states: "The Offeror must provide information on three (3) contracts within the last three (3) years..."

Due to the COVID pandemic, many contracts had telework starting in Q1-2020, meaning a 3-year recency would not afford sufficient CPAR history for in-person management performance. In-person staffing aligns with the contract requirements. In order to evaluate an Offeror's ability to successfully manage in-person personnel and travel complexities, it would benefit the Government to expand the recency to 5 years.

Would the Government update the past performance recency to a 5-year period?

Yes, the Government extended past performance recency to a five-year period via this Amendment.

"Offerors may include subcontractor past performance. However, past performance as the prime contractor will be considered more relevant than as a subcontractor."

Can the Government please remove this constraint on relevance? It violates SBA’s regulation at 13 C.F.R. 125.2 that states "Capabilities, past performance, and experience. When an offer of a small business prime contractor includes a proposed team of small business subcontractors and specifically identifies the first-tier subcontractor(s) in the proposal, the head of the agency must consider the capabilities, past performance, and experience of each first tier subcontractor that is part of the team as the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime contractor if the capabilities, past performance, and experience of the small business prime does not independently demonstrate capabilities and past performance necessary for award."

Yes, this Amendment hereby removes constraints on subcontractor past performance. All past performance will be considered accordingly.

The Government now considers past performance as prime contractor and subcontractor as equally relevant and will be evaluated accordingly. This change is incorporated via this Amendment.

Pricing Questions

The Government’s estimate for Option Year Four’s Travel is hereby corrected via this Amendment from $38,023 to $76,046.

The Government intended to include price for CLIN X004 to the total evaluated price. Attachment 3’s formula is hereby corrected via this Amendment.

If there is an estimated amount of travel required per year, why does CLIN 4005, Pg. 12 state, “Government directed travel in accordance with PWS Section 8. The Government estimate for travel is $38,023” whereas CLIN 0005, 1005, 2005, and 3005 have $76,046 estimated for travel? Is there an explanation why the estimated travel costs are half the first four year’s estimations?

The correct Government’s estimates for Option year Four is $76,046. CLIN 4005’s amount is corrected via this Amendment to reflect $76,046.

Solicitation Questions

Is this the weekly, monthly, or yearly caseload?

25 represents an average number of cases per RCC at any given time. Approximately 600 new RSMs are assigned to the program a year.

What is the average length of time it takes for an RCC to support the RSM and close out their CRP?

It varies. The average is a little over one year.

On average how many new RSMs are assigned a year to an RCC?

The average is 600 for the program; an average of 13 per RCC.

Can the Government share historical data regarding workload performance for each location?

Caseload is not location specific as there are external cases not co- located with RCC locations. Offerors should account for all cases (entirety of program) not just a specific location(s). The contractor must maintain the scalability to increase and decrease the RCC personnel to accommodate the appropriate ratios outlined in PWS Section 3.

Is it the Government’s intention that RCCs only need to be physically located at the nine locations provided in Table 1A?

The locations are required. Offerors are encouraged to propose new or innovative approaches to management beyond minimum standard in their proposal.

Does the caseload vary among the Table 1A locations? Are the same number of RCCs needed at each location?

Yes, caseload by location varies. Each location is not required to have the same number of RCCs. An RCC from one specific location could handle cases that are not geographically co-located with the RCC, and will be supported through virtual means (i.e., telephonic, video, etc.). Please see PWS Section 3.

Location is not specific to numbers; case load drives the number of personnel (RCC) at each location.

Is office space provided for the RCCs at all locations in Table 1A?

The Government will provide workspaces for each location identified in Table 1A and Table 1B. Workspace includes office space, office furniture, desktop telephones, copiers, workstations (laptop and internet access) and cell phones and are considered incidental to the place of performance in accordance with FAR 45.000(5).

Can the Government share historical data regarding workload performance for such instances in the past?

In the past five years, only two out of four surge locations have been physically staffed. Currently, only one location is physically staffed.

Camp Butler Okinawa, Japan and Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany are Wounded Warrior Detachments. Are these locations also subject to surge support locations?

No, these locations are not subject to surge support locations per the PWS Section 3.1.

Is there a particular occupation code/title preferred by the government for the RCC positions?

No occupation code according to Wage Determination 2015-0011, Rev. 27, Revision Date 08/12/2022. Occupation Title is Recovery Care Coordinator.

Fluency in what languages other than English is preferred?

The Marine Corps standard is English.

Fluency in any other language is preferred. Bilingual ability has proven to be helpful for the family members.

Yes, Marines are receiving RCP care at Quantico from RCC’s that are assigned to WWBn East.

Can the government provide the location where the workspace is provided?

Co-located in the WWBn E/W Headquarters.

Is the Government’s intention that only 6 times of travel per year are estimated total or that 6 times of travel for each position per travel (i.e. 24 separate trips, 4 positions at 6 times a year each)? Can the Government please clarify?

It is the Government’s intention that the listed personnel, collectively or individually, will only travel approximately 6 times a year. This does not mean 6 times for each position (i.e., 24 separate trips, 4 positions at 6 times a year each).

Can the government please offer historical data as to how many total travel trips this equals a year?

Historically, there has been one trip per year, but with requirement/scope changes, it is now estimated there will be two trips per year.

e. Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on the Government's Use, Release, or Disclosure of Technical Data or Computer Software – For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each item, component, or process. For computer software or computer software documentation, identify the software, and software documentation using a format similar to the chart in DFARS 252.227-7017. When all data, software, or documentation will be submitted without restrictions, the Offeror shall so state in the chart provided as an attachment to this volume;

f. Technical Data or Computer Software Previously Delivered to the Government - The Offeror shall attach an identification of all documents or other media incorporating technical data or computer software it intends to deliver with other than unlimited rights that are identical or substantially similar to documents or other media that the Offeror has produced for, delivered to, or is obligated to deliver to the Government under any contract or subcontract as required by DFARS 252.227-7028. The attachment shall identify the contract number under which the data or software were produced; the contract number under which, and the name and address of the organization to whom, the data or software were most recently delivered or will be delivered; and any limitations on the Government's rights to use or disclose the data or software, including, when applicable, identification of the earliest date the limitations expire.

These are instructions to identity and assert restrictions on technical data or computer software if included in the proposal. They are not required if not applicable.

FAR 52.222-42 with the completed Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires is hereby incorporated by full text via this Amendment

"The contractor must maintain the scalability to increase and decrease the RCC personnel to accommodate the appropriate ratios."

Could the Government please clarify this requirement? It is doubtful under an FFP contract that the awardee would change staffing levels without a contract modification.

The Scope, Section 3 of the PWS, provides a range of understanding to the complete requirement. While the Government has provided “average caseloads” and expected ratios, these cannot be exact, the Government is expecting some flexibility from Offerors and accommodations within proposals to meet expectations.

"These ratios include portions of the RSM population that are not geographically co-located with the RCCs, and will be supported through virtual means (i.e., telephonic, video, etc.)".

What specific virtual mechanisms/platforms have been utilized in the past under this contract?

Telephone, video teleconference (Signal App), and e-mail.

"These ratios include portions of the RSM population that are not geographically co-located with the RCCs, and will be supported through virtual means (i.e., telephonic, video, etc.)".

What platforms are currently authorized by the Govt. to utilize in support of this work?

Telephone, video teleconference (Signal App), and e-mail.

"These ratios include portions of the RSM population that are not geographically co-located with the RCCs, and will be supported through virtual means (i.e., telephonic, video, etc.)".

Are there any HIPPA/Privacy Act compliance that needs to be considered when providing virtual support under this contract?

Yes, HIPAA/Privacy Act need to be considered to ensure compliance. All personnel are required to be trained and certified in HIPAA and Privacy Act.

"An RCC will not accept, initiate, or work a case that has not been previously approved for assignment by the Government".

Who in the Government will be overseeing these actions?

WWR and WWBn Operations sections will oversee the actions described in PWS Section 3.

"An RCC will not accept, initiate, or work a case that has not been previously approved for assignment by the Government".

Could the Government please clarify as this appears to be personal services?

The Government assigns a case to the RCC Program. The RCC Program/awardee assigns the case to a specific RCC. An RCC should not initiate a case that has not been assigned to the RCC Program.

"An RCC will not accept, initiate, or work a case that has not been previously approved for assignment by the Government".

How will this be coordinated with any need for Offerors to maintain caseload ratios? This statement appears to make the assignment of workload a Government function.

The Government assigns a case to the RCC Program the RCC program assigns the case to a specific RCC to maintain ratios. Please see changes under PWS Section 3.

The Government states that:

"...at no time, will the RCC to RSM ratio exceed a 1:40 (RCC: RSM) ratio in accordance with the DoDI 1300.24. Conversely, at no time will the RCC to RSM ratio be less than 1:18."

When these ratios are more than or less than identified above, what is the timeline for increasing staff or scaling down?

The Offeror should propose how they intend to manage scalability within the scope of the ratios provided. RCC to RSM ratio shall never exceed 1:40 in accordance with DoDI 1300.24. In addition, and the RCC to RSM ratio should never be less that 1:18. The Performance Requirements Summary (within the PWS), (No. 3) identifies Acceptable Quality Levels, which should be addressed ASAP to correct performance deficiencies in the most efficient manner possible.

"Circumstances may occasionally require the RCC work beyond normal work hours to accommodate an RSM's care".

Will the contract be reimbursed for overtime pay?

No. As this is a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP)) contract which provides for a price that is not subject to any adjustment on the basis of the contractor’s cost experience in performing the contract., there will be no overtime pay on circumstances that may require RCC work beyond normal work hours.

"...the meeting will include appropriate contract representative(s)..."

Who is considered "appropriate contract representatives" for this meeting that occurs quarterly?

The Program Manager is the appropriate contract representative. Deviations must be approved by the Contracting Officer.

"The contractor must provide a fully qualified replacement for any employee that will be absent. Absent is defined as not present at work when scheduled. Instances of emergency or sudden illness are exceptions to an immediate need of a replacement."

Could the Government clarify when a replacement is required?

IAW PWS Section 6, the contractually required level of support for this requirement must be maintained at all scheduled times. The contractor must ensure that all contract support personnel are present for assigned work hours and duties. A replacement will be required on circumstances other than illness and emergencies mentioned in PWS Section 6. The offeror’s technical proposal should address staffing plans and the time it would take to onboard replacement personnel should the need arise.

"The contractor must provide a fully qualified replacement for any employee that will be absent. Absent is defined as not present at work when scheduled. Instances of emergency or sudden illness are exceptions to an immediate need of a replacement."

Are Offerors expected to provide a replacement when an RCC goes on PTO?

Yes, there must be a plan in place to cover the cases and/or duties that are assigned to each RCC

"...contractors will be authorized to telework as determined by the PM and the COR. Contractor personnel should plan/expect to be on site as directed for meetings, site visits, or other events requiring face-to-face interactions".

Are Offerors permitted to employ remote RCCs that can attend meetings virtually?

No, the PWS states, “Contractor personnel should plan/expect to be on site as directed for meetings site visits, or other events requiring face to face interactions”

"...contractors will be authorized to telework as determined by the PM and the COR. Contractor personnel should plan/expect to be on site as directed for meetings, site visits, or other events requiring face-to-face interactions".

Does this requirement mean that all RCCs must be located at one of the sites listed in tables 1A and 1B?

Yes, this requirement means that all RCCs must be located at one of the sites listed in tables 1A and 1B.

"The due date of Monday, November 28, 2022, at 10:00 am, is burdensome and unrealistic based on the 10:00 am time following a holiday weekend (Thanksgiving). The small window of time in which an Offeror may reasonably receive an acknowledgment of receipt for electronic submission is not realistic. An Offeror would need to submit either prior to or during the holiday weekend for acknowledgment, which assumes Government personnel are working those days as well.

Would the Government extend the due date to Wednesday, November 30, 2022? This would permit the Offeror to submit proposals, receive receipt acknowledgments from the CO, and still have ample time to troubleshoot any potential technical issues that may arise (that are not likely managed over a holiday weekend)."

On November 23, 2022 the Government issued Amendment 0002 which extended the proposal due date from November 28, 2022, at 10:00 AM EST to December 5, 2022 at 10:00 AM EST.

Then, on December 2, 2022, Amendment 0003 was issued that extended proposal due date from December 5, 2022 at 10:00 EST to December 16, 2022 at 10:00 EST.

Finally, on December 15, 2022, the Government issued Amendment 0004 that extended the proposal due date from December 16, 2022, at 10:00 AM EST to January 11, 2023 at 10:00 AM EST.

Then, on December 2, 2022, Amendment 0003 was issued that extended proposal due date from December 5, 2022 at 10:00 EST to December 16, 2022 at 10:00 EST.

Finally, on December 15, 2022, the Government issued Amendment 0004 that extended the proposal due date from December 16, 2022, at 10:00 AM EST to January 11, 2023 at 10:00 AM EST.