Amendment_05_-_Released.docx

N6264517R0014

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:

AMENDMENT 05

UPDATES AND REVISIONS:

1. Section L, Attachment 3 Pricing Workbook is revised, see attached.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

Question 73. We noticed that in Tab for Lot H in Cell 134 is missing the formula.

a. Answer 73: Attachment 3, Pricing Workbook is revised to correct formula, see attached.

Question 74. On the Amendment 0004 pricing sheet, cell E134 on tab "Lot H" is not a formula, it has $0.00 hardcoded in the cell.

a. Answer 74: Refer to Answer 73.

Question 75. Are you asking for each PPIS or CPAR to be in a separate file or are they to be aggregated into one .pdf file?

a. Answer 75: PPIS or CPARs may be submitted as separate .pdf files or aggregated into one .pdf file in accordance with the electronic submission requirements in Section L.2. of the solicitation.

Question 76. SLIN 0006 on Page 4 of the RFP lists Physical Therapy Technician under the Technician Labor Band. On page 83-85 of amendment 0001 Physical Therapy Assistants are listed under the Assistant Labor Band, however, SLIN 0007 Assistant on page 5 does not list Physical Therapy Assistant. Question: Will the government clarify which labor band the Physical Therapy Assistant is categorized as?

a. Answer 76: The Physical Therapy Assistant is categorized in the Assistant Labor Band.

Question 77. Reference: Certified Respiratory Therapist and Registered Respiratory Therapist. These positions are listed under two different labor categories, Technologist and Technician. These two positions are essentially the same thing. Question: For the Self-Scoring worksheet would a contractor be able to list the same contract for Respiratory Therapist under both Technologist and Technician labor bands?

a. Answer 77: Registered Respiratory Therapist are to be captured as Technologists, Certified Respiratory Therapist are to be captured as Technicians.

Question 78. Reference: Section L.2.2.2. The solicitation states; A Past Performance Information Sheet (Section L, Attachment 1) shall be submitted for each contract cited on the Self-Scoring Worksheet. In order to get the maximum number of points many contractors are going to have to cite multiple contracts. There are 7 labor bands, plus 6 labor categories in the common/difficult to fill data element. If a contractor submitted 3 contracts to reach the max total for each data element, plus 6 contracts for the labor categories theoretically we would have to submit 27 Past Performance Information Sheets. Having our POCs fill out a complete Past Performance Information Sheet even if we can combine contracts/task orders to one POC is asking a lot. Question: Would the government consider revising this requirement to allow for a validation sheet (similar to the DHA format) and submit complete Past Performance Information Sheet similar to previous Navy RFPs?

a. Answer 78: The Government has considered this request; however, the requirement will remain as is.

Question 79. Reference: M.1.4. Evaluation Methodology. According to section M.14; it appears that only the 30 highest scored proposals as based on the total score for all data elements on the Self-Scoring Worksheet will be considered as part of the competitive range. There are approximately 20 companies on the Clinical Acquisition Support Services (CLASS) contract. Each of those companies alone can meet the maximum number of FTEs for each data element. If half of those companies had subcontractors that meet the max that is already 30 companies with the highest scores possible. This puts smaller companies that have not been around as long or been awarded a contract the size of CLASS at a distinct advantage even though we are more than capable of performing the work. Question: Will the Navy consider establishing different tiers and accept X amount of Tier 1 companies, x amount of Tier 2 companies, and X amount of Tier 3 companies to set the Competitive range this way the awards aren’t made to only large companies?

a. Answer 79: This solicitation is 100% small business set-aside. The Government has considered this request; however, the requirement will remain as is.

Question 80. Reference: Labor Bands. The self-scoring worksheet lists data elements that separate the contractor experience into 8 labor bands. There are two labor bands that are separated, but after review, should not be classified as "stand-alone" labor bands. The labor bands for technologists and Technicians should be included with the Allied Health Labor Band Services. All the positions listed under the technologists and technicians labor bands are inclusive under the "Allied Health" field of professionals. Question: Can the government provide clarification why technicians and technologists are not classified as part of the allied health labor band?

a. Answer 80: Labor categories under the Allied Health labor band are credentialed and privileged positions in accordance with BUMEDINST 6010.30. Labor categories under the Technician and Technologist labor bands are not credentialed or privileged positions.

Question 81. File Naming Convention: The naming convention of files was only provided for Pricing (page 104 of Amendment 0001) – “The completed file shall be submitted in the e-mailed proposal as Volume III – Pricing. The file shall be renamed: [name of offeror] pricing workbook.xlsx”. Will the Government please provide the naming convention for the remaining files?

a. Answer 81: There is not a naming convention for the remaining files.

Question 82. E-mail Submission of Three (3) Separate Volumes: Only files or objects can be attachments; folders cannot be attached. Will the Government please confirm how files are to be uploaded into the e-mail for submission, as no hard copies (electronic DVD/CD submissions) are permitted?

a. Answer 82: The individual files within each volume shall be attached to the e-mail submission in accordance with the electronic submission requirements in Section L.2. of the solicitation.

Question 83. This raises the following very crucial latent ambiguity. We note that a critical latent ambiguity has been raised by these changes. In particular this sentence, “amaximum of eight Past Performance Information Sheets shall be submitted.” In original section L.2.2.2. has been replaced by the new L.2.2.2. This sentence no longer appears. Does this mean that the Government now indicates that an unlimited number of Past Performance Information Sheets can be submitted?

a. Answer 83: The Government removed the referenced sentence from section L.2.2.2 on purpose to allow offerors to submit more than eight Past Performance Information Sheets. This will theoretically allow offerors to submit a large amount of Past Performance Information Sheets, but the Government expects that offerors will likely submit no more than 26 Past Performance Information Sheets given the scope of the solicitation.

Question 84. Regarding the subject solicitation Attachment 3 posted March 17, 2017, attachment to Amendment 0004. Lot H CLIN 5007AB pricing does not contain a formula in Column E to multiply Quantity (Hours) times Unit Price to equal Total Price. The Total Price amount for CLIN 5007AB is therefore zero on the Attachment 3 schedule

a. Answer 84: Refer to Answer 73.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf