Questions and Answers 01.pdf

Medical Readiness Q&A #01

1. Referencing the Solicitation, Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance, paragraph 3.1.2.1, sub-paragraph 5

– Past Performance Questionnaire: On DoD contracts, our government customers submit performance evaluations on CPARs (PPIRS) that serve as the official record of a contractor’s performance on a project.

Accordingly, we have found that many government customers will not complete a separate PPQ if they have completed a formal government CPARs evaluation. For instance, we’ve had at least three customers associated with directly aligned projects, who indicate they are not allowed to complete additional paperwork other than that associated with the formal government performance evaluation in CPARs. Although they completed excellent CPARs for the project, they are not allowed to complete other performance documentation (PPQs, letters of recommendation, etc.) outside of the formal government CPARs. In other cases, there have been personnel changes due to mission changes, retirement, etc. It is common to see language in DoD RFPs directing bidders to provide a PPQ only if a CPARs is not available or giving contractors the choice to provide either a PPQ or a CPARs. We respectfully request that the RFP requirements be amended to allow for submission of a CPARs in lieu of a PPQ, if available. Not amending in this manner will give an advantage towards private sector and constrict DoD contracts.

A. See Amendment 0001.

2. In looking over the plans and specs, I see no automatic doors of any kind; no traditional manual sliding ICU doors for exam rooms, any swing door operators, or any automatic sliding doors. Maybe I misunderstand the function of the building, but I rarely see medical facilities, even if they are just training facilities, without doors of this kind, especially for gurneys, wheelchairs, or hospital beds.

A. There are no automatic doors in this facility.

3. Please clarify the font requirements (RFP discrepancy). RFP page 22, Section, Section 00110, Proposal files,

2.1.3 stipulates a 10 pt font minimum, while 1.1.3 of Section 00110 stipulates a 12 pt font minimum. Given that the exhibits appear to be in 10 pt font, please confirm that the correct reference should be 10 pt, not 12 pt.

A. 10pt font minimum. See Amendment 0001.

4. Referencing RFP page 23, Section 00110, 3.1, Proposal Volume Contents. Offerors are directed to provide a summary section within each file, in addition to the narrative discussion and table of contents. Please provide more direction on this requirement. Given the summary sections aren’t addressed in any of the subparagraphs of the volume requirements within the subsequent RFP factors, please confirm the separate summary sections will NOT count against the page limits for the factors. Or, we may respectfully suggest that a page limit be assigned separately for the summary section.

A. The summary section is included in the page limits.

5. The volumes as titled in the 1.1.4 table of RFP page 21, Section 00110, conflict with how they are listed in paragraphs 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3. and 3.1.4. Please clarify how offerors shall title each volume.

A. There is not a requirement on how to specifically label each volume.

6. Attachment A includes a heading for another project and appears to be inapplicable to the project’s requirements. Please identify if offeror’s are to use this attachment, or if another one specific to this project is forthcoming.

A. There is no difference in the document. A new Attachment A has been uploaded with the correct header.

7. Please identify which Volume and factor the Exhibit A – Performance Relevance Questionnaire & Company Specialized Experience forms are to be placed.

A. Volume I, Sub-Factor 1.

8. Please clarify discrepancy in project guidelines for past performance. Attachment A – “Performance Relevance Questionnaire & Company Specialized Experience” states that projects submitted for past performance shall not have been completed any earlier than 6 years prior to the solicitation date and be at least 75% complete.

However, 3.1.2, Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance, states that projects to be submitted shall be in performance or awarded for the past three years.

A. 6 Years. See Amendment 0001.

9. Please identify whether PPQs provided should correspond with the projects submitted on the Exhibit A ‘ Performance Relevancy Questionnaires, or those submitted for Offeror Past/Present Performance in 3.1.2.1, Contract Descriptions and Performance. These two documents have conflicting criteria regarding period of performance for eligible projects so will not include the same PPQs unless the requirements are adjusted.

Volume II only requests PPQs for the latter, not the former.

A. See question 8.

10. RFP page 30, Section 00120, paragraph 4.5, states that no pricing information shall be displayed in Volume 3, Small Business Participation Plan proposal. However, the Exhibit E and Exhibit Fs that offerors are instructed to use both require that dollar amounts be listed. Please confirm that pricing information is acceptable in Volume 3, or revise the forms accordingly.

A. The pricing information is acceptable and required in Exhibit E and Exhibit F.

11. 3.1.1 Volume I, Offeror Technical Capability, paragraph 3.1.1.3.1, indicates that resumes are limited to two pages each and do not count against the page limit. Volume II, Offeror Past/Present Performance also requests resumes for key personnel in its sub-paragraphs (3.1.2.6, 3.1.2.5, 3.1.2.7, etc). Please identify whether it is acceptable to cross reference to Volume I. If the intent is to provide resumes again in this factor, then please identify if the same guidelines are applicable for Volume II (e.g., resumes are limited to 2 pages, but do not count against the page limit).

A. 3.1.2.5 is asking for references for key personnel, not resumes.

3.1.2.6 is simply saying that the past performance of the personnel can be used in assessing the contractors past performance.

3.1.2.7 is a reminder that key personnel without past performance history needs a resume, which is part of Volume I.

12. Please identify if the “Exhibit A – Performance Relevance Questionnaire & Company Specialized Experience” counts against the page limit.

A. Exhibit A does not count against page limit.

13. Referencing RFP page 33, 5.3, Past/Present Performance, 5.3.3, the evaluation criteria states that “evaluation shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.” Appendix D is not referenced elsewhere in the solicitation. Please provide Appendix D.

A. 5.3.2 Appendix D is Exhibit D. See Amendment 0001.

14. Referencing RFP page 27, 3.1.3.1 and page 36, 5.4.1.1, please confirm the “Small Business Participation Commitment Document” is the same as the Exhibit E, Small Business Participation Plan.

A. Exhibit E is part of the Small Business Participation Plan. 3.1.3.1.1 and 3.1.3.1.2 are the requirements.

15. Referencing RFP page 36, paragraph 5.4.1.4, 5.4.1.4. “Small business utilization metrics/performance requirements are specified in the Performance Requirements Summary of the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan.” Please provide the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan referenced, or clarify the intent of this statement.

A. Paragraph has been removed. See Amendment 0001.

16. Please clarify Exhibit B intent. The form title is “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form.” Please confirm this form is only required for subcontractors or personnel NOT currently employed with the prime contractor’s firm; key personnel employed with the prime contractor’s firm are not required to complete this form.

A. 3.1.1.3.1 States ‘In the event the intended person is not part of the offeror’s organization at the time the proposal is submitted then a completed Exhibit B, “Subcontractor/Team/Key Personnel Information and Consent Form” is also required or the information will not be considered.’

17. Please clarify the Exhibit C intent. The form is titled “Letter of Commitment of Key Subcontractor and/or Key Personnel,” but the directions indicate this shall be placed on the subcontractor’s letterhead. Please confirm this would only be for personnel NOT currently employed with the prime contractor’s firm; key personnel employed with the prime contractor’s firm are not required to complete this form.

A. Correct. This form is for subcontractors’ technical ability to be considered. Refer to question 16.

18. RFP page 27, Volume III, 3.1.3.2 requires submission of a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-1, FAR 52.219-9 and AFARS Appendix DD. Please identify if the Exhibit F form is mandatory, or if contractors may use their own format, as long as it meets the minimum requirements of FAR 52.219-9 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” and AFARS Appendix DD.

A. See 3.1.3.2.1 “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan format at Exhibit F may be utilized.”

19. If submitting a proposal electronically, please confirm just a single copy of the bond is required to be mailed.

A. See 3.1.4.5. A single copy is acceptable.

20. Referencing RFP page 25, Section 00110, paragraph 5. Please confirm the intent is to reference Exhibit D, not Exhibit A.

A. Correct. See Amendment 0001.

21. Please confirm that the three Individual Subcontracting Reports requested in Volume III, Small Business Participation Plan do NOT count against the page limit. Offerors cannot control the length of these external documents, and the provision of these can comprise the entirety of the page limit.

A. 25 Pages is more than enough for all requirements. ISR’s are typically only two pages.

22. We respectfully request the government consider eliminating the page limit for Volume III, Small Business Participation. This has been standard in DoD RFPs due to the nature of these forms. With the request to list information on options as well as subcontractors used and their NAICs/CAGE codes etc, offerors will be prevented from responding compliantly to each question on the form. If the page limit is retained for this factor, we respectfully request the government increase the page limit for large business contractors, or at least eliminate the Subcontracting Plan from the page count. Small Business subcontractors only need to complete a Small Business Participation Plan, while large businesses need to complete both a Small Business Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan. This puts large businesses at a significant disadvantage, as they have much more items to address than a small business subcontractor while contending with the same page count.

A. From historical data, 25 pages is MORE than enough.

23. Please confirm subcontractor letters of commitment do not count against the page limit.

A. Letters of Commitment are part of Technical, for major subcontractors. 50 Pages is more than enough for all requirements. See questions 16 and 17.

24. Please reference Block 11 of the SF 1442 where it indicates a 120 calendar day proposal validity period. Also reference the Price Factor section 5.5.3 where it indicates that a 90 calendar day proposal validity period. Please advise which duration is required.

A. 120 Calendar days. See Amendment 0001.

25. On page 25 of 103 of the Solicitation paragraph 3.1.2.1 Section 3 – Subcontracts defines a major subcontractor as one that provides critical hardware/services or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed cost/price. Under the evaluation paragraph 5.3.3 on page 33 of 103 a major subcontractor is defined as those that perform 20% or more of the proposed effort. These confirm the definition of a major subcontractor’s required performance percentage. Please advise which percentage we are to follow.

A. 25%. See Amendment 0001.

26. The current market conditions are such that the bid hold dates required in the contracts (120 calendar days & 180 calendar days) are not reasonable w/o adding a substantial amount (ie – 50% +) of contingency to the jobs to account for the potential escalation (ie this is either a major loss for the government or a major loss for the contractor – neither of which is desired). Is there some reasonable way to either shorten the hold period (30 days) or provide some risk mitigation for escalation?

A. Due to the compliance requirements and an unfunded requirement, we have to give ourselves at least 120 days for bids to be valid. 30 days is not a reasonable expectation for evaluation and funding in today’s environment.