W81K0426RA011 –

AMENDMENT 0002

ATTACHMENT 8

QUESTION AND ANSWER TEMPLATE

Solicitation No.: W81K0426RA011 Psychological Health Program Support Services

1. Offerors who determine that the elements of this solicitation require clarifications in order to facilitate the submittal of a responsive proposal are requested to submit all questions in writing, to the maximum extent possible. Use the format provided below for the submission of questions.

Document Page / Paragraph Requirement / Portion Gov’t Response Solicitation, Section L, Volume IV Factor 3 - Past Performance Solicitation, Section M, November 15, 2024, update to DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(C): “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror.”

Pages 97-99

Pages 105-108

Will the experience and past performance of parent or subsidiary companies be evaluated if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?

Yes, the experience and past performance of a sister, parent, or subsidiary company will be evaluated under the following conditions:

• Firm Commitment and Meaningful Involvement: The proposal must clearly demonstrate that the sister company has made a firm commitment and will have a meaningful involvement in the actual performance of the contract.

• Major Role Definition: The sister company must be proposed as a major subcontractor or team member, which is defined in the solicitation as performing 25% or more of the contract effort.

• Required Documentation: The proposal must include a completed Consent Letter (RFP Attachment 4) to authorize the Government to evaluate and discuss the sister company's past performance.

Solicitation, Section L, Volume IV Factor 3 - Past Performance Solicitation, Section M, November 15, 2024, update to DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(C): “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information

Are there any additional requirements that an offeror must address in its proposal in order to utilize parent or subsidiary company experience and past performance if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?

Yes, to utilize the experience and past performance of a parent, subsidiary, or sister company, the offeror must address the following additional requirements in its proposal:

1. Major Subcontractor Status: The proposal must demonstrate that the affiliated company (parent, subsidiary, or sister) will be performing as a "major subcontractor," which is defined as performing 25% or more of the contract effort.

2. Consent Letter: The offeror must submit a completed RFP Attachment 4, Document Page / Paragraph Requirement / Portion Gov’t Response provided for affiliates of the offeror.”

Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter, for the affiliated company. This letter is required to allow the government to evaluate the affiliate's past performance.

3. Performance Assessment Submission: The offeror must include a detailed Performance Assessment Submission (PAS) for the affiliated company's relevant past work as one of their three permitted past performance examples. This submission must use RFP Attachment 3 to describe the specific project and provide a Statement of Relevancy.

Solicitation, Section L, Volume IV Factor 3 - Past Performance Solicitation, Section M, November 15, 2024, update to DFARS 215.305(a)(2)(C): “When evaluating the past performance of an offeror that is a small business concern in response to a competitive solicitation, contracting officers shall consider relevant past performance information provided for affiliates of the offeror.”

Are there specific or special evaluation criteria for rating the experience and past performance of an offeror who utilizes parent or subsidiary company experience and past performance if the proposal shows that a sister company lending its experience and past performance has made a firm commitment to have a meaningful involvement in contract performance?

No, there are no specific or special evaluation criteria for rating an offeror that utilizes an affiliate's experience. The evaluation criteria are the same for all submitted past performance references, whether from the prime offeror or an affiliated company.

Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors

Page 96 Paragraph D.

Content Requirement.

Will the Government clarify if the Summary Section required for each volume is included in the overall page count for that volumd?

The most conservative and compliant approach is to assume that everything within a volume, including the Summary Section, counts toward the maximum page limit.

Exhibit A - Performance Locations

Rows 12-17 and 25 Regional Director Psychological Health and a Nurse Case Manager are listed as “TBD”. Please clarify anticipated performance locations.

See Amended Exhibit A-Performance Locations

Solicitation Amendment Page 2 In light of the Federal Juneteenth Holiday on June 19th and to allow offerors adequate time to review answers to questions, would the Government consider extending the proposal due date by one (1) additional week to allow Offerors sufficient time to fully evaluate answers to questions and

In light of Juneteenth holiday, proposal due date has been extended to 23 June 2026.

incorporate them into a compliant and complete proposal?

Solicitation;

Attachment 1 – Compensation Plan;

Attachment 7 – Price Matrix

Page 96 (Content Requirement – Volume V), Page 100 (Cost/Price Instructions);

Attachment 1 & 7 Instructions

The solicitation requires offerors to submit pricing in Volume V (Cost/Price), including the SF1449 and Attachment 7 Price Matrix, and also requires submission of a separate Compensation Plan (Attachment 1) that includes detailed salary, fringe, overhead, and profit components. The solicitation further states that pricing information shall be confined to the pricing volume.

Could the Government clarify how pricing-related information contained in the Attachment 1 Compensation Plan (e.g., base rates, fringe, overhead, and profit that calculate total billable labor rates) will be treated in relation to Volume V (Cost/Price)?

The information in the Attachment 1 Compensation Plan and the Volume V Cost/Price submission are used for two distinct evaluation purposes:

1. Attachment 1 (Compensation Plan): This information is used by the Government to perform a compensation realism analysis. The Government will evaluate the components of your compensation (e.g., base salaries, fringe benefits) to determine if they are sufficient to attract and retain the qualified personnel required to perform the contract. This is considered a technical evaluation factor (Factor 2) to assess performance risk, and it will be rated as either "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable."

2. Volume V (Cost/Price): This volume, containing the fully burdened labor rates on the SF 1449 and in Attachment 7, constitutes your official price proposal. The Government will evaluate these final, all-inclusive rates for fairness and reasonableness to determine the total evaluated price for the award decision.

In summary, while the Compensation Plan contains pricing components, it is treated as a separate technical factor to assess the realism of your staffing approach. The fully burdened rates in Volume V are what constitute your formal price offer to the Government.

You must confine your final, fully burdened pricing to Volume V, while providing the separate, detailed compensation breakdown as required in Attachment 1 for the technical evaluation.

Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors;

Page 96 (Content Requirement – Volume V), Page 100

Does the Government consider the Compensation Plan workbook to be part of the official pricing

Attachment 1 (Compensation Plan): This information is used by the Government to perform a compensation realism

Attachment 1 – Compensation Plan;

Attachment 7 – Price Matrix

(Cost/Price Instructions);

Attachment 1 & 7 Instructions submission for evaluation purposes, or solely for assessing compensation realism/adequacy?

analysis. The Government will evaluate the components of your compensation (e.g., base salaries, fringe benefits) to determine if they are sufficient to attract and retain the qualified personnel required to perform the contract. This is considered a technical evaluation factor (Factor 2) to assess performance risk, and it will be rated as either "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable."

Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors;

Attachment 1 – Compensation Plan;

Attachment 7 – Price Matrix

Page 96 (Content Requirement – Volume V), Page 100 (Cost/Price Instructions);

Attachment 1 & 7 Instructions

Where there are differences between rates or totals reflected in the Compensation Plan and those presented in the Price Matrix or SF1449, which document will take precedence for evaluation?

For the purpose of the price evaluation, the Price Matrix (Attachment 7) and the SF1449 submitted in Volume V will take precedence.

Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors;

Attachment 1 – Compensation Plan;

Attachment 7 – Price Matrix

Page 96 (Content Requirement – Volume V), Page 100 (Cost/Price Instructions);

Attachment 1 & 7 Instructions

Given the instruction that pricing information must be confined to Volume V, is it acceptable for pricing elements reflected in Attachment 1 to differ from the fully burdened rates provided in the Price Matrix, provided both are internally consistent within their respective volumes?

No, it is not acceptable for the pricing elements in Attachment 1 to differ from the fully burdened rates in the Price Matrix. While they are evaluated for different purposes, the solicitation requires them to be consistent.

The "Compliance" section on page 100 of the solicitation explicitly states:

"Offerors shall ensure that the information presented in this volume [Volume V - Cost/Price] is consistent and correlates with the information contained in the other proposal volumes. Also, the Offeror shall ensure that the information submitted in this volume is consistent with and fully supports the amounts set forth in the compensation form and continuation sheets."

This means that the detailed cost elements (like base salary and fringe) provided in your Compensation Plan (Attachment 1), when combined with your other indirect rates and profit, must mathematically reconcile with the final, fully burdened labor rates submitted in your Price Matrix (Attachment 7) and on the SF1449.

Any inconsistency between these documents could lead to an adverse evaluation or a determination that your proposal is non-compliant, as it creates ambiguity and fails to demonstrate a clear and consistent pricing structure.

RFP, Page 99, Paragraph e.

Can the Government please clarify requirements to complete Attachment 2 – Reference Information Sheet – Summary Data Template versus Attachment 2 – Experience Reporting Form?

The term “Experience Reporting Form” does not appear in the solicitation document provided.

The solicitation consistently refers to "Attachment 2 - Reference Information Sheet - Summary Data Template" in the "List of Contract Documents, Exhibits, or Attachments" (page 91) and in the instructions for submitting past performance information (page 99). This is the form you are required to complete to identify your past performance references.

RFP, Page 99, Paragraph e.

PPQs are referenced but no attachment is clearly labeled as such. Can the Government please clarify which attachment(s) are associated with the PPQ?

The solicitation uses the term "PRAQ" more formally and consistently. On page 99, section 'e', it states:

"A PRAQ (Attachment 6) are required to be submitted for each past performance reference identified on the Reference Information Sheet - Summary Data Template (Attachment 2)."

While the term "PPQ" is used once on the same page as an alternative to a CPAR, the official document you are required to use for collecting reference feedback is Attachment 6, the PRAQ.

Attachment 2 – Experience Reporting Form, Page 1, Paragraph c.

Can the Government please provide a definition and an example of “Pricing Arrangement”?

"Pricing Arrangement" refers to the specific pricing structure or contract type that the Government will use to pay for a particular line item. It defines how the contractor will be compensated for the services or products provided under that specific item.

Here are two examples directly from the solicitation:

1. Definition: Firm Fixed Price

• Example from the

Solicitation: For CLIN 0001 (Regional Director Psychological Health

- Team Leads), the document states, "Pricing Arrangement: Firm Fixed Price" (Page 3). This means the Government and the contractor will agree on a single, all-inclusive price for this service that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's actual costs.

2. Definition: Cost No Fee

• Example from the

Solicitation: For CLIN 0008 (Travel for Psychological Health Program services), the document states, "Pricing Arrangement: Cost No Fee" (Page 4).

This means the Government will reimburse the contractor for the actual, allowable costs incurred for travel, but the contractor will not earn any additional fee or profit on this specific line item.

Attachment 7 -

Pricing Matrix There is a formula in row 16 that sets the surge hours for the Regional Director position to be the same as the rate on Row

15. For all other LCATs, the surge cost field is blank.

Should the formula be populated for the remaining Labor Categories

See Amended Attachment 7-Pricing Matrix

Attachment 2 - Reference Information Sheet

Can the Government confirm that in the case of a mentor protégé joint venture, all contract references should be entered unde the Offeror section on page 1 of the document?

The Government will evaluate the mentor-protégé joint venture as a single entity. Therefore, you should list all contract references, whether from the mentor or the protégé, under the single offeror name (the joint venture).

The solicitation clarifies this on page 106 in the Past Performance evaluation section: "'Offeror' refers to the proposed prime contractor and all proposed major subcontractors or team members... The Government may consider the offeror's past performance as an entire team including subcontractors, joint ventures and/or teaming partners, aggregately, rather than an individual contractor basis."

This indicates that the experiences of the individual JV partners are combined and attributed to the joint venture as a whole for evaluation purposes.

When completing Attachment 2 – Reference Information Sheet – Summary Data Template, you should identify the Offeror as the Joint Venture. On Attachment 3 – Reference Information Sheet – Contract Specific Data Template, for each of the (up to) three contracts you submit, you should clearly identify which partner (mentor or protégé) performed the work and provide all the required details for that specific project.

This approach allows the Government to evaluate the JV as a single entity while still assessing the specific, relevant experience that each partner brings to the team.

Attachment 4- Subcontractor Consent Letter

Please confirm this is not required for members of mentor protégé joint venture?

Correct. Attachment 4, the Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Letter, is not required for the individual members of the mentor-protégé joint venture.

Attachment 5 - Sample Questionnaire Cover Letter

There are no references in Instruction to Offerors to the Attachment 5 Cover letter.

Please confirm this is not required to be submitted with vendor proposals?

You are correct. Attachment 5, the Sample Questionnaire Cover Letter, is not required to be submitted with your proposal to the Government.

Based on the instructions on page 99 of the solicitation, Attachment 5 is a sample template provided for your convenience. Its purpose is to serve as a cover letter that you, the offeror, send to your past performance references along with the Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire (PRAQ, Attachment 6)

Solicitation Section 1.5.4.3; Page 18

Can the Government provide an estimate for BA Weekend hours by performance location historically on an annual basis for planning purposes? In that OT is not approved, is it acceptable for providers to adjust scheduling during the weekdays to avoid exceeding 40 hours for the week?

Yes, it is acceptable for providers to adjust their weekday schedules to avoid exceeding 40 hours in a week when BA weekend work is required. The solicitation explicitly supports this practice.

Section 1.5.4 of the PWS states:

"The Contractor shall adjust its hours of operation as necessary to align with working hours at the designated places of performance, to include drill weekends as necessary; the Contractor shall in all cases provide 40 hours of weekly availability..."

This language directs the contractor to be flexible and modify schedules to cover BA weekends while maintaining the standard 40-hour workweek.

The solicitation does not provide a historical or estimated breakdown of Battle Assembly (BA) weekend hours by performance location.

The Performance Work Statement (PWS) establishes the requirement for the contractor to provide support during these weekends but does not quantify the hours. Section 1.5.4.3 states that contractors "shall be required to support units during their BA weekends (report hours will be given to them)," which indicates the hours will be provided by the Government as needed rather than being pre-scheduled in the contract.

1.21; Page 29

Can the Government confirm that the requirements set forth in the contract exit transiition in this section are required of the current incumbent contractor. If not, what requirements are ommitted from the incumbent contract?

1. Applicability of Exit Transition Requirements

The detailed exit transition requirements described in Section 1.21, such as creating and submitting an "exit transition plan," are requirements for the contractor who is awarded this new contract. These requirements outline that contractor's responsibilities at the end of their future performance period.

However, the solicitation does place a requirement on the current incumbent contractor. On page 30, it states:

"The incumbent Contractor shall cooperate to the extent required to permit an orderly change over to the successor Contractor."

This means that while the specific plan deliverables listed in Section 1.21 are part of the new contract, the current incumbent is obligated by their own contract terms (which typically include similar cooperation clauses) to support a smooth transition to the new awardee.

2. Requirements Omitted from the Incumbent Contract

The Government cannot comment on the specific terms and requirements of the incumbent's contract within this solicitation. The requirements applicable to the current incumbent are those contained within their existing, separate contract. This solicitation can only define the requirements for the contract that will result from this procurement.

5; Page 41

Is there a minimum number of LCSW personnel required for the DPH and DPH TL positions?

Based on the solicitation document, no, there is not a minimum number of LCSW personnel required for the Director of Psychological Health (DPH) and DPH Team Lead (DPH-TL) positions.

The solicitation provides flexibility in staffing these roles. As stated in Section 5.1, "Basic Services" on page 41:

"The Contractor shall provide License Clinical Social Workers (LCSW) or Licensed Professional Counselors (LPC) for each Director of Psychological Health (DPH) and the Director of Psychological Health Team Lead (DPH-TL) positions."

This means that any of these positions can be filled by either a qualified LCSW or a qualified LPC, as long as they meet the specific requirements outlined in the PWS for their respective license type.

5.2.3.1; Page 42

Please confirm that ONLY professional liability is required by the vendor for this contract?

While professional liability is a key requirement, the solicitation also incorporates other insurance obligations.

Here is a summary of the insurance requirements found in the document:

1. Indemnification and Medical Liability Insurance: This is the most explicitly detailed requirement. As stated in FAR Clause 52.237-7 on page 87, the contractor must maintain professional/medical liability insurance of not less than $500,000.00 per occurrence.

2. Insurance for Work on a

Government Installation: The solicitation also incorporates FAR Clause 52.228-5, "Insurance-Work on a Government Installation" by reference (page 85). This standard clause requires the contractor to carry other types of insurance, typically including:

• Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability

• Comprehensive General Liability

• Comprehensive Automobile Liability

Therefore, in addition to professional liability insurance, your company will also be required to maintain the standard insurance coverage mandated for performing work on a Government installation.

5.3.3; Page 44

Can the Government confirm that the Attachment A - Performance locations encompass all states where the client may be physically located? If not, can a list of states applicable to the client population be provided?

Each Regional Division breaks down the states where the client may be located.

N/A Please identify the incumbent contractor and contract number supporting the incumbent requirement?

W91YTZ21C0018

N/A Please identify the number of currently vacant positions under the incumbent contract?

There are currently zero vacant positions

Solicitation Section 1.5.6.5; Page 19

What percentage of annual workload is performed:

In person Telephonically Virtually

Based on current workload, but please note this varies:

In person 15% Telephonically 45% Virtually 40%

Exhibit A Items 12–17 Exhibit A lists items 12–17 as RDPH positions with TBD performance locations and base installations. Will the Government provide the specific home cities and base installations for all six (6) TBD RDPH positions prior to the proposal due date? If not, which

See Amended Exhibit A-Performance Locations

Readiness Division(s) will these positions support, so offerors can apply appropriate labor market pricing?

Exhibit A Item 25 Item 25 lists one (1) NCM position with TBD location. Will the Government confirm the Readiness Division and performance location for this position prior to submission? If the location remains TBD at award, will the contract include an equitable adjustment mechanism if the assigned location falls within a significantly higher-cost labor market (e.g., 63rd RD states such as CA, WA, or HI)?

See Amended Exhibit A-Performance Locations

Exhibit A Items 26–27 Items 26–27 confirm base installations for both Administrative Assistant positions (Ft. Hood, TX and Gary E. Foster AFRC, SC) but list home cities as TBD. Will the Government identify the home city/metropolitan area for each AA position prior to award? This is critical for confirming the applicable SCLS Wage Determination location and ensuring accurate pricing.

For the purpose of confirming the applicable Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) Wage Determination and for pricing, you should use the locality where the Government installation itself is located.

• The Wage Determination applicable to Fort Hood, TX (which is located in Bell and Coryell counties, near Killeen, TX) should be used for that AA position.

• The Wage Determination applicable to Gary E. Foster Armed Forces Reserve Center, SC (located in North Charleston, SC) should be used for that AA position.

The Government has provided the base installation, which is the "place of performance" required to identify the correct wage determination for your proposal.

Exhibit A / PWS §1.5.6 Exhibit A; p.18 Items 6 and 8 list two (2) RDPH positions both assigned to Ft. Hood (Cavazos), TX — item 6 with a home city of Austin, TX and item 8 with a home city of Killeen, TX.

These two cities fall within different BLS Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Austin-Round Rock-Georgetown MSA vs.

Killeen-Temple MSA) with meaningfully different prevailing wage rates. Please confirm whether each RDPH's compensation should be priced to their listed home city

Based on a review of the principles of the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS), compensation for each RDPH position should be priced according to the location of the base installation, which is Fort Hood (Cavazos), TX.

Here is the rationale:

1. Place of Performance Dictates Wage Rates: The Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and its associated Wage Determinations are based on the locality where

MSA or to the base installation

MSA.

the contracted services are performed. In this case, the duty station and primary place of performance for both positions is the Government installation at Fort Hood (Cavazos), TX.

2. Telework Does Not Change the Official Duty Station: While the solicitation allows for telework and lists separate "home cities," these represent the employee's residence or alternate worksite. The official duty station to which they are assigned and for which the services are being rendered remains Fort Hood. Therefore, the wage determination applicable to the Killeen- Temple MSA, where Fort Hood is located, applies to both positions.

3. Consistency with Government

Policy: This approach ensures consistent and fair pricing for positions performing the same function at the same Government installation, regardless of where the individual employees reside and telework from.

Exhibit A Items 1–2 (RDPH-TL) Exhibit A does not assign a

Readiness Division designation to the two RDPH-TL positions (items 1 and 2). Item 1 is listed at Portsmouth, VA / Ft. Story, VA (99th RD territory) and item 2 at Aledo, IL / Rock Island, IL (88th RD territory). Please confirm the Regional Division assignment for each RDPH-TL and clarify how many RDPHs and NCMs each RDPH-TL will supervise

Based on a review of the provided "Exhibit A - Performance Locations" and the main solicitation document, here are the answers to your questions.

1. Regional Division Assignments for RDPH-TLs The Regional Division assignments for the RDPH-TL positions are explicitly listed in the table on page 2 of "Exhibit A":

• Item 1 (Portsmouth, VA / Ft.

Story, VA): This RDPH-TL is assigned to the 99th RD.

• Item 2 (Aledo, IL / Rock Island, IL): This RDPH-TL is assigned to the 88th RD.

2. Supervisory Responsibilities The solicitation does not provide a specific, fixed number of personnel that each RDPH-TL will supervise. The supervisory structure is implied by the regional assignments in Exhibit A.

However, Section 5.3.2 of the main solicitation ("Tasks and Duties for the Regional Director Psychological Health - Team Lead") states:

"The RDPH-TL shall be assigned RDPHs/NCMs/AAs to supervise."

Based on the distribution of personnel in Exhibit A, the supervision would likely be as follows:

• The RDPH-TL for the 99th RD would supervise the RDPHs and NCMs assigned to that division.

• The RDPH-TL for the 88th RD would supervise the RDPHs and NCMs assigned to that division.

The Government has not provided a definitive number, as assignments may be subject to change based on operational needs.

Exhibit A Items 7, 11 Items 7 and 11 list RDPH positions without a Regional Division designation — item 7 at Jamison, PA / Biddle ANG Base and item 11 at Virginia Beach, VA / Ft.

Story. Please confirm the RD assignment for these positions.

Absent a designation, are these positions assigned to the 99th RD or to the 1st Mission Support Command?

The table on page 2 of Exhibit A shows the following:

• Item 7 (Jamison, PA / Biddle ANG Base): This RDPH position is assigned to the 99th RD.

• Item 11 (Virginia Beach, VA / Ft. Story): This RDPH position is also assigned to the 99th

RD.

Therefore, both positions fall under the 99th Readiness Division.

PWS §1.5.6.1 / CLINs 0001–0007 p.28; Schedule B The transition period (CLIN 0010) runs 29 Aug 2026 – 28 Sep 2026, which precedes the stated base period start of 29 Sep 2026. Please clarify whether the transition period is included within the base period hours or is separately compensated. Are contractor staff expected to be on-site and billable during the transition period, and if so, how are those hours reflected in the CLIN structure?

The compensation for all activities performed during the 29 Aug - 28 Sep 2026 transition period is covered under the single Firm Fixed Price for CLIN 0010.

You are not expected to bill hourly against the base year's labor CLINs (e.g., CLINs 0001, 0003, etc.) during this time.

The CLIN amount will be established by the Government as a Firm Fixed Price amount, upon successful completion of the transition period, you would invoice for this single line item.

Schedule B / CLINs 0001–0007

Schedule B The base period CLINs reflect 1,760 hours per FTE (consistent with 11 months) while option year CLINs reflect 1,920 hours per FTE (12 months). Please confirm: (a) this differential is intentional; (b) the base period is indeed approximately 11 months of full performance following the 30-day transition; and (c) the price matrix should be completed using 1,760 hours for base period and 1,920 hours for each option year.

(b) Confirmation of Base Period Duration:

Yes, your understanding is correct. The base period structure consists of:

• A separately priced 30-day Transition Period (CLIN 0010) from 29 Aug 2026 to 28 Sep 2026.

• An 11-month period of full performance for the main base year CLINs, running from 29 Sep 2026 to 28 Aug 2027.

This 11-month performance period corresponds directly to the 1,760 hours specified for each FTE during the base year (11 months x 160 hours/month).

Yes, you should complete the Price Matrix (Attachment 7) using 1,760 hours per FTE for the base period and 1,920 hours per FTE for each of the four option years. This aligns with the CLIN structure and the specified periods of performance throughout the solicitation.

PWS §5.2.2 p.41 PWS Section 5.2.2 states that the Government may require a temporary substitute contract worker when a permanent worker is absent for 'XX days.' The number of days is blank (placeholder). What is the minimum number of consecutive absent days that triggers the requirement to provide a temporary substitute? This threshold directly impacts workforce planning and pricing.

While PWS Section 5.2.2 contains a placeholder ("XX days"), another section of the document provides the specific number. PWS Section 1.5.6.5.8, "Extended Absences/Vacancies," on page 21 states:

"The Contractor shall provide a temporary backfill for any Contractor employee whose temporary extended absence extends beyond ten (10) workdays."

This section clarifies the placeholder found in Section 5.2.2 and sets the official threshold for when a temporary substitute is required.

PWS §5.2.2 p.41 When a temporary substitute contract worker is required, will substitute hours be billed at the same CLIN rates as the permanent position? Is there any limitation on the number of hours or total duration for which a substitute may

1. Billing Rates for Substitute Workers

Yes, the hours worked by a temporary substitute should be billed at the same CLIN rates as the permanent position they are filling.

be billed within a performance period?

The solicitation does not establish separate CLINs or different labor rates for substitute workers. The substitute is required to meet the same qualification standards (PWS Section 5.2.2) and is performing the duties of the absent permanent employee. Therefore, their hours are billed against the total hours allocated to the CLIN for that specific position.

2. Limitations on Billing for Substitutes The solicitation does not specify a separate limitation on the number of hours a substitute may be billed for, other than the total hours available within the applicable CLIN for that performance period.

PWS §5.2.1 / §5.2.1.2 p.41 PWS Section 5.2.1.2 states contract workers have no licensure portability under the non-personal services arrangement (10 USC 1094) and must hold an unrestricted license in the jurisdiction where services are performed. For RDPHs who conduct telephonic counseling, assessment, or referral with clients physically located in states other than their home state, the PWS requires licensure in the client's state. Please confirm: will the Government provide a list of all states in which telephonic services are anticipated for each RDPH position, so offerors can assess multi-state licensure costs?

Offerors are expected to plan for the possibility of providing services to clients in any of the 50 states and all U.S. territories. The cost associated with obtaining and maintaining multi-state licensure to meet this requirement is a contractor responsibility and should be factored into your pricing proposal. The solicitation does not limit this requirement to a pre-defined list of states.

PWS §5.3.1 / §5.3.1.2 p.42 The RDPH-TL and RDPH positions may be filled by either an LCSW or an LPC/LMHC. The solicitation states the RDPH-TL 'must have at least two (2) years of direct clinical or supervisory experience or at least three (3) years of supervised experience delivering services like the PHP.' Does the two-year supervisory experience requirement need to have been earned in a PHP-equivalent program specifically, or will any behavioral health supervisory role qualify?

Based on a grammatical analysis of the specific requirement in the solicitation, the two years of supervisory experience does not need to have been earned in a PHP-equivalent program.

Any behavioral health supervisory role will qualify.

Here is the detailed breakdown from PWS Section 5.3.1.2 on page 43:

"The RDPH-TL... must have at least two

(2) years of direct clinical or supervisory experience or at least three (3) years of supervised experience delivering services like the PHP."

The sentence structure creates two distinct and alternative paths to meet the requirement:

1. Option A: Two Years of Supervisory Experience: A candidate must have "at least two (2) years of direct clinical or supervisory experience."

This clause stands alone and is not qualified by the "services like the PHP" language.

Therefore, experience in any behavioral health supervisory role is sufficient to meet this part of the requirement.

2. Option B: Three Years of Supervised Experience: Alternatively, a candidate can have "at least three (3) years of supervised experience delivering services like the PHP." This option is specifically for non-supervisory experience and requires that the experience was in a program similar to the Psychological Health Program.

Because a candidate only needs to meet one of these "or" conditions, a person with two years of general behavioral health supervisory experience would qualify for the RDPH-TL position.

PWS §5.6 / §5.6.1 pp.48–49 PWS Section 5.6 requires the contractor to perform Primary Source Verification (PSV) on all credentialed staff per DHAPM

6025.13 Volume 4. Please

confirm: (a) will the Government provide access to the MHS credentialing system to support PSV; (b) what is the expected timeline from contract award to completion of credentialing for all staff; and (c) are staff permitted to perform services while credentialing is in process?

Based on a review of the Performance Work Statement (PWS), here are the clarifications for your questions regarding Primary Source Verification (PSV) and credentialing.

(a) Government Access to MHS Credentialing System

No, the Government will not provide access to a credentialing system to support PSV.

The responsibility for conducting PSV lies entirely with the contractor. PWS Section 5.6.1 on page 48 is explicit on this point:

"The full-time Government staff will not assist the Contractor in obtaining any needed information for initial credentialing. The Contractor is responsible for submission of evidence of current competency of the healthcare provider used to provide health care services under this contract."

The contractor must perform PSV using the accepted methods listed in Section

5.6.1.3 (e.g., written confirmation from the issuing authority, verbal telephone confirmation, or verification via the professional organization's official website).

(b) Expected Timeline for Credentialing Completion

The solicitation does not provide a single, fixed deadline for the completion of all credentialing post-award.

However, the requirement is that credentialing for any individual staff member must be complete before they begin performing services.

This is supported by several clauses:

• The Transition Period (PWS Section 1.21) requires the contractor to "initiate staffing requirements, i.e. security clearances, CACs, and other activities IAW this PWS" within the first 30 days.

• FAR Clause 52.237-7 requires that evidence of liability insurance for each provider must be furnished "prior to the commencement of services under this contract."

This is a key part of the credentialing file.

Therefore, the timeline is event-driven:

credentialing for each employee must be finalized before their first day of providing services under the contract.

(c) Performance of Services While Credentialing is in Process

No, staff are not permitted to perform services while their credentialing is in process.

A provider is not considered fully qualified to perform their duties under the contract until their licenses and other credentials have been verified through PSV. Allowing an uncredentialed or partially credentialed provider to perform services would be a compliance violation and would expose the Government and the contractor to significant risk. All credentialing and background check requirements must be met prior to an employee beginning work.

PWS §5.2.8 / Surge CLINs p.41; Schedule B The surge CLINs (0002, 0004, 0006 and option year equivalents) provide for a fixed number of surge hours per performance period. The base period surge is priced at 40 hours (RDPH-TL), 300 hours (RDPH), and 160 hours (NCM). Are these surge hours guaranteed minimums, or are they a ceiling that the Government may or may not exercise? If not guaranteed, may the contractor assume full utilization for pricing purposes?

The surge hours are a ceiling that the Government may or may not exercise, and they are not guaranteed minimums.

Here is the supporting rationale from the solicitation document:

1. "As Needed" Language: PWS Section 1.5.4, "Operating Hours," on page 17 explicitly defines surge hours as being used "as needed." This indicates that their use is discretionary and based on Government requirements.

2. Pre-Approval Required: The same section states that surge hours "must be preapproved by the Contracting Officer."

This confirms that the hours are not automatic; the Government must make a specific decision to authorize and use them.

3. No "Guaranteed Minimum"

Clause: The solicitation does not contain any language that guarantees a minimum purchase of surge hours. The CLIN structure establishes a pre-priced, stand-by capability for the Government to use at its discretion.

Assumption for Pricing Purposes Regarding your second question, the solicitation's pricing instructions (Volume V - Cost/Price) require offerors to propose prices for all CLINs, pricing for surge hour CLINs will be accommodated as the same rate as its corresponding parent CLIN. For the purpose of developing your total evaluated price, you must assume full utilization of all hours listed in the solicitation's schedule, including all surge hours.

As stated in the "Cost/Price Factor" evaluation criteria on page 108:

"For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value)."

This means that to create the total price for evaluation, the Government will multiply the proposed fully burdened hourly rate for each surge CLIN by the total number of hours specified for that CLIN and add it to the total. Therefore, your proposal must be priced assuming the Government will exercise the full quantity of surge hours listed.

PWS §1.5.4 / §5.2.8 p.17; p.41 The PWS references surge requirements that must be accommodated 'at the same rate as established in the contract.' Please confirm whether surge hours are billed at the same hourly rate as the standard CLINs, or whether a separate surge premium rate is expected in the price matrix.

Surge hours will be stablished at the same hourly rate as the standard, non-surge CLINs for the corresponding labor category. A separate surge premium rate is not contemplated by the solicitation structure.

Here is the supporting rationale:

1. Explicit PWS Language: The most direct instruction is found in PWS Section 5.2.8, "Surge Requirements," on page 42, which states:

"The contractor shall accommodate surge requirements, as needed, at the same rate as established in the contract."

PWS §1.14 / CLIN 0008 p.25; Schedule B Travel CLINs are listed as 'Cost Reimbursable, Not to Exceed' but the price matrix does not include a NTE dollar value for any period.

Will the Government provide the NTE travel ceiling for the base period and each option year, or is the offeror expected to propose a NTE amount? If the offeror proposes the NTE, will a higher proposed NTE be treated as a higher price for evaluation purposes?

1. Who provides the Not-To-Exceed (NTE) amount?

The Government will provide the NTE travel ceiling after contract award. The offeror is not expected to propose a NTE amount for the travel CLINs.

This is clarified on page 4 of the solicitation, in the description for CLIN 0008 (Travel):

"This is a cost reimbursable only CLIN...

This CLIN will be a Not to Exceed amount and not subject to an offered price."

This language explicitly separates the travel CLIN from the priced line items.

The Price Matrix and pricing instructions focus on the fully burdened labor rates for the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs. The travel NTE is a funding ceiling that the Government will establish and manage post-award, not a figure to be proposed by the offeror.

2. How will a proposed NTE be treated in the evaluation?

Since the offeror is instructed not to propose a price for the travel CLINs, any proposed NTE amount will not be included in the total evaluated price.

The evaluation criteria for the "Cost/Price Factor" on page 108 states:

"For award purposes, the total proposed price for all priced Contract Line-Item Numbers (CLINs) will be added together into a total sum (contract value)."

Because the travel CLIN is designated as "not subject to an offered price," it is considered an unpriced item at the proposal stage and will be excluded from the calculation of your total evaluated price. You should leave the "Amount" field for the travel CLINs blank in your SF1449 and Price Matrix submissions.

PWS §1.14 p.25 PWS Section 1.14 states that all travel 'other than routine within the state travel' requires COR recommendation and KO approval prior to making travel arrangements. Please define 'routine within the state travel' — specifically, does daily commute from a home city to a base installation (e.g., Austin, TX to Ft.

Hood, which crosses no state lines but spans approximately 65 miles) qualify as routine travel and is it excluded from cost reimbursement?

Definition and Clarification

"Routine within the state travel" refers to an employee's regular commute between their home and their designated official place of performance.

Specifically, the daily commute from a designated "home city" (e.g., Austin, TX) to the assigned "base installation" (e.g., Ft. Hood) qualifies as routine travel (commuting) and is excluded from cost reimbursement.

Supporting Rationale

1. Purpose of Travel Reimbursement: The travel

CLIN is intended to cover costs for official Temporary Duty (TDY) travel to perform work at locations other than the employee's assigned base installation. This is supported by PWS Section

1.14.1 on page 27, which states:

"Gas reimbursement will be provided for the official temporary duty (TDY) travel only... The Government will not reimburse gas costs for personal travel in conjunction with official travel."

2. Commuting vs. TDY: The travel between an employee's residence and their permanent duty station is considered a personal commuting expense under Federal Travel Regulations and standard contracting principles. The solicitation establishes the "base installation" as the official duty station. Therefore, the daily 65-mile trip from Austin to Ft. Hood is considered the employee's commute and is not reimbursable.

Addendum to 52.212-2 / Vol III; FAR 52.222-46 p.101–104; p.96 REGULATORY BASIS —

REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OR

MODIFICATION OF VOLUME

III. The solicitation designates this contract as Firm Fixed Price (FFP) for all labor CLINs (PWS §1.5.6.1;

Schedule B pricing arrangements).

FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, is the sole FAR provision authorizing the Government to evaluate offeror compensation plans as a separate evaluation factor. However, FAR 52.222-46(a) expressly limits its application to negotiated contracts for services where the contract type is cost-reimbursable, time-and-materials, or labor-hour — it does not apply to Firm Fixed Price contracts. See also FAR 16.202-1 (under FFP, the contractor bears full performance risk and the Government's sole interest is the delivered service at the agreed price). Requiring offerors to

The evaluation approach is defined by the agency under the broad authority granted in FAR 15.304, "Evaluation factors and significant subfactors." This regulation allows the contracting agency to establish evaluation factors that it deems necessary to determine the most advantageous proposal.

In this solicitation, the agency has established the "Compensation Plan" (Factor 2) as a technical evaluation factor to assess the offeror's ability to recruit and retain qualified personnel, which it considers a key indicator of performance risk. The evaluation criteria on page 104 state:

"The proposed compensation plan... will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention and its consistency with a total plan... that is sufficient to attract and retain quality Healthcare Workers (HCWs)... In order disclose base salary, fringe benefit breakdowns, and internal compensation structures as a pass/fail evaluation factor on a FFP contract: (a) exceeds the authority provided by FAR 52.222-46; (b) compels disclosure of proprietary business information — specifically internal labor cost structures — that is not required to evaluate price reasonableness on a FFP acquisition (see FAR 15.404- 1, which limits price analysis to techniques such as comparison of proposed prices, not cost build-up);

and (c) creates an unlevel playing field by potentially penalizing offerors with competitive, sustainable compensation structures that do not conform to the Government's undisclosed market research benchmarks. The offeror respectfully requests that the Government: (1) cite the specific FAR or agency regulation authorizing a compensation plan evaluation factor on a FFP contract; or (2) amend the solicitation to remove Volume III and the Compensation Plan as a separate evaluation factor, replacing it — if the Government has a legitimate recruitment/retention concern — with a narrative within Volume II (Staffing Plan) describing the offeror's approach to compensating and retaining qualified personnel, without requiring disclosure of specific salary or fringe benefit rates.

to adequately manage the risk of non-performance and high turnover the Government will evaluate Compensation Plan (base salary plus fringe) rates..."

This indicates the Government is using the compensation plan not for a price or cost realism analysis in the traditional sense, but as a technical risk assessment tool.

The instructions on pages 97, 102, and 104 clearly define this requirement.

Failure to submit the required Compensation Plan with the specified level of detail would likely result in the proposal being rated "Unacceptable" and removed from further consideration, as stated in the evaluation criteria.

Therefore, under the current terms of the solicitation, offerors are required to submit the detailed Compensation Plan as specified.

Addendum to 52.212-2;

FAR 15.404-1; FAR

16.202-1 p.101–104 PRICE REASONABLENESS — FFP STANDARD. On a FFP contract, FAR 15.404-1(b) provides that price reasonableness is determined through price analysis techniques — principally comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison with prior contract prices, and comparison with independent Government cost estimates — none of which require knowledge of the offeror's internal salary or fringe benefit structure.

The Government's stated evaluation standard (Addendum to 52.212-2, p.104) rates a compensation plan Unacceptable when 'based on USG market research the total compensation

(a) The Government establishes this requirement under the broad authority of FAR 15.304, "Evaluation factors and significant subfactors," which allows the procuring agency to define the factors it will use to determine the best value.

The solicitation treats the Compensation Plan not as part of the price evaluation, but as a separate, non-price technical evaluation factor (Factor 2). The stated purpose is to assess and manage performance risk. As written on page 104, the Government's objective is to evaluate the plan's "impact upon recruiting and retention" and to "adequately manage the risk of non-performance and high turnover." This plan is insufficient to recruit and retain qualified candidates.' This standard effectively requires the Government to second-guess the offeror's internal business judgment on a FFP contract where the offeror, not the Government, bears all performance risk including the risk of turnover and recruitment failure.