Yia | Contract Alerts

All contracts

R604--Mail Tracking Service

Description

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT 0001 TO RFQ 36C25927Q0017 IS TO ANSWER VENDOR QUESTIONS AND UPDATE THE RESPONSE DUE TIME FOR QUOTES. Quotes are to be provided to eric.adusei@va.gov no later than 14:00pm MT, October 30th, 2026. VENDOR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED BELOW: The following questions are respectfully submitted in response to the subject solicitation. Question 1. Scope and pricing structure for additional facilities (PWS 1.0 and 9.0; Price Schedule CLIN 0001). PWS 9.0 identifies Rocky Mountain Regional VA Medical Center as the primary site and states that additional VISN 19 locations may be added by order, while PWS 1.0 requires a solution supporting "all current and future VA facilities within VISN 19." (a) Please confirm whether the monthly price under CLIN 0001 is intended to cover a single facility, with additional VISN 19 facilities added during performance at that same monthly rate. Answer: Single Facility (b) Equipment requirements will vary by facility, as mail rooms differ in size, staffing and package volume. Would the Government consider adding equipment line items so that facilities requiring more or less equipment can be priced accordingly? Alternatively, should offerors price to a fixed equipment configuration per facility and assume that every additional facility receives that same configuration? Please confirm which approach the Government prefers so that quotes are prepared on a common basis. Answer: The Government will consider a reduced quantity of equipment only for hand scanners, based on the operational needs of each facility. At this time, the Government does not anticipate requiring additional equipment or additional facility-specific equipment beyond that configuration. No separate equipment line items are requested for additional facilities. Question 2. Treatment of non-recurring costs and price balance (Price Schedule; FAR 52.212-2(d)). The price schedule contains five identical monthly service line items with no separate line for implementation, hardware, training or travel. Those costs are incurred almost entirely in the base period, which necessarily produces a base-year monthly rate higher than the option-year rates. FAR 52.212-2(d) provides that the Government may determine an offer unacceptable if option prices are significantly unbalanced. Please confirm that a base-year price higher than the option years solely because it carries non-recurring implementation, hardware, training and travel costs will not be treated as unbalanced for purposes of that provision. If the Government would consider such pricing unbalanced, please advise how offerors are expected to recover non-recurring costs within the current line item structure. Answer: Yes a Base year Price that is higher than the options years is acceptable and understandable as that is the initial installation phase. Your quote can state the total on the price schedule and then breakdown the different costs on a different document if you like. Question 3.…