QUESTIONS TO VA BASED ON RFP ISSUED ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023

Introduction: Questions submitted to VA MSPV  staff based on the release of the final RFP for MSPV Gen-Z.

QUESTIONS TO VA BASED ON RFP ISSUED ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023

1. The RFP addresses Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) by requiring respondents to self-identify any real or perceived OCI issues. The RFP further requires the respondents to develop and submit to VA a “mitigation plan” addressing the OCI issues. We understand VA has determined it either has, or will, provide “waivers” to any prime vendor who also holds BPAs under the MSPV program, namely Cardinal and Medline. As the proposals including any identification of OCI issues have not yet been submitted, under what authority and justification has VA provided waivers? We respectfully request copies of any waivers and justifications for the waivers VA has established. Also, what effect will Public Law 117-324; “Preventing Organizational Conflicts of Interest in Federal Acquisition Act”, signed on December 27, 2022, have on any current and future waivers granted to the prime vendors by VA?

2. The RFP does not address the issue of prime vendors leveraging their status as prime vendors to capture vast amounts of non-MSPV open market business which rightfully, in accordance with VETS First, should be competed amongst verified service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. My letter to you of December 6, 2022, provided you with an example of a direct order to a prime vendor that rightfully should have been competed under VETS First. What plans, policies and oversight will VA establish to insure this does not continue to happen?

3. VA on current and past prime vendor contracts has opined it lacks authority to adjudicate conflicts between suppliers and prime vendors. We request a copy of the VA’s Office of General Counsel opinion which supports this position. How will VA under MSPV Gen-Z ensure each party is following their contractual obligations to maintain an uninterrupted supply of critical products to VAMCs? Will effective penalties be applied to prime vendors and restitution provided to suppliers harmed when prime vendors fail to comply with contract requirements by providing substitute products either on formulary or through open market purchases

4. We continue to object to VA’s position that MSPV suppliers are “subcontractors” to prime vendors. As explained in my December 6th letter, suppliers (BPA holders) do not meet the FAR definition of "subcontractor”. VA forces suppliers to work with specific VA selected prime vendors, establish “commercial agreements” with VA selected prime vendors and then VA ignores any issues caused by the actions of the VA selected prime vendors which then harms suppliers with no recourse. This puts suppliers in an untenable position which ultimately harms healthcare provided to veterans. We request a copy of the VA’s Office of General Counsel opinion which supports this position.