REQUEST FOR COMMENT; PHARMECEUTICAL RETURN PROGRAM DESC: PHARMECEUTICAL RETURN PROGRAM The following is a Request for Comment (RFC). This synopsis is for information and planning purposes only, and does not constitute a Request for Proposal. The intent of this RFC is to afford industry an opportunity to comment on the draft statement of work located on the FISC, Norfolk Acquisition Group, Hampton Roads Division world wide web-site: http:www.nor.fisc.navy.mil All comments, issues or concerns received identifying potential problem areas, proposing alternative solutions or recommendations which would enhance this initiative will be evaluated. The purpose of this request is to obtain input from industry (i.e., "state-of-the-art" procedures in place and used in the pharmaceutical field), evaluate the feasibility of the proposal, adopt the proposed concept(s), adopting and implement them accordingly. The government will be receptive to any alternative recommendations, ideas and comments which would result in limiting unnecessarily constrained requirements (currently practiced in the government), realizing cost savings, while highlighting potential technical or contractual problem areas easily resolved by adopting industry's best practices. Receipt of comments should not be construed as a vehicle for presenting a specific approach or product intended to be proposed but as an opportunity to improve an eventual solicitation package. Comments are solicited regarding the following: 1. The government intends on awarding an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) firm-fixed price (FFP) Commercial Services Contract, for shore and fleet activities. It is further the government's intent to place orders against this contractual document. Other contractual documents incorporating identical procedures will be entertained (i.e., GWAC, GSA, or other contracts in place). 2. Comments, whether supportive or critical, are solicited regarding the proposed draft statement of work (SOW) appearing on the FISC, Norfolk Acquisition Group, Hampton Roads Division's web-site (www.nor.fisc.navy.mil, double-click "Contracting", then "Announcements". Below announcements, on the left hand side is "Pharmaceutical Return Program"). There is no limitation on comments and/or recommendations for improvement received. 3. The Draft SOW states (Paragraph 3) responsibility for shipment of all items from the military installation to the contractor's facility for processing. Should there be a limitation to notification of the Contractor for scheduled delivery and pick-up times? 4. The Draft SOW states the Contractor shall process all items by sorting and returning items qualifying for the manufacturer's credit program, item replacement or destruction. What "safeguarding" methods should be implemented in the SOW to ensure that the sorting and returning of all items is currently in accordance with industry's best practices for this type of service? Further, what recommendations are available and/or should be implemented to ensure the government receives proper credit for expired pharmaceuticals? 5. Return Detail Report (Paragraph 4) identifies a report, by manufacturer, Contract number, call number, etc., for identification and estimated cost and estimated return value (ERV). Is this "report" sufficient to identify the ERV, or is additional information required to ensure the return is sufficiently documented? Same for sufficient audit trail for tracking items from origin to disposal. 6. Appropriate courier service. Are there pros and cons regarding the type of courier service, as it relates to delivery and tractability? Concerns and comments re: past experience is requested in this area. 7. An item not qualifying for return (Paragraph 5), is this scenario used in current industry practices, or is there a more streamlined approach? The government's current concern (re: destruction of non-returnable items) relates to EPA disposal facilities. Alternative comments regarding disposal of expired pharmaceuticals aboard U.S. Naval vessels are requested. 8. Innovative approaches to implement alternative system(s) which meets the criteria in the SOW, as well as complies with all U.S. Government regulations will be evaluated and considered for inclusion into the eventual solicitation package. The use of comments received from industry to complete final SOW and resulting solicitation documents will be at the discretion of the contracting activity. Subsequent solicitations will be synopsized prior to release. Eligibility in participating in a future acquisitions does not depend upon a response to this notice. The Government will not critique a potential offeror's comments and the RFC should not be used by offerors to market their products/services. The Government does not intend to pay for the information solicited and will not recognize any costs associated with submission of this RFC. Proprietary information is not being solicited. Information considered proprietary, if any, should be identified as such. Responses to this synopsis must be submitted in writing to LT Jackson, Code 102, at the above listed address no laterthan 29 October 1999. Hu Posted 10/06/99 (W-SN389294).

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0593 19991008\SP-0004.MSC)