RFI_15M20018NA32XRAY_Questions.pdf

SECTION QUESTIONS ANSWERS

Can the USMS share its acquisition strategy for entry point/mailroom size cabinet X‐rays systems? For instance, when will the first purchase of these X-ray systems occur?

The information from the RFI will help the USMS with an acquisition strategy.

Is the USMS considering the release of a new 5-year IDIQ and, If so, when is the anticipated release date of such a solicitation? The USMS may be considering a procurement in FY19.

Does not having ECAC certification automatically disqualify ones technology? For the purposes of this RFI, not having ECAC certification does not disqualify industry from submitting comments and capabilities regarding their technology.

Question #11 What level of detail is being requested?

The USMS is seeking information regarding at what algorithm quantity thresholds does the X-ray machine display an alert identifying the operator of a threat object. For example, liquid explosives detected may alert on 16oz or more, solid explosives may alert with a .5lb or more, etc.

Question #14 c What kind of data is to be “traced” in this context? Explosive Trace Detection equipment data.

Can the Government clarify if this is an RFI/Sources Sought or an RFP? Rather than a market survey for advanced security screening solutions to address the current and emerging threat, the Government seems to have a product or idea of the product it would like.

This is an RFI.

Purpose In previous solicitations the Government had requested solutions (equipment) for two separate applications: lobby/entry control point and mailroom screening. Does the Government now intend to address both missions with a single device?

This is an RFI.

Purpose The Government references single- and dual-generator cabinet x-ray machines. Is the Government inferring that it would like dual view machines a part of the solution? This is an RFI.

Purpose If the Government is interested in something other than single view, would the Government entertain a solution that utilized more than two views?

No. Since some US Courthouses are older historic buildings, they may require a single or dual view machine based on the size, weight and elevator limitations. For that reason, anything larger than a dual view machine will not be considered.

The RFI briefly references small business status but does not include any mention of the vendor having products "Made in America." Is supporting small businesses, and especially "Made in America" products a priority for the USMS? Specifically, will vendors with products designed, developed and manufactured in the USA be given priority in this procurement?

This is an RFI.

The RFI notes: "The information from this market research will help the USMS with their acquisition strategy. Firms are strongly encouraged to provide comments, questions and suggestions relative to the scope methodologies and technologies and approach" yet we do not see these call-outs in the question set. The pre-determined specifications are highly restrictive, a fact that: (a) limits the modernity, capability, and performance of products made available to the Government; (b) prevent vendors from qualifying their products or equally participating in the RFI process; and (c) eliminates any chance for open vendor competition in the RFP when it is released.

Please explain what drove the pre-determined specifications in this RFI and indicate whether the Government is open to offerings that do not meet these highly restrictive specifications yet which offer superior capability?

This is an RFI. USMS welcomes members of the industry to submit their capabilities which should include advanced technology.

The USMS is continuously seeking new and advanced countermeasures and is interested in the industry's capabilities pertaining to any cabinet X-ray single and dual view machines. The USMS is seeking the most advanced cabinet X-ray equipment currently available while also meeting our current and future operational demands.

The RFI notes that "the USMS is interested in gaining greater insight into the industry's capability to provide both single and dual generator cabinet X-ray machines that utilize advanced technology." Has the USMS considered that multi (more than two views) machines exist that offer superior performance?

This is an RFI.

In recent similar solicitations the Government, in accordance with the FAR, has sought to address this requirement with Small Businesses. Indeed this particular procurement has previously been designated a Small Business set-aside. Is the fact that "set aside type" is indicated as N/A in this RFI an omission or intentional?

This is an RFI.

Q.1

Can the Government explain why is this research limited to a specific time? How did the Government select January 2017 as the cut-off date for advanced technology features? Will the Government, in its search for cutting edge technologies available, entertain technologies developed outside of this timeframe?

As this is an RFI, the USMS welcomes industry comments about technologies developed at any time pertaining to any cabinet X-ray single and dual view machines. Advanced, cutting edge technology refers to the highest level of general development achieved at a particular time, hence January 2017 was chosen.

Q.2 There are accepted standards and regulations governing the width of doorways – are there special circumstances that would necessitate USMS facilities to require even smaller dimensions?

Yes.

Q.3 Why is this question limited only to dual view machines? Is it not considered that multi- (more than two) view machines may provide better performance?

Since some US Courthouses are older historic buildings, they may require a single or dual view machine based on the size, weight and elevator limitations. For that reason, anything larger than a dual view machine will not be considered.

Q.4 Please clarify the purpose of this question. Is the Government referring to the weight of the machine dissembled under the circumstances referred to in Question #2? The weight of the machine fully assembled.

Q.5 Why is this question limited only to dual view machines? Is it not considered that multi- (more than two) view machines may provide better performance?

Since some US Courthouses are older historic buildings, they may require a single or dual view machine based on the size, weight and elevator limitations. For that reason, anything larger than a dual view machine will not be considered.

Q.6 Please advise as to the specific requirement for liquid explosive detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.7 Please advise as to the specific requirement for liquid flammables detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.8 Please advise as to the specific requirements for liquid explosive and liquid flammables detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.9 Please advise as to the specific requirements for liquid explosive and liquid flammables detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.10 Please advise as to the specific requirements for liquid explosive and liquid flammables detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.11 Please advise as to the specific requirements for liquid explosive and liquid flammables detection as we cannot find reference to it in any TSA specification.

This is an RFI, not a USMS requirements document. It is asking the industry if their dual view equipment does or does not have liquid explosive/flammable liquid threat detection capabilities. Generally, one will not find a TSA specification for cabinet X-ray liquid threat detection since only small amounts of liquid are allowed past their screening lanes and onto aircraft. Instead, TSA utilizes other detection equipment such as explosive trace detection units and beverage scanners. Although the USMS utilizes similar equipment, cabinet X-ray equipment with liquid detection provides another level of detection from threats.

Q.12

As it relates to LEDS certification under ECAC, please explain how a European aviation standard is germane to equipment whose intended use is neither European nor aviation related? Is this a larger indicator that U.S. Government agencies will be adhering to ECAC instead of TSA regulations moving forward?

TSA discontinued most of their research and development regarding cabinet X-ray equipment. They have moved onto other detection solutions such as Computer Topography Systems. Many manufacturer's cabinet X-ray equipment in use in the United States is also utilized in Europe. ECAC continues to conduct R&D on cabinet X-ray equipment while TSA is generally not. The USMS is seeking the most advanced cabinet X-ray equipment currently available while also meeting our current and future operational demands. Liquid threat detection (LEDS) development is a priority in Europe where they continue to use a phased approach for X-ray liquid threat detection. Utilizing similar cabinet X-ray manufacturer's equipment in Europe or in the states is transparent depending on the software and hardware specific to the customer. It is unknown what each Government agency will adhere to regarding capabilities and R&D.

Q.13 Regarding the date of LEDS certification, is the Government looking for results before or after December 1, 2017? Results prior to December 1, 2017, as reported on the ECAC LEDS certification results dated December 1, 2017.

Q.13 It is the first RFI by USMS or any other US Government Agency that requires this demand for adherence to foreign standards for U.S. application? This is an RFI. The USMS is not requiring or demanding any adherence but is asking what machine is ECAC certified.

Q.14-19

Requiring that offered products be pre-certified inhibits vendors from offering any new technology and precludes the Government from procuring the most advanced security products. Due to the long certification cycle, the Government is restricting vendors to product offerings that were introduced and tested years ago. To allow vendors to put forth their new technologies, the USMS must open the RFI to new technology not yet certified. The RFI's citation of new restrictive standards appears to be seeking to circumscribe and substantiate a product selection already taken by USMS. Will the USMS reissue this RFI to allow all manufacturers an equal opportunit to demonstrate new technologies that they have (in accordance with the statements that USMS leadership made following the cancellation of two RFPs last year) without the restrictions described above?

This is an RFI. Industry may respond with their capabilities.

Sheet2