MEP QA Amendment A00002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Multi-Energy Portal (MEP) System Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 70B03C20R00000117
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for an integrated Multi-Energy Portal (MEP) system for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The solicitation seeks proposals for MEP systems to screen vehicles and cargo at land border and seaport points of entry. Key details include that the MEP system is to include transmission and backscatter X-ray scanning capabilities along with an undercarriage scanner and integrated optical character recognition. The document clarifies requirements around wireless connectivity, standardized site preparation pricing, and optional additional capabilities. It also addresses questions on past performance submissions, training requirements, and reliability metrics.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Attachment 4 SF 1449 MEP A00001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 SF 1449 MEP Amendment A00003.pdf | ||
| MEP RFP Amendment A00003 Clean.docx | DOCX document | |
| MEP RFP Amendment A00003 with track changes.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 MEP SOW Amendment A00002 Clean.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 MEP SOW Amendment A00002 with track changes.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 SF 1449 MEP Amendment A00002.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 MEP FRD Amendment A00002 Clean.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 MEP FRD Amendment A00002 with track changes.pdf | ||
| MEP RFP Amendment A00002 Clean.pdf | ||
| MEP RFP Amendment A00002 with track changes.pdf | ||
| MEP RFP Amendment A00001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4 SF 1449 MEP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 MEP SOW.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3 PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE MEP.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2 MEP FRD.pdf | ||
| MEP RFP.pdf |
Show all 17
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Document | Paragraph No. | Page No.(s) | Question Category (Contract or Technical) | Question/Comment | CBP Response/Answer |
| 1 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 3.2 Configuration 1 MEP Pre-Primary Scan Inspection Use Case | 15 Item 18 and elsewhere | Technical | The RFP indicates in some places wireless system access is desired, and in other sections it says that the wireless system access needs to be disabled. Can CBP clarify the intent of the wireless access capability and if/when it will be implemented? | Within the confines of a POE, NII generally expects cabled connections between installed MEP, command centers, etc., that tie the various MEP system components together via OEM P-LAN. MEP wireless connectivity would generally be disabled / not utilized, however a MEP system wireless capability could be used in the future for specific deployment site requirements, with appropriate security measures in place. Use or implementation of wireless capabilty in the future would be executed as an On Demand task. |
| 2 | MEP_RFP.pdf | I.8 SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES | 7 | Contractual | Will CBP consider submittal of a Firm Fixed Price for "Site Preparation, Engineering Services and Support" (Item 20 - Training and Other Services table) that is standardized for any potential MEP installation site? | With the complexities of site work this would not be feasible as all locations are going to vary with site /civil scope. |
| 3 | MEP_RFP.pdf | I.8 SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES | 7 | Contractual | Due to varying site configurations, will CBP consider submittal of a Firm Fixed Price type quote for “Installation Services/Civil Works” (Item 60) after the "Site Preparation, Engineering Services and Support" (Item 20) work has been completed to ensure the lowest possible price and risk to CBP? This is how these services were requested in previous, recent CBP RFPs. | Item 20 should be used for the site survey and engineering to support the actual installation such as Geo techs, survey crews and drawing development stages. |
| 4 | MEP_RFP.pdf | I.8 SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES | 7 | Contractual | Would CBP allow vendors to add quotes for certain MEP system options as Optional CLIN line items (e.g. additional Line Items 390, 400, etc.) to the pricing table which do not have clearly identified CLINs and/or to provide other potential features or capabilities in support of the mission needs? | The requiremetns for the system and peripherals have been identified. Also pertains to question 25. |
| 5 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 4.3.2.43.4 | 26 | Technical | The FRD document states "Note: Exclusions for physical obstructions or damage are not allowed." This should read "Note: Exclusions for physical obstructions or damage ARE allowed." Please confirm. | CBP's intent is clear, obstruction occurances based on statistical analysis from other programs has been reviewed. Requirement stands. |
| 6 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 4.3.2.23 | 24 | Technical | The FRD document states that " The MEP unit shall display the entire length of the vehicle, from the ground to the roof for the side views and the complete length and width of the vehicle for the top down view or bottom up view." Some of these requirements can only be met with the UVBS backscatter system, not the MEP system itself. Please confirm that it is acceptable for "the MEP system and/or the UVBS " meet all of the requirements under this paragraph. | This requirement is clearly stated in the FRD |
| 7 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 4.3.2.56 | 27 | Technical | The FRD document states "The MEP Unit shall deliver an integrated IDP to the operator/analyst as a single or coherent case using NIEM N.25 messaging standard." N.25 is typically used for exporting inspection data to CBP systems/storage devices. Why does CBP want the operator/analyst to receive data in this format - especially since this is an internal MEP function. | CBP's intent is to be able to move the image from the system to CBP net or other locations via a storage device.The NII Integration Program system shall utilize the ANSI/IEEE N42.42 file format for radiation scanning |
The NII Integration Program system shall utilize the NIEM N.25, Unified File Format file format for screening systems
| 8 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 4.3.2.66 | 28 | Technical | The FRD document states "Analysts shall have the ability to tag a ‘non-suspect’ MEP IDP such that it is stored and treated as a suspect record per 4.3.2.61." The reference 4.3.2.61 has nothing to do with suspect records, and Leidos belives it is incorrect. Please correct. | This has been corrected. |
| 9 | Attachment 2_MEP_FRD.pdf | 4.3.2.67 | 28 | Technical | The FRD document states "The MEP System IDP record shall be configurable and, as a minimum, contain the information in Table 4 below." Please clarify what CBP means by 'configurable'? | Configurable in terms of layout and text box for annotations and screen layout. |
| 10 | Attachment_3_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE_MEP | N/A | N/A | Contractual | Can an offeror submit the past performance of its teaming partners or subcontractors to satisfy the requirements of the RFP? | Past performance should apply to the prime. |
| 11 | Attachment_3_PAST_PERFORMANCE_QUESTIONNAIRE_MEP | N/A | N/A | Contractual | Can an offeror include the past performance from companies that have been recently acquired by the offeror? | Past performance should apply to the prime |
| 12 | MEP+RFP+Amendment+A00001 | SUBFACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL APPROACH | 63 | Technical | Items d) through k) under "Scan Quality" all refer to the same requirement in the FRD: 4.3.2.20, which appears incorrect. Please supply the correct references to the FRD. | Minor adjustments have been made to MEP+RFP+Amendment+A00001: d) Signal Processing. (FRD 4.3.2.20) Support display of radiographic images at 4096 (T) or 65,536 (O) gray levels or greater. |
e) (FRD 4.3.2.21) Have a backscatter X-Ray scan capability from top down and for each side of the scanned vehicle to supplement the high energy transmission scan capability. (O)
f) (FRD 4.3.2.22) Support alternative beam geometries, other than perpendicular to the trailer / container, to enhance detection of contraband within fore and aft walls, doors, etc. (O)
g) (FRD 4.3.2.23) Display the entire length of the vehicle, from the ground to the roof for the side views and the complete length and width of the vehicle for the top down view or bottom up view.
h) (FRD 4.3.2.24) Display the image via the MEP workstation / Common Viewer following the scan with a maximum delay of five (5) seconds (T), three (3) seconds (O).
i) (FRD 4.3.2.25) Capable of material discrimination using the multi-energy capability to distinguish, at a minimum, between organic (low z) and inorganic (high z) materials, when the organic material is surrounded by inorganic material.
j) (FRD 4.3.2.26) Distinguish high-z versus low-z materials using different colors for their display.
k) (FRD 4.3.2.27) Allow the operator-analyst to toggle material discrimination colors on and off.
| 13 | FRD | 4.1 | 20 | Contract/Technical | The RFP states "The impact of achieving the Objective values shall be brought to the attention of the Government for review." | ||
| Does CBP wants the vendor to "bring this to CBP's attention through an option, to be used for a later engineering change, or other? | The impact of achieving the Objective values shall be brought to the attention of the Government for review, the objective value can be called out and listed as an option CLIN. | ||||||
| 14 | FRD | 4.2 | 21 | Contract | The MEP system shall include integrated RFID transponder reader and License Plate Reader (LPR) for use at land border POE, or container number Optical Character Recognition (OCR) system for use at seaport POE. | ||
| Could CBP provide a list of required IDP (Integrated Data Package) for each requested configuration? Or we can provide Options for individual sensors. | The Functional description is clear and CBP would expect the small change in the configuration from LPR to OCR would be the change made to accomadate the variation in location from LPOE to Seaport configuration. | ||||||
| 15 | FRD | 4.3.2.3 | 22 | Technical | Does the length footprint requirement include the undercarriage scanner (optical or backscatter), the three backscatter views and the transmission? If not, could you please clarify what the length requirement would be? | Target dimensions: 14.5 feet high; 9 feet wide Maximum system length: 35 feet. |
| 16 | FRD | 4.3.2.10 | 23 | Technical | Could you please confirm that if the system uses a pulsed source, there is no need to meet the 1uRem/h at 100 ft from the center of the MEP? | Correct, if the beam is pulsed with a total duration of ≤ 100 ms, then you do not have to meet the 1 uR/hr requirement. You still have to meet the other radiation safety requirements, e.g. 4.3.2.12. The limit is applied regardless of the mechanism used to obtain that limit. |
| 17 | FRD | 4.3.2.10 / 4.3.7.2.5 | 23 / 37 | Technical | If the above is confirmed, is there a limitation of the radiation exclusion zone in the length direction? | The exclusion zone is set by a dose no greater than 50 microrem in any hour outside of the exclusion zone . The exclusion zone cannot contain any CBP personnel, such as a primary CBP Officer. |
| 18 | FRD | 4.3.2.17 | 24 | Technical | The RFP states that the penetration shall be measured on accordance with ASTM F 792-01. This standard "applies to all X-ray based screening systems, with tunnel apertures up to 1 m wide 1 m high". For high-energy x-ray systems, the standard that usually applies is the ANSI 42.46 (Performance of X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Systems for Cargo and Vehicle Security Screening). Could you please confirm the standard that should be used for measuring penetration? | Correct, the ASTM will not be used, ANSI Standards will be used. |
| 19 | FRD | 4.3.2.18 | 24 | Technical | What standard should be used for measuring resolution? | ANSI Standards will be used according to industry standards. |
| 20 | FRD | 4.3.2.19 | 24 | Technical | Usually, the contrast sensitivity is measured at 10%, 50% and 80% of the system maximum penetration. However, the RFP states 35%. Could you please confirm that the spec is 35% and not 10%? | Yes, this should read 10%, 50% and 80%. |
| 21 | FRD | 4.3.2.19 | 24 | Technical | The contrast sensitivity at the various penetration levels is different. Could you please confirm that your spec is one (5%) for all % of max penetration? | It should read: Contrast Sensitivity: The MEP Unit shall have contrast sensitivity of at least 5% (T) or 2% (O) at 10%, 50% and 80% of the system's maximum penetration for transmission-based image with the target traveling through the portal at a speed of 5.0 mph. |
| 22 | FRD | 4.3.2.23 | 24 | Technical | The RFP specifies that the images should display "from the ground… of the vehicle". It is possible to scan all the way down to the bottom of the tires, but would CBP consider providing a maximum height from the ground that CBP would be willing to accept as target (T)? | The intent is clearly stated in the requirements of the FRD. |
| 23 | MEP RFP | Section 1, Subsection I.8 | Page 7 of 68 | Contract | CLINs 20 and 60 are both shown on the pricing table as T&M items, however the boxes for unit pricing have been left blank. Pease confirm that we can simply enter "NA" or "TBD" for the unit pricing for these two CLIN's as suggested in Section I.3 with the understanding that detailed T&M rates can be established later after the awards are made and sites have been determined. Page 67 states that "If a Vendor fails to provide a price for all items, the proposal may be deemed non-responsive and rejected..." | The pricing needs to be T&M for both CLINS. |
| 24 | Attachment 1 - MEP SOW | Section 3.4.1.2 | Page 20 of 152 | Contract | There is an Optional CLIN for both an 8x12 Operator Booth (CLIN) 370) and a 12x16 Operator Booth (CLIN 380), but there is no CLIN for an "Office Shelter" as described in the SOW. Will a CLIN be added for optional office shelters? | Shelters, if needed, can be provided thru T&M. |
| 25 | Attachment 1 - MEP SOW | Section 3.1 Item #3 | Page 16 of 152 | Contract | How do we submit pricing for any additional proposed options that could allow the units to potentially exceed threshold targets and achieve the more desirable objective targets? Should we add rows to the Optional CLINs Pricing Table? | Adding rows to the Optional CLINs Pricing Table is acceptable |
| 26 | MEP RFP | Section 1.8 | Page 7 of 68 | Contract | Since the contract requires specific targets to be met for sustainment and reliability (i.e., Operational Availability, Customer Wait Time, MTTR, etc.) starting with SAT on day one of operation, what is the difference between CLIN's 120-150 that would extend the warranty out to year five, and CLIN's 160-340 that would extend PM/CM service? CLIN's 120-150 seem redundant and would already be captured by adding together the extended PM and CM CLIN's (i.e., CLIN 170+260 = total price for extending warranty service to Year 2, etc.) | Warranty and preventive maintenance can be combined, but warranty and corrective maintance would never be combined because they would be duplicative. |
| 27 | RFP | 1.8 | 7 | Training and Other Services Chart: There is no technical training listed in this chart; however, it is referenced in the SOW. Should it be added here? | Training is requested to be priced on Line 50. | |
| 28 | RFP | 1.8 | 7 | Training and Other Services Chart: Training Development - Are we able to separate out training development deliverables into separate lines for each course level (Operator, Train-the-Trainer, and Technical), or can we only bill after all development is completed? | Please price each seperately. | |
| 29 | RFP | 1.8 | 7 | Training and Other Services Chart: Train-the-Trainer (T3 )- Need to specify T3 vs Secondary T3, which is referenced in the SOW. Depending on class size, qty of 1 may not be appropriate; might be qty of 2 (assuming 8 students total). | Added analyst training; Secondary Operator/Analyst and add Train the Trainer (T-3) 12 Students. | |
| 30 | RFP | 1.8 | 7 | Training and Other Services Chart: Operator Training - Need to specify Operator vs. Secondary Operator, which is referenced in the SOW. Depending on class size, qty of 1 may not be appropriate; might be qty of 2 or more per site (assuming 12 students per site). Also, ensure total number of students includes the trainers, as Operator is a prerequisite. | Added analyst training; Secondary Operator/Analyst and add Train the Trainer (T-3) 12 Students. | |
| 31 | RFP | III.21 | 64 | Under the life cycle parameter, it references "separate training package materials for operators and analysts". Please confirm if this refers to hard copy, soft copy or both. Please also confirm that this references materials included and provided at the time of training to just the attendees only. | See DiD A021. | |
| 32 | RFP | III.21 | 64 | Under the life cycle parameter, number 3, it groups operators and analysts together. However, on the SOW, analysts fall under secondary operator training. Operator training and secondary operator training is different in both content and duration. However, this statement suggests both received 24 hours of classroom training. In addition, the proposed scheduling on the SOW includes reinforcement training days. Please clarify and confirm how many hours of training are required for operators and analysts, respectively. | Training for operators will be 24 hours of classroom training and 16 hours of reinforcement. The secondary operator is 4 hours of classroom. (SEE SOW 4.2.2) | |
| 33 | RFP | III.21 | 65 | Training Management Plan: Is there a template or sample of a plan we need to use, or is the format up to us? What must be included? The SOW details the Training Design Plan but not the Training Management Plan. Are these the same document? | Yes, consider the Training Design Plan the same as Training Management Plan, see DiD for included items. | |
| 34 | SOW | 3.8.2 | 31 | "The CPB SAT will not occur until the Contractor has trained the SAT team members..." How many SAT members need to be trained? Does this refer to vendor personnel, CBP personnel or both? Please confirm if this would be operator level, technical level or both. Where will this training take place, since the training must occur before SAT? We don't have one of these units on which to train anyone. | SAT Team Members will be considered training after the Factory Test. It is expected that the FT will take some time and the overall approach to training the team members will occur at this time. | |
| 35 | SOW | 4.2 | 39 | Video: Does this refer to any video shot and used in the theory portion of the training? Please clarify. | Video production shall be coordinated with Training. | |
| 36 | SOW | 4.2.1 | 39 | Video: Does this refer to videos shared as part of the classroom instruction, or the separate video referenced in DID A007? | Yes, this is for the classroom training portion. | |
| 37 | SOW | 4.2.2 | 39 | Secondary Operator Training: It appears this differs from Operator Training. It appears to be a different, shortened course. Therefore, it would be a separate delivery for both the development and delivery of the course. Also, please confirm if certifications are needed for this course, or only for the Operator and T3 courses. | It would be seprate delivery for each and certifications are required. | |
| 38 | SOW | 4.2.3 | 40 | Is the expectation that the 40 hours for T3 training be inclusive of or exclusive of the prerequisite Operator training? | Exclusive of operator training | |
| 39 | SOW | 4.2.3 | 40 | For the minimum two days of reinforcement training is there a minimum number of hours associated with these two days? Is the expectation that these days be scheduled consecutively with the Train-the-Trainer course or separately (with time in between)? | 8 hours per day and consecutively with the course. | |
| 40 | SOW | 4.8 | 46 | First reference to computer based training. Please clarify any CBT requirements, and for which type(s)/level(s) of training. | Any software utilized by operators or used to train on the equipment is a CBT requirement. | |
| 41 | SOW | 4.8 | 46 | First reference to operator refresher training. Please clarify requirements here. | Refresher training is any training provided after initial training requirements are met from contract. This would include training required from equipment upgrades. | |
| 42 | SOW | 4.8 | 46 | First reference to secondary T3 training. Please clarify requirements here. | T-3 secondary operator will consist of 4 hours classroom followed by 8 hours of reinforcement. | |
| 43 | SOW | 4.8.12 | 48 | To confirm, no CBT is being ordered up front; however, it is instead a possible future request. Please advise. | No stand alone CBT course is being ordered at this time. | |
| 44 | SOW | DID A007a | 101 | Training Model: Please confirm this is only the Operator training model (as all other training appears to be different). Please also confirm: Days 2-3 to be delivered by the vendor as Operator training (assumes 12 people). Days 5-8 are usually CBP lead, but Smiths personnel may need to lead (assumes first 6 people on days 5-6, and second 6 people on days 7-8, from original 12 people). Is this correct? | All training will be provided by the vendor for the following: Days 2-4 are classroom only, followed by reinforcement days 5-8 | |
| 45 | SOW | DID A007a | 102 | If reinforcement training is divided into classes of 6, are two instructors still required for each training (2:6 ratio) or is one instructor acceptable (1:6 ratio)? | One instructor is acceptable. | |
| 46 | SOW | DID A007a | 104 | Electronic and hard copies of training materials: please confirm if this is in addition to materials provided to training students of any level, or if this references those provided to T3 students. | This is in addition to materials provided to students. | |
| 47 | SOW | DID A007a | 104 | Need clarification on what is to be included on the DVD's. Please clarify requested content and in what matter the DVD's will be used. | DVD's will include any and all class materials including courseware. | |
| 48 | SOW | 3.8.1 | 30 | Technical | Does Factory Testing apply to the first article system only, with subsequent systems evaluated after with relevant testing? We suggest the government modify the paragraph to define first article test, and then make the vendor responsible for providing an updated test plan, subject to government approval. | Para 3.8.1 spells out the requirements for the FT testing. DiD A0014 speaks to the FT and SAT documents and submission of them in editable format. First Article testing will be performed to baseline the performce of the system. |
| 49 | FRD | 4.3.2.3 | 22 | Technical | Can the government clarify the system length? The footprint length dimension works for independent single technolgy, but not in combination of multiple technologies (Transmission, Backscatter, UVBS). We recommend the government revise this requirement to include separate length dimensions for each technology. | Maximum system length: 35 feet |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .