A0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

PAGE OF PAGES

3. EFF. DATE 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

FACILITY CODECODE

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR(Number, street, county, State & Zip Code)

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES Such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc. ) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103 (b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) copies to issuing office.

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

A0001 03/04/2021 0020116538

DHS - Customs & Border Protection CBP, Procurement Directorate Intech Two, Suite 100 6650 Telecom Drive Indianapolis IN 46278

DHS - Customs & Border Protection CBP, Procurement Directorate Intech Two, Suite 100 6650 Telecom Drive Indianapolis IN 46278

70B03C20R00000127

06/15/2017

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

1 1 is required to sign this document and return is not

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

BY

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15A NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

This amendment is issued to make the following changes:

a) To incorporate the attached vendor questions and CBP answers,

b) To incorporate a revised Statement of Work (SOW) and Functional Requirements Document (FRD) that include changes noted on the Questions and Answers. In the event of conflict between the Questions and Answers document and the revised SOW and FRD, the Questions and Answers govern.

c) To extend the closing date of this solicitation to 4:00pm ET on Wednesday, March 10, 2021.

X

X 1

Document Paragraph No. Page No.(s) Question Category (Contract or Technical) Question/Comment Government's Response

1.1 1 Technical Item 33 on the "Mission Needs Statement Gaps" table references items 1 and 2 which are not shown. "In tandem with #1 and #2, establish…" Can CBP provide items #1 and #2, or are they not necessary for this pricing effort?

items 1 and 2 are not necessary for this pricing effort.

In a situation where only a single‐lane system is used, can the system be wider than 12 feet, since width relative to other lanes is no longer an issue?

Wider systems are acceptable (per revised FRD). Each vendor's proposal should identify the dimensions of single unit and multi‐unit installations.

Is the USS included within the Type 1 system length of a 14 ft? Or is can the USS be in addition to the system length?

The USS length is not considered for the 14 foot length. FRD is amended to remove the USS from the minimum footprint requirement. However, new requirements are added for maximum USS distance from Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 System footprints. The proposal shall include the drawing of the Type 1 System, Type 2 or Type 3 footprint with the USS if proposed.

FRD 1.2.d and 4.2.2.2 discuss the definition and requirements for the Type 1 LEP system. Can CBP explain the Government’s rationale in omitting an Objective length requirement for Type 1 systems? Do all ports require a 14‐foot or less footprint for Type 1 systems? Are there other factors driving this requirement other than RPM offset?

Type 1 System dimensions are updated to include threshold and objective values. FRD is amended to remove the USS from the minimum footprint requirement. new requirements for added for maximum USS distance from Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 System footprints. The proposal shall include the drawing of the Type 1 System, Type 2 or Type 3 footprint with the USS, if proposed. The drawings must be in an appendix to the technical volume and will be ignored for page count purposes.

Given that an under vehicle scanning system (USS) gives greater visibility for CBP officers, will CBP require every vendor to provide an USS with each Type 1 system? Are there considerations and/or restraints that would cause CBP to not deploy a USS?

USS is an option and not required to bid a base system. Length footprint and radiation standoff distance are considerations which may preclude exercising the USS option.

3.1 6 Technical FRD 3.1 Steps, Item 8) states that the presence sensor activates vehicle scanning and starts capturing undercarriage UVIS imagery. Can CBP confirm that it meant "USS" here, instead of UVIS?

Yes, replace UVIS with USS

7 “In periods when the Command Center is closed due to low traffic volumes, this use case would be performed at the HMI in secondary, vs the command center.” Does this mean work centers and situation wall are required in the secondary location as well? In addition, will a tablet and wireless networking solution be acceptable for secondary operations in this regard and for 3.3 Secondary Use Case and 4.2.7.7?

The situation wall is not required. Tablet and wireless networking solution would be acceptable.

8 Currently, the next available IDS is sent automatically to the first available Analyst. Should the analyst be able to override this?

Yes, that is correct.

9 After a decision update by the Primary officer, how does CBP envision this information transfer to the IDS?

The interface with the LBI primary application is currently uni‐directional, therefore the only way to update the IDS record with a decision is manually. This may change with future integration activities, at which point two‐way traffic could be possible.

3.6 25 Technical Material availability: Please provide some clarification and examples of material availability metric. If refers to subsystems plus spares. Is the subsystem a main component installed such as an air conditioner? Does this include critical spares only or anything that can be replaced on the system?

Critical subsystems are subsystems that would cause a lane outage.

When analyzing MA consider the critical subsystems, key subsystems that determine the whole's availability.

Total inventory of the system and key subsystem including spares As an illustration: if an entire system has 8 subsystems plus 2 air conditioner units stocked as spares, then total population=1 system =8 subsystems+2 spares Example 1: a deployed subsystems is not operational due to PM services (planned downtime) then the MA= (7+2)/(8+2)=9/10=.90 Example 2: the same system, but a critical subsystem fails causing the system outage due to A/C failures (unplanned downtime) then the MA=(7+2)/(8+2)=9/10=.90

4.1.1.1 & 4.1.1.2 11 Technical It appears the description is for mechanical gauges, such as the hanging bars currently used, but refers to directions to divert oversized vehicles.

Is signage adequate to inform vehicles that impact the mechanical gauges sufficient to divert vehicles, or is there a requirement to electronically connect the vehicle gauge?

Signage is sufficient

11 Can you please clarify if USS is a required item? If you don't deploy a USS, is UVIS required?

USS is an optional item. UVIS is not required. If a USS is installed per the exercised option, the USS image should be captured.

FRD will be modified.

The UVIS is listed here as a "shall" requirement, however listed in other paragraphs as an option. Can you please clarify if the UVIS shall be included in the base LEP system?

FRD was corrected to remove UVIS. USS is not part of the base system but should be priced as an option if available.

4.1.1.21 12 Is it expected that the System will fully integrate the (third party) USS? Yes, that is correct.

Table Item #1‐ Does the IDS contain the front/rear LPR images or just the plate numbers? Same question for passing the data to LBI.

Yes, the LP images (front and rear) and the plate number should be included

CBP RFP 70B03C20R000000127 ‐ Questions and Answers

FRD Questions

4.1.1.11 Technical

1.2.d & 4.2.2.2 2 and 19

3.2 Technical

Technical

4.1.1.23 12 Technical The requirement to save trailers as a separate image may cause some confusion and inconsistencies. The varying types of trailer connections, distance between structure and the towing vehicle, the changing speed of a vehicle as it passes through the system may result in the X Ray system breaking the image into two images, but can more accurately be combined as a single image. The point of separation of the images can be difficult, and the point of breaking one image and starting another may result in the loss of data, or parts of the trailer in the vehicle image depending on the conditions above and the sensors used to determine the break. Additionally, if the trailer is saved as a separate IDS, there will be two IDS associated with a single vehicle crossing. As these systems are integrated with VPC, isn’t it desirable to keep the trailer in the same IDS so a single IDS can be associated and integrated into VPC as a crossing?

Can the requirement be modified to include trailers in the vehicle image?

Trailers connected to the passenger vehicle are consider one vehicle with one IDS. FRD corrected.

4.1.1.25, 26 12 The requirement is annotated (1) and (2), but we are unable to find the reference. Should we assume this is a future requirement as outlined in 4.2.11.2?

This Is a future requirement and not required to propose under this RFP.

4.1.1.26 12 Is CBP cloud integration a future requirement? It is CBP's intent to integrate cloud networking with these systems in the future. However, as a future requirement, it is not required to bid.

4.1.1.33 13 Technical Please clarify req 4.1.1.33 The system HMI shall timeout an IDS with “Under Review” status after 60 seconds of inactivity. Note: timeout will remove “Under Review” status from IDS list. When timeout occurs after 60 seconds, does the government wish to have the IDS removed from the queue (not recommended)? Would it be acceptable to have the IDS re‐ assigned to another available work center?

It is sufficient to have the IDS re‐assigned to another available work center.

4.2 14 Technical Would the government consider network architecture modification? All devices/peripherals interface directly with a single platform to include X‐ ray, LPR, RFID, RPMs, DHS enterprise systems as defined throughout the FRD. This would create an Integrated Data Package (IDP).

Yes a network architecture modification is acceptable

4.2.0.1 14 Technical The system shall display radiographic images with the quality for a system trained CBP officer to discriminate the object described in Table 5: Detectable Object concealed in any of the locations listed in Table 6 Concealment Locations with at least 50 (T), 95 (O) percent success.

Does the government wish to differentiate between system operator training and image analysis to specialize in x‐ray interpretation and adjudication? This would enhance the officer capabilities to identify contraband as defined in Table 5 and Table 6.

Training should include sufficient operator and image analysis training for officers to meet the requirements in table 5 and 6.

4.2.0.1, 4.2.0.2, 4.2.0.3 14 Technical The system shall display radiographic images with the quality for a system trained CBP officer to discriminate the object described in Table 5: Detectable Object concealed in any of the locations listed in Table 6 Concealment Locations with at least 50 (T), 95 (O) percent success.

The Type 1 system shall detect objects listed in Table 5 Detectable Objects concealed in any of the locations listed in Table 6 Concealment Locations within a vehicle with at least 50 (O) percent success without operator intervention.

False Detection shall not exceed 3 (0) percent

Please provide details as to how the test will be conducted. How variables such as exact location, target size, and vehicle differences, will be mitigated and how scoring and interpretation will be quantified.

Is there an established test so bidders can verify performance before submittal?

The narcotic test objects of the specified dimensions and density range have been manufactured by CBP. A replica hand gun will be used to simulate the weapon threat object. CBP has two test vehicles that have been modified to have hiding locations in the concealment locations listed in Table 6. As the stream of commerce has many vehicle types in it, the exact vehicle that will be used for testing is unimportant, the important factor is that the location and orientation of the Table 5 objects is the same across the vehicles tested, e.g. location under rear seat always the same, contraband in same orientation (flat, on edge, etc.). Images will be analyzed by trained image analysts and scored for percentage of time the Table 5 object is recognized as an anomaly.

Would CBP permit access to system images (with no PII) for a period after installation in order to build sufficient databases to meet this requirement?

Yes. The specific requirements and protocols for system image sharing will be defined at a future date.

FRD 4.2.0.2 states that the Type 1 system shall detect objects listed in Table 5 Detectable Objects concealed in any of the locations listed in Table 6 Concealment Locations within a vehicle with at least 50 (O) percent success without operator intervention. Can CBP explain why concealment locations were reduced from 13 (draft RFP published 3/27/20) to 3 (current FRD)? Currently available systems possess the capability to enable detection in all 13 previously specified concealment locations. As such, what is the operational rationale for this decrease?

The number of locations was reduced to limit the number of required test runs.

4.2.0.5. 4.2.0.6, 4.2.0.7, 4.2.0.12

17 Technical The system’s radiographic images shall discriminate object to background density by at least X (%) in accordance with test procedure in ANSI 42‐46‐2008.

This is a unique new configuration, with multiple views and multiple technologies. The ANSI performance will vary between the different technologies and may not correlate to the detectable objects in table 5.

Can ANSI testing protocol be determined at the time FAT? ANSI requirements should be based on detection requirements which will be established on initial testing.

ANSI‐42‐46 is an established procedure, such that all systems are tested to the same baseline. ANSI‐42‐46 specifies that the system must meet the specified requirement (e.g. contrast) for each distinct view the system offers. CBP desires that systems have excellent image quality, and separates requirements into threshold and objectives to reward meeting objective requirements.

4.2.0.10 and 4.2.0.11 4.2.0.6 and 4.2.0.7

18 Technical The system’s horizontal and vertical spatial resolution shall be less than X (mm) in accordance with test procedure in ANSI 42‐46‐2008

Please confirm that the values for horizontal and vertical spatial resolution are switched. Typically the lower number (higher resolution) is the vertical measurement

CBP has noticed that different offerors have different interpretations of what direction constitutes horizontal and vertical on a top‐down looking system. CBP follows the ANSI 42‐46 definition spelled out in section 4.8c: horizontal is in the direction of the detector array and vertical is perpendicular to the detector array. The FRD will be updated to include this clarification. 4.2.0.10 and 4.2.1.11 horizontal and vertical spatial resolution updated.

4.2.0.10 18 Technical The system’s horizontal spatial resolution shall be less than X (mm) in accordance with test procedure in ANSI 42‐46‐2008

Preprimary systems are typically operated at a higher speed, resulting in reduced resolution. Will CBP relax this requirement?

The range of the system resolution was established based on market research. CBP has found that contrast and system resolution are two essential parameters in making a system useful for identifying anomalies. 4.2.0.10 and 4.2.1.11 horizontal and vertical spatial resolution updated and associated speeds added to 4.2.0.14 and 4.2.0.15.

144.2.0.2 Technical

4.2.2.3 19 Technical FRD 4.2.2.3 indicates that the Type 2 Secondary Systems footprint area shall not exceed 24 (T) 16 (O) feet wide by 24 (T) 20 (O) feet long, and 15

(T) feet high. Can CBP clarify if the ancillary equipment specified in Sections 4.2.1 (TC), 4.2.3 (LPR), 4.2.4 (RFID), and 4.2.5 (USS) is excluded from footprint requirement (like it is for Type 1 systems)?

Yes, the ancillary equipment is excluded from the requirement

4.2.2.5 19 Technical FRD 4.2.2.5 states that the Type 2 and 3 systems shall display six images of the conveyance using both transmission and reflection technologies.

(Note: top down, both sides in transmission and reflection). Can CBP explain the rationale for requiring 6 images for Type 2 and 3 systems? As CBP’s detection requirement is to find all contraband hidden in specified parts of the vehicle, would CBP consider systems which produce fewer than 6 images that still meet detection requirements, particularly if they offer better detection and lower cost? Also, more views require more image analysis time, which negatively impacts throughput.

CBP's requirement will be 6 images as specified in the FRD. This is the same requirement in the April 2020 draft RFP.

4.2.5 21 Technical FRD 4.2.5 discusses the optional Under Carriage Scanning System (USS).

The current inclusion of the optional USS in the 14‐foot limitation does not allow for an optimal inclusion of the USS to most vendor’s Type 1 solutions. Would CBP consider adding Threshold and Objective footprint requirements to allow a USS to be integrated to any NII vendor solution while providing the flexibility to deploy within varying POE constraints?

FRD is amended to remove the USS from the minimum footprint requirement. new requirements for added for maximum USS distance from Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3 System footprints. The proposal shall include the drawing of the Type 1 System, Type 2 or Type 3 footprint with the USS if proposed.

4.2.7

Technical FRD 4.2.7 specifies a number of requirements for the System Work Center. Can CBP clarify if the System Work Center includes desks and other interior design elements, or will those be evaluated as part of the separate civil works bid?

Workstation furniture will be evaluated separately for each Port of Entry design

4.2.7.3

Technical FRD 4.2.7.3 indicates that the System work stations shall be compliant with the latest CBP Technical Reference Model (TRM) specification. Can CBP provide the latest Technical Reference Model (TRM) specification?

The government will make available the latest relevant TRM specification post‐award. The offeror can also propose their optimal solution to be submitted to the TRM.

4.2.7.4 22 Technical The System Work Center monitors shall be a minimum of 40” in size or the images may be compiled on a large screen which provides images of the same equivalent size.

Are 38” monitors acceptable for the System Work Center? 38" is acceptable. FRD was updated to 38 inches.

4.2.7.5 22 FRD 4.2.7.5 states that UPS backup for 30 minutes is required for system work centers, but no other mention of backup power is in this document.

The SOW 3.3.1 states that UPS backup power shall be included "for the operating system", but is in the paragraph relating to sources and detectors. Can you confirm that UPS power shall be provided to the computer workstations and servers and not to power the entire scanner for 30 minutes?

The UPS is for the graceful shutdown of the operator systems and the power conditioner is to help avoid damage to components such as the tube.

4.2.8 24 Technical NII Control Center Situational Wall (SW)

Throughout 4.2.8 NII Control Center Situational Wall (SW), 3 different size monitors are annotated in the requirements (48”, 50” and 55”).

Recommend monitors sizing be driven by specific command center requirements.

Sizing may be adjusted with the concurrence of the government.

4.2.9 24 Technical Human Machine Interface (HMI)

Requirements in 4.2.9 Human Machine Interface (HMI) are written as a combination of a scanning system UI and an integration platform UI. Is the intent to deploy an operator platform to perform scanner system functions (to include 4.2.9.23 ‘E‐Stop’) and an integration platform to manage all devices/peripherals, host common viewer, display situational wall data and work center requirements?

The human machine interface requirements are written independently of a vendor's solution. Either a scanning system UI or an integration platform are acceptable if they meet the requirements of 4.2.9

4.2.10.1 25 Technical FRD 4.2.10.1 indicates that the System DS shall provide sufficient storage for 45 days worth of files per installed portal. FRD 4.1.1.28 indicates that the system DS shall store the IDS record for a minimum of 90 days. Can CBP specify which is correct?

FRD 4.2.10.1 should read 90 days.

4.2.11 26 Technical External NII Systems (Future)

Will interface control documents (ICDs) be provided for NROC, PRIDE, ARDIS‐C?

Yes, when they are available.

4.3.1.3 27 Technical FRD 4.3.1.3 states that the System shall limit radiation exposure to 50 μR/hour at the boundary of the radiation control area (RCA). 50 µR/hour is an instantaneous reading which is not how boundaries are measured. It should state "50 µR in any one hour" to allow duty cycle correction". Can CBP make this change?

The restatement is correct, the requirements should read "...50 uR in any one hour at the boundary of the radiation control area"

4.3.5.1 29 Technical FRD 4.3.5.1 indicates that the System passwords are at least 16 characters (unicode and ASCII) in length. However, SOW 3.3.3.1.B indicates that all passwords used to access the NII system for operation are at least 12 characters in length, which was the requirement in previous CBP NII RFPs. Can CBP confirm that 12 character length is correct?

FRD modified to 12 characters. Current security policy dictates (12) characters.

Document Paragraph No. Page No.(s) Question Category (Contract or Technical) Question/Comment Government's Response

2.1

Technical SOW 2.1 specifies in item c "Code of Federal Regulations, 21 CFR 1020.31, Radiographic Equipment”. This reference is incorrect, as it deals with radiography. Non‐intrusive inspection (NII) systems of the type requested by CBP are not radiography. For example, 1020.31 has requirements for measuring the coefficient of variation and that compliance shall be based on 10 exposures. This is applicable to radiography devices looking for cracks and other structural anomalies, which is not the purpose of NII systems in security screening operations. Can CBP remove this reference?

This reference will not be used.

SOW Questions

3.4.2 and 3.4.8

Technical 3.4.2 Specifies that CCTV camera snapshots are to be included in the IDS, however 3.4.8 specifies that the CCTV camera system shall be independent of the LEP. We recommend keeping these systems separate if the intent is to transition CCTV hardware to BSDP contract and network.

CCTV shall remain independent of LEP

For past IDIQ awards for low energy portal systems, the requirement for an audible alarm was removed since it was determined that ANSI 43.17‐ 2009 standard does not require one. Please confirm this requirement can be removed.

Visible interlocks are acceptable.

SOW 3.5.1 says to see ANSI N43.3‐2008, paragraph 7.5.2, and ANSI N43.14‐2011, chapter 6.1, for more details on safety interlocks. The DTP LS‐NII systems shall also provide audible and visible (flashing lights) alarms when actively radiating. The referenced ANSI recommendation deals with door interlocks, which is not applicable to the type of NII systems requested by CBP. Can CBP remove this reference?

The references will stay but CBP waives the audible alarm requirement.

3.6 25 Technical Material availability: Please provide some clarification and examples of material availability metric. If refers to subsystems plus spares. Is the subsystem a main component installed such as an air conditioner? Does this include critical spares only or anything that can be replaced on the system?

Critical subsystems are subsystems that would cause a lane outage.

When analyzing MA consider the critical subsystems, key subsystems that determine the whole's availability.

Total inventory of the system and key subsystem including spares As an illustration: if an entire system has 8 subsystems plus 2 air conditioner units stocked as spares, then total population=1 system =8 subsystems+2 spares Example 1: a deployed subsystems is not operational due to PM services (planned downtime) then the MA= (7+2)/(8+2)=9/10=.90 Example 2: the same system, but a critical subsystem fails causing the system outage due to A/C failures (unplanned downtime) then the MA=(7+2)/(8+2)=9/10=.90

26‐27 Total cost of ownership Cost: Please provide clarification and examples of TCO reporting

When analyzing MA consider the critical or key subsystems that determine the whole availability.

Looking at sparing footprint and working to improve performance and reduce outages and reduce the size of what spares are needed to keep the system operationally available.

Using the same system as the question above, if an entire system has 8 subsystems. Of those 8 critical subsystems, 2 are the spares stocked due to lead time and failure rate. Per design analysis the critical subsystems have a failure rate of 5000 hrs with a turn around time of 6000 hrs but a repair cost 1/3 of the cost. To be able to meet the materiel availability and operational availability there is a need for rotating spares. For an annual review this one subsystem would require 3 subsystems in inventory at a cost of x, plus every 5000 hours a repair that costs 1/3 x.

25‐27 The MA and TCO reporting is required monthly. Is the expectation that these reports will be submitted monthly during both the base warranty and extended service periods?

At submission of proposal, these numbers (MA and TOC) are either theoretical or per seen in other installations.

During life of contract, TOC is not monthly, this would be on an annual basis.

MA is a monthly looking at actual material availability. SOW updated to reflect these clarifications.

4.9.9 44 Technical Information Systems Security Administration. Creating, editing, deleting, and re-verification of system user accounts at the direction of the specified Government System Administrator. Is the request for support at the site to set up new users, remove and reset passwords when users forget their passwords? And if so, can these activities be completed during Preventative Maintenance visits rather than opening specific corrective maintenance work orders for password re-setting?

Urgent password resets that are due to user error will be issued as a separate work ticket under a T&M maintenance activity.

4.10.9 and 4.10.11 48 Technical Disposal Services is mentioned in "other services" in the IDIQ, but the

4.10.9 section of the SOW table of contents for "Disposal Services" is missing, and 4.10.9 instead references Emergency Services.

Corrected errata. Section 4.11 is Disposal Services.

If the units last longer than the 10 yr warranty, is the OEM still responsible for the disposal of decommissioned units? (What is government's role during decommission? All hard drives must be sanitized and confirmed by Government)

If the date of disposal exceeds this contracts performance scope, a new contract will be issued for disposal. Added clarification for hard drive sanitization.

Will Disposal Services be a T&M CLIN or FFP? The disposal task is expected to be firm‐fixed price. However, vendors are not expected to price disposal for their price proposal, since it will be contingent on unknown elements. When the time nears for disposal, CBP will request a fixed‐price quote for the disposal, or if the disposal occurs after expiration of this contract, it will issue a new contract to cover it.

4.10.14 50 Technical The Contractor shall provide the capability for remote maintenance monitoring.

The health status of system components shall be able to be viewed remotely (potentially at the manufacturer or a CBP location) in order to obtain system statistics, guide preventative maintenance actions, and diagnose system issues

Can this requirement be considered an optional feature, to be added as detailed requirements are identified by CBP.

This is an optional feature. SOW updated to reflect that this is a future requirement.

GENERAL SOW ‐ FRD ‐ Technical When there is a technical or specification conflict between the SOW and FRD, shall the bidder assume that the FRD requirements takes precedence? For example: SOW para (req 3.4.2) vs the FRD (req 4.2.6.1) are inconsistent.

Technical requirements in the FRD should be used when it conflicts with SOW.

Document Paragraph No. Page No.(s) Question Category (Contract or Technical) Question/Comment Government's Response

‐ Contract T&M pricing requirement is not written the same as in previous contract release documents. Can CBP provide clarification on the T&M pricing requirements and the timing for each step?

Because T&M pricing and labor categories will be site‐dependent, T&M pricing will only be requested on competitive order‐level RFQs.

70B03C20R00000127

4.10.11 49 Contract

RFP or General Proposal Questions

Technical Safety Interlocks. The Contractor shall provide Emergency Stop Switches for all systems that will enable an operator to manually interrupt the scanning process by disabling the transmission of X‐rays in an emergency or when there is an unauthorized entry inside the system's Radiation Control Area. See ANSI N43.3‐ 2008, paragraph 7.5.2, and ANSI N43.14‐2011, chapter 6.1, for more details on safety interlocks. The DTP LS‐NII systems shall also provide audible and visible (flashing lights) alarms when actively radiating.

3.5.1 23

Contract FAR 52.203‐12, 52.203‐17, and 52.227‐1 were included in the Multi‐

Energy Portal RFP and Contract. They appear to be missing from the proposed contract, will the Government include them?

Provision 52.203‐11 and clauses 52.203‐12 and 52.203‐17 are incorporated into the RFP. Also, 52.227‐1 and provision 52.227‐ 2 are incorporated into the RFP.

Contract May a vendor submit pricing for any additional proposed options that could allow the units to potentially exceed threshold targets and achieve the more desirable objective targets? Can a vendor add rows to the Optional CLINs Pricing Table?

Each vendor is advised propose the system that, in its estimation, best meets the evaluation criteria. A vendor may submit additional proposed options. HOWEVER, if the vendor intends for a system to be evaluated using optional improvements, it must specify which options should be included. CBP will only evaluate one version of the LEP system (for each type proposed).

The specified system and options will be considered the "base system" for technical evaluation purposes, and the price evaluation will include pricing from all specified options.

5‐6 Contract How many units per order can be expected? The number of units per order will vary according the needs of the Government at the time of the RFQ.

Contracts Can CBP confirm the ability of vendors to add option/additional lines to the schedule of supplies/services (the pricing matrix) if needed?

The vendor can add additional lines to the schedule of supplies if required.

Contracts Can CBP confirm if the Disposal Fee line from the schedule of supplies/services (the pricing matrix) to be TBD, similar to the site preparation, installation services, and on‐demand services?

The disposal fee may be TBD.

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 110‐140 that would extend the warranty out to year five, and CLIN's 150‐330 that would extend PM/CM service? CLIN's 110‐140 seem redundant and would already be captured by adding together the extended PM and CM CLIN's (i.e., CLIN 160+250 = total price for extending warranty service to Year 2, etc.)

The Government is only allowed to equate warranty to CM services. Thus, if the Government buys a 3‐year warranty, then the Government would also have to exercise the options for the first, second, and third year Preventive Maintenance Options for the warranty years. And then exercise PM and CM options for years 4‐10.

The Government is only able to buy one year of PM/CM service at a time, but able to buy multiple years warranty.

The mentioned metrics are a requirement during the contracted period of time whether it a warranty coverage or the PM/CM maintenance options.

58 and 66

Contracts Page 58 indicates that only the Phase 1 package items (technical acceptability review checklist, the video, and the signed RFP) shall be submitted on 3/8/21, after which the government will issue an assessment letter instructing vendors, deemed to be technically acceptable, how and when to submit their Phase 2 package specific items/volumes. Page 66 may conflict with this by stating “All volumes, including the video, must be received by the closing date of the RFP”. Can CBP clarify exactly which proposal package items/volume(s) are to be submitted on 3/8/21.

The statement of Page 58 is correct. Only the Phase 1 submittal is due at the close of the RFP. The Phase 2 submittal will be due as indicated in assessment letter (at least two weeks after issuance of the letter).

Contracts Would CBP accept just the signed cover pages of each of the RFP and amendments (the SF 1449 forms) as sufficient for inclusion in the Phase 1 package as the 'signed RFP", or must the entire RFP and amendments be included?

Yes submitting the signed cover pages is acceptable, unless the offeror needs to disclose information that is not in the SAM.gov vendor registration system.

Contracts Can CBP confirm that cover pages and tables of contents do not count against page limits for the Phase 2 proposal volumes.

This is correct cover pages and table of contents do not count against the page limits.

Contracts Does CBP expect Offeror to include its representations and certifications, plus small business subcontract plan, in Phase 1 with the signed RFP, or in Phase 2, in Volume 3 Pricing?

The representations and certifications should be submitted in Phase 1 with RFP (if not already disclosed through the vendor's SAM registration). Subcontracting Plans should be included in the pricing volume of the Phase 2 submittal.

SOW / Perf Spec 3.4.1, 3.4.6, 3.4.7

18 & 22 of

Contract Page 18 of the SOW mentions that during the site survey, it will be determined if the site requires an operator booth to house the workstations. Page 22 of the SOW mentions that additional "Office Shelters" and "Passenger Shelters" may be required as well (to be determined at the site survey). Should we add additional lines to the existing CLIN structure to show unit pricing for these possible "options"?

Or can these be procured via T&M CLIN's after the individual site surveys have been completed to define the need / scope?

Please provide optional CLINs for each structure. Installation costs for these structures may be included in a T&M line, as appropriate.

SOW / Perf Spec

3.10.4 & 4.7

35 & 40‐41 of 109

Contract Pages 40‐41 of the SOW states that the Contractor Kick‐Off meeting will be held "within 60 days after contract award." Page 35 of the SOW states that the Site Survey Report will be due "120 days prior to the site acceptance testing". Should we assume that the site survey cannot be completed until after the Contractor Kick‐Off meeting (i.e., NLT 60 days from contract award)?

Correct, Site surveys will be scheduled after Contract Kick Off meeting.

SOW / Perf Spec ‐ 4.7 41 of 109

Contract Page 41 of the SOW states that the SDR (System Design Review) "shall be within 120 days" and the FCR (Final Configuration Review) "shall be within 120 days of the contract award." Shouldn’t these two events be spread apart? And if so, can CBP please provide revised due dates for these events?

Because this contract will cover commercial items, it is not always necessary to separate these two meetings. They may occur simultaneously or with a delay between them. CBP will work with vendors on a schedule, but both meetings must be completed within 120 days.

SOW / Perf Spec ‐4.7 40‐41 of 109

Contract Page 40 of the SOW mentions a "Critical Design Review (CDR)" that appears to be due between the System Design Review and the Final Configuration Review, however, no specific deadline is provided for this event. Can CBP provide a due date for this event?

The Critical Design Review is a contingent review that will be used if the government sees issues with cost, schedule or risk with a vendor that may not be able to meet the proposed performance requirements.