B1-C_-_Solicitation_Question_Responses_-_V2.pdf

RFP: 70T04018R9CAP1094

High Throughput Stand Alone (HTSA) Recap

No. Vendor Question TSA Response:

Would TSA grant an extension of time to submit the proposal? Offeror requests an extension of one or two weeks.

TSA cannot afford to grant an extension request for this requirement.

RFP Sec. 1.1.2 Overview of Services states that “Contractor shall provide services for … integration, networking.” RFP Sec. 2.1 states that the “Contractor shall … provide … services for … integration, networking.” RFP Sec. 2.3.1 states that “the Contractor shall be responsible for … requisite networks.” Please confirm that integration and networking are not within the scope of this RFP.

Correct. This language has been removed from the RFP.

RFP Section 2.4.4 Operational Run-In Support refers to ISAT and BHS. Please confirm that BHS integration and ISAT are not within the scope of this RFP.

Correct. This language has been removed from the RFP.

RFP Section 2.5.4.1 Logistics Support Service Level Requirements state a requirement for “Multiplex Network Server EDS Level.” Please confirm that multiplex networking is not within the scope of this

RFP.

Correct. This language has been removed from the RFP.

RFP Sec. 5.9 instructions to Offerors state that “Offerors shall return a signed copy of the TSE Sustainment … OTA along with the proposal.” RFP Sec. 5.10 includes signing the OTA (Appendix G) as an evaluation factor. DHS policy authorizes OTAs for research and prototypes because providers of those services are often not willing or able to enter into a Government contracts. The offerors of RSEDS have a long history of developing, producing, installing and maintaining RSEDS under IDIQ and competitive contracts. Also, the OTA does not require the OEM to provide a direct service to the Government, but instead requires the OEM to provide goods and services to another contractor on terms which are not well defined.

1. What is the basis for using an OTA to provide for post-warranty service?

2. Would the Government consider as an alternative requiring each offeror to describe its post-warranty service offerings and including those offerings as a factor in evaluating the proposals?

TSA’s Other Transaction Agreement (OTA) authority originates under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), not DHS.

TSA’s authority is separate and unique. TSA uses OTA’s for various purposes and this is a legal and appropriate use of that authority. Again, TSE providers are under no obligation to sign this agreement, propose on future TSA opportunities, or furnish TSE to TSA.

TSA is aware of post-warranty service offerings by the Original Equipment Manufacturers and is not seeking alternative approaches to the OTA. TSA’s intent with this OTA is to ensure TSA successfully carries out our mission in a cost-effective manner to the American taxpayer.

No. Vendor Question TSA Response:

Sec. 2.3.1 provides that “the Contractor shall maintain an Integration Manual” and Sec. 2.3.1.1 provides that the RSEDS scanner consists of components including “EDS Integration Manual” but Sec. 2.4.4 (CLIN 0016) states that “Baggage Handling system integration is not necessary for this contract.” Should the requirements for an Integration Manual be removed from Sec. 2.3.1 and Sec. 2.3.1.1?

Correct. This language has been removed from the RFP.

Sec. 2.4.1 Project Coordination (CLIN 0013). How will this CLIN be priced? If priced per project or per RSDS, what is the anticipated scope of a project, specifically how many RSEDS units per project? Will a single project include all the RSEDS units installed at one time in one location? Or will it extend over a longer length of time or over more locations, for example in multiple terminals at an airport?

The CLIN cross-walk (Section 3.6) details that project coordination is considered part of the CLIN. As such, it should be built into the pricing of each piece of equipment.

Sec. 2.4.2 Pre-Installation Support (Standalone Systems Only) (CLIN 0014) provides “the Contractor shall conduct up to one (1) site survey per site.” How many RSEDS units are anticipated at a site? Does “site” refer to the location of a single RSEDS unit, or to an airport terminal, or to an entire airport?

Site refers to airport site. TSA estimates 1 – 2 RSEDS per airport. Offerors should use their best judgment in preparing price proposals.

Section 2.4.2 Pre-Installation Support (Standalone Systems Only) (CLIN 0014) provides that “the Contractor shall take into account, in preparing the SSR, the BHS design efforts” and “the airport’s BHS design” but Sec. 2.4.4 (CLIN 0016) states that “Baggage Handling system integration is not necessary for this contract.” Should the Site Survey requirements relating to airport BHS be removed from sec. 2.4.2?

Noted, the language has been corrected.

Sec. 2.5.4.1 Logistics Support Service Level Requirements provides that Operational Availability SLA requirements include 99.8% Ao at the Multiplex Network Server EDS level (SLA3) but Sec.

2.3.7 (CLIN 0007) states that a Multiplex Network Solution is not required. Should the requirement for Ao at the Multiplex Network Server EDS Level be removed from Sec. 2.5.4.1?

Yes, the language has been removed.

No. Vendor Question TSA Response:

Sec. 2.5.4 Warranty Period Logistics Support Services provides that “the Contractor shall provide updates to the TSE maintenance database which” includes a number of requirements related to data provided by the Contractor and Government access to such data. Is the “TSE maintenance database” the same as the “TSE Performance Database” (both mentioned on page 18)? Is the “TSE maintenance database” the database containing data on all TSE maintained for the TSA by a separate contractor to which the RSEDS Contractor is required to provide new data? Or is the “TSE maintenance database” a requirement under this RSEDS contract for a new database to be created and maintained by the RSEDS Contractor solely for data about RSEDS provided under this contract?

The “TSE maintenance database” is the same as the “TSE Performance Database” referenced earlier in the section, and is a requirement under this RSEDS contract for a new database to be created and maintained by the RSEDS Contractor to capture maintenance data for the RSEDS provided under this contract.

Can TSA provide a 2-week extension to the proposal due date (to Tuesday August 21, 2018)? See Question 1 above.

Can TSA update Block 8 of the SF1449 to reflect the correct proposal due date of August 7 (or extended date as appropriate)? Corrected.

Can TSA create a separate CLIN for infeed/outfeed conveyors to assist in tracking of these TSE (they are tracked today separate of the RSEDS). Also, can TSA indicate which type of conveyor kit it wishes to procure—sloped or flat, or combination?

TSA will not know why type of conveyor will be needed until a site survey is conducted. Pricing should incorporate conveyor pricing that can accommodate either option, without duplicating conveyor costs.

Can the requirement to begin deployment of TSE be changed to 8 months after receipt of order? TSA cannot afford to extend delivery dates at this point in time.

Given the intended lifespan of a minimum of fifteen

(15) years of operational service of the RSEDS equipment and TSA’s mission to address not just known but evolving threats, can TSA please confirm that the certification requested under Factor 1 (referenced on page 108 of the RFP) and inclusion on the TSA Qualified Products List (QPL) shall be at Detection Standard 7.2 or higher?

TSA confirms that as it related to Factor 1, the offeror should submit their certification letter to meet 5.8 requirements. All future capability to include but not limited to 7.2 detection should be address in the offeror’s approach to Factor 2.

No. Vendor Question TSA Response:

On Page 1 of Addendum C (CDRLs List), the Warranty Implemental Plan required for submission with the Supplier proposal is referenced to Item 3.6.2 of the SOW, but this reference does not correspond to any section of the RFP or Addendums. Please clarify.

Addendum C has been corrected.

On Page 1 of Addendum C (CDRLs List), the DD245 required for submission with the Supplier proposal is referenced to Item 6.2.1 of the SOW, but this reference does not correspond to any section of the RFP or Addendums. Please clarify.

See Question 17 Answer.

On Page 1 of Addendum C (CDRLs List), the Security Program Plan required for submission with the Supplier proposal is referenced to Item 6.2.5 of the SOW, but this reference does not correspond to any section of the RFP or Addendums. Please clarify.

See Question 17 Answer.

On Page 1 of Addendum C (CDRLs List), the Personnel List required for submission with the Supplier proposal is referenced to Item 3.5.1.1 of the SOW, but this reference does not correspond to any section of the RFP or Addendums. Please clarify.

See Question 17 Answer.

Per Section 2.5.4 Warranty Period Logistics Support (Page 24 of the RFP), can the sentence “The Contractor shall be responsible for any repairs resulting from ineffective preventive or corrective maintenance” be deleted? “Ineffective” is not defined and there are SLAs for corrective and preventive maintenance provided in the RFP.

This sentence has been replaced with the following Language:

“If actions taken during PM or CM result in additional damage to the unit, either at that time or subsequently, then the Contractor shall be responsible for repairing the damage."