CSA_Amendment_A0003.pdf

OMB Approval 2700-0042

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1 11

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

A0003 Not Applicable

6. ISSUED BY CODE RVP-31 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

USDOT/RITA/Volpe Center 55 Broadway Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No. Street, county, State and ZIP: Code) (4) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

X DTRT57-13-R-20019

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08/6/2013

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, X 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 one (1) copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or

(c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATA 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment and is received prior to the opening hour and data specified

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

Not Applicable

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

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

( 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.

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).

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

D. OTHER Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, [] is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

PART I of this amendment consists of the responses to questions received in regards to solicitation DTRT57-13-R-20019. (Pages 2 through 9)

PART II of this amendment consists of the following: revisions to Attachment J.5, Section L, and Section M. (Pages 10 through 11)

All other terms and conditions remain the same. Please acknowledge receipt of this amendment with submission of your proposal.

Except at 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.

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

Robert Robinson

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

BY _____________________________________________

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Computer Generated Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment A0003

DTRT57-13-R-20019

PART 1

CSA Solicitation (DTRT57-13-R-20019) Clarification Questions and Answers

1. Question: Could we get a searchable form of the RFP so that we able to quickly find relevant sections?

1. Answer: No, the provided PDF RFP as found in FBO is the only form to be issued.

2. Question: Page 73 shows the hours by year from which we should quote this proposal. Additional information on how those hours were determined and the tasks to which they are attributed will help us prepare a better response.

2. Answer: L.2.E p.68 represents only an average of hours over a five (5) year period. Whereas, Exhibit A p.73 represents a distribution of total hours over five (5) years. Offeror shall bid in accordance with Exhibit A when transferring and completing Schedule #5 p. 85.

3. Question: The paragraph immediately following Exhibit A on page 73 is confusing. Could you please explain the following:

a. Firm Fixed Price Labor expected 80% of projected hours

3a. Answer: The Government anticipates that 80% of all the work to be conducted during the ten tasks can be completed as FFP.

b. Cost Plus Fixed Fee Labor 20% of projected hours

3b. Answer: The Government anticipates that 20% of all the work to be conducted during the ten tasks can be completed as CPFF. However, if the Prime contractor does not have an approved accounting system by DCAA, then that contractor may not be approved or awarded a cost type task order until its accounting has been approved.

4. Question: On page 73, is the statement “The Offeror must develop fixed fee and profit on Schedule 4…” if we submit a Firm Fixed Price proposal since our accounting system has not been approved by a Government Entity?

4. Answer: Offerors are submitting a proposal for an IDIQ contract. As cited under L.4.D all Offerors must demonstrate, in writing through a certified CPA firm, the build-up of all its rates i.e., O/H, fringe, etc. Offeror must develop a fixed fee and profit (see Section H.9 on p.50)

5. Question: If we submit a Firm Fixed Fee proposal, which of the nine (9) schedules do not apply?

5. Answer: All prime Offeror’s shall complete Schedules 1-9 as cited on pages 81-90. Page 78 refers to subcontractors only. Offeror subcontractors if submitting cost proposals to Prime as time and material then Schedules 1 and 2 with the appropriate back-up to substantiate the rates may be submitted.

6. Question: Could you please explain how to use the RFP-stipulated ODCs table on page 77?

6. Answer: These are estimated plug-in numbers for your cost proposal for each year. The Government uses this method to level the travel and miscellaneous costs that are inevitable during contract performance.

7. Question: Please provide additional instructions for completing Schedules 2 through 9

7. Answer: All Schedules 1-9 are self-explanatory. All cost information for these Schedules is found under Section L.4 on pages 71-79. All Offeror’s shall provide sufficient narrative to explain how costs elements were achieved as cited on pages 71-72.

8. Question: What are the “miscellaneous” costs each year (e.g., p. 77)?

8. Answer: Miscellaneous costs can involve equipment and other essentials deemed appropriate to meet the requirements of each task.

9. Question: Training videos are a possibility but we will not know the real needs until the assessment. As such, should we quote them?

9. Answer: No, pricing of possible videos will be dealt with at the task order level.

10. Question: Some of our staff are freelance consultants that are paid a day rate but no fringe benefits. How should this be reflected in our response?

10. Answer: See p. 78 third paragraph: “Since subconsultants usually propose fully loaded hourly labor rates, it is expected that subconsultants will propose on a time and material or labor hour basis.

Refer to page 78, third paragraph: “Time and Material or Labor Hour subcontractors should use only Schedules 1 and 2. Approval of billing rates for Time and Material or Labor Hour subcontractors based either on an analysis of the billing rates build-up (cost elements and profit) or on the commerciality of the billing rates (sales of hours at the stated rates to the non-Government public). If approval is sought based on an analysis of the billing rates, the buildup must be shown and each cost element supported. If approval is sought based on sales to the non-Government public, convincing statistical information on hours, billings, and customers in the last 12 months must be provided. The subcontract package should also include a signed statement that the proposed rates are the “most favored customer rates" or the reason they were not offered. The “most favored customer” statement is not sufficient by itself and approval will not be given without the requested statistical information. If statistical information on commerciality is not available, approval must be sought based on an analysis of cost and profit.”

11. Question: Can we get an editable electronic copy of standard form 33 and schedules 1-9

11. Answer: Offeror’s may use commercially available software to convert PDF Schedules 1-9 files into Word. However, the SF-33 as presented in the solicitation must be signed as is.

12. Question: Section K mentions the requirement of registering in the central contractor registration. Is this now the System for Award Management (SAM) system?

12. Answer: Yes, SAM has replaced the Central Contractor Registration (CCR).

13. Question: Do we fill out a separate form for representations or certifications or do we complete this is in CCR/SAM? If there is a form, where do we find it?

13. Answer: (All contractors must fully complete ORCA certifications and representations as found in SAM to eligible for an award. That SAM website address can be found at: http://www.sam.gov/).

http://www.sam.gov/

14. Question: On page 70 under the general description of the cost and business proposal, it states that the cost and business proposal includes a “narration on equipment, facilities, and technology” but we see no mention of it in the detailed instructions. Could you clarify what information you are looking for and where in the proposal it should be provided?

14. Answer: If a contractor intends on using equipment, facilities and/or technology to complete any task of the SOW, then contractor should include narrative on costs associated with equipment, facilities and/or technology in Volume I Cost and Business proposal Introduction section.

15. Question Work samples: Page 71 states that the work sample materials should be in the format used for on-site instruction and process implementation. As some of these materials, particularly the train-the-consultant related materials, could be rather large printed binders and the like, please confirm the number of copies you want of each work sample.

15. Answer: Section L.3.D. Copies p. 70 is hereby revised as follows:

L.3.D. COPIES

Offerors must submit two (2) hard (paper) copies (and one (1) CD/DVD in a virus free format compatible with Microsoft Office) of the Cost and Business Proposal (Volume I); and eight (8) hard (paper) copies (and eight (8) CD/DVDs in a virus free format compatible with Microsoft Office) of the Technical Proposal (Volume II). For materials that come in formats other than hard copy (i.e.

software), please submit 8 (eight) CD/DVDs. For materials which may require log-in information (e.g. website access), please provide the location and access instructions with each of the 8 (eight) copies of the work product sample materials (please see p. 97 for more information). Offerors should ensure that their subcontractors also submit the required number of copies even if the subcontractor sends its proprietary proposal data directly to the Government.

16. Question: What are “functions” or “functional areas” in SOW for the staffing matrix? The SOW identifies “tasks” and “activities” within each task only. Can you clarify the functional areas you are looking for?

16. Answer: Functional areas refer to the tasks identified in the SOW.

The Staffing Matrix shall include: The Labor Category (for Key Personnel); Person’s Name; Title;

Company; Degrees, etc.; Years of Relevant Experience; and Planned Use for SOW functional areas (Those are the hours allocated for each task listed in the SOW. The total hours across all tasks should equal the total hours as represented on Exhibit C, Schedule 7, p.88.) The Staffing Matrix shall include key and non-key personnel.

17. Question: Can the same person do multiple labor category roles? If so, does that mean we may submit less than nine resumes?

17. Answer: Yes. Please clearly identify in Exhibit B p.75 if an individual will perform more than one labor category role.

18. Question: P. 131 states that if a candidate does not have a required degree, the education requirements may be achieved by years of experience. Most of the labor categories use the word “and” after education, which implies that the experience is required. Other labor categories (e.g., Midlevel CSA expert, midlevel safety leadership expert) do not. Does this imply that if someone meets the education requirements, but not the complete experience requirements that they are still suitable for the role?

18. Answer: All labor categories require both the education requirements AND the SOW-specific experience listed. If the individual does not meet the education requirements, s/he can substitute education requirements with the equivalent years of professional experience in addition to any experience required separately as identified in the summary table identified in Attachment J.7, p.128. In either case, the SOW-specific experience is required.

19. Question: The webinar slide #39 states that you want a staffing plan and approach, staffing matrix and org chart. Staffing plan and organizational chart are not mentioned in the RFP. Where would you like this placed in the submitted proposal and what are the page limitations?

19. Answer: The RFP is the controlling document. In accordance with Staffing Volume II Section III as described on p. 98 of the RFP shall be proposed.

20. Question: Can contracts where our role has been completed more than three years ago but the process we helped install is still ongoing be included in past performance list?

20. Answer: Offerors will be evaluated on three contracts or subcontracts (Government or commercial) awarded to them for similar services completed within the past five (5) years (from the time of release of the RFP) and on all contracts and subcontracts for similar services currently in progress.

21. Question: P. 99 states that past performance information must be done for both offeror and major subcontractor. Do you want a total of three of the most relevant contracts for both the offeror and major subcontractor together (18 pages total) or have a list of three from each organization (18 pages maximum each)?

21. Answer: A total of three past performance evaluations, inclusive of primes and subcontractors, are required to be submitted from each offeror.

22. Question: On the top of page 100, the RFP requests detailed information on THREE of the most relevant contracts. On the bottom of that page and in the webinar it states, “offeror’s must send a client authorization letter, to all nonfederal government references listed in the FIVE most relevant sources….” Do you want detailed information on three or five contracts?

22. Answer: As cited on page 102 of the RFP, Client Authorization Letters shall be sent by the Offeror to all Non-Federal Government references listed in the THREE most relevant sources. All Offeror past performance references are due no later October 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM ET.

23. Question: Can we get electronic copies of the client authorization letter and past performance questionnaire?

23. Answer: Offerors may use commercially available software to convert PDF Schedules 1-9 files into Word. Offeror shall not edit or change in any manner any portion of J.8.

24. Question: Section I.4. Page 57, FAR 52.227-17 (Rights in Data – Special Works) appears to be inconsistent with statements in the webinar and in the scope of work that the use of CSA materials and software will be limited to the rail industry and specifically to the scope defined by license terms. The referenced contract term appears to give the Government unlimited rights to all materials and software, whether developed for this project or pre-existing, for use in any industry and in any amount. Will the referenced contract language be either eliminated or modified to reconcile this discrepancy?

24. Answer: FAR 52.227-17 (Rights in Data – Special Works) is not inconsistent with the scope of work for CSA materials and software being limited to the rail industry. Furthermore, the RFP is the controlling document. There are no discrepancies between the referenced contract term FAR 52.227-17 giving the Government unlimited rights to all CSA developed materials and software, whether developed for this project or pre-existing, for use in the railroad industry within the license boundaries options cited on page 93 of the RFP.

25. Question: Exhibit D on page 93 requests both a price per trainee and a total price. If exercised, is it the Government’s intention to exercise this on a per-trainee basis as downloads occur or to exercise it for a complete category (e.g., “small passenger”) at once?

25. Answer: If exercised, the Government intends to exercise each boundary option (i.e. complete category) as a complete category, and the Offeror should price each boundary option accordingly (e.g., discounting for bulk). The “price-per-trainee” column is to allow the Government to easily determine trainee boundary pricing options for future issuance of task orders.

26. Question: “Meetings and Monthly Reporting Requirements” on page 24 says “Each monthly report should summarize hours of work performed against deliverables by labor category, as necessitated by the time and materials nature of the contract”. However the RFP indicates that most of the work will be done through fixed price task orders, not time and materials, and hours reporting on fixed price contracts seems superfluous and adds unnecessary administrative burden. Shouldn’t this requirement be that hours be reported for tasks issued on a cost-plus or time and materials basis only?

26. Answer: See Section F.6 p.30.

27. Question: Exhibit F states: “Should you propose to use major subcontractors, teaming contractors, and/or joint venture partners, you must obtain a similar client authorization letter from each entity.” Does this mean that if major subcontractor includes teammates with significant work share, is the Prime required to have the subcontractor complete an Authorization Letter for the Prime Contractor?

27. Answer: Yes, (Client Authorization Letter Exhibit F p.102) shall be used if any of the three (3) contractors, cited in the above scenario, acted as a Prime contractor then a Client Authorization Letter shall be obtained. If no CPARS is available then use non-Federal client references in accordance J.8 pages 133-137 for each subcontractor teamed with a major sub-contractor.

28. a) Does the Government/The Government anticipate that additional Labor Categories (LCATs) to support specific task orders under the contract beyond those listed in the RFP?

28a. Answer: No.

28. b) Can the offeror propose to add additional LCATs?

28b. Answer: No. Offeror shall only use the Labor Categories as cited in Exhibit B on p.75 for Key Personnel. Personnel other than Key Personnel do not have to fit in any of the Labor Categories, as cited in Exhibit B on p. 75.

In addition, I.5 provision on page 59 of the RFP is hereby changed as follows:

I.5 TAR 1252.237-73 KEY PERSONNEL (APR 2005)

(a) The personnel as specified below are considered essential to the work being performed under this contract and may, with the consent of the contracting parties, be changed from time to time during the course of the contract by adding or deleting personnel, as appropriate.

(b) Before removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified individuals, the Contractor shall notify the contracting officer, in writing, before the change becomes effective. The Contractor shall submit information to support the proposed action to enable the contracting officer to evaluate the potential impact of the change on the contract. The Contractor shall not remove or replace personnel under this contract until the Contracting Officer approves the change.

(1) The Key Personnel under this Contract are:

Labor Category Name of Key Personnel Program Manager: _____________________________________ Midlevel CSA Expert: _____________________________________ Midlevel Safety Leadership Expert: ___________________________ Senior Training Development Expert: __________________________ Junior Level Training Expert: _______________________________ Midlevel Software Development Expert: _______________________ Midlevel Information Security Analyst: _______________________ Midlevel Webmaster: ______________________________________ Midlevel Systems Usability Analyst: ___________________________

(2) To be specified under individual task orders.

29. Question: Is the Prime responsible for sending out the Client Authorization Letter (Exhibit F) to subcontractor Points of Contact (POCs) for subcontractor contract past performance evaluations?

29. Answer: Yes.

30. Should Subcontractors Past Performance Quals be submitted as part of the Prime’s proposal? If so, are they part of or in addition the requirement of “no more than 3 past performance quals?

30. Answer: As cited on pg. 99 in the first sentence in paragraph one under Past Performance.

“Offerors shall submit their past performance information as a separate part of their proposal for both the Offeror and major (over 20 percent of the hours in the Cost and Business Proposal) proposed subcontractor(s).” A total of three past performance evaluations, inclusive of primes and subcontractors, are required to be submitted from each offeror.

31. Questions related to Section L.2.E Evaluated Labor Level:

A) It states the estimated LOE is 8620 for five (5) years and approximately 1700 hours/year, however, the total from the table 1724 hours per year? Which is correct?

31A. Answer: Exhibit A is correct. 1700 is a rounded approximation, as stated in the text under Exhibit A on p. 73. Please refer to Exhibit A for the complete breakdown of estimated hours/year when completing Schedule #5.

B) Exhibit A does not total up to 8620 hours. It totals 8619 and Year 5 is where the discrepancy is for the Midlevel Information Security Analyst (totals 603 hours). Actual total is only total 602 hours. This will fix the discrepancy for Year 5 from 179 to 180 and will then fix the total hours from 8619 to 8620. Can FRA confirm the correct number of hours for the LCAT?

31 B. Answer: The Government confirms that the correct number of hours from Exhibit A does represent the correct total of 8620 hours. Please be advised that all hours/year/labor category and all total hours per labor category are estimations, as stated in the text under Exhibit A on p. 73.

C) Schedule 7 – Allocation of Labor Hours only totals 8618 hours and not 8620. The Program Manager should have 572 hours and only has 570. Can FRA confirm?

31 C. Answer: Yes, the Program Manager should have a total of 572 hours (as revised Schedule #7 cited below now reflects), consistent with Exhibit A, p. 73. Please be advised that all total hours per labor category are estimations, as stated in the text under Exhibit A, p.73.

Schedule 7 – Allocation of Labor Hours Prime Name: ____________________________

Prime Sub A Sub B Sub C Total RFP Total

Category Program Manager 572 Midlevel CSA Expert 1453 Midlevel Safety Leadership Expert 887 Senior Training Development Expert 1471 Junior Level Training Expert 1676 Midlevel Software Development Expert 1002 Midlevel Information Security Analyst 603 Midlevel Webmaster 88 Midlevel Systems Usability Analyst 868 Total Hours 8620

32. Question: Slide #37 of the CSA Webinar calls out "Subfactor 1: Past Performance" under Section IV Past Performance. However, in the RFP, Subfactor 1 is identified as "Technical Understanding Description." Can The Government clarify which is the correct title for Subfactor 1?

32. Answer: The RFP is the controlling document and Section L.5.D cites the correct sub-factor 1.

33. Question: Slide #37 of the CSA Webinar calls out "Subfactor 2: Professional Products Work Samples" under Section IV Past Performance. However, in the RFP, Subfactor 2 is located under Section I: Technical Understanding. Can The Government clarify which Section is the correct location for Subfactor 2?

33. Answer: The RFP is the controlling document and Section L.5.D cites the correct sub-factors 1 and 2 for Technical Understanding and Capabilities.

34. Question: Page 94, L.5.B Page Limits lists the Past Performance page limit of 18pp for Subfactor 1.

34.A). What is Subfactor 1?

34 A. Answer: Technical Understanding Description as cited on page 94.

34.B) Page 101 states the overall page limit for the 3 most relevant contracts is 5 pages; no page limit for other contracts. Is the page limit 18pp, 5pp, unlimited, or some combination thereof?

34. B Answer: The overall page limit for the 3 most relevant contracts should read SIX pages PER contract, as cited in pages 94-101, totaling 18 pages altogether. There is no page limit for the required list of other contracts, for past performance reports, or for any information submitted by the Offeror to demonstrate that it has made its best efforts to ensure that customers provide past performance reports to the Government. Please refer to Section L.5.B Exhibit E, p.94 for the correct number of pages and subsequent breakdowns.

35. Question: Webinar slide presentation refers to Past Performance as "Part A" (not mentioned in the RFP document itself) as "Staffing" and "Part B" (mentioned on page 99 of the RFP document but not described) as "Past Performance."

35a. Question: What "Part" is Task Area Technical Understanding (i.e., the technical approach) per the

RFP?

35a. Answer: The RFP is the controlling document and as such Volume II Section 1 is Technical Understanding as cited on page 91 of the RFP.

35b. Question: Part C?

35b. Answer; The CSA RFP is the controlling document not the CSA webinar slides).

35c. Question: Is this "Part" organizational structure included in the RFP document itself?

35c. Answer: The RFP is the controlling document and the Technical Proposal instructions under section L.5 are found between pages 94-101.

36. Question: Section III, page 94 states that Past Performance Section is 18 pages. Does that include:

36a. Question: List of contracts over $1M with the Federal Government?

36a. Answer: No. There is no page limit for the list of contracts that the Offeror is currently performing or has completed within the past 3 years. See Section L.5.B p.95.

36b. Question: List of applicable contracts regardless of dollar amount (Section IV, page 99 (Items 1-11)?

36b. Answer: No. There is no page limit for the list of contracts that the Offeror is currently performing or has completed within the past 3 years. See Section L.5.B p.95.

36c Question: Three most relevant contract summaries (5 Pages)?

36c Answer: Yes. See answer 34B for the amendment language which changes the 3 most relevant contract summaries from “5” pages to “6” pages each, for a maximum total of 18 pages. Please refer to Section L.5.B Exhibit E, p.94 for the correct number of pages and subsequent breakdowns.

37. Question: If the contractor has obtained a CPARS for applicable contracts, is that suitable instead of using Attachment J.8?

37. Answer: Yes, Attachment J.8 pgs.133-137 is used for non-Federal references only. If current and applicable CPARS information on past performance is available then the contractors must submit that information.

38. Question: Do IDIQ contracts have to be included that are over $1million but have not had Task Orders that total $1 million?

38. Answer: Yes.

Amendment No. A0003 Solicitation No. DTRT57-13-R-20019 Part 2

1. Attachment J.5 on page 126 of the RFP is hereby replaced in its entirety with the Attachment J.5 below:

FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

ATTACHMENT J.5 - DEMONSTRATION PILOT OF CONTRACTOR MATERIALS

This attachment describes the pilot demonstration in order to assist the Contractor in planning to support it.

Purpose

The Volpe Center will conduct a rigorous evaluation of the materials, comprising a complete field-demonstration pilot CSA implementation on an operational railroad site selected by Volpe. Volpe will use the evaluation of the demonstration pilot to assess the materials supplied by the Contractor for implementing CSA for intercity passenger railroads and the Contractor-proposed cost structure established for running CSA at the site.

At a minimum, the evaluation formatively assesses the implementation, determining the helpfulness of the materials in establishing an effective, sustainable, and affordable CSA implementation. This includes evaluating the effectiveness of technology transfer to an FRA-affiliated team that will assess and advise on such implementations. All three components, PPF, CI, and SLD, will be demonstrated and evaluated.

Both training and software materials will be evaluated and modifications identified for the Contractor to implement. The evaluation may be summative as well as formative, in which case CSA’s impact on the site’s safety outcomes will be assessed.

The evaluation will include data collection from the site, potentially with methods such as process metrics (measures of CSA activities), surveys (e.g., of safety culture), safety performance records (e.g., from worker feedback sessions and corporate data on safety incidents), and qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, visit and meeting notes, artifacts).

Selection Criteria

Volpe will select a site that conducts passenger railroad operations with heavy equipment. It is thus anticipated that the site will have the characteristics of intercity passenger railroads, including a dependence on self-observation (see Section J, Attachment: Application of CSA to Intercity Railroads).

Volpe will select a site that promises to implement the program in as close accordance to the plan as possible. Additionally, Volpe will seek a site with the following:

• Good labor-management relations with all involved unions.

• Management support for employee engagement with the workforce.

• Both labor crafts willing to engage in a CSA-type program.

• Minimal training facilities and training personnel.

• At least 200 transportation employees.

• A major-metropolitan-area location.

• “Intercity readiness” for a CSA-type program.

Amendment No. A0003 Solicitation No. DTRT57-13-R-20019 Part 2

Contractor’s Role

The Contractor shall provide support for the evaluation, as described in the SOW, Task 5.

2. Section L.5 Section IV Past Performance (third paragraph) on page 99 of the RFP, is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following paragraph:

The Offeror must provide a list of contracts that it is currently performing or has completed within the past five years. The Offeror must make a good faith effort to ensure that the list includes all Prime contracts with a value over $1,000,000 with the Federal Government. If the Offeror can demonstrate that including information on all Prime contracts with the Federal Government over $1,000,000 would create an undue burden on the Offeror because of the large number of applicable contracts, then the list may be reduced to reflect contracts that are most relevant and for which data is readily available. The Offeror must describe in its proposal what types of contracts were excluded and what process was utilized to ensure that all Prime contracts with the Federal Government over $1,000,000 relevant to the SOW were included.

3. Section L.5 Section IV Past Performance (third paragraph) on page 100 of the RFP, is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following paragraph:

“The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information from any client in the list of contracts and from other government sources (e.g., CPARS, PPRIS). If the Government receives negative past performance information (indicating that performance was less than satisfactory) that is not accompanied by a response from the Offeror, a copy of the adverse information will be provided to the Offeror which will be given a limited period in which to provide a response. If no response is received within the specified timeframe, the negative past performance information will be evaluated as submitted.”

4. Section M.2.3 Past Performance on page 105 of the RFP, the second paragraph is hereby replaced with the following paragraph:

Only relevant past performance history will be considered. The Government will determine the relevance of the Offeror’s past performance on previous assignments in order to predict the quality of and potential satisfaction with future work. Offerors will be evaluated on three contracts or subcontracts (Government or commercial) awarded to them for similar services completed within the past five (5) years (from the time of release of the RFP) and on all contracts and subcontracts for similar services currently in progress.

5. Please acknowledge receipt of Amendment No. A0003 with the submission of your proposal.

6. All other terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged.