Q and A CONS edits for SAM 1 - 20220428.pdf

(1) The Request for Quote (RFQ) appears predicated on Government’s reuse of existing entrance and exit roller tables. We have two associated questions:

a. What is the length of the existing entrance and exit roller tables?

ANSWER: 1 Meter for Entrance and exit roller tables

b. Given the modest cost of these entrance and exit roller tables compared to the total cost of new machines and their associated long-term support, would the Government consider proposals that provide new roller tables?

ANSWER: SOW states that we require new entrance and exit roller tables 1 meter long.

(2) During these types of deployments, it is customary for the new installer to remove the old equipment, but this does not appear referenced in the Statement of Work (SoW). What does the Government intend to do with the old equipment as the new equipment is installed?

ANSWER: Govt can remove and dispose of old systems. If Vendor can remove and dispose of old machines and still stay within the 730 AMS budget, then this might be considered as value added.

(3) The SoW cites a Max conveyor load of 220 kg (485 pounds) for both the large and small x-ray systems. In our decades of experience, we have rarely encountered items in excess of 300 pounds. Given these physical realities, would the Government consider a Max conveyor load of 150kg or 200 kg?

ANSWER: The Government would consider this, yes.

(4) The SoW cites a maximum X-Ray dose/inspection level of 3.4 Sv (0.34 mrem).

This is one-third less than the historically cited dose level outlined in USFDA CFR Title 21-1020.4, Standards for Cabinet X-Ray Systems, which notes that: “Radiation emitted from the cabinet x-ray system shall not exceed an exposure of 0.5 milliroentgen in one hour at any point five centimeters outside the external surface.”

We have three associated questions:

a. What is the rationale for the Government’s determination for this acquisition?

b. What is the range/distance of planned inspection?

c. Would the Government consider conforming to the USFDA standard for this procurement?

ANSWER: Does not state MAX dose, just suggested dose. I think we would be fine with the USFDA

(5) As an overarching comment and concern, we note that the SoW includes dozens of references to vendor-specific and vendor-proprietary products and capabilities including: HI-CAT, HI-MAT, HI-SPOT, Hi-TIP plus, OptiZoom, OTS, SEN, VARI- MAT, X-ACT, X-PLORE, and Xtrain. To relieve prospective competitors including Astrophysics of the burden of full proposal development if the Government has already made a source selection determination, we have two requests:

a. If the Government believes that there is only one responsible source for these machines, would the Government provide a formal justification for an other than full-and-open competition? A notice of intent to sole source was posted on sam.gov (https://sam.gov/opp/fe89c08cb50148868c9a304ded7d7730/view) it was found that there are other vendors that could provide x-rays and meet the warranty/delivery requirement. The government did not find only one responsible source nor is this a brand name requirement.

b. If the Government seeks competitive proposals, would the Government more fully define all technical requirements in vendor-agnostic terms. The government does seek competitive proposals that conform to solicitation.

ANSWER: The government is seeking competitive proposals. We are asking for quotes that meet or exceed the specs.

(6) Should language appearing in Attachment 4 (Pricing Exhibit) be interpreted as a requirement beyond what is outlined in the SoW and RFQ?

ANSWER: Pricing Exhibit is required to be filled out. The Government is asking for at least a 5 year warranty and requesting pricing information for any warranty that can be provided for a warranty lasting 6-10 years.

(7) Could the Government arrange for Astrophysics to speak with each of the identified locations (via a TEAMS call) to gain a visual understanding and appreciation for the space constraints and options? In this context, we would also like to gain an understanding of how responsive the current provider is with their ongoing support and servicing of the existing systems.

Answer: Due to the time constraints it will not be possible to arrange this.

https://sam.gov/opp/fe89c08cb50148868c9a304ded7d7730/view

(8) For the carry-on baggage system, there is reference to “EU EDS Cabin Baggage Standard C1 approved” at the top of pg. 4 as well as on the pricing exhibit. Can you confirm whether offering TSA Qualified (ACSTL) systems will suffice or do systems also require being EU EDS Cabin Baggage Standard C1 approved?

Answer: TSA Qualified (ACSTL) systems will suffice.

(9) Would you consider a proposal with only the (5) CXS units (100x100 tunnel) and not the (6) EU EDS C1 systems.

Answer: In accordance with FAR clause 52.212-2, we will consider offer that quoter accedes to all solicitation requirements.