4.3.13_-_Q_ _A_Responses__6.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS # 6 3 APR 2013

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R002 National Afghan Trucking II (NAT II)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

Pg 1

Q.1. Per ADDENDUM TO 52.212-1, page 55, paragraph 7 we would like to discuss the current specification for Super Lowboys as we believe they are misleading and/or ambiguous. The PWS states on page 16, Paragraph 5.2.3.1 that “Super Lowboys”, shall have a “maximum ground clearance not to exceed 38 inches.” However, on NAT, this measurement is being taken from “the top of the wheel well”. This was a major point of contention on NAT as measuring from the top of the wheel well is not related to ground clearance, but rather correlates more often with truck bed-height (and virtually no in-country assets met this specification at the time). We request that a ground clearance specification be provided that pertains to actual ground clearance (the shortest distance between a flat, level surface, and any part of a vehicle other than those parts designed to contact the ground or similar definition). If this specification remains unchanged we request that the measuring technique for this measurement be described fully.

Ref: PWS paragraph 5.2.3.1.

A.1. As correctly stated, the PWS states that Super Lowboys shall have a maximum ground clearance not to exceed 38 inches. This specification remains unchanged.

Q.2.The APPF has provided an “industry price list” or “price agreement” to prospective offerors. These prices are “$175 per Mission Unit (50km) for escort services to destination and $90 per Mission Unit for return escort services (empty trucks)” (as cited by e-mail received from an APPF Representative. How does the Government reconcile the APPF’s role on the NAT II Program with the following sentence from FAR Subpart 3.303– Reporting Suspected Antitrust Violations: “(1) The existence of an “industry price list” or “price agreement” to which contractors refer in formulating their offers?”

Ref: NONE

A.2. FAR 3.303(b) states that, “The antitrust laws are intended to ensure that markets operate competitively. Any agreement or mutual understanding among competing firms that restrains the natural operation of market forces is suspect. Paragraph (c) below identifies behavior patterns that are often associated with antitrust violations. Activities meeting the descriptions in paragraph (c) are not necessarily improper, but they are sufficiently questionable to warrant notifying the appropriate authorities, in accordance with agency procedures.” The establishment of an “industry price list” by APPF does not in itself constitute a breach of antitrust laws. This APPF cost is a standard cost that all offerors are expected to account for and does not restrain the natural operation of market forces as offerors are required to price in several other costs that specific to each entity.

Q.3.The APPF stated, “The prices are firm and fixed for the duration of the initial agreement (3 months)” reference pricing for escort services for the performance of NAT II.

Will the Government provide an equitable adjustment to contractors if the APPF raise their rates after the initial three month period?

A.3. Per the solicitation, FAR 52.212-2(g)(1), “Each offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for

Pg 2 fairness, reasonableness, and realism IAW FAR 15.305(a)(1) using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Reasonableness shall be determined based on prices submitted by competition, current market conditions, and comparison to the Government estimate. Realism shall be based on an evaluation of prices to determine if the offeror clearly understands the requirements as demonstrated in its proposed approach.”

Q.4.Is the Government planning to award this contract on or before October 15, 2013 (i.e.

mid-October)? October 15, 2013 is 190 days from the due date of April 9, 2013 – 10 days beyond the 180 day period for which offerors are to hold their prices.

Ref: SOLICITATION

A.4. Yes.

Q.5.Will contractors’ expatriate personnel be required to attend USG provided pre-deployment training/processing such as attending IRDO at Camp Atterbury prior to the performance of this contract?

Ref: SOLICITATION

A.5. No.

Q.6.Will the Distance Matrix from the current NAT Program remain the same on the NAT II Program?

A.6. A Distance Matrix will be provided after award.

Q.7. Beyond the Exclude Parties List System (EPLS), what other Government resources are available to help prime contractors ensure that their selected subcontractors may work with the U.S. Government in Afghanistan? For example, does the Bagram Regional Contracting Center (BRCC) or other RCCs maintain separate lists of excluded parties? If so, how may a prime contractor access this information to verify that its selected subcontractors are in good standing with the Government?

A.7. The contractor is recommended to use the EPLS and any other known sources to determine a subcontractor’s responsibility. The BRCC nor other RCCs do not maintain a separate list of excluded parties.

Pg 3

Q.8. Based on past experience, JMCB assigned assets that were too large (40’, lowboys, 10K tankers, etc.) for particular routes due to road restrictions (i.e. too narrow). What is the contractor’s recourse if an asset simply cannot pass through a given route due to real physical restrictions?

A.8. If the contractor is unable to perform a mission, PWS paragraph 5.2.4.5. allows the contractor to decline or cancel a mission within 24 hours of assignment/initial acceptance.

Q.9.TMRs were issued under NAT requiring contractors to provide assets with “sides.”

This was not an asset type or required equipment within the contract. Does the Government plan to issue TMRs requiring assets with sides? If so, will the NAT II PWS and/or RFP be revised to address this requirement?

A.9. The PWS outlines the types of assets and equipment the contractor shall provide for each suite.

Q. 10.These three reference numbers for mission unit (MU) pricing for the provision of Intransit Visibility. The cost of Intransit Visibility is wrapped as part of the fully burden rate for all asset types from all current NAT contractors. How shall offerors breakout these costs for the Government’s price evaluation? Additionally, will offerors be negatively evaluated if they submit a rate of zero for these three reference numbers? Attachment 1 – Schedule B – Unit Price List (Amend 03 15 MAR 13) Section: Reference Numbers X001AA- 09, X001AB-21, and X001AC-18

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items (JAN 1999), (g) Factor 2 – Cost/Price, (1) & (2)

A.10. Please provide pricing as indicated in the solicitation. Per FAR 52.212-2(g)(1), “the Government shall conduct an evaluation of the offeror’s prices, at the unit price level…” Additionally, each offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, and realism.

Q.11. FAR 52.204-7 Central Contractor Registration DEC 2012; Is this FAR clause applicable to non-U.S. offerors / subcontractors? It appears that a number of the clauses incorporated by reference are not applicable to this contract.

Ref: Solicitation Section: CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Page: 7

A.11. FAR 52.204-7 is applicable to non-US offerors/subcontractors.

Pg 4

Q.12. Paragraph states, “Provide, to Contractor and subcontractor personnel, antiterrorism/force protection awareness information commensurate with that which the Department of Defense (DoD) provides to its military and civilian personnel and their families, to the extent such information can be made available prior to travel outside the United States.” Will the Government provide this information to the contractor and subcontractor personnel prior to travel outside the United States?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 252.225-7043 ANTITERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION POLICY

FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTORS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (MAR 2006)

Paragraph (b)(3)

A.12. It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide this information to their personnel.

Q.13. Paragraph states, “Information and guidance pertaining to DoD antiterrorism/force protection can be obtained from [Contracting Officer to insert applicable information cited in PGI 225.7403-1].” Will the Contracting Officer provide this information after award?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 252.225-7043 ANTITERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION POLICY

FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTORS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES (MAR 2006)

paragraph (d)

A.13. Yes.

Q.14. Will the Government provide an equitable adjustment if the APPF raises their rates during the course of the contract?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 252.243-7002 REQUESTS FOR EQUITABLE ADJUSTMENT (DEC 2012) Page: 29

A.14. Per DFARS 252.243-7002, the amount of any request for equitable adjustment to contract terms shall accurately reflect the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable. The USG is not liable, if the APPF raises their rates during the course of the contract.

Q.15. Is 952.225-0003 FITNESS FOR DUTY AND MEDICAL/DENTAL CARE LIMITATIONS (AFGHANISTAN) (DEC 2011) applicable to local national employees?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 952.225-0003 FITNESS FOR DUTY AND MEDICAL/DENTAL CARE LIMITATIONS (AFGHANISTAN) (DEC 2011) Page: 36

A.15. Since local national employees do not deploy and re-deploy, this clause is not applicable for local national employees.

Pg 5

Q.16. Is 952.225-0009 MEDICAL SCREENING AND VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS

FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES OPERATING IN THE CENTCOM AREA OF

RESPONSIBILITY (AOR) (DEC 2011) applicable to local national employees?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 952.225-0009 MEDICAL SCREENING AND

VACCINATION REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES OPERATING IN

THE CENTCOM AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR) (DEC 2011) Page: 38

A.16. Yes, per paragraph (a) of this clause, it specifies that local national employees are covered under this clause.

Q.17. Paragraph states, “The total proposed amount of work (in terms of proposed price/cost) to be performed by the subcontractor under the contract, task order, or delivery order, or other contract mechanism.” How shall offerors provide this information given the IDIQ nature of the resultant contract?

Ref: Solicitation Section: 952.225-0014 NOTIFICATION OF HOST NATION CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS (AUG 2011) Page: 41

A.17. Offerors shall estimate the total proposed amount of work to be performed by the subcontractor.

Q.18. Paragraph states, “The contractor shall provide all management and logistics support resources necessary to pick-up cargo (material and equipment) at origin and deliver cargo to destination on Required Delivery Date (RDD) established by the USG.” Please confirm that contractors are not required to have and/or operate material handling equipment (MHE) for the performance of the NAT II contract.

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 1.4. Page: 2-3 Paragraph: Scope.

A.18. Per PWS paragraph 5.2.4.2.4., “the USG shall up-load trucks/trailers at origin and shall down-load trucks/trailers at destination.”

Q.19. This paragraph states, “All contractor employees, including all tiers of sub-contractors, shall be enrolled in the Biometric Automated Tracking System (BATS) and the Synchronized Pre-Deployment and Operational Tracker (SPOT).” 1) Will the Government visit contractor locations to enroll contractor personnel in BATS? 2) If not, how shall the contractor ensure its personnel are enrolled in BATS? 3) Are drivers required to be enrolled in BATS?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 1.6.1. Page: 5 Paragraph: Enrollment in USG mandated databases.

A.19. The USG will not visit contractor locations to enroll personnel in BATS. The contractor shall follow the standard procedures for enrolling employees in BATS. These will be provided after contract award. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged.

Pg 6

Q.20.This paragraph states, “The driver must have valid required identification and/or badge(s) to gain access to FOBs, to include proof of driver’s Taskera number.” Is a driver’s Taskera considered to be “valid required identification” for gaining access to FOBs? If not, what other types of identification are required?

A.20. PWS paragraph 1.6.2. states the identification requirements.

Q.21. Paragraph states, “Registration consists of a registration request memorandum from the JMCB, proof of vehicular GIRoA registration, and overall visual inspection to include verification of fuel tanker capacity for those assets.” Does the Government conduct the overall visual inspections? If so, will the Government provide TMRs for assets to travel to inspection locations to be inspected as is the practice under NAT?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 4.6 Page: 7 Paragraph: Asset Registration.

A.21. Yes, the USG conducts the overall visual inspection. The USG does not anticipate issuing TMRs for asset movements to inspection locations. PWS paragraph 4.6. requires that all transportation assts shall be registered with the USG prior to use under this program.

Q.22. Paragraph states, “Transponders shall maintain this reporting rate for the duration of the mission beginning 24 hours prior to the RLD and ending at the time the cargo is downloaded.” Please confirm that this reporting rate is not required on USG security provided and GIRoA security provided missions given that ITVs are routinely confiscated.

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 4.8.2. Page: 9 Paragraph: ITV requirements.

A.22. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged.

Q.23. This paragraph states “The contractor shall notify the USG within 1 hour if ITVs are confiscated and not returned.” Is the contractor required to notify the USG within 1 hour if ITVs are confiscated on a USG Security mission?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 4.8.4 Page: 9 Paragraph: ITV Reporting.

A.23. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged per the solicitation and all amendments.

Pg 7

Q.24. This paragraph states, “Return of undelivered fuel will qualify as a standard “point to point” delivery and contractor shall receive payment for transportation costs from the original designated fuel download location to the designated fuel return location.” Will the JMCB issue a new TMR for the return of the undelivered fuel? What process is in place to ensure the contractor receives payment for this “point to point” backhaul of the remaining fuel?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.1.5.2. Page: 13 Paragraph: N/A

A.24. Please see PWS paragraphs 5.2.4.3.1. and 5.2.4.3.2.

Q.25. This paragraph states, “Contractor shall provide one (1) bobtail for every five (5) assets assigned to a U.S. military escorted convoy.” Will the Government issue an individual TMR for each bobtail required?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.2.1. Page: 14 Paragraph: Required Assets.

A.25. Yes per PWS paragraph 5.2.4.1.

Q.26. This paragraph states, “the required contractor assets” and “any requirements for additional equipment” will be identified on the mission sheets. However, many times under the current NAT contract the customer either ordered the wrong asset and/or did not state any requirements for additional equipment, but expected such. What is the process when the contractor meets the specifications of the mission sheet, but the customer refuses the asset due to their own deviation from the stated requirements on the mission sheet? Will this result in partial payment?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.4.2.1. Page: 20

A.26. DFARS clause 252.243-7002 states, “the amount of any request for equitable adjustment to contract terms shall accurately reflect the contract adjustment for which the Contractor believes the Government is liable.”

Q.27. This paragraph states, “A re-mission not approved by an authorized official shall not receive the full compensation that would be otherwise be due if the re-mission was properly authorized.” Which officials are authorized to approve a re-mission under NAT II?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.4.3.2. Page: 21

A.27. Per PWS paragraph 5.2.4.3., only the KO (contracting officer) or an appointed ordering officer is authorized to properly re-mission a contractor’s asset(s). Information on appointed ordering officers will be provided after contract award.

Pg 8

Q.28. This paragraph states, “The contractor shall notify the USG Ordering Officer on the third day of laytime at either the origin or destination ECP location.” Is there a specific time on the third day of laytime that the contractor must notify the USG Ordering Officer?

For example, when does the third day of laytime begin? 48 hours and 1 minute after the RLD / RDD? When does the third day of laytime end? 71 hours and 59 minutes?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.4.8. Page: 25

A.28. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged.

Q.29. This paragraph states, “The contractor made and continues to make daily attempts to gain access to the FOB and was available for entry between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM each day of laytime as demonstrated by the ITV location record.” How many pings are required for each day of claimed demurrage? What radius must the ITV be within of the ECP?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.4.10. Page: 26

A.29. The required ping rate is not dependent on the number of days of claimed demurrage. The contractor shall meet the required ping rates per PWS paragraph 4.8.2.

Q.30. This paragraph states, “Contractor assumes responsibility for acts of non-USG security elements that result in unaccounted for or damaged cargo or damage to third party persons or property.” Is the contractor responsible for acts by GIRoA provided security elements that result in unaccounted for or damaged cargo or damage to third party persons or property?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 5.2.4.12. Page: 26

A.30. Yes.

Q.31. This paragraph states, “Assets available for dispatch within ninety-six (96) hours.”

Will contractors be penalized if they submit asset reports with no assets available for dispatch within ninety-six (96) hours?

Ref: Document Description: PWS Section: 7.2. Page: 30

A.31. Please see PWS paragraph 5.2.4.7.

Pg 9

Q.32. Paragraph states, “Contractor shall be liable for all loss and/or damage to Government cargo from the point of pick-up to delivery to the customer for missions where non-USG security is provided.” Does this statement apply to when GIRoA is providing security (APPF)? If so, how can the contractor be responsible for the actions of representatives from a foreign government? Is APPF insured?

Ref: Document Description: Attachment 2 – Performance Work Statement (Amend 02 8 Mar 13) Section: 5.2.1.4. Page: 13 Paragraph: N/A

A.32. Yes, this statement applies when GIRoA is providing security.

Q.33. Q65 states, “Can you please confirm that contractor-provided security for assigned movement missions will only be paid from point of origin to point of destination, and not round trip, when the return trip is not a directed mission?” The Government’s response, “Yes, this is accurate.” After discussions with APPF Representatives in Kabul, the APPF plans to charge $90 per Mission Unit for return escort services (empty trucks). Does the Government plan to pay these charges if the APPF forces contractors to pay for escort services for empty trucks?

Ref: Document Description: 03.08.13 – Pre-Award Q&A 3 – NAT II Section: N/A Page: 17 Paragraph: Q65

A.33. No, the USG does not intend to pay charges for APPF escort services for empty trucks.

Q.34. Paragraph states, “To be rated Acceptable, the offeror must submit an Information Assurance Report IAW PWS paragraph 7.17.1. that describes their environment for adequately safeguarding DOD non-public information resident on or transiting on the contractor’s unclassified information systems from unauthorized access and disclosure AND address the SANS (SysAdmin, Audit, Network Security) Institute’s Twenty Critical Security Controls for Effective Cyber Defense: Consensus Audit Guidelines (http://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls) identified in PWS appendix 3.” What DOD non-public information, if any, will the Government be providing to contractors of the NAT II Program? Please define the phrase “DOD non-public information.” This does not seem to be covered in the DFARS.

Ref: Document Description: 03.15.13 – Amend 03 – HTC711-13-R-R002 – NAT II Solicitation Section: FAR 52.212-2, EVALUATION—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999) Page: 25 Paragraph: (6)

A.34. Any information or records that correspond to the performance under this contract is considered DOD non-public information.

Pg 10

Q.35. Can the Government provide a copy of Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Items (DEC 2012) in MS Word format?

A.35. No. Offerors may copy and paste this section from the Federal Acquisition Regulation website (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm).

Q.36. Are contractors required to submit Arming Packets for APPF personnel who are a State owned Enterprise of GIRoA? Will GIRoA provide such information to contractors upon successful award of NAT II?

A.36. No

Q.37. If contractors also have to provide CTLs for USG Security missions, will they be allowed entry to the FOB with the driver at Origin and destination and all FOBs, Mil Esc Unit halts in between the Origin and Destination camps? Since all Mil Esc trucks gather inside the FOB in a Mil Esc yard and move towards destination straight from the FOB to FOB with halts at FOBs on the way for longer distances, it will not be feasible for a CTL to wait outside each camp and keep a look for the contractor’s trucks. Please advise.

Ref: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS # 4 (15 Mar 13), Section: Q & Ans.16. Page 6, Paragraph 1

A.37. Yes, the CTLs will be allowed entry provided they follow the entry requirements of the specific

FOB.

Q.38. Section 5.2.4.10 references: “(2) the contractor made and continues to make daily attempts to gain access to the FOB and was available for entry between 8:00 AM and 10:00 PM each day of laytime as demonstrated by the ITV location record…”. What is acceptable documentation for demonstrating attempt to gain access? Is our GDMS snapshots appropriate documentation?

Ref: Document Description: Attachment 2 Solicitation (Amend 03), Section: 5.2.4.10 Truck Demurrage, Page 27

A.38. The ITV pings will be supporting documentation. The JMCB will also coordinate with the Movement Control Teams (MCTs) to validate this requirement.

Pg 11

Q.39. Amend 0005 significantly reduces the estimated volumes/missions per Suite, which aligns with expected troop drawdown. Based on this reduction, will TRANSCOM also reduce the amount of awardees per Suite to correspond with the new estimates?

A.39. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged.

Q.40. There are many references to the “JMCB” and one explanation that says the JMCB is the “COR” and another statement that there will be multiple CORs. Please explain the physical location(s) for the JMCB and/or physical address at which Mission Sheets can/must be physically collected and returned.

A.40. A group of individuals at the JMCB are the CORs. The JMCB is currently located in the Parwan province. The specific location will be provided after contract award.

The USG does not anticipate releasing any further Questions and Answers or Amendments prior to the revised proposal due date of 16 APR 2013.