NAT_II_Responses_to_Q_ A__5.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS # 5

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

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

Q.1. The solicitation indicates that offerors may submit for all suites or a combination of suites, however the Fuel Manager and Alternate Fuel Manager are key personnel positions that are required. If a company is not bidding on the Fuel Suite, are these positions still required?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (5) Specific Requirements, (5.1.3.) Fuel Manager

(FM)

A.1. This was changed per Amend 03 (Mar 15) to omit Fuel Managers and Alternate FM as required positions when not bidding on Suite I, Bulk Fuels.

Q.2. Can we assume that any past performance within 3 years for trucking services in Afghanistan that meets all other requirements (relevant, scope, complexity) will be acceptable?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c) Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, e. Section E: Past Performance References and Information, i

A.2. Contract references should be recent (within the last three years) and relevant (for trucking services in Afghanistan), similar size, scope, and complexity to the work to be performed under the resultant contract.

Q.3. Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Items (JAN 1999), as included in this. I do not see this information.

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation- Commercial Items (Jan 1999), Section (f) Technical Proposal

A.3. The technical proposal shall be evaluated against the subfactors that are listed in the solicitation IAW the information listed in the above reference.

Q.4. Transmittal Letter shall be sent by the offeror along with the Past Performance Questionnaires. Once the questionnaires are completed, the information therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. What if any proposal submission requirements are there for this? Are we to send any proof of submission?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c) Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, e. Section E: Past Performance References and Information, i and ii

National Afghan Trucking II (NAT II)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

A.4. Offerors are required to identify their references IAW the above reference. There is no proof of submission required, it is the offerors responsibility to ensure past performance questionnaires are sent out and returned to USTRANSCOM.

Q.5. Can Key Personnel and or subcontractors show up on multiple teams?

Ref: 52.212-2 Evaluation-Commercial Items (JAN 1999), Section (f) Factor 1 – Technical Proposal, (3) Subfactor 1C, Key Personnel, d

A.5. Subcontractors must submit asset lists and they cannot have assets committed to more than one offeror. This question is addressed in detail in all of the previous Q & A’s, #1 through #4. As for Key Personnel, if an offeror identifies an individual that is also listed in other offerors’ proposals, those offerors may be determined to be technically unacceptable because it may invalidate the key personnel’s intentions to represent the contractor under the resultant contract per FAR 52.212-2, (f)(3)d.

Additionally, per paragraph H-7 of the Special Contract Requirements, the contractor must have Government approval to substitute those key personnel or key subcontractors identified in the proposal.

Q.6. Since a joint venture is established with the intent of performing this effort, therefore formed AFTER notice of award, how can the Joint Venture be registered or licensed and therefore proof of such submitted in proposal ?

Ref: All information in the National Afghan Trucking II Solicitation and all Amendments.

A.6. Any Contractor, Subcontractor, or Joint Venture submitting a proposal for a potential award of the NAT II contract shall meet and follow all of the instructions as directed in the solicitation.

Q.7. What is the method for acknowledging receipt of the Amendment 01 and amendment 02? Should we sign and send it right away before the proposal closing date? Or send it together with the proposal? Should we Email the signed Amendments to your Email or hand deliver? If hand deliver, what address should we hand deliver it?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c) Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, a. Section A: SF-1449 & SF-30

A.7.Offerors shall acknowledge all amendments to the RFP by signing the SF-30s and placing them immediately behind the SF-1449.

Q.8. Under the draft contract for APPF the MU is a 50km increment; the PWS states a 25km increment. Can you confirm the increment value?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (5) Specific Requirements, (5.2.4.1.5) Mission Units (MUs)

A.8. A mission unit is a 25 km increment in the NAT II Solicitation, regardless of what may be in any other contract.

Q.9. It is our understanding that arming packets are currently provided to the Armed Contracting Oversight Directorate (ACOD) once approved by the KO; the PWS states these will be provided to JMCB. Can you please confirm where arming packets will need to be submitted for approval?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (7.) Reports and Plans (7.14.) Arming Packets

A.9. The arming packets shall be turned into the JMCB per the PWS. Any changes to this procedure will be made if and when necessary.

Q.10. Currently arming rosters are provided monthly to the respective CORs and then sent to ACOD; the PWS states that these will be send to JMCB. Can you please confirm where arming rosters will need to be submitted for approval?

A.10. The JMCB is the COR.

Q.11. A Services Delivery Summary (SDS) is reference, but nowhere within the solicitation documents. Can you please provide the SDS?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (6) Service Delivery Summary (SDS), 6.1 through

6.6 Performance Objectives

A.11. See the Chart and the Performance Objectives listed under Section 6.

Q.12. Can the Government please clarify the requirement for a Fuel Manager and at least one alternate Fuel Manager. Is this requirement only for the performance of Suite I, or will a Fuel Manager be required in the execution of Suites II & III? The requirement does not specify for which Suite.

Content, (2) Volume II – Technical Proposal, (c) Section c: Subfactor 1 C – Key Personnel, ii

A.12. The fuel manager and alternate fuel manager are only required as Key Personnel for Suite I, Bulk Fuel. See Amend 03, 15 MAR 13

Q.13. The PWS stipulates that “FM & AFM must meet all requirements to enter US or NATO controlled installations”. In reference to this stipulation, do you imply that FM & AFM should be eligible to get a CAC card? If “Yes”, can you help me identify which countries’ nationals are eligible to get CAC cards in addition to Americans? If “No”, can you elaborate what are the “All requirements to enter US or NATO controlled installations”?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (1.6.) Specific Qualifications (1.6.1.) Enrollment in USG mandated databases

A.13. 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). All personnel are required to have a SPOT-generated Letter of Authorization (LOA) prior to employment within the CJOA-A. Each installation may have its own unique access requirements.

TRANSFARS clause 5552.242-9000, Common Access Cards (CACs) For Contractor Personnel (NOV 2011) provides guidance on when CACs may be granted.

Q.14. Though this question has already been raised and answered by you, the scenario is still unclear. All PSCs have ceased to operate in Afghanistan. None has valid license from MOI at the moment. How can such a requirement, of submitting an MOI License for a PSC, be fulfilled when none of the PSCs in Afghanistan happens to possess one?

Content, (1) Volume I– Business Proposal, (d) Section D: Business Licenses

A.14. This requirement was removed. See Amend 03, 15 MAR 13.

Q.15. If the contractor is going to subcontract transportation services to a provider who further subcontracts to a PSC, and the transport subcontractor is not willing to provide their contract agreement with the PSC due to privity of contract, will the Government accept the PSC provided all other requirements are submitted with the proposal (AISA license, letter of commitment, etc.)?

Content, (2) Volume II– Technical Proposal, (d) Section D: Business Licenses

A.15. No, a subcontract agreement for all proposed PSC subcontractors is required to be submitted.

Q.16. If after the implementation of the APPF, rates are substantially increased, will the Government allow contractors to adjust rates prior to the 180 day period?

A.16. The Government will use pricing techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) and FAR 15.305(a)(1) to evaluate prices for fairness, reasonableness, and realism.

Q.17. The GIRoA security cell in the excel sheet which contains the unit prices is still not accessible. For example, please Row 30, column K, L, M for the 10 gallon tanker with GIRoA security. Additionally, we can access most cells with GIRoA security. It was our understanding that you require us to provide pricing for GIRoA security as well.

A.17. This issue was corrected on 15 MAR 13 in Amendment 03.

Q.18. Ref the below “adaptors”, will JMCB provide a list of required sizes of adaptors to support USG or Coalition Forces? As these are mission essential equipment, without a list of required adaptors required for each tanker it could lead to unintentional Mission failure by the contractor.

A.18. The Government will not provide a list of adaptors at this time.

Q19. Ref the below “Mission Closure Report”, nowhere else in the PWS (Amend 02) is a Mission Closure Report referenced, delineated or included in the deliverables section. Is this an oversight or will this be a further report or set of reports that must be generated by the contractor?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (7.) Reports and Plans (7.10.) Situation Report

(SITREP)

A.19. This reference to a Mission Closure Report will be removed.

Q.20. Amendment 3, Solicitation Documents amended page limitation for volume II to 60 pages under Proposal Organization section (please refer to page 17, table), whereas “Proposal Content” section (please refer to Page 20), Technical Proposal still indicates that “This volume has a 50 page limitation…” Please advise which one prevails.

A.20. This language will be revised to 60 days by amendment.

Q.21. The revised schedule B requires unit price for GIRoA provided security. We are now discussing prices with APPF. APPF mission unit is 50Km while the PWS established a mission unit at 25Km. To avoid confusion and to simplify the price calculation, we suggest that either the USG changes the mission unit back to 50 Km or advise APPF to re-adjust its offered prices to 25 Km, if possible please.

A.21. See answer to Q.8. above.

Q.22. The price schedule says that DBA costs are to be incorporated into our price.

Understood. However, will the USG be reimbursing us for actual DBA payments (as has been done in the past on HNT and NAT I)?

A.22. No.

Q.23. Per Schedule B, Unit Price List we see that no prices needed to be provided for GIRoA security, which is understood given the current “roll-out” of the Afghan Police Protection Force (APPF). However, as PSC continually lose ground to APPF controlled areas, their cost structures, organizational structures (remain a PSC, become a Risk Management Company (RMC), etc) and prices will also be significantly affected over the coming months and years. Given such uncertainty with the overall security situation – and who will provide it, what they will charge, etc – and the potential length of the contract it seems very difficult to forecast prices that the Contractor will be committed to over the duration of the contract.

Specifically, will the USG be willing to allow for separate price proposals for the APPF post-award and potentially for PSC security as well before the initial Notice to Proceed and potentially at each additional option period?

A.23. Per Amend 01, 28 FEB 13, the Attachment 1, Schedule B, Unit Price List was amended to require pricing for GIRoA security. Separate pricing proposals prior to contract start and prior to each option period will not be considered.

Q.24. Schedule B, Unit Price List provides pricing columns for the base year and 2 separate option years (3 years total). However, the Solicitation (pages 3 – 5) list a base year (CLIN 0001), 1st Option Year (CLIN 1001), 2nd Option Year (CLIN 2001), and 6 month extension (CLIN 3001) for a total of 3.5 years. Please let us know if we need to price the 6 month option on Schedule B (and if you will provide a new Schedule B with appropriate formatting).

A.24. No pricing is necessary for the 6 month option CLIN. Per FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the rates for this option period will be at the rates specified in the contract and are only adjusted as a result of revisions to prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor which is not applicable since this contract is performed outside the US.

Q.25. Availability of 8.5” x 11” paper is difficult to obtain in this part of the word. I am currently in Dubai and have gone to 3 different office supply vendors and have contacted 2 Kinko’s/FedEx offices and none of them have “Letter” sized paper. A4 paper (11.7 x 8.3 in) is the standard in this theater. Would submitting on A4 paper be acceptable or acceptable with a page or two less in overall length against the 50 page count? (Note: I see this was addressed in the Q/A on 15 March 2013 but I’d like for the USG to reconsider this option since now we either have to fly someone to the US for the printing / collating of the proposal or need to hire a CONUS independent contractor to perform those services for us.

Ordering paper to be delivered to an APO would not be possible due to time constraints.)

A.25. No. The Government does not anticipate changing this requirement.

Q.26. A considerable amount of NAT I missions are deemed “no pay” or “non-verifiable” due to paperwork discrepancies – such as a missing email or phone number by the shipper

– despite verification of receipt by recipient. We will utilize our CTLs to the extent possible to minimize incomplete paperwork but there’s a chance they won’t be allowed access to the base (as they often won’t be the driver per PWS 5.1.5). What is the anticipated stance of US TRANSCOM on what justifies a “successful” mission in these instances? Will proof of delivery and confirmation by the recipient qualify as a “successful” mission (as would be the standard in almost all real-world scenarios)?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (7.) Reports and Plans (7.3.) Arming Packets

A.26. Memorandum for Record (MFR) signed by the receiving customer may be an acceptable substitute for the signed mission sheets.

Q.27. Section C: Subfactor 1C – Key Personnel: Can Key employees hold more than one position? For example, can the Accountant also be the Alternate PM, or could an executive of the company (e.g. General Manager) also act as an Alternate PM? If a company bids on 3 Suites and only wins 1, for example, such cost savings may be necessary.

Content, (2) Volume II – Technical Proposal, (c) Section c: Subfactor 1 C – Key Personnel

A.27. The solicitation does not restrict an offeror from having a dual-hatted key personnel position. In accordance with the instructions, the proposal shall include the offerors plan to provide Key Personnel.

Additionally, the evaluation criteria states that the offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide Key Personnel in accordance with the PWS and that the proposal must substantiate the key personnel’s ability to perform the applicable responsibilities.

Q.28. Prices are said to be good for 180 days (Paragraph (c) of FAR 52.212-1) but the period of performance begins on December 16, 2013, which is more than 180 days after the proposals will be submitted (9Apr13 + 180 days = 6Oct13). Is the USG intending on extending the due date for proposals (to help offset licensing delays perhaps?) or does it intend to re-negotiate all prices with technically acceptable carriers later in the year? Or is contract award anticipated on being made prior to October 6, 2013?

A.28. The Government anticipates awarding prior to 6 October 2013. If award will not be made by this time due to discussions, the offerors in the competitive range will be required to confirm their pricing or otherwise adjust.

Q.29. If Z Co intends to provide service through a subcontracting arrangement with a principal subcontractor(s), then the Z Co may submit past performance information for either the Z Co or the principal subcontractor(s).” It appears as if the Offeror can submit past performance for itself in addition to that of its principal subcontractor. Is this correct?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c) Proposal Content, (2) Volume II– Technical Proposal, (e) Section E: Past Performance References and Information

A.29. Yes that is a correct interpretation. However, the offeror and the principal subcontractor have a different number of references that they can provide.

Q.30. If a new company Y executives (the offeror in this case) have experience with a principal subcontractor (Sub A) while employed at another “former” company X, can company Y submit a Past Performance reference for its own, current principal subcontractor (Sub A)? It would seem so if the above referenced paragraph reads: “If Company Y intends to provide service through a subcontracting arrangement with a principal subcontractor(s), then the Company Y may submit past performance information for either the Company Y or the principal subcontractor(s).” However, since company Y wasn’t the actual prime contractor on the previous contract, is this allowable? Note: Senior managers of Company Y worked directly with and managed Sub A while employed at Company X.

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c) Proposal Content, (2) Volume II– Technical Proposal, (e) Section E: Past Performance References and Information

A.30. Past performance is considered as part of the responsibility determination where the Government’s objective is to determine the prospective offeror has a satisfactory performance record. The scenario presented may violate the requirements of paragraph H-8, Organizational Conflict of Interest, of the Special Contract Requirements section.

Q.31. The length of the Technical proposal by Suite is unclear. My assumption would be that if bidding on more than one Suite you can submit a single Volume I – Business Proposal, and then submit each Suite separately, with each Suite having to conform to the 60 page limit. However, it is not clear if the 60 page limit for the Technical proposal is for all Suites combined or individually. Could you please clarify this?

A.31. The offeror shall only submit one technical proposal regardless of which suite or how many suites they intend to offer service for. The 60 page limit is applicable to the Technical proposal for all suites combined.

Q.32. Will the due date for this Solicitation HTC711-13-R-R002 NAT II be extended?

A.32. The Government does not anticipate extending the proposal due date.

Q.33. Due to the additional requirement of Information Assurance and Cyber Security, Section F of the Technical Proposal (page 22 of amendment 3 of the solicitation); we kindly request an extension to the due date of the proposal. Moreover, another concern is that the cost of GIRoA security (APPF) is still not finalized by the government of Afghanistan.

Frankly, the entire issue of decisions by the government of Afghanistan regarding private security and GIRoA security is still up in the air. Due to the ambiguity regarding the security pricing, we also kindly request an extension to the proposal due date. Thank you for your kind consideration.

A.33. The Government does not anticipate extending the proposal due date.

Q.34. "My ASIA business License and MoCI Transit and Freight Forwarding License have a slight difference on the names. AISA Business Name: ABC/ MoCI License XYZ.

However the owner is the same person. CAN I USE THEM TO BID ON THIS

CONTRACT?

A.34. The licenses are issued to companies and the company names are required to match.

Q.35. Will screenshots from Sicuro Group’s iSTARtrack be accepted? iSTARtrack screenshots have been accepted for National Afghan Trucking (NAT), Universal Services Contract (USC), Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) and Afghan Transportation Network Program (ATN).

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.8.1.) Use of ITV

A.35. No, iSTARtrack data does not currently feed into GDMS, meaning that screen shot information cannot be confirmed in the GDMS system. Per the current ITV contract, the carriers must carry GDMS compatible ITVs; however 3 carriers (to our knowledge) use iSTARtrack as a supplementary or backup system. We do not accept non-GDMS snapshots as direct evidence; however we can consider it as supplementary.

Q.36. This section states “The USG will normally provide the contractor’s PM at least 96 hours’ notice of a mission requirement; however, the contractors shall be able to respond within 48 hours for any urgent requirements. While under section 5.2.4.1.1 Required Spot Date (RSD) contractor trucks are required to be at the Origin point 2 days prior to RLD.

Hence, for any urgent requirements by USG, the RSD are more likely to be missed by the contractors. Will contractors be exempted from meeting their RSD for such urgent asset requirements by the client?

Ref: Attachment 2: Performance Work Statement (PWS)-15Mar2013, Section: 5.2.4.2 Ordering, Page 20

A.36. The Required Spot Date for urgent requirements will allow the number of appropriate days to reach the upload location. If the contractor feels they do not have enough time to arrive at the upload location, they can decline the mission.

Q.37. Since the contractor trucks are required to be at the Origin on RSD (Required Spot Date), will the laytime for Demurrage calculation start from RSD, which is 2 days prior to

RLD?

Ref: Attachment 2: Performance Work Statement (PWS)-15Mar2013, Section: 5.2.4.8-5.2.4.11 Truck Demurrage, Page 26

A.37. No, Truck Demurrage starts after three consecutive days of Entry Control Point (ECP) Laytime

Q.38. This section states USG will issue the payment for Truck Demurrage charges under these circumstances provided that (1)………. (2) the contractor made and continues to make daily attempts to gain access to the FOB and was available for entry between 8:00AM and 10:00PM each day of laytime as demonstrated by the ITV location record.

There have been many instances based on previous experiences on similar contracts HNT & NAT that the truck gains entry on the first or second day of the laytime but it is being held at Mil Esc or Cool down yards or kept with units inside the FOB for several days and drivers are asked to leave the trucks and come back after few days either for upload/download or go with Mil Esc units. Such instances are beyond contractors control as drivers cannot reach their trucks daily to check on ITVs and hence the truck location cannot be demonstrated by the ITV location record for each day of laytime. Contractors can only follow up with the JMCB or COR and inform them via emails about such instances. Will the USG then give an alibi and exempt ITV records requirements for each day of laytime for cases like these and consider payment for Demurrage?

Ref: Attachment 2: Performance Work Statement (PWS)-15Mar2013, Section: 5.2.4.10 Truck Demurrage, Page 27

A.38. No

Q.39. The first bullet point states “the USG cancels the mission because the contractor was not available for loading on RLD”; chances are, the contractor is still at the gate trying to gain access to the FOB and hence not available with the unit for loading.

This sentence should be changed to: The USG cancels the mission if the contractor fails to arrive on RLD to the origin FOB/Camp on requested date and time.

Ref: Attachment 2: Performance Work Statement (PWS)-15Mar2013, Section: 5.2.4.6 Failed Mission, Page 25 Paragraph 2, first bullet

A.39. No language change will be made.

Q.40. Paragraph f.i. describes a template attached in PWS Appendix 3. However, there is not an Appendix 3 in the PWS, can you please provide the template described in the instructions?

Ref: Solicitation, Amend 03, 15MAR13, Section: 5.2.4.2 Ordering, Page 22, f. Section F:

Subfactor 1F – Information Assurance & Cyber Security, i.

A.40. There is an Appendix 3 that was added in Amend 03, 15 MAR 13

Q.41. If an offeror is entering into a JV to submit a bid for this effort. Is it acceptable to provide the JV Partners’ AISA Licenses and the JV AISA License prior to start of work?

A.41. This was answered in Q & A #4 included with Amend 03, 15 MAR 13.

Q.42. There are several references to the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP), but I have not been able to locate the QASP in the PWS or RFP Attachments. Can you please provide a comprehensive QASP?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (6.) Service Delivery Summary (SDS)

National Afghan Trucking II (NAT II)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

A.42. The SDS information is located in the PWS is from the QASP. A copy of the QASP will not be provided.

Q.43. Section 5.2.4.1.1 discusses that the contractors are required to be at the “waiting area” two days prior to RLD. Currently on NAT I, there are several instances when the waiting areas are full and trucks are not able to gain access to the yard and ping from within the yard to make RSD. IF this is the case, will the truck be considered late or can you provide an alternative to meeting RSD?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section (5.2.4.) Mission Requirements and Standards.

A.43. This is addressed in the PWS.

Q.44. Section 5.2.4.14. Invoicing, States, “The contractor shall submit a spreadsheet NLT 5th business day of each month with all missions with an RSD, RLD and RDD in that month, indicating the status of the mission and all documentation supporting payment.”

Please provide a list of what “all documentation” is?

A.44. Any relevant documents that support the charges that are on the invoice.

Q.45. The RFP proposal instructions require PSC information to be included in Vol. II of the proposal. “i. Plan to provide PSC services in Afghanistan, using GIRoA licensed firm, in accordance with PWS paragraph 5.2.4.12.1.” There are no PSCs currently running on the main ring road and all main highways in AFG. The routes from Kabul to Mazar in North, Kandahar in South, Sharana & Khowst in East, Ghazni in Central & Jalalabad in North East and routes from Kandahar towards Herat & Shindand in West are all controlled by APPF. Please revise the proposal instructions by removing the PSC requirement, only APPF is available.

RFP: Solicitation, Amend 03, 15 MAR 13, Section: d. Section D: Subfactor 1 D – Private Security Company Services

A.45. There is no language change at this time.

Q.46. Schedule B’s Notes section states, “No price shall be provided at time of proposal submission for GIRoA Security. Rate for GIRoA security will be incorporated into the contract via modification. No missions stipulating GIRoA security shall be ordered until/unless the contract is modified to incorporate GIRoA security rates.” Why are we not to price APPF into the schedule, especially since APPF is the only convoy security authorized in Afghanistan?

RFP: PWS, Attachment 1- Schedule B, Unit Price List (Amend 03, 15Mar13), Section: Notes, Page Row 43

A.46. This is a typo and will be removed by amendment.