Pre-Award_Q A__4 _NAT_II.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS # 4 (15 MAR 13)

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R002

National Afghan Trucking II (NAT II)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

Pg 1

15 MAR 13

Q.1. According to the solicitation documents, list of assets (solicitation Attachment

6) must be included in Volume II. However Volume II has page limitation of 50 pages, whereas the Solicitation Attachment 6 could alone exceed the page limitation.

Would it be possible not to count the Solicitation Attachment 6 against page limitation or move it to volume I, which does not have page limitation?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (b)

Proposal Organization, Number of Copies, and Page Limits (2) Page Limitation for

Volume II

A.1. This language was changed per Amend 01, 28 FEB 13 and Amend 02, 07 MAR 13 “The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal, includes: All appendices, charts, graphs, diagrams, tables, photographs, drawings, resumes, cover sheets, tables of contents, indices, title pages, tables, and cross-reference indices. The page limitation excludes subcontracting agreements; Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs), licenses, pages marked “This page intentionally left blank”, Solicitation Attachment 3 – Asset Capability Matrix, Solicitation

Attachment 6 – Asset Inventory List and section dividers if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. Exception to exclusions: Section dividers will be counted in the page limitation if they contain any other information, i.e., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. The offeror shall number each page in order to eliminate any confusion. In the event the offeror creates an ambiguity in their numbering of the pages, the USG may exercise its own discretion in counting pages.”

Q.2. The solicitation documents stipulate the requirement of Ministry of

Transportation license; however there is no license issued by the Ministry of

Transportation. The ministry rather authorizes AISA to issue the Transportation

License through a process that involves assets verification by the Ministry as well as court decision. Would you please advise if the transportation license issued by AISA will be sufficient to fulfill this requirement for both AISA and MoT licenses?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (c)

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

A.2. Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors-Commercial Items (FEB

2012), section (12)(c)(1)d. Section D: Business Licenses, as amended, the proposal shall include:

i. proof of the Afghan Business License issued by the Afghanistan Investment Support

Agency (AISA) for the offeror and each proposed subcontractor, if applicable.

ii. proof of either the Transportation Company License or proof of the Transit and Freight

Forwarding Company License for the offeror and any principal subcontractor(s). If the offeror is not a Transportation company, but intends to use principal subcontractor(s) that are transportation companies, then these licenses are not required for the offeror but are required for all principal subcontractor(s).

Pg 2

The solicitation requires the business license awarded through the Afghanistan Investment

Support Agency (AISA) in accordance with the guidance at http://www.aisa.org.af/english/licensing.html. Specific guidance on the AISA license from the

AISA website can be viewed at http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/AISA-license.pdf. Specific guidance on the Transportation Company License is obtainable from the

AISA website and can be viewed at:

http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/TransportationCompanyLicense.pdf.

Specific guidance on the Transit and Freight Forwarding Company License is obtainable from the AISA website and can be viewed at:

http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/TransitFreightForwardingCompanyLice nse.pdf. Per these respective guidance memorandums, by law AISA registers all private sector enterprises, whether foreign or local, or joint ventures of any nature between foreigners and locals; the Private Sector Transport Directorate of the Ministry of Transportation is responsible for issuing the Transportation Company License; the Business License and Organization

Directorate of the Ministry of Commerce is responsible for issuing the Transit and Freight

Forwarding License.

Q.3. Will the USG implement a methodology to ensure consistency in calibration, measurement equipment (e.g. meter vs. dipstick), and technique at both upload and download sites?

A.3. MIL STANDARD 3004-C governs fuel calibration and measurement. All levels of sustainment commands monitor and/or inspect fuel standards and execution, including monitoring from external agencies such as DCMA. However, there are different methodologies and techniques employed at different locations. PWS parargraph 5.2.1.4. Claims Liability states that “Fuel losses up to five percent (5%), due to evaporation and other contributing factors (i.e.

inaccurate metering, changes in barometric pressure, etc.) are allowable and shal not establish a financial liability against the contrator.”

Q.4. Can a company bid alone and also with a Joint Venture, thereby submitting 2 bids?

Proposal Content, (1) Volume II – Technical Proposal, a. Section A: Subfactor 1 A –

Minimum Number of Assets

A.4. There is nothing to prohibit a company bidding as both a joint venture and as a prime.

However, if an entity elects such an approach, it would need to provide information in each proposal indicating it can meet the minimum technical requirements (in terms of assets) for each proposal. The solicitation states if a subcontractor shall be used to meet the USG minimum number of assets, the offeror shall include a signed statement from all subcontractors that the proposed subcontractor assets have not been otherwise committed to any other firm. Further, the http://www.aisa.org.af/english/licensing.html http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/AISA-license.pdf http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/AISA-license.pdf http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/TransportationCompanyLicense.pdf http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/TransitFreightForwardingCompanyLicense.pdf http://www.aisa.org.af/files/licensing_procedure/english/TransitFreightForwardingCompanyLicense.pdf

Pg 3 intent of attachment 3 is for the contractor to demonstrate (by unique asset identifying number) that is has the requisite number of assets to complete the PWS requirements.

If an offeror submits on both, it would have to list different assets in each proposal in attachment

3 - it could not use the same assets in each proposal.

Q.5. Under current security conditions in Afghanistan and our expectation of further deterioration during the performance of this contract, we do not believe that

14 days after RDD is sufficient to return the mission sheets, especially for missions that are not close to Kabul. The reasons are: security conditions, longer distances, and proper processing in the company headquarters. Can you please reconsider increasing it? Under NAT I, this was 21 days. Can we email the completed mission sheet to you electronically? In this case, it will be much easier to meet this requirement. PWS (dated FEB 28), page 30, paragraph 7.3

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (7) Reports and Plans, (7.3)

Mission Sheets

A.5. The solicitation will be amended to allow 21 days for submission. The USG will not accept emailed or electronic mission sheets.

Q.6. One has to inform the COR on day three for vehicle demurrage (PWS

Amendment 2 5.2.4.10, page 26). If one erroneously informs the COR on day 4 or day 5 for example, can the contractor get paid for demurrage after the day 4 or the day 5, i.e. after the date of informing the COR? If one loses the entire demurrage compensation, e.g. the asset stays at the upload or download point for many days because of this then it is seems unjust. Could you please clarifying this?

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (5.2) Transportation Service, (5.2.4.10) Truck Demurrage

A.6. The solicitation will be amended to address this concern.

Q.7. If one of the shareholders of the firm bidding for this contract acquires a Risk

Management Company (RMC) type of PSC license, can one self-perform security for this contract using their own RMC Company?

A.7. RMCs are security coordinators, not security providers. Carriers that use an RMC will not be able to self-secure with the RMC. If a carrier elects to employ an RMC, the RMC will coordinate with APPF and/or GIROA-approved PSCs for convoy security.

Pg 4

Q.8. What measures are in place to ensure that multiple offerors are not received from the same offeror, if the offeror provides a response under a different name and/ or license? A requirement for each offeror to provide tax receipts from the government of Afghanistan would eliminate this concern.

Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, b. Section B: General Proposal

Information

A.8. Each offeror is required to provide their own unique company name, address, CAGE code, DUNS code, JCCS identification (ID) number (if applicable), Tax Identification Number (TIN), and Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA) license number for the offeror and all principal subcontractor(s) IAW Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial

Items (FEB 2012).

Q.9. Are successful offerors exempt from tax payments? If yes, are successful offerors provided with an official letter from Bagram Air Base and Verification of

US embassy in Kabul for tax and custom exemption? If No, should offerors include tax on the proposed rates or submitted in a separate sheet and/or line item? In the

Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Items (Feb 2012) on page 52 of the solicitation (e)

Q.9. Per FAR clause 52.229-6, Taxes – Foreign Fixed-Price Contracts (FEB 2013), para (c)(1), “Unless otherwise provided in this contract, the contract price includes all applicable taxes and duties…” Additionally, amendment 03 adds DFARs clause 252.229-7000, Invoices Exclusive of

Taxes or Duties (JUN 1997), which states, “Invoices submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract shall be exclusive of all taxes or duties for which relief is available.”

Q.10. Is it permissible for a single Proposal Consultant to prepare the proposals for three or four bidders? If yes, will the bidders be disqualified for having substantially similar technical content write-ups? Would this be considered collusion?

A.10. Since there is no prohibition to the use of a Proposal Consultant, the Government will evaluate all proposals and take appropriate action which is warranted. The use of a Proposal

Consultant is not intriniscally collusion.

Pg 5

Q.11. I have AISA business license plus Transit and Freight Forwarding license, Can I bid as a Subcontractor with another company which doesn‟t have

Transportation Company License MoT-A? As you already discussed this in Amend

01 and Q&A #2, I am still confused. can you please give me little explanations?

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

A.11. Yes, you can be a subcontractor. However, the prime contractor must ensure it complies with the solicitation instructions.

Q.12. The solicitation states that proposals shall be submitted on plain white paper.

Can the offeror use company letterhead to submit proposals?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Section (12) Proposal Preparation Instructions, (a)

General Instructions, (2) Volume II-Technical Proposal

A.12. There is no restriction on using paper with company letterhead for the offerors proposal.

Q.13. Could you please tell us how the USG intends to screen offerors that have unrealistic pricing submissions? These ""lowball""submissions give the contract an unrealistic view of the overall market pricing.

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-2, Evaluation- Commercial Items (JAN 1999), (g) Factor 2 -

Cost/Price

A.13. Each offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for 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).

FAR Part 2 defines “Cost realism” as the costs in the offeror’s proposal (1) are realistic for the work to be performed; (2) reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and (3) are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s technical proposal.

Q.14. The technical capability overview requirement is deleted per the Qs and As;

however, in the Amendment 01, Page 9 Section (2), in describing the contents of

Volume II - Technical Proposal states the Offeror shall describe how the offeror plans to complete the requirements as described in the PWS of this solicitation. Does the Government want the offeror to address all elements of the PWS in their

Technical Proposal or only those as related to the factors by which the Government will evaluate the proposals, i.e., Minimum Number of Assets; Intransit Visibility

Requirements; Key Personnel; Private Security Company Services; and Contractor

Management Plan.

Pg 6

Proposal Content, (2) Volume II – Technical Proposal

A.14. The Technical Proposal shall address the requirements for each technical subfactor.

Q.15. In the answers to the question concerning Key Personnel, the Government states in its response that the Alternate Fuels Manager is to be considered Key and that a resume for this position should be included in the offerors proposal. In

Amendment 01, however, Page 11, Section c. Section C: Subfactor 1C - Key

Personnel, the Alternate Fuel Manager is missing from the list of key personnel.

The revised PWS (dated 6 February 2013) does cite the Alternate Fuels Manager as

Key Personnel. Does the Government wish the Alternate Fuels Manager to be considered "Key" for the purposes of this proposal and shall a resume be included in the Offeror's submission.

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

Key Personnel, ii

A.15. Yes, the Alternate Fuel Manager is considered Key Personnel and a Resume of all the key personnel is required per the Technical Proposal instructions. See Amend 02, 08 MAR 13

Q.16. Are CTL's required for those missions, which the USG provides security escort?

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (5) Specific Requirements, (5.1.5.) Convoy Team Leader (CTL)

A.16. Yes, the contractor shall provide a CTL for each mission.

Q.17. The last sentence of PWS 5.2.4.12.2 "GIRoA Security" notes the USG will not be responsible for GIRoA caused delays or deviations, however, it provides no such disclaimer for the contractor. Does this same disclaimer extend to the contractor as well?

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (5.2.4.) Mission

Requirements and Standards, (5.2.4.12.2.) GIRoA Security

A.17. There are no exemptions for delays due to GIRoA security. The contractor is responsible for ensuring the proper coordination with GIRoA security to prevent any delays and consider seeking relief from GIRoA for any GIRoA caused delays.

Pg 7

Q.18. Our company is working on the NAT II bid with Afghan subcontractors.

There are legal Afghan holidays from March 15-22 surrounding the celebration of

Afghan New Year “Nowruz”. These holidays cut out 8 days during a critical time during the proposal preparation period. Is TRANSCOM willing to extend the proposal due date from April 9 to April 23?

General Instructions

A.18. No, due to the source selection timeline for this acquisition, the USG does not expect to extend the proposal due date.

Q.19. Will the proposal format be the same for both the business and technical proposals.

General Instructions

A.19. The formats and content are not the same for the business and technical proposal. Offerors shall follow the instructions included in the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

Q.20. What do “discount terms” mean and what should we input into box 12 of the

SF 1449?

A.20. In accordance with FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items

(FEB 2012) paragraph (i)(2), “The Government will make payment in accordance with the

Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C. 3903) and prompt payment regulations at 5 CFR 1315. Box 12 of the SF 1449 is used to allow offerors to specify a discount if payment is made earlier than the required timeframe per the Prompt Payment Act. However, the Government is not obligated to make payment earlier, but may choose to do so if it is advantageous given the offeror’s discount for quicker payment.

Q.21. Is there any difference between Code and Facility Code?

A.21. No. Per Addendum 52.212-1, the offeror shall include their CAGE code in box 17A.

Q.22. Should the following licenses like; Afghanistan Investment Support Agency

(AISA), Transportation Company License, and Transit and Freight Forwarding

Company License be provided by every subcontractor and core contractor? Is it

Pg 8 compulsory for core contractor to have all the above mentioned licenses by its own name or can it use licenses of subcontractor and other companies?

Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, e. Section E: Past Performance

References and Information

A.22. See Q&A #11 from Q&A Response #3 dated 28 FEB 13. See also Addendum 52.212-1 as amended. If the offeror is not a transportation company, then the Transportation Company

License or the Transit and Freight Forwarding License is not required for the offeror. However, one of these licenses is required for each principal subcontractor. A principal subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that owns and manages trucking assets that the offeror has identified in the completed Attachment 6 – Asset Inventory List.

Q.23. In the case of unavailability (resignation, promotion, transfer or termination of the person) of the exact point of contact in the company service was provided to;

can we request another person in the exact position to fill past performance questionnaire?

Proposal Content, (1) Volume I – Business Proposal, e. Section E: Past Performance

References and Information

A.23. Yes. The offeror is responsible for sending out the Past Performance Questionnaires to respondents.

Q.24. A copy of the PSC firm(s)‟s un-expired AISA and Ministry of Interior (MOI) licenses for PSC services.” However, licenses of all PSCs have either expired or will expire by 21 March 2013. We have contacted almost all PSCs and received the same information. Please advise what to do.

A.24. The solicitation is amended to no longer require the licenses at the time proposals are due.

Q.25. Taking into account the current uncertainty about the PSC, would it be possible to extend the submission deadline so that we are all clear about the security arrangement and formulate our proposal accordingly.

A.25. No, the Government has concluded that the uncertainty concerning the PSCs does not warrant an extension of the proposal submission deadline.

Pg 9

Q.26. According to the solicitation documents, “Proposals shall be submitted on plain white paper, 8 ½ x 11 paper, double-sided...” How strict are these instructions? We intend to submit our proposal printed in one-side in order to increase the readability of the document. We also prepare A4 size. Will this deviation from the instructions be allowed without affecting the scoring of our proposal?

A.26. Offerors shall follow the instructions included in the Addendum to 52.212-1. Failure to follow the instructions may result in the offeror being eliminated from further consideration.

However, the addendum to 52.212-1 changes paragraph (g) of 52.212-1 which states, “The

Government may…waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received.”

Q.27. "Due to Afghanistan‟s improved mobile data infrastructure and the absence of any encryption requirement in Reference A, will dual mode

(GPRS/Satellite) devices be accepted? The cost savings (coupled with reduced latency) could be substantial for both contractors and USG without any loss of quality or reliability.

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.8.) In-Transit Visibility

A.27. Carriers’ transponder system must be compatible with GDMS/Tapestry and meet the interfacing timeliness requirements. As long as these conditions are met, the carrier may have some latitude to resource their system as they see fit.

Q.28. "May we respectfully request why bidders have to verify their proposed transponder with a commercial company that sells transponders on this contract

(Tapestry Solutions) and not an independent or government agency? Is it not the case that the sole element that Tapestry Solutions need to verify is that GDMS can understand the data being sent to its gateway, which is what awardees, and ultimately the US Government pay the „integration fee‟ for?

It is important to note that in the same way that mobile phone manufacturers don‟t make phones that could only operate on AT&T for instance and not T-‐Mobile or

Verizon, satellite transponders manufacturers who in this case use Inmarsat and Iridium do not manufacture commercially available kit that cannot be used on unclassified systems such as GDMS which is a device/data agnostic platform* "

A.28. The current global asset visibility system used by the USG is the Global Distribution

Management System (GDMS). This asset visibility system is managed by the USG under a separate contrat. The intent is that the contractor’s ITV solution shall be able to integrate with

GDMS to ensure the applicable information is being transmitted and received appropriately. The

Pg 10

GDMS solution is transponder agnostic, meaning that any transponder capable of meeting the data ping requirements should be capable of integrating with the GDMS.

Q.29. Does Tapestry Solutions have a potential conflict of interest in that it is not only responsible for verifying the usability of feeds into its systems but also a supplier of transponder software and services that affect OML and company reputation. The perceived risk is that information supplied to Tapestry

Solutions by transponder vendors will be used to further the sale of Tapestry

Solution‟s transponders. This is clearly not in the spirit of the purpose of 4.8. Would the USG consider revising 4.8 to either level the playing field for all transponder vendors and remove Tapestry Solutions from the verification process or prevent

Tapestry Solutions from selling ITV equipment to awardees to prevent any risk of contravening the FAR (attempt to monopolize) or conflict of interest?

A.29. The USG is not considering revising the requirements of PWS paragraph 4.8. at this time.

Q.30. Will the USG please confirm that it is not a contractual requirement for bidders/awardees to purchase any elements of ITV, including GDMS licenses or support, from Tapestry Solutions to fulfill the requirement of the Reference A contract.

A.30. The PWS does not require that offerors purchase transponders from Tapestry; however, the offeror is responsible to ensure that their transponder solution is compatible with the GDMS.

Q.31. "Despite the fact that on occasion, proposed data schema to be integrated by Tapestry Solutions is already compliant (identical to the systems

Tapestry sell), clients of other transponder vendors have been charged up to

$40,000.00 for the integration of each device type. As the integration requirement is only for data, the device type is essentially irrelevant. To allow bidders to budget correctly, and ensure that one bidder is not quoted one fee, and another bidder another fee, can there be a transparent pricing structure announced in the interest of all bidders, as well as the USG?

A.31. The pricing terms for the integration requirements are between the USG’s total asset visibility provider and the offeror. The USG will not provide any information on the integration fee pricing structure.

Pg 11

Q.32. 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.32. The USG is still researching the appropriate response to this question.

Q.33. Can the USG please confirm the following is correct: “A 30 minute reporting interval will require the transponder to report a minimum of 48 times per day to achieve 100% visibility, or 46 (45.6) times per day to achieve the

95% ITV benchmark.”

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.8.2.) ITV Requirements

A.33. In accordance with PWS paragraph 6.3., the Contractor shall provide accurate and reliable

ITV for 95% of all missions, measure monthly. If a particular truck/mission does not achieve the

30 minute reporting requirement for the duration of its mission, then that results as a ITV failure.

The standard is that 95% of the missions performed over a month shall not incur an ITV failure.

Q.34. "There is concern that the statement “Each transponder solution may vary in the required levels of integration to limit transponder visibility to the contractor and the USG and is dependent upon each contractor‟s unique approach to ITV” could be used by Tapestry Solutions as justification to charge other transponder vendor‟s client‟s an arbitrary $40,000+ as a barrier to entry, to integrate a device that was already integrated and that this fee may not levied to awardees who purchase transponders from Tapestry Solutions. As a basis for comparison, Sicuro Group can complete this work within a few hours for roughly $300 and never pass this cost on to clients. "

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.8.3.) Contractor ITV

Responsibility

A.34. The total asset visibility system used by the USG is performed under a separate stand alone contract. The current system is the GDMS. Therefore, offerors are required to ensure that their

ITV solution integrates with and is compatible with GDMS. The GDMS system is agnostic with regard to make and model of transponders.

Pg 12

Q.35. PWS 4.8.1 ITV states, “The ITV equipment shall remain mounted and operate continuously without interruption in the same trucking asset for the duration of the mission and shall not be removed or its operation hampered in any way before the cargo is downloaded.” However, when a truck enters a FOB the ITV is removed from the truck. This is a force protection measure employed to ensure security. The PWS notes the ITV must remain with the truck until download but this is not possible due to force protection considerations.

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

A.35. The PWS is changed per Amendment 03 to address this.

Q.36. Is there a list of all the intended transport location origins and destinations? If so, will the Government make this available to offerors?

A.36. The JMCB can provide this list to the awardees after contract award.

Q.37. The solicitation states, “Proposals shall be submitted on plain white paper, 8

½ x 11 paper, double-sided, Times New Roman, 12pt font and one (1) inch margins.” Is 10pt font acceptable for graphics and tables?

Ref: Addendum to 52.212-1, Paragraph: (12)(b)(1)

A.37. The solicitation will be amended to require that only the narrative portion be 12pt font, but that other tables/graphics be of sufficient size to readability.

Q.38. The PWS states, “The plan shall include all POCs of dispatch personnel for the contractor and any tier of subcontractor.” Can we assume that our proposal should include a list of dispatch positions, with names to be provided post-award?

Ref: PWS Document Description: 7.7.4. Section 5: Dispatch Plan

A.38. Yes, a list of dispatch positions is sufficient with the proposal with names provided post-award.