05.10.13_-_Questions_and_Answers__3_(ATN _HTC711-13-R-R007).pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS #3

10 May 13

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007 Afghanistan Transportation Network (ATN)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

NOTE: Many of the responses in this Q&A reference Amendment 0003. This amendment has not been finalized. The USG expects to finalize this Amendment by 13 MAY. However, the USG did not want to delay the responses to these Questions.

Q.1. Are offerors required to bid for all 3 suites for a region or can they bid for bulk fuel transport for each of the 3 regions only?

A.1. Yes, an offeror is required to submit a proposal for all 3 suites for the region(s) for which they are submitting a proposal. Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(c)(1)f states, “Failure to provide a unit price for every asset type for the region that the offeror is proposing to provide service to, will render the offer non-responsive to the solicitation.”

Q.2. How can a contractor know if the EOC they have selected and are including with their proposal is already approved by ISAF if the EOC listing will only be provided after the contract award?

Ref: PWS, Section 1.4

A.2. Per PWS paragraphs 1.4.2. and 1.4.3. for the South and West Regions respectively, “The contractor shall provide trucking and management services in accordance with this PWS primarily using USG approved EOCs for short- to medium-haul shipments throughout the [respective] region of Afghanistan.”

Further, these paragraphs state, “Only specifically identified EOCs are permitted to perform services under this contract for this region. After contract award, the USG shall provide the list of the current approved EOCs to the awardee.”

Q.3. Section 52.212-1 (h) was removed, how many contracts will be awarded per region or is there going to be only one contractor selected per region?

A.3 FAR 52.212-1 (h) states, “SEE ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-1, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMMERCIAL ITEMS”. Per the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, it states:

Paragraph (h) of FAR 52.212-1 entitled, “Multiple awards” is tailored to read: “The Government will award contract(s) resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror(s), whose proposal(s) are deemed responsive to the solicitation and reflect a complete understanding of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) in the Request for Proposal, and are judged to represent technically acceptable offer(s) with the lowest prices that are fair, reasonable, and realistic. The competition approach is to issue one solicitation resulting in the award of three single-award IDIQ contracts where there is one contractor for each region.”

Q.4. Per section 1.1 What is the difference between EOC and subcontractor? Can an EOC be a subcontractor? Can a subcontractor then contract an EOC at a lower tier?

Ref: PWS, Section 1

A.4. The distinction between “Elder Owned Company” or “EOC” and the term “approved locally-owned subcontractor” is a distinction based on the specific regions. The teminology, “locally-owned subcontractor” refers to subcontractors operating in the North region. EOCs are subcontractors in the normal business sense. However, EOCs go through a more robust vetting process whereby the US

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Government has a greater role in understanding and reviewing the EOCs credentials prior to approving them for use in the South and West regions. The “locally-owned subcontractors” in the North do not undergo the EOC vetting process, but must be appropriately licensed and registered and meet the terms of the PWS para 1.4.1. and any other applicable paragraphs.

Per PWS paragraph 1.3., an objective of the ATN contracts is not only to provide regional trucking services, but also to “capitalize on existing business arrangements with influential regional leaders.” The use of the EOC structure and the use of locally-owned subcontractors is meant to facilitate the development of an enduring short to medium haul distribution system withing Afghanistan while also providing a deterrent to insurgent activities by utilizing Afghan leaders’ influence to enhance the security environment for the movement of cargo and create economic opportunities for local Afghan communities.

The USG has already identified pre-existing EOCs for the South and West regions which will be provided to the respective awardees for those regions after contract award. However, with respect to PWS paragraph 5.2.2., Nomination and Approval of New EOCs, the contractor or USG, during the course of performance, may identify a new company(s) for consideration as an EOC within that region. In addition to providing the necessary information on the company, the contractor will also be expected to demonstrate how the nominated company will contribute to the objectives identified in PWS paragraph 1.3.

Per PWS paragraph 1.4.1. (NORTH) – the contractor shall provide services primarily using USG approved locally-based, locally-focused, locally-owned and operated trucking subcontractors. No more than 10% of the trucking missions shall be performed utilizing prime contractor owned assets and those missions shall only be performed in Balkh province.

Per PWS paragraph 1.4.2. (SOUTH) – the contractor shall provide services primarily using approved EOCs. No more than 10% of the trucking missions shall be performed utilizing prime contractor owned assets. Only specifically identified EOCs are permitted to perform services under this contractor for this region. To answer the question, “Can a subcontractor then contract an EOC at a lower tier?” – any subcontractors that are not EOCs, cannot perform trucking services.

Per PWS paragraph 1.4.3. (WEST) – the contractor shall provide services primarily using approved EOCs. No more than 10% of the trucking missions shall be performed utilizing prime contractor owned assets. Only specifically identified EOCs are permitted to perform services under this contractor for this region. To answer the question, “Can a subcontractor then contract an EOC at a lower tier?” – any subcontractors that are not EOCs, cannot perform trucking services.

Q.5. Document Description: PWS, Paragraph 7.7.8.1: Initial Operating Capability.

Question: If the list of approved EOC’s will not be provided until after the contract award, then how can an offeror obtain subcontracting agreement, letter of intent, name, phone number and other details?

A.5. Per Amendment 0003, the PWS is revised and to remove the language which included provisions of the operating plan. Per Amendment 0003, offerors are not required to obtain and submit a subcontracting agreement, letter of intent, name, phone number and other details of the EOCs with their proposal.

Q.6. Document Description: Addendum 002, Addendum to 52.212-1 (12)(c)(1)(b)(iii)

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Question: The Government has not clarified that an offeror can bid for one or any combination of suites (Fuel, Dry & Heavy) or is it mandatory to apply for all three suites and the offeror only has option to choose one or all regions?

A.6. An offeror is required to submit a proposal for all suites of service (Fuel, Dry, & Heavy) for each region in which they are submitting a proposal for. Per Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(12)(c)(1)f., “Failure to provide a unit price for every asset type for the region that the offeror is proposing to provide service to, will render the offer non-responsive to the solicitation.” The offeror has the option to choose to submit a proposal for one or multiple regions.

Q.7. Will the USG provide other funding for an Influential Leader Engagement Program?.

A.7. No, payment will be made based on missions completed according to the rates established in Attachments 1A, 1B, and 1C. Offerors shall incorporate all costs of performance into the rates proposed in the Attachments 1A, 1B, and 1C.

Q.8. Will USG announce funding for training EOCs? If not please guide us on covering these expenditures?

A.8. See response to Q.7.

Q.9. In the Evaluation Criteria it states that if proposing the North, we must address the requirements of PWS, 7.17 (Subcontracting Plan,) Paragraph 7.17 of the PWS states that the Subcontracting Plan must be submitted via email. Question: In reference to the technical proposal, what should bidders include in their proposal, an overview of the subcontracting plan or the actual completed plan ?

A.9. Offerors submitting a proposal for the North region shall include a completed subcontracting plan per PWS paragraph 7.17. Amendment 0003 revised the PWS to eliminate the inconsistency.

Q.10. Since the contractor is required to return fuel within four days of canceled delivery, is the Government saying that no fuel delivery location will be more than 4-days travel from the upload point?

Ref: PWS, Section 5.3.1.5.1

A.10. Yes. The Government’s requirement remains unchanged.

Q.11. Will new mission sheets be issued for un-delivered fuel that needs to be returned to the upload point?

Ref: PWS, Section 5.3.1.5.2

A.11. Yes.

Q.12. Will refrigerated containers also be required?

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

A.12. Yes, per PWS paragraph 5.3.2.1. and the Attachments 1A, 1B, and 1C, refrigerated contatiners are required.

Q.13. Who will determine when an adjusted RDD is warranted, and how will the information be conveyed to the contractor?

A.13. Per PWS paragraph 7.10., the contractor shall provide SITREPs to the COR or ACOR and contracting office as needed. A SITREP is required for circumstances (i.e. mission delays) which may impact the contract scope, cost, or schedule. In reviewing the information submitted in the SITREP regarding delays, the COR or ACOR will make a determination on whether the delay is due to factors beyond the contractor’s control and shall take into consideration the “Excusable delays” cited in FAR 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions – Commercial Items, paragraph (f). If determined the delay was beyond the contractor’s control, an adjusted RDD will be established by the COR/ACOR and communicated to the contractor.

Q.14. When an urgent mission is called for and only 48 hours’ notice is given, will the requirement to have transponders begin pinging 24 hours prior to RLD be suspended, or will all other time requirements remain the same?

A.14. The requirement remains unchanged.

Q.15. Will there be any missions with multiple delivery destinations?

A.15. No. PWS paragraph 5.3.4.4. identifies the mission types that will be executed under this contract.

Q.16. PWS 5.3.4.4 “Backhaul” is a very big accounting challenge when using one mission sheet and one LMR number. There are two separate billable events but only one tracking number. Backhauls are a prudent operational tool, however, two LMR’s should be assigned for clear accountability.

A.16. Two Mission Sheets will be issued if a backhaul mission is executed, one for the original movement and one for the backhaul movement. Per Amendment 0003, PWS, Section 5.3.4.4. was revised to indicate the issuance of a separate mission sheet for the backhaul portion of a mission.

Q.17. PWS 7.5 “Access Level (red, yellow, green)”, what does “red, yellow, green” represent? Each location is different, with different requirements and procedures.

A.17. Per Amendment 0003, PWS, Section 7.5 the section that required the access level was removed.

Q.18. Per the PWS, “No prime contractor labor shall be used to perform any trucking missions under the resultant contract.” What positions are prime contractor personnel allowed to fill: maintenance, administrative, etc.?

A.18. Amendment 0003 added new language to PWS paragraph 1.5.1.1. which included the following positions: Maintenance (site and vehicle), security (site), operations, administrative, and management.

Q.19. The Evaluation Criteria states that if a contractor is pursuing the South or West regions, they must also address the Influential Leader Engagement Team as Key

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Personnel. Question: What resumes are required for the Engagement Team, and have the additional resumes been factored into page limits?

A.19. Amendment 0003 revised the addendum to FAR 52.212-1 to specifically identify the resumes which are required. Yes, resumes have been factored into page limits. The resumes for the Program Manager, Alternate Program Manager, and the Accountant are required for each region. Additionally, if proposing on the South or West regions, the offeror shall also submit the resume for the Team Leader for the Influential Leader Engagement Team with the offeror’s proposal.

Q.20. Per Amendment 2 Section 52.212-1, Paragraph (c)(2). The reference states, “The first page of the technical proposal shall identify which region or regions (North, South, West) the offeror is submitting a proposal for. This implies that a proposal could be for multiple regions. Further down it reads, “offerors may submit a proposal for more than one region.” Question: Can a proposal cover multiple regions, or must we submit a separate proposal for each region?

A.20. Offerors shall not submit a separate proposal for each region. If an offeror is submitting on multiple regions, their proposal must address each of the requirements for the region(s) in which they are proposing on. Per Amendment 0003, the solicitation is revised to reflect this change.

Q.21. Per Amendment 2 Section 52.212-1, Paragraph (c)(2). The reference states, “The first page of the technical proposal shall identify which region or regions (North, South, West) the offeror is submitting a proposal for. This implies that a proposal could be for multiple regions. Further down it reads, “offerors may submit a proposal for more than one region.” Question: If separate proposals are required, can offerors use the same key personnel for each proposal?

A.21. Yes, an offer can use the same key personnel for each proposal.

Q.22. Per PWS Section 1.6.1 Enrollment in USG mandated databases. Question: Upon award does the Government plan to allow a certain amount of time to allow for data entry, COR approval, etc before issuing a task order?

A.22. The USG anticipates contract award in Oct 13 with the period of performance beginning in Dec 13.

Q.23. Per PWS Section 1.6.4.1 Training Program. Question: Does the USG intend to offer a master class to ensure the contractor understands the USG procedures and policies?

A.23 No, however, per PWS 1.5.6., the Government does expect to hold a Post-Award conference and hold periodic performance reviews as needed in accordance with PWS 1.5.7.

Q.24. Per Amendment Attachment 3A/3B. Question: As this solicitation/contract is IDIQ, please advise on how we quantify the value of subcontractors in US dollar amount as required by attachments 3A and 3B?

A.24. The proposal should include an estimate based on the Government’s estimated volume provided via attachments 1A, 1B, and 1C.

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Q.25. Per Amendment 1 Paragraph: 952.225-0011 Government Furnished Contractor

Support and per Amendment 1 the need for a CAC was removed, per PWS 5.1.1. it states that the PM/APM “must have necessary access to USG locations, as required by the Government”. Question: Please advise on the required documentation necessary to gain access to USG locations if issue of the CAC is no longer supported?

A.25. A SPOT LOA is required. Additionally, each FOB may have its own specific documentation requirements.

Q.26. What is policy when a contractor refuses to fill out Past Performance questionnaire required as third party verification of work performed by a member of our team or the Prime Contractor?

A.26. It is the offeror’s responsibility to identify references and respondents willing to complete a Past Performance questionnaire on their behalf. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2, the Government will evaluate prospective contractors for responsibility in accordance with FAR 9.1. To be determined responsible, the contractor shall: (3) have a satisfactory performance record. Further, an offeror shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history.

Additionally, a prospective contractor that is or recently has been seriously deficient in contract performance shall be presumed to be nonresponsible, unless the contracting officer determines that the circumstances were properly beyond the contractor’s control or that the contractor has taken appropriate corrective action.

Q.27. We are unable to find/locate approved Afghan privately owned trucking companies.

We are requesting a list?

A.27. Per PWS paragraph 1.4.2. and 1.4.3., after contract award, the USG whall provide the list of current approved EOCs to the awardee. For the North region, there is no maintained “list”. Any subcontractors performing in the North shall meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.4.1. and 1.5.1.

Q.28. Per PWS, Section 5.3.4.1.3 Adjusted RDD, Paragraph 1. Question: The sections states: “Adjusted RDD is appropriated when the contractor arrives by RSD, but is delayed in executing mission due to factors beyond contractor’s control.” Nowhere in the PWS, has the RSD been defined. Does the USG mean RLD?

A.28. The PWS was revised per Amendment 0002 which removed the reference to RSD.

Q.29. Per PWS, Section 5.3.4.3.3, Paragraph 1. Question: This section states “The mission details of illegal re-mission, to include RSD, RLD, and RDD shall not be considered in the calculation of contractor standing on OML.” Nowhere in the PWS has the RSD been defined?

A.29. The PWS was revised per Amendment 0002 which removed Section 5.3.4.3.3.

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Q.30. Per PWS, Section 1.4 Scope, Paragraph 1. Question: Are contractors to propose their prices just for management of the program and not submit their prices for trucking and other transportation services to include drivers, trucks, tools, materials, etc.? If offers are required to include all of the above, then could you please provide us details of EOCs in the South and West so that we can reach out to them to execute teaming agreements to finalize the pricing sheet for bid?

A.30. Offerors are required to submit prices that encompass all requirements for the applicable region(s) for which the offeror is submitting a proposal. Per PWS paragraph 1.4.2. and 1.4.3., after contract award, the USG shall provide the list of current approved EOCs to the awardee. For the North region, there is no maintained “list”. Any subcontractors performing in the North shall meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.4.1. and 1.5.1. Additionally, per PWS paragraph 5.2.1. and 5.2.2., the Government reserves the right to revoke approval of any subcontractor, EOC, or employee at any time and may nominate new EOCs.

Q.31. Per PWS, Section 5, Transportation Services, Paragraph 1. Question: Will the USG provide LSA/Billeting for South & West Regions for Expat & TCN management teams?

A.31. No, per CENTCOM clause 952.225-0011, Government Furnished Contractor Support (JUL 2012), the USG will not be providing LSA/Billeting to any contractor personnel.

Q.32. Per PWS, Section 5.3.1.4 Claims Liability, Paragraph 1. Question: This section states “In instances where fuel losses exceed five percent, the contractor shall be liable for the entire fuel loss amount” Question: Does USG mean the contractors are liable to bear the losses of the missing fuel in excess of 5% or the entire quantity of fuel (i.e.

5K or 10K gallons) they will be charged in case of receipts exceeding more than 5% loss?

Ref: PWS, Section 5.3.1.4

A.32. Per PWS paragraph 5.3.1.4., in instances where fuel losses exceed five percent, the contractor shall be financially liable for the entire fuel loss amount. For example, if 10% is missing the contractor is responsible for 10% (entire fuel loss amount).

Q.33. Per PWS, Section 5.3.1.4 Claims Liability, Paragraph 1. Question: This section states

“In instances where fuel losses exceed five percent, the contractor shall be liable for the entire fuel loss amount” Question: In the South and West regions where contractors are required to use USG approved EOCs, then how contractors are responsible for the fuel loss in excess of 5% where all missions would be performed by EOCs who are verified and approved by the Government itself?

A.33. Per PWS paragraph 5.2., for the South and West regions, the contractor is required to provide an influential leader engagement team. The team shall continue open dialogue with the approved Elders to facilitate resolution of issues, promote contract compliance, and improve regional security and route expansion. Additionally, PWS paragraph 7.7.8.2. requires the contractors providing service in the South and West regions to develop a “Problem Identification and Issue Resolution” plan which addresses the

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007 contractor’s approach to identify and resolve daily operation concerns or issues with influential leaders which inhibit route security and regional stability or contract compliance.

Q.34. When is the due date on the solicitation?

A.34. The due date is 24 MAY 13 at 1:00 PM Central Daylight Time (CDT) U.S.

Q.35. Per Addendum 0002, Addendum to 52-212-1, Paragraph (12)(c)(1) and PWS, Section 4.2, Licenses. Question: If the offeror has AISA Logistics License and MoCI Transit & Freight Forwarding License, does this complete the business licenses requirement? This question arises because the main solicitation only requires AISA license. Do all subcontractor’s require to have both licenses as well?

A.35. In accordance with the Addendum to FAR 52.212-1(c)(1)d.i., offerors must submit an AISA License with their business proposals for both the prime contractor and each proposed subcontractor, if applicable. Amendment 0003 revises this requirement to clarify that this license is not required for EOCs.

However, while not required for submission with the proposal, PWS paragraph 4.2. requires the contractor to ensure all licenses for doing business in Afghanistan are current and valid throughout the entire period of performance of the contract. The USG may request proof to demonstrate that the contractor is in compliance with all local laws, registrations, and licenses at any time. Further PWS paragraphs 4.2.2. and 4.2.3. identify the transportation licenses that are required fo transportation companies. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure it and its identified subcontractors meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 4.2. and subparagraphs.

Q.36. Per PWS, Section 5.3.4.5 Cancelled Missions. The USG ordering officer may cancel any mission for any reason. The contractor shall decline or cancel a mission only within 24 hours of assignment/initial acceptance and under no circumstances will the contractor cause delays or cancellation of cargo movement. Government cancelled missions are categorized as follows:

This statement seems to contradict itself, please clarify?

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (5.3.4.5) Cancelled Mission

A.36. Amendment 0003 revised this language for clarity and to eliminate the inconsistency.

Q.37. Will the USG support Hazard Duty and Hardship pay for Ex-pats? If so, up to what percentage?

A.37. No. All costs associated with providing service in accordance with the solicitation shall be included in the offeror’s proposed rates included in attachments 1A, 1B, and 1C as applicable.

Compensation for personnel is at the discretion of the contractor.

Q.38. May we respectfully request an explanation as to why potential vendors must verify their proposed transponder with a commercial company that sells transponders on this contract (Tapestry Solutions); especially when all that is required of Tapestry Solutions is

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007 verification that the data schema emitted is compliant. We have recently been requested in an open mailshot from Tapestry to verify with them directly that the devices we intend to use are verified by them – surely this should be verified through the contracing authority, not another contractor with a vested interest?

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.7.) In-Transit Visibility

A.38. 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 contract. 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 GDMS solution is transponder agnostic, meaning that any transponder capable of meeting the data ping requirements should be capable of integrating with the GDMS. This is a requirement per the contract and must conform/be compatible with the Tapestry system in place.

Q.39. May we respectively seek clarification that it is not a requirement of the ATN Award to purchase transponders or any elements of ITV, including GDMS licenses or support, from Tapestry Solutions to fulfil the requirement of the Performance Work Statement? There is possibly an amount of ambiguity that is allowing Tapestry Solutions to gain an unfair competitive advantage, in addition to being able to effect the outcome on a contract it is not an awardee of, due to the lack of clarity within the PWS which affects bid pricing and technical compliance.

A.39. 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.40. Despite the fact that the proposed data schema to be integrated by Tapestry

Solutions is already compliant (identical to the systems they sell), clients of other trasponder vendors have been charged and quoted up to $40,000.00 for the integration of each device type. Upon looking at the GSA rates that Tapestry Solutions charge published on their website and having inquired directly how long it would take to set up our account, it would seem we are being quoted in excess of 10 times that of the government per hour to integrate to their system? We were informed that to integrate a transponder feed if we buy the same transponder from Tapestry will only cost us $5,000.00. To ensure no attempts to monopolise are successful, can we respectfully request that the contracting authority enforce transparent pricing for all bidders.

Ref: Attachment 2 Performance Work Statement, Section (4.7.) In-Transit Visibility

A.40. 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.

Q.41. During the NAT II Solicitation – Questions and Answers 8, Dated 09 April 2013, it was agreed that screenshots from Sicuro Group’s iSTARtrack would be accepted?

iSTARtrack screenshots have been accepted for National Afghan Trucking (NAT), Universal Services Contract (USC), Logistics Civil Augmentation Program and

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Afghan Transportation Network South (ATN-S). Can you kindly confirm that iSTARtrack screenshots will be accepted for the ATN Solicitation as they are currently on ATN-S?

A.41. Yes, iSTARtrack screenshots will be accepted.

Q.42. Again it is a concern to ITV vendors, along with multiple potential awardees that are seeking solutions away from Tapestry Solutions in order to offer the USG better performance on contact 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 ITV vendor clients $40,000+ to integrate a device that was already integrated. As a basis for comparison, Sicuro Group will complete this type of work within a few hours for roughly $300. May we kindly seek an assurance that such excessive charges will not be permitted, without justification as to why those seeking to exercise their right to choose to use other vendors are being charged such a large amount for this service?

A.42. 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.

Q.43. Per PWS 1.4.1/1.4.2/1.4.3, The USG requires subcontractors from the approved

USG list, that is not being released until contract award. Question: Does this mean the USG will except technical proposals minus teaming agreements, joint venture?

Ref: Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1

A.43. The offer is not required to submit teaming agreements. Per Addendum to FAR 52.212- 1(12)(c)(1)g., if the offeror is a joint venture they must submit the required information for a joint venture. Further, for the North region (PWS para 1.4.1.), there is not an “approved list” that will be released after contract award. Only the South and West regions utilized the separately approved EOCs.

Q.44. Both the RFP and the PWS are using multiple times the terms “Influential Leaders” and “Elders”. Question: Please substantiate what is meant by “Influential leaders and Elders”?

Is for example the police-chief of a district or Wakeel (chief of village/district) considered an “influential leader”? What about the elected member of Parliament from a province/district?

In terms of “Elder Owned Compainies”; How is this defined? Would a person over

60 years of age owning a couple of trucks fulfill this requirement?

Please provide more guidance of what is meant with both terms.

A.44. Per PWS paragraphs 1.3. and 5.2., influential leaders and elders are entities with influence along distribution routes that can be engaged to facilitate and promote the objectives of the ATN program.

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Q.45. Per PWS, Section 5.3.4.4. Mission Type, Paragraph 1. Question: Will there be a centralized office in each region from where all Mission Sheets will be issued? If so, could you kingly provide the Camp/FOB names of these locations?

A.45. For the South and West regions, missions sheets will be issued from Kandahar. The Government will provide a supplemental response identifying the location of the mission sheet issuing office in a follow-up Q&A.

Q.46. Reference Draft PWS, Section 1.4.1/1.4.2/1.4.3. The reference states, “Appendix 1A identifies the current USG approved subcontractors for this region” Question:

Notation has been removed from revised PWS. Appendix 1A/1B/1C does not appear to have ever been issued, please advise how we may obtain a list?

Ref: Performance Work Statement, Section 1.4.1/1.4.2/1.4.3

A.46. The PWS referenced is a “DRAFT” version that is no longer valid. Please reference the current PWS version which was released with Amendment 0003.