ATN_Responses_to_Q_ A__2_.pdf

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS # 2

26 Apr 13 Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

Afghanistan Transportation Network (ATN)

U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Requirement

Q.1. Is an offeror permitted to propose on multiple or all regions (North, South, and West) in their prosposal?

Ref: Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, where it tailors paragraph (e) of FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Multiple Offerors”

A.1. The addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1 was revised per amendment 0002 which clairfies that an offeror is permitted to submit proposals on multiple or all regions; however, an offeror per 52.212-2(b), “The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for each region. The Government shall not award multiple regions to the same offeror.”

Q.2. Is the project considered a new requirement? If not considered a new requirement, who is the incumbent and what is the contract number?

Ref: C-JTSCC Acquisition Instruction, 5.3 Synopses of Contract Awards

5.303 Announcement of Contract Awards, (a)(1) Contracting Officers will withhold the name of successful host nation offerors when notifying unsuccessful offerors of a contract award IAW FAR 15.503(b) or when debriefing unsuccessful offerors IAW FAR

15.506(d).

A.2. This acquisition is a follow-on to an existing requirement. The Government will not release the incumbent information.

Q.3. Please clarify whether or not an offeror is permitted to offer on more than one suites/regions.

Ref: Ref: Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, where it tailors paragraph (e) of FAR 52.212-1 entitled “Multiple Offerors”

A.3 See A.1 response above.

Q.4. Document Description: Question: Should subparagraph (e) be Titled as Section E vice

Section F? Then, would the rest of the succeeding paragraphs be changes as well (i.e., paragraph (f) Section F, paragraph (g) Section G?

Ref: Amendment 0001, Section Proposal Content, Page 21, Paragraph (c)(1).

A.4 The addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1 was revised per amendment 0002 which revised the sections in question.

Q.5. Document Description: Amendment 0001, Section Proposal Content, Page 25, Paragraph (c)(2)(c)(ii). Question: Will there be more information included in paragraph (ii) or will there only be paragraphs (i) and (iii) as currently written?

Ref: Amendment 0001, paragraph (c)(2)(c)(ii).

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

A.5 Per Amendment 0001 paragraph (c)(2)(c)(ii) was deleted, subsequentially as a result, (c)(2)(c)(iii) became (c)(2)(c)(ii). No other information is to be provided in this section.

Q.6. What are the three suites mentioned, per PWS 5.3?

Ref: PWS 5.3.1./5.3.2./5.3.3.

A.6 Bulk Fuels (Class III) Transportation, Dry Cargo (Class I, II, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X)

Transportation, and Heavy Cargo (Class I, II, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) Transportation.

Q.7. Will the contractor be liable for losses by EOC’s or subcontractors that the

Government requires contractors to employ?

A.7 Yes, per PWS 5.3.1.4., 5.3.2.7., and 5.3.3.5., the prime contractor is liable for unaccounted for or damaged cargo.

Q.8. The ordering period in this paragraph is stated as 16 December 2013 through 15 June

2017. These dates are beyond the contract period of performance. Are these ordering dates correct?

Ref: FAR 52.216-18 Ordering

A.8 The contract is anticipated to include a base year, 2 one-year option periods, and a 6-month extension which would expire June 2017 if all options, including the extension, are exercised.

Q.9. The PWS makes reference to “RSD” in 5.3.4.1.3 and 5.3.4.3.3 but does not define or explain “RSD”. I’m certain this is an oversight and legacy text from the NAT II. It’s clear the USG attempted to align ATN and NAT II programs where possible.

However, we need to clarify “RSD”

Ref: PWS

A.9 The PWS has been revised in Amendment 0002 to remove reference to RSD.

Q.10. Just as “RDS” was legacy “OML” is also NAT II legacy verbiage. With one awardee per area, what Order of Merit List would there be?

Ref: PWS

A.10 The PWS has been revised in Amendment 0002 to remove reference to OML.

Solicitation No. HTC711-13-R-R007

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND ARE

PENDING A RESPONSE.

Q.11. 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?

Q.12. Will new mission sheets be issued for un-delivered fuel that needs to be returned to the upload point?

Q.13. Will refrigerated containers also be required?

Q.14. Who will determine when an adjusted RDD is warranted, and how will the information be conveyed to the contractor?

Q.15. 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?

Q.16. Will there be any missions with multiple delivery destinations?

Q.17. 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.

Q.18. PWS 7.5 “Access Level (red, yellow, green)”, what does “red, yellow, green” represent? Each location is different, with different requirements and procedures.

Q.19. 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.?

Ref: PWS, 1.5.1.1