Questions_and_Answers_SGE50016R0042_A002.pdf

Lebanon INL Radio Project SGE50016R0042 Amendment A002, Attachment 1

Page 1 of 10 pages

Question 1:

Reference Solicitation Section 1.8 Introduction, - “The contractor shall be responsible for integrating the new equipment into the current system and shall ensure that the existing equipment is fully operational and tested as part of the field/site acceptance testing and com-missioning process.”

Question: Can you please clarify what is meant by this statement? Are “Programming, Installation, Field/Site acceptance testing and Commissioning” a requirement of this solicitation? If so, how should these items be priced? There is no CLIN that covers field acceptance testing and commissioning, nor are these services outlined/mentioned in the SOW document. The only reference to testing is Optional Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) under CLIN 017.

Answer 1:

The training portion of the requirement will allow the LISF personnel trained under the contract to program, install, complete field/site acceptance testing and commission the radio equipment being provided. Vendors should submit any integration requirements they foresee as part of their solution response to the RFP.

Question 2:

Reference SOW Document Page 11 of 16, Payment and Warranty Section – “The vendor may invoice the U.S. government the remainder of the balance after successful testing and acceptance of terminals on each network link and training. Acceptance guidelines will be determined by INL and the Vendor prior to the contract award.

Question: Can you please clarify what is meant by “successful testing and acceptance of terminals on each network link?” This appears to be related to field testing, but there is no CLIN requesting field testing in the solicitation. Should this be priced item in our proposal, Answer 2:

The training provided to the LISF personnel will enable them to perform operational and field testing of all equipment provided. Each vendor should indicate in their training proposal, the selection of courses needed for operators and maintenance personnel to successfully implement and operate the radios on the LMR network. Other than in an on-site training scenario in Beirut, the vendor should not be involved in field testing. If there is additional funding needed for this on-site training requirement it should be included in the proposal.

Question 3:

Reference SOW Page 3 of 16, TETRA Subscriber Terminal Requirements, paragraph 2 - “The Tetra Radio equipment supplied under this contract must be able to interface with the existing Sepura repeaters using eXTRAS, as well as the Interview tracking and mapping software installed as a part of the Network core infrastructure. The radio equipment supplied hereunder must include the necessary hardware functions and software capabilities required to connect to existing repeaters and provide the mapping and tracking solutions of the current system. It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure full compatibility between the provided equipment and the existing system.”

Question: Please confirm the requirement to interface with the “Interview Tracking and Mapping Software” applies only to Vehicular Mobile and Tank Mobile radios, and it does not apply to either

Page 2 of 10 pages hand-portable radios or fixed base station radios. GPS is only listed as an “option” under the Vehicular Mobile and Tank Mobile. There is no reference in the SOW to GPS as a requirement for the Hand Portables & Fixed Radios.

Answer 3:

All radio equipment being provided needs to have the capability to interface with Interview Tracking and Mapping system. GPS capability is a requirement for all devices.

Question 4:

Reference Solicitation Section 1.4 Value Added Tax (VAT), - “If applicable, the contractor shall be responsible for paying to the appropriate authority, the applicable rate of Value Added Tax. Offerors shall identify Value Added Tax (VAT) as a separate line items in Section B. The VAT shall also be reflected as a separate cost item on all invoices submitted under the resulting contract. The Contractor will be reimbursed for VAT only to the extent contractor provides documentary proof that VAT has been paid to the host government. Any refund of VAT to the contractor shall be paid over to the Government to the extent the Government reimbursed the contractor for the VAT payment.”

Question: Since VAT is a percentage of the value of the products being delivered and would be the same percentage for each Vendor, will the amount shown for VAT be included in the proposal total when calculating the total value of each Vendors proposal? Vendor requests removing VAT not be included when calculating the total value of each proposal.

Answer 4:

RPSO evaluates the total price of the services / products’ including VAT and any option exercised, as this is the amount of funding we include on the contract award documents, plus DBA if applicable.

Question 5:

Reference SOW, Page 11, Factory Acceptance Test - “A Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) (as an option under this contract) shall be held in the provider factory premises for 5 working days for up to 7 people, the FAT should test all the features stated in the offer..”

Question: Please confirm that it is acceptable for the Vendor to test the terminal features using ETSI Certified Dimetra infrastructure? Vendor does not have access to the 3T communication system equipment. All features can be verified/tested using a Dimetra infrastructure.

Answer 5:

Using ETSI Certified Dimetra infrastructure is acceptable testing format.

Question 6:

Reference SOW Page 3, TETRA Subscriber Terminal Requirements – “The bidders must include a TETRA interoperability certificate (IOP) released from the certification institute in their offer.”

Question/Comment: According to the Tetra Interoperability website tandcca.com, there has not been a 3T Communication system testing since 2012. Therefore, there are no vendors that will have a valid IOP Certificate for 3T Communication systems. Vendor requests that this requirement be http://tandcca.com/

Page 3 of 10 pages removed, or allow vendors to provide an IOP Certificate for the terminal offered with any infrastructure.

Answer 6:

This requirement has been deleted from the SOW/RFP, see revised page 3 of 36 from the SOW.

Question 7:

General Solicitation Question: To provide enough time to review the Q & A and prepare a formal proposal, Vendor humbly requests a two week extension of the due date to August 25th.

Answer 7:

RPSO has issued amendment A001 extending the due date for proposals through September

02, 15:00 CEST.

Question 8:

Is there a cutoff date for questions for this RFP? Also can you confirm electronic submission is acceptable?

Answer 8:

This is to be a contract for delivery and installation of equipment, we usually do not have a cutoff date for questions with these solicitations, and we have accepted the questions submitted only due to the complexity of the work and equipment involved. Please review provision: 5.2 Submittal of electronic Proposals on pages 56 and 57 of 71.

Question 9:

Who is responsible for installing the mobile radios in the vehicles? Is complete installation and testing of all radios into vehicles a requirement before testing and payment?

Answer 9:

During the on-site vendor training, five of each type radios will be installed, including the mobile radios. Installation will then be completed by the LISF personnel trained under this contract. Payment for the radios will be upon delivery and certification that the training provided to the LISF personnel is sufficient for them to program, install, test and operate the units. Any radios found defective during the installation period MUST be covered under warranty.

Question 10:

TETRA Subscriber Terminal Requirements AVL compliance - the AVL system requires subscriber licenses in order for the terminals to be integrated onto the AVL tracking system. Will USG or the host nation provide those licenses for handheld and mobile radios, or are they to be provided with this offer. In addition, for the mobile radios, in order to fully comply with all AVL features of the installed AVL system, in-vehicle interfaces are needed for the vehicle radios. Will those be provided by USG or host nation or are they to be provided here. If the licenses are not provided, then how will compliance be tested.

Page 4 of 10 pages

Answer 10:

AVL Licensing requirements for any radios submitted under this solicitation must be defined in the response to the proposal and priced accordingly. Interoperability with the AVL system currently installed should be included in the submission, including any connectivity equipment needed to integrate with the existing system or any alternative solutions that would be beneficial to the USG and the LISF clients. Cost for Licenses for use must be included in the submission for this proposal so that the best ROI to the USG is provided.

Question 11:

Terminal Information by Type Vehicular Mobile Radios, and Tank Radios: "Optional GPS functionality, Gateway and repeater functionality support". What is meant by “optional”. These features in Table 1 look like full requirements. Please clarify if these are to be bid as options or as full requirements?

Answer 11:

Table 1 includes the full requirements, but the utilization of this functionality will remain optional for use by the LISF. Provide pricing to support these elements for the vehicle and tank radios.

Question 12:

Table 1.

GPS for Handhelds. All Radios are required to have GPS outfitted if they are to be integrated with the AVL system as required in “TETRA Subscriber Terminal Requirements” paragraphs. Is it the intent to integrate handheld radios into the AVL system? Generally we find that most public safety users prefer radios fitted with GPS for force tracking.

Answer 12:

This requirement was omitted in error in the original RFP and should be included for all radio equipment so that they can be tracked and monitored by the LISF client as they deem necessary. All equipment should have this GPS feature.

Question 13:

Sunlight readable color display for limited keypad. Generally the limited keypad radios are used by users that are focused primarily on voice services and simple status messages. Color displays are generally not needed for these users as they will most likely not be using them for images or for browsing the internet. A monochrome display is more battery efficient and readable in all light conditions. Can this requirement be loosened to monochrome or color to allow bidders to provide the lightest and most efficient radio for the primarily voice services users?

Answer 13:

This requirement was determined by the LISF client in anticipation of future requirements and should be addressed and the proposal should be submitted with color displays.

Question 14:

2100 mAh battery. This is a vendor specific requirement that only addresses one or two vendors' implementation of battery life. Battery usage capacity is almost always specified in terms operating time at a certain duty cycle (for instance, 5/5/90 refers 5% talk, 5% receive, 90%

Page 5 of 10 pages standby). Different vendors have maximized operating time using different strategies. Operating time is a function of battery capacity and also power usage of the radios. More efficient radios (lower voltage, lower amperage) need much smaller batteries to reach higher operating times. For instance, one vendor’s radio may be 3.65V and higher current draw with a 2100 mAh battery and will only provide 7.665 Watt hours of use. Another vendor with more efficient radios may have 7.4V and lower current and be able to provide 13.9 watt hours with an 1880 mAh battery. This radio would be lighter, cheaper, and last longer than a less efficient radio with a 2100 mAh battery. Suggest the Government specify a minimum battery operating time/life at an industry standard duty cycle (suggest 5/5/90) in order to maximize its choices and also to insure that modern radio design innovations are allowed to be offered.

Answer 14:

This figure is a common industry standard for HH radios in use today. We require a 2100 mAh battery or better under this solicitation.

Question 15:

2W Audio output. This is a vendor specific requirement that reflects one implementation of how to maximize audio output. Wattage is actually a measurement of the power *input* to the speaker, not the power *output* or not the volume/clarity level of the speaker. Modern speaker technology allows for a greater sound pressure level (SPL) and voice clarity with lower wattage, than older speaker technology with higher wattage input. The advantage of a lower wattage input but higher SPL output is that less power is needed to drive the speaker, driving down battery size, weight, and cost. Suggest that this requirement be converted to the desired SPL output of the speaker (not the wattage of the speaker input) and/or remove the wattage requirement altogether and ask vendors to specify their implementation of clear, audible sound output. Keeping with 2W requirement for speaker input does not allow for innovations by vendors who are trying to maximize efficiency of their radios. Most vendors have wattages between 1 and 2W but implement different speaker technology. A 2W minimum limits competition to only a few (maybe only 1) vendors that have remained with the low efficiency but high wattage input speakers.

Answer 15:

Quality of speech recognition is the most important criteria for this requirement. Vendors should define in their response to the RFP the audio outputs of their radios, Vendors should adhere to the 2W Audio output requirement as being the minimum requirement under this solicitation.

Question 16:

Project Services and Training.

The main RFP document refers to integration services in its section 1.8. This is not mentioned in the SOW. Which is accurate? Is the contractor responsible for programming and installation on the infrastructure system, including programming necessary to integrate with the AVL system, or is that the responsibility of the Host Nation or system support contractor? If to be done by the radio terminals provider (this proposed contract), how will the ability of the provider to complete these tasks be evaluated in the technical evaluation?

Page 6 of 10 pages

Answer 16:

The training to be provided in this solicitation will provide the trained LISF personnel to perform the installations so the work outlined will be performed by LISF and not the contractor.

Question 17:

Specifically, do all of the radios need to be programmed and installed onto the system in order for the contractor to receive final payment? Who is responsible exactly for the programming and installation and integration with AVL?

Answer 17:

Vendor training to be provided under this contract will enable the LISF personnel to program and install the radio equipment provided under the contract. This training should also include training on installation and integration into the AVL system currently installed on the system.

Payment for the radios will be made once each type of radio has proven operational on the network and full delivery of the quantities requested, have been received.

Question 18:

What is meant by “each network link”? if the network is non-functional at some base stations this will hold up acceptance.

Answer 18:

Field testing can only be done on operational links. For locations on which the network is not yet operational no testing will be required. This requirement is only valid for fully operational links at the time of delivery of equipment.

Question 19:

Do all radios need to be tested on the network or just a small sample of each type? Will the offeror have complete control over this process including administrator access to the TETRA infrastructure equipment in order to not have acceptance of the product dependent upon other parties?

Answer 19:

Since the radios are to be programmed and installed by the LISF personnel being trained under this contract, not all radios can be tested in a timely manner so, the answer is yes – only a sampling of each type of radios will be needed at the time of delivery to show operability of the type radio on the network. This will be a random sample selected by the USG and LISF clients.

All radios provided are subject to Quality Assurance testing and MUST be covered by warranty during the installation and operational period requested.

Question 20:

Who is responsible for programming and installation of the radios for testing on the network?

Answer 20:

After the initial radios used for the on-site training which includes programming, installation, and network integration requirements, the LISF personnel trained under this contract will be responsible for programming, installation and testing on the network.

Page 7 of 10 pages

Question 21:

“Acceptance guidelines will be determined by INL and vendor prior to award” - Can the government specify acceptance guidelines as part of this RFP rather than after proposal submittal and before award? There may be costs involved that are not known to the vendor prior to proposal submittal if the acceptance criteria are not known.

Answer 21:

The acceptance guidelines referenced in the SOW have been removed; payment will be made in accordance with clause 1.17 Invoice requirements of the solicitation.

Question 24:

Will responses to the questions on this solicitation be forthcoming soon? If proposals are to be required to be couriered to Frankfurt and not electronically delivered, then we are within 1 week of having to ship our proposals. Can the due date be extended at this point to allow sufficient time to address responses to USG questions - or perhaps a message that an extension will be forthcoming once the questions are answered fully?

Answer 24:

The due date for the proposals was extended in order for all interested parties to be able to submit a proposal. Please review provision: 5.2 Submittal of electronic Proposals on pages 56 and 57 of 71.

Question 25:

Section 1.1. Please clarify what is intended for ongoing maintenance of the radios and how that is distinguished from Warranty.

Answer 25:

Warranty will be the repair/replacement of the equipment provided for a specific period. On-going maintenance support would be an optional support agreement that would include network troubleshooting assistance, depot level maintenance and on-site assistance in case of network failures relating to equipment provided. Vendors should provide maintenance support available as after installation and prices for this option as appropriate.

Question 26:

Section 1.4. Will VAT be included in the total price for award evaluation?

Answer 26:

Yes, see question and answer # 5.

Question 27:

Section 1.8. Who will do the radio programming for the new radios? Programming the radios requires a complete fleet map be provided by the user. If the contractor is to do the programming for the radios, will a fleet map be provided prior to delivery of the radios? The fleet map should provide for all templates and all police units and personnel that will be using the radios. If the contractor is not responsible for programming and integration services, then what set amount of time will be allotted between radio delivery and delivery of the programmed radios to the contractor for integration into the system?

Page 8 of 10 pages

Answer 27:

Fleet map is being developed by the LISF client. Training of the LISF personnel under this contract should include the elements needed for them to complete the necessary radio programming. This should include example templets for the design of a proper fleet map. The contractor providing the radio equipment will not be responsible for programming and integration but will be responsible for providing the LISF with this knowledge during the training process.

Question 28:

Integration into the existing system implies that contractor personnel will be allowed onto the existing infrastructure system to configure the radios onto the system. Is this the case? Will the contractor personnel have access to manufacturer support personnel and support contracts in case assistance is needed with the infrastructure or AVL central systems for integration?

Answer 28:

The existing contract for the network includes integration support for the radio subscriber units being procured under this contract solicitation and the selected vendor can expect access to provider for assistance needed with the LISF LMR infrastructure or the AVL central system for integration requirements.

Question 29:

Will ability (training, authorization, etc.) to integrate onto the existing system be included in the pass/fail evaluation criteria?

Answer 29:

Training is an integrated part of the solicitation (CLIN 014) and will be an evaluation factor.

Question 30:

Section 1.10 Address here is different than the delivery address in section 1.3

Answer 30:

That is correct; the address for duty free clearance is always stipulated in Section 1.10 Duty free clearance, the actual address is in Section 1.3.

Question 31:

Section 1.13 is a copy of the warranty to be included in the proposal, or with equipment delivery?

Answer 31:

The warranty will be required during performance of the contract; final payment will only be made upon receipt of all warranty documents.

Question 32:

Section 1.14 SOW says “Ship” within 60 days. This section says “Delivery” within 60 days. Which is correct? These are not the same milestones.

Page 9 of 10 pages

Answer 32:

Clause 1.4 specifies that delivery to the final destination shall be within 60 days (2 months) after award; the wording in the SOW is incorrect and has been revised accordingly.

Question 33:

We assume that “acts of Government in either its sovereign or contractual capacity” to include the host nation government for any actions that depend on the local host nation government for timely delivery.

Answer 33:

It is correct, this clause includes actions by the local host nation Government for which the contractor has no control over and may impact his delivery schedule.

Question 34:

Will DBA insurance be separately priced and included in the evaluation price?

Since on-the-ground work on this contract should be less than 90 days, can the Contracting officer pre-approve a waiver for DBA insurance as part of this RFP?

Answer 34:

DBA issuance will separately priced, and not be included in the evaluation of the contract price.

RPSO will not issue a waiver for the DBA insurance.

Question 35:

Will the Government consider electronic submission of offers in lieu of international courier to Germany?

Answer 35:

Please review provision: 5.2 Submittal of electronic Proposals on pages 56 and 57 of 71.

Question 36:

Section 4: Evaluation Factors.

These do not sound like LPTA evaluation factors. What are the pass fail criteria for Technical (and Past Performance) that when passed, allow the Government to compare pricing for each technical proposal that passes the “technically Acceptable” test. The current wording indicates that there is some flexibility on the part of the Government to allow for technical tradeoffs for requirements that may not be 100% met. How will the Government handle situations where an offerer has a more modern or alternative solution to a detailed requirement that meets the intent of the requirement but not the letter (for instance, on battery size, accommodating the tradeoff between battery size and radio efficiency allowing a more efficient radio to have longer battery life (and thus smaller capacity) than a less efficient radio with larger and heavier battery)?

Answer 36:

Page 10 of 10 pages

This commercial solicitation will be based upon LPTA criteria, technical acceptance will be evaluated as to whether the minimum requirements stipulated in the SOW will be meet.

Question 37:

Past Performance is not mentioned elsewhere in the RFP document. What are the objective pass/fail requirements for past performance to be used in the “Technically Acceptable” evaluation?

Answer 37:

This is a commercial item solicitation and past performance will evaluated in the context whether the offerors can provide the necessary qualifications required within the solicitation and scope of work.

Question 38:

Can an offeror submit more than one proposal if more than one product can fit the requirements or the intent of the requirements of the solicitation?

Answer 38:

There is no prohibition against submitting two proposals from the same offeror. The solicitation does not specifically state that only one per offeror would be considered.