SGE50016R0042_A005.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE RATING

A7

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

A005

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

09/11/2016

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

FRANKCODE

AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL FRANKFURT

GIESSENER STRASSE 30

ATTN: RPSO

FRANKFURT, 60435

GERMANY

Wilhelm Fleming

NAME

TEL.

flemingwm@state.gov

EMAIL

6. ISSUED BY FRANKCODE

AMERICAN CONSULATE GENERAL FRANKFURT

GIESSENER STRASSE 30

ATTN: RPSO

FRANKFURT, 60435

GERMANY

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SGE50016R0042

CONTACT DUNS

CODE FACILITY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, country, state and ZIP Code) (X)

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07/12/2016

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X XThe above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended, Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning __1__copies of the amendment;(b)By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.__1__X

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

A. The purpose of this amendment is to submit Questions raised by interested parties and the answers thereto (4 pages) as attachment 1.

B. The due date for receipt of proposals is hereby extended from:

September 13, 2016, 15:00 CEST to:

September 15, 2016, 15:00 CEST.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

David A. Cubitt

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED

By (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

09/11/2016

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

SGE50016R0042

Original signature on file

Lebanon INL Radio Project SGE50016R0042 Amendment A005, Attachment 1

Page 1 of 4 pages

Question 1:

It is stated in the answers to previously posted questions that all radios need GPS (Answer 3). Does that include the 35 desktop radios that will be located at fixed locations and not tracked by GPS.

Answer 1:

As requested by the LISF customer, all devices should be equipped with GPS. Since there may be a future need to possibly repurpose these devices and reuse this in a mobile configuration such as a mobile command center the GPS capability would make the devices trackable and thus be beneficial to the dispatch centers.

Question 2:

It is stated in the answers to previously posted questions that VAT will be included in the evaluated price (Answer 4). However, the original RFP working for the VAT requirement starts with “If applicable…” VAT is generally relevant for local companies and not necessarily international companies supplying products on a nation to nation donation program. Can the USG confirm that a nation to nation agreement exists with the Lebanese Government that excludes these products and contract proceeds from VAT? If not, we suggest the uncertainly of if/when VAT is “applicable” be mitigated by excluding VAT from the evaluation price used to compare vendor bids.

Answer 2:

VAT shall be evaluated as part of the total fixed price. Should a contractor submit a proposal exclusive of VAT, it is anticipated that, in the knowledge that VAT is applicable in Lebanon, specific explanations will be sort concerning the absence of same. It is unlikely for such a proposal to be accepted without comprehensive information as to the legality of a tax-free operation.

Question 3:

“Alternative solutions” are referred to in the answer to question 10 of previously submitted questions. Please clarify. does this refer to alternative in-vehicle solutions? What are the requirements for those “alternative solutions”? At the very least, would “alternative solutions” be held to the same requirements as the currently installed existing AVL system? The current system requirements include the ability to display maps in the vehicles. Can we assume that all interface and display hardware (and licenses) needed to fulfill the original AVL system requirements must be proposed here for the in vehicle equipment?

Answer 3:

The interVIEW Fleet solution provided in the current LMR system. The fleet solution will show all LISF vehicles on the map and allows LISF to pass on alarms to a chosen vehicle via the interGATE communication unit when it is installed in the vehicles. GPS and other data from the Garmin unit or TETRA Radio are routed via interGATE and the TETRA terminal via SDS to the position server. The dispatcher can send text messages, work orders with GPS-destinations etc.

to the vehicle that will be displayed on the Garmin unit. When the driver accepts the task, the

Page 2 of 4 pages acknowledgement will be sent to the CR, navigation will start automatically and the estimated time of arrival (ETA) will be transmitted to interVIEW. Since the core radio network of the LISF system installed is based on the TETRA compliant Sepura Core infrastructure eXTRAS (eXtensible Trunked Radio System), the terminal devices proposed by prospective vendors must demonstrate what they would do to connect to this backbone operating system, including the AVL capabilities installed. Interoperability testing with the following terminal manufacturers has already been performed through the ETSIs standard certification process and certified by the LISF LMR installer Scientia Global:

• Motorola

• Cassidian (former EADS and Nokia)

• Sepura

• SELEX

• Cleartone

• Teltronic

• Funkwerk

• Piciorgros

If the vendors will use an alternative method for connectivity than what is currently being used it must be defined in the vendor response to the RFP, providing the advantages that their solution would have to the USG and LISF.

Question 4:

In answer 34 to previously submitted questions it is stated that DBA issuance will be separately priced and not included in the evaluation price. What CLIN should DBA be attributed to and how will its price be separated so as to not be included in the evaluated price on the Line Item pricing sheet?

Answer 4:

RPSO does not expect that DBA insurance will apply for this contract as it is supplies. We do not expect the Defense Base Act (DBA) (42 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) to be applicable as it provides workers compensation type insurance coverage for contractor employees performing under government contracts outside the United States. If any company determines it necessary, then they should include the DBA insurance on page 6 between line item 020, and the proposal currency.

Question 5:

Multigroup calls initiated by radio user. This is a proprietary feature of one vendor’s radios and must be used on that vendor’s infrastructure. It is not specified in the ETSI TETRA standard so has not been widely accepted by the marketplace or TETRA community. It also is not supported by the eXtras infrastructure equipment. It is a feature that limits competition and will not be usable on the existing TETRA infrastructure in Lebanon. Suggest removal of this vendor-specific requirement.

Page 3 of 4 pages

Answer 5:

While we disagree with the submitter of the question as this being a vendor specific term, for the sake of clarity the following language is included herein: The radios must be capable of supporting a call from a specific radio user to multiple user groups within the network for operational requirements when necessary. As currently installed in the system the term, group call refers to a call between one speaker and a group of participants. This call is always a half-duplex call. The TETRA group call is supported between TETRA terminals, dispatchers and group participants. The vendor should provide an explanation of how this operational requirement could be met using their proposed radio equipment.

Question 6:

To ensure full compatibility with the existing equipment, could you please advise in reference to the ‘interview tracking and mapping software’, what GPS protocol is used. Naturally, this is a critical aspect of our proposal. Therefore, for the proposal to be at its most accurate, this information is imperative.

Answer 6:

Per the installation criteria outlined in the delivery documents for the LMR system are described as:

GPS Location and Vehicle/Personnel tracking system – GPS data and all other necessary AVL data traffic between the mobiles and the central AVL system are based on SDS exchange.

Question 7:

After the U.S. government has inventoried all radio equipment upon delivery in Lebanon, the Contractor will be paid 50 percent of the cost of procurement of radio equipment. 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.

We believe that the above formulation is adding a lot of confusion, since there is no limit on when the actual testing will take place nor what procedure will be followed to test the equipment.

Would it be possible to revise the payment term requirements to define more clear the timeline and conditions?

We are proposing the following payment terms due to the change in the Solicitation Q & A which removed the requirement for the vendor to perform field testing stating that LISF will perform testing of the terminals on each network site:

“If the optional Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) is not procured; after the U.S. government has inventoried all radio equipment upon delivery (inventory not to exceed 10 days after delivery), in Lebanon the Contractor will be paid 100 percent of the cost of procurement of radio equipment.

Training will be invoiced upon completion.

If the optional Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) is procured; after the U.S. government has inventoried all radio equipment upon delivery (inventory not to exceed 10 days after delivery), in Lebanon the Contractor will be paid 50 percent of the price of procurement of radio equipment.

Page 4 of 4 pages

The vendor may invoice the U.S. government the remainder of the balance after successful testing and acceptance of terminals on each network link (not to exceed a total of 45 days after delivery). Training will be invoiced upon completion.”

Answer 7:

All payment terms shall remain unchanged with the following exception:

The only change in the cost of the project would be if the Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT option is exercised by the USG. The vendors should still provide a FAT plan with prices and the USG will determine if this option will provide a return on investment and a possible quality assurance/risk management capability that would benefit the USG/LISF. The payment terms outlined meet both of these possibilities and are acceptable solutions.