Prospective_Offeror_Questions.pdf

Offeror Questions – RFQ S-WHARC-17-Q-0005 – X-Ray Integrated Portal System

Prospective Offeror Questions

For

RFQ No. S-WHARC-17-Q-0005

X-Ray Integrated Portal System

Following is a list of prospective offeror questions, followed by the Government’s responses (in red).

NOTE: Questions #1 through #32 were included in the list that was posted on FedBizOpps on May 30, 2017. Questions #33 through #37 are new questions that have been included in this posting.

QUESTION #1: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.5:

Does the contractor have a say in confirming the validity of the customer complaint?

Yes (see 22.6.6).

QUESTION #2: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.6.3:

How do we ensure this does not get counted as a complaint?

The Contracting Officer (CO) will make the final determination as to whether or not a complaint is valid, and must notify the contractor if the CO makes a determination that a complaint is valid.

Where the COR determines that a complaint is not valid and does not refer the matter to the CO, the matter will not be counted as a complaint.

QUESTION #3: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.6.4:

Can the complaint be reviewed before making it formal?

Yes (see 22.6.6).

QUESTION #4: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.6.5:

Will emails sent to confirm a complaint be acknowledged?

The CO will ensure that the contractor has received any e-mails regarding complaints. The contractor will be asked to acknowledge receipt of any such e-mails, and the CO will follow up as necessary.

QUESTION #5: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.6.6:

How much time is granted to challenge the validity of the complaint?

No specific time is established. However, the CO will first ensure that the contractor has received notice of the complaint (including the pertinent details), and ample time will be afforded to the contractor to challenge the complaint if the contractor does not agree that it is valid.

QUESTION #6: With reference to SECTION 1, page 13, paragraph 22.6.8:

Would the contractor have the opportunity to review the complaint, and then validate if it’s truly is a repeat?

Each complaint will follow the procedures of 22.6 to determine if the complaint is valid.

Although the CO would make a final determination as to whether or not a complaint is a repeat complaint, the contractor will have input in the process.

QUESTION #7: Section 3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, ADDENDUM TO FAR

52.212-1, Subsection B SITE VISIT, page 27, 1st paragraph (re Site Visit) – The current RFQ ID

SWHARC17Q0005 “X-Ray Integrated Portal System” is a re-tender of the original GSA eBuy

RFQ ID RFQ1161831 of the same name. Bidders were required to attend a site visit in order to bid on that RFQ. Please confirm that vendor participation/attendance at the site visit is a requirement to bid on this tender.

All prospective offerors were provided the opportunity to attend a site visit, specifically to obtain important information to assist with preparing a quotation. However, attendance at the site visit is not considered a mandatory requirement to be able to participate in this procurement opportunity.

At the same time, it’s not clear to me how a vendor would be able to prepare an adequate quotation without having visited the site.

QUESTION #8: Section 3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, ADDENDUM TO FAR

52.212-1, Subsection C SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, Subsection C.3. VOLUME III –

TECHNICAL, page 29, 5th paragraph (re Experience and Past Performance) – Please confirm that ‘relevant’ experience and past performance per the requirements of the current RFQ applies specifically to supply of Non-Intrusive Inspection (NII) equipment for scanning full-sized road-going cargos in Mexico.

The RFQ states that “to be considered relevant, past performance information must be similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the requirements of this solicitation.” This is the standard that will be applied.

Also, keep in mind that for each contract listed, the offeror must provide details on the comparability to the services to be performed under this contract. It will be up to the Contracting

Officer (with input from the Program Office) to determine if the contracts listed clearly demonstrate recent and relevant experience, of the type, volume, complexity and scope of the services to be performed under this contract.

QUESTION #9: Section 2 CONTRACT CLAUSES, page 17, Clauses 48 and 49 – Please confirm that Buy American Act for supply of the system does not apply to this procurement.

That is correct. FAR Clause 52.225-1 (Buy American – Supplies) does not apply to this acquisition.

QUESTION #10: Section 1 THE SCHEDULE, Subsection 7 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, page 5 – Please confirm that any system proposed by a bidder must include any additional equipment or civil works (e.g., shield walls, containment buildings, etc.) required to meet the technical requirements contained in the RFQ, and that any such additional equipment or civil works shall be fully disclosed and priced in the bidder’s proposal.

Offerors must address all RFQ requirements. Whether or not the offers received include all requirements will be determined as part of the quotation evaluation process.

QUESTION #11: Please clarify the period of Performance: is it 150 days as per Section 1.5 on

pp. 3 of 58; or 65 days as per the deliverables’ table in Section 1.14 on pp. 7 & 8 of 58?

The Period of Performance has been revised to one hundred eighty (180) calendar days, not including the training that will scheduled after installation of the unit has been completed.

Following is the revised Deliverables Schedule:

Item Description Delivery Time Deliver to

Site Survey, Technical

Specifications & Drawings

30 calendar days after contract award

CO/COR

Civil Works 60 calendar days after site survey and drawings

CO/COR

Installation 90 calendar days after civil works are completed

CO/COR

Warranty Upon installation CO/COR

System User’s Manual Upon Installation CO/COR

Maintenance Manual Upon Installation CO/COR

Training 2-3 weeks after installation CO/COR

QUESTION #12: Considering that 150 days delivery OCONUS is not in line with industry standards for similar systems, would you consider increasing the number of calendar days for delivery?

Yes, see #11 above.

QUESTION #13: With reference to SECTION 1, Page 2, paragraph 4:

a) If a U.S established company sells the goods to the U.S. Department of State (the selling transaction takes place in the U.S.), would the Mexico VAT still be applicable?

No, VAT would only apply for goods purchased in Mexico.

b) If yes, can an affiliate of the U.S established company in Mexico remit VAT and re-claim

VAT?

All purchases made in Mexico are subject to Value Added Tax (VAT) and must be paid by the Contractor. The contractor shall follow the invoicing procedures established by the U.S.

Embassy in Mexico to allow the Embassy to reclaim the IVA/VAT taxes charged. VAT, or

“IVA” as it is known in Mexico, must be itemized on all invoices.

c) Can the affiliate of U.S established company in Mexico be the importer of record in Mexico, instead of the U.S established company?

Yes, if the affiliate is able to import and pay for the importation fees.

QUESTION #14: With reference to SECTION 1, page 3, paragraph 1:

Will there be a requirement for radiation detection equipment (Special Nuclear Material SNM)?

The portal will require a radiation detector. However, this is not part of the RFQ requirements and will be an item purchased separately by the U.S. Government.

QUESTION #15: With reference to SECTION 1, page 3, paragraph 4

What is the expectation under “protection work”?

The contractor shall perform the necessary civil work to house and protect the X-Ray portal from any damage; contractor should trace, build and level, place signs marks.

QUESTION #16: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 2:

Is there a requirement to provide an operator control Room /building?

No, there is no need; the site already has a control booth.

QUESTION #17: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 3:

a) Is there a requirement to scan non-cargo tractor-trailers like: cargo vans, box trucks, and buses? Non-cargo vehicles don’t have a gap between the cab and the cargo, therefore the system will need a feature to not scan the driver (cargo vans) or to inspect the whole vehicle at a lower x-ray dose. This is a tradeoff between penetration/image quality vs. radiation safety for the driver and passengers.

The system shall be a solution for cargo inspection only.

b) Please define “integrated”. Are there any specific capabilities that are assumed to be

“integrated” at installation?

Vendor shall provide an integrated project; equipment, the required civil work to house the equipment, installation, training and warranty. All services shall be delivered in Comitan, Chiapas.

QUESTION #18: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 5:

Will there be a penetration requirement for when occupants are scanned?

The driver of the vehicle to be scanned may receive no more than the equivalent to a 0.1 µSv dose per scan. At the time of inspection, the vehicle should not take companions when inspected;

also the RADIATION of minors is prohibited, as well as the RADIATION of people diagnosed with cancer, people with diseases where radiation is contraindicated, and pregnant women (or those with suspicion of being pregnant).

NOTE: See Question #34 for a clarification to the above question/response.

QUESTION #19: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 5:

Considering the installation site has a lowest recorded temperature of -2C, what is the reason it is required that the X-ray Portal System be equipped with an operating temperature capability from

-40C?

Please consider the following range: -5C to +40C

QUESTION #20: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 5:

This appears to be a dose to cargo per scan please clarify and indicate requirement for the following:

Maximum Dose to cargo per scan = 5.6 µSv (540 µrem) per scan at 8 km/h (5 mph).

Maximum Dose to occupants per scan = No more than 0.006 µSv (0.6 µrem) per scan at 8 km/h) this dose is due to the distance between the vehicle and the cargo.

Maximum Dose at exclusion zone given 150 18 m long trucks traveling at 5km/h = 20 µSv (2 mrem) per hour, scanning 150 trucks per hour at 8 km/h (5 mph).

Max allowable exclusion zone area = 50 m, including vehicle’s route and access control.

Occupancy factor outside of the exclusion zone (0-1) = A quadrant of 1.5 meters.

We recommend the ANSI standard for radiation safety ANSI N43.17-2009 and ANSI N42-46-

2008 section 4.3

NOTE: See Questions #34 through #37 for clarifications to the above question/responses.

QUESTION #21: With reference to SECTION 1, page 4, paragraph 5:

Please define what is expected by “fast integration”.

The system shall quickly integrate the scanned images and data; security personnel shall be able to review them at any time.

QUESTION #22: With reference to SECTION 1, page 5, paragraph 4:

a) Please confirm if Delivered at Place (DAP) Incoterms will be applicable to this transaction.

This will be a Delivered Duty Paid (DDP); the vendor will have the maximum obligations on the importation and will pay all costs and perform all the paperwork until the merchandise reaches its destination. The U.S. Government will not perform any type of processing; the customs costs to import will also be covered by the vendor.

b) Are all modes of transportation (Ocean / Air / Ground) permitted?

Yes, any of the above mentioned modes of transportation would be permitted.

c) Would Mexico SAT act as the Importer of record in Mexico?

No, vendor shall make the importation process and cover all related payments.

QUESTION #23: With reference to SECTION 1, page 6, paragraph 1

What is the expectation of “required work to protect…..the equipment”?

The Offeror shall perform the necessary civil work to house and protect the X-Ray portal from any damage. Offeror should trace, build and level and place signs marks.

QUESTION #24: With reference to Section 1, Page 4, 7. Technical Specifications, 4th bullet:

“Operating temperature from -40° C to +40° C.”

The operating temperature specification exceeds the environmental conditions found in Chiapas, Mexico which ranges from +10C to +30C. Can you please confirm the operating temperature specification of -40C to +40C?

Please consider the following range: -5C to +40C

QUESTION #25: With reference to Section 1, Page 4, 7. Technical Specifications, 7th bullet:

“Low radiation dose: below 5 uSv/h (0.5mR/h permitted by the Federal Standard).“

Can you please specify where the dose is measured and the Federal Standard referred to?

The equipment shall fall well below the radiation safety requirements of National Council of

Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission of Radiological Protection

(ICRP).

QUESTION #26: The following needs clarification:

RFP Page 29 of 58, Section C.3. (a) Technical Factor 1 – Work Plan/Methodology: Do the manholes located in the grass on the left entrance side already have a conduit available to pull lines into the control room (left most booth)?

Unknown. This will need to be investigated by the successful contractor during the post-award site visit.

QUESTION #27: In addition, according to our representative who attended the site review, the

Government was going to distribute schematic infrastructure drawings for the inspection area that detailed conduits, drain pipes, concrete thickness, etc. to the interested parties. Can you please forward them as soon as possible?

Instructions for requesting copies of the drawings were provided in Solicitation Amendment

A002, posted on FedBizOpps on April 27, 2017.

QUESTION #28: Section 1 THE SCHEDULE, Subsection 9 DELIVERY, page 5, 5th paragraph

– Please confirm that importation of the NII system will follow prior U.S. Government donations to the Government of Mexico, which involved INL/SAT coordination and provision of documentation to exempt the system from IVA/VAT payment, etc. (Note/reference RFQ verbiage “Even though the installed unit will be donated to the GoM…”.)

The importation will be separate from the donation process; the Government of Mexico (GoM) will not provide any documentation, GoM will only get the required operation permit, the U.S.

Government will provide a copy to the vendor.

QUESTION #29: Section 1 THE SCHEDULE, Subsection 9 DELIVERY, page 5, 4th paragraph

– Please confirm that the supply of the proposed system must already be licensed by the appropriate “Mexican licensing/governing authorities” (i.e., La Comisión Nacional de Seguridad

Nuclear y Salvaguardias (the National Commission of Nuclear Safety and Safeguards in Mexico, or CNSNS)) in order to ensure delivery within the 150-day period of performance, and that evidence of the same shall be submitted with the proposal.

If the proposed system is not licensed in Mexico, the GoM will be responsible to register it with the CNSNS. Delivery period has been revised to 180 days.

QUESTION #30: With reference to SECTION 3, page 27, paragraph 6:

Would you kindly clarify the meaning of “proposed team members”? We would like to understand if this is “employee” or “subcontractor” related.

This would be subcontractor related, not individuals.

Considering the potential use of local subcontractors (within Mexico), and the fact that they will not have an available DUNS or Cage number, would you consider removing this requirement from the Volume I – Business?

Yes. For subcontractors, DUNS numbers and CAGE code numbers need only be provided if available.

QUESTION #31: With reference to SECTION 3, page 28, paragraph 6:

What evidence would be acceptable to demonstrate that our company is an established business, with a permanent address and telephone? What document do you expect we provide to meet this requirement?

A company website, brochure, or something of that nature will suffice. Prior to award, the

Contracting Officer will be verifying that the selected offeror is an established business and meets all other responsibility determination requirements.

QUESTION #32: With reference to SECTION 3, page 29, paragraph 5:

a) Considering the confidentiality agreements with our customers, would it be possible to provide high-level information without contract numbers or dollar value?

The type of information required by the RFQ is necessary to be able to determine if the contracts listed are comparable in size, scope and complexity to the requirements of this project. Keep in mind that information of this nature will be reviewed only by the contracting office and program office personnel directly involved with the evaluation of offers.

b) Would bigger and more complex projects are accepted as part of the Experience and Past

Performance, considering that most of our projects are multi-system, multi-site deployments?

The contracts listed should demonstrate that the offeror has performed work similar in size, scope and complexity to the work to be performed under this contract. It’s up to each offeror to determine what contracts would adequately demonstrate recent/relevant experience and past performance.

c) Would projects currently being under execution be acceptable, considering large projects tend to take 3-4 years for full implementation?

Per the RFQ instructions, only references for recent and relevant contracts will be evaluated, and to be considered recent the effort must have been completed within the past two (2) years (based on the solicitation issuance date).

Past performance information that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

QUESTION #33: With reference to Electrical Drawing “Conjunto-TI-gral Trinitaria detalle-model.”

a) The drawings specify 32.25kW load power. Is this power that is available to the scanner?

The power available for the scanner at the site is approximately 100 KW. Vendors should take into account that the electrical system works at 480 volts.

b) Can the green area that is left of the access road be used as a fenced exclusion zone?

It is preferred that this area not be considered as a fenced exclusion zone. However, if it turns out there are no other options, this area could be considered.

QUESTION #34: Can the Government clarify what the dose limits to the driver/occupant stated in Questions 18 & 20 will be? In the response on Question #18 it states the driver will be limited to “0.1µSv dose per scan”. In the response on Question #20 it states a limit of “no more than

0.006µSv per scan” for occupants. Since no occupants other than the driver are allowed what is the 0.006µSv limit referring to?

The dose for the driver should be: "less than 0. 1µSv per scan"

QUESTION #35: In the response to Question #20 on Occupancy Factor the response states “a quadrant of 1.5m”. Can you clarify what you are stating with this?

To utilize the ANSI/HPS Adjusted Dose calculation needed to verify the Exclusion Area limits we will need an Occupancy Factor based on the expected location of the unit. Per ANSI/HPS

Annex B, Table B1 — Full Occupancy is an Occupancy Factor of 1(beam always toward occupied spaces in nearby buildings), Partial Occupancy is 1/2 to 1/5 th

(beam toward uncontrolled parking lots), and Occasional Occupancy is an Occupancy factor of 1/8 th to 1/40 th

(outside areas used only for pedestrian or vehicular traffic). Our typical setup falls into the

Partial Occupancy category. Will this meet the customer needs?

Given the indicated above, if this factor corresponds to the partial occupational factor, it will meet the needs. The 1.5 meters refers to the distance that must be kept outside the exclusion area.

QUESTION #36: In the response to Question #20 on Exclusion Zone area, the response is

150m. Is it correct to assume that is 150m x 150m?

The exclusion area for low penetration x ray equipment would be approximately from 1.5m to

5m.

The exclusion area for high penetration x ray equipment would be approximately from 7m to

50m.

QUESTION #37: In the response to Question #20 on Maximum Dose at Exclusion Zone given

150 18m trucks traveling at 5km/hour states a limit of 2mr/hr. The 2mrem/hour limit is a max limit per the Standards and is not impacted by the actual operational specification (i.e., without regard to number of scans). We are assuming that we should base the Exclusion Zone limits on

ANSI/HPS N42.46-2008 and ANSI/HPS N43.14-2011. Is this correct? This of course will lead back to the Occupancy Factor question.

Do to the estimated inspection times and the actual time (less than 150 scans per hour), there will not be a risk for the staff since the received dose will be lower. This way, it will comply with

ANSI/HPS N42.46-2008 and HPS/ANSI N43.14-2011 standards.