Attachment_0006_-_Industry_Questions_and_Answers_v9_08Feb2018.pdf

W52P1J-17-R-0062 Amendment 0002

Question 1: Attachment 0003, Paragraph L.3 states that the List of Points of Contact who were sent a questionnaire will be excluded from the page limitation count. What questionnaires are being referred to here? (Reference: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.3)

Answer 1: No questionnaires were sent. Please ignore this statement. Paragraph L.3 will be revised accordingly.

Question 2: Are we correct in assuming the “cover sheets” mentioned in Attachment 0003 Paragraph L.3.5 are the same as the “front cover” mentioned in Attachment 0003 Paragraph L.3.4.1? (Reference: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.3)

Answer 2: Cover sheets and front covers are the same.

Question 3: With respect to the e-mailed proposals mentioned in Attachment 0003, Paragraph L.5, is there a file size limitation for attachments? (Reference: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.5)

Answer 3: The email file size limit for ACC-RI is 10MB. Please see revised L.5.1.2. for direction if proposal submission exceeds 10MB.

Question 4: The PWS, in Paragraphs 1.3 and 4.1, requires the contractor to keep leased vehicles in “like new” condition at all times. Attachment 0003, Section L.6.2, requires offerors to “demonstrate that they have the resources and/or the ability to keep NTVs in like new operating condition for all four countries.” PWS Para 1.2 defines “like new” as follows: “Like new Condition: Vehicle looks new, is in excellent mechanical condition and needs no reconditioning. The vehicle has a clean title history and will pass any tests required per host nation law (i.e. safety or emissions). The engine compartment, interior, and exterior are clean and free of any wear or visible defects.”

PWS Para 1.2 also uses the “like new” term in the definition of unscheduled maintenance: “Unscheduled Maintenance: Maintenance that is not scheduled but is required to correct deficiencies and to restore the vehicle or equipment to like new condition.” However, PWS Para 7.0 requires the contractor to replace vehicles if the mileage surpasses 100,000 kilometers or if the vehicle model year is 5 years older than the calendar year. Is the contractor required to keep leased vehicles in “like new” condition at all times, ensuring the vehicle not only always looks new but is also always free from any wear whatsoever? It appears that this requirement for 100% like new vehicles 100% of the time conflicts dramatically with the 100,000 km and 5 year usage limitations, especially since the leased vehicles will be used to support military missions in extreme climates in desert Gulf countries. (References: Performance Work

Statement, Paragraphs 1.3 and 4.1, and Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.2)

Answer 4: The contractor shall ensure all vehicles are in like new condition at time of delivery and at all times. Slight wear and tear is expected, but the contractor shall ensure all vehicles are in safe, operable condition and do not have damage beyond acceptable wear and tear. Please see the revised definition of “Like new Condition” within paragraph 2.0 DEFINITIONS of Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement. Vehicles shall be replaced when they are more than five years older than the model year (i.e. a 2018 vehicle may have been made in 2017, but will not need to be replaced until, but no later than, January 1, 2023) or have over 100,000 kilometers, regardless of their condition or delivery date.

Question 5: PWS Para 3.1 requires the USG to return vehicles with half a tank of fuel.

What fuel level is required when the contractor first makes delivery of vehicles? What fuel level is required when the contractor returns vehicles after maintenance?

(Reference: Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 3.1)

Answer 5: The contractor shall deliver vehicles with at least a half tank of fuel. The contractor shall return vehicles picked up for maintenance with at least as much fuel as was in the vehicle when picked up. The PWS will be revised accordingly.

Question 6: The force protection package specified in PWS Para 6.4 requires a safe mount. Would the USG please clarify what is a safe mount? (Reference: Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 6.4)

Answer 6: The contractor shall provide a mount which will allow the U.S. Government (USG) to install a safe with dimensions 4 ½’ H x 9”W x 14”L in the vehicle.

Question 7: With respect to the PWS Para 7.0 requirements to replace vehicles based on mileage and age, do vehicles require replacement at 100,000 km or the 5 year age point – whichever comes first? Or, must a vehicle reach both thresholds (100,000 km and 5 years of age) before the USG requires replacement? (Reference: Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 7.0)

Answer 7: The contractor shall replace a vehicle meeting either threshold, whichever comes first.

Question 8: With respect to the PWS Para 7.0 requirement to replace vehicles whenever they are 5 years older than the calendar year, if the age requirement is calculated based on each vehicle’s model year, does this mean, for example, that vehicles with a 2013 model year or later are acceptable for delivery any time in calendar year 2018? If not, would the USG please clarify the time calculation for this requirement? (Reference: Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 7.0)

Answer 8: Vehicles shall be replaced when they are more than five years older than the model year (i.e. a 2018 vehicle may have been made in 2017, but will not need to be replaced until, but no later than, January 1, 2023) or have over 100,000 kilometers, regardless of their condition or delivery date.

Question 9: Attachment 0004, Para M.10.1 discusses task order competitions. When a task order requirement arises, does the USG contemplate a single task order award (one awardee) for each performance country, or could contemporaneous requirements in a single country be split amongst multiple task order awardees? (Reference:

Attachment 0004, Basis for Award, Paragraph M.10.1)

Answer 9: Each BPA Order Competition will define the how the USG will award the requirement. However the USG intends to award the least amount of orders per requirement. The USG will not award requirements at the CLIN level as has been done on the Kuwait NTV contract previously. Each BPA Order Competition will only include one country and requirements will be split among different customers in every country and competed amongst all the BPA holders.

Question 10: Supplemental Documents. Should the Executive Summary be included as part of the Volume l Technical document or provided as a separate document?

(Reference: Attachment 0003 Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3. Standard Proposal Instructions)

Answer 10: The Executive Summary is no longer a requirement. Attachment 0003 – Instructions to Offerors has been updated.

Question 11: Supplemental Documents. Should the Signed Solicitation/Signed Amendments be included as part of the Volume l Technical document or provided as a separate document? (Reference: Attachment 0003 Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3.

Standard Proposal Instructions)

Answer 11: The solicitation and all amendments are separate from Volume I, Technical.

Question 12: As per the above, if the Executive Summary and Signed Solicitation/Signed Amendments are to be provided as separate documents, should they be combined under one filename entitled “Supplemental Information” or should they be 3 separate, individually titled files? (Reference: Attachment 0003 Instructions to Offerors, Section L.3. Standard Proposal Instructions)

Answer 12: The Executive Summary is no longer a requirement. Attachment 0003 – Instructions to Offerors has been updated. The USG does not have a preference of how the offeror chooses to submit the information. Either of the above methods is acceptable.

Question 13: What type and level of proposal information is required to earn an “Acceptable” rating with respect to “skill”? To ensure we have a clear understanding of what it takes to be technically acceptable in this area, would the USG please define “skill” in sufficient detail as to distinguish it from experience and management expertise.

(Reference: Attachment 0004, Basis for Award, Paragraph M.8.4)

Answer 13: As stated in Attachment 0004 – Basis for Award, Offerors must clearly and fully demonstrate that they have the ability and relevant experience to successfully perform the requirements as set forth in the PWS.

Question 14: Coaster & Rosa Buses have discontinued 25 passenger bus. The new specification is 22 passenger seating. Request to kindly make necessary amendments to the pricing sheet to reflect 22 passenger instead of 25 passenger bus.

Answer 14: PWS will be updated to reflect the change in bus availability.

Question 15. Can the Mileage restrictions of 100,000 KMS be increased for the BUS Category? The reason being the high cost of investment in a bus and the fact that a bus is built/designed to operate for many more KMS & years than a regular sedan, SUV category vehicle.

Answer 15: The bus mileage requirement cannot be changed, as reliability issues have been seen on buses in previous contracts.

Question 16: Toyota Hiace has discontinued the 15 passenger van. The new specification is 12 passenger seating. Further, Chevy Express is also discontinued.

Request to kindly make necessary amendment to the pricing sheet to show 12 passenger instead of 15 passenger van.

Answer 16: Other makes and models of 15 passenger vans are available, or may become available with changes in the marketplace. Vans seating 12 passengers may fit the description of CLIN X008XX – 10 passenger van.

Question 17: Certain territories have restrictions on the type of vehicles available in the local market such as Jordan where full size sedans are not available for lease. In such instances can we provide alternatives like a Mid Size SUV?

Answer 17: Offerors shall price all CLINs keeping market conditions and availability of that particular vehicle in mind. Market research indicates full-size sedans are available for rental in Jordan.

Question 18: We are currently an incumbent of a NTV contract, can we include the contract name and number in the redacted version of the technical proposal without disclosing our name. Would that be acceptable?

Answer 18: Yes.

Question 19: On Ramp Procedures under section A-7.1. - The solicitation is proposing through the On Ramp procedures to add additional contractors to the pool of leases in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. This On Ramp procedure may be implemented at any time by reopening the competition and utilizing the same basis of award established in the initial CENTCOM NTV Solicitation W52P1J-17-R-0062. Our concerns with this procedure are as follows-

At the initial stage of the Solicitation all vendors are expected to submit a Firm Fixed Price for 7.5 years (base + option years). During this period there are a number of unknown variables which have to be estimated if not guesstimated for e.g. the purchase price of the Vehicle, currency fluctuations, cost of labor, new proposed taxes imposed by the government, bank financing costs, government fees and charges, fuel costs, geopolitical situation in GCC countries etc. At the initial stage of the solicitation all vendors will have to consider the above mentioned unknown variables in determining their price which is fixed for 7.5 years. Now assuming the USG introduces an On Ramp procedure after a year or two to add additional contractors to the pool of leases in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE. In this round the new vendors proposing their prices would have the following advantages – lesser number of years to price thereby reducing uncertainty, clearer understanding of how the existing contract is performing thereby giving an edge in terms of better planning, elimination of many uncertainties for e.g.

Value Added Tax is to be introduced in all GCC countries shortly, the new vendors would have a better understanding of the tax rates and structures by then. All this gives an unfair advantage to a new vendor when compared to the vendors selected in the initial stage.

In order to avoid/eliminate this unfair advantage we propose the following: At the initial stage short list 8 vendors, however award the initial contract to only 4 vendors. The other 4 vendors would be on standby should the USG decide to introduce an On Ramp procedure. This would bring the following advantages - a) a level playing field to all vendors b) quicker activation of the On Ramp procedure as the vendors are already selected and on standby.

Answer 19: The on-ramp procedures ensure a level playing field as contractors can adjust prices downward at the call order level. To further ensure a level playing field for all offerors, the USG will only disclose the Total Evaluated Price of offerors during debriefings and will not disclose proposed unit prices.

Question 20: The criteria for Off ramping a vendor is vague and not very precise. For e.g. there may be a vendor who has operational capabilities in only one or two of the four countries and may choose to only participate in Task Orders originating for those countries thereby considerably enhancing the chances of success in one or two locations as his focus is only on those countries. In such a scenario while the vendor is on paper meeting the criteria set and will avoid off ramping but in reality has circumvented the off ramping criteria. This will also lead to an unfair advantage to a vendors who have invested resources in all four locations who will be losing out as their costs may be higher than a vendor operating in just a couple of countries. Just like this example there will be many other similar situations. It is hence advised to have a very precise criteria for off ramping a vendor as this would act as a deterrence to vendors and more importantly bring about a level playing field to vendors how have the infrastructure to perform in all locations concurrently.

Answer 20: A vendor who is proposing for call order awards in only select locations may be off-ramped, as there is a requirement for offerors to have the logistical capability to provide vehicles in all four countries, even if it requires subcontracting or partnering.

Offerors are reminded that the exercise of contract options is a unilateral right of the

USG.

Question 21: Is there any time frame within which the questions have to be submitted?

Answer 21: The USG has identified the deadline for submitting questions in amendment 0006.

Question 22: In the current NTV contract there is a Tow Truck CLIN. Has the requirement been dropped now?

Answer 22: The consolidated NTV requirement does not have a CLIN for a Tow Truck.

Question 23: In the current NTV Contract, traffic fines and damage claims have not been paid for years together. Would this be the case for this Contract too? This is big factor which would affect pricing.

Answer 23: Funds for damages will be added to each call order at the time of award.

The funds added may not be enough to cover all damages that may occur. Contractors shall invoice for damages on a monthly basis.

Question 24: In reference to points 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 in the Performance Work Statement document (Attachment 0001) pertaining to special requirements on vehicles – these modifications are practically not feasible for short term hires such as daily/monthly. In such a case, how are we to price here?

Answer 24: The USG recognizes that the prices for certain modified vehicles for a short team lease may be excessive. Offerors are to price accordingly, assuming adequate notice is given to have the vehicles prepared. Daily and monthly leasing CLINs X002AF, X004AE, X004AG, X004AH, X005AE, X005AG, and X005AH have been removed from Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix for all four countries.

Question 25: PWS Ref.4.3/4.3.1 – Delivery. While Pt 7.0 of the PWS specifies that the vehicle that surpasses 100,000 will be replaced, the overall PWS does not specify mileage and model restrictions of the vehicles at the time of delivery/ Vehicle Acceptance criteria.

Answer 25: Please refer to the revised PWS paragraph 4.1. Vehicles.

Question 26: PWS Ref.6.6 - Tow Package Feature Kindly provide the Specification of the Tow Pintle for e.g. Class Type III / IV against relevant CLIN

Answer 26: The hitch must be rated for the maximum the vehicle is rated for. For example, if a vehicle’s towing capacity is 10,000 lbs, it shall have at least a class IV hitch. If a vehicles towing capacity is 5,000 lbs, it shall have at least a Class III hitch.

Question 27 was inadvertently skipped

Question 28: Value Added Tax (VAT) is set to be introduced in all Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) effective Jan 1, 2018. We are currently unaware of the tax rates for all other countries. New taxation laws are also scheduled to be introduced across the GCC over the next few years and details of such taxation plans have not been made public yet. In such a scenario how are we supposed to estimate a price? As a suggestion, can we submit prices excluding VAT and bill the USG separately when the VAT/other taxes are announced?

Answer 28: All proposed prices shall be inclusive of all taxes.

Question 29: There is a trade and people to people embargo currently imposed on Qatar by some GCC Countries. This has restricted the movement of vehicles, nationals & residents from other GCC countries to and from Qatar. This would also affect obtaining gate passes in the Military Camps in Qatar. How does the USG intend to solve this logistical problem?

Answer 29: There are no badging issues for the military bases in Qatar as a result of the embargo.

Question 30: 5. Ref: Solicitation Page 3 of 85 - A-7/A-7.1/A-7.2 The USG intends to have on-ramp/off-ramp procedures, the purpose of which among others is to have adequate competition in each country. While the on ramp procedures for addition of Contractors (BPA) for new countries is understandable, there is a major flaw if new vendors (BPA Contractors) are added to the pool at a later date in the existing countries namely Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and UAE after the current BPA is awarded.

The reason is that, we the contractors are bidding in OCT 2017 based on the current market conditions to include prices of vehicles, cost of manpower, operation cost and other overheads such as real estate rates, taxes etc. Whereas when you add new vendors (BPA Contractors) at a later date say end of 2018 or 2019 or any time during the life of this contract the new vendor will have an opportunity to understand the realistic market conditions at that point of time, especially more recent vehicle prices, labor costs, maintenance costs, real estate prices, and applicable changes in operating costs to include direct and indirect taxes such as VAT which will come into effect at a later date. As such including new vendors to the BPA pool for the existing countries at a later date is not fair and justified for the rest of the BPA contractors performing with operating costs and prices estimated and submitted in OCT 2017 when the current bid is submitted and awarded.

Answer 30: The prices that are established during the award of the BPAs are ceiling prices. The on-ramp procedures ensure a level playing field, as contractors can adjust their price downward at the call order level.

W52P1J-17-R-0062 Amendment 0003

Question 31: In Q&A #3 the USG states “there is no file size limitation” while also instructing offerors that “a large file may have delays or be undeliverable.” This information appears contradictory. Is it possible for the USG to provide more guidance on maximum file sizes, per email and per email attachment, since offeror notifications of delays or non-delivery are typically not immediate? (Reference: Amendment 0002, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #3)

Answer 31: Please refer to Answer 3.

Question 32: In Q&A #4 the USG affirms the requirement for all vehicles to be “in like new condition at all times.” However, the USG also states “Slight wear and tear is expected,” which conflicts with the RFP’s definition of like new which requires the contractor to ensure the “engine compartment, interior, and exterior are clean and free of any wear or visible defects.” “Slight wear and tear” appears to contradict with “free of any wear or visible defects.” Would the USG please provide additional guidance with respect to this requirement? (Reference: Amendment 0002, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #4)

Answer 32: Please see the revised definition of “Like new Condition” within paragraph

2.0 DEFINITIONS of Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement.

Question 33 was inadvertently skipped

Question 34: In Q&A #8 the USG states: “For example, if a contractor delivers a 2015 model in 2018, they shall replace it in 2020.” Can the replacement (based on age) take place anytime in calendar year 2020 or must it take place no later than January 1, 2020? (Reference: Amendment 0002, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #8)

Answer 34: Please refer to answer 4.

Question 35: What type and level of proposal information is required to earn and “Acceptable” rating with respect to “skill”? (Reference: Amendment 0002, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #13)

Answer 35: Please refer to answer 13.

Question 36: In Q&A #17 the USG states: “Acceptance of alternative solutions will be at the customer’s discretion.” Are offerors, in response to this RFP W52P1J-17-R-0062 solicitation, permitted to price vehicles that do not have the minimum specifications for one or more CLINs or will the USG reject offers that do not meet 100% of the minimum specifications for 100% of the CLINs? (Reference: Amendment 0002, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #17)

Answer 36: The USG may reject all offers that do not meet the minimum specifications of the solicitation.

Question 37: Paragraph L.3 lists documents that will be excluded from the proposal’s maximum page limitations. Would the USG please add an offeror’s Compliance Matrix from the list of excluded documents? (Reference: Attachment 0003, Paragraph L.3)

Answer 37: No, this will be included in the 80 pages for the Technical Volume.

Question 38: Paragraph A-7.2, which discusses Off-Ramp Procedures, states a contractor will be off-ramped by the USG not exercising the next available option period if a BPA holder does not propose on a Request for Task Order Proposals. If, for example, a contractor wins a Jordan task order but does not propose on a subsequent Kuwait RFTOP, would the USG not exercise the next available Jordan task order option period as well as the higher-level BPA’s next available option period, or would they permit the continued use of Jordan task order options only? Using the same example, would the BPA holder who refuses to bid on the Kuwait RFTOP be permitted to bid on new RFTOPs which occur after the Kuwait RFTOP but prior to the time for exercising the BPA option period? (Reference: RFP Paragraph A-7.2)

Answer 38: The USG anticipates a large number of BPA order competitions for all four countries. An offeror that does not quote in one order competition will not be off-ramped.

An offeror refusing to quote on a majority of competitions may be off-ramped. Offerors are reminded that the USG retains the unilateral right to exercise options if it is in the best interests of the USG. A contractor who is off-ramped may not have current awarded orders terminated simply for being off-ramped, and the USG may still exercise available options if it is in the best interests of the USG.

Question 39: Paragraph L.6.1 states: “The offeror must detail and break out by CLIN how it intends to provide all NTVs listed for each of the four countries, whether owned, subcontracted, procured or any combination thereof.” Would the USG please provide additional definition for the words owned, subcontracted and procured? For example, for the purposes of this proposal effort, what’s the difference between “subcontracted” and “procured?” Also, does “owned” mean the offeror already has the vehicle in their fleet at the time of this W52P1J-17-R-0062 proposal submission or does it simply mean the offeror intends to own the vehicle during performance of any resultant task order? If the offeror doesn’t currently own the task order vehicles but plans to purchase them and take title of the vehicles in support of any awarded task orders, should the offeror indicate both “procured” and “owned” in its proposal? Any additional clarity would be helpful to ensure the correct information is conveyed to the USG. (Reference:

Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.1)

Answer 39: Procured in this paragraph simply means a way the contractor obtains vehicles in order to lease to the USG. The USG does not stipulate how the contractor does this. If an offeror intends to purchase vehicles and lease them to the USG, they simply need to state their plan as such.

Question 40: Paragraph L.6.4 requires offerors to demonstrate compliance with “other international requirements . . .” Would the USG please provide clarification as to what types of “other international requirements” offerors need to address in their proposals to earn an “Acceptable” rating for this item? Is it possible to provide some examples?

(Reference: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.4)

Answer 40: In regards to “other international requirements”, we simply need the offeror to demonstrate that they are knowledgeable in the requirements of doing business in Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE. For example, if the offeror is going to purchase NTVs in Saudi Arabia and import them into one Kuwait or Qatar, the offeror must demonstrate in the proposal how it will maneuver the myriad international hurdles to accomplish this goal.

Question 41: PWS 9.2 – Unlike in the US, throughout the Middle East there is exclusive distributor arrangement for each make per country/region. Vehicles may be maintained regularly and exclusively in distributor’s service center for warranty, quality and control purpose. Exception can be made if the distributor authorizes the particular contractor (vendor). Therefore, submission of 3 quotes for damage repairs from different dealers for the same car is not feasible since most cars will be under warranty or otherwise service contracts with the respective distributor. Kindly confirm if award winning vendor’s own repair quote (if authorized) or distributor’s will suffice.

Answer 41: For warranty work, no quotes are required as the USG will not be paying anything. However, non-warranty work should be able to be completed at a variety of workshops. If outside repairs void warranties, an English copy of the warranty policy must be provided.

Question 42: PWS 11. Each CLIN vehicle description has example of acceptable range, brief requirement, equivalent models and engine horsepower capacity. Whilst the common vehicle description is number of cylinders and engine sizes, there is no reference to number of cylinders or engine size defined; therefore the equivalent models indicated are helpful. However, these also include varying ranges of car classes and horsepower not necessarily meeting the horsepower indicated due to change in manufacturer’s production line. Moreover, horsepower description itself is a variable technical feature which can vary on different makes/models as well as within same type of vehicle across different model years. Kindly confirm that complying with equivalent models indicated alone is acceptable.

Answer 42: Horsepower ratings are more useful than engine size or number of cylinders due to rapid changes in the automotive industry, i.e. smaller engines with turbochargers to improve fuel efficiency. The specifications provided are the minimum rating for horsepower required for each NTV category.

Question 43: PWS 11- CLIN 008, 009, 012 and 013. Automatic transmission on commercial vehicles other than V8 is not common in the Middle East. Instead, manual transmission is commonly available with local distributors for popular makes. Request consideration of revising the vehicle description for these CLINs to both manual and automatic transmission (when available).

Answer 43: Offerors shall propose to the requirements of the solicitation. The USG may reject all offers that do not meet the minimum specifications of the solicitation.

Question 44: Attachment 3 Instructions to Offerors. L6.1- Submission of technical specification of proposed NTVs and capacity. Kindly confirm if there is any minimum capacity to qualify. Also, will vendors with higher capacity get ratings benefit?

Answer 44: There is no initial minimum capacity. However, failure to bid on future call orders may result in a contractor being off-ramped. The technical ratings are acceptable and unacceptable, with no preference being given to capacity.

Question 45: Kindly provide quantity estimates that will be awarded during initial 90 days in each country.

Answer 45: Providing numbers for the initial 90 days is difficult, as the exact award date is not known. Attachment 0005 – Historical Data has been updated to include dates of delivery.

Question 46: RFP A6.6. Transition period. Kindly advise lead time that would be allowed for delivering the vehicles from date of issuance of task orders.

Answer 46: All BPA Order Competitions will specify a required delivery date. The USG intends to have all delivery dates 30 days after date of award. However, this will not be possible for all customers.

Question 47: RFP A6.1- It is understood as per this clause and block 10 of front page that the proposed contract is unrestricted and open competition. Kindly advise whether or not that there is preference or benefit for Minority Owned, Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Business, Small Company Businesses or other such special category US based contractors.

Answer 47: This solicitation is being competed on an unrestricted full and open basis.

Question 48: Task order winning vendors during base year if succeed in winning task orders during option years for same requirement/set of vehicles then will USG allow transfer/rollover of vehicles from one task order to another - as long as vehicles are within acceptable age/mileage ?

Answer 48: Transferring NTVs from one call order to another is acceptable, as long as the vehicles meet all delivery requirements as set forth in the PWS. Further, the USG fully intends on placing option periods on call order awards, as appropriate.

W52P1J-17-R-0062 Amendment 0006

Question 49: Paragraph 2.0 of the PWS includes the following definition of fair wear and tear: “Fair Wear and Tear: The deterioration of items attributed to continuous usage. Fair wear and tear includes repair or replacement of all parts not resulting from abuse, accidents, or criminal or hostile acts. Fair wear and tear parts may include, but is not limited to, tires, windshields, brakes, serpentine belts or timing belts, suspension components, alternators, starters, and water pumps. Scratches and door dings are considered fair wear and tear.” However, broken windshields and punctured tires are rarely attributed to deterioration due to continuous usage. Rather, they occur as a result of a specific action, event or incident – at a particular point in time. For example, tires punctures are typically attributable to running over a curb or something sharp. Similarly, windshields typically crack and break due to being hit by a stone. Neither of these are examples of something becoming progressively worse over time due to movement or usage. Would it be considered an “accident” when a tire is damaged or punctured by running over a curb or something sharp? Would it be considered an “accident” when a windshield is cracked or broken as a result of being hit by a stone? If not, how are offerors able to estimate the associated costs with any degree of certainty on this firm fixed price, LPTA type procurement if no historical information is provided for tire and windshield replacements? Is it possible for the USG to change the RFP’s definition of fair wear and tear to include the following? “Fair wear and tear is considered as the gradual deterioration in the physical condition of any part or fixture of the vehicle as a result of correct, normal and acceptable usage, over an extended period of time. Any damages or deterioration to the vehicle, attributed to any known or unknown event, or series of events such as impact, inappropriate stowing of items, and harsh or negligent actions, cannot be considered as fair wear and tear.” (Reference: Attachment 0001, Performance Work Statement, Paragraph 2.0, Definitions

Answer 49: Please see the updated definition of Fair Wear and Tear in the PWS. The USG will NOT use the definition proposed by the contractor above. Offerors are cautioned to look at the conditions in the areas of responsibility to help determine the probability of damaged tires or windshields.

Question 50: Is there any possibility of the USG providing additional guidance as to what proposal information is required to earn an “Acceptable” rating with respect to

“skill”? (References: Amendment 0003, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #13 and Q&A #35.)

Answer 50: Please refer to answer 13.

Question 51: If an offeror submits an electronic proposal no later than 5:00 pm one working day prior to the deadline for the receipt of proposals and the email does not go through due to the file size being too large, would the proposal submission still be considered timely and would it be considered as having been received on time at the initial point of entry to the USG infrastructure? If not, how many days prior to the deadline for the receipt of proposals should offerors begin sending in their emailed proposals in order to determine, through trial and error, what size emails will successfully transmit their proposal to the USG, and to ensure the proposal submission is considered timely by the USG? (Reference: Amendment 0003, Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #31)

Answer 51: Please refer to Answer 3 for information regarding email size limitations.

In accordance with revised L.5.1.2., receipt means actual time of receipt by the PCO.

Offerors are responsible for ensuring that a full and complete proposal is received by the PCO by the date and time established within the solicitation for receipt of proposals.

Question 52: Attachment 0002, Price Matrix, includes the USG’s estimated quantity of vehicles to be leased on a daily, monthly and yearly basis, broken out by CLIN, country, and contract performance year. It is our understanding these estimated quantities represent the USG’s best estimate of anticipated contract requirements. Attachment 0002 includes the following note: “Quantities in Column B are estimated quantities and for evaluation purposes only. Actual requirements will be competed against the offerors who receive BPAs and will be competed per requirement received. Historical quantities for 2016 have been provided via Attachment 0005 of the Solicitation.” Attachment 0005, Historical Data, includes the following statement: “The NTV Data document provides only a historical summary of 2016 for the Kuwait, Jordan, UAE and Qatar NTV programs to assist offerors in understanding the scope of the NTV requirement. The ’s anticipated needs for the CENTCOM NTV BPA recompete are not expected to differ significantly from historical data, where available.” However, the USG’s anticipated needs as shown in Attachment 0002 do, in fact, differ significantly from the historical data in Attachment 0005. The Jordan Price Matrix yearly estimated quantity is 600 total vehicles whereas the corresponding Historical Data has a quantity of 183 total vehicles.

The Kuwait Price Matrix yearly estimated quantity is 1,662 total vehicles whereas the corresponding Historical Data has a quantity of 1,182 total vehicles. The Qatar Price Matrix yearly estimated quantity is 686 total vehicles whereas the corresponding Historical Data has a quantity of 166 total vehicles. The UAE Price Matrix yearly estimated quantity is 592 total vehicles whereas the corresponding Historical Data has a quantity of 72 total vehicles. Respectively, the approximate Price Matrix increases from the Historical Data equal 228%, 41%, 313% and 722% - all significant increases. In addition, the daily, monthly and yearly vehicle quantity estimates for each vehicle CLIN in each of the four countries, as shown in the Price Matrix, are nearly entirely all equal to the number 5 (five). Similarly, the estimated number of months for monthly leasing requirements in all four countries for every single vehicle CLIN is equal to the number 5 (five) and it’s almost entirely all fives for the estimated number of days on the daily leasing requirements tabs. Is 5 (five) coincidentally the correct best estimate for nearly all of the future requirements on this contract? What numbers within the RFP represent the USG’s best estimate of future requirements on this contract? (Reference:

Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.1)

Answer 52: Several types of vehicles and options have been added to this requirement compared to what has previously been procured under the NTV contracts. Therefore, several CLINs have been added to this requirement. The CLINs that have been added are assigned an estimated quantity of 5 for evaluation purposes only, as there is no historical data for them. This addition of CLINs is the cause of the increase in quantities within the Price Matrix compared to Attachment 0005 – Historical Data. The estimated number of months and days has been assigned a value of 5 for evaluation purposes only. The estimated quantities and estimated number of months and days within the price matrix is currently the USG’s best estimate for expected requirements.

Question 53: This paragraph instructs the offeror to “include an English translated copy of the offeror’s vehicle insurance plan, or a statement from an insurer, stating all terms and conditions that meet all the PWS specifications.” Would the USG consider excluding vehicle insurance plans and statements from insurers from the proposal’s 80 page limit? (Reference: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.1)

Answer 53: Yes. Please see revised L.3.

Question 54: The full size sedan with force protection package is shown as CLIN X002AF in Attachment 0002, Price Matrix and is shown as CLIN X002AG in Attachment 0001, Performance Work Statement. Also, both the Price Matrix and the PWS have two X012AC CLINs – one for large cargo truck with window tinting and one for large cargo truck with GPS and window tinting. Would the USG please advise as to how these CLIN mistakes should be handled by offerors? (References: Attachment 0001, Performance Work Statement, and Attachment 0002, Price Matrix)

Answer 54: Attachment 0001, Performance Work Statement and Attachment 0002 Price Matrix have been corrected. Changes are in red.

Question 55: Paragraph L.6.1 instructs offerors to “describe the offeror’s approach to and demonstrate its understanding of the processes, procedures, capabilities and experience it will employ and rely upon to be at full operating capacity with base access and required badging within 60 days of contract award.” However, when asked for the task order delivery lead time, the USG, in Q&A #46, replied: “All Task Order RFPs will include a required delivery date. The USG intends to have all delivery dates 30 days after date of award. However, this will not be possible for all customers.” Would the USG please clarify the definition of “full operating capacity”? Also, given that base access and badging would only be required when a contractor is awarded a task order, is there a mistaken disconnect between the 60 day proposal requirement of L.6.1 and the 30 day delivery requirement of Q&A #46, or are BPA holders expected to obtain base access and badging at potential military installations in anticipation of a potential task order award? (References: Attachment 0003, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph L.6.1, and Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #46.)

Answer 55: Full operating capacity includes having badged employees and the ability to quote on requirements as competed amongst BPA holders. BPA holders are expected to obtain base access in Kuwait and Qatar, as the process may take more than 30 days to ensure timely delivery can be made on all call order awards.

Question 56: In response to a request for the USG to revise RFP vehicle descriptions for certain automatic transmission CLINs, the USG did not alter the transmission type specifications in the RFP but did, in Q&A #43, provide the following instructions to offerors: “A large percentage of American drivers do not know how to drive a manual transmission. Therefore, automatic transmissions are preferred any time they are available. For individual customer requirements, an offeror can propose a vehicle with a manual transmission, as long as the deviation from the requirement is noted in the proposal. If vehicles matching the requirement are not available from any of the BPA holders, the customer may choose to accept such a vehicle.” Are offerors, in their response to this W52P1J-17-R-0062 RFP, permitted to offer manual transmission vehicles even if the specifications call for automatic transmissions? Is the USG suggesting offerors may price manual transmission vehicles, even though the specifications call for automatic transmission, with the expectation that the USG will relax the transmission specifications when task orders are competed? Are offerors permitted to propose and price alternate specifications in their proposals submitted in response to this W52P1J-17-R-0062 RFP? (Reference: Attachment 0006, Industry Questions and Answers, Q&A #43.)

Answer 56: Please see the revised Answer 43.

Question 57: PWS. Ref 9.0 Damages - It states that "The Contractor shall obtain for insurance purposes a Police Report from the Country in which the vehicle is operating...

As per current contract in Qatar/UAE/Jordan, we do not obtain the Police Reports on behalf of the US Military. The Police Reports are obtained solely by the vehicle Operator (US Military) or the COR. The local Police in all 3 AORs, will not entertain the Contractor as they require the vehicle operator/COR to be present to issue the Police Report.

Answer 57: Attachment 0001 – PWS 5.0 Damages, has been revised. Performance Work Statement has been updated to change the word obtain to accept. As stated in Attachment 0003 – Instructions to Offerors, the offeror shall explain how it will ensure it can obtain all required police reports in IAW host nation laws. This may include coordinating with the USG to ensure a police report is obtained.

Question 58: The United Arab Emirates (UAE) NTV’s lease requirements which particular state/US Base these vehicle will be station?

Answer 58: Leased vehicles in UAE shall be delivered and picked up for maintenance off base. Currently, NTVs are located in Zayed Military City and Camp Redleg. This location is subject to change.

Question 59: Would the USG will allow/consider to provide on-base maintenance space/ facilities to be use for minor repair, unscheduled, schedule maintenance service and or staging area)?

Answer 59: The offeror shall not assume on-post space/facilities are available. At the customer’s discretion, maintenance may be performed on base.

Question 60: Who are the incumbent Contractor/BPA holder for the following countries (Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE) and other countries under CENTCOM NTV Lease?

Answer 60: Jordan, Qatar and United Arab Emirates Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ): Al Mutawa and Sahni Tyres and Spare Parts Co W.L.L (W52P1J-14-D- 0036), Trident Engineering and Procurement, P.C. (W52P1J-14-D-0037), Al Qabandi United Company (W52P1J-14-D-0038), and Class Worldwide General Trading (W52P1J-14-D-0039)

Kuwait IDIQ: Trident Engineering and Procurement, P.C. (W52P1J-11-D-0097), Al-Baz 2000 Trading & Contracting Company, W.L.L. (W52P1J-11-D-0098), Al Qabandi United company (W52P1J-11-D-0099), and Future Services General Trading and Contracting Co (W52P1J-11-D-0100).

U.A.E. Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA): Immpek General Trading, LLC (W52P1J- 15-A-0013) and Bamyan General Contracting and Transporting (W52P1J-15-A-0014)

Jordan BPA: Shakhshir Rent a Car (W52P1J-16-A-0004), KVG LLC (W52P1J-16-A- 0005), and Dollar Jordan Rent a Car (W52P1J-16-A-0006).

Question 61: Is the issuance of Annual/Yearly task order requirements will include to exercise all option years? And or each option period will be competed amongst BPA holder?

Answer 61: Options will be included for individual customer requirements to the extent that the USG has a requirement for continued use of NTVs and inclusion of options will not surpass the order ceiling of $7,000,000.00. Options will be exercised if it is in the best interest of the USG.

Question 62: Is the pricing schedule (Supplies or service) from Page 5 to 36 of SF 1449 continuation sheets solicitation documents is mandatory to be filled up? Or the attachment 002 Pricing Matrix will suffice?

Answer 62: The pricing schedule on pages 5 through 36 of the solicitation does not need to be filled out. Offeror’s shall follow the directions at L.7.

Question 63: CLIN X078AR: Full-Size Crew Cab Pickup Truck – 4x4 with off-road package and window tinting is mentioned in UAE – Yearly. However CLIN X078AR has not mentioned in the SOW. Therefore there is no description available on the type of car and specifications. It appears to be an error; Or please confirm if it is the same as:

CLIN X007AR: Full-Size Crew Cab Pickup Truck – 4x4 with off-road package and window tinting

Answer 63: Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix has been updated to correct the error. The correct CLIN number 0007AR.

Question 64: CLIN X0087S: Full-Size Crew Cab Pickup Truck – 4x4 with off-road package, tow package, and GPS Is mentioned in Jordan – Daily. CLIN X0087S has not mentioned in the SOW. Therefore there is no description available on the type of car and specifications. It appears to be an error Or please confirm if it is the same as: CLIN X007AS: Full-Size Crew Cab Pickup Truck – 4x4 with off-road package, tow package, and GPS

Answer 64: Attachment 0002 – Price Matrix has been updated to correct the error. The correct CLIN number 0007AS.

Question 65: In the historical data per attachment 5 – in column B (Requirement #) the “word requirement” is this referring to BPA Task order?

Answer 65: As listed in Attachment 0005, the word “requirement” refers to each task order awarded under the contracts/agreements for 2016.

Question 66: Is there any statistic available on the estimated monthly/yearly traffic fines incurred under the current NTV contract for Kuwait. Considering that there is a considerable delay in reimbursing the traffic fines it is important to know the estimated fines as this would have an impact on the costing.

Answer 66: Historical data on traffic fines is not available. Please refer to Answer 23.

Question 67: Is there any statistic available on the number of accidents that have occurred under the current NTV contract for Kuwait. Insurance company has requested this information in order to estimate the premium.

Answer 67: Historical data on the number of accidents is not available.

Question 68: PWS Ref 3.2 USG Operators. "The Operator will make the vehicle available for service within seven days of notification from the Contractor that service is required." The above statement is not practical because when the vehicle is first delivered, a maintenance sticker is inserted in the vehicle which informs the operator of the next Kilometer reading that the vehicle is due for service on. Since the vehicle is in the possession of the US USG, it is the Operator who will have to inform our Fleet Manager(s) to schedule a maintenance, as he/she will be in a position to keep us informed when the vehicle has reached the specified Kilometer reading which requires the vehicle to be serviced. Will the USG change this statement to reflect the correct process?

Answer 68: Please see the revised paragraph 3.2, Government Operators, of Attachment 0001 – Performance Work Statement.

Question 69: Is the contract manager as a key position billable to the USG? If billable to the USG, how will this price be evaluated?

Answer 69: Offerors shall take all operations costs into consideration when developing the various prices for NTVs under the resultant BPAs. Offerors shall ensure full compliance with L.7.

Question 70: Suppose a task order has been awarded for a 1 year period and a contractor has provided brand new vehicles, on completion of the one year period would the task order be re-awarded to the same contractor or would there be a new RFP for the task order which all 8 awardees will compete for?

Answer 70: Please refer to Answer 61. If an option(s) was not included in the awarded call order, the requirement would be competed amongst all eligible BPA holders.

Question 71: Kindly advise on below information regarding pickup body type?

- Chevrolet Colorado (CLIN X006AA) o Extended Cab, OR o Crew Cab

If Crew Cab then, 128.3” or 140.5” inch Wheel Base

- GMC Canyon (CLIN X006AA) o Extended Cab, OR o Crew Cab

If Crew Cab then, 128.3” or 140.5” inch Wheel Base

Answer 71: The references to Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are simply equivalent examples. A vehicle will be deemed acceptable if it meets the PWS requirements for CLIN X006.

Question 72: M.9 Price Factor. USG expects adequate price competition. This is in line with un-restricted full and open competition. It is understood that the interested vendors will quote their best price in their country of current operation since they are aware of their cost and rely on partners in other countries where they are not currently operating.

USG has encouraged interested vendors during RFI stage to arrange partnership which was a…