Re: Tender 2014/197/0013/00 for the Design, Development ... · Commissioning and Maintenance of an...

טלפון : 9750587 - 03, 03-9750581 פקס : 9711296- 03– 7015001 כתובת : ת"ד 7, נמל התעופה הבינ"ל בן- גוריון Address: P.O.Box 7, Ben-Gurion International Airport 7015001, Phone: 972 3 9750587, Fax: 972 3 9711296

May 4, 2015

To: All Bidders

Re: Tender 2014/197/0013/00 for the Design, Development, Supply, Installation, Commissioning and Maintenance of an Aeronautical Message Handling System

(AMHS) for the Israel Airport Authority Addendum No. 5

1. Pursuant with the Request for Proposals for Tender No. 2014/197/0013/00 issued on 2 February 2015 (the "RFP") and in accordance with the provisions thereof, the attention of all Participants is drawn to the amendments, clarifications and answers to questions regarding the RFP and the Tender, as set forth in Appendix A attached hereto; all capitalized terms shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the RFP.

2. In accordance with the provisions of the RFP, you are kindly requested to acknowledge

receipt of this Addendum, no later than 2 days following receipt thereof, by a written notice to the Israel Airports Authority, in the format attached to this Addendum as Appendix B.

Sincerely,

Carmel Goldberg

Senior Contracts Manager

Logistics Department


IAA Tender for AMHS

Tender No. 2014/197/0013/00

(Addendum 5) Appendix A

IAA Response to Bidders’ Questions


3

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section

Bidders’ Question IAA’s Response

1. Appendix A - Ch. 2

2.1.4

Approvals – Paragraph 2.1.4 d) states “The bidder shall present operational interoperability and functionality approvals”.

Please clarify what you mean by “operational interoperability and functionality approvals”? Approval by whom?

Please replace the previous section with the following: “The bidder shall present operational interoperability and functionality evidence(s) / proof (proves)”.


9.2 Although paragraph 9.2 states that Table 9-3 in clause 9.2.1 is for information only and the bidder shall not respond to that table, according to paragraph 9.2.3.1 it appears we are to use Paragraph 9.2.3.1.1 Table 9-5 to complete a breakdown of entry 1.1 from Table 9-3. We think we need to create a "Table 9-3" in response to Paragraph 9.2.1, please confirm. How are we to use Table 9-5 as a breakdown of entry 1.1 in Table 9-3 if we are not to respond to Table 9-3? Paragraph 9.2.3.2 states that Table 9-10 is an example of a breakdown of entry 1.1 from Table 9-3. We think this should be a breakdown of entry 1.2 from Table 9-3 as entry 1.2 is the Production AMHS/AFTN Central System - Stage 2. But again, how is this a breakdown of Table 9-3 if we are not to respond to Table 9-3?

Paragraph 9.2.3.3 states the bidder shall provide the same breakdown as in 9.2.3.1 (which references Table 9-3). Paragraph 9.3.2 Table 9-14 directly references "AS IN TABLE 9-3". We think that our response to your paragraph 9.2.1 must have a "Table 9-3" completely filled out, incorporating tables from other sections (some which are referenced in Table 9-3, some which are not referenced in Table 9-3 but are called out in individual paragraphs) please confirm.

Table 9-3 shall be a source of comparison for IAA. Therefore, the bidder was asked not to respond to that table. However, if the Bidder's table in its response to Section 10.3.2 of Appendix D includes more rows than in table 9-3, the Bidder shall add them to Table 9-3and shall provide their break down accordingly. For each element in Table 9-3 the bidder shall create the relevant sub tables 9-4 through 9-9 under the tile of the element. The bidder is also allowed to add sub tables if needed for each element. In section 9.2.3.2 the example is for entry 1.2 from Table 9-3 and not 1.1 as stated.


4

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


We think that our response to paragraph 9.3.2 must have a table similar to Table 9-3 but for the DRP option, please confirm. We think that our responses to paragraphs 9.2.2, 9.2.3, and 9.2.4 do not require separate tables because these tables will have been expanded into the Table 9-3 in our response to Paragraph 9.2.1, please confirm

3. Contract Annex D The last paragraph of Annex D (IAA’s Insurance & Liability Requirements) of the Contract (page 58) states “All the above policies will include a special provision according to which they are antecedent to any insurance carried out by the IAA and that the Insurer waives all rights for to demand or claim participation of the IAA insurance policies”.

This clause implies that any claim regardless if it is the bidder or IAA’s fault would be filed with the bidder’s insurance carrier. This clause would be appropriate for a project such as the construction of a control tower but it is very unusual to have this clause for our type of project. Would IAA accept to remove this clause?

The Bidder's request is denied. The last paragraph of Annex D will not be removed.


8.5.2 4-f The Core Service - Breakdown to Related Services contains a number of descriptive paragraphs. In one of the paragraphs, 8.5.2-4-f, there is the statement: "The Bidder shall describe in detail how it intends to provide the following miscellaneous services"

There are seven additional points (i - vii), none of which have a (P) (Q) (O) or any combination of requirement level that descend from this statement. All of these descriptive statements and paragraphs appear in the compliance matrix. Although in our proposal we reply to these statements, in the compliance matrix it is not clear whether or how we are to respond. Paragraph 8.5.2 does not have a requirement level, nor does Paragraph 8.5, nor does Paragraph 8, such that we can infer a

The Bidder is kindly requested to refer to Appendix A – Section 0.7: “Classification of Requirements in the Technical Chapters”. Following is an excerpt of the “P” classification: “Requirements contained in the Technical Requirements Chapters, including both those without any classification, and those classified with “Q” to which The Bidder responded, form the minimum obligations that The Bidder must fully comply with and shall be referred to as the "Technical Deliverable Requirements".”

The aforementioned excerpt means that requirements


5

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


requirement level (though we do note there are some specific requirements such as 8.5.2-g-4 where there is a requirement to submit a maintenance plan.

May we suggest that the compliance matrix be modified to include only the IAA requirements to which the vendor shall respond, and to not contain any references to or descriptions of items that are not actual requirements.

that - “none of which have a (P) (Q) (O) or any combination of requirement level that descend from this statement.” – “obligations that The Bidder must fully comply with”.


8.5.2 4-e Requirement 8.5.2.4 e) of the Technical Specifications states “ICAO and WMO Updates: During the life of the Warrantee & the Maintenance Service the Awarded Bidder will be responsible to keep the system up to date with any ICAO or WMO recommended changes. The Awarded Bidder will present a plan to IAA for implementation of the published changes in the system. IAA may elect to skip recommended changes by ICAO and/or WMO. The Awarded Bidder shall be ready to implement the changes in the system, prior to the announced operational dates published by the relevant regulatory body. These changes shall be provided to IAA at no additional cost and as part of the maintenance service plan”. It is very difficult to predict what changes ICAO and WMO will make to the standards 5 or 10 years from now. Some of the ICAO/WMO updates could take several man years of development.

Would it be possible for IAA to limit the number of man days that bidder would have to provide at no cost for making changes to the system resulting from updates made by ICAO/WMO to the standards?

ICAO and WMO updates and changes will be provided at no additional cost and as part of the scope of the Maintenance and Support plan for up to 100 hours per year, "Hours Bank". If unused the remaining hours will be added to the following year Hours Bank. For any ICAO and WMO changes which require more than the hours in the Hours Bank, the selected bidder will be entitled, subject to IAA's written approval in advance, to invoice IAA on times and materials basis on the balance between the Hours Bank and the actual time required. IAA will have the right to use the Hours Bank as it wishes.

6. RFP 3.1 It is requested to postpone the Submission Date. The request is granted, the new Submission Date shall be May 18, 2015.


6

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section



5.1.1.2 Requirement 5.1.1.2 states “The AMHS system shall be capable of interfacing with the current systems/users/networks: a. UA Terminals b. IAA systems: (P) (Q) a. , AIS/AIM b. AODB- Airport Operational Database (CHOCS) c. ASMGCS (Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System) d. EFS/IODS (Electronic Flight Strip/Integrated Operational Data System) e. EWAM (Eilat Wide Area Multilateration) f. VOLMET/ATIS g. TelePC systems c. X.400 network (PENS). (P)(Q)” It is our understanding that the PENS network is only available to ECAC countries and that IAA is not part of the ECAC countries. Will the IAA AMHS system be connected to the PENS network?

Routers and firewalls are usually provided by SITA when the PENS network is used for the AMHS connections. Does IAA require the Bidder to supply the routers/firewalls or will they be provided by IAA? Please clarify.

IAA is considering the option to connect to PENS and will like to have that option available in the new AMHS system.

The bidder shall provide the functionality and/or equipment needed to connect the AMHS system to PENS excluding the equipment that will be provided to IAA by the PENS provider.


6.3 - 5 What are the dimensions of the racks IAA will provide for the AMHS system? Will IAA provide extra vertical channels in the rear of the cabinets for mounting cable guides?

In general, the racks are standard ones. IAA will work with the selected bidder and will do the best effort to provide whatever is needed to implement the AMHS system at IAA.

9. Appendix A 7.1.3.1 Paragraph 7.1.3.1 states that phase 1 should be completed no later than ARO + 9. However, the table shown section 7.3.2 states that the phase

The SAT & Soak Readiness Review of Stage 1 should be successfully completed not later than ARO + 9


7

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


- Ch. 7 1 should be completed ARO + 12. Please confirm whether phase 1 should be completed ARO + 9 or ARO + 12?

(months).


7.3.8.3 Paragraph 7.3.8.3 defines three (3) types of training courses (train the trainer) either at the bidder’s location or in Israel for a total of 6 type of training courses. However, the BOQ Pricing requires pricing for 8 different types of training courses. It appears that two additional courses have been added to the BOQ pricing for operators which is contradicting the request in section 7.3.8.3 for train the trainer only type of training. Please clarify.

The Training shall include the following population: End Users (Operators and UAT users), Administrator Operators, and System Technician.

All courses shall be based on Train the Trainer.

Section 9.2.4.2 at chapter 9 - BOQ and item 7 at Appendix D – Price Proposal Form – Annex 1 were adjusted as well:

The Table at section 9.2.4.2 (Table -13 – Training Courses) will be deleted and replaced with the following:

# Component

1 AMHS Operator Expert – (Train the trainer)

2 AMHS UAT Expert (Train the trainer)

3 AMHS Administrator Operator Expert (Train the trainer)

4 AMHS Technical Expert (Train the trainer)

n Other

The sub items of #7 at the Appendix D will be deleted and replaced with the following:

7 Training


8

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


7.1 Operator Expert (Train the Trainer) in Israel *

7.2 Operator Expert (Train the Trainer) at the Bidder's Location

7.3 UAT Expert (Train the Trainer) in Israel *

7.4 UAT Expert (Train the Trainer) at the Bidder's Location

7.5 Administrator Operator Expert (Train the Trainer) in Israel *

7.6 Administrator Operator Expert (Train the Trainer) at the Bidder's Location

7.7 Technical Expert in Israel *

7.8 Technical Expert at the Bidder's Location

The selected bidder shall suggest the location for each course and/or merging courses based on added value of such act and IAA approval.

An update Appendix D document will be provided by IAA.


9

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section



7.3.5.14 Requirement 7.3.5.14– Soak Test: Please clarify your response to Addendum 2, Question 38. Paragraph 7.3.5.14 discusses the Soak Test. The first words of this paragraph are "During this stage" and in addition to previously quoted requirements in Question 38 we find the following wording "The Soak incorporates 3 one month periods" and "System adaptation issues shall be listed and fixed by the Bidder during the second half of the SOAK period". Please confirm whether this means that during a Post-Cutover Soak Test (after the system has been placed into live Operational Use) the bidder has over one month to resolve any adaptation issues (i.e. problems) that may be found during the first week of the Soak Test.

7.3.5.14–h should be replaced by the following: “System adaptation issues shall be listed and fixed by the Bidder mainly during the first half of the SOAK period. The timing of the System adaptation should enable IAA a sufficient time to evaluate it”.

IAA’s intention is that most fixes will be done at the 1st half of the Soak period, which will enable IAA sufficient time to evaluate the fixes contribution.


7.3.5.15 Requirement 7.3.5.15– Soak Test: We interpreted the paragraph following Soak Test, Paragraph 7.3.5.15, titled "Go Live Period - System is ready for Operational Use" (with one table item "SLA period commencement") as indicating that the "Go Live Period" was a consecutive "stage" following the Soak Test stage. We interpreted 7.3.5.15 in this way since the SLA has fault level repair times that are stricter than the interval described in 7.3.5.14 as "during the second half of the SOAK period". The concept of "Go Live" following a "Soak Test" is more consistent with our experience of ANSP preference to evaluate the system with a complement of message traffic (soak or load) before placing the system into Live Operational Use Kindly clarify the timeline relationship among the following items: the Soak Test, the Cutover, the Go Live Period.

The Bidder is requested to refer to the correction of 7.3.5.14 – h as appears in the answer to question 79 above.


Paragraph 8.5.2.4.a) states the following: The Bidder shall activate and operate the AFTN/AMHS Platform. Please confirm that it is not the bidder’s responsibility but instead IAA to operate the system.

The first sentence of this Section should be replaced as follows: “IAA will activate and operate the AFTN / AMHS Platform.”


10

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section



Item 1.3 - Testing and Integration: In the “Comment” Column, it is stated “Including: � Bidder's Communication Network � Main Technical Management System

� Backup Technical Management System

� System Operational Management System” Since the Bidder is not responsible for providing the Communication Network we do not understand what you mean with the bidder “including Bidder’s Communication Network”?

The goal is to have an AMHS/AFTN Testing and Integration System as similar as possible to the production system. Therefore, the bidder shall provide the special communication network components (if any) to that environment.


9.2.1 Item 2.1 - Application Administrator Workstation The quantity stated is 2 while, however, in the Pricing BOQ available as Annex 1 of the RFP, the quantity stated is 3. Please confirm whether the quantity is 2 or 3?

The quantity of item 2.1 of Table 9-3 "Main System Components and Services" shall be 3 (three) and not 2 (two).


9.2.1 Item 5.2 in the BOQ is for installation and integration. However, this item is missing in the BOQ Pricing. Where should we include the price for the installation and integration in the BOQ Pricing?

The price of the installation and integration shall be part of the components "Production AMHS/AFTN Central System - Stage 1" and " Production AMHS/AFTN Central System - Stage 2"

17. RFP BOQ Pricing

For items 7.1, 7.3, 7.5 and 7.7 in the BOQ Pricing, there is a notation (*) in the description column. However, there is no explanation about this notation (*)?

The notation is at the end of the table. The notation states: "* Shall not include Air Travel and Per Diem Room and Board which will be paid separately as specified in the contract at section 18.3.3."

18. RFP BOQ Pricing

It appears that IAA would like to have the price of conducting the training at the bidder’s facilities OR at the IAA facilities. However, the way the BOQ is structure, the prices of the training at the bidder’s facilities AND at the IAA facilities should be included.

IAA will like to have the option of selecting where the training will take place based on added value of the location and costs.

To simplify the pricing was structured so that the


11

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


prices of the training at the bidder’s facilities AND at the IAA facilities are both included in the total cost.

19. Appendix D – Price Proposal Form – Annex 1

12 - Services

IAA will like to add the following items in the Services at Appendix D – Price Proposal Form – Annex 1:

# (1)

Component (2)

Unit (3)

12.5 Refreshing Training Course – for Operator *

Course

12.6 Refreshing Training Course – for UAT users *

Course

12.7 Refreshing Training – for Administrator Operator *

Course

12.8 Refreshing Training – for System Technician *

Course

12.9 A day visit of bidder's expert at IAA site

Day

An update Appendix D document will be provided by


12

Q#

Ten

der

Doc.

Section


IAA.


7.4.6 There is a reference to Annex 1-E for the quality assurance in Chapter 7, Where can we find it?

1. The Annexes to Appendix A shall be marked as follows (and not as specified at section 0.5.2):

- Annex 1-A – Terms & Abbreviations - Annex 1-B – Applicable Standards - Annex 1-C – Technologies at IAA - Annex 1-D – IAA's Quality Assurance Guide

Lines

2. The reference at Section 7.4.6- 1. Shall be Annex 1-D and not Annex 1-E as specified.


Appendix B Acknowledgment of Receipt

Date: _______

To: Mr. Carmel Goldberg Senior Contracts Manager Logistics Department Israel Airport Authority Ben Gurion International Airport P.O. Box 7 Tel-Aviv, Israel

Fax no. +972 3 971 1296

Re: Addendum No. 5 – Tender No. 2014/197/0013/00 for the Design, Development, Supply, Installation, Commissioning and Maintenance of an Aeronautical Message Handling

System (AMHS) for the Israel Airport Authority

Pursuant to the RFP for the Tender in reference and in accordance with the provisions thereof, we hereby acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 5.

(name of participant and authorized representative’s signature)

Re: Tender 2014/197/0013/00 for the Design, Development ... · Commissioning and Maintenance of an...

Documents

Transcript of Re: Tender 2014/197/0013/00 for the Design, Development ... · Commissioning and Maintenance of an...