MODIFICATION
36 -- Automated Letter Movement System
- Notice Date
- 4/3/2007
- Notice Type
- Modification
- NAICS
- 491110
— Postal Service
- Contracting Office
- United States Postal Service, Supplies and Services Purchasing, Automation CMC, 8403 Lee Highway Dewey Bldg, Merrifield, VA, 22082-8150, UNITED STATES
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- Reference-Number-ALMS03012007
- Response Due
- 4/30/2007
- Archive Date
- 5/15/2007
- Description
- Automated Letter Movement System (ALMS) Modification 2 to the FBO?s Posting USPS Responses to questions that have been raised concerning the ALMS: 1. Question: Is the solicitation meant only for pre-qualified GMHS EFI suppliers? USPS Response: No. 2. Question: Is there a published specification or a solicitation package for this project? USPS Response: No. 3. Question: How many sites will have this system installed? USPS Response: The evaluation system will be in one site, maximum number for possible follow on production is 250 sites 4. Question: How many copies of the ALMS Proposal are required? USPS Response: One soft copy or four hard copies. A soft copy is preferred. 5. Question: Will the respondents receive Terms & Conditions and Provisions? USPS Response: The successful supplier (s) will receive appropriate terms and conditions as a part of contract award. 6. Question: What is the anticipated date for the field engineering prototype evaluation? USPS Response: The desired time frame for the field engineering prototype evaluation is between June 2007 and April 2008. 7. Question: Where will Technical Review Meetings (TRM) be held? USPS Response: Technical review meetings will be held at the selected supplier's facility. Meetings will not be more frequent than once a month, and could be less frequent than once a month. Frequency of meetings will depend on schedule and program progress. 8. Question: Will a reduced content monthly report be sufficient for the prototype program? USPS Response: Yes. 9. Question: Should pricing be for a field proof of concept evaluation and engineering prototype? USPS Response: Yes, it should be firm fixed pricing for a field proof of concept evaluation of an engineering prototype system. Additionally, it should be accompanied by a white paper that describes the functionality of your company?s concept for a production model. Your response must be delivered no later than 5:00 pm April 30, 2007 10. Question: What is/are the evaluation criteria for the solution? Will it be evaluated at the national network level? USPS Response: Proposals (White Papers) for the proof of concept will be evaluated on technical feasibility, schedule, and cost. 11. Question: When will an Award for a prototype contract be made? USPS Response: June/July 12. Question: What is the expected delivery time of the Prototype for proof of concept? USPS Response: Supplier to propose based on contract award 13. Question: When does the USPS anticipate awarding the deployment contract? USPS Response: Between six and twelve months after completion of formal test. 14. Question: Is the proposed system intended for moving individual (discrete) letters from the AFCS (input) system to the DBCS (output) system or moving trays of letters from the AFCS systems to the DBCS systems? USPS Response: It is not the intent of the USPS to purchase/evaluate a tray system. The intention is to move mail from an AFCS to a DBCS without putting the mail into a tray. 15. Question: Is there a published interfacing specification for querying the DBCS systems to extract DBCS sort plan information? USPS Response: No, it will be necessary to develop one as part of this effort. 16. Question: Is the AFCS to DBCS transport system to be composed of a conventional 24 VDC motorized roller conveyor system? USPS Response: It is not our intention to limit or direct potential solutions. 17. Question: Does distributing mail to DBCS require automatically loading DBCS mail on feed table? USPS Response: The mail is to be fed into the DBCS automatically without operator involvement 18. Question: Is there a time requirement between distributing mail from input to output systems? USPS Response: There is no specific time requirement, but the mail is not to be buffered. 19. Question: Are there any size requirements? USPS Response: There are no specific size requirements, but potential suppliers need to keep in mind that space is limited in most processing facilities. 20. Question: Will the engineering prototype be limited to the AFCS input system? USPS Response: Yes, the input for the engineering prototype will be limited to AFCS machines. 21. Question: How many inputs are to be connected to how many outputs? USPS Response: For the proof of concept, two inputs to one output. For production, four to six inputs connected to two to three outputs. 22. Question: Will the process modification (different sorting depth and criteria) be acceptable and the automation increase evaluated? USPS Response: Any modification that will add value will be evaluated. Increased value will offset cost. 23. Question: What level of automation is requested? Fully with minor exceptions (typical missorts and rejects) or partially admitting some mail (define %) still to enter AFCS stackers? USPS Response: Full. The only mail that goes to a stacker on the AFCS should be intentionally directed to that stacker. 24. Question: Are the AFCS already equipped with reverter function, i.e. mail can exit the AFCS with stamp in the upper leading edge side? USPS Response: Yes. 25. Question: What is the layout of the plant and /or of involved systems? Available spaces / capability of extend in height? USPS Response: Two AFCS are side by side, DBCS is across the aisle. Only possible available space near the machines is three feet on either side of the aisle. Available height is approximately fourteen feet. 26. Question: What are the Legacy systems performances (Wall clock and nominal throughput, belt speed, minimum gap etc.)? USPS Response: AFCS: throughput 32K, belt speed 3.8 m/sec, min gap 120 mm. DBCS: throughput 40K, belt speed 4.0 m/sec, min gap 100 mm. 27. Question: What is the percentage distribution of the three (3) types of mail (FIM, Local, Outgoing)? USPS Response: FIM 35%, Local 51%, Outgoing 14%. These numbers are for the potential test site. National numbers may vary. 28. Question: Will the Field Proof of Concept prototype system just show link capabilities with no process alteration or can the system show also process modifications? USPS Response: The prototype system must show link capability with no process alteration. 29. Question: Will the USPS provide a detailed technical, electrical, mechanical, and communications specification between the ALM, AFCS and DBCS? USPS Response: The ALMS does not exist; therefore, the ALMS-to-AFCS and ALMS-to-DBCS interfaces do not exist. Interfaces are to be developed and defined as part of the engineering proof of concept. 30. Question: Will the ALMS be required to buffer mail? Please provide a comprehensive concept of postal operations for the ALMS? USPS Response: There is no requirement for the ALMS to buffer mail. However, the converse is not true; there is no requirement that the ALMS not buffer mail. Postal operations will be dependent on the solution proposed by the supplier. 31. Question: In regard to the anticipated proposal, the RFP states "Proposals will be evaluated on total cost to implement, functional risk, and performance risk." In order to provide a total cost to implement proposal, we need to know the number of AFCS and DBCS to be interconnected on a site by site basis. Additionally, a total cost to implement type proposal indicates that a program support infrastructure, i.e., spare parts, training, operator and maintenance manuals, etc. are to be included. What are the requirements for these?? USPS Response: The current effort is for an engineering proof of concept. It is currently envisioned that the engineering proof of concept will connect either 2 AFCS machines to 1 DBCS or 2 AFCS machine to 2 DBCS machine. The performance and capability of the supplier's engineering proof of concept along with their cost estimates will be used to determine if there is a follow-on production effort, the number of sites, and the number and type of machines connected. For the purposes of developing an estimate, the supplier should determine the amount of ILS support (e.g. training, spares, etc.) that is required to ensure a 98% operational availability. 32. Question: Will there be a local Ethernet subnet provided by USPS to keep network traffic for the ALMS off the main USPS LAN? USPS Response: If the selected supplier requires and requests a local Ethernet subnet, one will be provided. 33. Question: During the evaluation phase, between operational times of about 8 to 9 hours - Will the system and machines will be available to our personnel for resolving issues and testing? USPS Response: The system will be available to the supplier during non-operational periods. 34. Question: What is the layout of the plant where the prototype system is going to be tested, or the most likely plant where is going to be tested. USPS Response: The USPS is attempting to obtain layout, but may not have it before responses are due. The prototype will connect two AFCS machines, which are next to each other, and a DBCS. A potential DBCS is across an aisle from the AFCS machines. The aisle is approximately between 20 and 30 feet) wide. The feeder on a potential DBCS is approximately 70 to 90 feet from the stacker side of the furthest AFCS. 35. Question: What is the configuration of AFCSs and DBCSs to be connected? USPS Response: The AFCS machines are engineering prototypes of the AFCS 200. The DBCS will be a DBCS II, III, IV or V. 36. Question: Indication if aisle crossing (transports) will have to be at high level (over 7 foot / 2.1 m) or for the proof of concept can they be at low level USPS Response: Aisle crossing will need to allow traffic to still move in the aisle. 37. Question: Can the AFCSs and DBCSs to be connected be moved or shall we adapt to existing floor configuration? USPS Response: Need to adapt to existing floor plan if possible. If the machine must be moved, it will be necessary to include the cost of moving the machines as part of proposal evaluation. 38. Question: Are the AFCSs that are to be connected already retrofitted with a reverter? USPS Response: Yes ? 39. Question: Does the USPS have plans to move AFCSs closer to DBCSs USPS Response: No 40. Question: What is the estimated duration for testing? USPS Response: Formal test between two and four weeks. Suppliers should plan for the prototype to be operational for three to six months. 41. Question: What are the test criteria? USPS Response: Test plan will be developed jointly with the supplier. Possible criteria: jams, mis-sorted mail, damaged mail, maintenance stops, down time. 42. Question: What are the types of assistance that can be requested (maintenance only, operations, etc)? USPS Response: At a minimum, maintenance assistance and depending on the complexity of the system, operational. 43. Question: How many plants will be retrofitted with this system or how many systems? USPS Response: Will be determined after formal test based on potential savings and cost of system. 44. Question: Will there be an opportunity to hold discussions with the USPS team. USPS Response: Yes, April 10, 2007, Project Management Conference Room at 8403 Lee Highway (Dewey Bldg), Merrifield, VA 22082-8150 at 10:00 am. A group session followed by individual breakout sessions, is planned. Contact Allyn S. Matthews, C.P.M. at (703) 280-7807. If you have additional questions please submit them in writing to: Allyn S. Matthews C.P.M. USPS Mail Equipment Portfolio 8403 Lee Highway Merrifield, VA 22082-8150 (O) 703-280-7807 allyn.s.matthews@usps.gov
- Place of Performance
- Address: USPS, Automation CMC,, 8403 Lee Highway Dewey Bldg,, Merrifield, VA,
- Zip Code: 22082-8150
- Country: UNITED STATES
- Zip Code: 22082-8150
- Record
- SN01265541-W 20070405/070403223624 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |