Positive Train Control Safety Plan (PTCSP)

_____________________________________________________ Amendment No. 2: This amendment is issued to: 1) Extend the Question due date to Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 1:00 PM EST 2) Provide a Q & A document 3) Provide revised RFP document with minor changes highlighted in yellow ________________________________________________________________ Amendment No. 3 is issued to extend the date for proposals to September 30, 2019 at 3:00 pm EST. Additionally, please see Q&A below: Section Volume II - Past Performances on page 47 of the RFP, states that "offeror's shall briefly describe the three efforts most relevant to the services described in this SOW" and that these Past Performance should be chosen from the "list of efforts of the same or similar size, scope, and relevancy undertaken in the past five years." Will the Government allow any of the three Past Performances chosen come from a significant subcontractor's list of relevant experience also undertaken within the past five years? Answer: Yes 2. Can FRA please clarify the requirement under L.10 (PROPOSAL CONTENT), Section 2 (g) to provide a statement as to any current or potential conflicts of interest. Is this requirement specific to past or current contracts that involve the contractor's involvement in the development of a PTCSP for the 42 specific railroads? Should the contractor include a matrix of the 42 entities for which Safety Plans are required? Answer: Yes, a matrix would be an acceptable method to identify conflicts of interest. An organization may not have current or historical contract(s) relating to a railroad's PTC project in order to provide support for the PTCSP review for that railroad.