ARV RFP QA (SAM) 20240322.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 171 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Antarctic Research Vessel (ARV) Integrator, Solicitation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 49100423R0010
- Issued by
- National Science Foundation
About this file
This document is a set of questions and answers related to a Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the National Science Foundation (NSF) for the procurement of an Antarctic Research Vessel (ARV) Integrator. The RFP is for an Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract with a 10-year ordering period. The applicable North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330 with a $47M size standard.
The RFP provides clarification on various aspects of the proposal submission requirements, including page limits, resume formatting, and the handling of cost and pricing data. It also addresses specific questions related to the vessel's design specifications, performance requirements, and transition planning. Additionally, the document covers administrative details such as the submission of surveys, documentation for oral presentations, and the location of the shipyard construction site. Overall, the Q&A provides valuable insights into the technical and contractual details of the ARV Integrator procurement.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 48
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Document | Section | Subsection | Pg # | Line # | Signficance | Question | Response |
| RFP | L.4, L.5.5 | 102, 103 | 3006, 3051 | General | The RFP states in Section L.4 that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan has a 10-page limit, and in L.5.5 states that the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is exempt from page limitations within volumes. Would the Government confirm whether there is a page limit for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? | The small business subcontracting plan is limited to ten pages. The reference within L.5.5 has been removed. | |
| RFP | L.4, L.9.6, L.10 | 102, 108 | 3051, 3211-3213, 3211-3232 | General | RFP Section L.4 shows the Small Business Subcontacting Plan is part of Volume V. However, there is a requirement to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan within Volume IV: Cost. Also, instructions for Vol. V state that "This evaluation factor is distinct from the small business subcontracting plan, which is a matter of responsibility – not evaluation." Would the Government clarify which Volume the Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be included in? | The small business subcontracting plan should be provided under volume V. The solicitation shall be updated such that the current L.9.6 shall become L.10.1, which places it under Volume V. The former L.9.7 is now L.9.6. | |
| RFP | L.4, L.7.2 | Proposal Organization, Table 1.1 | 102, 105 | 3006 | General | Table 1.1 - Proposal Organization lists "Unlimited" page limit for "Factor II Survey Results." Instructions in L.7.2 state that either CPARS results or Past Performance Questionnaires/Surveys submitted directly to NSF are required. Would the Government confirm that it will obtain CPARS and Questionnaires/Surveys, and thus we do not need to submit anything within Volume II for "Factor II Survey Results"? | Correct, due to surveys now being submitted directly to NSF, and NSF obtaining CPARS records directly, page limits for survey results are not applicable. References within L.4 to an unlimited page limit are removed. |
| RFP | J | 89 | 2588 | Critical | It appears the "ARV Performance Specification" document was not provided as an attachment. Would the Government please provide this specification? File number 19136.01 Rev B dated June 30 2023 was provided with the September 2023 draft RFP release. | Document has been provided with Amendment 3 of the solicitation. | |
| RFP | L.8 | 106 | 3164-3166 | General | Would the Government please confirm the written documentation is due no later than 24 hours after the presentation? | Yes this is correct. Documentation may be provided in advance, but no later than 24 hours after the presentation. In the absence of audio/visual recording, such documentation will included in the record of the event. | |
| RFP | L.8 | 106 | 3164-3166 | Critical | What content is required in the Orals written documentation? | Generally, content is expected to include copies of presentation slide decks or copies of any documentation handed out physically to the audience. Example: a presentation has a coninciding MS PowerPoint slidedeck. A copy of slides would constitute written documentation. | |
| RFP | L.4 | Proposal Organization, Table 1.1 | 102 | 3006 | Substantive | The footnote on RFP p. 102 states that a "Additional pages allowed for design agent transition plan, as applicable and in accordance with Section L.7.1." However, Section L.7.1 does not reference a design agent transition plan. Would the Government please update L.7.1 to include the design agent transition plan? Would the Government also confirm this plan is outside the 25-page limit for "Prior Experience"? | A separate alottment of pages for design agent transition is not provided, the reference is erroneous. The footnote on page 102 is now removed. |
| RFP Section L | L.7.1 and C.2.11, H.45 | 114, 32, and 59 | 3305-3306, 581-582, and 1464 | Substantive | RFP Sections C and H indicate that "Contracts Manager" is a required key position. Section L does not include reference to Contracts Manager as a key position. Would the Government please clarify whether Offerors should include a Contracts Manager as a key position in our response to Section L requirements for "Prior Experience"? | The contracts manager key position is not part of the response requirements under Section L. | |
| RFP Section L | L.9.2 | 107 | Substantive | Would the Government consider removing the requirement of Certified Cost or Pricing Data, as the conditions of FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i) and (ii) have been met. There should be at least two offerors, which meets the threshold for adequate price competition. Instead, it is recommended that Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data be required as described in FAR 15.403-3. | Certified cost or pricing data is no longer required. Data other than certified cost or pricing data is now required. While uncertified, it shall match the format and contents of table 15-2 under FAR 15.408. Section L.9.2 has been revised, as well as section L.13 (clause 52.215-20). Be advised that, because the IDIQ schedule is unpriced, future orders beyond the initial one captured via the example order will not be exempt from certification requirements on the basis of compeition. | ||
| RFP Section L | L.11 | 109 | General | Would the Government please confirm that the requested information of Section L.11 is to be included in Volume IV - Cost? | Correct, please provide this information under Volume IV. L.4 has been updated. | ||
| RFP Section L | L.14 | 111 | General | Would the Government please confirm that the requested information of Section L.14 is to be included in Volume IV - Cost? | Correct, please provide this information under Volume IV. L.4 has been updated. | ||
| RFP | K.7 | N/A | 99-100 | 2948 - 2962 | Critical | K.7(b) indicates that an offereor without an already approved EVMS must submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with the EVMS guidelines. Would the Government please confirm that the requested information of Section K.7(b) is to be included in Volume IV - Cost? | Correct, please provide this information under Volume IV. L.4 has been updated. |
| RFP | L.9.1 | 107 | 3192-3195 | Editorial | The RFP states the "All information relating to the proposed cost, including any supporting documentation, must be included in the section of the proposal designated as Volume III – Cost. Under no circumstances shall any cost information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal. NSF is not responsible for ensuring cost information is contained solely in Volume III." Would the Government please clarify that the section that contains cost information is Volume VI - Cost, not Volume III? | Corrected to reflect Volume IV. | |
| Solicitation |
RFP+QnA+Matrix+Answers+
| from+First+Release.xls | L | |||
| Q&A | L.5.3 | |||
| Q&A #89 | 103 | 3031 | Substantive | Request that NSF allows foldouts within the proposal submission that count as one page. Under Q&A #89, foldouts were allowed and counted as one page. |
| We request that Q&A #89 be incorporated into the final RFP. | Updated, foldouts are counted as one page. | |||||||
| Solicitation | L | L.4 | 101 | 3006 | Substantive | In Table 1.1, what is “Factor II Summary: 5 pages”? It is not mentioned anywhere outside of this table. Please provide clarification and description of contents for the Factor II Summary. | Reference to a Factor II Summary has been removed. L.4 updated. | |
| Solicitation | L | L.5.5 | 103 | 3041 | General | Section L.5.5 does not mention cover pages. |
| Please confirm that cover pages are excluded from the total page count. | Cover pages are now exempt from page counts. L.5.5 updated. | ||
| Solicitation | L | L.5.5 | |
| L.9.5 | 103 | ||
| 107 | 3047 | ||
| 3209 | General | Please confirm whether the entire Teaming Agreement is required or if the signature page(s) / cover page is acceptable. | Teaming agreements, when applicable to the proposing entity's arrangement, are required. |
| Solicitation | L | L.4 |
L.7.2 M.3 101 115 3006
| 3439 | General | Please confirm what data should be included as part of Volume II, Factor II Past Performance Survey Results. Is the government requesting that we include copies of the CPARS since the surveys are being submitted directly to NSF? | Instructions within the RFP should now indicate that client entities submit their surveys directly to NSF. NSF will also collect CPARS results directly, no submission is required on behalf of the proposing entity in regard to CPARS. | |||||
| Solicitation | F | 2 | 30 | 613 | There are several mentions of F3.3 and subsections F.3.3.1 & F.3.3.2 that do not map to the RFP Section F.3 but to F.2 instead. For example, see table F.7.3. | References in F.7.3 updated. Further, the prior Table F.7.4 is removed. Table F.7.5 updated. | ||
| Solicitation | I | 2 | 62 | 1637 | The proposed contract includes FAR 52.227-17 Rights in Data – Special Works, which limits assertion of copyright in data first produced in performance of the contract and allows the Government to obtain assignment of copyright in that data (contractor does not retain any legal ownership ie. no rights to use the data in the future). However, the proposed contract also includes FAR 52.227-14 Rights in Data – General, which provides the Government with broad “unlimited rights” in data first produced in performance of the contract. Because “unlimited rights” already provides the Government with extremely broad rights in such data, it is respectfully requested that the Government remove FAR 52.227-17 from the proposed contract. If the Government is unwilling to remove FAR 52.227-17, then it is respectfully requested that the Government expressly identify those specific works that are intended to be covered by the FAR 52.227-17. | FAR 52.227-17 has been removed. | ||
| Solicitation | L | 5.5 | 103 | 3041-3054 | Resumes are not included in the page limitation list of L.5.5, however, Section L.7 states resumes do not count toward page count. We recommend a two-page maximum resume definition. Please clarify acceptable resume page count. | Resumes have been added as exempted under L.5.5. | ||
| Solicitation | L | 5.6 | 103 | 3057 | Seeking to clarify NSF's expectation regarding tab indexing. We assume this means that you can click on the TOC lines and it will direct you to the right section of the proposal. | Tab indexing referred to physical proposals. Clicking on TOC items do not need to send the viewer to that section. Section updated. | ||
| PEP | Table of Contents | viii | Substantive | The PEP refers to Appendix 16 as a Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM); however this appendix was not provided in the ARV PEP Appendices folder. An RTM has been provided as the Preliminary Design Report titled "5E1-070-R301 SMR Requirement Traceability Matrix Rev P2 (1).pdf"? Would the Government please confirm that this is the same RTM noted as Appendix 16, or clarify if there are other RTMs? If there are other RTMs, please provide them. | The RTM and Requirements Verification Matrix (RVM) were provided as separate stand alone reports instead of Appendix 16 of the PEP. The following documents provide requirements verification and traceability. Located in the Design Reports Folder: 5E1-070-R301 SMR Requirement Traceability Matrix Rev P2 (PDF); 5E1-070-R301 SMR Requirement Traceability Matrix_Appendix A Rev P2 (XLSX); 5E1-070-R101 Requirement Verification Matrix RVM Rev P5 (PDF). In the Native Files Folder: 5E1-070-R101 Requirement Verification Matrix RVM Rev P5 Appendix A (XLSX) | |||
| PEP | Table of Contents | viii | Substantive | The PEP lists Appendix 11 as "RESERVED." Would the Government please provide the document associated with Appendix 11 as has been done for Appendix 08, which is also listed as "RESERVED"? Or, please confirm if RESERVED for Appendix 11 is correct. | The Table of Contents is incorrect for Appendix 08 and the appendix has been provided. Appendix 11 is reserved and not provided. | |||
| RFP | C.2.6.2 | 25 | 507 | Editorial | Does the Government mean Construction "Phase," as in one of the phases of the Construction Stage? | Correct, C.2.6.2.b has been updated. The Construction Stage includes three Phases: Detail Design; Construction; & Transition to Operations. | ||
| RFP | C.2.6.2 | 25 | 513 | Editorial | Does the Government mean Transition to Operations "Phase," as in one of the phases of the Construction Stage? | Correct, C.2.6.2.c has been updated | ||
| RFP | F.7, B.7.1 | F.7.1 | 36 | 842 | Substantive | Section C.2.7 Timeline shows a Final Design Phase approximately 28 months long (from June 1, 2024 to September 30, 2026). B.7.1 indicates a 24-month period of performance. The table in Section F.7.1 Final Design Phase Deliverables shows the Final Design Review Document Package being due December 2025, which would be roughly 18 months from a June 1, 2024 start. Would the Government clarify the Final Design Phase period of performance and related deliverables deadline? | The period of performance for the Final Design Phase is an element subject to negotiation per foot note 5 under section B.7.1, which has been updated. The nominal timeline in C.2.7 is the Governments expected maximum period required. Table F.7.1 lists the timeline for key deliverables during the Final Design Phase. The FDR package is delivered at least 30 days prior to the Final Design Review that will be held in early 2026. Post FDR, additional work will be required to address recommendations from the FDR report and to complete the Final Design Package of Deliverables prior to the end of the project phase. Table F.7.1 has been updated. | |
| RFP | C.2.3.2 | Table 1 | 18 | 302 | General | Would the Government please clarify the significance of the "FD Phase" annotations on some of the drawings in Table 1? | Those drawings were not deliverables provided for the Preliminary Design Phase, but may be required as part of the Final Design Phase package of drawings. | |
| Preliminary Design Reports Part 2 of 2 - 5E1-070-R102 ARV CAMEO Model Report_Rev P1 (1).pdf | 1.4 | N/A | 6 | N/A | Critical | The ARV CAMEO Model Report states that the Design Reference Mission (DRM) "was developed and will most likely have an impact on the P-SPEC and SMR.... The DRM was not integrated into the model prior to PDR but elements may be included post PDR as derived requirements if needed." Would the Government please confirm DRM impacts and changes have been incorporated in the Post-PDR Design? | Correct, the current SMR and PSPEC requirements reflect meeting the Design Reference Mission. | |
| RFP | L | L.10 | 108 | 3224-3230 | Substantive | In Volume V, Small Business Participation, would the Government please extend the confines of the small business utilization response to offerors' contracts outside of those provided in Factor 1? This would give the Government a better overall understanding of Offerors' commitment to small business utilization. | Such a revision is not being considered at this time. | |
| RFP | C.2.8 | 58 | 1577-1581 | Substantive | Would the Government please confirm that the shipyard construction site will be in the United States, as described in Appendix 6, Section 6.2.1, of the PEP and update C.2.8? | Shipyard location will be in accordance with Federal laws, regulations, and contract terms and conditions regarding use of international sources and firms during contract and contract order performance. Appendix 6, Section 6.2.1, provides a used assumption for the estimate and does not constitute direction on shipyard location. | ||
| RVM | RVM ID PSP-314.1-1.1.8 Dynamic Positioning System (DPS)-1 Class (Reference 50), | PSP-314.1-1.1.8 | Substantive | Would the Government please explain how the RVM ID PSP-314.1-1.1.8 Dynamic Positioning System (DPS)-1 Class (Reference 50) failed? | The requirement to provide the Dynamic Positioning System with UPS protection was pending approval and incorporation of ECR-15-02 for PSPEC 314.1. The RVM was completed prior to the publication of the current PSPEC Rev E that now includes that requirement. PSPEC Rev E was provided in Ammendment 3 of the RFP. | |||
| RFP Section C | 2 | 3.2 a | Table 2; Pgs 20 & 21 | Substantive | Table 2 identifies both a Stack Gas Flow Analysis Report, and a Stack Gas Analysis Report as two separate deliverables in FD. Would the Government please confirm this is a duplicate requirement? | This is an error in Table 2, there is only one report - Stack Gas Analysis Report (5E1-259-R0001) Rev 0. Table 2 has been updated | ||
| RFP Section K.7 | K.7 | 100 | 2965 | Substantive | Would the Government please define the threshold for a major subcontractor? | The applicable subcontractors will be determined via mutual agreement, per section K.7.c | ||
| Missing elements of the Controlled Attachments/Native Files | Critical | To create a level field of competition, would the Government please note the specific software package, including the version and modules, to open the Native Files? | Exact versions, modules, etc of software is not available. If a certain file cannot be loaded within the software listed within the spreadsheet, please identify the file. | |||||
| Overall | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Critical | Is it permissible for a foreign entity to submit a bid directly for the ARV Integrator procurement, rather than bidding | ||
| through a US entity? | All Offerors are required to comply with Federal laws, regulations, and solicitation provisions regarding use of international sources and firms during contract and contract order performance. Non-compliance during the evaluation of proposals may lead to an offeror not being eligible for award. Non-compliance during contract and order performance could mean a contractor is not in compliance with the contract requirements. Clause 52.225-5 Trade Agreements has been added to the contract. Provision 52.225-6 Trade Agreements Certificate has been added to the RFP. | |||||||
| Solicitation | M | M.1 | 114 | 3403 | General | Can NSF provide how the proposals will be scored, specifically the scoring methodologies to include numerical rating / weight of individual evaluation factors? | Specific rating methods for the evaluation factors will not be disclosed, in accordance with FAR 15.304(d). | |
| PEP | 15 | 15.2.2.2 | 138 | N/A | Substantive | In Section 15.2.2.2 of the PEP, “the vessel integrator will be responsible to develop the plans for all phases of the post-delivery period from vessel delivery until the ship is ready for operations.” |
| Is the Total Project Cost assessment intended to include Mission Integrator and Vessel Operator costs? | The Total Project Cost includes Vessel Operator and Mission Integrator (Technical Support) during the transition to operations phase. These costs can be seen in PEP Appendix 06.1 on the Points - Details - Then Year ($) tab for SWBS 5.E.02.05 | |||||||
| Solicitation | K | K.1(c)(1)(xx) | 92 | 2679 | Substantive | Will the Buy America Act apply to ship construction? | All Offerors are required to comply with Federal laws, regulations, and contract clauses and requirements regarding the use of international sources and firms during contract and contract order performance. Non-compliance during the evaluation of proposals may lead to an offeror not being eligible for award. Non-compliance during contract and order performance could mean a contractor is not in compliance with the contract requirement | |
| Substantive | Does the Davis Bacon Wage law apply for ship construction? | Yes, Davis Bacon will apply to vessel construction. Language has been added to F.2.5 concerning future vessel construction efforts and the expectation of DBA applying. | ||||||
| PEP | 4 | 4.1 | 47 | N/A | Substantive | Was Buy America included in the total project cost estimate provided in the PEP? | Only to the extent possible given the equipment identified. | |
| PEP | 2.1 | 15 | For confirmation, the Mission Integrator scope defined in section 2.1, page 15 of the Project Execution Plan is not part of the scope of the Vessel Integrator solicitation. | The Mission Integrator Scope is not part of the Vessel Integrator Scope. | ||||
| Solicitation | C | 2.4.2.f | 23 | 444-448 | The issue of title transfer is not addressed in the RFP but carries critical risks. The vessel integrator is required to identify the Government as the owner the ARV for the purposes of vessel registration and certification throughout the construction process via the filing of CG-1258 forms (Application for initial Certificate of Documentation) with the National Vessel Documentation (NVDC). Direct passage of title to the Government is advantageous because it would (a) mitigate the risk of sales tax being imposed upon the vessels from being transferred first to a private company, (b) would prevent the ability of any third parties placing a lien against the vessels during the brief period that they would be titled to a private company, and (c) would eliminate the need to file additional CG-1258s and bills of sale of with the NVDC at closing. Please clarify that title will pass directly from the shipyard to the government. | It is the intent of the Government that Title will be transferred to the Government upon Delivery (Initial Acceptance). C.2.4.2f and F.7.2 have been updated to reflect this intention. | ||
| Solicitation | H | 1 | 42 | 939 | What is the level of classification for data and products developed during the Final Design Phase - Please provide the security classification guide so the VI can plan for appropriate security level for IT networks, systems and software used in this contract. | Unclassified. Specific documentation may be considered Controlled Unclassified Information, to be determined in the future. | ||
| Solicitation | H | 7 | 55 | 1461 | Could the Government please confirm that contract clause H.7, Restrictions Against Disclosure of Information, is not intended to limit or restrict the contractor’s rights in data under FAR 52.227-14, Rights in Data – General, which is also included in the contract? | Both clauses will be part of the contract. | ||
| Solicitation | L | 9 | 107 | 3176 | Is contingency to be included in Vol 2? If so, will it be evaluated? | Contingency for the Final Design Phase cost shall be included in Volume IV. The Basis of Estimate and rationale for needing the contingency will be evaluated for reasonableness. | ||
| Solicitation | Can NSF confirm that the RFP does not require Subcontractors to submit an un-sanitized version of their cost proposal directly to the NSF? | Section L.9 has been revised to discuss receipt of compensation plans. Compensation plans are required from subcontractors when subcontractor costs equal or exceed 25% of the estimated order value. If such a plan contains confidential or proprietary business information which the sub desires to not share with the prime, they may submit directly to NSF. |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .