693JF718R000029_-_Amendment_0003_-_QAs_2___11-08-18.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

MARITIME

ADMINISTRATION

RFP 693JF718R000029 – NSMV VCM

Questions and Answers – 2 (Amendment 0003)

11/08/2018

Q1. Can past performance information regarding key personnel who have relevant experience at a previous company be provided as past performance submissions.

A1. No. Past performance information regarding key personnel cannot be considered for an offeror’s past performance, in response to L.9. However, relevant experience of proposed Key Personnel, gained from a previous company, is acceptable in response to L.8.

Q2. If the Offeror has recent and relevant past performance experience for Vessel Construction Management of a vessel(s) built for a separate entity of the parent company with a different CAGE code, will the Government accept the Past Performance Questionnaire filled out by that separate entity?

A2. Yes. MARAD will consider a past performance evaluation from an affiliate.

Q3. Page 82 of the RFP states:

AN OFFEROR SHALL PROVIDE A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT SUBSTANTIATING THAT THE

OFFEROR IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A COASTWISE ENDORSEMENT AND EVIDENCE OF

THE FOLLOWING IN THE COVER LETTER FOR THE PROPOSAL:

1. THE OFFEROR MUST HAVE CONSTRUCTED OR MANAGED THE

CONSTRUCTION OF A DOCUMENTED COASTWISE ENDORSEMENT VESSEL THAT

WAS DELIVERED WITHIN THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, FROM THE ISSUANCE OF

THE RFP;

2. THE PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED OR MANAGED VESSEL(S) MUST BE OF

COMPARABLE SIZE, SCOPE OR COMPLEXITY; AND

3. STATE THE VESSEL(S) NAME RESPONSIVE TO (1) AND (2).

Also, on page 82 it states:

PAGES COUNTED

The Government shall count each page. The following documents DO NOT count towards the total page count:

• Cover Letter for Proposal

• Notarized affidavit substantiating that the Offeror is eligible to receive a coastwise endorsement

Do we submit two separate documents as follows:

1) Cover Letter

2) Notarized Affidavit

If so, does the affidavit, or cover letter, answer the three statements in bold above?

A3. See updated L.1 and L.7. The proposal cover letter and the notarized affidavit are two separate documents.

Q4. As we would with any commercial shipbuilding contract, when the VCM contracts with the shipyard will we be allowed to negotiate different payment milestones than those listed in the RFP to best incentivize that shipyard to meet the cost and schedule requirements of the contract?

A4. The VCM may negotiate different payment milestones with the shipyard. If requested by the VCM, MARAD may consider revising the payment milestones at H.14.

Q5. Paragraph C.2(b)(3) states that the VCM will deliver NSMVs II-V not later than 15 months from the issuance of the applicable delivery order. Though a build time of 15 months may be possible, this short duration would imply that long-lead items have already been ordered earlier.

Should the VCM assume full funding, including long-lead items, when pricing the delivery of NSMVs II-V and that the build cycles can be staggered to achieve optimal pricing and schedule of delivery?

A5. CLIN 3 is not priced for this proposal. It is priced per H.15. H.15 (c) contains pricing scenarios for various amounts of funding.

When an NSMV(s) is ordered, a fully funded task order will be issued. The VCM will then be paid based on the payment milestones at H.14.

When pricing the delivery of NSMVs II-V, per H.15, the build cycles can be staggered to achieve optimal pricing and schedule of delivery.

Please see revised H.15.

Q6. Paragraph C.2a states that "The commercial entity (the VCM) will be an independent contractor bound by contract to deliver the vessel(s) compliant in all aspects with the specifications and contract, on time, and for the agreed firm fixed price.". When negotiating with the shipyards, the VCM may find that no shipyard can deliver within the time or cost that MARAD desires. Will the VCM then be able to work with MARAD for new schedules and/or pricing?

A6. Where C.2a states that "…the VCM will be an independent contractor bound by contract to deliver the vessel(s) compliant in all aspects with the specifications and contract, on time, and for the agreed firm fixed price,” MARAD is referring to AFTER the VCM solicits and selects the shipyard. In the event the VCM is unable to solicit and select a shipyard that can deliver the vessel within the time or cost that MARAD desires, after following its proposed shipyard selection process, MARAD would, at its own discretion, consider all contracting options available to determine how best to proceed.

Q7. Paragraph E.6 requires that at delivery, VCM must attest that ship is free of known defects, which seems to preclude ability to deliver with small defects. In a typical commercial ship construction contract, it is appropriate to take delivery of a vessel that still has minor deficiencies that have no bearing on safety or operability, so that the vessel can enter service. These small defects or deficiencies are listed in the Protocol of Delivery and the shipbuilder agrees to repair them within the warranty phase. Otherwise, delivery can be unnecessarily delayed for weeks or more for non-critical small issues. Will the VCM be allowed to follow this standard commercial ship construction practice?

A7. Yes, this standard commercial practice will be followed. There will be agreed upon withholds based on the minor defects until they are corrected; the minor defects (if any) shall be listed on the Certificate of Completion and Delivery/Protocol of Delivery.

Attachment J-4 will be revised to include a Certificate of Completion and Delivery/Protocol of Delivery and Attachment J-7 will be updated.

Q8. In the Descriptions of Contract Line Items on page 5, CLIN 1 is said to include “manage plan approval process”. Plan approval is a process that will commence typically after a shipbuilding contract is in place, so should the VCM include “manage plan approval process” in CLIN 2 rather than CLIN 1?

A8. Yes. CLINs 1 and 2 will be updated.

Q9. In the Descriptions of Contract Line Items on pages 5-6, Warranty Support seems to be misplaced in CLIN 3. There does not seem to be a vehicle to allow for VCM management of warranty. CLIN 2 activity seems to cease at the delivery of the ship and doesn’t extend into the warranty phase. Recommend MARAD include Warranty Support in both CLIN 2 and CLIN 3.

A9. See revised CLIN 2 and CLIN 3.

Q10. To what extent does MARAD wish to be invited for inspection and test call-outs? RFP section E.1 requires an invitation 7-days in advance, which will be difficult. If they require an invite to every inspection, this will be literally hundreds of events, particularly as it relates to steel and coating inspections, which are not, by common commercial shipbuilding practice, typically scheduled that far in advance. The 7-day notification makes sense for large activities like “start of sea trials”, but not for the myriad of smaller inspection activities. Normally the VCM would invite the owner to significant test events. Request clarification of the extent MARAD wishes to participate in inspections and tests.

A10. MARAD shall be notified of all inspection and test call-outs.

See revised E.1.

Q11. How much time should the VCM expect it will take for MARAD to perform a full review of the proposed contract specification and Contract Design as stated in H.24? The contract specification is expected to be significantly more detailed than the outline specification provided with the guidance information. This review period needs to be factored into the IMS and could impact the desired delivery timeline.

A11. See revised J-4, Item 6, Contract Design, required by date, revised H.24 and Section

L.8, MARAD REVIEW/APPROVAL OF NSMV DESIGN.

Q12. Paragraph H.12 requires documentation of all written and verbal communication with Regulatory bodies. Those communications may well occur multiple times each day on a commercial shipbuilding program. This administrative burden is viewed as costly and unreasonable for a standard commercial shipbuilding contract. Recommend including the COR on any written communications with Regulatory bodies and not requiring documentation of routine shipyard verbal communications.

A12. See revised H.12(b). Copying the COR and CO in e-mail on electronically transmitted correspondence meets the intent of H.12 (a) for electronically transmitted written correspondence.

Q13. Is the Integrated Master Schedule intended to show the construction of only the lead ship or must it include all the possible ships? With no specific shipyards involved yet in the development of the IMS that the VCM must create, this is a hypothetical exercise at this point. Showing 1 ship in the IMS will demonstrate the VCM’s understanding of the typical shipbuilding process. Request MARAD clarification of IMS requirements.

A13. See revised IMS guidance at L.8.

Q14. Volume I Master Cross Reference Matrix requires offeror to cite paragraph numbers, yet nowhere in the RFP does it require offeror to number the paragraphs. Please clarify.

A14. The MCRM shall cite numbered paragraphs and/or counted paragraphs on a specific page.

Q15. Paragraph H.21 requires the VCM to evaluate U.S. equipment manufacturers, include them on the Maker’s List, evaluate their capability, and notify MARAD of the cost impact of U.S.

Manufacturer selection. Please clarify how MARAD intends to evaluate the VCM’s/Shipyard’s equipment selection process.

A15. MARAD will evaluate all aspects of the VCM’s proposed shipyard selection process, as proposed in its CSOW and per Section M.1 – FACTOR 1, Sub Factor A: Technical Approach.

Q16. It is requested that the DOT approved Acquisition Plan for the NSMV vessel acquisition be shared with industry.

A16. The approved Federal Government Acquisition Plan for the NSMV Vessel Construction Management (VCM) acquisition is Source Selection Sensitive and not eligible for release.

Q17. It is requested that Section E.1 be revised so that notification requirement timelines are only applicable to approximately 10 to 20 of the major tests and inspections at the shipyard and 10 to 20 final tests and inspections of maker’s list items, to be defined and agreed upon after shipyard award. During the ship construction phase, dozens of tests and inspections may occur in a single day. For efficient shipyard production, interim checks are required hours after a specific scope of work is finished, therefore not meeting the timeline requirements in Section E1 of the solicitation as currently written.

A17. See revised E.1.

Q18. Section E.6 requires certification that the vessel is free from known defects. Given the schedule constraints, it should be expected there will be minor items which are not repaired or corrected at time of delivery. The list of deficiencies should be identified and listed in the delivery certificate and agreed to by all parties. Shipyards typically correct these items thirty

(30) days after delivery. Please consider this change in line with normal commercial shipbuilding best practices.

A18. See response to Q7 above.

Q19. On page 52, Section (18) 52.216-22 --Indefinite Quantity (Oct 1995) paragraph (c) states: “(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.” This clause could require the use of shipyards at multiple locations. There are major cost implications to such a requirement. Please consider revisions or acknowledge that a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) would be needed if this unusual circumstance occurred.

A19. Clause 52.216-19 - Order Limitations limits the supplies or services the Contractor is obligated to fulfill under the resulting contract.

As described in H.15(c), if there is a scenario where the Government has a requirement for more than one vessel, the vessels will be built in a series. It is not anticipated that there will be a requirement for performance at multiple locations.

Q20. At what point will the outfitting design be finalized? Commercial best practice defines a firm deadline and budget for outfitting items to be identified.

A20. The outfitting will be finalized prior to soliciting with the shipyards.

Q21. To what extent will the VCM need to engage various stakeholders to validate the outfitting requirements of each hull?

A21. It is anticipated the VCM will require minimal engagement with the stakeholders (presuming State Maritime Academies) as the outfitting will be established prior to the contract design development. Access will be provided per H.24. ANY SUCH

ENGAGEMENT SHALL INLCUDE THE COR AND/OR CO.

Q22. How will conflicts between regulatory requirements and the guidance design be handled? Which will take priority? Who will bear the cost of changes? Will this change be based on the phase of design?

A22. It is the VCM’s responsibility to verify and refine the Guidance Design as they develop the construction Contract Design with bidding shipyards. Any conflicts between regulatory requirements and the Guidance Design should be resolved during this process.

There should be no cost changes after a fixed price contract is signed between the shipyard and the VCM, the Contract Design should be in compliance with regulatory requirements in effect up to the date of the contract. It is the responsibility of the shipyard in normal commercial practice to take responsibility to comply with regulatory requirements in effect as of the date specified in the contract.

Q23. Refer to Section C.2(b) Specific Objectives (3); based upon recent market survey data and contractual actions required between VCM award date and shipyard award date, 44 months is the minimum required delivery schedule for a well-prepared VCM and shipyard to deliver NSMV I to MARAD. Please extend the not to exceed 40-month delivery requirement window to 44 months.

A23. The 40-month delivery requirement is a goal, not a disqualifying requirement – in accordance with Section M.4, Sub-factor B, Management Approach.

Q24. Section C2(b)(3) requires the VCM to deliver NSMV II-V to MARAD not later than 15 months from the issuance of the applicable Delivery Order. It is requested that consideration be given to extend the timeframe from delivery order of the first hull to delivery for subsequent hulls to 27 months. Based on market survey, fifteen (15) months is insufficient. If the delivery timeframe remains unchanged, there is an elevated risk of project failure due to shipyards not being willing to bid on the project. As an alternative, consideration is requested to fund milestones 1 & 2 as defined in H14(a) 27 months prior to delivery of NSMV II – V but issuing the delivery order for NSMV II – V fifteen (15) months before delivery.

A24. It is recognized that the period of performance from issuance of the Delivery/Task Order to vessel delivery for subsequent NSMVs may be greater than 15 months. The RFP, Section C.2(b)(3), will be revised to reflect that NSMV II-V shall be delivered within 15 months of the previous NSMV delivery when built in series with the actual delivery schedule of hulls in series per the VCM provided construction schedule. The VCM, through its negotiations with the shipyard, shall propose dates that the government would have to exercise options (Delivery/Task Order) for additional NSMVs if not included in the original Delivery/Task Orders.

Q25. Given the requirement to select US manufactured equipment and supplies to the maximum extent practicable, is MARAD willing to extend ship delivery timelines to accommodate longer lead times for U.S. sourced equipment and supplies? Is MARAD willing to accept design modifications required to accommodate U.S. sourced equipment and supplies? Bright line rules will be required to work through these issues efficiently.

A25. MARAD will consider options that are presented by the VCM. If a delay is incurred, then it will be treated as an excusable delay. If a design change is to be considered, it will be addressed in accordance with Section H.24.

Q26. It is requested that Section E.1 be revised so that notification requirement timelines are only applicable to approximately 10 to 20 of the major tests and inspections at the shipyard and 10 to 20 final tests and inspections of maker’s list items, to be defined and agreed upon after shipyard award. During the ship construction phase, dozens of tests and inspections may occur in a single day. For efficient shipyard production, interim checks are required hours after a specific scope of work is finished, therefore not meeting the timeline requirements in Section E1 of the solicitation as currently written.

A26. See revised E.1

Q27. Sections E.1 and E.2 of the solicitation lack a defined process for determining the validity of the Government representative’s assertion of a deficiency. It skips right to correction. It is requested that MARAD propose a defined process. Commercial best practice is to use ABS for all Class related items. Non-class items should be resolved at the managerial level, if not agreed then the executive level, if not agreed then by arbitration. Giving a government representative 100% of the vote will drive up cost and make the schedule untenable. This is not in line with commercial best practices.

A27. The VCM’s CSOW will identify the minimum standards that the vessel will be constructed to. Core standards are identified in the Outline Specification and Guidance Design and will be refined in the Contract specification and Contract Design. Where the construction or installations are to meet a regulatory standard, that standard will govern.

Where an installation or equipment has a performance standard, that standard will govern. If the government and subsequent sub-contract(s) identifies an alternate or non-class requirement, it will be incumbent on the government representative to determine the satisfaction of the work to meet the requirement. Where disputes arise, the commercial standard proposed by the VCM shall apply. This does not preclude the government from observing any of the aforementioned tests and inspections.

Q28. Section E.6 requires certification that the vessel is free from known defects. Given the schedule constraints, it should be expected there will be minor items which are not repaired or corrected at time of delivery. The list of deficiencies should be identified and listed in the delivery certificate and agreed to by all parties. Shipyards typically correct these items thirty

(30) days after delivery. Please consider this change in line with normal commercial shipbuilding best practices.

A28. The standard commercial practice will be followed. There will be agreed upon withholds based on the discrepancies/defects until they are corrected. Attachment J-4 will be revised to include a Certificate of Completion and Delivery/Protocol of Delivery. The Certificate of Completion and Delivery (Attachment J-7) will be updated.

Q29. On page 52, Section (18) 52.216-22 --Indefinite Quantity (Oct 1995) paragraph (c) states: “(c) Except for any limitations on quantities in the Order Limitations clause or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.” This clause could require the use of shipyards at multiple locations. There are major cost implications to such a requirement. Please consider revisions or acknowledge that a Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) would be needed if this unusual circumstance occurred.

A29. Clause 52.216-19 - Order Limitations limits the supplies or services the Contractor is obligated to fulfill under the resulting contract. As described in H.15(c), if there is a scenario where the Government has a requirement for more than one vessel, the vessels will be built in a series at the same shipyard. There will not be a requirement for performance at multiple locations.

Q30. What is the status of the regulatory schema for GFI as identified in H25?

A30. The regulatory schema will be provided prior to the shipyard solicitation.

Q31. The NSMV Outline Spec – REV 2 – 2015-017-03-20, page I-7, Section 11 entitled “Owners Furnished Equipment” requires MARAD to provide “Class Room, Lab, Workshop and Training Space furnishings, equipment and special outfitting (to be installed by Builder)”. CLIN 3 requires that construction of the vessel shall include the purchase and installation of all equipment and material for the training spaces identified in Attachment J10. Request clarification.

A31. NSMV Outline Spec – REV 2 – 2015-017-03-20, page I-7, Section 11, will be updated to reflect the requirements of the RFP prior to the shipyard solicitation.

Q32. The NSMV Outline Spec – REV 2 – 2015-017-03-20 Section 11 of Core Requirement states personal computer, loading computer and entertainment equipment as part of CLIN 3.

Section 11 of core requirements has a GFE list and some of the items on the list are not referenced anywhere else as a deliverable on the explicit GFE delivery schedule. Request clarification on GFE requirements and what should be priced in CLIN 3.

A32. The GFE list is not finalized. A finalized list will be provided to the VCM in a timely manner that includes the mentioned items that need to be installed by the shipyard. Some items, such as some personal computers, may be installed after delivery and would be outside the scope of CLIN 3.

Q33. It is requested that the DOT approved Acquisition Plan for the NSMV vessel acquisition be shared with industry.

A33. The approved Federal Government Acquisition Plan for the NSMV Vessel Construction Management (VCM) acquisition is Source Selection Sensitive and not eligible for release.

Q34. H-18 Excusable Delay

(a) delay by the Government or its representatives in providing to Contractor or its agents any GFE, GFI, documents and/or goods or materials for the construction of a vessel shall not constitute a breach or default of this Contract. The said delay shall be treated as an Excusable Delay only if the Contracting Officer determines that the said delay materially impacts the delivery schedule of the vessel. Each day of Excusable Delay shall extend the Scheduled Delivery Date by one (1) day.

(b) excusable delay or non-excusable delay by the Contractor or the Government shall not be a ground for the equitable adjustment of the price(s) for CLIN 0002—VCM Oversight & Management.

If there are multiple excusable delays by the government, there will be additional management costs incurred by the Contractor. Please reconsider to provide equitable adjustment of the price to the CLIN.

A34. See revised H.18(b)

Q35. Based upon the contract for CLIN 3, between the VCM and Shipyard, it is presumed there will be no protests to the government allowed based upon the Shipyard selection process. Please confirm.

A35. The FAR allows for protests by interested parties. For the purposes of filing a protest, the FAR defines an interested party as an actual or prospective offeror. For the purposes of the contract resulting from this solicitation, MARAD considers the VCM as the interested party or prospective offeror. A subcontractor is not considered an interested party. Impacts due to a subcontract protest will be considered for a request for equitable adjustment.

Q36. If there is a government allowed protest by the Shipyards (see Question #<35>), how does that reflect in the deliverables timeline? If, for example, Shipyard A is the down-selected yard, and Shipyard B protests, this could theoretically infringe on the VCM’s 40-month build cycle if it prevents us from awarding to Shipyard A. Can protest periods be defined as an Excusable Delay in H.18?

A36. See response to Q35.