Preproposal Conference Questions 11MAR2020 HHP.pdf

VAM RFP Preproposal Conference QUESTIONS

RE: RFP 693JF719R000034

Q1: It states: The solicitation will be competed among companies whose ships meet the Mandatory Eligibility Requirements (MER). The MERs established for this solicitation are:

§1736(g) and 46 U.S.C. § 50501(a)- (c).

2. Vessel/Owner Operator Requirement: Offerors must be operators or owner/operators within the past five (5) years of at least one (1) self-propelled vessel, or Integrated Tug/Barge, of at least 450'LLWL, with a minimum cargo capacity of 7,500 DWTs.

Could the government provide clarification as to why this would be a MER? Can this MER be relaxed or deleted? I am requesting a response soonest since we will not be able to Prime if MER #2 is not relaxed for the offeror.

A: This will not be relaxed or deleted. Offerors must be operators or owner/operators per this RFP section to relocate the ship, therefore they must be qualified and licensed in order to accomplish this task.

Q2: The Solicitation mentions a small business subcontracting management plan but does not provide any guidance as to what percentage of small business should be utilized. In today’s small business federal initiatives, can a targeted amount of small business be identified for the offeror to sub contract. Since this is a full and open competition it is difficult for small business to compete even though they have a wealth of expertise and invaluable skills. Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

A: Currently MARAD total small business goals are set as follows but is negotiable at time of award:

SB – 32.25%

SDB-5%

WOSB – 5%

SDVOSB – 3%

HZ-3%

Q3: Due to the volume of data that must be submitted with this proposal, as well as needing answers to the below questions, we respectfully request a two-week extension. If given, the new due date would be April 15th.

A: To be determined by program office

Q4: In response to the Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) requirement, could you please give an example of a tasking statement. Should the CSOW be comprised solely of tasking statements.

A: Every Offeror must propose a detailed Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) based on the Statement of Objectives (SOO), all other contract requirements, deliverables, and contractor proposed processes contained in the technical volume; The CSOW shall include all tasks to meet the objectives and other requirements, not simply repeat the objective or requirement.

Q5: Is this an example of a Tasking Statement: “Conduct vessel sea trial in accordance with Attachment J-11?”

A: This could be an example of a tasking statement if the Offeror deems that the attachment fully defines all tasks necessary to execute the requirement. In the case of sea trials (vessel surveys), Attachment J-11 is provided as a reference and does not necessarily describe how the Offeror will fulfill the requirement, therefore a solid tasking statement needs to be clear, concise, and thoroughly define what the task will accomplish.

Q6: The first paragraph of Section L.4 says “Offerors shall provide one original paper submittal, or one digital submittal.” Please clarify if we can do a digital submittal instead of a paper submittal?

A: RFP will be changed to reflect that two (2) paper, and two (2) digital (via email) submittals are required. All submissions must be received at MARAD by the due date.

Q7: Section L says “The ‘ORIGINAL’ copy of the proposal Volumes I, II, III, IV, V and VI shall be provided with separate cover sheets and shall be clearly marked ‘ORIGINAL.’ The ‘original’ paper copy shall have no staples. The ‘ORIGINAL’ copy is included in the copy count above.” I cannot find the copy count. Please direct us or confirm how many copies of each volume are required.

A: See Table 1.1 in Section L.4.

Q8: Section L Table 1.1 says the OCI mitigation letter/plan goes in Volume I; however, the paragraph VOLUME DESIGNATION says, “Exceptions to the above include only subcontracting arrangements, letters of commitment, small business subcontracting plans, and Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) assertions, which the Offeror must submit in Volume IV, but may cross-reference in other volumes.” Please confirm that the OCI mitigation letter/plan should be in Volume I? Should the letters of commitment and SBSP should only be in Volume VI?

A: OCI Mitigation Plan should be in Volume I. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should be in Volume VI. The statement in Volume Designations is intended to allow Offerors to cross-reference certain items included in other volumes to support their proposal.

Q9: Section L Table 1.1 says the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) goes in Volume II; but it is also located in Volume III, Management Approach. Please clarify whether it should be in Volume II or III?

A: IMS should be included as part of Volume III.

Q10: In Section L, PAGE FORMAT RESTRICTION AND LIMITATIONS it says, “Pages shall be sequentially numbered by volume.” Do you want us to start the page numbering over in each volume or continue the page numbering sequence through all six volumes?

A: Start page count for each Volume. See Table 1.1 in Section L.

Q11: Please designate where we should put the SF 33.

A: The SF 33 should be included as part of the Volume VI pricing section.

Q12: Section M, page 140 does not match the Section L requirements regarding Factor 2, Management Approach. See table below and please clarify.

Section L Section M

Sub-factor A: Corporate Experience Sub-factor A: Cost Estimating Approach and Ability

Sub-Factor B: Management and Communications

Sub-factor B: Integrated Master Schedule

Sub-factor C: Cost Estimating Approach and Ability

Sub-factor C: Corporate Experience

Sub-factor D: Integrated Master Schedule

A: Forthcoming RFP amendment will delete sub-factors and associated table.

Q13: F.9 PLACE AND METHOD OF DELIVERY OF CONTRACT LINE ITEMS BY THE

VAM (page 26) has a reference at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph “Except where otherwise directed in the contract, all documentation and data, (other than (b) above)”. Please clarify where the “(b) above” is located.

A: Forthcoming RFP amendment will delete reference to “(b) above.”

Q14: H.33 VAM INSURANCE references “CLINS 00087 and 0009”. Please confirm that you are referring to CLINS 0008 and 0009.

A: Confirmed, H.33 refers to CLINs 0008 and 0009.

Q15: Amendment 0001 states period of performance is from 4/8/2020 – 4/7/2030. The RFP states 6 years (4 years firm + one 2-year option). The pricing sheet also reflects 10 years (one 4-year base + three 2 year options). Please clarify the length of the contract.

A: Forthcoming RFP amendment will change the pricing sheet to reflect 6 years as per section C.3.

Q16: CLIN 0006 states “Purchase the vessel on behalf of the government the number of vessel(s) as and when directed. This shall include developing a sales contract, bill of sale, coordinating vessel transfer details, and other requirements for the vessel to become property of the United States.” Please advise as to who initially pays the vessel cost. Does the Contractor pay, and is reimbursed by the government, or will the government make the payment directly to the Owner of the vessel?

A: The Government will make the payment for the vessel via the VAM; funds will be transferred for vessel procurement through a Task Order (CLIN 0006) which is invoiced specifically for the purchase of the vessel.

Q17: Reference J-2: Given the fact that the pricing form J-2 does not have a tab for CLIN 4, 5,6 and 7, are we correct to assume the pricing for these items will be determined after award and selection of vessels?

A: J-2 Will be updated to add pricing for these CLINs.

Q18: Given the fact that it is unknown where the vessel will be located, can you confirm all management travel to the vessel will be reimbursable?”

A: TBD under Task Order Issuance.

Q19: Reference CLIN 0001: Is an NDA required to be signed between VAM and broker in order to source available vessels? Is there any information which cannot be shared with the broker?

A: Yes. NDA requirement for broker is between VAM and Broker.

Q20: L.12 Vol VI: Do the subcontractor arrangements, small business plan, etc. listed on pages 135-136 get included in VOL VI?

A: YES

Q21: L.7; Factor 1: Technical Approach; Sub-factor A is titled “Statement of Work” and the text refers to CSOW? Are these the same item? Are these the same item? If so, then it is correct that Sub-Factor A does not count towards the page total?

A: Sub-Factors will be eliminated under the next amendment

Q22: H-14: Does this requirement for US Flag Preference apply to the transport of ship spares?

A: YES

Q23: Factor 1, Sub factor A: Please expand on what is desired by “Use a common numbering system for the tasking elements

A: Intent is to use a numbering system that is common throughout the proposal for simplicity of reading and referencing the document.

Q24: Factor 1 Sub factor D and Factor 2, Sub factor A: Factor 1 Sub factor D states “Demonstrate experience of similar reflagging and/or reclassification of vessels conducted by the offeror, date conducted, and for what purpose;” and Factor 2, Sub factor A states “Demonstrate application and process of conducting vessel reflagging/reclassification, including scope, associated costs, and timeframe of each; “Is there a difference in what each Sub factor is asking for?

A: Yes, Factor 1 asks for when/what the Offeror has previously accomplished in regard to similar experience. Factor 2 asks for how the Offeror will accomplish the required tasks.

Q25: H4 (n): MARAD is addressing a potential conflict arising from a VMA evaluating or submitting a vessel that it or one of its subcontractors has a financial interest in. If H4 (n) guidance is adhered to and the OCI addresses the steps that will be taken to mitigate this potential conflict, is it acceptable for a VMA to offer a vessel it or one of its subcontractors has a financial interest in?

A: Yes, if the Business Case Analysis fully supports the vessel recommendation.