VAM QA 27APR2020.pdf

RFP 693JF719R000034 Questions & Answers

4/16/2020 1

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 – 2.25%

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: Proposal submittals will be due 1600 EST on 1 MAY 2020

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

4/16/2020 2 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 Offerors shall provide two original paper submittals, two electronic submissions via CD 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.

4/16/2020 3

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. Currently adjustment from Amendment 2 reads Period of performance 07/08/2020 to 07/07/2026

4/16/2020 4

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

4/16/2020 5 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.

Q26: Please provide the format (electronic/hand delivered/combination of both) and number of copies that will be required for bid submission.

A: Offerors shall provide two original paper submittals, two electronic submissions via CD submittals are required. Section L.4 and L.5 address format and delivery.

Q27: Can offerors submit different pricing for each of the firm periods. If so what rate will be used as the baseline for the CPI adjustment for the option years.

A: Yes, the VAM contract would be per to-be-agreed upon rates for all years of the VAM Contracts for all CLINS, and not governed by the CPI index. All CLINs pricing for all years (base and options) will be submitted with proposals, evaluated and awarded with base contract – no future adjustments, including crew wages.

Q28: Will there be an extension granted beyond the April 1 due date? There is a tremendous amount of material to provide in the proposal. Increased COVID-19 precautions are making collaboration between our various offices, naval architects, consultants, etc, extremely difficult. Therefore, we believe an extension of significant duration is warranted in order to reflect the present way business is conducted due to the coronavirus crisis.

A: Extension will be reflected in next Amendment

4/16/2020 6

Q29: Please reconfirm that it is MARAD’s intention to award only one “VAM” under this solicitation. With recapitalization program finally gaining traction, and given the possibility that funding in future years might result in the purchasing of more than one ship in a given year, would MARAD reconsider having more than one VAM in meeting the demands for multiple purchases?

A: Not at this time.

Q30: Will MARAD consider extending the closing date by 2-weeks to April 15th?

A: Extensions are being considered and will be reflected in future amendment.

Q31: Are proposals to be transmitted via hard copy or will electronic submittals be acceptable?

A: RFP is being changed in next amendment to reflect Offerors shall provide two original paper submittals, two electronic submissions via CD submittals are required. IAW with Section L.4 and L.5 and question number 6.

Q32: Will a list of “Cost Reimbursable Items” be provided, similar to J-2 of the RRF Ship Manger Contract?

A: No.

Q33: With respect to key personnel supporting the VAM contract, please clarify whether the Program Manager and Technical Manager must both be full time W-2 employees and solely dedicated to the VAM contract.

A: Offerors should propose in their CSOW how they would execute the RFP and reflect their approach in the J-2 attachment with appropriate pricing and estimating.

Q34: Please advise whether existing RRF Ship Mangers must include Past Performance Questionnaires. If so, please provide Point of contact information at MARAD for completing same.

A: Yes. COR for Ship Manager Contract.

Q35-Q37 Not used

Q38: Page 18 or the RFP (Section C Statement of Objectives) calls out C.2(b) Vessel Selection and then C.2(d) Vessel Delivery and Acceptance. Nowhere can we find a section C.2(c).

Please advise.

A: Section has been renumbered in next amendment

4/16/2020 7

Q39: CLIN 0001 states:

• Assess vessel information and recommend to MARAD no more than ten vessels which have the highest potential of meeting the ORD and offering the best value upon initial assessment

• Provide to MARAD a listing of all vessels in priority order identified in the initial market survey including: Vessel Name, type of vessel…….

For the second bullet, should the listing be for up to 10, or for ALL vessels that are currently available and meet a-h of the ORD?

A: Should be for ALL vessels as stated.

Q40: In the RFP Section H.38.3.5. ADVANCE PAYMENTS, it states that “In the rare situation where commercial practice is for buyer financing of goods or services (e.g., operations in a foreign locale), the VAM may request advance payment on a case-by-case basis. An example under this contract where advance payments may be appropriate would be funds to be paid the seller for acquisition of a selected vessel.” Also, the answer to Q16 released on March 11 is unclear. Please confirm that the intent is for the Government to pre-fund any vessel acquisition costs and that the VAM would not be financing the vessel purchase and then asking for reimbursement upon turnover of the vessel to the Government.

A: Yes, confirming, the VAM will NOT be financing the vessel purchase.

Q41: RFP Section G.7 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS states:

“Prices for fixed-price Items 1, 2, 3 and 8 shall be adjusted by MARAD using the Consumer Price Index Adjustment procedure for Option Periods described in detail below.

Crew costs for Phase M and Phase O services provided by the VAM performing ship custodian management services, Item 8, are cost reimbursable. To be allowable, costs must be fair and reasonable. To be considered to be fair and reasonable, crew costs (wages and benefits) shall not exceed amounts established for Phase M and Phase O crews under tri-partite Collective Bargaining Agreements effective for the various crew unions on active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts. The Ship Manager Contract’s Wage Determination effective at all times during performance by the VAM of ship custodian management services will apply to crew costs and be considered fair and reasonable.”

MARAD has recently exercised Option 1 for years 5 and 6 and agreed to crew rates under tri-partite Collective Bargaining Agreements effective for the various crew unions on active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts. MARAD has also applied the same Consumer Price Index Adjustment as specified in the VAM RFP for costs other than crew for years 5 and 6 on active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts. Crew rates for Option 2, years 7 and 8, of the active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts have not yet been agreed to, and these years coincide with the 3rd and 4th year of the VAM contract.

4/16/2020 8

Please confirm that the VAM crew rates for years 3 and 4 of the VAM contract would be per to-be-agreed upon rates for years 7 and 8 of the active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts, and not governed by the CPI index.

A: Yes, the VAM contract would be per to-be-agreed upon rates for all years of the VAM Contracts for all CLINS, and not governed by the CPI index. All CLINs pricing for all years (base and options) will be submitted with proposals, evaluated and awarded with base contract – no future adjustments, including crew wages. Amendment for content of RFP will document change.

Q42: Is it the intent that vessels acquired under this program be managed by the VAM for a specific period such as one or two years, or for the years remaining on active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts? In other words, will newly-acquired vessels be managed by the VAM until management of the entire fleet is put out for bid?

A: MARAD will issue task orders for the CLINS for various periods of performance (POP) based on the requirement at that time; each POP for each CLIN will be dependent upon various factors. For the VAM vessel operation CLIN, it will be for whatever period necessary to prepare/upgrade the vessel to the point where we are comfortable to include it under a ship manager contract. Rough estimate is that it will be for a period of 2 years for each used vessel brought in, but again depends on many factors, some beyond our control, like vessel retirements, current funding and mission requirements as dictated by others.

Q43: Due to the answer to Q21 released on March 11, “Sub-Factors will be eliminated under the next amendment”. We are unsure of what that means to the structure/response to the RFP.

Therefore, we respectfully request a two-week extension to the due date. If given, the new due date will be April 15th.

A: Proposal submittals will be due 1600 EST on 1 MAY 2020

Q44: In response to the answer to Q6 released on March 11, “… and two (2) digital (via email) submittals”. Does this mean we have to submit 2 separate emails, each with the full proposal response? Would you also consider the digital proposals on the due date, and the paper copies delivered to MARAD 7 days later, as production time for this proposal will be lengthy.

A: RFP will be changed to reflect that Offerors shall provide two original paper submittals, two electronic submissions via CD submittals are required. All submissions must be received at MARAD by the due date.

Q45: In CLIN 0001, Vessel Search and Preliminary Screening, does the EA (each) refer to the process to survey the market in each FY and assist in the selection of vessels to purchase in that FY? It is a once per year task?

A: EA (each) refers to each instance of executing that CLIN. It does not correspond to once per year, but rather as often as necessary.

4/16/2020 9

Q46: In CLIN 0002, the Second Screening, does the EA (each) apply to each vessel?

A: EA (each) refers to each instance of executing that CLIN. It does not correspond to once per year, but rather as often as necessary.

Q47: CLIN 0004, Survey, Inspection & Final Recommendation – BCA, does EA (each) apply to each vessel?

A: Yes

Q48: If Marad selects Accelerated Screening (CLIN 0003) is this in lieu of CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002?

A: Yes.

Q49: For CLINS 0005 – 0009 the EA (each) is a price for each vessel purchased?

A: Yes

Q50: For CLINS 0005 – 0007 the bidder is only pricing his cost to arrange the services, the bidder is not pricing the cost of the services? So, the VAM is seeking all these services from the market from third parties?

A: The question as stated is unclear. CLIN’s 0005-0007 are clear as to the objective that must be met by the VAM and the tasking to achieve that objective should be in the Offerors proposal with all applicable costing and services. For example: pricing for CLIN 0007 does not include the actual cost of prospective upgrades to the vessel(s)

Q51: For CLINS 0005‐0007, if the VAM wishes to provide some of the services that it is arranging, is this allowed by Marad?

A: Yes. The offeror should propose how they would execute each CLIN.

Q52: For CLINS 0008 and 0009, is the bidder only pricing its management fees for these tasks, everything else is a cost reimbursement?

A: No, it’s a FFP based on the daily rate.

Q53: The contract is for 4 firm years – is it Marad’s intention to allow the VAM to operate all the vessels purchased through the end of year four (or through the end of year six if the option years are exercised)?

A: Same as answer for Q42

4/16/2020 10

Q54: For evaluation of costs, will Marad assume each CLIN (including CLIN 0003) happens one time?

A: No, based on the IDIQ nature we will issue DO/TO when necessary for the services or supply.

Q55: L.4 Table 1.1, pg 128 – Limits Resumes to 3 pages each. There are no further instructions on resumes. Please clarify requirements.

A: Language will be added to “H.4 KEY POSITIONS” and “L.8 VOLUME III – MANAGEMENT APPROACH; Factor 2: Management Approach” detailing specific requirements of resumes for key positions as follows “The resume shall include qualifications of the person proposed to fill the key position in terms of technical expertise, experience, education; and any necessary licenses or certifications required; and qualifications relevant to the overall requirements of the solicitation. Dates, names, and addresses (city, state) of educational institutions and employers shall also be included.

Q56: Section L proceeds from L.7 to L.9. Should there be an L.8?

A: Amendment will reflect new numbering.

Q57: L.10 is titled Operations and Maintenance. The remainder of instruction refers to Operations and Management. Please Clarify.

A: Operations and Maintenance.

Q58: We request an extension of the due date for bids be revised from April 1, 2020 to May 1, 2020.

A: Extension to the Proposal Submittal will be reflected in the new Amendment

Q59: ORD Scoring J‐3 requires power generation capacity to be 70 KW in excess of required. Is this in excess of the at sea electrical load?

A: This is power to in excess of capacity required for ships at sea

Q60: External Ramp Capacity objective feature, 80 tons + 4 ft separation+ 80 ton. What does the 4ft separation refer to? Does it mean two M1A2 tanks to be on the ramp at the same time with a 4ft separation?

A: This capacity requirement is to accommodate a tank (or tank retriever) towing another tank over the ramp. There is a 4ft tow bar assemble that is used for these situations.

Q61: Cargo Fueling: “Store fuel and refuel vehicles on‐board. W hat fuel? Diesel or Gasoline?

4/16/2020 11

A: It would depend on the cargo, mission and refitting of the ship; this will be addressed when Task Order is issued.

Q62: Damage Control/Survivability required threshold says as per SOLAS and USCG.

Foreign flag vessels offered in will not meet USCG. Is doing a review with ABS to see if current Damage Control and Survivability be acceptable under the ACP program, be sufficient for MARAD?

A: Attachment J-3 requires the VAM to include any upgrades in their CLIN 7 for meeting the minimum SOLAS/USCG requirements.

Q63: Ballast Water Treatment System is not required. If one exists on the offered vessel and it does not have USCG certification for US flag vessels, it may be considered as a gap in reflagging gap analysis. Since MARAD vessels in RRF does not have a BWTS, will MARAD be seeking waiver on this or will MARAD require it to be removed?

A: Any Vessel procured MUST meet all ballast water regulations.

Q64: If vessel comes with an Exhaust Gas Cleaning Scrubber System, since MARAD utilizes MDO fuel, will MARAD intend to run the EGCS dry? Or will MARAD ask the VAM to remove it to avoid extra maintenance?

A: A vessel delivered with a fully functional Exhaust Gas Cleaning Scrubber System will not be removed. Any vessel delivering a non-operating scrubber system will be restored to full functionality.

Q65: Please confirm as mentioned in the pre‐proposal conference that J‐ 3 ORD Section 5 Circular of Requirements (Specific), items a through h are the mandatory requirements?

A: Yes, the J-3 ORD 5.a-h are the mandatory requirements.

Q66: As per C.2 (d) (4) – “Manage, administer, and resolve all warranty related…”, is MARAD expecting Vessel Sale terms to have a warranty period? There is no warranty is commercial sales contracts, other than to deliver the vessel in the same condition as when the buyer inspected it

A: The RFP Amendment will correct paragraph number from C.2.d to C.2.3(4). No, the vessel terms are the Vessel Sale Terms. If we require a Warranty period at a later date, then it can be included in the Task Order issuance. The 90-120-day warranty period is following the upgrade period included in CLIN 7 as is standard for any shipyard availability period, including any OEM warranties for parts, equipment, etc.

Q67: Please confirm as mentioned in the pre‐proposal conference that IMS should be done through the acquisition of the ship CLIN 0006?

A: Yes

4/16/2020 12

Q68: We are still in the process of completing the requirements of the RFP and awaiting final amendment from Marad. In view of the current work at home environment and getting replies from venders we will not be able to reply and answer all requirements by the RFP due date.

WE request a 21- day extension till April 22, 2020.

A: Amendment issued 27 March 2020 changed due date to 1 May 2020.

Q69: The information in G.18 does not appear relevant to the deliverable. Please advise the correct section that applies.

A: Do not understand the question as G.18 does not reference a deliverable.

Q70: The reference states: "Describe qualifications of proposed positions to fulfill the overall requirements of the contract;" Is this in reference to the two key billet requirements of the contract only or all positions including port engineers, purchasing agents, brokers, naval architects, etc.

A: Amendment clarifies that the reference pertains to the two key billet requirements.

Q71: Items 48-53 use the acronym VCM. Please define VCM.

A: “VCM” was a typo, should have read “VAM” – corrected in latest Amendment.

Q72: RFP Section C.2.2(6) Page 15, references Attachment J-18. There is no Attachment J-18.

A: Reference removed. Reference to “Attachment J-18” removed. Referenced U.S. Code and National Defense Authorization Act in BCA approach and accomplishment in Section C are publicly available online. See item number 6 above in block 14 of the SF30 for link to publication and text in block 14.

Q73: Regarding CLIN 0006 – The answer to question #16 stated that, “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." Question #40 expanded upon Question #16 and asked if advance payment would be made to the VAM for vessel purchase. The answer to this question was, “Yes, confirming, the VAM will NOT be financing the vessel purchase.” Please advise the mechanics by which the VAM receives advance funds for vessel purchase.

A: Questions #16 and #40 have answered the question that the funding will be provided to the VAM via Task Order to make the purchase.

Q74: The last bullet point is incomplete. "Approach for conducting assessments, inspections, and evaluations to determine vessel material condition, to include coordination with the Government; and ". Please provide the rest of the intended statement.

4/16/2020 13

A: “and” is a typo and should be removed/disregarded.

Q75: Please define KPP.

A: Key Performance Parameter. Per the Operational Requirements Document (J13) KPP’s are defined as Key Vessel Features Paragraph 5.(a-h) and the table below.

Features Threshold Objective

Total Cargo Space (SqFt)

>150,000 SqFt

>300,000 SqFt

Vessel Dimensions Length <850 Ft

Breadth <110 Ft Length <650 Ft

Breadth <106 Ft

Draft

<=38 ft

<=28 ft

Speed @ design draft 80% Maximum Continuous Rating

(MCR)

>=17 Knots

>28 Knots

Endurance

10,000 NM across a wide range of seawater temperatures

18,000 NM

Propulsion

Diesel

Slow Speed Diesel

Power

60 Hz electrical systems with 70 Kw excess power generation capacity

Power generation capacity in excess of threshold requirements

External Ramp Capacity

73.5 ton (66.7 Metric

Tons)

80 Tons + 4Ft separation

+ 80 Tons (72.5 metric tons)

Ramp Characteristics

Ramp - capable of 40 Ft ISO container on ISO chassis

Slewing stern ramp

Q76: RFP Section B. Table B-1, Page 3, CLIN 0006, Note 4, states “Actual cost. Not subject to markup.” – Please advise if “actual cost” is inclusive of brokerage fees as is standard industry practice.

Answer: Yes

Q77: Termination for the convenience of the Government – Please advise if the Government’s termination for convenience clauses flow down to the shipyard and other subcontractors. In other words, if the Government terminates for convenience please confirm that the Contractor is not liable for damages if the Contractor carries out it obligations under the VAM Contract.

A. The prime contractor (VAM) is responsible for their subcontract terms and conditions. The government’s contract is with the prime. However, there are necessary flow down clauses, which are clauses that the government does not require you to flow down, but that the prime (VAM) had better flow down in order to protect the prime, such as the Changes clause and the Termination for Convenience clause.

4/16/2020 14

Q78: Termination for breach or default – Please advise if the Government’s termination for breach or default clauses flow down to the shipyard and other subcontractors. We note that the Contractor has no right to remedy or cure a breach/default prior to termination. If the Government terminates for cause, the Contractor will be liable for damages (we note that there is no exclusion of consequential damages). This risk will be very difficult to manage with the shipyard, because most shipyards will insist on (i) a reasonable opportunity (e.g., 30 days) to cure the breach before the contract can be terminated, and (ii) a waiver of consequential damages.

A. The prime contractor (VAM) is responsible for their subcontract terms and conditions. The government’s contract is with the prime. However, there are necessary flow down clauses, which are clauses that the government does not require you to flow down, but that the prime (VAM) had better flow down in order to protect the prime, such as the Changes clause and the Termination for Convenience clause.

Q79: Warranty of merchantability and fitness – Please advise if the Government’s warranty of merchantability and fitness clauses flow down to the shipyard and other subcontractors. The contract contains warranty provisions (i.e., warranty of merchantability and fitness for purpose), but it does not include a specified warranty period or any of the disclaimers or limitations that you would typically find in a shipyard contract. For example, a shipyard contract will typically state that (i) its liability for any delay in completing the work is limited to liquidated damages, which are typically capped at a fairly low percentage of the contract price, and (ii) the customer’s sole remedy for warranty defects will be for the shipyard to repair or replace the defective item. Similar limitations are not included in the VAM contract, which would leave the VAM contractor exposed for damages. Also, note that many shipyards will not agree to provide a warranty of merchantability or fitness for purpose. Similarly, most vessel purchase MOAs will provide that the vessel is being sold “as- is”, but similar language is not included in the VAM contract.

A. Offerors are required to propose warranty in accordance with Section L-7 of the solicitation and comply with the warranty requirements in the solicitation to include Section C.2.3, H.2.3, and 52.203-5.

Q80: Contractor to indemnify the Government for damages -- The contract requires the contractor to indemnify the Government for damages resulting from, among other things, (i) the gross negligence, willful misconduct or violations of law by the contractor, its subcontractors, suppliers, agents, etc. (provided that such acts occurred with the privy or knowledge of the contractor’s senior management), and (ii) any insured damage caused by a subcontractor. Please advise if the Contractor can insist upon back-to-back indemnities in the shipyard contract.

A. Contractors are free to protect themselves, and the Government, in the best manner possible. Offerors are reminded not to assume that shipyards will readily provide “back-to-back” indemnification policies. Instead, offerors may want to engage shipyards regarding this requirement prior to submitting a proposal for this procurement.

4/16/2020 15

Q81: Damage to Government property -- The contract provides that the shipyard will be responsible for any damage to the vessel or other Government property that results from the negligence or other fault of the shipyard or its subcontractors. Although the subcontractor’s liability is limited to $5 million per occurrence, any insured damages are not subject to the cap.

Please advise if the Contractor can insist upon back-to-back terms in the shipyard contract.

A. See answer to question 80.

Q82: Government named as additional insured – The Contractor must name the Government as an additional insured on its liability policies, and the scope of that endorsement is not limited (as is customary) to the liabilities assumed by contractor under the contract. Please advise the required scope of additional insured endorsements on the Contractor’s liability policies.

A. The scope of coverage should comply with the requirements Clause H.2, which is discussed on pages 36-41 of the RFP in Amendment 002. To the extent this question is inquiring about Comprehensive General Liability Insurance, reference H.2(b) on page 36.

Q83: Government personnel in the shipyard -- The Government has a right to send representatives to the shipyard, but there is no disclaimer of Contractor’s (or the shipyard’s) liability in the event that the Government’s representatives are injured or suffer property damage while at the yard. Please advise if the Contractor is responsible for such persons during shipyard/modification work.

A. Government representatives in the shipyard are considered federal employees and would not be subject to the VAM’s worker’s compensation liability. Whether the Contractor or a Subcontractor may be liable to injuries sustained by a Government representative in a shipyard is dependent upon the facts surrounding the incident.

Q84: In the revised amendment 0002 released on April 02, the Table L-1 Proposal Organization page 127 lists resumes on both the Technical Approach and the Management Approach. In addition, the page counts are different for each Volume (3 pages in Technical Approach and 2 pages in Management Approach). Please clarify whether you want the resumes in both volumes, and that the page limits are correct.

A: Resumes shall be included in the Management Approach and be 2 pages each.

Q85: The response to Q11 from the Pre-proposal conference indicated the SF33 should be included in Volume VI Pricing. The amended RFP does not address this requirement. Please confirm that the SF33 should be included in Volume VI Pricing.

A: SF33 should be included in Volume VI.

Q86: Page 127 of the amended RFP notes that resumes are to be included in Volume II Technical Approach. However, page 133 of the RFP requires identification of the Program Manager and key personnel as part of Volume III / Factor 2 Management Approach.

4/16/2020 16

Should resumes be provided in Volume III, not Volume II?

A: See Question 84 Response.

Q87: How do Items 00001, 00002 and 00003 on the SF Continuation Page (2 of 150 in the Amended RFP) track to the CLINs listed in Section B? The period-of-performance on the Continuation Page shows as 04/08/2020 to 04/07/2030. Is this still correct?

A: Referenced page is from original RFP. Period of Performance has been updated in latest Amendment; Offerors should refer to latest Amendment for current terms and conditions.

Q88: According to the international practice during a vessel sale, Sellers and Buyers broker commissions are usually deducted from the contractual purchase price of the vessel. Therefore, will broker commissions be paid via a deduction to the agreed purchase price of the vessel, which will be covered in full by MARAD for the vessel acquisition transaction?

A: Question is similar to Question 76. RFP Section B. Table B-1, Page 3, CLIN 0006, Note 4, states “Actual cost. Not subject to markup.” – Please advise if “actual cost” is inclusive of brokerage fees as is standard industry practice and the answer is yes. MARAD will fund the full purchase price of the vessel via CLIN 0006 at actual cost. Since the VAM is negotiating the sale on the behalf of the buyer (MARAD) the brokers fees should be inclusive to the actual cost of the vessel.

Q89: The note under Table B-1 states that all CLINs are executable by Task Orders/Delivery Orders. Will CLINs 0001,0002, and 0003 be executed in their entirety to the scope in the RFP or multiple task orders piece meal. FFP pricing for entire CLINs is requested.

A: For pricing, see Note 1 on Table B-1. For anticipated execution, CLINs 0001 and 0002 shall be executed in series; CLIN 0003 may be executed in lieu of CLINs 0001 and 0002.

The quantity and frequency of execution for these CLINs shall be dependent upon a variety of factors, including ship procurement objectives and funding availability.

Q.90 Please note that beta.sam.gov shows Amendment 0003 as being released on April 6, 2020. However, the file Sol_693JF719R000034_Amd_0003.pdf appears to be the conformed RFP issued by Amendment 0002 and not a new amendment. Is there an Amendment 0003 for this Solicitation? Please also note that Amendment 0002 is dated as 02/26/2020, not its release date of 03/27/2020 as was initially shown in beta.sam.gov.

A. See number 8 in block 14 of the SF30 listed above.

Q.91 Page 127 of the latest version of the RFP shows Volume V with a page limit of (5) pages of Narrative and (5) pages of Past Performance Questionnaires. However, page 135 of the RFP notes that the Offeror may identify up to a maximum of (5) references with the required information shown under a. through g. on that page, as well as a maximum of (3) references for each Subcontractor considered critical to the program, together with their Past

4/16/2020 17

Performance Questionnaires that are to be directly submitted by the references. This appears to contradict the page limits identified on Page 127. Please clarify.

A. The intent is that as part of Volume V the offeror may provide up to 5 pages of narrative on their past performance. The Offeror may identify a maximum of five (5) references for the prime Offeror. The Offeror may also identify a maximum of three (3) references each of the subcontractors expected to perform aspects of the effort that the Offeror considers critical to the overall success of the program. The references shall represent recent contracts (no more than 7 years from release date of the RFP) that the Offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to perform the proposed effort. The Offeror shall send out Past Performance Questionnaires to each of the references. The Past Performance Questionnaire in Section J-9. The Government recommends that the Offeror send the Offeror’s reference shall submit completed questionnaires directly to the Government Contracting Officer no later than the proposal due date on the RFP. Questionnaires received directly from the Offeror will not be accepted by the Government.

Q.92 Amendment 0002/0003 substantially changed the Past Performance requirement. Would it be possible to do one of the following:

1) Increase the page count to 10 pages, or

2) Allow offeror to insert new requirements items a through g (page 135 of Amendment

0003) in a table format and will not be counted towards the 5 page limit

A. See response to Question 91

4/16/2020 18

Q.93 Please note that beta.sam.gov shows Amendment 0003 as being released on April 6, 2020.

However, the file Sol_693JF719R000034_Amd_0003.pdf appears to be the conformed RFP issued by Amendment 0002 and not a new amendment. Is there an Amendment 0003 for this Solicitation? Please also note that Amendment 0002 is dated as 02/26/2020, not its release date of 03/27/2020 as was initially shown in beta.sam.gov.

A. Due to file upload errors associated with the new beta.sam.gov system, Amendment 0003 appears to have been erroneously released on 04/06/2020 – please disregard the date, however those files are correctly associated with Amendment 0002 (and have been renamed to reflect the correct Amendment).

Amendment 0003 was released on 04/14/2020 as an SF-30. All correct and final files can be found in the document section of that Amendment.

Q.94 Page 127 of the latest version of the RFP shows Volume V with a page limit of (5) pages of Narrative and (5) pages of Past Performance Questionnaires. However, page 135 of the RFP notes that the Offeror may identify up to a maximum of (5) references with the required information shown under a. through g. on that page, as well as a maximum of (3) references for each Subcontractor considered critical to the program, together with their Past Performance Questionnaires that are to be directly submitted by the references. This appears to contradict the page limits identified on Page 127. Please clarify

A. See response to Question 91

Q.95 Upon review of RFP section G.7.2 VESSEL CUSTODIAN MANAGEMENT CREW COSTS, there is a conflict in the VAM SOW. The VAM RFP requires that VAM crew costs for all six years of the period of performance (POP) agree to crew rates for current MARAD Ship Manager contracts. The problem is that current CBA’s for Ship Manager contracts only define crew wages and fringe through January of 2022. Per discussion with AMO, they are unable to provide Ship Manager CBAs beyond that period as these labor agreements are tri-partite and the various unions have not yet been in discussions for periods beyond this date. Due to the different Periods of Performance of the two contracts, the labor unions are unable to accommodate the requirement that VAM rates for all six years agree to future (to-be-determined) rates on the MARAD Ship Manager contracts. The unions cannot guarantee pricing that is unknown. See highlighted section of G.7.2 where labor rates on Ship Manager contracts beyond January of 2022 are not yet known.

Crew costs for Phase M and Phase O services provided by the VAM performing vessel custodian management services, CLIN 0008 and CLIN 0009 are FFP. To be considered to be fair and reasonable, crew costs (wages and benefits) shall not exceed amounts established for Phase M and Phase O crews under tri-partite Collective Bargaining Agreements effective for the various crew unions on active MARAD Ship Manager Contracts. The Ship Manager Contract’s Wage Determination effective at all times during performance by the VAM of vessel custodian management services will apply to crew costs and be considered fair and reasonable.

It is requested that MARAD adjust the VAM RFP language to limit the comparison for “fair

4/16/2020 19 and reasonable” only to the extent the Period of Performance between contracts are consistent.

A. MARAD recognizes that current CBAs under MARAD existing ship manager contracts cover only through 01/26/2022. For price evaluation purposes of proposals through entire base and option period ending July 2026, offerors are to project fully-burdened crew cost daily rates by using a notional rate of increase of 2.0% annually effective as of the contract anniversary date expected to be July 2022, and subsequently remaining years. When the Collective Bargaining Agreements covering the remainder of the base and option period through July 2026 are finalized, the VAM contract wage determination will be updated to reflect the finalized rates to the extent they differ either more or less than the notional 2.0% rate used for price evaluation purposes. As a result of this change, the VAM RFP is amended to incorporate the same wage adjustment process of benchmarking the current Consumer Price Index (CPI- W) for determining fair and reasonable adjustments as referenced in paragraph G.3 of Attachment J-13, Ship Manager Contract which outlines a sample calculation, using hypothetical escalation rates and dates to demonstrate the calculation methodology of the escalation adjustment.

Q.96 While there is a requirement for the RRF fleet to be Classed under ABS, does this requirement extend to the Vessel Manager in connection with the Document of Compliance with the ISM code (DoC), which is a company certification and not tied to the vessel? Or another classification society approved by the USCG would be acceptable to certify the ship management company for compliance with the ISM code?

A. Any Document of Compliance (DoC) issued under a class society that is a member of IACS (International Association of Classification Societies) is acceptable for ship management company certification.

Q.97 We are still in the process of completing the requirements for the RFP (693JF719R000034) and are awaiting a possible amendment no. 3 and latest Q&A from MARAD. In view of the current remote work environment and difficulties due to COVID-19, will MARAD consider a 14-day extension to May 15, 2020?

A. Amendment 0003 was released on 04/14/2020 with only minor changes. Proposals due date remains 05/01/2020.

Q.98 When the subfactors were eliminated in the most recent amendment to the RFP, the topics in Factor 1 and Factor 2 appear to have been rewritten in a manner that is now confusing as to the intent. Also referring to the answer that MARAD provided for Q.24 which stated " 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." In the revised solicitation this distinction is no longer present.

For example in the following item about Upgrade Approach, the information requested is now nearly identical. The text below in italics is identical between Factors 1 and 2. This applies to nearly every other topic as well. Kindly ask that the requested information be rewritten in a manner that provides clearer guidance and takes into account that Vol III Management

4/16/2020 20

Approach has a page limit of 10 vs a page limit of 30 for the Technical Approach:

Factor 1 The Offeror’s Vessel Upgrade Approach shall identify and describe any pre-qualification criteria for soliciting industrial support for vessel upgrades, to include evaluation, selection, negotiations, and award; describe the approach for developing technical specifications for vessel upgrades, managing design changes and engineering change proposals; describe the approach to inspection, testing, and acceptance to ensure vessel complies with ORD specifications, technical specifications, and quality control standards; describe the approach for managing the vessel warranty period, to include communication process with the Government, effecting warranty repairs in a timely manner, documenting lessons learned and incorporating same into follow-on hull design or operation; and describe the strategy for providing feedback on upgrade progress and issues to the Government.

Factor 2 The Offeror’s Management Approach shall demonstrate their upgrade management approach and shall identify and describe any pre-qualification criteria for soliciting industrial support for vessel upgrades, to include evaluation, selection, negotiations, and award; describe the approach for developing technical specifications for vessel upgrades, managing design changes and engineering change proposals; describe approach to inspection, testing, and acceptance to ensure vessel complies with ORD specifications, technical specifications, and quality control standards; describe the approach for managing the vessel warranty period, to include communication process with the Government, effecting warranty repairs in a timely manner, documenting lessons learned and incorporating same into follow-on hull design or operation;

and describe strategy for providing feedback on upgrade progress and issues to the Government.

Factor 2 Original Demonstrate application and process of conducting vessel upgrades and/or modifications, including scope, associated costs, and timeframe of each.

A. The requirements of Factors 1 and 2, while appearing similar, are distinctly different in what is being asked of the Offerors. Although both Factors ask for experience in the areas of vessel reflagging/reclassification, upgrades, etc., under Factor 1 the Offeror should discuss their approach, experience, risk considerations, etc. with a technical focus, while under Factor 2 the same areas should be discussed with a management focus.

Although the “subfactor” titles were eliminated in an amendment, the content of the Factors has remained the same from the original RFP, released 24 FEB 2020.

Q.99 The issue highlighted below regarding VAM and Ship Manager CBAs continues to be a major concern for both (the vendor) and labor unions resulting in the lack of CBAs being issued to this date.

Upon review of RFP section G.7.2 VESSEL CUSTODIAN MANAGEMENT CREW COSTS, there is a conflict in the VAM SOW. The VAM RFP requires that VAM crew costs for all six years of the period of performance (POP) agree to crew rates for current MARAD Ship

4/16/2020 21

Manager contracts. The problem is that current CBA’s for Ship Manager contracts only define crew wages and fringe through January of 2022. Per discussion with AMO, they are unable to provide Ship Manager CBAs beyond that period as these labor agreements are tri-partite and the various unions have not yet been in discussions for periods beyond this date.