VAM RFP QA 210106.pdf

VAM Q&A January 2021

QUESTION 1

Page 2: Note 8: Offerors should assume 97% of the year at ROS and 3% of the year at FOS.

97% for ROS

Does this mean that MARAD will evaluate the offeror’s price similarly, 97% of the year in ROS and 3% of the year in FOS? The pricing summary does not make this calculation, nor does clin 008 or clin 009. Where will the calculation be made?

Answer: Note 8 is a reference note for Offeror’s understanding of notional contract execution of those CLINs. The Total Evaluated Price analysis used by the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price using the percentages delineated in the RFP of 97% and 3%. The pricing spreadsheets have been updated to account for the percentage time in ROS and FOS and will be used as part of the Total Evaluated Price.

QUESTION 2

Page 2 reads: Note 3: Labor rates for crewing will be based on current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rates proposed at time of proposal submission. See paragraph L.10, Factor 5 – Price.

This refers to L.11?

The new paragraph in L.11, Factor 5: Price reads:

In pricing crew costs for vessel custodial services, CLINs 0008 and 0009, offerors are instructed to use fully burdened crew daily rates currently in effect under CBAs as the applicable prevailing wage determination. For price evaluation purposes of proposals through entire base and option period, 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, and subsequently remaining years. MARAD uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) as a benchmark for determining fair and reasonable adjustments for crew wage increases

Table L-2 reads:

Labor rates for crewing will be based on current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rates proposed at time of proposal submission for total contract Period of Performance. For price evaluation purposes of proposals through entire base and option period, 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, and subsequently remaining years.

MARAD uses the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) as a benchmark for determining fair and reasonable adjustments for crew wage increases.

It is clear that for the evaluation of the bids MARAD will use a 2% increase in crew costs each year after the first year of the contract. What price increase for crew costs will MARAD allow during the contract itself?

a. 2% per year increase from year 2 through year 6?

b. CPI-W as the maximum increase from year 2 through year 6?

c. The 4/28/20 Officers CBA and the 4/27/20 Unlicensed CBA?

Answer: None of the above. Offerors are advised to follow the instructions included in attachment J-2 and L11 which will automatically compute the notational increase of 2% per year.

Section G7.1, G7.2, and L-11 discuss in detail the requirements for pricing and labor rate adjustments during contract execution. MARAD will use the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) as a benchmark [not a maximum] for determining fair and reasonable adjustments for crew wage increases per G7.1 and G7.2.

QUESTION 3

It is requested that MARAD provide a redline of the Amendment 0005 so that bidders can ensure that they have not missed any changes from the original solicitation as amended for the bids submitted in April 2020.

Answer: The Government does not will not provide redlines. Based on GAO’s decision, MARAD issued a revised solicitation so that offerors can compete on an equal basis. The revised RFP, a conformed document, contains all information required to respond to the requirement.

QUESTION 4

Does the bidder have to submit an entirely new complete offer or only the changes to what was submitted in April 2020?

Answer: Based on GAO’s decision, MARAD issued a revised solicitation so that offerors can compete on an equal basis. Offerors should submit a complete revised proposal including all information requested in compliance with Section L.

QUESTION 5

L.4 states that in addition to an e-mail submission, CDs must be “received” by the due date. We request the Government consider waiving the CD requirement.

Answer: Offerors are advised to submit their proposals both via e-mail and on a CD. For CDs, the Government will amend the solicitation and allow for proposals to be sent “mailed by the due date.” Offerors interested in mailing the CDs for delivery after the receipt of proposals, must use two-day express shipping and must send the contracting officer the tracking number/information prior to the date that the proposals are due. Date stamp of shipping should be available and provided upon request. For email submissions, Offerors are advised to follow the instructions Section L.4 of the solicitation.

QUESTION 6

L.4 Continued: If the Government still requires CDs as part of the submission, we request the Government consider allowing CD's to be "mailed by the due date" vs "received by the due date"; with proof submitted to the Government via email (tracking number).

Answer: See answer to Question 5.

QUESTION 7

PPQ: Our Past Performance references have not changed from our initial submission on May 01, 2020, and therefore MARAD has, on file, those J-9 Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) previously filled out and submitted by our references. Do we need to put an additional burden on our references and have them fill out the PPQs and resubmit to MARAD; or will the ones currently on file satisfy this requirement?

Answer: Offerors should request their references to submit or change the PPQs they want considered in their proposal submittal. If no new/updated PPQs are received, MARAD will use the PPQs, previously submitted in response to this requirement, in past performance evaluation.

QUESTION 8

Are these the correct CBAs for the bids due on Jan 15, 2021?

Answer: Assuming the question is related to J-1, yes, these are the correct CBAs for the proposals due on Jan 15, 2021.

QUESTION 9

Table L-1: Table L-1, Proposal Organization on Pg. 131 lists a page limit for the Management Approach of 10 pages for the Proposal and 5 pages for the Management Plan. Please clarify which information is to be included in the Management Plan page count.

Answer: There is no Management Plan required to be submitted, only a Management Approach per Section L – see amended RFP.

QUESTION 10

As J-9 for the MARAD Past Performance Questionnaire has not changed with Amendment 005, will the previously submitted forms be accepted, or do new J-9 forms need to be submitted by our references?

Answer: See answer to Question 7.

QUESTION 11

Please provide the SCA rates for the Chief Cook and ordinary seaman in ROS, the current RRF contract does not have these positions in ROS.

Answer: See revised pricing sheet, Attachment J-2.

QUESTION 12

In the J-2 provided is the Chief Cook in ROS intended to be an Assistant Cook?

Answer: See revised pricing sheet, Attachment J-2.

QUESTION 13

Please confirm if MARAD intends bidders to use the updated post January 27 2021 SCA rates in the RFP.

Answer: No, Offerors should use the current SCA Rates accordingly, see answer to Question 8.

QUESTION 14

In the proposal section M Evaluation Process, Section M.8 Relative Order of importance, it is stated as: “Factor 2 & 3 when combined are approximately equal to Factor 1; Factor 2, 3, and 4, when combined are approximately equal to Factor 1.” As this statement seems contradictory unless intended that Factor 4 is approximately 0%, what is MARAD’s intention in weighting these factors?

Answer: It is neither a percentage nor a mathematical calculation. It is a subjective judgement based on the overall merits of the proposal.

QUESTION 15

Q&A: Further to original Question 103, please clarify whether MARAD wants the VAM to procure P&I insurance for the vessel. As you know Comprehensive General Liability cover will not respond for the liabilities a vessel owner/operator will have such as crew injury/illness/death, Collision, 3rd Party Liabilities, Fixed and Floating Objects (dock damage, buoys, etc.), Pollution, Wreck Removal, etc. If MARAD is not self-insuring these liabilities and indemnifying the VAM then the VAM will need to procure P&I insurance in addition to the insurances listed in Section H.2.

Answer: MARAD’s position as stated in its response to Question 103 from Amendment 0004 has not changed. Offerors are only required to procure insurance as required by section H2. See also section G.8 for additional information on the Suits and Admiralty Act.

QUESTION 16

If / when vessel is American Flag, does MARAD / Owner require Second Seamen’s insurance?

According to J-19 line 84, basic premium for Second Seaman’s/War risk insurance should be in our fixed price and only exclusion costs will be reimbursable. This is different than the current RRF contracts that have the ship managers only buy this insurance when the vessel is activated and the cost is reimbursable. Please confirm that second Seaman’s Insurance will be handling differently for VAM vessels? In addition, is Second Seaman’s insurance needed for Clin 8 when the vessel is in ROS?

Answer: See answer to Question 15. Further, Second Seaman’s is not required for CLIN 0008 ROS. If required for CLIN 0009 FOS, it will be addressed as a cost reimburseable. Corrected J- 19, line 84 to read: War Risk Insurance (aka Second Seaman's War Risk Insurance)

QUESTION 17

H.2: Whether the vessel is foreign flag or American flag, does MARAD / Owner want War Risk Hull & Machinery which includes War P&I (and terrorism). If yes, at what War Hull value and War P&I limit? For guidance to MARAD, War P&I limit is traditionally base on the War Hull value insured.

Answer: See answer to Question 15.

QUESTION 18

Not addressed in the RFP and Q&A supplied is physical loss or damage for the period outside of the “drydocking” or “shipyard availability”. When Owner / MARAD takes delivery of the vessel and VAM operates the vessel in accordance with CLINS 0005-0009, what are the insurance requirements, if any, for physical loss or damage (Hull insurance).

Answer: See answer to Question 15.

QUESTION 19

Section H.2.3 states the following:

Except as set forth in this clause or any guarantee or warranty provision in the contract, MARAD, part of the United States Department of Transportation, in its capacity as Owner of the vessel (hereinafter "Owner" or "MARAD"), assumes the risk of physical loss or damage to any part of the vessel, its machinery, equipment, stores, and other property, including cargo, if owned by the Government, during a dry docking or shipyard availability except to the extent that such loss or damage is caused by the negligence, fault, error, act or omission of the shipyard, its servants, agents, or employees ("subcontractor"), or the subcontractor's lower-tier subcontractors, or the servants, agents, or employees of the lower-tier subcontractors, all of which risks are assumed by the subcontractor. The burden of proving freedom from responsibility under the foregoing sentence shall be borne by the subcontractor.

Limit of Liability - Except as set forth below, subcontractor's liability under this clause shall not exceed $5,000,000 per incident per vessel. The VAM and Owner do not assume any risk with respect to loss or damage compensated for by insurance or otherwise or resulting from risks with respect to which the subcontractor has failed to maintain insurance as required by this contract.

Accordingly, Shipyard (subcontractor) has negligence based exposure and will be required to show evidence of insurance and capped at $5MM. Please confirm MARAD is self-insuring excess of $5MM and the VAM does not have any risk. Please confirm.

Answer: See VAM RFP paragraph H.2.3.

QUESTION 20

H.2: In order for the VAM to supply budget numbers in response to the RFP; and in advance of insurances attaching for any of these respective risks questioned above (Hull, P&I, War Hull, War P&I, Second Seamen’s), VAM (and their broker and Underwriters) will require details of the ship that may include, but not be limited to: Hull Value, Flag, crew nationality and numbers, DWT, GT, year built, intended voyage details, sailing on own power or under tow, ROS and FOS. Would MARAD change this requirement from a Firm Fixed Price to a Cost Reimbursable basis based on the unknown details of the future acquisition?

Answer: See VAM RFP paragraph H.2.3 and response to Question 15.