QA2 Wright.docx
DOCX document 20 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693JF722B000004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding solicitation number 693JF722B000004 for layberthing services for T-AVB class RRF vessel WRIGHT on the U.S. East Coast. The Maritime Administration requires exclusive long-term safe layberthing between Maine and the southern tip of Florida, preferably between Norfolk, VA and Charleston, SC, with inland waterway distances to open waters not exceeding 150 miles. The solicitation requests bids to be sent to the Maritime Administration office in Washington, D.C. by a specified date. Clarification is provided on pricing terms, quantities in Section B, instructions to bidders, vessel drawings, and corrections needed to Sections B and L to ensure a compliant bid package.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| QA 1 Wright.docx | DOCX document | |
| 693JF722B000004 WRIGHT Solicitation.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
693JF722B000004: Layberthing on the East Coast Q&A 1
1. Contractor doesn’t see in the definitions the unit descriptions as listed in Section B and does not want to assume. Please confirm the following is correct -
0. LO = Lot
0. DA = Day Rate
0. EA = Each
0. NSP= Not Separately Priced
CORRECT
1. How is a subclin identified? Contractor is not able to distinguish subclins as Section B is currently written. Can the Government please revise Section B to clearly identify the subclins with AA, AB, etc or some other distinguishing factor? As noted in Section L, second paragraph, it states that subclins should be easily distinguishable, but this doesn’t match what is currently in Section B. Please explain and clarify.
ESC-PRISM does not allow the use of subclin so the language in Section B referring to subclin and Section L referring to subclins have been replaced with actual CLIN numbers (00001 thru in the 00092). Reference to subclins is old language that should be removed.
1. On CLIN 00005 it requests Electrical Service but notes NSP. Does NSP mean not separately priced? If yes, why is this not noted as a separately priced item on CLIN 0011, 00017, 00023, 00029, 00041, 00047, 00053, 00059, 00065, 00071, 00077, 00083, 00089. Note on CLIN 00035 it states NSP. Please explain. Also, per Section L it notes bidder is to leave amounts blank for both electric power and water/sewage so shouldn’t all water sewage items also say NSP?
Yes, not separately priced. Electrical prices will be added by MARAD using locality pricing data after bids submitted.
1. It appears Section L or Section B need to be revised to match each other. Below we have broken down how the CLIN’s currently read to try to make sense of how to price Section B. Can the Government please clarify and or make the necessary corrections requested to Section B/Section L to make the response for the bidder clear and compliant:
3. CLIN’s 0001-0005 is base option year for 5 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0007-0012 is Option Year 1 for 5 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0013-0018 is Option Year 2 for 5 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0019-0024 is Option Year 3 for 5 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0024-0030 is Option Year 4 for 5 year contract
3. CLIN 0091 is cumulative total for vessels for 5 years? Or only a cumulative of Vessel 1 in 5 year option?
CUMMULATIVE TOTAL FOR VESSEL 1 IN 5 YR BID.
3. CLIN’s 0031-0036 is Base Option Year for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0037-0042 is Option Year 1 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0043-0048 is Option Year 2 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0049-0054 is Option Year 3 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0055-0060 is Option Year 4 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0061-0066 is Option Year 5 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0067-0072 is Option Year 6 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0073-0078 is Option Year 7 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0079-0084 is Option Year 8 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN’s 0085-0090 is Option Year 1 for 10 year contract
3. CLIN 0092 is cumulative total for vessels for 10 years? Or only a cumulative of Vessel 1 in 10 year option?
CUMMULATIVE TOTAL FOR VESSEL 1 IN 10 YEAR BID.
Clarification to the questions above would answer the following, but for the sake of ensuring clarity, please see the questions below.
1. On CLIN 00002, 00003, 00004 and 00005- Is there a date error here? Since according to Section L CLINs 0001-0005 are for a potential 5 year contract, should these CLINS end dates be extended to 12/12/27 as compared to 12/12/23? It appears what happened is this is currently written as the base year vessel only and not representative of 5 years.
CLINS 2, 3, 4, and 5 are for the base year only for the 5 year BID.
1. On CLIN’s 0006 to 00015 (per section L) it appears to be same issue as noted above for Clins 0001-0005. If these CLINS are to be for a potential 10 year contract, can the Government please update to reflect that and not be option years by vessel?
CLIN 6 is for the BASE YEAR ONLY for 5 year bid. CLIN 7-12 are for Vessel 1 OY1 Only for the 5 year bid. CLINS 13-18 are for VESSEL 1 OY2 ONLY for the 5 year bid. ESSENTIALLY ALL CLINs 1-36 are for the 5 YEAR BID. The Rest are for the 10 YEAR BID, or for cumulative totals.
1. If per Section L, Clin 00016 is a cumulative CLIN for a 5 year term, why does it read “Disconnect Cyle (12/23/24 to 12/12/25)”? Note, it appears cumulative CLIN is actually 00091 for 5 yr option and again there was an admin error here when structuring Section B and writing Section L.
CLIN 16 is for OY2 vessel 1 for the 5 year bid. CLIN 91 is the cumulative total for the vessel for the 5 year bid.
1. If per Section L, Clin 00017 is a cumulative CLIN for a 10 year term, why does it read “Electrical Service (12/13/24 to 12/12/25)”? Note, it appears cumulative CLIN is actually CLIN 00092 for 10 year option and again there was an admin error here when structuring Section B and writing Section L.
CLIN 17 is for Option Year 2 for the vessel for the 5 year bid. CLIN 92 is the cumulative total for the 10-year bid.
1. Per the answer to question 2, “Reference to subclins is old language and should be removed”. Is it the Governments intent to update the Solicitation language to correct errors in Section L and reconcile Section B to match the instructions in Section L? Section L Corrected:
Bidders are to bid a fixed per diem price for berthing services, a fixed price for one connection evolution, and a fixed price for one disconnection evolution under each of the CLINs bid. The per diem price is to include all costs (including soundings), handling charges, overhead, and profit. More than one connection/disconnect service may be ordered under a delivery order, but will be at the per evolution price. Bidders are to also indicate under CLIN 0001 of Section B whether its power company agrees to exempt the bidder from taxes on electric power service. The bidder is to leave the amounts for reimbursable electric power and for water/sewage usage blank. Any prices entered in those CLINs will be ignored. Bidders may, but are not required to, total the CLINs under each CLIN and enter the total in the parent CLIN.
(OMIT rest of Paragraph)
1. Is it the Governments intent in Section B to add quantities in Column 19 so Contractor can confidently extend pricing in Column 22? For instance, since Section B doesn't have any quantities in Column 19-
1. Is Contractor to use 365 as the multiplier for QTY in Column 19 to get the total annual amount under column 22 in all CLINS that say D or DA?
1. Or is Contractor to assume the multiplier in column 19 is 1 and therefore the total on the unit "D" or "DA" = Day Rate only reflects a cost per day (Column 22)? Understanding the multiplier in column 19 is critical to understanding how the cumulative CLINS will be calculated. Contractor is assuming the multiplier is 365.
per-diem time 365/366 for leap year is for calculating annual per-diem cost. Connect/disconnect cycle (one complete each) for a total of $XXX dollars is a fixed charge per complete occurrence, billed in ½ cycles disconnect = ½ connect = ½.
1. Can the Government please update Section L to include Instruction to Bidders? We see that in the posting in SAM it is to be sent to:
HENRY PUPPE
US DOT MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MAR-380
1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE SE
MAIL STOP W-28-201
WASHINGTON DC 20590-0001
1. Are there any special instructions regarding packaging? For instance, since a sealed bid do we need to submit in a sealed envelope with special marking criteria within another box that is specially marked? Yes there is someone to sign receipt.
1. If Contractor sends FEDEX and requires a signature, will someone be present to sign for the bid when delivered? The bid needs to be in a sealed envelope, nothing else special about it, other than “mark for”.
1. Section L Notes “Bidders shall double check arithmetic and ensure addition to Section B, Section K, and blanks in Sections, A, F, G, and I and the lobbying form referenced in Section J are filled in before submitting bid package.”
3. Is Section A considered the SF 1447? YES.
3. Please provide the referenced Lobbying Form referenced in Section J but not provided (see page 32) so Contractor can complete and submit a compliant bid package IAW Section L. See FAR 52.203-12 at acquisition.gov. It is not a form per se but a disclosure if applicable.
1. Please confirm the following CLIN’s are “parent CLIN” amounts as noted in section L and therefore Contractor supposed to leave CLIN 0001, 0007, 0013, 00019, 00025,00031, 00037, 00043, 0049, 0055, 00061, 00067, 00073 ,00079, 00085 blank in Section B? Correct.
1. Under C.4 (8)(c) it notes “Section J provides vessel drawings”. However Contractor does not see any drawings in attachments. Please advise if Government intends to send drawings to Contractors. Drawings available upon request.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .