AMENDMENT 0003 Q and A Responses Final.pdf

Amendment No. 0003 Question Answer Response

Sequence No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

8 3 C.10.8.6 Is clean up of spills or overflows during fueling operations a reimbursable expense?

Materials expended in clean up of spills during fuel operations are reimbursable under J-04, Item 62, and C.10.8.3. Ship's crew labor is reimbursable only to the extent overtime labor is requested and pre-approved by the COR IAW C.8.5.9.

26 3 C.13.1.5 “The location of the layberth is not restricted to the Continental U.S.” Are there plans to have some MARAD vessels located in foreign ports?

There are no plans to site layberths in foreign ports at this time.

27 3 C.13.2.3 “The Contractor shall coordinate ship movement and activities at Government-operated layberths and with the responsible MARAD Area Division.” Please clarify if the costs involved with researching a new layberth such as admin travel, legal review, and subsequent relocation of mariners would be reimbursable.

Yes. J-04, Cost Reimbursable Items, address the following costs: Item 49, Layberth shift of ship; Item 79, Transfer of ship to new layberth. If MARAD were to engage the ship manager with researching layberths for selection purposes, such efforts would be covered under a negotiated cost reimbursable task order.

41 3 C.8.10.14 The RFP states: The Contractor shall provide all necessary telecommunications services and internet connectivity to support the business requirements of this contract. At a minimum this shall include…” We ask that MARAD provide a list of services that are currently available at each layberth assigned to each ship group so that the pricing can be estimated within the bidder’s proposal. For example, some piers do not have internet capability other than through satellite. These locations without hard wired services will be more expensive than piers that have hard wired services.

The requirement to provide all necessary telecommunications services and internet connectivity to support the business requirements of this solicitation is clearly stated. MARAD will not be providing a list of services currently available at each layberth.

1 3 C.8.11 The Cybersecurity requirements do not match the new requirements in current RRF contracts which invoke ABS CyberSafety Volume 6, TE-32 to achieve the ABS CS-G notation on each vessel.

Amendment No. 0003 revises C.8.11.2 to be clear that the objective of implementation of the required Cybersecurity plan is to attain and maintain ABS CS-G notation for each ship.

3 3 C.8.12.1 Requirement for telephone report to the SOMO and Contracting Officer within 4 hours for all safety, security, and environmental mishaps or incidents, and for all machinery failures may not be reasonable after normal business hours (i.e., nights or weekends.)

MARAD does not consider this requirement to be unreasonable. The Contractor is expected to afford due diligence in attempting to complete the stated reporting requirement.

25 3 C.8.13.28 “. . .These policy directives require the Contractor to ”Convert existing refrigeration units to non-chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and non-hydro chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC), where feasible.” Please confirm that the cost of this conversion would be reimbursable.

Yes. Conversion of existing refrigeration units where feasible are to be planned and executed under cost reimbursable task orders as part of the budget planning and execution process.

63 3 C.8.16.1.3 How are the requirements of C-8.16.1.3, “The Contractor shall employ the ROS Crew and have them onboarded 15 days prior to the turnover date.8.16 Contract Transition”, intended to be met if there are changes in Ship Managers and unions on a current ship or Ship Group and mariners must be taken away from one ship or Ship Group to be transferred to another?

The ship manager must determine how they will meet this requirement.

57 3 C.8.3.2.2 Shall the inclusion of food and hotel services for 12 additional embarked personnel, iaw C-8.3.2.2. be at the FOS daily rate for Mission activations only, or for Mission activations and TA? If the latter, will you please define embarked personnel as it relates to TA?

This applies only to Mission activations. Guidance for calculating for FOS daily rates are provided for the annual business plan guidance.

4 3 C.8.5.11 Is the NSE Analyst/Assistant PE required to be co-located with the ship group or is a remote work location be acceptable?

C.8.5.11 requires a PE with staff that includes a NSE Analyst/Assistant PE. The PE staff is to be the on-site representative to MARAD and regulatory bodies.

The PE staff is to be provided on-site facilities (offices) that shall be located within a maximum of 2 hours response time to the ship at layberth.

Continuous on-site PE services are required throughout the contract. The requirement is clear. "Co-located" as used in the RFP only describes a proximity condition of one ship to another; it is not used to characterize the work location of the PE staff in relation to a ship or ship group.

61 3 C.8.5.11.2.10 Will you please consider reduction of the shipyard availability contract award value of greater than $6M in the first bullet of C-8.5.11.2.10 to something lower like $3M or $4M? Although shipyard availabilities with a total cost greater than $6M is not unrealistic these days, it has always been our goal to minimize the cost of an availability by accomplishment of as much work as possible at the ROS layberth rather than at a shipyard, so that prerequisite value could unfairly eliminate some very good currently employed Port Engineers.

Amendment No. 0003 drops the contract award value threshold requirement at C.8.5.11.2.10 from $6 million to $3 million.

5 3 C.8.5.11.6 Are travel costs to attend SMEWG or other meetings as directed by MARAD reimbursable? (J-04, Item 78, identifies "shoreside staff travel" as cost reimbursable during Phase M only.)

This requirement is clarified in C.8.5.11.6 and in J-04 Cost Reimbursable Items as both are revised by Amendment No. 0003.

62 3 C.8.5.13.1 Will you please confirm that the second sentence of C-8.5.13.1, “For courses that can only be conducted onboard ship, crew members shall complete all training within 7 days of reporting onboard, or prior to operating the applicable equipment of systems, whichever occurs first.”, only refers to regulatory and STCW training of the first sentence of C- 8.5.13.1, “The Contractor shall ensure all ship crew (ROS and FOS crew members) receive all training to meet the regulatory and Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) requirements. Crew members shall successfully complete all required training prior to assignment to a ship.”, and not MARAD required training of J-07 Contract- Required Training?

Clarification is unnecessary for this requirement.

60 3 C.8.5.2.19.1 Are travel and travel-related expenses for temp replacement crew as suggested in C-8.5.2.19.1 (The Contractor shall pursue filling the gapped billet on a weekly basis to conform with J-01. This effort for filling a gapped billet shall be documented in the Ship Manager Weekly Report (TE-07; MT- 07.01).) reimbursable?

Documentation of the effort made in pursuit of filling gapped billets in the weekly report is not cost reimbursable.

58 3 C.8.5.2.3 Will you please confirm that SM can hire a portion of resident alien mariners iaw C-8.5.2.3, which is contradictory to current SMC requirements.

This requirement is not contradictory to the requirement at C.5.4.1.1.2 of the current SMC; it is identical.

37 3 C.8.5.2.5 The RFP states: The Contractor shall ensure all crew members hold U.S.

passports valid for a minimum of 6 months beyond the planned length of their assignment. Is this requirement specific only to FOS? The planned length of assignment for ROS could be the life of the contract and U.S.

Passports held by crewmembers may expire prior to the end of the contract.

See revised language for C.8.5.2.5 in Amendment No. 0003.

23 3 C.8.5.9.1 “All overtime while in ROS must be approved in advance by the COR.” Does approval of the annual operating budget, inclusive of overtime, suffice as getting approval in advance?

No. Approval of the annual operating budget does not evaluate and apply discretionary judgment on the situational circumstances for individual overtime requests.

7 3 C.8.6.1.6, C.8.6.1.7 Recommend clarification in these sections that the "completion of the services" includes receipt of all invoices from the sub-contractor who performed the services.

Clarification is provided in revisions made to C.8.6.1.6 and C.8.6.1.7 issued in Amendment No. 0003.

39 3 C.8.8.1.1 The RFP states: The Contractor shall be responsible for all administrative and legal costs associated with resolving such disputes, except when the Government has authorized reimbursement by issuance of a Task Order.

How can a bidder apply a price to this section within our proposal when the RFP indicates that reimbursement by issuance of a task order may or may not be authorized by the Government.

Subparagraphs to C.8.8, Subcontractor Claims and Disputes, are deleted in their entirety by Amendment No. 0003. The content of C.8.8 is limited to the reference: see H.24.3.6, SUBCONTRACT CLAIMS AND DISPUTES.

40 3 C.8.9.1.3 The RFP states: The Contractor shall accomplish special inventories as directed by MARAD. Will MARAD reimburse for the cost of performing special inventories? How can a bidder assign a price without knowing the definition or extent of a special inventory?

Clarification is added by Amendment No. 0003 that special MARAD-directed inventories will be conducted on a cost reimbursable basis as authorized in Attachment J-04 Cost Reimbursable Items, Item 47.

31 3 G.19.1.1 “CLINs consist of five-digits.” Section G.19.1.1.4 says that “The service provided under the CLIN is designated by the 6th digit . . .” Please clarify if the service provided under the CLIN is the 5th digit or the 6th digit.

The service is indicated by the 5th digit. This error is corrected by Amendment No. 0003.

28 3 G.3.b.ii “In adjusting “Crew Costs”, the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) mentioned in Paragraph c of this clause will be used by the Contracting Officer as a benchmark when considering fair and reasonableness of the proposed option period crew cost pricing.” If a situation came about where the CBA mandated a 4% annual increase, but the CPI-W index was only 2% for the same period, would the crew raise be considered as not fair and reasonable? If so, what would that mean with regards to the related crew costs?

The proposed hypothetical would require due diligence on the part of the Contracting Officer based on consideration of all relevant circumstances and involve exploring various avenues to reaching a fair and reasonable cost determination. Accordingly, no pre-decisional determination can be provided in response as to what that might mean with regards to the related crew costs based on the stated hypothetical parameters.

67 3 J-12 On Tab ROSCrewCosts, the formula reference needs adjustment starting in column “S” on rows 26 – 28. The formula is multiplying by R27 but it s/b R26 for row 26, R27 for row 27, and R28 for row 28.

The version of Attachment J-12 Pricing Data issued with Amendment No. 0003 corrects this issue.

68 3 J-12 On Tab FOSCrewCosts, some rows use crewing numbers from Tab ROSCrewing.

The version of Attachment J-12 Pricing Data issued with Amendment No. 0003 corrects this issue.

10 3 L.6.2.3, M.3.1.3 Neither Section L.6.2.3 nor M.3.1.3 provide instructions for submitting evidence of Dedicated LOC or binding commitment to obtain one. L.6.2.3 indicates that the Dedicated LOC is to be submitted within 10 calendar days of award, however M.3.1.3 indicates the agency will evaluate the dedicated LOC (or the binding commitment) as part of its proposal review of mandatory eligibility requirements under M.3.1. Please clarify what document(s) specifically should be submitted by the proposal due date to demonstrate the offeror's proposal meets L.6.2.3 Minimum Capital Requirements.

See revised provision L.6.2.3.1 clarifying requirement to submit a proposed Dedicated LOC binding commitment for evaluation that may be contingent upon being awarded up to the maximum number of ships the offeror is seeking award in Amendment No. 0003.

45 3 L.7.2 Are there any restrictions to the number of pages that can be submitted for each subsection? Are there any restrictions to total page count?

L.8.1b limits Past Performance Information Data to 5 pages for each reference. No restriction is placed on the proposal total page count.

12 3 L.8.1 Subparagraph c. references M.5.1.2 regarding how the Government will determine relevance. The correct reference is M.5.2.1.

The mentioned reference number has been corrected to M.5.2.1 by Amendment No. 0003.

18 3 L.8.3.a RE: L.8.3.a, which states, “Past performance under MARAD contracts is one of your potential five references.” If an offeror has multiple ship management contracts (ship groups), do the combined contracts count as one reference, or is each ship group contract a separate reference? If considered one reference, then if the offeror has a contract with MARAD outside the RRF ship management contract, is that also lumped in as one of our potential references or is that treated as a separate reference?

The sentence quoted by Offeror, "Past performance under MARAD contracts is one of your potential five references" has been removed by Amendment No. 0003. Each ship group is reported separately in CPARS as each ship group is a separate contract; accordingly, each ship group can be used separately as a reference. Similarly, any contract with MARAD or others outside of the RRF ship management contracts also may be used as a separate reference.

9 3 M.3.1.3 This section indicates specific requirements for the Dedicated LOC are detailed in Section G.11.1, but the correct reference is G.10.1.

Referenced Section G provision has been corrected to G.10.1 in Amendment No. 0003.

34 3 Will we be able to submit a separate pricing file for each ship group? This question in addressed in a new paragraph, L.9.1.9 Attachment J-12, Pricing Data in Amendment No. 0003

66 3 Since this solicitation was only just released a few days before the holiday season, on December 21, 2022, and the Pre-proposal conference was only just conducted on February 2, 2023, and all labor organizations are still developing their MOU for CBA for this ten year long contract, will you please extend the due date for offers by 60 days, from March 31, 2023, to May 31, 2023? And therefore, Grwill you please allow more time for additional questions pertaining to this solicitation?

Not at this time.