AMENDMENT 0004 Q and A Responses.pdf

Amendment No. 0004 Question Answer Response

Sequence No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

2 4 C.7.1.3 Are the contractor representatives for Safety Services, Superintendent, and Training Officer required to be dedicated to the contract or can those functions be covered by other shoreside staff, such as the SMS Manager, DPA, or PE/Technical Manager positions?

Key shoreside positions have been consolidated and listed in H.1. The requirement at C.7 listing critical/key skillsets is removed.

6 4 C.8.5.3.2, C.8.10.13, C.8.10.13.1, C.10.7.6.1, G.15.2

Recommend the term Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) be used throughout the PWS, instead of the term Personally Identifiable Information (PII).

MARAD will retain emphasis made in RFP with respect to safeguarding PII.

Amendment No. 0004 revises C.8.10.13 by citing DOT Order 1351.18, Privacy Risk Management, as the standard for safeguarding PII.

11 4 L.8.1 Subparagraphs a.(2) and b. indicates Past Performance Information Data is to be submitted IAW the format in J-13, but J-13 is a Notice of Prohibition on Liens. Please provide the correct reference and required template for Past Performance Information Data.

The reference to the Past Performance Information Data was corrected by Amendment No. 0003.

12 4 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. 0004.

13 4 L.8.1. Subparagraph e. references J-13 for the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). The PPQ is actually found in J-14.

Subparagraph L.8.1.e was removed in its entirety by Amendment No. 0003.

14 4 J-14 The instructions at the top of page 3 of J-14 Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) indicate that the form must be completed in Adobe Acrobat by entering data into specific fields on the form, however the form provided with the RFP does not allow data entry.

Please confirm that the form may be completed by manually entering ratings and comments in the fields on pages 1 and 2.

A PDF fillable form version of J-14, Past Performance Information Data, was provided under Amendment No. 0003 to replace the original "Questionnaire" version.

15 4 C.8.2.1.1 What is the scope of the 5 Year Annual Preservation Plan ( part of LCM Plan ). Is this just internal ballast tanks/void spaces ? Assume for ballast tanks is based on ABS status - Fair or Poor coating condition ?

Additional language is provided by Amendment No. 0004 at C.8.2.1.1 to further define the scope of the 5-Year Annual Preservation Plan.

16 4 C.8.5.4.1 What is encompased by a pre-employment multi-phasic medical/dental physical examination

The RFP referenced paragraph was revised by Amendment No. 0003, dropping the word "multi-phasic" to clarify the requirement.

17 4 Due to the majority of critical technical exhibits not being released to date, well over a month since the RFP was released, Patriot would like to propose that 1) the deadline for final questions, currently set for February 10, 2023, is extended through February 17, 2023 and 2) the bid due date, currently set for March 31, 2023, is extended through April 28, 2023.

The deadline for questions was extended by Amendment No. 0004 to March 14, 2023.

19 4 H.1 Is the offeror required to submit names of the key personnel identified in H.1? This list contradicts the key personnel identified in Section C.2.7

Amendment No. 0004 revises H.1 to designate key shoreside positions as the RRF Program Manager and all Port Engineers. C.7 including all subparagraphs has been removed and redesignated as "Reserved". Names of initial key shoreside personnel are not required.

20 4 C.7 Section C.7, Critical/Key Skillsets, states in 7.1 that “The Contractor shall employ the following key personnel individuals”, with section 7.1.3 listing seven Subject Matter Experts (SME’s). Are these seven SME’s considered key personnel?

Amendment No. 0004 revises C.7, including all subparagraphs, by removing all content and redesignated it as "Reserved" to maintain subsequent paragraph numbering. H.1 designates "key" shoreside positions.

21 4 C.8.4.9 “The Contractor shall conduct machinery surveys for ROS-4 and ROS-5 ships, and to the extent feasible, ROS-10 ships, as continuous except where otherwise approved in writing by MARAD.” Please clarify “continuous”

Amendment No. 0004 clarifies C.8.4.9 by adding "ABS continuous survey" for machinery.

No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

22 4 C.8.5.2.17 “The Contractor shall, . . ., place their insurance with the U.S. market to the maximum extent possible when the rates, terms and conditions offered by U.S. underwriters are competitive with those offered by foreign underwriters.” Is it MARAD’s intent that companies currently working with foreign underwriters shop the U.S. underwriters to be in compliance with this requirement?

New information is added in Amendment No. 0004 pertaining to insurance as subparagraphs to C.8.5.2.16 which includes C.8.5.2.17 referenced in the question renumbered as C.8.5.2.16.1. In deciding to place insurance with U.S.

underwriters, the condition stated involves sound business judgement where terms and conditions offered by U.S. underwriters are competitive with those of foreign underwriters.

24 4 C.8.5.11.2.8 “Where ships assigned to a PE are temporarily located in different geographical locations, such as during a shipyard availability, the Contractor shall provide an additional temporary PE . . .” Is there a minimum number of days that the vessel is temporarily located in a different location before this requirement kicks in? Also, is the cost of the temporary PE reimbursable?

Amendment No. 0004 revises C.8.5.11.2.8 to clarify a procedure for requesting additional PE support subject to MARAD approval on a cost reimbursable basis.

29 4 G.9 “Medical Invoice Review services shall be obtained by the Contractor from competent commercial sources. Contractors shall obtain the use of a third-party to assist with reviewing and validating costs submitted on medical invoices.” If a Contractor has their own Risk Management Department that is knowledgeable about medical claims, would they still be required to hire a third-party for this work?

Revised language issued in Amendment No. 0004 allows for in-house medical billing reviews in lieu of hiring a third-party commercial medical billing review service provider.

30 4 G.15.1.(2) “Crew members may submit claims without itemized receipts for subsistence and lodging at the current rate set in labor agreements, if less than the FTR rate.” If a crew member is paid at the FTR rate, as opposed to “less than the FTR rate”, are itemized receipts required?

Yes. Travel costs for lodging, flights, rental cars and other costs except for Miscellaneous & Incidental Expenses which are reimbursed at the FTR per diem rate, require supporting documentation.

32 4 H.22 “Should the Contractor replace any key personnel identified in their technical proposal, the replacement shall have comparable experience and qualifications of the person being replaced.” This requirement encourages initial placement of personnel that meet minimum requirements of the position so that they are easier to replace. Otherwise, putting a person in the key role with superior experience and/or education means a future replacement may not be easily available. It would seem beneficial to have a more experienced person if possible. Would you consider changing this to requiring the replacement to meet the necessary qualifications for the position?

H.22 is removed in its entirety by Amendment No. 0004. Refer to H.1 for requirements related to Substitution of Personnel in Key Shoreside Positions.

33 4 The wage determination has a MEBA CBA listed twice for Patriot, but no SIU CBA. Is one of the Patriot CBA’s, as described in the wage determination, supposed to say “SIU”?

Attachment J-06 is revised by Amendment No. 0004 to list union agreements between incumbent Patriot Contract Services, LLC, and their unlicensed crew union affiliates.

36 4 C.7.1, H.1 The four listed Key Personnel in this section do not appear to align with the RFP section C.7.1. Will key personnel for these positions be required to be named in our response to this RFP?

Key shoreside positions are designated in H.1. The requirement at C.7 listing critical/key skillsets is removed.

No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

42 4 C.8.1.1, C.8.13.2 The RFP states: The Contractor shall be certified and maintain certification to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 (latest version), or in lieu of ISO 9001,the Contractor shall be certified to the applicable quality standards IAW American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Guide for Marine Health, Safety, Quality, Environmental and Energy Management (HSQEEn) standards through the performance period of this contract.

C.8.13.2 states: The Contractor shall maintain ISO 14001 (latest version) certificate or ABS HSQEEn certificate. If the bidder holds a Document of Compliance with ABS does the DOC have to include “H” and “En” or would an “SQE” designation meet the intent of the RFP?

ISO9001 and ISO140001 are associated with Quality and Environment which are covered by the “Q” and “E” designation by ABS. The “S” designation cover the safety component.

No. The full accreditation is needed: HSQEEn per ABS.

43 4 C.10.6.3 The RFP states: The Contractor shall provide two PEs, one for each ship, who will be located at the layberth facility as agreed upon by stakeholders. This section applies to the MDA ship group. Does MARAD also want an assistant port engineer / NSE Analyst assigned to the MDA ship group in addition to the two port engineers?

There is no exception applicable to the MDA ship group to C.8.5.11.2.9 requiring one NSE Analyst/Assistant PE for each ship group.

44 4 G.19.1.1.1 The RFP states: Contract Years are designated by the 1st digit ranging from 1 to 8 which represents the 1st through 8th annual performance period under the contract. Should this section refer to digits ranging from 1 to 5 or 1 to 10?

Yes, the language should cover the full possibility of 10 years of performance.

Revised language was provided in Amendment No. 0003 to correct this misstatement.

47 4 Ship Group 18 consists of the Brittin and Fisher. On slide #6 of the preproposal conference the Fisher is slated to be homeported in Vancouver but the Brittin is not listed on the slide. Will the ships be at the same port or different ports?

Proposals are to be based on both BRITTIN and FISHER being layberthed in Portland, OR.

48 4 C.8.5.11.2.8 The Bob Hope class and G Class LMSRs have already or are being transferred over to MARAD from MSC. In the MSC contract they require one (1) Port Engineer per ship. The current General Agency Agreements for the LMSR’s require one (1) Port Engineer per vessel (one (1) PE can provide oversight for up to two vessels for a period not to exceed 30 days, with approval of the Contracting Officer). Due to the complexity and size of these vessels will MARAD make it a mandatory requirement for one (1) Port Engineer per ship as they are currently being operated or as RFP section C.8.5.11.2.8?

C.8.5.11.2.8 is revised by Amendment No. 0004 to specifically address PE requirements for LMSR ships.

49 4 Under past performance L 8.1 b it states that past performance data should be submitted in the format provided in J-13. Attachment J-13 is Notice of Prohibition on Liens. Under L

8.1 e the Past Performance Questionnaire is listed as J-13 as well. The performance questionnaire is provided as J-14. Please correct the references and provide the format for submitting past performance data previously referenced as J-13.

The following revisions were made in Amendment No. 0003. The J-14 Past Performance Questionnaire was replaced by the J-14 Past Performance Information Data form which was issued as such. Subparagraph L.8.1.e was removed in its entirety. There is no longer any mention of J-13 in L.8 PART 3

PAST PERFORMANCE.

50 4 Please confirm that MARAD is requiring one submission covering all of the ship groups that a bidder choses to bid on. The groups are to be addressed separately within the one proposal where it is called upon to do so.

Yes.

51 4 H.1 Please clarify the requirements for key personnel. 1. Section H.1 Key Personnel are listed as Program Manager, Technical Manager, Chief Inspector and Contract Executive. 2.

Please advise what is a Chief Inspector and a Contract Executive

Amendment No. 0004 revises H.1 to designate key shoreside positions as the RRF Program Manager and all Port Engineers. C.7 including all subparagraphs, has been removed and redesignated as "Reserved".

No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

52 4 C.7, L.7.2.2.2 Critical/Key Skillsets lists Port Engineers, Asst/ Port Engineers, Safety Services, Superintendent, Invoice Processing, Contract Management, ISM/SMS Manager, Training Officer, Procurement Officer as key shoreside personnel. Clarify representative from Safety Services. Is Contract Management the same as Contract Executive? Do all of these personnel have to be 100% dedicated to the contract? Is Superintendent the same as Port Engineer or Technical manager? Do all of these personnel have to be identified on the organizational chart and information provided as per L 7.2.2.2 Subparagraph 2-2 (see the following)? Key shore-side management positions, include title, function/responsibilities, education, and minimum experience. An organizational diagram of the offer – include names of personnel who will be performing these functions and identify whether they are employees of the Offeror, employees of subcontractors or teaming partners, or independent contractor.

Amendment No. 0004 revises H.1 to designate key shoreside positions as the RRF Program Manager and all Port Engineers. C.7, including all subparagraphs, has been removed and redesignated as "Reserved". Names of initial key shoreside personnel are not required.

56 4 C.8.1.7, C.8.13.4 Will you please clarify 72 hours iaw C-8.1.7 or 10 days iaw C-8.13.4 for COR notification of third-party audits?

Amendment No. 0004 revises advance notice requirement to be 5-working days in both instances.

59 4 C.8.5.2.7 Will you please provide guidance on the Clarification Act referenced in C-8.5.2.7? Amendment No. 0004 removes the last two sentences of C.8.5.2.7 which eliminates mention of the Clarification Act.

64 4 C.10.7.3.2 Will there be a grace period to allow time to obtain additional SECRET clearances as required in C-10.7.3.2, “The Contractor shall ensure the ship Master, Chief Mate, and one additional officer shall possess a SECRET security clearance.”, since it takes considerable time for SECRET clearance applications to be processed?

No.

65 4 C.14.4.2, H.1 Are their contract requirements for the positions of Naval Architects, Marine Engineers, Project Manager, Technical Manager that are referenced in C-14.4 (Project Staffing), under C-14.4.2, “The Contractor shall, upon acceptance of the staffing plan, provide the resumes of proposed Naval Architects, Marine Engineers, Project Manager, Technical Manager, and additional PEs or equivalent positions to be employed for MARAD acceptance.”, and/or the positions of Project Manager, Technical Manager, Chief Inspector, and Contract Executive, that are referenced in H.1 (Key Personnel)?

Amendment No. 0004 revises H.1 to designate key shoreside positions as the RRF Program Manager and all Port Engineers. C.7, including all subparagraphs, has been removed and redesignated as "Reserved". C.14.4.2 pertains to project staffing to manage and provide oversite integration and modification of ship(s) within 30 days of assignment of the ship for MARAD acceptance. This is cost reimbursable work as opposed to maintaining permanent shoreside staff to support originally awarded RRF ship groups.

69 4 L.7.2.4.3 MARAD requests average cost per ship for the most recent 3 year period for four categories. Is this to be submitted for every ship in the fleet that the bidder currently operates (commercial, MSC, MARAD) or only MARAD vessels that they operate?

Average cost per ship for each of the four categories for the most recent 3-year period limited to MARAD or MSC ships managed in aggregate would satisfy this requirement; if no MARAD or MSC ships were managed, aggregate costs averaged for comparable commercial cargo ships would be appropriate.

70 4 L.7.2.4.3 The request for average cost per ship covers operational overtime and ROS overtime. Is this overtime to be that which under Government contracts is reimbursable as routine overtime such as weekends and holidays are included in the contractual per diem or is it to cover all overtime?

L.7.2.4.3 is revised by Amendment No. 0004 to clarify this requirement.

71 4 L.5.2 (Amend 0001) Section l.5.2, Proposal Submission, was edited to provide detailed instructions for use of the Electronic Procurement Information Center (EPIC) hosted website for submission of proposals. The link in the amendment does not work. Will MARAD be providing a workable link in the next amendment so that Contractors can register in time for submission of proposals?

MARAD will ensure that an active link to the EPIC hosted website is provided in time for submission of proposals. If the website is not active in time for submission of proposals by the solicitation proposal due date, the time for submission will be adjusted accordingly.

No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

72 4 L.8.1.b RFP states: “Past Performance Information Data. Submit information on contracts you consider most relevant in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit Performance Information Data IAW the format contained in J-13.” J- 13 should be referenced as J-14. This form appears to be a questionnaire that should be filled out by the customer’s contracting officer, or equal. Section L.8.1.b seems to indicate that the company submitting the proposal should be filling out this form, but Section L.8.1.e indicates the POC of the referenced company would fill out the form. Please clarify.

Who is to submit the form J-14 to the respective companies? The section L.8.1.a.4 seems to indicate that MARAD will send the questionnaires to the customers. Section L.8.1.e states, “The offeror’s references shall submit completed PPQs directly to the PCO no later than the proposal due date.” How is this possible if MARAD will be sending out the questionnaires.

The following revisions were made in Amendment No. 0003. The J-14 Past Performance Questionnaire was replaced by the J-14 Past Performance Information Data form which was issued as such. Subparagraph L.8.1.e was removed in its entirety. There is no longer any mention of J-13 in L.8 PART 3

PAST PERFORMANCE.

73 4 J-01 Form J-01 lists the ROS and FOS crew requirements for each ship group. The Pacific Tracker traditionally carries two 2nd Assistant Engineers during ROS. One of the 2nd Assistant Engineers is assigned as the “Mission 2nd” and is responsible to support the sponsor during ROS by maintaining and operating the MDA related systems/ equipment.

Please review the Form J-01 and determine if the additional 2nd Assistant Engineer will be added to the Pacific Tracker ROS crew list.

ROS Crew for PACIFIC TRACKER is revised to require two 2nd Assistant Engineers instead of only one. This revision is reflected in respective Amend.

No. 0004 spreadsheets, ROSCrewing tabs in Attachments J-01, Required Crewing, and J-12, Pricing Data.

74 4 L.6.2.2 Section L.6.2.2 contains the vessel qualifying statement, “of at least 450' LWL, with a minimum cargo capacity of 7,500 DWTs or for Tankers is at least 25,000 DWTs.” Section K.5 contains a similar qualifying statement with the addition of the word “or” prior to the minimum cargo capacity, “of at least 450 feet in length along the waterline (LWL), or with a minimum capacity of at least 7,500 DWT, or for tankers, of a least 25,000 DWT.” Please clarify if the certification of owner/operator must include a vessel of 450’ LWL with a minimum cargo capacity of 7,500 DWT or if the qualifying vessel can be at least 450’ LWL or have a minimum cargo capacity of 7,500 DWT.

Both size and capacity minimums must be met for the ship or integrated tug/barge to qualify the Offeror. If the qualifying vessel is not a tanker, it must be at least 450' LWL AND have a cargo capacity of at least 7,500 DWTs. If the qualifying vessel is a tanker, it must be at least 450' LWL AND have a cargo capacity of at least 25,000 DWT.

76 4 J-12 DailySWA Tab “DailySWA”; cell C88 contains no formula. Also, the addition of line 88 is for a 2M, but the remaining formulas on this line refer back to non LMSR billet for a CM (line 43).

Correction is not warranted. Cell formulas in Column C between Rows 87 and 93 return the hourly OT rate for the respective billet above in Rows 43 thru

48. There is no 2M in Rows 43 thru 48 so Offeror must enter the hourly OT rate for the 2M based on the applicable CBA. Cells in question are not protected. If daily OT rate differs from same billets for non-LMSR ships, enter the correct value directly for LMSR ships in Column C, Rows 87 thru 93.

77 4 J-12 DailySWA Tab “DailySWA”; the addition of line 88 for a 2M, the remaining formulas on this line refer back to non LMSR billet for a CM (line 43).

Correction is not warranted. Cells in question are not protected. If daily OT rate differs for same billets from non-LMSR ships, overwrite the formula by entering the correct value directly for LMSR ships in Column C, Rows 87 thru 93.

78 4 J-12 ROS5OtherCosts Tab “ROS5OtherCosts”; cells D67-BB67 refer to line 30 of sheet “ROS5CrewCosts”, the correct line reference is 4.

Thank you for pointing out this mishap. The formula correction is made in Attachment J-12 Pricing Data - Amendment No. 0004.

79 4 J-12 ROS5OtherCosts Tab “ROS5OtherCosts”; cell BA/BB 14 reads SG22, should read SG21. Thank you for pointing out this mishap. The ship group correction is made in Attachment J-12 Pricing Data - Amendment No. 0004.

No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

80 4 J-12 FPSched-EOS Tab “FPSched-EOS”; rows 515-524, for ships ARU and COR, reads SG22, should read SG21.

For ships ARU and COR, this error occurs in years 2-9 (although it appears that option years 6-10 are not evaluated.)

Thank you for pointing out this mishap. The SG21 designator correction is made in Attachment J-12 Pricing Data - Amendment No. 0004.

81 4 J-12 FPSched-EOS Tab “FPSched-EOS”; cells L515 and M515 contain a formula error (year 2, should be referencing array 3, not array 2.) This error repeats itself for years 3-10 as well where year= n, array reference should = n+1. Option years 6-10 contains numerous formula errors of the same kind (columns L and M) (i.e., a break in logic defined as year=n, array reference = n+1, over several ships.)

Thank you for pointing out this mishap. The SG21 formula correction in Columns L & M is made in Attachment J-12 Pricing Data for all years of potential performance - Amendment No. 0004.

82 4 C.8.5.11.2.8 This section requires the ship manager to provide an additional temporary PE when ships assigned to a PE are temporarily located in different geographical locations. Are the additional costs to provide an additional temporary PE reimbursable (e.g., wages, benefits, overtime, travel, lodging, meals)?

Amendment No. 0004 revises C.8.5.11.2.8 to clarify a procedure for requesting additional PE support subject to MARAD approval on a cost reimbursable basis.