Amendment 0005 Q and A Responses.pdf

Amendment No. 0005 Question Answer Response

Sequence No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

35 5 L.5.2 The registration page at https://marad.acqcenter.com says the server IP address could not be found. Can you please provide the correct website our submission in EPIC?

The EPIC website is not yet functioning. It is now expected to be up by on or about March 31, 2023. If it is delayed beyond that date, further guidance will be provided by amendment.

38 5 C.8.5.11.2.8 The RFP states: 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 to ensure each ship receives an effective degree of attention.

Will MARAD reimburse the cost of an additional port engineer when ships are temporarily located in different locations?

See response to Sequence No. 24 in the Amend. No. 0004 Q&A responses.

46 5 L.10.1 To assist in the creation of small business plans, will MARAD be providing an estimate of reimbursable expenses for FY24 and beyond or should Offerors use the provided historical figures to create the subcontracting plans? Will small business subcontracting plans need to encompass all 10 years of the contract or only the 5-year base performance period? If Offerors are submitting bids for multiple ship groups, will a small business subcontracting plan be required to be submitted for each ship group in our response?

Estimated Reimbursable Expenses will be provided as an attachment to the Amendment No. 0005 for offerors to use in calculating SB Subcontracting dollars and percentages in accordance with 52-219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. (Oct 2022) - Alternate II (NOV 2016).

53 5 J-01 Required Crewing In the current J-01 Required Crewing , there is 1 QMED DW included in the ROS required crewing for all CAPE vessels; however, there are none in the FOS required crewing, so when an ROS CAPE vessel is activated, that QMED DW of the ROS crew roster could potentially lose their job if they are not qualified for another rating (i.e., Oiler). Therefore, we recommend 0 QMED DW (cut out this position) and two (2) Oilers for the ROS rosters (increase of Oilers quantity from 1 to 2). This will better prepare a vessel for a transition from ROS to FOS. The reduced cost of another Oiler will also be to the benefit of the Government.

Amendment No. 0005 transfers the ROS QMED DW position to ROS Oiler on all ships where no QMED DW position exists in FOS while maintaining the same number of billets in the Engine Department in ROS.

54 5 J-01 Required Crewing In the current J-01 Required Crewing , there is 1 Wiper included in the ROS required crewing for all vessels; however, there are none in the FOS required crewing except for the LMSRs, so when a vessel is activated, that Wiper of the ROS crew roster could potentially lose their job if they are not qualified for another rating (i.e., QMED).

Therefore, we recommend 0 Wipers and 1 GUDE for the ROS rosters. This will better prepare a vessel for a transition from ROS to FOS. A Wiper position is dedicated to the Engine Room; whereas, a GUDE position can be assigned to the Engine or Deck department, so this recommendation is to the benefit of an ROS crew. And since the cost for a GUDE is the same as the cost for a GUDE, this change is budget neutral, which is to the benefit of the Government.

Amendment No. 0005 establishes a Wiper position in FOS for all ships that were without a Wiper in FOS so that all ROS Wiper positions would have a FOS position on activation. In addition to LMSRs, FSS and Crane Ships already required at least one Wiper in FOS.

55 5 J-01 Required Crewing In the current J-01 Required Crewing , there is 1 Steward included in the ROS required crewing for every other vessel of a ship group (1 Steward per nested pair) and 1 ACU and 1 SA included in the ROS required crewing for every vessel; however, there are 0 ACU ratings in the FOS required crewing for any vessel, so when an ROS vessel is activated, the ACU could potentially lose their job if they are not qualified for another ROS rating (i.e., Cook or Steward) unless they are willing to drop down in rating to an SA. Therefore, we recommend 1 Steward and 0 ACU and 1 GVA and on every ROS vessel. A GVA can be assigned to any department; whereas, an SA is only assigned to the Steward department, so this recommendation is to the benefit of an ROS crew. And since the cost for a GVA is the same as the cost for an SA, this change is budget neutral, which is to the benefit of the Government.

Amendment No. 0005 revises all ROS Assistant Cook/Utility positions to ROS Cook

Amendment No. 0005 Question Answer Response

Sequence No.

Amend RFP Reference(s) Comments/Questions Response

83 5 SF-30 Block 14 Requests that MARAD consider a 30 day extension to the due date of the RFP. This request is because we have been told by the labor unions that we will not have CBAs until mid- March, in which case, we will not have enough time to complete the proposal pricing.

Additionally, the EPIC system and website (https://marad.acqcenter.com) that we are to use for proposal submission is still not available. We respectively request your favourable consideration to this request and ask for a response as soon as possible.

Proposal Due Date was extended to May 01, 2023, via Amendment No. 0004

84 5 J-12 Pricing Data, Tab FOSCrewingCosts

In FOS the union CBA’s provide a monthly base wage for FOS. On J-12, the tab for FOS crew costs calls for a weekly base and then daily is divided by seven. Would MARAD consider changing that to a monthly base and divide by 30 for the daily base? This would eliminate any potential errors in rounding as now we would have to take the monthly divide by 30 and then multiply that by seven to get the weekly rate requested on J-12.

Columns B and C of Tab FOSCrewCosts are revised in J-12 issued by Amend.

No. 0005 to accommodate entry of a monthly base wage rate to calculate a daily base wage rate by dividing by 30.

85 5 J-12 Pricing Data, Tabs ROS5OtherCosts OPEROtherCosts PhaseMFOSOtherCosts

On pricing sheet J-12 amendment 004, since the ROS-5 crew on the Pacific Tracker was changed to 16 from 15 the formulas in cells AS4 thru AS8 on the tabs for ROS 5 Other Costs, Oper Other Costs and Phase M FOS Oper Costs no longer calculate properly.

Formulas in affected cells for PACIFIC TRACKER have been revised in J-12 issued by Amendment No. 0005 on Tabs ROS5OtherCosts, OPEROtherCosts, and PhaseMFOSOtherCosts to calculate properly.

86 5 L.8.1.b The RFP states: Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation.

The language in question is revised to clarify its intended meaning by Amendment No. 0005.

87 5 H.24.1.1, G.16 The RFP states: “The Contractor is required to provide its CPS procedures to the PCO NLT 60 days from date of award.” However, section G.16 states, “MARAD requires all Contractors to submit procedures for approval of their purchasing system within 90 days of contract award.”

Amendment No. 0005 revised G.16 CONTRACTORS PURCHASING SYSTEM REVIEW REQUIREMENTS to be consistent with H.24.1.1 in requiring a CPS procedure not later than 60 days from date of award, and added the requirement to J-11 Deliverables.

88 5 J-12 Pricing Data Will you please unlock cells key-in A-3 thru P17 for annual increases in the FOSCrewCosts tab, like the unlocked ones in the ROS5CrewCosts and ROS10CrewCosts tabs on the AMENDMENT+0004+J-12+Pricing+Data?

Yes. This accommodation has been made in J-12 Pricing Data - Amend. No.

89 5 C.8.1.1 In the Q&A of Amendment 0004, the answer to Question No. 42 , “The full accreditation is needed: HSQEEn per ABS”, is contradictory to the “or” SOW. The H and En designations for OSHAS 18001 (ISO 45001) and ISO 50001 are unusual to achieve, and there are very few auditors in the US who are even certified for the En one. Will you please review the answer to Question No. 42 and revert to the SOW as written?

Amendment No. 0005 revises RFP to require ABS HSQE certification in lieu of HSQEEn dropping Energy Managment from the certification requirement in lieu of the Contractor being otherwise ISO certified as described in the RFP.

90 5 J-14 Past Performance Information Data

J-14 Past Performance: As per Amendment 0003 and confirmed in Amendment 0004, J-14 Past Performance form was incorrectly titled J-13 and MARAD provided an updated and correct J-14 Past Performance. In amendment 0003, RFP section L.8.1 e was removed completely which required questionnaires to be completed and submitted to MARAD by the POC’s of the reference, not the offer. Confirm our understanding that OPCO’s are to provide J-14 Past Performance Information Data form from Amendment 0003 and the Past Performance questionnaire that was submitted to POC’s with the instructions to submit directly to MARAD POC prior to Amendment 0003 are no longer required (since those were submitted prior to Amendment 0003 due to deadline for receipt).

The Offeror is required to submit with its proposal a completed J-14 Past Performance Information Data for each past performance erfernce submitted. The Past Performance Questionnaire form requirement has been removed from the solicitation requirements.