Q and A Amendment No.1 RFP 693JF726R000016-URN Vessel Design Challenge.pdf
PDF 85 KB Posted
- Attached to
- A Study on Vessel Design Challenge
- Solicitation number
- 693JF726R000016
About this file
This is an Amendment No. 1 to a federal solicitation that provides clarification responses to applicant questions regarding the URN-Vessel Design Challenge cooperative agreement opportunity (Solicitation No. 693JF726R000016).
The amendment addresses three key eligibility and evaluation criteria questions. First, it confirms that U.S.-registered entities qualify as domestic applicants regardless of foreign ultimate parent ownership, provided they maintain U.S. registration. Second, it clarifies that citizenship-based funding restrictions applicable to MARAD/META cooperative agreements will not apply to design teams located and performing all work in the U.S. at U.S.-registered firms, even if those firms have foreign parent ownership. Third, it establishes that the RFP's stated preference for team leads represented by U.S. companies with U.S. headquarters and operating under the U.S. flag functions solely as an evaluative preference rather than a disqualifying eligibility criterion. Consequently, U.S.-registered entities with U.S. offices and domestic staff performing work within the United States are considered eligible domestic applicants for evaluation purposes under this cooperative agreement solicitation, though preference will be awarded during evaluation to those entities most closely aligned with the stated preferences.
View the file
Other files
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
Solicitation No. 693JF726R000016
URN-Vessel Design Challenge
Amendment No. 1
The purpose of this amendment is to respond to the following questions.
Question-1.
Domestic Applicant Definition: Section D.1 of the RFP states the Challenge is "open to all types of domestic applicants other than individuals." Our company is a U.S.-registered entity, though its ultimate parents are in Canada and Europe. Could you confirm whether an entity with this ownership structure qualifies as a "domestic applicant" for purposes of serving as the lead applicant/Recipient of a cooperative agreement under this RFP?
Response-1.
For the purposes of this project, a U.S. registered entity will be evaluated as a domestic applicant.
Question-2.
Citizenship-Based Funding Restriction: We understand that MARAD/META cooperative agreements may include a restriction on using award funds for "work to be done or done in a facility owned by someone other than a Citizen of the United States (as defined in 46 C.F.R. §
315.3(b))." Could you confirm whether this restriction, or an equivalent, will apply to cooperative agreements resulting from this RFP, and if so, how it would apply to a design team whose naval architecture/engineering firm is U.S.-registered and performs all work domestically, but has foreign parent ownership?
Response-2.
For the purposes of this project, a design team located in the U.S. working at a U.S.-registered firm and performing all work domestically would not fall under the restriction.
Question-3.
Team Lead Eligibility vs. Preference: Section B notes a preference for "team leads represented by
U.S. companies, those with U.S. headquarters, and those operating under the U.S. flag." Could you confirm whether this operates solely as an evaluative preference, or whether it functions as a disqualifying eligibility criterion for a team lead whose ultimate parent is a foreign entity?
Response-3.
The preference for "team leads represented by U.S. companies, those with U.S. headquarters, and those operating under the U.S. flag" is an evaluative preference. A U.S. registered entity with U.S.
offices and staff performing work domestically, would fall under consideration as a domestic applicant for this project.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .