OPC_Stage_2_Final_RFP_Questions.xlsx

RFP Questions and Answers

H.34 has been updated; subparagpahs (A), (B), and (C) are deleted.

1. Is it correct to understand that offerors are required to dicuss Configuration Management in both Factor 2 Design Approach and in Factor 4 Program Management?

2. Is it correct to understand that Configuration Management is evaluated in both of those two factors?

Suggest consolidating the discussion and evaluation into one factor. Section L.12.2 Design Soundness and Maturity states, "The Offeror shalldescribethe processes, including configuration management in integrating retained OPC baseline elements from the J attachment, J-20, “Matrix of OPC Stage 1 Design Artifacts,” with the proposed design; decisions; and tradeoffs associated with its proposed design."

The Offeror shall describe the Offeror's configuration management considerations in integrating retained OPC baseline elements, from J-20 Matrix of OPC Stage 1 Design Artifacts, that the Offeror proposes along with the other elements of the Offeror's proposed design to ensure the complete proposed OPC design is balanced, feasible, and executable.

Section L.12.4 Technical and Organizational Management states, "The Offeror shall provide a narrative to describe its configuration management approach."

The Offeror shall provide a narrative of the configuration management approach to be applied throughout design and production.

6 70.3.11 Flight Operations The USCG H60T is now listed as the required aircraft. Will the Coast Guard be providing a list of aircraft support equipment and associated desired storage space (e.g. extra engine, rotor blades, tail-rotor blades)? OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 6), 588.2.2, states “The aviation facilities shall be installed and will be certified in accordance with NAVAIR Air Capable Ship Aviation Facilities Bulletin No. 1 and shall meet the levels and classes of operation for the helicopters listed below:” NAVAIR Air Capable Ship Aviation Facilities Bulletin No. 1P, 22.4, states “Space shall be designated for the stowage of one engine and one main rotor blade container for each type of aircraft for which Class 1 certification is required.[…] The spaces shall be functionally accessible to handling equipment and shall be large enough to accommodate the applicable containers and components specified in Table 8 and reference (q).” NAVAIR Air Capable Ship Aviation Facilities Bulletin No. 1P, Table 8, provides the Engine and Main Rotor Blade Shipping Container Data for the H-60.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 6), 588.3.7.12, states "The cutter shall be provided with a minimum of 450 square feet of Aviation storage space for aviation support kits and other aviation repair parts." OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 6), 588.2.3, states “The aviation facility shall be in accordance with COMDTINST M3710.2, Shipboard-Helicopter Operational Procedures Manual.” COMDTINST M3710.2E, Chapter 12, Paragraph D states “A Helicopter Support Kit (HSK), tailored to the specific maintenance requirements of the model of helicopter deployed and the length of the deployment, shall be provided on the cutter.” The details of the Helicopter Support Kit for the H-60T shipboard configuration has not been determined and will be provided as GFI when it is available.

7 70.3.11 Flight Operations The USCG H60T is now listed as the required aircraft. Will the Coast Guard be providing a weapons and ammunition storage needs? OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 8), 763.2.3.3, states “Rack(s) sized to accommodate the small arms for the aviation detachment as listed in Table 763-3 shall be provided in the Law Enforcement Armory.”

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 8), 763.2.3.4, states “Lockable Stowage locker(s) shall be provided for stowage of ten M1A2 ammo containers.” These Lockable Stowage locker(s) in the Law Enforcement Armory provide ammunition storage for the aircraft. Please note that a typo has been identified and that “M1A2” should be “M2A1”.

Drawing 360-WMSM-085-001 (Lines, Offsets and Hull Appendages Drawing) has been provided with the Technical Library under OPC Stage 1 Design Artifacts in folder 079-01-1193_02 (Hull Form Design Report) with the file name ESG_079-01-1193_02_Dwg1_10-05-15.

Section L.12.1, Facilities, paragraph (a) states “The Offeror shall describe its existing and planned shipbuilding facilities. The existing and planned shipbuilding facilities should not be included in the Detail Design price.

Note: OPC Stage 2 DD CDRL (J-5), 302-DD-1502, requires individual drawings of installed motors to be provided.

HSAR Clause 3052.209-72, Organizational Conflict of Interest (2006), added to Section I.

37 L.15 Administrative Volume Instructions Section L.9 deals with Period for Acceptance of Offers. We believe you mean L.10 Notification of Use of Government Support Contractors. Please clarify requirement.

This section is updated to reflect correct reference to L.10.

38 Question 368 'Please clarify how the Stage 1 Specification (J-1) is applicable to the Stage 2 RFP. The Stage 2 Specification (J-1) has no mention of Contract Guidance Drawings or "AS IS". Section 042.2.1.1 of the Stage 2 Specification is in regard to Contract Drawings. Note the Stage 2 J-1 does not reference J-20. The RFP does reference J-20 and in H.26(a), J-20 would be considered a first-tier document which by H.26(b) is mandatory for use. Section L.12.2, Detail Design Appendix, 2nd paragraph calls J-20 unwarranted artifacts. Can the Gov't please clarify the disagreements between the response to Draft RFP Question 368 as well as the disagreements within the RFP as noted above? It appears the Gov't is expecting the contractor to assume all design risk for a design that is being provided by the Government and with equipment and systems that have been standardized in support of sustainability per RFP C.2(e) and contract drawings per J-1, Table 042-2? The OPC Stage 1 Specification (J-1) is not applicable to the Stage 2 RFP. The response to Draft RFP Question 368 included a typo. The response was not intended to quote the OPC Stage 1 Specification but instead the OPC Stage 2 Specification.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1) of the final RFP does not mention Contract Guidance Drawings or "AS IS." However, OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1) of the draft RFP did. Draft RFP Question 368 and the response to Draft RFP Question 368 predated release of the final RFP.

The Matrix of Design Artifacts (J-20) is not “referenced” by the RFP but is instead part of the RFP. As such, the Matrix of Design Artifacts (J-20) is not a first-tier reference as defined by Section H.26.

Withstanding, L.12.2. Design and Life Cycle Benefit (a) Design Overview states, “The Offeror shall present an overview of the proposed design and the engineering design elements.” Further, Section L.12, Design Soundness and Maturity states, “The Offeror shall describe the processes, including configuration management in integrating retained OPC baseline elements from the J attachment, J-20, “Matrix of OPC Stage 1 Design Artifacts,” with the proposed design; decisions; and tradeoffs associated with its proposed design.” With that, it is in the Offeror’s interest to address the inclusion, exclusion and changes of J-20 items, regardless of being a Detail Design Appendix element, to present a complete overview of their proposed design.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 6), 588.3.7.7 states “A hangar shall be provided for the stowage and maintenance of aircraft with the following minimum clearances:” and then lists required overhead and horizontal clearances.

57 Page 345, 5.1 & 5.2 This AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program/software does not appear to be commercially available. In lieu of using the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program/software for the development of the Damage Control products as required in Attachment J, the offeror would like to use their own software/tool. The current software is a SQL database, Label Plate Management Systems (LPMS) that generates both the DC Book tables and CCOL and we use AutoCAD 2018 for development of the DC Diagrams. OPC Stage 2 Addendum (J-1 Part 9), 6-2-11/5.1 states, “For OPC, CCOLs shall be prepared using the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program.” OPC Stage 2 Addendum (J-1 Part 9), 6-2-11/5.2 states, “For OPC, Damage Control Books and Diagrams shall be prepared in accordance with NTS-9090-820 using the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program.” The government acknowledges that the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program/software is not commercially available.

OPC Stage 2 DD CDRL (J-5), 086-DD-2113, BLK04 states that “DC Fitting lists shall be submitted in a MS Access file format in the template provided[…]”. The Contractor is not responsible for preparing the CCOL using the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program. The Contractor is responsible for providing the Damage Control Technical Data in the format required in the CDRL.

OPC Stage 2 DD CDRL (J-5), 086-DD-2113, BLK04 states that “DC Diagrams shall be developed and submitted in an editable AutoCAD format” and “The format of surface ship DC Book Contents shall be delivered in Microsoft Word file format.” The Contractor is not responsible for preparing the Damage Control Books and Diagrams using the AutoDAM/AutoPLATE program. The Contractor is responsible for providing the Damage Control Technical Data in the format required in the CDRL.

Section F.19 states “The Contractor’s proposed Preliminary Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate (PABWE) for the construction of the OPC will be incorporated into the contract following contract award for Detail Design.” OPC Stage 2 DD CDRL (J-5), 096-DD-1347, BLK12 indicates the first submittal of the Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate (ABWE) is required 30 Days After Effective Date of Contract Award. The USCG does not intend to modify the Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate Liquidated Damages.

61 Paragraph 42.4.3 I-33 HSAR Class Deviation 15-01 SAFEGUARDING OF SENSITIVE INFORMATION (MAR 2015) Offeror requests the achievement of a CMMC Level 3 certification requirement outlined in J-3 be considered sufficient to satisfy the ATO requirement in the soliciation with the inclusion of the HSAR Class Deviation 15-01 clause. Please note that the CMMC is a more recent protocol, developed by a consortium of industry and government partners, and will more closely align across different programs.

The offerer shall comply with both the Section Irequirement for an ATO for any system processing or storing Government information and the J-3 requirement to attain a CMMC level 3 certification.

65 B.3 OPTIONAL CONTRACT LINE ITEMS (CLINs) Section B.3 (g) provides in part that the USCG “intends to exercise the following follow-ship construction CLINs simultaneously: […]” The list that follows appears to describe both the sequence and grouping in which the option CLINs will be exercised. Please confirm that if the USCG decides to exercise the designated CLINs in a sequence or grouping that is not as described in the RFP (or misses or skips any option) that option award/expiration and pricing will be adjusted under the CHANGES clause. Section B.3 has been updated with the following language:

"The Coast Guard intends to exercise the production CLINs sequentially (1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, 5002, 6002, 7002, 8002, 9002, 1102, and 1202). The Coast Guard forfeits the right to unilaterally exercise options for any of the follow ship production CLINs as priced if it fails to exercise any of the preceding production options in the sequence (e.g. if the Coast Guard does not order CLIN 4002, Hull #4, then the Coast Guard forfeits all rights to exercise CLINS 5002 – 1202, Hull #5 - #11, as priced)"

Pursuant to Section M.8, can an offered price can be evaluated as unreasonable if it is unreasonably high or unreasonably low in comparison with other offers or the IGCE?

If an offered price is determined to be unreasonably low, can that offer (a) be rejected on that basis or (b) be assessed risk relating to its understanding of the technical requirements in Factors 1, 2, 3 and/or 4? Reasonableness deals with prices being too high while the evaluation of unreasonably low prices falls under the umbrella of cost realism, which is defined in 15.404-1 (d ). As stated in Section M.8, the USCG will not perform a cost realism analysis. However, Offerors are directed to:

Factor 1 (d) Producibility which states that "The narrative and resources must align with the information provided in the price volume." and Factor 2, Design Soundness and Maturity (e) which states "The narrative and resources must align with the information provided in the price volume attachments L-2, L-3, and L-4."

An offeror can be assesed a risk under Factors 1,2,3, and 4 based on the resources proposed to execute its solution but not based on the proposed price.

68 Page M-3, Section M, Clause M.4 Source Selection Process, sub-paragraph (d) Section M, as compared to the draft RFP, indicates that there are added evaluation criteria of "significant strengths" and "significant weaknesses." However, only the first factor (in M.6.1) added those new evaluation criteria. Please confirm that the other factors (i.e., M.6.2, M.6.3, and M.6.4) will be evaluated for "significant" strengths and “significant” weaknesses? Yes, factors 1-4 will be evaluated to include consideration of significant strengths and significant weaknesses. Sections M.6.2, M.6.3, and M.6.4 has been updated to include consideration of significant strengths.

The standard clause allows for the potential fill-ins:

"____ [Contracting Officer shall insert the specific period of time in which notice shall be given to the Contractor; e.g., within 30 days from the date of acceptance by the Government,; within 1000 hours of use by the Government,; or other specified event whose occurrence will terminate the period of notice, or combination of any applicable events or period of time]."

The offereor propose revising the clause to be 30 days from the date of acceptance per the standard clause. The USCG has determined the period to be 90 days and is now stated as such in the text of the clause.

The offeror request the USCG correct the below errors in attachment L-2 and re-issue the document.

0001 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 1001 No errors noted 2001 No errors noted 3001 No errors noted 4001 No errors noted 5001 No errors noted 6001 No errors noted 7001 No errors noted 8001 No errors noted 9001 No errors noted 1101 No errors noted 1201 No errors noted 1002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 2002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 3002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 4002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 5002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 6002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 7002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 8002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 9002 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 1102 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 1202 AI92 Missing cells S92, V92, Y92, AB92, AE92 in formula 1005 No errors noted 1008AA No errors noted 1008AB No errors noted 1008AC No errors noted 1008AD No errors noted 1008AE No errors noted 1008AF No errors noted Identified errors have been corrected and Amendment 1 (A0001) to attachment L-2 has been issued.

75 Section E Tug and pilot services Should the offeror include twelve movements for each OPC or twelve movements in total for all OPCs? The offeror propose clarifying this requirement to be no more than six movements per construction CLIN.

The offeror shall include tug and pilot services for twelve movements for each OPC in their proposal per E.6(a)(5).

76 Part IV - Representations and Instructions, Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors Page L-15 Would the Government eliminate the copies of the qualifications or certifications from the 160-page count restriction for Volume 1? A compliant, comprehensie response to the Section L language entails many pages of copies of qualifications and certifications. Further, yards of varying sizes will have different numbers of certificates that would need to be included in the proposal. A qualification, certification, and resume appendix has been created and is excluded from the page count. See L.12.

77 Clause H.49, Security Deliverables This clause notes that the Contractor will be required to control and handle FOUO information during contract performance. Will all information that is FOUO be marked by the USCG as such before being provided to the Contractor, and at what point in the solicitation process will the USCG clearly identify all contract deliverables that are expected to be designated as FOUO, sensitive, or other types of controlled unclassified information? The USCG has already identified all FOUO information required for proposal preparation and marked the information appropriately. Any additional FOUO provided to the contractor after award will also be appropriately marked.

The contract deliverables are to be delivered in accordance with J-5 Section 1.0 and J-7 Section 1.0, "Per Section H of this contract, data delivered under this contract that contain technical data are subject to the restrictions of the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U. S. C., Section 2751), and shall be marked with the appropriate ITAR Control Statements.Unclassified/Limited Distribution documents shall include the appropriate destruction statement in accordance with COMDTINST M5260.6.All pages of each delivered electronic file shall contain these necessary markings or a notice indicating where in the electronic file the markings are located (e.g. See Restrictions on Title Page)."

The Government will not be providing SIM/STIM software or hardware. The Government will consider and may approve any request submitted via contract letter for the use of SIM/STIM as part of the test process.