The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Solicitation HSCG40-17-Q-53005 Question & Answers
| 1 |
| If awarded, are the units to be delivered and completed one at a time, allowing 120 days each? |
| The intent is to have all three units built and delivered within the 120 day window. If this requirement is not attainable, please include an attainable delivery schedule in your proposal. |
| 2 |
| We understand “pier drawings will be provided at the request of the vendor prior to award of contract”; but may we know at least the inside clear dock width dimension / piers width, for each hoist?? |
| Drawings are attached. |
| 3 |
| Concerning sector Lorain we need to know if this is to be a Marine Gantry (travel lift) style machine on rail or is it to be of this same "A" frame configuration. What would be the width and height restrictions for entering the building? |
The requirement is that the lift operate on the installed rails, not exceed 19,000 lbs, and be capable of entering the building while holding a vessel. Building dimensions are included on the attached diagram.
| 4 |
| Item 4 requires “variable speed hoists”. Please define. Does this mean variable speed within the hoist range, or does it imply a “dual (high-low) range” system? |
| This requirement is for a 2-Speed (dual range) operating ability not a variable speed within the hoist range. |
| 5 |
| Paragraph 2.2.2 states a height of the Key West unit at 30’. This height exceeds the structural limitations of a unit in that capacity range. The Key West unit is lifting the same craft as Station Lorain (45’ RBM) and it is unclear why the machine would need such excessive height. Can this figure be confirmed? |
| This figure is a typo. The inside clearance height of the lift currently at the unit is 25’. The overall height is 26.5’ |
| 6 |
| Paragraph (18) sub-paragraph (v) itemizes (1) CLINs for each application, and (1) CLIN for tear-down and installation services. It is understood that CLIN 0001 is for Sector Mobile 50 ton hoist, CLIN 0002 is for Station Lorain 25 ton hoist, and CLIN 0003 is for Sector Key West 35 ton hoist. The price of installation, testing and training would typically be included as part of the total price for each individual location. However, CLIN 0004 states that the price for removal of the existing Station Lorain equipment and the installation of all (3) new hoists is to be included and combined in CLIN 0004. Are we correct in this understanding? Also, if this is correct, should freight be included with the individual equipment under CLINs 0001-0003, or included with the consolidated installation price under CLIN 0004? Additionally, a 110% load test is required by the SOW. This will require delivery of a test weight. Should the cost of tank delivery for each location be included in CLIN 0004 or with CLINs 0001-0003 for each location? |
| Yes. This is FOB Destination so freight should be included in CLINS 0001-0003. All costs associated with testing should be included in CLIN 0004. |
| 7 |
| Paragraph 2.1 references USCG specification SFLC TS 583-4 regarding overload alarms. Please provide a copy of this specification. |
| Attached |
| 8 |
| As part of this package, it is also critical that we know the standardized rail type at Station Lorain, and the centerline-to-centerline dimensions of the rail throughout the length of the pier. This information will dictate the ICW of the machine and the configuration of the rail wheels. |
| Drawing attached |
| 9 |
| This paragraph states that the “dimensions and weight of the lift will be comparable to the original lift located at the designated Coast Guard facility.” It is not clear if the dimensions provided are overall dimensions or the critical Inside Clear Width (ICW) and Inside Clear Height (ICH) dimensions required to suit existing pier structure, doorway restrictions and other site-specific clearances, and to suit the type of craft being lifted. Are the dimensions provided considered “critical dimensions”, or are they “guidelines”? Adherence to these dimensions while maintaining critical pier, doorway and craft requirements may create conflict between the stated requirements that equipment be of a “standard production model”. |
| The Dimensions provided are a guideline based on the pier measurements, and the equipment that currently exists at the units. These are the overall dimensions. |
| 10 |
| This paragraph further defines equipment weight requirements for each location. These requirements may conflict with actual weights of OEM COTS equipment in the capacity categories required to meet the specification. Are the weights outlined in the SOW critical, or can they be exceeded by a defined amount or percentage? As with dimensional requirements, adherence to the stated weight limitations may create conflict with the “standard production model” requirement. |
| The weight requirements given are critical weights with the exception of STA Lorain. We have been given approval by structural engineers, who have accessed the pier, that a 19,000 lb. lift is acceptable, however the weight of the lift in its assembled condition can’t exceed 19,000 lbs. |
| 11 |
| We would like to show the 49’ BUSL and the 45’ RBM in the general arrangements for each unit offered to assure fit and function. Are profile and elevation drawings showing external features and craft Center of Gravity available? |
| Drawings Attached |
| 12 |
| It is understood that the contractor is to be responsible for removal of existing equipment at Station Lorain prior to installation of the new equipment. We believe Algonac equipment is electrically powered. Will the USCG handle electrical power disconnection and disposal of any dockside electrical supply equipment that is not part of the equipment itself? |
| USCG Personnel will handle the disconnection and disposal of any electrical equipment that is not part of the installed lift. This will have to be coordinated with support personnel that are not permanently stationed at the unit. |
| 13 |
| Paragraph 3.2 Is it the intent that equipment capacities be reduced (de-rated) to meet the stated lifting capacities, or are these to be considered minimum capacities? De-rating the equipment will not reduce the weight of the equipment itself, only the capacity stated on the ID plate. |
| These are intended to be minimum capacities. De-rating the equipment is not necessary or preferred. |
| 14 |
| Paragraph 2.2 states that pier drawings are available upon request. Boat hoists are sized to suit the piers they operate on, and it is therefore critical that we have this information as soon as possible so that we can define the Inside Clear Width (ICW) of each unit. Our proprietary Launching Pier Worksheet is attached to outline the type of information required for each facility in order to properly size the equipment to the site. We would be pleased to work directly with the USCG to ascertain the required information. |
| Pier diagrams are attached |
| 15 |
| Item (16) states that “three (3) firm fixed-price one-time purchased orders” will be awarded. Is it the USCG’s intent to issue all (3) POs to a single contractor? |
| Yes |
| 16 |
| Paragraph 3.4 requires “estimated lead times for replacement parts”. Is this for the “planned maintenance” parts (filters, etc.) as noted earlier in the paragraph? |
| This is to include planned maintenance parts along with other parts that will need to be replaced due to normal wear and tear including but not limited to sheaves and wire rope. |
| 17 |
| Paragraph 3.7.1 Please provide a copy of SFLC technical standard 583-4. |
| Attached |
| 18 |
| Paragraph 3.8 requires that submittals be delivered to the GCO within (7) days after award. REDACTED intends to provide a general arrangement drawing and a catalog cut defining each piece of equipment, and our standard (24) month warranty as part of our proposal. We can also provide sample Operation & Maintenance and Manuals, which contain typical hydraulic and electrical schematics and Preventive Maintenance schedules in electronic or hard copy format as an addendum to our proposal. Due to the size of these documents it is generally best to submit via a web link, CD or hard copy by courier rather than via e-mail with the proposal. Does this meet the intent of the requirement? |
| Yes |
| 19 |
| Final “as built” versions of the O & M Manual and itemized Parts Manual (including schematics) are not complete until the machines near the end of their production cycle, which is approximately (90) days after contract award. Because each unit is built to order and contains specific options, minor differences in part numbers exist to suit the specific unit. These will be submitted when the machine is delivered. Will this meet the intent of the Submittals requirement? |
| Yes |
| 20 |
| It should be noted that “shop drawings” are comprised of the aforementioned general arrangement drawings, schematics and itemized Parts Manual. Will this meet the intent of the Submittals requirement? |
| Yes |
| 21 |
| Paragraph 4.1.c states that “Each manual shall have annotated the actual catalog/model number of the components provided”. REDACTED parts books provide a detailed and itemized breakdown of each component of our equipment identified by our proprietary part number, and REDACTED is the source for all crane components. |
It is strongly recommended that service on lift equipment be performed by factory trained and experienced service technicians, either directly from the factory or through local distributors. Therefore, REDACTED manuals do not contain “disassembly and assembly” instructions. They do contain complete lubrication and other regular maintenance instructions, and a Preventive Maintenance table. Will this meet the intent of the requirement?
We do not intend to have USCG technicians disassembling and reassembling structural members of this heavy equipment. However a breakdown of disassembling and reassembling components such as (but not limited to) sheaves and wire rope and auxiliary equipment such as hydraulic rams/ directional control valves/ and winches would be preferred.
| 22 |
| Paragraph (18) sub-paragraph (vi)(a) states that mobile boat hoists are to be “equivalent to the one they have in weight and height” at the various destinations. As discussed in greater detail in the previous SOW Clarification Request, we are not clear if the dimensions provided are overall dimensions to be utilized as general guidelines or the more critical inside dimensions, and how these relate to the existing site infrastructure. Weights are also of concern, as OEM COTS equipment weights may not match the weights of previous equipment. |
| The dimensions were provided by the unit and should be accurate. The weight of the lift needs to be equal to the provided by the unit due to the weight requirements of the pier. |