A00002_Reponses to Submitted Vendor Questions.pdf

Response to Vendor Submitted Questions Angela McShan DD FY23 Solicitation: 70Z08023QPBPL0019

The Consolidated List of Critical Inspection Items includes items that are extremely difficult to complete within the 25% of the availability contract period. Abrasive blasting or water jet preparation need to be complete in order to complete the inspection of substrate and submittal of a CIR for items 10 through 13.

Exterior blasting or water jetting would prevent or slow the progress on items 2 through 6, 8 and 18 through 22. The contractor requests that the government review the Critical Inspection List and move the inspection reports of items 10 thru 13 and 19 to a more feasible 50% availability date.

Currently the CIR timelines are as per Specification. Request for consideration for an extension on work item CIR’s will be reviewed on case-by-case basis. KTR feedback is under review for future projects.

The paragraph (Pg 43, Para 3.2.2, WI 4) directs the contractor to, "Verify there are no cracked weld joints." Is the contractor to visually verify, or does the government want a different level of inspection?

Yes, The KTR is to clean and visually inspect IAW Std Spec 0740), that there are no cracked weld joints on rudder blades, bearing housings, and all other associated weldments.

The paragraph (Pg 106, Para 3.1.1, WI 17) directs the contractor to submit a CIR for the following paragraph - 3.2.2 Clean and inspect dieletecric shield. Paragraph 3.2.2 directs the contractor to submit a CIR that includes a description of all previously unidentified discrepancies found during the pre-docking sea trial and recommended repairs. Please correct paragraph 3.1.1.

KTR can disregard reference to “Clean and inspect dielectric shield” in Sea Trial work item. Sea Trail Performance work item should read:

3.1.1 CIR. The Contractor must submit a

CIR for the inspections listed in the following paragraph(s):

• 3.2.2 Pre-docking sea trial inspections.

This paragraph (Pg 20, Para 3.5.1, WI 1) directs the contractor to "Perform the repairs specified above in TABLE 1A - FREEBOARD TEARDROP MODS". Table 1A says" At the port and stbd teardrop areas, extend the existing stainless steel hull insert aft using an insert of dimensions 32" x 56" x 3/16" in the kind of stainless steel material specified on 154 WPC 111-301. The drawing calls out for 1/4" CRES 316 stainless steel. Please identify the correct thickness of the stainless-steel plate to be used.

Use 3/16” thk SS material of the same grade specified in the DWG, per the shell expansion DWG its 316L.

This paragraph (Pg 20, Para 3.5.1, WI 1) directs the contractor to "Perform the repairs specified above in TABLE 1A - FREEBOARD TEARDROP MODS". Table 1A says "At the port and stbd

The KTR is correct, just for the port and stbd MDE exhausts, not the SSDG exhausts….the 56” dimension is the vertical dimension, that is the height of the existing ¼” thk SS plate just fwd of

Response to Vendor Submitted Questions Angela McShan DD FY23 Solicitation: 70Z08023QPBPL0019 teardrop areas, extend the existing stainless-steel hull insert aft using an insert of dimensions 32" x 56" x 3/16" in the kind of stainless steel material specified on 154 WPC 111-301. Please confirm that the contractor is only replacing the port and starboard Main Diesel Engine teardrop inserts.

the subject section of freeboard. The 32” dimension is the width of the insert plate. So install a 56” high x 32” wide x 3/16” thk piece of 316L stainless steel just aft of that existing SS plate.

The Dry Dock Certifications and Pre-Award Calculations section of the table directs the contractor to submit all documents under paragraph 3.5.1 of SFLC STD SPEC 8634. This solicitation is a small business set aside. As such, small businesses do not normally keep Naval Architects Engineers on staff to complete Pre- Award calculations to be submitted with a bid.

The Pre-Award calculations cost between $5,00 to $15,000 per set dependent upon the class of vessel. This is a cost burden to the contractor prior to any award. Requiring the Pre-Award calculations at the time of bid places an undue burden on the contractor and may limit participation by small businesses due to no way to re-coup funds for the engineering services if the bid if lost. The contractor requests that the Dry Dock Certification remain part of the bid submittal, but the Pre-Award calculations be required for the low bidder, prior to the award document being released.

A majority of our solicitations for Drydock and Dockside repairs are small business set asides.

We have never received this request before. The Pre-Award calculations are a requirement for our solicitations and have never led to issues with proposals being completed and submitted in response to our solicitations, therefore we are not going to be granting the request for the Pre- Award Calculations to be submitted post Proposal prior to the award. They will continue to be required as part of the proposals submitted in response to our solicitation.