WTGB_140'_Requests_for_Clarification,_4.docx

Offeror’s questions will be answered by an Amendment.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Submit requests not later than 15 August 2019

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

Question No.

WTGB 140 Foot Propulsion Controller Modification

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Liquidated Damages

QUESTION:

If the project schedule is impacted by Coast Guard or other delays are encountered (e.g., vessel access, shipyard strike, etc.), relief of liquidated damages will require a schedule update as documented in a contract modification. In accordance with the solicitation, the Coast Guard COR will respond to CFRs within 24 hours. Any response delay to this or other schedule impacts could result in liquidated damages unless a contract modification is issued. Request clarification on acceptable justification for contract modifications and relief of liquidated damages.

RESPONSE:

If the Coast Guard is the party causing the delay or the delay is caused by an act of nature then no liquidated damages will be assessed. Liquidated damages are only assessed if avoidable delays are caused by the vendor.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

2) Specification

2) 7.1

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Data Rights

A. The cover page of the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation, Page 1 of 50, section header “DATA” appears to be incomplete. Please clarify the governments intentions and proposal and program requirements with respect to Data. (Note that this language is repeated under section FAR 52.212-2 on page 10 of 50).

B. The Combined Synopsis/Solicitation states that “If replacement of existing equipment is deemed necessary, the Contractor shall use COTS equipment and shall not use proprietary software or hardware.” Additionally, Specification Section 7.1 indicates that all intellectual property developed for this contract will become the property of the government, and further identifies EDP to be delivered to include items such as “commercial catalogue sheets, brochures, off-the-shelf tech pubs” etc. Please confirm and clarify in the solicitation that the Government seeks only Commercial Data Rights for technical data associated with offered COTS material.

The Government seeks the license/Data Rights required in order to facilitate follow on re-competition among other vendors and in situations where vendor competition is sought to obtain technical support of the system if needed. The wording under the DATA Section header is complete.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

2) Attachment 1 Price List

TITLE:

Ordering Periods

Specification section 1.1 states that “At a minimum, the Government will require an upgrade of all nine 140’ WTGB class cutters during the base year and, if necessary, the first option year.” However, in Attachment 1 Work Item Price List, the assignment of travel lines by year on the “Cost Summary” worksheet indicates three (3) installations in Base year (including prototype), four (4) installations in Option 1, and two (2) installations in Option 2. Please clarify the year in which installation work is to be ordered for each hull.

Thank you for catching this – the timeline of when the Coast Guard wants the upgrades to be completed has been revised several times. The Coast Guard will update Section 1.1.

The Coast Guard understands the deployment timeline will often be determined by the vendor’s timeline. Ideally, the Coast Guard wants it completed quickly, but to allow time for design and planning. The Coast Guard adjusted expectations to require upgrades to be completed over three years as described above (three (3) installations in Base year (including prototype), four (4) installations in Option 1, and two (2) installations in Option 2).

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

Attachment 1 Price List

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Attachment 1 Work Item Price List Errors & Omissions

A. Please clarify how material procurement for system installations is to be priced. The only line item addressing the provision of materials appears to be subCLIN 0003AA, but this is only for six (6) sets of overhaul parts.

B. Line items 1015AE through 1015AI (Tech Rep Services Travel Estimates for Hulls 105-109) from the “NEW CLIN LIST” worksheet do not appear to be accounted for in the WTGB Travel column of the “Cost Summary” worksheet, and therefore are not included in the total price. Please clarify.

C. There are several Section references (column “C”) in the NEW CLIN LIST worksheet of Attachment 1 for which there is no corresponding sections in the Specification. This includes reference to Sections 7.3, 7.4, 7.4.2, 7.4.4.4, 7.4.4.5, and 7.5. Please clarify the intended references.

D. For all installations except for the prototype Hull 1 there is a line item requirement for “Install: Procedures and Completion”. Please confirm if this was intentionally omitted for Hull 1, and if so where Hull 1 Install Procedures and Completion is to be captured.

E. The rollup of pricing on the “Cost Summary” worksheet from the “NEW CLIN LIST” worksheet appears to treat line item 0004AA Telephone Support as Option 3 and Option 4 travel costs. Please clarify.

F. The rollup of pricing on the “Cost Summary” worksheet from the “NEW CLIN LIST” worksheet appears to treat line item 0004AB On-Site Support as travel cost only, with fractional elements of the “NEW CLIN LIST” price allocated to Options 2 through 4. Please clarify where labor cost is to be captured for On-Site Support, and how the Government arrived at the fractional assignment of costs across three option periods.

A. The Coast Guard will add a line item to allow for materials to be purchased.

B. This is because all sub-CLINs under 1015 are TBD. These items are for estimating cost of travel in support of Technical Representative Services (i.e. troubleshooting visits, the need for which is determined by discrepancies or failures reported by cutter personnel). The Travel Summary column on the Cost Summary tab is intended to record the cost of known travel (i.e. travel done in support of upgrades/installations). Since Tech Rep support is an unknown, the Coast Guard took the average of what was estimated to be the cost of traveling to each location, and multiplied that by 2 (assuming there will be two visits). This is meant to replicate the amount which might have to be paid for travel during a tech support visit.

C. These were numbers of sections within the Spec/PWS, but the spec has been revised. The Coast Guard will go back and verify all the numbers still correspond to the correct section.

D. This is meant to account for changes/improvements made to the installation process/plan based on feedback and lessons learned from previous installations. It is not applied to the first cutter because it will be the first install and will be using the original iteration of the installation plan.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

2)Attachment 1 Price List

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Required Level of Pricing Detail

A. Please clarify if the pricing approach will result in a defined quantity FFP program, with all CLINs/subCLINs to be ordered in each ordering period subject to exercise of the order period Options, or an IDIQ ordering vehicle.

B. Proposal Instructions section A. Volume I item 3. (Page 5 of 50) requires offerors to provide Attachment 1- Section B Schedule of Services/Supplies filled out with a cost associated with each CLIN, and the “Cost Summary” worksheet of Attachment 1 requires pricing to be input in the “NEW CLIN LIST” worksheet. This “NEW CLIN LIST” worksheet identifies each element of work as a separately numbered subCLIN line item.

The pricing approach will result in a FFP contract, with all CLINs/subCLINs to be ordered in each ordering period subject to exercise of the Options.

A cost/price is expected for each line item. If there is no cost for a line item then $0.00 should be noted.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

Appendix A

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

System Drawings

Can detailed power and control drawings of the existing Nidec-Avtron propulsion control system be obtained?

The Coast Guard will check on this.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

A. What is the existing communication protocol between the MPCMS and Data Logger?

B. What information does the current MPCMS record?

C. Request information on the existing Data Logger?

A. The system currently uses ControlNet, an Allen Bradley network with coaxial cable which communicates between PLCs and the Human-Computer Interface (PanelView or PerformanceView) which display logged data.

B. MPCMS monitors a mixture of analog and digital signals which track critical alarms, auxiliary alarms, and the status of machinery such as the SSDGs, propulsion generators, Sewage system components, boiler, flooding alarms, and propulsion motors.

C. If you are asking for information about what the Data Logger records. Data is logged in the ADD-32 (OEM Nidec-Avtron) and is recorded in the Signal Analyzer, which is, per Nidec-Avtron, “a 4 channel memory recorder capable of recording both digital and analog information.”

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Are any fault current sensors, shown on the oneline drawing, currently installed for the propulsion generators or propulsion motor?

The Coast Guard doesn’t believe there are separate sensors which are specifically monitoring for current faults. The output data is transmitted to the ADD-32 and PLCs which rely upon the program logic to identify when a fault occurs and then react accordingly.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

General

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Site Visit

The Solicitation states that available dates for the site visit are August 19-23.

Are site visits occurring at any other time or week?

The Coast Guard is only scheduling vendor site visits for this requirement during the August 19-23 time frame.

1. Offeror’s questions concerning this solicitation shall be submitted in writing, and must be submitted on the attached “Request for Clarification” form. One question should be submitted per form. Each form should indicate the name of the offeror’s firm.

2. Questions should be submitted via email to Andrew.G.Jacobs@uscg.mil.

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Offeror’s Name:

Date:

SOLICITATION SECTION:

General

PARA NO.

DEFINITE/OPTIONAL ITEM NO.

PARA NO.

TITLE:

Proposal Extension

Following the site visit, the schedule allows only 1 week to incorporate technical information into the technical approach and cost proposal, can there be an extension to the due date for quote?

If vendors seek a site visit they should schedule as soon as possible; August 19, 20, 21, & 22nd while still close to the quote due date of August 30th are still just more than a week from the August 30th date.

No extension is anticipated at this time.

Attachment 4