RFP QnA Matrix Answers from First Release.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 55 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
- Issued by
-
National Science Foundation
About this file
This draft solicitation requests proposals for an Antarctic Research Vessel Integrator. The successful offeror will be responsible for managing all aspects of the design, construction, testing and delivery of a new polar icebreaking research vessel. Key responsibilities include selecting a shipyard, finalizing vessel specifications through the design phase, managing regulatory approvals, overseeing construction and outfitting, and conducting sea trials and crew training. The performance period is anticipated to be five years with major milestones including Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review and delivery of the vessel. Proposals are due approximately six months after release of the final solicitation. The National Science Foundation will serve as the contracting agency and owner of the completed vessel.
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
Instructions # Draft RFP Document Section Subsection Page # Line # Impact Question
| (For OPR Use Only) | |||||||
| Number of Comment | Select the appropriate Draft RFP document from the drop down list | Indicate the document section name and/or number | Indicate the sub-section name and/or number | Indicate the page number of the referenced document | Indicate line number of the referenced document | Select the appropriate impact category from the drop down list | Insert question (plus any necessary context) pertaining to the JEDI documentation or other related areas of interest |
| EXAMPLE | |||||||
| 1 | SOO | 3 | 3.2 | 17 | 23 | Significant | Why is this an objective versus a design concept? |
Comment Resolution Matrix Instructions
1. Do not change formatting of table or number of columns.
2. Insert only one question or comment per row – no carriage returns within the column.
3. General questions or comments: enter a 0 (zero) for page, paragraph, section, subsection, and line number.
4. If the same comment applies to several section/page/line numbers, enter the first occurence for the question or comment as indicated above. For each occurence of the same question or comment, enter all relevant information EXCEPT the Question field. Use the following format in the Question field:
Number of Comment : (#) to identify the first occurence of the question or comment.
5. The Government may decline to answer any question or comment containing, in whole or in part, proprietary information. The Government requires that any proprietary information be clearly marked as such.
6. For "Impact", this is subject to the submitters interpretation. IE, what is "Critical" is at the submitter's discretion.
All Q&A matrices must be submitted via email to arv.procurement@nsf.gov.
Question Matrix
| # | Draft RFP Document | Section | Subsection | Page # | Line # | Impact | Question | Response | |
| 1 | Draft RFP Section L | L | L.7 | 109-110 | 3488-3509 | Substantive | Please confirm NSF will consider past performance examples from the prime contractor’s proposed major subcontractors. The draft RFP does not define “offeror” to exclude major subcontractors for past performance purposes and it will provide NSF a more complete understanding of the offeror’s depth and breadth of past performance as it relates to the ARV-I SOW/PEP requirements, as well as the evaluation criteria (RFP Sec M). It will also avoid unduly restricting competition in a procurement for which “Experience” is among the most important factors. | Yes, major subcontractors or other entities proposed by the offeror to fulfill contractual requirements may have their experience referenced to respond to the RFP. Footnote added to Section L.7 | |
| 2 | Draft RFP Section L | L | L.7 | 109-110 | 3488-3509 | Substantive | Please confirm NSF will consider past performance examples from the Offeror’s corporate parents, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates. The draft RFP does not prohibit this approach and it will provide NSF with a better understanding of the resources the Offeror can provide or rely on in performance of the contract. It will also avoid unduly restricting competition in a procurement for which “Experience” is among the most important factors. | Yes, offerors may leverage experience from corporate parents, subsidiaries, and affilitiates. | |
| 3 | Attachment 1 - ARV PEP | 5.2 | N/A | 60-61 | N/A | Substantive | The key staff (Program Manager, Project Engineer) qualifications state both that they need to have "Experience with research vessel construction and science mission equipment." Would the Government change this requirement to "Experience with research vessel construction and science mission equipment or equivalent vessel construction and equipment experience"? | NSF will consider the experience provided, it is incumbent upon the offeror to articulate it's relevance. | |
| 4 | Attachments - Reports and Studies | General | N/A | N/A | N/A | Substantive | For the regulatory review, will we receive initial calculations done to arrive at designs, drawings, reports, etc.? Or will we need to recreate these calculations? | Initial calculations to the extent they are not included in drawings and reports are not a part of the design package. | |
| 5 | PEP | 1.2 | N/A | 10 | N/A | Editorial | Referring to PEP Table 5 “Other Vessel Requirements” on page 10, the third row in this table is blank. Is that intentional, or is a requirement missing? | This is a typo, that row contained a requirement that was already included as a Key Performance Requirement. | |
| 6 | PEP | 1.2 | N/A | 10 | N/A | Editorial | Referring to PEP Table 5 “Other Vessel Requirements” on page 10, what are the “SS4” and “SS5” references in rows 5 and 6 respectively? “SS” is not included in the PEP Glossary. | SS4 and SS5 are Sea State 4 and Sea State 5 | |
| 7 | PEP | 3.1.5 | N/A | 49 | N/A | General | The PEP states, "This Preliminary Design review does not seek any approvals or certifications, but more an early regulatory body assessment to generate any priority comments which would need to be addressed at the beginning of the regulatory approval process during the Final Design Phase." Would the Government provide any priority comments that need to be addressed in the Final Design Phase? | All ABS comments and any responses to ABS are included in the Regulatory Body Correspondence Report included with the package of drawings and reports. | |
| 8 | SEP | 1.2 | N/A | 5 | N/A | General | Would the Government please provide a complete SWBS? SEP Figure 1 shows up to 700 Science Mission Systems, yet other documentation references numbering up to the 900s. | For the Preliminary Design Performance Specification, SWBS numbering up to 700 are used to specify the design requirements. The WBS dictionary and Integrated Master Schedule include SWBS 800 and 900 to capture the Ship Builder's Engineering, Assembly, Launch and Delivery costs. These SWBS elements will be further defined during the Final Design Phase. | |
| 9 | Appendix 06.1 | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | General | |||
| Would the Government please provide a copy of Appendix 06.1 with the final solicitation that has all formulas intact so bidders can understand how the total figures are derived? | The complete final Appendix 6.1 will be provided and formulas used to determine totals should be intact. | ||||||||
| 12 | Draft RFP Section L | L.9(2) and (2)a | N/A | 111 | 3565 - 3570 | Substantive | Would the Government please clarify whether the offeror is to evaluate the Total Project Cost for both the FDR and construction phases, or just the construction phase as noted on line 3570? | The offerer is to evaluate the TPC for the Construction Stage. Offerers will propose their own cost for the FD Phase. | |
| 13 | PEP, ARV Cost Book - Appendix 06.1 | Table 20 | N/A | 47 | N/A | Substantive | There is a discrepancy between construction costs (Table in 4.1 of PEP - $1,196,599,300) and the total of the two tables in Appendix 06.1 "Point - Summary WBS" which = $1,968,264,231). Would the Government please confirm the correct value? | Unable to find the two table totals equal to $1,968,264,231. The top left table in the Point Summary WBS shows the year Point Cost estimate of $1,121,035,099. The value in PEP 4.1 is the 80% Probability Value after running the monte carlo and is the correct TPC value for the Construction Stage. The Point Value from Appendix 6.1 is consistent with the point value in PEP Tables 23 & 25, which show the Point Value and the 80% TPC value. | |
| 14 | Draft RFP Section B | B | 1 | 8 | 3 | Critical | Draft RFP Section B.1 states the contract does not have a CLIN schedule at the base level - CLINs shall be captured on the orders. A list of orders are provided, but described as only "generally captured". |
The uncertainty of the actual work orders is deemed a risk in bidding this work. Understanding how to tailor a solution, teaming and forecast expected work is a challenge without further committed definition of these orders. Can NSF provide further definition of these CLINs in response to this question and provide more commitment to the definition in the final RFP?
| The RFP release will include examples task orders, with appropriate descriptions and CLIN schedules, for offerors to respond to. | |||||||
| 15 | Draft RFP Section B | B | 2 | 8 | 14 | Critical | NSF invited feedback from Industry on Contract Types. The Draft RFP does not include Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) as a contract type. |
(1) Will NSF consider CPAF as a contract type?
(2)If so, given the complexity, developmental nature and the associated responsibility, expertise, and reputational risk associated with the Vessel Integrator role, which requires integration of a highly complex nature as well as primary responsibility for meeting critically important milestones, will NSF accept allowing a 10% Base and an additional Award Fee %?
| (3) Is NSF open to Industry recommending objective and measurable criteria for determination of Award Fee? | NSF will consider CPAF as an available contract type, but does not guarantee inclusion. NSF does not have further comment on fee percentages. | |||||||
| 16 | Draft RFP Section B | B | 2 | 8 | 14 | Critical | NSF invited feedback from Industry on Contract Types. |
| The Draft RFP does not specify CPFF fee percentage. Given the complexity, developmental nature and the associated responsibility, expertise, and reputational risk associated with the Vessel Integrator role, which requires integration of a highly complex nature as well as primary responsibility for meeting critically important milestones, will NSF accept the maximum CPFF fee allowed by FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(A) of 15% and (C) of 10% where applicable per order? | NSF does not currently intend to specifcy a fixed-fee percentage so as to make it a negotiable element and to make it a competitively-motivated item. | |||||||
| 17 | Draft RFP Section B | B | 4 | 9 | 25 | Critical | Draft RFP B.4 describes ordering instructions for individual orders and states the Integrator and the Government will negotiate the order. |
| Will negotiation include contract type? Contract type definition would best be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the scope of work and maturity of the program at the time. We recommend that the Integrator be allowed to propose a contract type for each order. | NSF currently intends for contract type to be determined on a case by case basis for each task order. Integrator input would be considered. | |||||||
| 18 | Draft RFP Section B | B | 4 | 9 | 25 | Critical | Draft RFP Section B.4 describes ordering instructions for individual orders and states the Integrator and the Government will negotiate the order. |
| Will negotiation include fee? Uncertain fee definition at initial bid is a significant risk given the expected multi-year period of performance. We recommend an up front fee definition at initial contract award defined for Cost Plus contract types based on each Fee Type (Fixed, Award, Incentive) such that fee is not part of the negotiation on subsequent task orders. | NSF will consider the recommendation that fee percentages be determined at initial contract award such that they are not part of negotiations for subordinate task orders. | |||||||
| 19 | Draft RFP Section L | L | 8 | 110 | 3513 | General | Draft RFP Section L.8 discusses oral presentations and states that "In the event that NSF determines a competitive range, only offerors within the competitive range shall be invited to provide an oral presentation". |
| Can NSF make a selection without Oral Presentations? | NSF's intent is to leverage the experience provided in volume II to inform the technical consideration going into a competitive range determination, if established. | |||
| 20 | General | Substantive | Will NSF provide a revised drawing package with any subsequent revisions of drawings, reports, plans, from the ongoing Preliminary Design? |
| If so, will NSF extend the formal submission due date to allow adequate time for all bidders to review the final Technical package?” | Yes, NSF will provide a revised drawing package. NSF will consider requests from bidders to extend any proposal submission due dates considering the intensity of changes between technical packages. | |||||||
| 22 | Draft RFP Section C | C | 2.3 | 13 | 172 | General | Is the current PEP provided in the RFP attachments considered contractual at time of first award or only after incorporation in the Construction Stage? |
| We believe the current stage of the PEP, while an excellent document, is notional and mostly defines Construction Stage activities (e.g. change control, EVM). The Vessel Integrator will revise the PEP, per the SOW and submit for FDR. Program controls and other definitions for the Final Design Phase should be best be defined in separate document, a PEP tailored only for the scope of the Final Design Phase and submitted shortly after award. | The current PEP will be incorporated as a contract attachment at award but may be updated or reconfigured as appropriate and as agreed to by NSF and the Integrator. | ||||||
| 23 | Draft RFP Section L | 7 | 109 | 3488 | Critical | Section L.7 describes providing an experience narrative. |
| Please confirm this narrative is inclusive of the bidder's full team, including teammates and not just the bidding organization's (prime) past performance. Given the unique nature of this program, delivering an ice-breaking research vessel using a US shipyard, we feel a teaming approach can deliver a high quality solution. As such, we recommend experience of all components of the bidder's team experience be considered relevant. | Experience may be representative of all entitites proposed by the offeror to fulfill contractual requirements. This includes teaming arrangment members, corporate parents, and subsidiaries. | |||||||
| 25 | Draft RFP Section C | C.2 | C.2.10 | 22 | 458 - 460 | Substantive | Draft RFP Section C.2 references provision of names and short biographical summary" for "planned key staff". |
| Is "planned key staff" intended to reference only Key Personnel for award per RFP H.4 or could names and biographical summaries be provided for other staff identified in Section C.2.10 and PEP Section 5 without invoking the Key Personnel H.4 requirement? | Key Personnel only applies to persons identified under the relevant contract clause. | |||||||
| 26 | Draft RFP Section C | C.2 | C.2.10.1 | 22 | 471 | Editorial | NSF lists "Marine Engineering Consultant". |
| Does NSF require outside consultants be hired or can Vessel Integrator use internal team personnel to complete work? | NSF's intent behind the Marine Engineering Consultant is that it is used as third party review of engineering deliverables and requirements, but the section has been amended to allow internal personnel as long as the COR concurs with their use. | |||||||
| 27 | Draft RFP Section C | C.2 | C.2.10.1 | 22 | 467 | Editorial | NSF lists "EVM, Scheduling, Cost estimating" as consultants. |
| Does NSF require outside consultants be hired or can Vessel Integrator use internal team personnel to complete work? | NSF has rephrased this section to reflect a desire for this expertise, and that it does not need to come from external consultants. | |||||||
| 28 | Draft RFP Section F | F.2 | F.2.3.1 | 27 | 589 | Editorial | Draft RFP Section F.2.3.1 states, "Additional IDRs may be held after FDR is necessary". |
| Can NSF please confirm that intent is for this to read, "… if necessary" or if it is intended that additional IDRs are necessary. | This was a typo, it has been corrected to read "if". | |||||||
| 30 | Draft RFP Section B | B | B.4 | 9 | 25 | Substantive | Will development of proposals for future task orders be billable costs under the contract? |
| Allowance of these costs is recommended to allow bidders to understand the total investment required to bid on the opportunity. | Yes, NSF intent is that responding to task order requests after contract award would be a billable cost under the contract. | |||||||
| 31 | Draft RFP Section K | K.1 | K.1(a)1 | 95 | 2996/2997 | Substantive | The Draft RFP notes that the NAICS Code for this acquisition is 541330 (Engineering Services) and requests that Industry specify if an alternate NAICS is preferable. |
The role of Vessel Integrator involves far more than engineering services, including selection and management of a shipyard subcontractor. Due to this complexity, and in recognition of the large effort that the shipbuilder will eventually conduct, we request that NAICS Code 3366, Ship and Boat Building be used, and that any work associated with a shipyard subcontractor that qualifies as a small business under NAICS 3366 be counted toward the Small Business goals under the final solicitation. NSF will consider this NAICS Code feedback.
tc={728B63CC-C097-4B7A-A27B-F23863CAC3F6}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
The logic appears sound - we were never beholden to the engineering NAICS and "Ship and Boat Building" is arguably more representative of the overall contract purpose.
32 Draft RFP Section L L L.7 109 3488 Substantive Section L.7 states "the offeror’s narrative shall relate how between two (2) to five (5) past performance examples demonstrate the offeror’s ability to understand this requirement".
| Is the intent that Vol II is a sequential narrative of our approach to the SOW, backed up by the 2 to 5 past performance examples to demonstrate experience? | NSF intent is that the offeror will select between two to five past performance examples which capture their ability to both understand and fulfill this requirement. The "narrative" represents the offeror explaining how the selected examples convey that understanding and ability. | ||||||||
| 33 | Draft RFP Section C | 2.4 | 1 | 17 | 294 | Substantive | Can the NSF provide further clarification into the proposed relationship between the shipyard and Vessel integrator as described in section C2.4.1. It appears from the preceding paragraphs that the successful bidder will assist in identifying qualified shipyards, which seems to conflict with then entering into a contract with said shipyard. | Yes, NSF intends for the Integrator to identify qualified shipyards through competitive means, where the shipyard is then a subcontractor to the Integrator. Not unlike how prime contractors may identify a subcontractor via competition, and then manage said subcontractor. | |
| 35 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 154-155: | Substantive | How would these “long lead time” purchases be funded? | Long-lead purchases are intended to be funded through specfic orders or via CLINs on orders. | |
| 36 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 154-155: | Substantive | Is the intent for these purchases to include machinery for the ship? | NSF's expectation is that this is based on the Integrator and Ship Builder Schedule and Build Plan. | |
| 37 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 154-155: | Substantive | If the project does not pass FDR, who bears the risk for those purchases? | NSF intent is that these purchases would not take place prior to the start of the Construction Stage and the Award of MREFC Funding for Construction, which would not happen if FDR failed. | |
| 38 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 156-157: | Critical | It is not clear what “preliminary acceptance by NSF” refers to. Accept from whom? The statement “that meets all performance specifications and preliminary acceptance by NSF” implies a contractual relationship between NSF and the shipbuilder. Further, the implication by this statement is that NSF may not “accept” the vessel at the end of construction phase. This presents excessive risk to the Prime should this lack of acceptance not be accommodated by additional project schedule and/or budget to correct deficiencies that, frankly, should have been communicated far in advance of the conclusion of the Construction Phase. | NSF would have a contractual relationship with the Integrator. The Integrator would have a contract with the Ship Builder and as part of the contract the ARV would go through tests and trials to prove the ship meets requirements. NSF would accept the ARV based on successful trials and plan for correcting any deficiencies that are the responsibility of the ship builder and/or the VI. Regular progress reports and the planned test and trials plan would offer the opportunities to identify issues prior to delivery. | |
| 39 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 159-160: | Substantive | Is the intent for the Post-Shakedown Availability be fulfilled and funded by the Shipbuilder or the Integrator. | NSF intent is that the Integrator would be responsible for funding the Post-Shakedown Availability to cover approved costs beyond the Ship Builder Warranty responsibilities. The Integrator costs would are intended to be allowable under the contract. | |
| 40 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 159-160: | Substantive | Who is responsible for scope and funding? | NSF is responsible for scope of contractual requirements and funding of contractual requirements. | |
| 41 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.2.3 | 12 | Line 159-160: | Substantive | Would this be a separate “Order” under the IDIQ? | Potentially yes, there may be one or more orders for Transition to Ops Phase. | |
| 42 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.3.1 | 13 | Line 171-174: | Critical | It is not clear from the draft RFP how much leeway a selected prime will have to revise the PEP and to incorporate different, more efficient approaches to project governance. Will the selected Integrator have the opportunity to make substantive changes to the PEP? | NSF expectation is that the Integrator will update and improve the PEP during the Final Design Phase. | |
| 43 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.3.2 | 16 | Line 238-239 | Substantive | Does this additional model testing need to be proposed as part of this solicitation, or would it be considered post-award? | NSF expects post award since the Integrator would have to evaluate the model test results with their Design Agent and then enter into a contractual arrangement with the Model Test Basis. NSF expects a place holder cost which could be proposed for the FD phase and then refined post award. | |
| 44 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.3.4 | 17 | Line 279-289 | Substantive | Is it NSF's intent that the Integrator would organize the external reviews of its own program? | The requirement states the Integrator will assist NSF in planning and managing the FDR. NSF will organize and arrange the review. | |
| 46 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.1 | 17 | Line 310-311 | Substantive | It is unclear what “contracts should be completed” means in this context. Is it the expectation that the Integrator will have Inspectors on contract prior to NSF’s approval to enter into the Construction Phase? | NSF intends that contracts and activities would not take place until the Construction Stage has started. One example contract is to have ABS on contract to review designs and then to inspect the vessel during construction. Others would be as determined by the VI and their Design Agent or Ship Builder. | |
| 47 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.1 | 18 | Line 331-332 | Substantive | “six months of construction” is a very arbitrary term. A more appropriate definition of readiness for construction (the goal here is to avoid rework) should be completion of 3-D modeling for subject module, including shipwide routing of all major systems including cable and completion of both hot and cold outfit drawings for subject module. | NSF's intent behind the PRR is for the Integrator, Design Agent and Ship Builder to convince NSF that they are ready to start construction and stay on schedule. The Integrator and their subs would propose the specifics of their engineering and plans to stay on the schedule they have provided and approved by NSF. NSF would review and approve their plan readiness to start construction. | |
| 48 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.2 | 18 | Line 339-340 | Substantive | Where can the Integrator find NSF requirements for Keel Laying Ceremony? | NSF's intent is that cermonies would be proposed by the Integrator and Ship Builder and approved by NSF, including the costs. | |
| 49 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.2 | 18 | Line 346-347 | Substantive | Where can the Integrator find NSF requirements for Vessel Launch Ceremony? | NSF's intent is that cermonies would be proposed by the Integrator and Ship Builder and approved by NSF, including the costs. | |
| 50 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.2 | 19 | Line 360-361 | Critical | This is very firm language regarding meeting Performance Specifications. What role will the Integrator have with evaluation of performance specifications prior to award? Are they realistic? Should, say, the noise or speed performance specification not be “met” but is close, it could lead to extensive cost increases and schedule delay for little value added. NSF should soften this language in order to reduce risk to the Integrator. | NSF's intent is that the Integrator, Design Agent and Value Engineering Ship Builder will update and finalize the Performance and Builder's Specifications during the Final Design Phase. These final specifications will become contractual and approved by NSF. | |
| 51 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 19 | Line 372-373 | Critical | This is an unreasonably short time specification. Recommend stating “outfitting should be installed within the time frame provided in the PEP as approved at FDR”. | NSF concurs with this feedback, and has adjusted this language accordingly. | |
| 52 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 19 | Line 381-382 | General | That NSF feels it needs to negotiate and approve the amount and type of training to be conducted implies a lack of trust in a potential integrator. A tendency to be involved and manage details of this level in a program of this magnitude increases the perception of risk to a potential Integrator due to the likelihood of being micro-managed. | This language has been revised for the Integrator to propose the mix of training and attendees. | |
| 53 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 19 | Line 384-385 | Substantive | “NSF and Vessel Operator will be conducting trials” seems to conflict with this draft RFP that states that the integrator is responsible for Transition to Operations. Being responsible is quite a bit different than “providing access” as described in this section. It’s not clear who NSF intends to lead these trials. This adds risk to a potential Integrator. | This language has been revised for the Integrator to be responsible for the transition to operations. | |
| 54 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 20 | Line 394-403 | Substantive | What role will Vessel Integrator have in choosing PSA location? | NSF's intent is that the Integrator would coordinate the selection of the PSA location with the Ship Operator and Ship Builder. | |
| 55 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 20 | Line 394-403 | Substantive | Who is responsible for transit cost to get vessel to and from PSA location? | NSF's expectation is the Integrator. This would be an allowable cost. | |
| 56 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.4.3 | 20 | Line 394-403 | Substantive | Are non-US shipyards options for PSA location? Or is it expected that PSA occurs at construction shipyard? | NSF's intent is that non-US shipyards are options for PSA locations. Understand that in the intervening time between award and when trials would begin this requirement may change. | |
| 57 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.7 | 21 | Line 438-439 | Critical | This might be a reasonable timeframe for a vessel of proven design. However, for ARV, a 5-year MREFC period is far too optimistic and pushes much risk onto the Integrator. The design is unproven and if the USCG PSC is an indicator, which it is, getting a production ready design will take longer than NSF anticipates. That this 5-year window also includes the 12-month Transition to Operations period makes successfully meeting this schedule (using a US Shipyard) next to impossible. | NSF will consider this feedback. NSF could change the timeline if it is proved by the selected Integrator and Ship Builder that it is not possible. | |
| 59 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.10 | 22 | Line 456-483 | Critical | It is unclear what flexibility a Proposer has with this organizational structure. There is no “Project Scientist” as is common for an NSF Large Project, nor is there any mention of a dedicated Outreach Coordinator, an area for which NSF has stressed increasing importance. Other critical gaps exist as well. Pushing a pre-defined organizational structure onto an Integrator increases risk and likely decreases efficiency. | NSF intends that proposals can include a proposed organizational structure and it can be further refined for the Construction Stage during the Final Design PEP update. | |
| 60 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.10 | 22 | Line 456-483 | Substantive | What role does the Assistant Contract manager have? Who are they assistant to? There is no corresponding Contract Manager or Officer listed in the Project Office. Is this an NSF position to streamline contract modifications? | Revised wording; NSF expects contract management activities to cover the myriad of anticipated subcontract arrangements. | |
| 61 | Draft RFP Section C | C | C.2.11 | 23 | Line 492 | Substantive | NSF will provide the integrator with ARV and Science Outfit outside of the scope of this contract? What is ARV and Science Outfit? What is the difference? Who will this equipment be provided to? | NSF will own the Antarctic Resaearch Vessel (ARV) at Delivery. The Science Outfit is all of the NSF owned science equipment on board the vessel. These items will be made available to the Integrator and Ship Operator as necessary to carry out the Transition to Operations phase. | |
| 63 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.2.2 | 26 | Line 572-573 | Substantive | It is unclear whose FTE’s are referred to here or what the intent of this reporting criterion is. Does FTE in this case refer only the Integrator, or does this include sub contracts? If so, to what level? | Language revised, FTEs is inclusive of subcontracted or partnered entitites. | |
| 64 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.2.3.1 | 27 | Line 594-597 | Substantive | Doesn’t the use of the term “Independent Cost Estimate Review” imply that reviewers would develop their own estimates and not base it on information provided by the Vessel Integrator. Previous NSF MREFC vessel projects have not provided project information to the Independent Cost Estimate team. | This section is intended to capture the need for the Integrator to respond to questions created by independent reviewers. | |
| 65 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.2.3.2 | 27 | Line 607-612 | Substantive | Since Vessel Integrator is on Contract with NSF, should not the QMR meeting be led and orchestrated by Vessel Integrator. The shipbuilder is a subcontractor and should participate in, but not run the QMR. | Language revised to reflect the VI is responsible for the meeting and ensuring particpation by the builder. |
tc={BB237625-1F2F-44A6-90DF-F0ECE61114A6}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
An option is to state that the VI runs the meeting but the location will be in the shipyard.
Reply:
Actually, I don't think we need to dictate the location or how the meetings are run. It is the VI's responsibility to hold the QMRs and we can and should dictate what our minimum agenda subjects and attendees are.
tc={728B63CC-C097-4B7A-A27B-F23863CAC3F6}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
| The logic appears sound - we were never beholden to the engineering NAICS and "Ship and Boat Building" is arguably more representative of the overall contract purpose. | 66 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.2.4 | 28 | Line3 642-646 | Substantive | It is unclear what “all projects” means in this context. Is the ARV a single project thus necessitating the requirements of this report? Or, do different Control Accounts constitute their own “project”? Or is there a different idea all together? | NSF will specify when and where separate PEPs are needed beyond the anticipated Final Design and Construction PEPs. |
| 69 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.4 | 36 | Line 1012 | Critical | NSF’s change level thresholds are unreasonably low for a program with a TPC in excess of $1B. | Change thresholds are subject to mutual agreement by NSF and the VI. | |
| 70 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.4 | 37 | Line 1032 | Can NSF clarify how it expects the change process to work between the Integrator, who has a FFP with NSF, and its subs. | NSF does not necessarily require the contractual relationship between the Integrator and their subcontractors be FFP. This can be refined during the FD Phase PEP revision based on the Integrator's procedures and NSF requirements. | ||
| 71 | Draft RFP Section F | F | F.7.2 | 38 | Line 1059 | Editorial | Table F.7.2 Timeline for PRR and regulatory submittals does not match previous requirements. | Feedback received. | |
| 73 | Draft RFP Section H | H | H.5 | 55 | Line 1663 | Substantive | Is the Place of performance for the Integrator at NSF in Alexandria VA?? | See Section C.2.8 Place of Performance | |
| 74 | Draft RFP Section H | H | H.5 | 55 | Line 1663 | Substantive | Will Integrator be required to maintain constant presence on-site? | No, per Section C.2.8 Place of Performance | |
| 75 | Draft RFP Section H | H | H.14.3 | 58 | Line 1815 | Critical | NSF communicating directly with the shipbuilder in the absence of the Integrator who holds the contract with the shipbuilder would likely not be an acceptable term. | Language has been revised, NSF no longer reserves the right to meet with the shipbuilder without Integrator representation. |
tc={22810307-6418-4316-A59A-2E104972EE5C}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
I'm willing to make it so that there's always an Integrator presence when the builder is involved in conversations.
Reply:
I think something along those lines should be included.
| 77 | Draft RFP Section I | I | I.10 | 74 | Line 2269-2277 | Editorial | It is unclear if there are placeholders here or if it was deliberately left vague. | This section has been left blank prior to final RFP release. |
| 78 | Draft RFP Section I | I | I.22 | 88 | Line 2775 | Editorial | It is unclear if there are placeholders here or if it was deliberately left vague. | Dates will be included in the final release. |
| 79 | Draft Section K | K | K.1 | 98 | Line 3110 | Editorial | It gets confusing in this document because of the seemingly random use of words “integrator”, “offeror”, and “contractor”. This is throughout the document. Heavily conflicted in Section H.14 Ship Builder Selection. | NSF will consider this feedback. Note some language is fixed and cannot be changed without pursuing deviations. |
| 80 | Draft RFP Section L | L | L.9 | 111 | Line 3556 | Editorial | The use of the word “offerors” as written is not clear. | “Offeror” is inclusive of the entity proposing itself as the integrator and their parent corporations, subsidiaries, or teaming arrangements as applicable. |
| 81 | Draft RFP Section L | L | L.11 | 113 | Line 3614 | Editorial | What shall the offeror identify? | The sentences beginning with (i) and (ii) are what needs to be identified. |
| 82 | Draft RFP Section L | L | L.11 | 113 | Line 3617 | Editorial | The wording of this provision makes the intent unclear. | This is a FAR clause, the wording is fixed. This line's intent is that prime contractors demonstrate the added value they provide if more than 70% of the work is subcontracted out. |
| 83 | General | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Substantive | How would an academic institution supply Past Performance information | Past performance information is not intended to be limited to assessments in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). |
| 85 | General | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Critical | Is a US shipyard required? | Yes, a US-based shipyard is currently the intended requirement. |
| 87 | Draft RFP Section L | L | 5 | 108 | 3433 | Substantive | Per L.7 (page 110) "if a design agent other than the design agent used for the preliminary design phase is proposed, then a plan for transitioning the design to the new design agent shall be described." However, the Transition Plan is not listed in L.5.5 as a document that does not count towards total page count. To be fair to bidders that propose using a design agent other than the design agent used for the preliminary design phase, the Transition Plan should not count towards total page count. | NSF concurs with this feedback and has adjusted this section accordingly. |
| 88 | Draft RFP Section M | M | 2 | 118 | 3776 | General | This line references "attached survey results." We did not find a survey template in the draft RFP documents. | Surveys, if used in the final RFP release, shall be included in said release. |
| 89 | Draft RFP Section L | L | 5.3 | 107 | 3422 | General | This line references "foldouts." However, there does not appear to be a reference to the number of pages a foldout counts towards total page count. If a foldout contains only tables, charts, graphs, or figures it should count as one (1) page towards total page count. | NSF concurs with this feedback and has adjusted this section accordingly. |
| 90 | Draft RFP Section L | L | 10 | 112 | 3600 | Substantive | This line requests "industry feedback on the extent and viability of small business participation throughout the hypothetical full duration of the requirement." Small business participation as subcontractors to the VI is viable on most all task orders envisioned under this requirement approaching the extent commensurate with NSF FY 2023 small business subcontracting goals (small business participation in individual socio-economic groups may not be viable). Small business participation may not be viable under a task order to provide "Owner Furnished Equipment." The most viable way to achieve small business participation in the task order for the Shipbuilder contract is via flow-down requirements in evaluating the Shipbuilder's proposed small business participation volume. | NSF understands that different orders, which shall capture different requirements, will accommodate varying levels of subcontractor and small business involvement. NSF will review feedback on incorportating small business utilization for the shipbuilder. |
| 92 | Draft RFP Section H | h | 14 | 58 | 1811 | Substantive | The stated desire to have a collaborative working relationship between the Government officials, contractor personnel, and the Ship Builder subcontract personnel and ability to hold meetings without the Integrator present is antithetical to later statements that NSF won't provide technical direction or have privity of contract. Such an arrangement is highly risky and could easily result in a shipyard claiming to have received direction from the government, opening up unnecessary contract disputes. Broad government rights to inspect the work and participate in audits will ensure the government can conduct appropriate diligence without compromising its position. We recommend revision that restricts any meetings between the government and shipyard without the Integrator present. The collaborative relationships should be between the government and integrator and between the integrator and shipyard. Only for formal program reviews should all three parties hold substantive discussions. This best practice will prevent misunderstandings and prevent privity of contract from developing between the government and the shipyard. | DACS |
tc={AD980987-EC62-4046-B5E0-5F8E0D89CAA1}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
This is similar to the OSU feedback. I would be content removing the 'meet one on one' language, and ensuring that any meeting has all parties present (NSF, Integrator, their relevant sub).
Reply:
I agree we should change to ensure VI being present for any meetings with NSF.
tc={22810307-6418-4316-A59A-2E104972EE5C}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
I'm willing to make it so that there's always an Integrator presence when the builder is involved in conversations.
Reply:
| I think something along those lines should be included. | 93 | Draft RFP Section I | i | 1 | 60 | 1834 | Critical | Please clarify the contract type by activity and time phase. The list of 5 different contract types does not provide sufficient clarity to understand pricing, risk, and expectations for each of the phases and activities. | Example task orders shall be provided alongside final RFP release. |
| 96 | Draft RFP Section L | L | 7 | 109 | 3495 | Substantive | Please clarify if the 2-5 past performance examples must be from the prime contractor or if a mix from the prime and key subcontractor is allowed. For instance, is it allowed for 3 highly relevant projects from the prime and 2 from the key subcontractor. We recommend allowing past performance from both the prime and key subcontractors to show the strengths of the entire team. | Examples may be from all entities the offeror is leveraging to fulfill contractual requirements, be they parent corporations, subsidiaries, or other teaming arrangement member. | |
| 98 | Draft RFP Section F | F | 4 | 36 | 980 | Substantive | Expediency of reviews is critical to effective change management in shipbuilding. Further discussion of review timelines is needed. Identification of individuals and their backups rather than committees is required for approvals to be workable. By the time a committee reaches consensus, the scope and impacts - particularly upon cost - have grown dramatically. Often times a slow decision is worse than an approval or denial. Please consider a more streamlined change management approach. | The change management approach can be updated during the Final Design Phase based on the Integrator's normal process. | |
| 99 | Draft RFP Section I | I | 2 | 60 | 1842 | Critical | The draft RFP incorporates FAR 52.228-2 (ADDITIONAL BOND SECURITY), which under FAR 28.106-4(a) is required when a solicitation or contract requires a bond. However, the draft RFP does not discuss bond requirements, which needs to be clarified in the final RFP. | NSF will consider this feedback. | |
| 100 | Draft RFP Section I | I | 17 | 79 | 2440-2460 | Substantive | Executive Order 14042 was revoked on May 12, 2023. FAR 52.223-99 should be removed in the Final RFP, in accordance with guidance issued by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force | This clause has been removed. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .