Bidders Questions 20200410.pdf
PDF 195 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Engineering, Ship Installation Drawing Support
- Solicitation number
- N42158-20-R-N001
About this file
This document contains questions submitted in response to a solicitation for engineering and ship installation drawing support services, along with the corresponding government answers. Key details include:
-
The solicitation is for engineering and ship installation drawing support services for the LHD platform. Services may include SID development efforts for LHD-7.
-
The period of performance for the first pre-ship check is April 27 through May 11, 2020. Proposals are due by April 15, 2020 at 10:00 AM.
-
AutoCAD source files for repeat alterations will be provided upon request. Source files will not be rolled over from previous SIDs, which must be newly developed excluding revisions.
-
Labor hours and LOE must be proposed for the performance work statement.
-
Payment, level of effort, and small business subcontracting plan clauses are included in the final solicitation. While small business possibilities exist, the ability to evaluate and select qualified small business subcontractors is limited due to the non-specific work scope and short proposal turnaround time.
View the file
Other files
Show all 25
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
Tracking
Number
Page # Section/
Paragraph
RFP Statement Question/Comment Answer
1 Would the Navy consider making the
September 2020 ship check the first ship check required under the solicitation?
The May ship check is still scheduled.
2 RFP Section C.7 Will AutoCAD source files be provided for repeat alterations as stated in 7.17 and is the contractor permitted to roll over source files from previously developed SIDs?
Paragraph 7.17 also states that AutoCad go-by drawings source files, for repeat alterations, will be made available upon request.
Paragraph 7 states that all SID development (excluding revisions) shall assume suse of zero rollover of source files from previously developed SIDs.
3 3, 10, 12 RFP Section B, Item 3000; RFP
Sections C.7.3 and
C.7.22
LHD 7 requirements What LHD 7 efforts will be included in this contract?
There may be Technical Instructions issued under this contract for SID development to support LHD-7 SID efforts. This contract does not include
LHD-7 shipcheck efforts.
4 66 RFP Section L.4.1 Offerors shall propose the labor hours required to perform the requirements of the PWS for the period of performance specified in
Section F.
Government Furnished Information was not identified in the draft RFP. What information is the Navy going to provide to develop the basis of estimate for the labor hours? Or, is it the Navy's intent to provide the LOE hours to propose on each CLIN?
LOE man-hours were added to Section B.
5 7, 22, 61 RFP Section C.6.1, Section F, Section
L 1.2
Period of Performance for the first pre-ship check is 27
April 2020.
Period of Performance to begin 24 April 2020.
Period of Performance for the first pre-ship check is 27
April 2020.
What is the Navy's anticipated timeline for submittal of the proposal in order to meet the start of the PoPs identified in the Draft RFP?
Proposal submittals are required by 1000 on April 15, 2020.
6 17 C-215-H002
Contract Proposal
(NAVSEA)(OCT
2018)
Paragraphs (a) and (b) What is the Navy's intent for incorporating this clause into the contract?
The technical volume(s) of the awarded Contractor's proposal will be incorporated by reference as stated in this clause.
7 81 L-215-H004
INSTRUCTIONS
FOR PRICING OF
CONTRACT
DATA
REQUIREMENTS
LIST (NAVSEA)
Clause This clause is rarely used anymore because it does not result in CDRL pricing that is meaningful and CDRL costs are not separately evaluated. This pricing would usually only include the cost to deliver the data item to the Government. The costs to develop the data item are included elsewhere in the labor portion of the proposal. For the same reason, Data CLINs are Not Separately
Priced (NSP). Will the Government delete this requirement from the RFP?
Clause is required and included in the RFP.
8 Will the final solicitation contain a "Payment of Fees" Clause?
Added B-232-H004 PAYMENTS OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT)--
BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018).
9 Will the final solicitation contain a "Level of
Effort" Clause?
Added H-216-H001 LEVEL OF EFFORT--BASIC (NAVSEA) (OCT
2018).
10 91 Section M 3.2.2 Large business offerors will not be eligible for award if they fail to submit an acceptable Small Business
Subcontracting Plan where small business subcontracting possibilities exist.
With the SOW that is provided within the draft RFP, there are not specific engineering/design discipline level requirements (i.e. Ship Alt identification with supporting GFI). As such, the ability to identify and thoroughly evaluate small businesses that are qualified to perform the intended work scope is limited. Furthermore, a less specific SOW does not support the selection or competitive pricing of small business subcontractors. With the near-term ship check schedule of 11 May 2020, it is anticipated that the proposal submittal response will be short and not fully support a detailed, analyzed small business selection. It is recommended that the small business plan/requirement be eliminated or restated as an execution goal.
Specific verbiage was removed from Section M. Clause L-219-H001
SUBMISSION OF SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN
(NAVSEA) (JAN 2019) is still invoked in the RFP.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO LHD PLATFORM SID SOLICITATION #N42158-20-R-N001
- In the event of a conflict between the RFP and the Government responses to the RFP questions, the RFP will govern.
11 While our expertise does extend to creating technical drawings, we do not usually provide
Engineering solutions. Do you believe this would be an issue for us if we were to try to become the prime on this contract?
Offerors may submit a proposal if they can meet the requirements specified in the solicitation.
12 Because of what I may perceive as shortcomings when it comes to the
Engineering solution side of this RFP, I believe we may be a better match as a subcontractor to the eventual prime contractor awardee. Have you had any applicants mention a desire to partner with a subcontractor that I might be able to reach out?
Information regarding other bidders may not be disclosed.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .