Cape_H_DTMA-91-B-2013-0006-000001_amend_Q A.docx

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following administrative change to the IFB/solicitation:

Page 97 Section M.2 is replace the following paragraph to read

(b) Evaluated Price - The evaluated price shall include all the line items for the base award plus all option years applicable to that alternative for Vessels three (3). In addition to the line items, as part of the evaluated price the Government shall add a projected cost of electricity consumed by the vessels depending on the location of the berth proposed. The Government will add the following projected electrical usage costs to bids received:

Location 5-yr Alternate 10-yr Alternate California $4,598,050.60 $9,201,137.40 Oregon $2,285,421.60 $4,573,346.40 Washington $2,067,762.40 $4,137,789.60

This change is to apply a consistent three (3) decimal place usage for determining the annual electrical cost projected for use in evaluation of projected electrical consumption for vessels depending on the location of the berth proposed. In the solicitation as originally posted three decimal places of pricing from the “National Index of Electrical Rates for Determining Annual Electrical Costs” for California (.169) and Washington (.076) were used for arriving at the cost but for Oregon only two decimal places (.08) were used.

Language in Section M.2 is changed to read for Location Oregon projected electrical usage costs shall be added to bids received will be;

Location 5-yr Alternate 10-yr Alternate Oregon $2,285,421.60 $4,573,346.40

Page 97 Section M.2 Basis for Award (b) currently states

(b) Evaluated Price - The evaluated price shall include all the line items for the base award plus all option years applicable to that alternative for Vessels three (3). In addition to the line items, as part of the evaluated price the Government shall add a projected cost of electricity consumed by the vessels depending on the location of the berth proposed. The Government will add the following projected electrical usage costs to bids received:

Location 5-yr Alternate 10-yr Alternate California $4,598,050.60 $9,201,137.40 Oregon $2,176,592.00 $4,355,568.00 Washington $2,067,762.40 $4,137,789.60

DTMA-91-B-2013-0006 Layberthing for Cape H’s and OPDS SS Petersburg Vendor Questions and Answers

Question 1: Vendor Inquiry received 10/17/2013

In Section J.2 and J.3, it provides for an estimated amount of power to be used by each ship, (5,200 KWH per day for each Cape H, 4,500 KWH per day for OPDS). Using this math, there would be a total of 14,900 KHW per day usage cumulative for all 3 vessels. Over a 5 year period this equates to 27,207,400 KHW of usage.

Again using this math with the prices given in Section J.6, there is a differential in the total amount used in M.2 versus what the math dictates (example below)…..

Could you please verify these figures?

Answer: Solicitation calculations used only three decimal places for California (.169) and Washington (.076); for Oregon only two decimal places (.08) were used. Solution to inquiry addressed in modification language above.

Follow up inquiry to above same subject:

As the solicitation is written, it gives Oregon an unfair advantage of approximately $106,000 over California for the 5 year option. We respectfully request that MARAD utilize the unit costs as provided in Section J.6, in which the costs are extended to 4 decimal places.

Answer: Request denied, solution to inquiry addressed in modification language above.

Question 2: Vendor Inquiry received 10/22/2013

After viewing the website cited in Section J.6 concerning average state commercial rates for electricity, it has come to our attention that by selecting just one particular month as a snapshot (in this solicitation it is September 2013), it does not reflect the actual cost that will be incurred for any entire year, especially in the case of the State of California.

Over a one year period the rates in California fluctuate tremendously month by month. In Oregon and Washington these rates tend to remain steady (see chart below, with bold figures as one that are used in the subject solicitation). We feel that the average over a one year period portrays more accurately the costs that will be incurred by MARAD for electricity.

We respectfully request that the Commercial Rate Averages in Section J.6 be amended as follows:

Answer: Request denied, solution to inquiry addressed in modification language above.

Question 3: Vendor Inquiry received 10/25/2013

Can the contractor bid one or two of the vessels or does the solicitation require the contractor to bid all three vessels?

Answer: MARAD is seeking bids on the two Cape H’s (Horn& Hudson) as a set and SS Petersburg as an individual vessel or all three as one bid. The intent is to keep the Cape H vessels together. So vendors can bid the two vessels only (Horn& Hudson) or the single vessel (SS Petersburg) or the three vessels (Horn & Hudson & Petersburg). Also there are cumulative CLIN’s for each vessel individually 5yr. and 10yr. that can be used to submit bids for individual vessels. Vendors are encouraged to submit multiple bids for vessels.

Question 4: Vendor Inquiry received 10/29/2013 In Section B, there is a place to put pricing for all three vessels for each year for a 5 year and a 10 year alternate. There is also a place to insert cumulative pricing. The cumulative pricing CLINS provide for pricing for either 2 cape H’s and the SS Petersburg AND all 3 vessels together. If a contractor bids on EITHER the 2 CAPE H’s AND the SS Petersburg alone AND prices all 3 vessels, all with different pricing structures, where would a contractor show MARAD the separate pricing?

[For example if a contractor inserts pricing into Section B as required for all 3 vessels combined, but offered a different price (that is different from the 3 ships price) for say just the Cape H’s, there is not provisions for it in Section B.] Answer: Same as above answer to Question 3 (i.e.: Also there are cumulative CLIN’s for each vessel individually that can be used to submit bids for individual vessels. Vendors are encouraged to submit multiple bids for vessels.

Additional question with this inquiry:

Also Section C.6 Reimbursable services did not include trash removal. In all recent Cape H and Petersburg contracts on the West Coast, trash removal has been reimbursable, but it did not provide for it in this solicitation. Please amend the solicitation to provide for this.

Answer: Request denied, historically the Ship Manager has provided the refuse service which MARAD reimburses. MARAD will reimburse for only service in excess of the Ship Manager’s contract requirement to the Layberthing vendor.

MARAD solicitations have always required that refuse service would be provided to the vessels and since 2008 solicitation has stated reimbursement will only be for services in excess of contract minimums. As for California Sealift bd, MARAD agreed to remove the refuse requirement to reduce overall cost.