RFP Q A Matrix 4.pdf

HSCG23-11-R-ADB013 (CB-OTH-IV)

Question and Answer Matrix 4

# RFP Reference Question Response

1 423-1.1

Is the intent is for the navigation display to be physically usable from both the Helm and Navigation stations or to just be able to view the navigation display?

The navigation display must be fully viewable from both the coxswain seat location and navigation station.

It is acceptable for system input and controls to be physically usable from only the navigation position.

2 900-1.17 Is lifting the boat and trailer by the boat instead of the trailer acceptable?

Yes, as long as the boat, boat attach points, sling, boat/trailer interface and any other parts of the lifting system are adequately designed and tested to handle the lifting loads and maintain a level load while lifting. Lifting must not result in damage to the boat or trailer.

900-1.1

900-1.8

Is the 10% tire margin on top of the 20% boat/trailer margin?

Yes, the tires must be rated for 10% more than the maximum gross trailer weight rating.

424-9.1

424-9.2 one states that the loudhailer/siren must be able to function "independent of other communication systems".The other allows you the option to configure the VHF/DSC radio system to meet the loudhailer requirement. This appears to be a possible contradiction.

Please provide clarification.

If the hailer option via the DSC radio is used it complies with the requirement as it is independent of the remaining -or- "independent" of the "other" comms systems. There is no contradiction or conflict.

In accordance with Attachment 8, the Federal

Acquisition Regulation Provisions in RFP HSCG23-11-

R-ADB013, the page count for Volume I of the proposal response is limited to 70 pages. As both the

Specification and the Statement of Work provided under this Solicitation are requesting a large amount of technical, program and management information be provided as part of the response, I am requesting the page count be increased to 100 pages for Volume I. The increase in page count will allow responders to provide the most in depth and accurate information regarding the proposed design which will in turn allow the Coast

Guard to make an informed decision. I am also requesting this increase in page count as the current limitation of 70 pages is a departure from recent Coast

Guard Solicitations (RB-S) which had a Volume I page count limitation of 100 pages. Making the limitation 70 pages increases the burden on small businesses responding to this solicitation.

Page limitations remain. Please refer to Amendment

000003 and Matrix 3 response 2 for the latest information on page limits.

Please confirm that equipment Tech Data Sheets attached are not part of the page count (like drawings, calcs, etc).

Please refer to Amendment 000003, Attachment 8, page 4 (Provisions). Calculations and system drawings are not included in the page limit.

Based on the importance of this Solicitation and the late receipt of answers to questions dated January 13 and the sheer volume of questions many of which deserve further detail we respectfully request that the time for

Questions be extended to January 21. This will permit responders ample time to digest final answers prior to the Feb 16 close date.

The U.S. Coast Guard has provided sufficient time for questions and needs to move forward with the procurement. No time extension for receipt of questions.

8 Attach 8

Attachment 8 Evaluation- Based on the response to Q-

55 where evaluation is not quite clear, can you more clearly identify the Boat 1 evaluation, such as period of time, the time required by vendors for support for budgeting and inclusion in bidders overall cost, and test scoring.

The 120 days for proposals to be open covers the initial evaluation. After award there is the 135 day construction period for the first boat. The testing portion is anticipated to last eight to eleven weeks depending on number of boats awarded, weather delays, breakdowns, etc. Final down select is expected six-eight weeks following testing.

9 Attach 8

What is the evaluation criteria for selection of up to 4

Phase 1 test boats. Is the Phase 1 test boat evaluated based on Phase 2 pricing.

The evaluation criteria for phase one is outlined in

Attachment 8, FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation of

Commercial Items. Pricing shall be submitted with the written proposals in accordance with the RFP. The test boat is priced the same as the other boats in the first ordering period.

Will there be allowance for mods to the Phase 2 production boats, the specification seems vague on this.

No Modifications, however Corrections / Warranty

Repairs / Fixes can be made to the boats during Phase

2 down select. Corrections can include minor corrective adjustments typical in the manufacturing process but the boat built must be the one as proposed.

The Government is not authorizing design changes during the first boat's construction. Once a down selection is made then changes may be authorized as is normal in contract administration. The Government's expectation is that requirements are stable so changes to the boats are not anticipated.

As recent as this past Monday Alcoa announced with their Q4 results that they foresee a 12% rise in aluminum pricing during 2011, the USD and its purchasing power has fluctuated by as much as 15% in

2010 alone, we have had a 20% increase from one of our jet suppliers over the last 3 years. We maintain your information on price fluctuations is somewhat incorrect.It is not uncommon to include an escalation clause in such a long contract. We ask that since this is a small business set-aside that this be included as it is likely included in the NSC and FRC contracts.

The Coast Guard will consider an EPA clause to adjust for the price flucutations of Aluminum only. If EPA clause is added, Amendment 000005 will provide specific guidance.

Can the USCG confirm that that the builders of the OTH test boats have or not have had access to accurate drawings of the ships Stern ramp?

The most current information available to project staff on the CB-OTH-IV Parent Cutter interface is provided in Attachment 4 of the RFP. It is not known what information might be available to other parties or how accurate that information might be.

13 079-1.2 refers to ABYC swamped condition and 33CFR183.201 refers to swamped condition, they do not refer to damaged stability. Please advise if damaged stability is required.

Damage stability is required as it refers to level floatation as addressed in section 079-1.2. Floatation calculations with fitted buoyant material shall be submitted in accordance with ABYC Standard H-8.8.

Solid foam fendering may contribute to meeting this requirement. See specification section 079-1.2 and 079-

4.1 for the foam material requirements.

14 581-2.1

This suggests the horn as shown in attachment 4 with net capture system has been deleted and replaced by the noose/loop system used in the FRC. Is the tow bitt/gun mount assembly to be used in all boats or would there be two slightly different bow arrangements to accommodate the two different recovery systems?

The bow horn/post is not deleted. See Specification

Sections 581-2.1.1 and 581-2.1.2. Both options are acceptable.

15 670-1.2 "Pelican Case". Will this case be mounted vertically or horizontally?

A mounted, plastic, watertight case is mentioned as one of the acceptable solutions to 670-1.2 but is NOT the required solution. The method by which watertight storage of weapons and ammunition is achieved along with the location and orientation are entirely up to the offeror. The intent is that these weapons be protected from seawater and salt air and easily accessed by the crew when the boat is underway.