Question_and_Answer_Report_HSCG23_15_R_FRCPII.xls
XLS spreadsheet 116 KB Posted
- Attached to
- United States Coast Guard Phase II Fast Response Cutter (FRC) Request for Proposals (RFP)
- Solicitation number
- HSCG23-15-R-FRCPII
About this file
Question and Answer Report dated April 2 2015
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 88 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Cover Page
| USCG PHASE II FAST RESPONSE CUTTER (FRC) |
| QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (Q&A) REPORT (A00001) |
| Prepared by: |
| Commandant (CG-9125) |
| United States Coast Guard |
| 2703 Martin Luther King Junior Avenue, SE |
| Washington, DC. 20593-7828 |
| 2 April 2015 (A00004) |
| Solicitation Number: HSCG23-15-R-FRCPII |
| Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. |
Phase II FRC Q and A's
| Question Number | Reference | Industry Question | Government Answer |
| Q-1 | Part IV, Section L.6. | Would the Government amend the RFP to pay bid and proposal expenses for the incumbent and each qualified bidder? | The United States Coast Guard will not pay bid and proposal costs associated with this RFP. |
| Q-2 | Part IV, Section L | In order for competitors to bid properly and for the USCG to have the lowest overall price, would the Coast Guard identify items already paid for under the existing contract to the incumbent that would be transferred to a winning bidder (e.g.jigs , tools, etc)? | The USCG will provide the licenses for the hulls and the data package, which contains information concerning the incumbent’s current use of jigs and tools. The USCG will not be providing equipment outside of the Government Furnished Equipment list, which is incorporated in Section J, Attachment #7. |
The USCG will provide the licenses for the hulls and the data package, which contains information concerning the incumbent’s current use of jigs and tools. The USCG will not be providing equipment outside of the Government Furnished Equipment list, which is incorporated in Section J, Attachment #7.
| Q-3 | Part IV, Section L | The incumbent has developed a relationship with suppliers that should have resulted in overall reduced cost since the start of the program through the production and ordering of 30+ ships. What are the plans and provisions for these suppliers to (1) Have non-exclusive contracts with the incumbent so that they are available to all competitors; and, (2) Does the USCG have an relationships with these suppliers regarding their product availability and costs for competitors? | The USCG has not made any arrangements with any current suppliers under the Phase I Fast Response Cutter contract. |
| Q-4 | Part IV, Section L-6 | Section L-6 indicates that the Government reserves the right to make multiple awards if, after considering the additional administrative costs, it is in the Government's best interest to do so. Given that the administrative costs of a dual shipbuilder contract are already known and that such costs can be ameliorated by having one yard serve as the prime and manage both facilities (as was done for the RBM program) does this mean that the USCG would consider splitting the award between the incumbent and a second shipyard? Another option would be to have two primes, similar to the Navy DDG-51 and LCS Programs in order to achieve more competition and greater price savings. | At this time, the USCG does not intend to make multiple awards, however retains the right to do so. |
| Q-5 | Section A, Page 2/Section L.14.1.3, Page L-9 | There is a disconnect between the number of vessels being procured; is it 26 per Section A, page 2, or is it 22 vessels per section L.14.1.3, page L-9? | This number of vessels to be procured under any resulting contract is up to 26. At a minimum, the USCG will order four cutters in the base period. This purchase of four in the base period leaves the remaining 22 to be ordered under options periods. Section B notes the number of cutters that can be ordered in each option year until the requisite 26 are purchased. |
| Q-6 | Part IV, M.3 | What is the USCG plan for a competition if only one proposal is received in response to this RFP? | Market research conducted by the USCG indicates that multiple US shipyards have the capability to produce Fast Response Cutters. With this information, the USCG anticipates competition. |
Market research conducted by the USCG indicates that multiple US shipyards have the capability to produce Fast Response Cutters. With this information, the USCG anticipates competition.
| Q-7 | Section L.6(d) | How long should a submitted proposal be valid? | Any submitted proposal shall be valid for a period of 180 days. The SF-33 has been updated to reflect this requirement. |
| Q-8 | Section L.20 Administrative Volume | Section L.20 states that "This volume shall also include all necessary Non Disclosure Agreements with Advisory contractors as required in Section L.14.1.15. The Final RFP no longer references Advisory contractors in Section | The USCG will not be using contractors to provide advisory services. Section L has been updated to remove this requirement. |
| Q-9 | Section L.18.2.2.1; Section M.4 Factor 2, para.c | Section L instructs the offeror to provide past performance questionnaires and narratives for five similar contracts in which they have participated over the past three years. | The Government will consider contracts performed within the last five years. Section L has been updated to incorporate this change. |
| Q-10 | Part I, Section H.9.4.6, Page H-12 | RFP states EPA base period index values are those final published values for May 2017. To price in current dollars, should the EPA baseline month be changed to May 2015? | The EPA is applied based on when the USCG anticipates payments being issued. |
| Q-11 | L.19 PROPOSAL CONTENTS, PRICE VOLUME | L.19.1. The Offeror shall complete the spreadsheet provided as Attachment J-17. QUESTION - Please provide attachment J-17 spreadsheet. | The pricing spreadsheet is included as Section J, Attachment #18. Section L language has been updated to reflect this change. |
| Q-12 | H.16 Prevention of the Discharge of Oil and Hazardous Substances | Section H.16 regarding Prevention of the Discharge of Oil and Hazardous Substances states "The provisions of paragraphs H.20.2, H.20.3, and H.20.4, are intended to implement that policy with respect to the cutter(s) constructed under this contract." |
| RFP does not contain section H.20.4. Please clarify section applicability as stated | The references within this paragraph have been updated to H.16.2, H.16.3, and H.16.4. | ||
| Q-13 | Part 3, Section J, Attachment 2, COR 042-3.1.1 | A drawing identified as a Contract Drawing which delineates design features of the ship. The current revision in effect for each Contract Drawing will be defined in the contract. No departure from a Contract Drawing is permitted without specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer. |
In some instances, the requirements in COR may conflict with the referenced drawing. In such cases, which takes precedence, the drawing or the COR?
A drawing identified as a Contract Drawing which delineates design features of the ship. The current revision in effect for each Contract Drawing will be defined in the contract. No departure from a Contract Drawing is permitted without specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer.
| In some instances, the requirements in COR may conflict with the referenced drawing. In such cases, which takes precedence, the drawing or the COR? | Please identify specific design features or data which you believe to be in conflict individually so that they can be researched and addressed clearly. | |||
| Q-14 | FRC Attachment J Secure Attachments #9 | The file names for Attachment J drawings provided on FBO include DRAFT in the name. Is the Government issuing FINAL Attachment J drawings? | The drawings that have been included in the Final RFP package should be considered final documents, irrespective of the file naming conventions. | |
| Q-15 | Section J,Attachment 9, Contract Drawing Exceptions | Many of the Exception Notes cells have been cut off. Please provide a revised copy. | An updated copy of Section J, Attachment 9, Contract Drawings Exceptions is incorporated into the RFP with Amendment A00003. | |
| Q-16 | COR 410-2.2.2 | COR 410-2.2.2. Two mock-ups of the SEAWATCH-FRC C2 suite (including the equipment/connections required by COR Section 425-1.1 shall be provided with all of the hardware and connected sensors necessary to simulate operation and demonstrate the proper integration of all of the equipment with the GFE software. One will be retained at the contractor’s (or subcontractor’s) facility and one will be delivered to the USCG C3CEN in Portsmouth, VA for engineering/software development. Each mock-up shall be identical to the other. Once a successful demonstration has been achieved, the mock-up at the contractor’s (or sub-contractor’s) facility will remain intact as a training aid for crew and support personnel. |
| Mock-ups were provided in the original contract (Phase I). Is it acceptable to modify the existing mock-ups? | It is not acceptable to modify the existing mock-ups. New mock-ups for the Phase II FRC are required. | ||
| Q-17 | COR 410-2.2.1.2 | The RDF, specified in COR Section 423-3.1.1.3.1. |
| The SEAWATCH to VEGA-ECS interface is still required in Section 410-5.3.8, is this intended to be removed or does this represent a unidirectional connection? | The SEAWATCH to VEGA-ECS interface requirement in Section 410-5.3.8 has been removed. | ||
| Q-18 | COR 079-4.1 | COR 079-4.1 states: “Values for VCG, LCG and TCG will be based on inclining experiment preformed in accordance with COR section 041.” |
| COR 041 is Configuration Management. COR 094 is the Inclining Experiment section. Was COR 094 the intended reference? | The correct COR Section reference for the Inclining Experiment is COR Section 097. The RFP will be amended to reflect this correction. | ||
| Q-19 | COR 440-19.1.1 (440-19.1.2) | Signal and power cabling for all encryption devices shall be provided so that the Government installed crypto equipment can be installed post delivery without any need for additional shelf, cable, or connector work. |
| COR number appears to be incorrect. Should it be 440-19.1.2? | The correct paragraph number is 440-19.1.2. This change has been incorporated in to the RFP. | ||
| Q-20 | COR 401-5.1; 437-601 | COR 401-5.1 requires a fluxgate compass in the Control Console and COR section 437-6.1 requires a fluxgate compass in the MCMS console. |
| Is it the intent of the Government to have two fluxgate compasses? | There is only one fluxgate compass. COR Section 401-5.1.4 should read the "Fluxgate Magnetic Compass Display." This change has been incorporated into the RFP. | |||
| Q-21 | Section 081, Paragraph 081-5.1, Page 76 | FRCII changes the standards for RCM analysis to MIL-STD-3034 and SAE JA1011/12. Please confirm that only new systems that deviate from the base contract e.g., HVAC system, Rudder, Fuel System, will require an analysis using these new standards? | The USCG confirms that systems which deviate from the Phase I FRC design will require a new RCM analysis conducted IAW MIL-STD-3034 and SAE JA1001/12. This is clarified in amended language for COR Section 081-5.1." | |
| Q-22 | COR section 562-1.1 | FRC II RFP COR section 562-1.1 requires rudders to be constructed as shown in drawing 154R-WPC-562-201 Rev- Rudder Details and requires flow-adapted (twisted) rudders. Drawing 154R-WPC-562-201 Rev and COR section 562-1.1 is not a flow-adapted (twisted) rudder; it is a conventional rudder. In this case, which takes precedence, the drawing or the COR? | In COR Section 562-1.1, the reference to flow-adapted rudders has been removed. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .