Question_and_Answer_Report_HSCG23_15_R_FRCPII.xls
XLS spreadsheet 125 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 Answers Report
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 |
| 21 April 2015 (A00006) |
| 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. | |
| Q-23 | COR 425-2.2.4.2 | The Dell R620 is obsolete and no longer available. Please define new requirements. | The requirements of the RFP are amended to address the obsolescent equipment issue. The Coast Guard has identified the Dell PowerEdge R630 as the replacement for the Dell PowerEdge R620. | |
| Q-24 | COR 440-1.1 | The capacity needed to support a 30 minute hold time requires the definition of the expected transmit duty cycle. What is the expected transmission duty cycle for each radio? | RFP COR Sections 400-2.5 and 400-3.8 list the requirements for the use of power by the electronic equipment. Each radio provided, including the transmission duty cycle for each radio, is required to operate within its specified parameters using power specified in COR Section 300. This is clarified in amendments to the COR. | |
| Q-25 | COR 440-11.1.3 | Off-the-shelf compliant solutions for KWR-46 do not appear to be available, except for the DMR radio, which is too large and wouldn't be cost effective for this platform. Is this algorithm required? | The KWR-46 algorithm is not required and is removed in this amendment. | |
| Q-26 | Section J, Attachment 9, Contract Drawing Exceptions | Item Number A9.8 (154R-WPC-202-301, MCMS Cable Block Diagram) and A9.9 (154R-WPC-202-302, MCMS I/O Schedule): Exception note is left blank so it is unclear whether we are to have exceptions to the document. Please confirm if there are any exceptions for these items. | Exception notes are added to Section J, Attachment 9, Contract Drawing Exceptions as follows: A9.8 MCMS Cable Block Diagram, 154R-WPC-202-301: 1. Non-MTU Manufacturer and Model numbers identified in the Materials List or throughout the drawing are provided for informational purpose only. Offerors may substitute or change manufacturers and model numbers, however any changes shall meet the requirements of the contract. A9.9 MCMS I/O Schedule, 154R-WPC-202-302: 1. No exceptions | |
| Q-27 | Section J, Attachment 9 vs COR | J-9 attachment lists referenced drawing 154R-WPC-601 as “Rev A” but the COR says “Rev –”. RDLP drawings provided are “Rev A”. Section J, Attachment 9 list and associated drawings provided in the RFP package do not match the requirements in the COR. In some sections of the COR (e.g. 071-5.1, 071-6.1, 071-7.1, and 583-3.1) the drawings are called out as Revision “-“, but the actual drawings provided are Revision “A”. Please clarify which revision of the drawing is to be used when the COR and the provided drawings do not match. | The drawing revisions documented in Section J, Attachment 9, Contract Drawing List are correct. The COR will is amended to reflect drawing revisions as follows: |
A9.1 Hull Lines and Offsets, 154R-WPC-085-301 Rev ""A"" A9.19 Generator and Switchboard Drawing, 154R-WPC-324-301 Rev ""A"" A9.29 Lube Oil Service and Transfer System Diagram, 154R-WPC-540-301 Rev ""A"" A9.32 Fixed Fire Extinguishing System Diagram, 154R-WPC-555-301 Rev ""A"" A9.44 General Arrangement Drawing, 154R-WPC-601-302 Rev ""A"" A9.45 Life Saving Equipment A&D, 154R-WPC-610-201 Rev ""A"" A9.48 Machine Gun Control System, 154R-WPC-700-301 Rev ""A"" Q-28 Attachment J-4 Reference List The COR includes the following references that are not included in Attachment J-4 Reference List.
MIL-STD-1521B
MIL-STD-129
MIL-STD-188-141B
| Please confirm these references are applicable to this contract? | The references cited in the question are applicable to this RFP. Attachment J-4, Reference List, will be changed to include MIL-STD-1521B, MIL-STD-188-141B, and MIL-STD-129 in a future amendment. | ||
| Q-29 | COR 078-2.1.5.1; 581-3.2 | 078-2.1.5.1 States, "CRES ASTM Stainless steel 316L shall be used for fittings, couplings etc. on all exterior applications of the FRC above and below the waterline on the hull that are exposed directly to sea water or spray and for all applications on the weather decks unless stated elsewhere in this COR. Use of 302 or 304 is restricted to interior, non-welded applications where exposure to sea water is not anticipated." 581-3.2 States, "The anchor chain shall comply with the ABS HSNC with exception that wire rope and synthetic fiber rope are not permitted." |
| ABS HSNC only specifies stud link anchor chain, but COR section 078 Materials requires the fittings, couplings, etc. on all exterior items exposed to the weather shall be stainless steel 316L. Is it acceptable to use stud link anchor chain as specified in HSNC or is the anchor chain required to be CRES in accordance with COR section 078? If the chain is required to be CRES, is it acceptable to use the ABS HSNC equipment number to size the minimum breaking strength of the chain? | Stud link chain is required per ABS HSNC (COR Section 581-3.2). See COR Section 078-1.1 for clarification on the order of precedence for material requirements. | ||
| Q-30 | COR 583-3.1 | "COR 583-3.1 [RFP] states: ""Inflatable life rafts (25-person Navy MKVII, white case) with hydrostatic releases and nylon covered CRES cable tie-downs shall be provided as part of outfit under the Supply Support CLIN for each FRC. Two life rafts shall be provided, one each port and starboard. These shall be USCG approved inflatable life rafts and shall be stowed in white cylindrical containers and secured on the main deck or 01 deck with USCG approved hydrostatic releases and nylon-covered CRES cable tie-downs. The life rafts shall be stowed in separate cradle foundations, capable of being launched by gravity. The life rafts shall not be stowed as shown on drawing 154R-WPC-601-302 Rev “-” General |
Arrangements.""
COR Section 583-3.1 states that the inflatable liferafts 'shall not' be installed in the same location as shown on the General Arrangements drawing.
| Please confirm that the use of 'shall not' was in error and that the USCG intends to keep the liferafts in the same location as shown on the General Arrangement drawing." | "This is a typographical error. The life rafts shall be stowed as shown on the General Arrangement drawing. This is corrected in this amendment. | ||
| Q-31 | COR 440-3.7.3 | "COR 440-3.7.3 directs procurement of two DVP-200 by the contractor. Part III, Section J, Attachment 7 (GFE/GFI) identifies one DVP-200 as GFE. |
| Will the USCG modify Part III, Section J, Attachment 7 to remove the GFE reference for compliance with COR 440-3.7.3?" | COR 440-3.7.3 directs procurement of two DVP-200 by the contractor. Part III, Section J, Attachment 7 (GFE/GFI) identifies one DVP-200 as GFE. | |||
| Q-32 | Part IV Section L | Will the USCG extend the deadline associated with the submission of the Management, Technical, and Price volumes to July 31, 2015? | The USCG is extending the deadline for proposal receipt. Section L has been updated accordingly. | |
| Q-33 | L.20 Proposal Contents - Administrative Volume | Does the Government require the completed Section B CLINs included in Volume V - Administrative Volume as well as in Volume IV - Price Volume? | No. The Government does not require pricing information to be included in the Administrative Volume. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .