Amendment0007(11RP30FG6).pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 2

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

0007 02 MAY 11 21-11-851P30FG6

6. ISSUED BY CODE DTCG85 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

COMMANDER

SURFACE FORCES LOGISTICS CENTER C&P2

1301 CLAY ST. STE 807N

OAKLAND, CA 94612-5217

8. NAME AND ADRESS OF CONTRACTOR (no., street, county, State and ZIP Code) √ 9.A AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6

9B. DATE (SEE ITEM 11)

18 APR 11

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER

NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended. Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the Offer submitted: or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

√ A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT/.ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc)

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

CGC SYCAMORE (WLB 209) FY11 DRYDOCK & REPAIRS

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

BY

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

)PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA, FAR (48 CFR) 53.2

HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6 Amendment 0007

1. Response(s) to Request(s) for Clarification 0007 - 0009 is/are provided as Attachment A. A revision to Response 0001 (now 0001 Rev 1) is supplied with strikeout and red text notations to correct terminology used in the original response.

2. There is no change to the proposal closing date, which remains as follows:

5/13/11 4 p.m. Pacific Time Submission of Pre-Award Drydock Certification & Calculations (Sec L.9.2).

5/23/11 11 a.m. Pacific Time Price Proposal & Attachment J.2.

ATTACHMENT A

Date: 4/20/10

Question No. 0001 Rev 1

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

SHIP & HULL No.: CGC SYCAMORE (WLB 209) FY11 DRYDOCK REPAIRS

RFP No.: HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6

SOLICITATION SECTION: PARA NO.

WORK ITEM NO. 79 PARA NO.

TITLE: Temporary Berthing, Provide

QUESTION:

For what period of time, or number of days should berthing be provided?

RESPONSE:

The length of the berthing contract is subject to each different Contractor’s capabilities to coordinate completion of all the D items that impact habitability. The quicker they can be accomplished the shorter the berthing period. The list of systems that impact habitability are listed in the General Requirements of the Contract Specification (Attachment J.1) Para 3.8 on Pg 4 of the Contract.

Please note that General Requirements para 3.8.1 is no longer applicable due to the addition and inclusion of the berthing contract item. This will be revised in a future specification revision.

Date: 4/28/2011

Question No. 0007

RFP No.: HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6

SOLICITATION SECTION: PARA NO.

WORK ITEM NO. 79

PARA

NO.3.1.2

TITLE: Requirements

Work Item # 33 specifies berthing for 4 males and 1 female for 21 days. Work Item # 79 specifies 3 single room and 25 double rooms, but no length of time. Please clarify the number of berthing spots required and the length of time.

Note: Work Item 33 speaks to duty section berthing for 4 males and 1 female. This is unchanged.

This berthing is in addition to the berthing specified in Work Item 79. Please consult Amendment 0003 for amplification of berthing duration under Work Item 79.

Work Item 33 Temporary Services, paragraph 3.1, Table 1, at the row for sub-paragraph 3.3.4, delete the sentence:

“Duty section berthing shall be provided for 21 days.”

and substitute the following:

“Duty section berthing is subject to each different Contractor’s capabilities to coordinate completion of all the D items that impact habitability. The quicker they can be accomplished the shorter the duty section berthing period. The list of systems that impact habitability are listed in the General Requirements of the Specification (Attachment J.1) Para 3.8 on Pg 4.”

Date: 2 May 2011

Question No. 0008

RFP No.: HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6

SOLICITATION SECTION: M.6.4.1. PARA NO. M.6.4.1.2

WORK ITEM NO. PARA NO.

TITLE: Past Performance

Para. M.6.4.1.2 lists acceptable relevant past performance and makes it appear that, except for past performance that meets very narrow criteria, offerors are discouraged to submit proposals.

Specifically:

“The SSO will determine relevance of PPI for each offeror. A relevant report shall be considered to be one that documents performance meeting both of the following conditions:

1) Scope of contract roughly equivalent or greater than anticipated contract ($1.5M and/or 15,000 manhours, and 70-day period of performance)

2) Offeror performed as prime contractor on a drydocking ship repair contract”

My company has dry docked Coast Guard Vessels in the past and our work/experience and past performance make us eminently well qualified to perform on this contract. We do not meet the precise 70 day dry dock availability performance as a Prime contractor. We believe that the PPI criteria listed above may unfairly limit our participation in this contract and could result in inadequate competition and best value for the United States Coast Guard.

We appreciate your firm’s desire for SFLC to obtain an optimal source for SYCAMORE. In that regard, we certainly have no interest in limiting the participation of any potential offeror.

As background, the purpose in our providing the relevance threshold is to satisfy a regulatory requirement in FAR Part 15. SFLC could allow that threshold to remain unstated in Section M, but we have chosen to discuss relevance in the solicitation so that for offerors are able to discern what standards of performance are of importance to SFLC on this project.

Offerors should carefully read Section M.6.4.1.2. When SFLC states that relevant reports should “meet” the two criteria, it is not seeking only past performance reports satisfying those exact criteria. Reports that exceed those criteria* would qualify as well, and may in some cases actually indicate higher capability. Therefore, please consider the word “meet” in this context to establish a threshold, not a limit.

However, and potentially of greater importance in this discussion, please also note the higher value that SFLC will accord official federal reports. The reason for this higher value is because of the stringent technical and administrative requirements found in SYCAMORE’s specification (and subordinate references). These requirements mirror or are equivalent to USN, MSC, USACE requirements and contractor performance to these requirements is documented in official federal reports.

(* for instance, a report indicating the offeror was a prime contractor on a drydocking ship repair project of 40,000 manhours and a period of performance of 6 months.)

Date: 05/02/11

Question No. 0009

RFP No.: HSCG85-11-R-P30FG6

SOLICITATION SECTION: PARA NO.

WORK ITEM NO. PARA NO.

TITLE: Technical Proposal

Is this contract requiring a written Job Technical Proposal submitted?

The solicitation does not require a technical proposal as you are likely defining it (for instance, a written and structured description of plant, equipment, craft & admin resources, procedures, policies, etc. for use on SYCAMORE).

Rather, the solicitation requires two proposal elements aside from the price proposal. Those technical elements are listed at Section L.9.2. The pre-award drydock certification (and calculations) is one of those elements. The other is any number of past performance questionnaire responses that offerors may choose to be submitted.

The pre-award drydock certification (and calculations) is due early. See Section L.9.2 for the submission deadline.

The questionnaires are submitted directly from offeror customers to the issuing office for this solicitation. The reason for this direct submission is to reduce the possibility of offerors tampering with questionnaire responses.