Additional_Questions_and_Government_Responses_25_July_2018.docx

Attachment 18

1. RFP Reference: Section 2.C CLIN X001

Topic: Planning and Execution Team (P-PET) IAW CmdO 4850.1

Comment: Upon review of the paragraph 2.C.1 (ii) and the reference to CmdO 4850.1. In CmdO 4850.1 paragraphs 3.(5)(b) and 3.(5)(c) there are references to “Reporting requirements…” and Reference (c) of that order is CmdO P5000.1. Is this reference supposed to be CmdO P5000.1?

Government Response: Yes, the order reference should be CmdO P5000.1.

2. RFP Reference: Section C.7.D.10 Subject: Shipboard Semi Annual Startup Report (SASU) for Afloat Phase Comment: The SOW requirement states, “The MCMC shall provide a Shipboard Semi Annual Startup Report (SASU) IAW standardized report format (CDRL) upon completion of Semi Annual Startup. Report shall include the following: Total USMC/Navy/Fleet hospital start-up attempts to include self-starting, slaved, and non-starts. Identify equipment by TAMCN/ECC and serial number that could not be started due to embark and PEI's requiring slaving, equipment deadline prior to start-up and equipment deadline after start-up, vehicles requiring battery replacement and all post SASU battery readings.

Question: If the MCMC plans and executes programmed and systematic limited maintenance actions for square-loaded Military Equipment (ME) during the Afloat Phase which is accessible once ME is moved ashore, can the requirement to report SASU operations be waived for the specific six month period?

Government Response: Conducting limited maintenance actions for Military Equipment (ME) (during the Afloat Phase) ashore would include starting vehicles, operating engine, transmission, electrical, hydraulic functions, etc. in order to effect necessary preventative and/or corrective maintenance requirements during non-exercise periods of availability. This would ultimately increase equipment readiness, thus exceeding the limited benefits associated with Semi Annual Startup requirement, therefore including the specific serialized ME on the SASU would be waived given the more beneficial maintenance effort conducted by the MCMC.

3. RFP Reference: Section C.10.A.2

Subject: Weight Handling Program Management

Question: Does Blount Island’s weight handling equipment fall under the oversight of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Navy Crane Center? If so, will the offeror need to ensure the WHE complies with the P-307?

Government Response: Paragraph 10.A of the SOW has been revised to clarify the Governments requirement. Currently the WHE on the installation does not fall under the NAVFAC P-307 except for assets that are operated by the Navy Support Management Branch. The Government’s intent is to follow suit with other USMC installations and adopt guidance/policy contained in the NAVFAC P-307.

4. RFP Reference: Section 10.B

Subject: Site Safety and Health Officer (SSHO)

Question: For efficiencies and cost savings, will the Government allow the positions listed in RFP paragraph C.10.B to be “dual hatted”?

Government Response: No, the size and scope of this contract does not allow the workload of these positions to be combined and performed by a single person. Per the RFP, the Government has stated that the Environmental Coordinator and Site Safety and Health Officer needs to be separate positions and not dual hatted.

5. RFP Reference: Section B SLIN 2006AB Topic: Inconsistency in Provided LOE Comment: There seems to be an inconsistency in the level of effort hours provided in Section B in Amendment 4 for SLIN 2006AB. The provided level of effort, 7,172 hours, is significantly higher than the level of effort provided for the same SLIN (x006AB) for all other 12 month periods (2,510 hours). Is it the Government’s intent that the LOE hours for SLIN 2006AB should differ from the LOE hours for the same SLIN in other periods (which are all otherwise consistent)?

Recommendation: Please verify the provided level of effort hours shown in Section B for SLIN 2006AB are correct.

Government Response: SLIN 2006AB has been revised to 2,510 hours.

Government Response: The Historical manning document provided by Amendment 0001 has been revised to include OCONUS level of effort associated with MAP-K as well as Technical Refresh manning for Navy support.

7. RFP Reference: RFP Section C paragraph 1.H.2 Topic: DAWIA and FAC certifications as an alternative to PMI and ASQ Background: The DAWIA website states that “Certification is only available for DoD employees, military and (APF) civilians assigned to an acquisition coded position as well as select military officers whose career development will include assignment to acquisition coded positions.” Furthermore, DAWIA website indicates that personnel have 24 months to achieve certification standards. In addition, the Federal Acquisition Institute website states that “Private industry or contractors are not eligible for [Federal Acquisition Certification for Program and Project Managers] FAC-PPM certification.” Furthermore, Federal Acquisition Institute website states that personnel have up to one year and can request an extension up to an additional 12months for certification.

Comment: Since the RFP stated DAWIA and FAC certification is acceptable in lieu of PMI and ASQ certification, and DAWIA and FAC allow up to 24 months to achieve the certification, will the Government abide by the same standard and allow contractors to achieve PMI and ASQ within 24 months of contract award?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government accept DAWIA and FAC courses completion within 24 months.

Government Response: It is the government’s intent to allow for acceptance of prior DOD employee DAWIA certifications in good standing to substitute for like private industry certifications from either PMI (PgMP, PfMP, PMP, PMI-S) or ASQ (Certified Quality Technician (CQT), Certified Quality Engineer (CQE), Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), etc.…, these are not the same as ASQ Six Sigma certifications of CSSBB, CCCGB, and CSSYB). It is not the government’s intent to hire contracted personnel who need experiential training in the fundamentals of either program/project management or quality management.

8. RFP Reference: RFP Section C paragraph 1.H.2 Topic: Personnel certifications Comment: The Government has stated that all personnel requiring special certifications (i.e. PMI, ASQ, IT Certifications) shall have maintained such certifications for the most recent three years. Will the Government consider years of program management experience in lieu of the 3 years requirement.

Recommendation: Recommend the Government accept 3 years program management experience in lieu of holding the certification for 3 years.

Government Response: See answer seven.

9. RFP Reference: RFP Section C paragraph 1.H.2 Topic: Personnel certifications Comment: The Government has stated Quality personnel shall possess and maintain ASQ certifications. Will the Government consider Six Sigma and Lean Expert Certified in lieu of ASQ?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government accept Six Sigma certification in lieu of ASQ.

Government Response: No. Six Sigma certificates are not interchangeable with ASQ certifications.

10. RFP Reference: Section B, Section L-5, and Q&A #30 Topic: Level of Effort Comment: The Government response to Q&A #30 stated, “The Government has identified the number of hours associated with the CPFF-LOE CLINS. The number of hours identified represents the Government’s best estimate of the level of effort to fulfill the requirements and is provided for advisory and estimating purposes.” Is it correct to assume that the Government’s intent is to require all offerors to propose the Government’s best estimate of the level of effort for each CLIN designated as Term/Level of Effort?

Recommendation: Recommend the Government include a requirement in Section L-5, #10 Volume VI-Cost/Price Proposal, that requires all offerors shall propose the hours estimated by the Government in Section B for the CPFF-LOE (Term) CLINs.

Government Response: It is the Government’s intent that offerors propose the total number of hours identified. Offerors are expected to identify the labor/skill mix associated with the requirements as well as the required number of hours by labor category.

11. RFP Reference: Section C.6.F.27 Subject: Non powered modules Corrosion Control Comment: Section C.6.F.27 states “Non-powered watercraft shall be repaired utilizing the BICmd Corrosion Repair Facility (CRF) and powered watercraft shall be repaired using 3rd party facilities.”

Question: Is it the government’s intent that all Non-powered watercraft must go through the CRF only? Will the Government provide an estimate of how many Non-powered watercraft are anticipated to go through the CRF on an annual basis? Is there a reason why the Government differentiated between the Powered and Non-powered watercraft for the CRF?

Government Response: The Offerors are encouraged to provide a resourcing strategy that optimizes the use of the USMC’s State of the Art facility to accomplish corrosion control on all USMC and USN equipment. The Government expects the Offerors to perform trend analysis, analyze historical through-put, corrosion control timelines and determine the optimal resourcing strategy that accomplishes SOW requirements. The Government will consider multiple shifts, if necessary to achieve production requirements. The Government expects the Offeror’s proposal to address labor, to include their strategy to optimize the CRF. It is not the Governments intent that Non-powered watercraft “must” go through the CRF only. The differentiation between the module types in the C.6.F.27 was for planning purposes based on historical cost savings, maintenance pipeline and associated work effort differences between the module types. The Non-powered watercraft require significantly less resources to prepare and reassemble after coating system repair, making them the ideal candidate for the CRF by minimizing their time within the facility and impact to USMC and USN ground tactical gear. The Government estimates that ~9-12 Non-powered watercraft require Corrosion Control and Coating system repair annually, depending on the MMC schedule.

12. RFP Reference: Section C.6 Navy “Foreword”, Attachment C.1-3 Subject: Watercraft Maintenance Model Comment: Section C.6 Navy discusses the Navy Watercraft Maintenance Model (Attachment C.1-3), which has four major phases.

Question: Is the Government willing to modify the model and associated timelines if the watercraft maintenance requirements can be accomplished more efficiently?

Government Response: The Government encourages Continual Process Improvement (CPI) and will consider strategies and solutions that provide timeline efficiencies, manpower and cost reductions without negative impact to SOW requirements.

13. RFP Reference: Amendment 1, Copy of Attachment 2R-Manning- Revise Mod P00037 Subject: Historical Manning for NSS Comment: Several of the organizational elements title/names detailed in the NSS tab do not align with Section C.6.A. Navy Services.

Question: Is the Government willing to provide a cross reference between the two to better understand the historical manning relative to the new SOW requirements for Navy organizational elements? Will the government consider different labor composition and quantities from the historical manning document as long as it aligns with the SOW requirements?

Government Response: Cross reference is as follows: Current Navy Ops (NOPS) is combination of future Navy Ops and Repair Support Team (RST). Current Navy Operations Support is future Maintenance Support Team (MST). Current Navy Repair Center (NRC) is future Watercraft Maintenance Center (WMC). Current Navy Supply Support is future Navy Supply Support (NSS). Current Tech Refresh is future Control Systems Support (CSS). The Government encourages innovation, evolutionary change and a diversified labor force with the right skill sets and personnel quantities to meet SOW requirements for each functional area detailed in the SOW.