Attachment_17__Question_and_Answers_March2017_ehm.xlsx

Table 1 Attachment 17

Section 3.9.5 has been revised to change the certification requirement to account for natural disasters or equipment failure, otherwise the 2 year certification requirement is in place.

It is not clear, however, whether the term “Offeror” refers to the Prime only, as implied in Section L.5.1, Section 1, or to the entire proposing team (as implied in Section M.5.3 and Table 3).

If the Prime Offeror is unable to submit past performance citations, but at least one principal subcontractor can submit one or more citations, does the entire proposal receive a neutral confidence assessment rating? If an Offeror is unable to submit Past Performance, but at least one Principal Subcontractor can, the entire proposal does not necessarily receive a “Neutral Confidence” Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

The definition of “Neutral Confidence” in Section M.5.3 (Table 3) is as follows:

“No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.”

The definition does not depend on whether the past performance is submitted; rather, the definition states that no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror's perform and record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Pursuant to Section L.5.1., Past Performance may be submitted for an Offeror or a Principal Subcontractor. Both the Offeror’s and Principal Subcontractor’s submitted past performance will be evaluated.

Please be advised that the Government has amended the solicitation, Section M.5.3. to include “In assessing confidence, the Government will assign greater weight to the Offeror’s past performance than to a Principal Subcontractor, and will assign greater weight to an Offeror’s performance as a Prime Contractor than as a subcontractor.”

Would PM TRASYS consider changing the NAICS back to 561210 to better align the NAICS with the size, scope, and complexity of UET CLS for UET facility operation, maintenance, and training?

NAICS 561210 is “Facilities Support Services.” The UET Contract is a “Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)” contract. NAICS 561210 accommodates all aspects of CLS, and with a $38.5 Million Dollar Small Business Size Standard, provides for increased small business competition.

The newly assigned 611699 NAICS code does not accommodate CLS, rather miscellaneous training or instruction only, and would not cover UET facility maintenance. Section 1.3 of the PWS includes all UET CLS scope under “logistical support,” including maintenance, inventory management and control, and warranty management, all typically associated with CLS contracts. NAICS 611699 does not account for this CLS scope. After careful review and consideration, PM TRASYS has determined that, notwithstanding the reference to Contractor Logistics Support in the PWS, the principle purpose of this contract is to provide instruction to Marines. Among the mission goals, PWS Section 1.1 states the contractor will “train Marines and other authorized personnel how to egress sinking or submerged platforms (i.e., aircraft, amphibious, and ground vehicles), including the use of life support equipment, e.g., Supplemental Emergency Breathing Devices (SEBDs) and Life Preserver Units (LPUs) to increase survival rates.” As such, PM TRASYS will not change the NAICS code back to 561210.

M.4.3 mentions nothing about "academic training" per se, however. Instead, M.4.3 merely indicates that the requirement in L.4.3 will be assessed to determine whether or not an Offeror "Demonstrates a realistic and efficient approach that maximizing [sic.] Marine through-put of the practical devices."

Question: Would the Government please clarify if Offerors are to demonstrate how their approach in general maximizes Marine through-put of the practical devices, or if they are to demonstrate how their approach to academic training maximizes Marine through-put of the practical devices? update L.4.3 "propose their technical approach to academic training that maximizes Marine through-put on the practical devices."

M.4.3. to state:

"Demonstrates a realistic and efficient approach to academic training that maximizes Marine through-put on the practical devices"

Testing occurs onsite, no travel is necessary.

diameter and length. This recommendation is in accordance with the Department Of Transportation (DOT) Title 49 CFR Ch-1 (10-1-01) Section 173.34, Qualification, maintenance and use of cylinders, Table “Retest and Inspection of Cylinders1”, Note 1. Any cylinder not exceeding two inches outside diameter and less than two feet in length is excepted from hydrostatic retest." See Response # 5

- On page 4, the picture of the control panel shown is NOT the control panel on the XGH. The lift can't be controlled (raise/lower/traverse) from the XGH control panel. It's controlled via a remote or a pendant hard wired to the control panel, but the panel does not give the full capability that the remote does.

- On page 4, the RRS has no independent air compressor. It uses a large 2400 psi air cylinder for an air source.

- Page 8 recommends 85°F water temperature. Camp Lejeune is the only facility where that is possible.

- Pages 18-19 state that EMTs are on site. Does the Government require an EMT on site to begin training? There seems to be no reference in the PWS to an EMT requirement.

The SAR is a critical document. PWS paragraph 3.9.3 states that no training system shall be operated outside the conditions identified within the UET Safety Assessment Report (SAR) (Attachment 5). Would the Government please clarify the discrepancies between the SAR and the PWS to allow the contractor to accurately staff and price the effort. An updated SAR has been provided with Amendment 03

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph indicates that the questionnaire is only required “without a completed annual report” [emphasis added].

You may submit the CPARS for the years you have and supplement with a PPQ for the years that are missing,

Additionally, new potential bidders may be without the Emergency Action Plans (EAP)s for each UET site and MAET/SVET and XGH User and Maintenance manuals in the Safety Assessment Report, Attachment 5, either as a result of file corruption or just a lack of provision.

Updated OEM manuals were provided under Amendment 02 and 03

An updated SAR has been provided with Amendment 03

1) In the QASP table, the two 3.4 entries on the bottom of page 10 (Transition Out Plan and Transition Plan) are matched with “Deliverables: B001 Transition Plan.” But in the CDRL list of 5.1 in the PWS, B001 is associated with “Contractor’s Progress, Status, and Management Report,” while there is no CDRL associated with “Transition Plan” in the PWS.

2) In the QASP table, the 3.5 entry near the bottom of page 11 (Mobilization Plan) is matched with, among others, “B003 Mobilization Plan,” while the PWS 5.1 CDRL list associates B003 with “Report Record of Meeting Minutes.” There is no CDRL associated with “Mobilization Plan” in the PWS.

Would the Government consider adjusting or adding the necessary CDRL titles for clarity?