MAPR615170515_Amend_1_QA.pdf

MAPR615170515

Questions and Answers

Amendment No. 1

Number Question Answer

The subject solicitation says that this acquisition is set‐aside for Service‐Disabled Veteran‐Owned Small Business. Would you consider opening this opportunity up to other small businesses?

Mention of the “set‐aside for Service‐Disabled Veteran‐Owned Small Business” was in error;

the notice was revised Mar 20, 2017 to correct it to state, “This acquisition is a Total Small Business set‐aside.”

The 4th paragraph of the solicitation says "The total fee for the contract term shall not exceed $5,000,000." Section 2.4 says, "The magnitude of this acquisition is anticipated to be between $25,000 and $300,000 annually."

These two dollar figures appear to be significantly different. Could you please explain which is more accurate.

The notice was corrected Mar 21, 2017 to read, “The total fee for the contract term shall not exceed $1,500,000.”

3 Is there an equivalent contract for NA&ME services in the Gulf of Mexico region?

No.

4 Is it possible for you to provide some examples of task orders that were executed under the previous contract?

Two examples of Statements of Work for task orders follow these responses; however, it is not possible to describe requirements that may arise during the period of performance.

Examples of Task Order Statements of Work under Prior Contract:

EXAMPLE 1

Evaluation of Berthing at Castine, ME for S/S WRIGHT (T‐AVB‐3)

STATEMENT OF WORK

1. Background:

The upcoming yard availability period for the TS State of Maine impacts the Maine Maritime Academy (MeMA) cadet training programs. To mitigate the impact the Maritime Administration is investigating whether MeMA‘s berthing location is feasible for the WRIGHT, allowing the Academy to use the WRIGHT as a replacement ship.

2. Scope:

Can the SS WRIGHT (T‐AVB 3) can be docked at the Maine Maritime Academy pier?

3. Tasks:

a. Analysis if the SS WRIGHT can be docked at the Maine Maritime Academy pier?

Given:

• 600 to 800 amps shore power available on the pier

• No sewer connection

• Fresh water on the pier

• WRIGHT will need Shore Steam made available if temporarily relocated to MeMA at Castine, ME.

(Note: We have the Shore Boiler at WRIGHT’s Philadelphia berth for this requirement. It may be possible to load the containerized Boiler components on the deck, but vessel will require accessible Shore Steam.)

b. Diagram for WRIGHT to dock at the Maine Maritime Academy Pier (similar to the 2015 project to dock the WRIGHT at 23rd St pier in N. News, VA)

4. Deliverables:

Provide the answers/results in a document and/or drawings electronically.

5. Government Furnished Items / Information:

a. SS Wright mooring at 23rd street (2015)

b. TS SOM Heavy Weather Mooring (2013)

c. TS SOM Mooring Arrangement (2015)

6. Other information provided:

7. Contractor Furnished Items:

Labor, supervision, material, and equipment necessary to perform the analytical/technical support service listed above.

EXAMPLE 2

FS‐209 Alteration Design to Support 77‐Ton Telescoping Crawler Crane

STATEMENT OF WORK

1. General:

1.1. The work required consists of engineering and stability study, design modifications, and recommendations for the MULBERRY ISLAND (aka, ROS) FS‐209 to meet the concept of design and future operations below. The Contractor will produce biddable specifications for the modifications and stability calculations for the redesigned vessel.

1.2. The FS‐209 is a self‐propelled, twin screw, steel hull vessel with length overall ‐ 170'‐6” (hull), beam overall ‐ 42'‐8”, molded depth amidships ‐ 7'‐8” and a displacement of approximately 755 long tons light. It was acquired from the U. S. Army Corps or Engineer (USACE) through a government transfer in 2009. The vessel at that time had a 60 ton crane on a fixed pedestal mounted on the forward deck. The aft two‐thirds of the vessel is occupied by a deck house for crew accommodations and to house the machinery plant.

1.3. The vessel is used at the fleet to service moorings and handle items to be loaded/unloaded onto the ships in the anchorage. The small amount of deck space and the 110’ length of the crane boom make what little space was available on the forward deck unusable for carrying and lifting items, or servicing moorings. In order to provide adequate work area for crane operations, the boat had to work with a companion barge. This arrangement of boat and barge combination totaled over 270’ and with the large sail area of the deck house made it unwieldy when working in tight quarters alongside ships.

1.4. In the fall of 2010, the crane suffered a major casualty when the boom collapsed due the failure of the lifting pendants. The boom was destroyed outright, and after fractures were found in the frame of the crane cab and support structure, it too was determined to be beyond economical repair. There has been no working crane on the boat since that time.

2. Inspection of Plant by Prospective Bidders:

For information regarding the exact location of the plant and arrangements for inspection, contact Mr. Chris Hudgins James River Reserve Fleet Site Office, Fort Eustis, VA, and (757) 887‐3233 x 17.

3. Drawings:

The following drawings are part of these specifications and are referenced in work items. Items marked with an asterisk (*) shall be produced as deliverables with the modifications shown as a minimum. Other design details may be needed for other proposed modifications and shall be provided separately as needed. (Drawing list omitted for brevity)

4. Concept of Redesign and Future Operations. The successful redesign of the vessel will provide for the following considerations and include three (3) sets of drawings of each:

4.1. The vessel will be redesigned to remove (unneeded) portions of the deck house and set the forward edge of pilot/deck house from its present location back approximately 60 feet such that the forward edge is even with the location of the present machine shop and laundry spaces that are now just forward of the engine room. The pilot house shall be lowered from its present location on the 02+ deck to the 01 deck forward of the stacks. For design purposes, it is desirable to reutilize as much of the existing structure in the redesign as possible to reduce material costs during modification. The overall effect of the change would be to reduce the sail area and increase the usable deck space forward.

4.2. The deck must be reinforced to support the weight of a Mantis Cranes Model 15010 77 Ton Telescopic Boom Crawler Crane. The design shall include recommendation for a bed for the crane to rest upon and tie down arrangements for the crane.

4.3. The weather deck areas forward of the deck house need to be modified to remove the gooseneck vents, raised hatches, and other obstructions (except deck fittings such as cleats) to allow for a smooth work area.

4.4. A cross‐deck winch system will be designed based on the conceptual drawing provided to allow for anchor mooring to be retrieved. The overall goal of this system to keep people out of dangerous areas when working the moorings. This includes cross deck winch (25 ton pull) minimizing the need for overhead lifts with the crane and use of mechanical appliances (such as the Smith‐Berger 200‐ton Model Shark Jaws) to minimize the amount of exposure that the deck crew has to chain under a load.

4.5. Design shall include a bow thruster, power source, and pilot house control along with mechanical drawings to be used by a shipyard for installation.

4.6. The final design shall be evaluated for stability. The redesign shall take into account the changes in weight and center of gravity created by the reconfiguration. Specific calculations shall be included in a stability book to be used when the crane is on the vessel and being used to make lifts.