Industry_Day_Question_and_Responses_Final_18Mar14.pdf

Surface Ship Maintenance, Repair & Modernization Contracting Strategy

Industry Day Brief Questions and Answers

5 February 2014

1. Is there a list of current MSMO contracts available?

Answer: A list of current MSMO contracts was provided in the Sources Sought notification released on 2/20/14 on FedBizOpps under solicitation N00024-14-R-4400.

2. During the roll-out of San Diego MAC-MO pilot, the amended industry notice offered that the San Diego MAC-MO would be a pilot project, with the potential (“if successful”) to expand on a nation-wide basis (and presumed to be a replacement for the current maintenance POR, “MSMO”). Given that the USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE SRA just started, what are the specific measures of effectiveness to draw meaningful conclusions as to whether or not this particular MAC-MO has been successful, or is more effective relative to MSMO?

Answer: The Navy has reaped lessons learned from MSMO Spiral I, MSMO spiral II, and the USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE and USS PORTER availabilities. Many of these lessons involve procurement sensitive and in some cases proprietary data for those companies involved which prevents the Navy from sharing with industry. One important lesson learned that provided the Navy with a meaningful measure of effectiveness from these evolved strategies is the increase in competition. During our phased roll out, the Navy will continue to iteratively gain and incorporate lessons learned to continuously improve our acquisition strategy.

3. In addition to “leveraging knowledge gained” from MSMO Spiral I/II and the MAC-MO pilot, the Navy has indicated that the knowledge gained from the USS PORTER fixed price competition has also been considered in the implementation of MAC-MO contract strategies. What specific data and/or knowledge resulting from the USS PORTER EDSRA fixed price competition was gained and considered that has led the Navy to this “contemplated” contracting strategy?

Answer: See the answer to question #2.

4. Slide 5 of the Industry Day brief makes reference to “Increasing Contractor Accountability”.

What part of MSMO contractors’ performance is not currently meeting contract requirements, and what part of current contractor performance lacks accountability? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The Navy’s intent was not to imply the contractor did not consistently meet contractual requirements or performance objectives. Accordingly, based on lessons learned mentioned in answers to questions #2 and #3, the Navy believes we can improve and further incentivize quality, schedule and cost performance with the contemplated acquisition strategy.

5. Slide 5 of the Industry Day brief makes reference to “Maintain Industrial base”. What is the Navy’s capabilities and response expectation for a ship repair industrial base, and how does the contemplated contract strategy better facilitate this desired end-state than the MSMO? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The anticipated single award IDIQ contracts for CNO availabilities of less than 6 months or greater than 6 months in duration will provide a predictable workload and enhance Contractor/Government relationships for up to 5 years. This construct should continue to encourage investment in facilities and work force within the private sector. Furthermore, the contemplated strategy for multiple award IDIQ contracts for Continuous Maintenance Requirements and CNO availabilities for ship classes with a low volume of work is expected to increase small business participation and prime contracting opportunities which will increase the overall capabilities of the ship repair industrial base.

6. Please provide more “Contract Type” clarity and definition on the CNO availabilities greater than or less than 6 months. (e.g. “FP (~ 50%)/CP Hybrid*”). Specifically, how will the Navy evaluate proposals for, task and administer Fixed Priced repeatable work items combined with cost elements in a CNO availability?

Answer: Additional clarity on the intended contract strategy is provided in answer to question #80. The evaluation of offers will be in accordance with sections L & M of upcoming solicitations.

7. The USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE SRA is being executed under the MACMO Pilot. The Industry Day brief indicated that under the “contemplated” contracting strategy MACMOs will only include CMAVs. Please clarify that under the “contemplated” contracting strategy, SRAs will be executed under the “CNO < 6 months” requirement, and not the CMAV MACMO.

Answer: Under the “contemplated” contracting strategy, the scope of Multiple Award IDIQ MAC-MO contracts will include the Emergent and Continuous Maintenance requirements (EM, CM and WOOs) for all ship classes. The scope of the MAC-MO contracts will also include CNO Availabilities for ship classes with a low volume of work in the given homeport. This includes the Amphibious ships (the LHA/LHD, LSD and LPD17 classes) in San Diego, CA, Norfolk, VA & Mayport, FL, and Surface Combatants (DDGs and CGs) in Mayport, FL & Everett, WA.

8. The FAR is generally neutral regarding mixing cost-plus and fixed-price CLINs on a single, concurrently-executed contract, but past experience has revealed difficulties in government oversight of such contracts and CLINs. What advice or opinions has been provided by DCAA regarding the feasibility of such an arrangement?

Answer: The Navy will follow the appropriate regulatory guidance to ensure the feasibility and proper oversight of the contemplated contract strategy.

9. Please explain potential consolidations of ship classes under “contemplated” contract strategy?

i.e., will there be a single contract package IDIQ for DDGs in Norfolk, or will the Navy combine CGs and DDGs under a single contract package IDIQ in Norfolk?

Answer: The Navy intends to competitively award two (2) Single Award IDIQ contracts for DDG and CG CNO Availabilities less than six (6) months in San Diego and two (2) in Norfolk (a total of Four (4) ): one in each homeport for DDG and CG Docking CNO Availabilities and one in each homeport for DDG and CG Non-Docking CNO availabilities. Furthermore, the Navy intends to competitively award one Single Award IDIQ contracts on each coast to complete DDG Modernization CNO Availabilities with durations greater than 6 months.

10. Can one contractor win awards in each of the requirements categories (EM, CMAV, CNO < 6 months; CNO > 6 months), or will there be restrictions on the number of contracts that can be won?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of performing acquisition planning and has not yet finalized whether there will be any restrictions on the number of Single Award IDIQ contracts that can be won.

The Navy does not expect to limit Contractor's ability to compete for and win both a Single Award IDIQ contract and a Multiple Award IDIQ contract (for the same ships). The Navy is in the process of completing market research in order to assess contractor interest and capability in performing the Navy’s requirements. Decisions on small business set asides, small business subcontracting requirements, or contract award restrictions will be made once this research is complete.

11. How does the Navy plan to manage and administer separate but concurrently executed contracts with potentially multiple prime contractors, e.g. CMAVs and CNO availabilities?

Answer: The Navy will review its organization structure to ensure proper alignment to manage and administer concurrently executed contracts.

12. Specifically, how does the Navy intend to promote competition to the maximum extent possible? Certain “increased competition” scenarios will actually increase overhead and G&A rates for fully-facilitized shipyards, diminishing the purchasing power of the Navy for major maintenance periods. How did the Navy’s cost-benefit analysis account for this cost escalation, and has it been accounted for in the program requirements? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: As contemplated in the Better Buying Power 2.0, "Real competition is the single most powerful tool available to the Department to drive productivity." The Navy's requirements are being consolidated differently in the proposed strategy (e.g. Single Award IDIQ, Coast Wide Single Award IDIQ, MAC-MO, etc…) but in total the requirements are the same. The Navy anticipates efficiencies will be realized with 3rd Party Planning that could in fact free up funding to apply to the Navy's maintenance backlog and invest in Expected Service Life (ESL) maintenance to realize the full potential of fleet assets. Under the contemplated strategy, the Navy is leveraging the investment made over the past decade where industry partners have performed under cost reimbursable vehicles while the Navy has refined and collected data to better define requirements. The Navy anticipates that our industry partners who have excelled and refined their skills are now enabled to perform and accept cost risk in execution where efficiencies can be fully realized by our industry partners in direct and indirect costs while also affording greater fee opportunities when these efficiencies are found.

13. The existence of MSMOs (a long-term contractual view) enabled the industry to work collaboratively to de-conflict facility plans, and provide the Navy access to needed facilities (piers and dry-docks) at virtually any time. Examples include optimal use of dry-docks to support the large volume of CG, LSD, & DDG Mid-life availabilities, as well as emergent dry-dockings of several ships. How does the Navy intend to manage industrial waterfront facility access absent long-term contracts? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The Navy does not intend to manage the contractors' privately owned resources. The Navy anticipates that contractors will self-regulate the use of such facilities to ensure access and competition.

14. The “contemplated” contracting strategy will eliminate standing resource sharing agreements (RSAs) that have permitted flexibility in access to shipyard facilities across regional waterfronts.

Given this new constraint, what was the result of the Navy’s analysis of dry-dock availability and accessibility in specific homeports (2015-19), and how did Navy factor into this analysis shipyard intention for MSC, MARAD and commercial work not under the scope of this “contemplated” contract strategy? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: No part of the Navy's strategy requires industry to cancel or not enter into resource sharing or teaming agreements to enable collaboration to respond to the Navy's requirements. Therefore, this is not seen as a constraint imposed by the Navy but rather a strategic decision made by industry. The Navy anticipates that the industrial base will continue to team and share resources in order to maximize facility utilization and competition. For those requirements that rely heavily upon industrial pier and dry-docking requirements, the Navy is contemplating single award IDIQs to allow the industrial base to plan a strategic usage of these limited assets.

15. The “contemplated” contract strategy will eliminate standing resource sharing agreements that have permitted flexibility in shifting production resources across regional waterfronts to meet work load demands. This ability to shift production personnel to sub-contractor tasking positions kept the work force active, and provided a predictable work volume. The predictable work volume insulated overhead and G&A burdens from large variations, allowing the customers to have predictable rate structures and cost outcomes. Given the absence of this buffering mechanism, what was the result of the Navy’s cost-benefit analysis under the “contemplated” contracting strategy with respect to rate variation due to loss of resource sharing agreements?

Answer: The Navy anticipates that contractors will maintain and update resource sharing agreements that have permitted flexibility in shifting production resources across regional waterfronts to meet work load demands. Also, see the answer to question #14.

16. Under the capped rate structure of MSMO, Navy bore no risk for increases in overhead and G&A elements such as health care costs, real estate tax increases, utility rate increases, risk and liability insurance premiums, etc. Assuming the “contemplated” contract strategy Fixed-Price IDIQ contracts span a number of years (5?), would Navy entertain FAR 16.203 or 16.205 to provide equitable protection to the contractor for market pricing conditions beyond the control of the contractor?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of planning the solicitations and will consider both FAR 16.203 and

16.205 as a mechanism to provide equitable protection to the contractor for market pricing conditions beyond the control of the contractor.

17. In the Navy’s Total Maintenance Program cost analysis (both govt. and contract cost elements) for the “contemplated” contract strategy, what was the impact of:

a. Shifting specification planning from scalable MSMO management of the effort to a separate, standing, non-scalable third-party effort?

b. Tailoring class-standard work templates to RMC-specific local requirements and mandates?

c. The additional costs required for adjudicating, processing and disposing of REAs and claims that often take years to resolve, and involve multiple federal agencies?

d. The additional costs required by the Navy to staff-up to respond to numerous solicitation inquiries, issue addendums and errata(s)?

e. The increased level of Shipbuilding Specialist (SBS) oversight required for administration of fixed-price CNO availabilities?

f. The “foreseeable costs” associated with CNO availabilities executed outside of homeport:

project team TADTAR, crew TADTAR, ship operating costs associated with the transit to the out-of-homeport site. See Comment Sheet.

Answer:

(a) The Navy expects the short term cost impact of transitioning to an independent 3rd Party Planning construct to be neutral, with a reduction in total planning costs over the long term. Limited capacity exists across fleet concentration areas for the Navy to develop planning products. There is no expectation that the cost of planning effort will increase at the outset of the transition. The centralized approach to planning at the ship class level promotes cost efficiencies through reducing private sector management infrastructure to a single entity, consistent standardization and reuse and consistent numbering of specifications for maintenance requirements that are common among assigned ship classes, and continuous quality improvement of standard specifications based on feedback after availability execution. When tasked, the 3rd Party Planning activity will be required to provide resources in each homeport area to assist in the assessment of system/equipment material condition, conduct planning ship checks, and locally develop specifications for maintenance requirements that have truncated planning timelines. The Navy expects that both centralized and local resources will be continually scaled to meet the variable planning requirements across home ports in a more cost efficient manner when compared to the existing regional planning approach.

(b) Per the Joint Fleet Maintenance Manual, Volume VII, Chapter 4, the use of Master Specification Catalog templates shall be maximized during work specification development. The Navy intends to proactively promote the reuse of templates for repetitive maintenance and modernization requirements at the ship class level, while minimizing content deviation and invocation of local work templates during the planning process. Changes to incorporate RMC local requirements into class standard work templates will be validated by the Master Specification Catalog Management Office and incorporated for future use.

(c) The Navy's contracting strategy is informed by the fidelity of requirements and is not dictated by costs associated with REA administration. The Navy is committed to investing in a well-defined contractual relationship with industry partners where success under FFP contracts is possible and REAs are limited.

(d) The Navy's intent is to leverage the investment made with our MSMO contractors over the last decade in drafting work specs and to further refine such specs with a 3rd Party Planner under NAVSEA leadership. The Navy will strive to ensure solicitations and specifications are sound prior to solicitation release but welcomes feedback through bidders questions from industry partners.

(e) The Navy anticipates a shift in resources to allow for SBS oversight as the need for detailed TAR and negotiation support is reduced.

(f) The Navy will continue to comply with the Homeport Statute and will calculate foreseeable costs in accordance with the 08 Feb 2000 memo signed by CAPT Jaggard titled “REVISION 1 TO THE SCHEDULE OF FORESEEABLE COSTS FOR DETERMINATION OF INTERPORT DIFFERENTIALS” or current policies if superseded.

18. Using contract growth cost returns from ship departure reports for fixed-price availabilities prior to MSMO (<2005), what was the result of the Navy’s cost impact study for projected execution risk associated with defective third-party specifications? How has this risk been priced and programmed for in 1B4B execution requirements? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: No definitive cost impact study was completed to determine the execution risk associated with defective 3rd Party specifications. However, the Technical Foundation Papers that were developed to define the surface ship notional 1B4B maintenance execution requirements utilized historically incurred cost data. This historical cost data reflected the quality of planning products used to execute maintenance using both cost plus and fixed price contracting environments. The Navy feels that the current 1B4B notional requirements are adequate to support a transition to an independent 3rd Party Planning construct.

19. What level of configuration accuracy can availability contractors expect in technical products provided by the third-party engineering activity? Will these products be ship-checked and certified accurate for bidding or delivery order purposes?

Answer: The configuration of any equipment/system planned for repair is defined in the Ship Configuration and Logistic Support Information System (SCLSIS). SCLSIS is NAVSEA’s equipment accounting system and provides a single, standard source of accurate ship configuration data. Validation of configuration data is the responsibility of Type Commander Port Engineer prior to screening any depot level automated work request to a planning activity. In addition to this initial validation, the Navy intends to ensure the third party planning activity confirms that the configuration data matches the information in the SCLSIS database and conducts ship checks when appropriate to resolve any ambiguities associated with configuration data prior to developing the planning product.

20. How does the Navy plan to share competition-sensitive cost history and rate data of existing MSMO contractors (accumulated over the last 13+ years) with a third-party engineering company, while still protecting MSMO contractor data from improper data release or spillage?

With well-publicized breaches of business information systems nation-wide, how will the Navy protect this data from any loss, corruption or misuse of MSMO proprietary/competition-sensitive data in the hands of a third-party contractor? To what extent does this data get shared and distributed within and amongst Navy contractors?

Answer: The Navy is still developing a strategy to protect proprietary/competition sensitive information from access by the 3rd Party Planning contractor.

21. Will IDIQ delivery orders require individual technical/non-price proposals, as with the San Diego MAC-MO (USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE SRA) and BIG BLUE contracts? If “yes”, why would this be necessary if the awardee already provided sufficient technical data (in proposal) to be an awardee in the first instance? Proposal development costs money, which eventually is paid for by the Navy. See Comment Sheet.

Answer: It is the Navy's intent, that to the greatest practical extent, MAC-MO basic contract holders will be pre-qualified as part of the competitive solicitation process to award the MAC basic contracts, to complete some or all of the EM, CM and CNO Availability requirements expected to be completed under MAC-MO Delivery Orders. Accordingly, Individual contractors may not be pre-qualified to perform all work under the MAC basic contracts. Contractors may be pre-qualified to perform CMAVs but not CNO Avails, low dollar value CNO Avails but not high dollar value CNO Avails, or Non-Docking Avails but not Docking Avails. However, as with the San Diego MAC-MO (USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE SRA) Delivery Order solicitation, the Navy may request technical proposals in order to ensure the contractor understands and has the capability to perform the requirements of individual Delivery Orders.

22. What will the award-to-start date intervals be for CMAVs, SRAs, DSRAs, EDSRAs, etc.? Will this cause the Navy to revise long-lead time duration ordering responsibilities?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of determining the appropriate planning, solicitation and award-to-start date intervals for CMAVs, SRAs, DSRAs, EDSRAs etc. under the Single Award and Multiple Award IDIQ contracts. Furthermore, the Navy currently intends to include long lead time material (LLTM) ordering and storage in the 3rd Party Planning solicitation's statement of work. Individual technical instructions released under the 3rd Party Planning contracts will tailor the LLTM procurement, storage, and transportation requirements based on the specific Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) capabilities and requirements.

23. What is the target date to award and fund CMAV Work in order to allow enough time for the contractor to respond with resources on the deck plates etc…? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of determining the appropriate award-to-start date intervals for CMAVs, SRAs, DSRAs, EDSRAs, etc.

24. What size limit will be associated with CMAVs or Super CMAVs? Some MSMO CMAVs have been large and protracted projects (>>$10M, >>3 months) involving integrated repairs and alterations across complex weapons systems, communications, HM&E, habitability and safety systems, effectively growing into CNO-level availabilities (SRAs/PMAs). Accordingly, in evaluating offerors for multiple awards on these opportunities, will Navy also evaluate the managerial capabilities required to execute availabilities of such complexity? If yes, what will be the required capability standards and past performance criteria? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: It is the Navy's intent that to the greatest extent practical MAC-MO contract holders will be pre-qualified, as part of the competitive solicitation process to award the MAC basic contracts, to complete some or all of the EM, CM and CNO Availability requirements expected to be completed under MAC-MO Delivery Orders. Accordingly, individual contractors may not be pre-qualified to perform all work under the MAC. Contractors may be pre-qualified to perform CMAVs but not Super-CMAVs or CNO Avails, low dollar value CNO Avails but not high dollar value CNO Avails, or Non-Docking Avails but not Docking Avails.

However, as with the San Diego MAC-MO (USS WILLIAM P LAWRENCE SRA) Delivery Order solicitation, the Government may request technical proposals in order to ensure the contractor understands and has the capability to perform the requirements of individual Delivery Orders.

25. In light of the reduction of shipboard (O-level) maintenance capacity (2002-2011), Type, Group, and Squadron Commanders and commanding officers have commented that the “window of opportunity” (WOO) availabilities provide an important and essential maintenance capability in support mission readiness. How does the “contemplated” contracting strategy address this warfighter need? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The Navy intends to compete WOOs under the MAC-MO contracts whenever time allows for competition. In the event sufficient time is not available, the MAC basic contracts will have terms and conditions that will allow for sole source orders. Also, see the answer to question #50.

26. What experience requirements will be required to perform as a prime contractor executing an SRA or PMA?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of determining the appropriate experience requirements that will be required to perform as a prime contractor executing a Selected Restricted Availability (SRA) or Phased Maintenance Availability (PMA). The requirements will be stated in the individual contract and Delivery Order solicitations. However, in accordance with FAR Part 11, "the Navy will promote full and open competition with due regard to the nature of the supplies or services to be acquired; and only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law". Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate including experience, facility or other resource criteria requirements in the solicitation/s unless they are deemed essential for successful accomplishment of the Navy's ship maintenance, repair and modernization requirements.

27. What will be the facility requirements for an SRA or PMA?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of determining the appropriate facilities requirements that will be required to perform as a prime contractor executing an SRA or PMA. The requirements will be stated in the Individual contract and Delivery order solicitations. However, in accordance with FAR Part 11, "the Navy will promote full and open competition with due regard to the nature of the supplies or services to be acquired; and only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law". Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate including experience, facility or other resource criteria requirements in the solicitation/s unless they are deemed essential for successful accomplishment of the Navy's ship maintenance, repair and modernization requirements.

28. Will there be a defined small business requirement for each contracted requirement package?

If yes, what percentage level would be required?

Answer: The Navy is in the process of completing market research in order to assess Contractor interest and capability in performing the Navy's requirements. Decisions on small business set asides or small business subcontracting requirements will be made once this research is complete.

29. Industry recognizes that certain availability execution milestones are essential to restoring the ship to operational status (Crew Move Aboard, ALO, PCD, etc.), but other production-oriented milestones (e.g. tank gas-freeing, tank close-outs, drydocking) are less essential, and should be left to the discretion of the lead maintenance activity. In the “contemplated” contracting strategy, will the Navy consider adopting such an approach to milestone specification, in keeping with the Navy’s Industry Day message on affordability and efficiency? See Comment Sheet.

Answer: Yes, the Navy will always consider tailoring production oriented milestones based on the package to be awarded, based on the discretion of the Naval Supervising Authority.

30. Will solicitations for fixed priced MAC-MO contracts include a requirement for responsive bidders to have access to contractor facilities (piers and docks)?

Answer: The Navy is still in the process of determining the appropriate facility requirements that will be required for a MAC-MO award. The requirements will be stated in the MAC-MO solicitations. However, in accordance with FAR Part 11, "the Navy will promote full and open competition with due regard to the nature of the supplies or services to be acquired; and only include restrictive provisions or conditions to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law". Therefore, the Navy does not anticipate including experience, facility or other resource criteria requirements in the solicitation/s unless they are deemed essential for successful accomplishment of the Navy's ship maintenance, repair and modernization requirements.

31. Due to the demonstrated complexity and challenges associated with structural Aluminum material sampling, 5XXX welding and repairs, will this work be assigned to the cost-plus portion of CNO availabilities (>6 or < 6 months)?

Answer: The Navy intends to maximize the use of firm fixed price contracting vehicles when the technical scope of repairs can be accurately determined during the planning process. The complexity of defining the boundaries of sensitized aluminum involved in CG 47 class superstructure repairs is an area of particular risk that may prevent adequate scope definition prior to execution. As part of acquisition planning process, the Navy is researching the historical population of completed sensitized aluminum repairs to determine the suitability of including this type of maintenance in both Single Award IDIQ solicitation repair schedules and individual FFP solicitations under the MAC-MO contracting vehicle.

32. How will Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) documentation before or after completion of work be managed under the “contemplated” contract strategy?

Answer: Objective Quality Evidence (OQE) will be managed the same way it is today. Additional guidance, if required, will come from the NSA during the acquisition process for individual work items.

33. Will the third-party engineering agent develop and provide Process Control Procedures (PCP)/Enhanced PCP (EPCP) processing as part of the specification package?

Answer: At this time, the Navy does not intend for the 3rd Party Planner to provide Process Control Procedures (PCP)/Enhanced PCP (EPCP) processing as part of the specification package.

34. When and what procurement and solicitation milestones can industry anticipate for CY14 follow-on Norfolk maintenance contracts?

Answer: The Navy is currently in process of determining its procurement and solicitation milestones as part of the acquisition planning process for the evolved strategy.

35. Given the many uncertainties and questions associated with the “contemplated” contracting strategy as presented at the 05 February 2014 Industry Day brief, it is requested that the Navy provide answers to all Surface Ship Maintenance, Repair & Modernization Contracting Strategy Industry Day questions so that industry can be more responsive during solicitations. It is also requested that the Navy provide draft Solicitations, inclusive of Section L and M requirements, to provide more insight to industry, and to gain more meaningful and specific industry feedback.

See Comment Sheet.

Answer: The Navy appreciates Industry's uncertainties and questions associated with the “contemplated” contracting strategy as presented at the 05 February 2014 Industry Day brief. Therefore, the Navy intends to answer all of Industry's questions to the maximum extent possible.

Furthermore, in order to gain additional Industry feedback, the Navy intends to release draft solicitations to the maximum extent possible. However, in accordance with NAVSEA's source selection guide, the release of evaluation factors for award is discouraged. Therefore, at this time, the Navy only intends to release Sections L and M with a final RFP.

36. Given the substantial changes, complexities and nuances of this “contemplated” contracting strategy, will the Navy consider a 60-day period from issuance of RFP to the proposal due date?

Answer: The Navy will consider the substantial changes, complexities and nuances of this “contemplated” contracting strategy when determining the appropriate number of days to provide Contractors in our RFPs to develop their proposals and when considering any proposal due date extension requests.

37. Can a list of Industry Day attendees be made available?

Answer: Yes, a list has been made available directly to Industry Day attendees.

38. Is it the government’s intention to solicit for multiple 3rd Party Planning contracts or a single award supporting all surface ship planning?

Answer: A Sources Sought notification providing the acquisition strategy for 3rd Party Planning was released on FedBizOpps on 20 Feb 14 under solicitation number N00024-14-R-4400.

39. If there are multiple solicitations, is the intention to solicit by individual RMC, by ship class, or other strategy?

Answer: See the answer to question #38.

40. Has the Government considered how it will approach any potential organizational conflicts of interests that might arise from the use of a third party planner in performance of the Surface Ship Maintenance, Repair & Modernization Contract Strategy requirements presented at Industry Day? Does the Government anticipate instituting any express limitations on future contracting or any other OCI-related restrictions such as preclusion of vendors from bidding and/or performing on 3rd party planning requirements while also bidding and/or performing in PEO or Headquarters level, MAC-MO, or MSMO solicitations?

a. If the Government is contemplating such restrictions, could the Government provide further details regarding what limitation of future contracting restrictions are contemplated on the successful offerors? For example, would limitation of future contracting restrictions be applicable at:

i. The base IDIQ level?

ii. Only where the successful offeror supports a specific planning effort which relates to specific PEO or Headquarters, MAC-MO, and MSMO solicitations?

Answer: The Navy is considering the inclusion of language in the 3rd Party Planning RFP that clearly conveys our preference for the 3rd Party Planner to be a separate entity than primes completing execution work. Execution work includes current MSMO primes and primes competing for evolution strategy prime opportunities for a given ship class. Separate corporate entity could be achieved by separate business units or organizationally separate parts of the same parent company that are separate profit centers. Any subcontracting opportunities may remain available but subject to OCI and proper mitigation plans.

41. How will upcoming East Coast MAC-MO RFPs be grouped in scope (e.g., by ship type, by ship class, Docker/Non-Docker separated, etc.)?

Answer: The Navy intends to competitively award two (2) Single Award IDIQ contracts to complete DDG & CG Docking and DDG & CG Non-Docking CNO Availabilities with durations less than 6 months in both San Diego and Norfolk. Furthermore, the Navy intends to competitively award one (1) Single Award IDIQ contract on each coast to complete DDG Modernization CNO Availabilities with durations greater than 6 months. Also, see the answer to question #9.

42. Can the Government provide a schedule of RFPs to be released over the next 12-18 months, for planning purposes?

Answer: The Navy intends to release solicitations in support of 3rd Party Planning efforts in a phased approach. The CG 47/DDG 51 RFP is intended to be released in July 2014 followed by the LPD 17/LSD 41/49 RFP in November 2014 and finally the LHD/LHA RFP in December 2014. There will be several RFPs for execution requirements released by the end of CY14 to support requirements in Norfolk as well as Mayport. These schedules are currently being refined and notifications will be provided via FedBizOpps.

Also, see answer to questions #35 and #44.

43. The East Coast LSD MSMO contract expires in the near term, but it was not included on the Industry Day list of Near Term Contract Requirements (slide #4). Does the Government plan to include LSDs in MAC-MO?

Answer: Yes, the Navy intends to include LSDs in the MAC-MO.

44. When does the Government project the release of the first East Coast MAC-MO, and what ships will it include?

Answer: The first East Coast MAC-MO solicitation the Navy intends to release is the Mayport MAC-MO solicitation which will be released no later than late summer 2014. The Mayport MAC-MO solicitation will include scope to complete CNO Availabilities and Emergent & Continuous Maintenance on DDGs, CGs, ships included in the ARG, and all surface combatants visiting the Mayport homeport.

45. How does the Government plan to fulfill Long Lead Time Material (LLTM) and pre-fabrication and staging requirements in a MAC-MO environment.

Answer: Execution durations associated with continuous maintenance and emergent maintenance typically preclude the requirement to prefabricate material. The MAC-MO environment supports these shorter duration maintenance periods. Prefabrication of material to support repair or modernization requirements is typically associated with CNO availability execution and is more compatible with the Single Award IDIQ contract vehicle. The 3rd Party Planning activity will be responsible for identification of all repair and modernization long lead time material requirements. Procurement, storage, and transportation of LLTM will be tailored to match Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) capabilities. The 3rd Party Planning activity will be responsible for procurement, storage, and transportation of LLTM in ports where the RMC does not have the capability or capacity to fulfill this requirement.

46. On the East Coast, who will write RCCs under MAC-MO?

Answer: The Navy intends to task the 3rd Party Planning activity to write Requests for Contract Changes (RCCs) during availability execution when local Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) lacks the organic capability and/or capacity.

47. Will Advance Planning milestones be the same under MAC-MO as under MSMO? How long will the execution contractor have between award and start of availability?

Answer: No, the Advance Planning Milestones will not be the same as the MSMO contracts. The intent is to have the planning products completed earlier to support contract solicitation and award. Contract award will vary depending on the type of the Availability. For example, Coast-wide competitions are expected to be awarded well in advance of the Availability start to support a potential homeport shift.

48. How will the Government manage “program material” over the end-to-end term of a MAC-MO contract?

Answer: The Navy will continue to manage “Program Material” that is designated as Government Furnished Material via the Planning Yard or via the 3rd Party Planner. Material designated Contractor Furnished Material will be managed by the availability execution Contractor.

49. What is expected to be the term (duration) of the MAC-MO contract(s)?

Answer: The Navy is currently contemplating a five (5) year period of performance for the MAC-MO contracts.

50. How will the Government broker Emergent Maintenance (EM) work in a MAC-MO environment?

Answer: The Navy intends to solicit and award emergent and continuous maintenance (including Windows of Opportunity) using a similar process as the one described in Section H clause entitled "DELIVERY ORDER PROCESS" in the MAC-MO pilot solicitation (N00024-13-R-4408).

51. How does the Government anticipate contracting for Windows of Opportunity (WOOs)?

Answer: See the answer to question #50.

52. Will the same contractor performance standards and processes that are mandated under the MSMO model be required under MAC-MO (e.g., environmental compliance, safety, quality assurance, Test & Inspection Plans, required reports, work certification, EPCP development/review)?

Answer: The same performance standards and processes stipulated by the Navy today will be required under the MAC-MO and Single Award IDIQ contracting vehicles.

53. How many 3rd Party Planning contracts does the Government anticipate awarding, and when?

Answer: See the answer to question #38.

54. Will 3rd Party Planning contract be nation-wide contracts or awarded separately by port (i.e., RMC), ship type/class or coast? Will the 3rd Party Planning contractor(s) be required to have staff located in all homeports?

Answer: See answer to question #38.

55. What, if any, differences does the Government anticipate between the West Coast MAC-MO pilot solicitation and the upcoming East Coast MAC-MO solicitations?

Answer: The upcoming East Coast MAC-MO Solicitations will be similar to the West Coast MAC-MO Pilot.

The principle differences will be in terms of scope of ships included and amount of work contemplated.

For additional information concerning MAC-MO Solicitations, see the answer to question #80.

56. In the advent of MAC-MO and negotiated trade rates and material burden rates, will Forward Pricing Rate Agreements still apply?

Answer: Yes, FPRAs will still be relevant for cost reimbursable or sole source work performed by the prime for all DoD customers. For example, as MSMO contracts continue to be utilized until a logical transition to follow-on vehicles, FPRAs will continue to be utilized. Further, if other work is performed by the prime for other customers, like ship construction or repair during a PSA period, FPRAs may still be relevant and necessary. Contractors should work with their local RMCs to ensure timely submission of FPRAs in the future regardless of MAC-MO roll out.

57. Under MSMO, prime contractors are provided access to the Navy’s long-term maintenance/repair/modernization schedules, and in fact make effective use of such for manpower planning, forecasting rates, and facility investment planning. Will MAC-MO primes be afforded similar long-term scheduling information?

Answer: It is anticipated the Navy's long-term maintenance/repair/modernization schedules will be made available to the network of MAC holders. The Navy expects to create mechanisms where schedules and other typical information will be provided. These schedules will be considered notional and for planning purposes only until the appropriate budgets are passed to support them.

58. Will Inter-port Differentials be applied in coast-wide competitions?

Answer: Yes, inter-port differentials for foreseeable costs will be included in coast-wide competition. See the answer to question #17 (f).

59. Under MAC-MO, it seems logical that availability execution prime contractors will still require man-hours and funding for planning and program management and Inter-Availability Planning and Administration (IAPA). How will the Government allocate such funding under MAC-MO?

Answer: The Navy does not anticipate program management and IAPA to function exactly the same as it does under the MSMO contracts today. The Navy intends CMAV planning to be performed by the 3rd Party Planner. EM planning will either be performed by the 3rd Party Planner, the RMC or in instances by MAC-MO primes on a rotating basis for sole source orders when there is not sufficient time to run a delivery order competition. Program Management associated with execution should be charged direct in accordance with accounting principles. Program Management associated with business development or proposal preparation efforts should be charged indirect in accordance with accounting principles.

60. In a MAC-MO availability, who will generate and maintain the Master Integrated Schedule (MIS), complete with all third-party inputs (e.g., AITs, S/F, subcontractors, NNSY COE, design/planning yard)?

Answer: The Lead Maintenance Activity (LMA) is responsible for the Master Integrated Schedule as defined in NAVSEA Standard Item 009-60.

61. Under MAC-MO, who will write growth specifications and growth EPCPs?

Answer: Under MAC-MO, the Navy will task the 3rd Party Planning activity to write growth specifications when the local RMC lacks the organic capability and/or capacity. The Navy will write any growth EPCPs via the RMC or the LMA.

62. In slide #8 of the February 2014 Industry Day brief, the “Contract Strategy” column implies some distinction between “MAC-MO” and “Competitive Single Award IDIQ”. Does the Government intend to compete CNO availabilities exclusively among MAC-MO contract holders via competitively awarded delivery orders, or via some other competitively awarded contract vehicle?

Answer: See the answer to question #80.

63. In the MAC-MO construct, how will the contractor play in the IPTD/Lessons Learned/Hot Wash process?

Answer: Since Integrated Product Team Development (IPTD) events typically occur during the advanced planning and planning phases of the procurement cycle, it is not likely the MAC-MO contractors will participate in those events. It is anticipated the MAC-MO Contractors will be required to submit all information required to perform Lessons Learned and Hot Wash events.

64. Does the Government anticipate that any CMAV/CM/EM work will be Small Business Set- Asides?

Answer: See the answer to question #28.

65. Will LCS be handled under this “contract strategy” or will it remain separate?

Answer: At the present time, LCS ships are not expected to be included in the Navy's evolved ship repair contracting strategy.

66. Will Auxiliaries “MSC platforms” be pulled in to this “contract strategy”?

Answer: At the present time, Auxiliaries “MSC platforms” are not expected to be included in the Navy's evolved ship repair contracting strategy.

67. If you develop 4E compliant work specifications for repair and modernization … will you be allowed to perform the actual work, as is the case under the MSMO contracts?

Answer: See the answer to question #40.

68. Does the Government intend to issue a draft RFP/statement of work once it receives responses to the sources sought that the Government stated at Industry Day that it is planning to issue?

Answer: The Navy provided a draft Statement of Work (SOW) as part of the Sources Sought notice released in support of 3rd Party Planning contract strategy. Also, see the answer to questions #35 and #38.

69. Can the Government provide industry with the requirements that it anticipates for the Integrated Test Scheduling, including the software scheduling tool that will be required?

Answer: The 3rd Party Planning contract integrated test schedule deliverable will be limited to a summary of testing requirements contained in the planned work package or stand-alone work item associated with continuous maintenance/emergent repairs. The executing Lead Maintenance Activity is responsible for the Master Integrated Schedule as defined in NAVSEA Standard Item 009-67.

70. The Government has one or more contracts in place in which industry is providing subject matter experts to assist in the development of the requirements for the National Planning Activity statement of work. In some instances, employees of subcontractors have been required to sign Government (NAVSEA) initiated Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to prevent disclosure of information pertaining to this effort. Question: If an employee of a subcontractor is providing subject matter expertise in support of the statement of work or any other aspect of the RFP for the National Planning Activity, is the NDA and the subcontractor’s strict adherence to it, a sufficient measure to mitigate an organizational conflict of interest? Or, would the subcontractor be prohibited from bidding on the National Planning Activity RFP as either a prime or subcontractor?

Answer: The Navy is controlling access/input to the procurement sensitive documentation to include the SOW and is including proper markings to ensure appropriate access/handling. Any OCI would be adjudicated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contracts involved and our pending solicitations. Also, see the answer to question #40.

71. Does NAVSEA intend to implement the new contracting strategy as individual MSMO contracts expire or does NAVSEA intend to, instead, not exercise CLINs/options for existing MSMOs as it implements the new contracting strategy?

Answer: See the answer to question #81.

72. The brief discusses 3rd Party Planning contracts (page 11); " Number of contracts: Logically grouped by ship classes with small business opportunities". Question; Would/did the Gov't consider awarding these contracts, by port, to increase SBS opportunity and the responsiveness and agility of the overall planning process relative to local conditions/requirements?

Answer: See the answer to question #38.

73. Page 8 identifies contract strategy for both types of CNO Avails as “Competitive Single Award IDIQ”. Does this mean: That all ships of specific class will be awarded to one contractor or that each CNO avail will be competed as a separate IDIQ? If only one contractor will be awarded all ships in a class, will the IDIQ(s) be separated according to docking and non-docking or will one contractor get all availabilities, docking and non-docking? Breaking the IDIQ into docking and non-docking programs would provide more competition. The “Coast-Wide” comments for CNO> 6 months would seem to indicate a single-hull IDIQ since ships of several different classes would probably under-go availabilities longer than 6 months.

Answer: See the answer to question #80.

74. The presentation makes frequent mention of “small business opportunities.” Does the Government intend to provide any bidding opportunities to small businesses aside from the 40% small-business subcontracting requirement passed through the large shipyards? There are several small business ship repair firms who are capable of executing SRAs, CMAVs and EM availabilities. The current MAC-MO trial program limited competitors to fully-facilitized Contractors; all owned by major global corporations. These contractors represent the most expensive options for providing ship repair support precisely because of the large facilities they maintain and the corporate contributions that must be included in their overhead costs. Small, independent businesses with MSRA or ABR agreements offer the most cost-effective opportunities for meeting the Government’s financial goals.