EBC_BQ_Answer_Q2.pdf

GENERAL DYNAMICS

Electric Boat

REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Name of Offeror: Electric Boat Corporation Date: December 23, 2014

NAVSEA Contract No.: N00024-15-R-4300 Question No.: 2

Ship(s): SSN 765 IDD and 762 EOH

Solicitation Related: N/A

Section Letter: Page No.:

AWP Related Yes

SWLIN No.: Various Title: Ship Safety for Fire Prevention and Response

Section/Paragraph No.: Various

Question:

Reference: (a) Industry Day for USS MONTPELIER (SSN765) FY16 Interim Drydocking (IDD) and USS COLUMBUS (SSN762) FY17

Engineered Overhaul (EOH); Industry Day Questions and Answers

(b) NAVSEA Technical Publication S0570-AC-CCM-010/8010, Industrial Ship Safety Manual for Fire Prevention and

Response

Background: The response to question 29 of Reference (a) addresses the implementation of Reference (b) in support of the USS

MONTPELIER and USS COLUMBUS depot availabilities. In the response, the Navy acknowledges that it would be cost prohibitive for the shipbuilders to implement Reference (b) in its entirety for one submarine. The response goes on to state that NAVSEA will request “… that each shipyard provide a proposal via the Exceptions and Clarifications outlining how the shipyard plans to implement the 8010 program. That proposal will be technically evaluated by NAVSEA 04, PMS 392, and TYCOM for its adequacy in implementing the program.”

Discussion: The 8010 program is comprehensive and represents a major change in shipboard fire safety during industrial work. The

“COMMANDER’S GUIDANCE” of Reference (b) recognizes that “thoughtful consideration” must be given in determining how to apply the requirements for each availability. For the private sector in particular, the process of determining the extent of, and how to implement the requirements of Reference (b) would be interactive involving the shipbuilder and their respective Supervisors of Shipbuilding (SOS). Based on the conclusion of the respective SOS-Shipbuilder engagement, the acceptable actions (and cost) to implement 8010 could be very different between the two shipbuilders for the same Availability Work Package (AWP).

Question: The wording of the response to question 29 suggests that the shipbuilder’s intended program to implement 8010 will be used in determining the acceptability of the shipbuilder’s Technical Proposal and, presumably its cost would be included in determining the resulting award.

1. Given that the interactive engagement needed to determine the extent of, and how to implement the requirements of Reference (b), would not likely take place until after contract award, would it be acceptable for the bidders to provide, for information, a proposed implementation plan (the starting point for SOS-Shipbuilder engagement) and cost, neither of which would be used as part of the selection criteria?

2. If it is not possible to exclude the initially proposed 8010 implementation plan and cost from the contract selection criteria, request that the

Government define, in detail, the elements of 8010 that must be priced.

DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE ---- (SPACE BELOW FOR GOV'T USE ONLY)

Answer:

For proposal purposes, use all current, contractually invoked requirements that are predecessors or equivalent to NAVSEA Technical Publication S0570-AC-CCM-010/8010.

Offeror recommended 8010 requirements unique to each shipyard should be included in clarifications. These will not be used as technical justification for disqualification on any bid.