J-9_Bidders_Questions_and_Answers_REV2.pdf

N00024-16-R-2207

T-ATS(X)

Questions and Answers REV2 February 26, 2016

1. Question: In Section C, second paragraph on page 6 of 69, it states, "Due to the nature of the scope of work for this effort, the Government requires that the successful Contractor have the demonstrated capability and facilities to construct the T-ATS(X) vessels; therefore, the resultant contract for this solicitation will only be awarded to a shipyard capable of constructing the T- ATS(X) vessels." Since this is not a vessel of length that Contractor have the demonstrated capability and facilities to construct the T-ATS(X) vessels; therefore, the resultant contract for this solicitation will only be awarded to a shipyard capable of constructing the T-ATS(X) vessels." Since this is not a vessel of length that would attract shipyards with ample design and engineering resources, is it acceptable for a qualified Design firm who has ample design and engineering resources Prime and then get, as a subcontractor, a shipyard who has the capacity to construct the designed vessel?

I ask this since I have not seen a solicitation in the past that was so restrictive on the bidding parameters. It would appear that it is not in the best interest of the Government to be so restrictive especially in a procurement such as the T-ATS(X). Large shipyards who are currently engaged in the construction of major US Navy assets will not concern themselves with something like this but rather the smaller yards who have a desire and capacity to build but lack the resources to provide the design. Of course, shipyards can obtain a design firm as a sub and that is understood but, all I am saying is that the Government should accept bids from qualified bidders to provide all the requirements of the solicitation.

Answer: Section L, under Factor 2.0 Production Facilities, states "Offerors under this solicitation must have the demonstrated capability and facilities to construct the T-ATS(X) vessels; therefore, the resultant contract for this solicitation will only be awarded to Offerors that are a shipyard or teamed with a shipyard capable of constructing the T-ATS(X) vessels." Since the amount of design to develop a T-ATS design from an existing commercial design is small in comparison to the overall construction effort, it is the Government's conclusion that to avoid excessive pass-through costs, it is not appropriate to have a Shipyard as a subcontractor. A Shipyard must be the Prime Contractor or the Shipyard must be a Prime Contractor in a teaming arrangement. The Government has concluded that there is an adequate number of Shipyards interested in constructing the T-ATS(X) vessels and competition is not being limited.

2. Question: I understand the solicitation, however would you also require a dive team comprised of veterans experienced in deep sea salvage to board and or man this vessel in the event it is deployed? I retrain Vets & cross train Navy Divers (familiar with Navy protocol) to work at depth. IF so how might I bid that part of the work?

Answer: Diving and salvage services are not part of this solicitation and will not be part of the future ship acquisition solicitation.

3. Question: As noted on pg 5 Section A of the RFP, the contractor will update the parent craft design during this scope of work to meet the COR while Factor 1 of Section L pg 55 states that the modification of the parent design to meet the three identified COR requirements is not permitted. Our parent design would require refinement to easily meet the three identified COR requirements. Is this acceptable?

Answer: If the parent design of the commercial vessel being proposed must be modified to meet the three key requirements (i.e. the bollard pull requirements, working deck area, and dynamic positioning capabilities), the Offeror's proposal will not be acceptable. The commercial vessel parent design must meet these requirements without modification. For example, if the commercial vessel parent design is DP-1, this would require modifications to the design and therefore will not be acceptable. As another example, if the commercial vessel parent design has a bollard pull of 120 tons or the parent vessel design has 4,000 sq. ft. of working deck, this would require modifications and therefore will not be acceptable. The Government has concluded that there are a sufficient number of existing commercial vessels whose designs meet these three key requirements which require no modifications.

4. Question: Is it acceptable to present a parent design that has been built with different variations of the parent design, where no single variant of the parent design meets the three key requirements (bollard pull requirements, working deck area and dynamic positioning capabilities)? The parent design that we would like to propose using has been built in at least two variants within the last 20 years, where the original customers made changes to the equipment only, that changed the performance of the finished vessel. The parent design is the same amongst these variants, with each variant having the same particulars, hull shape and layout.

For example, variant #1 of the parent design has smaller main engines that yielded less than 130 tons bollard pull, but is ABS DPS-2 and exceeds the 5,000 square feet of deck space. Variant #2 of the parent design has larger main engines that allows the vessel to exceed 130 tons bollard pull, exceeds the 5,000 square feet of deck space, but the original client only outfitted this variant with a DPS-1 system.

We would propose to present a variant of the parent design with DP system from variant #1 and the main engine equipment form variant #2 to meet the three key requirements.

Answer: No, the Offeror's proposed approach would not be acceptable since it would be necessary to modify the first variant design to incorporate design elements of the other variant.

The parent design must be that of a single commercial vessel meeting all three key requirements.

5. Question: The detailed design products, required in Factor 1.0 Parent Design, were originally produced on 30” by 60” sheet drawings. These drawings are unreadable when scaled to fit on 11”x17” foldouts and would take a considerable effort to convert to 11x17 or smaller size. Is it acceptable that these original documents be provided in native format (30”x60”) and folded to 8- 1/2” by 11” dimensions to be included with the proposal?

Answer: Yes, Offerors may submit drawings in their original size and format if the reduced-size drawings would be illegible.

6. Question: Regarding the Navy’s Answer 3 of the February 17, 2016 Questions and Answers document concerning Section L Factor 1.0 Parent Design (page 55 of 69): If the parent vessel meets or exceeds the total working deck area (5,000 SF) requirement stated in Section L, but does not meet the working deck length minimum (131 feet) requirement, will the Government assess the parent design to be unqualified?

Answer: Yes, if the parent vessel design does not meet the working deck total area requirement AND the minimum length and width requirements, it is not acceptable.

7. Question: Will the Government reject parent designs that would require changes in the hull length to meet one or more of the requirements in the COR?

Answer: Changing the hull length is a modification to the parent vessel design, and therefore is not acceptable.

8. Question: Is it acceptable to present a parent design that the required working deck area (5,000 square feet) but does not have one (1) of the working deck minimum dimensions? The parent design that we would like to propose using has a work deck area in excess of the required area of 5,000 square feet, but the length of the working deck is less than the required length of 131ft.

The width of the working deck on our proposed parent design is in excess of the required width of 36ft.

Answer: The Offeror's proposed approach would not be acceptable. The parent vessel design must meet the working deck total area requirement AND the minimum length and width requirements.