3-_Attachment_11-_Bidder's_Questions__Answers-_FINAL.docx

N00024-16-R-2215

EOD MERC

Questions and Answers May 12, 2016

1. Question: With regard to Explosive Disposal Multi-Use EOD Response Craft, pre-solicitation, would the Government consider a hull made of different material other than fiberglass (such as aluminum)? Adept Processing Services offers a unit for use which meets or exceeds all the Government’s requirements and is very interested in responding to this solicitation when issued.

Answer: Due to the nature of their work and their existing maintenance infrastructure, EOD requires a fiberglass composite hull. We do buy aluminum hulled boats for other applications, and hope that you will bid on one of those in the future.

2. Question: In paragraph 630-4 of EOD MERC Solicitation N0002416R2215 calls out “Removable anti-fatigue matting (SKYDEX Impact Mitigating (IMBD) or Soft Deck High Performance Energy Absorbing Flooring System (HPEAFS or similar) shall be provided on all walking surfaces. Matting shall be highly resistant, oil resistant, saltwater resistant, easily replaceable and non-skid.” Concern is, call out does not specify “or equal” and calls out two specific manufacturers of matting or similar

Answer: The requirement is for Anti-Fatigue matting and is not limited by a brand name. The Government provided SKYDEX and HPEAFS as examples of acceptable products.

3. Question: What changed in the last 2 weeks that caused this to be now be a set aside?

Answer: Market research was performed pursuant to FAR Part 10 and DFARS Part 10 to identify potential qualified small business sources to build and deliver EOD MERCs based on the current Government requirements. This research showed that there is a reasonable expectation that offers will be obtained from at least two responsible small businesses. In accordance with FAR 19.502-2 this action has been set aside for small businesses.

4. Question: 252-4 OCC/CAB Dynamic Positioning System (OCC and Cabin Varients) The boat shall be equipped with Mercury Marine's Skyhook(r) Dynamic Positioning System (DPS). The DPS shall be capable of autonomously maintaining heading and approximate position of the boat using GPS coordinates and an electronic compass. The system shall be integrated with navigation system, the control system, and the digital display system (discussed in Sections 252-1, 252-2, and 422-2). After contacting Mercury Marine about this requirement, they have informed us that this system is not approved for government/commercial use. Below is the contexts of the email that was sent to us from Mercury Marine. Mercury will be having a meeting with the Navy within the next few weeks. The data from the current test platform will be gathered during this meeting. Mercury will also discuss the Navy's expectations and Mercury's capabilities and/or system limitations in regards to the RFP. This will help level-set all parties involved and lead to a more favorable outcome. The application teams here at Mercury are aware you are anxiously awaiting further information (BOM and pricing). Please rest assured that the Navy realizes Mercury needs to review the application before we are able to provide you with any info. I will keep you updated. We are requesting either have this requirement removed from the specification in its entirety or say offeror must provide weight, space and power for future installation of this system, or the due date for the RFP needs to moved out until the Navy and Mercury can get together on this system.

Answer: Mercury Marine will provide requested pricing and BOM.

5. Question: Requesting the RIAM and towing lights master guidance for space and design.

Answer: Files will be provided directly to Offeror upon request. All requests must be submitted to Abigail.peregrino@navy.mil AND Roxie.thomas@navy.mil.

6. Question: On page 54 item 422-2 Integrated Electronic Navigation System- The specification call out a Furuno DRS2D this has been discontinued and the replacement is DRS4D. The specification call out a Furuno DFF1 Network Sounder and a Furuno 235-IHF transducer. After speaking with FurunoUSA the 235-IHF will not work with the DFF1 sounder. They said that another transducer would need to be selected to work with the DFF1 sounder or do not use the DFF1 sounder and just use the 235-IHF transducer.

Answer: This has been updated. See revised Attachment 1.

7. Question: We have noted that in the pre-solicitation that the capability will support “Unmanned systems operations” and that they could be used in non-permissive environments etc. However in the Solicitation there is no reference to an Unmanned systems operations. We would like to inquire why this requirement was left out of the solicitation?

Answer: Unmanned systems are not provided by boat builders, but are provided internally by EOD. Unmanned systems are not a requirement for this procurement.

8. Question: Offeror is requesting Eye latch design as per page 62 582-2OCC/CAB Bow Eye (OCC and Cabin Variants): The boat shall be equipped with an aluminum forward bow eye with a stainless steel press fit hole insert. The bow eye shall be rated for a 7,000 lbs design load in the forward direction with factor of safety of five (5) based on the ultimate strength of material. The bow eye shall be designed to accept the SGLR Bow Eye Latch Device. The bow eye shall be 1" in thickness with a hole centered 1.125" from the nearest obstruction (hull or bend in plate). The bow eye hole shall have an inner diameter of 1.125" to accept a 1" pin for attaching the SGLR Bow Eye Latch Device or a Crosby G-2130 7/8" shackle. SGLR Bow Eye Latch Device design details available upon request.

Answer: Guidance for requesting the SGLR Bow Eye Latch Device Design has been added to Section L.1(a), under item 20.

9. Question: Request clarification regarding the ISO standard version for 6185-4.

Answer: The standard is ISO 6185-4:2011 (corrected version 2014). This has been included in the revised Attachment 1.

10. Question: Regarding- Section L Volume 1- Factor 2 and Attachment 10- Past Performance Question- Would the Government consider accepting copies of Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), when available, in lieu of the Contractor sending out Past Performance Questionnaires to Customers.

Answer: Yes, the Government will accept copies of CPARS in lieu of the Contractor sending out Past Performance Questionnaires to Customers.

11. Question: SF33 states due date is 6/7/16, however Page 115 L-1(b)2 states due date is 5/26/16.

Answer: Correct due date is June 7, 2016 as stated on the SF33. Amendment 01 has been issued to correct Section L.1.