RAMAGE-4402_QA_3_Final_4.14.pdf

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

N00024-16-R-4402

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #3

4/14/2016

The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

Note: In accordance with RFP Section L, Paragraph 1.0 Introduction, the Government may not answer questions submitted after 26 March 2016. Offerors are encouraged to continue to submit questions so the Government may prepare a response during discussions, if discussions are held.

Offerors shall not expect the Government to provide answers to questions prior to the proposal submission date for questions submitted after 26 March 2016.

48. WI 415-90-001 reference 2.20 refers to the tank and pump (can be provided by CEC ISEA). Please confirm the Government will provide the flushing tank, pumps, and the oil.

a) The Government will not provide the flushing tank, pumps, or the oil.

49. WI 185-11-001 para 2.2: Reference 2.2 S9531-C1-MMO-010 REV 6, Reverse Osmosis Desalination Unit, 12,000-GPD is called out in the spec item.

However, Revision 5 of this manual was supplied to contractor.

Will the spec item be revised to Rev “5” or will a copy of Rev “6” be furnished to the contractor?

a) S9531-C1-MMO-010 REV 6 is available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil.

50. WI 321-80-001 para 2.3: Reference 2.3 is 301-7284084 Rev A, EMP Survey

Locations With Matrix, however the file furnished that is labeled 7284084 A is actually drawing 6220714. Will the correct file be furnished to contractor?

a) 7284084 Rev A is available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil.

51. WI 472-90-001 para 2.13: Reference 2.13, RLAR 80156/DDG64/1156517, Weapons Cables W2207 through W2212 Too Short for Relocation Cabinet was not furnished to the contractor. Will this RLAR be furnished to the contractor or will it be deleted from the spec item?

a) The RLAR number will be corrected via ERRATA and was previously furnished to industry with Amendment 0001. Please contact steven.galer@navy.mil to request a copy.

52. WI 512-90-001 para 2.1: Reference 2.13, RLAR 80156/DDG64/1156517, Weapons Cables W2207 through W2212 Too Short for Relocation Cabinet was not furnished to the contractor. Will this RLAR be furnished to the contractor or will it be deleted from the spec item?

a) 0156-DDG61-1156517 is available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil.

53. WI 512-90-001 para 2.20: Reference 2.20 8100-3513-0059, Grounding and Binding Methods is listed in the work item spec. We received a file with this name, however, when the file is opened, the drawing inside is 8100-3513-0060 Rev AD (reference 2.17). Will a copy of 8100-3513-0059 be made available to the contractor or will reference 2.20 be deleted from the work spec item?

a) 8100-3535-0059 replaced 8100-3513-0059 in ERRATA 2. 8100-3535- 0059 is available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil.

54. WI 551-12-001 para 2.2, 2.3, 2.4:

2.2 S9311-CQ-MM0-030, Volume III, AG9130 Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator (SSGTG)

2.3 S9311-CQ-MM0-040, Volume IV, AG9130 Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator (SSGTG) Operational and Scheduled Maintenance

2.4 S9311-CQ-MM0-010, AG9130 Ship Service Gas Turbine Generator (SSGTG) Operational and Scheduled Maintenance

These tech manuals were not furnished to contractor. Will these tech manuals be made available to the contractor?

a) The tech manuals were incorrectly identified in the work item. References 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 will be corrected by ERRATA. These tech manuals were part of the original solicitation disc. Please contact steven.galer@navy.mil for a copy of the original disc, if not previously received.

55. Has the Government considered requiring technical proposals be submitted and evaluated to allow contractors to comprehensively demonstrate understanding of these complex availabilities and the scheduling of same, including concomitant AIT requirements?

a) The bidder’s suggestion is noted and will be reviewed for future solicitations.

56. The Contractor is unaware of any previously executed availability under which similar internal milestones for Turnovers 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 were achieved. Can the government identify any previous avail that successfully met a similar schedule or provide the availability analysis or any other objective criteria upon which it based these milestone dates?

a) The schedule for Turnovers 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 was originally misstated in Attachment J-3 and WI 813-11-001 Attachment A Compartment Release Schedule. These schedules incorrectly stated the turnover date for the earliest compartment within the overall turnover. Attachment J-3 was revised in RFP Amendment 0002. WI 813-11-001 Attachment A Compartment Release Schedule will be revised by an ERRATA to the USS RAMAGE ESRA work package.

57. The Contractor understands the principle of Liquidated Damages Clause for late delivery of the vessel. However, given that all recent NAVSEA solicitations have included a different liquidated damage amount in the range of ~$32,000 per day, the amount of ~$92,000 per day damages included with the RAMAGE solicitation may appear to be overstated. What lessons learned or new information does the Government possess that would cause the Government to modify the number from previous solicitations?

a) The Liquidated Damages is not a penalty. It represents a conservative estimate of the daily damage incurred to the Government if the contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract in order to meet the Fleet’s Availability requirement. The value of the Liquidated Damages on previous solicitations (those in the range of ~$32,000 per day) significantly understated the damage experienced by the Government corresponding to the daily late delivery of the vessel back to the Fleet. The previous liquidated damage value represented only the daily salary of the crew, who would be unable to train or deploy without their ship. However, the value of the Liquidated Damages did not include the daily value of the ship itself. The value of the Liquidated Damages in the RAMAGE solicitation represents the daily salary of the crew and the Navy’s daily implied rent of vessel from the United States Government. The daily implied rent of the vessel is determined as the procurement cost of the vessel divided by the number of days in the ship’s designed service life. It should be noted that the Navy used an extremely conservative value for the procurement cost of the vessel, which did not include costs for Design, Outfitting, Post Delivery, or Cumulative Maintenance and Modernization. Neither did the value include any factor for inflation that would escalate these costs from ‘then year’ to ‘current year’ dollars, representing the cost the Navy would need to incur to “rent” a like vessel to perform its mission due to the late delivery of the vessel for it’s Availability.

58. (1) The Contractor has noted the answers to several liquidated damages (LD) concerns. While we appreciate your response, and the incentives offered for turnover milestones, the stated penalties continue to be questioned. Please consider the following information:

i. Liquidated damages are to compensate the Government for deficient performance or unexcused delays that would cause performance to be extended beyond the agreed upon period of performance. This provision seems intended to apply to internal schedule milestones which may routinely shift during the course of performance without being in the critical path and thus without adverse impact on the overall delivery schedule. As proposed, the provision is being implemented as a negative performance incentive and a penalty rather than as an agreed upon calculation of reasonable damages that the government might absorb as a result of any actual overall schedule delay. Such a punitive assessment could be deemed unenforceable. See Fishbach & Moore International Corp., ASBCA No. 18146, 77-1 BCA p12,300 at 59,224. Such provisions are strictly construed because of the potential that liquidated damages may be in the nature of a penalty which is unenforceable rather than a reasonable forecast of the probable damages to the government.

a) The Liquidated Damages included in the contract are not a penalty and are not punitive. They represent a conservative estimate of the daily damage incurred by the Government if the contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract. The daily Liquidated Damages on Turnovers 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the acceleration costs required for the AIT to complete their scope of work associated with each compartment Turnover in time to support the Government’s test & trials schedule to meet the Fleet’s Availability requirement.

In order to prevent an unreasonable double counting of the damages incurred to the Government if the contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract, the Government has capped the Liquidated Damages associated with each Turnover to a maximum value. The maximum values for the Liquidated Damages on Turnovers 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent the point at which further acceleration is no longer possible and the Government would reasonably expect a delay to the test & trials schedule. This maximum is included to prevent a double counting with the damages incurred by the Government corresponding to the daily late delivery of the vessel back to the Fleet.

As described in the Government’s answer to question # 57, the Liquidated Damages assessed to the contractor if they fail to deliver the supplies or perform the services within the time specified in this contract such that there is a delay to the ultimate redelivery of the vessel to the Fleet is also neither a negative performance incentive or a penalty damage. It represents a conservative estimate of the harm incurred by the Government corresponding to the daily late delivery of the vessel back to the Fleet.

ii) The application of FAR 11.501 is only appropriate where the Government has not prevented performance of the contractor. The Armed Services Board has ruled that liquidated damages should be set aside when the government is responsible for critical delay. Darwin Construction Company, Inc., ASBCA No. 32500, 86-3 BCA 19,295. (Fortec Constructors v. U.S., 8 Ct.Cl. 490, (1985) citing cases).

b) The Navy agrees. As stated in paragraph (c) of FAR Clause

52.211-11LIQUIDATED DAMAGES--SUPPLIES, SERVICES,

OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (SEP 2000), “The Contractor will not be charged with liquidated damages when the delay in delivery or performance is beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor as defined in the Default--Fixed-Price Supply and Service clause in this contract.”

iii) FAR 11.503 establish procedures to calculate damages that could be assessed by the Government based on actual losses; here, contractors question whether there are any actual losses reasonably anticipated.

c) Please see Answer #14 on how the Government has calculated probable damages to the Government if the contractor does not meet the interim milestones identified.

(2) Because the solicitation does not provide the contractor any insight regarding reasonably anticipated schedule dependencies related to AIT work, the contractor is unable to evaluate and integrate contingencies surrounding AIT work into its bid and proposed milestones and overall schedule.

As an alternative to #1, if these incentives and penalties must remain, and in order to support establishment of appropriate internal milestone dates for potential incentives and LDs for which the Government intends to hold the contractor exclusively liable, what is each A+ date for the contractor to complete its work and turn spaces over to the AIT in order to position the AIT to support the government’s schedule imperatives for Turnover 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5?

NOTE: As currently displayed in the table in Section B-1, the Turnovers appear to be finishing contractor work for turnover to the AIT, however, the Milestone definitions in 3.5 contradict this and require spaces to be completed by all parties by the Turnover dates. These aggressive Turnover dates (by definition in 3.5) have never been accomplished.

a) As noted in the Government’s answer to question # 56, the schedule for Turnovers 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 was misstated in attachment J-3 and WI 813-11-001 Attachment A Compartment Release Schedule. These schedules incorrectly stated the turnover date for the earliest compartment within the overall turnover. Attachment J-3 was revised via Amendment 0002 to the solicitation. WI 813-11-001 Attachment A Compartment Release Schedule will be revised by an ERRATA to the USS RAMAGE ESRA work package. The revisions will clarify A+ dates for the contractor to complete its work and turn spaces over.

59. WI 505-11-001 Para 3.1 and 5.2:

i. Para 3.1 states to remove existing and install new union nuts listed in 1.3 using 5.2 and Attachments A thru E for guidance. The quantities in 1.3 do not match what the Government is providing in 5.2. Please confirm the contractor is to purchase any material in 1.3 that is not provided as GFM in 5.2.

a) The quantity in para 5.2 will be provided to the contractor by the port engineer. The quantity in para 1.3 is what is needed and the Contractor is to provide the difference. Contractor needs to provide all fittings not provided as stated in para 5.2.

ii. Para 5.2 lists various sized Tailpieces, Stainless Steel to be provided as GFM installed on various types of pipe including 70/30 pipe. Stainless Steel cannot be welded onto 70/30 pipe. Please confirm CuNi and Monel Tailpieces are being provided as GFM as per 5.2

b) All GFM tailpieces are Stainless Steel. If NiCu fittings are needed, then contractor is to order them for install. A comprehensive list of what is needed and what is being provided is incorporated in the Spec.

60. For items 234-13-001 & 234-14-001 paragraph 3.1.4, that material no longer exists and can’t find an "equal to". Please advise.

a) The L34740-P01 (PN E-CN-50) tile is available under BIW

Catalog number 47154-009. The lead time for the material is 2 to 4 weeks out. A POC is Jeff Matthews and can be contacted at 1-207- 442-4448 or at jeff.matthews@gdbiw.com.

In conversation with AEARO Technologies customer service representative, the L22467-P01 (PN C-2003-19) tile is available in 54" x 48", 0.188 thick vice the 4 ft. x 4 ft. sections and can be ordered with or without the adhesive. The material can be cut to suit. The lead time for the material is 4 weeks out from date of order. A point of contact is Cassandra Robinson and she can be contacted at 1-877-327-4332 or at cassandra.robinson@mmm.com.

61. For work item number, 980-90-007, paragraph 3.5 states, "Remove the following equipment from the ship and load onto the conveyance provided by the AIT, when directed by the SUPERVISOR. The equipment will be unbolted and disconnected by the AIT. Equipment Height/Width/Depth Weight Location HD 1140/Spy Seawater Piping 65 Inches Long 65 Pounds Aux. One 4-174-0-E Flow Switch, S-15,And Piping 48 Inches Long 15 pounds Aux. One 4-174-0-E Seawater Flow Gauge, SW-GA-47 With Support Bracket". The contractor is asked to remove equipment from ship - are the weights, 65, 15 and 15 correct?

a) The Government has verified the weights are correct.

62. WI 583-11-001 Reference 2.9 472-6598146 Rev G, Arrangement of Special Treatment Materials is listed in the spec item. However Rev “L” of this drawing was furnished. Will the specs be revised to reflect this later revision? Reference

2.10 472-6597026 Rev E, Installation Details Special Coatings Materials is listed in the spec item. However, it appears to be an incorrect title and/or drawing number. The file labeled 6597026 AB that was furnished to the contractor actually appears to be 32-6597026 Rev AB, PWR SYS 01 LVL & ABV INCLUDING WEA DK FWD OF FR 240 CABLING DK DWG. Will the reference in the work item spec be changed to comply with the title of this drawing or will the correct drawing be made available to the contractor?

a) ERRATA 2 changed Reference 2.9 to Revision L and Reference 2.10 drawing number changed. The correct drawing is available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil.

63. Paragraph (b) of Clause 252.209-7010 CRITICAL SAFETY ITEMS (AUG

2011), as shown below, appears to contain space to identify/list “critical safety items.” Will the government be providing this information at contract award since the clause itself states that the information is to be provided by the “designated design control activity?”

a) This clause will be revised via RFP amendment.

64. WI 980-11-006 Para 3.2 requests a 20' X 20' lay down area on the pier where the AIT contractor plans to be cutting Nomex Deck Panels? This would restrict access and could interfere with other planned work. The AIT work area location needs to be more flexible as this type of work is not normally allowed on the pier due to limited space and potential environmental contamination of the water.

Para 3.5 requests a barge but does not state how long the barge will be needed.

Please provide duration.

a) The lay down area will be removed in an ERRATA. The duration of the barge will be added via ERRATA.

65. WI 583-11-001 (ERRATA 2) changed reference 2.10 to 472-6764959 Rev A, Installation Details Special Coatings Materials. Will this drawing be furnished to the offerors?

a) This drawing is now available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil

66. WI 472-90-001 (ERRATA 2) added 2.34 RLAR 80156/DDG75/1157042 New C-

DR15A Term Box Requires Warning Label Plate, 2.35 RLAR 80156/DDG61/1156302 Revised Material Source to GFM, and 2.36 RLAR 80156/DDG61/1155797 Revised Material Sourcing to GFM. Will these RLARs be furnished to the offerors?

a) These RLARS are now available by written request to steven.galer@navy.mil

67. Section L, Factor 4, on page 81 of the solicitation requires the offeror to provide an Integrated Production Schedule (IPS) documentation for the USS RAMAGE (DDG 61) FY16 ESRA inclusive of the "Initial IPS" elements of NAVSEA Standard Item 009-60 as well as the Manpower Curves (Total) and the Manpower Curves (Trades) associated with the 009-60 "Schedule of Record". It further states offerors shall integrate known Alteration Installation Team (AIT), Government-Contracted Third Party Maintenance Providers, Ship's Force, Commercial Industrial Services (CIS), and Fleet Maintenance Activity (FMA) work. However, reports do not require incorporation of Navy Intermediate -Level or Organizational (Ship's Force) schedules. The offerors requests an extension to the date for receipt of proposals to meet this requirement.

a) An amendment to the RFP is forthcoming to change the submission requirement.