Enclosure_1_S-1_Bidder_Questions_Answers_24-33_FBO_Final.pdf

QUESTIO

N NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING

CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION

ANSWER

24 Sect. L, page 121 of

Att. S-3

Clarify

Vol II – TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES, For

Big MAC’s, paragraph B, Management &

Technical Experience, states “Offerors shall complete the Management & Technical

Experience data sheet, provided as Attachment

S-3,….”

Attachment S-3 appears to be designed to collect only Technical information.

Please advise.

Amendment will be made to the solicitation to revise Attachment S-3.

25 Attachment

S-4

PPQs In Attachment S-4, Part II (item g) and Part III

(instructions) require the offeror to explain relevance “to complex emergent, scheduled, preventative, and continuous maintenance, modernization, and repair requirements for

Surface Combatant (LCS, DDG, and CG) class ships.”

Please confirm that for offerors submitting on

“Little MAC” only, we are only required to demonstrate relevance to planned/preventive maintenance (PM), facility maintenance (FM), and corrosion control (CC).

Little MAC Offerors should demonstrate past performance on efforts analogous to the requirements of the Little MAC (i.e.: PM, FM, and

CC).

26 Section L;

page 119 of

Proposal

Submission

What is the submission requirement for

Subcontractors in reference to the Cost

Volume (Little MAC)?

Specific to the Cost Volume, Offeror’s should factor in subcontractor costs, if any, into the proposed ceiling rates in

Attachment S-2. Additionally, Offeror’s shall submit a small business subcontracting plan as part of the Cost

Volume, if applicable.

27 Section C;

Para 1.2

OCONUS

work

The CLIN Structure table in paragraph 1.2 limits OCONUS work to Big MAC awardees.

Will the government consider allowing Little

MAC awardees to conduct PM, FM and CC support OCONUS?

No, OCONUS work is limited to BIG

MAC’s only.

28 Section C

Para 1.2.1

PQS In Section C, Para 1.2.1 next to last sub-bullet states a NAVEDTRA PQS Requirement for

PQS Level 301 (or equivalent approved by the government); this is the 3M systems

Maintenance Man qualification. In Section L.

Para F. Resource Capabilities, item #8 requires us to discuss Personnel Qualifications PQS

Training for both 301 and 307. PQS Level 307 is not defined in Section C, nor was it a requirement of the previous LCS Sustainment solicitations. Please clarify whether PQS Level

307 is a requirement; and if so where is it defined and what is the Labor Category that has to have the 307 qualification?

Only PQS 301 is required. An

Amendment to the solicitation will be made to clarify.

29 Section L

Para F4

Manpower In Section L, Para F4 requires that we use consolidated manpower charts displaying total

SHIPYARD and subcontractor workload, and provide a plan for addressing peaks and valleys in workload. The Lot II Little MAC contractors do not have access to shipyard manpower charts, nor do they need them in order to plan PM-FM-CC work when it is to be performed in the shipyard. Should this paragraph L-F4 be removed from the Lot II

No; however, an amendment to the solicitation will be made to clarify the

Navy’s intent.

Little MAC requirements and added to the Lot

I Big MAC requirements?

30 Section F Period of

Performance

What is the anticipated start date of work (for escalation purposes)?

Orders under these MAC contracts are expected to commence in April 2018.

31 L-Volume

II, D.18

Facility

Surveillance

Log

Does the Government have a preferred format for the Facilities Surveillance Log? If so, please provide an example.

No, the Government does not have a preferred format.

32 Section B and C.1.2

CLIN

assignments between Big and Little

MACs

The work associated with CONUS CM and

EM is aligned with the capabilities of companies bidding on the Little MAC. We request that this work be reassigned to

Big/Little MACs, vice set aside specifically for the Big MAC holders.

CONUS CM and EM is limited to BIG

MAC’s only.

33 HQ E-2-

QUALITY

MANAGE

MENT

SYSTEM

REQUIRE

MENTS

(NAVSEA)

(APR

2017), page

Quality

Assurance

Requirement s

HQ E-2-0015 QUALITY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS (NAVSEA)

(APR 2017), page 52, states “The Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality management system that, as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of ANSI/ISO/ASQ

9001-2015 Quality Management Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract... Existing quality documents that meet the requirements of this contract may continue to be used.”

Please clarify whether compliance with ISO

9001:2008 is acceptable for the submission of proposals. The answer provided in Enclosure

1-Bidder Question Answers 7-23 (question

#16) states offeror’s shall comply with HQ E-

2-0015.

In concurrence with the bidder question #16 noted above, September 2018 is the recognized date for companies to comply with the ISO

9001:2015 standard. The majority of ship repair contractors have not completed the transition of their Quality Management

Systems to the 2015 version of the standard.

FY-18 (CH2) NAVSEA Standard Item 009-04, paragraph 3.1 states a contractor may elect a

Quality Management System based on either

ISO 9001:2008 or ISO 9001:2015. Ship repair associations and NAVSEA only recently began to audit companies to the ISO 9001:2015 standard. If a requirement for compliance with

ISO 9001:2015 is being invoked, is there an underlying reason why the 2008 version of the standard is not being accepted this far away from the transition date?

An amendment to the solicitation will be made to update Clause 52.246.11

HIGHER-LEVEL CONTRACT

QUALITY REQUIREMENT. This answer supersedes the Navy’s previous answer to question #16.