MAKIN_ISLAND_QA_Round_2.docx

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND

N00024-17-R-4426

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #2

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

24. In reference to “Work Item 311-26-001,” please provide advisory No. 002-15 DTG 021930Z FEB 15. The reference provided with the package contains advisory No. 003-14 DTG (141000Z APR 14)

a. Advisory No. 002-15 will be provided for download to all potential offerors through the AMRDEC Safe website.

25. Bidder requests clarification regarding the requirement for Change Order Price Analysis (COPA) submittals. Bidder understands the COPA requirements associated with the Navy's Requests for "Contract Changes (RCC)". However, above guidance suggests that cost estimates are to be submitted for each "Condition Report". Bidder requests Navy customer clarification regarding the above guidance for cost estimates to be submitted for each "Condition Report". Bidder requests Navy customer clarification regarding the difference between the terms "Request for Contract Changes (RCC)" and "Condition Reports" as utilized in above solicitation guidance.

a. The Government made changes to Section C, paragraph 1.10 and 1.11 of the RFP. Please see Amendment 1.

26. Bidder requests Navy feedback regarding the contemplated location of the Gov't provided pier space/facility; i.e., NAVSTA San Diego Pier 7, Pier 12, Pier 13, etc?

a. The Government is not able to provide the specific Government pier number at this time due to dynamic ship schedules and limited pier space. The Government does not anticipate that this information will be available prior to the proposal due date.

27. In reference to “Work Item 562-11-003,” the work in this specification is normally executed without the oversight of a tech rep. Please confirm the requirement for a tech rep. If required, please provide the name and contact information for the technical representative mentioned in paragraph 3.2-3.2.1.

a. Government intends on using the 009-90 (OEM) requirement. OEM is as follows:

Wartsila Lips Inc. (previously John Crane-Lips) 3617 Koppens Way Chesapeake, VA 23323 POC: Joel Pingel

PH: (757) 558-3625

FAX: (757) 558-3627

28. Paragraph 3.4 of the RFP states that reports in the following table be submitted no later than “A+61.” However, the table itself indicates that these reports are due at either prior to 20% of docking or 20% of the availability. As noted in the attachment J-3 milestone, 20% of the availability is A+84, not A+61. Additionally, since the docking may occur as late as the 25% of the availability, the requirement to submit certain reports by 20% of the docking period could potentially occur at A+140. To eliminate this contradiction in requirements, it is recommended that the phrase “no later than A+61” be deleted from paragraph 3.4.

a. The Government made changes to Section C, paragraph 3.4 and to the section headers in Table 3.4 of the RFP. Please see Amendment 1.

29. In reference to “ Work Item 512-80-003”:

1. Materials for this item are GFM and ventilation material are all flat sheets. The problem is ventilation drawings (512-8621764, 512-8621765, 512-8621766, 512-8621767 and 512-8621768) of this item require round duct / tubing from size 3” through 6” which shops are unable to fabricate. These materials should be bought. Please advise.

2. On Ref.2.9 (DWG.#512-8621766), material item #18 says,”25 ft , fdn, fan coil unit “A” shock.” Does the Govt. intend to provide this foundation for FCU (R3-48-2) already fabricated or have this fabricated on Production?

3. On Ref.2.98 (DWG.#512-8621765), material item #25 and #26 says, “20 ft, fdn, fan coil unit “A” shock.” Does the Govt. intend to provide these foundations for FCU (R2-75-2) and (R2-75-4) already fabricated or have these fabricated on Production?

a. "GFM" was listed in error, should state "IAF" (Installation Activity Furnished). Work Item 512-80-003 will be corrected via an ERRATA. The Contractor is responsible for providing the applicable materials for this Work Item.

b. GFM will not be provided. The Contractor is responsible for providing the foundations.

c. GFM will not be provided. The Contractor is responsible for providing the foundations.

30. In reference to “Attachment J-4,” the Total Row on Excel line 281 is off by one column. For example, Column G titled “Total Labor ($)” totals on row 281, Column H. The total “Work Item Price” does not have a total column because the formula in row 281 shows “=Sum(Table13[Price Sub]), which is inconsistent with the column labels. Will the J-4 Pricing Workbook be revised to show the correct the formulas underneath each column title?

a. Please see J-4 Rev 4 provided with Amendment 1.

31. The J-5 posted to FBO appears to be a draft version as indicated by coversheet, highlight marks, and track changes. Will an updated J-5 be provided?

a. Please see J-5 Rev B provided with Amendment 1.

32. Upon review of the contents received on the SWRMC disc provided on 01/25/2017, the disk contains no AIT POAMs (i.e. AIT Schedules). AIT POAMs for the following Work Items are needed:

415-90-001 441-90-001 980-11-001 980-11-002 980-11-003 980-11-004 980-11-005 980-11-006 980-11-007 980-11-008 980-11-009 980-11-010 980-80-001

Contractor notes that late delivery of AIT POAMs for above listed work items will impact the ability to provide an accurate estimate and proposal. When will the Customer provide AIT POAMs for the above listed work items?

a. AIT POAMs for the below Work Items will be provided for download to all potential offerors through the AMRDEC Safe website:

415-90-001 441-90-001 980-11-001 980-11-002 980-11-003 980-11-004 980-11-005 980-11-006 980-11-007 980-11-008 980-11-009 980-11-010 980-80-001

33. The Conformed RFP provided with Amendment 001 still contains a “DRAFT” watermark on the first page. When will a final, non “draft” RFP be made available? Please clarify.

a. Both a Non-“draft” Conformed RFP and Non-“draft” Conformed RFP Amendment 1 are posted with Q&A2.

34. In reference to “Work Item 437-80-002,” paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.8 state, “accomplish the requirements of 2.2 through 2.20, using 2.21 for material. All items listed as IAF on 2.2 through 2.20 shall be provided by the installing activity.” However, Reference 2.21 (Kitted Material) is listed in paragraph 5.3 GFM, which lists the same materials in references 2.2 through 2.20. Please clarify whether the material in 2.2 through 2.20 are to be provided as IAF or will it be provided as GFM as stated in paragraph 5.3 - Reference 2.21? Please clarify specification accordingly.

a. GFM was listed in error, should state "IAF" (Installation Activity Furnished) as per install drawings. An ERRATA will be submitted to correct the discrepancy.

35. In reference to “Work Items 245-11-005 and 245-12-001,” the equipment in 5.1 is government furnished and paragraph 3.4.1 says to ship crated material to and from prepaid, will the government cover the initial shipping to the contractor’s facility and the contractor cover the shipping to the OEM facility? Please clarify.

a. The Contractor is responsible for funding both the shipment to the OEM and from the OEM back to the Contractor's facility.

36. In reference to “Work Item 262-11-002, Lube Oil System Piping; repair,” 1.2 Location of Work: Paragraph 3.4.1 states “Accomplish nondestructive testing in accordance with Line 13”. IAW with reference 2.2, the system Design pressure and temp is 80 PSIG and 200 degrees. This makes the piping classification P-2. Additionally, reference 2.3, general note 6, identifies the piping system as a P-2 piping classification. IAW S9074-AR-GIB-010/278 Requirements for Fabrication Welding and Inspection, And Casting Inspection and Repair for Machinery, Piping and Pressure Vessels, Table IV, P-2 piping systems utilizing Socket Welded joints do not require PT inspection. Contractor believes Visual inspection of the final layer of welds followed by the Hydrostatic test called out in para 3.5 and the operational test called out in para 3.7 will be adequate to satisfy system certifications. Will the Customer provide a revised specification via an ERRATA removing the NDT requirements of paragraph 3.4.1?

a. Government does not concur. A non-destructive penetrant test (PT) inspection, as per the work specification, is required.

37. It is recommended that the proposal due date be extended to April 21. Since this additional time will result in an increase in the quality of the resulting proposals, this will still allow sufficient time for the Government to review the received proposals and make a contract award by May 18.

a. The proposal due date is extended from 8 March 2017 at 3:00PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) to 27 March 2017 at 9:00AM Pacific Standard Time (PST). As a result, offeror requests for information (RFIs) have been extended from 22 February 2017 at 3:00PM EST to 3 March 2017 at 3:00PM EST. The cut-off for ship checks remains 22 February 2017. These changes are reflected in Amendment 2.

38. Section L, paragraph 2.0, “Instructions for the Submission of Offers” states that “proposals shall be received by the Government at the below address” and provides a time of 3:00 local time Washington D.C. However, the location is a San Diego address. Please clarify this apparent discrepancy in order to confirm the correct delivery location and time.

a. Please see answer to Question 14. and Amendment 2.

39. The response to Question 7 on Q&A 1, received 2-3-17, instructs individual Offerors to contact LCDR Bran Sherman and Jamillah Powell in order to receive a copy of the missing work item 584-31-001. This is somewhat of an unorthodox method for disseminating bid documentation since it could lead to differences in versions of the specification being received by the various Offerors. Suggest that this work item be provided by amendment and downloadable on FBO. Please advise.

a. To limit distribution, the Government does not intend on sharing Work Items on FBO. The Government will provide any missing documentation via AMRDEC SAFE to RFP points of contact on file. Disregard response 7. in Q&A1, “Please contact LCDR Bran Sherman (bran.sherman@navy.mil) and Jamillah Powell (jamillah.powell@navy.mil) to receive a copy of "Work item 584-31-001, Vehicle and Amphibious Recovery Winch Clutch Assembly; overhaul.”” Work item 584-31-001 was provided for download via AMRDEC SAFE.

40. Attachment J-3 Execution Milestones and Key Event Dates depicts a NAVSTA dock date of "17-Jul-17." Bidder requests clarification of (1) the above "Dock" date of 17-Jul 17, and (2) Note: - Offeror using San Diego Naval Station pier shall enter dock at "Start of Availability"? In potential cases where Bidder's drydock is not available on "Start of Availability" date, Bidder requests flexibility for "Dock" date in order to provide Navy customer competitive options within the Port of San Diego. Bidder requests use of Government provided pier space at "Start of Availability", with "Dock" date after "Start of Availability" date, resulting in no adverse impact to all other Attachment J-3 Execution Milestone and Key Event Dates.

a. An updated J-3 Execution Milestones (“J-3 Execution Milestones MAKIN ISLAND RFP Rev2”) will be provided for download via AMRDEC SAFE.