N00024-18-R-2210_Amendment_0013.pdf

N0002417MR02574

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this Amendment is to 1) Respond to Bidders' Questions for the N00024-18-R-2210 HPIB DD&C RFP, and 2) Make minor and administrative updates to Sections L and M.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

L 1 5

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 02-Aug-2018

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N0002418R2210

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Mar-2018

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

02-Aug-2018

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2040

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0002418R2210

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

235. QUESTION: HPIB RFP Section L.1.1.1. requires that the price be held firm for a minimum of 365 calendar days from October 16, 2018. It will then take some time after award for the shipyard to finalize the purchase with the suppliers. Since some of the key components are from foreign (mostly European) sources, in addition to the escalation, this introduces foreign exchange risk. The suppliers are reluctant to assume these risks, and if the bidders force them to freeze the price, and take the risk, they will be conservative in their pricing, making the bid price go

up. In one case they have indicated a price increase of up to 30%. If the suppliers do not assume these risks, the shipyards will have to program these risk costs into their bid prices. If, say the foreign exchange risk works into favor against the US Dollar, then it is unlikely that the Government will recover these funds.

We believe the Government may be able to reduce the bid cost by increasing the share line, whereby the shipyard may consider pushing some specific unknown risks such as this example, into the share line category. For instance, the Government may agree to share the foreign exchange, etc. risk in the share line for such specified risks (say up to first 5%) of the proposed price at 100% of the increase, and after that reduce the share line to the amounts in the current RFP. In this manner, the Government will get the benefit of lower proposed prices, as well as foreign exchange benefit if the US dollar gets stronger against other currencies.

RESPONSE: Section L.1.1.1 is hereby revised to: "Proposals in response to this RFP shall be valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days from 16 October 2018.” The share line geometry remains unchanged.

236. QUESTION: HPIB RFP Section L.1.2.1.6 states the following:

“Offerors shall provide a description of past performance experience for themselves and any significant subcontractors in ship design (Preliminary, Contract and Detail design) and construction of no more than five (5) contracts/subcontracts over the last five (5) years similar in scope and complexity to the proposed HPIB, or in similar scope and complexity to areas of the HPIB with increased technical difficulty.”

Additionally, RFP Section L.1.2.16.1 states:

“…The Government will determine which past performance data is most relevant…”

The HPIB program is a highly complex and specialized program with multiple key participants in various facets of each team. In addition, there is a multitude of specialized components within each facet that may be deemed “relevant” by the Government. As such, it is requested that the Government change the number of Past Performances to be a minimum of 5 (and a maximum of say 10) to allow adequate past performance questionnaires to be submitted for evaluation and coverage of necessary relevancies.

RESPONSE: This requirement remains unchanged. Offerors are not required to demonstrate relevant past performance for every team member, only for "...themselves and any major subcontractors in ship design (Preliminary, Contract and Detail design) and construction." If an Offeror believes it has more than five team members that satisfy this description, then the Offeror should limit the past performance description to the five members (including themselves) that the Offeror deems most significant to the efforts of this Solicitation.

Note that Amendment 0006 to the Solicitation extended the Section L.1.2.1.6 past performance time period from five (5) to ten (10) years.

237. QUESTION: The Government issued Amendment 0008 on June 15th, 2018. This Amendment provided long-awaited responses to unanswered technical questions and indicated that a one-month extension for the Technical Proposal would be granted. The extension was greatly appreciated as proposal design efforts could not continue until clarification from the Government regarding several key unresolved technical issues was provided. However, contained in this same Amendment were modifications to structural requirements regarding the ice-strengthened portions of the hull.

Previous issuances of the Attachment J-1 HPIB Specification omitted the standard Polar Class ‘lower’ subregions of the Bow Intermediate, Midbody, and Stern Intermediate regions. Figure 100-1 of the HPIB Draft RFP Specification dated 17 September 2017 represents the abovementioned omissions. This same image continues to be in the HPIB RFP Specification dated 16 February 2018. Hull Area Factors for each subregion, as prescribed by HPIB Spec were required to be in accordance with ABS SVR 6-1-2.

Amendment 0008 modified the structural requirements such that the Polar Class ‘lower’ subregions were introduced into the ice-strengthened extents of the hull, as shown in Figure 100-1 of the HPIB Specification dated 15 June 2018.

Additionally, Amendment 0008 revised Hull Area Factors for the Bow Intermediate Ice and Stern Intermediate Ice subregions from 0.85 to 1.0 and 1.1, respectively. We request the government to consider a 2-week extension to allow bidders to incorporate these changes.

RESPONSE: This requirement remains unchanged. The Government does not believe additional time beyond the 30-day extension provided in Amendment 0008 is necessary to meet the requirements of the RFP.

238. QUESTION: In response to Question 222 of Amendment 0011, the government denied the inclusion of supporting video clips to be included in the electronic copy of the technical proposal as well as the price proposal.

We appeal to the government to reconsider this and allow video clips (up to a specified size not exceeding 2 minutes) which are pertinent to the technical work on the proposal design (such as pertinent and model specific test data), and specifically excludes sales materials to be included in the electronic version. This will facilitate evaluation of the proposals by the Government and assesses the risk therein.

RESPONSE: The Offeror has not provided an explanation of how such video would "facilitate evaluation" of the proposals. The Government is obligated to evaluate all competitive proposals on an equal footing and has established an evaluation scheme to do that which does not include evaluating the contents of any videos. Offerors are advised not to submit video with their offers and the Government will not evaluate any video that is submitted with an offer.

239. QUESTION: RFP Section L.1.2.1.4.3 (Production Approach) part i states the following:

“Any facility qualifications or certifications, by whom, and when, expiration/renewal dates, and provide a copy of the qualification or certification.”

Currently, there is no indication in the RFP to treat this section as an exclusion to the page count limitation. As this section will require a significant number of pages to address in full, the offeror has considered it as an exclusion.

Can USCG confirm that this interpretation is correct and that this section will be excluded from the page count of the main body of the technical proposal?

RESPONSE: The requirement to describe "any facility qualifications or certifications, by whom, and when, expiration/renewal dates," shall be accomplished in the narrative of the proposal and included in the page count.

The required copy of each qualification or certification may be provided in an appendix or attachment and excluded from the page count.

240. QUESTION: RFP Section L.1.1 (General Information) paragraph 5 of page 258 states the following:

“Proposal material shall be presented on double-sided pages only and in a single column on each page in accordance with FAR 52.204-4. Each double-sided page counts as 2 pages. Foldouts shall fold from the left to right (sideways), shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches and shall not exceed three folds. Foldouts count as 1 page….”

RFP only allows printing narratives on double-sided pages, however, foldouts not exceeding 11x17 inches are allowed and count as 1 page. Double-sided page when printed together with foldouts will become difficult to organize in a sequence. In addition, it will be difficult for the Government to review double sided pages.

We request the government to change the requirement to the following:

“Proposal material may be presented on one-sided or double-sided pages and in a single column on each side in accordance with FAR 52.204-4. A page is defined as a typed page of the proposal document, i.e. one sheet of paper with typing on one side. Pages may have typing on two sides, but for the purposes of the page count limitation, each side with content will be counted as one page. Foldouts shall fold from the left to right (sideways), shall not exceed 11 x 17 inches and shall not exceed three folds. Foldouts count as 1 page….”

RESPONSE: Offerors may insert an un-numbered page with the marking "This page intentionally left blank.", and no other text, immediately before a foldout page for the purpose of properly sequencing the foldout page within the broader narrative. Such pages will not be counted in the page count.

241. QUESTION: Will the Government accept submission of the Technical Proposal prior to the due date established in Section L.1.1.1.?

RESPONSE: The Government will not reject proposals which are received prior to the due date.

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

L.1. INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

L.1.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

FROM:

All volumes shall be submitted in three-ring binders with index tabs or tabbed index divider pages separating each section. Each proposal section shall start on a new page. Total page count for the technical proposal shall not exceed 200 pages. Exclusions to page count limitation include: cover letter; title pages; table of contents; resumes;

glossary; executive summary; copies of regulatory body correspondence; Integrated Master Schedule; EVMS Compliance Plan; Attachment J-22, Critical Equipment List; and Basis of Estimates (BOE). Drawings, diagrams, schematics, calculations, and analyses included in appendices or attachments are also excluded from the total page count limitation. Pages beyond the total page count limit will not be evaluated.

TO:

All volumes shall be submitted in three-ring binders with index tabs or tabbed index divider pages separating each section. Each proposal section shall start on a new page. Total page count for the technical proposal shall not exceed 200 pages. Exclusions to page count limitation include: cover letter; title pages; table of contents; resumes;

glossary; executive summary; copies of regulatory body correspondence; Integrated Master Schedule; EVMS Compliance Plan; Attachment J-22, Critical Equipment List; and Basis of Estimates (BOE). Drawings, facility qualifications or certifications, diagrams, schematics, calculations, and analyses included in appendices or attachments are also excluded from the total page count limitation. Pages beyond the total page count limit will not be evaluated.

L.1.1.1. Proposal Submission

FROM:

Proposals in response to this RFP shall valid for a minimum of 365 calendar days from 14 September 2018.

TO:

Proposals in response to this RFP shall remain valid for a minimum of 180 calendar days from 16 October 2018.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.5.4 Factor 4 – Past Performance

FROM:

M.5.4.1. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the information referenced in Section L and provided in Attachment L-8 to assist in determining the Offeror’s performance risk for this solicitation. In assessing the relevance of the data, the Government will give consideration to past performance on contracts performed or currently being performed over the last five (5) years that required the same or similar work in both type and complexity as the work required by this solicitation including ship design and construction. Completed contracts and completed deliveries may be deemed more relevant than open contracts without completed deliveries. The currency and relevance of the information and general trends in contract performance will be considered. In determining relevancy of an Offeror’s past performance, the order of relevancy is design and construction of heavy icebreakers, followed by design and construction of other marine vessels of similar size and complexity. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will make the determination as to the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance.

TO:

M.5.4.1. Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with the information referenced in Section L and provided in Attachment L-8 to assist in determining the Offeror’s performance risk for this solicitation. In assessing the relevance of the data, the Government will give consideration to past performance on contracts performed or currently being performed over the last ten (10) years that required the same or similar work in both type and complexity as the work required by this solicitation including ship design and construction. Completed contracts and completed deliveries may be deemed more relevant than open contracts without completed deliveries. The currency and relevance of the information and general trends in contract performance will be considered. In determining relevancy of an Offeror’s past performance, the order of relevancy is design and construction of heavy icebreakers, followed by design and construction of other marine vessels of similar size and complexity. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. The Government will make the determination as to the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance.