Encl._1_to_Amendment_0003.pdf

QUESTION

NO.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

037 SOW CLIN

0002 effort 2.E

p. 64 of 241

MAXIMO "The Contractor shall be required to manage, and control access to, the Enterprise Asset

Management (EAM) database MAXIMO or its equivalent."

How many Maximo seats/licenses and what level of access does the government anticipate the contractor to support/provide for government personnel?

160 EAM licenses. Anticipate 30% Government personnel and the remaining 70% will be other Government contractors.

Contractor personnel will require full read and write access to the EAM database.

038 Section L

(4.1.4e) p. 219

Evaluation

Factor IV –

Transition Plan

& Schedule-

MAXIMO

The paragraph provides for the “establishment of required Configuration Databases including migration of data” during the transition phase of the contract. What historical data is retained in the Maximo database? What are and who owns or has a license to the data rights of the historical data currently residing in Maximo? Will the currently existing maintenance schedules and completed maintenance history for the LCS class ships be migrated?

The Configuration Database referenced in Section L, 4.1.4

Transition Plan is not the same as the Enterprise Asset

Management (EAM) database MAXIMO or its equivalent.

039 0005/0006 effort 4, page

79, p. 96

CDRL A006 Section C calls out A006 as “Class Maintenance Plan (CMP, Current Ship's maintenance Project (CSMP)”. Exhibit A calls out A006 as “Industrial Shipboard Test

Procedures”. Note: Exhibit A has CMP as CDRL A020. Please clarify which is correct.

CDRL A006, Shipboard Industrial Test Procedures is correct as referenced in the statement of work on pages 79 and 96.

040 0006 effort 11,

p. 98

CDRL A012 Section C calls out A012 as “Ship Selected Record Data Updates SRDTMs”. Exhibit A has A012 Selected Record Drawings (SRD) Updates. The TM updates are listed in the

C series CDRLs. This looks like a typo in the SOW for this one instance of A012.

Please confirm.

This is a typo in the statement of work. Please see revised amendment.

041 0006/ effort 2,

p. 98

CDRL A013 Section C calls out A013 as Selected Record Drawings. Exhibit A calls out A013 as

Cost and Feasibility studies. Looks like a typo in the SOW for this one instance of

A013. Please confirm.

This is a typo in the statement of work. Please see revised amendment.

042 0005/0006 effort 9, p. 81,

p. 98

CDRL A017 Section C calls out A017 as NSEDR Index. Exhibit A calls out A017 as Ship Drawing

Index Updates. No NSEDR CDRL listed in Exhibits. Please confirm which is correct.

Items 0005 and 0006, Effort 9, reference “develop an index” which is CDRL A017, Engineering Drawings, Ship Drawing

Index Updates, as written. No changes will be made.

043 0001 effort 1,

p. 62

CDRL A026 Section C at this one instance calls out CDRL A026 as Monthly finance reports

Ship/SCD/ACRN/SLIN level. Exhibit A calls out A026 as Funding Depletion Status

Report and Execution Plan. Page 62 references A026 twice. Is CDRL A026 correct in

Exhibit A?

The Government will update the statement of work reference, CDRL Index, and CDRLs A025 and A026. See revised attached amendment.

044 0003 effort 6,

p. 67; 0004, effort 6, p. 73;

effort 7, p. 74;

0005 effort 18,

p. 86; 0005 effort 28, p. 92;

0006 effort 18,

p. 102; 0006, effort 28, p.

CDRL A029 Section C has duplicate CDRLs for A029. In this one instance, A029 is called out as

Perform Material Kitting Planning Functions and Material status. Exhibit A calls out

CDRL A029 as Material Estimating, Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM), and

Negotiation Status. There is no CDRL listed in the Exhibits for Perform Material

Kitting Planning Functions and Material status. Is CDRL A029 correct in Exhibit A?

The correct title for CDRL A029 is “Material Procurement

Status Report/Material Estimating, Rough Order Magnitude

(ROM) Negotiation Status Report. CDRL A029 is included in

Exhibit A and references to CDRL A029 were updated throughout the statement of work. The statement of work titles are not identical to the CDRL that is delivered under the effort.

See revised amendment.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

045 (A030) 0010

(A033) 0002 effort 5, p. 64;

0003 effort 11,

p. 70; 0004 effort 11 p. 75;

0007 effort 12,

p. 116; 0009 effort 2, p. 119

CDRL A033 Section C calls out CDRL A033 as Ships 3M /Open Architecture Retrieval System

(OARS). Exhibit A, and CLIN 010 CDRL A030 is called out as "Maintenance &

Material Management/Open Architecture Retrieval System" I believe this is supposed to be the same CDRL - however, A030 and A033 are called out in the SOW. Is the

CDRL C030 in Exhibit A the correct CDRL?

The Government will amend the solicitation to replace CDRL

A033 references with CDRL A030. The CDRL Index and

CDRL block 5 and block 16 are updated.

046 0001 effort 1,

p. 62

CDRL C004 Section C calls CDRL C004 Technical Manual Cost Report, Exhibit A calls out CDRL

C004 Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HME) Systems Technical Manual per TMCR

SNIPP-180034-000. Looks like a typo in the SOW. Is the CDRL C004 in Exhibit A the correct CDRL?

This is not a typo in the statement of work. In CDRL C004, the attached TMCR SNIPP-180034-000, Section 2.1.8 includes DI-

TMSS-81811 Technical Manual Cost Report as a part of the submittal, as well as, Section 3.2. The CDRL Index and CDRL

C004 block 5 and block 16 are updated to reflect Contract

Reference CLIN 0001 Effort 1.

047 0005 effort 20,

p. 86; 0006, effort 20 p. 103

CDRL C010 Section C calls out CDRL C010 as Commercial Off-the-shelf Technical Manuals per

TMCR SNIPP-180049-000, Exhibit C calls out CDRL C010 as Commercial Off-the-shelf Technical Manuals per DI-TMSS-81815. Only difference is the DID number. Is

Exhibit C the correct DID?

C010 invokes two DIDs and one TMCR for the reporting requirements. The DID and TMCR references are found in block 4 and block 16. No changes will be made to the CDRLs or Solicitation.

048 Section C, p.

119 and Section

L, p. 216

Scope of Work Section C ISEA support states “The Configuration Management program will be maintained and managed under Planning Yard/Class Design Services” and Section L, Factor II, Sub-Factor 3 – Staffing Personnel states “This percentage of work breakout shall be provided for four areas; planning for CNO avails, Planned Maintenance, and

Ship Alteration; and Class Design Services.” Please clarify if the Class Design Services reference pertains to the Shipbuilder Contract Class Design Services work? If not, will the government identify the Class Design Services scope by CLIN(s) in the SOW?

No – there is no overlap between new construction and the

Planning Yard contract. Planning for CNO availabilities are

CLINs 0005 and 0006, planned maintenance is CLIN 0002, ship alteration is CLIN 0007, and class design services are on

CLIN 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, and 0011.

049 Section L, p.

220-221

Past

Performance

Section 4.1.5 states the Offeror’s Parts I, II and III of the Past Performance questionnaires shall not exceed three pages. Would the Navy consider excluding these from the page limitation and allowing them to be included under Volume I Section II, Supplemental Information, with an individual tab and label?

No.

050 Section C, p. 66 Statement of

Work

The solicitation Statement of Work Paragraph 3.2.3 Corrective and Continuous

Maintenance Planning CLIN 0003, Effort 2, Item E states “The Contractor shall be required to manage, and control access to, the Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) database MAXIMO or its equivalent.” This item is not included under CLIN 0004, Effort 2 on page 72 of the solicitation. Will the Government add this item to CLIN

0004 to correct the discrepancy?

The Government will amend CLIN 0003, Effort 2 by removing

Para. E. See revised attached amendment.

051 Section L, 4.1.5

Evaluation

Factor 5, p. 220

"Major"

Subcontractor

Thresholds

4.1.5 EVALUATION FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE states: “NOTE:

Subcontractors are deemed “major” if the subcontractors providing effort consist of

$13.5M or more OR more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price.

Subcontractor proposals are not required for those subcontractors that do not meet the threshold.”

The cited $13.5M threshold for “major” subcontractors seems inequitable with the 10% threshold, given the volume of hours and likely value of the contract. Please confirm whether the $13.5M is the intended threshold for “major” subcontractors, or provide modified dollar threshold.

Subcontractors are deemed “major” if the subcontractors providing effort consist of the lower of either $13.5M or more;

or both more than the pertinent certified cost or pricing data threshold and more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price.

The Government is defining the term “major” based on the

FAR defined subcontract amount for submission of certified cost or pricing data at FAR 15.404-3(c)(1). See revised attached amendment.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

052 Section L, 4.1.5

Evaluation

Factor 5, p. 220

Subcontractor

Tier

Applicability for "Major"

Subcontractor

Thresholds

4.1.5 EVALUATION FACTOR 5: PAST PERFORMANCE states: “NOTE:

Subcontractors are deemed “major” if the subcontractors providing effort consist of

$13.5M or more OR more than 10% of the prime contractor’s proposed price.

Subcontractor proposals are not required for those subcontractors that do not meet the threshold.”

Please confirm that the thresholds for “major” subcontractors only apply to first-tier subcontractors.

Thresholds for “major” subcontractors apply to subcontractors at all tier levels.

053 Section H

Clause

5252.216-9122

LEVEL OF

EFFORT

CLAUSE

(DEC 2000), p.

157-160

Level of Effort In circumstances where subcontractors are hired during performance of the contract, but not specifically anticipated by the Offeror in the proposal (for example, OEMs in support of their equipment), how would the subcontractors’ efforts under the contract be credited to the Offeror (as hours delivered) under the LOE clause?

The Government does not track who (prime/subcontractor) delivered the hours in the LOE clause. Hours in the LOE clause reflect total tasked hours.

054 Section C CDRL for

CMP

CDRL A033 for the Class Maintenance Plan (CMP) is listed in Section C.

CLIN 2 – Effort 5, page 64

CLIN 3 – Effort 11, page 70

CLIN 4 – Effort 11, page 75

CLIN 7 – Effort 12, page 116

This CDRL was not provided by the Navy in the Solicitation. Please provide a copy of the CDRL and DID.

See Government response to Bidder’s Question 045.

055 Section C, p.

64, 70, 75, 116, CDRL

Requirements

Section C of this solicitation references CDRL A033 “The Contractor shall submit

3M/OARS Database Reporting in accordance with CDRL A033/DI-MGMT-82170” and “Data submissions shall be in accordance with Section J, Attachment 17(CDRL

A033)” but the description is not included in the CDRL package. Will the government clarify the requirement?

See Government response to Bidder’s Question 045.

056 Attachment S-

OCI

Mitigation

Plan Checklist

Item #3.3 of Attachment S-06 requires that the contractor’s OCI Mitigation Plan address “potential impact upon quality of performance caused by a team member’s inability to perform due to any actual or potential OCIs”. Can the Navy please define

“team member” for this requirement? Does it include any and all subcontractors?

The Government defines team members as any and all subcontractors that the Prime Offeror is working with to create this proposal and to use during contract performance.

057 Attachment S-

Past

Performance

Questionnaire

Requirements

S-05 requires Offeror to submit a Cost Performance Report (CPR) [a.k.a., Contract

Performance Report (CPR), or more currently called the Integrated Program

Management Report (IPMR)] for each cost-type contract questionnaire submitted with its proposal. If CPR was intended, and an alternate is not acceptable, how should offeror address this issue on the S-05 or elsewhere in its proposal?

See Government response to Bidder’s Question 009 The format shall be in accordance with DI-MGMT-81466A, Format 1 or 3 and 5. The Government would advise any Offeror to update their examples of cost reporting on all CPR submittals.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

058 Section B, HQ

B-2-0003

DETERMINA

TION OF FEE

(NAVSEA),

Para (C)(5)(ii),

p. 49

Determination of Award Fee

"Calculations: At the end of each Evaluation Period, the Government will evaluate the

Contractor’s Aggregate Target Cost (TC) against its Aggregate Actual Costs (AC).

Aggregate is defined as all LOE CLINs 0X01-0X11 for the evaluation period.

However, if any one CLIN has a cost overrun or underrun greater than 5% of the target costs, then the contractor earns a rating of 0% for the Cost Category. Table B-2 illustrates the percentage of the cost category weighting earned."

The sentence “However, if any one CLIN has a cost overrun or underrun greater than

5% of the target costs, then the contractor earns a rating of 0% for the Cost Category,” states than underrunning or overrunning any CLIN by more than 5% of the Target Cost will result in a score of 0% for the Cost Category for the Award Fee calculation. The

Contractor believes this is an inappropriate rule for scoring the Cost Category of the

Award Fee. In the base year, for example, there are a total of 462,000 LOE hours across

CLINs 0001-0011. CLINs 0001-0008 and 0011 make up 458,000, or 99.13%, of the total hours in the base year. CLINs 0009 and 0010 each account for 2,000, or 0.43%, of the total hours in the base year. Under the current rule, at the end of the Evaluation

Period, the Contractor could have an Aggregate Actual Cost that is 100% of the

Aggregate Target Cost on CLINs 0001-0008 and 0011, but underrunning/overrunning on CLINs 0009 or 0010 would result in the Contractor earning a score of 0% in the

Cost Category. Because this rule does not take into consideration the wide range of hours/cost/scope of each CLIN, and could severely punish the Contractor for underrunning/overrunning on CLINs that account for less than 1% of the total hours, the Contractor requests that the Government remove this Award Fee rule from the solicitation.

No, the Government will not revise the award fee language.

059 Section B, HQ

B-2-0003

DETERMINA

TION OF FEE

(NAVSEA),

Para (C)(5)(ii), Table B-2,

p. 49

Determination of Award Fee

Do the criteria for “% of Cost Category Earned” in Table B-2 reflect the Government’s true intent for Award Fee Determination? As written in the Solicitation, “95%TC<AC<105%TC”, the Contractor would earn 0% of the Cost Category if the

Contractor’s AC is between 95% and 105% of the TC. For example, if the Contractor’s

AC is equal to its TC, it would earn 0% of the Cost Category. The Contractor requests that the Government change the criteria for earning 0% of the Cost Category to

“95%TC>AC>105%TC”, whereby the Contractor would earn 0% of the Cost Category if the Contractor’s AC is less than 95% of the TC or greater than 105% of the TC. This would be more consistent with the logic from the underlined sentence above in para

(C)(5)(ii).

The Contractor requests that the criteria for earning 60% of the Cost Category be changed to “95%TC≤AC<98%TC Or 102%TC<AC≤105%TC” to allow the Contractor to earn 60% of the Cost Category in the event the Contractor’s AC is greater than or equal to 95% of the TC, but less than 98% of the TC, or if the Contractor’s AC is greater than 102% of the TC, but less than or equal to 105% of the TC.

The Contractor also requests that the criteria for earning 100 of the Cost Category be changed to “98%TC≤AC≤102%TC” to allow the Contractor to earn 100% of the Cost

Category in the event the Contractor’s AC is greater than or equal to 98% of the TC, but less than or equal to 102% of the TC.

Table B-2 will be revised for the 0% Cost Category Column to read:

AC<95%TC

Or

AC>105%TC

This does not reflect a change in the Award Fee Language, but corrects an error in the table formulas. See revised attached amendment.

SOLIC.

SECTION

AND PAGE

GENERAL

SUBJECT

STATEMENT REQUIRING CLARIFICATION OR QUESTION ANSWER

060 Section H, p.

128, HQ C-2-

0005 ACCESS

TO THE

VESSELS BY

NON-U.S.

CITIZENS

(NAVSEA)

(SEP 2016),

Para (a)

HQ C-2-0005

ACCESS TO

THE

VESSELS BY

NON-U.S.

CITIZENS

(NAVSEA)

(SEP 2016)

"The Contractor shall establish procedures to comply with this requirement and

NAVSEAINST 5510.3 ( )."

The Contractor believes the space between the parentheses is intended to be filled in by the Government, and in the Solicitation it appears to be formatted as an area to be filled

in. Please confirm if it is the Government's intent to fill the space with additional information.

The Government filled in the clause with the appropriate

NAVSEAINST 5510.2(c) reference. See revised attached amendment.

061 J Attch-1, Page

3, DD 254,

Block 13

Security

Guidance

DD 254 SCG

ID# 03-150.2

As indicated in the Government's response to Question #003 on 25 July 2018, the DD

254 will be revised to remove the "SECRET" marking. The current DD 254 references

LCS SCG ID# 03-150.1. It is the Contractor's understanding that the current SCG is

SCG ID# 03-150.2. The New Construction class guide is also being modified to add approximately 14 additional SCG and 1 more updated SCG in addition to the 03-150.2.

Is it the Government’s intention to bring the two program DD-254’s into alignment?

SCG ID# 03-150.1, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), is the most current SCG. Offeror’s shall propose using the references contained within the draft DD254.

062 Section I, FAR

52.215-23, p.

FAR 52.215-

23 Limitations on Pass-

Through

Charges (OCT

2009)

The Contractor requests that the Government add FAR Clause 52.215-23 Alt I to the

Solicitation. Alternate I substitutes the following paragraph (b) for paragraph (b) of the basic clause: (b) General. The Government will not pay excessive pass-through charges. The Contracting Officer has determined that there will be no excessive pass-through charges, provided the Contractor performs the disclosed value-added functions.

The government will not add the alternate version of FAR

Clause 52.215-23.