USS_SHOUP_FY19_DMP__BQ_4.xlsx

Sheet1 Attachment S-3

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

FORWARD ALL REQUESTS TO: Martha Bello, Martha.Bello@navy.mil; and Kurt Boyles, kurt.boyles@navy.mil

ITEM NO: CONTRACTOR QUESTION 83:

In support of the required Price and Non-Price Proposal bid and proposal efforts, please provide a copy of the “Government’s Critical Path to Complete the Availability” as depicted in the Planning Yard’s Availability Analysis Handbook for the USS SHOUP FY19 DMP. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

The requested document is for Government planning purposes only and is not for release. Documentation provided in the J-attachments (both J-2 (references) and J-5 (PERL)) are sufficient to provide critical path to availability.

ITEM NO: 631-11-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 84:

Please provide Reference 2.4 636-7059151 Rev C, Dampening Schedule GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

This was provided in Errata #2.

Please contact Kurt Boyles, Kurt.Boyles@navy.mil and Martha Bello, Martha.Bello@navy.mil to request the Errata.

ITEM NO: 526-11-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 85:

Paragraph 3.1 states to ‘Mechanically clean and unclog each deck drain assembly and drain piping for each drain located in 1.2’. Drawings indicate (2) deck drains in each location for a total of (4) deck drains. Paragraph 1.3.1 identifies ‘Quantity (2 EA), Deck Drain, Type C, 1-1/2 inch.

Contractor requests clarification on number of drains to be cleaned.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

See Errata #4. The Work Item has been updated to match the drawing.

Please contact Kurt Boyles, Kurt.Boyles@navy.mil and Martha Bello, Martha.Bello@navy.mil to request the Errata.

ITEM NO: 514-21-002 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 86:

Contractor requests clarification on if equipment identified in paragraphs 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 will both be available to work at the same time?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

It is at the discretion of the prime contractor whether or not to work these two items at the same time.

ITEM NO: 514-21-002 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 87:

Contractor requests clarification on if equipment identified in paragraphs 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 will be able to be started and tested upon completion of repairs? Will there be a delay due to lack of services?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

It is at the discretion of the prime contractor on when to accomplish the testing sequence as long as it supports the milestone and key event dates provided in the solicitation.

ITEM NO: 514-21-002 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 88:

Paragraph 3.4.7.1 states to ‘Accomplish the requirements of 009-58 of 2.1 using paragraph 6.6 of 2.2 for guidance. Standard Item 009-58 is in conflict with Reference 2.2 (Technical Manual) and OEM Tech Rep in terms of alignment procedure. Contractor requests Work Specification be modified to accomplish alignment in accordance with Paragraph 6-6 of Reference 2.2.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Government reviewed and does not see a conflict. Recommend contractor to bid work item as written.

ITEM NO: 588-21-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 89:

What coating system, if any, is applied to the new GFM plates provided in para 5.2? GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

See response to Bidder's Question #19

ITEM NO: 588-21-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 90:

Paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 list ‘Attachment “C”’ and ‘Attachment “B”’, respectively. Attachment C is not included in the work specification and Attachments “B” is the list of planners which does not specify any plate information. Request Attachments be provided or clarification of Attachment information. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

See Errata #4. Work item updated to delete reference to Attachment "C" and "B."

Please contact Kurt Boyles, Kurt.Boyles@navy.mil and Martha Bello, Martha.Bello@navy.mil to request the Errata.

ITEM NO: 588-21-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 91:

Are GFM plates provided in paragraph 5.2 completely fabricated / finished (i.e. cut to fit, bolt holes drilled, etc.)? If not, what fabrication or machining will be required prior to a preliminary “fit” installation of the plates? GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

See response to Bidder's Question #19.

ITEM NO: 634-21-001 CONTRACTOR QUESTION 92:

Contractor requests clarification of why “01 Level, 02 Level Bulkhead and Wetherdeck Louvers” are included in paragraph 1.2.2 to receive non-skid? Should this verbiage be removed leaving only the “Top of the Helicopter Fueling Station”? GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

See Errata #4. Work Items has been updated.

Please contact Kurt Boyles, Kurt.Boyles@navy.mil and Martha Bello, Martha.Bello@navy.mil to request the Errata.

ITEM NO: CONTRACTOR QUESTION 93:

1. The contractor understands and shares the Navy’s desire to complete the availability in the minimum time possible and appreciates the adjustment of Total Evaluated Price for a more aggressive schedule proposal. However, there are unknown and latent conditions associated with all ship maintenance availabilities that will affect the schedule; notwithstanding the language in the contract surrounding LOE and AGR hours/materials, what assurance is provided to the contractor that once the requirements of a growth or new item are identified, that the Navy will consider logical, reasonable requests to revise milestones should the unidentified work requirements require schedule modifications?. . . . Please confirm.

2. Does the Government intend to adjust contract delivery dates and milestones in the awarded contract to match/reflect the winning bidder’s proposed reduced docking period and/or early contract completion date, if any, and does the Government also intend that calculation and imposition of liquidated damages, if any, will be based upon the revised contract delivery dates and milestones rather than the contract delivery dates and milestones stated in solicitation?

3. Please explain how the Government will evaluate, if at all, proposed reductions in the docking period or early contract completion beyond the reduction in Total Evaluated Price identified in the solicitation. For example, will a proposal that proposes to complete the availability 10 days early be evaluated more favorably than a proposal that proposes to complete the availability 5 days early solely because it proposed an earlier completion of the availability and, if so, how will the Government evaluate and weigh differentials between proposed reductions in the docking period or contract completion?

4. Does the Government intend to apply realism analysis to proposed reductions in the dry docking period or the contract completion date? If so, please explain the evaluation criteria the government will use to complete this analysis.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

1. In the case of Navy caused delays, disruptions or changes, the Navy will follow what is outlined in "NOTE G: AVAILABILITY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE".

2. Yes, any proposed VATEP adjustments will be incorporated into the resultant contract via Attachment J-3.

3. The Government will evaluate proposed reductions in the docking period or early contract completion by objectively reducing the offeror's total evaluated price in accordance with the value adjustments described in Section L and M of the solicitation. There will be no tradeoff evaluated for a proposal offering to complete 10 days early versus 5 days early. As stated in RFP, Section 2.0, award shall be made to the technically acceptable offeror, who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, who offers the lowest evaluated price proposal.

4. The government does not intend to apply realism analysis to proposed reductions. "[T]he Government will analyze price proposals in accordance with FAR 15.404 using the information contained in attachment J-4. Although award will be made based on an offeror's total evaluated price, a price proposal that is found unreasonable and/or unbalanced may be rejected."

ITEM NO: CONTRACTOR QUESTION 94:

Regarding the file titled, “RCC Data 01Mar2018 (Change Price) – Releasable”, there appears to be calculation error in cells T7 and T8 as result of specifying an incorrect sample size in cell T6. Instead of using the actual dataset sample size of 44, the cell contains a value from outside the dataset which corresponds to the number of small value changes anticipated on SHOUP (113). Please clarify.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Cell T6 should be set to 91 to represent the number of Small Dollar Value Changes for this availability. By doing so, the small dollar value amount changes to $11,089. RFP NOTE F paragraph 2 has been revised.

ITEM NO: CONTRACTOR QUESTION 95:

USS SHOUP (DDG-86) FY19 DMP RFP issued RFP attachment S-5 and states, “Note - Offerors only need to certify that their proposed pier meets the requirements provided in Enclosure 1. No further documentation is required.”

In order to certify compliance to provided S-5, the contractor requests the referenced Enclosure 1 not received as a part of the original RFP delivery.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Enclosure 1 will be sent out with Amendment 4.

ITEM NO: CONTRACTOR QUESTION 96:

USS SHOUP (DDG-86) FY19 DMP Amendment 003 issued Rev7 J-4 Pricing Workbook but does not include the Addendum 01 adding, 625-11-001 Pilot House Window; replace.

Please provide a corrected Rev8 J-4 Pricing Workbook with 625-11-001 added.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Attachment J-4 has been revised. 625-11-001 has been added to the Base CLIN 0001.

Sheet2 image1.jpg