COW_GET_Bidders'_Questions_20180118.pdf

DATE OF REQUEST: Monday, October 30, 2017

HULLS/TITLE: USS COWPENS (CG 63) & USS GETTYSBURG (CG 64)

SOLICITATION NO: N00024-18-R-4439

NAVSEA POCs:

Billy Castleberry Craig Barton

NAVSEA POC E-MAIL:

billy.castleberry@navy.mil craig.s.barton@navy.mil

NAVSEA POC #: (202) 781-1248

# HULL Contract Area Question Response

ITEM NO: Gov't Provided Pier Differential TITLE: RFP Section L

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO: 120 of 135

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 1: RFP Bid Instruction: A Government Provided Pier Differential shall be proposed for offerors that intend to utilize Government supplied pier space. If applicable, include the value for the Government provided pier differential as follows: No Values Provided!!!

Question: For San Diego, CA, Mayport, FL, Pascagoula, MS, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, and Norfolk, VA, please provide the Pier Differential Value ($) for both USS COWPENS and USS GETTYSBURG. In addition, please provide the list of Gov't support services to be provided at the Gov't supplied pier space in San Diego, CA, Mayport, FL, Pascagoula, MS, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, and Norfolk, VA?; i.e., if the Offeror intends to execute the job(s) at a Gov't supplied pier space, what are the production/execution related support services that the Gov't will provide during contract execution at the Gov't supplied pier space?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: At this time, NAVSEA does not have standing agreements with the various Naval Stations to provide Government piers. If the offeror desires the use of a Navy provided pier to complete the Availability, please request a specific location and NAVSEA will determine if such an arrangement is feasible and provide associated cost.

Also, please note, the Navy does not have access to Government piers in Pascagoula, MS or Portland, OR.

ITEM NO: Interport Differentials TITLE: RFP Section L

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO: 120 of 135

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 3: The RFP provides Interport Differential values for the COWPENS/GETTYSBURG locations out-side the vessel's homeport.

Question: Please provide an explanation of how the Interport Differential values were derived? For example, how was the COWPENS Interport Differential value for Pascagoula, MS ($455,567) derived for the COWPENS that is homeported in San Diego, CA? For example, how was the Interport Differential value for Norfolk, VA ($1,525,223) derived for the COWPENS that is homeported in San Diego, CA? For example, how was the Interport Differential for San Diego, CA ($6,319,119) derived for the GETTYSBURG that is homeported in Norfolk, VA?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

The categories of cost that make up the Inter-port Differential are set forth in the RFP. Specific values are based on a variety of factors including days at the peer, ship's force composition, average amount of power required among others.

ITEM NO: EXTENSION

TITLE: Proposal Due Date Extension

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 6: Request Extension (Letter Submitted) GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: 045-11-001

COWPENS

TITLE: Physical Security at Private Contractor's Facility;

provide

PARA. NO: 3.6.4

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 55:

• Reference 2.3 calls for the security force to be equipped with “Shotgun- 12 GA Remington 870. Duty Ammo 12 GA 9 pellet limited flight reduced recoil 00 Buck”. Paragraphs 3.6.4 refers to paragraph 1.3.6 which calls for the security force to be equipped with “Rifle, Minimum 5.56mm Caliber”.

o May the security force be equipped with shotguns IAW reference 2.3 vice the rifles identified in 1.3.6?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Follow guidance outlined in confidential document DTG

CFFC EXORD 251702ZJUN2015

Pre-Proposal Information (PPI)

# HULL Contract Area Question Response

ITEM NO: 042-11-003

GETTYSBURG

TITLE: Physical Security at Private Contractor's Facility;

provide

PARA. NO: 3.6.4

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 56:

• Reference 2.3 calls for the security force to be equipped with “Shotgun- 12 GA Remington 870. Duty Ammo 12 GA 9 pellet limited flight reduced recoil 00 Buck”. Paragraphs 3.6.4 refers to paragraph 1.3.6 which calls for the security force to be equipped with “Rifle, Minimum 5.56mm Caliber”.

o May the security force be equipped with shotguns IAW reference 2.3 vice the rifles identified in 1.3.6?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Follow guidance outlined in confidential document DTG

CFFC EXORD 251702ZJUN2015

ITEM NO: 045-11-001

COWPENS

TITLE: Physical Security at Private Contractor's Facility;

provide

PARA. NO: 1.3.5

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 57:

• Paragraph 1.3.5 calls for body armor, level III which seems excessive, particularly under the current FPCON.

o Recommend revising the requirement to body armor, level II or level IIA

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Follow guidance outlined in confidential document DTG

CFFC EXORD 251702ZJUN2015

ITEM NO: 042-11-003

GETTYSBURG

TITLE: Physical Security at Private Contractor's Facility;

provide

PARA. NO: 1.3.5

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 58:

• Paragraph 1.3.5 calls for body armor, level III which seems excessive, particularly under the current FPCON.

o Recommend revising the requirement to body armor, level II or level IIA

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Follow guidance outlined in confidential document DTG

CFFC EXORD 251702ZJUN2015

ITEM NO: Solicitation

TITLE:

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO: 52 of 135

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 98:

Combat Systems (CS) Turnovers - 1 through 5 (Milestone)

Paragraph makes reference to work item 813-90-001. There was not a spec item 813-90-001 provided nor listed on the J-7. Please provide.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Revision of J7 provided. Work item 813-90-001 was cancelled.

ITEM NO: RFP Section L

TITLE:

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION : 141

Due to the extent of missing drawings and unanswered questions please extend the bid due date by 1 month. Please advise as soon as possible.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: 045-11-001

TITLE: Physical Security at Private Contractor's Facility;

provide

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION 143: Paragraph 3.6.3 states “Station One continuously roving guard at location listed in 1.2.3, equipped with equipment listed in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.

• Contractor notes that the staffing, equipment and duties for the 1.2.3 post are clearly identified in paragraph 3.6.3, however there is no such description for post 1.2.5.

QUESTION: Can the Customer provide clarification as to the disparities identified above regarding the requirements of paragraph 3.6.3 and the staffing and duties listed 1.2.5 along with the equipment requirements of 1.3.1, through

1.3.2 and will an Amendment be issued providing a revised specification?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Follow guidance outlined in confidential document DTG

CFFC EXORD 251702ZJUN2015

ITEM NO: 042-11-002

TITLE: Availability General Administrative Requirements

PARA. NO: 3.1.1.1

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION : 221

a. Milestones in paragraph 3.1.1.1 are inconsistent with the milestones in attachment J-3. Please advise and revise work item as required.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Corrected in Ammendment

ITEM NO: Solicitation

TITLE:

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION : 236

Due to the high number of missing documents from Section J, the high number of missing responses to Solicitation inquiries that the proposal due date be extended by one month to 2/5/18. In addition, we anticipate that the data that will be provided along with any forthcoming amendments and Erratas will generate new questions. Recommend extending the deadline for receipt of questions by 4 weeks to 12/20/17. Please advise as soon as possible.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: RFP Section J

TITLE:

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION : 238

As of 11/22/17, KTR has yet to receive the 113 missing drawings/references.

Government was notified of the missing drawings/references on 11/8/17. Many of those references are 4720s identifying the Government Furnished Material. No such amendments have been supplied by the government, delaying KTRs ability to price work items. Request proposal extension due to the government caused delay.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised

ITEM NO: 456-90-002

TITLE: SHIPALT CG47-

77614.03K

PARA. NO: 3.1

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION : 267

For Ref.2.16 (DWG.622-8711163A),there are (3) foundation assemblies "A", "B" and "C", item no.110, 115 and 116 respectively. For estimating purposes, are these foundations will be provided as GFM to be installed only, or will these be fabricated ? Please advise.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Assemblies "A", "B" & "C" will be provided to be installed. The assemblies will be fabricated and provided as GFE.

ITEM NO:

TITLE: Extension due to lack of non-responsiveness to bidder’s questions

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 293

Request for 2 week Due Date Extensions due to the lack of Answers to Questions resulting in adverse pricing from sub-ktrs and proposal preparation efforts.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: 472-90-001

TITLE: ShipAlt CG47-

80156K, CG47-71180K,

Ann/Slq-32(V)6 Hardware, Surface EW Improvement BLK 1B; accomplish

PARA. NO: 2.9, 3.1

PAGE NO: 1, 2 of 5

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 308

Material in reference 2.9, drawing 471-8648813 is noted in the remarks as NAVSEA. Will this material be provided as GFM?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Material is GFM. Corrections to 4720 reference are addressed in Errata 5.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003, 721-

31-004 (Errata 1) TITLE: Forward MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) Overhaul;

accomplish / Aft MK 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) Overhaul;

accomplish

PARA. NO: 2.14, 3.7.2

PAGE NO: 3 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 310

Reference 2.14 technical manual does not provide sufficient information regarding material required in 3.7.2. Contractor requests additional information be provided for pricing purposes, such as type of material and sizes.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Part numbers are listed under

3.7.2 and internet search pulled up manufacturer websites for quoting material costs.

ITEM NO: RFP

TITLE: Proposal Due Date

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 311

There has been a great deal of delay in the provision of GFI on this solicitation including an amendment two months into the solicitation that was the first clarification of which work items were actually in the solicitation. This amendment included two erratas that included several work item specs that had text that could not be deciphered that has still not been corrected more than a week later. With only one month left before proposals are scheduled to be delivered, we still do not have a complete list of current work item specs. We request a four week extension to the proposal due date.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised

ITEM NO: RFP Section L, Para 2.0, Page 116 of 135 TITLE: Proposal Due Date

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: Extension Request

TITLE:

PARA. NO:

PAGE NO:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 344

Extension Request to 16 February GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Extension approved. Revised proposal due date to 9 FEB 2018.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.5.3.4

PAGE NO: 5 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 345

Request clarification onto what item would require welding?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Welding required by references; included but not limited to bulkhead, stuffing tubes and others as specified by the refrences.

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.5.3.4

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 346

Request clarification onto what item would require welding?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Welding required by references; included but not limited to bulkhead, stuffing tubes and others as specified by the refrences.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.6

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 347

Request clarification on what is to be inspected? U-97 with hatch motors and

1.3.24 deals with anti-icing panel.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Addressed ERRATA 5 CG

64. Updated to U-49 versus U-97.

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.6

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 348

Request clarification on what is to be inspected? U-97 with hatch motors and

1.3.24 deals with anti-icing panel.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Addressed ERRATA 5 CG

64. Updated to U-49 versus U-97.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.7.2

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 349

Connectors replacement? Referenced figure 9-34.2 is not applicable for Gettysburg configuration.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Part listed is the correct part per ISEA verification and review of tech manual provided in work item as reference.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 338

Bidder requests an extension to current proposal due date of 05 January 2018 to 02 February 2018 for the following reasons;

1. Of the 47 questions bidder has asked to-date, in connection with USS COWPENS MODPRD, just 25 have been answered to-date. Further, the majority of the Navy bidder’s questions responses received to-date have resulted in RFP/Specification changes with associated Errata – further substantiating the need for more time owing to the many corrections/revisions required in the original RFP/Specifications.

2. Of particular importance is the additional proposal preparation time required to adequately convey bidder's questions responses (RFP/Spec changes, Errata) to the subcontractor/vendor/supplier community to facilitate their bid and proposal efforts in order that bidder may provide the Government with the most accurate and best value price.

3. The Government has still not provided a revised J-7 Pricing Spreadsheet for

USS COWPENS MODPRD.

The RFP was issued on 06 October 2017. Responses to bidder’s questions have been received nearly 60 days into the proposal preparation process, with at least 25 bidder’s questions to-date still remaining unanswered. Bidder notes that the original proposal due date of 05 January 2018 assumed that the RFP and Work Item Specifications had been prepared correctly/accurately prior to the solicitation issuance date of 06 October 2017. Bidder notes with the number of Work Specification changes, Errata changes, and remaining unanswered bidder’s questions, it is clear that the original solicitation/work package was not prepared correctly/accurately by the Navy’s 3rd party planning provider. This request for proposal due date extension to 02 February 2018 addresses the additional proposal preparation time required based upon the number of RFP/Specification/Work Item changes to-date and the remaining unanswered bidder’s questions to-date.

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.7.2

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 350

Connectors replacement? Referenced figure 9-34.2 is not applicable for Gettysburg configuration.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Part listed is the correct part per ISEA verification and review of tech manual provided in work item as reference.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.9

PAGE NO: 7 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 351

Request clarification on which components require new gaskets and fasteners?

Paragraph 1.3.27 is not applicable.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Addressed ERRATA 5 CG

64. Updated wording to indicate O-ring, packing and spacer rings.

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.9

PAGE NO: 7 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 352

Request clarification on which components require new gaskets and fasteners?

Paragraph 1.3.27 is not applicable.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Addressed ERRATA 5 CG

64. Updated wording to indicate O-ring, packing and spacer rings.

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.7.2

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 353

All Module lighting junction boxes do not normally require replacement.

Typically replacement of gasket or hinge is all that is required. Do all MLJBs need to be replaced?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.7.2

PAGE NO: 6 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 354

All Module lighting junction boxes do not normally require replacement.

Typically replacement of gasket or hinge is all that is required. Do all MLJBs need to be replaced?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

ITEM NO: 721-31-003

TITLE: Forward MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.5.3.1

PAGE NO: 5 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 355

All Deluge Header Quick Disconnects typically do not require replacement.

Request clarification if all are to be replaced with 61 new Quick Disconnects?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes all to be replaced.

ITEM NO: 721-31-004

TITLE: Aft MK 41 VLS Overhaul

PARA. NO: 3.5.3.1

PAGE NO: 5 of 14

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 356

All Deluge Header Quick Disconnects typically do not require replacement.

Request clarification if all are to be replaced with 61 new Quick Disconnects?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes all to be replaced.

ITEM NO: 645-90-001

TITLE: Shipalt VG47- 85640.03K Crew Physical Fitness Center; accomplish

PARA. NO: 3.1

PAGE NO: 1-5

CONTRACTOR QUESTION: 363

The crew physical fitness center alteration mentions gym equipment on various drawings of the required shipalt drawings, but no arrangement or list has been provided detailing quantity and size of gym equipment.

Is the Government responsible for removing and installing gym equipment?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Gym equipment is not currently installed, will be installed by MWR.