FBO_Response_05.pdf

Solicitation #: N00024-18-R-4448 NAVSEA POC Name/Title Phone

Date of Response: 10/11/2018 Jamillah Powell 202-781-2040 Randolph Cook 202-781-0093

E-Mail jamillah.powell@navy.mil randolph.cook@navy.mil

FBO # Work Item No. Document Number/Title Document

Type Question Government Response

298 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - On 7/29/18 the Contractor found the posting for this RFP on FBO.

We immediately (first thing Monday morning) requested all available information and have since received the majority of attachments. We finally received specifications and references on 8/1 in order to commence our proposal preparation. Initial review of the solicitation has revealed many new requirements along with the direction to propose various scenarios for the three

(3) ships in order to be responsive. Given the complexity of the solicitation and the work requirements yet to be received, we respectfully request an extension of the due date.

This appears to be a monumental task that will stretch the resources of our staff and our subcontractors, many of which are small businesses with limited resources. We anticipate difficulty with timely solicitation, receipt and evaluation of competitive pricing in an effort to provide our best proposal/s to the Government. As you know, small business subcontractors are extremely important to the success of every availability.

Due to the complexity of the requirements for this multi-ship RFP we request an extension of 32 calendar days, which will move the due date to October 19, 2018.

This should still provide ample time for Government evaluation and award by the stated anticipated award date.

Proposal due date was extended to 19 October in Amendment 0009.

299 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - The time from the posting of the solicitation on FBO until the proposal due date is 53 days. This proposal period duration would be appropriate for a work package the size of one of these availabilities but it is greatly insufficient for three concurrent work package evaluations, estimates and proposals. Additionally, the RFP posted to FBO on a Friday after business hours, work item specs were not received until four days later and references were not received until five days after the RFP posting, so the realized period in which to estimate work items and develop a proposal is less than 50 days. This is an insufficient amount of time for prime contractors and subcontractors to properly estimate the over 1,000 work items across these three availabilities which all need to be priced in order to be responsive to this solicitation as stated in Section L. It should also be noted that since the Arleigh Burke DSRA can only be bid by Norfolk offerors, the burden in this compressed timeframe is inequitably higher on Norfolk companies. In order to have enough time to create bids for these three availabilities we request an extension of the proposal due date three weeks to October 10, 2018.

Proposal due date was extended to 19 October in Amendment 0009.

300 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - The Solicitation mentions “Critical Path” in several locations. In light of the multiple production scenarios requested under the solicitation, it would be beneficial for the Government to provide each Planning Yard Availability Analysis to the bidders. Will the Government provide each Planning Yard Availability Analysis?

The Government will not provide the Planning Yard Availability Analysis to the bidders

Pre-Proposal Information (PPI) Questions and Responses

N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Please confirm the due date for bidder's questions. The soliciation has Sunday August 26th as the deadline.

Due date for bidder's questions was revised in Amendment 0009.

N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - With the issuance of 5 amendments including errata's, addendums and all the LARs/RLAR’s added to this package, missing references, approx. 75 questions still outstanding with more coming, this contractor is finding it very difficult to keep up with this very complex 3 ship package. The changes and unanswered questions make it difficult for contractors to provide an accurate proposal within the current allotted time period. We are getting feedback from our small business subcontractors, who have limited resources. The contractor is requesting an immediate 32 day extension.

Proposal due date was extended to 19 October in Amendment 0009.

304 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - The penalties incorporated by the QASP are punitive in nature.

Please consider elimination of all QASP penalties.

The Navy has considered the offeror's request but has elected to keep the QASP in the contract.

305 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - Please confirm that the VATEP factor is not an incentive that results in additional dollars to the contractor.

The Offeror is correct. The VATEP factor is not an incentive that results in additional dollars to the contractor. The VATEP is a proposal evaluation factor that, if proposed, reduces the offeror's total evaluated price.

307 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Can you explain how the IPD was derived? The Navy does not release the mechanics of how inter-port differentials are derived for specific Availabilities.

308 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - What's the difference between contractor complete and end of avail?

The "difference between contractor complete and end of avail" is specific to the Availability in question. For the DDG51 FY19 DSRA and the LSD44 FY19 DSRA, the end of the contractor's period of performance and the end of the Availability occur on the same day. For the DDG84 FY19 DMP, the Availability continues for several months after the end of the contractor's period of performance to complete various testing requirements.

309 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - How were firm fixed prices for small dollar value changes derived? The government reviewed a historical sample of previously executed changes between 0 and 25K and selected a value that was commensurate with the number of changes on each ship and reflective of risk to account for uncertaintites of future contract execution. The government infered from those parameters and created a risk distribution of what the prices should be.

313 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Is small dollar value change negotiable? No, the price of the Small Dollar Value Change (SDVC) is a fixed value in the contract.

N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Can you issue notifications to vendors when posts go to FBO? The government intends to notify interested offerors of FBO Amendment and QA postings.

315 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - LOE to completion is still included in some work items The Navy acknowledges that LOE to completion is still included in some work items

317 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - Liquidated Damages are not clearly defined in contract. Please clarify

Based on the offeror's question, it is unclear what needs to be further defined. The offeror is requested to expand their question.

323 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Please explain the difference between milestones KTR Contract Complete and End of Avail - Mission Ready. Why are the dates the same for Arleigh Burke and Gunston Hall but several months apart on the Bulkeley?

See response to question #308.

324 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - Do contractor responsibilities on the Bulkeley extend beyond KTR contract complete? If not, for the purposes of this solicitation, END OF AVAIL should be the same date as KTR contract complete. (For example, End of Avail is used in Secftion B in the determination of how much growth a contract needs to support between the Start of Avail and End of Avail dates).

See response to question #308.

326 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Does the Government want to receive one proposal for Scenario 1 with pricing for three different availabilities included, or three separate packages, one for each availability?

The offeror shall provide three separate proposal packages, one for each availability.

331 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - Why does the Bulkeley DMP have LD for all those individual space turnover milestones (the other two availabilities do not)?

The DDG84 FY19 DMP has liquidated damages (LD) on individual space turnover milestones because the DDG84 FY19 DMP's execution schedule includes individual space turnover milestones. The DDG51 FY19 DSRA and the LSD44 FY19 DSRA do not have individual space turnover milestones.

332 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Why does Norfolk have an interport differential since all three ships are homeported in Norfolk?

The Navy does not release the mechanics of how inter-port differentials are derived for specific Availabilities.

333 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Request the Government share the breakdown for how these interport differentials were calculated.

The Navy does not release the mechanics of how inter-port differentials are derived for specific Availabilities.

335 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - If a company without facilities is proposing to use a dock and pier owned by another company, what will the Government need to see in order to determine the proposal to be responsive and meet the technical requirements?

Offerors proposing to use a dock or pier owned by another company are expected to provide all proposal information required in Section L.

338 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other SOLICITATION - Gunston Hall anticipated growth seems excessive even for an LSD.

What data is being used to determine that this is an appropriate amount of growth used in the total evaluated pricing?

The Government based anticipated growth on actual historical growth on previously completed LSD 41/49 class CNO Availabilities.

339 N/A N00024-18-R-4448 Other

SOLICITATION - Gunston Hall (Section B, NOTE G): Contractor should be able to permit a contract scope increase of 224,367 manhours and $2,357,153 material dollars. The two DDGs have the same numbers between Section B, NOTE G and their AGR labor hours. Why is the Gunston Hall AGR labor hours so much higher than the Section B, NOTE G requirement? This exorbitant amount of growth added to the evaluated price could change the award outcome due to an unsupported quantity of growth labor hours. Request the amount of AGR be reduced to the amount in Section B, NOTE G.

The Government based anticipated growth for the LSD44 FY19 DSRA on actual historical growth on previously completed LSD 41/49 class CNO Availabilities. However, under NOTE G: AVAILABILITY SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE, the Government limited the amount of growth or new work that the contractor would be required to absorb without impacting, accelerating, or causing delay or disruption to the work required by the aforementioned work items, to any other Government contract, or to any other work in progress for the Government.