USS BOXER QA_3 FINAL.xlsx

QA1

USS BOXER (LHD 4) DSRA Pre-Proposal Information (PPI) Questions

please contact the NAVSEA POCs.

*Contractor notes the equipment identified in 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 use APL 887055831, Globe Valve, iaw std drawing/pn 803-5184193-A3, 3/4” Globe Stop and that this would be applicable for the CFM valve in 1.3.2.

*Contractor notes the valve in 1.3.1 is being provided as GFM, the NSN provided (4820-00-464-2352) is a Globe Valve, Carbon Steel, 900# and that this valve should be a Globe Stop Check valve, 1500#, Chrome Moly.

Question: Can the Customer provide clarifaction regarding the disparities between the equipment identified in 1.3.1 and 5.1 and the equipment identified by the contractor and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes that Ventilation Systems identified in 1.3.4.10 through 1.3.4.13 state 2.5 drawing 512-6123518 Rev H, Vent & Air Cond-Assy 317 & 318 - Third Deck - Fr 73-81, Port & Stbd as the applicable reference, however contractor was unable to find these systems on this reference.

*Contractor notes that the Ventilation Systems identified in 1.3.4.10 through 1.3.4.13 are found on reference 2.6 drawing 512-6123493 Rev F, Vent & Air Cond Assy 336 & 337 Second Dk Fr 73-81 Port & Stbd.

Question: Can the Customer provide clarifaction regarding the disparities between the Ventilation Systems identified in 1.3.4.10 through 1.3.4.13 and references 2.5 and 2.6 and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes reference 2.5 drawing 513-5862559 Rev H, Vent & Air Cond Aft Mchry Rm Fr81-89, sheets 9 and 10 and 11 and 12 apear to duplicate information and does not include a Parts list that include Find No's. 101 through 150.

Question: Can the Customer provide clarification as to the disparities regarding the missing data for Find No's. 101 through 150 of reference 2.5 and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes there is no Attachment B clearley identified with the specification or listed as a reference, however pages 5 through 7 of 7, LAR SWRMC - 0045 - 19 is attached and it is believed this is the intended document for Attachment B.

Question: Can the Customer provide clarification as to the disparities regarding Attachment B and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Contractor has reviewed the RFP, specification, and all identified references noting that, the intent of this items work scope appears to be for out of home port (San Diego) bidders. Historically, in the port of San Diego naval vessels are typically defueled prior to arrival at the Contractors facility and are typically refueled after departing the Contractor facility.

Contractor notes the requirements of this specifcation duplicates that of Work Item 992-11-009, Pierside Small Boat Storage; provide (OPTION ITEM) paragraphs 3.1 throgh 3.6.

Contractor has reviewed the RFP, specification, and all identified references noting that, the intent of this items work scope appears to be for out of home port (San Diego) bidders. Historically, in the port of San Diego all small boat repairs are accomplished at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado.

Question: Contractor has reviewed the RFP, specification, and all identified references noting that, the intent of this items work scope appears to be for out of home port (San Diego) bidders. Historically, in the port of San Diego all small boat repairs are accomplished at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado.

Contractor has reviewed the RFP, specification, and all identified references noting that, the intent of this items work scope appears to be for out of home port (San Diego) bidders. Historically, in the port of San Diego naval vessels are typically defueled prior to arrival at the Contractors facility and are typically refueled after departing the Contractor facility.

a) Contractor notes that Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders, Item 8, of this solicitation implies that a Government Provided Pier will be available for offerors proposing for Location San Diego, CA.

b) Contractor notes that the J-1 Specification Package identifies within the following listed (9) Work Items to provide (114) Office Work stations, for AIT's and the RMC;

*WI's 980-00-001, 980-31-001, 980-80-003, 980-90-005, 980-90-010, 980-90-015, 980-90-019, 980-90-025, 992-11-002.

c) Contractor notes that the J-1 Specification Package identifies within the following listed (6) Work Items to provide (14) Commercial Trailer/Office(s), for AIT's and/or as directed by the SUPERVISOR;

*WI's 980-90-006, 980-90-017, 980-90-020, 980-90-023, 980-90-024, 992-00-002.

Question 1): If the pierside portion of the avail is executed at a Government Provided Pier at Location San Diego, CA. will the (114) Office Work stations, listed in the (9) Work Items listed above in b), need to be supported by the Contractor during the pierside portion of the availability, and if so, what work items and to what extent?

Question 2) If the pierside portion of the avail is executed at a Government Provided Pier at Location San Diego, CA. will the (14) Commercial Trailer/Office(s), listed in the (6) Work Items listed above in c) need to be supported by the Contractor, and if so, what work items and to what extent?

FN#5 4 EA Cable ASSY, Aircraft FN#22 15 EA Enclosure, Contactor FN#23 4 EA Box, Service

FN#10 12 EA Rectifier and Bus Transfer FN#11 12 EA Cable ASSY, Aircraft

Paragraph 3.1.1 states "Accomplish the requirements of 009-09 of 2.1 for a step by step procedure to install, maintain and remove each cofferdam."

Since the ship is going into dry-dock, are these paragraphs still required?

Please remove 009-51 and replace with applicable active requirement.

Please provide copy of Attachment B

Please provide copy of Attachment B.

1.) Despite data being available, the proposal due date only allows contractors roughly ~50 planning days to prepare and provide a robust proposal for a package that contains 53 large ShipAlt's. These ShipAlt's are significant in size, especially Joint Strike Fighter, and Contractors (and needed Subcontractors) are straining to process timely estimates to guage requirements and plan resources.

2.) The USS Boxer proposal has been plagued by a slow start as Contractors, especially Subcontractors, have shifted their planning efforts over to this RFP. The USS Mobile Bay, USS Spruance, and USS Jackson consumed the first three weeks of the available USS Boxer planning timeline.

3.) As directed, the Contractor has attempted to conduct ship checks with inconsistent results due to USS Essex Ship's Force not granting full access to personnel attempting to ship check, despite being on the approved access list. Also includes not being authorized to use cameras to aid the planning process. This has caused significant delays in the Contractor's ability to verify locations of work, interferences, etc. for over 200 work items that have been identified to ship check. The Contractor acknowledges and appreciates the Government's attempt to resolve these issues but it has nontheless resulted in delays to appropriate planning (for Subcontractors as well). The USS Essex is also undergoing a Planned Maintenance Availability (PMA), and although the USS Essex is a similar hull, the capture of interferences between hulls has been hindered by Building Yard field runs of ventilation duct, electrical, and piping systems. Further complicating and extending the time it takes to ship check.

4.) From what the Contractor has reviewed in the work package so far, there is a high probability and expectation that bidders will receive multiple Errata and possible Addendums during this planning effort. Due to the size of the ShipAlts, the Contractor also expects that these changes/additions will occur late in the planning timeframe, further stressing bidders' ability to recover and accurately capture requirements.

Question: In order to depressurize the planning schedule and afford all contractors ample time to prepare/submit accurate proposals, and to allow for adequate time for subcontractor/vendor solicitations/evaluations/selections, request that the proposal due date be extended from 13 December 2019 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time to 3 January 2020 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time. A 21-day proposal due date extension, or roughly ~14 additional planning days (excluding Sundays and upcoming holidays).

*Contractor believes the believes that Note 4.1.4 is incorrect and should state "Inport Testing Completion Date: 04/27/2021".

*Contractor believes the services prescribed in paragraph 3.18 reflect the vessels full up normal pier side requirements and not the reduced requirements while the vessel is in Dock.

Question: Can the Customer provide approximate electrical power requirements that the Contractor can expected while the vessel is Dry-Docked so a comparatively accurate electrical services estimte can be provided by all bidder's?

Contractor note that reference 2.4 drawing 304-8677073 Rev A, LHD-4, Cable Routing Key Plan has not been provided and also is identified within the following listed specifications, *Work Item, 313-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.31, *Work Item, 321-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.10, *Work Item, 555-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.17, *Work Item, 663-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.55, *Work Item, 665-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.28, *Work Item, 700-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.11, *Work Item, 703-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.55, *Work Item, 783-90-001 (E1), Reference 2.27, Question: Contractor request the Customer provide missing reference drawing 304-8677073 Rev A, LHD-4, Cable Routing Key Plan?

Item 3 states, "In addition to the above, if an offeror intends to have a subcontractor participate in a ship check in lieu of themselves (i.e. Prime Offeror (contractor), the Sub-contractor’s Security Access must go thru the Prime Offeror they are estimating for and must state “Ship Check for Estimating purposes for USS BOXER".

As the Government is already aware, the Contractor has made several attempts to conduct Ship Checks but has not been granted full access to the USS Essex despite being on the approved access list. The Contractor now notes that Ship Check delays have been further exacerbated. Subcontractor requests to Ship Check have returned unapproved by the SWRMC FSO despite the Amendment 0001 directive. These requests via the Prime have been returned stating, “Your request has been returned without action due to the following: Incorrect contract number”

The Contractor acknowledges and appreciates the Government's ongoing attempts to resolve these issues with the SWRMC FSO; however, despite the attempts both Contractors and the Subcontractor community have lost valuable time needed to develop accurate and timely estimates.

Question:

1.) In order to depressurize the planning schedule and afford all contractors ample time to Ship Check and prepare/submit accurate proposals, request that the proposal due date be extended from 13 December 2019 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time to 3 January 2020 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time. A 21-day proposal due date extension, or roughly ~14 additional planning days (excluding Sundays and upcoming holidays).

2) The Contractor requests that the Ship Check and PPI Schedule also be extended during this time to allow all Bidders, and their solicited Subcontractors, ample time to Ship Check and submit questions that arise during their assessments.

Paragraph 3.4.4 does not exist on the spec.

Is it the intention of this paragraph to accomplish reference 2.23 in its entirety or electrical grade matting only?

Contractor notes that the title of the documents (S-2 and S-9) have been reversed in the RFP. The S-2 should state Past Performance Questionnaire and the S-9 should state Past Performance CPARS References.

Question;

1.3.1 Quantity (One EA), Air Conditioner 7.5 Ton, Mfr: Engineered Coil Company, Mfr Dwg: 1002-00-D, Mfr ID: SCAC 7.5, Type: HRMT SE, Navy Std Size 7.5, APL 330510001

Para 3.1 Remove existing and install new each equipment listed in 1.3.1 and located in 1.2.1, using 2.2 through 2.5 for guidance.

Contractor has been informed by his supplier that the material listed in Para 1.3.1 is obsolete and no longer manufactured due to Clean Air Act.

Question:

Will the Government issue an errata and provide a replacement unit?

Paragraph 1.2.4.1 – CPO Shower Stall No. 2 is where the work will be conducted.

FY 20, Standard Items 009-26, Attachment A is Ceramic Tile (Quarry and Porcelain). Attachment C is Chemical – Resistant Floorings.

In Work Item 313-90-001 (E1), reference 2.29 634-8770238, ShipAlt LHD1-83220K, L-Ion Battery Shop for JSF Mod to Deck Covering, shows decking to be installed will be peel and stick nonskid.

Both items have the same compartment number.

Contractor notes reference 2.20 drawing 436-8770755, ShipAlt LHD1-82483K Capstone CKT B & DL Mods B & EWD, Sheet 1, LOM, Item # 2, identifies drawing 401-6117426 that is not listed or provided as a reference.

Contractor notes 4.1 do

Question: Can the Customer provide the missing drawing 401-6117426 that was not provided as a reference for this specification and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Contractor notes that there are (5) Locations list in 1.2 and that the total of 60 linear feet to Vee-out and weld apears to be deficiant... 75 LF = (5 Locations X 15 linear feet)

Question: Can the Customer provide clarifaction regarding the disparity identified for paragraph 3.2.1 for the quanity of Vee-out weld repairs to be proposed and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Contractor notes that there are (18) Locations list in 1.2 and that the total of 130 linear feet to Vee-out and weld apears to be deficiant... 180 LF = (18 Locations X 10 linear feet)

Question: Can the Customer provide clarifaction regarding the disparity identified for paragraph 3.2.1 for the quanity of Vee-out weld repairs to be proposed and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Since the USS Boxer is unavailable for ship check, the contractor needs the square footage of mold requiring remediation.

Ref-16 SHIPALT LHD-1-90787K Power Distr Mod, 320-8790384.

Ref-17 SHIPALT LHD-1-90787K Power Distr Mod, 320-8790342.

Ref-18 LMMT AN/USQ-212(V)1 Power System Modificaations, 321-8795199.

Ref-19 CANES AN/USQ-2088(V)6, MDL 3 Power System Instalation, 321-8795277.

Question:

Will the Goivernment provide reference drawings, 320-8790384, 320-8790342, 321-8795199 and 321-8795277?

Now, to make matters worse, the Contractor wishes to notify the Government that the most recent request was again returned by Aisha Tate, Security Specialist, Code 1113, SWRMC Industrial Security, Kros-Wise, Inc., e-mail: aisha.tate.ctr@navy.mil stating that, "Your request has been returned without action due to the following: There is not contracting officers signature on the provided contract. Also, I am seeing a delivery date but no POP. "

The Contractor acknowledges and appreciates the Government's continued attempts to resolve these reoccurring issues with the SWRMC FSO; however, despite multiple attempts both Contractors and the Subcontractor community have lost valuable time needed to develop accurate and timely estimates. In some cases, the Contractor has had no option but to abandon much needed Ship Checks in order to complete work item estimates. This has injected significant and unnecessary risk into the planning process, estimated cost, and subsequent bid.

Due to Ship Check failures and Government's non-response to requests for immediate proposal due date extensions via PPIs, the Contractor is now even further behind schedule than what the Government was previously notified.

Question:

1.) In order to depressurize the planning schedule and afford all contractors ample time to Ship Check and prepare/submit accurate proposals, request that the proposal due date be extended from 13 December 2019 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time to 10 January 2020 at 10:00 AM, Eastern Standard Time. A 28-day proposal due date extension, or roughly ~19 additional planning days (excluding Sundays and upcoming holidays).

2) The Contractor requests that the Ship Check and PPI Schedule also be extended during this time to allow all Bidders, and their solicited Subcontractors, ample time to Ship Check and submit questions that arise during their assessments.

Para 3.4.1 Accomplish the requirements of 009-32 of 2.1, including Table 2, Line 46, for the location listed in 1.2.

Contractor notes NAVSEA Std Items FY-20, Table 2 Line 46, Column A states, For surface preparation, near white blast or waterjetting.

Contractor has identified the areas being repaired are small in size and recommends Table 2 Line 21 or 22, Column A to accompplish power tool cleaning to bare metal, SP-11.

Question:

AND

634-10-002 ShipAlt LHD1-83220K, Lithium-Ion Battery Shop to Support Joint Strike Fighter (JSF); accomplish

AND

Chemical - Resistant Floor Covering System; install WI 313-90-001 Para 2.29 634-8770238, ShipAlt LHD1-83220K L-Ion Battery Shop for JSF Mod to Deck Covering.

Wi 634-10-002 Para 1.2.3 Storage Battery Shop Lead Acid No. One (1-67-3-Q).

Contractor notes WI 313-90-001 requires Peel and Stick and 634-11-002 requires Chemical- Resistant for the same compartment.

Question:

Contractor was informed by his vendor that the provided references states the door is to be modified to a 35 PSI door. Reference does not state what part of the dorr shall be modified to accomplish a 35 PSI door.

Question:

*One EA, Bearing, Spher Roller, Self Aligning Pc 46 Reference 2.4, Sheet 3, MIL-R-7362, Type I *One EA, Bearing, Spher Roller, Self Aligning Pc 47 Reference 2.4, Sheet 3, MIL-R-7362, Type I

Contractor notes that venders including the OEM identified in 4.1 continue to "No-Bid" the above listed items.

Question: Can the Customer provide reference 2.4 drawing 562-6125047 Rev F, Rudder & Support Assembly Arrangement & DetailsPcs 46 and 47 as GFM and if so and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*One EA, Bearing, Spher Roller, Self Aligning Pc 46 Reference 2.4, Sheet 3, FF-B-185 *One EA, Bearing, Spher Roller, Self Aligning Pc 47 Reference 2.4, Sheet 3, FF-B-185

Contractor notes that venders including the OEM identified in 4.1 continue to "No-Bid" the above listed items.

Question: Can the Customer provide reference 2.4 drawing 562-6125047 Rev F, Rudder & Support Assembly Arrangement & Details Pcs 46 and 47 as GFM and if so and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes reference 2.4 drawing 167-8677123, ShipAlt LHD1-82046K JSF Shops & Services Mod to Structural Doors Items 102 and 103 SCE column is “F” and the Remarks state ~ # 043402 and ~ # 043403 and no further procurement reference notes provided.

*Contractor believes that reference 2.4, Items 102 and 103 maybe intended to be provided as GFM however there is no reference to that effect indicated within this document or the specification.

Question: Can the Customer provide clarification as to if the Contract will be required to procure reference 2.4, Items 102 and 103 or will they be provided as GFM and if so and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes that no Square Footage or number of locations was provided for bidders to utilize for estimatting purposes.

*Contractor believes that the requirements identified in paragraph 3.1 that state, "Provide 100 mandays of labor and 150,000 dollars of material to accomplish lagging and insulation repair as directed by the SUPERVISOR" covers the requirements of paragragraph 3.1.1.1 NSI 009-114, Cat II, Mold Remediation: accomplish.

Question: Can the Customer provide conformation that the requirements of 3.1.1.1 are covered by the RTR pools identified in paragraph 3.1 and if not will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes that no Square Footage or number of locations was provided for bidders to utilize for estimatting purposes.

*Contractor believes that the requirements identified in paragraph 3.2 that state, "Provide 650 mandays of labor and 150,000 dollars of material to accomplish work not previously identified in the Work Item, as directed by the SUPERVISOR" covers the requirements of paragragraph 3.2.2 NSI 009-114, Cat II, Mold Remediation: accomplish.

Question: Can the Customer provide conformation that the requirements of 3.2.2 are covered by the RTR pools identified in paragraph 3.2 and if not will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes the specification does not provide the locations and the amount of mold that may need to be remediated from the overhead.

Contractor notes that there are no flammable liquid pipe references provided that would allow for an accurate estimate of how many new aluminized cloth spray shields will be require replacement.

Question: Can the Customer provide flammable liquid pipe references that would allow all bidders and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Contractor notes that upon review of reference 2.9 drawing 480-8770568, ShipAlt LHD1-82035K JSF-CIWS Mt 22 Removal Blk Wrg Diag that the following listed 2nd Tier references are required.

*# Reference 6, drawing 723-8666643, *# Reference 7, drawing 480-5865860, *# Reference 8, drawing 480-5865858, *# Reference 9, drawing 480-7236827, Question: Can the Customer provide the (4) missing 2nd Tier reference drawings that was not provided as a reference for this specification and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

What is the intent of this paragraph? Does the Government want to weld studs to the feed pumps?

Reference 2.6 is for shipboard testing, therefore contractor is unable to accomplish this in the shop.

Paragraph 1.2. States location of work will be "Contractor's Plant Adjacent to Ship".

1. Please provide H x W dimensions of the required 4ea access cuts for estimating purposes.

2. Since the locations of the access cuts are unknown, contractor will require an equitable adjustment to accomplish the 009-23 requirement.

Location listed in 1.2 is Auxiliary Machinery & Deballast Compressor Room (6-73-0-E).

Is the intention of paragraph 3.4 to accomplish the preservation listed in 1.2?, unless otherwise directed, contractor assumes the intention of paragraph 3.4 is to accomplish the preservation of areas listed in 1.3.

*Contractor notes that no Square Footage or number of locations was provided for bidders to utilize for estimatting purposes.

*Contractor believes that the requirements identified in paragraph 3.4 that state, "Provide 200 mandays of labor and 150,000 dollars of material to accomplish lagging and insulation repair not previously identified in the Work Item, as directed by the SUPERVISOR" should cover the requirements of paragragraph 3.2 NSI 009-114, Cat II, Mold Remediation: accomplish.

Question: Can the Customer provide conformation that the requirements of 3.2 are covered by the RTR pools identified in paragraph 3.4 and if not will an Errata be issued for this specification?

*Contractor notes reference 2.7, 634-8770740, ShipAlt LHD1-82483K Capstone Space Arr CIC Mod to Deck Covering, Sheet 4 (Deck Covering Schedule), Line One, shows that deck covering in Combat Information Center (02-65-0-C) is to be removed and installed.

Contractor notes that Work Item 897-11-004, paragraph 3.1.1 shows that deck covering is to be removed and installed in Combat Information Center also.

Question: Can the customer provide clarification as to the disparity between Work Items 663-90-001 paragraph 3.12 reference 2.7 and 897-11-004 paragraph 3.1.1 will an Errata be issued for these specifications?

Contractor notes 1.2.4.1 identifies the CPO Shower Stall No. 2 that is where the work will be conducted and that NSI 009-26, Attachment A is Ceramic Tile (Quarry and Porcelain) and Attachment C is Chemical – Resistant Floorings.

Can the Customer provide clarification as to what Attachment will be correct to use for the location listed in 1.2.4.1 and will an Errata be issued for this specification?

Contractor notes that LHD Mess Deck floor covering replacement there is a 50’ x 5’ x 2” plate running port to starboard thru the mess decks. This plate requires additional underlayment to achieve a level deck.

Question: Can the Customer confiorm the existence of this plate on USS Boxer, or provide the structural reference indicating the existence or non-existence of this plate?

*Contractor notes after Decking Sub-Contractor ship check onboard the USS Essex, decking found was painted.

*Contractor notes typicaly a high durability paint system is applacable for compartment 1-81-1-Q (Medevac Elevator Machinery Space).

Question: What is the correct decking system to be installed on USS Boxer (LHD 4) ?

Contractor notes NAVSTA San Diego CA, Steam service is only available at the following piers; Pier 1, Pier 2, Pier 7 and Pier 13.

Question: Can the Customer confirm that if the Contractor intends to exacute the pier side durations at NAVSTA San Diego CA, that only a pier with Steam services will be provided?