N00024-19-R-4442_BQ_1_01MAY19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ship Repair IDIQ-MAC for Hawaii CNO Availabilities, Emergent Maintence and Continuous Maintenance
- Solicitation number
- N00024-19-R-4442
About this file
This document contains answers to questions from potential offerors regarding solicitation N00024-19-R-4442 for ship repair Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity-Multiple Award Contracts in Hawaii. The Naval Sea Systems Command intends to award contracts for complex and non-complex emergent maintenance, continuous maintenance, and Chief of Naval Operations scheduled availabilities for surface ships homeported or visiting Hawaii. Lot 1 is for complex work on Oahu and is unrestricted; Lot 2 is for non-complex work on Oahu and is set aside for small businesses. The period of performance includes a base year and four option years. Offerors must submit proposals by 14:00 local time on June 12, 2019. The questions and answers clarify requirements around facilities, delivery order scope, quality assurance surveillance plans, and other terms.
Bidders Questions #1.
View the file
Other files
Show all 26
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
BQ #1
| Pre-Proposal Information (PPI) | ||
| The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation. | DATE OF REQUEST: | Wednesday, May 01, 2019 |
| HULLS/TITLE: | Hawaii MAC IDIQ | |
| SOLICITATION NO: | N00024-19-R-4442 | |
| NAVSEA POCs: | Martha Bello |
Zachary Tucker NAVSEA POC E-MAIL: Martha.Bello@navy.mil Zachary.M.Tucker@navy.mil NAVSEA POC #: Martha Bello: 202-781-3864 Zachary Tucker: 202-781-4234
| QUESTION #/ DETAILS | QUESTION/ ANSWER | ||||
| # | Question Area | Para # | Date Received | Contractor Question | Government Response |
| 1 | Solicitation | 1.2 | 18-Mar-19 | The Contractor, under the direction of the Hawaii Regional Maintenance Center (HRMC) but as an independent Contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall furnish the material, support (crane, rigging, etc.) and office facilities & shops necessary (the contractor is not required to furnish a pier or drydock) for the accomplishment of the work identified in each DO. |
The highlighted phrase will apply to the base year and four optional years, correct?
| Yes, the SOW applies to the base and all option years except fo any facilities provided within individual delivery order soliciations.. | |||||
| 2 | Solicitation | Is this meant to be awarded to one (1) offeror? | No, the government does not intend to award to one offeror | ||
| 3 | Solicitation | 4.0 S-1 Page No. 90 | 9-Apr-19 | Attachment S-1 (Past Performance Questionnaire) was provided in 10-point font, however page 90 Section 4.0 states “Text shall be in Times New Roman with a minimum font size of 12.” Would the Government allow Offerors to use 10-point font to respond to the questionnaire? | This information is not being provided directly by offerer as part of the written proposal. Please follow the instructions contained within the S-1, and have each customer POC provide directly to Zachary.M.Tucker@navy.mil. The font size and format shall remain unchanged. |
| 4 | Solicitation - Past Performance. Form S-1 - Past Performance Questionnaire, Page No. 97. | Factor 4, Para. 5 | 12-Apr-19 | Solicitation Section L, Factor 4 “Past Performance”, last paragraph states “There is no page limit associated with Past Performance documentation”. However, Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment S-1 Instruction to Offeror states: “The Offeror may submit up to five (5) questionnaires. PARTS 1, II, and III of any questionnaire shall not exceed three (3) pages”. |
| Please clarify this apparent conflict between the two (2) Solicitation documents. | The RFP has been updated to delete the sentence, “There is no page limit associated with Past Performance documentation” via Amendment 0001. | ||||
| 5 | Solicitation, Sections C & L | Page No. 19 & 94 | 13-Apr-19 | Based on discussions presented during Hawaii Industry Days 2017 and 2018 (Including 2017 Question & Answers #1, Item 13), it is Contractor’s understanding that US Navy/NAVSEA will consider Ship Repair Companies for Lot 1 Hawaii MAC IDIQ approval that do not currently have a ship repair company with facilities within the HRMC local travel area (island of Oahu). It is Contractor’s understanding that requiring offeror’s to have a Ship repair company with facilities currently within the HRMC local area would severely limit the competition. |
Solicitation Section C, Paragraph 1.2 “General Scope of Ship Repair and Overhaul”, paragraph 3 (first part) states: “Although facility requirements may vary with the work authorized for specific delivery order, the successful offeror must be a ship repair company with facilities within the HRMC local travel area (island of Oahu)….”.
Solicitation Section L, Factor 3 “Trade & Facility Resource Capabilities”, paragraph 3 states to “Provide a current or proposed plot/layout of contractor facility (prime and teaming partners).
Note: This question address offeror’s ship repair facilities, and has nothing to do with listed shop facility requirements which Solicitation specifically states can be met via teaming agreement.
Question Part 1: Based on Solicitation Sections C & L above, can the ship repair company facilities required within HRMC local travel area be set up after award of MAC IDIQ contracts and prior to issuance of first Delivery Order, or must they be established prior to award of MAC IDIQ?
| Question Part 2: If the stated ship repair company facilities must be established prior to award of MAC IDIQ contracts, would Contractor’s use of teaming partner’s current facilities meet this requirement? | The ship repair company facilities required by Section C, Paragraph 1.2 and Section L, Factor 3 may be satisfied with teaming partner’s facilities. Facilities required by Section C, Paragraph 1.2 may be provided after award of the MAC-IDIQ but prior to the award of the MAC holder's first delivery order. Facilities required by Section L, Factor 3 must be demonstrated in accordance with the proposal requirements of Section L as evaluated in Section M. | ||||
| 6 | Solicitation / Section C | SOW Para. 1.0, Page 18 | 22-Apr-19 | SOW paragraph 1.0 states, “Accordingly, the work will be accomplished onboard U.S. Navy vessels located on the island of Oahu and near Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY & IMF) in Pearl Harbor, HI.” |
| Please clarify the use of the phrase “ . . . and near . . .”. Will all “work” be completed “at” the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard or will some work be available to be done off the Naval Shipyard Base? | Unless specified otherwise in a delivery order (DO) request for proposal (RFP), the work under this contract is expected to be performed at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility (PHNSY & IMF) | |||||
| 7 | Solicitation | J-1 Labor and Material Burden Rates Price Sheet | 22-Apr-19 | Cells I11 and I13 have hard-coded numbers instead of formulas, as opposed to cells I5, I7, and I9. Is this intentional, or is it an error? If in error, please issue corrected J-1 file. | Hard coded numbers are in error. |
J-1 has been revised to correct error. Please contact Zachary.M.Tucker@navy.mil for updated Attachment J-1.
| 8 | Solicitation | Attachment S-4 QASP | 22-Apr-19 | Please confirm that the QASP penalties noted in Attachment S-4 are uncapped with no limit on penalties that could be assessed? | The QASP penalties noted in Attachment S-4 are uncapped with no limit on penalties that can be assessed. |
| 9 | Solicitation | Secltion I, List of FAR and DFAR Clauses, Beginning on Page 66 | 22-Apr-19 | Please see attached list of FAR and DFAR clauses that reflect incorrect dates. Please confirm if these dates are correct and apply to this solicitation and whether they will be included in an amendment to the solicitation or corrected in the resulting awarded contract. | Section I has been updated via Amendment A0001. |
| 10 | Solicitation: Section B and Section C | Note B; Para 1 and 3; and SOW. Page No. 15 and 18 | 22-Apr-19 | Section B, note B, paragraph 1 states, “The Contractor’s fully burdened ship repair labor rate will be used for negotiating Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders, growth work, and new work to be performed under this IDIQ-MAC for each delivery order. The fully burdened ship repair labor rate shall be the ceiling rate of the contract.” |
Section B, note B, paragraph 3 states, “The fully burdened ship repair labor rate is a fixed hourly rate that includes all wages (e.g. straight time, overtime, shift differential, holiday time, standby time, etc.) overhead, general, and administrative expenses, Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM) and profit.”
Section C, Statement of Work (SOW) in its entirety reflects general statements of expectations for the successful awardee for typical ship repair efforts.
| If an offeror is expected to develop a “fully burdened ship repair labor rate” to include, for example OT and shift differentials, what criteria can an offeror use to predict potential OT needs or shift differentials when no true scope of work has been established to form a basis to support the rate? | The contractor's needs to utilize business judgment to price their fully burdened ship repair labor ceiling rates, accounting for OT and shift differentials and other areas of risk. | |||||
| 11 | Solicitation: Section B | Note B, Para. 4. Page No. 15 | 22-Apr-19 | Solicitation Section B, Note B, paragraph 4 indicates that welding rods are to be considered consumable materials “which do not become an integral part of the repaired vessel”. We contend that welding rod does become an integral part of the ship and is accounted for as a direct cost to the delivery order. Welding rod is not included in the contractor’s list of consumables in our DCAA audited Forward Pricing Rate. We request that welding rods be included in the list of physical materials that become an integral part of the repaired vessel provided in paragraph 5. | The contractor's concern is noted. | |
| 12 | Solicitation: Section B | Note B, Para. 2. Page No. 15 | 22-Apr-19 | It is noted that many of the support functions outlined in section B, note B, paragraph 2 are required to execute requirements of the NAVSEA Category I Standard Items. Assuming the cost of such support services is to be included as a burdened rate on the direct production man-hours executed by the trades outlined in paragraph 1, will the Government allow for modifications to the offeror’s out-year fully burdened ship repair labor rate in response to changes in requirements outlined in the Standard Items? If not, will the Government agree to execute all years of the resultant contract under the initial year Standard Items upon which the offeror’s proposed burdened rates for all years of contract execution was based? | The Government does not intend to allow for modifications to the offeror’s out-year fully burdened ship repair labor rate in response to changes in requirements outlined in the Standard Items. The Government does not agree to execute all years of the resultant contract under the initial year Standard Items. | |
| 13 | Solicitation: Section C | SOW Para. 8.0. Page No. 24 | 22-Apr-19 | Solicitation Section C, paragraph 8.0 states, “DELAYS / DISRUPTIONS: The Contractor shall coordinate the DO work effort with the Maintenance Team, on a daily basis to prevent changing situations from causing delays and disruptions. Disruption due to minor delays in obtaining access to spaces and operation of equipment are to be expected. A minor delay is defined as eight (8) hours or less in duration. Minor delays and/or disruptions are considered normal rather than unusual occurrences during the performance of requirements ordered under this contract. |
If, during DO performance, delays greater than a minor delay indicated above are encountered, the Contractor shall immediately (verbally) notify the Contracting Officer, followed by a written statement within 24 hours after occurrence of delay, stating time of impact, reason for delay, duration of impact, number of people affected, action taken to properly schedule the work, and action taken to minimize impact.”
| Based on the above, it is assumed that the definition of a minor delay is eight man-hours in the course of execution of a work specification item. Nothing in the stated definition precludes the Government from imposing upon the contractor the requirement to absorb multiple individual eight hour delays in the course of execution of a work specification item. Please modify the definition to clearly indicate that the Government’s intent is for the contractor to absorb a single eight man-hour delay in the course of execution of a work specification item. | The contractor's concern is noted. | ||||
| 14 | Solicitation: Section C | SOW Para. 16.0 and 18.0, Page No. 26 | 22-Apr-19 | Para. 16.0 states, "Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) – The contract may include a QASP at the delivery order level to monitor contract performance." |
Para. 18.0 states, "Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) – The contract may include a QASP at the delivery order level to monitor contract performance."
| Please clarify the use of the phrase "may include a QASP at the Delivery Order level." Is it the intent of the Government to include the QASP S-4 Attachment as part of the competitive solicitations for successful offeror to consider when assessing whether to compete on future Delivery Orders? | The Government may elect to include or not include a QASP at the Delivery Order level. The S-4 is not an all inclusive list of potential areas for assessment of penalties to be applied against future competitively awarded Delivery Orders. The Government may elect to modify the QASP provided in attachment S-4 to reflect the specifics of individual delivery order requirements or programmatic lessons learned. | ||||
| 15 | Solicitation: Section C | SOW Para 16.0 and 18.0. Page No. 26 | 22-Apr-19 | Para. 16.0 states, "The QASP may contain punitive damages to be unilaterally assessed against the contractor for not meeting specific contract requirements.” |
Para. 18.0 states, "The QASP may contain punitive damages to be unilaterally assessed against the contractor for not meeting specific contract requirements. An example of what the QASP may include is outlined in Attachment S-4."
In both paragraphs, please clarify the use of the phrase "may include a QASP at the Delivery Order level."
Please clarify if the Attachment S-4 QASP penalties are an all inclusive list of potential areas for assessment of penalties to be applied against future competitively awarded Delivery Orders. If this is not an all inclusive list, then please provide the complete list to include additional areas of penalty assessment along with corresponding damages that could be unilaterally applied so a proper risk assessment can be done.
| With the exception of the reference to Attachment S-4 in paragraph 18.0, are paragraphs 16.0 and 18.0 duplicates. If so, please remove one. | The Government may elect to include or not include a QASP at the Delivery Order level. The S-4 is not an all inclusive list of potential areas for assessment of penalties to be applied against future competitively awarded Delivery Orders. The Government may elect to modify the QASP provided in attachment S-4 to reflect the specifics of individual delivery order requirements or programmatic lessons learned. | |||||
| 16 | Solicitation: Section C, Statement of Work (SOW) | SOW Para. 1.1.1 (Lot 1) and 1.1.2 (Lot 2). Page No. 18 | 22-Apr-19 | In paragraph 1.1.1 under Lot 1, it makes reference to "Complex emergent and continuous maintenance . . . and paragraph 1.1.2 for Lot 2 "Non-Complex . . ." Please provide an explanation and clarify the difference between "complex" and "non-complex" emergent and continuous maintenance. | As described in Section C, paragraph 1.1.1 complex maintenance, modernization, and repair is defined as: |
• Docking & Non-Docking Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) scheduled availabilities.
• Continuous Maintenance (CM) and Emergent Maintenance (EM) ship availabilities that include work on shipboard critical systems, which are described in greater detail in paragraph 1.5 of the general statement of work (SOW).
Accordingly, Non-complex maintenance, modernization, and repair is defined as:
• Continuous Maintenance (CM) and Emergent Maintenance (EM) ship availabilities that DO NOT include work on shipboard critical systems, which are described in greater detail in paragraph 1.5 of the general statement of work (SOW).
| 17 | Solicitation: Section G | Fair Opportunity Process, Para 2. Page No. 50 | 22-Apr-19 | On page 50, under "Fair Opportunity Process (Ordering Procedures)" section, it states ". . . the Micro-Purchase Threshold is stated as (currently $3,500)." Please revise this requirement to reflect “Micro-Purchase Threshold,” as $10,000 as per Class Deviation- 2018-O0018, Micro-Purchase Threshold. | The RFP has been updated accordingly to reflect the CD-2018-O0018 update to the Micro-Purchase Theshold. |
| 18 | Solicitation: Section G | Fair Opportunity Process: Para 4. Page No. 50 | 22-Apr-19 | On page 50, under "Fair Opportunity Process (Ordering Procedures)" section, it states "For orders under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (currently $150,000)." Please revise this requirement to reflect the “Simplified Acquisition Threshold,” as $250,000 per Class Deviation- 2018-O0018, Simplified Acquisition Threshold. | The RFP has been updated accordingly to reflect the CD-2018-O0018 update to the Simplified Acquisition Theshold. |
| 19 | Solicitation: Section G | Selection Process: Para 2. Page No. 50 | 22-Apr-19 | On page 50, under "Selection Process (Request for Proposal (RFP) Package" section, it states " For orders over the Micro-Purchase Threshold (currently $3,500), the Government will typically provide the following to each IDIQ-MAC awardee:" Please revise this requirement to reflect the “Micro-Purchase Threshold,” as $10,000 per Class Deviation- 2018-O0018, Micro-Purchase Threshold. | The RFP has been updated accordingly to reflect the CD-2018-O0018 update to the Micro-Purchase Theshold. |
| 20 | Solicitation: Section L and Section M | Section L Para. 1.0 and Section M Para. 2.0. Page. No. 88 and 102 | 22-Apr-19 | Sections L, Paragraph 1.0 states, "For each Lot, the Navy intends to award contracts to a minimum of two (2) and a maximum of four (4) responsible awardees (contractors) who will compete for Delivery Orders to provide surface ship repair and overhaul as outlined in Section C of this solicitation. Thus, the Government anticipates awarding the IDIQ contracts through a Best Value source selection process." |
Also, Section M, Paragraph 2.0 states, “The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the solicitation will be conducted utilizing the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Procedures.”
Please clarify. The best value continuum consist of both Trade off and Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).
Trade-off and best value are not synonymous. LPTA is an option under the best value continuum.
21 Solicitation Standard Form 33, Box 9. Page No. 1 22-Apr-19 In order to complete arrangements for additional facilities and shops within local HRMC travel area to comply with requirements Solicitation Section C “Descriptions & Specifications”, and Section L “Instructions, Conditions & Notices to Bidders”, Factor 3 “Trade & Facilities Resource Capabilities”, Contractor requests revision of Bid Proposal Submittal (Response) date to May 31, 2019. Please see Amendment 0001 providing extension until 14:00 local time 12 June 2019.
image1.jpg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .