QA Master List 05 Oct 2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Operation and Maintenance of Philadelphia Inactive Vessels and CG/LSD Modernization Detachment Norfolk
- Solicitation number
- N00024-21-R-4203
About this file
This document contains a question and answer log pertaining to solicitation number N00024-21-R-4203 for operation and maintenance of inactive vessels in Philadelphia and at the CG/LSD Modernization Detachment in Norfolk. Key details include that proposals are due by November 15, 2021 for services including vessel maintenance and disposal, quality assurance inspection, and site management. The solicitation is a total small business set-aside and questions clarify experience and security clearance requirements for key personnel. The document extends proposal due dates and removes option year CLINs for Norfolk as work is only expected through option year two. Relevant agencies involved are the Department of the Navy and Naval Sea Systems Command.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 52 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Philly Inactive Ships RFP Q&A
| No. | Date Submitted | Source Document | Page | Section/Paragraph | Question/Concern | RFP Change/Resolution Recommendation? | Government Response |
| 1 | 9/28/21 | RFP | 41 | C.5.3.2 | Is item 15, Video Tape of ship required to be included in the Disposal Reporting Letter? | Recommend removal of video tape requirement | "Tape" has been removed from the video requirement |
| 2 | 9/28/21 | RFP | 49 | C.7.3 | Is comparable military experience considered in lieu of the stated minimum requirements for the Maintenance Manager position? | Recommend allowing comparable military experience to qualify toward meeting the minimum requirements for the position. | Language allowing relevant Military experience in lieu of stated requirements has been added |
| 3 | 9/30/21 | RFP | 60, 140 | C.9.0, L.3.2.1, M.2.2 | Section L.3.2.1 states that "The Government will evaluate the degree to which the resumes meet the qualifications designated as required in the section below and demonstrate the individuals’ competence to perform the work required in the Section C." Section C.9.0 and Section L.3.2.1 place a requirement of "Active Secret Security Clearance" a time of proposal submission for all key personnel as well as several non-key personnel positions. This is a significant advantage to an incumbent contractor - particularly as this is a Total Small Business Set-Aside (FAR 19.5) contract. Will the Government please remove the requirement for active security clearance at time of proposal submission. | By stating that the Government will "evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel to determine the degree to which they meet the minimum qualifications and experiences required to successfully execute the efforts outlines in Section C and demonstrate the ability to perform the work associated with the position for which the individual is proposed. Those proposals that demonstrate key personnel with relevant qualifications and experience that exceed the Section C requirements may be evaluated more favorably." Provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent as well a detriment to small business concerns. We recommend that you remove the requirements in C.9.0, L.3.2.1 for active security clearance at the time of proposal submission for the following positions: 1) Project Manager (Philadelphia) (KEY PERSONNEL) |
2) Production Supervisor (Philadelphia) (KEY PERSONNEL)
3) Maintenance Manager (Philadelphia)(KEY PERSONNEL)
4) Quality Assurance/Inspection Manager Operation Manager (Philadelphia)
5) Marine Inspector (Philadelphia and Norfolk)
6) Assistant Maintenance Manager Site Manager (Norfolk)
| 7) Assistant Site Manager (Norfolk) | Language clarifying the Security Clearance requirements has been added | |||||||
| 4 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 | Attachment J-2 | Tab Cost Summary - CLIN 0X01-0X04, Description is for Base Year, should it be Total Proposed Price ? | Correct description column to reflect Base plus Option Years | The "X" in 0X01 refers to all of the 0001 CLINs (0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401) so 0X01 is the total of base year plus all option years combined. Description has been changed to remove ambiguity. | ||
| 5 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 | pages 150 and 151 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-3 from the RFP (pg. 150,151) | TAB GOV Directed LOE , Table LOE - PHILADELPHIA , is missing the first 20 Labor Categories per Table L-3 from the RFP (pg. 150,151 , Project Manager to Electrician Foreman) | Update TAB GOV Directed LOE | Corrected. | |
| 6 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 | page 150 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-2 from the RFP (pg. 150) | TAB CLIN 0X03, Government Provided Travel Cost (Purple Column). Travel cost are not provided in the RFP, only Philadelphia Material, Travel, & ODCs (RFP - Table L-2 - pg 150). | Update TAB CLIN 0X03 to reflect Total ODC Cost(not Travel only) Verify to use Philadelphia Material, Travel, & ODCs (RFP - Table L-2 - pg 150) dollar amounts. | Corrected. Also corrected the purple shaded totals to reflect the Travel, Material and ODC dollar amount tables in the RFP. | |
| 7 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 | page 150 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-2 from the RFP (pg. 150) | TAB CLIN 0X04, Government Provided Travel Cost (Purple). Travel cost are not provided in the RFP, only Norfolk Material, Travel, & ODCs (RFP - Table L-2 - pg 150) | Update TAB CLIN 0X04 to reflect Total ODC Cost(not Travel only). Verify to use Norfolk Material, Travel, & ODCs (RFP - Table L-2 - pg 150) dollar amounts. | Corrected. Also corrected the purple shaded totals to reflect the Travel, Material and ODC dollar amount tables in the RFP. | |
| 8 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 and Schedule B | page 150 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-2 from the RFP (pg. 150), Schedule B (RFP) | TAB CLIN 0X03, Government Provided Travel Cost (Purple Row). The RFP states CLIN 0X03 is Philadelphia Material, Travel, & ODCs. Should the offeror apply Indirect Cost to Philadelphia Material, Travel, & ODCs ($6,496,986 Base Period) to equal ESTIMATED COST (w/ COM) | Worksheet J-2 formulas include Indirect Rate Cost to be applied to ODC. Recommend Schedule B to reflect Total Cost of ODC including Indirect Rate Cost. | No change needed. Offeror should back into the Government given NTE values, such that after application of indirect rates/costs, the total is equal to the NTE value. Section B descriptions already includes the NTE value with "which includes all applicable indirect costs" immediately after. | |
| 9 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 and Schedule B | page 150 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-2 from the RFP (pg. 150), Schedule B (RFP) | TAB CLIN 0X04, Government Provided Travel Cost (Purple Row). The RFP states CLIN 0X04 is Norfolk Material, Travel, & ODCs. Should the offeror apply Indirect Cost to Norfolk Material, Travel, & ODCs ($487,800 Base Period) to equal ESTIMATED COST (w/ COM) | Worksheet J-2 formulas include Indirect Rate Cost to be applied to ODC. Recommend Schedule B also to reflect Total Cost of ODC including Indirect Rate Cost. | No change needed. Offeror should back into the Government given NTE values, such that after application of the Offeror's indirect rates/costs, the total is equal to the NTE value. Section B descriptions already includes the NTE value with "which includes all applicable indirect costs" immediately after. | |
| 10 | 10/1/21 | Attachment J-2 and Schedule B | page 150 | Attachment J-2 and Table L-2 from the RFP (pg. 150), Schedule B (RFP) | Shouldn't Schedule B reflect the Offerors Indirect Rate Cost applied to ODC for CLIN 0X03 and CLIN 0X04? How will the Gov't evaluate different offerors different Indirect Rates if the amount in the calculation is the indicated NTE? | Correct verbiage in Schedule B CLIN 0003 and 0004 to allow for visibility of Indirect Rate Cost on ODCs. | No change required. The NTE's will remain as is at time of award. The totals reflected in the 0X03 and 0X04 tabs will only be used for general evaluation purposes and they will not be used to make upward or downward adjustments during the cost realism analysis of proposals. In other words, Offerors still need to back into the NTE numbers, but they will not be evaluated for cost realism purposes. Cost realism is what we'll use to determine if cost proposals are representative of the technical proposals, LOE, and labor mix proposed, or if they are unbalanced and need to be adjusted for cost realism. | |
| 11 | 10/4/21 | RFP | Sections B & F | Norfolk Labor and ODC CLINs for Option Years 4 and 5 should be removed as work at the CG/LSD Modernization Site will end after Option Year 2 | Remove CLINs 0302, 0304, 0402, and 0404 | CLIN Descriptions for 0302, 0304, 0402, and 0404 have been changed to "reserved" and POPs have been removed. | ||
| 12 | 10/5/21 | Solicitation | 1 | Request a three week extension for the due date of the Solicitation. This is based on the level of complexity the extensive staffing plan and inability to quickly solve any potential staffing in light of COVID mandates and requirements. | Request that the new due date be 23 November to provide the best value and compliant submission. This supports not having a submission on Monday and before the Thanksgiving Holiday. | Date of receipt for proposals has been extended to 15 November, 2021. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .