Industry Day Questions_07_13_2023.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 40' Patrol Boats Industry Day
- Solicitation number
- N00024-23-R-2275
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| TOUA_40PB 23-R-2275.pdf | ||
| 40PB Industry Day Brief_Final_08_June_2023.pdf | ||
| 40PB Att J-1 Flt2 Specification Rev (A)_Final.pdf | ||
| 40PB Industry Day Attachment (1).docx | DOCX document |
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
Industry Day Questions
| 40' Patrol Boat_N00024-23-R-2275_Industry Day Questions | |||||
| # | Date - mm/dd/yyyy | Source Document - [Identify the document to which the question or comment refers (e.g., RFP, Attachment XX, CDRL A0XX, etc.)] | Reference - [Identify the page number (e.g., 254), paragraph number, clause name, etc.] | Question - [Ask a clarifying question or offer a comment on the cited language/data. Provide a suggestion or recommendation relating to the question/comment for consideration by the Government.] | Government Response |
| 1 | 6/12/23 | N/A | N/A | As a Set Aside for Small Business, will Teaming be considered and/or allowed? For example; Small Business Teaming with an other than Small Business Boat Builder? | The Government is anticipating a Multiple Award for this effort. Small Business teaming is acceptable in accordance with FAR 52.219-14(e)(2). |
| 2 | 6/12/23 | N/A | N/A | Would the Government consider allowing this solicitation to be a full and open acquisition? | This is a Total Small Business Set-Aside requirement. |
| 3 | 6/12/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Att J-6 Critical Equipment List | “Attachment 2 Brand Name Callouts” was provided during the November 2022 Sources Sought. This list is much more extensive than the “J-6 Critical Equipment List” provided with the Draft RFP. Should we expect the most recent J-6 will not be expanded to include the additional items in the November 2022 document? | Attachment J-6 Critical Equipment List defines equipment that is critical to the configuration of the 40PB. The RFP will be revised to clarify. |
| 4 | 6/12/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | A hull scan at the completion of fabrication was mentioned during the virtual industry day presentation and is referenced in the CLIN list. Will more detail be provided on the expectations of this hull scan? For example, is this a true 3D hull scan and what are the acceptance criteria (ie. tolerances)? | The "hull verification of critical dimensions (i.e. hull scan)" part of the "Initial Hull verification" outlined in Section C-3.042-3 of the RFP shall be completed by the Government. This will be clarified in the final RFP. |
| 5 | 6/12/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Can it be assumed that all information and details provided in the reference material will be contract compliant? | Yes. |
| 6 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Pages 14 through 18 B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) | Is "Plastic Materials and Resins (1980:12=100), PPI325211" referenced in B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) the correct index? | The Final RFP will include an updated EPA clause which will only include the Boat Building and Repair index. |
| 7 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 68 of 119 Section F - Deliveries or Performance | Is the delivery schedule listed on page 68 of 119 of the Draft RFP the standard delivery schedule for this effort? | This is the notional schedule that the Navy will require builders to comply with during execution of this contract. |
| 8 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 42 of 119 C-211-H007 | Does this clause apply to the 40' PB requirement? | Clause will be removed from Final RFP. |
| 9 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Would the government provide example photos of the current armor attachment points? | Photos may be provided once requested from an interested offeror. |
| 10 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will a weld schedule be provided? | There is no contractually required weld schedule. The weld schedule from the original contract will be provided in the informational data package. Builders may use this schedule or develop their own. Ultimately the final weld schedule must comply with the ISO requirements called out in the Specification. |
| 11 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What GFE system will be updated or changed between the Draft and Final RFP? | The following GFE systems will be updated due to obsolescence: |
Tactical Computers
Current System: CF-31
New System: FZ-40
FLIR System
Current System: CCFLIR 640
New System: FLIR 240-EP
Vehicle Intercom System
Current System: VIC-5
New System: TOCNET G4
| 12 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will the government be open to hull changes that can increase performance? | The government desires craft that are operationally identical to the initial 40PB hulls. The government does not desire any changes that will alter the operational performance of the boat. |
| 13 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What level of physical security will be required for storing GFE? | The Contractor shall be responsible for receipt and safe storage of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and then installation, testing and proper operation onboard the boat. The Contractor shall ensure that adequate secure warehouse facilities, handling equipment and personnel shall be provided to handle and store all GFE as it is received at the Contractor’s facility. The Contractor shall make the warehouse facilities accessible to U. S. Government personnel for verification and validation of material upon request. |
| 14 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will there be any radiographic testing requirements on the hull structure? | Currently the government has no intention of requiring radiographic testing of the hull structure. |
| 15 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Can Deutsch connectors be used for roof electrical connections? | Yes. |
| 16 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Pages 14 through 18 B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) | Is the transparent armor (TA) a plastic or resin? | The Final RFP will include an updated EPA clause which will only include the Boat Building and Repair index. |
| 17 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Pages 14 through 18 B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) | Is labor included on the Economic Price Adjustment (EPA)? | The Final RFP will include an updated EPA clause which will only include the Boat Building and Repair index. This index accounts for material and labor. |
| 18 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Pages 14 through 18 B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) | Is there way to reflect labor on the EPA? | The Final RFP will include an updated EPA clause which will only include the Boat Building and Repair index. This index accounts for material and labor. |
| 19 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Is the delivery schedule specific to the complexity of the boats? | The delivery schedule defined in Section F of the RFP is specific to the Navy's requirements. |
| 20 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What are the trailer dimensions? Part of the equation to determine compliance is not provided. | The trailer is not specified in the contract. The government does not intend for the builder to provide the trailer. The trailer information that is provided is for reference only. |
| 21 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What are the office space requirements? | The population of the office will be transient and will likely be full for the first months. The space will need to be able to accommodate design work and later use for inspections. |
| 22 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will the government put production pauses into effect? | The only “pause” will be a 3D scan and scale weighing of the first hull. |
| 23 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | The INS key events table has “initial” and “follow on” production events. If there are no production pauses in effect, what is the difference between the two? | The initial production events refers to the events related to the initial or first boat only. The events associated with the initial boat are unique as it entails a "production pause" to allow for a "Initial Hull Verification" event as described in Section C-3.042-3 of the RFP. Follow-on boat production events shall not include an "Initial Hull Verification". |
| 24 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Is there an FTE estimate for the 40PB test requirements and oversight? | The government is not providing insight on that information. |
| 25 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Are jigs provided? | No. |
| 26 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What are the changes on the Flight 2 40PBs compared to the current 40PBs? | These changes are listed in the technical risk area of the Monday June 12 Industry Day presentation. |
| 27 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What is the engineering scope of work for the builder? | The engineering scope of work for the builder(s) may include some structural elements and build methodology that can be changed to fit builder processes. The builder(s) needs to provide production drawings. |
| 28 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Would the government award a single award, and could it be to a joint venture? | The Government is anticipating a Multiple Award for this effort. Small Business teaming is acceptable in accordance with FAR 52.219-14(e)(2). |
| 29 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Do all the boats have to be built in the same location? | The boats do not all have to be built in the same location. |
| 30 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | What is the minimum order of boats? | The Government is anticipating a 1 boat minimum for the first delivery order for each successful offeror. |
| 31 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will GFI be provided in native formats? | Yes. The 19 contract drawings will be provided in AutoCAD, the 3D model in SolidWorks. |
| 32 | 6/14/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | To what scope does the Commonality and Standardization section apply? | The section applies only to the boats in this contract, it does not require that the newly built boats match the current 40PBs. |
| 33 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will the RFP include stepladder pricing? | The Government is anticipating the use of Stepladder pricing. |
| 34 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Given that Attachment 12 has yet to be provided, nor an updated buy plan since the Sources Sought, the following is based on some acknowledged assumptions. Assuming the intended ordering of 78 is broken down into 58 for NECC, 10 for "other Navy" and 10 for "FMS" pending funding. It is assumed that the budget is established for 58 to allow NECC to reach their TOA and the other 20 are contract placeholders for potential future customers. The desired delivery spacing once production begins is one boat every 30 days, or 12 boats per year. At some point in the future if the Navy doesn't order 12 boats from a builder each ordering period, there will be a break in production. If the order quantity is split across both builders and the delivery spacing remains at 30 days then both builders will experience a break in production. The break in production will decrease production efficiency and drive up cost. Without stepladder pricing, asking the builder to provide a single price for a boat in an option period whether they may build none or 1 or 6 or 12 boats places risk on small business. This risk may result in higher unit prices, where if the Navy orders higher quantities savings could be passed on via stepladder pricing. | Attachment J-12 will be included with the final RFP which will include step ladder pricing for each Ordering Period. |
| 35 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | The Navy has specified a single ballistics supplier without regional distributors and little commercial demand to set market pricing and availability. |
a. how will the Navy ensure non-preferential treatment of the specified ballistic supplier to both of the two builders? i.e. if the ballistic supplier has supply chain issues they could favorably choose to supply to one builder over another and cause the second builder to miss contractual due dates.
b. Similar risk relates pricing equitableness.
| c. Would the Navy be open to funding some of the required testing/design to identify an “Alternate Item” qualification for this sole source item. (similar to how ground vehicles have multiple suppliers for their A/B armor kits) | It is incumbent upon the Successful Offeror(s) to manage relationships with their subcontractors and suppliers. | |||||
| 36 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | N/A | Will there be a DPAS rating for this contract? | DO-A3 is listed on top of RFP cover page | |
| 37 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 6-10 CLINs 0006-0014 | a. Can we assume if ordered from a vendor all training Fam, Engine and Waterjet will be ordered? | ||
| b. There are some planning costs to coordinate setting up a training event , but if the Navy orders a la carte from either vendor, the CLIN with the planning costs may not be included. If we price as if the Navy may order a la carte, each individual CLIN will be priced higher resulting in higher cost to the Navy, | The Navy has discretion to place orders on training FAM, Engine and Waterjet CLINs as needed. | |||||
| 38 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Pages 14 through 18 B-216-H003 ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENTS—ALTERNATE III (NAVSEA) (JUN 2023) | a. Where does Transparent Armor fit into these indices? |
b. What about production labor?
c. Aluminum looks good. Recommend second item be specific to engines w/gears and waterjets for easy invoice determination. Third item be specific to opaque armor
d. The commercial market will set value for aluminum, engines and jets, however the opaque armor is such a niche item the Navy could be in danger of the specified vendor taking advantage of the EPA CLIN.
e. The RFP states after an economic price adjustment is made for a given CLIN, no further adjustment for that CLIN will be made under this clause. However that assumes that the CLINs will only be awarded each year. We've have many instances of orders being received for future years (PB being an example) which means we could get an award on Boat 30 (CLIN 001) and be in an inflationary environment whereby we attempt to collect after the 3% threshold has passed but since we only get one shot at it, could be expending additional costs if we have deposits that are being made in YR 0 and costs spread end of YR 1 and beginning of YR 2. The government requires the request for adjustment to be made 3 months prior to start date. One way to ensure equity would be to demonstrate at the end of the build inflationary pressure (or deflationary pressure) and provide additional compensation to/from the government. There are other simpler solutions that could also be pursued.
| f. The EPA clause allows for the federal government two years to demonstrate deflationary pressures with the contractor required to payback anything evidenced by deflationary pressure but only allows a onetime adjustment three months prior to a build starting. Is there a reason there is such a disparity between the government's ability to claw back funds and the contractor’s ability to pass on inflationary costs? | The EPA clause will be updated in the final RFP which will utilize the Boat Building Index (PPI 336612) | |||||
| 39 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 19 references Government design drawings | Are these the same as the "Contract Drawings" in SOW C-3.040 on p.24 or are there another set of drawings? | Yes. There are contract drawings provided as part of the Spec and informational data package and drawings provided as Attachment J-4, Item #15. | |
| 40 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 25 Paragraph 042-3 | Makes reference to Contractors Ballistic design agent attending PDR/CDR but Contract drawings dictate design and agent. Does the Government want the specified design agent present? | In accordance with C-3.042-3 "The Contractor shall hold DRs at the Contractor’s facility. The Contractor’s ballistics integration agent and design agent (if used) shall attend both design reviews." | |
| 41 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 29 Table C-3 IMS key events | a. Throughout this section multiple references to Initial and Follow-on Production exists but those are not defined in the SOW? | ||
| b. Should GFM In Yard need date be included as event for each hull in the IMS? | a. In accordance with C-3.042-4 "The Contractor shall develop and adhere to this schedule commensurate with their program approach." |
b. Yes.
| 42 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 29-30 Classified Information System | Does Attachment J-11 reflect the Security Classification Guide associated with the DD254? | Attachment J-11 has been provided in accordance with the latest security requirements. |
| 43 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 30 Paragraph 3.042-10 | In the table what does "OUTF/SI" stand for? | Outfitting and System and Integration |
| 44 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 31 | What does "MELO" stand for? | Main Engine Light-Off |
| 45 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 31 042-11 | Is FAX machine access still a requirement? | Yes. |
| 46 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 32 SOW Paragraph 3.080-2 | IUID para references instructions in J-6 which is the Critical Equipment Attachment. | The Critical Equipment shall have IUID markings. |
| 47 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 33 C-3.085-1 Technical Design Analysis | a. Sub-para (c) Transportability Report (DI-012-03) requires trailer dimensions in order to complete the DI, but those are not included in the GFI listing. |
b. Please note, all trailer height dimensions provided need to be reflective of a loaded trailer to ascertain suspension compression. Measuring an unloaded trailer will not provided accurate height data when loaded.
| c. Comment applies to Att. J-2 DI-012-03 as well… | Addressed in Final RFP. | |||||
| 48 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 36 Paragraph 3.092-1(b) | There is no DI for the Hull Verification Scan | Addressed in Final RFP. | |
| 49 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 36 Paragraph 3.092-3 | Paragraph requires test for each "year" in production. |
a. Is this calendar year, fiscal year, 12 month period from ordering?
b. Example: If production of a 4 boat order starts in February and the last boat delivers in January of the following year do these tests have to be conducted twice for this order of
| four boats because they delivered in different calendar years? | Tests will be conducted within 12 months after award of each Delivery Order. | |||||
| 50 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 37 Paragraph C-3.094-1 | First paragraph calls out Item 13 of Attachment J-4 but J-4 does not list an item 13. | Addressed in Final RFP. | |
| 51 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 42 C-211-H010 TUG AND PILOT SERVIES | Unclear why this clause has been included unless to notify contractors they need a yard trailer since provision of trailers is outside the scope of this contract. | The Government anticipates removal of this clause from the final RFP. | |
| 52 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 43 C-211-H019 COMMONALITY AND STANDARDIZATION | Since USN has already stated 200+ brand name items is a C&SP still required? | Yes. | |
| 53 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 44 C-215-H001 PRICE ADJUSTMENT FOR CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAW | The clause states "No adjustment shall be made unless… an increase or decrease in the Contractor's cost of performance of this contract in excess of $250,000 per ship." It is noted this dollar value is relative to a ship and seems like that dollar value should be tailored for end item cost and may not be representative of boat costs. | This is a standard NAVSEA Clause. | |
| 54 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 54 C-242-H002 POST AWARD MEETING | Clause seems redundant to specific language already in the SOW | This is a standard NAVSEA Clause. | |
| 55 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 57 EXHIBIT A to C-243-H002, NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES | Makes reference to an Attachment A not provided | Exhibit A provides example language that shall be submitted by the Contractor for Clause C-243-H002 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES | |
| 56 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 67 E-246-W007 NOTIFICATION OF INSPECTION OR TEST | The clause is blank and seems duplicative to specific SOW requirements in SOW para C-3.042-10 | This is a standard NAVSEA Clause. | |
| 57 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 68 Section F | a. States "first 40PB of each delivery order is 360 days after successful completion of Production Readiness Review". |
b. Per SOW C-3.042-3 (p.27) the Production Readiness Review is a one time first year event and not a "per delivery order" event. c. per SOW section C (p.22) conduct and data for PRR is paid on CLIN 0015,
d. P.23 Section C states CLIN 0015 will only be "included in the first Delivery Order issued to the Contractor."
| e. Do not recommend delivery schedule for subsequent delivery orders be tied to PRR event. | Addressed in Final RFP. | |||||
| 58 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 70 F-247-H003 F.O.B. Origin | states all supplies shall be delivered "F.O.B. Origin" seems contradictory to statement on page 68 stating all items shall be delivered FOB Destination and Section B which lists FOB destination for all CLINs. | The Navy anticipates updates to F.O.B. in Final RFP. | |
| 59 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Page 88 CLIN 0015 | States "Payable upon delivery and acceptance by the Government of the TDP". |
a. the TDP is defined as the data package delivered on the boat per SOW 3.085.
b. P.23 Section be states CLIN 0015 will only be "included in the first Delivery Order issued to the Contractor."
c. Should payment of this CLIN be tied to successful completion of the CDR or PRR instead
| of TDP delivery? | No. | |||||
| 60 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Attachment J-4 Item 15 | a. Item 15 is listed as the "Informational Data Package" b. The first list of data under the Informational Data Package on page 2 are the Contract drawings. c. on the first page, Item 15 is footnoted "* The 40PB Flight 1 Informational Package is for informational only. If used by the Contractor, it’s at their own risk. " d. This footnote applies to the Contract Drawings and seems contradictory to the SOW description of the Contract Drawings. | Addressed in Final RFP. | |
| 61 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Attachment J-1 Specification | 084 - trailer dimensions are needed to ensure design compliance with these requirements. | Addressed in Final RFP. | |
| 62 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Attachment J-1 Specification | 084-4 Boat Tiedowns makes provisions for the trailer winch cable to be considered in tiedown calculations. Will the Navy provide the strength rating of the trailer winch cable? | Specification section 084-4 references NSWCCD-23-TM-2009/64 which provides guidance on acceptable methods of estimating winch cable strength. | |
| 63 | 6/23/23 | Draft RFP N0002423R2275 | Attachment J-1 Specification | 092-2.k will the builder be required to test the tiedowns on the trailer as stated in the Specification "Boat and Trailer Tiedown Fittings Hoisting Loads". | Addressed in Final RFP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .