N00033-13-R-2015_QA_Part_Thirteen.pdf

RFP N00033-13-R-2015

Questions and Answers - Part Thirteen

This Questions and Answers –Part Thirteen is a continuation of Questions and Answers – Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, and Twelve, posted on 21 November 2012, 4 December 2012, 11 December 2012, 18 December 2012, 21 December 2012, 27 December 2012, 8 January 2013, 16 January 2013, 23 January 2013, 6 February 2013, 13 February 2013, and 15 February 2013, respectively. Questions 1 through 13 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part One; Questions 14 through 36 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Two; Questions 37 through 59 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Three; Questions 60 through 110 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Four; Questions 111 through 197 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Five; Questions 198 through 219 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Six; Questions 220 through 236 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Seven;

Questions 237 through 251 can be found in Questions and Answers - Part Eight; Questions 252 through 286 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Nine; Questions 287 through 306 can be found in Questions and Answers - Part Ten; Questions 307 through 342 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Eleven; and Questions 343 through 352 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Twelve.

Note: The following questions and answers are provided for informational purposes only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation. Any changes to the solicitation deemed necessary as a result of any questions answered herein will be incorporated via amendment.

Question 353: Reviewing the latest amendment to the RFP, we have been proceeding under the guidance of the RFP and Attachment 4 which have stated a RAST system will not be required.

With the posting of Amendment 13, Attachment 4 page 2 now deletes the word “not” which now requires a RAST system be installed. The last conformed Amendment (which is Amendment 11), still states the RAST system will not be required. Neither RPF Amendments 12 or 13 speak to a change in the RAST requirement.

In summary, the RFP amendment 13 is in conflict with Attachment 4. The RFP does not require RAST, Attachment 4 does.

In view of the potential expense of a 2-track RAST system and related support costs, request verification of this new requirement. Also, if RAST is now required, will RAST technician(s)/technical support be the responsibility of the offeror?

Some considerations:

- The ability to price this new requirement (if it stands) will be complex and require significant time.

- Are there any twin track RAST systems available for installation?

- Would the RAST be GFE?

- If a RAST is required, a RAST-qualified pilot must be onboard at all times, when at flight ops, which will require a partial helicopter detachment, and RAST-qualified technicians.

- These elements have not been priced into any costing for a non-RAST vessel, and will increase the price (which is not an issue, it just needs to be priced in).

Any clarification of the status of the RAST requirement would be appreciated. This is a time is of the essence issue, and significantly impacts the ability of offerors to complete their submissions.

Answer 353: The change in Attachment 4 regarding a RAST requirement, made via Amendment 0013, was an error. As stated in Section C-3.2.1 of the RFP, a RAST system is not required. Attachment 4 will again be revised via Amendment 0014 to correct this error.

Question 354: We support the decision to include fuel consumption in the evaluation process.

We request further clarification on the “pre-award” sea trial confirmation with respect to this evaluation process. What method does MSC intend to utilize for compensation of a Sea trial (vessel hire, fuel, etc) prior to contract award? For your consideration, most vessel purchase/transfer agreements are contingent on contract award, therefore sea trials prior to award will be problematic.

Answer 354: Section L-7, Pre-award Survey of Vessel, is a standard MSC Section L provision which is typically included in time charter solicitations. The costs associated with a pre-award survey of the vessel, should one be conducted, are for the offeror’s account.

Question 355: Amendment 12 now states that “MSC will seek a national defense waiver after award to allow the vessel to carry the mission support personnel required by Section C-1.2 on international and other voyages without the vessel being subject to inspection as a passenger vessel.” Previously, MSC indicated in its response to Question 6 that it was up to the contractor receiving the award to work this out with the USCG. Up until amendment 12 there was a substantial risk that a vessel would require extensive modifications to meet the additional stability requirements applicable to a passenger vessel. With this requirement now removed, an extension of two weeks is requested to conform our proposal to this change. This reduced risk has affected our ability to proceed.

Answer 355: Please see Amendment 0014, which will extend the closing date of the solicitation.

Question 356: We noted in the Amendment 12 the following change:

C-2.6.1. Waiver for Transporting Individuals in Addition to Crew. MSC will seek a national defense waiver after award to allow the vessel to carry the mission support personnel required by Section C-1.2 on international and other voyages without the vessel being subject to inspection as a passenger vessel.

C-2.6.2. Lifesaving Equipment. The vessel shall be certified in accordance with 46 C.F.R.

Chapter I, Subchapter W so that it meets the requirements for cargo vessels. As an alternative, the vessel may be equipped to meet the requirements of 46 C.F.R. Chapter I, Subchapter W for passenger vessels. In that case, MSC will seek a national defense waiver of the requirements of

Subchapter W for cargo vessels to permit the vessel to operate while in compliance with the requirements of Subchapter W for passenger vessels.

We wish to bring to your attention that in QA # 2, MSC expressly answered the following question:

Question 24: Section C-1.2 Overview:

Reference A: Title 33 CFR Part 199: Subchapter W – Lifesaving Appliances and Arrangements

The ship we are considering for the conversion will accommodate the ship’s crew and the fifty (50) Sponsor personnel with primary lifesaving equipment in lifeboats. In order to accommodate the 159 “surge personnel” with adequate lifesaving apparatus, we propose to install on the ship a SOLAS approved life raft type system in accordance with ref (A).

This arrangement would require a National Defense Waiver that would state that when the “surge personnel” are onboard, that the ship shall ensure that sufficient life jackets and rafts meet SOLAS requirements.

Would MSC consider proposing a National Defense Waiver to be signed with U.S. Coast Guard to allow for sufficient life jackets and rafts meeting SOLAS requirements for “surge personnel” on the MSV?

Answer 24: It is not the intention of MSC to pursue any National Defense Waivers for this requirement.

The concern we have is the answer provided by MSC specifically influences the decision regarding the type of vessel to be acquired by the vendor (owned, leased, or potentially purchased). We had the opportunity to pursue a number of vessels that would have been appropriate for the use in this offer had Answer 24 been different at the time it was asked: 5 December - now almost 2 ½ months ago.

The fact that offerors are specifically advised by Answer 24 that a waiver will not be pursued drives a very technical requirement for the type of vessel available to meet the RFP requirements which have been consistent on this point since 5 Dec. This places a significant disadvantage on those who made their offer plans with the express knowledge MSC would not pursue a waiver.

The decision by MSC, one week from the offer close date, to make this extremely critical change in the RFP, is considered an inappropriate change this late in the process. Extremely large financial and teaming decisions have been made based on answer 24, and cannot be altered in the time remaining until submission.

We recommend cancelling this new reversal in the RFP, or extending the due date in order to allow a restructure of offerors programs with this new information available.

Answer 356: Please see Amendment 0014, which will extend the closing date of the solicitation.

Question 357: Are offerors required to submit with their proposals the list of CLINs in Section B, filled in with the offered price of each CLIN?

Answer 357: All of the submission requirements are stated in Section L. There is no requirement for offerors to submit the CLINs contained in Section B, with offeror pricing filled in.

Question 358: MSC has previously answered the following question, and amended the RFP as described:

Question 36: If the contract is cancelled prior to the delivery of the vessel, how will the modification costs be recouped?

Answer 36: Section H-43 and Box 22 will be revised via Amendment 0001 to allow the proposed not-to-exceed cancellation fee to include costs of vessel modification or conversion, if the contract is cancelled prior to delivery. Costs of modification or conversion may only be included in the not-to-exceed cancellation fee prior to delivery.

Cancellation fees for cancellation during the firm or any optional charter period shall not include modification or conversion costs.

It is understood that the intent of this change was to allow offerors to recoup the costs of vessel modification, should the contract be cancelled prior to delivery of the vessel; however, H-43 still contains the following restriction on cancellation fees:

“Note: Pursuant to 10 USC§2401, the Government is prohibited from entering into a vessel lease or charter that contains a substantial termination liability. Offerors who submit substantial termination liabilities will not be considered for award. A substantial termination liability is defined by the statute as:

i. An agreement by the U.S., under the contract, to pay an amount greater than 25% of the value of the vessel for the termination liability; or

ii. An agreement by the U.S., under the contract, to pay an amount greater than 50% of the value of the vessel for the sum of the termination liability and the value of the total payments attributable to capital-hire.”

Will MSC consider removing these restrictions as well, so that offerors can include the full costs of vessel modification in their proposed cancellation fees for cancellation prior to delivery?

Answer 358: No, MSC cannot amend H-43 to remove the restrictions pertaining to termination liability, set forth by 10 USC§2401. These are statutory restrictions and will pertain to all proposed cancellation fees.