N00033-13-R-2015_QA_Part_Twelve.pdf

RFP N00033-13-R-2015

Questions and Answers - Part Twelve

This Questions and Answers –Part Twelve is a continuation of Questions and Answers – Parts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven 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, and 13 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; and Questions 307 through 342 can be found in Questions and Answers – Part Eleven.

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 343: RFP Amendment 006 and Q&A Part Six specified that the Contractor must furnish “yellow gear” to move equipment and aircraft around the flight deck, however the equipment listed (by NIIN) is Individual Material Readiness List (IMRL) aviation equipment reserved for military use and unavailable for commercial open purchase, or contractor requisition from the government. Similar equipment (to the listed NIINs), if available for purchase, is significantly more expensive than equipment priced in the military stock system. Will MSC consider amending the RFP to state that the government will provide required IMRL aviation Yellow Gear listed in the RFP as GFE?

Answer 343: The yellow gear shall be contractor provided. This requirement will not be revised.

Question 344: With respect to Amendment 11, L-4.1.2 (2), SF Box 64, L-4.2.2(11)(iv), M- 2.3.2:

MSC is no longer evaluating fuel consumption for the candidate vessels in this RFP? Is this correct?

If affirmative then how will MSC evaluate the cost associated with a vessel that burns 40 mt per day underway verse another vessel that may burn 125 mt per day? By not evaluating the fuel does not properly evaluate the lowest technically acceptable vessel standards. By using no evaluation it could cost MSC tens of millions of dollars over the life of the charterer.

Suggest MSC amend RFP to allow fuel evaluation on an estimated basis with the previous requirements of loiter/anchor, underway and in port. But fuel will only be warranted on the time of delivery by the carrier. Fuel consumption warranted will be about which is to mean no more than 15 mt per day allowance.

Answer 344: The cost of fuel consumed will be included in each offeror’s total evaluated price.

The fuel consumption rates to be provided with an offeror’s proposal shall be for the pre-modified vessel being proposed. Fuel consumption rates for the modified vessel must be submitted and warranted prior to delivery of the vessel. Please see Amendment 0013 for this revision.

Question 345: C-3.2.5 100 LL (Low Lead Aviation Fuel) is referenced but no minimum requirements of capacity are indicated elsewhere. Please advise.

Answer 345: The vessel shall carry 4000 gals of 100 LL.

Question 346: C-3.2.5. makes reference to a 4000 USG fuel container for rotary wing fueling.

(Two C-3.2.7 makes reference to 150,000 USG of JP5.) May the 4000 USG container capacity contribute towards the 150,000 USG JP5 capacity?

Related, Attachment 4, section 11.3 identifies a minimum capacity of 75,000 USG JP5. Can you please confirm the JP5 carriage requirements? JP5 capacity seems very high considering UREP capabilities.

Answer 346: The vessel shall carry a minimum of 150,000 gals of JP5. The 4000 gals carried in individual containers are not included in the 150,000 gal capacity. Section 11.3 of Attachment 4 has been revised to indicate 150,000 gallons.

Question 347: Attachment 4, section 4.0 makes reference to several dimensions of the hangar requirements. The "envelope" describing the MH-60 helicopter in the stowed configuration seems mutually exclusive of the other dimensional requirements listed in section 4.0. Can you please advise?

Answer 347: The dimensions set forth in Section 4.0 are clearance requirements for the hangar above and beyond the size of the MH60 envelope to ensure there are sufficient clearances for the MH60 helicopters.

Question 348: Would MSC consider a one day extension as Monday February 18th, the day before proposals are due is a holiday and courier services would not be able to deliver to the Navy Yard on that day?

Answer 348: Amendment 0013 will extend the due date for proposal submission to 22 February 2013, at 2:00pm, local, Washington, DC time.

Question 349: Is the RFP going to be revised as indicated in the answer provided in Answer 11?

Question 11: We do not currently have a facilities clearance because we are not yet sponsored by anyone to DSS. If we are required to have it at contract award, we would not be able to submit an offer. Will MSC consider modifying the RFP to allow the facilities clearance to be obtained after award, so that MSC could sponsor that awardee in obtaining the required clearance?

Answer 11: Yes, the requirement in Section C-4.11, Contractor Facility Clearance, will be revised to allow the contractor to obtain the required SECRET facilities clearance prior to commencement of time charter services. This will be documented in a forthcoming amendment.

Answer 349: The requirement in Section C-4.11, Contractor Facility Clearance, was revised via Amendment 0012 to allow the contractor to obtain the required SECRET facilities clearance prior to delivery of the vessel.

Question 350: On 2/12 a Question to Potential Offerors was issued requesting input on fuel consumption and stating that it was MSC’s intention to once again include the fuel consumption figures in the total evaluated price, and that all applicable sections of the RFP would be amended to reflect the above changes. I do not see that change included in Amendment 12. Will another amendment be forthcoming to reflect this?

Answer 350: Yes, please see Amendment 0013.

Question 351: In response to the question posted on 2/12 regarding adding consumption costs to the evaluated price, it is important for there to be a common price per unit (gal/bb/ton), used by all vendors for this calculation. What is the price per unit to be used by the vendors for this purpose?

Answer 351: Please see Amendment 0013 for revisions to Section M and Attachment 12 regarding fuel consumption.

Question 352: My question is not about the procurement, so much as the underlying funding and programmatics, and whether or not they are stable? We are bidding a number of contracts across DoN and DoD, and those solicitations are being cancelled, or soon to be cancelled (NLT 15 FEB), due to CNO's 25 January 2013 Fiscal Guidance directive, issued by CNO to cope with the ongoing CR and Sequestration impasse. As you know, preparing responses to solicitations costs money, at a time when Big Navy is asking industry to be judicious in their funding expenditures (very reasonable request given the circumstances).

So we just wanted to make sure we are pursuing a stable revenue opportunity. If you feel that programmatic (vice contractual) interest is something you could answer, it would be greatly appreciated.

Answer 352: MSC currently has FY13 funding in-house for the requirements of N00033-13-R- 2015, and it is MSC’s intention to proceed with this procurement as planned. However, in these times of budgetary uncertainty, MSC can make no guarantee that the funding we currently hold for this requirement may not be withdrawn in the future.