Q_and_A_One_N00033-14-R-3135_N00L_final.docx

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

Operation and Maintenance of USNS STOCKHAM AND FIVE BOBO Class Vessels

RFP N00033-14-R-3135

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS – PART ONE

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 1: The highlighted text appears to be in error. Please clarify. “L-14(g) Offers must arrive prior to the closing date and time and remain firm until 30 September 2013. Offerors are cautioned that delays in the delivery of mail are not unusual. United States Postal Services (USPS) Express Mail requires a minimum of two (2) days to reach MSC. Delays by private couriers (FEDEX, DHL, etc.) are also not unusual.”

Answer 1: Amendment 001 corrected this error. Offer validity requirements are addressed in Section L-14(b).

Question 2: Section 1.7.4 stipulates that "all crew travel and per diem costs associated with crew rotations shall be included in the contractors fixed rate" and section 1.1.1 stipulates that the vessels will be "employed in the worldwide prepositioning of Government owned cargo. The ships may also be used for other Government missions as directed." Based on the requirements of each of these sections, the Government is requiring the contractor to offer a fixed price for a service that has no boundaries or basis for estimate. If the Government wants crew changes to be part of the fixed price it is necessary to stipulate geographic locations for the travel or if the Government wants to have full flexibility of global operations, the travel costs should be re-addressed as a reimbursable expense.

Answer 2: Although the Government reserves the right to employ the vessels worldwide, the Government anticipates that the ships will be equally divided between Squadron 2 (Indian Ocean) and Squadron 3 (Western Pacific). Section C-1.1.4 has been revised accordingly. See Amendment 002.

Question 3: Section 1.8.3 stipulates "All costs associated with MSC required training, including travel, are to be included in the Contractor's fixed rate." However, numerous MSC required training classes are taught, scheduled, and priced solely by the Government. As the contractor has no control over the scheduling or costs of this training, ability to manage costs, these should be considered a reimbursable expense. If the Government maintains the requirement for this training to be part of the contractors fixed price, for this to be considered a fair and reasonable procurement the Government should offer alternative commercially available training criteria.

Answer 3: Current pricing, schedules and locations of MSC/Navy Required Training Classes have been added to the RFP as Attachment Q. See Amendment 002. .

Question 4: Section 3.5.2.3 stipulates that familiarization, personnel wages, transportation, subsistence and lodging are to be included in the contractors fixed rate. Additionally, "The familiarization period shall not be necessary if the Contractor has proposed the same personnel/crew who are currently under contract and assigned to the ship". Understanding that even if an offer has the same operating unions as the incumbent, the familiarization period includes required personnel other than crew such as Port Engineer, Port Captain, Property Administrator, will the Government consider this be a reimbursable cost so as to not offer the incumbent and unfair pricing advantage?

Answer 4: No. In accordance with C-3.5.2.3, offerors shall include costs associated with the familiarization period in their fixed rates.

Question 5: This solicitation is for a Firm-Fixed-Price contract with reimbursable elements. The reimbursable elements make up a significant portion of the overall cost to the government within the resulting contract however the cost of these elements are not being evaluated as part of submitted proposals. The government’s basis for award uses trade off factors that in theory are supposed to ensure that the offer providing the “best value” is selected. When looking at the trade-off factors it appears that bidders are not being evaluated on their ability to provide the lowest possible reimbursable services and parts while performing the items required under the Statement of Work. Many businesses are able to receive significant discounts from key vendors due to the large volume of purchases made within their organization. For example, a company that purchases parts for 6 vessels may not receive the same prices available to a ship operator that manages 50 vessels. While any successful offeror will have to follow government rules to provide reimbursable services/parts at “fair and reasonable” rates, no credit is being given to bidders who can provide the lowest commercially achievable rates for the same items. Will the government consider adding a “basket of goods and services” to the solicitation for bidders to submit with prices warranted for at least the firm period of the contract? This basket would include high priced items that every vessel will require during the contract such as main engine/generator/crane parts and services. The prices offered should not only be compared between offerors as a trade-off factor, the successful offeror should be required to warrant those prices for at least the firm period of the contract to prevent bidders from listing low prices without being held accountable.

Answer 5: Evaluating reimbursable costs in the manner described above is not appropriate for a firm fixed price contract. The evaluation scheme outlined in Section M-1(B) is sufficiently tailored to provide the Government with a proposal offering the best value for the services contemplated by this RFP Question 6: Paragraph 1.7.8 (Key Shipboard Personnel) of the RFP describes the requirements for resumes of Key Shipboard Personnel and states that resumes for prospective shipboard key billets be submitted to the contracting officer 30 days prior to their assignment to the ship.

· May we infer from this paragraph that resumes for key shipboard personnel are not required to be submitted with the proposal, but are due 30 days prior to assignment to the ship (which would occur approximately a year after the proposal is submitted)?

· We understand the resume and letter of commitment requirements that all key shoreside personnel be submitted with the proposal.

Answer 6: In accordance with C-1.7.8, resumes and other required documentation for Key Shipboard Personnel must be submitted to the Government “at least thirty (30) days prior to… actual assignment to a ship.” Section L does not require offerors to submit any information related to Key Shipboard Personnel with the technical proposal. Proposal submission requirements for Key Shoreside personnel have been updated. See Amendment 002.

Question 7: Page 125, Section L-15, B Tech Vol., B. Trade-off Factor I. technical Approach second bullet: requires Org chart with positions title and dedication levels and all key shore side positions required by C-1.7.8. Section, C-1.7.8 does not address any shore side positions at all. Believe this should reference C-3.4 Answer 7: This reference has been corrected. See Amendment 002.

Question 8: Page 127 Second paragraph labeled (b)—bottom of the page: “All offerors are requested to address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns) in a separate narrative not to exceed one page included in Volume 1 of the proposal. This seems to be part of past performance, but isn’t clear with the reference “included in volume 1.” Please clarify if you require the contractor to attach a past performance data sheets, and remind offerors to complete box 14 historical compliance with small business utilization FAR 52.219-8.

Answer 8: L-15(C)(I) has been clarified. See Amendment 002.

Question 9: There is an omission in section L for where the Government would like the required Mission Essential Contractors Services Plan included in the proposals, please clarify.

Answer 9: Paragraph L-15(A)(l), and RFP Attachment P have been added. See Amendment 002.

Question 10: There is an omission in section L for where the Government would like form K.3 Key Shore Based Personnel included in the proposals, please clarify.

Answer 10: See Amendment 002.

Question 11: Page 129 Paragraph (b) doesn’t include the requirement of amendment acknowledgment/signed SF30’s Answer 11: This requirement is addressed at Section L-15(A)(b).

Question 12: Paragraph 1.8.10 of Section C does not specify a number of personnel that need to be trained in small arms. Is there a minimum requirement?

Answer 12: It is up to the offeror to determine how many crewmembers may be “called upon to bear small arms.” A related requirement under paragraph 1.8.11.1 requires the Master to “assign a minimum of five (5) mariners to the Ship’s Reaction Force (SRF).” Crewmembers assigned to the SRF must hold current small arms training certificates for the length of their tour of duty in addition to successfully completing an MSC approved Ship’s Reaction Force Course every 3 years.

Question 13: In paragraph 2.7.2.1 of Section C availabilities that exceed 14 days require two full time port engineers. Is the second port engineer reimbursable?

Answer 13: The cost of a second port engineer is not reimbursable, and should be included in the fixed rate.

Question 14: In Section L-14 paragraph (b) offers are to remain valid until award is made. In the same section paragraph (g) states offers are to remain valid until a certain date (which has passed). Will there be a validity date or should the validity in (b) apply?

Answer 14: Please see Answer #1 of this document.

Question 15: Pricing sheets do not address Stockham in an AFSB mission with a crew of 36. Is this an oversight and if not then what will the daily rate be based on with the extra crew up to 36 and other expenses associated with the mission?

Answer 15: Although Section C-1.1.1 includes AFSB as an example of potential “other Government missions” that may be directed, at this time the Government does not anticipate that any of the vessels covered under this RFP will be utilized to perform an AFSB mission. Therefore, the Government has not requested AFSB mission rates.

Question 16: Is the form K1 and K2 required in Volume 2 considered towards the 30 page maximum count?

Answer 16: Forms K1, K2, and K3 are not included in the page count for Technical Proposals specified at Section L-14(e)(1).

Question 17: In the Government property management section, part of the requirement is to provide a copy of the proposed property control plan. These plans are quite extensive. Is this plan to be counted towards the 30 page count maximum limit?

Answer 17: The proposed property control plan is considered an attachment and not included in the page count specified at Section L-14(e)(1).

Question 18: Training is no longer reimbursable as it has been in past contracts. Will contractors be billed for courses attended at MSC training facilities and if so what are the costs of these courses?

Answer 18: Yes, if the successful contractor’s mariners attend training at MSC training facilities, that contractor will be billed by MSC Training facilities. Information regarding MSC Schoolhouse training has been added as RFP Attachment Q. See Amendment 002.

Question 19: In section L-14 (e) (5) on page 119 it states that past performance data is to be in Volume 1 while on page 127 it indicates that past performance is to be provided in Volume 3. Please clarify.

Answer 19: Please see Answer #8 above.

Question 20: Amendment 001 of the RFP indicates that the Department of Labor Wage Determination will be issued shortly when the DOL system is restored. We assume that this wage determination will be based upon the CBAs included in the amendment. These CBAs reflect shipboard wages during the period October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2014. We are aware that these are not the wages that will be in effect during the period September to May 2015 when the vessels will be delivered to the winning bidder. The intent of a wage determination is to ensure that workers on a federal contract do not receive wages lower than wages received on a predecessor contract. The current wages included in the RFP do not meet this requirement. Will there be a revised wage determination to reflect the actual wages being paid for the existing contract during the time period that the vessels will be delivered? If the answer is yes, will this be done prior to price proposals being due? If the answer is no how do bidders revise their price proposals to ensure mariners will not receive wages lower than on the existing contract?

Answer 20: The Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) of the predecessor contracts included in Amendment 0001 contain wage escalation clauses that can be used for projecting crew wage/fringe rates for the following year. Should discussions be open after October 1, 2014, the Government will obtain updated CBAs and request Dept. of Labor to issue a revised Wage Determination.