Attachment 11 Q and A 20 08 11.pdf

N00167-20-R-0019 Amendment 0003 Attachment 11 Questions and Answers

11 August 2020

QUESTION 18:

Is it possible to have a highlighted version of the changes done to Attachments 1 and 4?

ANSWER 18: Yes, amendment 0002’s revised attachment changes are highlighted using blue font.

QUESTION 19:

Regarding the CDRLS, are you expecting us to fill in those as well? We could not identify what is required from our side at this stage for those documents.

ANSWER 19: CDRL fill-ins are not required in submitted offer.

A Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) is a list of the data items to be delivered by the Contractor during performance of the contract.

QUESTION 20:

As a general question, does the Navy open for a general review of the bid submitted for purposes of completeness?

ANSWER 20: The Navy reviews all timely offers for completeness, then evaluates offers consistent with Sections L and M of the

RFP.

QUESTION 21:

Section 3.4.1 clearly states that past performance references must be relevant.

USCG Ballast Water Treatment Units are a new concept to the US Navy and to date, have not been installed on any Naval Platforms. The purpose of Solicitation N0016720R0019 is to establish the requirements for the engineering design, manufacturing, delivery, testing and evaluation of one Compact and one Standard Ultraviolet (UV) Ballast Water Treatment System (BWTS) for Navy surface vessels.

We are a key supplier to the USN through previous contracts with the shipbuilder, however they are not BWT relevant.

Consequently, Volume II will remain unpopulated unless NAVSEA will accept a non-relevant set of references for this purpose.

Please let us know if you want us to list many of our previous Navy contracts, which we have supplied over the last 35 years.

Thank you and awaiting your response.

ANSWER 21: The evaluation of relevancy is not limited to contracts with Ballast Water Treatment Systems (BWTS) scope or to BWTS work performed for the U.S. Navy. Per Section M paragraph 3.1.4(b), in establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of services/supplies, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.