Atch17commentsfromindustry.xls
XLS spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- HUSBANDING SERVICE PROVIDER
- Solicitation number
- N0018907R0022
About this file
Atch 17 - Comments from industry
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
50 files listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
Sheet1
| ATCH 17: N00189-07-R-0022 | |
| Comments from Industry | |
| Question | Response |
| 1. Regarding geographic scope and region: Do you expect one single awardee for the whole geographic scope detailed in solicitation or could FISC award it partially? | Single Award |
| 2. Do Offerors have to present proposals necessarily for the whole countries within the geographic scope or they could present it for some specific countries If so, would there be any limitations, for example, 1,2,6 countries? | Single Award |
| 3. In case of #2, (partial offers), would they have the same value in terms of qualification for bid award? | Not Applicable |
| 4. FAR 52.212-1 (4) (k) CCR for prospective awardee is only applicable for offeror or also for subcontractors? | FAR 52.212-1 (4) (k) is applicable to the offeror. |
| 5. The offeror is now responsible to provide a program for ships reports, but it is mentioned that a CRAFT version could be provided. Clarification | Pursuant to the RFP, contractor is responsible to have own web-based system. Once WWCRAFT is implemented, if ever, then contractors shall be requested to input to CRAFT |
| 6. Past performance: Offerors are directed to provide Contractor Performance Data sheets of no more than (4) of the Offeror's most recently completed Federal Government, Other country, State completion for like or similar services to those to be provided under this RFP. If an offeror has current contracts in these areas and are still active , will the Navy evaluate these active contracts even if still active. | Yes |
| 7. Is there a list of the frequency of port visits? | See Attachment 2 - Pricing Schedule for first day husbanding fees. |
| 8. Sub-factor III - Corporate Experience (page 20 of 52) Please define '2nd Tier Sub-factor - contingency operation husbanding' | This subfactor was removed from 52.212-2 Evaluation Clause in amendment 0004. |
| 9. 52.232-19 Availability of Funds for the next fiscal year (April 1984) . Can the government fill in the blanks as indicated above? Are funds available to fully fund the base year? | Funds are provided on individual task orders. |
| 10. 52.244-2 Subcontracts (Aug 1998) page 37 of 52. This clause requires contractors who do not have an approved Purchasing System to obtain constent to subcontract, which includes issuance of purchase orders for goods or services. This type of requirements contract does not, for the most part, allow adequate time for compliance with advance notification requirements. | Contractor's purchase system shall be approved pursuant to 52.212-2 during the evaluation of each offeror's proposal. |
| 11. Example of X3 - SUBMARINE RESCUSE LOGISTICS SUPPORT. (a) Logistics Support is defined as providing, with little or no notice, the required material handling equipment and miscellaneous logistics support to successfully conduct a submarine rescue operation at any location around the globe. Ques: Will the government consider elimination of this clause and defer to clause 52.244-5 - COMPETITION IN SUBCONTRACTING (DEC 1996) and as stated in the PWS "justification for dispensing with competition must be provided for all requirements vlaued at $3,000 and above?" | No |
| 12. Pricing Sheet line items: Are the estimated quanitities fixed, or can they change them to reflect their port servicing one ship? I assume these quantities are the total estimated days ships will be in for the year. So, 10 ships each year. But if we use "one" as the estimated quantity where possible, would it be easier for you to analyze? What does "reserved" mean? | See Attachment 2 for pricing as revised in Amenment 0004. |
| 13. Water Taxi - Listed as a "daily rate" rather than per trip or hourly. In the Virgin Isles, you want them to approach like a daily charter? | See Attachment 2 for pricing as revised in Amenment 0004. |
| 14. Camels Vs. Landing barges - Should the price of camels be for Class II and II? And Landing Barges for only class IV-V? Is there a specific difference between these two items that you want us to address? Size? | See Attachment 2 for pricing as revised in Amenment 0004. |
| 15. Will former husanding agents have the opportunity to bid for their country, meaning only 1 country? | No |
| 16. Transportation Services - vehicle rental service: Shall the proposed price include vehicles' delivery and re-delivery at pierside? | Prices shall be all inclusive. |
| 17. All 29 Lots inlcude the same quantities and estimated amounts. This does not represent a realistic estimate. Additionally, all 29 lots estimate 10 ship visits for a Class II ship and include no other ship types. Is the government's estimate limited to 10 visits of only Class 2 ships for all lots? Will the government provide historical ship visit data by ship class and port for the 29 proposed lots for the past 5 years in order to permit the contractor to realistically determine the ship visit trends for these ports? | See Attachment 2 for pricing as revised in Amenment 0004. |
| 18. Note (4) states that “for pricing sheets identified in a LOT (country) as “All Other Ports” the contractor will be required to provide prices only for husbanding fees for the first and subsequent days. The husbanding fees will apply for all other ports of the LOT (Country) not priced in the contract.” The Attachment 2 Pricing Schedule includes 29 Lots, 11 Lots for specific ports, and 18 for country/all others. Only 3 of the 18 non-specific port lots are identified as “All Others” [Mexico (All Others), Caribbean (Zone A – All Others), and Caribbean (Zone B – All Others)]. Fifteen lots that remain are either countries within Central or South America or East and West Candada. |
| Question: Is the offeror to submit only husbanding fees for the three lots specifically labeled as “All Others” and price all items in the remaining 15 lots, or consider the remaining 15 lots for countries as “all others”, i.e. price only the husbanding fees for all 18 lots of all others and countries? | See Attachment 2 for pricing as revised in Amenment 0004. | |
| 19. Question: Is user access to the system “read only” in order to access required reports? | Read only is acceptable for use, but reports need to be editable per the PWS. | |
| 20. Comment: The system will contain contractor price sensitive information. |
| Question: Will access be limited to “.mil” domain users, how will the government ensure contractor information is protected from unauthorized users (i.e. user inappropriately shares their access info), and can the contractor establish screening and verification procedures to ensure access for only valid users with a need to know? Must access to the system be immediate upon registration by the user or can a reasonable amount of time be established to verify user information? | Yes |
| 21. Subparagraph (a) states that upon award the Contractor shall provide web-based secure access to their program via secure user login and password. Subparagraph (a)(i)(3) states these estimates will be provided to the KO and any other authorized activities. |
| Question: To whom shall access be provided and how many users and will the contractor be permitted to limit the number of users per activity/individual provided access? | To Be Determined. Authorized use only. |
| 22. Middle of the page includes final note that states: The Government is currently developing a web-based World Wide Cost Reporting and Forecasting Tool (WWCRAFT). If implemented, the Contractor shall begin using WWCRAFT as the primary husbanding reporting program. |
| Question: If WWCRAFT is implemented, will the contractor still be required to provide their own system in addition to WWCRAFT? | Yes |
| 23. Refer to subparagraph (d) regarding reconciliation of estimated invoices. |
| Question: Is the contractor (a) required to wait and submit a “final” invoice if actual costs are unknown prior to ship’s departure, or (b) does the contractor bill the ship the estimated invoice amount and reconcile the differences later? If (a), how will FISC assist to obtain additional funding from the ship/activity if required to pay an actual invoice amount that is more than initially funded by the ship? | See Amendment 0004 |
| 24. Subparagraph (e) states “Whenever the total percentile target for a port visit is not reached, the contractor will credit the ordering activity, ship, or in some cases multiple ships with one subsequent day husbanding fee, as determined by the applicable rate for the port visit in which the contractor failed to meet the overall goal.” QASP Service Requirement “RFP: II (6)(a) Pricing Control” max error rate is 3 port visits. |
| Comment: The max error rate is 3 port visits but the penalty for not achieving a metric under subparagraph (e) is a “total percentile target for “a” port visit.” The logic seems inconsistent to refer to a port visit and then have an error rate of 3 port visits. | The error rate is now 2 verses 3 and the error rate applies to the same port, See Amendment 0005 and Attachment 13 - QASP. |
| 25. Refer to Sub-factor III – Corporate Experience, 2nd sentence “The evaluation will assess the offeror’s corporate experience based on the prior contract’s similarity to the current contract based on scope, complexity, and magnitude…” |
| Question: Are the references to “the prior contract’s similarity” referring to the 4 contracts to be used for past performance or can other contracts be used for this factor as well? | See Amendment 0004 - 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commerical items |
| 26. Refer to Sub-factor III – Corporate Experience “Magnitude” ratings based on $ values of contracts. |
Comment: The magnitude correlation of high ratings for high dollar values rewards a high cost contract. Using dollar value alone as a measure of magnitude does not consider the possibility of supporting numerous ship visits at low costs. In some parts of the world, it is possible to support hundreds of ship visits a year whose aggregate cost would only qualify as “acceptable” under the proposed evaluation criteria, yet the same set of ship visits in another AOR may be double the costs.
| Recommendation: Provide additional criteria for magnitude that accounts for both annual volume and dollars, or eliminate dollars and use annual volume. | See Amendment 0004 - 52.212-2 Evaluation - Commerical items |
| 27. Refer to Sub-factor III – Corporate Experience, middle of page 22 “Offerors may rely on individual husbanding contracts to satisfy the corporate experience requirement or they may submit multiple contracts to collectively satisfy the requirement.” |
| Question: Are the references to individual contracts and multiple contracts limited to the 4 contracts to be used for past performance or can other contracts be used as well for this factor? | Deleted, See Amendment 0004 -52.212 Evaluation - page 22 | |
| 28. With a proposed period of performance and Base Year start date of 1 August 2007, when does the government expect to have the contract awarded and how much lead time does the government plan to include between the contract award date and 1 August? | The Government expects awardee to be ready to peform as of the effective date of the contract? | |
| 29. The line items in the schedule do not follow DFARS 204.71 'UNIFORM CONTRACT LINE ITEM NUMBERING SYSTEM" for CLINs and Sub-CLINSs. Should it become necessary to receive payment from DFAS, such as for services to ships without Disbursing Officers, it is inherently problematic to obtain payment without proper line items tied to applicable lines of accounting. Please address this issue. | Husbanding services are unique and line item identification is via attachment. Funded line items shall be in accordance with section B, not attachment 2. | |
| 30. EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999), Past Performance Factor - "Magnitude" ratings based on $ values of contracts. COMMENT: The magniture correlation of high ratings for high dollar values rewards a high cost contract. Using dollar value alone as a measure of magnitude does not consider the possibility of supporting numerous ship visits at low costs. in some parts of the world, it is possible to support hundreds a of ship visits a year whose aggregate cost would only qualify as "acceptable" under the proposed evaluation criteria, yet the same set of ship visits in another AOR may be double the costs. QUESTION: Would it be more prudent to provide additional criteria for magnitude that accounts for both annual volume and dollars, or eliminate dollars and use annual volume? | Revised - See Amendment 0004. | |
| 31. While you've included a FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, are we to assume the original clause's Instructions to Offerors still apply as in the draft? | Yes | |
| 32. Similar to Question 31 above, the draft RFP contained an addendum to paragraph (h) of FAR 52.212-1 stating: 52.212-1 Addendum Instructions to Offerors --Commerical Items Paragraph (h) Multiple Awards - Delete entire paragraph and substitute "Award. The Government plans to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation." Do you intend to award this as a single contract? | Yes | |
| 33. Should we provide one copy of the "additional requirements" representations and certifications are required and package it along with the other requirements of FAR 52.212-1 (e.g. signed DD1149 and modifications)? | Yes | |
| 34. The numberic and alpha times of the oral presentation sections are inconsistent. Can you advise the correct times? | The oral presentations will be conducted as follows: Ten (10) minutes for team introduction |
Thirty (30) minutes to present sub-factor I Ten (10) minutes for Question/Answer Ten (10) minute break Forty (40) minutes to present of sub-factor II.
Twenty (20) minutes for Question/Answer
| 35. Within the PWS paragraph 8 on Logistics Support to Government Teams, the Government authorizes travel and per diem, yet travel is at econmy and per diem is in accordance with joint travel regulations (JTR). We understand that JTR authorizes business class for contractors under certain circumstances. Should not all travel reimbursement be conducted in accordance with JTR? | Yes, all travel will be reimbursed in accordance with JTR. | |
| 36. The instructions for fuel ordering on page 20 of the PWS seem to require editing. | Revised - See Amendment 0005. | |
| 37. Will Government consider an EPA clause for items heavily dependent upon fuel costs, such as water taxis? | No. | |
| 38. In connectin to the Oral presentation, it is required to present a maximum of 45 slides for Sub-factors I and II. Will these 45 slides also include the ones we would like to use for the "Team Introductions"? | The maximum is 45, including the introduction. You may do less, your call. | |
| 39. In the Draft of the solicitation, there was a section 52.212-1 Draft page 12 to 15 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, pages 15 to 58 in which several requirements were included such as filling Form 1449, Technical description of items, CCR, DUN, etc. (please note attachment “A”). In the Amendment of the Solicitation, these pages were not included, are we still required to send these items? | ||
| If the answer to the previous question is affirmative, please also refer to Item (7) (e) of page 13 of Draft of the Solicitation, in this section offerors are encouraged to present multiple offers: “(e) Multiple offers. Offerors are encouraged to submit multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions or commercial items for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Each offer submitted will be evaluated separately.” Is this still allowed – requested? If the answer is affirmative, other alternate offers may consider a different approach to the pricing of the Husbanding Fee, even if it require to change the presentation of the Pricing Schedule, or to add an additional concept? Should we be restricted only to the form – structure showed in the attachment: 1_N00189-07-R-0022-Atch2-PricingSchedule.xls, Pricing Schedule? | Affirmative | |
| 40. If multiple pricing offers are presented, should we be required to present two completely separated set of documents? FAR 1449, Oral presentation, Etc.? Or will it be enough just to present one full set of documents and the alternate pricing proposals? | If multiple offers are proposed, you will need to have separate documents for each offer. With regards to the oral presentations, you may choose to present alternative proposals during the same time slot or not, your call. | |
| 41. In the Draft of the solicitation, there was a section 52.212-5 (page 28 to 52, in which several requirements were included such as Insurances (page 33) Etc. In the Amendment of the Solicitation these pages were not included, are we still required to send these items? | Yes | |
| 42. In the amendment to the Draft of the Solicitation, new SUBCLIN Items has been created. A column “Estimated Amount” is registered. Are we required to fill anything there? | No | |
| 43. In case we decide to personally deliver our proposal, how can we arrange to obtain authorization to access in to the Naval Base? How long on advance should it be requested? | Contact: darva.gruber@navy.mil or scott.wilkins@navy.mil | |
| 44. In the Amendment of the solicitation, page 20, it is mentioned the following. “offerors shall present a live demonstration of their web based Port Visit Cost Reporting Program using the sample LOGREQ provided in Attachment _16_.” Is this the definitive sample we will use for the Live Web PVCR System demonstration? | Yes | |
| 45. Atch 3 is Contract Performance Data Sheet. Imbedded in this atachment is attachment 16, Contractor Performance Customer Input Sheet/Questionnaire. Please clarify. | Revised - See Amendment 0005. | |
| 46. Atch 4 is the Conttractor Performance Customer Input Sheet/Questionaire. Does this go to the same activity as Atch 3? | Yes. It needs to be sent to the person who has the most knowledge of the contract. If a Navy contract, the suppo, or the person you worked with. | |
| 47. Atch 2 pricing schedule has Panama as a priced port. Does this include transit fees? | Revised, see Attachment 2 | |
| 48. Do you want port tariff items priced? | Refer to the RFP - General terms section. | |
| 49. There have been several amendments issued. How do we ensure that all the documents are linked with the draft? | Amendment 0005 contains conformed copies of all conformed documents and ALL changes incorporated thus far. So you can disregard all other attachments. Contractor shall certify pursuant to FAR clause 52.212-1 that they acknowedge amendments 0005 and all its attachments. | |
| 50. The Performance Work Statement requires many services. If the husbanding service provider signs the contract, do they have to accept every item requested? | Yes, all items required on the LOGREQ is required. | |
| 51. What happens in an unpriced port, where there is only one provider (for example, pilots)? How do you account for that in the pricing spreadsheet? | This question does not apply to this RFP since non of the unprices ports are being evaluated except for husbanding fees. This issue shall be addressed after the award has been issued. | |
| 53. Will a list of the attendees be provided? | Yes, as attachment 17 in amendment 0005. | |
| 54. Regarding pricing in the PVCR, is it required that support documentation demonstrating competition or sole source for every item be uploaded? | No. Fixed price contract items pursuant to Attachment 2 do not need additional supporting documents. | |
| 55. Is it possible to register as a prime contractor to get an idea of when we will be able to come in for oral presentations? | If you are certain you are going to submit a proposal and want to participate in oral presenations, contact FISc Norfolk to schedule appointments. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .