RFP-RFQ_Q_AND_A_GSR_IDIQ.docx

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-13-R-6012

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

The following are answers to questions received from potential offerors. The answers provide clarification only and DO NOT constitute an amendment to the solicitation.

1. It does not appear that the attachment referred to in Section L Factor C for the Technical Volume has been included with the RFP. “Offerors must also complete pages 4 and 5 of Attachment One, MSC Ship Repair Facility Survey, and include it with "Volume 1 Technical." Can you please clarify?

ANSWER: This language will was removed from the solicitation in Amendment 0001. It read as follows:

Factor C: Equipment/Facilities

Describe in detail any repair facility the Offeror owns or to which it has or will have access, that is located within 50 miles of Naval Base Norfolk and/or Naval Weapons Station Earle. Owing to the importance of having a facility as required by section C-10.1 of the PWS to successful contract performance, Offerors proposing to obtain a facility upon contract award must submit documentary evidence from the facility owner demonstrating a commitment to make the facility available to the Offeror upon contract award.

Contractors are required to have access to a marine repair facility within 50 miles of each location (Lot A and B) for which an offer is submitted. For example, if you are submitting an offer for Norfolk, VA and Naval Weapons Station-Earle, NJ areas, you must have access to a repair facility in the Norfolk, VA area and another facility in the Naval Weapons Station-Earle, NJ area.

2. I would like to ensure that my interpretation of Solicitation N32205-13-R-6012 submittal requirements is correct. It is my understanding that the following is to be submitted (IAW SF33 Section 9 and solicitation page 47, Detailed Submission Information):

Volume I Technical Proposal - One original + 4 hard copies + 4 CDs Volume II Past Performance – One original + 1 hard copy + 1 CD Volume III Price & Business – One original + 1 hard copy + 1 CD

ANSWER: Yes, your interpretation is correct.

3. Will three different Delivery Orders over $150,000.00 from the same IDIQ Contract be acceptable for the past performance? Should the Past Performance Data Sheet be sent to the Contracting Officer or to the Port Engineer for evaluation and can the same point of contact be used more than once?

ANSWER: You may submit any past performance information you wish in accordance with the Past Performance factor in Section L. Task orders will be viewed as separate contract actions. The past performance data sheet should be sent to the Port Engineer for evaluation and then to the Contracting Officer for submission. The same POC may be used more than once.

4. How do we address the use of, and pricing for, subcontractors for this solicitation? Past experience dictates that not all work can or will be accomplished “In-House” by a Prime Contractor. Some examples are tank cleaning and gas freeing, blasting and painting, decking and non-skid, diesel engine repairs, generator repairs, electronics repairs to mention a few. Will subcontractor pricing be handled as material with the same provision for percentage mark-up. We understand that all subcontractors must be approved before use.

ANSWER: You will propose under material using the markup rate.

5. The information required for Factor F: Experience appears to be the same as that required for Volume II – Past Performance. Is this correct? Are both sections/requirements necessary?

ANSWER: You must provide applicable information for both Factor F under section L, Volume I and Past performance under Volume II. Both sections are necessary and they are to be provided separate from one another as stated in the solicitation.

6. If CPARS are available for the Past Performance Contracts we cite, do Past Performance Questionnaires still need to be completed and provided?

ANSWER: It is requested you provide PP Questionnaires as stated in the solicitation.

7. What will the procedure be for issuing individual task orders under this contract? Will there be particular bidding/pricing forms issued for bidding the task order work? Can you provide examples of the process for issuing, bidding, and awarding individual task orders?

ANSWER: There are no "sample" forms for issuing, quoting, and awarding at this time. We intend to issue a Task Order Request For Proposal (TORFP) with the statement of work attached, a pricing sheet, and any additional pertinent information necessary.

8. Section C states that the work will “generally be performed while the vessel is berthed at a Government provided pier” yet the solicitation makes reference to the contractor having “access to a marine repair facility” within 50 miles of each location for which an offer is submitted. This seems to be a requirement in addition to the “repair facility” which the offeror owns or has access to. What does it mean to “have access to a marine repair facility”? If the requirement is for a pier and pier services, would you please specify the specific requirements? Does having shops, equipment, procedures, and experienced qualified personnel for accomplishing complex ship repair work at a government facility meet the requirement for an award?

ANSWER:The requirement for the contractor to have access to a marine repair facility within 50 miles of each location for which an offer is submitted is NOT in addition to the “repair facility” which the offeror owns or has access to. Pier and pier services are not required. Having shops, equipment, procedures, and experienced qualified personnel for accomplishing complex ship repair work at a government facility will meet the requirement for an award.

9. It is our understanding as per solicitation Section H (b) (5) that “Delivery orders will be competed amongst GSR IDIQ holders”. If that is the case, then what is the purpose of paragraph 6.5 on page 15 which states: “Contractor personnel are required to work a basic, continuous eight (8) hour day straight-time? No overtime will be allowed except as authorized by the Contracting officer under a delivery order.” Since overtime and non-standard shifts are often the most cost efficient way of accomplishing tasks within the time constraints, why would there be any such restrictions on a contractor’s means of performance? We understand that due to ship’s force and government manning that certain evolutions will necessarily be done during normal work hours and that due to ship’s force habitability issues certain evolutions will be precluded from evening and night shift; but a blanket exclusion of any off hours or non-standard shift work, even in our own shops, seems to be unnecessarily restrictive. Will the government please confirm the need for paragraph 6.5 on page 15?

ANSWER: For work under this IDIQ it is anticipated that contractor personnel will accomplish the majority of the work during a continuous eight (8) hour day straight-time day. This requirement was included to maximize availability of MSC ship's force and port engineer attendance while not requiring ship's force or port engineer overtime. Overtime, as required, will be allowed as authorized by the Contracting officer under a delivery order.

10. When we bid and were awarded similar MSC ship repair contracts on the West coast, we were able to use examples of NAVSEA approved welder qualifications and procedures as being equivalent to ABS and USCG. Most of our East coast welding work has been NAVSEA centric. Will examples of this work for Factor A be acceptable?

ANSWER: No, NAVSEA approved welder qualification and procedures cannot be substituted for ABS and USCG approved welder qualification and procedures. Offerors will need to describe in proposals how internal procedures allow for securing and managing ABS approved welder certifications and ensuring that welding procedures are adhered to. The contract will require ABS certified welders who have passed a qualification test observed by an ABS Surveyor. Please note ABS qualifications are more stringent than NAVSEA qualifications in certain areas.

11. Due to the government shut down some of our employees that would be helpful in preparing our quote have been on leave due to work schedules that were affected by shutdown. We are now bringing them back to help with preparing quote. In addition we have been told by our contractors that we have performed work for in the past that they are in the same situation. We would like to request the bid due date be extended an additional week to allow us and our responding contractors time to prepare their paperwork and contact employees that are needed to answer questions and past performance history.

ANSWER: The closing date/time of the solicitation has been changed to 08 November 2013 at 12pm local time, Norfolk, VA.

12. The request for solicitation states to submit our past performance to the port engineer for evaluation. Has one port engineer been designated to perform this task? If so who would that be? If not to who do we send our past performance to be evaluated?

ANSWER: A Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) comprised of MSC contracting officers/specialist will evaluate each Offeror’s past performance information as required to be submitted in their proposals as stated under the Past Performance section of the solicitation. If you are referring to submitting past performance questionnaires to fill out for submission to the Contract Specialist, you should consult with the Port Engineer that was involved with work on the specific delivery order/purchase order you are requesting the evaluation under.

13. If we as a contractor have not been a participant on your most recent IDIQ of this type we would unlikely to have been a prime contractor for the past four years. We would have more likely been a subcontractor for the prime contractor. Are past performance prime contracts prior to your three years requested acceptable?

ANSWER: In amendment 02, Section L, Volume I-Technical Proposal, Factors A and F, will be revised to state contracts within the past 5 years will be considered. Volume II-Past Performance will be change to state contracts within 5 years will be considered.

14. We interpret section L as CD’s only and that was the method used in the MSC San Diego and Hawaii procurements for similar work this past year. We request to submit the proposal on CDs only. We specifically request this method of submission to reduce the administrative burden of providing multiple hard copies.

ANSWER: You shall submit hard copies as stated in the solicitation.

15. Will the failure to provide completed PPQ's as part of Volume II affect our eligibility for potential award? As most of the work that we anticipate could be awarded under the resultant contract is extremely similar to like work for MSC and other Government agencies, our inability to obtain completed PPS from the Government Contracting Officer(s) is a serious matter.

ANSWER: No, this will not affect your past performance eligibility. However, if you would like to reference your applicable past performance related to orders/contracts with customers who will not complete the questionnaire, you may use the past performance data sheet and reference the contract/order and that the information is in CPARS.