QAs-_14_July_2016.docx

Q&As #3 & #4

67. Attachment B Wage Determination B-2 is still missing the fringe rates for the Seafarer’s International Union for the seven LMSR. Could you please update the RFP to reflect these rates? We cannot complete our response until we receive these.

A. SIU Aggregate fringe benefits values were provided in Amendment 0003.

68. Pricing forms have the following errors and are protected so they cannot be adjusted:

a. Form C-FOS Column G & H is not wide enough-please widen

b. Form C- FOS-MC Column H is not wide enough-please widen

c. Form C-ROS-5 Column F & H is not wide enough-please widen

d. Form C-ROS-5 crew complement is not correct. Chief Cook is missing from the Crewing tab

e. Form C- Dock Trial Year 3 does not have a crew complement in cell B92

f. Form C-RAV Column H is not wide enough-please widen

g. Form B. Row 56-63 and Column C should be expanded slightly as there is not enough room for the expected values.

A. Corrections to the Pricing Forms were made in Amendment 0003.

69. Section C-1.1.15.8 section states that “Sea Trials are conducted at a minimum of every 30 months . . .” Section C-1.1.15.11states “Speed trails are to be conducted (1) every six months; (2) First opportunity following hull cleaning or propeller polishing; or (3) When directed by Numbered Fleet Commander, Squadron Commander, or MSC.” What is the difference in sea trials and speed trials? Please clarify.

A. As specified in Section C-1.1.15.8, sea trials pertain to ships in ROS-5 and “assess ship's operational readiness, determine operating condition of all machinery, equipment and systems, and to train crewmembers”. Speed trails pertain only to the FOS Marine Corps ships in Lot 1 (as specified in the title of C.1.1.15.1) and have the primary purpose of demonstrating that “the ship is able to obtain warranted-design speed.”

70. Section C-1.8.3 STCW Training Requirements, requires that the Contractor shall ensure that each mariner meets all current STCW training requirements for their rating for the length of the contract. The Contractor shall also ensure that all mariners meet any future STCW training requirements at the time they come into effect. The costs of present and future STCW training are not reimbursable and shall be included in the Contractor’s fixed price per diem. How can offerors possibly price for “any future STCW training requirement”?

A. Section C-1.7.2 requires the contractor to “provide a complement of trained, qualified, medically/dentally and psychologically fit personnel…” Merchant Mariners are required to complete STCW, as well as Federal (e.g. USCG, EPA, and FCC) state and local Government training requirements in order to maintain their licenses. Without these training credentials, a mariner would not qualify for employment under this Contract (or any US Flag vessel).

71. Section C-2.6.8 states “to determine which offer represents the lowest net price to the government, the contractor shall adjust all bid costs based upon a calculated interport differential cost.” Is this in reference to when drydock bids are received? Please clarify.

A. Section C-2.6.8 falls under Section C-2.6 entitled Availability Planning. All subsections under C-2.6 relate to ship availability.

72. Section C-3.0 requires the Contractor to send key shore side personnel to attend meetings, conferences or orientations as designated by PM3. The Contractor shall include travel costs in the fixed rate for six (6) meetings per year. These meetings shall include, but are not be limited to, award fee presentations, quarterly management meetings and other meetings deemed necessary by the Government. The Government will reimburse the Contractor for any travel associated with meetings in excess of the above, with prior Contracting Officer approval. Can you please clarify where the location (s) of the meetings referenced in this section for pricing purposes?

A. Meetings typically will take place at MSC Headquarters in Norfolk, VA, however, that does not preclude travel to other locations.

73. Section L-14.V.B. states that the Pricing Forms A, B, C, and Section B Rate Schedule are linked, yet only Pricing Form B and Section B Rate Schedule are to be submitted with proposal offer. Does MSC want offerors to “break the links” with the forms that are not being submitted, or should offerors “range value” the amounts in the submitted forms? If neither of these techniques is used, there is the very real possibility that the worksheets being submitted will become corrupted or contain incorrect data. Our belief is that it is not best technology practice to provide spreadsheets that contain links that are completely external and unavailable to the government. Please be more specific in how the government wishes offerors to submit their pricing proposals. [Note: this only applies to the CD to be submitted; paper copies are not an issue.] A. Copy only Form B to a new Excel Spreadsheet. A note will pop up that says,” formulas cannot be pasted; however, the formulas will be pasted as values”. Click "OK". You may have to widen the columns on the new Excel spreadsheet to see the numbers. Check numbers on Form B to ensure they are accurate before submittal.

74. We have the following issues with the Pricing Forms:

· Form A - “Instructions” tab – the cells are all protected, so you cannot widen the columns or the rows. Some of the columns/rows are not presently wide enough to read the contents of the cells. Additionally, you cannot view the contents in them. Please revise and reissue Form A Pricing Sheets.

· Form A - “Instructions” tab – it states that cells highlighted in yellow in the Crewing tab may be edited. However there are no yellow highlighted cells in the Crewing tab. Please explain.

· Form A - “Crewing” tab – the ROS-5 crew complement shows as 13; in Section 19 Minimum Manning Requirements of the Technical Manual the ROS-5 crew size is shown as 14. Section 1.7.1.1 of the RFP states that the ROS manning shall be in accordance with Section 19 of the Surge LMSR Technical Manual. Since the crewing tab is protected, we are unable to modify it to agree with the RFP requirement. Please revise and reissue Form A Pricing Sheets.

· There appears to be a compounding error in the calculation of the cost of Dock Trials. Form A - “C-Dock Trial” tab, the cell K37 contains the pricing for a single day of Dock Trial Total Daily Crew Costs. This total is then carried forward to the “Form A” tab in Cell F30 and then multiplied by 5 days in cell F31, thus calculating the 5-day cost of the incremental total Dock Trial Costs. However, the total that appears in cell F31 of the “Form A” tab, is then carried forward to the tab “Form B” in cell C11, and then in cell D11, the amount is AGAIN multiplied by 5 days, thus creating a total Dock Trial incremental cost that would be for 25 days. Please correct and reissue the Form A Pricing Sheets.

A. These corrections were made in Amendment 0003 (See response to Q.68).

75. Section C-3.5.2 of the RFP states that the Contracting Officer can grant waivers for 1 PE to cover two ships that are within driving distance. Based on the latest locations of the ships, are there currently waivers in place for the ships in Corpus Christi and Bremerton?

A. There is currently a waiver in place for the 2 ships in Corpus Christi based on the fact that the ships are about 5 miles apart. There was no need for a waiver in Bremerton as the 2 ships are at the same facility (walking distance apart). However, current ship locations are not guaranteed for the performance period of the new contracts. Waiver requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis (see Section C-3.5.2 for restrictions).

76. Attachment O was not posted to FBO with Amendment 0001 as referenced in the Q&A responses posted on 6/28/16. Will Attachment O be posted soon?

A. Attachment O was posted with Amendment 0001 (Please look at the description for the pricing sheets in FBO). Revised Attachment O was posted with Amendment 0003.

78. Section C-1.1.5 States “The Government may require the Contractor to solicit the services of a layberth facility.” Given MSC’s stated intention of having OPCO’s manage all layberths (up to 5 in this case), should the wording reflect this reality (‘will’ in lieu of ’may’)? As real estate management is not a normal ship management function, this is a significant workload that will need to be priced into the bid.

A. This requirement was made definitive under Amendment 0003.

79. C-1.11 Extra Crew. Does the government consider the training cost and the MSC physical costs reasonable direct costs that they will reimbursed for additional ROS crew members?

A. Costs for MSC physicals are (and always have been) for the Contractor’s account. Training reimbursement for additional ROS crew will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will require prior Contracting Officer approval.

80. C-1.13. Please confirm that if, during RAV, a crew has to move to a hotel, the government will reimburse the hotel costs, meal per diem and transportation back and forth to the ship.

A. Accommodations for crew impacted by limitations of ship hotel services during RAV periods will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

81. C-1.1.15.4 Transition Period. This section states that during transition from ROS or RAV to FOS and back crew travel will be reimbursable. However section 1.9 and 1.10 state that all CONUS travel is part of the fixed price. Please confirm that crew rotation in ROS and FOS is fixed and the crew travel during transition is reimbursable. [1.1.15.3 says transportation costs are reimbursable] A. Crew travel for ships in ROS-5 are only reimbursable during transitions from ROS or RAV to FOS. (See C-1.1.15.3).

82. C-1.2.15 Marine Corps LMSR Refrigerated Container Maintenance (Lot 1 Only), states that costs associated with maintaining refrigerated containers shall be included in the contractor’s fixed price. Please confirm that the cost of repair requiring IA is reimbursable.

A. The costs to maintain and repair refrigerated containers is reimbursable.

83. C-1.5.7 Do the vessels have ACAS installed for Unclass and Classified networks?

A. All vessels have ACAS installed on Unclassified networks. At this time ACAS has not been installed on Classified networks, however, this is subject to change during the life of the contract.

84. C-1.7.2 Please confirm that if extra personnel are directed by the Contracting Officer, the cost of wages, fringes, travel and training for those extra crew members will be reimbursable.

A. These costs will be reimbursable with prior Contracting Officer approval.

85. C-1.7.7 Specifies a maximum crew rotation of 4 times per year. We have seen similar language on other contracts where the travel is reimbursable. Since travel and training is part of the contractor’s fixed costs please explain the purpose of this limitation.

A. MSC determined it was in its best interests to have less crew rotations.

86. C-1.7.7.3 Crew rotation. Given the extent of the requirements of TM15, we recommend adding a 1 day overlap for the storekeeper position.

A. Section C-1.7.7.3 will be revised in a forthcoming Amendment to include a Chief Mate and Storekeeper for FOS turnover, and a Storekeeper to ROS turnover. All Key Shipboard positions require a two-day overlap.

87. C-2.4.5.1 Is travel for the PE to OCONUS site for pre-shipyard survey reimbursable?

A. Reimbursement for travel expenses for an OCONUS site survey will be considered on a case-by-case basis and will require prior Contracting Officer approval.

88. C-2.5.4. It’s not clear if the cost of both SY PEs and Admin Asst is non-reimbursable.

A. Section C-2.5.4 requires “For any availability in excess of 14 calendar days, the Contractor shall provide at least two full time Port Engineers and an Administrative Assistant.” Reimbursable supplies and services are those items specified in the contract as reimbursable, or otherwise pre-approved by the Contracting Officer. B-1.3 states that “Unless otherwise stated, all contract requirements shall be included in the contractor’s fixed price.”

89. C-3.4 It is necessary for shore staff to have access to CMLS, VTL, PENG, SAMMWEB, the MSC portal and other MSC sites in order to perform contractual functions described in the SOW That access requires an approved SAAR-N which requires a CAC card with .mil e-mail certificate. The only way to get that certificate activated is for shore staff to visit a NMCI hardwired location. Since it is not a contractual requirement for the shore staff to reside near a NMCI site, will the cost of that travel be reimbursable?

A. Travel will not be reimbursed for the activation of CAC Card certificates. CAC certificates can be activated at any DOD facility in the U.S. with NMCI hardwired machines.

90. C-3.7.3 What is the familiarization requirement for the ROS crews, if any?

A. C-3.7.3 was revised under Amendment 0003 to address familiarization requirements for ships in ROS.

91. C-3.23 ‘The Contractor shall submit an electronic copy of the SMS to the COR upon implementation.’ Most companies use some version of an electronic SMS system. Since MSC is unable to load any non-MSC software on their computers, the electronic copy of the SMS system has been deemed unacceptable when submitted over the past year. We recommend the SOW be modified to clarify what ‘electronic copy’ means – i.e. must be pdf, doc, xls, ppt, txt format. Since those systems are usually not designed to print the entirety of the software contents, the ambiguity of the SOW masks the extra labor required to meet MSC’s actual requirement.

A. Any electronic pdf format is acceptable. This will be discussed in more detail with the Contractor after award.

92. We do not find a wage determination for the Electronics Officer. For Lot 1 this is needed for ROS; for Lot 2 it is needed for FOS and ROS. Will MSC be issuing such a Wage Determination?

A. The incumbent contracts do not require an Electronics Officers. Wage and fringe rates not addressed by the Wage Determinations should be obtained from the offerors’ maritime union(s).

93. The wage determination between AMSEA and SIU provided in Amendment 1 does not contain figures for fringe Benefits. Can you please provide the fringe benefit information for the SIU for Lot 1?

A. Aggregate fringe benefits information was provided to offerors with Amendment 0002.

94. Under Section H-5 (i) – We note the Government is retaining the risk of property loss or damage to the vessel per American Institute Hull Clauses (9/29/09). Under these provisions, the vessel is technically not covered “all risk” in the absence of not including the “Liner Negligence Clause”. As far as we are aware, virtually every ship owned or operated under US Flag has Liner Negligence Clause coverage under the hull policy. If there is physical loss or damage to the vessel and if by some chance it is not covered under the American Institute Clauses, but could be covered under LNC, is the Government holding the contractor harmless for such damage?

A. The Government is not holding the Contractor harmless for such damage.

95. Section L-14 III Small Business Participation paragraph 4. States that “Offerors are required to provide written commitments for any small business specifically named in paragraph 3 above”. Please clarify what is considered a “written commitment” and what the commitment should include?

A. Offerors should provide a definitive commitment for specific small business named in their proposal.

A. The due date for offers was extended under Amendment 0003 to 01 August 2016.

100. Section 1.8 Familiarization states that, “All costs associated with the familiarization period, including personnel wages, transportation, subsistence and lodging shall be included in the contractor’s fixed rate.” Should there be a separate familiarization period row in Form B? Or should these costs be incorporated into Contract Year 1 per diem?

A. Familiarization costs should be included in the offeror’s fixed price for the first contract period.

101. RFP at M-1-B.4 Quality and Safety Management Systems incorrectly references section C- 3.18 in the SOW. Please advise the correct reference. We think you meant to reference C-3.23 for the Safety Management System requirement.

A. The M-1.B.4 reference was corrected under Amendment 0003.

102. RFP at M-1-B.4 Quality and Safety Management Systems allows for Safety systems to be compliant with ISO, ASQ or ISMA. These organizations are qualified to certify Quality Management Systems, but not Safety Management Systems according to our best information. Safety systems should be certified by the classification society under SOLAS Chapter 9. Please let us know if you agree.

A. Please see revised M-1.B.4 provided under Amendment 0003.

103. Attachment K-3 and Attachment K-4 appear to be identical; can they be combined into one attachment?

A. The due date for offers was extended under Amendment 0003 to 01 August 2016.

105. SF33, Box 9: We respectfully request an extension of the due date for Submission of Offers to be August 12, 2016. The T-AGS and LMSRs (Lot 2) are Small Business set aside RFPs and currently due on the same date, July 22, 2016. This creates an undue burden on small businesses interested in bidding. In addition, we still do not have any CBAs from our operating unions yet.

A. See response to Q.104.

106. L-12 We also request an extension of the deadline for Receipt of Questions for the solicitation.

A. The due date for receipt of questions was extended until 15 July 2016 under Amendment 0003.