QA2_SBX_RFP_16R3101.pdf

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-16-R-3101 SBX-1 Operation & Maintenance

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS # 2

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

Question 1:

In the RFP, at H5 (a) Insurance, there is a requirement for Cargo Liability insurance in paragraph (a) of the insurance requirements:

“(a) During the period commencing with the delivery and terminating with the redelivery of each Government-owned vessel subject to this contract, the contractor shall obtain for itself and the United States Government, Protection and Indemnity (P&I) marine insurance cover, including without limitation, full four-fourths (4/4s) collision liability cover, fixed and moveable objects cover, and “property of the member” cover for damages or losses to government-owned cargo carried on the vessel under circumstances where a carrier of such cargo would be liable to a cargo owner/shipper under a contract of carriage incorporating the provisions and defenses of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act;”

While this is a normal cover within the P & I entry for a normal cargo carrying vessel, we are required to advise the club what the exposure is. The SOW does not indicate that the SBX- 1 is ever to carry cargo from A to B for third parties and issuing Bills of Lading etc. Please confirm that equipment on board is not deemed as cargo and would fall outside Club cover where it is owned by or leased by an assured or joint assured.

In the case MSC is requiring cargo coverage and to assist please advise:

a. What contracts of carriage are issued?

b. How would package limitation under COGSA be assessed - Weight or Package?

c. Assuming cargo coverage can be provided within the Club Rules - What is the deemed inventory of Cargo and respective values?

d. Are the items containerized?

e. Who owns said cargo items?

Answer: Generally speaking, SBX-1 does not carry cargo under a contract of carriage incorporating the provisions and defenses of the U.S. Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). However, the vessel could conceivably carry cargo under a contract of carriage covered by COGSA. Therefore, clause H5(a) stands as currently written in the solicitation.

The specifics of any cargo potentially covered under COGSA are unknown.

Question 2:

RFP requires a $4 Billion P & I Limit requirement and our club, as well as other in the International Group, is not going to certify that much. This also exceeds what is required under other MSC contracts.

If the insurer is NOT prepared to guarantee cover in the amount of $4,000,000,000, the RFP requires that the contractor shall provide written evidence of cover from another insurer(s) whereby they agree to provide cover up to this limit.

We might be able to find enough underwriters who do not participate on the club’s reinsurance program to take the limit from $3.08 billion to $4 billion but it would not be easy and it would be expensive. This needs to be addressed.

Next in H5 (b) MSC the have $30,000,000 notional value issue on the war risk. The requirement is that you provide $250 million of P & I war risk. This is not a problem as the club provides $500 million but excess over a primary war risk P & I limit (real or assumed) equal to the market value of the insured vessel subject to a minimum of $50,000 and a maximum of $100,000,000. This SBX-1 is such a specialized vessel that I have no idea what a market value would be but I would think the machinery and equipment on board which would be part of the hull value would be worth considerably more than $30,000,000. To be absolutely safe, we would need to buy a primary war risk P & I of $100,000,000. This is not expensive insurance but we suspect some bidders would not buy more than the $30 million as a primary. What sort of primary limit would you like bidders to price?

Answer: The minimum P&I insurance coverage required in paragraph H-5(a) will be changed from “an amount no less than $4,000,000,000 per vessel per incident”, to “an amount no less than $3,080,000,000 per vessel per incident,” in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. The remainder of clause H-5 will not be amended.

Regarding the notional value of the vessel, the value provided is in fact only notional for the purpose of demonstrating that the vessel has value. Each offeror should negotiate the P&I club war risk coverage in the manner it deems most efficient and assign a notional value for the vessel based on its own assessment of or projection of vessel value.

Question 3:

Is the following training contract required, and as such is it reimbursable? If the answer is yes are training wages to be paid to Mariners attending these classes reimbursable as well?

a. 1.8.6 Dynamic Positioning System (DPS).

Answer: The training is reimbursable in accordance with (IAW) section 1.8.3 Cost of Training

b. 1.8.7 Ballast Control.

Answer: The training is reimbursable IAW section 1.8.3 Cost of Training

c. 1.8.8 Integrated Monitoring and Control (IMAC) System –

d. 1.8.9 High Voltage Electrical Safety –

e. 1.9.5.1 Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB) Training.

Answer: No formal classroom training is required for this section; training can be completed on the job. All cost associated with this training will be for the contractor’s account. This answer will be incorporated into the Section C of the solicitation in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

f. 1.9.6 Shipboard Primary Equipment Training.

Answer: No formal classroom training is required for this section; training can be completed on the job. All cost associated with this training will be for the contractor’s account. This answer will be incorporated into the Section C of the solicitation in a

Question 4:

In Form D, there seems to be a discrepancy between FOS/RAV/ROS. According to the RFP it states that SBX will be in a ROS status 67% of the time, however, the pricing form does not correlate.

Answer: Section 1.1.5 will be revised as follows in a forthcoming solicitation amendment:

1.1.5 Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO). During each option period it is anticipated, without guarantee, that the SBX-1 will spend 50% of its time in ROS. The Test Support Status (TSS) OPTEMPO is expected to require 185 days of FOS; 62 days would be inport conducting mobilization/activation with 123 days underway supporting mission operations.

Mission Operations consist of test events, transits and maintenance, and are characterized by flexibility, mobility, and reliability to ensure mission readiness. The Government may vary OPTEMPO to meet mission requirements. See SBX-1 TM for further information.

Additionally, Forms A-D will be revised in a forthcoming solicitation amendment based on various questions received and answers provided.

Question 5:

Section C-1.7.1.4.1 indicates the familiarization period will last no longer than 45 days for shore-side and shipboard staff. Section C-1.7.11.4 states there will be a 14-day familiarization period prior to turnover for the Port Engineer, Master, Chief Mate, Chief Engineer, 1st

Assistant Engineer and Independent Duty Storekeeper. Technical Manual Section 20 indicates a 7-day familiarization period for licensed crew members. Please clarify.

Answer: Section C-1.7.1.4.1 will be amended in a forthcoming solicitation amendment as follows:

1.7.1.4.1 General. Familiarization period manning will provide an opportunity for new personnel in Key positions to receive vessel specific orientation and training from the current, experienced staff. Familiarization periods for specific Shipboard billets are described in section C1.7.11.4. The Government reserves the right to end the familiarization period at any time however, and will provide at least seven (7) days advance notification of termination to provide sufficient time for the full crew to report aboard. The total familiarization period will last no longer than 45 days for shore-side and shipboard staff training. Selected members of the incumbent contractor team will be available by request for additional training support throughout this period.

Question 6:

Section C-2.1.3 states “The COR may require the contractor to provide support, as outlined in C-2.2.2 . . .” However, Section C-2.2.2 is RESERVED.

Answer: Since Section C-2.2.2 is reserved the COR cannot require the contractor to provide support here. Section C-2.1.3 will be amended in a forthcoming solicitation amendment to remove the reference to section C-2.2.2.

Question 7:

Section C-3.5.2 (Vessel Delivery) refers to Section C-1.7.1.3 (RAV manning) instead of C-

1.7.1.4 (Familiarization Period). Please clarify whether the vessel will be in RAV status at delivery.

Answer: The vessel will not be in RAV status at delivery. Section 3.5.2 will be amended in a forthcoming solicitation amendment to incorporate this answer.

Question 8:

There are conflicting paragraphs regarding the ROS Crew size. Crew size of 19 is provided in the Technical Manual Section 19:

• Section B-7 states “Crew size for ROS will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis prior to a ship entering ROS, and will be based on specific crew requirements. The Government will reimburse the contractor for crew wages and fringes based on the wages and fringes negotiated for the FOS price for the corresponding contract period and the required crew size.”

• Section 1.7.1.2 states “During ROS, the vessel will be manned by the ROS crew according to Section 19 of the SBX-1 TM. Crews will work twelve hours per day, seven days a week (including National Holidays). The Contractor shall be required to maintain the ROS crew 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

• Section F-3 paragraph (c) states: (c) The Government shall reimburse the Contractor for reasonable direct expenses incurred with the COR or authorized Approving Authority’s approval in connection with the Vessel in ROS. These direct expenses include the following: (i) total wages and subsistence for additional crew remaining on board with the prior written approval of the COR or authorized Approving Authority.

Would appreciate clarification if the ROS crew will be the 19 provided in the Technical Manual or is it decided on a case by case basis.

Answer: ROS crew size will be per Section 19 of the Technical Manual unless otherwise negotiated by the contractor with the government per section B-7. Additional crew members may be needed on case by case basis. This answer will be incorporated into the solicitation in a forthcoming amendment.

Question 9:

The Past Technical Performance section of proposals includes 7 different areas. Are all of these areas given equal weight when the government determines an overall Past Technical Performance rating? For an example, is the safety performance area given any more weight than the other areas? Would a “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” rating in any of these areas cause the offeror to be considered for an award?

Answer: Each element of the Past Technical Performance factor will be equally weighted.

This answer will be incorporated in section M in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 10:

Section B-1. The last sentence states that rates in Section B are payment in full “irrespective of the geographic scope . . . and including the carriage of hazardous cargoes.” There is no statement to allow for exceptions either (1) as per contract terms; or (2) with prior approval of contracting officer. It is clear in Section H-1 that war risk bonus, extra wages for certain areas traversed, extra pay for hazardous cargo carriage, etc. are reimbursable and not included in offeror’s fixed fee. Please provide clarification and consider slight modification of Section B-1 wording.

Answer: Section B-1 will be modified via a forthcoming amendment to include the following language after “hazardous cargoes: “with exceptions either (1) as per contract terms; or (2) with prior approval of contracting officer.”

Question 11:

Section B-7. This section states that the ROS wages will be “based on the wages and fringes negotiated for the FOS price . . .” While this may have been the wording in the previous contract and the ROS phase may not have been considered so important, it would be in the best interests of MSC to NOT expect ROS wages to be based on FOS wages. Traditionally ROS wages and work rules and work hours differ significantly from FOS wages, rules and hours. It is to the benefit of MSC to have these differences. ROS should not only save money for the government because of reduced crew manning but also through lower pay rates because of less working hours and traditional port home bases. In other MSC contracts with a ROS component, unions have usually specified separate ROS wages, rules and hours. Please provide clarification as applicable to the current SBX-1 RFP.

Answer: As long as the applicable Wage Determinations are adhered to, the offeror does not need to base the ROS wages on the FOS wages. This answer will be incorporated into a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 12:

Section B-11. What does “long-term FOS” imply? We are very familiar with FOS, but have not heard of the “long-term FOS”. Since “long-term FOS” includes FOS, ROS and RAV, this is further confusing. Can you provide clarification?

Answer: There is only one status for FOS, ROS and RAV. The solicitation will be amended to remove references to variations of FOS, ROS and RAV statuses throughout in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 13:

Section C-1.1.5. The Test Support Status OPTEMPO total for ROS-15, Mob/ACT, and Underway ops is quoted as 9 + 2 + 4 months, respectively, totaling 15 months. Our questions are as follows:

a. What is Test Support Status?

Answer: There is only one OPTEMPO. The Test Support Status (TSS) OPTEMPO” will be removed from section C in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

b. Should we assume that this OPTEMPO occurs 4 times in the 5 year cycle of this contract and option periods?

Answer: See answer to Question 13(a) above.

c. We would also like clarification of whether “underway operations” is synonymous with

FOS and what status(s) are included in the “mobilization/activation” part of OPTEMPO.

Answer: Please refer to question 4 above. Section 1.1.5 will be revised in a

Question 14:

Section C-1.1.10 This section states that the contractor will be reimbursed “for customary agent fees in conjunction with the husbanding of the vessel.” However Section 1.1.8.1 states that the government will not reimburse Contractor “for expenses incurred by the Contractor for services rendered for the convenience of the vessel, its crew . . .” These two statements appear to conflict, since husbanding of a vessel would consist of many services for crew, as well as for sponsors and embarked personnel. Please clarify.

Answer: Section 1.1.8.1 states “The Government shall not reimburse the Contractor for expenses incurred by the Contractor for services rendered for the convenience of the vessel, its crew, or in connection with the Contractor’s business such as fees of underwriters, or expenses in moving the vessel about the port to obtain stores or provisions.” – this means that if the services are rendered for crew or contractor’s business and not for the good of the government then fees for those services shall not be reimbursed.

Question 15:

Section C-1.3.4.1. This section does not specify the operating status of the vessel. Will food and hotel services for up to 66 sponsor personnel be required in ROS and FOS and RAV?

Answer: See answer to question 51 below.

Question 16:

Section C-1.3.4.1 Since the Contractor will only be reimbursed for meals and hotel services for sponsor personnel when the personnel on board exceed 66, will the government require the Contractor to pay back the government for every sponsor person below 66? If so, will it be at the same rate as what is being reimbursed?

Answer: See answer to question 51 below.

Question 17:

Section C-1.3.4.2. Is night meal service applicable in all Statuses (FOS, ROS, & RAV)?

Answer: Night meal service is applicable in all statuses. This answer will be incorporated into the solicitation in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 18:

Section C-1.3.4.2. The RFP states that overtime for this service is coded to “Subsistence- Support overtime”. Is this a reimbursable category, even though it is not included in the B- 10 list of Reimbursable Services?

Answer: There is only one category of overtime. Overtime is reimbursable. This answer will be incorporated into the solicitation in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 19:

Section C-1.3.4.5. Section states that the cost of GMSR-requested meals is reimbursable.

Would this include any extra overtime, if required, to prepare and/or serve these meals?

Answer: Extra overtime, if required, to prepare and/or serve the meals described in C-

1.3.4.5 is reimbursable. Refer to section 1.7.11.3 Overtime

Question 20:

Section C-1.3.11. Are linens for Sponsor provided to the Contractor? What about any required replacements during the contract? Is there a set timeframe for these linens to be replaced and would these replacements be reimbursable purchases?

Answer: The initial outfitting of linens for Sponsor is provided by MSC to the Contractor at vessel turnover. Replacement linens are for the contractor’s account and are not reimbursable. This answer will be incorporated into section C-1.3.11 in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 21:

Section C-1.3.12. How many sponsor personnel should be used to price the cleaning supplies to be provided to them?

Answer: Total number of personnel onboard is described in Section C-1.3.4.1. Typical number of personnel onboard is 72 to include sponsor crew, security and guests.

Question 22:

Section C-1.4.2.2. In general, we seek out competitive pricing for services such as casualty reporting services. Would other services besides First Advantage be acceptable to MSC if their level of service was comparable?

Answer: Other services besides First Advantage are not acceptable to MSC.

Question 23:

Section C-1.4.8. Is the replenishment of medical supplies (with adequate levels varying based on vessel status) throughout the course of the contract a reimbursable expenditure?

Answer: Per section C-1.4.8, the MDR shall be responsible for requisitioning all additional supplies and reference material using either commercial or Government sources. In the event the MDR needs to use commercial sources the replenishment of medical supplies (with adequate levels varying based on vessel status) throughout the course of the contract is a reimbursable expenditure. This answer will be incorporated into section C-1.4.8 in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 24:

Section C-1.7.1.1 In FOS, is the 84 hour-mandated work schedule all part of Contractor’s fixed price, regardless of whether or not it is considered partially as overtime as per the Contractor’s CBA? Is all overtime beyond 12 hours in any one (1) day or 84 hours in any one week reimbursable with prior approval?

Answer: In FOS, the 84 hour-mandated work schedule is all part of Contractor’s fixed price, regardless of whether or not it is considered partially as overtime as per the

Contractor’s CBA. All overtime beyond 12 hours in any one (1) day or 84 hours in any one week reimbursable with prior approval from the COR.

Question 25:

Section C-1.7.1.2 In ROS, is the 84 hour-mandated work schedule all part of Contractor’s fixed price, regardless of whether or not it is considered partially as overtime as per the Contractor’s CBA? Is all overtime beyond 12 hours in any one day or 84 hours in any one week reimbursable, with prior approval?

Answer: In ROS, the 84 hour-mandated work schedule is all part of Contractor’s fixed price, regardless of whether or not it is considered partially as overtime as per the Contractor’s CBA. All overtime beyond 12 hours in any one (1) day or 84 hours in any one week reimbursable with prior approval from the COR.

Question 26:

Section C-1.7.1.4.2 Does the government-provided provisions include meals for the shoreside personnel of the new Contractor or are these reimbursable?

Answer: Section F-2.1 states the Government will provide or make available all meals for the Contractor’s personnel during the familiarization period.

Question 27:

Section C-1.7.1.4.4 Will hotel services for shoreside support be provided on a reimbursable basis during the familiarization period? Will shoreside support personnel be allowed to stay on board the vessel, if space is available?

Answer: Section C-1.7.1.4.4 states “All shore-side required travel during the familiarization period will be reimbursable in accordance with Section CONTRACT SECTION G-7.” Shoreside travel is reimbursable per section C2.7.2.2. Shoreside travel includes hotel services. It is anticipated that the shoreside support personnel will normally stay in a hotel and not on the vessel.

Question 28:

Section C-1.7.1.4.7. While we believe that the intent of this sentence is for the Contractor to cover his own crew and shoreside personnel that are arriving during the familiarization, this is not clear. Please clarify. Also, without knowing whether the familiarization period is 15 days, 45 days, or somewhere in between, we do not see how this can be priced adequately. What is the expected length of time for the familiarization period?

Answer: See the answer to question 5 above.

Question 29:

Section C-1.7.4. One of our CBA’s contains wording about transportation that says that a “travel payment” will be paid equal to a daily base wage to crew who join a vessel outside of the US, starting when the crew member flies out of the US. Does this “travel payment” constitute part of the reimbursable crew travel and per diem associated with a crew rotation, or does MSC consider this a non-reimbursable crew wage?

Answer: Per section C-1.7.4 “Travel and per diem costs do not include crew wages;” this means MSC considers this a non-reimbursable crew wage.

Question 30:

Section C-1.7.8. The second sentence reads, in part: “all shipboard personnel are required to hold a SECRET security clearance . . .”

“Shouldn’t this read “all key shipboard personnel . . . ?”

Answer: Per Section C-1.7.8 ALL shipboard personnel are required to hold a SECRET security clearance.

Question 31:

Section C-1.7.11.3 This section, in regards to overtime definition of all hours in excess of 8 per day, is somewhat confusing when in section 1.7.1.1 it states that crew must work 12 hours per day, 7 days per week. This would require Contractors to have the first 8 hours in their fixed fee and the next 4 hours as a reimbursable to be rebilled. Since the 12 hours/day occurs every day of the year, will the fixed fee include a 12 hour day?

Answer: The fixed price per diem rate will include a 12 hour day per section C1.7.1.1.

Question 32:

Section C-1.7.11.4. This section states that the contractor “may” have the following personnel on board 14 days prior and “may” choose to have remaining officers report for up to 7 days and unlicensed crew “shall” report for one-day familiarization prior to turnover.

Of course, if there is no change of union, it is possible that there will be no crew changeouts.

If there are positions that will be filled by the incumbent’s personnel, do those personnel need to report early at all? (they are actually already there in many cases.) And if the answer is “yes”, then are these personnel employees of the incumbent of the awardee during the familiarization period?

Answer: If there are positions that will be filled by the incumbent’s personnel, these personnel do not need to report early and are employees of the incumbent of the awardee during the familiarization period. Section C-1.7.11.4 will be amended to incorporate this answer in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 33:

Section C-1.8.9. We do not understand the reference to Calhoun/MEBA in this section.

Please clarify.

Answer: Calhoun/MEBA, ABO HV High Voltage Electrical Safety is the specific High Voltage Electrical Safety training we expect the contractor to have.

Question 34:

Section C-2.7.2.1 If an additional Port Engineer beyond what the Contractor’s direct staff is required to be attending an availability or industrial assistance, is this additional position reimbursable? Is your answer the same regardless of whether the period exceeds 14 days?

Answer: Per section 2.7.2.1 “If the Contractor determines that any maintenance period that does not exceed 14 days requires more than one Port Engineer, the Contractor shall provide a written request to the COR including technical justification for the desired additional support.” If this request is approved then this additional position is reimbursable. MSC feels two full time port engineers is sufficient for any availability in excess of 14 days.

Question 35:

Section F-3(c). This section talks about reimbursement of direct expenses including wages and subsistence “for additional crew remaining on board . . . “ during ROS status. What does the term “additional crew” mean, as opposed to the regular ROS crew already defined in TM-19?

Answer: "Additional crew" are personnel required for support of government activities (either MSC or Sponsor) over and above the services described in ROS status. Per Section F3.(c) this requires COR's or authorized Approving Authority’s approval.

Question 36:

Section G-3.3. This section states that fixed price per diem invoices and crew shortages by billet should be submitted every 15 days. Earlier in the RFP, in section C-1.7.7, it was stated that crew shortages should be credited to the government on a monthly basis. Please clarify.

Answer: Section G-3.3 states “Invoices for fixed price per diem may be submitted by the Contractor every 15 days” and that the “Contractor shall submit a list of crew shortages by billet with each per diem invoice”. Section C1.7.7 states “In accordance with Section G, a copy of this list shall accompany the per diem invoice for the covered period.” In addition to the crew shortages list described in G-3.3 and C1.7.7 the Contractor shall provide a summary of monthly deductions to the COR.

Question 37:

Section H-13. The last sentence of this section states that contracts “like this one, under PSC code “V” are excluded from this reporting requirement.” If this contract is excluded, why is the requirement included?

Answer: The Enterprise-wide Contractor Manpower Reporting Application (ECMRA) standard language to notify contractors of the reporting requirement must still be inserted in all solicitations even when it is not applicable

Question 38:

There are many clauses incorporated by reference that may not be applicable to this RFP.

For example, 52.219-6, Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside, is included but the solicitation is unrestricted. Additionally, 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, was not included. Can you clarify and provide the applicable clauses incorporated by reference for this solicitation?

Answer: The correct small business clauses will be incorporated in a forthcoming solicitation amendment. If any offeror believes that a specific clause/provision is not applicable to this procurement, please provide a list of the clauses/provisions in question and rational as to why they are not applicable.

Question 39:

Section L-7(d). This section states that the bid is submitted using Microsoft Office 2010.

However, in subsection (i) it states Microsoft Office 2007. Please clarify which is the correct version.

Answer: Microsoft Office version 2007 is acceptable for submission. This answer will be incorporated in section L in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 40:

Section L-7(i). Section states that when there is a conflict, the original paper copy shall take precedence. As currently written, there are no required paper copies; everything is through an electronic copy on CD/DVD. Please explain what paper copies are required if any.

Answer: The last sentence in section L-7(i) which states, “In cases where the paper copy and the electronic copy of the proposal conflict, the original paper copy shall take precedence.” will be removed in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 41:

Section L-7(k). This section states that the FPR will be submitted electronically using Adobe Acrobat. Does this include any modifications to pricing sheets, which are MS Excel format spreadsheets originally?

Answer: Spreadsheets will be acceptable to submit in Excel format. This answer will be incorporated in section L-7(k)(ii) a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 42

Section L-8.D. Italicized note at very end of this section references solicitation attachment L.

Shouldn’t this be Attachment K?

Answer: K is the correct the correct attachment. This answer will be incorporated in a

Question 43:

Section L-8.E(a). This section contains conflicting instructions. Part (a) says price proposal shall be completed Forms A, B, C and D. Note after Part (c) says only Form D will be evaluated for award and Forms A, B, and C will be submitted within 30 days of award. Which section is correct?

Answer: Only form D will be evaluated for award. The awardee is required to complete forms A, B, and C after award and submit them to the Contracting Officer within 30 days of award. The inconsistences in section L-8(E) will be corrected in a forthcoming solicitation amendment.

Question 44:

Section M-1.A. This section’s second paragraph is very confusing. This section states that the government can award based on “a proposal with superior ratings even though it may result in a higher price to the government.” There is not any rating called “superior” and no definition of what makes a proposal “superior” Because the Technical and Small Business Participation Ratings are basically a Pass/Fail process, that leaves only Past Technical Performance and Price to be used in the final evaluation process. If two or more offerors are both judged Acceptable in their Technical and Small Business Participation Ratings and they are both rated the same in the Past Technical Performance (for example, if both were rated “Relevant” in the Relevancy ratings and “Substantial Confidence” in the Confidence assessment), then would the lower priced proposal automatically be declared the winner?

Answer: Superior is defined as of higher quality. The superior proposal would be the proposal rated highest among all offerors using the tradeoff basis in accordance with section M-1(A). Price is a tradeoff factor. If two or more proposals are determined acceptable for the Technical and Small Business Participation Factors, and the proposals are given the same overall Past Technical Performance Rating (assuming these proposals received the highest overall Past Technical Performance rating of all offer submitted), then the price factor would determine the awardee.

Question 45:

Section M-1.B.2. If the Small Business Participation is either acceptable or unacceptable in the evaluation process, how can the RFP state that they “will evaluate more favorably” anything further? Is there something higher than “acceptable” in this evaluation? This seems to be conflicting evaluation information. Please clarify.

Answer: There is no higher rating than acceptable. Paragraph M-1(B)(2)(d) will be amended as follows in a forthcoming solicitation amendment to clarify:

The Government will review plans for achievability to determine that plans do not simply propose a high percentage of work to be performed by small business concerns than can realistically be obtained.

Question 46:

Technical Manual Section 21.5: (a)Does the 67% (245 days) projected Operating Tempo in Port in the Technical Manual section 21.5 correspond to the 67% in port ROS operating tempo discussed in the RFP in C-1.1.5? I.e. are they the same thing? (b) If the 67% OPTEMPO in Port is ROS status, and this includes the 45 days M&R (since the annual OPTEMPO cannot exceed 365 days), then how can the 45 day upkeep period as stated in the Notes to TE-21.5 M&R be FOS? This appears to be contradictory. Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 4 above.

Question 47:

Technical Manual Section 21.8: In TE-21.8 the embarked sponsor personnel excluding Contractor and Security Team are stated to be a max of 49 and an average of 23. In the RFP Section C-1.3.4.1 the government/sponsor/mission crew for feeding purposes can be up to 66 before the government will reimburse the Contractor. These quantities in the two sections appear to contradict each other. Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question 5 above.

Question 48:

Technical Manual – Section 26 – Training This question is in reference to MSC required training: There are several basic MSC courses that are normally required, but not listed. Will you require the crew to be certified in the following training:

• Damage Control

• CBRD-Officer

• CBRD-Basic

• Marine Enviro Programs

Answer: MSC requires contractors to meet all training requirements listed in the solicitation and its attachments. If a specific training requirement is not called out in the solicitation but is required for a COMSCINST, required certification, etc…then it is required training.

Question 49:

a. There is no mention of a helicopter deck and the training required to support helicopter operations. Does the SBX-1 have a NAVAIR certified helicopter deck? If yes, is the crew required to have the training to support operations?

Answer: SBX-1 does not have a NAVAIR certified helicopter deck.

b. If the helicopter deck is not NAVAIR certified, is the crew responsible for providing support to land aircraft?

Answer: The bridge crew is responsible for providing communications support only to land commercial aircraft.

Question 50:

Form D Total Evaluated Price has approximately 51% FOS and 49% RAV days for the Firm Period and each of the Option Periods and there is no ROS pricing considered in the evaluated price. Yet 67% ROS status is expected in the OPTEMPO per C-1.1.5 and RAV is not discussed. Therefore, the evaluation is in no way reflective of what is expected to occur.

Please consider restating the status days for evaluating the pricing of this bid to more fairly reflect the actual expected operations of this vessel.

Answer: Forms A-D will be revised in a forthcoming solicitation amendment based on various questions received and answers provided.

Question 51:

Section B-7 says that while in ROS the Government will reimburse the contractor for crew wages and fringes based on the wages and fringes negotiated for the FOS price for the corresponding contract period and the required crew size. The Government will also reimburse the contractor for provisions at a fixed rate of $30 per ration (three meals for one person) or a single meal rate of $8.00 for breakfast and lunch, and $14.00 for dinner for all required crew members.

Section 1.3.4.1 says that the Contractor will be reimbursed by the Government for meals and hotel services provided to Government/Sponsor/Mission Crew personnel when the total number of Government/Sponsor/Mission Crew personnel onboard exceeds 66.

Question- When the vessel is in ROS are ALL meals for both contractor and sponsor personnel reimbursable at the indicated rates? What food costs/meal service is the contractor responsible for both in ROS and FOS situations? How many sponsor personnel are normally carried during both ROS and FOS situations?

Answer:

When the vessel is in ROS all meals for both contractor and sponsor personnel reimbursable at the indicated rates in B-7.

The food costs/meal service is the contractor responsible for ROS and FOS are detailed in Section C1.3.4.1. The reimbursement method for ROS is detailed in section B-7. When in FOS the meal cost should be built into the contractor’s daily rate.

The sponsor personnel that are normally carried during ROS and FOS can vary, however if the total Government/Sponsor/Mission Crew personnel onboard exceeds 66 the contractor will be reimbursed at the rates described in C1.3.4.1.

In summary the contractor is responsible for up to 66 meals total in either ROS or FOS.

When in ROS the contractor bills us per meal (to expense type 2521R). When in FOS meals are included in the contractor’s daily rate. If there are additional meals required sections C1.3.4.1 and C1.3.4.5 provide direction for provision of these meals and method for reimbursement.

Question 52:

Will SBX-1 be available for a ship check as per Section L-2 of the RFP?

Answer: It is not anticipated that the vessel will be available for ship check during the solicitation phase of the procurement.

Question 53:

Request additional time to submit questions regarding the solicitation.

Answer: The closing date for questions will be changed from 14 days before the closing of the solicitation to 5 days before the closing of the solicitation. Section L-7 will be amended to incorporate this answer in a forthcoming solicitation amendment