Consolidated_QA_Pt3_Final.pdf

FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AND NEW QUESTIONS

NEW QUESTION #30 – The formulas on Attachment B are not utilizing the correct number of days as they correspond to the period of performance. Please provide clarification.

MSC’S RESPONSE – Formulas in Attachment B have been corrected, accordingly, a revised Attachment B has been incorporated as part of this amendment.

NEW QUESTION# 31 – The requirement for 7.6 appears to be the same requirement as 7.1? If Offeror complies with 7.1 does that suffice for 7.6?

MSC’S RESPONSE – MSC requires a General Arrangement Plan and a Capacity Plan as stated in section 7.6. If an offerors General Arrangement Plan and Capacity Plan include one reproducible set of the ship's capacity and stowage plans (1/16th inch to the foot scale) then the offeror will have determined to meet both sections of the solicitation.

NEW QUESTION# 32 – L4.6 asks for Reps and Certs to be filled out. If an Offeror is in SAM does he still have to fill them out?

MSC RESPONSE – If the offeror has completed its Reps and Certs in SAM, then it need only provide hard copies of any Reps and Certs that are not in SAM.

NEW QUESTION# 33 – Clause C-15.1 required the following documents to be submitted to the

Government 30 days prior to delivery of the Vessel -

a) Document of Compliance (DOC)

b) Certificate of Inspection (CG841)

c) Current Q88 (Not more than 60 days old)

d) Certificate of Quality for last 3 cargos

e) Radio Frequencies, telephone numbers, and other means of communicating with the

Vessel

Attachment J (in reference to C-15.1) requires the following documents to be submitted with offer:

a) Document of Compliance (DOC)

b) Certificate of Inspection (CG841)

c) Current Q88 (Not more than 60 days old)

d) Certificate of Quality for last 3 cargos

e) Radio Frequencies, telephone numbers, and other means of communicating with the

Vessel

Which requirement applies to the RFP - to supply the docs with the offer or 30 days prior to delivery?

MSC RESPONSE – Documents identified in C-15.1 are deliverables due 30 days prior to the delivery of the vessel.

As for documents required to be submitted as part of an offerors proposal, of the five (5) documents listed in C-15.1, the Government will only require that a current Q88 (not more than 60 days old) be provided as part of an offerors proposal. If offerors are proposing a new build, offerors may submit a Q88 for a ‘sister’ vessel. Accordingly, Attachment J and section L ofthe RFP will be updated to reflect that the Q88 shall be submitted with offerors proposal.

NEW QUESTION# 34 – For the DECON. Note that drawing deletes item 4, however in clause C-8.4.3 it requires this item. Please specify whether item 4 is actually required to be supplied by the vessel owner.

If the vessel owner is to supply, please provide drawing of item 4

MSC RESPONSE – First to clarify, section C-8.4.3 refers to the CONSOL requirement and not the DECON requirement. To address the specific deletion of item 4 on the Attachment

Q, the deletion of that item 4 was not intentional, as such offerors shall be required to provide item 4 as stated in section C-8.4.3. Unfortunately, the Attachment Q cannot be revised as it is not available in an editable format.

NEW QUESTION# 35 - Clause L-6.1 requests offerors "to provide information on up to three previous

Government contracts whose effort is/was recent and relevant to the effort required by this solicitation.' If

Offeror has no recent and relevant contracts with the US Government should the Offeror simply state this in the offer?

MSC RESPONSE – Yes. As stated in the RFP, in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

NEW QUESTION# 36A – Amendment 0002 revises delivery terms as follows:

Box 5 LAY DAYS

Commencing 01 January 2018, Ending: 30 June, 2018

To be narrowed bilaterally to a 5-day window 60 days prior to delivery to MSC

Box 18 DELIVERY DATE: VESSEL:

Box 19 ESTIMATED READINESS DATE:

With the information in boxes 5, 18 and 19 it is unclear who (owner or MSC) has the option of nominating the delivery date.

Base on the information in Box 5, does MSC mean that 60 days prior to January 1, 2018 that the owner and

MSC must reach a mutual agreement on the delivery date?

MSC RESPONSE – Yes, since the RFP states “bilaterally.”

NEW QUESTION# 36B – Does this mean that unless MSC agrees, the owner cannot nominate any particular 5 day window to deliver the vessel? For example, if owner wishes to deliver the vessel January

1-5, 2018 can MSC disagree and require the owner to deliver at a later date?

MSC RESPONSE – If the dates proposed by the owner were unacceptable to the

Government, this would be the subject of discussions with the owner prior to award. If the owner is the successful offeror, after award the Government will either accept the laydays proposed or enter into further discussions to narrow them further or change them - to be mutually agreed.

NEW QUESTION# 36C – Basis the title of Box 18: should owner nominate the 5 day window for delivery?

MSC RESPONSE – Yes, this box is filled in by the offeror/owner.

NEW QUESTION# 36D – Basis the information in Box 19: should owner nominate the particular estimated date of delivery?

MSC RESPONSE – Yes, this box is filled in by the offeror/owner

NEW QUESTION# 37 – For L7.2, L7.3 and L.4: for a new building under construction offered in for the RFP, Can the Offeror provide the following documents from a sister vessel which is currently in service, and then immediately after delivery of the offered vessel from the shipyard supply the documents for the offered vessel:

Copy of current International Ship Security Certificate

Copy of current Safety Management Certificate

Evidence of Vessels' most recent USCG and ABS and IACS inspections within 12

Months.

MSC RESPONSE – Documents from a sister ship within class can be part of the offer provided owner warrants same for actual ship offered. However, documents for the new build must be supplied prior to delivery to MSC.

NEW QUESTION# 38 – Numerous Department of Navy and Department of Defense instructions, directives, and memos e.g., SECNAV Instruction 4101.3 [3 Feb 2012]; DoD Instruction 5000.02 [25 Nov

2013]; Asst. Secretary Stackley's memorandum of 20 Jun 2011; the Manual for the Operation of Joint

Capabilities Integration & Development System [Feb 2015]) instruct the service to take into account and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the fully burdened cost of energy (FBCE) in acquisition and operations. Will MSC use such related criteria in evaluating this RFP?

MSC RESPONSE – The Government maintains the evaluation criteria as stated in the RFP, specifically in section L-5. In calculating the total evaluated price for each offeror, Attachment B will be utilized by the Government.