Q_AND_A_Responses_7.pdf

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-17-R-4207

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS #7

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:

Work Item 854/ Paragraph 1.1: A follow up question to #5 in Q&A responses #2 in regards to the “Rectangular Vent Ducting only”

Can MSC please clarify by zone, compartment, or other definition; the intended included rectangular ducting and omitted spiral ducting? Reference 2.2 MSG DWG 512-7488750 HVAC Diagram does not differentiate any “spiral” ducting.

ANSWER:

Government should of included everything and not differentiate between Rectangular and spiral ducting. But have decided to delete this WI so no further mix-up or confusion is made.

QUESTION #2:

For Q & A Response 4, Contractor notes that responses to Questions #1, #5, #6, provide no identification of what Item # they are applicable.

Question: Will the Customer provide a revised Q_AND_A_Responses_4 that clearly identifies for all Bidders, what Item each response is for?

Revised Q&A Response 4 will be submitted.

QUESTION #3:

Q_AND_A_Responses_4, Question #3, Work item 1050, Para 7.2.1 requested the Customer to provide a copy of reference

2.8 “Flight Deck Hatch DWG TIMSA TAKE”.

• Contractor notes that the answer, states “Yes. It is in the CD with missing Drawings. Look for folder “1050” and it is in the folder”.

• Contractor has double checked all reference Disc’s received to date and confirms that the requested reference has not been received.

Question: Will the Customer provide a copy of reference 2.8 to all Bidders?

Drawing will be sent via ARMDEC. (T-AKE Flight Deck Hatch Fabrication PI TIMSA)

QUESTION #4:

For Work Item 565, Specification received with Q_AND_A_Responses_4 for Planetary Gear Replace and Refurbishment Rev1, is identified ITEM NO. 656 at the top of every page however the Page # at the bottom center of each page reflect ITEM NO. 565 and matches the previously issue document.

• Contractor notes that since the Specification is a Contractual document the 2 identifiers must match.

• Contractor believes that ITEM NO. 656 is a typo and should actually be ITEM NO. 565.

• Attached is a Copy of the Specification in question.

Question (1): Will the Customer provide clarification regarding the disparity identified above?

Question (2): Will the Customer provide a revised Specification for this Work Item?

This file was saved as WI 565 as this is a Machinery Item (along with the Footer). WI 656 in the Header is a typo. It should have been 565. Rev2 will be issued to address the typo sent via ARMDEC.

QUESTION #5:

Work Item 202, Paragraph 7.1, states “Drain and dispose of any liquid in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations”.

• Contactor note that there is no follow paragraph contained in the specification as written that instructs to replenish fluids.

• Contractor notes that it would take approximately 220 drums of oil to replenish fluid.

Question (1) Can the Customer provide clarification if the Contractor needs supply the oil to replenish systems fluids and if so will a revised specification be issued?

Question (2) Can the Customer provide clarification if the oil to replenish systems fluids will be provided as GFM and if so will a revised specification be issued?

No, Contractor will not need to provide the oil for replenishment. Ship’s force will have the necessary oil to fill the system.

No need for a new WI rev for this question.

QUESTION #6:

Work Item 570, Upon contacting OEM-authorized Service Technical Representative identified in 7.13 the following information was received.

• The OEM no longer supports the PLC and the PC that are running our current software.

• The OEM has completed upgrades on the USNS Robert Peary and the USNS Mathew Perry with the next vessel on the schedule being USNS Charles Drew.

• The OEM was not able to confirm if the Port Engineer for the USNS Richard E. Byrd is aware of these upgrades.

Question: Will the Customer be contacting the OEM and revising the specification since it appears that the specification as written does not account for the TLI equipment obsolescence?

Abstract states: This item describes the Tech Refresh of the Bergan TLI System

Paragraph 7.3 and 7.4 supports the abstract:

7.3 Replace Windows XP System and associated Hardware with Windows 7 PC and supporting hardware.

7.4 Complete an IO Checkout once system is installed.

7.5

So, yes, PPE does know of the upgrades.

No revision needed, since the upgrade has been captured in the WI.

QUESTION #7:

Work item 575, Paragraph 7.4.1, states “Overhaul motor: Test run each motor, take and record insulation resistance readings and operating voltage. Replace motor bearings. Inspect motor rotor and stator for defects. Clean with approved solvent. Re-varnish and bake motor windings”.

• Contractor notes that upon contacting OEM for this equipment that original motor is no longer in production with no replacement parts available to overhaul the existing and a replacement motor needs to be identified.

Question: Will the Customer be contacting the OEM and revising the specification since it appears that the specification as written does not account for the motor being obsolete?

Government will amend the WI. Contactor to provide a new motor and install new Motor. WI will be provided via

ARMDEC.

QUESTION #8:

Work item 852, Paragraph 3.1.2, states “Quantity: 2 each, Carrier model 40QAC060-3-01, fan coil unit air handlers (Contractor Furnished)”

• Contractor notes that these fan coil unit air handlers are no longer in production and replacement equipment needs to be identified.

Question: Will the Customer be revising the specification since it appears that the specification as written does not account for the fan coil unit air handlers are obsolete?

Fan Coil Air Handlers can be “equivalent” with Spec and dimensions. Will add the word “or equivalent” in order to find a similar manufactured model by Carrier.