18R3003_Q&A__4.pdf

18R3003 Q&A #4

1. Other recent MSC O&M contracts, such as N32205-16-R-3100 and N32205-16-R-3101, required a

QMS from “one or more internationally recognized quality standards (International Standards

Organization (ISO), American Society for Quality (ASQ), International Ship Managers Association

(ISMA), or equal).” Moreover, recent tanker time charter contract 16-R-3502 required a “QMS certified by an independent external body that has audited the Owner’s management system and verified that it conforms to the requirements specified in the QMS certification. Certification may be ISO 9000 series, or equivalent other.” Why does this solicitation specify ISO 9001:2008 as the only acceptable QMS?

A: Contract requirement requires a Quality Management System compliant with ISO 9001-2008 this is consistent with contract requirements for other vessels in the Prepositioning Program.

2. It has been MSC’s longstanding practice to accept contractor arrangements where the ship manager as a subcontractor holds the QMS, not the prime contractor. Why does MSC specify in Q&A #1, question 1 that the corporation bidding on the RFP (i.e. prime contractor) shall hold the QMS?

A: The Contract states “the Contractor”, which the Government interprets as the Prime Contractor.

3. To be more consistent with past MSC solicitations and prior practice, will MSC revise Section 3.2.0 of the RFP? We suggest MSC revise it to state:

“The Contractor, or a wholly-owned sister company of the same parent corporation who will act as the ship manager subcontractor, shall develop and maintain a Quality Management System compliant with one or more internationally recognized quality standards (International Standards Organization (ISO), American Society for Quality (ASQ), International Ship Managers Association (ISMA), or equal). The

Contractor shall maintain full and continuous quality system certification for the entire period of performance of this contract. The Contractor shall notify the COR within 24 hours if for any reason the

QMS certification is revoked. As a minimum, quality system certification (Interim or otherwise) shall be in place not later than 60 days after delivery of the first vessel. Costs associated with certification of the

QMS shall be included in the fixed price per diem.”?

A: No, contract language remains as written.

4. Why does Section L (Quality and Safety Management Systems, p.138 of 147 on the conformed

RFP) and Section M (Quality and Safety Management Systems, p.143 of 147 on the conformed RFP) of the RFP require 5 years of experience with an ISO 9001:2008 compliant QMS? It should only matter that the awarded Contractor has an approved QMS at the start of the new contract. A company is either compliant or not. Historical compliance has no impact on current compliance in the eyes of the classification authorities.

A: The historic experience of a company managing a Quality Management System is considered relevant to this procurement.

5. Will MSC remove from Section L (p.138 of 147 on the conformed RFP) and Section M (p.143 of 147 on the conformed RFP) of the RFP the phrase, “Demonstrate five years of experience within the last 10 years in the development and management of a Quality Management System…”?

A: No

6. From the RFP section L-14 B (Technical Proposal Requirements), in para 3 (p.135) it states:

Technical proposals shall follow the outline format and include the content requirements set forth below.

Each section shall be separately divided by a blank page or tab. In addition, all proposal pages and paragraphs shall be numbered.”

Does this mean that Section L requirements must be explicitly inserted in the response at the beginning of each relevant section? If yes, does this count against the 30 page limit for the Technical Volume, or just that the response must address each Section L requirement?

A: No, proposals need note re-state the Section L requirements. However, the response must address each Section L requirement and remain within the 30 page limit.

8. Given that, according to clause H-5 (b) of the RFP, the two ESD vessels “are Government-owned and are not covered by a Hull & Machinery (H&M) policy,” is there an internal dollar amount or threshold for reporting machinery damages?

A: There is no threshold for reporting damages.

9. Section 1.9/1.8 These sections state that Wages and Fringes will be negotiated for RAV an ROS and yet Attachment O has a Form C for both ROS and RAV. Should the RAV and ROS Form C’s be ignored or will you remove them from Attachment O?

A: The Government Requires this input for price estimation and comparison. The actual amounts would be negotiated when required. Attachment O should be completed in its entirety.

10. In ROS, will there be a requirement to have land lines and if so, will it be reimbursable?

A: If there is a requirement to have land lines in ROS, it will be reimbursable.

11. B.1.8, 1.9 How are we to estimate training costs for an unspecified ROS/RAV crew?

A: ROS/RAV crews have been specified as part of this amendment.

The Contractor shall develop training and indoctrination programs to conduct MSC-required courses.

The completed development of all programs and courses shall become a deliverable under Section F-5.

Sixty days after contract award, the total training package shall be presented in a Training Plan and submitted to the Contracting Officer for approval.

12. 2.4.5.1 Are these vessels on the list of vessels conducting RAV overseas?

A: Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD)Vessels may conduct RAV overseas or in CONUS.

13. 3.3.4 Is the incumbent operator managing any layberth contracts at this time?

A: No Expeditionary Transfer Dock (ESD)Vessel is currently in Layberth.

13. 3.5.3.1 Please confirm that government property will be documented in SHIPCLIP for SOPEP (Cat

L), CBRD(CAT Q) DC (CAT H), ATFP(Cat G), Medical (Cat S) and not DMP spreadsheet per current

N4 directives.

A: The PM3 ESD ships shall have onboard a Consolidated Shipboard Allowance List (COSAL) database, which resides in the SHIPCLIP system. The SHIPCLIP is a record of the fixed and portable hull, mechanical, and ordnance equipment that is maintenance or functionally significant. It establishes material, parts and equipment allowance levels to be carried onboard for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the ship's equipment and components. The Contractor corporate office will be provided access to the MSC web based Configuration Program portal to electronically import feedbacks generated by the ships. SHIPCLIP will be the official government property reference for onboard allowance information.

Please reference COMSCINST 4340.3C

14. 1.1.13.3 states that all costs associated with the FLO/FLO function are reimbursable. TM 18.1.3 states that “All dunnage, sea connector material, support services and tools necessary to support a

FLO/FLO operation will be furnished by the operating company.” Please confirm that this material is all reimbursable.

A: All dunnage, sea connector material, support services and tools necessary to support a FLO/FLO operation will be furnished by the operating company will be reimbursable with pre-approved by the

Contracting Officer.

15. Section C 1.1 references that the vessels will be employed worldwide, Section C1.7.4 states that all

Crew Travel associated with crew rotations will be included in the contractor’s fixed rate. It is our understanding that the vessels can and have gone to Diego Garcia. Given the high cost of getting crew into Diego Garcia and the additional effort it takes to make these crew rotations happen, we would like you to consider making the DFAS flights and agency costs associated with crew flying into and out of

Diego Garcia be reimbursable. If not, can you please provide the average number of days the vessels have spent in Diego Garcia in the last three years, so that we can use that information to determine our

Crew Travel costs.

A: No consideration will be made to making the DFAS flights and agency costs associated with crew flying into and out of Diego Garcia to be reimbursable. Although the average number of days the vessels have currently spent in Diego Garcia in the last three years is Zero (0), the Government reserves the right for the vessel(s) to be stationed in worldwide service at any time.

16. Does the vessel have primary and secondary ECDIS or are charts primary? What make and model is the ECDIS?

A: ESD's have Raytheon ECDIS onboard with, but are still using paper charts as the primary mode for navigation.

17. Section L14.B.II.A asks “How qualifications for Key Shore Side personnel are determined and how this will benefit the Government.”. Can you clarify what you are looking for here?

A: Offerors shall address in a narrative how it will accomplish these goals and any benefits the

Government will receive as a result of the offeror’s technical approach, operational efficiency, and reduced risk and/or mission readiness.

18. The primary function of these vessels is ship-to-ship transfer operations. This is excluded under

American Institute Hull Clauses but is normally written back in by Underwriters. However the

Attachment E – Hull Clauses does not include any reference to this. If there is damage to the vessel as a result of the STS transfer operations, is this going to be covered by the Government or are they going to expect the contractor to pay for any repairs?

A: The vessels subject to this contract are Government-owned and are not covered by a Hull &

Machinery policy. The Government shall retain risks of property loss or damage to each vessel subject to this contract and associated fixtures, as would be covered by the American Institute Hull and

Machinery policy found at Attachment E.

19. Per the RFP the Government is requiring P&I to include shipowner’s liability to cargo. This is not standard and is not the case on other MSC vessels. These ships are “semi-submersibles” and carry hovercraft/non-displacement vessels for deployment. Are these vessels considered to be “cargo” that the contractor is responsible for but has a COGSA limitation defense? Or are they “ship’s equipment” and therefore covered under American Institute Hull Clauses (self-insured by the Government)?

A: The vessels subject to this contract are Government-owned and are not covered by a Hull &

Machinery policy. The Government shall retain risks of property loss or damage to each vessel subject to this contract and associated fixtures, as would be covered by the American Institute Hull and

Machinery policy found at Attachment E.

20. Can you please tells us what percentage of time the vessels have spent in MPS3 versus the US over the last three years?

A: ESD-1 has spent all of her time since deployment in MPS3. ESD-2 just arrived in MPS3 early in

CY18.

21. Considering that no labor rates were included in Amendment 1 and many submitted questions remain to be answered, we request you reconsider and provide a 3 week extension.

A: The response submission date has been extended to 2 March 2018.

22. Section L-II-B.2.a refers to section 1.7.3 of the SOW for crew continuity performance but that section refers to Temporary Embarked Personnel. Please confirm the correct reference (1.7.2.4?)

A: A: Please see Amendment 0006.

23. We noticed that the Manning charts do not include a Storekeeper for either ROS or RAV. It is our experience that this is a critical position for all phases. We request that you consider adding a storekeeper to both ROS and RAV.

A: Please see Amendment 0006 18R3003 Attachment A Tech Man-0006 and Attachment O Pricing

Sheets- ESD-0006

24. Has either ESD-1 or ESD-2 completed the conversion from CCS set to the FLO/FLO function? If yes, please provide the builders specification for conversion.

A: No ESD has completed the conversion from CCS set to the FLO/FLO function.

25. Is there a difference in cargo lift capability between ESD-1 and ESD-2?

A: Yes, there is a difference in cargo lift capability between ESD-1 and ESD-2.

26. Please provide the port of registry for both vessels so that we may fully complete the Certificate of

Entry and Acceptance Insurance document required in the RFP.

A: USNS MONTFORD POINT

General Dynamics Nassco, San Diego, CA USA.

USNS JOHN GLENN

General Dynamics Nassco, San Diego, CA USA.

27. Do the existing procedures for conducting skin-to-skin operations belong to the incumbent operator or are they incorporated into MSC guidance?

A: Existing procedures for conducting skin-to-skin operations are owned by MSC.

28. We understand there are DP Capabilities on the ESD ships. Are these capabilities limited to simply joystick control or is full automatic positioning possible?

A: Both T-ESDs currently have two 5000 kW propulsion motors and one retractable Z-drive azimuthing bow thruster. The bow thrusters on the two T-ESDs are different sizes. USNS John

Glenn’s thruster is 1100 kW and USNS Montford Point’s is 2000kW.

-The dynamic position control of the two propulsion motors and azimuth thruster is achieved by a simplex DPS-0 system which has no redundancy. The DPS-0 includes operator control and monitoring from a work station and auto-positioning.

29. RFP limits Technical Proposal to 30 pages. Will MSC accept the addition of fold-outs and/or charts or diagrams? If so, is there a limit and up to what size?

A:

A maximum of ten (10) printed fold-outs, no larger than 24 1/2” x 11” is permitted; fold-outs may be used for charts and diagrams only.

Additional text pages, graphs, fold-outs or any other information in excess of these limits will not be considered in the evaluation.

30. Where is the cost of the SHE (wages) priced? Section 1.1.13.4 addresses travel expenses being reimbursable but is silent on SHE wages. Pricing forms do not include wages either.

A: Please see Amendment 0005, attachment 18R3003 Attachment O Pricing Sheets- ESD-0006, Tab

A-2.

31. As of this date, we are still not in receipt of CBA’s for all operating unions and therefore cannot conduct a proper pricing evolution within the allotted time frame therefore, we respectfully request a 2 week extension to the response date.

A: The response submission date has been extended to 2 March 2018.

32. L-13.A says “Initial Offers must be submitted by mail only (including commercial express delivery services)…” Is hand delivery by Company courier or representative acceptable and allowed as it was in the past?

A: Initial Offers must be submitted by mail only (including commercial express delivery services) and should be enclosed in a sealed package. E-mailed submissions are not allowed for initial offers.

Offerors, couriers, and other delivery services may encounter unpredictable and lengthy delays or denied access when attempting to enter that facility. In all cases, offerors are responsible for the risks associated with the chosen delivery method and for ensuring that the Government receives the complete proposal at the appropriate designated location prior to the due date and time for proposal submission. Hand delivery by Company courier or representative is not acceptable.

33. Complete wage determinations have not yet been provided for the subj. RFP. Once we receive them, it takes time for labor organizations to provide CBA proposals, then more time for us to review them for compliance with SCLS and concur with or negotiate the terms. Once finalized, besides putting together the Pricing Sheets for L-14.B.II.C Price Proposal, then we must use the final figures for L-14.A Cash

Flow and L-14.B.III Small Business Participation. With all this in consideration, will you please extend the due date by 30 days if wage determinations are provided by Amendment this week, or else appropriately more if wage determinations are not provided this week?

A: Please see Amendment 0006, Attachment B DOL CBA Wage Determination – 0006.

No consideration will be made for extension to the response date.

34. Section L restricts the Technical Proposal to 30 pages, yet requires lengthy information to be provided. Examples include tables from Attachment K, resumes of Key Shore Side Personnel and Ship

Handling Personnel, letters of intent, draft Property Control Plan, copy of Quality System Certification, and SMS Document of Compliance. Will it be acceptable to include the above information as separate attachments and not be applied to the 30 page limit? Also please confirm that the material to be provided for B. Past Performance Tradeoff and C. Price Proposal Tradeoff is not applied to the 30 page limit for the Technical Proposal.

A:

A maximum of ten (10) printed fold-outs, no larger than 24 1/2” x 11” is permitted; fold-outs may be used for charts and diagrams only.

Additional text pages, graphs, fold-outs or any other information in excess of these limits will not be considered in the evaluation.

35. In the answer to Question 12, you state that for the 6 month option period pricing you are just using the option 4 pricing. Given the fact that most union contracts will have a raise in their labor rates at the start of this option and the fact that labor generally represents at least 80% of the fixed per diem, it is not logical that the 6 month extension rate be the same as the option 4 fixed per diem. Can the pricing forms be amended so that we are allowed to enter our own 6 month extension price (52.217-8)?

A: Please see Amendment 0005, attachment 18R3003 Attachment O Pricing Sheets- ESD-0006.

36. The licensed Wage determination only included FOS benefit information, can you please provide licensed ROS benefit information asap?

A: Please see Amendment 0006, Attachment B DOL CBA Wage Determination – 0006.

37. Item 2(a) found in Past Performance Trade-Off Factor in conformed RFP 0005 is listed as additional information to be provided via Attachment I. However, the request for this information appears in

Attachment I, item B.

A: Please see Amendment 0006, Attachment I - Past Performance Narrative – 0006.

37. Item 2(b) found in Past Performance Trade-Off Factor in conformed RFP 0005 is listed as additional information to be provided via Attachment I. However, Attachment I does not provide a section to address this requirement.

38. Item 4 found in Past Performance Trade-Off Factor in conformed RFP 0005 is listed as additional information to be provided, however, this information appears in Section A of Attachment I.

Additionally, the information requested in item 4 does not match the requested information provided in

Attachment I (more specifically, the inclusion of “All CDRs” does not appear in Attachment I).

39. The NOTE, provided on page 140 of confirmed RFP 0005 includes the statement “Narratives for paragraphs a through c shall be no longer than 10 pages total in length (Time New Roman font size 12).”

However, there is no “paragraph c” addressed in the Past-Performance Trade-Off Factor found on page

140 of conformed RFP 0005.

40. It does not appear Past Performance information to be included within Attachment I, coincides with the instructions provided in Section L-14 (B)-Past Performance Trade-Off of conformed RFP 0005.