19R3009_WATSON_QA11_30AUG19.pdf

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-19-R-3009 WATSON Operation & Maintenance

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS # 11

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

237. CONTRACTOR QUESTION

In the sections of the RFP copied below, “The contractor shall provide the capability to

…”. Please clarify, is the word capability in this context, the ability of the contractor’s crew to operate and maintain the equipment or is it to operate, maintain AND have the contractor supply the equipment to perform these tasks. There is a considerable expense in procuring and installing this equipment should it be required as part of these clauses.

In addition, any installation of this equipment would require a TRANSALT.

Please note sections C-1.5.2, C-1.5.2.1 and C-1.5.2.4 clearly states the contractor is responsible to operate and maintain only.

C-1.5.2.2. Radiotelegraph Messages

The contractor shall provide the capability to transmit and receive radio teletype messages on each ship.

C-1.5.2.3. Radiotelephone Services

The contractor shall provide the capability to send and receive voice and data messages over analog and digital single channel radio (SCR) and satellite equipment in the VHF, USH, HF and MF bands. AMEND 05

ANSWER: The intent of the word “capability” in the above paragraphs is to require the contractor’s crew to operate and maintain the Government’s installed equipment. The contractor is not expected to procure the above equipment.

238. Since we (MSC Removed Company Name) have submitted our bid, can we submit a revised SF-33 electronically? Also, will we need to re-submit a “new” bid if only our

Pricing Form D changes? Please advise.

ANSWER: Offerors may affirm their offer and all amendments in accordance with the requirements stated in amendment 0008. Offerors may modify their offers in accordance with FAR 15.208.

239. In review of the email below, I find that it contradicts Amendment 7 which states that any package received would not be opened. If (MSC Removed Company Name) does not need to make any changes to their proposal, do we need to re-send the complete package? If our original package is acceptable, would you accept and/or require an emailed copy of an updated SF-33 to account for the two added Amendments?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question #237.

240. Based on the extent of changes in Amendment 0008, we need more time to review and evaluate, which may develop more questions. We request a 1-week extension on the deadline to submit questions. Please consider extending the due date to September 5, 2019.

Additionally, we need more time to amend our technical proposal and pricing to capture changes in Amendment 0008 and responses to questions. We noted there are 150 pages containing some level of changes to the solicitation and needs additional time to respond reasonably and carefully. For example, we reviewed five marked changes, compared notes, discussed the changes between our technical group, business development group, contract administration group, and legal team. Based on the amount of time to review multiple pages of questions and coordinate responses between the necessary groups and personnel, we request a 2-week extension to the due date. Please consider extending the due date to September 20, 2019. We believe the minor additional time allocated is a reasonable time frame and will provide a significantly better response for MSC to consider and use.

In addition, there is a hurricane coming which will impact many offerors, personnel availability to review and respond.

ANSWER: The Government has considered the request; however, the closing date and time remain unchanged.

241. L-7.B.1.b.i Corporate Experience with Drydocks changed from “conducted in the

United States, with a final cost greater than $10M or more than 30 days in duration within the last 10 years prior to issuance of this solicitation or final amendment (if applicable)” to “$15,000,000 and more than 60 days in duration within the past 10 years prior to issuance of this solicitation or final amendment (if applicable)” in Amendment

0005.

These criteria describe an unrealistic characterization for drydockings of any vessel, except perhaps a WATSON Class vessel that endures strut bearing problems that cause a yearlong drydock delay. A drydock job itself typically constitutes underwater work on propellers and tailshafts, associated strut bearings (if fitted), rudders, sea valves, thrusters, stabilizers (if fitted), hull gaugings, occasional hull steel renewals, and underwater hull coating and preservation. All else inside the envelope of the hull structure typically constitutes repairs for a Repair Availability (RAV) that can be accomplished when a vessel is floating at a wet dock. Please relax the criteria to remove vessel size and HP limitations, oceangoing limitations, and/or reduce the final cost to $5M or more than 30 days in duration, which is more consistent with all or most previous MSC O&M solicitations.

ANSWER: The Government determined it is in its best interests to leave the requirement as it is currently written.

242. L-7.A.4

Per solicitation instructions, blocks 12 through 18 of the Standard Form 33, Section A must be completed. Block 14 requires the offeror to input the amendments and dates.

Two amendments have come out since required submission. Is it possible to submit an updated Standard Form 33 via email if there are no other changes to the proposal previously submitted to and received by MSC?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question #237

243. Can an offeror submit change pages via email if their proposal already has been submitted to and received by MSC?

ANSWER: See Answer to Question #237

244. Upon review of Amendment 0008, there was no change to address the vague and ambiguous answer to Question 198 below:

198. Section L – C.Vol III Past Perf, Para (3) requires submission of numerous

USCG documents (835’s, 2692’s, investigations, …) yet, Section M-1, Basis for

Award, subsection E. Past Performance Factor, does not stipulate how these

USCG documents will be used to determine past performance. Please clarify how these USCG documents will be utilized in determining past performance.

Additionally, please clarify how these USCG documents detailing specific vessel conditions without all relevant data, such as vessel age or operational funding, can be considered relevant or indicate confidence of operator’s ability.

ANSWER: The information submitted as required in section L(C)(3) will be evaluated if it is determined to be recent and relevant.

Please advise the how the requested documents are relevant to determining operator’s ability/past performance.

ANSWER: Section M-1(E) addresses how past performance information will be evaluated.

245. After reviewing Amendment 008, specifically section G-7, the relationship between the Operational Commander and the Contractor as it relates to cost reimbursement is still ambiguous. We recommend similar language as the following be contained in C-1.1.3:

Relationship between the Contractor and Commanding Officers at various levels of operational command. Operational control of the ships covered under this contract is normally exercised by a designated operational commander who may or may not be the cognizant MSC Area Command. The contractor shall comply with Operational

Commander and MSC Area Commander’s direction. If there is a conflict between the

Operational Commander and the MSC Area Commander and the contract, then the contractor shall follow the direction of the Operational Commander. In exercising command authority commanders are not authorized to make changes to the scope or the price of the contract. Nevertheless, upon receipt of an order from the appropriate commander, the contractor shall immediately (1) initiate preparations for complying with the order and (2) contact the COR and/or Contracting Officer for guidance. If the contractor is unable to contact the COR and/or Contracting Officer prior to the time the contractor must take positive action to comply with the commander's order, the contractor shall proceed with work and shall continue to try to make contact with the COR and/or

Contracting Officer. Any additional costs incurred by the contractor while complying with the commander's order prior to receiving guidance from the COR and/or Contracting

Officer shall be treated as though the contractor had received prior approval of the COR and/or Contracting Officer and shall be reimbursable.

ANSWER: The Government determined it is in its best interests to leave the requirement as it is currently written.

246. Section B-1.10 of Amendment 0008 states that “During Alternate ROS, the per diem rate will be increased or decreased by the total amount of the crew member’s Total

Wages/Fringes/Payroll Taxes as depicted in Attachment P, Pricing Form A for ROS (also see Pricing Form Sections B and F)”. Please specify where Pricing Form Sections B and

F can be located.

ANSWER: The parenthetical shall be read as “(also see Pricing Form, Sections B and F).”

247. Section C-1.7.3.2 has confusing wording on the 3rd bullet point. It currently reads

“Travel scheduled to Diego Garcia through Singapore shall be at the contractor’s own risk and no reimbursement for such delays shall not be reimbursed”. Please clarify whether costs associated with travel to Diego Garcia through Singapore will be reimbursed or not reimbursed.

ANSWER: Expenses for travel to Diego Garcia will be reimbursed in accordance with Section G-7. However, expenses for delays encountered in Singapore will not be reimbursed except as noted in Section C-1.7.3.2.

248. C-2.5.10.1.4. Required Contractor Attendance

The contractor shall provide one full-time Port Engineer to attend each ship undergoing an availability, for the entire duration of all availabilities, and whenever directed by the

COR. For all ROHs and mid-term availabilities (MTAs), the contractor shall provide two full time Port Engineers. The two Port Engineers shall consist of the primary Port

Engineer assigned to the vessel and an Assistant Port Engineer. Additional Port

Engineers require approval of the MSC Engineering Typedesk and Contracting Officer.

Port Engineer transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses are reimbursable when the Contracting Officer preapproves the expense. AMEND 08

Please advise if all the PE’s costs are reimbursable or just the additional PE that requires approval.

ANSWER: Section C-2.5.10.1.4 applies to all port engineer’s attending an availability as described in the section.

249. We have additional questions that it does not have time to respond to.

ANSWER: This statement was provided on an Attachment F form. This statement does not provide the Government with a question that can be answered.