RFP Questions and Answers PAI 2 APR 2020.docx

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND

N32205-20-Q-0227

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

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

Questions and Answers

Question 1

The RFP references “core work hours” on pages 3 and 5 from 0700 to 1530 (a total of 8.5 hours) with a half-hour break for lunch – PAI respectfully submits that these would not be “core” hours, they would be inflexible and prescriptive schedules which would not allow for any variation. Respectfully request that core hours within the RFP be narrowed slightly to allow for some reasonable variations in schedule to accommodate workload needs while still ensuring support during narrower core business hours (e.g. 0800 – 1400)

Answer: The Government can support a more narrowed “core hours” matrix, however, the core hours must support both communications in a worldwide environment and provide more coverage in the afternoon in Norfolk, VA. Therefore, the “core hours” will be 0900-1530.

Question 2

Paragraph 2 of the RFP specifies that, as part of Special Material Type Desk Support, “INCONUS and OCONUS shipboard assist and assessment visits may be performed within 100 miles of the locations.” PWS paragraphs 2.1 through 2.15 do not contain any descriptions of requirements for these visits – for clarity, respectfully request that the Government specify requirements for shipboard assist visits and assessment visits in the PWS

Answer: The RFP/PWS has been amended to add shipboard assist visit requirements.

Question 3

Paragraph 2.9 of the RFP states “Provide gas mask sizing testing to civil service mariners” – respectfully request that the Government confirm that testing is not also required for active duty components aboard MSC ships

Answer: Provide gas mask sizing testing to Military Sealift Command crewmembers. Crewmembers may include military, civilian, or contract mariners

Question 4

Page 35 of the RFP references Transition and Phase-in plans. PAI is the incumbent for this work under a sole-source RFP, and there is no requirement for providing a phase-in plan as part of the instructions to offerors – respectfully request that the Government clarify whether a phase-in plan is required, and if so when it is required to be submitted

Answer: A phase-in- plan is required; for specific requirements or instructions see paragraph 8 pg 31 of the PWS & pg 34 of the RFP dated 3/6/2020. The Phase-in-plan must address ensuring employee CAC cards/building accesses are current, training certifications are current, IT account establishment and any other contract requirements are up to date. That plan shall be submitted with PAI’s proposal.

Question 5

The Government Furnished Information/Workload tables on pages 31-33 list an estimated 10 systems drawings to be reviewed each month for each program (PWS 3.2.4, (EPF), 3.3.3 (ESB),

3.4.5 (ATS), 3.5.3 (T-AO), 3.6.4 (T-AGS), 3.7.3 (T-AGOS), and 3.8.3 (T-ARC)). For reference, there are approximately 40 total drawings for ESB and approximately 50 total drawings for EPF that require review (and we believe that the numbers will be roughly comparable for the other ship classes). At this rate PAI would be responsible for reviewing the same set of documents 5-6 times within the two year period of performance. Respectfully request that the Government review and either confirm or reduce these workload estimates.

Answer: The Government has confirmed the workload in the PWS under paragraph 5.1 is correct and the contractor has misinterpreted the requirement. The requirement is for PAI to review each drawing per the tasks, deliverables and workload of the PWS. For instance, the ESB platform has over 1450 drawings. The Government is only asking PAI to review 10 per month, so at the end of the year PAI will have provided 120 drawing reviews for the ESB platform.

Question 6 The CLINs listed on pages 1 and 2 of the revised RFP indicate that Firm Fixed Price amounts are requested for “Labor, Travel and Material Support” for each support area. Respectfully request that the Government consider separating Firm Fixed Price labor and establishing corresponding Cost Reimbursable CLINs for Travel and Material Support – for Special Material Type Desk Support in particular, it is nearly impossible to forecast travel expenditures with the level of detail provided by the Government in the solicitation

Answer: Paragraph 2 lists the possible support locations. Paragraph 9.1 describes the estimated number of hours for CONUS and OCONUS availability on-site support. Vendor needs to price all costs to include material, labor, and travel to meet all requirements of the PWS.

Question 7

Respectfully request that the Government clarify the CLIN structure provided on pages 1 and 2 of the RFP: CLIN 0001 appears to be the Base Year for Special Material Type Desk Support, with CLIN 1001 being the Option Year. However, all New Construction CLINs are “0” series (i.e. suggesting Base Year) CLINs but all read “(Option).” For example, CLIN 0002 and 0003 have identical descriptions – is CLIN 0002 for the Base Year and CLIN 0003 for the Option Year? Respectfully request clarification

Answer:

CLIN 0001 is the Base Year for the Bridge contract.

CLIN 1001 is the First Option Period for the Bridge contract.

CLINS 0002 through 00016 are for New Ships Pre-Delivery.

CLINS 0002-00016 will be priced, and executed as options as they come online.

The PoPs will be established when the options are executed.