N40027-21-R-0007 Rolling Admission RFP conformed through Amendment 0001.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until local time

X

A X B X C X D

EX

X

G F 89

90 - 99 X H 100

Allison.m.hutchens.civ@us.navy.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 102

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

N40027 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

ALLISON M. HUTCHENS (904) 270-5126 X3623

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 3 4 - 26

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

27 - 50 51 - 52

J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

53 - 54 55 - 57 X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 58 - 65 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 66 - 75 X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL: TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN INITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

76 - 87

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

COMMANDER SOUTHEAST REGIONAL MAINTENANCE

P.O. BOX 280057

MAYPORT NAVAL STATION

JACKSONVILLE FL 32228-0057 904-270-5126 EXT 3259

904-270-5056FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.

MACMOLOT2RA

5. DATE ISSUED

04 Aug 2021

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

N40027-21-R-0007

N4002721R0007

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

MACMO ROLLING ADMISSION

This RFP serves as the Rolling Admissions for LOT 2 of the IDIQ-MAC as advertised in the pre-solicitation notoice N40027-21-R-0007 dated 24 Jun 2021. This rolling admission is only applicable to those contractors that do not currently have a Lot 2 IDIQ-MAC contract.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

CLIN

Number

FFP DOs BASE PERIOD, LOT 2

FFP

ACCOMPLISH FIXED PRICE DELIVERY ORDERS FOR EM AND CM

AVAILABILITIES

SEE NOTE B INDICATED BELOW IN SECTION B.

NOTE: The requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, are applicable for this line item. The contractor shall provide DoD unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent.

FOB: Destination

PURCHASE REQUEST NUMBER: MACMOLOT2

PSC CD: J998

NET AMT

OPTION CPFF DOs BASE PERIOD, LOT 2

CPFF

ACCOMPLISH COST PLUS FIXED FEE DELIVERY ORDERS FOR EM AND

CM AVAILABILITIES

SEE NOTES A, C AND D INDICATED BELOW IN SECTION B.

NOTE: The requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003, Item Identification and Valuation, are applicable for this line item. The contractor shall provide DoD unique identification or a DoD recognized unique identification equivalent.

FOB: Destination

NET AMT

OPTION CDRLS BASE PERIOD , LOT 2

AS APPLICABLE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET THE

REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN THE CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS

LISTS (CDRLS)

PROVIDED AS EXHIBITS A, B AND C.

THIS IS A NOT SEPARATELY PRICED CLIN.

FOB: Destination

NSP

NOTES

NOTE A

Reserved.

NOTE B

FIXED SHIP REPAIR LABOR AND MATERIAL BURDEN RATES (CEILING RATES)

1. The Contractor’s fully burdened ship repair labor rate will be used for negotiating Firm Fixed Price (FFP) delivery orders, growth work, and new work to be performed under this IDIQ-MAC for each delivery order. The fully burdened ship repair labor rate shall be the ceiling rate of the contract. The contractor agrees that the number of man hours included in its price proposal for delivery order modifications shall include only direct production man hours. For these purposes, direct production man-hours are for skilled labor at the journeyman level expended in direct production including but not limited to the following functions:

Abrasive cleaning/blasting Fire Watch Welding Machinists (inside and outside) Burning Brazing Carpentry Electrical Work Electronic Work Engineering Design Support Lagging Ship-fitting Boiler-making Painting Sheet-metal Work Pipefitting Rigging General Labor Staging/Scaffolding Diesel Mechanics

2. The fully burdened ship repair labor rate proposed by the contractor shall include those support functions (whether charged directly or indirectly by the offeror’s accounting systems) which are herein defined as support for production functions. Support functions shall be considered to be included in the offeror’s fully burdened ship repair labor rate for direct production man hours. Labor hours for the below support functions shall not be separately proposed. Examples of support functions include but are not limited to:

Testing Quality Assurance Execution Planning Cleaning (except tank cleaning) Supervision Security Surveying Administration Transportation Purchasing Staff Lofting Other indirect support Material handling & Warehousing Safety/Environmental

3. The fully burdened ship repair labor rate is a fixed hourly rate that includes all wages (e.g. straight time, overtime, shift differential, holiday time, standby time, etc.) overhead, general, and administrative expenses, Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCOM) and profit. The fully burdened ship repair labor rate represents the ceiling for the blended rate to be performed by the offeror, including labor transferred between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the offeror under a common control.

4. Consumable materials are goods used in the ordinary course of work performance such as office supplies, paper, rags, vehicle or equipment fuel costs, cleaning chemicals, disposable tools, welding rods, paint buckets, paint brushes, protective clothing, etc. that are consumed/used in the process of repair and do not become an integral part of the repaired vessel. Consumable material shall be included in the contractor’s ship repair labor rate and not separately priced.

5. Physical materials are goods that become an integral part of the repaired vessel in the course of the repair, such as equipment, replacement steel, pipes, paint, and fasteners. The material mark-up rates apply to physical materials but not to consumable materials. The mark-up will be applied to the actual cost of the physical material. Actual cost does not include handling charges, general and administrative cost, overhead, profit, or any other indirect cost.

6. For changes to FFP delivery orders involving subcontractors, subcontractor quotes will be treated as Other Direct Costs (ODCs), must comply with the fully burdened ship repair rate ceiling and will be subject to the delivery order specific material markup rate. Subcontractor quotes must be competitively acquired and submitted with the Change Order Price Analysis (COPA) submitted by the contractor in response to a Request for Contract Change (RCC) issued by the Contracting Officer (see Section C-3.4 Paragraph 2). At no time will the proposed total to be performed by the prime contractor combined with subcontractor quote, material quote, and applicable markup be allowed to cost more than it would had the prime contractor directly provided all material and labor. This does not apply to the procurement of work performed by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Government directed subcontractors. OEMs and Government directed subcontractors are not required to be competed, are not required to comply with the fully burdened ship repair rate ceiling, but are still subject to the delivery order specific material markup rate. However, OEM and Government directed subcontract pricing must still be able to be found fair and reasonable by the contracting officer.

7. Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor and Material Rate Schedule, (transcribed from J-2, Labor and Material Burden Price Rates Sheet):

Base Period, CLIN 0022 Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor Rate

Material Burden Rate

8. The Contracting Officer may negotiate the fully burdened ship repair labor rate and material burden rate (not to exceed the contract ceiling rate) with the offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.4 at the delivery order level.

NOTE C

The following clauses are applicable to the cost type CLIN, if exercised:

HQ B-2-0007 Limitation of Cost/Limitation of Funds (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990) HQ B-2-0014 Payments of Fee(s) (Completion) (NAVSEA MAY 1993) HQ B-2-0019 Travel Costs HQ C-2-0031 Information and Data Furnished by the Government (Cost Type) – Alternate I HQ E-2-0002 Additional Provisions Relating To Correction of Defects (NAVSEA)(Oct 1990) HQ G-2-0009 Supplemental Instructions Regarding Electronic Invoicing (NAVSEA)(APR 2015)

52.215-10 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data AUG 2011 52.215-11 Price Reduction for Defective Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications AUG 2011 52.215-12 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data (Deviation 2018-O0015) MAY 2018 52.215-13 Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications (Deviation 2018-

O0015)

MAY 2018

52.215-16 Facilities Capital Cost of Money JUN 2003 52.215-20 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data or Information Other Than

Certified Cost or Pricing Data

OCT 2010

52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications

OCT 2010

52.215-22 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges--Identification of Subcontract Effort

OCT 2009

52.215-23 Limitations on Pass-Through Charges OCT 2009 52.216-7 Allowable Cost And Payment AUG 2018 52.216-8 Fixed Fee JUN 2011 52.222-2 Payment For Overtime Premiums JUL 1990 52.228-7 Insurance – Liability to Third Persons MAR 1996 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices And Certification (Deviation 2018-O0015) MAY 2018 52.230-2 Cost Accounting Standards (Deviation 2018-O0015) MAY 2018 52.230-3 Disclosure And Consistency Of Cost Accounting Practices (Deviation 2018-

O0015)

MAY 2018

52.230-6 Administration of Cost Accounting Standards JUN 2010 52.230-7 Proposal Disclosure – Cost Accounting Practice Change APR 2005 52.232-20 Limitation Of Cost APR 1984 52.232-22 Limitation of Funds APR 1984 52.242-3 Penalties for Unallowable Costs MAY 2014 52.243-2 Changes--Cost-Reimbursement AUG 1987 52.242-4 Certification of Final Indirect Costs JAN 1997 52.246-3 Inspection Of Supplies Cost-Reimbursement MAY 2001

52.249-6 Termination (Cost Reimbursement) MAY 2004

252.215-7002 Cost Estimating System Requirements DEC 2012 252.231-7000 Supplemental Cost Principles DEC 1991 252.242-7006 Accounting System Administration FEB 2012

NOTE D

Since there are firm fixed price CLINs included in this solicitation, a DCAA approved accounting system is not required to be eligible for award of a prime contract. However, successful awardees would not be eligible to receive a cost type or flexibly priced delivery order until a preaward survey of the offerors accounting system design complies in all material respects with the criteria contained in the Pre-award Survey, SF1408. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will initiate requests for accounting system reviews for any successful offeror that does not currently have an approved system after awards have been made from this solicitation. Documentation will be provided to the successful awardees that will need to be completed and returned to the PCO before the audit request can be initiated. Financial capability reviews are now being conducted by DCMA instead of DCAA.

Documentation for this review will need to be provided to DCMA upon request by the PCO after contract award.

Financial capability reviews will be done for the Cost type CLINs/Delivery Orders if it is determined that a Cost type CLIN needs to be exercised.

BIDDERS QUESTIONS

The following are Bidder’s Questions and Answers for solicitation N40027-21-R-0007 and are made a part of this

RFP:

Question 1: The pre-solicitation notice stated “The Government expects posting the RFP on or about 15 August 2021 with a forty-five day response time”

The due date on page 72 of the RFP is 1000, SERMC local time on 9/3/2021 however, the Beta SAM announcement says the due date is 1200, SERMC local time on 9/5/2021. Will the Government please clarify when the due date is and will it be 45 days from RFP release on 8/27/2021 as stated in the pre-solicitation notice?

Answer 1: The pre-solicitation notice was published on 24 Jun 2021. The Government will extend the proposal submission date to 1200, SERMC local time on 10 Sep 2021

Question 2: The due date for Question on page 72 of the RFP is 1300, SERMC local time on 8/16/2021, since the RFP was released on 8/27/2021 would the Government please clarify the due date for questions?

Answer 2: The Government will extend the Bidders’ Question deadline to 1300, SERMC local time on 7 Sep 2021.

Question 3:

1. Is the RFP SF 33 the version we should sign and return with the proposal? Will there be any amendments that will be included with this RFP that should be listed on the SF 33?

2. How should we include our Section B and Section K fill in responses? We did not see it as part of the price proposal.

3. Will you accept past performance questionnaires inside of the 5 days prior to RFP response submission since the documents were not available for download until the afternoon of 27 August?

Answer 3:

1. Yes. Offerors are required to list the amendments.

2. Fill in the RFP SF 33.

3. Yes. The past performance questionnaires can be provided with the proposal submission.

Question 4: Although the file is named N4002721R0007_Rolling_Admission_RFP, the text of the document (title page) indicates the Solicitation is N4002719R1001 (which was associated with the first rolling admissions) and has a date of issue of 15 Nov 2018.

Q. Will the government please clarify the correct Solicitation number and date of issue?

Answer 4: The solicitation number is N40027-21-R-0007 with a date of issue of 04 Aug 2021. The RFP will be revised.

Question 5: During the pre-RFP announcement, we were told to expect a 15 August, 2021 RFP, with a 45-day response period. This RFP, issued 27 August, 2021, SECTION L, page 72, indicates Questions are due no later than 16 August, and has a due date for the proposal of 3 September (one week after issue date).

Q. Will the government please clarify correct dates for Question submittal, as well as correct date for Response due?

Answer 5: The Government will extend the Bidders’ Question deadline to 1300, SERMC local time on 07 Sep 2021 and will extend the proposal submission date to 1200, SERMC local time on 10 Sep 2021.

Question 6: During the pre-RFP announcement, on 8 July, we ask the government a question regarding whether this rolling admission would be for LOT 1, LOT 2, or both; on 9 July, the SERMC contracting officer responded “both LOTS”. (see attached email string).

Q. Will the government please clarify its intent to solicit rolling admissions for both Lot 1 and Lot 2, as the solicitation document issued only appears to address Lot 2.

Answer 6: Rolling Admission is only for Lot 2.

Question 7: Document S-1_-Technical_Capabilities_N4002721R0007, Titled LOT 1 TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES DATA SHEET, lists a requirement for “2. The contract/project or collection of concurrent contracts/projects required experience scheduling work items in accordance with NSI 009-60?

Yes_ No_.”

Q.1 Will the government please clarify its intent to issue Technical Capabilities Data Sheets for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 Rolling Admissions?

Q.2 Will the government modify the requirement 2 to include “The contract/project or collection of concurrent contracts/projects required experience scheduling work items in accordance with NSI 009-60 or 009-111?”

Answer 7: The Government is revising the Technical Capabilities Data Sheet for Lot 2. Revised S-1 will be uploaded under this solicitation.

Question 8: 5.0 PROPOSAL CONTENT, D. Relevant contracts are, (page 75), lists: “Lot 2: US Navy surface combatant non-docking continuous maintenance or emergent maintenance availabilities performed by the offeror as a prime and completed within the last three years from RFP issuance with a reported dollar value at or above $500,000.”

Q.1. Will the government modify Lot 2 Past Performance requirements to include:” availabilities performed by the offeror as a prime or Subcontractor”?

Answer 8: No. Since this is a rolling admission, all terms and conditions must remain the same as the original RFP.

BIDDERS QUESTIONS

The following are Bidder’s Questions and Answers from the original Solicitation and incorporated in Amendments One through Twelve of N40027-16-R-0028 and are made a part of this RFP:

AMENDMENT TWELVE

Question 44: The Volume II submittal requirements have changed considerably from the original solicitation. The S-1, Technical Experience submittal details state that the offeror is required to identify two relevant events, each documented on a separate S-1 (two for LOT I and two for LOT II) and then there is a list of specifics. Each of the items listed are questions on the S-1.

Is the government expecting a narrative describing each relevant event covering the specific items listed or is the government only asking that the S-1 be filled out and returned? There are no page limit restrictions, as provided with the original solicitation, which would indicate a narrative submittal.

Answer 44: The Government is only asking that S-1 be filled out and returned.

AMENDMENT ELEVEN

Question 43: Amendment 0009, Section M, Paragraph 3.0, Evaluation Factors, subparagraph, VOLUME II – Non Price Proposal, Past Performance (page 12 of 18) changed the criteria for Past Performance considerably. With the new criteria, this contractor will be using past performance examples that have not been evaluated by the CPAR system and have sent out Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) to the Project Managers (PM) and Contracting Officers (CO). Some of these projects are also being used as Lot I and Lot II Technical Capabilities (S-2) submittals and the PPQ’s will be very important to the contractor’s proposal. The Technical Capabilities criteria was also changed with Amendment 0009.

The Amendment still requires that the PPQ’s be submitted five (5) days before the submittal due date of September 9, 2016, and further states that “The Government shall not review/consider any questionnaires that are received after this date…”, which is Sunday, September 4, 2016. The contractor is not overly confident that the PM’s and CO’s will have the time to fill out and submit the PPQ’s in accordance with the Amendment Deadline considering the Labor Day Holiday, and requests that the submittal date be extended by one week to September 16, 2016.

Answer 43: The Government extends the proposal submittal date to September 15, 2016. The PPQ’s will be submitted two (2) days before the submittal due date.

AMENDMENT TEN

Question 40: Conformed solicitation Amendment 0009 page 27, Section B, Note B para 7 provides one block to enter one “Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor Rate” for both “CLINs 0001 and 0002”, and follows this similar structure for all CLINs and also for all “Material Burden Rate”. This is not consistent with Attachment J-2, which allows different “Fully Burdened Ship Repair Labor Rates” for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002. Lots 1 and 2 clearly require the offeror to possess different levels of capabilities and facilities for repairing ships, which obviously will have different cost structures and resulting rates. Lot 1 requires access to a fully-facilitized shipyard while Lot 2 requires only enough facility support to work onboard the Naval Station. Although J-2 appears to allow the offeror to propose different rates for Lot 1 and Lot 2, Section B appears to require one rate to apply to both lots. This places offerors at who can qualify for Lot 1 at a disadvantage for Lot 2 as compared to offerors who can only qualify for Lot 2; this also requires Lot 1 offerors to propose an artificially high price for Lot 2, which has the effect of reducing competition for Lot 2.

Will the Government: 1) recognize the different cost structures needed to support a fully-facilitized shipyard versus work on the Naval Station, 2) eliminate the disadvantage to Lot 1 offers while enhancing competition for Lot 2, and 3) correct the discrepancy between Section B and Attachment J-2 by revising Section B to allow for different rates for Lot 1 versus Lot 2 CLINs?

Answer 40: Yes, the Government will revise Section B to allow for the transcription of the different rates for Lot 1 and Lot 2 CLINs as proposed on Attachment J-2.

Question 41: AMENDMENT 0009 is issued after final pricing was submitted in response to RFP N40027-16-R-0028 it is not clear to the contractor as to what documents it is intended for the contractor to submit in response to amendment 0009.

Will the Government provide clarification as to what the contractor is expected to submit? Will the Government verify if the intent of amendment 0009 is for the contractor to submit a complete package in response to Amendment 0009?

Contractor requests a one week extension to the Amendment 0009 response due date to 1400 16 September 2016

Answer 41: Offerors are to submit a complete proposal package. . No extension will be granted at this time.

Question 42: AMENDMENT 0009 is issued after final pricing was submitted in response to RFP N40027-16-R-0028 it is not clear to the contractor as to what documents it is intended for the contractor to submit in response to amendment 0009.

Will the Government verify that ownership or committed access to a dry-dock is no longer required for this solicitation?

Contractor requests a one week extension to the Amendment 0009 response due date to 1400 16 September 2016.

Answer 42: No change was made to the solicitation as it pertains to ownership or committed access to a drydock (See Section C, paragraph 2.7 as well as Section L, Volume III – Eligibility Criteria). No extension will be granted at this time.

AMENDMENT EIGHT

Question 39: J-2 Labor and Material Price Sheet Revision 7 asks for a material burden rate, once provided the formula only adds the material burden rate costs and does not include the material cost in the total. Is it the Government's intention to only include the material burden rate cost in the total evaluated price?

Answer 39: Yes, the Government's intention is to only include the calculated material burden rate cost in the total evaluated price.

AMENDMENT SEVEN

Question 38: AMENDMENT 0006 provided J2-_Labor_and_Material_Price_Sheet_rev 7 with an error in how material costs are calculated. What shows as the “Total Material Price” is actually just the dollar value of the material burden percentage. Total Material Price should be Material plus Material Burden Rate = Total Material Price This error is located on the FFP CLINS SCHEDULED and FFP CLINS EM & CM tabs.

Will the Government provide a corrected J2 which calculates Material with Burden for the Total Material price?

Contractor requests a one week extension to the bid due date to 1000 15 April 2016.

Answer 38: The Government has provided a corrected J2 on Amendment 0006. The Government does not provide a material burden rate. The contractor provides the Material Burden Rate in the “Insert Rate” blocks for both the FFP CLINS Scheduled worksheet and the FFP CLINS EM & CM worksheet. See Section L Proposal Content Volume I Labor and Material Burden Rate Price Sheet and Section B Note B Fixed Ship Repair Labor and Material Burden Rates. The Government does not intend to extended the proposal due date.

AMENDMENT SIX

Question 37: AMENDMENT 0005 provided J2-_Labor_and_Material_Price_Sheet_rev with an error in how material costs are calculated what shows as the “Total Material Price” is actually just the dollar value of the material burden percentage Will the Government provide a corrected J2 which calculates Material with Burden?

Answer 37: Yes, the Government will upload a corrected attachment J-2 Labor and Material Price Sheet.

AMENDMENT FIVE

Question 11: Solicitation page 30, under “Statement of Work” references “Docking & Non-Docking Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) scheduled availabilities” and states that a “successful IDIQ-MAC holder will be responsible for all work required under a DO”; however, Amendment 0002, page 8 Past Performance specifies “non-docking availabilities” for both Lot 1 and Lot 2.

Does the Government intend to make Lot 1 or Lot 2 awards that will be later used for dry docking delivery orders without evaluating past performance for docking availabilities?

Answer 11: Past Performance for dry docking delivery orders will only be evaluated at the delivery order level.

Question 12: Solicitation page 30, under “Statement of Work” references “Docking & Non-Docking Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) scheduled availabilities”; however, 1.2 GENERAL SCOPE OF SHIP REPAIR AND OVERHAUL lists no trade skills or activities that are necessary to dry dock a vessel. Further, Solicitation page 23, Note B, FIXED SHIP REPAIR LABOR AND MATERIAL BURDEN RATES (CEILING RATES) lists no trade skills or activities that are necessary to dry dock a vessel.

How does the Government intend to “analyze the ship repair labor rates” per solicitation page 125 and determine fair and reasonable labor rates for docking availabilities when there are no dock-related activities or dock-related trade skills specified in the Statement of Work or in the instructions for rates?

Answer 12: The trades listed in the RFP are not all-inclusive but an offeror is to include all Direct Production and Indirect Labor trades it determines will be necessary to accomplish the Statement of Work.

Question 13: Solicitation page 30, under “Statement of Work” references “Docking & Non-Docking Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) scheduled availabilities”; however, 1.2 GENERAL SCOPE OF SHIP REPAIR AND OVERHAUL lists no trade skills or activities that are necessary to dry dock a vessel. Further, Solicitation page 23, Note B, FIXED SHIP REPAIR LABOR AND MATERIAL BURDEN RATES (CEILING RATES) lists no trade skills or activities that are necessary to dry dock a vessel.

Because no trade skills or activities that are necessary to dry dock a vessel are listed in the Statement of Work or FIXED SHIP REPAIR LABOR AND MATERIAL BURDEN RATES, the contractor intends to specifically exclude dry docking specific trade skills and activities from its “fully burdened ship repair labor rate”; will the Government find this exclusion acceptable?

Answer 13: The trades listed in the RFP are not all-inclusive but an offeror is to include all Direct Production and Indirect Labor trades it determines will be necessary to accomplish the Statement of Work.

Question 14: Solicitation page 30, under “Statement of Work” states this contract vehicle is “for Surface Combatant (CG and DDG) / Amphibious (LPD, LSD, and LHD) class ships”; this statement implies that amphibious ships are not considered to be Surface Combatants. However, solicitation page 116, under past performance states that relevant contracts for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 are “surface combatant” availabilities.

Does the Government intend to award delivery orders for amphibious ships without evaluating past performance on amphibious ships, or will the Government amend the solicitation to include amphibious ships as relevant contracts?

Answer 14: The Government has amended Section L, Volume II Past Performance paragraph D in Amendment Five to include amphibious ships. The Government will establish relevant past performance at the time of each delivery order RFP.

Question 15: Solicitation page 116, under Subcontracting Plan states that if “an offeror chooses to propose for both the surface combatants and amphibious class ships, then two (2) subcontracting plans are required to be submitted with the proposal;” this is not consistent with other elements of the solicitation.

Does the Government intend for the solicitation to read, “if an offeror chooses to propose for both Lot 1 and Lot 2, then two

(2) subcontracting plans are required to be submitted with the proposal”?

Answer 15: Verbiage is corrected in this amendment. If the contractor submits proposals for both Lot 1 and Lot 2, then a separate subcontracting plan will be required for Lot 1 and Lot 2.

Question 16: Can a company that does not have a physical address in Mayport FL qualify for award if a company can demonstrate the capability to perform the work in Mayport, FL via past performance and subcontract agreements with other companies located in the Mayport area?

Answer 16: An out-of-area contractor may qualify for award if the contractor meets criteria set forth in Section M.

Question 17: Section L stipulates that relevant contracts must contain.... “reported dollar value at or above $5,000,000” where Section M does not contain any dollar amount as one of the evaluation criteria.

If a company demonstrates experience similar in scope for Navy vessels but not a single award at or above $5,000,000 will that meet the requirement?

Answer 17: Section M Factor 3 Past Performance has been amended to describerelevant contracts.

Question 18: Will the Government provide clarification regarding the relationship and timing between the MACMO award in the June 2016 timeframe (Section L, page 115) and the lease competition for parcels of land in late FY 2016 (Section C, page 37).”

Answer 18: The base lease competition is being handled by Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Southern Division. Any questions related to the leases should be directed to NAVFAC.

Question 19: Regarding Section C, page 37, an essential part of the contractor’s costs are the costs of the lease; request the Government clarify / provide direction on what costs a contractor should include in their bid to allow for the costs of maintaining the lease in Mayport.

Answer 19: What an offeror chooses to include in its bid is a business decision of the offeror.

Question 20: Has the government considered the timing and/or correlation of events between (1) contractors pursuing a Lot I IDIQ-MAC award who are required to show dry-dock committed access within five (5) days of the IDIQ-MAC award, and (2) competition of leases as referenced in Section C, page 37, specifically if the owner of certified dry-docking facilities is not provided a renewed lease?

Answer 20: No. As a point of information to all offerors the Government does not currently provide leased property to any owner of a certified dry docking facility.

Question 21: Solicitation page 33, 2.7 states Contractors receiving a Lot 1 IDIQ-MAC award, that intend to compete for docking availabilities, shall submit documentation to the RMC Code 400 ACO, with copy to RMC Codes 300 and 200, describing the capabilities of the dry-docks and associated facilities for which they have ownership or committed access to (via a teaming or resource sharing agreement) in the Mayport, Florida homeport within five (5) days of the IDIQ-MAC award

Will the Government void the award if the Contractor cannot demonstrate access to dry-dock facilities within five (5) days of award?

Answer 21: No. However, MAC awardees intending to compete for delivery orders must produce the required documentation within five (5) days of the IDIQ-MAC award order to receive a dry-dock delivery order award. If fewer than two (2) MAC holders fail to timely submit required documents then competition will be achieved in accordance with the NAVSEA homeport policy.

Question 22: Solicitation page 91, clause 252.217-7010 (c) states that the Contractor shall, “without charge and without specific requirement in a job order, --

(1) Make available at the plant to personnel of the vessel while in dry dock or on a marine railway, sanitary lavatory and similar facilities acceptable to the Contracting Officer;

(2) Supply and maintain suitable brows and gangways from the pier, dry dock, or marine railway to the vessel;

(3) Treat salvage, scrap or other ship's material of the Government resulting from performance of the work as items of Government-furnished property, in accordance with the Government Property clause;

(4) Perform, or pay the cost of, any repair, reconditioning or replacement made necessary as the result of the use by the Contractor of any of the vessel's machinery, equipment or fittings, including, but not limited to, winches, pumps, rigging, or pipe lines; and

(5) Furnish suitable offices, office equipment and telephones at or near the site of the work for the Government's use.

However, solicitation page 30, Statement of Work, specifies that “all work will be performed at the Mayport Naval Station, Jacksonville, Florida,” where the Government does not typically require the Contractor to provide (c)(1) through (5) above.

Does the Government intend for the Contractor to provide (c)(1) through (5) at the Mayport Naval Station?

Answer 22: Any deviations from DFARS 252.217-7010 will be specified in each delivery order.

Question 23: The solicitation provides limited information with regard to potential workload that a single awardee can anticipate performing over the course of contract execution. Knowledge of the type and amount of work an offeror can reasonably anticipate accomplishing under this as well as other contracts over the next five years is essential to projecting a realistic, defendable, and executable ceiling rate for the period over which the Government intends to lock the offeror’s fully burdened ship repair labor rate. The fidelity of data available with regard to potential workload over the five year period for all customers makes it virtually impossible for the offeror to accurately project workload for this period of time. The result of which would be rates that could be either much higher or much lower than those being incurred in the out-years. It is likewise virtually impossible for the Government to determine the ceiling rates to be fair and reasonable for an unknown amount of work in the out years using FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis techniques.

Will the Government make provisions for revising the fully burdened ship repair labor rate through negotiations an annual basis to provide all awardees the opportunity to adjust their rates based on near term projections of anticipated workload and lower the associated risks to all parties?

Answer 23: No. The rate is a ceiling and may be adjusted downward after negotiation with the Contracting Officer.

Question 24: Solicitation page 34, Statement of Work 3.0 through 3.5 describes the delivery order modification procedure to be “strictly followed” when needed repairs are identified by the Contractor, accompanied with a recommendation for repair that is accepted by the Government; this describes a process typically used by the Government for Growth (“G”) Requests for Contract Change (RCC). There is no procedure established for New Work (“N”) RCC where the Contractor does not provide the recommendation.

Will the Government describe the procedure for New Work RCC modifications?

Answer 24: The New Work RCC process will be the same procedures for Growth RCCs, as described in Section C, 3.4 Request for Contract Change.

Question 25: Solicitation page 34, Statement of Work 3.0 through 3.5 describes the delivery order modification procedure to be “strictly followed” when needed repairs are identified by the Contractor, accompanied with a recommendation for repair that is accepted by the Government; this describes a process typically used by the Government for Growth (“G”) Request for

Contract Change (RCC). When the Government writes a New Work Item (“N”) RCC, the Contractor would not have the prior knowledge gained by identifying the repairs and the recommendation and other data in 3.2 and would be starting evaluation of the work upon receipt of the New Work RCC rather than on discovering the condition. Therefore, the timeliness requirement of three (3) business days for providing a Change Order Price Analysis for a New Work item is unrealistic when considered relative to a change for an existing Work Item.

Will the Government establish a more reasonable turn-around time for pricing New Work item RCC such as seven (7) business days?

Answer 25: Pricing for all RCCs will remain 3 business days.

Question 26: Solicitation page 34, Statement of Work 3.5 Modification Negotiation states, “Once the Government receives the contractor’s proposal, it will evaluate and negotiate it in accordance with applicable Agency regulations and policies. If necessary, the Government may issue unilateral modifications to accomplish required work”. This is separate and distinct from unilateral orders issued to start work per DFARS 252.217-7004 as spelled out on solicitation page 66, Section G, Fair Opportunity Process, General. This “unilateral modification” concept for Growth and New Work Requests for Contract Change is contrary to clause 5252.217-9107 GROWTH AND NEW WORK, which states, “If a fair and reasonable price cannot be negotiated for the above actions, the Government may, at its election, pursue any or all of the following courses of action: (1) defer the work to a repair period after completion of the instant contract; (2) accomplish the work using Government employees during the original overhaul period, and/or (3) conduct a separate, competitive procurement for growth or new work.”

No clause in this solicitation or in the Federal Acquisition Regulation allows the Government to request a price proposal from the Contractor, determine that the Contractor’s price is unfair or unreasonable, and then issue a unilateral order to the Contractor to complete the modification at the Government’s price. Please describe under what conditions and what authority the Government may issue a unilaterally priced modification ordering the Contractor to perform work when the Government has already determined that the Contractor’s price is unfair or unreasonable.

Answer 26: As referenced in the above question, the Government has a variety of options to bilaterally or unilaterally change the contract as necessary. The offeror is also directed to review the remainder of the solicitation including but, not limited to, FAR 52.243-1, FAR 52.249-8, and DFARS 252.217-7003.

Question 27: Amendment 0004, page 10, EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS, states:

The following document(s), exhibit(s), and other attachment(s) form a part of this solicitation:

Exhibits A, B, & C Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423

Exhibits A, B, & C are not available on the FBO website and have not been provided to the Contractor. Will the Government provide these Exhibits?

Answer 27: Corrected as detailed in this amendment.

Question 28: Amendments 0003 changes some of the fillable portions Section I and Section K of the solicitation.

Amendment 0003 changes similar portions of Section B of the solicitation. Will the government issue a conformed solicitation incorporating these revisions to make the submittal of the proposal one document?

Answer 28: The Government will upload a conformed solicitation with the release of Amendment 0005.

Question 29: Solicitation page 71, Small Business Subcontracting Requirement establishes a small business goal of 20% of “direct costs related to production work”. There is no reference that provides a description of “direct costs related to production work”. There is no mechanism to report all “direct costs” to the Government for the fixed price CLINs (the majority of the work) in this solicitation or in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS). This statement conflicts with 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan which states that the Contractor’s Small Business goals shall be “expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars, for the use of small business” [and each subcategory] as subcontractors. Further, the reporting format of the Government’s Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) allows for entry by the contractor of total dollars subcontracted and dollars subcontracted in each category and eSRS determines the percentages itself.

To remove these conflicts and to bring the solicitation into compliance with FAR and the reporting ability of eSRS, will the Government modify the small business goal to 20% (or some other value) of “total planned subcontracting dollars”?

Answer 29: Corrected to reflect the small business goal averages 20 % annually of total awarded contract price. Correction reflected in this amendment.

Question 30: Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy Memorandum on Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures dated March 4, 2011, establishes requirements that “are mandatory for all acquisitions utilizing FAR Part 15 procedures.” Appendix A contains “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process,” which states in part, “LPTAs may be used in situations where the Government would not realize any value from a proposal exceeding the Government’s minimum technical or performance requirements, often for acquisitions of commercial or non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be low risk.”

This solicitation is for a multi-year contract valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars that has open-ended requirements and requires eight solicitation pages to describe the Statement of Work; no reasonable analysis of this effort could describe it as “non-complex services or supplies which are clearly defined and expected to be low risk”.

Will the Government explain its rationale for deviating from the Source Selection Procedure memorandum by applying the LPTA selection process to this complex work? Alternatively, will the Government change its source selection criteria?

Answer 30: Offeror is reminded that the purpose of this solicitation is to qualify as a MAC awardee; accordingly, the Government will not change its source selection criteria.

Question 31: Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, on Appropriate Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection Process and Associated Contract Type dated March 4, 2015, states: “LPTA is the appropriate source selection process to apply only when there are well-defined requirements, the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal, price is a significant factor in the source selection, and there is neither value, need, nor willingness to pay for higher performance.”

This solicitation is for a multi-year contract valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars that has open-ended requirements for an unspecified number and mix of ship repair availabilities. The solicitation provides a “number of hours and material dollar value for the material burden rate” that are for evaluation purposes only and are “based on historical data” – this is a clear indication that the solicitation lacks “well-defined requirements”. The solicitation also contains provisions for default when milestones that are to be established at some future date are not met – this indicates that there is more than minimal risk of “unsuccessful contract performance.”

Will the Government explain its rationale for deviating from the Appropriate Use of LPTA memorandum by applying the LPTA selection process to this solicitation that does not contain “well-defined requirements” and has risk of unsuccessful contract performance”? Alternatively, will the Government change its source selection criteria?

Answer 31: Offeror is reminded that the purpose of this solicitation is to qualify as a MAC awardee; accordingly, the Government will not change its source selection criteria.

Question 32: Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, on Implementation of Better Buying Power 2.0 dated April 24, 2014, states: “When LPTA is used as a source selection technique, Section M of the RFP and the Source Selection Plan must clearly describe the minimum requirements that will be used to determine the acceptability of the proposal.”

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, Factor 2: Technical Capabilities, describes an Acceptable rating as “Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.” No minimum requirements for technical capabilities are specified in the solicitation, and therefore this evaluation is subjective and does not meet the requirement of the USD Memorandum to “clearly describe the minimum requirements that will be used to determine the acceptability of the proposal.”

Will the Government explain its rationale for deviating from the guidance of the USD Memorandum for Implementation of Better Buying Power 2.0 by applying the LPTA selection process to this solicitation that does not contain “minimum requirements that will be used to determine the acceptability of the proposal”? Alternatively, will the Government change its source selection criteria?

Answer 32: Offeror is reminded that the purpose of this solicitation is to qualify as a MAC awardee; accordingly, the Government will not change its source selection criteria.

Question 33: Solicitation page 125 states that “proposed labor and material burden rates will be fixed ceiling rates for each one-year period (base period or option period, as applicable) regardless of how many hours are procured” and also the “Government will analyze the ship repair labor rates proposed in accordance with FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis to determine fair and reasonable pricing.” Per 15.404-1(a)(2), as certified cost or pricing data are not required, “price analysis shall be used.” Per 15.404-1(b)(3), “the first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques” meaning “(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation” or “(ii) Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items.” However, “comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid” is not appropriate to evaluate “fixed ceiling rates” as there cannot be cost history for “fully burdened ship repair labor rate” ceilings. Price analysis techniques 15.404-1(b)(2)(iii) through (vii) are similarly inappropriate to this solicitation as written. Therefore, the available technique for price analysis remains 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), “Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.”

Since there is no relevant historical data, no pricing data requested, and no reasonable method to establish independent Government cost estimates that would be remotely accurate, does the Government intend to analyze proposed labor and material burden rates for “fair and reasonable” primarily by comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation?

Answer 33: Price analysis will be conducted as outlined in the solicitation.

Question 34: This solicitation contains no reference to analysis of price realism. “Price realism is not ordinarily considered in the evaluation of proposals for the award of a fixed-price contract, because these contracts place the risk of loss upon the contractor.

However, in light of various negative impacts on both the agency and the contractor that may result from an offeror’s overly optimistic proposal, an agency may, as here, expressly provide that a price realism analysis will be applied in order to measure the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and/or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal” [GAO B-401652.3; B- 401652.5, Health Net Federal Services, LLC, November 4, 2009] Does the Government intend to analyze the price realism of the Contractor’s proposal “in order to measure the offeror’s understanding of the requirements and/or to assess the risk inherent in an offeror’s proposal”?

Answer 34: No, the Government does not intend to analyze the price realism of the Contractor’s proposal.

Question 35: Amendment 004 page 11 states “questions shall be submitted no later than 1300, SERMC local time (EST), 25 March 2016.” Over twenty questions have been submitted that remain unanswered as of the question cut-off date.