RESPONSE_TO_OFFEROR_QUESTIONS_-4 08 2015.pdf

Government Response to Offeror Request for Clarifications:

Solicitation N4523A-15-R-003 SUBSAFE/LEVEL-1 MARINE MECHANICS

1. Our original question #18, Government Q&A #1:

Question: As this is a T&M contract also with one FFP Sub-CLIN, and Offerors are required to submit a filled-in Section B with unit pricing, request the Government clarify what additional information would be provided in this section to meet this requirement.

Current Answer: Sub-CLIN’s 0001AA, 0001AB, 0001AC, 0001AD, 0001AF, 0001AG, 0001AH, 0001AJ should include unit price per hour and total price for aforementioned SubClins

Our On-Going Concern: RFP Section L.4.a states, "The Offeror shall provide sufficiently detailed information as to allow the Contracting Officer to determine the reasonableness of the proposed prices." Our original question requested clarification regarding what additional information was expected to be contained in the Cost Volume III, not RFP Section B. Section B would appear to require sufficient cost data in itself for this type of contract; so it is unclear what additional data should be provided in Volume III at this time.

Government Response: Section L-4 also states: “Offeror shall submit a complete price proposal that sets forth both unit prices and a total contract price including a firm unit price for all CLINS ”. Please use this as guidance for proposal preparation for Price Proposal Volume III.

2. Our original question #16, Government Q&A #2:

Question: Section L does not require the Technical Proposal to contain "...a narrative description of the overall technical approach”. Request the Government clarify if "...a narrative description of the overall technical approach" is required as part of the Technical Volume and, if so, add the detailed requirements for its content and associated addition of allowed pages.

Current Answer: The technical proposal should include the following: Technical Subfactors: The two (2) technical proposal subfactors are

Our On-Going Concern: RFP Section M.D.1 states, "Volume 1 [sic] shall include a narrative description of the overall technical approach.” The answer reiterated the same original description of what the Technical Volume should contain, but did not address the inconsistency between Section L & M.

Specifically, Section M should be modified to delete "Volume II shall include a narrative description of the overall technical approach" because Section L does not contain a requirement for a narrative description of the overall technical approach.

Government Response: Deleted the narrative description of the overall technical approach requirement in Section M. See Solicitation amendment Section M.

3. Our original question #8, Government Q&A #17:

Question: Request the Government clarify that the CIA access list is not required as part of the Offeror's proposal; and furthermore, that it be removed from Section L as it is redundant to, and potentially in conflict with, Section C.12.20.

Answer: Item language concerning g. NAVY INSTALLATIONS, BADGING, AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS under Section L - Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS was revised. See Section C.12.20 concerning CIA access requirements.

Our On-Going Concern: RFP Section L.1.g states, "The contractor shall prepare a list of all prime and subcontractor personnel required to access Naval Vessels in the CIA.” The presence of this requirement in Section L ("Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders") would imply that this list would be required as part of the proposal submission. However, RFP Section C.12.20 states, "The letter shall be signed by the Contractor's Facility Security Officer and shall be received by the C/402 Security Official no less than Five (5) working days prior to access being granted." The changed section of the RFP contained in Amendment 3 did not revise the Navy Installations, Badging, And Access Requirements under Section L, but it appears to have been deleted. Please confirm that this section was deleted vice revised.

Government Response: NAVY INSTALLATIONS, BADGING, AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS under Section L

- Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS was deleted. However, the security requirements set forth in Section C, 12. Security and Access Requirements continue to be the requirements for contractor access to the CIA and Naval Vessels therein.

4. Our original question #23, Government Q&A #5 and duplicated in #10:

Question: Amendment 1 to the solicitation added the words "...at no cost to the Government" to RFP Sections C.4.10 And C.5.3.2 to the effect, "If the person does not pass the retest, he/she shall be replaced by the contractor within 10 calendar days at no cost to the Government.” Request the Government clarify the intent of this new term, as it would be implemented upon a candidate's second failure. Specifically, is it the Government's desire that the Contractor's incurred costs for the individual who failed the training and/or proficiency demonstration be retracted, even though a good-faith effort was expended to the benefit of the Government to meet the Government's unique testing/proficiency demonstration requirements? Or is it the Government's intention that the failed individual be immediately removed from the contract and not allowed to incur any further costs against it?

Answer: Under the proposed contract, the Government will not be responsible for the costs incurred for an individual who failed the training and/or proficiency demonstration as the costs up to the point of transportation, etc. of said individual, up to arrival at the Government facility would be part of the proposed contract. If the individual fails the testing /proficiency demonstration requirements even though the contractor expended a good-faith effort, the contractor at no cost to the Government will replace the individual in order to meet contract requirements

Our On-Going Concern: The answer provided does not add clarity to exactly what costs associated with the failed individual and/or the separate act of replacing him/her would not be allowed: (a) transportation of failed individual to the site/associated hours; (b) failed individual labor & per diem during training/proficiency on site; (c) transportation of failed individual from the site/associated hours;

(d) transportation of new individual to the site/associated hours; (e) new individual labor & per diem during training/proficiency on site; or (d) contractor management/administrative effort associated with all of the above?

Government Response: The Government will not be responsible for the costs associated with the failed individual and/or the separate act of replacing him/her would not be allowed. Specifically, the Government will not be responsible for:

(a) Transportation of failed individual to the Government site/associated hours;

(b) Failed individual labor & per diem during training/proficiency on the Government site;

(c) Transportation of failed individual from the Government site/associated hours;

(d) Transportation of new individual to the Government site/associated hours;

(e) New individual labor & per diem during training/proficiency on Government site; or

(f) Contractor Management/Administrative Effort associated with items (a) though (f).

5. Our original question #9, not answered by the Government:

Our Original [Complete] Question: RFP Section B establishes an unusually high degree of price, and consequently cost, segregation by separating each labor category, labor shift, and labor type (ST vs OT) into separate sub-CLINs. Sub-CLINs are highly restrictive during execution in that they can only be funded by a single ACRN/InfoSLIN, and require labor-intensive contractor cost segregation during cost accounting and invoicing, as well as rigid financial inflexibility during execution (i.e., running out of Marine Mechanic Journeyman second shift OT funding, but having plenty of Marine Mechanic Supervisor day shift ST funding remaining). It would appear that this structure has been established only to afford granularity in Offeror pricing for proposal submission in spite of the inherent limitations during execution. Request the Government consider reorganizing RFP Section B into a traditional two-CLIN format (labor vs ODC) and specifying in Section L.4.a for Volume III the desired degree of proposal pricing segregation necessary to support reasonableness evaluation.

Answer: None.

Our On-Going Concern: As structured, the solicitation Section B remains complex and our experience indicates that it will be financially restrictive to the determent of Government and Contractor execution.

We have no problem submitting an offer compliant with the existing Section B, however, we still strongly recommend that in the awarded contract, Section B be aggregated into a traditional two-CLIN format (labor vs ODC) for maximum flexibility during execution.

Government Response: Section B cannot be aggregated based on the current structure of Government project management labor hour tracking mechanisms in place at the Governments’ facility. Accordingly, the Government SubCLIN, ACRN/InfoSLIN configuration requirement in the proposal remains unchanged.

6. Finally, another Offeror asked the following question (Government Q&A #31): The RFP Statement of Work requests the contractor to provide “Journeymen” level mechanics. The contractor’s trade classification structure contains no classification of journeymen. As generally stated in paragraphs 3.8 thru 3.8.4 of the SOW the work assignments will be provided to the contractor supervision via TGI for dissemination to contractor’s workforce. Additionally, the contractor is responsible to insure that all work is accomplished IAW with applicable processes and technical and schedule requirements.

[Redacted] proposes to provide qualified supervision and mechanics that meet the requirements of the SOW and minimal of (3) years of experience in support of this RFP. Is this approach acceptable to the Government?

The Government response was: The proposal should provide qualified supervision and mechanics that meet the requirements of paragraphs 3.8 thru 3.8.4 [sic--should be "3.2"] in the SOW, and have a minimum of (3) years of experience as a Marine Mechanic is acceptable to the Government.

Our concern with this response is that it is not clear if a new requirement has been added for all Offerors to provide Marine Mechanics with at least three years of experience based on one Offeror asking if their own definition of "Journeyman" would be acceptable to the Government. There was no corresponding change to RFP Section 3.2. Please clarify if this question's response to address only the acceptability of the one Offer's approach as requested in their question.

Government Response: The Statement of Work in Section C: was revised as follows:

3.2.1 Journeyman Marine Mechanic Supervisors/Work Leads and Journeyman Marine Mechanics must have 3 years minimum experience, and shall be qualified in: