Government_Response_1-28.pdf

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTORS REQUEST FOR PRE-PROPOSAL INFORMATION

DATE OF RESPONSE: 06 January, 2017 SOLICITATION NO: N50054-16-R-0002

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 001:

Solicitation N50054-16-R-0002 posted today (12/16/17) with a due date of 1/16/17. Giving consideration to the upcoming holidays, and the amount of additional required information by the offeror that hold less than an MSR, the contractor is of the opinion that the minimum bidding time required by the FAR is inadequate. Please consider extending the due date to at least February 16, 2017 to allow for the holidays and the additional information.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 001:

Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the government intends to maintain the solicitation schedule as is. See section L for the specifics pertaining to this solicitation.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 002:

Respectfully request the Government extend proposal due date to 30 JAN 2016 due to Christmas holiday. Request extension be posted to FBO soonest so that contractors are aware of it before the holiday period.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 002:

Please see the government response to contractor question 001.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 003:

Attachment S-3 (Past Performance Questionnaire) requires that we provide a Cost Performance Report (CPR) with each cost-type contract questionnaire.

For two of the cost contracts, Contractor had no flow down of the EVMS clause and we were not required to prepare or submit

CPRs. We were required to submit cost reports in the format of our choosing. Request approval to submit copies of these cost reports in lieu of CPRs or have the CPR requirement removed since this is an FFP type contract?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 003:

This request is acceptable to the government. In light of this change, the government will extend the inquiry period and solicitation.

Please see Solicitation Amend 1 and Attachment S-3 Revision (1).

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 004:

Factor 5: Past Performance requests that all offerors address historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8

(Utilization of Small Business Concerns). Since this is a small business set-aside contract, can this requirement be deleted?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 004:

The requirement will remain. Please submit proposals in accordance with the solicitation.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 005:

Section L, Para. (1.0), Pg. 92 identifies that the contracts will be awarded using a best value source selection process while Section

M, Para. (2.0), Pg. 108 identifies that contracts will be awarded based on Lowest Price Technically Acceptable. Which source selection process will MARMC utilize?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 005:

The government intends to use the Best Value Continuum which includes the LPTA Source Selection Process. This is in accordance with the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Procedures, Guidelines and Information Subpart 215.3—

Source Selection, dated March 31, 2016.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 006:

Section L, “5.0 Proposal Format” provides exceptions with regard to the submission of the information outlined under Volume II for those offerors holding a Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA). This offeror requests a similar exception with regard to the submission of financial data requested in support of Volume III – Other Proposal Information for holders of a MSRA who have demonstrated the financial responsibility to manage concurrent Continuous Maintenance Availabilities and/or concurrent CNO

Availabilities within the last three years as either a prime contractor or a significant subcontractor, the definition of which could be established at the Government’s discretion.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 006:

The requirement for Volume III will remain as written. Holding a MSRA and being financially responsible are mutually exclusive.

The government intends to verify each Offeror’s ability to manage concurrent Continuous Maintenance Availabilities and remain financially viable.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 007:

The Evaluation Criteria does not address the rational for award of Surface Combatants vs. Amphibious Ships or both. If a bidder, or team has significant experience on other classes of ships, e.g. FFG, LCAC, CVN, MSC vessels but is interested migrating to the ships on this contract to support company expansion or replace lost work as other classes are decommissioned or dominated by

MSMO contractors, on what basis would a contractor be awarded both packages or just one or the other. Since so much of the work on these classes has been managed by large business MSMO contractors, many of which are not eligible for this award, much of the experience of eligible small businesses on these classes has been done as a subcontractor and is spread across many different platforms and is smaller than a typical CMAV. Experience with the classes in this solicitation may be extensive and cover both surface and amphibious vessels, but be done as a subcontractor; while their relevant, prime experiences of the intended magnitude

(2k man-days over 30 days) may only be demonstrated on classes not covered in this solicitation. On what basis, will a bidder be given an award for one or the other or both?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 007:

See government response to question 005. Each proposal shall be evaluated on its merits, see section M of the solicitation.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 008:

Prospective bidders have been given one month, including two holidays, to put together a very substantial technical proposal. The success of this proposal effort could very well determine the viability of many Norfolk area ship repair companies, as it appears that this will be the contract vehicle through which a large portion of the available ship repair work will be awarded for the next 5 years.

To the great disadvantage of non-MSR holding small businesses, many of which have just recently made a significant investments in renewing ABRs, agreements which apparently will be of little or no value, the MSR holders are exempt from the technical proposal requirements, presumable being deemed technically acceptable without incurring any further costs; while ABR holders, in general smaller businesses, who are less likely to have the resources to quickly put together a proposal effort of this magnitude in a short time are tasked with a significant and costly proposal effort. Additionally, it is the smaller, but very competent and necessary ship repair companies, that could, if given reasonable time, put together very capable and competitive teams, pooling personnel, and shop resources to form alliances that if given the opportunity, could save the government a significant amount of money. Although this solicitation is technically set-aside for Small Business concerns in accordance with FAR 19.502, there are a couple MSR holding small businesses that have been given a hugely unfair advantage.

Will the government please consider extending the due date for proposals for a month to allow the non-MSR holding companies time to for proper alliances, and put together technical proposals that demonstrate how they will work together to save the government money, and to submit cost proposals that quantify that savings?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 008:

The proposal due date will remain as stated.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 009:

We are ready to send our past performances to our points of contacts; however in the instructions for the past performance questionnaire where it states “or email to:” there is no email address for the contracting officer, Augustine Salvati. Might you have his/her email address or can you help with this?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 009:

Mr. Salvati’s email was inadvertently omitted. His email address is: <augustine.salvati@navy.mil>. This email address will be added to the solicitation in Amendment 2.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 010:

(Reference HQB-2-0010 paragraph 1.0– page 9) Direct production man-hours are defined as skilled labor at the journeyman level expended in direct production. Please confirm that non-journeyman level personnel (i.e. Fire watch/ laborer/ trade helpers) may be used on this contract as appropriate and included in the fully burdened man-day rate.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 010:

A Government response will be forthcoming.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 011:

Reference HQ B-2-0010 paragraph 2 – page 9) In process testing of production work is normally conducted by skilled trade personnel in the course of production – Is it the government’s intention that these hours not be considered production man-hours?

Similarly, end of shift cleaning i.a.w. standard items is completed by production personnel as a normal part of the production efforts

– Is it the government’s intention that these hours not be considered in the production effort

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 011:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 012:

(Reference Section C 8.0, page 19) Defines “minor delay” as eight (8) hours or less in duration. 8 hours represents loss of a shift – while a one day delay for an individual may have minimal impact – an 8 hour delay for a crew may cause significant impact particularly in the case of critical path work and should not be considered “normal”. Will the government consider the four (4) hour vice eight (8) hours as the criteria for a minor delay? Will the government provide compensation for delays of this nature or is the expectation that this be considered in development of fully burdened rate? If part of the fully burdened rate, will the government provide a percentage of hours delays considered “normal” for a typical CMAV?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 012:

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 013:

(Reference Section L, Factor 2/3, p.97) Addressed the requirement to demonstrated management/ organizational capabilities and trade & facility resources necessary to complete at least two (2) concurrent CMAV work packages. Additionally a CMAV is defined in Section M Factor 4 of including 2000 man days of production effort for completion during a 30 days window, and Factor

3 indicates at least 50% of the trade personnel utilize their own personnel. However, this RFP covers a large number of surface ship classes with CMAV packages of varying size, scope and complexity and in some cases unique trade skillsets. Would the government consider modifying this factor to include a notional work package to enable the offeror to better communicate their execution approach?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 013:

The requirement will remain. Please submit proposals in accordance with the solicitation

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 014:

(Reference Factor, 3 Page 112, Section M) – SWLIN table breakdown includes previously identified critical systems – which the government does not anticipate tasking work on. Is it the government’s intention that a successful offeror possess in-house capabilities for work on these systems and/or have established subcontractors in place to perform this work? Or will an established purchasing process with the ability to subcontract specialty contractors in place satisfy this requirement?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 014:

The Government will accept a contractors capability to utilize established purchasing processes to subcontract specialty contractors to satisfy the requirement technically.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 015:

(Reference Section L, Factor 4 Page 98 and Section M, Factor 4 page 111) – This section indicates that the offeror’s relevant management and technical experience will be evaluated using the Management & Technical Experience Data Sheet provided in

Attachment S-2 of the solicitation. Attachment S-2 has two pages the first page addresses Management & Technical Experience, the second page addresses Technical Capabilities. The solicitation does not address use of the information requested on page 2 of attachment S-2. Additionally, the header information is the same on each form. Is the page 2 (Technical Capabilities Data Sheet) of attachment S-2 required to be submitted in support of this factor? If the two sheets are required may they be combined so as not to repeat the contract information / header information?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 015:

Page 2 (Technical Capabilities Data Sheet) is not required. Only Submit page one (1) of the two (2) as stipulated in Section

L. A corrected copy of S-2 will be uploaded to FBO.gov as part of Amendment 2.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 016:

Reference Page 9 – The Machinist (inside and outside) should be separate from Welding.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 016:

The Government acknowledges the bidder may have these work functions broken into two separate functions. If the bidder has these broken into separate labor functions, propose the associated hours as such.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 017:

Reference HQ C-2-0010, Page 23 – We do not think there is a need to provide crew berthing for a CMAV or Emergent effort.

Please confirm.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 017:

Providing the crew berthing will vary for each delivery order depending on the requirements of the availability.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 018:

Reference HQ C-2-0056, Page 32 – Test and Trials - We do not think there is a need to provide dock trials and fast cruise for a

CMAV or Emergent effort unless on critical systems; this requirement is not intended for the non-complex effort.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 018:

Providing dock trials and fast cruise for CMAV’s will vary for each delivery order depending on the requirements of the availability.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 019:

Reference 5252.217-9107 paragraph (b) Growth and New Work – Paragraph (b) states that if a fair and reasonable price may not be negotiated with the initial prime contractor an option is to conduct a separate, competitive procurement for growth or new work….

“The initial prime Contractor and other MSRA holders may enter into this competition.”

Will the government allow other MARMC IDIQ-MAC holders enter into this competition? Does the government intend to allow other than small business contractors to enter into this competition?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 019:

The type of competitive procurement that will be utilized will be decided on a case by case basis depending on the work required.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 020:

Reference Page 60 – Tug and Pilot services – Work is not to be completed in the Contractor’s Facility? Recommend this clause be deleted; not applicable to this work.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 020:

Tug and Pilot services may vary for each delivery order depending on the requirement of the availability.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 021:

Reference Page 92, Section L Paragraph 1.0 – States the Small Business Size standard for NAICS 336611 is 1500 employees.

Request government confirm that the applicable small business size standard for this NAICS is 1,250 employees.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 021:

Confirmed. As per the sba.gov size standards table dated February 26, 2016.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 022:

Reference Page 9, paragraph 3 - Implies that OT should be included in the fixed hourly rate – Will the government provide an expected OT percentage?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 022:

No, the Government will not be providing an expected OT percentage.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 023:

Reference Section L, Paragraph 1.0 states that the IDIQ-MAC will “be comprised of a minimum of two (2) responsible awardees

(contractors) for each class of ship (for a total of four contract awards) who will compete for Delivery Orders to provide surface ship repair…” Additionally, the government is only requesting one set of proposals ….and “Offerors may elect to submit a proposal on either Surface Combatant MAC or Amphibious MAC or both.”

The solicitation does not provide details on what is required for submission to differentiate a proposal for one or both of the MACs.

The solicitation does not have separate CLINs for the Surface Combatant and Amphibious MACs. Additionally, there is no indication of what the source selection process will be to distinguish award of one over the other.

Will the government provide additional details on the separation of the Surface Combatant MAC and the Amphibious MAC to include (1) revised CLIN structure (2) estimated size of a Surface Combatant CMAV (3) estimated size of an Amphibious Ship

CMAV (3) basis for award for the individual MACs.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 023:

No, the CLIN structure will not be revised nor will the Government will not be providing estimates of Surface Combatant or Amphibious CMAV’s. Please see government response to question 005.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 024:

Reference Attachment S-3 (Past Performance Questionnaire) requires that we provide a Cost Performance Report (CPR) with each cost-type contract questionnaire. Cost Performance Reports are not generally required for submission of FFP proposals. Will the

Government Consider eliminating the requirement to submit CPR as part of the Past Performance Questionnaire?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 024:

No, the requirement will not be eliminated but may be modified IAW the Government response to question 003.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 025:

In Section L, Paragraph 5.0, Volume 2, Factor 5, the solicitation provides guidance on the “Recent” and “Relevant” criteria for Past

Performance. Within the paragraph describing “Recent” experience, it states, ”If the offeror has not completed up to five (5)

Government availabilities within the last three (3) years as of the date of the initial solicitation, information on recent and relevant subcontracts and/or commercial contracts may be submitted.”

Master Ship Repair Agreement (MSRA) holders for NAVSEA are subject to accomplish the requirements of several NAVSEA

Standard Items (NSI) for which companies accomplishing subcontracts and/or commercial contracts are not required to accomplish.

For instance, although those contract situations may require companies to follow Production Schedules and Test & Inspection

Plans, they do not require them to develop and maintain these documents in accordance with Navy Standards. In addition to the above mention requirements, MSRA holders go through a stringent audit cycle and are required to maintain a specific structure in order to be in compliance with the Navy and to maintain such certification active.

Military Sealift Command (MSC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Army, and the US Coast Guard

(USCG) are all government agencies that require ship repair services; each work to a separate standards. These agency standards are similar but are not as as stringent as Navy Standard Items.

Will subcontractors and commercial contractors be audited by the government to the same standard (MSRA) prior to award?

Can you define what a commercial contract is? examples:

Can you expand on the eligibility requirements as it pertains to Past Performance?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 025:

No, please refer to sections L & M of the solicitation.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 026:

Page 95 Volume II factor 2 and page 97 factor 3 state MSRA holders do not have to submit further information in response to this factor. Being that ABR holders are required to have the same capabilities as an MSRA holder as it pertains to these two factors.

Will the Government also delete the submittal requirements for current ABR holders?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 026:

No. An ABR will not satisfy the Navy’s contract requirements of the EM/CM sufficiently. The MSR is not a requirement to win award. If a bidder is not a MSRA holder, the bidder must submit the proposal information requested in lieu of an

MSR agreement.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 027:

Page 96 Volume II Factor 2 Hazardous Material/Waste Control requests contractor to furnish an appropriate state/federal agency issued hazardous waste generator number. Contractor contacted Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VA—DEQ to obtain a hazardous waste generator number. VA-DEQ Director stated a hazardous waste generator is not required and we should be using the waste generator number at the government facility. Will the Government delete the requirement for contractor to have a state/federal agency issued hazardous waste generator number?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 027:

The requirement will Remain. Location of actual repairs to government material/equipment will vary for each delivery order depending on the requirements of the availability.

CONTRACTOR QUESTION NUMBER 028:

Will Government accept hand delivered copies of Proposal?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONTRACTOR QUESTION 028:

Yes, hand carried proposals will be accepted at:

MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL MAINTENANCE CENTER

ATTN: Mr. Roger Gwyn, Contract Specialist

Naval Station Norfolk

Contracting Department, Code 411

9727 Avionics Loop

Norfolk, VA 23511