J -- SOURCES SOUGHT FOR SHIPBOARD PRESERVATION TEAMS FOR PAINTING/ COATING MAINTENANCE

Notice Date

January 8, 2001

Contracting Office

Department of the Navy, Naval Sea Systems Command, 2531 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22242-5160

ZIP Code

22242-5160

Solicitation Number

N/A

Point of Contact

11. (0242) Sandra Gordon (703) 602-0203, Ext 433; Contracting Officer, Pete Troia

Description

Overview of Planned Preservation Team Services Procurement 1. The Naval Sea Systems Command plans to issue a competitive solicitation for shipboard preservation team services. Whether it will be a set-aside for small business has not yet been determined. Awards are planned to be made by 1 October 2001. These services would essentially involve the preparation and coating of shipboard interior and exterior spaces and equipment with Navy-approved coatings designed to prolong the useful life of the ship and its equipment. The contract awards will be for one base year and four option years. While these contracts will be for a period of performance of five years each, over a ten-year period the program is estimated at over $300 million. 2. The contracts being planned are cost-plus-incentive-fee type, for term (level-of-effort (LOE)) services. The CPIF structure would be based on cost only, with minimum and maximum fees, and a share ratio(s) between them. Any negative performance incentives as discussed in paragraph 11 below would not be strictly part of a "textbook multiple-incentive" CPIF structure. In a textbook CPIF-structure sense, the contracts will be "cost-incentive only". 3. The contractor teams would operate out of the homeports shown in the paragraph 5 table below. There will be a separate team for each of the indicated types of ships. Each team will have a contract for a yearly minimum quantity of hours and a yearly option quantity for up to the estimated maximum hours for the remainder of the year. In addition, each contract will have a "back-up" option for up to the estimated maximum -- less the minimum -- hours for each entire year. 4. Preferably, there will be a different contractor for each team, but the Government's best value source selection may determine otherwise. "All or none" offers, whether by ship-type, port, or region, will be rejected since the Government desires to have a multitude of qualified contractors. Accordingly, multiple awards will be made, with a range of from two (2) to seven (7) awards per region, and a possible maximum of 25 awards overall. (Note: these numbers also reflect "secondary" contracts, as discussed below.) Although it is intended that each team will work primarily on one type of ship, the statement of work (SOW) in each contract will require the capability to work on the other ship types as well should the need arise. 5. Table of Estimated Preservation Team Services Requirements. Legend "M" = minimum quantity "guaranteed"* each year for the ship type. "O" = option for up to the remainder-of-the-year maximum hours for the ship type. "BO" = back-up option for up to the entire year maximum (less the minimum(s)) hours for the ship type. NOTES: (1) With regard to the "O" and "BO" options, even when exercised, the Government will only buy the quantity of hours for which it has funds, hence the term "up to" in describing the number of hours in those options. (2) Primary contracts may be designated as secondary contracts, and secondary contracts may be designated as primary contracts, conceivably flip-flopping each year, at the sole discretion of the contracting officer in his subjective judgment of each contractor's performance. (3) Only one secondary contract is planned to be awarded in multiple-team ports. (*) It is anticipated that a contractor would not perform the minimum hours ("M") only in the event of a non-exercise of a yearly option or a termination for default before the minimum hours were fulfilled. Estimated Hours Per Year Primary Secondary Contract Contract North East Region: Groton, Connecticut: one (1) submarine team (non-SSBN) . 2,253 (M) 2,253 (M) 22,534 (O) 22,534 (O) 24,787 (BO) 24,787 (BO) Norfolk, Virginia: one (1) aircraft carrier team 5,720 (M) 5,720 (M) 57,200 (O) 57,200 (O) 62,920 (BO) 62,920 (BO) two (2) surface ship teams, each with ...2,947 (M) 32,413 (O) 35,360 (BO) one (1) submarine team (non-SSBN) ...2,253 (M) 24,787 (O) 27,040 (BO) South East Region: Kings Bay, Georgia: one (1) submarine team (SSBN) ..2,600 (M) 2,600 (M) 26,000 (O) 26,000 (O) 28,600 (BO) 28,600 (BO) Mayport, Florida: one (1) aircraft carrier team .5,720 (M) 5,720 (M) 57,200 (O) 57,200 (O) 62,920 (BO) 62,920 (BO) Ingleside, Texas: one (1) surface ship team ..2,947 (M) 2,947 (M) 29,466 (O) 29,466 (O) 32,413 (BO) 32,413 (BO) Pacific North West Region: Bangor, Washington: one (1) submarine team (SSBN) 2,600 (M) 2,600 (M) 26,000 (O) 26,000 (O) 28,600 (BO) 28,600 (BO) Bremerton/Everett, Washington: one (1) carrier team 5,720 (M) 5,720 (M) 57,200 (O) 57,200 (O) 62,920 (BO) 62,920 (BO) South West Region: San Diego, California: one (1) carrier team 5,720 (M) 5,720 (M) 57,200 (O) 57,200 (O) 62,920 (BO) 62,920 (BO) two (2) surface ship teams, each with .2,947 (M) 32,413 (O) 35,360 (BO) one (1) submarine team (non-SSBN) 2,253 (M) 24,787 (O) 27,040 (BO) Pacific Region: Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: one (1) surface ship team .2,947 (M) 2,947 (M) 29,466 (O) 29,466 (O) 32,413 (BO) 32,413 (BO) one (1) submarine team (non-SSBN) ..2,253 (M) 24,787 (O) 27,040 (BO) 6. As indicated above, a secondary contract is planned to be selected for each port. Thus, the maximum number of secondary contracts would be 9, as shown below: -- North East: 2 -- South East: 3 -- Pacific North West: 2 -- South West: 1 -- Pacific: 1 Secondary contracts are planned to be awarded to the contractors offering the "next-best-value" in each port for the ship classes showing secondary contracts for them in the paragraph 5 table above. 7. Secondary contracts will be awarded to protect the Government in the event that: a. there is poor performance of quality or efficiency by the primary contractor; or b. the primary contractor's hours are determined by the contracting officer to be insufficient to handle the workload; or c. the primary contractor's capacity is determined by the contracting officer to be insufficient to handle an emergent increase in workload. It would work as follows. Each contract, including the secondary contracts, would receive in each year the minimum number of hours ("M"), which amount is estimated to be sufficient to perform the required services for a particular ship-type in a particular port. Each contract, including the secondarys, would also have an option ("O") for additional hours in each year. The option "O" is intended to provide the number of hours necessary to perform the contracted services on all other ships scheduled for work in a given port in a year. As planned only the primary contractors will have their "O" options exercised, if at all. Provided the primary contractors perform efficiently and effectively and work-level projections prove accurate, the secondary contractors will not have their "O"s exercised. In the event of poor performance by a primary, as determined in the subjective discretion of the contracting officer, the secondary contractor in the same port as the poorly performing primary will have its "O" option exercised to provide for services on the balance of ships to be serviced in that year in that port. In that event -- i.e., where the contracting officer determines that poor performance merits the exercise of the secondary contract's option "O" -- the primary contract may not receive any more tasking for the balance of the program year. (Note: the level of poor performance that will trigger the exercise of the secondary contract's "O" option and the cessation of the primary's performance for the balance of the program year need not be the same level as that which would constitute a basis for a default termination.) In addition, each contract would have an additional back-up option ("BO") to provide for contractual coverage for any emergent requirements. Thus, a then-secondary contractor would generally have its option(s) exercised only if the need arises as a result of: (1) poor performance by the then-primary contractor; or (2) increased port workload that the then-primary contractor's hours are insufficient to cover; or (3) increased port workload that the then-primary contractor's capacity is insufficient to cover. The exercising of the "O" or "BO" options, as is the case with all options, will be at the unilateral discretion of the contracting officer. An example follows. 8. Example. (Note: The example has been excluded from this CBD notice due to space limitations. It may be found as part of the entire overview at the following website: http://www.contracts.hq.navsea.navy.mil/home.html by clicking on "Information Docs". 9. To reiterate, each year the contracting officer will decide which contractors are to have their remainder-of-the-year "O" options exercised. That PCO decision will be based on his subjective judgment as to the best interests of the Government. The contractors not having their remainder-of-the-year options exercised will then become secondarys for the rest of the year. The same process of selection for primarys and secondarys will be made at the beginning of each of the four option years of the contracts. Accordingly, primary contractors and secondary contractors may alternate, or not, depending on their performance. Normally, barring poor performance, initially-selected primary contractors will continue through the basic and option years as the primary contractors, and the initial secondary contractors will continue as the secondary contractors. Normally, each will get to perform their "guaranteed" minimum hours for each of the five years. However, which contractor's "O" and "BO" options get exercised will be unilaterally determined by the contracting officer in his subjective judgment as to the best interests of the Government. Exercise of "BO" options will be a function of workload requirements. 10. As indicated in the example in paragraph 8 above, the contract will contain a provision that the Government may unilaterally issue a "no-cost cancellation" modification to the contract that proportionately changes the target cost and target fee to coincide with the percentage reduction in hours. Actually, since the Government is not obligated to buy the maximum quantity of hours, such a "reduction" or "cancellation" is really only a formal limitation on the hours it will buy during the year. 11. The RFP may also include a Quality Surveillance Plan (QSP), or other documents, in which objective, i.e., measurable, standards of quality for the work to be performed will be set forth. The failure of a contractor to meet those standards may result, at the contracting officer's discretion, in either: (a) correction by the contractor at no increase in target cost or fee; (b) a reduction in the contract's target fee; or (c) a limitation on further tasking of hours for the contractor to perform services for the remainder of the year. Under these circumstances, a contract modification would be issued to reduce the target cost and target fee by a percentage equal to the number of hours "cancelled" divided by the total hours authorized prior to the "cancellation" (see paragraphs 8 and 10 above). 12. In addition to the surveillance of the contractor's performance as to quality, the Government will consider the contractor's performance as to efficiency. That is, whether it has worked efficiently to accomplish the workload in a timely manner, or instead -- for example -- has spent an excessive number of hours for the spaces covered, or too few to get the job done on time. The same remedy as discussed in paragraph 11(c) above would apply, as subjectively determined by the contracting officer. 13. A MOST IMPORTANT NOTE: in view of the cost-reimbursement nature of the contracts, the contractor's accounting system MUST be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract in order to be eligible for award. 14. The source selection evaluation would be based on a specified labor mix for each team (for evaluation purposes only), with evaluation criteria that includes Past Performance, Technical, and Management, as well as Cost/Price with cost realism. A likely sub-factor is "Team Fielding Capability". That would address the capability of the contractor to assemble a preservation team(s) for a ship-type(s) other than the one for which it primarily received its award. In addition, the RFP is expected to include pertinent wage determinations issued by the Department of Labor. 15. The hours to be used for the contracts' source selection evaluation will be based on the contractor teams working 40 hours per week, for the basic year and the four option years. The minimum hours will be the hours estimated to do one ship, based on the labor mix hours designated for each ship-type as used in the source selection evaluation. 16. Should any dispute arise, including those as to whether the contractor's performance has been unacceptable, the RFP will contain an Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) process that hopefully would avoid drawn-out, costly disputes that could lead to even costlier litigation. While the contractors remain responsible for quality control of their work, a QSP or other documents may be used to set forth the procedures the Government will use for the surveillance and measurement of the quality and efficiency of the contractor's work. The Government's quality surveillance teams, while normally comprised of in-house personnel, may also be comprised of third-party contractor personnel hired under separate contracts (apart from this RFP). 17. It is envisioned that when a ship becomes available for work to be done on it, the Government's Site Task Manager (normally on the Navy Type Commander's staff) will notify the contracting officer's representative (COR) that a technical instruction (TI) needs to be issued to the contractor. The TI will direct the contractor as to the details (i.e., time, place, etc) of the work to be done. 18. The acquisition approach provided here is subject to change as a result of industry comments and further refinement by the Government. Consequently, the terms, conditions, and provisions of any RFP issued will control, notwithstanding anything in this synopsis. 19. QUESTIONS FOR POTENTIAL OFFERORS: -- For a size standard of one thousand (1000) employees, are you a Large or Small Business? -- What ports are you interested in and would likely limit your offer to? -- Do you consider the procurement plan above to be fair and reasonable? -- If not, why not? -- What problems do you foresee with this plan, if any? -- What recommendations would you make to resolve them? 20. It is requested that potential offerors provide their answers to the above questions, and any additional comments, questions, and/or recommendations to the following e-mail addresses by 16 January 2001: Troiapj@navsea.navy.mil, with copy to: Naglegl@navsea.navy.mil, and Gordonsp@navsea.navy.mil. 21. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.*****

Record

Loren Data Corp. 20010110/JSOL007.HTM (W-008 SN50A3P4)