140PS125R0009_Amendment_003_Solicitation_Question_Response_0003.pdf

Park/PMIS: ISRO 295911 Solicitation: 140PS125R0009 Amendment: 0003 – Answers to Questions

Included in this amendment are updated attachments labeled:

• DI-004_REV 5_DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT

• 140PS125R0009 Amendment 003 Solicitation Question_Response

• 140PS125R0009 ISRO Ranger IV Clause Section Amendment Three

QUESTION ONE: Period of Performance ends on March 1, 2029. This should be extended to include the 365-day warranty period.

ANSWER ONE: Our system required a date to be placed in the delivery date field in order to post the solicitation. This will be adjusted based upon the actual award date and 32 month. Note that the period of performance of the contract and the delivery date are not the same date, the overall contract period of performance will reflect the warranty period and any awarded options.

QUESTION TWO: We note the vessel is to be classed as a passenger vessel. However, there is meaningful cargo that will be transported by Ranger IV, including fuel as a cargo. Has the vessel designer and/or ABS approached the USCG and local OCMI about potential cargo vessel rules that might apply? This has been a significant challenge on previous multi-mission vessels where regulatory uncertainty exists due to the mix of cargo/passenger vessel requirements.

ANSWER TWO: ABS has reviewed several conceptual design documents and provided approval in principle for those documents. The current vessel, Ranger III, also carries passengers, cargo and fuel, and the NPS has agreements in place with the USCG and local OCMI. The local OCMI is aware of the intent to produce a new Ranger IV.

QUESTION THREE: The Government's request for 7-days advance notice for inspection and testing activities is impractical. Request this be changed to 24-hours to align with standard commercial practice. The MVPM will have an inspection team onsite full-time that can react to 24-hour notice. 14-days for overseas testing is practical and should be considered.

ANSWER THREE: The Government desires to be present for all major and final inspection and test activities, including but not limited to final painting, machinery testing, system testing, navigation system testing, dock trials, sea trials, etc., and requires the required notice for these activities to plan for travel. Clause H.10(e) of the solicitation requires the Contractor to submit a copy of the schedule for the Ranger IV, including the critical path items and progress to date, on at least a monthly basis; this schedule should include major and final inspection and testing activities as critical path items. 30-day notice for overseas testing is required due to the time it takes for Government to receive overseas travel approvals. The Government does not intend to witness every preliminary inspection, welding inspection, and similar intermediate inspections and tests that will be performed by the MVPM.

QUESTION FOUR: Several shipyards that are qualified to build the Ranger IV are unwilling or unable to provide 100% bonding for this project. Recommend the MVPM and NSP negotiate a reduced bonding amount that includes other financial protections for the Government, including things such as reserve funds, 3rd party financial audits, etc.

ANSWER FOUR: See 52.212-4 (g) Addendum and Section L – Volume II Business and Price Proposal 3. Contents – Payment Milestone Plan is changed to Commercial Interim Payments. Offerors may propose alternative payment protections.

QUESTION FIVE: This section implies that NPS has the right to prevent the MVPM from beginning the development of the detail design and production engineering packages until such time that NPS approves the functional package. Of course, NPS will be involved in the Plan Review process and will have 14-days to review functional drawings, which is in accordance with commercial best practices. However, the MVPM must be allowed to (at its own risk) proceed into detail design and production engineering without the Government's approval, otherwise the 32-month delivery target and subsequent penalties cannot be accepted by the MVPM.

ANSWER FIVE: The government is okay with the MVPM proceeding into detail design and production engineering if with acknowledgement that it is at their own risk.

QUESTION SIX: The Government will have the right to review/comment on functional drawings and the 3D-model, but NPS will not be invited to review production engineering drawings. This is not customary and will add unnecessary administration and delay to the program. Please confirm this can be removed as item (d) on page 27.

ANSWER SIX: The Government does not have the intent of delaying the program with reviews. However, the Government will retain the right to review key production engineering drawings. Reviews are anticipated for production drawings that impact ship layout, cargo layout and loading, crew and passenger experience (including material selections, color selections, and other finishes), mooring equipment installation, bridge and controls layout, navigation equipment installation, and other production engineering drawings where final design must be coordinated with existing infrastructure.

QUESTION SEVEN: Is there an IT network requirement on this ship? There is no GFE according to the solicitation, and we do not see that an IT network is required by the bidding specification. The solicitation indicates the MVPM is responsible for obtaining an ATO for the IT network, but it's not clear that one exists.

ANSWER SEVEN:

Section 410 of the Bidding Specifications requires IT cabling run and installed in all shipboard spaces. The NPS will provide the GFE infrastructure and be responsible for finalizing the GFE installation. All final IT installations are expected to fall under existing ATOs, and a new ATO is not anticipated to be needed.

410 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPACES

A Centrally located IT/server room, where all IT/Ethernet/ fiber cablings come to a central point room shall be located adjacent to the Ship’s Office, an area not subject to high temperatures. Bulkheads in this space shall be lined with joiner bulkhead material suitable for attaching wall-mounted server racks. Ventilation shall be supplied to this space for heat mitigation. IT cabling shall be run and installed in all shipboard spaces, even if not used at time of launch. Extra runs shall be provided to pilot house and engine room. Adequate space shall be left in cable runs for future expansion.

QUESTION EIGHT We ask that NPS consider removing the requirement for bid bonds. This is common in the construction industry, but bid bonds are atypical for commercial shipbuilding procurements. We expect this requirement alone will limit participation in the solicitation.

ANSWER EIGHT: The bid bond requirement is stricken from the solicitation.

QUESTION NINE: It is unclear why CAS compliance is required for this procurement. NPS is competitively sourcing the MVPM and contemplating a fixed price award. Our organization is CAS compliant and a disclosure statement is available, but we would appreciate NPS explanation for why CAS compliance is required for this procurement.

ANSWER NINE: Clause 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications is removed from the requirement and is not applicable.

QUESTION TEN: We appreciate your answers to the first round of questions released on Sept 30th. Regarding Question #2, the response is unclear and requires further explanation. NPS states, "The MVPM is not expected to negotiate on behalf of the Government", which is counter to this acquisition model whereby the MVPM will issue a commercial subcontract to the shipyard. Unless we misunderstand the intent, NPS would not be negotiating directly with the shipyard. The MVPM can obtain indicative pricing from potential shipyards prior to the December 12th due date, but this pricing would be non-binding until NPS and the MVPM negotiate the terms of the prime contract. Some of these terms would undoubtedly flow down to the shipyard subcontractor and affect the final pricing. Additionally, tariff impacts on continuously impacting the total cost of construction.

ANSWER TEN: This will be a firm-fixed-price contract. It is intended that the proposal include an MVPM and shipyard under one contract. Pricing will be negotiated and agreed to upon award and clause 52.229-3 Federal, State and Local Taxes addresses the appropriate mechanism to address tariffs post award.

QUESTION ELEVEN: Would you be able to clarify the following statement from DI- 004_REV_4_DESIGN_SUMMARY_REPORT ? The proposed integrated electric system generators are capable of variable speed operation rated to generate 480 VAC. The generator operating frequency is as per the manufacturer’s recommendation, however, will not exceed 1800 RPM. The ship service power distribution is using 60 Hz frequency. This statement is seemingly in conflict with the electrical system arrangement described in DI- 031_REV_2_ELECTRICAL_SYSTEM_ONE_LINE_DIAGRAM. In the reference single line diagram, the 200 kW gensets connect directly to the 480 Vac, 60 Hz switchboard. This arrangement requires fixed-speed genset operation by default. Is it permissible to assume fixed-speed operation is the intended use of the gensets, given the detailed one-line diagram provided? An alternative would be to interface the gensets to a DC grid through a frequency converter, which is possible, but would be a departure from the concept outlined in elsewhere in the solicitation.

ANSWER ELEVEN: The reference to variable-speed gensets in the design summary report is an outlier and is inconsistent with other design documents. Fixed-speed generator operation is permissible as shown in the one-line diagram. The design summary report will be updated to reflect this change.

QUESTION TWELVE: Upon review of the Solicitation, we noted a 32-month time for delivery, this includes both completion of engineering for the vessel as well as production. As there is a significant amount of design work required this appears to be an overly aggressive schedule which would be difficult for most yards to accomplish in the 32 months. Will the NPS amend this schedule providing additional build time, as an example an additional 6-12 months? It is also noted that the NPS has this broken out with a CLIN for Marine Vessel Project Manager, does this imply that only a company meeting the required skill sets can bid, or can a builder with personnel holding these skill sets bid with out an outside Program management firm?

ANSWER TWELVE: The government is not amending the 32 month requirement. No this does not imply that it must be a separate entity. The Marine Vessel Project Manager needs to meet the requirements stated in the solicitation. Any builder that provides an offer must follow the requirements of Clause H.6 Organizational Conflict of Interest, such that any personnel performing the program management work can do so independently and without impairment of the shipyard management itself, so that the final ship and all quality control meet all requirements. The offeror should address their approach in the appropriate subfactors of Volume I Non-Price Proposal.

QUESTION THIRTEEN: Shipyards rarely provide an extended warranty beyond the one-year hull and labor typical of the industry. The requested three-year extended warranty appears to also cover normal and routine maintenance items.

We request the Government to provide additional details on what is being requested as part of this package. We have seen other programs where extended warranty is requested for major equipment such as main engines, gears, and generators. Is this acceptable to the Government?

ANSWER THIRTEEN: Extended warranty and normal/routing maintenance are covered in separate optional line items.

Option CLIN 0050 is for a three-year extended warranty. If awarded, as defined in CLIN 0050, the warranty defined in Clause H.7 will be extended to a period of three years (1,095 days) after the Actual Acceptance Date. This includes the Contractor’s warranty as well as all warranties issued by third parties for any equipment and materials purchased by the Contractor or its subcontractors and suppliers at any tier and installed on the vessel. This warranty will cover defects in workmanship, materials, and equipment. The warranty will not cover routine maintenance, repair due to ordinary wear and tear, or repair due to negligent operation.

Option CLIN 0060 is for a three-year extended service contract. If awarded, as specified in CLIN 0060, the Contractor shall travel to ISRO Headquarters in Houghton, MI, and inspect and perform periodic maintenance/service for all shipboard mechanical equipment (including main engines, generators, propulsion system components, bow thruster, deck crane, and mooring equipment), including consumables and parts requiring period replacement, to cover a period of three years or 3,000 hours after the Actual Acceptance Date, whichever is greater.

QUESTION FOURTEEN: The ‘Hybrid Ready’ requirement is unclear and raises concerns about the ability of the VCM to fulfil the contract. Currently ABS is reviewing and updating substantial portions of the MVR rules to account for near real-time changes in OEM requirements and recommendations. Meaning delivering a ‘hybrid ready’ vessel is complex since by the time the NPS chooses to install the equipment it is possible that the vessel will not meet the then current requirement, and the installation is likely a large enough modification to the vessel it would require meeting the updated standards. Can the Government confirm compliance with requirements applicable at the time of contract award is acceptable?

ANSWER FOURTEEN: A “hybrid-ready” vessel that is compliant with the applicable requirements at the time of contract award is acceptable.

QUESTION FIFTEEN: The contract delivery date of March 2029 is outside the permitted delivery exclusion months of December to April, this makes it impossible for the contractor to perform under the terms of the contract. Would the Government consider making the delivery date later of April 1, 2029, or when the Great Lakes are navigable for the Ranger IV?

ANSWER FIFTEEN: Our system required a date to be placed in the delivery date field in order to post the solicitation.

This will be adjusted based upon the actual award date and 32 month. Note that the period of performance of the contract and the delivery date are not the same date, the overall contract period of performance will reflect the warranty period and any awarded options.

QUESTION SIXTEEN: The list of mandatory spare parts is extreme, and will add substantially to the Governments cost, while requiring the VCM to inventory and manage an extensive list of items well beyond what would be expected for a vessel this size and complexity. Would the Government consider removing or reducing the requirements to the spare parts expected for the first three months of operation?

ANSWER SIXTEEN: The Government will not remove or reduce the spare parts requirements at this time. The spare parts specified in Section C.4.2 of the solicitation shall be provided.

QUESTION SEVENTEEN: There is a requirement to comply with Cost Accounting Standard Clauses in the FARs.

However, these clauses are not appropriate for a Firm Fixed Price contract and are typically only used for Cost Plus or Time and Material contract. Once a price has been agreed between the Government and the VCM for delivery it is also not clear what benefit the Government would derive from these accounting requirements, but they will increase the cost of compliance and thus the cost of the program. Would the Government consider removing them?

ANSWER SEVENTEEN: Clause 52.230-1 Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certifications is removed from the requirement and is not applicable.

QUESTION EIGHTEEN: There is no mechanism in the contract to account for changes in tariff rates and product availability due to rapid changes in the US Federal tariff rates. This forces the VCM and shipyards to take an extremely conservative approach in pricing all materials and supplies due to the volatility in the US’ tariff rates. Would the Government consider adding a contract clause ensuring tariff exemption, or provide other assurance that the Government will accept the risk of changes to tariff rates over the pendency of the program?

ANSWER EIGHTEEN: Clause 52.229-3 Federal, State and Local Taxes addresses the appropriate mechanism to address tariffs post award. Section L is updated to require any tariffs included in the proposal be separated out in the Schedule of Values submitted in Volume III Business and Price Proposal.

QUESTION NINETEEN: Soliciting shipyards to construct the Ranger IV has been a difficult process. We have submitted requests for quotes to construct Ranger IV to six qualified shipyards. Only three of the six agreed to move forward with the other three citing the continuing risk profile of the program. Due to the difficulties in soliciting shipyards to bid the Ranger IV and the need for responses to the other questions presented here, would the Government provide an eight

(8) week extension for bids?

ANSWER NINETEEN: The due date is extended to January 2, 2026.