Questions for Industry.docx

Design and Construction of Class C Vessels

Request for Information (RFI) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Detail Design and Construction of Class C Vessels The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is not at this time seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The information is requested for planning purposes only, subject to FAR Clause 52.215-3, entitled "Request for Information for Planning Purposes." Only material suitable for internal government distribution shall be submitted. Any proprietary information should be marked accordingly. The U.S. Government will protect all proprietary information received from respondents, and distribution of any material will be based on a strict need-to-know basis. No classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response to this RFI. The Government reserves the right to use any information provided by respondents for any purpose deemed necessary and legally appropriate, including using technical information provided by respondents in any resultant solicitation. However, note that the submissions may be subject to review by experts outside of the civil service such as NOAA contractors, each of whom would sign non-disclosure agreements as required. This exchange of information must be consistent with procurement integrity requirements (See FAR 3.104). Respondents to this RFI may include potential offerors, end users, Government acquisition and supporting personnel, and others with an interest in the conduct or outcome of the acquisition.

Written responses to the questions are requested by August 29, 2025 by close of business and are requested to be submitted to the Contract Specialist at chris.meconnahey@noaa.gov Please limit responses to no more than 10 pages.

Programmatic and Acquisition Strategy

1. Does your company have a “parent craft” design that you intend to propose or adapt for this program? If so, please provide a high-level overview (placemat-level) of the design, highlighting its key characteristics, including its capabilities and performance relating to the draft RFP requirements .

2. What are the primary risks and opportunities your company foresees in adapting a parent craft design versus pursuing a clean-sheet design for this program? Please address specific impacts each approach may have on schedule, cost and compliance with the draft RFP and statement of requirements.

3. For a vessel acquisition program of this complexity, what acquisition strategy would you recommend to best balance schedule assurance with effective risk management? Specifically, what major schedule and risk drivers do you foresee under the following competing approaches:

a. The Government establishing firm delivery dates; and

b. The Government allows offerors to propose their own schedule and design milestones.

4. The Government anticipates awarding a Phase I contract for preliminary and contract design with a total period of performance of 18 months. What major design milestones do you anticipate during this period, and what challenges, if any, do you foresee in meeting this schedule?

Procurement and Commercial Approach

5. Total ownership cost and operational availability are key drivers for NOAA. From an industry perspective, how could the contract be structured to best support the following objectives?

a. Optimize fuel and energy efficiency across the full operational profile or at least for the mission-driving segments of the profile;

b. Increase operational availability of the vessel over its service life;

c. Ensure high reliability of integrated scientific mission systems, particularly those critical to mission success; and

d. Ensure the maturity and reliability of the propulsion drive train and continuous power distribution system throughout design, integration, and testing.

6. Based on the draft RFP and statement of requirements, what would you anticipate as the estimated construction cost and production schedule for a three-ship acquisition? Please specify any key assumptions behind your estimate (e.g., design maturity, production start date, workforce availability, supply chain factors), and highlight any major cost or schedule drivers that could impact delivery performance.

7. Are there any specific contract requirements, clauses, or best practices you would recommend incorporating or eliminating to help substantially reduce overall procurement costs?

8. What systems or components do you anticipate being the longest-lead items or primary schedule-risk drivers for this acquisition? What mitigation strategies would you recommend for acquisition planning, contracting and/or production to ensure timely ship delivery?

9. Given the Government’s intent to obtain unlimited data rights in this acquisition, what is your approach to delivering a complete and usable Technical Data Package (TDP)?

Please describe how your TDP will support:

· Full operational capability;

· Long-term maintenance and sustainment; and

· Future modernization and upgrades In your response to this question, please consider the vessel’s expected 30 to 40-year service life. Please also identify any anticipated challenges or constraints in providing complete and high-quality data at delivery.

Design and Technical Requirements

10. What 2D drawing standards and 3D modeling standards does your company currently use in its vessel design and production processes?

11. Please describe your company’s approach to developing and managing the 3D model during the vessel’s design process and explain how the 3D model is used in later design phases. Please also describe your approach for the transition to detail design as it pertains to the 3D model.

12. What potential issues or concerns do you foresee with using single-system vendors (particularly for deck/trawl) in the early stages of Phase I to help ensure a safe and efficient workflow for survey and trawling operations?

13. What is your recommended approach (including analysis methodology) for ensuring adequate freeboard and using other mitigations in the layout and design of the deck to optimize personnel safety on the aft working deck for operations through Sea State 4? Please include any relevant lessons learned or best practices from prior vessel designs that operated in similar conditions.

14. What are your recommended tools or methods for comparing and specifying operability indexes and general crew comfort? Is defining a minimal seakeeping capability based on maximum acceleration and roll or pitch like the current draft specification the recommended approach, or are there better methods? Please explain any advantages or limitations of these methods and suggest best practices based on your company’s experience.

15. Do you recommend performing a formal Structural Fatigue Analysis (SFA) for a vessel of this type and size? If so, should SFA be conducted as part of Phase I (preliminary/contract design) or Phase II (Detail Design)?

16. Regarding the Primary Mission Capabilities, what innovative or proven technical solutions, systems, or integration strategies would you recommend to meet NOAA’s objectives effectively and efficiently?

17. What approaches or specific software tools (Integrated Data Environments) do you recommend for the collaborative review and commenting on Data Items to ensure maximum efficiency between your company and the Government?

18. Considering the challenges of data duplication and data spread across deliverables in projects, how does your company approach data management, specifically:

a. What platforms or software do you typically use for managing data at the concept, detail design, construction/manufacturing, scheduling, and purchasing/supply levels?

b. What platforms or software do you typically use to integrate/share the data from all the different functionalities (concept, detail design, construction/manufacturing, scheduling, and purchasing/supply)?

c. If you do not use any integrating platform or software, what is your process to integrate/share the data and how do you identify and correct errors across various functionalities? How do you mitigate the duplication of efforts across different functionalities?

19. NOAA is considering a progressive, multi-tiered analysis approach for the Bubble Sweepdown (BBSWD) Analysis and Hull Form Evaluation requirement of Phase I (Section C-3.1.070a of the RFP). The proposed approach consists of a Flight 1 (Steady-State/Calm Water Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)) analysis to establish a baseline, followed by a more complex Flight 2 (Dynamic/In-Waves CFD) analysis to assess performance under realistic operational conditions.

a. What is your assessment of the proposed two-flight CFD analysis approach? Is this a reasonable and effective methodology for de-risking hull form performance or do you recommend a different strategy?

b. What are the anticipated cost and schedule impacts of requiring the full two-flight analysis in Phase I compared to performing only the Flight 1 analysis in Phase I? If possible, please provide a rough order of magnitude cost and/or schedule duration for requiring the Flight 2 analysis in Phase I.

c. What specific parameters for the Flight 2 analysis (e.g., number of sea states, speeds, headings) would you recommend to provide meaningful results for a Phase I design effort?

d. How would the results from this two-flight analysis best inform and streamline a subsequent model test validation campaign in Phase II? What key CFD findings would you prioritize for validation in a model basin?