6913G622R200013_Amendment1_SolicitationQuestionsandResponse.pdf

6913G622R200013 Amendment 1

Please note that the RFP response date has been updated to 10/28/2022 at 1600 ET

Question 1 On page 14 under C.2.2.1 Model Testing, it states that the Contractor shall provide thirty (3) days notification for each model test event. This should be thirty (30) not three (3), correct?

Answer: The Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days notification for each model test event.

Question 2 Is the Title Page and Table of Contents included in the 20 page maximum page count?

(Using the suggested page amounts for each section, the total comes to approximately 22.)

Answer: The Title Page and Table of Contents are not included in the 20 page maximum page count.

Question 3 On page 72, it states that The Licensed Professional Engineer shall have a minimum of 10 year reviewing vessel designs and a minimum of a bachelor’s degree engineering. Is this 10 years of reviewing designs as a licensed PE or 10 years of reviewing vessel designs and a licensed PE?

Answer: The Licensed Professional Engineer shall have a minimum of 10 years reviewing vessel designs.

The engineer need not have had their PE license over that entire time.

Question 4 On page 20, The Deliverable Item Numbers do not correct match up with the Deliverable Item Titles and Subtitles (and Contract Reference). The first one, Post Award Conference Agenda, Presentation, and Minutes, has text that wraps to the second line of the table and the item numbers and contract references were not adjusted accordingly.

Answer: The Deliverable Item table in Section F.4 with corrected formatting is included below.

Ranger IV Table of Contents Phase I Preliminary/Contract Design

Deliverable Item No.

Deliverable Item Titles and Subtitles

Contract Reference

DI-001

DI-002

DI-003

DI-004

DI-005

DI-006

DI-007

DI-008

DI-009

DI-010

DI-011

DI-012

POST AWARD CONFERENCE AGENDA, PRESENTATION, AND MINUTES

DESIGN REVIEW AGENDAS, PRESENTATIONS, AND MINUTES

FINAL DESIGN ASSESSMENT REPORT

DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT

MASTER SCHEDULE

MASTER EQUIPMENT LIST

REQUIREMENTS VERIFICATION MATRIX

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES

LIFE CYCLE FUEL ESTIMATE AND LIFE CYCLE COST SAVINGS STUDY REPORT

ABS ICE CLASS ANALYSIS

HULL LINES DRAWING

APPENDAGE AND CONTROL SURFACE DRAWING

SOW C.2.1.1

SOW C.2.1.1

SOW C.2.1.2

SOW C.2.1.3

SOW C.2.1.4

SOW C.2.1.5

SOW C.2.1.6

SOW C.2.1.7

SOW C.2.1.8

SOW C.2.1.9

SOW C.2.1.10.1

SOW C.2.1.10.2

Ranger IV Table of Contents Phase I Preliminary/Contract Design

Deliverable Item No.

Deliverable Item Titles and Subtitles

Contract Reference

DI-013

DI-014

DI-015

DI-016

DI-017

DI-018

DI-019

DI-020

DI-021

DI-022

DI-023

DI-024

DI-025

DI-026

DI-026-1

DI-026-2

DI-026-3

DI-026-4

DI-026-5

DI-026-6

DI-026-7

DI-026-8

DI-026-9

DI-026-10

DI-026-11

DI-026-12

DI-026-13

DI-026-14

DI-026-15

DI-026-16

DI-026-17

DI-027

DI-027-01

DI-027-02

DI-027-03

DI-027-04

DI-027-05

DI-028

DI-029

DI-030

DI-031

DI-032

DI-033

DI-034

DI-035

DI-036

SPEED AND POWER REPORT

SEAKEEPING PERFORMANCE REPORT

MANEUVERING PERFORMANCE REPORT

REGULATORY BODY COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE

AIRBORNE NOISE REPORT

VIBRATION REPORT

INTACT AND DAMAGE STABILIITY REPORT

WEIGHT CONTROL PLAN

CONTRACTOR DESIGN WEIGHT ESTIMATE

MODEL TEST PROGRAM PLAN

MODEL TEST REPORT

MODEL TEST VIDEO AND PHOTOGRAPHS

ACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

DRAWINGS

GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

COMPARTMENT LAYOUT DRAWINGS

MIDSHIP SECTION DRAWING

TYPICAL SECTIONS DRAWING

SHELL EXPANSION DRAWING

DECK AND PLATFORM DRAWING

SUPERSTRUCTURE DRAWING

MAST AND FLAGSTAFF DRAWING

PROPELLER DRAWING

TOPSIDE ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

NAVIGATION LIGHTS ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

PILOT HOUSE/CHART AREA ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

MACHINERY ARRANGEMENT DRAWING

EQUIPMENT REMOVAL DRAWING

HANDLING SYSTEMS DRAWING

ANCHORING AND MOORING DRAWING

INTERIOR CARGO LOADING AND SECUREMENT PLAN

REPORTS

AREA/VOLUME REPORT

PROPULSION SYSTEM REPORT

AUXILIARY SYSTEMS REPORT

POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS REPORT

AUTOMATION CONTROL AND MONITORING SYSTEMS REPORT

ENDURANCE FUEL CALCULATIONS

STACK GAS FLOW ANALYSIS REPORT

ELECTRIC POWER LOAD ANALYSIS

ELECTRIC SYSTEMS ONE-LINE DIAGRAM

PRELIMINARY FAULT CURRENT ANALYSIS REPORT

COMMUNICATIONS REQUIREMENTS MATRICES

HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AND

REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS REPORT

BIDDING SPECIFICATIONS

SHORESIDE INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES REPORT

SOW C.2.1.10.3

SOW C.2.1.10.4

SOW C.2.1.10.5

SOW C.2.1.11

SOW C.2.1.12.1

SOW C.2.1.12.2

SOW C.2.1.13

SOW C.2.1.14

SOW C.2.1.14

SOW C.2.2.1

SOW C.2.2.1

SOW C.2.2.1

SOW C.2.1.15

SOW C.2.1.16

SOW C.2.1.16.1

SOW C.2.1.16.1

SOW C.2.1.16.2

SOW C.2.1.16.2

SOW C.2.1.16.2

SOW C.2.1.16.2

SOW C.2.1.16.2

SOW C.2.1.16.3

SOW C.2.1.16.4

SOW C.2.1.16.5

SOW C.2.1.16.5

SOW C.2.1.16.6

SOW C.2.1.16.7

SOW C.2.1.16.7

SOW C.2.1.16.8

SOW C.2.1.16.9

SOW C.2.1.16.10

SOW C.2.1.17

SOW C.2.1.17.1

SOW C.2.1.17.2

SOW C.2.1.17.3

SOW C.2.1.17.3

SOW C.2.1.17.4

SOW C.2.1.18

SOW C.2.1.19

SOW C.2.1.20.1

SOW C.2.1.20.2

SOW C.2.1.20.3

SOW C.2.1.21

SOW C.2.1.22

SOW C.2.1.23

SOW C.2.1.24

Question 5 On page 15 in the table it states that the period of performance for CLIN00100 is September 20, 2023 and on page 6 Table 1 it shows up to 12 months of design reviews. Since the due date is October 21, plus time to award, it looks like there will only be ~ 10 months for CLIN00100, correct?

Answer: The contract Period of Performance is anticipated to be 13 months from date of award. The final design review will be in the 12th month after award. This allows the Final Submittal 30 days after the final design review.

Question 6 Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L.3 Instructions to Offerors.

Section I has a 2 page limit, Section II has an 8 page total limit, Section III has a 2 page limit for the staffing overview, and Section IV limits each past performance to 2 pages with an allowance for up to 5 project listings. The potential page count for all of these sections, exclusive of resumes, is 22 pages.

Would the government please clarify if the 20 page limit is correct? If yes, which sections and subsections does it include?

Answer: The Title Page and Table of Contents are not included in the 20 page maximum page count.

Question 7 Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L.3 Instructions to Offerors.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award; M.4 Technical Evaluation Criteria; 1. Technical Understanding

Section II gives a 2-page limit for technical understanding and 6-pages for risks and challenges. However, the evaluation criteria states anything beyond the first 10 pages will not be evaluated.

Would the government please clarify the total and individual subsection page counts for the Technical Understanding section?

Answer: The entire proposal is limited to 20 pages, exclusive of the Title Page, Table of Contents, and Resumes. L.3, Section II instructs the Offeror to limit the response demonstrating its understanding of the solicitation requirements to approximately 2 pages. L.3, Section II also instructs the Offeror to limit the response to approximately 6 pages to address the challenges and risks identified in the solicitation.

M.4.1 instructs the Offeror that the Government will evaluate up to the first 10 pages only for the Offeror’s proposal in regard to Technical Understanding.

The Offeror may choose to use up to 10 pages for their Technical Understanding. However, they must then use fewer pages for the subsequent sections to ensure the entire proposal is limited to 20 pages, exclusive of the Title Page, Table of Contents, and Resumes. Any information beyond this limit will not be evaluated and may be considered a failure to address requirements.

Question 8 Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L.3 Instructions to Offerors Would the government please clarify if Section IV – Price Proposal is intended to be a separate volume from the other sections? If no, is it excluded from the 20 page limit?

Answer: The Price Proposal is not intended to be part of the Technical Proposal. It is excluded from the 20 page limit. The Technical and Price Proposals shall be separate.

Question 9 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award; M.2 Evaluation Process Would the government please confirm if the lowest priced proposal evaluation criteria, M.2 subparagraph d, includes all CLINS including Options (CLIN00100 and CLIN00200)?

Answer: The proposals will be evaluated by lowest price, technically acceptable, including all CLINs including options.

Question 10 Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors Would the government please clarify where in the proposal submission offerors are to include their response to FAR 52.212-3?

If included with the technical and price proposal volume, would the government please clarify if the response to the FAR clause is excluded from page count?

Answer: Include the response to this clause with the technical and price proposal volume. This is excluded from the page count.

Question 11 Do “engineering and design firms on the Contractor’s team” include only those companies contributing directly to the design or does it also include companies performing specialized analysis to support the design and companies operating a model basin? Reference C.2.1.1.

Answer: “Representatives from each engineering and design firm on the Contractor’s team” includes the Contractors and Subcontractors that are contributing directly to the design.

Question 12 Table 1 in section C.2.1.1 indicates a 12-month schedule. Sections C.2.8 and C.2.9 both indicate the period of performance will end September 30, 2023. Given that proposals are due October 21, 2022 a 12-month period of performance is not possible. We respectfully suggest that given the review periods for documents and drawings provided in Section F, a 12-month period of performance may already be aggressive. We respectfully request that the government provide an estimated award date and an end date to the period of performance that accommodates the government’s review requirements.

References SF 1449, C.2.1.1, C.2.8, and C.2.9.

Answer: The contract Period of Performance is anticipated to be 13 months from date of award. The final design review will be in the 12th month after award. This allows the Final Submittal 30 days after the final design review.

Question 13 Section C.2.1.7 Construction Cost Estimates references a Class C construction cost estimate. Is this a NAVSEAINST 7300.14B Class C estimate, a Nation Park Service (NPS) Class C Construction Cost Estimate, or some other standard? In the case of NPS estimate, please provide additional clarification with regard to the application of the requirements to shipbuilding. If some other standard, please provide the reference that defines the Class C estimate. References C.2.1.7 and F.4.8.

Answer: Section F.4.8 states the cost estimate shall be in 1-digit ESWBS format, and that the format and basis for the estimate shall be determined by the Contractor. Both the NAVSEAINST 7300.14B and NPS standard (https://www.nps.gov/dscw/ds-cost-estimating.htm) are acceptable formats for Class C estimates.

Question 14 Section C.2.12 Acoustic Noise and Vibration Control, states that “Contractor/Noise Control Consultant …” Does the government require the contractor to use an outside consultant or subcontract to perform this portion of the work? Reference C.2.1.12.

Answer: This portion of work can be performed in-house. An outside consultant or subcontractor is not required.

Question 15 DI-026 Drawings, states that drawings shall follow National Park Service drawing standards. Does this refer to Director’s Order (DOs) 10A and/or the NPD Denver Service Center (DSC) CAD requirements? If so, is the contractor expected to apply to NPS and/or DSC for waivers as may be required to develop drawings typical for use by shipbuilders? If some other standard, please provide the reference that defines the NPS drawing standards. Reference F.4.26.

Answer: The drawing shall follow the NPS DSC Electronic Drawing Standards (EDS) 2021 as identified in Section F.1, found here: https://www.nps.gov/dscw/upload/NPS-DSC-EDS- ElectronicDrawingStandards_10-19-21_508_110221.docx. Drawing details, title blocks, and typical symbols shown in Chapters 3 and 4 shall be followed as appropriate. The Volpe Center understands adaptation of the drawing standards may be needed for use by shipbuilders. Contractors are not expected to apply for waivers to perform this adaptation.

Question 16 Will the government identify a cybersecurity standard applicable to this work or is the contractor to recommend one? We note that attaining any particular level of cybersecurity (that is, level of risk acceptable to the vessel owner) will depend on final equipment vendor selections, their installation practices, and operating procedures, which are not usually within the scope of preliminary design.

Reference C.2.1.17.4.

Answer: ASTM F3286-17, Standard Guide for Cybersecurity and Cyberattack Mitigation and ASTM F3449−20, Standard Guide for Inclusion of Cyber Risks into Maritime Safety Management Systems in Accordance with IMO Resolution MSC.428(98) — Cyber Risks and Challenges. The Government understands that equipment vendor selections may not be finalized as part of the preliminary/concept design. For these cases, DI-027-05, Automatic Control and Monitoring Systems and Cybersecurity https://www.nps.gov/dscw/ds-cost-estimating.htm https://www.nps.gov/dscw/upload/NPS-DSC-EDS-ElectronicDrawingStandards_10-19-21_508_110221.docx https://www.nps.gov/dscw/upload/NPS-DSC-EDS-ElectronicDrawingStandards_10-19-21_508_110221.docx

Report, shall include general discussion of cybersecurity issues/concerns related to specific equipment features of the ship.

Question 17 Is the contractor required to coordinate trips to all current Ranger III docks with the NPS and/or Volpe?

Reference C.2.1.24.

Answer: The contractor shall coordinate the trips to the current Ranger III docks through the Volpe Center.

Question 18 Should the last line of section C.2.2.1 read “…thirty (30) …” or “… three (3)…”? Reference C.2.2.1.

Answer: The Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days notification for each model test event.

Question 19 Section C.2.3 references Appendix A (Basis of Design) for a list of standards. Neither the solicitation nor the document Ranger+IV+Basis+of+Design.pdf has an Appendix A nor a list of standards. Please provide this list. Reference C.2.3.

Answer: The Ranger IV Basis of Design shall be considered Appendix A. The final two pages of the Basis of Designs includes a list of regulatory considerations. Note that the list may not include all applicable regulations.

Question 20 Section C.2.6 references a guarantee period. Can the government please identify the duration of this period? We note that FAR 42.706 does not appear to be implemented in the solicitation. We respectfully request that this FAR section be implemented to the extent the Government requires a warranty. Reference C.2.6.

Answer: Section C.2.6 was removed. The warranty period built into FAR 52.212-4 (included by reference) will apply to this contract.

Question 21 Can the government please clarify the purpose of the table comprising section 2.10? This appears to potentially be a deliverable under C.2.1.4 but is not listed there. Reference C.2.10.

Answer: The table in Section C.2.8 is a summary of deliverables described in the SOW. The period of performance of September 30, 2023 listed in the table is no longer applicable.

Question 22 Section C.2.6 and C.2.10 discuss government acceptance. Section E contains acceptance in the title.

However, none of these sections describes the acceptance process (C.2.10 and Section E only discuss inspection). Multiple parts of Section F describe a government review period and the return of comments to the contractor. However, in most cases the contractor’s delivery of a revised deliverable and acceptance by the government is not discussed. We respectfully request that the government provide a description of the acceptance process and associated requirements. Reference C.2.6 and C.2.10.

Answer: The intent is that the Government comments will be reviewed and addressed as part of continuing work in the subsequent design reviews. Resubmittal prior to the subsequent design review will generally not be required. Final submittals are due 30 days after the final design review. Note per Section F.2, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to notify the Government of changes which impact the content and accuracy of a previously submitted document so that the Government may make a determination as to whether the document warrants a revision. If the Government determines that there are significant enough changes which impact the content and accuracy of the document, the document shall be revised appropriately and resubmitted within 30 days or as otherwise agreed to between the Government and the Contractor.

Question 23 Section 2.10 states: “The points of delivery set forth in this contract are hereby designated as the places for final inspection and acceptance.” We were unable to find those places designated in the contract. Is it correct to assume that both delivery and acceptance will be by electronic document exchange? Is it also correct to assume that the government will specify the individual(s) requiring delivery and those responsible for acceptance will be specified in the contract? Reference C.2.10.

Answer: Content and Format of Submittals is discussed in Section F.1. Delivery and acceptance will generally be by electronic document exchange, unless hard copies or electronic media are required per the SOW. The individuals requiring delivery and those responsible for acceptance will be the Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer Representative(s) specified in the contract.

Question 24 Section F.4.6, F.4.8, F.4.11, F.4.12, F.4.13, F.4.14, F.4.15, F.4.19, F.4.20, F.4.21, 17 drawing listed in F.4.26, one report listed in F.4.27, F.4.28, F.4.29, F.4.30, and F.4.31 require each deliverable be provide four (4) times during 12 months of performance. This is 60 reports and 68 drawings for the contractor to deliver. It is also 15 reports and 17 drawings for the government to review and provide comments in three weeks or less after each design review. This is in addition to multiple other documents and a few drawings that are usually delivered twice. We respectfully suggest that three drafts of these reports is not necessary, let alone six if the contractor must respond to comments on each one. Also, the government may not have the resources available to timely conduct these reviews.

Would the government consider requiring delivery of only interim and final version for each item and allowing the contractor’s schedule to distribute deliveries more evenly over the period of performance?

Reference Section F.

Answer: The deliverables shall be provided as required by the SOW. The intent is that the Government comments will be reviewed and addressed as part of continuing work in the subsequent design reviews. Resubmittal prior to the subsequent design review will generally not be required. Note per Section F.2, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to notify the Government of changes which impact the content and accuracy of a previously submitted document so that the Government may make a determination as to whether the document warrants a revision. If the Government determines that there are significant enough changes which impact the content and accuracy of the document, the document shall be revised appropriately and resubmitted within 30 days or as otherwise agreed to between the Government and the Contractor.

Question 25 Is it acceptable for the offeror to propose a payment schedule or does the government desire 12 fixed payments? If the offeror can propose a payment schedule, can we include this in Section V of our proposal? Reference G.2.3.

Answer: The contractor may propose a payment schedule, and FAR 52.232-16 Alt 1 has been added to this RFP.

Question 26 We respectfully suggest that FAR 52.204-15 is not applicable to this requirement because it is neither a Service Contract nor an indefinite delivery contract. Reference I(b)(7).

Answer: FAR-52.204-15 is hereby removed as it is not applicable.

Question 27 We respectfully suggest that FAR 52.219-6 is applicable to this requirement but FAR 52.219-8,-9 and -16 are not applicable because this requirement is totally set aside for small business. Reference I(b)(14), (16), (17) & (20).

Answer: FAR 52.219-6 is hereby added to the RFP and FAR 52.219-8, -9, and -16 are hereby removed as they are not applicable.

Question 28 DI-003 through DI-036 specify a Government review and comment period, however there is no indication as to whether resubmittal is required in response to Government comments. Please clarify if resubmittal is required and schedule of submittal if required. Reference F.4.3 through F.4.36.

Answer: The intent is that the Government comments will be reviewed and addressed as part of continuing work in the subsequent design reviews. Resubmittal prior to the subsequent design review will generally not be required. Note per Section F.2, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to notify the Government of changes which impact the content and accuracy of a previously submitted document so that the Government may make a determination as to whether the document warrants a revision. If the Government determines that there are significant enough changes which impact the content and accuracy of the document, the document shall be revised appropriately and resubmitted within 30 days or as otherwise agreed to between the Government and the Contractor.

Question 29 DI-004 requires final submittal 30 days after the Final Design Review plus 14 days Government review.

Section C.2.1.1 schedules the Final Design Review in the 12th month. Please clarify the contract period of performance. Reference C.2.1.1, F.4.4.

Answer: The contract Period of Performance is anticipated to be 13 months from date of award. The final design review will be in the 12th month after award. This allows the Final Submittal 30 days after the final design review.

Question 30 Section C.2.1.17.3 Auxiliary Systems, calls out “Seawater Service including Main Seawater”. It is our understanding that this vessel is a fresh water vessel and will not see salt water use. Will the design be based on fresh water service only? Reference C.2.1.17.3.

Answer: Ranger IV is intended to be a fresh water vessel and is not intended to see salt water use. The design shall be based on fresh water service only. The term “seawater service” was intended to provide distinction between freshwater service systems and potable/domestic water systems.

Question 31 Reference: L.3 states “…the Offeror shall limit the response to a total of 20 pages, excluding resumes.”

Question: “When the page limits for Sections I-IV, as stated in L.3, are added, the total is 22 pages:

• Section I: 2 pages

• Section II: 2 pages (approach) and 6 pages (risks and challenges)

• Section III: 2 pages

• Section IV: 10 pages (2 per contract and up to five contracts)

Can the Government please clarify whether the total page limit is 22 pages or if the cover page and table of contents are excluded from page count?”

Answer: The Title Page and Table of Contents are not included in the 20 page maximum page count.

Question 32 Reference: L.3.d Question: Is Section V – Price Proposal also included in the total 20-page limit?”

Answer: The Price Proposal is not intended to be part of the Technical Proposal. It is excluded from the 20 page limit.

Question 33 Reference: L.3.d Question: Price is typically separates from the technical proposal, is it the government intention to have both technical and price combined or should these be separate proposal volumes?

Answer: The Price Proposal is not intended to be part of the Technical Proposal. The Technical and Price Proposals shall be separate.

Question 34 Reference: L.3(I), the Title Page is to identify “company and task and signature…” Question: Can the Government please clarify that “task” is simply the proposal title?

Answer: “Task” is the proposal title.

Question 35 Reference: F.4 CLIN 00100 Deliverables – Preliminary/Contract Design of Ranger IV “Days listed shall be considered business days.”

Question: Most of the days listed in this table are listed as “7 days”, “14 days” and “21days”. This would typically line up with seven calendar days in a week. Does the Government mean calendar days instead of business days?

Answer: This referenced text in Section F.4 shall be modified to read: Days listed shall be considered calendar days.

Question 36 Reference: C.2.2.1 – Model Testing “The Contractor shall provide thirty (3) days notification for each model test event” Question: Can the government please clarify whether the required days of notification for each model test event is three (3) or thirty (30) days?

Answer: The Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days notification for each model test event.

Question 37 In many sections like the one shown below the government requests review days that are not in alignment with the delivery date.

“The Master Schedule shall include planned dates for design reviews, Final Design Assessment, model testing, major subcontractors’ purchase order issue dates, and initial submission and planned revisions of documentation. The timelines shall highlight the critical paths and include Regulatory Body submittal status. This deliverable shall be Microsoft Project compatible.

Review Schedule: Allow 14 days for the Government review and comment.

Submittal Schedule: 7 DPT each DR.”

Please verify what the correct submittal date is for all deliverables.

Answer: In situations such as these, the submittal is due prior to the design review. The Government review and comment period extends through the design review. This allows the Government to pose questions during the design review to gain further understanding and provide comment.

Question 38 The schedule shows a hard PoP end date of 30 Sep 2023. The start of the PoP is fluid. Are the DRs intended to be equally spaced, quarterly, or per the schedule?

Answer: The contract Period of Performance is anticipated to be 13 months from date of award. The design reviews are intended to be spaced per the schedule.

Question 39 Reference: C.2.1.11 Regulatory Body Approvals and Correspondence “The Contractor shall submit all key drawings and required analyses to ABS for Approval in Principle” Question: Who is responsible for the cost of contracting ABS?

Answer: The Contractor is responsible for the cost of contracting ABS.

Question 40 Reference: C.2.2.1 Model Testing “In addition, the Contractor shall perform the following tests:

1. Propulsor Cavitation Performance Tests 2. Propulsor Cavitation Erosion Tests”

Question: These types of cavitation tests come with considerable expense and the number of facilities to perform these tests are limited. Can the Government please confirm that they require these tests?

Answer:

Section C.2.2.1 shall be modified to read as follows:

The Contractor shall prepare a Model Test Program Plan (DI-022).

The Contractor shall conduct the following model tests (including construction of all hull and propeller models):

1. Bare hull resistance Effective Horsepower (EHP) tests

2. Bilge keel and propulsion appendage alignment flow tests

3. Appended resistance EHP tests

4. Wake survey tests

5. Stock propulsor(s) self-propulsion Shaft Horsepower (SHP) tests

6. Design propeller open water

7. Design propeller self-propulsion SHP

Additional model tests or CFD modeling may be performed if determined advantageous by the Contractor.

The Contractor shall prepare a Model Test Report (DI-023) for each test identified, including but not limited to analysis, findings, and decisions on the hull form, hydrodynamics, appendages, and performance, supported by model testing.

The Contractor shall prepare Model Test Video and Photographs (DI-024) of the model(s) during model testing.

The Contractor shall maintain and warehouse all models and test articles used in testing during the performance of the Contract. At the completion of the Contract, models and test articles shall be turned over to the Government. The Contractor shall provide thirty (30) days notification for each model test event.

Section F.4.23 shall be modified to read as follows:

The Model Test Report shall include but not be limited to analysis, findings, and decisions on the hull form, hydrodynamics, appendages, and performance, supported by model testing. The report shall identify changes to the design incorporated as a result of the model testing. The report shall address the following:

1. Results of CFD analysis, if used, to determine hull form and/or validate physical model test results.

2. Explanations of application of scaling factors including those to model wake and model propulsor thrust coefficient.

3. Explanation of methods for determination of form factor and ship/model correlation allowance coefficient values and for calculating the self-propulsion test towing force, and tabulations of model resistance at each speed.

4. Tabulated and plotted data from the resistance tests and self-propulsion tests including the data used and derived in the expansion in accordance with the methodology applied. The resistance data shall be based on faired model residual resistance coefficient CR values, at speeds corresponding to whole number ship speeds (e.g. 8 knots, 9 knots). Corresponding self-propulsion test tow force data shall also be provided.

Allowances for resistance of any appendages not fitted to the model shall be documented.

Additionally, any scaling factors used in extrapolating appendage drag, wake fraction and propulsor thrust and torque coefficients shall be documented and justified.

5. A wake measurement arrangement sketch, tables and plots of the wake data identified, tabulations of the wake harmonic analysis result and discussions of same.

6. Propulsor model descriptions.

Review Schedule: Allow 14 days for the Government review and comment.

Submittal Schedule: 21 days after each model test is completed but NLT 30 DPT Final Design Assessment; R/ASR 14 DARC.

The requirement for model testing shall not prevent the Contractor from using CFD simulations to optimize the hull form for the operating profile prior to performing the physical model tests or validating the physical model test results.