CB-L__210-225__Prospective_Offeror_Questions_II.pdf

Additional Prospective Offeror Questions:

16. We acknowledge that ISO 6185 refers to ISO 12217-1 for static stability requirements.

However, static stability represents only of portion of the total ISO stability/buoyancy requirements for boat design. ISO 6185-3 also contains RIB specific standards for the following aspects:

* 7.2 - Crew Limit

* 7.4 - Buoyancy Requirement

* 7.5 - Level flotation when swamped

* 8.7 - Quick draining as per 11812

ISO 12217-1 does not address these additional requirements with regard to the special hull structures and characteristics of a Rigid Inflatable Boat. Indeed, ISO 12217-1:2015 explicitly excludes Rigid-Inflatable boats with this language: “ISO 12217-1:2015 excludes: inflatable and rigid-inflatable boats covered by ISO 6185, except for references made in ISO 6185 to specific clauses of ISO 12217”.

If ISO 6185 is omitted from the specification, assumptions and exceptions will have to be made to demonstrate ISO 12217 compliance in a Rigid Hull Inflatable boat which may not fully define the stability characteristics of the vessel.

USCG answer:

The CB-L (210/225) specification has been revised since the draft Request for Proposal (RFP) was posted on FedBizOpps on 10 May, 2017. We feel the revised version that will be posted with the solicitation addresses your concerns. We encourage you to read the solicitation and specification carefully, and if you have questions at that point, we will be pleased to respond to them. ISO 12217-1 is the primary source for the CB-L buoyancy, level floatation, and crew limits requirements and guidance is provided to address situations where 6185-3 would seem to apply.

ABYC Standard H-4 is the primary source for the CB-L quick drainage requirements.

17. CB-L Draft Specification with recommended revision:

114-1.5 [Orig] The fendering system shall not extend below the full load condition static waterline chine.

Rationale: Due to the relatively high variance in weight between the Lightship/Performance Load conditions the Fully Loaded condition the collar is much higher up out of the water than a typical collared vessel. [Vendor] is not aware of any disadvantage other than wear associated with having the collar in the water. In fact, the improved initial stability of a fendering system that extends below the full load waterline to the chine of the craft offers operational and safety benefits to the user.

Additionally, the CB-L will be a davit launched craft that operates less than 150 hours per year. The low number of “wet” hours on the hull ensures that water damage to the fendering system is minimal and should not increase the rate of fendering replacement.

USCG answer: The requirement that the fendering system “shall not extend below the full load condition static waterline” has been removed from the specification.

18. The standard Drawing Levels are Level I, II, III.

Level I – Concept design Level II – Prototyping and one off construction detailing Level III – Series Production

The TDP calls for Level III drawings, but within Level III, the level of detail varies greatly between something like the USCG RB-M program detail and what is typical in industry and other government small boat contracts.

Note: When referencing the attached table, the labor hours/costs for Level IIIA are exponentially higher than Level IIIB or IIIC.

CONCERNS

Our concern with the current TDP language is summarized in the scenario below:

* Entity A misinterprets and underbids the TDP drawing requirements and is selected on the lower price of their proposal, only to incur significant additional costs and production delay once they submit the TDP and it is rejected.

* Entity B understands the actual TDP requirements and estimates them correctly, but is underbid by Entity A in the scenario above. When additional costs and delays are calculated with Entity A, Entity B would have been the best-value bidder, but the contract has already been awarded to Entity A.

CONSIDERATIONS

We respectfully recommend consideration the following:

1. Clarification and possible use of this or a similar table that provides amplified information of the TDP Level III drawing requirements. This will put everyone on the same playing field and mitigate the possibility of someone underestimating/overestimating the TDP requirements based on the current language.

2. Require a sample or example drawing package of a standard system (e.g. fuel, etc) during the proposal to verify that the bidder has the capabilities to provide proper drawings according to updated TDP language/tables. This will give the USCG a safety-net to verify that the bidder understands the TDP and mitigate or alleviate possible issues on the TDP package post award.

USCG answer: The Statement of Work (SOW) does not specify the TDP Level. There are approximately 10 pages in the Statement of work devoted to establishing the detail of the TDP. Terminology used is similar to the following:

All components including piping, electrical wiring and all other purchased components, except minor components such as cable ties, adhesives or other bulk materials on the boat, shall be depicted on a drawing in their true size, location and orientation.

All interfaces of purchased components and those created by the Contractor shall be depicted in a drawing including but not limited to, pipe joints and terminal strips.

The drawings shall provide sufficient detail to enable trained USCG personnel to:

conduct organizational-level and depot-level maintenance; and replacement of systems and components.

The TDP shall provide sufficient information to fully describe the design and construction of the CB-L and the configuration of its systems.

The Contractor shall prepare the TDP for USCG use, repair, replacement of removable parts, modification of the boat, and to facilitate maintenance throughout the sustainment life cycle of the boat.

The TDP shall completely specify unique processes when essential to production and when applicable: performance ratings; dimensions and tolerance data; critical assembly sequences; equipment characteristics; diagrams; mechanical and electrical connections; physical characteristics, including form, finish, and weight;

details of material identification; inspection, test, and evaluation criteria;

necessary calibration information; and other quality control data.

The TDP shall be self sufficient and fully describe construction of the boat without reference to other documents. TDP shall show essential fabrication details, including welding procedures and welding sequences if applicable.

The USCG feels the level of detail required in the TDP is sufficiently identified in the

SOW.

19. There’s an DHS Office of Inspector General OIG report (www.oig.dhs.gov_assets_Mgmt_OIG-5F10-2D85-5FMay10.pdf) which cites “The Coast Guard's Boat Crew Communications System Is Unreliable,” and my company has been approached by numerous interested parties regarding the USCG’s Cutter Boat-Large (210/225) Solicitation: 70Z02318RMOT00300. I have addressed my concerns to all interested parties’ regarding the stated USCG’s General Requirements 1.2.2.18; whereas, the CB-L shall have a communications system that includes AIS, commercial VHF marine radio with DSC, tactical VHF marine radio, loudhailer/siren, and a crew communication system. My question is specific to “boat crew communications: “Will it be wired ICS agnostic (can be plugged and operated with a multiple wired ICS types, or just one vendor?” All interested parties have respectfully requested my company contact the USCG directly. Again, the reasons for my exactness in this question again pertains to boat crew safety as cited in the DHS OIG report.

Would you be so kind to clarify if the ICS will be wired agnostic for the boat crew communication system or not?

USCG answer: There is no requirement for an agnostic system and equipment from multiple vendors is acceptable.