OPC_Stage_2_RFP_Questions_A0002.xlsx

RFP Q&A Amendment 2

For proposed Detail Design Element which is an unmodified artifact the required cover sheet shall be a new page added before the existing cover page of the Attachment J-20 Design Artifact provided. The cover sheet may be in offeror’s format and is not required to contain information other than a statement that clearly identifies that the is design element that is being retained in whole.

For submitted Detail Design Element that is a partial modification of a deliverable the required cover letter shall be a new page added before the existing cover page of the Attachment J-20 Design Artifact provided. The cover letter may be in the offeror’s format and is required to clearly identify the changes to the OPC Stage 1 design artifact. The existing cover page of the Attachment J-20 Design Artifact provided may need to be modified such that it does not retain the markings of the OPC Stage 1 design artifact originator.

The cover page/cover sheet may be provided as a separate Word Document attachment, a leading tab added to the AutoCAD drawing, or any other format permitted in the proposal. The file name, tab name, and/or file structure should make it so the government is able to easily identify the cover page/cover sheet and which proposed/submitted Detail Design Element it is associated with.

1. Is the USCG requiring the use of load centers in the power distribution system?

2. Will the USCG allow power distribution system designs that do not include load centers, ?

Question: With that said, and given the USCG's confirmation that J-25a is a notional schedule, will the USCG accept as compliant an optimal schedule that meets the requirement for simultaneous awards of dual hulls, and delivers both vessels in same FY, and includes a longer duration than the notional delivery date of 39 mos specified in F.7 Table 1 for either OPC B4 or OPC B5?

1. Section E.2 Incorporates Far Clauses 52.246-24 and 52.246.25 and FAR Clause 52.246-23 is incorporated by reference in Section I.1. At the end of FAR Clause 52.246-24, the RFP states:

Alternate I (APR 1984). If the contract is for both high-value items and other end items, the contracting officer shall identify the high-value items by line item and insert the following preamble before paragraph (a):

(This clause shall apply only to those items identified in this contract as being subject to this clause:

1. Long Lead Time Materials (LLTM):

2. System Insurance Stock; and

3. C5I equipment.

The above preamble does not appear in the RFP before paragraph (a) of FAR 52.246-24. Even though the preamble does not appear before paragraph (a), the Contractor interprets the RFP to include the above preamble before paragraph (a) such that the limitation of liability provided by FAR 52.246-24(a) applies only to: 1. Long Lead Time Materials (LLTM); 2. System Insurance Stock; and 3. C5I equipment but not to other property. Is this interpretation correct?

2. FAR Clauses 52.246-23(c), 52.246-24(c), and 52.246-25(c) all indicate that if the Contractor has insurance or has established a reserve for self-insurance, then the Contractor’s liability is limited to the extent of such insurance or reserve but FAR Clauses 52.246-23 through 25 do not require the Contractor to have such insurance or to establish a reserve for self-insurance. The Contractor interprets the RFP as not requiring the Contractor to have insurance or a self-insurance reserve for the property identified in these FAR clauses. Is this interpretation correct?

3. FAR Clause 52.246-24(d)(2) provides an exception to the limitation of liability granted by paragraph (a) of that clause, which exception requires the Contractor to pay an amount to the Government and/or provide other equitable relief as determined by the Contracting Officer if a loss or damage occurs and correction, repair, or replacement is not feasible or desired by the Government. Assuming a correct interpretation as stated in the previous question above that insurance or a reserve for self-insurance is not required, is it the Government’s intent or requirement that the Contractor will in fact have insurance or a reserve for self-insurance for property identified in this clause in order to make the payment or provide other equitable relief should the Government determine that correction, repair, or replacement of such property is not feasible or desired by the Government? Further, if the Contractor does in fact have insurance or a reserve for self-insurance for such purpose, will the amount of such payment or cost of other equitable relief be limited to the extent of such insurance or reserve as provided in 52.246-24(c)? 1. Preamble has been moved above paragraph (a), and yes the interpretation is correct, 52.246-24 applies to

1. Long Lead Time Materials (LLTM):

2. System Insurance Stock; and

3. C5I equipment.

2. Interpretation is correct, there is no requirement to have insurance

3. There is no requirement for a contractor to have insurance

148 Amendment 1, Page M-4, Section M-4 (d) Will the Government please define (not just list) in the RFP the evaluation criteria and risk ratings that it intends to apply? Thank you.

The Government has considered the request, but will not release evaluation ratings and definitions as outlined in the Source Selection Plan (SSP).

149 Amendment 1, Page L-10, Section L.11 (j) Page Limits. Two questions:

Question 1: Will the Government permit the Integrated Master Schedule to be outside of the page count?

Question 2: May bidders provide the 20-page IMS in the Qualifications, Certification and Resume Appendix? The 20 page IMS has been excluded from the technical volume page limit. Section L.12 and L.12 has been updated to reflect this change.

150 Page 167-1 Section 162.2.1 Does the USCG require that MAFO-Holtkamp doors specified as name-brand mandatory items in the solicitation complete all NVR qualification testing required for doors that are not built to the Navy Standard Drawings?” OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 2), 167.2.1 states “Watertight doors shall be Mafo-Holtkamp reduced maintenance quick acting watertight doors.” NVR 1-5-1/2.5 states that “Watertight doors are required to be qualified by the Naval Technical Authority. Each new quick acting watertight door shall be tested in accordance with the following requirements:” OPC Stage 1 Addendum (J-1 Part 9), 1-5-1/2.5, exempted Mafo-Holtkamp reduced maintenance quick acting watertight doors from some of the required design qualification testing. The RFP will be modified to add these exemptions to OPC Stage 2 RFP.

Results from previously completed testing, such as the fire testing, may be presented for to the USCG for consideration.

151 Amendment 1,Page 495-1 Section 495.2.4 Can the USCG provide the weight and dimensions of the equipment listed in this section? OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5), 495.2.4.1 states “The SSEE INC F equipment cabinets shall be located in the INTEL space.” OPC Stage 2, Schedule C List of Government Furnished Information (J-11), SKED C numbers 023.401.001 through 023.401.029, list the Government Furnished Information for Item Description “SSEE Increment F”. Though the GFI due date is listed as 45 DAEDCA, much of the GFI was provided with the OPC DD&C Technical Library Final RFP disks. This GFI was provided early to support proposal development.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5), 495.2.4.3 states “The AN/SSQ-136(V)1 SCI Network Management System shall be located in the INTEL space.” OPC Stage 2, Schedule C List of Government Furnished Information (J-11), SKED C numbers 023.403.001 through 023.403.008, list the Government Furnished Information for Item Description “USCG SCI Network Management System”. Though the GFI due date is listed as 45 DAEDCA, much of the GFI was provided with the OPC DD&C Technical Library Final RFP disks. This GFI was provided early to support proposal development.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5), 495.2.4.4 states “The SCI Communications Cabinets shall be located in the INTEL space.” OPC Stage 2, Schedule C List of Government Furnished Information (J-11), SKED C numbers 023.406.001 through 023.406.031, list the Government Furnished Information for Item Description “SCI Communications”. Though the GFI due date is listed as 45 DAEDCA, much of the GFI was provided with the OPC DD&C Technical Library Final RFP disks. This GFI was provided early to support proposal development.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5),495.2.4.5 states “The AN/USQ-149(V)9 ADNS cabinet shall be located in the Radio and Top-Secret Room.” OPC Stage 2, Schedule C List of Government Furnished Information (J-11), SKED C numbers 023.402.001 through 023.402.011, list the Government Furnished Information for Item Description “ADNS”. Though the GFI due date is listed as 45 DAEDCA, much of the GFI was provided with the OPC DD&C Technical Library Final RFP disks. This GFI was provided early to support proposal development.

OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5),495.2.4.6 states “The NMT ATIP cabinet shall be located in the Radio and Top-Secret Room.” OPC Stage 2, Schedule C List of Government Furnished Information (J-11), SKED C number 023.405.001, lists the Government Furnished Information for Item Description “ATIP Interconnecting Group”. Though the GFI due date is listed as 45 DAEDCA, much of the GFI was provided with the OPC DD&C Technical Library Final RFP disks. This GFI was provided early to support proposal development.

152 Amendment 1,Page 495-1 Section 495.1.2.4 Amendment 1,Page 495-1 Section 495.2.4.5 Is the equipment listed in 495.1.2.4 and 495.2.4.5 two separate systems? OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5), 495.1.2 and 495.1.2.4 state “The Special Purpose Intelligence System consists of the following: AN/USQ-144(V)9 Automated Digital Network System (ADNS)” OPC Stage 2 Specification (J-1 Part 5), 495.2.4.5 states “The AN/USQ-149(V)9 ADNS cabinet shall be located in the Radio and Top-Secret Room.”

The Government acknowledges that there is a typo that resulted in an inconsistency between “AN/USQ-144(V)9” and “AN/USQ-149(V)9”. This typo will be corrected in the next RFP amendment to reflect a single system.

OPC Stage 2 DD CDRL (J-5), 096-DD-1347, BLK12 indicates the first submittal of the Allocated Baseline Weight Estimate (ABWE) is required 30 Days After Effective Date of Contract Award. The Government expects that the first submittal of the ABWE will correct any minor discrepencies previously discussed with the Government and will reflect any updates made by the Contractor. Once the ABWE is accepted the Government intends to modify the contract to incorporate the accepted ABWE.

For the CDRLs identified in the J-20 Matrix of OPC Stage 1 Design Artifacts, a number of files could not be shared due to proprietary markings or limited data rights. Since the release of the Final RFP, the CG has continued efforts to gain permissions to release these files. Following contract award, the CG will likely be able to release additional files. It is the intent of the CG to release as many of these files as possible to the awardee. For files the CG has been unable to release, the awardee may pursue other options to include soliciting the document(s) from the original vendor or, as necessary, develop their own document(s) so as to complete the Detailed Design.

160 RFP Section L.12(b)(2) Does the government expect a separate line item in the IMS for each CDRL to support the L.12.3(b)(2) requirement to display "Sufficient engineering planned to support each CDRL delivery;"? No, the Government does not want the 20-page IMS submitted per OPC RFP Section L.12.3(b) to contain a line item for each CDRL. That section states, "The IMS shall display significant features of the Offeror’s scheduling approach." Most CDRL delivery dates are grouped around major events, such as 30DPCDR (30 Days Prior to Critical Design Review). The 20-page submitted IMS needs to present the Offeror's engineering efforts to prepare for that major event, including preparations to deliver batches of required CDRLs on time. Other "As required" CDRLS such as Test Reports can be addressed collectively by displaying events preparing Offeror to plan for, conduct, and report required tests.

Two examples:

1. The retentions applied through 75% POC and the allowed max fee in the H-21 clause are much more restrictive than historical shipbuilding industry progress billing clauses. As written, this clause would most likely penalize the contractor with negative cash flow through 75% complete, even if that contractor is performing to cost and schedule.

2. Likewise, the Progress Payments clause referenced on the FFP LLTM CLINS limit the contractor to billing of 80% of cost and does not describe when the CLIN would be considered "complete" for the billing of the final 20% of cost and any fee deserved. Typically in shipyard contracting, the 80% of cost payments clause is put in place on a LLTM CLIN that is to be subsumed into the Construction CLIN, not a standalone LLTM FFP CLIN as described in this RFP. The LLTM billing clause in the final RFP guarantees a negative cash flow for the contractor until the CLIN is considered "complete or definitized".

1. The USCG has considered the request and made a determination that the retention percentages are in line with NAVY/USCG progress billing clauses.

2. The progress payment billing clause has been amended. See H.22

Section L.12.2, Design Soundness and Maturity, states that the narrative shall include a discussion of the Offeror’s design maturity appropriate with the Offeror’s proposed design and build margins and overall approach. Is a mature design considered a strength?

RFP sect L.12.3 (2) (ii) Is the government's intent to achieve delivery of 2 ships per year at the fastest rate possible or an approach that clearly outlines what is optimal for the shipyard?

Per L.12.3 ( a ) (1), a proposed elongated Detail Design period would only be considered a weakness if the holistic DD and Production schedules do not realistically support the Government's delivery needs, and do not identify when two hulls per year can realistically be produced.

Per section L.12.3 (2) (ii), The government intends to achieve delivery of 2 ships per year not later than the hull production schedules indicated. An earlier achievement of that rate, if consistent with DD, production plans and risk assessment could be considered beneficial to the Government. Section M correctly assesses the weight placed upon each evaluation factor.

Please note that foreign subcontractors/suppliers do not possess a valid DD-2345 to obtain these documents via the SAM.gov instructions. Bidders who possess export licenses with foreign subs that permit the export of Technical Data pertaining to this solicitation would still require CG-9322 approval to distribute, based on the language in Distribution Statements (D, C, F). Additionally, for U.S. suppliers requiring only small portions of controlled information to provide quotes to potential bidders, asking these suppliers to follow the SAM.gov instructions would result in a release of an abundance of controlled information beyond the suppliers need-to-know.

Ref. Distribution Markings:

C: “Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies and their contractors due to critical technology (28JAN2021). Other requests shall be referred to the U.S. Coast Guard Offshore Patrol Cutter Project Office (CG-9322).”

D: “Distribution Statement D: Distribution authorized to CG/DoD and their contractors only due to critical technology (28AUG2012). Other requests shall be referred to Commandant (CG-9322).”

F: “Distribution Statement F: Further dissemination only as directed by Commandant (CG-9322) (28AUG2012) or higher Coast Guard authority.”

Offeror may distribute documents to subcontractors who meet the requirement of the authorized audience in the appropriate distribution statement and markings. Offerors should caution subcontractors that documents may only be used for proposal preparation only. Offerors should contact the Contracting Officer if not sure that a subcontractor meets the authorized audience in the distribution statement or markings.