SPC-HWX_II_RFI_2023.8_GovernmentResponse_11-22-2023.pdf

United States Coast Guard

Special Purpose Craft – Heavy Weather II Request for Information II

Government Reply to Industry Responses

Boat Acquisition Program Office (CG-9325) 22 November 2023

Synopsis:

The U.S. Coast Guard received multiple responses to our SPC-HWX II RFI posted to SAM.gov on August 30, 2023. This post provides insight into the responses we received and answers questions that were posed in response to the RFI. Some of the questions will require additional research for a more definitive answer – and where this is the case, it is indicated. An additional post will be made to provide clarity in the areas we are still researching.

One-on-One Discussion:

The Boat Acquisition Program Office (CG-9325) welcomes industry to contact us directly to have a one-on-one conversation about this acquisition. We understand that these requirements are complex and there may be value in this. If you are interested, please contact Paul Andron, paul.t.andron@uscg.mil to coordinate a time for an in-person or virtual meeting scheduled prior to February 29, 2024.

Responses to our questions:

1. The USCG is proposing that the solicitation be open for 90 days. Is this amount of time reasonable to allow offerors to prepare proposals?

Responses indicated 90 days was achievable with a preference for 120 days. If the schedule supports a 120 window – we will use 120 days. If we use 120 days, the likelihood of an extension is low, even if there are last minute questions concerning the RFP.

2. The USCG is considering incorporating milestone payments during the Design and Development Phases of the contract. How might these best be structured? The USCG is considering limiting milestone payments over the Design and Development Phases from award to delivery of the first boat to no more than 6 to balance administrative burden against cash-flow needs of the boat builder.

Responses consistently indicated a desire for milestone payments, and that 6 over approximately 2 years would be challenging for managing cash flow.

We are looking to develop three elements with potential milestone payments. Details will be included in the RFP.

• Design (4 total) – The design milestone payments would be tied to the completion of design reviews or acceptance of deliverables.

• Long Lead Time Material (LLTM) (2 total) – The intent is to include LLTM as a contract line item (CLIN) for each SPC HWX II, with milestone payments associated with discrete events, typically ordering and receipt. You will be able to propose the content of the mailto:paul.t.andron@uscg.mil

LLTM CLIN and the pricing for it, the RFP will establish payment percentages and definition for the milestones.

• Production (4 total) – The RFP will provide Production milestone definitions and associated payment percentages. Typical production milestones have included start of production, hull rolled, propulsion installed, launch for trials, or acceptance.

With the expected structure of three distinct contract line items (Design, LLTM, Production), limiting the number of milestone payments to; 4 for Design, 2 for each LLTM ordered, and 4 for each SPC HWX II ordered, is preferred. Alternative milestones and payments to those listed in the RFP would be open for discussion at the post-award conference.

3. Is SOW-068: Integration and Engineering compatible with your design and development process?

How might you modify SOW-068 to better match your processes?

Responses indicated SOW-068 is compatible with industry practice.

4. Do you have a boat that meets the preliminary requirements or a design that could be modified to meet the requirements that you have recently built (past 3 years)? If so, please provide information on the design and any boats that have been built to this design (sales or marketing information that would include data such as specification sheets, drawings, photographs, production information, etc.). If there are features in your documentation that support the SPC- HWX II mission, they may be generically incorporated into the specification.

To broaden competition, we are considering allowing offerors to propose a boat based on a parent craft which has been built within the past 3 years (but not necessarily by the boat builder), provided the boat builder has built aluminum craft of similar dimensions.

5. What is the rough order of magnitude (ROM) price of your current craft? What is your ROM for the Design and Development effort (SOW-068) to meet the SPC-HWX II requirements? What is the ROM for a first article and subsequent SPC-HWX II boats? This is to verify that early USCG cost estimates are valid and sufficient to support an acquisition of 6 boats.

The pricing information confirmed the USCG preliminary costs estimates are within this range of pricing.

6. If you do not have a boat in production, and you are interested in submitting a proposal, how would you pursue proposing a hull form that is proven and ready for production?

Multiple respondents proposed licensing the design of a proven hull form as the parent craft to be modified and built by the boat builder. This will most likely be allowed as mentioned in Question 4.

7. What features of your boat make it a suitable, balanced design to address the towing and extreme weather requirements? Is a 10% power reserve (available power above power required for top speed) a reasonable requirement to provide towing capability and responsiveness in surf?

Is 10% too much, too little, or the wrong thing to ask for? What other design requirements do you recommend to ensure the USCG acquires a capable / balanced boat?

Responses supported a 10% power reserve was considered appropriate with consideration of the torque power curve of the selected engine. This was described as “under wheeling” the propeller to achieve reserve power and bollard pull. We feel this requirement was understood and an acceptable approach. We are looking to refine the specification language to better capture the intent. We are also looking into advantages or advisability of increasing the power reserve above 10%.

8. The structural requirements outlined in SPEC-100 are based on the DNV High Speed Light Craft rule set and have been tailored to meet the unique operating conditions intended for SPC-HWX II.

Are the structural requirements reasonable and attainable? The USCG welcomes input on the appropriateness of the requirements based on the intended operating environment, mission set, and service life of the SPC-HWX II. If you feel the listed requirements are not appropriate, please comment on how you would adjust them.

The responses indicated structural requirements based on DNV High Speed Light Craft rule set are considered achievable by most respondents. However, there were responses requesting additional consideration be given to other rule sets such as ABS, BV, and ISO. We will take another look at other rule sets based on the responses, though the likelihood of shifting is low.

9. The self-righting and stability (SPEC-079) requirements are derived from the 47 MLB. Are these self-righting requirements reasonable, attainable, and within your capabilities to produce? If not, how might you adjust them while still meeting the operational requirements of the boat?

Responses indicated SPEC-079 was considered achievable.

10. The USCG’s experience is that even the limited amount of copper in condensation (from a/c units) can result in hull and structural maintenance concerns. Can you recommend an HVAC system configuration that complies with SPEC-510 and doesn’t contain copper or copper-bearing alloys in the system’s tubing? How might you adjust SPEC-510 to allow for an obtainable HVAC system that will minimize the exposure of the aluminum hull to copper dissolved in condensation?

Titanium was mentioned as a potential alternative to copper, but we see titanium as being challenging, expensive, and incompatible with an aluminum hull as well. We will continue to review responses, but are currently planning to allow for copper condensers and evaporators as long as they are contained, localized, and condensate is well managed.

11. Managing interior moisture, condensation, and humidity is challenging, particularly in the Pacific Northwest with a wet crew entering a conditioned space. The draft requirements include various systems to manage moisture content and condensation: HVAC (SPEC-510), electric window defrosters (SPEC-625). How might you adjust these requirements to meet the intent of managing this? Would you recommend a specific dehumidification requirement?

Responses indicated the requirements were considered reasonable. We are still reviewing responses, and may consider requiring a dehumidification function within the HVAC system.

There were also suggestions for the use of anti-condensation and insulation coating systems (e.g. high build epoxy with a ceramic insulation coating). Certain such coating systems are allowable under the specification. We generally prefer to minimize coating of aluminum, however in certain circumstances there may be value in applying a coating.

12. Surf operations regularly require rapid (aggressive) throttle management demanding full ahead (20knots) to full twist (stbd ahead full, port back full) engine operations. Stalling or delays in propulsion response are unacceptable and can place the boat in hazardous situations.

Understanding this requirement and ensuring your propulsion system is capable of meeting it is critical. Have you produced a boat that is capable of these types of extreme propulsion system operations, and how have you addressed the need for immediate, extreme, aggressive propulsion system response without engine stalling or unacceptable delays (SPEC-252-2)? Are the throttle response times reasonable and appropriate requirements (SPEC-252-2)?

The responses indicated this requirement was considered achievable albeit challenging. SPEC- 252-2.1.1 is not a boat speed requirement, but rather a shaft RPM requirement (rotating ahead to rotating astern or vice-versa).

This requirement is intended to allow rapid control lever movement and thrust change without stalling an engine.

Boat acceleration is specified in SPEC-252-2.2 with a 20 second time from clutch-ahead to full engine RPM, building to full boat speed.

Many alternative propulsion configurations were suggested to meet these requirements such as waterjet, diesel-electric, and the use of shaft brakes or additional thrusters. We will continue to review responses, though the likelihood of shifting to a different propulsion system (other than diesel, reduction gear, props) is unlikely.

13. The draft specification includes a Propulsion System and Genset Inversion Test (SOW-097) and Inversion Requirement (SPEC-200). Are these achievable requirements? If not, what requirement do you recommend to ensure that prime movers on the boat are not damaged during a roll-over event while still maintaining mission-critical systems?

Responses indicated that within both the EPA Tier 3 and Tier 4 rating this requirement is achievable, however options become much more limited within EPA Tier 4. We will continue to review responses, though the likelihood of moving away from the current requirement is low.

14. What is your company’s size and socio-economic status?

Multiple small businesses responded to this RFI and we anticipate that the RFP will be a small-business set-aside.

Questions from industry

These clarifying questions or comments were received.

1. Is an open bridge (SPEC-068-2.5.8) required for SPC-HWX II?

Yes, SPC-HWX II will have an open bridge. An open bridge is critical in providing the crew with an unobstructed view for operational and situational awareness.

2. Is the “buoyancy compartment” considered a hull compartment in SPEC-079-5.1?

If provided, any buoyancy compartment (e.g. within the hull, superstructure, or mast) is considered a ‘buoyant compartment’ for the self-righting requirement of specification section 079-5.1.

3. Does the “manual or automatic systems” in SPEC-079-5.2 conflict with and SPEC-529-2.1.5 regarding “rapid drainage systems”?

No. These are separate requirements. If a “rapid drainage system” is provided consistent with SPEC-529 it cannot be required to be activated to achieve self-righting required by SPEC-079-5.

Self-righting needs to be passive (SPEC-079-5.2). Systems described in SPC-529 can be used to accelerate self-righting but cannot be used to establish self-righting.

4. Does use of an actual boat satisfy the mockup requirements in SOW-098?

The use of an actual boat to meet the mockup requirement is possible, though it would present challenges in meeting the intent if it were the only mockup. The mockup requirements are meant to allow the Coast Guard to inexpensively explore, review, and evaluate varying configurations as indicated by the reconfigurable requirement in SPEC-098-2.4. If the actual boat was able to be reconfigured to support exploration of alternatives, it could be acceptable.

It is unlikely it would provide the full functionality intended by the SPEC-098 requirements.

Being able to use an actual boat provides benefit but may not provide the full functionality being sought in the mockup portion of the specification.

5. SPEC-100-3.10 appears to require the use of extruded tees for all longitudinal structure. Is this required? Is cut plate acceptable?

Cut plate and the use of built-up T’s from cut plate are both acceptable. We will adjust the specification to allow for these configurations.

6. Will the Coast Guard consider the use of hull materials other than aluminum?

No. The hull material requirement for SPC-HWX II is aluminum.

7. Will the Coast Guard consider requiring a safe remotely actuated tow-line cutter?

It is unlikely we will require it. Depending on complexity, cost, usability, and operational value, it could be considered as an advantage if proposed, without being required.

8. Will you consider modifying SPEC-070-4.4.3.2 to require a tow post location between 5% and 10% of the LOA forward of the rudder stocks to match proven practice for towing with flat-keeled planing boats?

We need to review the implications of changing from 15% of LOA forward of the rudder stocks to something less and respond.

9. Will you consider adjusting the noise requirement of 85 dBA on the open bridge to exclude wind noise from the measurement?

No – the noise requirement is based on the noise level the crew experiences, and the crew experiences wind noise. We recognize this can be a challenging requirement and will review it for possible adjustment.

10. Will you consider increasing the interior seating and berthing noise requirement from 70 dBA to 75dBA?

Yes, we will review this requirement and respond.

11. The narrative describes a tow of a 350-ton disabled vessel 150nm at 5 knots. SPEC-051 refers to towing at 5 kts and a range of 500 nm. What load should we use for calculating range and speed?

Each of these requirements is independent and the narrative is provided for context.

The SPC-HWX II shall be capable of operating continuously at speeds of 5 knots or less (this is basically a clutch speed requirement for towing or idling/slow speed maneuvering).

The SPC-HWX II shall be capable of transiting at least 500 nautical miles (NM) at cruising speed, in performance weight condition, with 10 percent fuel reserve (this is the range requirement).

We do not have a ‘range’ requirement while towing another vessel.

The load for the 500 NM range (at least) is performance weight condition at cruising speed (16 knots – or more), SPEC-051-1.3.

The load for full speed of 20 knots is performance weight condition, SPEC 051-1.1.

We may adjust the narrative to align better with the requirements listed in SPEC-051.

12. What is the duration of the accelerations identified in SPEC-051-5.2.2?

These accelerations are not intended to be impulse or shock-load accelerations, they should be considered steady-state for design. Mounts for an object in the bow should be designed to support the load under 6Gs vertically and 4Gs lateral and longitudinal.

13. Will the USCG consider allowing acceptance testing and delivery on the East Coast and self-perform transfer of the boat to the West Coast?

Allowance can be made to complete acceptance testing at a location outside of the area specified by SOW-092-1.12, however delivery and acceptance is at destination on the West Coast between Monterey, CA and the northern border of Washington state. The Coast Guard will not self-perform transfer to the West Coast. East Coast builders are required to deliver the boats to the West Coast in accordance with all applicable US Laws.