RFQ 70Z02326QSHIPHULL Questions and Answers.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted Jul 1, 2026

Attached to: Engineering Technical Support Services to Support Parametric Ship Hull Modeling in Rhinoceros Software
Solicitation number: 70Z02326QSHIPHULL
Issued by: Department of Homeland Security US Coast Guard

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Jul 1, 2026

This is a Questions and Answers document for RFQ 70Z02326QSHIPHULL addressing contractor inquiries regarding the development of a parametric ship hull modeling tool in Rhinoceros software for the U.S. Coast Guard.

The document clarifies that the primary deliverable is a displacement hull modeling tool with accurate hydrostatic properties, though the exact level of detail (appendages, subdivision, structure, distributed weights) will be determined during development on a time-and-materials basis. Models will be validated against existing hydrostatics tables, deadweight scales, and ship models using criteria from MSC.1/Circ.1229, with the understanding that the tool may not achieve full accuracy in all cases due to incomplete input data. The intended ship types are container ships, pure car and truck carriers, and tankers (crude oil, product, and gas). Input will consist solely of commercial Capacity Plans and zero-trim deadweight scales, which will vary significantly in quality—ranging from high-quality vectorized PDFs to low-quality scanned images, all provided in PDF format without CAD files. The modeling tool must be developed using only native Rhinoceros capabilities (Grasshopper and IronPython) and pure Python modules, with no third-party plug-ins. All contractor personnel must be U.S. citizens, though performance may occur remotely from any U.S. location accommodating weekly progress meetings during U.S. East Coast business hours. The contract anticipates one full-time project engineer with potential additional management or support personnel. Estimated labor hours will be evaluated in combination with contractor experience and management approach—not as a firm ceiling—with the understanding that experience is weighted more heavily than management approach, and both significantly more than price. The Government will provide specific vessels and validation data for the three ship models to be generated and validated during Task Two, though contractors may supplement with additional data. Documentation from Task Three is intended for public release and publication. One option year is available if additional time is needed to complete requirements.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment A - Pricing Sheet 70Z02326QSHIPHULL Modification P00001.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jul 1, 2026
RFQ 70Z02326QSHIPHULL MOD P00001 Final.pdf	PDF	Jul 1, 2026
Attachment I - PWS Rapid Hull Modeling.pdf	PDF	Jun 17, 2026
RFQ 70Z02326QSHIPHULL.pdf	PDF	Jun 17, 2026
Attachment A - Pricing Sheet 70Z02326QSHIPHULL.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jun 17, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1 Question Number RFQ 70Z02326QSHIPHULL Questions Government's Response

1. The RFQ discusses ‘generating models’ for ‘evaluating ship’s structure and stability’ utilizing commercial vessel Capacity Plans and General Arrangement Drawings. However, the RFQ is silent as to the completeness or detail of the to be generated models. Thus, are the models to be complete to the level of:

a. Just the displacement hull?

b. Include appendages (propellers, rudders, thrusters)?

c. Include non-displacers (thruster tunnels, sea chests)?

d. Include subdivision (tankage, voids, compartments)?

e. Include structure (shell plates, frames, longitudinals, etc.)?

f. Include distributed weights and CGs?

g. Section Modulus?	A: The primary objective for the modeling tool is to create displacement hull models with accurate hydrostatic properties. It is unknown how long development of the modeling tool will take. However, the contract basis is time and materials, and additional modeling details can be added to the capability of the tool as it is developed.
	2.	What documents, or references, besides the General Arrangement Drawings and Capacity Plans will be utilized to evaluate the accuracy of the generated models?	Accuracy of example models developed by the modeling tool will be evaluated using existing/approved hydrostatics tables, deadweight scales, and/or ship models.
	3.	To what accuracy is desired?

a. Is accuracy solely as the categorial listings within MSC-1-CIRC-1229?

b. Please address accuracy to included items in Question 1 above.	A: The accuracy of models developed by the modeling tool will be validated using the criteria listed in MSC.1/Circ.1229. Inputs to the modeling tool will vary and it is understood that accuracy of generated models might not fully meet MSC.1/Circ.1229 in some cases. These discrepancies will be discovered during the validation step (Task Two) and documented in Task Three.
	4.	What is the desired time for model generation from the time a Capacity Plan and General

Arrangement Drawing is provided until a model (as defined by Question

1) is delivered to SERT?	The requirements are to create a tool that will allow SERT members to quickly model ships. The contractor will develop the tool. In the process of creating the tool, sample models will be generated by the contractor using the tool. These sample models will be validated for accuracy. There is no requirement for contractors to provide SERT with ship models beyond those that are used to validate the modeling tool’s use and accuracy.
	5.	The quality and information contained within commercial Capacity Plans and General Arrangement Drawings vary widely, many do not even contain a Deadweight Scale.

a. What quality of Plans and Drawings can the contractor expect from Coast Guard?

b. What format will the Government provided information be delivered?

c. Four examples of varying in quality Capacity Plans are attached for this question discussion.	The contactor can expect plans and drawings from the Coast Guard of legible but varying quality. Capacity plan quality will range from high quality, vectorized PDF with deadweight scales to low quality scanned images. Some capacity plans will not contain a deadweight scale and will have only some limited draft and displacement data such as full load and lightship. All plans will be digital (not hand drawn). All plans and drawings will be provided in PDF format.
	6.	The RFQ is explicit that ‘no third-party plug-ins’ are to be utilized. Yet the primary deliverable, ‘ship model creation tool’, in fact will be equivalent to a ‘plug-in’.

a. Will the resultant ‘ship model creation tool’ be made available to the public?

b. Food4Rhino contains a rather large catalog of nautical and marine design plugins tailored for Rhinoceros, including interface with Grasshopper. Any thoughts of utilizing or tailoring one of these plugins? SERT is limited to the use of the US Coast Guard’s approved software. Ongoing funding for additional software or plug-ins is not available. The requirement remains: no third-party plugins or software except Rhino and pure Python modules.

The documentation performed in Task Three is intended for public release and publication to a suitable technical journal or conference.

7.	The RFQ underlying goal appears to be the rapid creation of accurate ship models in response to casualties of commercial ships. The majority of commercial vessels plying US waters are subject to VRP/OPA-90 requirements. In order to have ship models available for a casualty; has any thought been given to revising the VRP/OPA-90 regulations that would require ships have accurate models inclusive to the VRPs, not unlike Fire Plans, Capacity Plans, etc.?	SERT is developing this model creation tool to respond to casualties under the currently existing regulatory scheme. Policy and regulatory development is outside the scope of this requirement.
8.	Commercial ships subject to causality events in the United States are predominantly foreign flag. Can the requirement within Paragraph 3.1 for ‘All contractor personnel must be citizens of the United States of America’ be relaxed to the Project Engineer must be a citizen of the USA?	This remains unchanged. All contractor personnel must be citizens of the United States of America.
9.	Will one (1) full time employee, along with management oversight, fulfil the labor requirement for this contract? Also, will a location in CA satisfy the contract requirements?	The basis of the contract is time and materials allowing for flexibility. It is anticipated that one full-time employee, the project engineer, is assigned but the contractor may propose additional management or other personnel.

There is no location requirement for the performance of this contract; we anticipate performance of the contract remotely from US Coast Guard Headquarters. Weekly progress meetings will be held during working hours (0800-1600) on US East Coast time which may limit some time zone locations. CA is an acceptable performance location.

	10.	The PWS expects a hull model with accuracy standards following the IMO Guidelines for the Approval of Stability Instruments. Except, that guide includes some very strict accuracy requirements. I’m concerned that it isn’t mathematically possible to create hull models with such accuracy based on only a capacity plan and deadweight scale. We may create a program that succeeds at one or two hull shapes. But something that works uniformly across all hull shapes is highly improbable.
Reading through the PWS, USCG only used the language of “. . . attain the best accuracy possible using the IMO’s guidelines . . .” (Section 2.2, TASK TWO, last sentence). That statement creates nebulous expectations. I can’t tell if USCG genuinely requires the final program to uniformly achieve the required accuracy levels. Or if USCG understands that a contractor can’t uniformly guarantee that level of accuracy.	We understand that a contractor cannot guarantee that models generated by the tool will attain the accuracy required by MSC.1/Circ.1229 in all cases. The requirement remains for the modeling tool to attain the best accuracy possible given the available, not complete, information. It is intended that accuracy will be evaluated during the validation step (Task Two) and documented in Task Three. This contract is on a time and material basis, not a firm/fixed price contract. Flexibility is built into the contract basis (Time and Material) and contract evaluation criteria. This is to address the unknown ability and time to meet the requirements given the range of ship geometries and input data. The modeling tool is also not expected to achieve full automation; end user input and decision points are anticipated that will affect resulting model accuracy.
	11.	PWS Section 2.0 indicates Task One will be to "develop modeling tool for common commercial ship types." What are the intended ship types?	The intended ship types are container ships, pure car and truck carriers, and tankers (to include crude oil, product, and gas). Additional ship types may be added or fewer may be considered depending on development time.
	12.	PWS Section 2.1.2 indicates the input to the program will be only a commercial ship’s Capacity Plan with a zero trim deadweight scale. Can you elaborate on the information in the Capacity Plan and the intended inputs for the tool?	Capacity Plans and deadweight scales used as input will vary significantly and that will need to be taken into account when developing the modeling tool. Some of the variation expected should include: inclusion/exclusion of the deadweight scale, deadweight scales that may or may not include LCB, LCF, MTCM, TPCM, inclusion/exclusion of multiple body views, overall quality of the plan (such as a scanned image with folding marks, misalignment, or other defects).
	13.	Noting the goal is generating a hull that meets IMO's “Guidelines for the Approval of Stability Instruments.” Can you confirm if the intent is to compare to only bare hulls, or if the tool need accommodate other appendages that are often included in the stability programs the guide is intended govern? Such appendages might include skegs, bilge keels, bow thruster tunnels, shafting, rudders, etc.	The tool is intended to create models with the best possible accuracy given the limited information. Inclusion or exclusion of appendages will be a decision point in both the development of the modeling tool and possibly for the end user of the modeling tool.
	14	PWS Section 2.1.1 requires contractor personnel to complete the Hull Design and Fairing Training Level 1 and 2 courses offered by Rhino Centre. Since the pricing sheet requests fully burdened hourly labor rates and does not appear to provide a separate line item for training costs, should offerors include the cost of this required training within their proposed hourly labor rates?	The pricing sheet is updated to reflect the costs.
	15.	What is the number of hours offerors should assume it will take for an individual to complete the required Hull Design and Fairing Training Level 1 and 2 courses?	The offeror should review the course requirements and allocate the hours necessary for completion based on the experience level of proposed personnel.
	16.	Will the Government provide a method for contractors to transmit a sample hull model that is CUI?	CUI transmitted via email shall be protected by encryption or transmitted within secure communications systems. CUI shall be transmitted using a FIPS 140–2/140–3 Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules validated cryptographic module identified on https://csrc.nist.gov/projectscryptographic-module-validation-program/validated-modules. When this is impractical or unavailable, for Federal information systems only, CUI may be transmitted over regular email channels. When using regular email channels, Contractors and subcontractors shall not include any CUI in the subject or body of any email. The CUI shall be included as a password-protected attachment with the password provided under separate cover, including as a separate email. Recipients of CUI information will comply with any email restrictions imposed by the originator.
	17.	Are the estimated hours proposed by the offeror intended solely for calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) under Factor 3, or will the proposed hours establish a firm Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling on the contract? If the latter, how will the Government handle situations where actual hours required to complete the work exceed the proposed estimate due to the developmental and iterative nature of the parametric modeling tool?	The estimated hours are for the Total Evaluated Price, not the contract ceiling. The hours estimated will be used in the evaluation of experience and management approach as well as for pricing. Proposal evaluation will consider personnel experience, approach and labor mix, and the number of labor hours as a level of effort and this will be used to determine whether the contractor is likely to successfully complete the requirements. For example, a contractor may propose a less-experienced project engineer with more estimated hours which could be equivalent to a more-experienced project engineer with fewer estimated hours.
	18.	Will the Government evaluate the realism of proposed labor hours and labor mix as part of its best-value determination? Specifically, will proposals containing unrealistically low estimated hours (that do not appear to account for iterative development, testing to meet IMO MSC.1/Circ.1229 accuracy standards, and refinement based on validation results) be assessed as higher performance risk under Factors 1 or 2, or considered non-responsive?	Yes, the USCG will evaluate the proposed labor hours and labor mix as part of the best-value determination. The combination of experience, management approach, and estimated hours will be used in evaluation such that low estimated hours coupled with low assessments of experience and management approach will be assessed as higher risk.
	19.	Given that the PWS describes a developmental effort whose exact level of effort depends on several currently undefined variables (number and complexity of ship types the tool must support, number of refinement iterations needed to meet IMO accuracy standards, format and completeness of input Capacity Plans, definition of “mostly automated,” specific hydrostatic tolerances, etc.), would the Government consider an alternative evaluation approach in which it fixes the assumed number of hours for purposes of calculating the Total Evaluated Price and evaluates quotations primarily on the proposed labor rates and the quality/realism of the technical approach and management plan, rather than on variable hour estimates submitted by quoters?	No, the government will not require a fixed number of hours. Contractors have the flexibility of meeting the requirements with a combination of experience, management approach, and price. Note that Experience is more important than Management Approach, and when combined are significantly more important than Price.
	20.	Given that this is a developmental effort to create a new parametric hull modeling capability with limited initial input data, what is the anticipated process and timeline for the Contractor to request additional hours or a contract modification if unforeseen complexities arise in performance?	One option year is included for additional time to complete the requirements if needed.
	21.	How does the Government expect offerors to propose an estimated number of hours when the development of the specific methodology to generate a model is yet to be determined and in fact is to be developed as part of the PWS itself?	Estimates for the number of hours will be used in combination with experience and management approach, not for the sole purpose of pricing. The USCG will evaluate whether the contractor’s estimated number of hours are likely to successfully complete contract requirements given contractor’s experience, labor mix, and management approach.
	22.	How are offerors expected to propose an estimated number of hours when this is a developmental type contract where levels of effort for later steps cannot be determined until key steps in the PWS have been completed?	Estimates for the number of hours will be used in combination with experience and management approach, not for the sole purpose of pricing. The USCG will evaluate whether the contractor’s estimated number of hours are likely to successfully complete contract requirements given contractor experience, labor mix, and management approach.
	23.	Considering the developmental nature of this requirement, we request the Government provide an estimated number of hours for bidding purposes in order to establish a level playing field between offerors, thereby avoiding preference of offerors who propose unrealistically low estimates.	Contractors have the flexibility of meeting the requirements with a combination of experience, management approach, and price. Proposals with unrealistically low estimates for price are unlikely to succeed because contractor experience and management approach are more important evaluation criteria than price.
	24.	What specific commercial ship types or hull form families (e.g., tankers, bulk carriers, container ships, general cargo, Ro-Ro, etc.) must the parametric modeling tool be capable of generating? Is there a minimum or specified number of distinct parametric hull families the tool must support?	The intended ship types are container ships, pure car and truck carriers, and tankers (to include crude oil, product, and gas). Additional ship types may be added or fewer may be considered depending on development time.
	25.	The PWS requires generation and validation of “three ship models.” Must these be of three different ship types, or may they be different loading conditions or variations of one or two types? Will the Government furnish the specific vessels and associated hydrostatic data for validation, or should the Contractor propose representative vessels?	The PWS intends for at least 3 different ships of the same type to be generated and validated. For example, 3 different containership models would be generated and then their accuracy would be validated using previously approved information such as a Trim and Stability Book or pre-existing computer model. The USCG will provide specific vessels, drawings, and validation data. However, the selected contractor may provide additional ship data if they have it available.
	26.	To support accurate level-of-effort estimating, will the Government provide example Capacity Plans (with zero-trim deadweight scales) that SERT typically has available during marine casualties? If so, can samples or redacted examples be shared prior to quote submission?	No, contractors are expected to be familiar with commercial ship capacity plans. The contactor can expect plans and drawings from the Coast Guard of legible but varying quality. Capacity plan quality will range from high quality, vectorized PDF with deadweight scales to low quality scanned images. Some capacity plans will not contain a deadweight scale and will have only some limited draft and displacement data such as full load and lightship. All plans will be digital (not hand drawn). All plans and drawings will be provided in PDF format.
	27.	PWS references IMO MSC.1/Circ.1229 “Guidelines for the Approval of Stability Instruments.” What specific hydrostatic property tolerances or acceptance criteria (e.g., displacement, LCB, KM, etc.) must the generated models meet to be considered successful under Task 2?	The primary objective for the modeling tool is to create displacement hull models with accuracy considered for all applicable hydrostatic properties. We understand that a contractor cannot guarantee that models generated by the tool will attain the accuracy required by MSC.1/Circ.1229 in all cases. The requirement remains for the modeling tool to attain the best accuracy possible given the available, not complete, information. It is intended that accuracy will be evaluated during the validation step (Task Two) and documented in Task Three.
	28.	Confirm that the modeling tool must be built exclusively using native Rhinoceros capabilities (Grasshopper and the built-in Python script editor) with no third-party plug-ins or external Python libraries beyond those included in the standard Rhino distribution. Please also clarify which Python version (IronPython or CPython/Rhino Python 3) is preferred or required.	The modeling tool is limited to the use of the US Coast Guard’s approved software including Rhinoceros (including use of IronPython within Rhino) and Python (CPython including Pure Python development libraries).
	29.	What is the expected format, completeness, and quality of the Capacity Plans and deadweight scales that SERT will provide for development and testing? (For example: clean CAD files, scanned PDFs of varying quality, incomplete drawings missing certain tanks or compartments, etc.) How should the methodology account for missing or inconsistent data?	The contactor can expect plans and drawings from the Coast Guard of legible but varying quality. Capacity plan quality will range from high quality, vectorized PDF with deadweight scales to low quality scanned images. Some capacity plans will not contain a deadweight scale and will have only some limited draft and displacement data such as full load and lightship. All plans will be digital (not hand drawn). All plans and drawings will be provided in PDF format, no CAD files will be provided.
	30.	PWS Section 1.1 states that parametric hull models “can be modified in Rhinoceros with minimal user intervention to increase accuracy.” How does the Government define “minimal user intervention”? For example, is the expectation that a user can generate a usable model in under 30 minutes with fewer than X manual adjustments, or is a different standard intended?	Yes, the expectation is that end users of the model creation tool can generate a usable model quickly and with few manual adjustments.
	31.	During Task 2 validation, how many iterative cycles between initial model generation and final acceptance (meeting IMO accuracy standards) does the Government anticipate will be required per ship model? Should quoters assume 1–2 cycles, 3–5 cycles, or more when estimating hours?	The selected contractor will have flexibility to determine their methodology in Task 1 and Task 2.
	32.	What quantitative or qualitative standard will the Government use to determine whether the implemented tool in Rhinoceros (PWS 2.1.3) is “mostly automated”? For example, percentage of the workflow that runs without manual Grasshopper component changes, time to generate a model, number of user inputs required, etc.?	The selected contractor will have the flexibility to automate or require user intervention in development of the modeling tool. Frequent progress meetings will allow the selected contractor to communicate design decisions and receive feedback from the USCG.
	33.	What level of detail is expected in the written methodology deliverable due at 3 months? Must it include pseudocode, Grasshopper logic diagrams, step-by-step user workflows, assumptions, limitations, and example calculations, or is a higher-level description sufficient?	A well-reasoned but high-level description of the proposed methodology is intended in Task 1.
	34.	What standards for commenting, documentation, and maintainability are expected for the Python scripts and Grasshopper definitions? Will SERT personnel need to be able to modify or extend the parametric definitions without Contractor support?	Code should be commented appropriately with comments (PEP 8) and docstrings (PEP 257). The intention is to make maintainable code that SERT personnel can modify or extend without contractor support.
	35.	Can the Government clarify how proprietary or confidential commercial information contained in quotations will be handled? Specifically, may proposal materials be subject to public disclosure, and does the Government recommend or require offerors to mark proprietary information in a particular manner?	Trade Secrets including pricing strategy, proprietary methods, and confidential commercial data (such as the required submittal of a Rhino model) are exempt from Freedom of Information Act requests and this material will not be released.
	36.	The solicitation does not appear to address intellectual property rights associated with software and technical products developed under this contract. Could the Government clarify the rights that will apply to the technical deliverables created during contract performance, including whether the contractor may reuse concepts, methods, or software developed under this contract in future work?	It is the intention that the modeling tool will be freely available to the public through the documentation in Task 3. The USCG intends for the public, including the contractor, to have the ability to use concepts, methods, and software developed under this contract in future work. Drawings and non-public technical data for specific ships used in building and validating the model creation tool will not be made public.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Jul 1, 2026.