A00003.pdf

For the best experience, open this PDF portfolio in

Acrobat X or Adobe Reader X, or later.

Get Adobe Reader Now!

http://www.adobe.com/go/reader

70Z04024Q62406B00

Amendment Number A00003

14b. This amendment is issued to respond to questions submitted as follows:

QUESTION: Does the CG have FMECAs for the systems listed in Section 2.1?

ANSWER: FMECAs are not available.

QUESTION: How many 154s are in Cape May NJ? Three?

ANSWER: Correct, there are three (3) FRCs stationed in Cape May, NJ.

QUESTION: A data stream from Callosum is needed for the data digital twin. Can the Government guarantee that this data stream will be available to the awardee to enable construction of the data digital twin?

ANSWER: All available information will be provided to the awardee after contract award.

QUESTION: Request a two-week extension as we did not receive all applicable documents until 6 March and the solicitation was released on 20 February.

ANSWER: At this time an extension will not be granted.

QUESTION: Does the USCG have a 3D CAD model of the vessel from new construction available?

ANSWER: No, a 3D CAD model is not available.

QUESTION: 1.5.4 – Can the model be either physics-based or data-based?

ANSWER: The Government expects offerors proposals to provide analysis and determine an approach that will lead to the outcomes identified in Section 2.2 of the Statement of Work. The digital twin assessment report described in 2.6 is the opportunity for the contractor to provide that specific analysis for government concurrence (see 2.6.4)

QUESTION: Section 2 – Where does the responsibility of the Digital Twin end and the Modelling/Analysis by

USCG begin?

ANSWER: SOW Section 2.2 describes use cases for the Digital Twins. The Digital Twin should be at a maturity level where it is capable of providing these/similar use cases based on what system it represents.

QUESTION: 2.1.7 – Do we need to simulate all the switchboard interoperability? i.e., When this breaker closes, what happens to other equipment in the simulation environment?

ANSWER: SOW Section 2.2 describes use cases for the Digital Twins. The Government is interested in applications that provide these or similar outcomes. Offerors should propose a digital twin that has the ability to provide system performance and optimization, condition-based maintenance, and operator guidance for each specific system. Section 2.6 of the Statement of Work provides the inputs to this decision-making process.

QUESTION: 2.7.1.5 – How long do the licenses need to be active?

ANSWER: The period of performance for the contract is two (2) years from the date of award.

QUESTION: Could the Digital Twin be made of a different FRC?

ANSWER: No, the available FRC is identified in the Statement of Work.

QUESTION: The final solicitation lists that pages are to be typewritten with “no less than 1 ½” line spacing and no smaller than 12 pitch type.” Do these same formatting limitations apply to tables and charts? If so, would the Government consider allowing 10pt font and single spacing for tables/charts, in particular for the Past

Performance Volume II given the three (3) page limitation?

ANSWER: Formatting limitations do not apply to tables and charts. Past performance shall be limited to three

(3) pages.

QUESTION: The final solicitation indicates that the past performance volume shall be limited to three (3) pages. Does this page limitation include cover pages/letters? If so, would the government consider excluding the cover page/letter from the Past Performance Volume II page limitation?

ANSWER: Past performance should not require a cover page/letter. The solicitation identifies what information is to be submitted for past performance.

QUESTION: With regard to Contractor Personnel, we understand that this work is not classified and will be handled as STINFO Distribution Statement D. As such, we anticipate that any US person (US citizens, US green card holders, ITAR approved foreign nationals, etc.) working for a US contractor in the US will be able to support this work. Is this correct?

ANSWER: This is correct.

QUESTION: We understand from the solicitation that the item to be included in Volume III – Price is the completed Request for Quotation Package, including the Addendum with the Schedule of

Supplies/Services. No additional basis for prices listed or breakdown of subcontracted work (as long as it conforms to subcontracting limitations) is requested, required, or allowed. Is this correct?

ANSWER: A breakdowns of prices is not required, however, as indicated in the solicitation, if a subcontractor is proposed, the proposal must specify what work will be performed by the subcontractor. Offerors are not precluded from providing a breakdown.

QUESTION: Can the Government share what types of sensors for the 154’ WPC systems are available?

ANSWER: Sensors are described in the referenced drawings. Additional drawings or technical documentation is not available. It is expected vendor would utilize site visits, after award, to determine sensor needs and locations.

QUESTION: Can the Government clarify what resolution level do the currently installed sensors have? Can the government provide a sensor location document?

ANSWER: Sensors are described in the referenced drawings. Additional drawings or technical documentation is not available. It is expected vendor would utilize site visits, after award, to determine sensor needs and locations.

QUESTION: Does the Government expect all use cases to apply to each vessel system?

ANSWER: Use cases (condition based maintenance, system performance and optimization planning, and operator guidance) do apply to each system/digital twin. If the offeror is unable to meet a specific use case, then proposals should identify this and explain what is proposed.

QUESTION: Regarding Section 2.3 of the SOW. Does the Government expect contractors to create both a physics and data digital twin or just one of either type? The list of deliverables in Section 8 would appear to indicate both, but use of the word “or” in Section 2.3 requires this clarification.

ANSWER: The Government expects offerors to propose a solution that will meet the requirements identified in the Statement of Work, Section 2.2. The digital twin assessment report described in Section 2.6 is the opportunity for offerors to provide the specific analysis for Government concurrence.

QUESTION: Will the contractor get access to the actual CAD files after the award?

ANSWER: Yes, any available CAD files will be provided after award.

QUESTION: The Required Delivery Schedule in the solicitation shows two CLINs with the identical description, one with delivery at 12 months after award and the other 60 calendar days after post award conference. What is the difference between them, CLINs 0004 and 0005?

ANSWER: As stated on the Schedule of Supplies/Services, CLIN 0004 covers the Digital Twin, required to be delivered within 12 months from the date of award. CLIN 0005 covers submission of a Verification &

Validation Plan to be submitted within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of the post award, or kick-off, meeting.

QUESTION: Past performance volume is limited to 3 pages. Instructions state that if any work is to be subcontracted, the subcontractor is to provide 3 references as well. Will the page limit be extended to include 3 pages per subcontractor added?

ANSWER: Yes, if subcontracting is proposed then the page limitation would not apply and offerors would provide 3 references for each subcontractor.

QUESTION: Per Section 2.4 of the SOW, the Government wants compliance with DoDI 8510. Does this mean the Government mandates the data digital twin installed on a Government server? Or, would the Government consider hosting on cloud service designed for US defense and federal government use, such as AWS GovCloud

(US), which are dedicated to cloud computing for US defense and the federal government sector?

ANSWER: The SOW requires that the twin meet 8510 requirements for the cybersecurity risk management framework, not that it be hosted in a specific location. If the CTR can meet the requirements to 8510 I’m unaware of any requirement in that reference that prohibits use of a Cloud environment. The CTR should provide information regarding cost of cloud maintenance, licensing, etc in their proposal if this is their planned course of action.

QUESTION: Is it the intention of the government to provide the required interface to the Callosum shipboard automation system?

ANSWER: The offeoror shall provide this connection where streaming of data is necessary.

QUESTION: If additional sensors are required will the government arrange for these additional sensors with the current MCCS vendors?

ANSWER: No, offerors will be responsible for any additional sensors.

QUESTION: Can we assume ship to shore communication via Marisat or equivalent will be provided?

ANSWER: Yes, this will be provided after award.

QUESTION: Vibration, Ultrasonic, and or Cylinder Pressure sensors may be required. Is the government open to hand held periodic monitoring or is permanent installation the requirement?

ANSWER: Permanent installation is required.

QUESTION: Can we assume that VV&A performance can be on a single vessel?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUESTION: Will a test vessel be continuously available for the duration of the contract?

ANSWER: The intent is to have the vessel available, however, the vessel will still be required to meet their deployment schedule therefore additional visits will be required to be pre-arranged.

QUESTION: What locations on the ship have available communication ports for the digital twin to connect to the existing Machinery Control System?

ANSWER: The contractor will be able to ascertain using the supplies references and travel described in

Section 4.4 of the Statement of Work.

QUESTION: Are lube oil test results from an ashore laboratory available for integration into the digital twin?

ANSWER: This information will be provided after award.

QUESTION: Does the government/USCG intend for only a single 154’ FRC at Cape May, NJ to be the only FRC asset used/prototyped under this contract?

ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: Will the digital twin need inputs from the navigation suite?

ANSWER: The contractor is responsible for determining this under Section 2.6 of the Statement of Work.

QUESTION: Is it an intention for the digital twin to directly alert users to projected maintenance tasks or casualties, or would it provide feedback to the MCMS to provide the alert?

ANSWER: The digital twin should provide this directly.

QUESTION: Is a USCG goal for digital twins, to be able to age a certain asset under previously established conditions to project failure points?

ANSWER: Section 2.2.1.7 of the Statement of Work discusses a use case providing predicted failure of systems using operational characteristics and historical databases.

QUESTION: Callosum_MT (Maintenance Support System) is an MTU addition that can project maintenance for the MTUs, use trending, and provide 3D videos. Does the USCG expect under this contract to explore with reps from MTU or Bollinger Shipyards the extent that the FRC’s might use data from Callosum, and how to maximize what is available? Are they expecting to acquire the additional sensor packs available as well?

ANSWER: The USCG is agnostic to what technology is used to provide the capability described in the

Statement of Work and will not be providing additional components prior to award. Offerors may propose use of MTU equipment if it will benefit their proposal. Subcontracting would be the responsibility of the offeror and should be addressed in the proposal.

QUESTION: Does the USCG expect to utilize the current system status quo, or to use the data strings from

MCMS and the Cummins Insite to project maintenance, or both?

ANSWER: It is unclear what “status quo” refers to. The USCG is agnostic to the approach used by the offeror to complete the requirements of the Statement of Work.

QUESTION: Regarding MPC’s D13210.0, A54012.0, D13212.0 and D13218.0. Traditionally, the USCG expressed dilution or thickening as a percentage of baseline. The newer equipment is expressed in Seconds

Saybolt Universal (SSU). Is it intended that the digital twin replaces the current practices that the USCG currently uses for end user manual testing?”

ANSWER: The USCG is open to this, however, the type, fidelity, and scope of the digital twins are the responsibility of the offeror under Section 2.6 of the Statement of Work. This may result in displacement of the physical maintenance associated with end user oil lube testing.

QUESTION: Can the USCG expand and clarify expectations on predicting the “end of life expectancy” discussed in 2.2.2.2. Specifically, would loading data of the reduction gear be monitored and captured to predict failures?

ANSWER: Section 2.6 of the Statement of Work discusses this. It is the responsibility of the contractor to determine the data needed to provide a digital that meets the enclosed use cases predicting end of life expectancy.

QUESTION: Can the USCG clarify the extent the associated piping system should be monitored in a digital twin? Just for the need to clean strainers, change filters, etc. or more extensive monitoring of laminar flow/restrictor plates, etc.

ANSWER: Determination of necessary data to develop a digital twin if the contractor’s responsibility under

Section 2.6 of the Statement of Work.

QUESTION: Does the USCG expect to automate the task of performing underway viscosity testing alleviating it as an end-user task?

ANSWER: Yes

QUESTION: What OEM Solid Modelling CAD data exists or was delivered during acquisition for each one of the major systems? (Major Assemblies, Parts, file format)

ANSWER: Additional information available will be provided after contract award.

QUESTION: How many current sensors exist for each major system? Can we get a list? Sensor type, manufacturer, part number, etc.

ANSWER: This information is provided in the references.

QUESTION: How many cutters do we need to implement the solution on? Is there are release schedule? Are certain cutters a higher priority?

ANSWER: This is a prototype intruded for a single asset.

QUESTION: How many MPCs exist that support the major systems?

ANSWER: Information will be provided after award.

QUESTION: Can the Government provide additional information regarding the oil viscosity testing

Maintenance Procedure Cards D13210.0 and A54012.0 referenced in SOW 2.2.1.4?

ANSWER: Additional information will be provided after award.

QUESTION: Can the Government provide additional information regarding the lube oil sample Maintenance

Procedure Cards D13212.0 and D13218.0 referenced in SOW 2.2.1.5?

ANSWER: Additional information will be provided after award.

QUESTION: Can the Government provide additional clarification regarding the “operational availability metrics for shoreside analysis?” referenced in SOW 2.2.3.5? Can the Government provide clarity on how they tabulate operational availability metrics of the machinery systems?

ANSWER: Additional information will be provided after award as needed. For clarification on what is meant by “operational availability metrics for shoreside analysis”, the USCG is seeking system availability data that can be analyzed by USCG Data Scientists in support of reliability engineering.

QUESTION: Regarding the Operational Availability calculations, can the Government share their current calculation procedure (exclusions, inclusions, do they have tables for part lead times, etc.)?

ANSWER: This is not a current capability.

QUESTION: Does the Government currently perform / expect the above operational availability calculations to be completed for each of the eight machinery systems separately or rolled up as a combination calculation for each vessel?

ANSWER: Each system should have its own availability calculation.

QUESTION: The solicitation lists that CLIN 0001 is NSP (Not Separately Priced); are there any other CLINS that are not meant to be priced separately?

ANSWER: The solicitation identifies NSP CLINs.

QUESTION: Would the Government provide an extension to the submission deadline given that the answers to questions will impact our proposal response and Amendment 3 has yet to be released?

ANSWER: At this time an extension is not being granted.

QUESTION: Where are maintenance data and logs stored for each ship?

ANSWER: Maintenance data is stored in the Asset Computerized Maintenance System and machinery logs are stored in the Asset Logistics Maintenance Information System, both of which are USCG enterprise tools. This data can be provided after award.

14c. Offerors are required to sign and return one (1) copy of this amendment with their proposal. Failure to return one signed copy may render the proposal unacceptable and the proposal may be eliminated from further consideration.

(END OF AMENDMENT A00003)

A000003 3/15/2024 52000PR240001618

1 8

USCG Surface Forces Logistics Center

C&P3/SSP/ISVS

707 E. Ordnance Road, Suite 410 Baltimore, MD 21226-5000

X

70Z04024AQ62406B00

2/20/2024

X

ONE

N/A

SEE ATTACHED PAGES 2 THROUGH 8

KELLY WYATT, Contracting Officer