ARV Industry Day Questions 2nd Release 20230809.pdf

Antarc�c Research Vessel (ARV) Integrator, Industry Day

ARV Industry Day Questions

Second Release

NSF is providing answers to the questions below to help improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities consistent with FAR 15.201. All responses should be considered in “draft” form and subject to revision as the procurement process progresses.

Numbering of questions is continuous with the previous release of questions and answers.

17. Will the project lead be required to front capital for contract costs (such as to a shipyard), or would NSF make an award for these expenditures?

NSF’s intent is that such costs are captured through the appropriate contract action, such as a task order via the currently intended Indefinite-Delivery Indefinite- Quantity contract structure. NSF does not intend for the Integrator to front costs for contractual requirements.

18. Who is managing and/or responsible for design risk? In other words, will the integrator need to include this in its bid or will NSF hold MR/Contingency for changes?

The Vessel Integrator is responsible for managing and mitigating design risk. The direct costs for doing this would be included as part of the Vessel Integrator’s budget for the project. Based on identified risks, a contingency budget will also be proposed and held by NSF to be used as authorized through the Change Control Process.

19. How much latitude or opportunity will there be for design adjustments or changes once the shipyard bid process begins? After site selection? What if those adjustments are fueled by community input? (or – will the community have input after the shipyard bid process begins? After the shipyard is selected?)

NSF considers community input as an integral part of the process and inputs are captured via the NSF Science Advisory Subcommittee and through direct input from the future Integrator’s design team. Changes to the design and performance specifications are subject to NSF approval and the requirement’s Change Control Process. It is not anticipated that significant changes to the design will occur after the start of the Construction Stage.

20. Will management reserve be used on this project and if it is, under what circumstances will it apply/come into play?

The specifics of how the management reserve will operate for this requirement have yet to be determined.

21. Will contingency be used on this project and if it is, how will it be managed within the https://sam.gov/opp/a622a676f6dd40baaf8f77731760028e/view contract? Who will be managing it? What role will NSF play in the contingency/management reserve (if used) process?

The specifics of how contingency will operate for this requirement have yet to be determined.

22. Will the integrator invoice NSF on a monthly basis? What is the process used by NSF to verify costs?

NSF currently anticipates invoices being on a monthly basis. Specifics on invoice formatting and how invoiced costs shall be verified have not been determined.

23. Has the preliminary design been reviewed and approved by the NSF Director? If so, when will the project be moving into final design and MREFC funding? Or – have there been any changes to the project timeline since June 2023?

NSF’s current posture is that a solicitation release will not occur prior to approval by the NSF Director for the project to move into the Final Design Phase. This process is currently underway. More specific timing is unavailable.

Moving to the Construction Stage and the award of MREFC funding is dependent on successfully completing the Final Design Phase, internal NSF approvals, and receipt of Congressional Funding. Current estimates, subject to change, place the start of the Construction Stage for FY26.

24. Will the contract design be a production design, or will it include a Design Verification and Transfer (DVT) period? If there will be a DVT period, how much time in the schedule has been allotted for it?

Contract Design is intended to be the finalized design from the Final Design Phase.

Production Design and Engineering is intended to take place at the beginning of the Construction Stage if approved and funded. The intent is to select a ship builder during the Final Design Phase to engage in Value Engineering, which would help to ensure that the design is buildable and incorporates ship builder suggested changes, ideally mitigating the need for a DVT period.

25. Which design was model tested, both open water and ice?

The preliminary design hull variant six, and hull variant eleven (final preliminary design hull form), were model tested for icebreaking performance, maneuvering in ice and in open water, resistance, bubble sweep down, and seakeeping. Propulsion model testing was completed with a stock ice rated propeller. Testing with a designed ice propeller remains to be completed. The model testing reports and plan will be included with the RFP.

26. Does NSF expect more model testing to be conducted either prior to the shipyard contract award or as part of the shipyard contract? Will it need to be model tested by the selected integrator/project lead?

Additional model testing of the designed propeller may be necessary if not completed during the Preliminary Design Phase. NSF intends that any further model testing, as outlined in the Model Test Plan that the Integrator will furnish and considers necessary to complete the Final Design, will be proposed and subject to NSF approval.

27. Has the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) conducted a “Review in Principle” of the current design?

Review in Principle by ABS has been initiated and should be completed during the Final Design Phase. A record of correspondence with ABS will be included with the RFP.

28. Has the design been evaluated for underwater radiated noise with the use of azipods? Is

Underwater Radiated Noise (URN) even a consideration for this design? If so, to what noise curve standard?

URN has been evaluated with azipods. A noise curve specific to the ARV project is being utilized. The details of the URN, SONAR self-noise, and airborne noise requirements and predictions are intended to be in the relevant reports included with the RFP.

29. Does the current design include datapresence / telepresence capabilities? What kind of outreach capabilities does it include, if any?

The development of the communications suite and network diagram are preliminary at this stage of the design. The design includes potential space and systems to support these activities but are subject to further development during the Final Design Phase and the Construction Stage.

30. Is it required to be classed by ABS, or can other classification societies be considered?

ABS is the default classification society. The Performance Specifications are built around ABS rules and guidance documents. The use of other classification societies, if proposed, would require justification be presented and approval by

NSF.

31. What type of contract will be implemented between NSF and the Integrator for this project?

Firm Fixed price? Cost Plus? Fixed Price Incentive?

NSF’s current intent will result in task orders having hybrid contract types, where both Firm Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement line items may be present on the same contract action. Decisions regarding specific contract types and their assignment to specific contractual line items and requirements have not been determined.

NSF seeks industry feedback and engagement on this topic. To facilitate this engagement, a draft RFP release is intended to have hypothetical contract types for its various line items.

32. Will Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) be allowed?

Economic Price Adjustment is an element being considered for inclusion given the potential length of the requirement, subject to similar discussions and industry engagement referenced in the preceding question and answer.

33. Are proposers expected to name a shipyard partner with an associated formal cost proposal?

Will Buy America requirements apply?

NSF interprets “shipyard partner” to mean the vendor/location responsible for vessel construction. NSF does not intend to require offerors to name a shipyard partner as part of their proposal. At present, selection of a vessel builder is intended to take place after award.

Please see the answer to question thirteen on the prior Q&A release for applicability of the Buy America Act.

34. What are the expected bonding/insurance requirements? (Typically fed government is “insurer” for large federal shipbuilding projects).

NSF has not determined what bonding and insurance requirements will exist. This is a topic NSF is seeking industry engagement and feedback on.

35. Due to the complex nature of this procurement and rarity of similar projects of equal size/scope/complexity, will NSF consider allowing both federal and commercial past performance projects for up to ten (10) years before the RFP date?

NSF’s current intent is that examples of experience and past performance shall be inclusive of both federal and commercial past performance projects. NSF’s current intent is that the window for past performance will be ten (10) years from the date of RFP release. A draft RFP is intended to have guidance on this subject.

36. Which will be the overall superseding guide for the project, the Research Infrastructure

Guide or the FAR? If there is no hierarchy between the two, how will competing reporting requirements be prioritized or reconciled?

The current draft of the RFP establishes a hierarchy of governing guidance so that competing requirements can be reconciled.

37. Who is the NSF management team for this project? Who is the lead?

The cognizant NSF Management team will be provided in the awarded contract action.

38. Will the project lead/integrator be required to work with the engineer of record (Gibbs and

Cox) as the project’s naval architecture support or will G&C turn their materials over to the lead/integrators engineer? If the project lead is required to work with the engineer of record how involved will they be throughout the whole construction process? And who is responsible for their cost?

NSF’s current intent is that the drawings and reports generated by engineer of record will be provided as part of the RFP and will be available to the Vessel Integrator and their chosen Design Agent. NSF does not intend to direct offerors to utilize a specific Design Agent but should be prepared to demonstrate the capabilities of their proposed Design Agent. NSF’s intent is that the cost of the Design Agent will be included in the Vessel Integrator’s project cost and funded as part of that contract.

39. How involved will NSF be in any cycle of changes (contractual, design, or otherwise)?

NSF’s intended posture assumes engagement in all aspects of the project as detailed in the review, reporting and change control processes which will be outlined in the RFP and the Project Execution Plan.

40. Will NSF require transfer of the design responsibility from Gibbs and Cox to the Integrator? Or will Gibbs and Cox have responsibility for the design through construction?

In other words, whose trademark will be on the final design at the time of construction?

Refer to the answer to question 38. The Vessel Integrator and their chosen Design Agent will be responsible for the Final Design and Construction Design.