LRIT ASP Q A.doc

QUESTIONS & RESPONES (Q&A)

Question 1: Which device types need to be supported from Day 1 InmarsatC

Yes

Iridium

Yes

Skywave

Yes (Skywave terminals only)

Satamatics

No/Future date unknown

SatPro

No/Future date unknown

Other

None at this time

Question 2: The solicitation states that approximately 800 vessels qualify for LRIT.

a) How many vessels have been LRIT Conformance tested?

675 (as of 10MAR10)

b) How many have been issued with an LRIT Conformance Test Report?

675 (as of 10MAR10)

Question 3: How many vessels are currently registered to the NDC?

Currently 627 vessels are registered/reporting to the US NDC.

Question 4: Please provide a breakdown of the number or percentage of vessels currently registered to the USA LRIT National Data Centre with each type of equipment listed in Question 1.

See attached excel spreadsheet. A more detailed spreadsheet will be provided as Government Furnished Property at time of award and in order to support the transition plan.

Question 5: Fulcrum already has an ASP service. The Fulcrum ASP is able to receive and send LRIT formatted messages over the expected protocol. For the purpose of this contract, please confirm that this process is 'black boxed’, so Fulcrum are free to implement as we see fit (provided that all technical and performance specifications are met as per the regulations).

Yes. The USCG is not applying software or hardware requirements regarding the inter-workings of the ASP functions, as long as the overall system requirements are met.

Question 6: Please confirm if there a dedicated way for registering vessels into the system or if the method will be agreed at time of proposal (spreadsheet, portal, etc) This should be proposed. Currently, excel spreadsheet processes transmitted via e-mail are in place.

Question 7: Paragraph 5.4 of the Solicitation states “In addition, the Contractor shall seamlessly transition the current United States of America vessels reporting LRIT information from the current ASP, Pole Star Space Applications Limited (contract HSCG23-09-C-TCI038. This transition must occur with coordination between Pole Star and the Contractor in order to ensure all U.S. vessels remain in compliancy with the automatic reporting of LRIT information.” Are Pole Star Space Applications the only current ASP, that is to say have there been any previous ASP’s beyond the ‘current’?

Yes. Pole Star Space Applications Limited is currently the only U.S. Recognized ASP and U.S. Testing ASP.

Question 8: The solicitation states that the ASP must provide Disaster Recovery option for at least 2 CSP connections. This is possible for Inmarsat C (e.g. Vizada or Stratos) but this is not possible for Satamatics, Skywave or Iridium, where there is only 1 CSP is providing the gateway service. Please clarify.

The intent of the requirement within the solicitation is to address duplicity within the Inmarsat network, relating to Communications Service Provider disaster recovery. Currently disaster recovery is not an option for Satamatics, Skywave, or Iridium; however, if this becomes available, it would be expected that the US Recognized ASP would implement such a capability, and is within the scope of the current solicitation.

Question 9: With regard to the issue of Conformance Test Reports to vessels, do these need to be provided in couriered hardcopy, posted hardcopy or is an electronic copy sufficient (PDF by email).

Original signed and certified Conformance Test Reports are required to be issued to U.S. ship owner / operators by the ASP on behalf of the United States of America. There have been times that expedited service is requested. Couriered hardcopy or ‘return receipt’ capability is preferred. An expedited service and a standard delivery service would be preferred in the proposal. In addition, an original copy of the CTR is required by the Government. Lastly, an electronic scanned copy to the Government is desired along with the original copy. Currently original hard copies and electronic versions via disc are mailed to the Government in order to meet this requirement.

Question 10: Paragraph 5.6.5 refers states “during the transitional arrangements period through 30 June 2009”. Please confirm transition period (times and dates.)

The transitional arrangements were not extended and no longer apply to this solicitation.

Question 11: Please confirm the Award Due Date.

On or before April 14th 2010 Question 12: Paragraph 5.6.6 of the solicitation states that an “Auto recovery process” is required for vessels not polling. We seek clarification on the term “auto recovery”. For example, how many attempts should be made and when should those attempts be made.

This term is a directly noted in the IMO documentation and the Government would expect the ASP to be familiar with this requirement. It is our interpretation that ‘Auto Recovery Process’ refers to the ASP ability to recover and forward position reports to the data center if a scheduled or unscheduled downtime at the ASP occurred. This is not related to ‘troubleshooting’ individual terminals and is outlined separately in the solicitation.

Question 13: It is understood that the final project plan should be provided 15 days after the kick off meeting. Should this include a transition plan or does the US CG already have a transition plan in place.

Yes. The proposal should include a transition plan for the seamless transfer of the U.S. vessels currently reporting to the U.S. Recognized ASP.

Question 14: Paragraph 8.2.1 of the Technical document specifies required service availability of 99.5% per annum (525600 minutes per annum gives 2628 minutes down time per annum or 44 hours) and 95% in any one day (1440 minutes per day gives 72 minutes down time in one day).

Are there any penalties if this target is not met?

There are no set penalties if the target is not met. However, if the contractor fails to perform within the agreed performance parameters stipulated in the Statement of Work, the Government has the right to take the necessary steps to remedy the situation. If the vendor fails to rectify or make amends for the situation, the Government may terminate the contract in accordance with the US Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Question15: Paragraph 8.2.2 of the Technical document states: “The ASP shall forward messages to the NDC with less than 15 seconds delay from receipt to transmission to the NDC.”

Paragraph 5.6.1 of the Specification states “The Contractor shall be capable of reporting positional data for all U.S. flagged vessels four (4) times daily with no more than 1 minute in delay from receipt of the shipboard position to the time of delivery to the National Data Center.”

Please clarify as the two points appear to contradict each other.

You observation is correct and Paragraph 8.2.2 of the Technical document should state, “with no more than 1 minute delay…”, and should align with Paragraph 5.6.1.

Question 16: Complete Conformance test / for all ships?

Sections 1.2 and 5.2.2 of SoW states: service shall include Conformance Tests for all US flag vessels, i.e. approximately 800 ships.

Section 5.2.3 states: “The Contractor will accept previous conformance tests completed by vessels, primarily in the case of re-flagging or other similar situations…”.

Our understanding is that this section should also apply to US flag vessels already in the NDC, providing the former Recognized ASP is appointed as Authorized Testing ASP, and if these US flag vessels have successfully passed their CTR in 2009.

Question 17: Consequently, for each US Flag ship presently tested, the former CTR will remain valid and does not need renewal, could you please confirm?

Yes, all previously issued CTRs will remain valid as per MSC.1/Circ 1307

Question 18: Therefore, should the Conformance Testing budget indicated in the price sheet be a unit CT price or the price for 800 CT?

The proposal should be for a unit price. The 800 figure was provided as an estimated number of US vessels subject to the Regulation.

Question19: Please confirm that the current “recognized” ASP will be appointed as a “testing” ASP?

The current US Recognized ASP is also a US Testing ASP, and will remain recognized as a US Testing ASP for the purpose of recognizing the previously issued CTRs and for re-flagging purposes as outlined in MSC.1/Circ.1307.

ASP in contact with shipowners

Section 3.1 of SoW says: “The list will include all pertinent information required by the ASP in order to initiate contact with the ship owner/operator/agent in order to commence conformance testing, integrate the vessel into the LRIT system, and continue ongoing LRIT services with each vessel.”

Question 20: Should the ASP operator provide technical support to the shipowners after the integration phase, when the ships are in LRIT operation?

Yes.

Please confirm if the recognized ASP will have the authority to directly contact the shipowner in order to troubleshoot or otherwise assist shipowners with associated LRIT questions?

Yes.

Question 21: Issue Conformance Test Reports

Section 5.2.3 of SoW asks the ASP to issue the CTR that “contains verbiage agreed on by both the contractor and the Government”.

Is it acceptable to deliver a standard CTR as in Appendix 2 of Circ 1307?

In general, yes. It needs to be tailored to the US flag and this will be decided upon after award of the contract.

Question 22: NDC to ASP Data Feed

Section 5.3 of SoW states: “In addition to the LRIT formatted and compliant data stream, the Contractor shall also provide a data feed containing all data elements received from US flagged vessels”.

To which system does the additional data need to be provided (a USCG existing system or a Contractor provided web interface)?

The full data feed, in addition to the IMO compliant data feed, must be provided to the US Coast Guard via a separate secure internet connection as explained in the Statement of Work.

Question 23: Deletion of vessels from the LRIT system

Section 5.4.2 of SoW mentions that vessels’ removal will be managed via e-mail.

Question 24: Please explain the protocol for notification to the ASP for vessel removal.

Informal e-mail request by the Government. A response is expected by the Contractor, via e-mail as well. This is simple issue. Other options may be proposed.

Question 25: Could it be proposed to set up a web interface to let the COTR or NDC operators enter any vessels changes (removal or new entry) directly?

The Government welcomes additional ideas / solutions.

Question 26: Availability figures discrepancies

Section 5.5.1 of SoW is requiring the minimal availability figures: 99.9%/year; 99%/month; 95%/day.

Section 8.2 of the ASP Technical Requirements is requiring 99.5% up time, on-air, reporting capability over a year.

Question 27: Are these two yearly values consistent?

The ASP Technical Requirement is in error and should read 99.9% over a year and should align with the SoW.

Question 28: processing the LRIT position request from the NDC Section 5.5.4 of SoW states: the ASP shall send the LRIT position report (not request as written) to the NDC after receiving a position request message from the NDC.

The way to manage multiple requests to change the report interval, is documented by the Circ 1259, chapter 2.3.6. “Processing of multiple requests to change the shipborne equipment transmitting interval”.

Question 29: Could you please confirm that the NDC will send the Start/end parameters in a way to optimize the transmissions (i.e. the ship reports at 00:45, 06:45, 12:45, 18:45, the new request changes the interval every 3 hours. It keeps the same timing in minutes in order to add a report at 03:45; 09:45; 15:45.

The NDC does not have control to that degree and cannot keep the same timing in minutes. It is up to the hardware on the vessel and the ASP provider. The NDC cannot request a preferred initial delivery time. We follow 2.3.6 by ensuring “that the first position report associated with the stream of data is within the specified reporting rate plus 30 min and all position reports within the stream of data supplied to the requestor are spaced at the desired reporting time (i.e. all subsequent position reports are spaced at the time specified by the reporting rate)”

When a new request to change the interval is received a request will immediately be sent to the ASP provider to change the poll interval. The NDC will then expect the next position to arrive within the new poll interval time period. When the position is received from the ASP, the position will be delivered to all requesters if it is within the expected time frame to receive a position.

In other words, if a new request is received to set the polling interval to 1 hour, the request will immediately be sent to the ASP and the NDC will expect the next position to be sent within the next 1 hours. When the next position arrives, the NDC will deliver the position to the 1 hour position requester. The NDC will also examine any other requestors and if their expected next position time is less than the current position time plus the current poll interval, then the position will be sent to them also.

Action

Time Country A

Country B

Country A requests poll rate at 3 hours

Expects next at 0300.

Position received

0300 Gets first position.

Expects next at 0600.

0600 Gets second position. Expects next at 0900.

Country B requests poll rate at 1 hour 0630

Expects next at 0730.

0730Does NOT get position - next is not expected until 0900.

Gets first position. Expects next at 0830.

0830Gets third position because next expected < current time Gets second position.

+ poll interval. Expects next at 1130

Expects next at 0930.

Action

Time Country A

Country B Position received 0930 Does NOT get position - next is not expected until 1130.

Gets second position. Expects next at 1030.

1030 Does NOT get position - next is not expected until 1130.

Gets second position. Expects next at 1130.

1130 Gets fourth position. Expects next at 1430.

Gets third position. Expects next at 1230.

Question 30: structure of price sheet in the price proposal

In Page 19, it is indicated that the Contractor shall submit a full price proposal for a Firm-Fixed-Price award.

The telecommunication costs for the ASP depend on the LRIT reporting strategies which will be commended by the NDC to the US flag ships (transmit every 6 hours or more frequently, send poll, reconfiguration commands etc).

Question 31: Should the Contractor include an additional unit price for each of these commands and reports to the mandatory reports airtime budget, or they will be paid from the fixed price budget?

The proposal should include a Firm-Fixed-Price for each billable item (provided for different messages and message types).

Question 32: Since these strategies are not indicated in the RFP, how could the contractor estimate the amounts of additional reports and commands?

The contractor should estimate figures based on 650 (now reporting) – 800 (current total estimate) base on previous ASP experience. Since the system is new, it is accurate to state most reports are standard 6 hour position reports. It is noted that there is no way to provide firmer estimates due to the unknown requests and usage by other data centers (at any given time).