APB004_QA_Matrix_Rev_2___20170123.pdf

HSCG23-17-Q-APB004

RFQ QSheet1 Matrix Rev 1

No. Question Answer Document/Section Changed

1 Clarification is requested regarding the durations specified in Block 20, page 1 of 8, of the Standard Form 1449 of the Solicitation. What do these durations represent? Do the dates represent when a contract option will be exercised, or are they due dates for the CDRLs associated with the CLIN?

The dates provided represent days after contract action. For Example, Baseline Design Rev 1 would be due 30 days after award of CLIN 1007 and is not tied to the award of CLIN 0001 or Baseline Design Rev 0. Total duration of the Contract will not exceed 12 months.

N/A

2 The fundamental issue is based on our current interpretation of the due dates, we have 90 days to complete Baseline Design Rev 0, 30 days to complete Rev 1 (while also performing Trade Studies), and 120 days to complete Rev 2. It is respectfully requested if the was the intent of the Government and/or can clarification be provided

In clarification, in performance under this acquisition, successful offeror(s) will be required to perform multiple tasks concurrently.

N/A

3 The following request still stands, however…... also requests a day for day extension to the bidders question cutoff date of 6 January 2017 and the proposal submission date of 20 January 2017 until such time as the J-1 is made available.

The date for submission of questions in regard to the solicitation has been extended from 6 Jan 17 to 18 Jan 17.

Pre-amble and Paragragh L.3.1

4 As a part of providing cost estimates for the industry studies, the contractor will pursue pricing information from qualified suppliers. Does 10 USC 2534 or any other domestic sourcing requirements apply to this program as this could affect which suppliers are qualified?

Yes 10 USC 2534 and other domestic sourcing requirements will be applicable for the construction of the Heavy Polar Icebreakers.

N/A

5 1. CDRL A003, part of the base study CLIN 0001, requires the submission of information on stability and seakeeping, which are to be generated under CDRLs A006 and A009 that are currently only required under an option study CLIN 1001. Similarly, it requires other information which form parts of the optional CLIN 1001 package. Can the USCG consider revising the scope of CLIN 0001 to include the items now included under CLIN 1001, in order to ensure that the Baseline Rev 0 is a balanced package?

No the government will not consider changing the scope of CLIN 0001. It is recognized that unless CLIN 1001 is awarded, CDRL A003 may be an unbalanced representation of the baseline design and the design areas included in CLIN 0001 will be addressed in a greater level of detail.

N/A

6 Will the Government confirm that they will keep all proprietary data delivered under this contract confidential unless that data is incorporated into a contract document (e.g., ship specifications, contract drawings, circular of requirements) to be formally issued by the USCG?

Yes, Confirmed. N/A

7 The Heavy Polar Icebreaker (HPIB) System Specification Sections released to qualified suppliers state that “Export of the attached information which includes, in some circumstances, release to foreign nationals within the United States, without first obtaining approval or license from the Department of State for items controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Department of Commerce for controlled by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), may constitute a violation of the law.”

The ITAR (Section 121.1 - USML) Category VI - Surface Vessels of War and Special Naval Equipment, specifically calls out Coast Guard Cutters, but specifies that the cutters covered under the ITAR are those with the designations (or equivalents of) WHEC, WMEC, WMSL, and WPB. This would indicate that the Polar Icebreakers, not being listed above, would fall under the EAR which specifically calls out "unarmored and unarmed ... Coast Guard and other patrol craft with mounts or hard points for firearms of .50 cal or less". The specifications for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker that have thus far been released to qualified government contractors do not indicate that the HPIB will be armed. If the HPIB is not armed above the level of the .50 cal weapons, then the entire vessel should be covered under the EAR.

The ability to share information and conduct joint design with foreign design firms or foreign equipment suppliers will be significantly simplified for all concerned if the HPIB is designated by the government as being covered solely by the EAR.

A. Does the USCG intend to arm the HPIB with weapons greater that .50 cal and/or have any spaces with ballistic protection?

4. The Heavy Polar Icebreaker (HPIB) System Specification Sections released to qualified suppliers state that “Export of the attached information which includes, in some circumstances, release to foreign nationals within the United States, without first obtaining approval or license from the Department of State for items controlled by the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Department of Commerce for controlled by the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), may constitute a violation of the law.”

The ITAR (Section 121.1 - USML) Category VI - Surface Vessels of War and Special Naval Equipment, specifically calls out Coast Guard Cutters, but specifies that the cutters covered under the ITAR are those with the designations (or equivalents of) WHEC, WMEC, WMSL, and WPB. This would indicate that the Polar Icebreakers, not being listed above, would fall under the EAR which specifically calls out "unarmored and unarmed ... Coast Guard and other patrol craft with mounts or hard points for firearms of .50 cal or less". The specifications for the Heavy Polar Icebreaker that have thus far been released to qualified government contractors do not indicate that the HPIB will be armed. If the HPIB is not armed above the level of the .50 cal weapons, then the entire vessel should be covered under the EAR.

The ability to share information and conduct joint design with foreign design firms or foreign equipment suppliers will be significantly simplified for all concerned if the HPIB is designated by the government as being covered solely by the EAR.

A. Does the USCG intend to arm the HPIB with weapons greater that .50 cal and/or have any spaces with ballistic protection?

Currently there are no requirements for weapons greater than .50 cal and no spaces with ballistic protections.

N/A

8 Is the USCG able to specify, at least for the purpose and term of the Industry Studies contract, that the HPIB will not have a weapons system larger than .50 cal, thus making the program not subject to the ITAR?

Yes N/A

9 Recognizing the Defense Readiness missions and the Interoperability requirements the HBIP will have, it is understood that the HPIB is likely to have C4ISR systems and/or GFE that would be controlled under the ITAR even if the platform itself were only covered by the EAR. If only certain sections of the Specification and GFI, such as SWBS 400 and the related GFI, will still be controlled by the ITAR, can the Coast Guard designate the remainder of the specification to be covered by the EAR and limit ITAR control to specific, designated sections of the specification?

Specific sections of the specification will be designated as subject to ITAR as the requirement arises.

N/A

10 Can the Government confirm that where the scheduled date for a CDRL data submission falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal Government holiday, the submission due date shall be the Yes N/A

11 Page 1 of the Solicitation identifies that the period of performance for CLIN 00001 ending on 1/5/2018. However, page 22 of the Solicitation (Section F.2) identifies the period of performance, if all options exercised, to not exceed 12 months thus potentially ending on 3/7/2018. Can the Government clarify which date should be used as the end date for the period of performance?

If all options are exercised the period of performance shall not exceed 12 months from contract award.

N/A

12 Will the Government consider recommendations for schedule adjustments within the industry study period as long as the overall period of performance remains the same? No, the Government will not consider recommendation for adjustments for period of performance of the CLINs.

N/A

13 Will the contractors be given visibility to changes in the System Specification as they are being considered and implemented? Yes, updates to the specifications will be made available. N/A

14 If the Government selects to execute any of the proposed areas of further study identified in Option 6, will these fall under the contract ceiling of $4 million? No N/A

15 Can the Government confirm that a Q&A system will be utilized throughout the Industry Studies through the Integrated Digital Environment Site (IDES) as identified in Attachment J- 5? Will the Q&A be shared with all contractors, similar to the approach on OPC, where all questions and responses were shared in a non-proprietary form?

Yes N/A

16 Option Studies 3, 4 and 5 are very closely related, but are currently defined by different sets of CDRLs. Option 3 includes CDRLs 039 – 044, Option 4 includes CDRLs 023 – 028 and Option 5 includes 029 – 038. In some cases the wording of several DRLs is identical; e.g. Option 4’s A026 and Option 5’s A036; however, there is no similar DRL for Option 3, although hull form changes will certainly impact open water speed/power. As it is difficult to separate out many of the implications of hull form, propulsion and electrical configuration, will the Coast Guard authorize all of these options to run concurrently governed by the consolidated set of CDRLs listed below, and containing only information as appropriate to the nature of each alternative?. For example, using CDRLs A026 and A036 there would be no need to repeat speed/power calculations for any alternatives where the hull form and propulsor configuration are identical to those of the Baseline.

Recommended Consolidated CDRL List o Machinery Space Arrangements (including uptake space and electric plant arrangements) o Major Machinery Equipment List (MEL) o Open Water Speed-Power Estimates o Open Water Seakeeping and Maneuvering Analysis o Stability Calculations o Structural Assessment – Weight and Strength o Material Specifications o Hull Lines Plan o Continuous Level Icebreaking Shaft Horsepower Estimates o Endurance and Annual Fuel Consumption Calculations o Range, Endurance and Fuel Burn Curve o Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA) o Electrical One-Line Block Diagram

It is the Government's intent to run these options concurrently.

However, offerors are advised that options will be exercised as funding is made available for obligation.

N/A

17 Will the Government consider revising the SOW and CDRLs as recommended? No N/A

18 Option Studies 3, 4 and 5 are all defined by a set of CDRLs which require configuration and performance data for every option to be presented at the same level of detail as that for the baseline ship. For example, under CLIN 1003 for Option 3, CDRL A041 requires full seakeeping and maneuvering analysis for every hull form option considered. If (for example) three different hull forms and three different propulsor/steering configurations are explored, this will require nine full sets of analysis. Similarly, for CLIN 1004 (Option 4), a significant number of propulsion options may be proposed for assessment, but many of these will not require a full analysis in order to identify their relative weaknesses and strengths.

Can the Government please confirm if the intent is A) to provide the same level of detail as the baseline ship for all options, as currently suggested by the CDRL descriptions, or B) that only sufficient information needs to be provided to describe and justify the assessment of how each alternative ranks against the identified baseline.

Only sufficient information needs to be provided to describe and justify the assessment of how each alternative ranks against the identified baseline.

N/A

19 Section J identifies Attachment J-1, Draft Heavy Polar Icebreaker System Specification but there is no attachment in the FBO solicitation. Where can we get a copy of Attachment J-1? Amendment 1 to the RFQ provided an update to Attachment J-5. This revision provided instructions for contractors to submit DD Form 2345 for JCP certification. System Specification would then be transmitted to the interested party via Safe ARMDEC.

N/A

20 The description of Block 9 includes the statement "Per Section H of this contract, data delivered under this contract that contain technical data are subject to the restrictions of the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Section 2571)."

The solicitation does not include a Section H.

Please provide Section H.

Sentence will be edited to remove the reference to section H J-3

21 The referenced paragraph states that "The optional CLINs will be excercised as funding is made available and the same optional CLINs will be excercised on each resultant contract.

Should all CLINs be excercised, the overall Period of Performance of the contract(s) will be 12 months."

Does the Coast Guard have an anticipated schedule for the award of the optional CLINs? Given the relatively short turnaround on many of the optional CLINs this offeror needs an anticipated schedule in order to ensure that all teammates and subcontractors are able to support the project.

The Government intends to exercise CLINs 1001-1007AB 3 Months ARO. The Government intends to exercise CLINs 1008-1011 9 Months ARO. However, offerors are advised that options will be exercised as funding is made available for obligation.

N/A

22 1. Please explain how the STUDY PLANS for option 3, 4, 5, and 8 (1003AA, 1004AA, 1005AA, and 1008AA) relate to the actual studies and are to be treated. In particular:

a. Are the STUDY PLANS to be approved by the USCG before the actual study can start? This could take up to 60 days according to J-6;

b. If (a) above is true, then it could possibly only leave 30 days to complete the actual study (i.e. 1003AB, 1004AB, 1005AB, 1008AB) which will not be enough time or;

c. Alternatively does the 90 days allowed for the study start after the approval of the STUDY PLAN? This will have a cascading effect to the schedule, In which case the year long schedule will not be met.

d. Is the Award of the “AB” CLIN base on the approval of the “AA” CLIN or are they both awarded at the same time regardless?

The Study Plans will not be approved. The Study Plans will be reviewed and comments will be provided as necessary. The primary purpose of Study Plan is to enable the Government to gain and understanding the scope of each of the studies. The award of the AB CLIN is not dependant upon approval of the AA CLIN.

N/A

23 1. According 3.2.1.5 the Rev 1 Baseline (1007AA) will depend on the outcome and from 3.2.1.4 (i.e. the propulsion, electric, and hull form and structures studies). Please explain the following questions as relates to Rev 1 Baseline.

a. Per the previous Q&A, 1001 to 1007AB are proposed to start 3 months after the Baseline Design, The Rev 1 baseline cannot start until options 3, 4, and 5 are complete.

Depending on answer to Q1 above this will extend out the schedule.

b. Are the improvements made for the Rev 1 baseline entirely up to the CONTRACTOR or are they to be agreed upon with USCG first?

The Government anticipates that the Rev. 1 Baseline update work will begin prior to submission of the Initial Studies being performed under 3.2.1.4.. The improvements made to the Rev. 1 Baseline will be left to the Contractors discretion.

N/A

24 Similar to Q1, the Integration Studies are to follow the completion of the Studies (3.2.1.4) and Follow on Studies (3.2.1.7 – Follow on Studies), and therefore cannot start until these are complete.

In Addition, 3.2.1.9 and 3.2.1.10 (Rev 2. Baseline) uses information from 3.2.1.4 to 3.2.1.8 and therefore needs completion of these before it can be started.

This will impact the desired year schedule. Please advise.

The Government anticipates that the Rev. 2 Baseline update work will begin prior to submission of the Follow on Studies being performed under 3.2.1.7.

N/A

25 Please advise if solutions from the Follow on Studies are to be implemented into the Rev 2 Baseline are at the sole discretion of the CONTRACTOR or will need to be agreed upon with USCG first.

The improvements made to the Rev.2 Baseline will be left to the Contractors discretion.

N/A

26 In Section L 4.1.1.6.1 it states “The subcontracting plan shall be negotiated 30 Jan 2017.” Is this date also extended as a result of the extended proposal date? Section L.4.1.1.6.1 is extended to 15 Feb 2017 RFQ Section L.4.1.1.6.1

27 Regarding RFP Q&A dated 1/12/17, the answer to #1 states the total duration of the Contract will not exceed 12 months. The first line of Block 20 on SF 1449 states the Period of Performance as 03/07/2017 to 01/05/2018. Can the contractor assume the PoP is now extended through 03/07/2018?

The period of performance is 12 months. N/A

28 Regarding RFP Q&A dated 1/12/17, the answer to #14 states Option 6 (CLIN 1006) is not included in the $4M contract ceiling. Can the contractor assume Option 11 (CLIN 1011) is also not included in the $4M contract ceiling? Are any other CLINs not included in the $4M contract ceiling?

The studies that are recommended under CLIN 1006, if pursued will be acquired under a separate contract action and is not included within the contract ceiling. CLIN 1011 effort is included within the contract ceiling.

N/A

Sheet1