N00024-17-R-2207-0002.pdf

N0002416NR53118

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to: 1) Post Pre-Proposal Conference Minutes; 2) Respond to Offerors' questions; 3) Add DFARS Clause 252.225-7019.Restriction on Acquisition of Anchor and Mooring Chain (DEC 2009).

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

K 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Apr-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00024-17-R-2207

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Mar-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriat ion date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not , is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Apr-2017

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2020

N00024 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00024-17-R-2207

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

Response to Offerors’ Questions:

4. QUESTION: Section L requires a teaming agreement. Will you consider excluding this from the proposal page count?

RESPONSE: Yes; an amendment will be posted to exclude teaming agreements from the proposal page count.

5. QUESTION: Are there any size constraints to the technical drawings that will be submitted for the Parent and T-ATS Baseline Designs?

RESPONSE: There are no size constraints for your technical drawings.

6. QUESTION: Can CPARS information be used in place of Past Performance Questionnaires?

RESPONSE: As stated in the RFP, if an Offeror has records in CPARS, it may be used to aid in past performance evaluations, regardless of Past Performance Questionnaires received. If an Offeror has CPARS data, the Government still encourages them to submit Past performance Questionnaires.

7. QUESTION: Please explain your vision for awarding options.

RESPONSE: The CLINs are currently set up to the match the President's Budget. The lead ship will be awarded with FY 16 funds, Hull 2 with FY 18, and one per year thereafter.

The Stepladder pricing (will be included in an upcoming amendment) will give us added flexibility in potentially awarding more than one ship per year if funds become available as a result of the new administration's push for a 355-ship Navy. The inclusion of step ladder pricing will not affect the total number of ships ordered under this contract, but would only change the time when options for ships would potentially be exercised by the Government under this contract.

8. QUESTION: We did not see the non-proprietary questions from Industry Studies posted. Will you post them with an amendment to the current RFP?

RESPONSE: The non-proprietary Industry Studies questions were posted during the Draft RFP period and can be found on FBO. If you have trouble accessing them, please email brenda.uyeda@navy.mil. The Government will not be re-posting them with this RFP.

9. QUESTION: J-1 COR Appendix B Item 2b traction winch specifics varying diameters of synthetic line to be used with the traction winch.

a) Will the Government require multiple bins, one for each line size to simultaneously accommodate all line sizes independently? Otherwise storing all lines in a single bin will preclude access to a specific line size without removing other lines that may be stores on top. In addition, multiple bins will be smaller in size which facilitates easier handling and storage in the under deck stowage space.

b) Further, is it the government intent to have lifting points on the storage bin(s) that allow lifting and storing the bin(s) in the salvage stores when the synthetic lines are not in use?

RESPONSE: a) While it is not a Government requirement, the feature of having multiple bins would be considered beneficial to the Government.

b) While it is not a Government requirement, the feature of having lifting points on the bins would be considered beneficial to the Government.

10. QUESTION: J-1 COR Section 3.582(b) states the requirement for tugger winches for service on the working deck. The tugger winches on vessels in similar commercial operation have a load rating appropriate for dragging equipment that weighs up to 100,000 lbs such as large offshore anchors. In this regard, is it acceptable that the tugger winches on the proposed vessel be of a lesser capacity than that of the parent craft? If yes, what is the weight of the largest gear that shall be handled by the tugger winch so we can calculate appropriate tugger winch capacity?

RESPONSE: It is the Government’s expectation that the bidder would not reduce capabilities from the parent design, but it is acceptable to provide tuggers of a different capacity than those used on the parent vessel. The Government envisions the largest gear to be a 20,000 pound anchor with chain and wire for a total of 40,000 pounds. If higher capacity tugger winches are provided, the winches could be used for debeaching and possibly negate the need for us to carry our 50 ton cable pullers. Capacities of the proposed tugger winches need to be listed in the Contractor’s Ship Specification.

11. QUESTION: COR Appendix B, item 2b indicates that a traction winch is to be provided as an option. It is also noted that the traction winch shall be capable of line pulls up to 100 metric tons with synthetic lines ranging from 3 to 15 inch circumference. Our industry research with all leading winch suppliers shows that the details provided in the specification are very limited. None of the winch vendors we have spoken to have been able to analyze the requirement and come up with any solution that meets this requirement. To have the winch vendors accurately quote the system we will need some clarification on how the Navy intends to achieve the traction pull and how it shall be used. It could be in the best interest to the government to share some technical details of the existing traction winch, so we can propose an equivalent or better system. Below is a list of major concerns expressed by the winch vendors with the current description:

a. The magnitude of line pull can be achieved using a wire rope traction system, however, not practical with an open ended synthetic line that feeds into a bin. Please confirm the line pull.

b. A system with storage drum that wraps the synthetic line to hold the tail end of the synthetic line out of a multi-sheave traction system can be provided. Is this what the government intends? If yes, a storage bin specified in COR Appendix B, item 2b is not feasible as an open storage bin cannot provide the necessary tail end traction holding tension for the required line(s). Please clarify the requirements for mechanical means to feed the line and the stowage bin. Additional details on the current system the Navy uses can also be helpful.

RESPONSE: The Offeror is incorrect: the COR section lists the traction winch as desirable feature; it is not an option. The current Navy salvage ships have a traction winch that can pull 200,000 lbs (90 MT) with bin stowage. The current system is used for light tows, emergency tows, and debeaching. The Government only requires the maximum pull on the largest line size and will accept lesser pull on the smaller lines. The Government has stated the requirement for the traction winch in performance terms and will not provide additional details on the current system.

12. QUESTION: J-1 COR Section 3.672d SALVAGE STOWAGE requires a clear minimum deck height of

2.7 m (9ft). Further, the COR specifies that the salvage stowage area shall be arranged so that a 11ft long by 6ft wide by 6ft high piece of gear can be moved within the compartments(s).

a) Is the difference in height between the 6ft piece of gear and total height of 9ft for the material handling system (monorail or other type) to lift and move salvage equipment within the stowage space? Please confirm that a material handling system can temporarily occupy the 3ft overhead height available above the salvage equipment (11ft x 6ft x 6ft).

b) What should be the load rating for the required material handling system?

c) We assume the material handling system shall be ABS certified for unrestricted operations while at sea.

Please confirm.

RESPONSE: a) For the required salvage stowage, the lifting system can temporarily take up the 3 ft above the equipment. Bidders are reminded that if the J-1 COR Appendix B Item 2d (Mission Equipment Stowage) feature is provided, the requirement is for a container with an 8.5 ft height.

b) The largest individual piece currently carried on Navy salvage ships is 10,000 lbs. If the desired Mission Equipment Stowage feature is provided, the handling system will need to handle a standard 20 ft ISO container with a 44,000 lb road limit.

c) The Government confirms that the material handling system must be ABS certified for unrestricted operations while at sea.

13. QUESTION: J-1 COR Section 3.672d SALVAGE STOWAGE requires a removable, flush mounted hatch which is accessible by a ship’s crane. ABS RULES FOR BUILDING AND CLASSING STEEL VESSELS UNDER 90 METERS (295 FEET) IN LENGTH Part 5, Chap. 11, Section 4/5 Weather Deck Openings states “ Access openings, including emergency exits, are to be located clear of the towline sweep area.”

We interpret that the clearance for towline sweep area doesn’t apply to the flush salvage stowage hatch as it will not be used when the tow line is deployed. Please confirm.

RESPONSE: Assuming the hatch is along the centerline, the Government confirms that the flush salvage stowage hatch will not be used when the tow line is deployed.

14. QUESTION: J-1COR Section 3.532 FRESHWATER SERVICE SYSTEM call out for the potable water system to be designed and installed in accordance with IPC and USPH Publication No. 393.

USPHS Publication No. 393 Handbook on Sanitation of Vessel Construction (1965 revision), prescribed in J-1 COR 2.100c, section 18 “Purification of Water” states:

“water which is purified on board for use as potable water may be stored in tanks formed by the shell of the vessel, provided that such tanks are free from apparent leakage, have no nonpotable piping passing through them, unless a water-tight, self-draining tunnel is provided for such piping, and adequately protected against both the back flow and the discharge thereto of bilge or highly contaminated water.”

We also note that in a response to Draft RFP questions #52 & #72, the Navy responded that the potable water tanks shall not share a common boundary with a tank holding non-potable water or other liquids and are independent of the shell of the ship, unless the bottom of the tank is at least 2 feet above the maximum-load waterline. However, as stated above we did not find such restriction in USPH Publication No. 393 (1965 revision).

It is normal for a commercial seagoing vessel to have a water purification system installed on board. USPH Publication No. 393 (1965 revision) allows potable water to be stored in tanks formed by the shell of the vessel when a purification system is installed onboard. This is how most of the commercial vessels that operate worldwide have their potable water systems configured. Please confirm that it is acceptable to have the vessels’ potable water tanks comply with “purification of water” requirements in lieu of cofferdams next to skin, fresh water tanks, and ballast water tanks.

RESPONSE: The Government believes the bidder has missed two key words from the USPHS Publication No. 393 (1965 revision) section 18 quote. The quote says “water which is to be purified on board for use as potable water may be stored in tanks formed by the shell of the vessel, provided that such tanks are free from apparent leakage, have no nonpotable piping passing through them, unless a water-tight, self-draining tunnel is provided for such piping, and adequately protected against both the back flow and the discharge thereto of bilge or highly contaminated water.” The Government response to Draft RFP questions #52 & #72 is based on USPHS Publication No. 393 (1965 revision) section 6.

15. QUESTION: In accordance with ISO 8861:1998 Shipbuilding — Engine-room ventilation in diesel-engine ships — Design requirements and basis of calculations, Sec 4 Design condition states that "Temperature rise from air intake to air passing from the engine room up to the casing entrance shall be max. 12.5K (12.5 ° C)". In addition to this the normal permitted temperature is up to 50° C to which most machinery and electrical installations are available.

In order to limit the maximum temperature of machinery spaces (engine room in particular) to 45° C while the weather ambient air temperature is 40° C, one should use temperature rise of 5° C for calculating ventilation fan sizes. This small temperature rise leads to enormous fan sizes significantly larger than used in the offshore industry and on other naval vessels.

Please consider this and revise the maximum temperature of engine room and/or value of temperature rise so that reasonable fan sizes can be considered.

RESPONSE: The Government understands that a higher maximum temperature and/or value of temperature rise would reduce fan size, however the 45° C was chosen so equipment can comply with ABS U90M 4-1-1/Table 2 without de-rating the equipment.

16. QUESTION: Since the government has determined that there are a sufficient number of capable small businesses that can submit proposals does this mean the yards who were originally bidding no longer qualify to bid because they are not small businesses?

RESPONSE: Only those businesses that qualify as small businesses will be permitted to bid on this RFP.

17. QUESTION: a) Is there a minimum or maximum height requirement for the bulwarks on the aft working deck as required by COR 3.100c?

b) Does the Navy have a mandatory capability need, desired capability need, or prohibition for longitudinal cargo rails along the port and starboard sides of the working deck?

RESPONSE: a) There is no minimum or maximum height requirement for the bulwarks on the aft working deck.

b) High bulwarks and cargo rails for personnel protection would be advantageous as long as it does not impact required deck area.

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

The following have been added by reference:

252.225-7019

(End of Summary of Changes)