N00024-18-R-2210_Amendment_0007.pdf

N0002417MR02574

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 respond to Bidders' Questions for N00024-18-R-2210 HPIB DD&C RFP.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

L 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-May-2018

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 N0002418R2210

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02-Mar-2018

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 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, appropriation 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-May-2018

CODE

NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (HQ)

1333 ISAAC HULL AVE SE

WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20376-2050

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

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N0002418R2210

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:

Responses to Bidders’ Questions:

75. QUESTION: In Exhibit A (CDRL) DID A130 Ramming, the USCG suggests the use of the software BAFFIN or a similar software. The offeror understands that this software is currently not commercially available. Can information regarding acquisition of this software be provided or the recommended methodology be provided?

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the solicitation will remove DI-A140 Ramming Acceleration and Dynamic Bending Moment Analysis from Exhibit A and the corresponding Statement of Work requirement from Section C.

76. QUESTION: Previous correspondence noted that the USCG was meeting with ABS to determine resolution on Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 245.5 (requirement for heat treated, stainless steel propeller blades).

Can the USCG confirm that the heat treatment procedure specified will be accepted by ABS for design calculations assuming a higher strength material?

RESPONSE: The Government believes that the heat treatment requirements of Attachment J-1 Specification 245.5 are not in violation of ABS standards. The heat treatment is consistent with note 2 of Table 1 of ASTM A743.

77. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 235.4.1.3.4 currently states the following:

“The propulsion motors shall be capable of continually repeating a 600 second duty cycle consisting of 540 seconds at 117% of open water bollard pull torque and 100% of bollard rpm followed by 60 seconds at 175% open water bollard pull torque and MCR.”

We request USCG to revise the Specification Section 235.4.1.3.4 to the following:

"The propulsion motors shall be able to generate, in ice conditions, 17 % of continuous over torque and 75 % of cyclic (60/600s) over torque above torque in bollard pull condition”

The government has changed this requirement from a previous version of the specification (01/26/18) which read as follows:

“235.4.1.3.3 The propulsion motors shall be capable of delivering 110% rated power for a period of two hours.”

Increasing the maximum over torque time requirement "continually repeating a 600 second duty cycle consisting of 540 seconds at 117% of open water bollard pull torque" leads to over dimensioning (cost and size increase) of the electric motor and propulsion drive. In full scale measurements, it has been proven that the over torque is very transient by nature and usually lasts less than a few seconds. A drop in rpm associated with an over torque transient loading condition is typical for an Icebreaker. The requirement stated in the specification is not consistent with what an Icebreaker will experience during operations. In other words the specification requests selection of propulsor at 17% additional power on top of calculated icebreaking power, which is over and above anywhere between 9% to 19% design margin as required in specification table 070-2. As a result the vessel will have anywhere between 26% to 36% margin added to the calculated Icebreaking power to address design risk and the transient over torque conditions. We understand and agree with the design power margins stated in table 070-2, however, such margin in combination with the additional 17% power to account for the power required during transient over torque condition with no reduction in RPM seems to add extensive acquisition cost, weight and life cycle cost to the program.

In summary, this requirement will result in a larger than required propulsor which will have a corresponding increase in electrical drive capacity, power plant size, fuel consumption, weight, main dimensions and associated maintenance costs. As a result there will be a significant increase in acquisition cost as well as total lifecycle cost of the vessel with no perceivable performance benefit.

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will replace the requirements of Attachment J-1 Specification Section 235.4.1.3 with the following:

“The propulsion motors shall be sized to meet the criteria specified below:

o The propulsion motors shall provide icebreaking performance, in accordance with the ahead icebreaking condition as defined in Section 070, at no more than 85% motor rated power.

o The propulsion motors shall have a maximum continuous torque rating of 117% above open water bollard pull torque. Propeller RPM shall be determined by the constant horsepower curve.

o The propulsion motors shall provide additional cyclic torque for icebreaking and be capable of continually repeating a 600 second duty cycle consisting of 540 seconds at open water bollard pull torque and 100% of bollard rpm followed by 60 seconds at 175% open water bollard pull torque. Propeller RPM shall be determined by the constant horsepower curve.

o The propulsion motor duty type shall be determined by the motor analysis.

Attachment J-1 Specification Section 070 will also be updated to remove the Design Power Margin requirements specified in Table 070-2.

78. QUESTION: The current Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 235.4.1.5.3 reads as follows:

“The motor insulation shall meet the requirements for class H materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.”

This requirement was changed from the HPIB System Specification dated 12/14/2017 which read as follows:

“235.4.1.3.2 The motor insulation shall meet the requirements for class F materials as a minimum.”

The requirement issued in the latest HPIB Specification would limit the vendors capable of providing the PC2 class azimuthing electric podded propulsors as they end up re-designing the propulsors and cannot meet the construction time line of Heavy Polar Ice Breaker.

We request USCG to revise the HPIB System Specification Section 235.4.1.5.3 to the following:

“The motor insulation for propulsion motors in the hull shall meet the requirements for class H materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.

The motor insulation for propulsion motors in the electric podded propulsors shall meet the requirements for class F materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.”

79. QUESTION: Section L.1.2.1.6 “Factor 4 – Past Performance” (page 269 of 294) of HPIB Draft RFP Amendment 1 reads as follows:

“Offerors shall provide a description of past performance experience for themselves and any significant subcontractors in ship design (Preliminary, Contract and Detail design) and construction of no more than five (5) contracts/subcontracts over the last five (5) years similar in scope and complexity to the proposed HPIB, or in similar scope and complexity to areas of the HPIB with increased technical difficulty.”

Given the scope and complexity of the proposed HPIB and that the period of performance of relevant vessels is long (often 3 to 4 years or more), will the government please consider increasing the past performance time period from five (5) to ten (10) or even fifteen (15) years?

RESPONSE: Amendment 0006 to the Solicitation extended the Section L.1.2.1.6 past performance time period from five (5) to ten (10) years.

80. QUESTION: The most current revision of the Attachment J-1 HPIB Specification contains newly added requirements that will have a drastic increase in acquisition and life cycle cost of the HPIB program. Whereas individually these are not so very significant, but due to the cumulative compounding effect from the cascading impact to other areas of the specifications, they become very significant. These significant changes introduced into the Specification after 12 months of Industry Studies will significantly impact the baseline design developed during the Studies in enough aspects such that a two or three month extension of the proposal due date may be required while the ship is redesigned to adapt the cascading effect of these changes from previous versions of the specifications.

1. A previous revision of Attachment J-1, HPIB Draft Specification dated 26 January 2018 contained the following statements:

235.1.2 Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) – the maximum power output at which the propulsion motor is designed to run continuously, without any operating restrictions, at its rated speed (rpm).

235.4.1.3.3 The propulsion motors shall be capable of delivering 110% rated power for a period of two hours.

235.4.1.3.4 The propulsion motors shall have a maximum continuous torque rating of 117% above open water bollard pull torque.

The most current revision of Attachment J-1, HPIB Specification dated 16 February 2018 states the following:

235.1.2 Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) – the maximum power output at which the propulsion motor is designed to run continuously, without any operating restrictions, at 117% bollard torque and 100% bollard speed (rpm).

235.4.1.3.1 The propulsion motors MCR shall not be less than the power required to meet the icebreaking requirements determined by model testing with appropriate design margin at the start of detail design, at maximum continuous torque rating.

235.4.1.3.3 The propulsion motors shall have a maximum continuous torque rating of 117% above open water bollard pull torque at 100% bollard rpm.

The above requirements of the most current Specification increase the installed power of propulsion motors by another 17%. We understand the requirement of 117% torque is for the sudden stoppage of the propeller, but at 100% bollard RPM, 117% over torque is essentially 117% over power. See attached Q#10 Figure 1 for reference.

Also, note that this 17% power increase is on top of the power margins stated in Table 070-2: Design Power Margins. For example, the total margin applied for a propulsion motor is the sum of 19% margin applied in accordance with Table 070-2 under Pre-Detail Design (prior to self-propelled model tests) and 17% additional power due to the revised propulsion motor MCR definition. Hence the total margin now sums up to 36%.

These requirements cited in the updated Specification may be necessary for fixed (shafted) propeller installations, but are not normal for installations where azimuthing drives are required, such as required by the HPIB program specification, since azimuthing drives do not experience these excessive torques because of the slewing capability of the propeller.

2. In addition to the requirements as cited above, the most current Specification now states:

235.4.1.3.4 The propulsion motors shall be capable of continually repeating a 600 second duty cycle consisting of 540 seconds at 117% of open water bollard pull torque and 100% of bollard rpm followed by 60 seconds at 175% open water bollard pull torque and MCR

The “Speed at MCR” as defined in Section 235.1.2 is at 100% bollard speed. The requirement of 175% open water bollard pull torque at MCR speed will increase the power of the installed propulsion motors by 75%. Please provide clarity on the above requirement, as this will have huge impact on the required propulsion power. We presume that this is not the intent of USCG and request that the speed requirement be removed.

3. The most current revision of Attachment J-1, HPIB Specification dated 16 February 2018 states the following:

200.2.3.1 Full Power Icebreaking – Propulsion motors operating at MCR.

200.6.2 Endurance fuel load shall be determined in accordance with NAVSEA DDS 200-1 for the “economic transit distance” and “operational presence time” condition. Tankage shall be sized for the larger of the three scenarios with the cutter at Full Load Displacement (End of Service Life):

200.6.2.1 For the economic transit distance, the cutter shall have a minimum range of 21,500 nautical miles at 12 knots in ice free waters.

200.6.2.2 For the operational presence time, the cutter shall be capable of completing Mission Profile #1 provided in Table 200-1.

200.6.2.3 For the operational presence time, the cutter shall be capable of completing Mission Profile #2 provided in Table 200-2.

In accordance with section 200.2.3.1 (Propulsion motors operating at MCR), it is now required that the fuel tankage shall be calculated at MCR for full power, 50% MCR for half power and 25% MCR for quarter power icebreaking.

The revised definition of MCR in accordance with section 235.1.2 will lead to an increase in the required fuel tankage in the range of 14 to 20%. All the aspects discussed herein, shall collectively increase the ship size significantly, resulting in increased acquisition cost and life cycle cost.

4. The most current revision of Attachment J-1, HPIB Specification dated 16 February 2018 states the following:

200.2.3 The integrated electric propulsion plant shall consist of a father and son arrangement of generator sets. The quantity and size of the generator sets shall be selected in accordance with the requirements of Sect. 310 (see below) to provide power for the following operating conditions:

200.2.3.1 Full Power Icebreaking – Propulsion motors operating at MCR.

200.2.3.2 Half Power Icebreaking – Propulsion motors operating at 50% MCR.

200.2.3.3 Quarter Power Icebreaking – Propulsion motors operating at 25% MCR.

310.3.2 The generating plant, excluding the emergency generator, shall be capable of generating the power to operate the propulsion loads operating at 100% MCR plus 100% Ship Service during Full Power icebreaking conditions as determined by the Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA), with every generator set online.

The quantity and size of the generator sets in accordance with section 310.3.2 shall be determined at 100% MCR of propulsion motors plus 100% Ship Service during “Full Power” icebreaking conditions. The MCR definition of propulsion motors as defined in Section 235.1.2 is at 117% bollard torque and 100% bollard speed (rpm) i.e. 17% more power. This requirement will increase the quantity and sizes of gensets. Our calculations indicate that the total electric power plant capacity will increase in the range of 20 to 25%.

As can be seen the combined effect will the addition of more weight for the propulsor, propulsor motors, generators and generator engines and fuel for those engines, thus cascading effect to the ship size and thus acquisition and life cycle cost to the HPIB program.

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will revise power margin requirements as described in the response to bidders’ question #77. Endurance Fuel calculations will also be revised in a future amendment to the Solicitation to be based on "Full Power Icebreaking" which is defined as the power to break 6 ft of ice with 8 inches of snow cover at 3 knots in the ahead direction.

81. QUESTION: As referenced in Section M.5.1.1.1. Days of Patrol Endurance, different power is required to break different ice thicknesses. Will the Government please clarify the ice thickness requirement?

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will revise endurance fuel calculations as described in the response to Bidders’ question #80.

82. QUESTION: As referenced in Section C paragraph C.3.079.5.734 and Attachment J-1 Specification table 070-2 Note 1, will the Government clarify the use of stock or final propeller design for ice testing?

RESPONSE: As stated in Section C.3.079, stock propellers may be used for ice model testing.

83. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 070.5.15 Bow Boom, will the Government clarify the particulars for the Bow Boom?

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will revise Attachment J-1 to remove Specification Section 070.5.15.

84. QUESTION: Please clarify Attachment J-1 Specification Section 582.1.1.2.2. Anchor Handling and Stowage. Is the port side windlass expected to be capable of servicing the starboard side anchor/chain and vice versa?

RESPONSE: The interpretation of the specification is correct. Each windlass shall be able to handle the anchor chain on the opposite side of the ship for emergency use.

85. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 517.3.7.2.3.1 states "Other heat services shall have fully redundant heat coils", and Attachment J-1 Specification Section 517.3.7.2.3.1.1 requires the secondary circuit to have redundant heat coils. The steam section does not include such redundancy. Will the Government please clarify what is intended by fully redundant heat coils for both hydronic and steam?

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will revise the noted Attachment J-1 Specification requirements as follows:

“Attachment J-1 Specification Section 517.3.7.2.3.1 Tank heaters, if provided, shall be serviced by a secondary circuit connected to the main or branch via heat exchangers.”

“Attachment J-1 Specification Section 517.3.7.2.3.1.1, Each secondary circuit shall have two fully redundant circulation pumps and heat exchangers. Pumps shall meet the requirements of section 503.”

86. QUESTION: Exhibit A CDRL A067 Slamming Location has not been updated in-line with the latest slamming requirement. +/-1/2 station locations remain in the CDRL yet removed from J-1 Specification. Request the Government provide clarification on this discrepancy between documents.

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will update Attachment J-1 Specification to require compliance with slamming criteria at stations -1/2, 0, and +1/2.

87. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 HPIB System Specification Section 625.1.5 states the following:

“The vertical center of windows, portlights, and lights fitted in shall be 5ft 4-1/2 in. above their respective decks unless otherwise noted.”

Thus, the requirement for the height of the CPO berths may interfere with the requirement of the vertical distance above the deck in regards to the vertical center of windows, portlights, and lights fitted in. We recommend USCG to make the specified height of the vertical center of windows, portlights, and lights fitted in to be flexible (between 3ft 9in and 6ft 2in), to resolve such interference.

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will update Attachment J-1 Specification to add the following clarifying requirement:

“Attachment J-1 Specification Section 625.1.5.1 In staterooms, the height above the deck may be increased to allow the portlight to remain unobstructed, provided that each portlight in a group of staterooms which requires adjustment to the height above the deck be located at the same height above the deck.

88. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 042.2.4.5 states “unless otherwise specified, measurements, calculations, and mathematical data shall be presented in U.S. Customary units of measure.” ABB equipment and related documentation is based on SI-units system.

RESPONSE: As stated in Section C paragraph C.3.070, where Vendor Furnished Information (VFI) is in metric (SI) only, it may be included in Contract Deliverables without conversion to US units.

89. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 073.532.1.1, the exclusion for icebreakers in ANSI S2.27. Icebreakers cannot be included into required detailed vibration requirements; ice impacts to propeller blades are causing always vibrations. Ice impact loads induce high but short vibration peak values. These cannot be avoided, but they are not harmful due their short and occasional nature.

RESPONSE: The cited requirement is applicable in open ocean operations, not icebreaking.

90. QUESTION: SVR 6-1-3 is meant for securing that shaft line and related components are designed against vibration loading. Attachment J-1 Specification Section 073.5.2.2.1.3 requirement for longitudinal vibration and the Attachment J-1 Specification Section 073.5.2.2.3 requirement for shaft stresses cannot be guaranteed in occasional high ice impacts.

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will clarify that the shaft vibration requirements apply to conventional shaftlines, not azimuthing propulsors.

91. QUESTION: As stated in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 073.5.2.2.1.3, longitudinal vibratory acceleration shall not exceed 2.5 g for continuous level ahead icebreaking operation (other than the portion of the shaft that is waterborne), where g is the gravitational acceleration of 32.2 feet per second per second. Vibrations in ice breaking are higher than 2.5 g. Will the Government consider revising the language to "…for continuous level in ice breaking operation ahead…"

RESPONSE: A future amendment to the Solicitation will clarify that the shaft vibration requirements apply to conventional shaftlines, not azimuthing propulsors.

(End of Summary of Changes)