N00024-18-R-2210_Amendment_0008.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 1) Respond to Bidders’ Questions for the N00024-18-R-2210 HPIB DD&C RFP, 2) Update the Section C Statement of Work, 3) Change the Section L Technical Proposal delivery date from 24 July 2018 to 24 August 2018, 4) Add additional language to clarify lead ship delivery date requirements in Section F, Section L, and Section M, 5) Make various minor and administrative changes to the RFP, and 6) Provide updated Section J Attachments and Exhibits.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

L 1 116

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 15-Jun-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 X is extended, 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

15-Jun-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

The following items are applicable to this modification:

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

Responses to Bidders’ Questions:

92. QUESTION: Section L.1.2.2.1. of the HPIB RFP requires Attachment J-18 Billing Weighting Factors to be submitted with the proposal. When will a completed template of the J-18 Billing Weighting Factor be provided?

Currently this document is labeled “To Be Determined.”

RESPONSE: A completed template for Attachment J-18 Billing Weighting Factors is provided as an Attachment to this Solicitation amendment. This requirement has been added back in to Section L as a proposal deliverable in this amendment to the Solicitation, after being erroneously removed in Amendment 0006.

93. QUESTION: Section L.1.2.2.4.1 of the HPIB RFP states "The Offeror shall provide the following for both the prime and major subcontractors: i. Substantiation of Government approval of the Offeror's accounting system and date of approval ii. Substantiation of Government approval of the Offeror's purchasing system and date of approval."

Would a DCAA Audit Report of an accounting system be considered acceptable substantiation of government approval of an accounting & purchasing system?

RESPONSE: A recent DCAA Audit report of an accounting system would likely be considered acceptable substantiation of government review of an Offeror’s accounting system for purposes of this Section L Instruction.

The DCAA audit would not however have covered the Offeror’s purchasing system. It is incumbent upon Offerors to ensure compliance with the requirements of the RFP.

94. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 100.2.16., the Offeror requests the USCG provide the operational profile to be used for fatigue analysis.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to include the requested operational profile in Section 100.

95. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 100.3.1.2.5., the Offeror requests the USCG provide design criteria/ requirements for longitudinal strength analysis

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to include the design criteria/requirements for longitudinal strength analysis in Section 100.

96. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 100.3.1.2.5., the Offeror requests the USCG provide a copy of the required SPECTRA software.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation removes the requirement to use SPECTRA from the HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification. The Specification continues to require compliance with NSWCCD-65-

TR-2000/25, and SPECTRA may be used to perform the required calculations. SPECTRA will be made available to the selected Contractor after award upon request.

97. QUESTION: We request the USCG revise HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section

235.4.1.2 from:

“The main motors shall have slip rings for excitation of the rotor winding and shall be excited by the static exciters.

The exciters shall provide zero speed excitation control over the motor operating speed range ahead and astern. One static exciter field supply shall be provided for each main motor. One installed standby static exciter field supply that can supply any main motor shall also be provided.”

To the following:

"The main motors shall have slip rings for excitation of the rotor winding, except for permanent magnet type propulsion motors, and shall be excited by static exciters. The exciters shall provide zero speed excitation control over the motor operating speed range ahead and astern. One static exciter field supply shall be provided for each main motor. One installed standby static exciter field supply that can supply any main motor shall also be provided."

RESPONSE: There is no exception to the noted requirement for permanent magnet motors. The HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification section referenced in the question remains unchanged.

98. QUESTION: The current HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification states:

“070.3.8.3.2 Breaking Out of a Track: In 6.0 feet of level first year ice with 8 inches of snow cover the cutter moving ahead shall be able to break out of an existing track and turn 90 degrees within 180 seconds from first execute of maneuver.

070.3.8.3.3 Backing Out of a Track: In 6.0 feet of level first year ice with 8 inches of snow cover the cutter shall back out of an existing track while maintaining directional ship control and turn 90 degrees within 180 seconds from first execute of maneuver.”

We request USCG to please re-visit the requirement and revise the Specification Section 070.3.8.3.2 to the following and remove the Section 070.3.8.3.3.

“Breaking Out of a Track: In 6.0 feet of level first year ice with 8 inches of snow cover the cutter shall be able to break out of an existing track and turn 90 degrees within 15 minutes from first execute of maneuver.”

This requirement can have serious acquisition and life cycle cost impacts on the HPIB design and the entire program, with negligible benefit.

A ship such as HPIB with a length of approximately 460 ft, 60% parallel midbody at the operating waterline, and stringent seakeeping requirements; in order to execute a safe breakout maneuver, HPIB must travel a distance of no less than two (2) ship lengths and at an average velocity of approximately 2 knots. This assumes the breakout maneuver starts at zero speed and finishes at 4 knots. Conducting the maneuver as such in open water (without any ice) will require a minimum of 267 seconds (4.45 minutes) for HPIB to completely get out of the “channel” just to travel this distance. See attached sketch showing distance travelled in open water conditions. With the 6ft first year level ice + 8” show cover, and considering the engine ramp up times, ice breaking breakout will take significantly more time and can be safely and reasonably handled in about fifteen (15) minutes.

Further, a breakout specification requirement in both directions (forward and astern) will result in significant changes to the vessel hull form, such as forward reamers which have a detrimental effect on open water resistance and icebreaking resistance and performance. Balancing the open water requirements of the HPIB with ice performance requirements is a serious part of the HPIB technical solution. We also fail to understand the operational advantage of being able to conduct such a critical maneuver on such a large ship in heavy ice at such a high speed. Similarly, we recommend that the USCG delete the directional requirement (forward or astern) from the specification, since the master will determine the best and safest method for breakout depending on the vessel’s design and the capabilities of its propulsion system.

This requirement will potentially increase the required installed icebreaking power of the vessel by 20 to 35% which will add weight, fuel capacity, larger propulsors, larger installed power plant, and associated acquisition and maintenance cost. A significant increase in acquisition cost and lifecycle cost will result from this requirement which appears to not have operational advantage that we can understand, especially when required to be completed in 180 seconds.

RESPONSE: The Offeror's question includes assumptions that are not requirements of the HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification such as: completion in two ship lengths, starting at zero speed, and that the HPIB must be completely out of the channel to achieve breakout. The Government's requirements remain unchanged.

99. QUESTION: The current HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification dated 23 Feb 2018 states:

“070.3.8.3.1 The cutter shall be able to turn 180 degrees within a diameter of 7 ship lengths (length on waterline) in

4.5 foot thick level ice.”

Based on data available from full scale trials of similar vessels we request USCG to revise the HPIB System Specification Section 070.3.8.3.1 to the following.

“The cutter shall be able to turn 180 degrees within a diameter of 14 ship lengths (length on waterline) in 4.5 foot thick level ice.”

This requirement can have serious acquisition and life cycle cost impacts on the HPIB design and the entire program in making bidders attain a performance goal that is unprecedented to our knowledge, with negligible operational benefit.

We also fail to understand the operational advantage of being able to conduct such a maneuver on a large ship in heavy ice where a faster method of turning is typically achieved by using maneuvers such as star turn. Otherwise a wider turning diameter should be sufficient during planned voyages.

RESPONSE: The Government's requirement is based on observed performance of the existing US Coast Guard icebreaker fleet. Offerors should note that this requirement may be accomplished in either the ahead or astern direction, and using up to the full rated power of the propulsion motors. The Government's requirements remain

100. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 088.2.2.1., can the Government provide the USCG Manpower Estimate Report (MER) for Maritime Security Cutter - Heavy Polar Icebreaker (HPIB)?

RESPONSE: Prospective Offerors requiring this document should contact the Contracting Officer directly.

101. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 583.1.1.1., the specification calls for OTH (Over The Horizon) that is 29ft x 9.5ft 11,000 lbs. cutter boat but the particulars listed are similar to the LRI (Long-Range Interceptor) 35ft x 11.5ft 22,500 lbs. cutter boat. Will the Government clarify the cutter boat type? If the LRI is the cutter boat will the Government revise specification section 583.2 (Boat Handling and Stowage) and 583.3 (Davit Systems) to match the LRI requirements? It is to be noted that our Vendor tells us that the davit for the LRI does not currently exist.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 583 to reflect a davit system sized for the OTH, with boat bay dimensions and deck loading requirements provided to accommodate a larger craft.

102. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Section C.3.088.6., if it is the USCG’s intent to development and conduct Factory and Crew Familiarization Training in the base contract, what is the timeline for start of Factory and Crew Familiarization Training in relation to delivery? If the USCG is going to exercise CLIN 0009, Crew Familiarization, when will this CLIN be exercised in relation to the start of Factory and Crew Familiarization Training and vessel delivery?

RESPONSE: Factory training is expected to begin approximately nine months prior to ship delivery, and crew familiarization training would begin approximately six months prior to delivery. The Government anticipates however, the exercise of CLIN 0009 prior to the start of factory and crew familiarization training to procure OEM support for development of the training program. Offerors should refer to the Attachment L-2 Contract Pricing Tables for anticipated utilization of CLIN 0009 hours.

103. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Exhibit A CDRL A005., Block 04 - The 3rd bullet of the second paragraph under HPIB Business Case Rules for Configuration Items references CDRL 081-2355. There is no such CDRL in this solicitation. Is there another CDRL that we should be referencing?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises Exhibit A CDRL A005 to remove the noted reference in the Configuration Management Plan data item, and replaces it with "Any item identified by the OEM, Contractor, or Government as having preventive or corrective maintenance requirements." Offerors should also note that the HPIB Business Case Rules for Configuration Items have been moved to a separate attachment to Exhibit A, Attachment A005-1.

104. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Exhibit A CDRL A090., Block 16 - The 1st paragraph references CDRL 088-1273. There is no such CDRL in this solicitation. Please verify that it should be referencing A089.

RESPONSE: The Government concurs that this reference is intended to cite the Technical Manuals data item. This amendment to the Solicitation revises Exhibit A CDRL A089 to correct the reference.

105. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-10 DD254, will the Government consider providing a selection of Class Guides it intends to submit before contract award that may affect the cost and technical before technical is due?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation provides an updated Attachment J-10 Draft DD254 to remove the previous references to Security Classification Guides. The necessary distribution and destruction statement requirements for all data to be submitted under this contract are established in the CDRL (Exhibit A) and the Attachment J-10 DD254.

106. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 100.7.3.7.1., the sectional area of the beams, deck transverses, partial beams, and brackets shall not be less than:

A = 1.2K1sb(P/σy)cos(β) in2

100.7.3.7.2 The moment of inertia of the beams, partial beams and brackets shall not be less than:

MI = kK2sl2bPcos(β) in4 where:

k = 0.1191 P = C1PaveAF C1 = 0.60 for bow area as defined in 6-1-2/3

0.50 for all other areas Pave = as defined in 6-1-2/5.11 for the particular area of the ice belt (kips/in2) AF = Hull Area Factor from Table 100-1 for the particular area of the ice belt b = as defined in 6-1-2/5.9, in ft. for the particular area of the ice belt s = distance between the deck beams, in inches l = the span of the beam, measured in ft., between the inboard edge of the frame and the deck longitudinal or deck girder supporting the beam σy = minimum upper yield stress of the material, in lb./in2 β = as defined in 6-1-2/5.5, in degrees, for the particular area of the ice belt K1 = 8.5 for ice classes PC1 to PC5 K2 = 0.24 for ice classes PC1 to PC5

It seems that there may be an error with respect to using the same units (kips/in2) of Pave for both the minimum sectional area and moment of inertia equations as stated in 100.7.3.7.1 and 100.7.3.7.2, respectively. As cited above, the value for Pave is to be incorporated into the calculation as kips/in2. This results in a very disproportionate ratio between the sectional area and moment of inertia of the subject beam.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to reflect the correct units for the formulas in section 100.7.3.7.

107. QUESTION: As referenced in HPIB DD&C RFP Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 711.3.1., can the Government confirm that an update is in process to allow fore/aft or along beam installation options with differing firing arcs?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to require firing arcs of +/- 85 degrees, to enable additional installation configurations.

108. QUESTION: Section L.1.2.1.3.1 part i) Intact and Damage Stability, subpart iii) of the HPIB RFP states the following:

“Provide complete electronic Tank Data in accordance with (Attachment L-6).”

Attachment L-6 does not have a tab designated for Tank Data. We have noticed that a similar question was asked and Government response stated: “Offerors should include tank data on Hydrostatics, Weights & Loadings, and Area-Volumes Details tabs of Attachment L-6.”

However, the hydrostatics, weights & loadings, area-volume details do not have specific designated area/cells for providing electronic tank data. Please provide a revised Attachment L-6 or clarify how the electronic tank data has to be submitted.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises Attachment L-6 to include a tab for the required information.

109. QUESTION: Section L.1.2.1.3.1 part i) Intact and Damage Stability, subpart ii) of the HPIB RFP states the following:

“Provide a Hydrostatic Table for the proposed design.”

Attachment L-6 provides a tab for Hydrostatics. Can USCG please confirm that the hydrostatics are to be included as Attachment L-6 and not required to be included in the main body of the proposal and thus excluded from the overall page count?

Additionally, the template starts the Draft from 1.0ft, whereas the T9070-AF-DPC-010/079-1 Section 5.2.6.1 defines the lower draft and displacement range for hydrostatics to begin at or below the lightship displacement.

RESPONSE: The Government concurs that the Hydrostatic Table shall be included in Attachment L-6 and not in the main body of the proposal, and as such do not count in the overall page count. Drafts in Attachment L-6 are intended as placeholders.

110. QUESTION: Section L, Page 258 of the HPIB RFP states that "Total page count for the technical proposal shall not exceed 200 pages. Exclusions to page count limitation include: cover letter; title pages; table of contents;

resumes; glossary; executive summary; copies of regulatory body correspondence; Integrated Master Schedule;

EVMS Compliance Plan; Attachment J-22, Critical Equipment List; and Basis of Estimates (BOE). Drawings, diagrams, schematics, calculations, and analyses included in appendices or attachments are also excluded from the total page count limitation. Pages beyond the total page count limit will not be evaluated."

Are the attachments "Attachment J-4 – Lead Ship Advance Procurement SOW, Attachment J-5 – Lead Ship Long Time Material (LLTM) List, Attachment L-6 – Design Data spreadsheet and Design Placemat, Attachment L-7 – Past Performance Questionnaire Form" also excluded from the stated proposal page count?

RESPONSE: The Government concurs that Attachments J-4, J-5, L-6, and L-7 are excluded from the proposal page count.

111. QUESTION: HPIB Attachment J-1 Specifications 20180216, Section 583, Page 562 states that:

"583.1.1 The cutter shall, carry, deploy and, retrieve two OTH cutter boats, one port and one starboard, and a cargo landing craft (LCVP).

583.1.1.1 The OTH boats are nominal rigid hull craft, measuring up to 35 feet in length, 11.5 feet in width, 12.5 feet in height and a maximum of 22,500 lbs., fully loaded.

583.1.1.2 The LCVP is a modified 36 ft. Mark-7 U.S. Navy craft with a hoisting weight of 26,000 pounds."

We request the Government to provide OTH and LCVP boat drawings to ensure proper arrangement as well as launch and recovery capability as this is required in Solicitation Section L.1.2.1.3.1. Design h) ii).

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation includes the requested drawings as Attachments J-1E and J-1F.

Additionally, Attachment J-1 System Specification has been updated to identify these as Guidance Drawings in Section 042 and Section 583.

112. QUESTION: Section M.5.1.1.1 of the HPIB RFP states the following:

“Additionally, the following aspects of design will receive special emphasis in the evaluation. The Offeror must demonstrate that the following meet the requirements of the RFP or exceed the requirements up to the Objective set by the Government. When the offer exceeds the RFP requirements, the Government will evaluate the following aspects of the design with increased emphasis up to the Objective set below. If the Offeror proposes a capability in excess of the threshold value for one or more of these six areas of emphasis and, in the opinion of the evaluators, the Offeror’s proposal successfully demonstrates that this enhanced capability can be achieved, the Offeror’s proposal may receive a Strength or Significant Strength depending upon the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed capability exceeds the threshold requirement in a manner the evaluators deem to be beneficial to the Government, but only up to the maximum objective value as defined herein. No additional credit will be given to a proposal for exceeding objective values. These items are listed in decreasing order of importance.”

The solicitation is clear in identifying that the Government may assign “strength” or “significant strength” depending upon the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed capability exceeds the threshold requirement. However, there is no indication of any evaluated price adjustment as a result of meeting Objective requirements. Presenting a design that exceeds the threshold requirements (in one or more of the areas of emphasis) issued by USCG, in the HPIB Solicitation, will undoubtedly result in additional ship costs. Thus, from a bid strategy perspective, it is essential to know how these six areas of emphasis will be evaluated in terms of added price to the ship.

For example, meeting the Objective icebreaking requirements (or exceeding the Threshold icebreaking requirements) will lead to a greater installed power. This, in turn, may result in larger, more expensive propulsion equipment. The overall fuel capacity may also increase as a result of the greater power required for icebreaking. The effect of presenting a design characteristic that exceeds threshold requirements will have a cascading effect on the cost of several other pertinent design areas.

Can the Government ascertain certain evaluated price adjustment against each Objective requirement (Icebreaking capability, Days of Patrol Endurance, Additional Embarked Personnel, Aft Working Deck, Flexible Mission Spaces, and ISO 668 1C Standard Van Mount Locations) in order to provide a fair evaluation similar to other Navy programs?

RESPONSE: As noted in Section M, a technical proposal may receive a Strength or Significant Strength for demonstrating a capability exceeding the threshold in the defined areas of emphasis. Proposal evaluated prices will not be adjusted for these capabilities.

113. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 073.5.1 states “Electrical, hull, and machinery equipment and components shall comply with ANSI S2.26, as modified by the hull structure vibratory response analysis during icebreaking.” Will the Government specify the requirement as a clear definition of limits or as a standard reference or result of the hull structure vibratory response analysis during icebreaking in the contract?

RESPONSE: Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 073 requires compliance "with ANSI S2.26, as modified by the hull structure vibratory response analysis during icebreaking." ANSI S2.26 includes defined limits, and the hull structure vibratory response analysis will be performed by the prime contractor after award.

114. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 235.5.2.2 states “The drive shall provide reactive power (VAR) compensation while controlling the motor parameters within tight tolerances.” This is interpreted as compensation on motor side only resulting in operation at unity power factor.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 235 as follows: "If AFE is provided, the drive shall provide reactive power (VAR) compensation while controlling the motor parameters."

115. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 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).

This practically leads to two power requirements, since same speed is required with two different torques.

1. Bollard power

2. MCR is 117 % bollard power

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification as detailed in the response to Question 77 provided in Amendment 0007.

116. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 235.4.1.3 states” The propulsion motors shall have a maximum continuous torque rating of 117% above open water bollard pull torque at 100% bollard rpm.

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.”

Last sentence has a contradiction. Should it be: "...followed by 60 seconds at 175% open water bollard pull torque and MCR."?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification as detailed in the response to Question 77 provided in Amendment 0007.

117. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 245.1.4-5 Cavitation requirements states “Cavitation characteristics of the propeller shall be verified with cavitation tests, with complete ship hull model.” Does the Government agree that cavitation characteristics and fulfillment of requirements should be agreed based on model test results?

RESPONSE: Offerors should note that Cavitation testing is required by the Statement of Work, C.3.079.5.6.7 Open Water Propeller Test (Design Propeller) Performance and Cavitation Test.

118. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 245.3 Propeller balancing states:

245.3.1 Hub Balance. Each propeller hub, less blades, shall be two-plane balanced in accordance with MIL-STD- 167-1.

245.3.2 Blade Balance. Propeller blades shall be mounted on a balanced dummy hub and single-plane balanced on equipment that requires rotation in accordance with MIL-STD-167-1.

ABB prefers to balance propeller hub and blades according to ISO 484-1. Tolerances are according to ISO 484-1.

ABB balances propeller blades individually in two planes, in order to get whole propeller to be within balancing tolerance, even when replacing one or all blades with spare blades. (Each blade has upper and lower limits, which guarantees any combination of blades to fulfill whole propeller balancing requirements)

MIL-STD-167-1 applies to rotor balancing, and refers to MIL-STD-167-2 considering propulsion and propeller.

MIL-STD-167-2 is classified document, which ABB cannot study in order to know if requirements are achievable with ABB propeller blades.

Built up propeller balancing as a whole can lead to unbalance if there is a need to replace blade(s).073.5.1.2 gives alternative to use ISO 1940-1 for rotor balancing instead of MIL-STD-167-1. Would it be in line to allow use of ISO-484-1 for propeller balancing instead of MIL-STD-167-2?

RESPONSE:

The Government notes that C.3.245.4.2 allows balancing to be done for individual blades with master/dummy hub, or blade pairs. Also, alternate procedures may be submitted for approval after contract award as described in the Section C Statement of Work, C.3.042.5.The Government's requirements remain unchanged.

For clarification, the Government also notes that MIL-STD-167-2 is not required for balancing in accordance with MIL-STD-167-1. It is only referenced with respect to "mechanical vibrations associated with reciprocating machinery and lateral and longitudinal vibrations of propulsion system and shafting" because those aspects are not covered in MIL-STD-167-1. Balancing is Type II as defined in MIL-STD-167-1, and the requirements for Type II make no reference to MIL-STD-167-2.

119. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification, Section 245.3.2.1 Propeller balancing state “The material removed to effect balance shall be taken from the pressure face and from as large an area as practicable and shall not approach the leading or trailing edges within ten percent of the blade width. …” Will the Government consider that Material removal should be allowed to take from the either side of the blade(s) to achieve best tolerance and balancing for propeller?

RESPONSE: The noted requirement is based on best practices established for US Navy shipbuilding and remains

120. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 249.3.8.2 Shaft lock states “The lock shall prevent the idle shaft from rotating during cutter operation at any power level or speed obtainable on the operational shafts during open ocean, ice free transit.”

Shaft lock requirement for ships maximum speed (which is most probably achievable with 2 propellers out of 3) with operational shafts in open water is excessive. Propeller induces great torque, and it would need unpractically large equipment to hold the torque in maximum open water speed.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to reduce the speed to 10 knots, and require the PCS to control the speed/power of the operational shafts to ensure that the design limits of the brake are not exceeded.

121. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 249.3.8.2 states “The system shall provide local control in the thruster compartment.”

Shaft lock is applied manually inside the propulsor. Shaft lock is so rarely needed, ABB has preferred to keep the system simple, without additional equipment. Shaft maintenance brake is controlled by hydraulic pump at HPU.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to allow manual control from within the propulsor provided that it is accessible from within the hull.

122. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-243 and 095-244 Propulsion shafting and propulsion shafting bearing and seals excludes azimuthing propulsors in sections 243 and 244. ABB concludes, that also Attachment J-3 Sections 095-243 and 095-244 are not complying with azimuthing propulsors.

RESPONSE: Government testing requirements specific to azimuthing propulsors are captured in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Sections 095-249. Offerors should note that ABS SVR also has testing requirements applicable to azimuthing propulsors.

123. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-245.4 Propeller Balancing Test states that The propellers shall be balanced in accordance with the Propeller Balancing Procedure Report [245-2384] and the following:

095-245.4.1 The final weight of each blade and hub and the measured residual unbalance shall be provided.

095-245.4.2 The propeller shall be re-inspected with the propeller gages upon completion of balancing.

095-245.4.3 The dummy hub and master/dummy blade (if used) shall be packaged in accordance with MIL-DTL-2845 and delivered to the Government upon completion of balancing.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the reference for the Propeller Balancing Procedure Report to Exhibit A CDRL A186.

ISO 484-1 balancing and tolerance requirements are subject to approval as an alternate procedure, as discussed in the response to Question 118.

124. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-249.1.2 Factory testing, Azipod and steering unit Spin test is not possible at factory. Steering unit and propulsor cannot be tested together due needed space, equipment, power (electric and hydraulic) and weight.

RESPONSE: The tests to rotate the propeller and slew the azimuthing propulsor unit are not required to be performed while the unit is fully assembled. The Government's requirements remain unchanged.

125. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 235.4.1.5.3 states “The motor insulation shall meet the requirements for class H materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.” Recommend that this requirement is changed to require class F materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification as detailed in the response to Question 78 provided in Amendment 0007.

126. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 235.4.1.5.3.2 states “Propulsion motor winding insulation shall meet IEEE Std. 45, 2002, clause 13.5.” Motor designs as per IEC. Recommend that this requirement is changed to require class F materials as a minimum with a class B temperature rise.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification as detailed in the response to Question 78 provided in Amendment 0007..

127. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Open- Circuit Saturation Curve, comparable test as per IEC will be performed as the rated frequency is low.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to allow testing in accordance with IEC 60034.

128. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Rated- Voltage Saturation Curve, comparable test as per IEC will be performed as the rated frequency is low.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to

129. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Steady- State Speed Regulation Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to different factory for frequency converter.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Steady-State Speed Regulation Test requirement.

130. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Frequency Effect Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to different factory for frequency converter.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Frequency Effect Test requirement.

131. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Leading Power Factor Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to different factory for frequency converter.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Leading Power Factor Test requirement.

132. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Operating Modes Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to different factory for frequency converter.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Operating Modes Test requirement.

133. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Motor Short-Circuit Current Withstand Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to test field capacity.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Motor Short-Circuit Current Withstand Test requirement.

134. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Negative- Sequence Impedance Test, this test is not possible at motor factory due to test field capacity.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Negative-Sequence Impedance Test requirement.

135. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Loss of Generator Excitation Test, this test is not applicable for motor.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Loss of Generator Excitation Test requirement.

136. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Starting Test, this test is not applicable for VSD motor.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Starting Test requirement.

137. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.2 Propulsion Motor Demonstration, this demonstration is not possible at motor factory. It can be done in connection of heat testing (temperature rise testing), with over current instead of overload.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Propulsion Motor Demonstration requirement.

138. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.6.13 Synchronous Impedance Curve states “Sufficient data to plot a synchronous impedance curve (short-circuit saturation curve) shall be obtained. At least 6 readings from 150% rated current shall be recorded. Synchronous impedance curves assist in determining the performance of an alternating current motor during periods of short circuit. Data and charts shall be Comma Separated Values (CSV) format and Microsoft Excel compatible files included in the test reports. A data logger shall be used to record the data.”

Short-circuit curve measurement will be done as per IEC standards

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to

139. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.8.4 DC High Potential Test states “This test shall be done on new equipment in accordance with ANSI/EASA Standard AR100-2010, Section

4.4. See NEMA MG 1-2006 for determining High-Potential Test limits. Hi-potential (Hi-pot) tests may be destructive to older windings or equipment. A Hi-Pot test can uncover insulation weaknesses that might not be detected in an IR or PI procedure.”

ANSI/AESA standard not available. High voltage tests can be performed according to NEMA MG 1-2006.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the reference to ANSI/EASA Standard AR100-2010.

140. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.9.5 Leading Power Factor Test, please clarify, motor is designed with power factor 1.0.

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Leading Power Factor Test requirement.

141. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.9.6 Operating Modes Test states “The motor operating modes shall be operated, tested and verified against the OEM manual specifications.

Tests shall be documented.”

Will the Government please clarify operation modes?

RESPONSE: Operating modes will be designated by the prime Contractor based upon HPIB requirements.

142. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.10.6 states “The motor shall be tested to be in compliance with test methods CE101, CE102, CS101, CS106, CS114, CS116, RE101, RE102, RS101 & RS103 for below deck equipment.”

As the referred test methods are not available, will the Government please clarify?

RESPONSE: The referenced tests are described in MIL-STD-461. This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to clarify this aspect.

143. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 568.4.5 states “Control shall be transferrable via the selector switch with the motor running. Transfer shall be capable between the master control station and the local and remote control stations. Transfer of control shall be possible only with the thruster(s) in the neutral position.

Transfer of control shall be accomplished by local or remote control stations requesting control from the master control station. More than one positive action on both the transferring and receiving control stations shall be required.”

Control transfer logic shall be following from highest priority to the lowest:

Local Control Only back-up control equipped. Local control has highest priority in back-up system. In the back-up system each control position has take-over button and control position with highest priority has the control available.

ECR

Remote Control System has command transfer panel in ECR control position. Command transfer panel is equipped with selector switch which can force control from Bridge control position to ECR control position. Back-up system works with the same principle as in Local Control Position

Bridge Remote Control System has propulsion panels for each Azipod which are equipped “Bridge Request” and “Bridge Acknowledge” buttons which are used to take control to the Bridge control position back from the ECR control position. Control transfer between bridge control posts is done using “Take Here” buttons in common panels. Back-up system works with the same principle as in Local Control Position

Typical control transfer logic in vessels with Azimuthing main propulsion.

RESPONSE: The requirements of Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 568 do not apply to main propulsion.

144. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 070.7.1.1 Design Service Temperature of -40°F, it is assumed that design service temperature of -40F is outside temperature. It is not applicable to Propulsion equipment.

RESPONSE: The assumption that Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 070.7.1.1 is applicable to outside air temperature is correct.

145. QUESTION: Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements Section 095-235.24.11 and 095-314.6.11 Short Circuit states “Rated voltage and frequency shall be applied to windings. The short-circuit current and duration shall be in accordance with manufacturers impedances. There shall be no coil or core shift, damage to insulation or loosening of coils supports.”

Short circuit test is not included. This test can be performed only by external facility, like FGH Mannheim in Germany. Extra costs for such special test has to be covered by owner / shipyard. Will the Government please inform if this test is really required?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-3 Supplemental Test Requirements to remove the Short Circuit Test requirement.

146. QUESTION: Attachment J-1 Specification Section 410.3.3.3.2.2 OPCEN MLS Watch Stations states “C2 System shall be able to access and display unclassified information and/or classified information from CLASSLAN and/or UNCLASSLAN applications on any of the three monitors." the use of "and" implies both Classified and Unclassified data may be displayed on the same monitor. This is in conflict with requirement 410.3.3.3.1.7 which states "Any of the three monitors on each OPCEN MLS watch station shall display data from unclassified or classified computers and systems."

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to clarify the C2 display requirements.

147. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 435.3.2.6.11 Multipurpose MLS Work Stations, the Multipurpose Work Stations are only connected to the separate unclassified MULTIPUPOSELAN. As such multi-level security is not required. Will the Government please confirm that the Multipurpose Work Stations do not need to meet requirements 435.3.2.5.5.5, 435.3.2.5.5.6, and 435.3.2.5.5.13?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification to remove MLS from MULTIPURPOSELAN work stations.

148. QUESTION: As referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification Section 042.3.2.11 AP Definition, NAVSEA Technical Publication T9070-AF-DPC-010/079-1 Section 8.4.2.2.2.1 states the following:

“Longitudinal Extent. For ships designated Naval Force Projection or Naval Combatant, the longitudinal extent of shell opening shall be 15 percent of the ship’s LBP. For ships designated Naval Support, the longitudinal extent of shell opening shall be 12.5 percent LBP.”

And Section 1.4.2.3.2 states:

“After Perpendicular. The after perpendicular (AP) shall be located at a line perpendicular to the baseline intersecting the point where the DWL intersects the stern or transom. On SWATHs it shall be located at a projection of a vertical line passing through the point where the design water line intersects the transom of the ship. For Naval Support type ships, the AP is the point where the DWL crosses the centerline of the rudder stock.”

Since the HPIB is not a “Combatant”, can USCG confirm that a similar definition of the “Naval Support” type ship of LBP (where the axis of the required azimuthing propulsors coincides to the centerline of the rudder stock), as defined in NAVSEA Technical Publication T9070-AF-DPC-010/079-1 is acceptable?

RESPONSE: This amendment to the Solicitation revises the Attachment J-1 System Specification Section 070 to include definitions of Forward Perpendicular (FP) and Aft Perpendicular (AP) for use in calculating length between perpendiculars.

149. QUESTION: The Attachment J-1 Specification Section 079.3.1 states the following:

“Operating trim range shall be from 1 foot by the bow to 3 feet by the stern.”

Attachment J-1 Specification Sections 079.2.2 and 079.2.2.24 state the following, respectively:

“The cutter shall be designed in accordance with NAVSEA Technical Publication, T9070-AF-DPC-010/079-1, except as modified by this specification.”

“In paragraph 8.6.2.1.d revise “the ship is set at zero trim and zero heel” with “the ship is set with zero heel and with the maximum forward and aft trims allowed by the specified operating trim range” and at the end delete “in the upright condition (draft and trim at zero heel)”. “

Whereas, Solicitation N0002418R2210 Section C.3.079.1.2 states:

“Intact and damage stability shall be analyzed at one degree fwd trim, one degree aft trim and even trim. If the cutter does not meet either of the trim conditions, maximum allowable trim shall be analyzed and reported.”

Can USCG confirm that the following interpretation of the above stated requirements is correct?

We interpret this to mean that the extreme values (minimum and maximum) of the “operating trim range” used as inputs in the intact and damage stability analysis are to be that of the Offeror’s Proposed Vessel’s operating range obtained from compliance with the specified loading conditions (HPIB Specification Table 070-4).

We further interpret that the “operating trim range”, as referenced in Attachment J-1 Specification 079.3.1, is the max allowable trim range obtained from the Offeror’s results of the hydrostatics analysis of all loading conditions specified in HPIB Specification Table 070-4. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct.

RESPONSE: The Government concurs with the interpretation described in the question.

150. QUESTION: Section M.5.1.1.1 states:

“Additionally, the following aspects of design will receive special emphasis in the evaluation. The Offeror must demonstrate that the following meet the requirements of the RFP or exceed the requirements up to the Objective set by the Government.