N00024-18-R-2227_Responses_to_Offerors_Questions_1_August_2018.docx

1 August 2019 Responses to Offeror’s Questions

1) Question: SOW C 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 Page 46: Can alternate Configuration Status Accounting (CSA) systems be used in lieu of MERLIN (i.e. WINMASP)?

Answer: MERLIN is the preferred system to develop and manage all configuration and logistics information for this program. MERLIN is also used to manage key logistics deliverable schedules as specified in Attachment J-3. The Offeror may recommend alternate CSA systems. The Offeror must provide proof that said systems satisfy all the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will be the sole determiner if alternate systems satisfy all contract requirements.

2) Question :J-3, DI-B047 Page 125: This states; “Ship configuration data shall reside in a shared Material and Equipment Realtime Logistics Information Network (MERLIN) database, provided by the Government.” Who will be responsible developing and maintaining for Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) configuration and logistics records; in particular, those records associated with J-4 and J-5?

Answer : The Government intends to develop and maintain all GFE configuration and logistics records in MERLIN, except for the MERLIN inventory module (MMS) which is the contractor’s responsibility to maintain for all records.

3) Question: When will the Government provide space, weight, power and HVAC requirements for GFE?

Answer: The Government will provide GFI for all C4I and Aviation GFE by two months after contract award.

4) Question: While Prior EPF ships have been made of Aluminum, our preference and experience is steel. Since HSNC 2018 covers steel, aluminum as well as fiber-glass, will the government accept a steel hull form?

Answer: A steel hull is acceptable provided, the design meets speed, payload and range requirements per the Transport Capability cited in Contract Attachment J-1, section 3.050.1

5) Question: Per the Contract Statement of Work section C 1.2.3 Schedules, the contractor is responsible for preparing an integrated schedule. Is there a preferred software the Government would like to receive this schedule in?

Answer: The Government is most familiar with MS-Project and Primavera, but other commercial scheduling tools are acceptable provided they can export detailed Gantt Charts depicting the Critical Path for Detailed Design, Construction, Test, Activation and Trials, etc.

6) Question: ABS Steel Vessel Rules (ABS-SVR), provide a wastage allowance for corrosion. ABS High Speed Naval Craft (ABS-HSNC) rules do not appear to provide similar guidance. Given the ship is assumed to have minimum service life of 20 + years, what is the required wastage allowance to be considered for corrosion control?

Answer: Wastage allowances are to be set by the builder based on other means employed for control of corrosion such as isolation and protective coatings.

7) Question: Section C 1.2.6 requires the builder to establish and maintain a Risk Management Program in accordance with Contract Attachment J-3, B006. The contract is however silent on the basic for this risk management plan. Given our other Govt contracts use MIL-STD-882, STANDARD PRACTICE FOR SYSTEM SAFETY as the basic for Risk management we assume its continued use on this Navy program is acceptable. Will the Government verify this assumption?

Answer: Mil-STD -882 is an acceptable approach to manage the risk of mishaps associated with DoD operations, as it includes mishap risk management consistent with the program's objectives.

8) Question: Section L 2.2.2. requires the offeror to provide data on seakeeping, stability and maneuvering in high sea states, yet limits the page count for the overall proposal. Given our design is already classed to DNV-GL, is it sufficient to discuss our safe operating envelope and areas of service, or is the government seeking more extensive data as an attachment to the proposal?

Answer: Per Section L, the page count for the offerors proposal is limited to 100 pages. Attachments will not be accepted. It is therefore up to the offeror to decide the level of detail necessary to demonstrate design maturity.

9) Question: Section 2.1 references MIL‐STD‐1310H for the J‐1 Attachment. Section 3.406.5 states "IEEE STD 45 can also be used for grounding and bonding with MIL‐STD 1310G taking precedence." Within Section 3.406.6, MIL‐STD‐1310 is referenced without revision. SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4 state that HM&E systems shall be similar or equal, where feasible, to mitigate training and life cycle support costs. Does the J‐1 Specification intend to invoke MIL‐STD‐1310 Revision H and mandate the risk and cost associated with the potential design changes? Or will the Gov't allow use of Revision G as per the existing EPF class vessels and align with Sections C 1 and C 1.4 of the SOW and the stated desire to "...use, to the maximum extent possible, similar or equal Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E), systems currently in MSC’s inventory..."?

Answer: MIL-STD-1310H is the latest update for bonding and grounding. It replaces REV G and is the required standard for EPF 13. The Rev G reference in Section 3.406.5 is an error. Section J-1 will be updated to correct this error at its next revision.

10) Question : The CDC Vessel Sanitation Program, 2018 Operations Manual is referenced; however, the document is intended for the cruise ship industry. J‐1 Specification Section 3.070 requires a FDA Certificate of Sanitary Construction. Per FDA guidelines, the inspection criteria for that certification is Handbook on Sanitation of Vessel Construction, Publication No. 393, (1965) and Handbook on Sanitation of Vessels in Operation, Publication No. 68, (1963 Reprint).

Should these be referenced and utilized in lieu of the CDC Operations Manual?

Answer: The CDC worked with the FDA and updated the requirements for vessel sanitation. Now both the CDC and FDA use the same requirements as codified in the Vessel Sanitation Program 2018 Operations Manual. The FDA has historically been the agency of choice for conducting surveys on EPF class ships.

11) Question: The ABS Guide for the Certification of Lifting Appliances is referenced without revision, indicating that the revision in effect as of June 8, 2018 is applicable. This equates to July 2016 edition. J‐1 specification section 3.050.2.2 indicates that an "Appleton Marine Crane Model AMD‐2034 or equal" shall be installed onboard the vessel. The Appleton Marine Crane Model AMD‐2034 is ABS approved to the 2007 edition of the Certification of Lifting Appliances. J‐1 specification section 3.070 invokes the CRC(SC) classification. SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4 state that HM&E systems shall be similar or equal, where feasible, to mitigate training and life cycle support costs. Changes to the revision of Lifting Appliances and the applicability of the CRC(SC) classification will result in equipment variation from existing ship class installations, added cost and design impacts. Does the government intend to retain the specified crane in accordance with the criteria established by SOW Sections C 1 and C 1.4 or proceed with the design changes necessary to comply with the latest Lifting Appliances guide and CRC(SC) classification?

Answer: Offeror's shall propose an Appleton Marine Crane Model AMD‐2034 or "equal" in accordance with the SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4; and Attachment J-1 for the EPF 13 contract. Offeror's may obtain ABS approval to class this crane design to an earlier ABS rule set.

12) Question: The ABS Guide for the Certification of Lifting Appliances is referenced without revision, indicating that the revision in effect as of June 8, 2018 is applicable. This equates to July 2016 edition. In addition, J‐1 specification section 3.070 invokes the RMP ABS classification. The stern ramp currently in use on EPF vessels 1‐12 is not in complete compliance with the referenced edition of the Certification of Lifting Appliances. SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4 state that HM&E systems shall be similar or equal, where feasible, to mitigate training and life cycle support costs. Changes to the revision of Lifting Appliances and the applicability of the RMP classification will result in equipment variation from existing ship class installations, added cost and design impacts. Does the government intend to retain the EPF1‐12 stern ramp design in accordance with the criteria established by SOW Sections C 1 and C 1.4 or proceed with the design changes necessary to comply with the latest Lifting Appliances guide and RMP classification?

Answer: The stern ramp design shall be in accordance with the criteria established by the SOW. Offeror's may obtain ABS approval to class ramp design to an earlier ABS rule set.

13) Question: Section 3.088 states "The vessel, vessel systems, and equipment layout, design, and Section 2.1 references MIL‐STD‐1310H for the J‐1 Attachment. MIL‐STD‐1310H has been expanded (in reference to revision G) to include procedures and requirements for EMP hardening. Additionally, Section 5.4 of MIL‐STD‐1310H adds requirements for PCI testing in compliance with MIL‐STD‐464. SOW sections C 1 and C 1.4 state that HM&E systems shall be similar or equal, where feasible, to mitigate training and life cycle support costs. The applicability of MIL‐STD‐1310H adds significant testing requirements and potential design changes from the applicability of MIL‐STD‐1310G utilized on the EPF1‐12 design. Does the government intend to retain the applicability of MIL‐STD‐1310G in accordance with the criteria established by SOW Sections C 1 and C 1.4 or to invoke the testing/design changes/risk associated with MIL‐STD‐1310H?

Answer: MIL-STD-1310H is the Navy’s latest standard practice for bonding and grounding. Per the Program’s CDD, EPF is considered a non-combatant vessel and will therefore not be required to be EMP Hardened. While Pulse Current Injections (PCI) can be used to verify grounding effectiveness, it is only required if testing for EMP hardening.

14) Question: Section 3.555.2.1 states "The HEF system shall be provided freshwater flushing, drains and blowdown connections to allow effective drainage and system restoration after operation." It is assumed that the HEF system as provided and installed on previously delivered EPF vessels are in compliance with this requirement. Does the government concur? If not, can the new parameters for compliance be identified by the government?

Answer: The HEF system as provided and installed on previously delivered EPF vessels are in compliance with this requirement.

15) Question: J‐1 Specification Section 3.503 states "Pump motors for Variable Speed Drives (VSDs), if installed, shall utilize insulated bearings and shaft grounding rings (SGR)." Section 4.503 states "Commissioning, isolation, alignment, and grounding of VSDs, motors, pumps, and associated equipment, shall be verified in accordance with the respective OEM recommendations." These requirements can potentially be in conflict if the OEM recommendation is not consistent with Section 3.503. Does the requirement in Section 3.503 or the OEM recommendation from Section 4.503 take precedence in event of conflict? Additionally, in regards to a VSD controlled pump installation, the OEM of the pump, motor and VSD may not agree on best grounding practices. Within a VSD controlled pump isolation, which OEM practices are to be followed: the pump, the motor or the VSD?

Answer: Attachment J-1 Section 3.503 takes precedence over the OEM recommendation from Section 4.503. In the event of a conflict with OEM recommendations, Offeror's shall notify the Government so appropriate courses of action can be addressed.

16) Question: Since MSC currently uses the Corrective Maintenance Logistics System (CMLS), how does the Hull, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Data Research System (HEDRS) compare with CMLS for the purposes of establishing standardization?

Answer: The HEDRS system is no longer in use. Its primary function was to identify installed Hull, Mechanical and Electrical equipment (and subsequent logistics support status) across active and inactive ships. Per clause, HQ C-2-0052 (STANDARDIAZATION). The Corrective Maintenance Logistics System (CMLS) is MSC’s system to manage configuration control, material requisitioning, maintenance engineering and other logistics functions; similar to functionality as the US NAVY’s Configuration Data Managers Database - Open Architecture (CDMD-OA) Configuration Data Managers Database - Open Architecture. Per clause HQ C-2-0052, ‘The Contractor shall utilize both industry and government tools in implementing the standardization program across shipbuilders.’ HEDRS is given as an example of a government resource. The offeror shall use its professional judgement in implementing the requirements set forth in clause HQ C-2-0052.

17) Question: L.2.2.2 page 186 requires comprehensive design specifications, data, and drawings in Volume I. Six copies are required. Most of the drawings are in large format, and the specs, etc. are voluminous. The hardcopy of all this will probably fill multiple large binders, times 6 copies. Will the Gov't allow this information to be provided via CD/DVD in lieu of paper?

Answer: The Government will accept requested information on three hardcopies and five CD/DVD.

18) Question: C 1.2.13 Cyber Security states "...the Contractor shall perform cybersecurity risk management, in accordance with DODINST 8500.01 of 14 March 2014, to protect and mitigate risks to Information Technology associated with Contractor‐furnished control and network systems." This DODINST instruction does not provide detailed requirements for scope determination, but implies in the cybersecurity risk management section (enclosure 3 para 2 of the DODINST 8500.01) that RMF is required. Can the Gov't confirm they require the Shipbuilder to execute the DoD Risk Management Framework (RMF) process for Contractor‐furnished control and network systems? If so, which of the six steps of the RMF process shall the Shipbuilder execute?

Answer: The Government will execute the RMF process for Contractor‐Furnished control and network systems.

19) Question: C 1.2.13 Cyber Security states "...the Contractor shall perform cybersecurity risk management, in accordance with DODINST 8500.01 of 14 March 2014, to protect and mitigate risks to Information Technology associated with Contractor‐furnished control and network systems." The Navy's Defensein‐Depth Functional Implementation Architecture (DFIA) IATA‐STD‐004‐DFIA‐V4.0 requires the implementation of multi‐layered cybersecurity framework on Navy platforms. Can the Gov't confirm if the Gov't provided C4I suite will provide the EPF with Platform and Enclave cybersecurity boundary unctions/capabilities cited in the DFIA document or, alternatively if Gov't requires the Shipbuilder to provide these functions/capabilities?

Answer: The Government will provide the platform cybersecurity boundary functions/capabilities cited in the DFIA document during contract performance.

20) Question: The RFP requires the offeror’s proposal include Contract Facilities Capital Cost of Money (FCCM) and the associated completion of DD Form 1861, included as Attachment J‐28 in the solicitation. This will confirm the offeror’s intent to include FCCM in the proposal to be set forth on DD Form 1861 as Attachment J‐28. Please also note that since the Contractor will include FCCM as part of the proposal there will be no Waiver of FCCM (Pursuant to 52.215‐17 Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money (OCT 1997)) and FCCM is therefore an allowable cost under an awarded contract. Request your acknowledgment of the above.

Answer: The Navy acknowledges that there will be no waiver of FCCM (Pursuant to 52.215-17 Waiver of Facilities Capital Cost of Money (OCT 1997) and that FCCM is an allowable cost as long as it meets the provisions of FAR 31.205-10(b).

21) Question: The subject table requests a Master Schedule 7 DPT PAC. Is a major milestone schedule sufficient in support of the Post Award conference? The full IMS would not be available the first week after contract award.

Answer: Yes, a major milestone schedule would be sufficient to support the PAC.

22) Question: Section C 2.5.2 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) under 3. Local Load Cases and Analysis Results, states: "‐ Slam Impact Pressures ‐ Buckling and tripping of local members" "Buckling and tripping of local members" is additional language not included in the EPF1‐12 contracts. Is it the Government’s intention for this to add additional engineering and FEA work scope and possibly ship design changes to what was submitted and approved by ABS and the Government in the EPF1‐12 contracts?

Answer: The existing EPF design meets the requirements of this section, however Offeror's should use their professional judgement to assess designs for possible areas of improvement and advise the Government of the trade-offs and risk within their proposals.

23) Question: Section 1.2.13 calls for the contractor to perform cybersecurity risk management, in accordance with DODINST 8500.01. Assuming that the vessel machinery control system would be a Platform Information Technology (PIT) System, our understanding of DODINST 8500.01 is that a PIT System must have a Risk Management Framework (RMF) as defined in DODINST 8510.01. The RMF calls for a system to be categorized and for security controls to be selected before those security controls are incorporated into an RFP. Is it the Government's intention for this requirement to be flowed down to vendor/OEM equipment, including but not limited to propulsion controls, engine controls, fuel purifier controls, etc?

Answer: No, RMF requirements do not flow down to vendor/OEM equipment suppliers for the purposes of this proposal.

24) Question: Attachment J‐3 states, "For each technical manual, the Contractor shall apply for a Technical Manual Identification Number (TMIN). The Contractor shall obtain a Technical Data Management Information System (TDMIS) account and TMIN privileges via the Naval System Data Support Activity (NSDSA) web page in order to electronically submit a Technical Manual Identification Number Request (TMIN‐R)." What clearance level is needed for TMIN‐R access?

25) Answer: There is no specific security clearance requirements for access to the Technical Data Management Information System (TDMIS). The contractor is expected to meet all security clearance requirements that are prescribed in the contract. Please refer to website https://nsdsa.dc3n.navy.mil for additional detail.

26) Question: Attachment J‐3, DRL B054 states, "Printed copies must be clear and legible, and must be permanently bound to preserve the manual in a shipboard environment." Would the Government accept the requested printed copies be provided in electronic format and supplied to this on CD/DVD instead?

Answer: All contractor deliverables described in J-3 shall be submitted through the PMS385 Project Management System (PMS-ES) in the format stated in each respective Data Requirements List (DRLs). Technical manuals shall be submitted in a digital format as prescribed in J-3, DI-B054, Attachment 1, paragraph 5(a) –(c).

27) Question: Attachment J‐3, DRL B047 states, "Ship configuration data shall reside in a shared Material and Equipment Realtime Logistics Information Network (MERLIN) database, provided by the Government. The Contractor and designated EPF Class Design Team and other Government personnel shall have data input, query and report generation access, as appropriate." This wording is a change from the EPF1‐12 contracts since the information input into MERLIN by the Contractor is based on the ships configuration as documented in the Contractors drawings and deliverables. How does the Government intend to notify the Contractor of changes made by the Government in MERLIN? How does the Government plan to maintain configuration control with the Contractors drawings and deliverables when the Government inputs data into MERLIN? How is the Contractor to handle situations where data input by Government does not match the Contractors drawings and deliverables?

Answer:

Government and Contractor personnel will be given MERLIN access and permissions commiserate with their roles; to satisfy the contract requirements.

The Government intends to use MERLIN to perform query and report generation functions, in order to monitor Contractor's compliance with requirements. The Government will notify the Contractor of any changes that need to made and the contractor will update configuration and associated data in accordance with contract requirements. If the Government does change any Contractor responsible data; the Government will provide notification of such change. The method of notification will be mutually agreed upon, post-delivery.

The contractor will maintain configuration control of drawings and deliverables, in accordance with the applicable contract requirements and the contractor's Configuration Management Plan (C-1.22, J-3 BI-003, clause HQ C-2-0012 CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT (NAVSEA) (APR 2015).

28) Question: Section 2.200 states "vessel's machinery shall be capable of continuous operation using… NATO Code F‐44 (JP‐5) in accordance with MIL‐DTL‐5624… and have a minimum lubricity in accordance with MIL‐DTL‐16884." Section 3.233.1 states "propulsion diesel engines shall be MTU 20V8000M71L or equal." Section 3.233.2 states "...Generators shall be IFM V1312C2ME8 diesel engines or equal." Our interpretation for requiring continuous rating using NATO Code F‐44 (JP‐5) in accordance with MIL‐DTL‐5624 will bring into effect IMO MARPOL Resolution MEPC.141(54) regulations. Implementing NATO Code F‐44 (JP‐5) as a ship’s “Oil Fuel”, as defined in IMO MARPOL Resolution MEPC.141(54) 2.3.1 under “Regulation 12A – Oil fuel tank protection”, will push the aggregate capacity above the allowed 600 m3 “Oil Fuel” capacity to keep single skinned oil fuel tanks, requiring there be double skinned “Oil Fuel” tanks for the totality of the vessel. Does the government intend to invoke continuous operating rating of NATO Code F‐44 fuel for these machinery items with the necessary modification to hull shape, machinery/compartment arrangement, and risk to accommodate the new requirements? Or is the intent to retain the existing capabilities of the main propulsion diesel engines and generators in accordance with the criteria established by SOW Sections C 1 and C 1.4 or to "...use, to the maximum extent possible, similar or equal Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E), systems currently in MSC’s inventory..." as stated in Section C paragraph 1?

Answer: The Government does not intend to invoke continuous operational rating of NATO Code F‐44 fuel for these machinery items with the necessary design/machinery/risk to accommodate the new requirements. The Government does intend to retain the existing capabilities of the main propulsion diesel engines and generators in accordance with the criteria established by SOW Sections C 1 and C 1.4. DFM is the preferred fuel for assessing operational range and dictates total ship tank capacity. It is not the intent of the program to drive the design to a double skinned configuration.

29) Question: The applicable revision of MIL‐STD‐1310 is inconsistent (Revision G/H) within the J‐1 attachment. Does the government intend to invoke MIL‐STD‐1310H throughout and if so, does the government classify the Mission Bay as an interior space or an exterior above the deck space in relation to E3 certification and cable shielding for PCI testing

Answer: MIL-STD-1310 H is the correct version, it replaces REV G and is the required standard for EPF 13. Section J-1 will be updated to correct this error at its next revision. Per the Program’s CDD, EPF is considered a non-combatant vessel and will therefore not be required to be EMP Hardened. While Pulse Current Injections (PCI) can be used to verify grounding effectiveness, it is only required if testing for EMP hardening. For purposes of E3 certification, the mission bay should be considered an exterior space.

30) Question: J‐3 Attachment, DI‐B100, PROGRESSING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION, in BLOCK 3 ‐ REFERENCE, indicates Contract Clause H‐15, however we do not find a clause H‐15 in the solicitation. Request this reference be deleted or the correct clause reference (if there is one) be shown.

Answer: Reference in block three requires and update. Please refer to Contract Clause 5252.232-9105 (p114).

31) Question: Is it the government’s intent for the contractor to continue to be involved in the Cybersecurity Risk Management Framework that is derived from DODINST 8510.01 as required by DODINST 8500.01 within section C 1.2.13? Specifically is the contractor required to support Step 6 “Monitor Security Controls” or any other aspects of DODINST 8510.01, after delivery of the vessel?

Answer: No, the contractor is not required to support Step 6 “Monitor Security Controls” or any other aspects of DODINST 8510.01, after delivery of the vessel.

32) Question: The referenced paragraph notes that “cover letters, title pages, and tables of contents, tabbed index divider pages, and past performance questionnaires (Attachment J‐29)” will be excluded from the Volume 1 page count. However, no reference is made to the required abbreviations and acronym list, which is typically included with the proposal front matter. Can the Government confirm that the exclusion applies to the abbreviation and acronym list as well? Additionally, would the Government add the compliance matrix, also frequently included in front matter, to that list of exclusions?

33) Answer: The abbreviation list, acronym list and compliance matrix will not be included in the Volume 1 page count.

34) Question: The second sentence in the eighth bullet repeats the requirement in bullet number 7, which does not appear to be applicable. Can the Government remove that sentence from the eighth bullet?

Answer: This is a typo. The repeated sentence will be deleted from the RFP.

35) Question: Will the Gov’t provide NAVSEA Publication 0967‐LP‐000‐0110?

Answer: Yes

1 | Page