N00024-18-R-2227_Responses_to_Offerors_Questions_27_July_2018.docx

27 July 2018 Response to Offeror’s Questions

1) Question: The condition of "Light Ship" has cited definitions and contradictory inclusions throughout the solicitation J-1 attachment.

-The SAWE definition of Light Ship, which is cited in section 2.4, is given as “the vessel complete, ready for service in every respect, including permanent solid and liquid ballast, onboard repair parts, and liquids in machinery at operating levels, without any items of variable load."

‐ In section 3.070.3, Light Ship is defined as including “all Contractor controlled margins and all Government controlled margins described,” which include Service Life Allowances and Reservations.

‐ In 3.070.5, Light Ship is also cited as including the space and weight reservations for an AT/FP System (1050kg requirement), C4I Spaces (17710kg requirement), and Vessel Small Arms Stowage (2MT requirement).

‐ In section 4.097, Light Ship Weights are said to include “Cargo Handling Gear, Mission Bay vehicle lashing chains, Damage Control Equipment, on board spares (both Contractor Furnished Equipment and Government Furnished Equipment), General Use Consumables, Authorized Dental Allowances, Authorized Medical Allowances, mattresses, ship’s mooring lines, towing equipment, EEBDs, CBR‐D equipment, Replenishment at Sea equipment, Aviation Crash and Salvage equipment, life preservers, JP‐5 fueling equipment and all weight reservations in section 3.070.5.”

‐ The following components identified in section 4.097 are considered to be the referenced variable load items from section 2.4 and therefore are not considered applicable to Light Ship per the existing EPF1‐12 design: Mission Bay lashing chains, Damage Control Equipment, onboard spares, General Use Consumables, Authorized Dental Allowances, Authorized Medical Allowances, CBRD Equipment, Provisions and Stores, and Small Arms with Ammo.

These were considered in other load calculations. Inclusion of the additional items defined within Section 4.097 will result in significant design changes to the existing design to accommodate the added weight. Does the government intend to proceed with the definition of Light Ship as identified within Section 4.097 and invoke the additional risk and cost to the existing ship design? NO Or will continuation of the definition as accepted for the EPF 1‐12 design be allowed to enable "...use, to the maximum extent possible, similar or equal Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E), systems currently in MSC’s inventory..." as defined in Section C paragraph 1?

Answer: There is no intent to change the EPF design light ship requirements. The definition of light ship remains consistent with the performance specifications for the EPF 1-12. The revised language was incorporated for clarity purposes in weight reporting only.

2) 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." The machinery referenced in sections 3.233.1 and 3.233.2 and supporting fuel systems as provided within the EPF1‐12 design are not rated for continuous operation on NATO Code F‐44 fuel. Does the government 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? 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 defined 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.

3) Question: Section 3.170 states "If a tripod receiving station is used, it shall be built in accordance with NAVSHIPS DWG No, 5715416658 Rev AB, and Parts List NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W, with the following modifications: 1. All aluminum tripod support material to be 5083‐H116 2. Part Number 218 to be 1.0 inches thick" NAVSHIPS DWG No. 5715416658 Rev AB and NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W have not been provided for review and the degree of impact cannot be determined at this time. The EPF class vessel currently utilizes a FAS tripod in accordance with 571‐FAS‐SK‐002. Does the government consider the currently utilized EPF class FAS tripod to be compliant or equal to the referenced NAVSHIPs drawings NAVSHIPS DWG No. 5715416658 Rev AB and NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W? If the referenced NAVSHIPs drawings are required, when will the government provide them for review and scoping for cost/design impact?

Answer: Offeror's shall use their professional judgement to determine whether proposed FAS tripod meets the requirements in J-1 and evaluation criteria. The Government will provide NAVSHIPs drawings to interested parties shortly.

4) Question: Section 3.170 states "If a tripod receiving station is used, it shall be built in accordance with NAVSHIPS DWG No, 5715416658 Rev AB, and Parts List NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W, with the following modifications: 1. All aluminum tripod support material to be 5083‐H116 2. Part Number 218 to be 1.0 inches thick" NAVSHIPS DWG No. 5715416658 Rev AB and NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W are unavailable to review and degree of impact in comparison to EPF1‐12 design cannot be determined. The EPF class vessel currently utilizes a FAS tripod in accordance with 571‐FAS‐SK‐002. Does the government consider the currently utilized EPF class FAS tripod to be compliant or equal to the referenced NAVSHIPs drawings? If the referenced NAVSHIPs drawings are required, when will the government provide them for review and scoping for cost/design impact?

Answer: Offeror's shall use their professional judgement to determine whether proposed FAS tripod meets the requirements in J-1 and evaluation criteria. The Government will provide NAVSHIPs drawings to interested parties shortly.

5) Question: Section 3.170 states "If a tripod receiving station is used, it shall be built in accordance with NAVSHIPS DWG No, 5715416658 Rev AB, and Parts List NAVSHIPS DWG No. PL5715416658 Rev W, with the following modifications: 1. All aluminum tripod support material to be 5083‐H116 2. Part Number 218 to be 1.0 inches thick" The requirement for tripod material to be 5083‐H116 is not achievable. Aluminum grade 5XXX extrusions are commonly H111/112 or O. The current EPF tripod design utilizes 6061. Will the government accept grade 6061 per the current design and if not, what material is necessary for compliance?

Answer: The Government will accept grade 6061 with appropriate engineering calculations and fabrication requirements. Engineering calculations should show the welded strength is within acceptable limits for shear and bending.

6) Question: The J‐3 is missing pages 4, 5, 95, 96, and 97. Page 99 is used twice. Please confirm that the missing pages were deliberately left out and that they contain no RFP requirements. If not, can the Navy release those pages?

Answer: Page numbering will be corrected. Missing pages were not intentionally left out.

7) Question: Current EPFs appear to use HEF as their primary firefighting agent for protecting Engine Rooms. The Performance Specification J-1, Section 555.2.3 also indicates other alternatives are acceptable. Can the Government please clarify which is preferred?

Answer: As stated in section J-1, 555.2.3, “The Engine Rooms shall be provided with a fire extinguishing system in accordance with ABS HSNC Rules.” Therefore the engine rooms could be protected with a variety of recognized gas or fluid systems; including C02, FM-200, and or water-mist.

8) Question: Current EPFs use HEF exclusively to protect their mission bay, requiring the space to be filled to a minimum height of 13 feet 6 inches within two minutes or less of system activation per contract attachment J-1 (3.555.2.2). Typically Ro/Ro vehicles spaces are protected with a deluge water sprinkling system. Will the government consider water sprinkling as an alternative?

Answer: No. Unlike commercial Car Ferries, EPFs must embark combat loaded vehicles where ordnance may be present, therefore the vehicle parking area must be capable of being fully submerged with a High Expansion Foam (HEF) System to protect ordnance if embarked.