N00024-18-R-2227_Responses_to_Offerors_Questions_31_July_2018.docx

31 July 2018 Response to Offeror’s Questions

1) Question:

With regard to the 10 USC 2534 compliance requirement included in the RFP in Section C, page 13 and Section C, Page 78, and the filing of associated waivers (Question Redacted) Answer:

10 U.S.C. 2534 waivers are needed for this contract. The Government expects that proposals submitted under this solicitation highlight any aspects of the ship design which do not fully comply with 10 U.S.C. 2534. In the case of equipment for which the Navy documented waivers on prior EPF-class vessels, any information provided previously by the Contractor will be leveraged by the Navy to the greatest extent possible, but new waivers will be required.

2) Question:

Volume I TECHNICAL PROPOSAL includes Sections 1, 2, 3, & 4. Per the table at bottom of page 183, six (6) paper copies are required of Sections 1, 2, & 3, but only two (2) for Section 4. Does the Government want two versions of Volume I (one with Section 4, one without Section 4)?

Answer:

The Government requested two (2) copies of Section 4. Please include Section 4 in a separate binder from the other Volume I Factors.

3) Question:

Per the table at bottom of page 183, proposal Sections 1 – 5 are required on CD ROM as “Original/Master CD ROM” and “CD ROM COPIES”. Is the requirement for separate disks for each section (total of 10 disks), for each volume (total of 4 disks), or with all documents on two disks (one original plus one copy)?

Answer:

Volume I – one (1) Master CD ROM and 4 CD ROM Copies Volume II- one (1) Master CD ROM and 1 CD ROM Copy

4) Question:

Reference language:

L.2.2.2 Factor 2 Existing Ship Design and Technical Approach The Offeror’s proposals shall:Describe the overall design effort, including a discussion of all major design and engineering effort envisioned.

L.2.2.3 Factor 3 Production and Management Approach The Offeror shall explain how the total construction will be executed and managed to meet this solicitation and Attachment J‐1 and shall include detail design, LLM acquisition, production planning, production support, configuration management, risk management, procurement, ILS, quality assurance, test and trials, integration of the SSV and guaranty period.

Question: L.2.2.2 and L.2.2.3 both could be interpreted to require the design effort to be described. Is it the Government’s intent for the proposal to describe this effort in two places?

Answer:

No, it is not the Government's intent to describe this effort in two places. L.2.2.2 shall discuss the design and engineering effort. L.2.2.3 shall address the management approach to the design effort (i.e. overall schedule, interface with PM, interface with Production -detail design drawings). L.1.3 provides cross referencing instructions.

5) Question:

The 2016 ABS Guide for Crew Habitability on Ships is referenced however per Section 1, Paragraph 2 of that guide, it is applicable to new and existing vessels for which an optional ship Habitability (HAB), ship Habitability Plus (HAB+), or ship Habitability Plus Plus (HAB++) notation has been requested. These notations have not been requested in the J‐1 Performance Specification. Section 3.088 states that "whole body vibration limitations shall be in compliance with the ABS Guide... Section 3" but also does not provide notation guidance. Without clarification regarding the applicable notation, the method and degree of compliance necessary can not be determined. Any variation from previous vessel design whole body vibration to ISO 2631‐1 will require a complete design review for impact and will result in design changes to HM&E systems resulting in class differences. 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. Will the government accept EPF 13 design in regards to whole body vibration in accordance with the requirements established EPF class hulls 1‐12 and SOW Section C 1 and 1.4? Or does the government intend to invoke a "HAB" criteria from the 2016 ABS Guide for Crew Habitability and provide the requested notation via an revised specification ?

Answer:

The Government will not seek an ABS HAB or HAB+ Notation. The purpose for referencing the ABS Guide for Crew Habitability was to offer design guidance / criteria for whole body vibration, when designing new hull forms, without having to purchase the more expensive ISO standards.

6) Question:

Referenced section states "Dynamic stability shall be assessed in accordance with 2000 HSC Code 3.492.2." Unable to locate 3.492.2 within 2000 HSC Code. The citied reference does not appear valid. Can the Gov't provide a valid reference for the intended requirements?

Answer:

The sentence should read: “Dynamic stability shall be assessed in accordance with 2000 HSC Code.”

7) Question:

The location of the crane at the after end of the main deck appears to have limited utility in moving cargo from the mission deck to flight deck. If adding an elevator, what additional design criteria must be met?

Answer:

Any closure within the perimeter line of the flight deck must be designed to the same standards for the flight deck/ship (strength, water tightness, fire boundaries, non-skid, tie-downs, etc.)

8) Question:

EPF Class ships are outfitted with bridge wings, yet bridge wings do not appear to be a stated requirement. Can the government clarify if bridge wings are required?

Answer:

Bridge wings are not a hard requirement provided the ship’s Master has a commanding view of the ship, any protrusions and its mooring decks. Bridge wings do provide an easy way of conning the vessel when operating in constricted waterways and mooring un-assisted. Consideration must also be given to transiting the Panama and Suez Canals.

9) Question:

Previously the Navy leased several HSVs which were outfitted with hangars for embarked aircraft. If providing a hangar what criteria should be considered?

Answer:

The inclusion of a hangar would imply the builder is seeking a Level I, Class I aviation certification, allowing the ship to land, launch, refuel and maintain embarked aircraft. If true, then the criteria of NAVAIR Bulletin SI-ACS-AFB-1M, Air Capable Ship Aviation Facilities Bulletin No. 1M would apply.

10) Question:

As per the OEM (OCENCO), the Emergency Escape Breathing Device OCENCO Model M‐20.2 cited in section 3.072.1 is no longer available for Naval installations. OCENCO Model M‐20.3 with face shield is compliant with all relevant regulatory codes and considered the equivalent replacement.

Does the government consider this alternative model as an acceptable equivalent to be used for vessel outfitting? If not, due to the obsolescence of the specified item, what will be required for compliance?

Answer:

Yes. The Government considers OCENCO Model M-20.3 to be an acceptable equivalent.

11) Question:

Section 3.088 states "The vessel, vessel systems, and equipment layout, design, and configuration shall meet USCG minimum manning requirements for US Flag vessels (IMO Resolution A.1047 (27) adopted November 30, 2011 Principles for Safe Manning) and be consistent with the manpower, personnel, and training requirements specified by the Government." The Resolution is in reference to minimum safe manning for operational conditions and training, as developed by the party responsible for ship operation. It is therefore assumed that any desired approval and certification from IMO regarding the minimum manning plan for the vessel is to be the responsibility of the government. This requirement does not provide guidance for layout, design and vessel configuration. Does the government accept responsibility for the certification to IMO Resolution A.1047 (27)? If not, can the government clarify the requirements for the offeror?

Answer:

The Government acknowledges responsibility for the safe manning of EPF ships. As such the United States Navy’s Military Sealift Command will establish the required crewing level and man the ship with the appropriate certified seafarers in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Appendix 1 to IMO Resolution A.1047 (27).

12) Question:

Section 3.573.1 states "The grid shall start 0.46m +/‐ 2.54cm (18 in +/‐ 1 inch) aft of the forward bulkhead and 0.9 m (1.5 ft) off centerline of the Mission Bay." This dimensional requirement does not appear to be consistent with NAVSEA 630‐8443306, as utilized on EPF 1‐12. Does the government intend to invoke the spacing as noted within the J‐1 Specification or retain the design within NAVSEA 630‐8443306?

Answer:

While the existing EPF design has proven successful, 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.

13) Question:

J‐3 DRL Section I states "Offerors with previous approved DRLs in use for Navy EPF vessels may transition those DRLs for use on EPF 13 rather than propose new DRLs for EPF 13." This requirement is unclear. What is the required process for an offeror with previously approved DRLs to transition them to EPF13 applicability? Will the previously approved DRLs that are not modified by the EPF13 J‐1 Attachment require resubmittal for review or will the hull applicability be considered extended to EPF13 without resubmittal?

Answer:

Offeror's shall submit DRLs in accordance with the solicitation. Hull applicability for DRLs from EPF 1-12 is not extended to EPF 13 without resubmittal.

14) Question:

J‐3 DRL Section I states "Offerors with previously approved DRLs in use for Navy EPF vessels may transition those DRLs for use on EPF 13 rather than propose new DRLs for EPF 13." does the government still require DI‐B005 (by extension or otherwise) for EPF13? (Question redacted) Answer:

Offeror's shall submit DRLs in accordance with the solicitation. Hull applicability for DRLs from EPF 1-12 is not extended to EPF 13 without resubmittal.

15) Question:

The government did not provide the revision of each of the line items on Attachment J‐5, Schedule C for the EPF13 solicitation. A number of items were listed as "TBD" revision. When does the government intend to provide the revision of the "TBD" items in Attachment J‐5?

Answer:

The items associated with “TBD” are associated with Consolidated Afloat Networks and Enterprise Services (CANES) being installed on the EPF 13. These items are still under development and will be provided as soon as completed but no later than (NLT) two months after contract award (2MAC); as stated in ATTACHMENT J-5 EPF-13 GOVERNMENT FURNISHED INFORMATION – SCHEDULE C.

16) Question:

1. If DLA Document Services is delayed or interrupted, does the government or the contractor absorb that cost?

2. If DLA Document Services loses or damages material which causes a delay or interruption, does the government or the contractor absorb that cost?

Answer:

1. Clause HQ C-2-0041 (d)(2) states the contractor and Government responsibilities if DLA Document Services are delayed or interrupted.

2. Per Clause HQ C-2-0041 Section (e), “The Contractor shall not be responsible for the quality, or quality control, of printing performed by DLA Document Services or a printer under contract to DLA Document Services; and, the Government shall reimburse the Contractor for any costs incurred for replacement of material lost or damaged by DLA Document Services or a printer under contract to DLA Document Services.”

17) Question:

There is a gap between 52.242‐5 and 52.242‐13, but there is an issuance date of JAN 1997. Is there a clause missing that the Government intended to insert, or should this date be deleted?

Answer:

No clauses are missing. The JAN 1997 Issuance Date is deleted.

18) Question:

FAR 52.215‐13 is titled in RFP as "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data", which is the correct title for 52.215‐12. The title for 52.215‐13 should be "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data ‐‐Modifications"?

Answer:

The title for 52.215‐13 will be changed to "Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data ‐‐ Modifications"

19) Question:

There is a gap between 52.215‐1 and 252.215‐7008, but there is an issuance date of APR 1984. Is there a clause missing that the Government intended to insert, or should this date be deleted?

Answer:

No clauses are missing. The April 1984 Issuance Date is deleted.