N00024-18-R-2236.docx

N0002418R2236

Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices

CLIN Number 0001

Trade-Off Studies and Design Maturity

FFP

See Note A FOB: Origin (Shipping Point)

PSC CD: AC35

NET AMT

CLIN Number 0002

FFP

See Notes B and C

NET AMT

CLIN Number 0003

CPFF

See Notes C, D, and E

ESTIMATED COST

FIXED FEE

TOTAL EST COST + FEE

CLIN Number 0004

CHAMP Data Items for 0001, 0002, 0003

FFP

See Note F

NET AMT

NOTES

NOTE A - Offeror shall complete the “Amount” for CLIN 0001 bid above. The Government intends to award up to five (5) FFP contracts for CLIN 0001 as part of the initial award, as budget allows.

NOTE B – Offerors that intend to develop designs that include sealift and/or submarine tender missions, shall complete the “Amount” for CLIN 0002 bid above. The Government intends to exercise up to five (5) FFP CLIN 0002 options to offerors that are developing designs that include sealift and/or submarine tender missions, as budget allows.

NOTE C - Optional items (CLINS 0002 and 0003) to which the option clause in 52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY--SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM (MAR 1989) (NAVSEA VARIATION I) (SEP 2009) applies are marked as (Option) and are to be supplied only if and to the extent said option is exercised. The Government is not obligated to order any or all of these items. Exercise of one option will not obligate the Government to the exercise of other options.

NOTE D – In accordance with Section H clause entitled “5252.242-9115 TECHNICAL INSTRUCTIONS” and Section B clause entitled “PAYMENT OF FEE(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT – ALTERNATE I)”.

NOTE E – These CLINs may be incrementally funded in accordance with Section I clause “52.232-22 LIMITATION OF FUNDS” and Section H clause “5252.232-9104 ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS”.

NOTE F – CLIN 0004 is ‘Not Separately Priced’ (NSP) and is included in the cost of CLIN 0001, 0002, and 0003.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

HQ B-2-0004 EXPEDITING CONTRACT CLOSEOUT (NAVSEA) (DEC 1995)

(a) As part of the negotiated fixed price or total estimated amount of this contact, both the Government and the Contractor have agreed to waive any entitlement that otherwise might accrue to either party in any residual dollar amount of $500 or less at the time of final contract closeout. The term “residual dollar amount” shall include all money that would otherwise be owed to either party at the end of the contract, except that, amounts connected in any way with taxation, allegations of fraud and/or antitrust violations shall be excluded. For purposes of determining residual dollar amounts, offsets of money owed by one party against money that would otherwise be paid by that party may be considered to the extent permitted by law.

(b) This agreement to waive entitlement to residual dollar amounts has been considered by both parties. It is agreed that the administrative costs for either party associated with collecting such small dollar amounts could exceed the amount to be recovered.

HQ B-2-0007 LIMITATION OF COST/LIMITATION OF FUNDS (NAVSEA) (SEP 1990)

The clause entitled "LIMITATION OF COST" (FAR 52.232-20) or "LIMITATION OF FUNDS" (FAR 52.232-22), as appropriate, shall apply separately and independently to each separately identified estimated cost.

HQ B-2-0015 PAYMENT OF FEES(S) (LEVEL OF EFFORT – ALTERNATE I) (NAVSEA) (MAY 2010)

(a) For purposes of this contract, "fee" means "target fee" in cost-plus-incentive-fee type contracts, "base fee" in cost-plus-award-fee type contracts, or "fixed fee" in cost-plus-fixed-fee type contracts for level of effort type contracts.

(b) The Government shall make payments to the Contractor, subject to and in accordance with the clause in this contract entitled "FIXED FEE" (FAR 52.216-8) or "INCENTIVE FEE", (FAR 52.216-10), as applicable. Such payments shall be submitted by and payable to the Contractor pursuant to the clause of this contract entitled "ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT" (FAR 52.216-7), subject to the withholding terms and conditions of the "FIXED FEE" or "INCENTIVE FEE" clause, as applicable, and shall be paid at the hourly rate(s) specified above per man-hour performed and invoiced. Total fee(s) paid to the Contractor shall not exceed the fee amount(s) set forth in this contract. In no event shall the Government be required to pay the Contractor any amount in excess of the funds obligated under this contract.

Section C - Descriptions and Specifications

C.1. GENERAL STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1.1 Today the Navy relies on an aging Fleet of auxiliaries and sealift vessels built over several generations and approaching the end of their service lives beginning in 2025. These vessels are key to readiness for rapid worldwide deployment and sustainment of our distributed Navy, Army, and Marine Corps forces. US strategic need to strengthen security and maintain our key alliances in Europe, Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East will be compromised without auxiliary vessel support. The Common Hull Auxiliary Multi-Mission Platform (CHAMP) program contemplates the recapitalization of five (5) current auxiliary missions: sealift, submarine tending, aviation intermediate maintenance support, command & control, and medical services. In order to adequately recapitalize the auxiliary Fleet, the Contractor must ensure the most extreme cost conscious acquisition approach is selected and matured during the period of performance of this contract, with the goal of recapitalizing these five missions under extremely limited budgets.

C.1.2 Through the CHAMP program, the Navy is developing ships that can leverage commonality to affordably recapitalize the auxiliary fleet. The Navy envisions that the CHAMP solution may reduce the number of disparate hull types from five (one for each mission type) to one or two/three common hulls. Based on initial industry feedback and internal Government studies, the Navy believes that leveraging commonality across the mission types is feasible and will reduce the acquisition and lifecycle costs. However, the Navy is unsure what design trade-offs may be required and where the areas of best-value exist within the solution space. Therefore, the Navy is conducting this CHAMP study and the optional follow-on design efforts to enable Contractors to develop affordable, practical solutions to recapitalizing the CHAMP auxiliary missions. To avoid artificially constraining the solution, the Navy is providing a CHAMP DRAFT Circular of Requirements (COR), Attachment J-1, that the Government expects to be refined throughout the period of performance based on Contractor feedback. The Government is currently leaving the solution space as open as possible to enable Contractors to conduct wide reaching studies that can include innovative, cost effective alternatives. The complete set of CHAMP requirements may be addressed by either a single common hull solution, or by multiple complimentary hull design(s) that together are capable of accomplishing all five missions. Single mission concepts can be included. Open Systems Architecture, modularity and flexible infrastructure concepts may be employed to adapt the CHAMP ships for assigned missions, whether built-in at the time of construction or exchangeable during the ship’s lifecycle.

C.1.3 The priority of the CHAMP missions have been determined as follows: 1) sealift, 2) submarine tending, 3) aviation intermediate maintenance support, 4) command & control and medical services. The Contractor need not propose a solution that meets all five missions, however, to be eligible to participate in optional Design Maturation for Sealift/Subtender, ITEM 0002, the Contractor must propose an approach that includes the sealift and/or submarine tending missions.

C.1.4 CHAMP shall comply with American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) rules and U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) regulations. To the extent practical, proven, reliable, technologies, systems, and components shall be employed. No items with a Technology Readiness Level below 7 shall be accepted (Attachment J-2). Component commonality with other U.S. Navy ships is desirable.

C.1.5 In accordance with the CHAMP DRAFT Circular of Requirements (COR) (Attachment J-1), and the terms and conditions of this contract, the Contractor shall perform feasibility studies addressing the most cost effective and producible technical solutions for CHAMP. Due to the nature of the scope of work for this effort, the Government requires that the successful US Department of Defense (DoD) registered Contractor have facilities that can support construction of a ship capable of meeting the technical requirements of a CHAMP ship. The resultant contracts for this solicitation will only be awarded to shipyards capable of constructing the CHAMP ship.

C.1.6 The Contractor’s obligation to perform this contract is in no way conditioned upon the Government providing any facilities, material, property, equipment, services, or information, except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein.

C.1.7 The Government intends to use the deliverables from this contract to refine the CHAMP DRAFT COR (Attachment J-1) to improve affordability based on the results of Contractor optimization and trade-off studies for recommended acquisition approaches, commonality improvement initiatives, innovative methods, and alternate standards. The Government intends to seek leadership decisions throughout the period of performance, providing DRAFT COR change pages with the requirements changes accepted by the Government. DRAFT COR change pages will be provided throughout performance via a no-cost administrative modification to the contract. Two full DRAFT COR updates will be provided at approximately eight and fourteen months following initial contract award. The Contractor must be capable of maturing their design(s) to maintain compliance with FINAL COR threshold values provided under this contract. The Contractor is encouraged to plan for changing requirements.

C.1.8 The Contractor shall provide, and the Government will retain, Government Purpose Rights to technical data. As such future solicitations may contain some or all of the recommendations and delivered products developed by the Contractor under this contract. Business sensitive data such as financial reporting and shipyard capability information may be marked as “proprietary”, where such proprietary marking is justified by the Contractor and approved by the Government. Any proprietary or sensitive business data provided by the Contractor via a deliverable must be marked appropriately and will not be shared with other industry participants.

C.1.9 All commercial and non-commercial data delivered must be marked with the technical data rights appropriately asserted by the Contractor. Assertions must be made in accordance with DFAR 52.227-7013 and 52.227-7017.

C.1.10 The Government does not anticipate that any classified data will be generated or submitted under this effort. However, if the Contractor believes that the submission of any classified data would best meet the requirements delineated in this Statement of Work and under any resulting CDRLs, the Contractor shall contact the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) for further direction before submitting any classified data.

C.1.11 Facility Security Clearance Required: The contractor is required to maintain a SECRET facility security clearance.

C.1.12 Level of Safeguarding for Classified Information/Material Required at Contractor Facility: The contractor is required to maintain a level of safeguarding for classified information/material at the SECRET level.

C.1.13 Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI)(Formerly for Official Use Only Information): The contractor shall be required to have access to CUI with developers and integrators.

C.1.14 Receive, Store, and Generate Classified Information: The contractor shall assist in modernizing systems that are classified. Techniques to modernize this equipment, testing of this equipment and overall system performance could be classified and the subject to email and written reports. In this capacity, the contractor shall generate and be in receipt of classified material.

C.1.15 DTIC: In order to use the current contract specifications and applicable documentation, the contractor is required to use the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC).

C.1.16 Be authorized to use the Defense Courier Service (DCS): The contractor shall require use of the Defense Courier Service for the transfer of classified material.

C.2. ITEM 0001 – TRADE-OFF STUDIES

The purpose of this study is to conduct detailed cost-benefit trade off analysis of the CHAMP DRAFT COR (Attachment J-1) to recommend value changes that facilitate affordable designs; apply cost reduction commonality and open systems architecture; and evaluate CHAMP design alternatives to develop best-value solutions. The goal is to develop best value solutions with an affordable total acquisition cost. The Government is interested in identifying ship concepts with ROM costs within the range of likely budgetary limits, which are expected to be scrutinized and will require a defensible business case. The COR threshold values for speed, draft, beam, and mission square (COR Table 050.1-1, Attachment J-1, mission square is defined on line 1 of this table) are mandatory and shall be met, while all other COR values can be evaluated in the trade-off analysis. The Contractor shall provide the CHAMP design trade-off approach, analysis, results, and conclusions in the Concept Baseline Definition Report (DI-7).

At a minimum, the study shall include:

1. COR trade-off analysis

2. Commonality and Open Systems Architecture analysis

3. Analysis of Alternatives

4. Recommended Best-Value Solution

The Contractor shall provide plots and tables that assist the Government with understanding the cost-benefit trade-offs and that clearly identify the areas of best value. Best value factors, in order of priority, shall be: 1) lifecycle cost, 2) acquisition cost, and 3) level of mission effectiveness over the lifecycle (mission capability, sustainability/maintainability, and upgradability). The study result shall be recommended solution(s) comprised of one or more ship design concepts that provide the best value.

The following sub-sections provide details about the analysis and deliverables that shall be included, as a minimum, in the CHAMP studies.

C.2.1 COR Trade-Off Analysis

The purpose of the trade-off analysis is to identify opportunities for changing the COR to improve affordability. The DRAFT COR threshold values for speed, draft, beam, and mission square are mandatory and shall be met, while all other COR values can be evaluated in the trade-off analysis. The contractor shall analyze the DRAFT COR to identify the major cost and mission effectiveness drivers for each mission included in the Contractor’s approach. For each capability listed in the DRAFT COR, Table 050.1-1, 050.2-1 and 050.3-1, other than the mandatory COR threshold values for speed, draft, beam, and mission square, the Contractor shall determine if the specific requirement is a cost driver that should be explored and shall provide the results in the Concept Baseline Definition Report (DI-7). The Contractor shall conduct trade-off studies for the cost drivers exploring the capability space within, above, and below the DRAFT COR threshold and objective values to identify opportunities for maximizing mission effectiveness at the lowest cost. For those major drivers that the Contractor determines are worthy of requesting official revision to the DRAFT COR, the contractor shall develop and provide cost vs capability curves. The contractor may submit recommendations for COR value changes that improve affordability using the change process in 2.1.1. The Government makes no guarantee that the change request will be approved and any COR changes are solely at the Government’s discretion. The Contractor shall describe and provide the CHAMP DRAFT COR trade-off analysis approach, results, and conclusions in the Concept Baseline Definition Report (DI-7).

C.2.1.1 The Contractor shall submit Circular of Requirements Change Recommendations (COR-CRs) (DI-5) using the form provided as Attachment J-3. The COR-CR is composed of a summary cover sheet and business case analysis report. The business case analysis (and summary forms) will be the only documentation used by the Government for approving or rejecting the recommended COR requirement deviation. Therefore, all information required to assess the recommendation shall be included in the COR-CR. The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the government is under no obligation to approve or implement a COR-CR and that the Contractor design will need to be capable of being matured to adhere to the final DRAFT COR provided under this contract. The DRAFT COR will be modified by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) or Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) via no-cost administrative modifications to the contract. COR-CRs shall not be marked as proprietary and the government will share all COR-CRs with all companies receiving a CHAMP award under this solicitation. Only one (1) COR-CR shall be entered per COR-CR form. All pages of a COR-CR submittal shall be numbered with the COR-CR form always being page one (1). The COR-CR forms may be submitted through month 12 of the period of performance.

C.2.2 Commonality and Open Systems Architecture Analysis

C.2.2.1 The purpose of this study is to identify commonality and open systems architectures that will reduce acquisition and lifecycle costs. The US Navy is interested in solutions that maximize commonality to enable the Navy to affordably bring the diverse CHAMP auxiliary mission types to sea. This may require aggressive tradeoffs in determining what portions of the ship are common across missions such as the hull form, deck heights, compartments, systems, and equipment versus areas/functions of the ship which will include open systems to support specific mission functions and reconfiguration. Examples of recent ship procurement programs that leverage commonality, multi-mission, and open systems architecture include the Italian/French FREMM common hull fixed variant, the US Navy LCS with fully reconfigurable/swappable mission types, and Norway’s Aegir multi-mission auxiliary ship.

C.2.2.2 The Contractor shall conduct a commonality and open systems architecture study. The Contractor shall provide a separate Commonality and Open Systems Architecture Approach Report (DI-8) which will address the Contractor’s proposed approach to commonality and open systems architecture and how the approach contributes to reducing total ownership cost and maximizing mission effectiveness over the lifecycle. The Contractor shall identify which functions, areas, structures, systems, and equipment of the ship(s) will be common/standard across the mission types and which will be customized to specific mission(s). The Contractor shall discuss any tradeoffs made in determining this split. For mission specific functions/areas the Contractor shall evaluate the cost-benefit of common and open system architecture elements and provide justification for what will be included in the design. An analysis of future technology insertions/upgrades shall be conducted. The report shall include, but not be limited to the following topics:

· Commonality (Include common hull, equipment, systems, and other common elements. Include any design studies used to plan/size these elements. Include the range of planned mission capabilities and future upgrades/changes the elements are designed to support)

· Functional Areas (Areas/Functions of the ship that will be standard to all missions and Areas/Functions of the ship that will be customized/flexible to support one or more missions. Include any trade-off analysis in determining this split. Examples of Functional Areas include: bridge, main machinery space, auxiliary machinery space, accommodations, aviation support, mission bay, etc.) For each mission Area/Function of the ship, identify and describe each mission capability it will support. (Including whether it is fixed built-in capability, add-on surge capability, swappable as part of a Force Package, reconfigurable using flexible infrastructure, or accommodated in the future with a pre-planned upgrade.)

· Modules/Force Packages (Include module descriptions, arrangements, service interfaces (loads/ratings are not required), minimum deck heights, onload/offload and installation concept of operations, module handling systems including lift/maneuvering fixtures, trade-offs between built-in versus add-on infrastructure to support Force Packages, and a sustainment plan for module storage and maintenance while off-board the ship.)

· Other Open Systems Architecture Elements:

· Flexible infrastructure (Include infrastructure that facilitates reconfiguration.)

· Open systems (Include systems that will include standard interfaces to accommodate plug-n-play for installation/swap-out/upgrades/future technology insertion.)

· Access Routes for equipment installation/removal/maintenance/future technology insertion (including any minimum deck heights, passageway or doorway widths.)

· Technology Readiness Level, Risk (TRL) Assessment and Mitigation (Assess the Technology Readiness Level according to the TRL table provided in Attachment J-2 for all planned modularity and open systems architecture elements, including but not limited to modules, standard interfaces, handling systems, sustainment plan, open systems and flexible infrastructures. TRL levels shall be above 7 to be included in the design Indicate elements that are available Commercial Off The Shelf and that are currently in use in the US Navy. Indicate elements that are not currently in-use in the US Navy. Indicate elements that would need to be developed specifically for CHAMP implementation. For TRL 7 items, provide a risk mitigation plan.)

C.2.3 Analysis of Alternatives

The purpose of this analysis is to identify and evaluate solution alternative and their derivatives, such as baseline1, baseline1+, baseline1++, etc. The Contractor shall identify possible alternatives for supplying the best value mission capability-cost options. As part of this study the Contractor shall conduct a parent design analysis to identify potential parent design alternatives. For each alternative the Contractor shall conduct a business case analysis to assess the cost-benefit and risk. The Contractor shall include an Analysis of Alternatives approach, results and conclusions in the Concept Baseline Definition Report (DI-7).

C.2.3.1 Based on the results of the business case analysis, the Contractor shall prepare the Analysis of Alternatives Summary Table, Attachment J-4, which summarizes the relative impacts to the estimated acquisition cost, lifecycle cost, and mission effectiveness for each alternative. Costs shall be based on “relative” increase or decrease in comparison to the first alternative listed and reported in percentages. Acquisition cost estimates shall include the design development and production cost of the alternative. Lifecycle cost estimates shall include costs associated with fuel, manning, maintenance, and future upgrades/tech insertion. The fuel costs shall be based on either relative energy requirements of the specific alternatives or the total ship energy requirements to satisfy the operating profile, as appropriate. Mission effectiveness factors include mission capability, sustainability/maintainability, and upgradability. Mission effectiveness for the first alternative shall be rated by the extent to which the option supports each factor “High”, “Moderate”, “Low”, and “None”. The definitions of each of these ratings is provided in Attachment J-4. The other alternatives shall list the significant differentiators in each mission effectiveness category, for example ‘+80 berths’, ‘-10% hangar area’, etc. Other mission effectiveness and cost factors than the ones listed above may be studied and included.

C.2.3.2 The mission effectiveness of each alternative shall be quantified and plotted against affordability with the goal of finding a “knee-on-the-curve.”

C.2.4 Recommended Best-Value Solution

The contractor shall conclude the Concept Baseline Definition Report (DI-7) with a recommended best value solution or solutions. For the recommended solution(s), the Contractor shall describe each ship design concept and how it will address CHAMP mission requirements.

C.2.4.1 The Concept Baseline Definition Report shall include a spreadsheet demonstrating how applicable DRAFT COR requirements in COR Table 50.1-1 50.1-2, and 50.1-3 are realized in the ship design concept(s). (DI-7) The contractor shall add a column to these COR tables describing for each entry how the ship design concept(s) meets each requirement. Requirements that are not met shall be clearly identified.

C.2.4.2 For each ship design concept included in the recommended solution(s), the contractor shall provide ROM procurement cost estimates in the Concept Baseline Definition Report. (DI-7) The ROM estimate shall be broken out by: procurement of the hull design and construction, including major systems and equipment; and for each mission type the procurement (design construction, test, and integration) of mission-specific equipment, systems, modules, flexible infrastructure, and/or Force Packages. If the Contractor’s solution includes developmental technology(s)/developmental item(s) of TRL 7, the Contractor’s ROM shall break out the ROM cost to develop, test, qualify, and integrate the developmental technology(s)/developmental item(s). The assumed Detail Design and Construction schedules shall be provided.

C.2.4.3 For each ship design concept included in the recommended solution(s), the contractor shall develop a concept level design to validate their concept, and provide the following design deliverables (at a concept design level of detail):

· General Arrangements Drawing (DI-14-1)

· Mission Square, Volume, Deck Heights and Access/Proximity Report (DI-14-2)

· Hull Lines Drawing and Offsets Database (DI-16-4) C.2.4.4 The Contractor shall certify that their recommended solution(s); (1) does not present more than moderate execution risk (design, material, procurement, construction, test, performance, or cost (procurement or lifecycle) and shall include risk mitigation plans for all identified risk(s); (2) can be designed, constructed, tested and delivered, by the Contractor using the Contractor’s existing facilities, to the criteria identified in this contract; (3) any modules, module stations, interfaces, force packages, flexible infrastructure, or other open systems specified in the solution can be designed constructed, tested and delivered by the Contractor or one of their sub-contractors using existing facilities. If the Contractor proposes a solution that will require an organic and/or Subcontractor facility modification to effect the proposed solution the Contractor shall fully describe the facility modification, the need for the modification, the time required to make ready the modification and the estimated cost of the modification.

C.2.5 Program Management

C.2.5.1 The Contractor shall participate in an initial post-award meeting within two weeks after contract award (details will be provided by the Government at time of contract award). Separate meetings will be held with each contractor. The Contractor shall prepare an agenda and briefing material for the post award meeting and provide them at least two days prior to the meeting. (DI-1) The Contractor shall prepare minutes of the post award meeting and provide them within five days after the meeting. ( DI-1)

C.2.5.2 The Contractor shall participate in quarterly ‘one-on-one’ status reviews with the Government approximately every 3 months starting after the initial post-award meeting. The Contractor shall prepare an agenda and briefing material (DI-2) for each status review and provide them to the Government at least two days prior to the meeting. The Contractor shall prepare and provide minutes of each status review and copies of all information presented within five days after the meeting. (DI-2) Each status review shall be held at the Contractor’s facility, at the Government’s facility in Washington, D.C., or via Video-Teleconference. The purpose of the status review is for the Contractor to address adherence to contractual requirements, report study progress in terms of planned completion status compared to actual completion status, and report anticipated problems and other related matters. Proposals for COR changes shall be addressed.

C.2.5.3 The Contractor shall provide program management services necessary to ensure the on-schedule completion of all the work associated with CLIN 0001. The Contractor shall identify and maintain visibility of all problems and potential problems arising during performance of CLIN 0001. As the contract proceeds the Contractor shall track the status and provide updates to the CHAMP Management Plan and Schedule (DI-3) highlighting any changes, especially differences between planned and actual. The Contractor shall provide and implement mitigation plans for moderate and high risk items to ensure on schedule completion of deliverable products that satisfy the full work scope of the contract.

C.2.5.4 A CHAMP Management Plan and Schedule (DI-3) shall be prepared and provided. The CHAMP Management Plan and Schedule shall include, but not be limited to:

· Describe the technical approach including objectives, constraints, scope, methodology, and products to be accomplished under CLIN 0001.

· Identify, describe, plan, estimate labor hours, and schedule the major tasks required to complete the work and deliverables required by CLIN 0001.

· Describe the method for tracking progress for the contract scope of work, including verifiable and measurable units of work/metrics that will be planned, scheduled and tracked throughout the contract. The Contractor’s plan shall demonstrate how their progress will be captured and reported to show an accurate view of planned work progress to actual work progress.

· Describe the plan for identifying, tracking, and addressing risks, issues and opportunities.

· Describe the organization and technical control (architectures, work breakdown structure, requirements traceability, technical performance measures and metrics, design budgets, design considerations, internal reviews) for satisfying content requirements and quality of deliverables.

· Describe the approach for managing each of the following areas (approximately one page each): environment, system safety, and occupational health; program protection/cybersecurity; human factors engineering; weight control; corrosion prevention; and mission effectiveness over the lifecycle, including reliability, availability, maintainability, and upgradability. Risks and issues shall be identified, and mitigation plans provided at the status reviews.

· Describe a Communication Plan that provides for direct communication between the Contractor’s personnel and the Navy customer and Navy customer representatives throughout the performance of the contract for all work scope, and its deliverables, awarded under CLINs 0001. Should the Contractor subcontract out work under Items 0001the Contractor shall provide for the Navy customer and Navy customer representatives to have direct communication with the subcontractor personnel accomplishing that work.

C.2.5.5 The Contractor may consult with regulatory bodies during contract performance. Regulatory bodies include, but are not limited to: ABS, USCG, International Maritime Organization (IMO), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Contractor shall provide copies of all outgoing and incoming correspondence between the Contractor and regulatory bodies. (DI-4)

C.2.5.6 The Government has established an Integrated Digital Environment Site (IDES) for use on the CHAMP contract. The Government IDES provides a secure data repository for data exchange and storage with the necessary access control for data protection in conjunction with a collaborative environment. In accordance with DoD requirements, the Government IDES is configured to use the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) to verify user identity.

C.2.5.7 The Contractor shall obtain valid DoD-approved certificate(s) to access the Integrated Digital Environment Site (IDES). This certificate(s) may be provided by a DoD-issued Common Access Card (CAC) or may be issued by a DoD-approved External Certification Authority (ECA). Attachment J-5 provides additional information pertinent to IDES access and PKI attributes.

C.2.5.8 The Contractor shall provide written status reports once a month. (DI-6) C.2.5.9 During the course of Industry Studies, contractors may submit written questions for clarification at any time. Questions and Responses related to clarification or interpretation of government program requirements will be posted for all participating contractors.

C.3. ITEM 0002, OPTION (if exercised) – INDUSTRY DESIGN TECHNICAL MATURATION

The key objectives of this effort are to finalize the COR, inform the CDD, and mature the ship designs to meet the final DRAFT COR provided under this contract. Exercise of this option will be limited to those Offerors who propose ship concept(s) that include sealift and/or subtending missions. The Contractor shall continue design efforts to validate their proposed baseline(s). These designs will then be matured and revised as necessary to reflect COR changes over the remaining course of the contract. Required design deliverables are described in the following paragraphs and in the corresponding CDRLs. It is expected that the content of these deliverables will mature appropriately from early stage concept design at the initial submission to a Preliminary design level at the final submission. Note that the final level of fidelity of the design deliverables developed for the subtender will depend on the increased level of mission space interface detail such as individual shop square footage, outfit and services requirements that can be provided in future COR updates.

C.3.1 Design Description Report

The Contractor shall periodically prepare a Design Description Report (DI-9) describing the design and providing an assessment of the design’s maturity. The Design Description Report (DSR) shall document the results of the completed design and shall be organized into the following sections:

1. Section One shall include an Executive Summary of the design covering its history, describing resulting design features and capabilities, and identifying any outstanding issues.

2. Section Two shall demonstrate design maturity including:

a. Identification of the systems whose architectures have been developed. The number of full design iterations that have been performed shall also be cited. For each design iteration, a summary and assessment of the overall magnitude of design changes since the previous iteration shall be provided.

b. Confirmation that the design has converged and will not lead to significant changes in design characteristics (e.g. light ship and full load displacement, volume, KG, etc.). List the analyses that were done in support of the converged design and what analysis remains to be done.

c. Confirmation that the data items identified as part of the design maturity assessment reflect architectures that are consistent among themselves. State which design revision number that each data item is based on.

d. The identification of any novel features of the design, and rationale for selection of critical equipment.

e. Assessment of the risks that significant design changes will occur in the design. If the risk is high, provide options identifying design changes that would need to occur in order to reduce the risk level to low.

f. Identification of all areas of non-compliance with the CHAMP DRAFT COR, Attachment J-1. For any areas of non-compliance, list those areas with a supporting explanation, provide the remediation plan and identify which (if any) of those areas will have an effect on design convergence.

g. Identification of the weight and KG margins and service life allowance that were assigned for each design phase, how much of each margin was consumed, and confirmation that there are adequate margins for the Contract Design.

3. In Section Three the Contractor shall provide information on the design tools employed and how they have been used.

4. Section Four shall identify current revisions of Data Items.

5. In Section Five, if an existing design is used as the baseline, then the Contractor shall discuss design refinements and system modifications that will need to be made.

C.3.2 COR Compliance Report

The Contractor shall prepare a spreadsheet demonstrating how COR requirements in COR Table 050.1-1, 050.2-1, and 050.3-1 are realized in the ongoing design. (DI-10) The Contractor shall add a column to the table describing for each entry how the developing design meets each requirement. Requirements that are not met shall be clearly identified.

C.3.3 Regulatory Body Reviews and Issues Report

The design shall not violate the applicable laws of the United States and requirements of the Regulatory Bodies in force at the time of contract performance and as identified in the CHAMP DRAFT COR (Attachment J-1).

The Contractor shall identify compliance issues for the base ship and the ship when configured for each of the CHAMP missions.

· Review the base ship design (without the force packages aboard) against the regulatory body requirements for compliance. Identify design revisions required to achieve compliance.

· Review the integrated ship design in each of the CHAMP configurations for compliance with the regulatory body requirements. Identify design revisions required to achieve compliance and/or contradictory requirements that would prevent compliance

· Evaluate the impact of emerging regulations

The Contractor shall adjudicate the compliance issues identified and incorporate those results into the design. The issues and issue resolution shall be documented in a Regulatory Body Issues Report. (DI-11)

The final submittal of the structural drawings (DI- 22) shall incorporate ABS review. To obtain an initial assessment of compliance the Contractor may or may not at their discretion chose to submit other selected CDRLs for ABS or other regulatory body review.

C.3.4 Affordability Studies Report

One of the primary goals of the CHAMP program is to affordably replace the aging auxiliary fleet. The Government is emphasizing the use of commonality and open systems architectures as potential avenues for achieving an affordable solution, and is encouraging the Contractor to develop innovative designs to maximize affordability. The Contractor shall review the design for approaches, methods, and trade-offs that will improve affordability of the CHAMP ship during construction and during service life. The Contractor shall include approaches and methods that will enhance the producibility of the CHAMP ship during construction and during configuration changes. The Contractor shall include approaches that will reduce fuel and energy consumption over the life cycle. The Contractor shall include approaches that will reduce manning, maintenance and upgrade costs. The Contractor shall prepare an Affordability Studies Report describing the affordability study and results. (DI-12) The report shall include a table which lists each affordability improvement and to what extent it is expected to improve acquisition cost, production timeline, configuration changes, mid-life upgrades, future technology insertion/upgrades, energy/fuel consumptions, manning, and maintenance. Cite projected savings in dollars and characterize the accuracy of your estimate. The report shall also include any risks, trade-off options and recommendations between acquisition and lifecycle costs.

C.3.5 Procurement Cost and Schedules Report

The Contractor shall prepare procurement cost estimates using the results of their design and trade studies. The Contractor shall prepare a Procurement Cost and Schedules Report defining their cost estimating methodology and providing the resulting costs. (DI-13) The estimate shall be broken out by: procurement of the baseline common hull and outfitting; and for each mission type the procurement of mission-specific outfitting, modules, flexible infrastructure, and/or Force Packages. Where the Contractor’s solution includes a developmental technology(s)/developmental item(s), the Contractor’s estimate shall break out the cost to develop, test, qualify, and integrate the developmental technology(s)/developmental item(s). The assumed Detail Design and Construction schedules shall be provided.

C.3.6 General Arrangements and Related Reports

The Contractor shall prepare a General Arrangement Drawing for the CHAMP ship. If Force Packages/add-on modules are to be used, include views without any Force Packages/add-on modules installed and views depicting the Force Package/modules add-on arrangements for each of the CHAMP missions as applicable. If reconfigurable spaces are to be used, include views of possible configurations. The drawing shall indicate space reservations for add-on infrastructure and planned access routes for equipment installation/removal/future technology insertion. (DI 14-1) The Contractor shall also prepare:

· Mission Space Square, Volume, Deck Heights, and Access/Proximity Report (DI 14-2)

· Topside Arrangement Drawing (DI 14-3)

· Area Volume Report (DI 14-4)

· Tankage Report (DI 14-5)

C.3.7 Major Equipment List

The Contractor shall prepare a table describing major equipment sizing and potential selections that have been made as a part of the ongoing design and/or cost estimating effort and in development of candidate long lead time material. (DI-15)

C.3.8 Commonality and Open Systems Architecture

The Contractor shall continue to mature the designs for the common and open systems architecture elements and provide updates to the Commonality and Open Systems Architecture Approach Report (DI-8). The Contractor shall include, but not be limited to designs for:

· Common equipment, spaces, structures, layouts, etc

· Modules, module interfaces, and clearance requirements, if applicable

· Ship Module station(s), standard interfaces and tie-downs, if applicable

· Any additional standard station and interface

· Module handling systems for placement and removal, if applicable

· Minimum deck heights, passageway widths to accommodate modules and equipment movement, including any turn radiuses required for placement

· Flexible Infrastructure

· Any other standard interfaces

· Open System interfaces and standards

· Access routes for equipment installation/removal/maintenance/future technology insertion

· Future technology insertion/upgrades

The Contractor shall provide:

· Technology Readiness Level, Risk (TRL) Assessment and Mitigation (Assess the Technical Readiness Level for all planned modularity and open systems architecture elements, including but not limited to modules, standard interfaces, handling systems and fixtures, sustainment plan, open systems and flexible infrastructures. TRL levels shall be above 7 to be included in the design. Indicate elements that are available Commercial Off The Shelf and that are currently in use in the US Navy. Indicate elements that are not currently in-use in the US Navy. Indicate elements that would need to be developed specifically for CHAMP implementation. For any TRL 7 items, conduct a risk assessment and mitigation plan.)

C.3.9 Hydrodynamics and Hydrostatics

The Contractor shall perform initial hydrodynamic analyses for powering, maneuvering, and seakeeping to verify performance requirements specified in the CHAMP DRAFT COR (Attachment J-1). The Contractor shall prepare and provide the following documents:

· Hydrodynamic Speed and Power Analysis Report (DI 16-1)

· Hydrodynamic Seakeeping and Maneuvering Report (DI 16-2)

· Hydrodynamic Model Test Program Plan (DI 16-3)

· Hull Lines Drawing and Offsets Database (DI 16-4)

· Intact and Damage Stability Report (DI-16-5)

· Endurance and Fuel Consumption Calculations (DI 16-6)

C.3.11 Sustainability

The Contractor shall conduct an assessment of fleet introduction and sustainment. Include consideration of equipment supply chain, manning, projected annual maintenance cost and economic service life. (DI-17)

C.3.12 Mass Properties

The Contractor shall establish a weight control program. The Contractor shall execute the weight control plan and prepare weight estimates, reports, and other mass properties documents in accordance with Society of Allied Weight Engineers (SAWE) Recommended Practice 12, SAWE Recommended Practice 13, and the requirements herein. The Contractor shall use the first three digits of the numbering system as defined in the Expanded Ship Work Breakdown Structure NAVSEA Publication No. S0940-AA-IDX-010/SWBS 5D and Publication No. S0940-AA-IDX-020/SWBS 5D for summary estimates and reports. The Contractor shall prepare a Weight Estimate (DI-18) that shall consist of:

· Lightship weight estimate including CF/GF outfitting material, and space and weight reservations

· Design and build margins

· Contract modification margins

· Government Furnished Material (GFM) margins

· Full load (Condition D) loads in accordance with the Requirements Description of the COR (Attachment J-1).

The Contractor shall verify by analysis that the combination of the Design Weight Estimate/KG and the associated Service Life Allowances does not exceed the naval architectural limits of the CHAMP DRAFT COR (Attachment J-1). (DI-19).

C.3.13 Survivability

The Contractor shall propose an approach to affordably maintain continuity of service after equipment failure or damage including weapons effects to an unclassified level. The Contractor shall meet with the Government prior to the beginning of this study to review the planned scope to assess the classification level and establish a classification handling processes if needed. Consideration shall be given to redundancy, size, and location of components to the type and topology of distribution system to be installed, and to the provision of suitable methods for segregating or isolating damaged sections of the system. (DI-20)

C.3.14 Hull Structure

The Contractor shall prepare SWBS 100 - 199 related deliverables as follows:

· Midship Section Drawing (DI 22-1)

· Typical Sections Drawing (DI 22-2)

· Shell Expansion Drawing (DI 22-3)

· Hull Deck, Platform and Longitudinal Bulkhead Scantling Drawing (DI 22-4)

· Superstructure Scantling Drawing (DI 22-5)

· Hull Girder Longitudinal Strength Analysis (DI 22-6)

· Structural Design Criteria Report (DI 22-7)

C.3.15 Main Machinery

The Contractor shall perform a main machinery study and provide a report (DI 23-1) evaluating the potential options for providing propulsion and ship service power. The Contractor shall identify the range of alternatives investigated. For each alternative investigated, the Contractor shall develop the design sufficiently to assess any hull form impacts of the alternative and determine the resultant speed-power estimate. The main machinery space arrangements shall be developed to sufficiently identify any impacts to the general arrangements. An electric plant load analysis for each alternative shall be prepared to assess the ship’s electrical power requirements across the operating profile. This data shall be used to support the preparation of the various documents below. The following data shall be prepared for each design:

· Machinery Arrangements (Including Uptake Space) (DI 23-2)

· Major Machinery Equipment List (MMEL) (DI 23-3)

· Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA) (DI 23-4)

· Electrical One-Line Block Diagram (DI 23-5)

· Equipment Removal Drawing (DI 23-6)

The applicable reports and drawings shall indicate which portions of the applicable systems are built-in infrastructure and which are add-on infrastructure. The reports and drawings shall depict service system/Force Package interface details. The reports and drawings shall identify the space, weight, and services required for the add-on infrastructure.

C.3.16 Auxiliary Systems

The Contractor shall prepare SWBS 500 – 599 related deliverables as follows:

· HVAC and Refrigeration Systems Design Report (DI 25-1)

· Auxiliary Systems Design Report (DI 25-2)

· Firefighting Systems Design Report (DI 25-3)

· Anchoring, Mooring and Towing Drawing (DI 25-4)

· Lifeboat, Liferaft, Rescue Boat, and Ship’s Boats Drawing (DI 25-5)

· Replenishment and Strikeup/Strikedown Design Report (DI 25-6) (as applicable)

· Mission Crane Systems Design Report (DI 25-7) (as applicable)

· Stern Ramp and Side Port Design Report (DI 25-8) (as applicable)

· Vehicle Maneuvering and Services Design Report (DI 25-9) (as applicable)

· Force Package Embarkation and Debarkation and Services Design Report (DI 25-10) (as applicable)

· Aviation Facility Design Report (DI 25-11) (as applicable)

The applicable reports and drawings shall indicate which portions of the applicable systems are built-in infrastructure and which are add-on infrastructure. The reports and drawings shall depict service system/Force Package interface details. The reports and drawings shall identify the space, weight, and services required for the add-on infrastructure.

C.3.17 Outfit and Furnishings

The Contractor shall prepare and provide SWBS 600 – 699 related deliverables as follows:

· Habitability Design Report including Sample Space Arrangements (DI 26-1)

· Service Space and Workshop Design Report including Sample Space Drawings (DI 26-2)

· Mission Space Design and Services Report (DI 26-3)

The applicable reports and drawings shall indicate which portions of the applicable systems are built-in infrastructure and…