N00024-20-R-2211 T_ARC QA 13AUG2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 14 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Navy Cable Ship Replacement T-ARC(X)
- Solicitation number
- N00024-20-R-2211R1
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a Navy solicitation for industry studies to support the T-ARC(X) Cable Ship Replacement program. Key details include that the solicitation requires proposals by August 18, 2020 with no extensions allowed. The studies will evaluate ship arrangements, systems designs, and regulatory analyses. Offerors should plan to contract directly with the American Bureau of Shipping for design review services and include associated fees in their cost proposals. Initial drawing submittals may precede associated study reports, and consolidated model test reports will be accepted for discrete test periods.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0002420R2211 Amend 0004 091420.pdf | ||
| N00024-20-R-2211 T_ARC QA 26AUG2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N00024-20-R-2211 T-ARC(X) Conformed through Amendment 0003.docx | DOCX document | |
| N00024-20-R-2211 T-ARC(X) Amendment 0003.docx | DOCX document | |
| N00024-20-R-2211 T_ARC QA 21AUG2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| T-ARC RFP Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| N00024-20-R-2211 T-ARC Conformed.pdf | ||
| N00024-20-R-2211 T_ARC QA 03AUG2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N00024-20-R-2211 T-ARC Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| T-ARC(X) System Spec Appendix B Model Test Requirements.pdf | ||
| TARC RFP FINAL 17 Jul 2020.pdf | ||
| Attachment J-3 Key Requirements Verification Matrix Rev B.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment L-2 Resume Template (T-ARC(X)).docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J-4 T-ARC(X) Specification Change Recommendation Form Rev A clean.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment J-1 and J-2.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attachment L-1 Bidders Question Form.xls | XLS spreadsheet |
Show all 16
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
T-ARC(X) Q&A 2nd Batch Solicitation N00024-20-R-2211 - T-ARC(X) Industry Studies Bidder's Q&A
13 AUG 2020
| Question | Draft Response | |
| 28 | Will the Government revise the solicitation so that past performance information provided in response to Section L.1.4.1.7.3 in the proposal not be included in the proposal page count. | No. The page count for past performance will remain 8 pages and be included in the Vol. I page limit. |
| 29 | Does a commercial finite-volume RANS code, which uses a volume of fluid (VOF) interface capturing technique to model the free surface for the bubble sweepdown analysis satisfy the requirements of the J-2 attachment? | Yes, a commercial finite-volume RANS code which uses a VOF interface to model the free surface satisfies the J-2 requirement for the bubble sweepdown analysis. |
| 30 | Will the Government furnish a list of components on MSC ships for evaluation or identify criteria for determining commonality? | No. A list of common components on MSC ships is not available. No criteria will be provided for determining commonality. There is no mention of commonality in Sections L or M thus it is not a factor in the evaluation of proposals. |
| 31 | Is it the Government’s intent for the Contractor to select a Propulsion SSV, a Cable Systems Consultant, and a NCC prior to proposal submission? If not, will the Government consider resumes and past performance from the multiple candidate SSVs and consultants in the Proposal? | Yes. If SSV and consultants selections are not finalized, the Offeror's approach to SSV teaming or subcontracting should be discussed in the proposal. |
| 32 | Is it the Government’s intent to provide a list of new/pending regulations for review and analysis to define the scope of DI-A008 at the time of Industry Studies award? | No. The Government does not intend to provide a list of new and pending regulations at the time of Industry Studies award. It is the responsibility of the contractor to identify, review, and analyze applicable new and pending regulations per DI-A008 Block 4 - Data Description |
| 33 | Is it the Government’s intent that the moonpool seakeeping calculations required in DI-A012-01 and DI-A024 are derived from the same analysis and reported in two places? Is it the Government’s intent that the moonpool seakeeping calculations required in DI-A014-03 are performed in the same manner as those required in DI-A012-01 and DI-A024? If not, will the Government clarify the differences between these analyses? |
Is the Government willing to consider physical seakeeping testing in lieu of 3D panel code to assess moonpool seakeeping for all DIs where this analysis is required?
The Government finds the method of using one seakeeping analysis to calculate the seakeeping performance of the total ship and the seakeeping performance specific to the moonpool as required in DI-A012-01, DI-A014-03, and DI-A024 acceptable. The Government will accept physical seakeeping testing in lieu of 3D panel code to assess moonpool seakeeping for all DIs where this analysis is required with the understanding that the contractor shall account for any scale effects that influence results.
| 34 | Could the Government elaborate on why unlimited rights are required instead of Government Purpose Rights? | The Government is entitled to Unlimited rights in certain technical data that is developed under the contract; for example, the studies, analyses, test data, etc. and resulting reports specifically tasked in the Statement of Work. See DFARS 252.227-7013. |
| 35 | Block 6 of J-2 data item A029, Model Test Reports, requires reports to be submitted no later than 21 days after each model test is completed. In our recent experience with several commercial model test facilities, their standard of service for issuing final model test reports is 30 to 60 days. Would the Government consider increasing the submittal schedule to NLT 60 days to avoid undue pressure on the test facilities? | No.The Government will not change the submittal schedule for DI A029 at this time. The Government will consider changes to the submittal schedule after contract award. |
| 36 | Block 6 of J-2 data item A029, Model Test Reports, requires reports to be submitted no later than 21 days after each model test is completed. To make best use of resources, commercial model test facilities typically conduct several tests together in discrete periods, and many will prepare a single report with all results from a given period. For instance, the first period might include bare hull resistance tests, appendage alignments tests, appended resistance tests, stock-propeller tests, and a wake survey, all within a few days. The second test period might include design propeller tests and cavitation tests, again all within a few days. Would the Government accept one report being submitted for each test period, with the submission date tied to the completion of the last test in each period? | One report is acceptable for each test period. The submission date tied to the completion of the last test in each period is also acceptable. |
| 37 | In these industry studies, Attachment J-2 requires that most drawings first be submitted prior to the first design review but does not require the submission of study reports describing the systems until prior to the second design review. Is this difference in first submissions intentional? While it may not be possible for contractors to provide all required content for the study reports at the first design review, the proposed schedule does not provide the Government with any description or rationale to support the system arrangements in the first drawing submittals. | Yes, it was intended that initial drawing submittals will be submitted before the associated study reports for DI's A009, A010, A011 and A012. It is not expected that the initial drawing submittals for these DI's will be complete. |
| 38 | Block 6 of J-2 data item A013, Integration Study Report, requires an inital study NLT 21 days after the second DR, and a final submittal NLT 21 DPT the third DR. If the design reviews are held three months apart as suggested by the schedule in Section C.3.2.3, Table 1, the two submittals will be approximately six weeks apart and both fall between two major milestones where the Government might provide feedback. Are the J-6 dates correct? | Yes, the J-6 dates are correct. The Government will consider changes to the submittal schedule after contract award. |
| 39 | Is the Contractor expected to contract with ABS for design review services, and include the fees in their CLIN 0001 cost? | Yes, per the SOW and DRL requirements the contractor is expected to contract with ABS to review the following five DI's: A017-04, A017-05, A022, A031 and A032. Also, DI A002 requires ABS status to be included in DR agendas and presentations. It is up to the Contractor if they want to include ABS for additional support for Industry Studies. The Contractor should include ABS fees in the proposed CLIN 0001 price. |
| 40 | The Government’s response to previous bidder’s questions indicated that Attachment J-1 is ITAR controlled and requires TAA from Dept. of State to export. Can the Government provide the USML Category for the vessel for purposes of applying for the TAA? Can the Government identify the ITAR controlled mission systems that will be installed on the vessel? | T-ARC vessels are not on the USML, and no ITAR controlled mission systems will be inlcuded in Industry Studies efforts. |
Responses to previous questions 5, 19, and 25 incorrectly referenced Technical Assistance Agreements (TAAs); as the ship is considered an auxiliary ship, it is our opinion that technical data is subject to the Export Administration Regulations and export authorization is required in accordance with those regulations.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .