N00024-20-R-2211 T_ARC QA 26AUG2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 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 solicitation for industry studies for the Navy Cable Ship Replacement T-ARC(X) program. Key details include that the solicitation allows the use of actual performance results and numerical analyses from an existing parent hull design to meet certain model test and analysis requirements, provided any deviations from the parent design are assessed. It also permits the use of computational fluid dynamics analyses in place of some model tests to allow more time for design optimization, subject to validation of the CFD code. The maximum file size for proposals submitted through the DoD SAFE system is 8GB spread across 25 files. The proposal due date was extended due to anticipated impacts from tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Rights in technical data will be governed by the terms of the solicitation. Pricing of contract data requirements lists is not required.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0002420R2211 Amend 0004 091420.pdf | ||
| 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 QA 13AUG2020.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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 26AUG
Solicitation N00024-20-R-2211 - T-ARC(X) Industry Studies Bidder's Q&A
26 AUG 2020
| Question | Draft Response | ||
| 52 | Can the government clarify if the intent of DI-A035 is to perform a forced response finite element analysis of the T-ARC(X) design during the Industry Studies phase or are other methods acceptable for assessing the risk of excessive hull girder vibration? | DI-A035 does not require a forced response finite element analysis of the T-ARC(X) design to be conducted during Industry Studies. Other methods are acceptable for assessing the risk of excessive hull girder vibration | |
| 53 | Can the government clarify if the intent of DI-A035 is to perform a forced response finite analysis of the T-ARC(X) design during the Industry Studies phase or are the other methods acceptable for assessing the risk of excessive hull girder vibration? | DI-A035 does not prescribe the method for vibration analysis so does not require a forced response finite analysis be conducted during Industry Studies. Other methods are acceptable for assessing the risk of excessive hull girder vibration. | |
| 54 | DRL A028 Model Test plan requires a description of: “i. Methods which are to be used to expand the model data to ship scale”. In order to take advantage of full-scale existing parent hull trials results and tank testing data, in the event the proposed design is a modification of an existing design with comprehensive model test and sea trials reports, will it be acceptable for the contractor to use actual performance results of a parent craft? In the event of the parent requires deviation to accept government requirements, could those deviations be assessed through the use of tuned Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) parametric studies and numerical analyses grounded in a series of similar hull forms with comparable model test and/or trials results? Can such analysis, model test, and sea trial results be submitted to satisfy data item A029 Model Test Reports? | It is acceptable to use actual performance results from a parent craft, with deviations assessed through the use of tuned CFD parametric studies and numerical analyses as suggested, in place of the tests described in System Specification sections B1.2.1, B1.2.2, B1.2.3, B1.2.5, B1.2.6 and B1.2.7 (stock propeller only), The analyses, model test and sea trials data shall be submitted as part of the Contractor’s response. A description of the trials, including instrumentation and data processing methods, shall also be included. Model tests are required for the bubble sweepdown tests (B1.2.4), open water tests of the design propeller (B1.2.7), cavitation tests (B1.2.8) and self-propulsion tests with the design propeller (also under B1.2.7) in all cases unless no changes are being made to the parent hull or propeller. In the latter case, data from sea trials or previous model tests of the parent hull shall be submitted along with supporting calculations that demonstrate compliance with System Specification requirements. | |
| 55 | Even on the most urgent projects, six months or more can transpire between the time a model basin begins cutting a model and the time the last report is received for the propulsion test with the design propeller. In a design project of one year duration, the minority of the project duration would be spent performing trade studies and developing an optimal hull form, arrangement, and weight estimate before these attributes would be locked down to maintain consistency with the tested model. This raises a concern contractors may have precise data for the ship speed and power but suboptimal arrangements and configurations. Would the government consider panel-code based CFD to assess and report B1.2.2, B1.2.3, B1.2.5, and B1.2.8 (and saving B1.2.7 for a future DD&C RFP) in the interest of shortening the model testing time and allowing more time to optimize the design and perform trade studies? | In cases where it is not possible to obtain model test data in time to support the project schedule, CFD can be used to assess and report appendage alignment (B1.2.2), assessing the contribution of appendages to resistance (B1.2.3), and quantification of the wake (B1.2.5), provided that bare hull resistance is determined using model test or full-scale data. The CFD code that is used shall be based on solution of the viscous Navier-Stokes equations with full accounting for free surface effects. A panel-code based CFD is not acceptable for the proposed applications as the term “panel code” generally refers to a solution technique that is only good for solving problems where viscosity is neglected. The submittal shall include validation data for the CFD code that is relevant for the specific areas of application. In addition to the model tests required in Appendix B that are not discussed in the question (B.1.2.1, 1.2.4 and 1.2.6), model tests are required for the open water tests of the design propeller (B1.2.7), cavitation tests (B1.2.8) and self-propulsion tests with the design propeller (also under B1.2.7), subject to the conditions of the response to the preceding question. | |
| 56 | Per L.1.1.1, we understand we will submit our proposal via the DoD SAFE application. Can you please indicate the maximum file size we will be able to submit? | DoD SAFE allows for up to 25 files and a maximum of 8.0 GB to be transmitted. To receive a drop-off request in order to submit a proposal, please email the POC's in Section L.1.1.1 If required, additional drop-off requests may be coordinated by contacting the POC's. | |
| 57 | Tropical Depression #14 and Tropical Storm Laura are expected make landfall in the gulf coast between Aug 26 and 27th. Both storms will have an impact on all gulf coast shipyards. | ||
| It is highly likely that facilities will be closed during landfall, and might experience flooding and power outages for a couple of days. IN anticipation of these storms we request the Government extend the proposal due date to allows bidders additional time to prepare their proposals. | The proposal due date has been extended and Section L is updated accordingly. | ||
| 58 | Solicitation section C.1.1 states "The Contractor shall provide, and the Government will retain, rights in technical data developed under this contract per DFARS 252.227-2003. As such, future solicitations may contain some or all of the recommendations and conclusions made based on analyses and studies produced by the Contractor under this contract." |
We understand the Government's intention is to use the "recommendation and conclusions" made based on the analyses and studies. Per 252.227-7013 (a), Paragraph 1.ii, this will be covered under the "unlimited rights" as clarified in response to Question 8.
| In addition, the vessel design under this contract will incorporate significant technical data from cable laying equipment and the baseline (parent) vessel design that was developed exclusively at private expense. Will the Gov't accept "specifically negotiated license rights" under 252.227-7013 (b) Paragraph 4 as long as they do not restrict the Gov't from using the technical data recommendations and conclusions for future solicitations? | Rights in Data related to item, component, or process developed exclusively at private expense would be governed by the terms of the Solicitation. | ||
| 59 | L.1.4.2.3 states that the Offeror shall not provide data because the CLIN's are not separately priced. However, Clause L-215-H004 gives instructions for pricing of CDRL data. Please confirm that this clause is not invoked and the CDRL's (not CLIN's) are not to be separately priced in accordance with Note E on page 4. | L-215-H004 is not invoked and was removed in Amendment 0001. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .