Draft RFP QA 022621.pdf

YRBM Draft RFP Q&A

Q1. Please confirm the following: Each of the 10 Boat CLINs, 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001, and 9001 have backup CLINs:

• TDP (NSP) – CLINs 0002, 1002, etc.

• PIO – VRS – CLINs 0003, 1003, etc.

• Crew Fam – CLINs 0004, 1004, etc.

• Standalone Watermist Upgrade – CLINs 0005, 1005, etc.

• Packaging & Delivery – CLINs 0006, 1006, etc. - to the homeport of each boat: Qty 5 to

San Diego and Qty 5 to Norfolk – alternating with Boat 1 to San Diego.

• There is a CLIN 0007 for Special Studies.

Please check the Notes. We believe Note C should be applicable to the PIO CLINs and Note D should be for ONLY CLIN 0007.

A1. The Navy confirms the base CLIN descriptions and backup CLINS are correct. The associated CLIN notes will be revised in the posted solicitation. Please note: CLIN structure and quantities are subject to change prior to RFP release.

Q2.Will the Navy consider a revised Payment Event Schedule?

A2. The Navy will review the notional payment events and may consider a revised notional payment event schedule prior to RFP release.

Q3. Per section 070d of the YRBM draft J-1 (dated 2021-01-26), the craft is to meet a two-compartment standard of flood as defined by 46CFR171.017(b). This rule states “A vessel is designed to a two compartment standard of flooding if the margin line is not submerged when the total buoyancy between each set of three adjacent main transverse watertight bulkheads is lost.” Is it the intention of NAVSEA that to meet two compartment flood we must assume that all volume is lost between three main transverse bulkheads, even if there are wing tanks? Additionally, is it NAVSEA’s interpretation of a “main” bulkhead one that extends from shell to shell? If this is the case we believe this will create an untenable number of transverse bulkheads in the hold; thereby, making required arrangements on hold deck exceedingly difficult. Alternatively, we suggest utilizing the interpretation of the ABS Accommodation Barge Rules section 6/3.3, which defines damage stability extents more wholly.

A3. Yes, it is the Navy’s intention that in order to meet two compartment flood, you must assume that all volume is lost between three main transverse bulkheads, even if there are wing tanks. The CFR states you lose all buoyancy from the flooded compartments. No, the Navy’s interpretation of a “main” bulkhead is not one that extends from shell to shell. Only the watertight compartments affected by the damage criteria defined by ABS are to be flooded during the assessment. They do not have to traverse the entire width of the vessel. The vessel shall meet a two-compartment standard for the worst-case scenario. In addition, the Government received guidance from ABS on watertight doors.

Q4. If we accept the ABS definition for damage extents is acceptable, preliminary findings suggest wing tanks as a solution to meet stability requirements. With wing tanks leaving less space for accommodations below deck, the 48 person classroom required by section 645 of draft J-1 is difficult. Shifting this area above deck has cascading effects due to adjacency requirements and limited space. As a solution an additional superstructure deck would need to be added. Will NAVSEA accept designs with one deck more than the notional design presented on Industry Day?

A4. Yes, the Navy will accept designs with one deck more than the notional design presented on Industry Day. The General Arrangement (GA) provided at industry day was given as a concept only. All proposed designs will be considered, and evaluated to determine if they meet the requirements presented in the J-1, Requirements Matrix.

Q5. Draft J-1 YRBM Requirements Matrix Dated 2021-01-26. SWBS 640a, 652 & 661 state that contractor should consider NAVSEA S9600-AD-GTP-010, U.S. Navy Shipboard Furniture Catalog for the selection of Berths, Medical Outfitting Items and a First Aid Box. Is it the Government’s intent for Contractors to provide Commercial type furnishings for the remainder of the outfitting items when the standard catalog is not referenced?

A5. Yes, it is the Navy’s intent for contractors to provide commercial type furnishings for the remainder of the outfitting items when the standard catalog is not referenced. When furnishings from the Navy Catalog are referenced as “should be considered,” the contractor is not obligated to use the Navy Catalog furnishings. Rather, the catalog should be used as guidance for preferable design features for the furnishings. Furnishings may be commercial, however, all must be in accordance with relevant requirements presented in the J-1, Requirements Matrix.

Q6. We did not attend Industry Day, can we get copies of the information that was provided?

A6. Yes, we will provide the Industry Day slides upon request. Please send requests to deborah.baravik@navy.mil.

Q7. Will the Navy consider revising Specification Section 621b to allow False Overheads in additional areas?

A7. The Navy intends to review this recommendation.

Q8. Please confirm the notional design phase is 8 months in duration.

A8. That is correct. The YRBM contract requirements are based upon a notional 8 month design phase (1 design review every two months for 6 months and a notional Production Readiness Review (PRR)/Interim Program Review (IPR) to occur 8 months after contract award, if builder demonstrates readiness).