21-R-2201 NGLS Industry QA 27 May 2021.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 42 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Next Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) RFP
- Solicitation number
- N0002421R2201
About this file
This solicitation requests proposals for multiple firm fixed price contracts to conduct Industry Studies for the Next Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) program. The studies aim to investigate ship concept designs, assess affordability, identify cost-effective solutions, examine cost tradeoffs of potential mission features, and inform a future specification. The Navy seeks to augment its Combat Logistics Force with NGLS vessels capable of rearming, refueling, and resupplying naval and marine assets afloat and ashore in contested environments. Proposed designs must be classed by ABS and equipped with cranes, underway replenishment systems, astern refueling equipment, and cargo and ordnance stowage areas. Offerors must partner with a domestic shipyard capable of new ship construction. The solicitation includes attachments on requirements and data items, available under non-disclosure agreement. Proposals are due in Q2 FY2021, and multiple awards are planned.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N0002421R2201 Conformed through Amendment 2.pdf | ||
| 21-R-2201 NGLS Industry QA 16 June 2021.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N0002421R2201 Amendment 2 6.10.21.pdf | ||
| N0002421R2201 Conformed through Amendment 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| N0002421R2201 Amendment 1 5.27.21.pdf | ||
| N0002421R2201 NGLS RFP.pdf | ||
| J-4 Non Disclosure Agreement.docx | DOCX document |
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
Industry Studies RFP
| Serial | Solicitation Reference | Question | Answer |
| 1 | RFP - Section H | The solicitation’s H-01 PAYABLE EVENT SCHEDULE provides for only three (3) payable events. This requires companies to carry costs unnecessarily with an excessive portion allocated to receipt of final deliverable. Request the government consider more payable events such as kickoff meeting and interim status reviews. | The Government will issue a modification to the solicitation adding a Post Award Conference payable event. |
| 2 | RFP - Section L | In Section L.1.4.1.7. Volume 1 – Factor 3 – Past Performance, there are references that merit clarification. L.1.4.1.7.3 discusses in “…construction of (1) cable installation and repair ships…” Please modify. | The Government modifed this sentence in the final RFP. Please ensure you are proposing to the FINAL RFP and not the Draft. |
| 3 | RFP - Section C | The solicitation specifies a MOGAS study, but the capacity requirements are not disclosed. This will impact the study efforts. Please clarify. | The final mission requirements for NGLS are under development, and the capability to store and transfer petroleum products (MOGAS) in drums is an Objective; the Contractor should address this requirement as they feel appropriate to fit into their design solution. |
| 4 | RFP - Section C | The Machinery Plant Alternative Study (C.3.6.9) states that options are mechanical or diesel electric. A third option could be hybrid and use of PTO/PTI. Is the Navy interested in this option? | J-1 BRD requires the NGLS ship to “be propelled by mechanical, electrical, or combined mechanical and electrical transmission systems.” A ship design which meets the requirements of the BRD with a hybrid plant employing PTO/PTI may be explored as a baseline design or as an alternate machinery plant. |
| 5 | RFP - Section C | Regarding C.4.1.2, the full list of products against CLIN 0003 may be challenging depending on available parent vessel information; would a partial set of products be acceptable by agreement? | Offerors should assume that all design products required by CLIN 0003 will be required as part of this contract. Per the RFP The Government reserves the right to negotiate a reduction of scope on a case by case basis upon exercising the option. |
| 6 | RFP - Section C | Regarding C.4.2.2, the section title “Single UNREP Station Study” doesn’t appear to reflect the text within which discusses alternative UNREP options. Please clarify. | The Government will issue a modification to correct the heading for C.4.2.2. |
| 7 | - | Will the NGLS requirements include compliance with MARPOL Annex VI Tier II or Tier III? | NGLS shall comply with all regulatory, classification and certification requirements in place at the time of contract award which apply to the type of ship being proposed by the Contractor. For purposes of these Industry Studies, the Government will not commit to obtaining a national security exemption or deviating from current emissions requirements if that is the intent of the question. |
| 8 | - | Will the NGLS requirements for SOLAS, Chapter II-1, Part B-1, Stability define Embarked Forces as passengers and possibly invoke SOLAS passenger ship regulations? | The embarked forces are not considered passengers in the NGLS BRD. Cargo vessel requirements should be applied. |
| 9 | RFP - Section C | Regarding CLIN 0003, does the Navy intend to source existing vessels from U.S. flag fleet or will the Navy consider non-U.S. flag vessels for modification? | The purpose of CLIN 0003 is to provide a feasibility study only of potential modifications. The Navy has no plans to procure the vessel that will be studied. The Navy's preference is for a U.S.-flagged vessel to be studied, but a foreign vessel that is re-flagged as part of the theoretical modification would be acceptable. |
| 10 | RFP - Section C | Regarding CLIN 0003, if capability is spread across different vessel types, would the Navy define a minimum capability set to be allocated to each vessel and a maximum capability for the entire NGLS fleet? | The purpose of CLIN 0003 is to provide a feasibility study of potential modifications on a vessel or vessels because the Government believes that an existing vessel could be modified to provide a limited Refuel, Resupply, and/or Rearm capability, but it is likely impractical to modify an existing to meet all requirements. There is no minimum capability set for the vessel; the statement of work requirement is that the Contractor will meet as much of the Baseline Requirements Document as practical within the inherent limitations of the vessel. Offerors therefore have discretion to propose a complete modification or a more limited set of modifications based on what the Offeror considers practical for the vessel or vessels they select to study. Offerors are not required to study more than one vessel. Offerors are not required to propose an entire fleet. |
| 11 | RFP - Section C | What is an anticipated start date for CLIN 0003, if awarded? | It is the Government's intent to exercise the option for CLIN 0003 in fiscal year 2022, if there is available funding. Howvever, the Government has the right to exercise the option anytime within 12 months of contract award as stated in the clause entitled "52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY--SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM (MAR 1989)" |
| 12 | RFP - Section C | C.2.3 states “The Government recognizes that it may be impractical for the Contractor to satisfy all requirements for all 3 mission areas (i.e. refuel, rearm, resupply) in the Baseline Requirements Document for an existing vessel; therefore, the Contractor shall perform the modification studies to meet as much of the Baseline Requirements Document as practical within the inherent limitations of the existing vessel.” This statement does not appear in C.2.1. and raises the following question: C.2.1 states that the contractor would create “ship concept(s),” while C-1, paragraph 3 states “The Contractor may satisfy all 3 mission areas (i.e. refuel, rearm, resupply) through a single class of ships or through a combination of ship classes each performing 1 or 2 mission areas, but the Contractor must provide a complete set of ship concept(s) that can perform the refuel, resupply, and rearm missions.” Does the government intend to require that any single new construction ship design must cover all three mission areas, or is the contractor free to provide more than one new construction design (or possibly a combination of new construction and modified designs) in order to cover all three mission areas? Or, is it intended that this flexibility only be provided for modified designs? | CLIN 0001 is limited to new construction ship designs only, and requires a single new construction ship design or a combination of new construction ship designs; in either case the proposed design or combination of designs must cover all three mission areas. Offerors should propose a modified existing vessel for study only under CLIN 0003, not under CLIN 0001. |
| 13 | RFP - Section C | C.3.6.2 (for the new construction design) and C.4.2.2 (for the modified design) have largely the same text and reference the same DI, yet one is titled “UNREP ALTERNATIVES STUDY” and the other is titled “SINGLE UNREP STATION STUDY”. Is this intended to identify a difference in scope? | The Government will issue a modification to correct the heading for C.4.2.2. |
| 14 | RFP - Section C | The structure with CLIN0001 (base) and CLIN0003 (option) implies that all contractors must bid a new construction design, and some contractors may propose, and a subset of those may be authorized, to perform design(s) for modified ships. Is that a correct interpretation? | An offeror must propose for both CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003. |
| 15 | RFP - Section C | The term “larger Coastal Tanker”, while appearing in some references, is not a well-defined term or a widely used commercial shipping term of art. The US government’s EIA and the BTS do not use this term. Is it the government’s intent that this refers to the size of a ship similar to modern Jones Act “MR” Product Carrier (most of are about 50,000 Dwt)? This size ship is also sometimes referred to as a “Handymax” tanker. If this is not the government’s intent, can the government provide a clearer definition of the larger end of the desired ship size for this project? | The Government does not want to arbitrarily limit designs for Industry Studies by providing a maximum size range. The Government has previously stated that NGLS is intended to be substantially smaller than existing Combat Logisitics Force vessels, so offerors have discretion to propose vessels. Since Product Carriers and Handymax tankers sizes are below the size of current CLF ships, they are potential candidates for NGLS. |
| 16 | RFP - Section L | Para d) states “Describe the approach to complete each of the Industry Study tasks in CLIN 0001, 0003 (if ordered), and CLIN 0005 (if ordered)”. It also states: “Provide a separate schedule for CLIN 0003 (Option) and 0004 (Option), indicating activities, critical events, and milestones. The schedule shall address the Industry Studies duration beginning from option exercise for CLIN 0003 and CLIN 0004.” This implies that it is a requirement to propose an existing ship for consideration under CLIN0003. Is it a requirement of the solicitation for the respondent to propose an existing vessel(s) for the CLIN 0003 option study? | Yes, the basis of CLIN 0003 is a feasibility study of an existing vessel. The offeror is not required to own the vessel or have rights to purchase the vessel; CLIN 0003 is a feasibility study only. |
| 17 | RFP - Section L | Form Factor 3 (Past Performance), this line would appear to have come from the T-ARC proposal and perhaps should be updated for this solicitation: “In determining relevancy of an Offeror’s past performance, the order of relevancy is design and/or construction of (1) cable installation and repair ships of similar mission and complexity, (2) research/supply/support ships of similar complexity; and (3) and other ships of similar complexity”. | The Government modifed this sentence in the final RFP. Please ensure you are proposing to the FINAL RFP and not the Draft. |
| 18 | RFP - Section C | It is [the Offeror]'s understanding that the baseline design(s) will be the basis for performing the requested trade studies. Trade studies will result in recommendations and cost sensitivity information, as requested in J-2. It is not expected or requested that the results of the trade studies will be integrated into an updated baseline design. Can the Government please confirm this understanding? | Correct; the Contractor will not be required to integrate the results of the trade studies into an updated baseline design. |
| 19 | Attachment J-1 Mission Area Requirements | Are the requirements for the missions cumulative if missions are combined? For example, the Resupply mission requires 453 MT cargo capacity. The Rearm mission also requires 453 MT of cargo capacity. If a ship concept serves both missions, does it need 453 MT of cargo capacity or 906 MT cargo capacity? | The requirements are cumulative; if the ship concept serves both missions, it must must provide a minimum of 906 MT of capacity. |
| 20 | RFP - Section B | Note A states "The total price of CLIN 0001 shall not exceed $2,000,000. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements of Section M of this RFP, the price an Offeror proposes for CLIN 0001 shall not exceed $2,000,000" |
| Section B identifies Note A a only applicable to CLIN0001. CLIN0005 (as called out in Note C) is bounded by 5,000 man-hours of labor. There is no such note providing a bound or anticipated range on CLIN0003. Will the final RFP contain a limit for CLIN 0003? | No; there is no maximum price for CLIN 0003. | |||
| 21 | RFP - Section B | If the Government chooses to exercise CLIN 0003 (option), is CLIN 0003 expected to run concurrently with CLIN 0001 efforts or follow at a later date? | It is the Government's intent to exercise the option for CLIN 0003 in fiscal year 2022, if there is available funding. Howvever, the Government has the right to exercise the option anytime within 12 months of contract award as stated in the clause entitled "52.217-7 OPTION FOR INCREASED QUANTITY--SEPARATELY PRICED LINE ITEM (MAR 1989)" | |
| 22 | RFP - Section C | Draft RFP C.2.1 states it is intended to be a "new construction ship concept" while C.2.3 indicates it is "modification studies to an existing vessel…" If the offeror proposes a modification of an existing design, in order to provide a new construction ship, will this fit in CLIN0001 or CLIN0003, or may the contractor choose either one? Or does CLIN 0003 only apply to vessels which have already been constructed? | C.2.1 is for new construction ships and can be a completely new design, an adaptation of an existing design, or a design that was previously constructed. CLIN 0001 and C.2.1 are for new construction only. |
C.2.3 and CLIN 0003 are for studies of modification to existing vessels. CLIN 0003 must be a vessel that has been constructed and currently exists or a vessel under construction.
23 RFP - Sections A, F and L Section A, item 1, indicates a Period of Performance of 24 months.
Section F does not specify delivery dates for products, only that they are IAW DRL. The DRL calls out deliveries relative to the last DR, which in turn is offset from the completion of work.
Section L.1.4.1.4.2 calls out delivery 8 months after contract award for the purpose of the proposal text, but section L (which will not form part of the contract) does not define the actual contractural performance periods.
| Will Section C, F, or the DRL be updated to provide binding clarity on the performance period? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |||
| 24 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | J-1, page 2, line 27 Table - In the table for "Key Mission Area Requirements for Refuel" there is a line item for "Cargo Delivery, Ashore" that indicates "Deliver cargo fuel at anchor or under station keeping with a minimum rated flow rate of 1,890 lpm (500 gpm) with 610 m (2,000 ft) hose reel." Is there a particular system, or even hose diameter, that is anticipated, and is the NGLS expected to deploy this system to the shore (as well as to carry it)? The same question applies for potable water. | There is no system identified to meet this capability at this time. The Cargo Delivery Ashore capability is an Objective and the Contractor should feel free to explore as they feel appropriate to fit into their design solution. | |
| 25 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | J-1, page 2, line 31 Table and Appendix B - There are several places where information provided in the tables of the BRD for the mission capabilities (exampl: USCA) are repeated in Appendix B. We would recommend eliminating all such redundancies as future modifications to the document may catch one and not another. | This action is noted. | |
| 26 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | J-1 Appendix G -The appendix states: "For the Rearm mission, space shall be provided for the stowage and maintenance of the ship’s 1019 organic MHE: one 10,000 lb capacity diesel-powered fork truck." However, our experience has been that OP4 qualified fork trucks are generally electric powered. | The Contractors design shall meet the requirements specified in the SOW and the Attachments. | |
| 27 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | The BRD identifies that both the "Resupply" and the "Rearm" mission sets be capable of handling ordnance. The threshold "Rearm" mission does not have this capability at sea. However, the Rearm, but not the Resupply mission, has the capability of handling 30,000lb at an 80 foot outreach from the side of the hull. This capacity, geometry, and configuration implies that a required mission set for rearm could include reloading VLS cells while in sheltered waters. Explicitly understanding that such a capability is needed would likely drive design decisions. Is this a desired attribute of the threshold and objective Rearm missions? | The final Rearm mission requirements for the NGLS are under development. If the Contractor would like to address specific design attributes which they believe are necessary, this should be noted in their proposal. | |
| 28 | RFP - Section C and Attachment J-1 | Draft RFP C-1 states "The NGLS will enable refueling, rearming, and resupply of Naval and USMC assets – afloat and ashore – in support of Distributed Maritime Operations, Littoral Operations Contested Environment, and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations." Many of the craft in such environments could well be smaller than LAWs or FFGs (i.e., patrol boats, landing craft, etc) and would normally refuel rafted close aboard to the NGLS. There is no indication of a need for a close-aboard refueling capability in J-1 Mission Area Requirements. Can the Government clarify if this capability is also a requirement? | The final Rearm mission requirements for the NGLS are under development. If the Contractor would like to address specific design attributes which they believe are necessary, this should be noted in their proposal. | |
| 29 | RFP - Section C and Attachment J-2 | Draft RFP Section C.3.3 states the Regulatory Gap and Emergent Regulations Study addresses changes needed to meet ABS MVR and emergent regulations. Draft J-2 DI-004 adds that assessment of other significant gaps with other regulatory bodies should be addressed. The DRL description further adds that the report is needed only if the design approach is to modify an existing design. Is this report expected if the design approch is a new construction design? And should this report address regulations beyond ABS MVR? | If the Contractor is using the new construction approach, and the design is based on an existing parent vessel design, then the Government would expect that the Contractor submit this DRL data item. Yes, this report should address regulations beyond ABS MVR. | |
| 30 | RFP - Section C and Attachment J-2 | The description of the Ice Class Study in Draft Section C.3.6.4 includes additional wind, snow, ice, and greenwater loads. The draft DRL DI-007-04 does not include these additional loads. Is it the Government's intent to include the additional loads in the DRL description? | For the Ice Class Study, the report should address all requirements listed in SOW Section C.3.6.4. | |
| 31 | RFP - Attachment J-2 | DI-016-02 - The block 4 information fo the EPLA indicates that the "(EPLA) shall be in accordance with DDS 310-1 Rev 1 and IEEE 45." This DDS contains considerable requirements that would not be readily accomplished at a concept and preliminary design stage of development. We would request that this terminology be changed to say "following the methods and standards of DDS 310-1 Rev and IEEE 45 as appropriate to the design stage." Not resolving descriptions like this have led to misunderstandings on other design study programs. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 32 | RFP - Attachment J-2 | DI-006 includes reporting the new construction cost estimate and is due 21 days prior to both design reviews and to the end of CLIN 0001. However the DRLs describing the baseline design (DI-009 through DI-018) are due 14 days prior to the design reviews. The Offeror believes the Government will receive a much more complete cost estimate if the cost estimate due date is at least 2 weeks after the due date for the DRLs describing the design. Suggest adjusting the timing of the due date of the cost estimate to allow it to follow initial submission of the design products. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 33 | RFP - Section C | If the Offeror has multiple concept strategies to propose under CLIN 0003, can the Offerer present sub-clins so that the Navy has a choice of which one(s) to award, should the option be exercised? | No, the Government will not creat sub-clins under CLIN 0003. Offerors cannot submit multiple proposals. | |
| 34 | RFP - Section L | L.1.1 (f) - The General direction section states "Because affordability, cost-tradeoffs, and impacts of potential requirements are a fundamental part of the Industry Studies, these contracts will require a domestic shipyard that can construct the NGLS ship. Therefore, the resultant Industry Studies contract(s) for this solicitation will only be awarded to a shipyard as the prime contractor or to an offeror with a shipyard as a sub-contractor or team member." Can the Government elaborate on by what means the Offeror is expected to demonstrate their ability to build the ship(s)? | The requirements for the shipyard are stated in RFP Section L.1.1. The shipyard must be domestic, therefore it must be located in the United States. |
The shipyard must be capable of constructing the NGLS, therefore it must be a new construction yard or have all the facilities to support new construction.
The shipyard must have the facilities and organization necessary for ship construction consisting of fabrication, erection, outfitting, launch, testing, and trials of a complete ship.
RFP Section L.1.4.1.5.1 requires the Offerors to discuss team members or subcontractors.
For the purpose of Industry Studies, there is no additional requirement for an Offeror to demonstrate in the proposal their ability to build the ship(s).
| 35 | N/A-Export Control | Is the program to be ITAR or EAR? | The Navy cannot make any determination in that regard. The application of export rule sets need to be made by the Department of State or Department of Commerce. Please refer to DFARS 252.225-7048. |
| 36 | RFP - Section C | Please clarify the term "existing vessel(s)" as referred to in CLIN 0003. Does the term refer to one that has been constructed and is operating? Does the term include a vessel under construction? | CLIN 0003 must be a vessel that has been constructed and currently exists or a vessel under construction. |
| 37 | RFP - Section C | In applying the BRD to CLIN0001 or CLIN0003, how should the threshold vs. objective capabilities/capacities be applied? Should it be applied to individual vessel design or the anticipated fleet of NGLS? | For CLIN 0001, the offeror's design or combination of designs must meet the Threshold capabilities/capacties at a minimum. |
For CLIN 0003, the offeror should meet as much of the BRD requirements as practical, but the offeror is not required to meet all of the Threshold requirements. The offeror is not required to propose a fleet or more than one ship for CLIN 0003.
| 38 | RFP - Attachment J-2 | J-2 DI-16-02 - [the Offeror] believes the level of detail requested in the DRL for the EPLA and One Line Diagram is more advanced than the other elements of the design. The desciption of the baseline concept design should focus on establishing the number and size of the generators. [the Offeror] suggests altering the DRL description to follow DDS as guidance and other minor edits to clarify the expectation on level of detail of information available in this analysis for the initial baseline concept design. [the Offeror] submits a mark-up of DI 16-02 for Government consideration as an attachment. | The Government is evaluating the wording for DI-16-02 and may revise it to offer further clarification in any future modifications. At this time the contractor should plan for all products to be developed to the appropriate level of design detail in accordance with the SOW. |
| 39 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | J-1, Section 0.05 - Maneuverability requirements in the J-1 state "maneuverability requirements, except for Lateral Control, shall be met without the assistance of transverse thrusters, even if thrusters are provided." Can the Government please confirm that the maneuvers listed in the paragraph below (180 deg turn, and rotate with stern restrained) are considered "Lateral Control"? | The requirements for a 180 degree turn at zero speed within two ship lengths and rotating the bow against wind with the stern restrained are considered Lateral Control. |
| 40 | RFP - Section C and Attachemnt J-2 | C.3.6.5 and J-2 DI 007-05 - It would appear that there could well be significant demand for aviation support from a ship like NGLS that will find itself in forward areas. Should such demand present itself, should this study be expanded to examine two capability increments? The first might be the high hover as currently defined, and the second might be Level II, Class 2 capability. | There is no requirement for a flight deck with Level II, Class 2 capability at this time. VERTREP capability is threshold requirement for Resupply and Rearm missions and an objective requirement for the Refuel mission. |
| 41 | RFP - Attachemnt J-2 | J-2 Table IV.1 - This table lists US Customary Unit sizes for fonts and other drawing features. Provided the overall size of the drawing sheet remains to the US Customary size defined, can the table also allow for approximate metric equivalents of these values? | As stated in J-2, “Before the Post-Award Conference, the Contractor may propose an alternative drawing standard for acceptance by the Government.” Approximate values resulting from converting US customary units to metric may acceptable. |
| 42 | RFP - Attachemnt J-1 | J-1, Appendix C, Table C-1: Seakeeping Requirements - The survival condition calls out a loading condition of "Heavy Ballast." This condition is not referenced or defined anywhere else in the J-1 BRD. [the Offeror] requests Government clarification on the definition of this loading condition prior to study execution. | The Heavy Ballast condition is intentionally undefined in the BRD. The contractor may recommend a condition of ballasting intended to provide performance in the survival condition. |
| 43 | RFP - Attachemnt J-2 | DI-015 Hull Girder Longitudinal Strength Analysis Report is the only DRL that requires ABS preliminary review be incorporated into the final submittal. [the Offeror]'s experience is that ABS review of concept designs has a very poor return on investment as it is far too early in the design for ABS to make meaningful comments. Will the Government remove the requirement for this single DRL to include ABS review and instead rely on DI-003 to inform the Government of any communication? | It is not expected to submit DI-015 to ABS for review. This reference will be corrected in a future modification. |
| 44 | N/A-Export Control | Would the shipyard need a Dept. of Defense ITAR export license? | Note that an Offeror must comply with the most restrictive legend on any Data. |
If the technical data is export controlled, either on the USML or the CCL, then a U.S. entity needs either an export license or an license exemption in order to export it.
45 N/A-Export Control Would the shipyard need a Dept. of Commerce non-ITAR export license? Note that an Offeror must comply with the most restrictive legend on any Data.
If the technical data is export controlled, either on the USML or the CCL, then a U.S. entity needs either an export license or an license exemption in order to export it.
46 N/A-Export Control Would the Navy accept consignee statements for us under the shipyard’s export license? Note that an Offeror must comply with the most restrictive legend on any Data.
The shipyard’s empowered official and the U.S. State Department (assuming the data is on the USML, or the appropriate licensing authority) are responsible to determine whether the shipyard’s existing export license is sufficient to export the Data in question.
| 47 | RFP - Attachemnt J-1 | For the "Rearm" mission in the BRD, apart from threshold and objective weights for the cargo crane, what is the intended ordnance to be moved (other than palletized ammunition)? Can the Government elaborate on the requirement to move containerized missiles and/or rockets such as HIMARS and/or Naval Strike Missiles? | The Government will not provide information to offerors on the specific ordnance to be carried. |
| 48 | RFP - Section L | In section L1.1.3. the RFP states that Bidders Questions must be submitted NLT 2:00pm ET on 26, May 2021 but in section L-215-H007 the RFP states that the Bidders questions must be submitted NLT 21, May 2021. Please clarify which date is the deadline for Bidders questions. | Due to the conflicting information the Government accepted questions up to 2:00pm ET on 26 May 2021. |
| 49 | Beta.SAM | Please provide a copy of the 2nd Next Generation Logistics Ship (NGLS) Industry Day that was held Wednesday, 13 January 2021 and the list of attendees. | The Government will not post or provide a copy of the 2nd Industry Day presentation. The information needed to respond to this solicitation has been provided to offerors as attachment to the solicitation. |
| 50 | RFP - Section L | Will the Government post a Bidder’s Question Form for Offeror’s to use? | No. |
| 51 | RFP - Section B | Offerors are to fill in a proposed price for CLIN 0003 (Option). CLIN 0004 is to be included in the price of CLIN 0003. | Correct. |
| 52 | RFP - Section M | Section M.1.14. States that Offerors must propose a price for Item 0001, Item 0003, and PIO Item 0005 listed in Section B (SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS) of this solicitation. The total price of CLIN 0001 shall not exceed $2,000,000. |
| Is there a NTE Price requirement for CLIN 0003? | No; there is no maximum price for CLIN 0003. The maximum price for CLIN 0001 is $2,000,000. | |||
| 53 | RFP - Section C | Section C – Paragraph 4 states: The Contractor shall place emphasis on the use of commercially available, non-developmental and proven technologies. Component commonality with other Military Sealift Command ships is desirable. Will the Government provide a list of components and equipment currently used by Military Sealift Command (MSC) that the Government desires in the NGLS design to be common with current MSC ships? | This information is not required to respond to the RFP. Should a Offeror be awarded a contract the information will be discussion during development of the MEL. | |
| 54 | RFP - Section C | C.2.5 - CLIN 0005 (If Exercised) Special Studies (Provisioned Items, as Ordered (PIO)) In accordance with the clause entitled “SPECIAL STUDIES & DOCUMENTATION” under Section H, the Contractor shall provide up to 5,000 man-hours to perform special studies, design, analyses, and reviews as Additional Government Requirements in support of the NGLS program. These Additional Government Requirements are over and above that specified in other contract line item numbers (CLINs). Orders for this effort shall be placed in accordance with the general requirements in in Section H of this contract entitled “SPECIAL STUDIES & DOCUMENTATION”. |
| Is it the Government’s intent to apply CLIN 0005 hours, if exercised, to both CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0003 or is it the Government’s intent to apply CLIN 0005 to CLIN 0001 only? | CLIN 0005 stand alone CLIN. These hours are not assocaited with CLIN s 0001 or 0003. | |||
| 55 | RFP - Section L | The Government has sited at least 3 different dates for submission of bidders’ questions, May 26, May 3rd, and May 21. | Due to the conflicting information the Government accepted questions up to 2:00pm ET on 26 May 2021. | |
| 56 | RFP - Section L | Section L.1.2.2. Proposal instructions requires both Volumes I – Technical and Volume II – Price to be consolidated into a Single File. However L.1.2.2 also states that ‘No price information, (i.e. dollar values and/or hourly rates) shall be included in any volume other than the Price Volume (Volume II)’. |
Subsequently, L.1.2.6, L.1.2.7, L.1.2.8 and L.1.2.9 provides instructions that applies to ‘eaech’ proposal volume.
Question: Will the Government allow Offerors to submit Volume I Technical in a consolidated single file however submit both Volumes I and Volume II in separate zip files consistent with the requirement of L.1.2.2?
L.1.2.2 states that "Volume I and II must each (emphasis added) be consolidated into a single file". Offerors must submit Volume I in a file separate from the file containing Volume II.
L.1.2.2. also states that only drawings, schedules, and assertions of Technical Data Rights may be submitted as individual files separate from each file containing the Technical Proposal or Price Proposal.
57 RFP - Attachment J- 1 Attachement J-1, Section 1.05; (2) states that "Tires from a container handling truck carrying a 20-foot ISO container loaded to the 228 maximum gross weight allowed by ISO standard 668, while in port.
Will the Government be providing the exact wheel foot print to properly size the deck structure?
| This information is not required to respond to the RFP. Should a Offeror be awarded a contract the information will be discussed during contract performance. | ||||
| 58 | RFP - Section M | Sections A through J “Solicitation, Offer and Award,” withall Offeror fill-in’s completed by the Offeror including 30a-c of SF1449,signed and dated Standard Form 30, “Solicitation, Offer, and Award,” with blocks 12 through 15 completed by the Offeror and all Amendments. A SF 30 was not issued with the NGLS RFP documents. Please provide the SF 30 that the Government want this Offeror to complete. | Amendment 00001 to the solicitation will be issued on a SF30 form. | |
| 59 | RFP - Section L | Key personnel shall have Bachelor’s Degree and/or a minimum of 10 years’ personal experience in the applicable field. Resumes shall use the format provided in Attachment L-2 and shall not exceed 2 pages each (not included in page count). | ||
| Please provide Attachment L-2 Resume Form | This Attachment was not issued and the reference be changed Amendment 0001 to the solicittion. | |||
| 60 | RFP - Sections C, L and M | C.2.3 - CLIN 0003: The Government recognizes that the Period of Performance may not allow the Contractor to satisfy all requirements for all 3 mission areas (i.e. refuel, rearm, resupply) in the Baseline Requirements Document for an existing vessel; therefore, the Contractor shall perform the modification studies to meet as much of the Baseline Requirements Document as practical within the inherent limitations of the existing vessel. The Government reserves the right to negotiate a reduction of scope on a case by case basis upon exercising the option. |
L.1.4.2.3. ·CLIN 0003 Industry Studies (OPTION): Offerors shall fill-in the proposed“Firm Fixed Price”
M.6.1.3 1. The Government will add the proposed prices of CLIN 0001, Option CLIN 0003, and Option CLIN 0005 in Section B.
| Please clarify. Does the Government expect Offerors to modify an actual vessel to meet the requirements as part of the CLIN 0003 efforts? The Government’s Price Section L Instructions/clarifications is required to appropriately price CLIN 0003 and to comply with Section L and Section M Price requirements. | The purpose of CLIN 0003 is to provide a feasibility study only of potential modifications. The Navy has no plans to procure the vessel that will be studied and the Contractor will not be required to modify the actual vessel under this solicitation. | ||
| 61 | RFP - Sections L | Section L states "Key personnel shall have Bachelor’s Degree and/or a minimum of 10 years’ personal experience in the applicable field. Resumes shall use the format provided in Attachment L-2 and shall not exceed 2 pages each (not included in page count)." |
| Question: Will the USN provide Attachment L-2? | Offerors do not need to follow a particular format for resumes; this will be changed in Amendment 0001. | ||
| 62 | RFP - Sections L | In section L1.2.11.4. the RFP states "The contractor SHALL mark the proposal for N00024-21-R-2201 with appropriate CUI markings." DODINST 5200.48 on Controlled Classified Information (CUI) is clear regarding page markings, however, it is unclear how a contractor should fill out the CUI Designation Indicator block. Can the government please clarify the required contents of the following bocks: |
Controlled by CUI Category Distribution/Dissemination Control
| Additionally, can the government please clarify if the CUI Designation Indicator block is to be placed on the cover letter, volume I and II cover pages, or all three? | This statement will be removed in a future Amendment. The Offeror should apply any markings to its proposal they is required by the company (i.e. proprietary ) and all pages shall contain the phrase: “SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE” (printed or stamped). | |||
| 63 | N/A | Given DFARS 252.204-7012 requirement, will the Government provide a DD254 identifying specific CUI requirements and expectations? If not, will the Government provide appropriate marking authority expectations for designation indicator box through separate cover? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 64 | N/A | Given CUI protection requirements, will the markings for drawings (as example: CUI//CTI require CUI Specified vs. Basic? If so will this require additional security controls beyond NIST 800-171 (e.g., NIST 800-172)? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 65 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 8, C-1 Part 1, 1st paragraph “NGLS will enable refueling, rearming and resupply of Naval and USMC assets -afloat and ashore- in support of ... Littoral Operations Contested Environment...” This indicates NGLS will be required to transit and operate in combat zones but only 6 guns (presumably 50-cal) and no ballistic protection is currently specified. Will additional defensive equipment or systems be required for NGLS? | For the purpose of Industry Studies, offerors are only required to meet the requirements in the BRD. | |
| 66 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 8, C-1 Part 1, 2nd paragraph “Objectives are (1)...(3) inform development of the Detail Design and Construction (DD&C) Circular of Requirements (COR) from the NGLS Baseline Requirements Document (BRD), Attachment J-1” | ||
| Please clarify what contractor actions are intended by the term “inform”. | The purpose of the statement in the General Statement of Work is to let potential offerors know that one of the Government's objectives for Industry Studies is to provide information for future development. The contractor actions are those required by the contract. | |||
| 67 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 8, C-1 Part 1, 4th paragraph “The Contractor shall place emphasis on the use of commercially available, non-developmental and proven technologies.” | ||
| Will the government also emphasize the use of commercial equipment and systems over DoD standards except where commercial equipment is unavailable or where only DoD specified equipment can meet the operational requirements? | The purpose of the statement in the General Statement of Work is to inform potential offerors that the Government's intent is to use commercial, non-development systems for NGLS. | |||
| 68 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 12, C.3.6.2 UNREP Alternatives Study “If the Contractor has developed a baseline design that addresses Refuel or Resupply mission areas, ... that describes at least one alternative arrangement and/or selection of UNREP equipment.” The use other than the Navy’s preferred (standard) equipment increases project risk. It appears that UNREP station location would be the only “alternative” since station arrangement and equipment requirements are controlled by Navy standard drawings and NTTP 4-01.4. | This appears to be a statement and not a question. | |
| 69 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 12, C.3.6.7 Service Life Study - Currently neither the Statement of Work nor the Baseline Requirements Document specify a required service life for NGLS. Is the 20 year service life noted in this section the minimum required service life for NGLS? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 70 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 12, C.3.6.7 Service Life Study. “Service life in excess of 20 years shall consider ABS FL notation.” - The correct ABS notation is “SFA(FL)”, for spectral fatigue analysis. The “FL” term in parentheses indicates the service life considered in the fatigue analysis. | This appears to be a statement and not a question. | |
| 71 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 12, C.3.6.8 MOGAS Storage Study - It is assumed that this study is unnecessary if MOGAS Storage is provided in the baseline design. Please confirm. | The study is not unnecessary. The Contractor will show via their study how their baseline design meets the requirements. | |
| 72 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 13, C.3.6.10 Seakeeping Performance Improvement Study. It is assumed that this study will be an extension of the Seakeeping Report (DI-013). Please confirm. | Correct. | |
| 73 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 14, C.4.2.2 Single UNREP Station Study. The use other than the Navy’s preferred (standard) equipment increases project risk. It appears that UNREP station location would be the only “alternative” since station arrangement and equipment requirements are controlled by Navy standard drawings and NTTP 4-01.4. | This appears to be a statement and not a question. | |
| 74 | RFP - Section C | Pgs. 17 & 18, C-211-H017. Where industry has already modified their products to comply with the latest revisions of specifications or standards which the Navy has not yet approved, will the government be liable for any cost increases due to modifications required to comply with the older Navy approved revision? | No. | |
| 75 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 22, C-243-H002, (d) (4) In the event that the Contractor’s notice information is inadequate...Failure of the Government to respond within the time required above shall be deemed a countermand under (d)(ii).” Typographic error – should be “(d)(2)”. | The error is in the contract writing system. | |
| 76 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 24, C-245-H004 (e) Referenced Documentation. Will any costs due to obtaining “Government specifications and standards, including Navy standard and type drawings and other technical documentation...” be treated as contract costs? | No. | |
| 77 | RFP - Section C | Pg. 40, H-03 b) Special Studies & Documentation. “Notwithstanding any provisions of the clause...shall not include any amounts for cost of delay or disruption of work performed under this Contract...”. It is assumed that any “Special Studies” required by the Government would be performed after the completion of the baseline design documentation. If the Government required studies to be performed simultaneously with the baseline design utilizing the same key personnel, the required multi-tasking could result in impacts to cost, schedule and quality of products. In this case the Government would be considered liable for any rework due to the disruptions. | Clause G-216-H002 has been added to the RFP and replaces 5252.216.9110. The updated clause Section ( c ) should address your concern. | |
| 78 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1- NGLS Req-Pg. 2, Key Mission Area Requirements for Refuel (Table) “Cargo Delivery” - Threshold. It is assumed that cargo fuel delivery will be performed from one side of NGLS only for the threshold requirement. | This information is not required to conduct Industry Studies. | |
| 79 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 NGLS Req-Pg. 2, Key Mission Area Requirements for Refuel (Table) “Aviation” - Objective. What is the maximum load and configuration that will be received Via VERTREP? It is noted that RFP Section C.3.6.5 requires a NAVAIR certified Level III, Class 5, Type 1 facility for all H-60 variants and single main rotor helicopters with smaller main rotor diameters. | ||
| This information is not required to conduct Industry Studies. | ||||
| 80 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 NGLS Pg. 2, Key Mission Area Requirements for Refuel (Table) “Cargo Potable Water Stowage and Delivery” - Objective. Due the use of the same language as for “Cargo Delivery, Ashore”, should delivery of potable water be assumed to occur at anchor or under station keeping? | Both. | |
| 81 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 2, Key Mission Area Requirements for Refuel (Table)“Embarked Force Seating” - Objective. Since only airline type seating will be provided (no berthing), what is the expected duration that troops will be on board? | Offerors are only required to provide the facilities required by the BRD. The length of time is not required for the conduct of Industry Studies. | |
| 82 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 3, Key Mission Area Requirements for Resupply (Table)“Usable Cargo stowage Area”. Are palletized ammunition wrapped to permit stowage in the weather or is an enclosed storage area required? If an enclosed stowage area is required, does ballistic protection required for the enclosure? | This information is not required to conduct Industry Studies. | |
| 83 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 3, Key Mission Area Requirements for Resupply (Table). What is the maximum load and configuration that will be received Via VERTREP? It is noted that RFP Section C.3.6.5 requires a NAVAIR certified Level III, Class 5, Type 1 facility for all H-60 variants and single main rotor helicopters with smaller main rotor diameters. | This information is not required to conduct Industry Studies. | |
| 84 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 3, Key Mission Area Requirements for Resupply (Table). “Petroleum Drum Storage and Transfer” - ObjectiveWill MOGAS and lube oil drums be transferred only by UNREP Stream operations? | No. | |
| 85 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 3, Key Mission Area Requirements for Resupply (Table)“Embarked Force Seating” - Objective. Since only airline type seating will be provided (no berthing), what is the expected duration that troops will be on board? | Offerors are only required to provide the facilities required by the BRD. The length of time is not required for the conduct of Industry Studies. | |
| 86 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 4, Key Mission Area Requirements for Rearm (Table)“Cargo Capacity”. Does the Government intend to use the entire cargo capacity of ordnance/ammunition for this mission? | Offerors are only required to provide the facilities required by the BRD. The length of time is not required for the conduct of Industry Studies. | |
| 87 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 4, Key Mission Area Requirements for Rearm (Table). What is the maximum load and configuration that will be transferred via VERTREP operations? | This information is not required to conduct Industry Studies. | |
| 88 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 4, Key Mission Area Requirements for Rearm (Table)“Cargo Crane”. It is understood that the stated crane capabilities are required while moored pier-side or from barge while at anchor per Appendix G. | This appears to be a statement and not a question. | |
| 89 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 5, Regulatory, Classification, and Certification Requirements, Line 77. It is assumed that the “R2” classification notation refers to Propulsion Redundancy in accordance with ABS MVR, Part 4 Chapter 3 Section 7 paragraph 3 ii). Please confirm. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 90 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 7, General Requirements for Design and Construction, 1.1. Please define the term “arrangeable” in regard to internal deck area. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 91 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 7, General Requirements for Design and Construction, 1.4. How shall the required “horizontal wave slap loading” be handled where bulwarks or other protective structure is provided in way of equipment mounted in the weather? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 92 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 10, Propulsion Systems, 2.2“ The propulsors shall be sized to satisfy the mission area requirements in Full Load Condition with Service Life Allowance”. It is assumed that the intention of this requirement is to achieve the required sustained speed and “best speed” for UNREP operations. Please confirm. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 93 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 10, Propulsion Systems, 2.3 Endurance Fuel Calculations. “Endurance fuel calculations shall assume propulsion power at full load condition (Condition D)....”. It is assumed that “Condition D” is in reference to SAWE Recommended Practice 12 (RP-12) Condition D. Please confirm. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 94 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 11, Propulsion Systems, 2.12“... Strainers shall be provided for each machinery circulating and cooling seawater system heat exchanger...”. Are single strainer units acceptable or are dual strainer units required? | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 95 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg. 11, Propulsion Systems, 2.13“The combustion air and exhaust systems shall withstand transfer of vibration to supporting structure and stresses induced by weight, thermal expansion, engine vibration, working of the ship, exhaust gas pressure pulsations, and pressure thrust caused by the exhaust gas and intake air.”. Can flex/isolation support mounts be used to reduce loading on the combustion air and exhaust systems? Specifically this would decrease or eliminate loads due to vibration transfer to supporting structure and working of the ship. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. | |
| 96 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | . Att J-1 Pg. 12, Propulsion Systems, 2.16“... The design of the exhaust system shall ensure the exhaust plume clears the ship’s boundary layer and prevents re-ingestion of exhaust gases into combustion air, ventilation and replenishment intakes.” Will a CFD analysis be necessary to “ensure” that exhaust gases will not be re-ingested for the baseline design? | No, the Contractor is not required to conduct a CFD analysis of the exhaust gases for Industry Studies. | |
| 97 | RFP - Attachment J-1 | Att J-1 Pg.12, Electric Systems, 3.1, 2nd paragraph“Electrical power distribution voltage for ship’ service power, shore power, galley equipment, laundry equipment and mission equipment shall be 480 VAC, 60 Hz, three-phase.. This paragraph implies that a dedicated laundry with large scale operation equipment is required. But MSC N0720-110.00-P Section 655 requires the provision of self-serve laundries which typically used 120 VAC equipment. | The Government is considering the question and will provide a response in a future amendment. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .