Bidders Questions_Master List_12 MAY 2022.xlsx

Bidders Questions

For example, if option CLIN’s 2001, 3001, and 4001 expire and CLIN 5001 is awarded, the offered price will be at T5 on the learning curve but will only be T2 in actual practice. Will the Navy consider additional language such as below from another recent RFP:

NOTE B – [omitted] SHIP OPTIONS

(a) Options for [omitted] Ships #2 through #10 under this contract shall be exercised, if at all, in ascending numerical order (i.e., 0200, 0300, 0400, 0500, 0600, 0700, 0800, 0900, 1000) starting from the first available unexpired option. An available unexpired option is defined as an option that has not previously been exercised, and which has not yet expired per the latest option exercise date set forth in the Section I clause FAR 52.217-7.

(b) The expiration of a ship option shall not invalidate the remaining unexpired options. However, in the event that the Government fails to exercise two consecutive options prior to the applicable latest option exercise dates, the price of each remaining unexpired option shall be adjusted such that the price (i.e., target cost, target profit, and ceiling price) of the first available unexpired option is revised to the price from the first of the two consecutive expired options, the price of the second available unexpired option is revised to the price from the second of the consecutive expired options, the price of the third available unexpired option is revised to the price from the first unexpired option, and so on and so forth. For example, if Items 0400 and 0500 expire, the price of Item 0600 will be revised to the price from Item 0400, the price of Item 0700 will be revised to the price from Item 0500, the price of Item 0800 will be revised to the price from Item 0600, the price of Item 0900 will be revised to the price from Item 0700, and the price of Item 1000 will be revised to the price from Item 0800.

Options will have learning curves build into them. If an option is allowed to expire and a follow on option is then awarded it will have learning assumptions built into it that didn’t actually occur, placing risk on the bidder’s price.

For example, if option CLIN’s 2001, 3001, and 4001 expire and CLIN 5001 is awarded, the offered price will be at T5 on the learning curve but will only be T2 in actual practice. Will the Navy consider additional language such as below from another recent RFP:

NOTE B – [omitted] SHIP OPTIONS

(a) Options for [omitted] Ships #2 through #10 under this contract shall be exercised, if at all, in ascending numerical order (i.e., 0200, 0300, 0400, 0500, 0600, 0700, 0800, 0900, 1000) starting from the first available unexpired option. An available unexpired option is defined as an option that has not previously been exercised, and which has not yet expired per the latest option exercise date set forth in the Section I clause FAR 52.217-7.

(b) The expiration of a ship option shall not invalidate the remaining unexpired options. However, in the event that the Government fails to exercise two consecutive options prior to the applicable latest option exercise dates, the price of each remaining unexpired option shall be adjusted such that the price (i.e., target cost, target profit, and ceiling price) of the first available unexpired option is revised to the price from the first of the two consecutive expired options, the price of the second available unexpired option is revised to the price from the second of the consecutive expired options, the price of the third available unexpired option is revised to the price from the first unexpired option, and so on and so forth. For example, if Items 0400 and 0500 expire, the price of Item 0600 will be revised to the price from Item 0400, the price of Item 0700 will be revised to the price from Item 0500, the price of Item 0800 will be revised to the price from Item 0600, the price of Item 0900 will be revised to the price from Item 0700, and the price of Item 1000 will be revised to the price from Item 0800.

• Machinery Arrangement*

• Intake and Uptake Arrangements*

• EOS Arrangement

• Power Conversion Room Arrangement *

• Chilled Water System Diagram

• Electrical One-Line Diagram*

• Machinery Circulating and Cooling System Diagram*

• Bilge and Ballast System Diagram*

• Firemain System Diagram*

• Lube Oil Service System Diagram

• Fuel Fill and Transfer System Diagram

• Fuel Service System Diagram

• Lube Oil Fill and Transfer System Diagram

• Carbon Dioxide System Diagram*

• Hot and Cold Potable Water System Diagram

• Sewage System Diagram*

• Jacket Water Waste Heat Recovery System Diagram

• Compressed Air System Diagram

• Oily Waste Transfer System Diagram*

• HVAC Diagrammatic*

• Anchoring and Mooring Arrangement

• Replenishment at Sea Arrangement

• MCC and SCC Face Arrangements*

Which of the above drawings does the government plan to issue with the final RFP? If not, does the government intent to provide sufficient time for the shipyards to develop these products internally (in excess of 180 days) to be able to adequately estimate the cost of the T-AGOS and provide an appropriate bid and to answer section L of the RFP?

The Government does not expect Offerors to have a complete Contract Design at the time of proposal due date. It is anticipated that the Contract Design phase will continue post award until the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). For additional information, see Section C.3.042, “MEETINGS, REVIEWS, CONFERENCES, AND WORKING GROUPS”, and Section C.3.042.9.1, “PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW” of the RFP. If Offerors would like additional non-contractual, FOR INFORMATION ONLY drawings related to the Government T-AGOS Contract Design, the following drawings are available (see tab titled_Attachment L-2_Listing). Reviewers should be aware that these drawings are FOR INFORMATION ONLY and should not be assumed compliant with all requirements of the RFP, nor should they be considered as representing the Government’s preferred solution.

L.1.3.1.4 , L.1.3.1.5 , L.1.3.1.2 , L.1.3.1.3 , L.1.3.1.8, L.1.3.1.10 , L.1.3.1.11, L.1.3.1.12 The draft T-AGOS(X) RFP Section L requires a level of detail in a number of places that would normally be appropriate only during detailed design. Additionally, there are other places where the level of detail might be appropriate for an RFP response, but there is inadequate time available to complete the design worked needed to provide the level of detail requested.

No The draft T-AGOS(X) RFP Section L requires a level of detail in a number of places that would normally be appropriate only during detailed design. Additionally, there are other places where the level of detail might be appropriate for an RFP response, but there is inadequate time available to complete the design worked needed to provide the level of detail requested. The following is a list of these paragraphs:

L.1.3.1.4 ARRANGEMENTS - The Topside, Decks, Platforms, Inboard Profile, and Outboard Profile shall be in accordance with MSC Standard Plan 803-7079667, “Preparation of Selected Record Drawings (SRDs) for USNS Ships”.

Concern: The arrangements requirement in the RFP is generally appropriate except for invoking the requirement for drawings to be completed to the SRD level. This is something that is normally done during detailed design. For [omitted], SRDs are only required 30 days prior to sea trials.

L.1.3.1.5 WEIGHT AND STABILITY ii. A Bidder’s Independent Weight Estimate (BIWE) as part of the proposal. The Offeror’s attention is directed to C.3.096.2 Supplemental Weight Agreement. The BIWE establishes the potential contractor’s estimate of the ship at the time of contract award.

Concern: A BIWE is normally based on the information in a complete contract design package. The documents included in the Draft TDP are insufficient to support a BIWE.

L.1.3.1.2 Ship Design – Describe total ownership cost trade-offs performed Concern: There is not enough information provided in TDP and typically these types of studies are done as part of industry studies. There is insufficient time provided for this response to complete cost trade off studies.

L.1.3.1.3 Critical Equipment - The Offeror shall prepare a Critical Equipment List including:

a. Emergency Diesel Generator Set

b. Integrated Bridge System

c. Switchboards, load centers, and power panels

d. Main Propulsion Generator Sets

e. Reduction Gears (If provided)

f. Steering system

g. Propulsion Motors

h. Propulsion shaft bearings

i. Propulsion shaft clutches (If provided)

j. Bow Thrusters (If provided)

k. Main Seawater Cooling Pump(s)

l. Low Pressure Rotary Air Compressor(s) For each item on the list, the following information shall be provided: quantity; nomenclature; Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM's) name; OEM's part and model number; place of manufacture; capacity/rating; Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF); Mean Time To Repair (MTTR); population in-service; ABS and Regulatory Body approvals; production lead-time; the supplying vendor name, address and telephone number; and unique tools or support and test equipment necessary to inspect, test, calibrate, service, repair, or overhaul the end item. If MTBF and MTTR for the end item are not readily available, the Offeror is allowed to use data for like items that are currently in Government or commercial service.

Concern: This is consistent with what was required for the [omitted]. However, in that case, we had the draft RFP for 6 months before the RFP was issued and then an additional 90+ days with the final RFP. As it was, getting the Critical Equipment List completed before submission took every moment of those 9 months.

L.1.3.1.8 INTEGRATED ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS DESIGN

iii. Describe the Integrated Electric Power System (IEPS) including machinery arrangements, design, associated calculations, studies, analyses, support systems, model testing, modeling simulation and fuel maps. The propulsion system characteristics shall be provided including the following: type of plant, engine make and model, emissions characteristics, power rating of IEPS equipment, ship speed at 85% and 100% of MCR of the electric propulsion system and the generator sets, drive train efficiencies at full and partial loads, reduction gear ratio (if applicable), design conditions and operating limitations, fuel rates between no load and prime mover MCR at 10% intervals of, individual IEPS equipment and cable weights, reliability and maintainability, along with related trade-off and design studies. Fuel maps shall include supporting calculations for the machinery plant.

Concern: This level of detail was provided for the [omitted] proposal. However, as mentioned before, 90 days is inadequate to generate this level of detail. Once a power plant has been selected then this step would take roughly 6 months.

L.1.3.1.10 Auxiliary Systems HVAC

i. Description of the design and analysis of hotel heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems and the associated air conditioning plant and cargo refrigeration plants. This description shall include the following: The calculations used to determine the design of the HVAC systems and the air conditioning plant.

Concern: This requires that the GA is complete before this analysis can begin. While this was provided in the [omitted] response, it took most of the 9 months to develop this analysis and feed it into the powering calculations. Powering and EPLA were completed just in time.

L.1.3.1.11 MACHINERY, ELECTRIC PLANT, AND AUXILIARIES CONTROL AND MONITORING SYSTEM

ii. Document the selection, arrangement, and use of Machinery Centralized Control System (MCCS) displays, instrumentation to optimize operator interaction with the control and monitoring system.

iv. Prepare a plan that includes details on the signals and mimics required for the necessary and efficient operation of the vessel and mission system.

Concern: This level of detail is normally conducted during detailed design.

L.1.3.1.12 INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN

iii. An outline of the process used to design the system including development of relevant maneuvering models to simulate required control actions used by the autopilot to maintain heading in seaway conditions.

Concern: This level of detail would normally only be completed during detailed design.

Will the Government consider revising these sections in the final RFP or the TDP to address the concerns?

Arrangements: The Government acknowledges your statement. However, this requirement is correct.

Weights - The Government acknowledges your statement. However, this requirement is correct.

Trade offs - Total Ownership Cost trade-offs shall be performed within the design trade space, not against contractual requirements.

The rest of the topics are answered by BQ4

make a bid decision that offers acceptance of risk with a design and cost achievable within the desired

the proposed ship design. ABS approval of takes a minimum of four (4) weeks for initial comments and additional time for comments resolution. For a basic design package, firms need a minimum of eight weeks to account for ABS approval. Request the Navy provide clarification on ABS review and approval requirements or provide additional time within the proposal period to complete this activity during a

conjunction with ABS MVR. Since it provides guidance specifically for SWATH hulls, does the Navy

SPECIFICATION lists ABS Rules for Building and Classing Steel Vessels. This has now been replaced

This paragraph of the pre-solicitation indicates that there may be additional attachments that will be part of the final RFP that are not included as part of the draft RFP. However, the draft RFP lists specific drawings that are considered Contract or Guidance Drawings. Should industry expect that additional drawings will be provided with the final RFP? If additional drawings will be provided, can the government provide a list the drawings that will be included as part of the Technical Data Package, even if the actual drawings are not released with the Draft RFP?

NOTE K – Limitation of Ceiling and Shareline Ceiling at 120%

"Provide the same descriptions for improvements or upgrades as described in first two bullets paragraphs above." This is referring to Section L.1.3.2.1, bullets i and ii:

"i. Provide a graphical depiction of the layout planned for use in the construction of T- AGOS 25 Class, including test facilities, test ranges, fabrication facilities, workshops, craft/material storage facilities, piers, paint facilities, outfitting, block and grand block erection and staging, ship build position, offices, sea access ramps/points, ways, drydocks, translation paths, transfer facility, cranes and other waterfront facilities.

It is noted that the speed power information for T-AGOS 25 does not appear consistent with the performance of T-AGOS 23 when adjusted for speed and displacement changes.

This transference of atypical model test results to full size ship performance represents a very high risk to detailed design and construction program and the contractor.

1. Ships' Officers, senior Licensed, department Head, Licensed and Chief Petty Officer (CPO) 204.1 kg/accommodation

2. Unlicensed 16.8 kg/accommodation