14RGP55_0004.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

This amendment is issued to answ er questions from potential offerors. The date and time for receipt of proposals is unchanged and remains set at 4:00PM local time on 20 FEB 2014. Please see additional page(s) for questions and answ ers.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 6

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 13-Feb-2014

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N00164-14-R-GP55

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

04-Nov-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

13-Feb-2014

CODE

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER CRANE DIV

L.ARMES (812-854-4748)

BLDG 2035

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE IN 47522-5001

N00164 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N00164-14-R-GP55

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES

The following have been added by full text:

AMENDMENT 0004

Question 1:

Our original concept was to take the existing design while improving it, modifying it with new materials but in essence keeping it close to the same. But after some extensive analysis this specification is filled with things that significantly exceed AAR standards. In trying to get a handle on the design, we have a number of major issues springing up.

Specification (SOW) It goes beyond AAR standards regularly, including the Safety factor that is required. Normally, most AAR cases use yield as the criteria. This project is calling for an additional 1.5 Safety factor to be put on that. Initially, this didn't concern me, as I thought we had some latitude in regards to the weight, and can simply increase the strength.

We can do that in many places, but in looking at the Center sill for example--this appears to be a standard CZ13x41.2 lb sill--like 95% of other railcars. That's great...until you consider that this is essentially designed to yield for the 1,000,000 squeeze case. So, there is very little chance with the 1.5 safety factor that this is going to pass. If I'm right--that means the entire draft sill (at least) is going to have to significantly change. The buff and draft lugs are another detail within that-I’m worried about the design handling to 1.5 safety Factor above the past design.

The blanket application of these arbitrary increases is likely to impact the entire design.

Another question is increasing the lateral load to .75g, and saying it needs to be counterbalanced to avoid tipping. In the real world this WILL tip the car over, which means that we're going to have to artificially apply a greater vertical down acceleration, which is a totally unrealistic case. Even the AAR load of .45g is overkill, and known to tip many cars over. Again--it isn't that this is difficult to analyze--but perhaps very difficult to meet the pass criteria.

Now, clearly, these cars have been running for a long time, so it isn't that the actual car has a problem--it is that current Specification has been inflated such that the original car can't meet it.

In short is there a variance that can be given not the items listed above?

Government Response 1:

Acknowledgment of Requirements Above AAR Minimum Requirements The Government acknowledges that the System Requirements Document (SRD), WC00015032 Rev A, contains requirements that exceed the minimum requirements of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices (MSRP).

Railroad Industry Standards vs. Navy Standards The requirements development phase of this project required carefully blending established standards from both the railroad industry and the Navy. The railroad industry has established standards to safely and economically transport commercial goods over the rail. The Navy has established standards to ruggedize support equipment which (1) increases the likelihood of successful delivery of sensitive tactical equipment to required destinations, (2) maximizes end tactical product reliability by thoroughly protecting the tactical asset during the transportation phase, and (3) decreases the likelihood of exposing personnel to the significant hazards associated with the tactical equipment. The railroad industry stipulates appropriate load factors and factors of safety to optimize fuel efficiency and to reduce freight rates, but the railroad industry has minimal incentive to overdesign rail equipment because the post-failure effects of a railcar transporting standard commercial goods is relatively minimal. A failure of a Navy piece of support equipment transporting tactical equipment could affect Navy fleet schedules and readiness, could draw excessive media and enemy attention, could inadvertently present sensitive technologies, could deem an expensive tactical asset unsuitable for use, and could expose personnel to significant hazards.

Current Requirements Explained: Striking a Balance The Government developed SRD, WC00015032 Rev A, as currently written, attempts to strike an appropriate balance between railroad industry standards and Navy standards. The following explains the current requirements:

Car Body Structure Definition – In Section 5.1 of WC00015032 Rev A, the Government defines the car body structure as follows: “Load bearing members of the railcar car body including the center sill, crossbearers, side sills, end sills, body bolsters, rear lugs, front lugs, bulkhead structure, wall members, floor members, roof members, and door members; excludes AAR approved trucks, axles, roller bearings, wheels, constant contact side bearings, end-of-car cushioning devices, draft gear, and coupling components.” This definition draws a clear line between those items that must adhere to railroad industry standards and those items that must adhere to Navy standards.

Standard Railroad Items – The following requirements of WC00015032 Rev A require the use of standard AAR approved items: DR1810 End-of-Car Cushioning Devices, DR1820 Coupling Components, DR1830 Trucks, DR1840 Axles, DR1850 Roller Bearings, DR1860 Wheels, DR1870 Center Plates, DR1880 Center Pins, and DR1890 Constant Contact Side Bearings. Since these items are standard railroad items, the Government has increased confidence that:

1) These items will be readily stocked and available throughout the life of the railcar, and will be interchangeable with future railroad technology developments.

2) These items will not fail as these items (1) have been tested extensively to become the subject of a railroad standard, (2) have undergone rigorous quality inspections in accordance with the associated railroad standard, and (3) have proven track records.

The factor of safety requirements of DR3950, DR3960, and DR3970 do not apply to these standard railroad items.

Loads on Car Body Structure – The requirements within Section 3.4.2.2 (AAR Loads) and Section 3.4.2.3 (SSP Loads) of WC00015032 Rev A define the loads to be applied to the car body structure, and the factor of safety requirements, DR3950, DR3960, and DR3970, define how much extra structural margin must exist when the defined AAR Loads and SSP Loads act on the car body structure.

o Factor of Safety Clarification – Per an applicable Navy standard, the purpose of the Government’s factor of safety requirements are to “provide allowances for variations in materials, undetected flaws or defects in workmanship, design uncertainties, possibility of exceeding limit load and life effects (age, wear, and fatigue).” Hence, the factors of safety are employed to compensate for realistic deficiencies that could exist and plausible events that could occur.

o Justification for Factor of Safety on Car Body Structure – The Government is requiring the additional factor of safety requirement over the minimum AAR requirements on the car body structure for the following reasons:

The design of the new car body structure and the effectiveness of associated manufacturing processes and workmanship will be relatively unproven. (Standard railroad items are relatively proven as they have undergone extensive qualification testing and have proven track records via the large quantity of items fielded.)

Plastic deformations of the car body structure due to yielding could distort the lading space floor, preventing the cargo from being able to be loaded or unloaded. (Standard railroad items that plastically deform can easily be replaced.)

Catastrophic failure of the car body structure by any mode for any reason simply will not be tolerated given the nature of the cargo. (The likelihood of the car body structure remaining intact after a standard railroad item catastrophic failure increases because of the higher factor of safety of the car body structure.)

The car body structure must withstand the fluctuating dynamic loads of the railroad environment for the duration of the car body structure’s 50 year life. (Standard railroad items suffering from the effects of age, wear, or fatigue can easily be replaced.)

The car body structure must remain useable when minimal deterioration of the car body structure occurs after exposure to harsh salt fog environments during cargo delivery near the coastline. (Standard railroad items suffering from extensive deterioration and/or rust can easily be replaced.)

The railcar car body structure must protect over 100,000 lbs of expensive and potentially hazardous 1.1C explosives for end use in a national security mission that requires high reliability assets; in other words, a higher factor of safety on the car body structure will mitigate many risks associated with operations.

o SSP Transportation Loads Discussion – The SSP transportation loads defined within Section 3.4.2.3 in summary are: 3.0g longitudinal, 3.0g vertically down, 0.5g vertically up, and 0.75g lateral. These are load factors that account for dynamic effects during transportation.

Example: Lateral Load Case Discussion – Hypothetically assume the following: (1) Assume a railcar is designed to yield during exposure to a 0.2501g turn, (2) Assume the railcar center of gravity is located such that the railcar would overturn during a smooth and constant 0.2501g turn, and (3) Assume the railcar is currently travelling in a smooth and constant 0.2500g turn. In these assumed conditions, the railcar is on the verge of yielding and on the verge of overturning. Now, assume that the wheels of the railcar in the smooth 0.25g turn strikes a rail joint that is laterally discontinuous. The discontinuous step input into the vehicle will impart a very short duration, high lateral acceleration/shock throughout the railcar that will stress the railcar beyond its yield strength, but it will not overturn the railcar because the high lateral acceleration acts on the inertia of the railcar for such a short duration that the angular displacement of the railcar about the tipping point is negligibly small when the resulting angular acceleration is integrated twice over that very short duration of time. In conclusion, the required 0.75g lateral acceleration is not a requirement to prevent overturning, it is a requirement to ensure the railcar can structurally withstand short duration, lateral shock events. The artificially increased vertically down acceleration to prevent tipping is unrealistic, but it is the only feasible method to confirm the ability of the railcar to withstand a 0.75g lateral shock event.

Similarly, the vertical acceleration requirements are to account for vertical discontinuities in rail joints and the longitudinal acceleration requirements are to account for rail humping events. The values of the SSP transportation loads were derived from a Navy standard that has been used to develop many pieces of support equipment that have safe and proven records.

o Compressive End Load Discussion – The AAR requires that railcars be designed to withstand a 1,000,000 lb compressive end load, while fully loaded, without exceeding the yield strength or 80% of the ultimate strength of the materials. Further, the AAR Equipment Engineering Committee could require a railcar be loaded with full weight inert cargo and be exposed to a 1,000,000 lb compressive end load test, in accordance with AAR M-1001 Chapter 11, in order to be permitted in the unrestricted interchange service. Though on paper an asset may be designed to not yield when exposed to a defined load, plausible deficiencies such as material variations, material defects, workmanship flaws, and life effects could cause unacceptable yielding when physically exposed to the defined load. For example, the Navy will not permit the GFE inert full weight cargo (which is a high-demand, low-supply asset within the Navy) to be placed in a railcar during a compressive end load test where the railcar is designed to yield at the physically applied load; the risk of failure and associated damage to the inert cargo is too high.

o Acknowledgment of Additional Risk – The Government acknowledges that increasing the factor of safety on the car body structure may increase the likelihood of having to depart from conventional construction methods and having to perform additional AAR M-1001 Chapter 11 tests. These additional and acknowledged technical challenges/risks are offset by the benefits of extra structural margins and safety provided by the higher factor of safety.

Existing First-Generation D5 Railcar Discussion It is a fact that the fleet of nine First-Generation D5 Railcars has successfully delivered cargo in support of missions since the late 1980s. Since the Second-Generation D5 Railcar is to complete the identical mission as the First- Generation D5 Railcars, it is logical to consider the First-Generation D5 Railcar design. Unfortunately, full design disclosure information on the First-Generation D5 Railcars is unavailable. There are several artifacts that exist that suggest the First-Generation D5 Railcar could satisfy several of the requirements of WC00015032 Rev A, but there is no definite proof. Consider the following:

Production Contract Purchase Description – The purchase description for the contract to produce the 8 production First-Generation D5 Railcars stated the following:

“…Any changes proposed by the contractor to the structural elements of the car as shown in the drawings must be designed in accordance with these criteria:

Load Factors - 4.0 g’s longitudinal at bulkhead only

3.0 g’s longitudinal elsewhere

3.0 g’s vertical downward

0.5 g’s vertical upward

0.75 g’s lateral

Margins of Safety - 1.5 to yield strength

2.0 to ultimate strength”

Design Analysis Additions Report – A “Design Analysis Additions” report presents analyses of portions of the roof, floor, and bulkhead of the First-Generation D5 Railcar. Unfortunately, the original “Design Analysis” to which these Additions were applied is unavailable.

o Roof Analysis – The roof analysis section shows a 3.0g vertically down load case with a 1.5 factor of safety on yield strength applied.

o Floor Analysis – The floor analysis section shows a 3.0g vertically down inertial load acting on the cargo that is resisted by the floor stringers with a 1.5 factor of safety on yield strength applied and a 2.0 factor of safety on ultimate applied. Note: This analysis only analyzed the floor stringers with simplified reactions from the crossbearers; in other words, stresses in the side sills, center sill, and crossbearers were not considered in this particular analysis. The floor analysis section also shows a load case with the railcar overturned on its side in a 1.0g down gravity field with a 1.5 factor of safety applied which is not a requirement of this solicitation.

o Bulkhead Analysis – The bulkhead structure analysis section shows the bulkhead structure assembly resisting a 668,000 lb longitudinal force (greater than current requirements) with a 1.5 factor of safety on yield strength applied. Note: This analysis only analyzed the bulkhead structure subassembly; in other words, stresses transmitted through the rest of the car body structure were not considered in this particular analysis.

From the above discussion, there is evidence that portions of the First-Generation D5 Railcar were designed to Navy standards, above AAR minimum requirements. The Government acknowledges that there is no evidence that proves the entire First-Generation D5 Railcar was designed completely above AAR minimum requirements. Though the First-Generation D5 Railcar fleet has completed many missions, there is at least one concern with the fleet at this time to consider:

Exterior Brittle Material Cracks – Several First-Generation D5 Railcars in the fleet are beginning to display cracks in the exterior brittle materials. Though it is believed that many of these cracks are caused by expanding rust resulting from moisture between riveted members, the exact cause has not been identified. Cracks have appeared on the exterior side walls near the floor and on the roof near the side walls.

Request for Variance: Not Granted At this time, the vendor’s request for variance is not granted by the Government. The Government has strategically and intentionally applied higher factors of safety to the car body structure and has permitted standard railroad items for the reasons discussed above. Though requirements of WC00015032 Rev A may appear inflated, there is evidence that portions of the First-Generation D5 Railcar were designed to requirements greater than the minimum AAR requirements. The Government acknowledges that additional design challenges may result from exceeding the minimum AAR requirements.

Question 2:

The RFP clearly states that the Contractor shall provide and maintain a quality management system that, as a minimum, adheres to the requirements of AAR/M-1003 Quality Management Systems and supplemental requirements imposed by this contract. Will NAVSEA consider a proposal from a qualified fabrication company that holds various Quality Management Systems including ISO 9002 Compliant, AS9100 Compliant, ASME-NQA- 1 and AISC, that is not qualified under this AAR/M-1003 program, but is in the process of applying for and obtaining this certification?

Question 3:

Under Past Performance Standard 1: It states that the offeror shall identify examples of railcars that were fabricated within the last 10 years in the proposed manufacturing facility, having the AAR S-2034 Car Builder Certification or Conditional Certification and the AAR/M-1003 Quality Assurance Certification, Proof of Certifications shall be provided with the proposal. Again, as we do not have the AAR/M-1003 Quality Assurance Certification or the AAR S-2034 Car Building Certifications to present with our proposal will NAVSEA consider a proposal without these certifications knowing that we are in the process of obtaining them and can provide comparable past performances under other Quality Assurance programs?

Government Response 2 & 3:

The solicitation requires that the facility that manufactures the first article and production railcars have an AAR M- 1003 Quality Assurance Certification as a Manufacturer of Freight Cars and an AAR S-2034 Car Builder Certification (certified or conditionally certified). Proposals that are submitted without these certifications may result in the evaluation of a deficiency within the proposal. Proposal deficiencies that cannot be corrected may be determined ineligible for award.

Question 4:

If NAVSEA will consider a company that is in the process of their certification for AAR/M-1003 and will accept past performances without the AAR S-2034 Certification, we would like to request an extension of time (four (4) weeks) to adequately prepare our technical and pricing proposals to offer the best value to the Government.

Government Response 4:

No extension will be granted.

(End of Summary of Changes)