C9 N4523A27Q0002 RFC Questions and Answers.pdf

RFC Answers – N4523A27Q0002 YT-811

Question 1: the cover page lists the quote deadline as "Wednesday, 23 October 2026, 2:00 PM PT," but 23 October falls on a Friday. Could you confirm which date and time you want quotes in by? We want to be sure we don't miss it.

Answer: The Solicitation due date has been extended to Monday, 02 November 2026 at 2:00PM Pacific Time.

Question 2: We ran into some broken formulas in Attachment 2 and want to make sure we hand you a clean price sheet. On the YT-811 tab, the TOTAL PROPOSED PRICE cell (R111) reads =#REF!+R107. On the Labor Hour Breakdown tab, several paragraph and title cells and the row-total column (AP77 onward) show #REF!. That tab is also missing a number of paragraphs that are on the YT-811 tab: 1.19, 1.22, 3.1.3, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.4.8–3.4.11, 3.5.1–3.7.1, 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 3.10.1, 3.10.2 and 3.11.1–3.13.5. Would you be able to send out a corrected worksheet? If that isn't practical, are you OK with offerors fixing the formulas and adding the missing rows themselves?

Answer: There is a revised Attachment 2, Price Worksheet. Only cells in yellow should be filled out.

Question 3 : Could you help us understand how you'd like the LOE2C growth line handled? It's pre-filled at 4,713 MH and $35,970.34 material, but the LOE column totals come out to 9,426 MH and $71,940.68, which looks like it's being counted twice. There's also a "Total Option Items (O)" block, and we didn't see any option CLINs in the RFQ. Our read is: (a) LOE2C should count once in the total price; (b) we apply our proposed fringe, overhead, G&A and profit to the 4,713 MH, and treat the $35,970.34 material the same as base-work material; (c) the Option Items block can be ignored. Is that right?

Answer: The excel sheet looks like it is calculating correctly. The excel is showing only one line item for Level of Effort (LOE) to Completion – Growth, and one line item right below for Column Totals. Man Hours is for LOE2C is capped at 4,713 Labor Hours and $35,970.34 Material Price. It does not appear that it is being counted twice. There is no option CLINS for this requirement. Please note that there are hidden rows in this excel sheet that are not applicable to this requirement and are not being used.

Question 4: A few SOW paragraphs have real cost behind them but no line on Attachment 2:

1.13 (Safety, including PE-designed scaffolding), 1.20 (Label Plates), 1.24 (PCP), 1.26 (OEM Technical Representative), 1.27 (Heavy Weather Plan), 3.3.1 (Rubber Fender Retention Removal) and 3.7.6 (System Operational Test). Where would you like us to carry these: in the related work-item line, in overhead, or on added lines? We'd like everyone pricing them the same way so the quotes are easy for you to compare.

Answer: Our 5-way breakdown does not list the above paragraphs in section one for cost as we usually attribute them to the line item in section 3 to which the work would be accomplished under. It is up to the Contractor to quote as they see fit.

Question 5: Small housekeeping item: Note C points to cells "E7, H7, L7, L7, O7, and R7," so L7 shows up twice and one of the six rates doesn't have a cell. Could you let us know which cells you'd like us to use for Labor, Fringe, Overhead, G&A, Profit and FCCOM?

Answer: This has been updated. Please look at Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices or Costs, Note C: Modification Rate Table.

Question 6: We'd like to plan our cash flow for the availability and want to be sure we understand the financing. The RFQ describes progress payments "based on percentage of work completion" under FAR 52.232-32, DFARS 252.232-7016 and FAR 52.232-29. As we read it, 52.232-32 is the Performance-Based Payments clause, and 52.232-16 (Progress Payments) isn't included. Could you help clarify: (a) which financing method you plan to use, and what the payment events or percent-complete basis will be; and (b) whether the 5% retention is held from each payment, and when it's released?

Answer: See solicitation instructions the Government will use 52.232-32 performance based payment based upon percentage of work completion. See solicitation Note E the retention rate will be ten percent (10%) for large business and five percent (5%) for small business that will be held until contract completion.

Question 7: We want to make sure we carry the right coverage while YT-811 is in our yard.

SOW 1.7.1 mentions "insurance bonds necessary for the period that the vessel is located at the Contractor's facility," but we didn't find an insurance clause or limits in the RFQ. Could you let us know: (a) which coverages and minimum limits you expect, such as Ship Repairer's Legal Liability, general liability, USL&H/Jones Act and pollution; (b) whether SRLL should cover the full $14,000,000 vessel value listed in Attachment 10; and (c) whether a performance and/or payment bond is required?

Answer: Refer to DFARS 252.217-7012 (Liability and Insurance), which has been incorporated into the solicitation via Amendment [0001]. For Commercial Contract Financing Security: Refer to FAR 32.202-4 (Security for Government Financing). If contract financing is requested, adequate security must be provided in accordance with the clause.

Question 8: [RFQ Section M – Technical Factor 3; SOW 3.1]

We're looking at the best way to dock YT-811 and want to make sure our approach works for you on Technical Factor 3. Could you help us with a few points: (a) Would it be acceptable for us, as prime, to use a drydock or lift owned by another Puget Sound facility under a lease or subcontract, with our crews doing the repair work? If so, what would you like to see in our submittal, and would the GDO survey that facility? (b) Would dock or lift rental count as subcontracted services under FAR 52.219-14? (c) Are methods other than a floating or graving dock acceptable, such as a marine railway, vertical lift, or travel lift with stands? SOW 3.1 is written around flooding a dry dock, so we want to check before we commit to an approach.

Answer: See paragraph 3.1.2.3.

Question 9: [RFQ – Current MSRA or ABR] The RFQ says that if an offeror doesn't hold a current ABR or MSRA, it can provide proof that it has applied. Would you consider removing the ABR/MSRA requirement for this effort, or at least confirming that proof of a submitted application fully meets it? Specifically, we'd like to know that award and performance can go ahead even if the ABR hasn't been issued by the 2 March 2027 start date. Your answer helps us decide how to team and plan for this job.

Answer: The ABR/MSRA requirement will not be removed. Provide proof of application submission and receipt. Award and performance can progress forward based on proof of submission and receipt.

Question 10: [RFQ Section J; Exhibit A; CLIN 0002] Could you confirm that CLIN 0002 (CDRLs and DIDs) is Not Separately Priced? We didn't see a line for it on Attachment 2. We also noticed a few things in the SOW Data Submission List. The titles for CDRLs A041 and A042 look swapped against paragraphs 3.6.5.4.1 and 3.6.5.4.2. A060 and A061 are skipped. A062 (Heavy Weather Plan) is due "Award +5 Days," while SOW 1.27 says the plan is due 15 days before the availability starts. Which due date should we plan to?

Answer: CDRL A041 for 3.6.5.4.1, replace “smaller” with “larger”. CDRL A042 3.6.5.4.2, replace “larger” with “smaller”. Confirmed A060 and A061 are skipped. For A062, adhere to “Award + 5 Days” as it also meets the requirement of 15 days before the availability starts.

CDRLs and DIDs are not separately priced as indicated in the solicitation.

Question 11: [RFQ – SOW References Information] The RFQ mentions that offerors can ask for access to the picture files. We'd really appreciate access to the YT-811 photos and any recent condition reports you can share, such as the last docking report, hull UT, tank inspections and Schottel service records. Having them helps us price closer to the real condition of the boat and cuts down on surprises for both of us.

Answer: The vessel is just over five years since it was delivered. There are no pre-delivery photos, condition reports, docking reports, hull UT, tank inspections or Schottel service records.

This will be the first time this vessel will be dry docked since being put in service. Opportunity for photos was provided during the ship check on 10/7/26.

Question 12: [SOW cover sheet] Just making sure we're working from the right version of the SOW. The cover sheet shows "N4523A26XXXXX," "Version: TWO, September 16, 2026," plus "Mar 25" and "ERRATA

One: 24 June 2008." Can you confirm that Version Two dated 16 September 2026 is current and complete, and that no errata apply?

Answer: There is an updated SOW Errata 1 dated 10/14/2026. The Cover sheet now reflects the solicitation number.

Question 13: [SOW] SOW 3.13.2 calls for a baseline sea trial "prior to docking the vessel," with our people aboard.

Could you help us understand where and when that happens: in Bremerton before the transit, or in local waters near our yard after delivery? Who provides the operating crew and fuel? Should we plan on our machinist, pipefitter and electrician traveling to Bremerton?

Answer: Previous baseline sea trials have taken place on Lake Union and/or Lake Washington.

Boarding the vessel at Naval Base Kitsap is also an option. If choosing to board vessel at Naval Base Kitsap, be aware of security processes and requirement to have DBIDS access to the base.

Government provides operating crew and fuel. If transiting from Bremerton, your machinist, pipefitter and electrician would need to be onboard. Also, a representative authorized to acknowledge and record discrepancies.

Question 14: [SOW] Two questions on yard services. (a) SOW 1.7.2 asks for separately metered 480V/200A shore power for the whole availability, including time in the dock. Should the metered power be included in our fixed price, or will it be reimbursed off the meter? (b) SOW 1.8.5 asks us to hold 70–75°F onboard in freezing weather. Since 1.7.5 says Government personnel run the ship's equipment, would you like that done with the ship's own heat on shore power, or should we plan on temporary heat?

Answer: (a) Include metered power in your fixed price. (b) Plan on temporary heat as Government personnel will not be available 24/7.

Question 15: We want to price waste handling fairly and in the format you need. (a) SOW 1.17.1 asks for a "5-way breakdown of the anticipated costs" for waste management. Could you tell us what the five categories are and where you'd like the breakdown in our quote? Attachment 2 has only a single 1.17 line. (b) The waste table estimates 144,000 lb of blast media and paint chips contaminated with heavy metals. Do you have any lab data or coating history for the existing hull, deck and deckhouse coatings (system, manufacturer, date applied)? If testing shows the waste is non-hazardous, or a lot more than estimated, how would you like us to handle the price difference?

Answer: The “5” categories are title, prime, subcontractor, ODC and total with Fringe/OVHD/G&A/Profit and FCCOM. The Prime and subcontractor should be further divided into Man Hours (M/H), material cost and total. The ODC should have the Cost and any associated travel. All material waste requires testing IAW SOW PP 1.17.1/2/3/4. PP 1.17.1 specifically addresses that all the risks for pricing is on the KTR. You will have to assess that and price accordingly.

Question 16: [SOW] SOW 1.27 calls for mooring and docking calculations per 845-6686999 and DDS 582-1, using UFC 4-159-03. We didn't find 845-6686999 or DDS 582-1 in the reference package. Could you send them over? Any loading conditions and windage or lateral-area data you have for YT-811 would also help our naval architect a lot.

Answer: References listed in 1.27 to be provided separately.

Question 17: [SOW – Consolidated List of References] A few documents referenced in the SOW didn't make it into the Attachment 6 package. Could you send them via DoD SAFE? (1) QA_Appendix_Forms_C101_2023_Contractors.pdf (preservation Appendices 1–8, SOW 1.16.1.1); (2) drawings 8953217 and 8953218 (AVR installation, 3.10.3); (3) drawing 8774035 Rev 2, drawing 73500 Rev 11, the Twin Disc MCS Owner's Manual, and the "attached test plates" (Twin Disc coolers, 3.7.5); (4) S9086-HP-STM- 010/CH 245 and S9245-AR-TSM-010 (propellers, 3.7.4); (5) 845-6686999 (1.27); (6) the NAVSEA 9997/1–5 forms (3.1.13). Without these we'd be guessing on several items.

Answer: Drawings and references to be sent separately. “Attached test plates” are physically attached to the twin disc coolers and call out the test pressures. Current tug project had test pressures of 230 psi hydrostatically and 130 psi air pressure.

Question 18: [SOW] We found three different Schottel User Manual numbers in the SOW: Reference 15 "1235751 Ver 1.1," paragraph 3.7 "1241871 Ver 1.0," and paragraph 3.7.1 "1246729 V1.0." The manual in the package (file 2740335.pdf) is User Manual 1246729 Version 1.0 for SRP 340 FP, series SRP- 121259/121260. Can you confirm that's the one we should use for all of section 3.7? We want our Schottel rep quoting against the right document.

Answer: Refer to paragraph 3.7.1, use reference listed. Please reference Attachment 1 Statement of Work Errata 1 for corrections to paragraph(s) and REF table.

Question 19: [SOW – Drawing list] We noticed a couple of drawing revision mismatches and want to use the right ones. (a) The drawing list shows 803-921865 Rev R, but paragraph 3.2.3.9 cites "803-0921865 Rev T," and the package has Rev T. (b) The list shows General Arrangement 8774054 Rev 5, but the SOW text (3.2.1, 3.2.4, 3.5.1, etc.) and the package use Rev 4. Which revisions should we follow? If Rev 5 of the GA applies, could you send it?

Answer: 803-921865 use REV T, For 8774054 use REV 4.

Question 20: [SOW / Drawings 8916456, 8916457; SOW 3.10.3] We noticed the ShipAlt drawings in the package were developed for YT-808. Drawing 8916456 (S/A YT-0104D) lists craft applicability YT-808. General Note 1 on 8916457 (S/A YT-0105D) says it came from a YT-808 craftcheck and that "an applicability craftcheck is required prior to its use on other craft." SOW 3.10.3 is also titled "YT-808-0109D." Could you help us understand: (a) has an applicability craftcheck been done on YT-811 for 0104D, 0105D, 0107D and 0109D? (b) If not, who would you like to do it? (c) If YT-811 turns out to differ from YT- 808, can we agree up front that the extra routing or engineering would be handled as growth? We want to avoid surprises on either side.

Answer: (a) Craftcheck has been completed and is applicable to YT-811. (c) If it differs from YT-808 it will be considered as growth.

Question 21: [SOW] SOW 1.2 includes "Overhaul Mast hydraulic ram, replace pins and bushings," but we couldn't find a matching Section 3 paragraph or a line on Attachment 2. Is the mast ram overhaul meant to be in scope? If it is, could you share what you have on it, such as the cylinder make and model, seal kit, pin and bushing material and sizes, and how you'd like it tested? That way we can price it properly instead of guessing.

Answer: ERRATA 1 will delete this in 1.2.

Question 22: [SOW] SOW 1.2 mentions "Repair hull and winch valves," but Section 3 only covers the sea valves in Table 4 (3.11.3) and the winch cooling piping mod (3.11.2). Could you confirm there aren't any winch hydraulic or control valve repairs intended beyond those?

Answer: No winch hydraulic or control valve repairs beyond what is written in the SOW.

Question 23: [SOW] Two scope items we want to get right. (a) SOW 1.2 lists non-skid on the "main deck, 1st deck, and 2nd deck," but Section 3 covers only the main deck (3.5.1, including the upper fore deck, bridgewing access decks and athwartship passageway) and the bridge deck (3.6.2). Could you tell us which areas "1st deck" and "2nd deck" refer to on GA 8774054, and confirm that the full non-skid scope is 3.5.1 plus 3.6.2? (b) SOW 1.2 says "Test and preserve CHT, ballast, potable water, fuel oil, waste oil and day tanks," but section 3.4 has no tank coating requirement, only clean, VT, air test and close-out. Are tank interiors meant to be recoated? This one makes a big difference to the price.

Answer: Full non-skid scope is 3.5.1 plus 3.6.2.

Question 24: [SOW] Could you confirm you're looking for a full SSPC-SP10 blast down to bare steel on the underwater hull, freeboard, bulwarks, main and bridge decks, and deckhouse exterior, and not spot blasting, given the boat is only about 4 years old? It would also really help if you could share your estimated square footage for each of these, so everyone is pricing off the same numbers: underwater body (keel to top of boot-top); boot-top to bulwark top; inboard bulwark;

main deck non-skid; bridge deck non-skid; deckhouse and wheelhouse exterior.

Answer: Full SSPC-SP10 per the SOW as written.

Question 25: [SOW] For the freeboard (3.2.4.3) and deckhouse (3.6.1.3), the SOW only calls out the topcoat (MIL- PRF-24635 Type V or VI, Grade B). Is there a particular primer and intermediate coat, with DFTs, that you'd like? Or is a 12-year system built up under that topcoat per the manufacturer's data sheet OK with you? Also, paragraph 3.6.1 calls for "(V) WET FILM THICKNESS AF COATS," but there's no antifouling on the deckhouse. We're assuming that's a carry-over typo. Is that right?

Answer: Primer, intermediate coat and topcoat should all be from the same manufacturer and meet MIL-PRF-24635 Type V or VI, Grade B specifications. No antifouling coat on deckhouse.

Question 26: [SOW]

Paragraph 3.2.4 includes blasting and coating the anchor, anchor chain and fasteners. Could you let us know the chain size and how much of it you'd like ranged out and coated? Can you also confirm that no chain gauging or chain/anchor replacement is expected?

Answer: No anchor or chain replacement expected.

Question 27: [SOW] A few questions on the deckhouse preservation (3.6.1). (a) Does it include the wheelhouse top and the lowering mast itself, or just the mast platform? (b) Would you like windows, doors, hatches, lights, antennas and other outfit removed and reinstalled, or masked in place? (c) Roughly how many removable ladders, stanchions and handrails are there to pull and blast?

Answer: The SOW states what is to be accomplished, it does not direct the way that is to be accomplished. Use accompanying drawings to determine number of ladders, stanchions and handrails.

Question 28: [SOW] Paragraph 3.6.1.2.2 calls for replacing "all placards and labels on main, 1st and 2nd decks." Do you have a list or rough count? Could you also confirm the material: CRES Metal-Photo per 1.20 for weather-exposed labels, and whatever you prefer for interior ones? If placards inside the deckhouse are included, please let us know.

Answer: Ship check on 10/7/26 was the opportune time to gather the information regarding label plates on the first and second decks. Label plates to be replaced are exterior only.

Question 29: [SOW] Minor one: paragraphs 3.6.2.3–3.6.2.5 (bridge deck non-skid) refer to compatibility with "3.6.3.3, 3.6.3.4 and 3.6.3.5," which are the expansion joint paragraphs. Paragraph 3.6.2.5 also says "main deck surfaces." We're reading these as 3.6.2.3–3.6.2.5 and "bridge deck." Is that right?

Answer: The parent paragraph is 3.6.2 Bridge Deck Non-Skid Repair.

Question 30: [SOW / SK10901] We found two different fastener materials for the fenders. Paragraph 3.2.2.1 says "new galvanized steel fasteners in accordance with drawing SK10901," and 3.2.2.3 says "new CRES 316 rubber fender fasteners." Which would you like us to use for the fender fasteners and the retention mod? Could you also share the type, size and weight of the bow and stern fenders? And if we find damaged fender rubber when we pull them, can we treat replacement as growth?

Answer: See drawing SK10901, ERRATA will strike CRES 316. There are drawings included that specify the fender material. Damaged fenders will be addressed as growth.

Question 31: [SOW] For the bow and stern fender straps (3.3.3 and 3.3.4), we didn't see a material, size or quantity.

Do you have those? If not, is it OK if we template off the existing straps and match the existing material?

Answer: See drawing 8774034 Rev 1.

Question 32: [SOW] On the zinc anodes, paragraphs 3.2.3.1–3.2.3.6 say "conforming to the requirements" but don't name a spec. Which spec would you like us to buy to (e.g., MIL-DTL-18001, alloy, and type/weight per anode)? Are the hull, sea chest and ballast tank anodes bolt-on or weld-on? For the 18 Z-drive housing anodes in 3.2.3.7 ("equal to SCHOTTEL ProAnode"), are those zinc or aluminum, and do you need genuine Schottel parts?

Answer: See drawing 8774049 Rev 1. Genuine Schottel parts not required, just equal in performance.

Question 33: [SOW] On the UT work (3.2.6: 700 + 100 sites; 3.5.3: 75 + 20 sites): (a) since the UT happens after the first preservation coat, can you confirm echo-through or coating-compensated readings are acceptable? (b) When do you expect to designate the extra 100 hull sites and 20 deck sites? We'd like to have them early enough that topcoating isn't held up.

Answer: Contact your NACE 3 qualified coating professional. Additional hull and deck sites will be designated at the SUPERVISOR’s discretion.

Question 34: [SOW] Paragraph 3.4.2.2 mentions off-loading about 6,000 gallons of diesel "from the Fuel Day Tanks," but Table 2 also includes storage tanks 7P, 7S and 8C. Could you help us with: (a) the total fuel we should plan to off-load and store across all tanks; (b) whether you'd like the fuel sampled before we off-load it; (c) if the stored fuel doesn't meet spec at re-load, how you'd like that handled, since its condition at delivery is outside our control?

Answer: 6,000 gallons is a cumulative total of all fuel oil tanks. Vessel will strive to have all fuel consolidated into the Day Tank. No need to sample prior to off-load. ERRATA to follow that will state replace with new, rather than storing.

Question 35: [SOW] Paragraph 3.4.6 says to "install access covers… template exact sizes." We're reading that as reinstalling the existing covers with new gaskets and fasteners, not making new covers. Is that right? Could you also give us the number of manholes on each tank in Table 2?

Answer: No new covers. Exact number of covers not known.

Question 36: [SOW] Is the "black water tank" in 3.4.1 the CHT Tank (No. 5S) in Table 2? The CHT and potable water tanks aren't in Table 2A (solvent clean), so could you also let us know what cleaning standard you'd like on the CHT tank, and what gasket material you'd like on its covers?

Answer: Yes No. 5S is the CHT tank. See 3.4.1 regarding development of PCP.

Question 37: [SOW / Schottel User Manual 1246729] SOW 3.7.1 invokes the 1- and 5-year interval inspection, repair and "equipment replacement" requirements of Schottel User Manual 1246729. This is the biggest open item for us, and our Schottel rep needs a defined task list to quote it. Could you help with: (a) which Chapter 9 maintenance tasks you consider 1-year and 5-year items, and confirmation that 10- and 15-year items, including a complete overhaul, are not included; (b) whether OEM parts, kits and consumables are on us, or whether any will be Government-furnished; (c) the commissioning date, operating hours, and the date and findings of the last Schottel annual service; and (d) confirmation that removing the underwater units or replacing the propeller shaft seals isn't expected?

Answer: See 3.7.1. and 4.0.

Question 38: [SOW] A few quantity questions on the Schottel systems. (a) Paragraph 3.7.2.3.2 says to replace "each flexible oil and hydraulic hose" on each planetary gear, lube oil and steering system, and 3.7.3.1 covers the "hydraulic pump flexible oil hose." Do you have a hose list like Table 3 (quantity, ID, length, end fittings), or is it OK if we template them? Do you want Schottel OEM hoses? (b) About how much CHEVRON MAROPA 150 should we plan to furnish in total, for the gearboxes, head tanks and SRP L.O. supply tank? (c) Which hydraulic system (3.7.3.5) and cooling system (3.7.3.6) do the tightness tests apply to? (d) If the oil analysis in 3.7.2.1 comes back out of limits, can we treat any follow-on work as growth?

Answer: (a) Template to existing meet specifications. (b) Proper research of the references should yield this information. (c) No systems are allowed to have leakage. (d) See 1.11.

Question 39: [SOW] A few questions on the propellers (3.7.4) so we can line up the right prop shop. (a) What removal method do you expect for the SRP 340 FP inside the nozzle, and do you want the Schottel tech rep there for it? (b) What balance standard or class should we use (e.g., ISO 484-2 class)? Do you want a pitch inspection, and are pitch or edge repairs part of the base scope? (c) Does S9245-AR-TSM-010 require a NAVSEA-certified propeller repair facility? (d) MIL-STD-271 has been superseded by T9074-AS-GIB-010/271. Which would you like us to follow for the liquid penetrant inspection?

Answer: Refer to paragraph as written.

Question 40: [SOW] For the Twin Disc transmission coolers (3.7.5), could you send drawings 8774035 Rev 2 and 73500 Rev 11, the Twin Disc MCS Owner's Manual, and the "attached test plates" with the hydro test pressure? Could you also confirm the cooler make, model and quantity (one per side), and that new filters are on us?

Answer: Owner’s Manual will confirm make and model. See 3.7.5, as written.

Question 41: [SOW] Paragraph 3.7.2.11 calls for the Z-drive hose operational test 5 working days before completion, while 3.6.5.5, 3.6.6.5 and 3.12.1.5 call for 2 working days. Is the 5-day timing for 3.7.2.11 intentional? We just want our schedule to match what you expect.

Answer: See SOW as written.

Question 42: [SOW / Drawing 8774050] Paragraph 3.1.3.2.1 gives a minimum keel-to-floor clearance (42 inches) for barges only. What keel clearance would you like us to plan for on YT-811, considering the room needed under the Schottel Z-drive units to pull the propellers (3.7.4) and do any lower-unit work? This drives our block heights, so it's important to get right.

Answer: See 3.1.2, submit earlier than later.

Question 43: [SOW] Paragraph 3.1.10 calls for shifting the vessel on the blocks so the block landing areas can be coated. If our docking setup lets us reach and coat every block area another way, for example by pulling and re-setting blocks or stands one at a time with the GDO's OK, would you still want a full shift? Avoiding a shift could save time and cost for both of us.

Answer: See 3.1.3 and submit for approval of your method by the GDO.

Question 44: [SOW / Att 10 GFP] We'd like to get the AVR installation (3.10.3) right and need some help. (a) Could you send drawings 8953217 and 8953218? (b) When and where will the GFP AVR (AVR-48WCSD150- MADS) be available: delivered to our yard, or picked up at PSNS? Should we plan on handling transport, receipt inspection and storage? (c) What are the AVR's dimensions and weight? Is there a removable plate, hatch or path into the engine room so we don't have to take it apart, or should we plan on an access cut? (d) What would you like done with the existing regulator: returned to you, or disposed of? (e) This work and its "foundation modifications" aren't listed in the Scope Overview in 1.2. Can you confirm they're in scope?

Answer: (a) Being provided via the ERRATA. (b) Delivered to your location. (c) Receipt inspection would be best practice, storage if not being immediately installed. (d) See note 11 in the drawings. (e) Section 3 takes precedence over 1.2. Yes, in scope.

Question 45: [SOW / Att 10 GFP] SOW 4.1 lists 5 EA "Cathelco Anode CA091157." Attachment 10 lists three part numbers:

CA091157FEA (2 EA), CA091157MGA (2 EA) and CA091157MGB (1 EA). Could you tell us where each one goes, e.g. which sea chests? Paragraph 3.10.1 calls these "Hull/Engine Room Bilge Impressed Anode" repairs, but drawing CA91157 is the Cathelco Marine Growth Prevention System. Can you confirm this is the MGPS anode replacement? Also, are the gaskets Government- or contractor-furnished, and when should we expect the GFP?

Answer: Attachment 10 consists of 2, 2, and 1 for a total of 5. Gaskets come with each. See 3.10.1.1 Question 46: [SOW] For the mast and deckhouse lighting (3.10.2), what cable type would you like for the new wiring:

MIL-DTL-24643/24640 Navy cable or commercial marine cable? Could you also give us the size, the approximate run lengths, and the number of navigation lights? Is the scope just the nav lights and the 2 mast floodlights, plus the new NEMA 4 box? And would you like new deck penetrations or stuffing tubes at the mast base?

Answer: 3.10.2 template to existing. See drawings and 3.10.2 for details. See 1.11.

Question 47: [SOW / Drawings 8916456, 8916457] Two questions on the ShipAlt piping. (a) SOW 3.11.2 is titled "Winch Control Piping Modification (YT-0104D)," but drawing 8916456 is "Winch Cooling Piping Mods." We're assuming the drawing defines the work. Is that right? (b) Can you confirm that everything shown as IAF on 8916456, 8916457 and 8916611 is on us, including hangers and supports (8916457 General Note 9)? Is any ShipAlt kit material coming from the Government?

Answer: Drawing defines the work. (b) No ShipAlt material provided by the Government.

Question 48: [SOW] We'd like to price the sea valves (3.11.3, Table 4) accurately. Could you help with: (a) the body and seat test pressures are listed at 5 PSIG, and some valves show "-". Are those pressures right, and which valves need a shop test? (b) For the 3-inch-and-smaller valves we're replacing, do the new valves need to match the existing face-to-face and body material (e.g., bronze), and do they need ABS or NAVSEA approval? (c) For the valves over 3 inches, where would you like us to draw the line between base work (lapping, packing, gaskets) and growth (machining, new discs or stems, weld repair)? (d) For valve 529.044 (rope stores bilge valve with reach rod), should we just disconnect and reconnect the reach rod, or plan to repair or replace it?

Answer: (a) “-“ will be a blue check. (b) See 3.11.3.2 (c) See 3.11.3.5 (d) See 3.11.3.7 Question 49: [SOW] Table 3 shows the brow hoses with metric-thread straight swivel fittings, and 3.6.5, 3.6.6 and

3.12.1 call for replacing "100 percent of associated CRES fittings." If the existing fittings or adapters turn out to be plated carbon steel, would you like them upgraded to CRES, and should CRES adapters go on carbon steel ports? Also, the nylon UV/abrasion sleeves are called out in

3.6.5.1.1 and 3.12.1.2.1 but not for the mast hoses (3.6.6). Should the mast hoses go without them?

Answer: See SOW as written.

Question 50: [SOW] SOW 1.7.5 and 3.13.1 say Government personnel will run all shipboard equipment. Will the crew be able to come to our yard on 3 workdays' notice for equipment operation and tests during the availability? Can you also confirm we're not expected to provide fuel, lube or other consumables for dock and sea trials beyond the specified work?

Answer: See 1.23.

Question 51: The current deadline for submissions is “Wednesday, 23 October 2026, 2:00PM Pacific Time (PT)”. We request an extension to Friday, 30 October 2026 at 2pm PT.

Answer: The Solicitation will be extended to Friday. 30 October 2026 at 2PM PT.

Question 52: Can the Navy extend the Bid Due Date 7 calendar days to November 2nd?

Answer: The Solicitation due date has been extended to Monday, 02 November 2026 at 2:00PM Pacific Time.