B08.03 Answers to Questions - PANHEC-26-P-0000-026814 Hull Lines - dated 2026.08.28.docx

CUI

Question 1: Hull Count Discrepancy

Reference: PWS Page 3; Pricing Schedule (CLINs 1001–1007)

Question: PWS Page 3 states "four (4) to six (7) hulls," while the pricing schedule lists seven optional hulls (CLINs 1001–1007). Please confirm that seven (7) optional hulls is the intended total.

Answer 1: Page 6 states four (4) to six (7). The “(7)” is a typo. PWS page 6 lists the options. The correct total is seven (7). The CSS and PWS will be amended and posted as attachments with the answers to these questions.

Question 2: Performance Period Discrepancy

Reference: PWS (Passenger Hull Task)

Question: The PWS requires the passenger hull task within "eighty (80) calendar days." Please clarify whether the required delivery timeframe is 70 or 80 calendar days.

Answer 2: This is another typo in the PWS.

Question 3: Travel and ODC Pricing Structure

Reference: PWS; Pricing Schedule

Question: The PWS requests reimbursable travel and data acquisition estimates, but the pricing table lacks corresponding line items. Where should offerors account for these costs, and will the Government add dedicated Travel/ODC CLINs?

Answer 3: If travel or ODCs are needed, the offeror can add to the table and propose.

Question 4: Concurrent vs. Consecutive Option Execution

Reference: Pricing Schedule (CLINs 1001–1007)

Question: If multiple optional hull CLINs (1001–1007) are exercised simultaneously, will their periods of performance run concurrently or consecutively?

Answer 4: Options may or may not be exercised concurrently.

Question 5: Baseline Hull Library Size and Data Format

Reference: PWS (Hull Library)

Question: Please quantify the current size of the baseline hull library (number of vessels, hulls, analyses, etc.) and describe the format and fidelity of existing geometry data. Specifically, are hulls stored as usable digital 3D geometry/offsets, or should offerors budget effort to digitize, clean, or reconstruct legacy lines plans?

Answer 5: The current hull lines library comprises approximately 140 largely completed hulls spread across the major or primary Stat5 code types of the world fleet. Existing hull profiles are in digital geometry format. The fidelity for geometry resolution stationing requires a minimum of 20 stations or segments to work with CADET itself. Stations are defined as a measure of segment length along the length of the hull generally corresponding to the length between perpendiculars. As an example, for a vessel with an 800-foot length between perpendiculars (LBP) cross-sections for geometry would need to be provided every twenty feet lengthwise corresponding to the LBP. In terms of other applications such as the powering, fuel consumption and related emissions handling work hull geometry requirements require notably greater resolution for more accurate hydraulic resistance testing or benchmarking (required as a part of the work) for a given hull form, with higher resolution rendering greater accuracy in formulation of associated modeling or numerical relationships and estimates. In this regard the resolution of geometry is measurably greater than what is required for CADET alone with the offeror invited to make proposal for the maximum resolution possible or than can be supported compatible with best practice for powering and fuel consumptive modeling for credible estimates respective to required hydraulic resistance or powering testing or measurement. Efforts should be formulated in consideration to capacity for derived numerical relationships to account for both variability in immersed transit draft and transit speed. Accordingly, in this context, the applications for powering and corresponding fuel consumption are the driver for hull geometry resolution with requirements for resolution that would correspond to typical naval architecture practice for design sufficient to arrive at a preliminary design for preconstruction testing or assessment. Because of the dynamics of changing vessel design and fit out, any potential offeror should prudently consider budgeting of technical time and cost to digitize, clean, reconstruct, and possibly update or even fully redesign legacy lines plans to the extent that could be necessary especially given many modern hull forms may be measurably different respective to DWT for dimensions, curvature or contour, and distribution of mass and balance (critical for evaluating dynamic motion response).from previous designs and with the PWS requiring the addition of new hulls which are to be reflective of changes or type and size class additions to the world fleet. Further in this regard, USACE-IWR will not solely dictate the selection of new hulls to be added or update or redesign of hulls to be undertaken but will consult with the contractor based on the contractor’s efforts to undertake an independent stratified statistical evaluation of both the ocean-going deep-draft world fleet and the respective subset of the world fleet that currently supports (and foreseeably will support) trade and maritime transport for the full array of deep-draft coastal ports of the United States. This will then be compared to the array of existing hulls to determine requirements for additions and updates. Due to some of the specifications being sensitive, where redesign is applicable to accomplish valid update related specifications may not be fully releasable on prior hulls for the offeror to build on or amend and therefore the offeror should be prepared to provide or furnish new hull forms (or in limited cases build or amend partial forms as may be releasable or) as necessary. Alternatively, any data, information, or specifications that can or is shared and is considered sensitive will be subject to non-disclosure and non-alternative or derivative use for any other purpose other than for USACE-IWR and the associated work described via the performance work statement (PWS). In this regard and to minimize costs it is emphasized that any offeror, to the extent that it can or deemed applicable, should employ any already-compiled data, specifications or in-house hull deigns for hull forms as available and provide necessary data and information sufficient to technical need of the PWS and respective to each according to vessel type, DWT class or size, dimensions, resolution or extent of detail for geometry as well as parameters for vertical and horizontal distribution of mass above and below the waterline along with other parameters such as metacentric height and gyrational loci and other parameters applicable to evaluation of vessel motion for sea state and protected water stability and under what physical or climatic conditions it may vary. In consideration of the preceding any and all data, information, and specification assembled or developed for efforts associated with the PWS shall become property of USACE-IWR with perpetual rights for analytical use. However, any such data, information, and specifications that the contractor provides for which reasonable case can be substantiated is sensitive or proprietary, such products with be designated for protection from public disclosure or further distribution to extent allowable under applicable Federal law.

Question 6: Legacy Software Tech Stacks & Development Environments

Reference: PWS (CADET, Hull Lines Flexibility Program, and Legacy Applications)

Question: What programming languages, frameworks, development environments, and compiler versions were used to develop the legacy applications (including the Hull Lines Flexibility Program), and what specific toolchains are required to modify and recompile them?

Answer 6: See response to question 7 immediately following.

Question 7: Comprehensive GFI and Source Code Delivery

Reference: PWS (Government-Furnished Information)

Question: Will the Government provide uncompiled source code, architecture documentation, build instructions, user guides, prior validation reports, and historical project files as Government-Furnished Information (GFI) upon award?

Answer 7: To the extent possible but in many circumstances likely not, especially where sensitivity of data, information and specifications precludes such disclosure. Some or many of the applications do not have complete user guides available to-date with expertise of use based on respective technical knowledge and experience supported by integrated help menus or text. It is the intent to develop or complete user guides at a later time as the applications approach or achieve sufficient maturity in development.

In overview, the subject applications are generally written in C++ compilation with some sub-routines written in other programs such as python, javascript, and pascal as may be advantageous or appropriate. Subject applications are primarily PC-based but will eventually reside within a cloud environment and need to transferrable as such with a minimum of legacy issues. In regards to general discussion and application of technical stack structure or approach, the work requires careful consideration of balance where possible for register-based (to minimize time or speed for execution) versus stack-based required for common-use of higher level languages. Response and execution time for most of the applications under many circumstances can be critical because of the variability of alternatives or alternative conditions that may need to be analyzed. Some applications like the emissions model have also in the past been written in a spreadsheet environment as a parallel or quick-check\quick use application and though not a specification within the PWS as set forth any potential offeror should lend some consideration for like compatibility for later conversion should it potentially be requested as modification to the PWS as a later time. The source code for CADET is sensitive and will not be provided. In regards to CADET, the critical requirement is that the hull parameters meet the requirements for inputs of response and stability for assessment of vessel motion in offshore and open ocean environments in a context that each profile simply meets the intake specifications so it can simply be uploaded into CADET for use application and these specific requirements will provided by the Government.

Question 8: Software Access Method

Reference: PWS (GFI & Data Access)

Question: How will the contractor access the legacy software and hull library? Will these be delivered as GFI for local installation at the contractor facility, or hosted via a Government environment/file-sharing platform (e.g., SharePoint, Teams, DoD SAFE)?

Answer 8: To the extent the data, information, and specifications can be provided (refer to response 5 for additional discussion) the Government may use a combination of the methods denoted in the question as forwarded, either as an installation or access hosted by the Government but more likely direct provision to the contractor via some secure mechanism such as DoD safe or the like thereof. While technical discussions or related exchange may be held by telephone or some format support for web meetings (such as Teams, etc.) detail of technical data, information or specifications will not be conveyed methods such SharePoint or Teams for concerns of security or containment. Any data, specifications, information, or functional utilities or applications provided by the Government in addition to such assembled or developed for the Government under the associated PWS shall remain or become the property of the Government with rights for perpetual ownership and use and will, upon request by or from the Government, be returned and purged from possession or ability of retention or access by the contractor (see response 5 for additional related discussion).

Question 9: Known Software Deficiencies and Bug Tracking

Reference: PWS (Legacy Applications)

Question: Are there known defects, bug backlogs, enhancement requests, or pending corrective actions for CADET, the Hull Lines Flexibility Program, the Powering & Emissions Model, Ballast Templates, or the Wake Screening Application that will be provided at award?

Answer 9: The subject indicated applications are still in process of technical development but known defects, backlogs for fixes etc. are considered largely complete for work undertaken to-date though some may still exist as both applied use or limited testing is conducted on an ongoing basis. However, it should be known that experience as shown that based on implementation of past incremental additions of hulls many of the numerical relationships for input to applications have necessitated complete or near complete recompilation or reformulation depending on applicable evolution or updates to engine powering and emissions technology, related mechanical efficiencies, and adjustments or refinements to hull form and related impacts to hydraulic resistance and mass distribution, generally necessitating requisite measurable time and resources to viably update numerical relationships for input to applications. As an example, when the initial library had relatively few or measurably fewer hulls, a singular or a limited number of equations may have provided acceptable fits for relationships respective to a given vessel type but as the library has grown in size, application inputs have come to require multiple equations or multi-variate solutions respective to just a single vessel type depending on dimensional size, capacity, curvature or contour, powering and other specifications. It is expected this complexity will increase with additional hull profiles assembled and sufficient allowances for time and resources should be taken into consideration for execution of related technical work.

Question 10: Scaling Test Matrix & Database Scope

Reference: PWS (Single- and Multi-Variable Scaling Tests)

Question: Regarding scaling tests across the baseline hulls: (a) What is the required magnitude and number of scaling increments for length, breadth, and draft variations?

(b) Should the final database deliverable contain all intermediate test iteration profiles, or only the final, validated scaled profiles?

Answer 10: For response to question (a) see response to question 5 preceding. For response to (b), all intermediate and test iteration profiles and related work should be provided in addition to final or validated scale profiles where applicable as this may be of value as an input to the knowledge base for any future development of hull lines work should it be undertaken.

To further answer in respect to (a) the scaling and test matrix across variations for given hull configurations or profiles will include evaluation of immersed transit draft ranging from minimum drafts for powered transit up through immersion to maximum summer loadline draft. Correspondingly this may include ballasted conditions for vessel types such as tankers and bulk carriers and minimum threshold transit drafts applicable to minimally laden conditions for containerized carriers or other vessels that are seldom fully devoid of some level of cargo lading. The described variability in prime mover operation or speed cross-tested against immersion will be for operation in the equivalent of an idling (or at-the-dock) state and extending to conditions for speeds ranging from that considered minimally necessary for handling in protected waters (i.e., for other than a dead move or maneuver) up through open-ocean transit at service speed under typical or moderated sea-state conditions. Increments for immersed draft would be to the nearest foot with relationships assembled or developed to reasonably interpolate to the nearest tenth of a foot, with powering\fuel consumptive and speed relationships developed to the nearest knot and capability to reasonably interpolate to the nearest tenth of a knot. Alternatively stated capabilities should be for example to allow evaluation for a given hull to accommodate a reasonable input for immersed draft to the nearest tenth of a foot and speed to the nearest tenth of a knot.