RFI Homeland Security Cutter Light Icebreaker (HSC-L).pdf

Page | 1

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Homeland Security Cutter – Light Icebreaker (HSC-L)

RFI # 70Z02326IHSCL1GHT

1.0 NOTICE / DISCLAIMER

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for information and planning purposes only in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10 (Market Research).

This RFI does not constitute a solicitation, Request for Proposal (RFP), or a commitment by the Government to issue a solicitation in the future. The Government will not reimburse respondents for any costs associated with responding to this RFI.

Participation in this RFI is voluntary and will not affect a firm’s ability to participate in a future procurement.

2.0 PURPOSE

The USCG is conducting market research to support a potential future acquisition for the production-ready design, production engineering, construction, test, and delivery of up to seven Homeland Security Cutter – Light Icebreakers (HSC-L).

The USCG contemplates streamlined approaches related to contract design, reduced Government oversight, source selection, and contract requirements.

The Government has developed a Contract Design (CD) baseline, which is anticipated to be provided as part of the future solicitation. The selected contractor will be required to mature the contract design into a production-ready design and subsequently execute construction, integration, test, and delivery of the vessels.

This RFI seeks industry feedback to inform acquisition strategy and solicitation development, specifically regarding:

• Draft Statement of Work (SOW)

• Draft Specification (SPEC)

• Contract Design (CD) artifacts

• Production feasibility, industrial base considerations, and execution approach

• Program risks, including cost and schedule drivers

Page | 2

• Draft solicitation approach (Sections L and M), including a potential two-phase advisory down-select process

The objective is to identify risks, gaps, and opportunities to improve the solicitation and ensure realistic, executable requirements aligned with industrial base capabilities.

For planning purposes only, the Government anticipates a potential contract award in late 2026.

3.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

The HSC-L program supports recapitalization of the Coast Guard’s 65-foot WYTL fleet, which performs domestic icebreaking and aids to navigation missions in ice-affected regions.

To accelerate acquisition and reduce technical risk, the Government has developed a contract design baseline. This design establishes an initial technical foundation but is not production-ready and will require further development by the contractor.

The anticipated contract will require the contractor to:

• Mature the contract design into a production-ready design

• Perform production engineering and integration

• Execute vessel construction

• Conduct testing, trials, and delivery

The Government seeks industry input to validate design maturity, producibility, schedule realism, and industrial base readiness.

4.0 REQUESTED INFORMATION

4.1 Respondent Information

Provide the following:

• Company name and point of contact

• Organization type (e.g., shipyard, design agent, integrator)

• Business size and socioeconomic status

• Location of facilities

• Description of relevant capabilities and experience

Page | 3

• Anticipated role (e.g., prime contractor, subcontractor, teaming partner)

4.2 Draft Statement of Work (SOW)

Respondents are requested to review the draft SOW and provide feedback identifying:

• Inconsistencies or conflicting requirements

• Gaps or missing requirements necessary for execution

• Overly restrictive or burdensome requirements

• Risks to production, schedule, integration, or cost

• Areas requiring clarification

4.3 Contract Design (CD) Artifacts

The Government is providing a subset of the Contract Design artifacts planned to be included within the Request for Proposal.

Respondents are requested to identify:

• Design maturity concerns affecting producibility

• Conflicts, inconsistencies, or omissions within the design

• Features expected to drive cost or schedule risk

• Areas requiring refinement prior to production

• Recommendations to improve production efficiency and integration

Responses should reference specific drawings, artifacts, or SWBS elements where applicable.

4.4 Program and Technical Questions

1. What equipment or material should be identified as Long Lead Time Material (LLTM), and what are the estimated lead times?

2. What are the top three to five design features expected to drive the greatest production cost and schedule risk?

3. What experience does your organization have with noise and vibration standards, and what lessons learned can be shared?

Page | 4

4. Identify any emerging technologies, best practices, or modern design approaches that could improve capability, reliability, maintainability, or producibility.

4.5 Contracting and Execution Considerations

Provide feedback on:

• Recommendations for improving contract structure or execution strategy

• Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate and schedule, if available, for maturing the Contract Design to a production-ready design

• Provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost estimate and schedule, if available, for constructing the HSC-L vessels

4.6 DRAFT SOLICITATION APPROACH (SECTIONS L & M)

The Government is developing a solicitation anticipated to utilize:

• FAR Part 12 – Acquisition of Commercial Products and Commercial Services

• FAR Part 15 – Contracting by Negotiation

The Government is considering a two-phase advisory down-select process:

Phase I (Advisory Down-Select)

• Production Capability

• Past Performance

Phase II

• Design and Production Approach

• Price

As part of the advisory down-select process, the Government will advise Offerors as to whether their proposal is considered to be among the most highly rated, and therefore, whether they are considered a viable competitor for contract award at the conclusion of Phase I.

The Government is also considering the use of confidence-based evaluation methodologies for non-price factors.

Page | 5

Draft Sections L and M

Draft Sections L and M are provided for informational and planning purposes only to support industry understanding of the anticipated solicitation approach.

The Government is not seeking wholesale revisions to the evaluation structure, factor composition, or methodology. Feedback should be limited to:

• Clarity of instructions and evaluation criteria

• Feasibility and practicality of the proposed approach

• Potential impacts to competition or participation

The Government is not obligated to incorporate feedback received and reserves the right to revise any aspect of the solicitation, including evaluation factors, methodology, and procedures.

Industry Feedback Requested (Limited Scope)

Respondents may provide targeted feedback on:

• Clarity and understanding of the proposed evaluation structure

• Feasibility of the two-phase advisory down-select process

• Potential impacts to competition or participation

• Any aspects that may create unintended barriers to entry

Respondents are not requested to propose alternative evaluation structures, factor weighting, or rating methodologies.

5.0 RESPONSE FORMAT (REQUIRED)

Respondents shall submit responses in two parts:

(a) Narrative Response (PDF)

The narrative response shall:

• Summarize key findings and recommendations

• Highlight major risks, concerns, and opportunities

• Provide overall observations on:

Page | 6 o Draft Statement of Work (SOW) o Contract Design artifacts o Program execution considerations o Draft solicitation approach (Section 4.6)

Page Limit:

• 10 pages maximum (excluding cover page and appendices)

(b) Comment Matrix (Excel – Preferred)

Respondents shall provide a detailed comment matrix in Excel format, to enable the Government to incorporate feedback efficiently:

• Column A: SOW / Artifact / Section Reference

• Column B: Current Language or Element

• Column C: Suggested Change

• Column D: Rationale (Cost, Schedule, Risk, Production Impact)

(c) Submission Relationship

• The PDF narrative provides context and prioritization

• The Excel matrix provides traceable, actionable edits

Both are required.

6.0 DRAFT SOW AND CONTRACT DESIGN ARTIFACTS

6.1 Draft Statement of Work (SOW)

• Attachment J-1 – Draft Statement of Work

6.2 Draft Specification (SPEC)

• Attachment J-2 Draft Specification (HSC-L SPEC)

6.3 Contract Design Artifacts

Example artifacts (design outputs) may include:

Page | 7

1. Master Equipment List

2. Hull Lines and Offsets

3. Weight Estimate

4. Midship Section

5. Decks & Bulkheads

6. Shell Expansion

7. Deckhouse Structure

8. Machinery Arrangement

9. Electric Plant Load Analysis (EPLA)

10. Electrical Block Diagram

11. General Arrangement

7.0 RESPONSE SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Responses shall be submitted electronically to:

William “Bill” Lewis, Contracting Officer william.e.lewis3@uscg.mil

Christopher A. Wellons, Contract Specialist christopher.a.wellons@uscg.mil

Submission Requirements

• Subject Line:

HSC-L RFI Response – [Company Name] – RFI # 70Z02326IHSCL1GHT

• Format:

o PDF (narrative) o Excel (comment matrix)

• Due Date:

April 10, 2026, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time mailto:william.e.lewis3@uscg.mil mailto:christopher.a.wellons@uscg.mil

Page | 8

8.0 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

Submission of proprietary information is not requested.

If proprietary information is included:

• Clearly mark proprietary content

• Provide it in a separate appendix

The Government will protect such information to the extent permitted by law.