USCG_NAB_INDUSTRY_DAY_FINAL_22-23 OCT_v2025-10-21A.pdf

INDUSTRY DAY

U.S. COAST GUARD YARD

SHIPYARD INFRASTRUCTURE

OPTIMIZATION PROJECT (SIOP)

22-23 OCT 2025

AGENDA

1. INTRODUCTIONS & OPENING REMARKS

2. BACKGROUND

3. PROJECT SCOPE

4. RISKS/CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES

5. DESIGN BUILD TO BUDGET (DB2B)

6. CONSIDERATIONS

7. POTENTIAL TIMELINE

8. SITE WALK

9. ONE-ON-ONES

INTRODUCTIONS (USACE)

DIVISION NAME POSITION

Executive Office

COL. Francis B. Pera Commander and District Engineer

Programs & Project Management

Daria Vanliew Deputy District Engineer Programs & Project Management

Carrie Ozgar Program Manager

Christine Danaher Project Manager, Civil Project Management Branch

Engineering

Mary Foutz Chief, Engineering Division

Ben Fedor Chief, Civil Works Branch

Jason Woelper Chief, Civil Works Design Management Section

Mapa Mapagunarathne Design Manager, Civil Works Design Management Section

Henry Wassinger Structural Engineer

Contracting

Paula Beck Chief, Contracting Division

Tamara (Tammy) Bonomolo Chief, Contracting Alpha Branch; Contracting Officer

Samuel (Sam) Vido Contract Specialist

Construction Christy Pispitsos Deputy Chief of Construction

Matt Beck Chief, Quality Management Section

Planning Vanessa M. Campbell Biologist, NEPA

INTRODUCTIONS (COAST GUARD)

NAME POSITION

CAPT Emily Tharp Commanding Officer

CAPT Jay Kime Industrial Manager

CAPT John Adams Program Manager

Mr. John Bragaw Production Manager

LCDR Parker Bratman Facility Manager, Facilities Engineer

LT Charles (Charlie) McAllister Construction Chief, Facilities Engineer

Ms. Kristen Soper Communication Director

LT Tyler Clemmer Facility Asset Manager

BACKGROUND

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland has operated continuously since 1899 and is the sole USCG-operated shipyard in the United States.

The CG Yard is responsible for construction, repairs and renovation of vessels and various aids to navigation, and for the manufacturing of miscellaneous Coast Guard equipment.

To maintain these capabilities and advancements to their surface fleet, the CG Yard is planning for the arrival, and maintenance and repair of a new class of USCG Cutters (Offshore Patrol Cutter [OPC] and National Security Cutter [NSC]) at the Yard anticipated to arrive in 2030. CG has produced a comprehensive recap plan to align the Yard capabilities with the needs of the future fleet.

The arrival of the new Cutters will require greater water depths, and the CG Yard needs to update its waterfront infrastructure to be capable of supporting and dry-docking these new vessels.

CG has partnered with USACE Baltimore District to execute components of the CG Yard Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan (SIOP)

ONLINE PUBLISHED IMAGE

PROJECT 1: Dredging the Federal Channel, Turning Basin, Berth Areas

PROJECT 2: Waterfront Optimization

WATERFRONT OPTIMIZATION

Demolition and reconstruction of aging waterfront infrastructure critical to USCG operations:

• Pier 2 – Demolition & reconstruction

• Pier 3 – Demolition & reconstruction

• South Wharf – Demolition & reconstruction

• Building 68 – Demolition & site restoration

• Associated infrastructure work, utility connections, etc.

PIER 2PIER 1

BLDG 68

SOUTH WHARF

PIER 3FUTURE

FLOATING

DRY DOCK

(FDD)

AREA

• Pier 2 – Demolition & reconstruction

• Pier 3 – Demolition & reconstruction

• South Wharf – Demolition & reconstruction

• Building 68 – Demolition & site restoration

• Associated infrastructure work, utility connections, etc.

PIER 2PIER 1

BLDG 68

SOUTH WHARF

• Pier 2 – Demolition & reconstruction

• Pier 3 – Demolition & reconstruction

• South Wharf – Demolition & reconstruction

• Building 68 – Demolition & site restoration

• Associated infrastructure work, utility connections, etc.

FUTURE

FLOATING

DRY DOCK

(FDD)

AREA

RISKS/CONSTRAINTS/OPPORTUNITIES

RISKS

• Contractor to be responsible for all construction permits

• Hazardous Material Concerns

CONSTRAINTS

• Complete pier demolition & construction prior to arrival of the new high-capacity floating drydock, anticipated to arrive in CY 2030

• CG Yard will remain operational during construction, contractor responsible for coordinating operational impacts

• Time of year restrictions for in-water work

• Load limitations on Piers 2, 3, and the South Wharf

• Operational & utility continuity during the project

OPPORTUNITIES

• Focus on sequencing impacts to optimize schedule

DESIGN-BUILD TO BUDGET

Overview, Vision, and Priorities

End User problems to be solved

Approach to Security, FPLS, etc.

Execution Plan

Space allocation diagrams

FF&E

Base Program Requirements

Architecture Structural Security and AT/FP

MEP

Fire Pro / Life Safety Telecommunications

Success of Design-Build to Budget requires the team to think and act as a single entity. Process is intended to be highly collaborative and fully integrated, built on trust, mutual respect, teamwork, innovation and creative problem solving. Program requirements are highly performance-based to provide for innovation and “best solutions”

Ensure focus on “Mission Critical” factors & innovative “Betterments” & “Enhancements” within Budget

Reward Technical Proposal “Best Solutions” and NOT “Cheapest”

POR Contents A/V systems Site Design Requirements Site Planning and Layout Existing Site Conditions Utilities Landscape

Phase 1

Goal. Select three offerors to progress to Phase 2 based upon past performance, technical approach, and lead designer.

Past Performance. The Government examines how well the Offeror has performed prior projects similar in size, scope and complexity to the one described in the solicitation.

Technical Approach. Assess the Offeror’s understanding of the project by examining its proposed management plan, organization chart and narrative description of its approach to delivering a project of this magnitude and complexity.

Lead Designer. Considers the lead designer’s flexibility and attitude toward design and application to meet the unique requirements for this project.

Phase 2 Goal. Select a single offeror that proposes the ‘best solution’ in terms of cost, schedule and quality.

Proprietary Meetings. Held with each down-selected offeror. Iterative process, approximately 4 weeks apart.

Gov’t introduction Offeror presentation Discussion

Final Proposal Evaluation Criteria.

Design Concept Technical Approach (from Phase 1) Team Organization & Management Approach Schedule Cost

PROPRIETARY MEETING #1

Goal. Introduction of team and scope of the project. Obtain initial feedback on scope, schedule, and budget achievability

Government Expectation. Rough concept schedule (key milestones & challenges), initial scope analysis (solutions to major problems, conflicts in documents), and ROM and budget (delta between ROM and budget, impact of budget constraints)

Agenda. Items could include requirements overview, early design concepts, site analysis

PROPRIETARY MEETING #2

Goal. Confirmation from Design- Build Contractor on alignment of scope, schedule, and budget.

Continue discussion on project understanding and feedback to advance Offeror driven solutions

Government Expectation.

Advancement of design incorporating feedback from Proprietary Meeting #1, renderings and example photos, innovative solutions

Agenda. Items could include recap of meeting #1, update site plan, exterior design concepts, connection to adjacent sites.

PROPRIETARY MEETING #3

Goal. Final confirmation on alignment of scope, schedule and budget. Continue discussion on project understanding and feedback to advance Offeror driven solutions

Government Expectation. Design concept almost finalized, detailed, high-quality renderings

Agenda. Items could include sustainability and LEED approach, floorplan/stacking plans, utilities walkthrough, exterior concept update

Phase 2 includes a series of iterative engagements with each down-selected offeror to provide an opportunity for each offeror to advance their design solution based upon direct discussion with the Government.

CONSIDERATIONS

1. Initial thoughts on phasing demolition and construction work to meet the major scope elements by CY 2030

2. What would create the shortest amount of down time and/or disruption for CG to maintain operations?

3. Suggested laydown areas and/or methods due to space restrictions

4. USCG is currently planning to procure pier cranes, however, we are seeking feedback to whether it would be more appropriate for the DB to procure and install when designing and constructing the waterfront

CY 2026 CY 2027 CY 2028 CY 2029 CY 2030

FY26

Q2

FY26

Q3

FY26

Q4

FY27

Q1

FY27

Q2

FY27

Q3

FY27

Q4

FY28

Q1

FY28

Q2

FY28

Q3

FY28

Q4

FY29

Q1

FY29

Q2

FY29

Q3

FY29

Q4

FY30

Q1

FY30

Q2

DB RFP DEVEOPMENT / AWARD

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

DREDGE

WINDOW

(OCT – FEB)

POTENTIAL TIMELINE

CO

N

ST

RU

CT

IO

N C

O M

PL

ET

EDREDGE

WINDOW

(OCT – FEB)

SITE WALK

1015 – 1215

1015 – 1045 (30 min.): Group 1 – 15 contractors 1045 – 1115 (30 min.): Group 2 – 15 contractors 1115 – 1145 (30 min.): Group 3 – 15 contractors 1145 – 1215 (30 min.): Group 4 – 15 contractors

RECONVENE @ 1215