OPC Industry Day_Q&As_v.2.pdf

OPC Industry Day Questions / Answers

Question

Question Answer

1 Why will it take a year to make an award?

Eighteen months are allocated between DD&C Final RFP and DD&C award, to ensure adequate time to receive quality proposals, proposal evaluation, and the complete source selection process takes into consideration all aspects of that process. Additionally, we are sensitive to the fact that there are other Government shipbuilding acquisition in various stages and want to provide industry the opportunity participate in any of those acquisitions without as much conflict of time as possible.

2 Why are there 18 months between award and construction; What is the LLTM strategy?

This time will be used for the DD&C awardee to complete and update the Detail Design and transition design into production products of appropriate detail, identify needed LLTM, obtain the LLTM, conduct a Critical Design Review and conduct a Production Readiness Review prior to starting construction.

3 Do you anticipate industry studies will be multiple awards? Yes

4 Are we going to have visibility as to which comments have and have not been incorporated?

No. Compliance comments with the OPC functional design deliverables will not be made available in Industry Studies.

5 I'm assuming you are going to provide the comments and the government’s responses to those comments. So we will know the government's direction, where you are going, No. Compliance comments with the OPC functional design deliverables will not be made available in Industry Studies.

6 Can you discuss what you will be looking at for the competition? What specifics will you be looking for?

The eventual DD&C contract solicitation will select one offeror whose proposal offers the best value in continuing the acquisition of OPC program. The DD&C RFP will identify the evaluation factors and basis for award.

7 What are the CG's actual objectives? Is it the intent to introduce a second builder or not?

That's not clear.

The USCG's objective is to complete the OPC Program of Record. We are seeking the best-value approach to accomplish that objective through full and open competition for the remaining hulls.

8 The second shipbuilder requires an investment to come in; and it's unclear what the CG's strategy is to invest into a second shipyard.

The USCG's intent is to award Industry Studies contracts to multiple Offerors to obtain additional information to inform the eventual DD&C RFP.

Is the entire list of long lead time materials to be considered class standard equipment with no interest by the Government considering alternative vendors who might offer better pricing?

No, the list provided is the LLTM contained in the current OPC contract. The Industry Studies efforts welcomes recommendations during the course of that contract.

10 Is there a hybrid drive motor and will it be disconnected by a clutch?

The current OPC specifications do not address a “hybrid drive” motor. As shown in the OPC Functional Design Placemat, the functional design includes two electric loiter motors. One electric loiter motor is connected to each reduction gear through a clutch.

11 Will the re-compete shipyard be responsible for the accuracy of the technical deliverables provided by the USCG?

The Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 3) are provided for information only. Industry Study teams are not responsible for the accuracy of the Government-provided Selected Detail Design Deliverables. The tasks described in SOW 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, and 2.2.1.5 are to assess the Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 3) against the requirements of the updated draft OPC System Specification.

12 Will you provide CDRL comments and specification changes that have been submitted to ESG by the USCG, ABS, etc.?

Compliance comments with the OPC functional design deliverables will not be made available in Industry Studies.

Updated specifications will contain all changes that have been incorporated in the current OPC contract as well as pending ECRs.

If the USCG intends to permit open competition of DD&C contract to Offerors who are not awarded an Industry Studies contract, will the USCG release the Industry Studies products to eligible/qualified Offerors with the draft DD&C RFP in July 2020?

No.

Question Answer

14 Will there be a U.S. Government cost sharing provision in the re-compete DD&C contract?

The DD&C RFP pricing details have not yet been finalized. USCG welcomes recommendations on how to structure the pricing portion of the RFP.

15 Will the DD&C contract RFP include an evaluation factor or incentive for commonality with the baseline design?

The DD&C RFP evaluation factors have not yet been finalized. USCG welcomes recommendations on how to structure the evaluation factors for the DD&C RFP.

16 Is the present TAA structure effective for the re-competition? The USCG does not currently intend to modify the Trade Agreement Act (buy American) provisions that are currently in the OPC contract, in the re-competition effort.

Given the competitive advantage that the incumbent already has in the re-compete, including three years to work on the existing functional design, why is the incumbent being allowed to participate (bid) on the Industry Studies?

The USCG has determined that full and open competition for both Industry Studies as well as the future DD&C contract for OPC are in the best interests of the Government.

18 A statement was made that the USCG is trying to get a second source for the OPC? Is this true?

The USCG intends to obtain a qualified source which offers the best value for completing the OPC Program of Record.

With the USN dropping the ABS Naval Vessel Rules for many future builds, is there any intention from the USCG to drop Naval Vessel Rules and adapt Steel Vessel Rules in order to fully benefit on a cost perspective?

No.

20 Is there any equipment which must remain constant on future builds, regardless of builders?

Responses to task 2.2.1.2 in the Industry Studies statement of work will help inform the Government with regard to which equipment should be standardized in future OPCs.

21 Will any equipment supplied to current builder become GFE to a second bidder? Some GFE was provided for C5I testing at a C4ISR Test and Integration Facility. This equipment may be provided to the re-compete Contractor.

22 Is the propulsion drive train specified and the configuration set?

The functional design artifacts provided with the Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 1) will specify the propulsion drive train in the Functional Design. Responses to tasking in 2.2.1 in the Industry Studies statement of work will help inform the Government as to which elements of the Functional Design should be considered for change.

Question Answer

23 Who is responsible for specifying the prime movers, gearing and clutches?

The Shipbuilder will select propulsion equipment which complies with the DD&C RFP SOW and System Specifications. Responses to tasking in 2.2.1 in the Industry Studies statement of work will help inform the Government as to which elements of the Functional Design should be considered for change.

The target price in the draft Industry Studies RFP reflects the price to construct an OPC as originally awarded (=/-$310m). Given the renegotiation of OPC construction prices with the incumbent shipbuilder, does the USCG intend to adjust the Industry Studies target price based on the renegotiated value and/or based on Industry Studies contractor inputs?

The USCG does not intend to adjust the Target Price stated in section 2.2.2.3 of the draft RFP for Industry Studies.

25 Will the renegotiated OPC price with the incumbent shipbuilder be made available to the public? That information will not be made available as part of this Industry Studies effort.

The short schedule for design related activities and limited funding levels for the Industry Studies would indicate that the USCG does NOT expect design activities to be performed by the contractor under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the resulting contract.

However, Section 2.2.1.7 requires "engineering data to illustrate design balance and the impact of proposed changes to the following (long list of design products) developing the engineering data remonstrating a balanced design would be accomplished through integrated design activities. Will the USCG clarify that integrated design activities are

NOT called for under the resulting contract and/or state the level of design detail expected in these deliverables?

The USCG does not expect Contractors to perform a detailed OPC design in response to this Industry Studies solicitation.

Attachment J-2, Technical Data Rights requests unlimited rights in certain categories. In similar circumstances, the Government has limited the data rights request to Government purpose rights because the Government does not intend to sell the design, or the product to be built from the design, on the open market. Government purpose rights would allow the USCG to construct, operate and maintain the OPC, as well as compete the design and construction of the OPC ship class into the future. Will the USCG revise its data rights request to refer to Government purpose rights rather than unlimited rights?

The USCG as a component of DHS, is subject to the FAR and HSAR but not DFARs. In the FAR, Government Purpose Rights do not exist. However, the USCG per the FAR, has modified the definition of limited rights as pertaining to certain CDRLS. That modified definition mirrors Government Purpose Rights. See J-2 for the definition of USCGs intended modified limited rights category.

28 How many IS awards are funded for Part 1? How many are funded for Part 2? The Government intends to award multiple Industry Studies contracts. Part 2 is an optional line item and will be exercised at the Government’s discretion.

29 Is price a determining factor for award or pass/fail? No. It is the Government’s target for award of IS contracts. Section M of the Industry Studies RFP will address the evaluation of pricing.

30 The level of effort required by the SOW is highly dependent on the references listed.

Will the references be provided with the RFP? USCG will provide Industry Studies (IS) references with the RFP to qualified Contractors.

Will IS contractors be asked to review and/or address compliance issues with the functional design? If so, will IS contractors be required to bring into compliance any areas of the functional design for which they are reviewing compliance issues?

USCG will not provide compliance comments with the OPC functional design deliverables.

Question Answer

The tasks described in SOW 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, and 2.2.1.5 are to assess the Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 3) against the requirements of the updated draft OPC

System Specification and to identify any required revisions to the Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 3) to meet technical requirements. The amount of work required and the risk to perform the identified revisions to the Selected Detail Design Deliverables (Reference 3) is to be assessed.

USCG is currently revising sections 2.2.1.3 through 2.2.1.5 to clarify the scope of IS.

33 Will the USCG identify specific areas of concern or areas of non-compliance within the existing ship design so the contractor can better focus its study efforts? USCG will not provide compliance comments with the OPC functional design deliverables.

Will the Government consider making CDRL comments to the IS contractors non-binding so that IS contractors are making recommendations rather than being required to bring the functional design into contract compliance? This would alleviate cost overrun risk for the IS contractors.

The IS Contractors are not required to bring the 2D functional design deliverables into contract compliance. USCG does consider IS contract deliverables as recommendations, and does not intend to establish or return compliance comments against received IS CDRLs.

For the Long Lead Time Material, has the Government established, via Eastern

Shipbuilding, option prices for follow hulls that a second shipyard could exercise or would the second shipyard have to obtain new pricing?

The DD&C Contractor will be required to obtain new pricing for LLTM and other Contractor Furnished Equipment.

36 Will CDRLs and questions provided during IS be shared among all IS contractors?

IS CDRLs will not be provided to other IS Contractors. Recommendations made within IS CDRLs may be relied upon by the USCG, subject to data rights limitations, for such things as informing the DD&C RFP. Questions raised by the IS Contractors during IS may be shared with all IS Contractors after removal of any proprietary data.

For C4ISR systems/equipment awarded by ESG to suppliers and OEMs, will all of those be re-competed by the next shipbuilder? Also, assume C4ISR suppliers/OEMs do not need to submit responses to IS, correct?

The DD&C Contractor will be required to obtain new pricing for LLTM and other Contractor Furnished Equipment.

If an Offeror team includes both a Shipyard and a C5I sub-contractor, that team should submit only one IS proposal.

38 Is OPC 1 considered the “parent craft”?

The USCG does not consider OPC-1 to be the "parent craft". OPC 1 is the lead ship of the OPC class, with the understanding that there may be 2 flights within the OPC class.

39 Is there an opportunity to propose different long lead components for the vessel (providing they meet ABS NVR)?

Yes, providing compliance with all contract requirements.

40 Are there any limitations as to what type of companies can receive an IS contract?

The IS RFP is anticipated to be an unrestricted, full and open competition.

41 Will the USCG confirm whether the incumbent will be participating in the DD&C competition?

The DD&C RFP is anticipated to be an unrestricted, full and open competition.

42 Will the incumbent be participating in Industry Studies? The IS RFP is an unrestricted, full, and open competition.

43 Section L.5 proposal due date states the proposal is due on 13 January 2020.

Recommend the USCG move the proposal due date to 31 January 2020.

A request to change the proposal due date is always permissable to be submitted after the IS RFP is issued.

44 Has the USCG reviewed and adjudicated all industry feedback to date and incorporated it in the SOW, Notional Schedule, and RFP documents?

All received Industry feedback has been reviewed and will be incorporated as deemed appropriate in the final RFP.

45 The J-4 CDR/PRR dates appear to be ~1 year ahead of start fabrication. Is that correct, or were they meant to be December 2023 and January 2024?

Per attachments J-4, DD&C award is anticipated in Jan 2022. Based on the anticipated award date, CDR is planned for Dec 2022, and PRR is planned for Jan 2023. Construction of OPC-5 is planned to commence in FY 23.

Is the OPC requirement set still based on the combination of the System Specification, Addendum I: OPC Tailoring of the Naval Vessel Rules for Building and Classing Naval Vessels, and the ABS NVR?

Yes, these are part of the OPC requirements.

Question Answer

47 What changes have been made to the System Specification since July 2016?

A list of changes to the System Specification since 2016 is not currently available. The updated System Specification provided as Reference 1 will reflect all changes by modification numbers. Based on Industry feedback, the schedule for providing IS SOW References, including the System Specification, is under consideration.

48 What waivers, deviations or other relaxations have been granted for the existing OPC design?

A list of waivers, deviations, or other relaxations is not currently available. The updated System Specification provided as Reference 1 will reflect all changes by modification numbers. Based on Industry feedback the schedule for providing IS SOW References, including the System Specification, is under consideration.

49 Is the OPC still required to be built and classed in accordance with NVR as +A1, Coast Guard Cutter, FAS, VERTREP, Rotary Wing, +AMS, Circle E, R2+, APS, NIBS-N?

Yes.

50 Is ABS performing the classification role envisioned in the 2016 RFP as a subcontractor to Eastern Shipbuilding (ESG)?

Yes.

51 If still required to be classed, will the re-compete DD&C contractor(s) be required to obtain ABS classification services or will that service be Government-furnished?

The intention is to retain the classification requirement and ABS services as a DD&C Contractor responsibility.

52 Is the functional design complete?

No, it is not complete.

Where required, do the diagrams and drawings have USCG approval and ABS class approval?

No.

Is the design data in a form (in terms of data format, data management systems and product structure) that can be readily used by another shipyard?

The functional design artifacts provided with the Selected Detail Design Deliverables are in the following formats:

- Most of drawings are in AutoCAD 2013 (.dwg),

- Most calculations, reports, plans, lists files are in MS Office 2007 Format (.docx; .pptx; .xlsx)

- Most Vendor Data is in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)

- Specialized software that may be needed to review selected design deliverables are Rhino, EasyPower, Navcad, FEMAP, Pipe-Flo, FORAN, ULTSTR, ANSYS Workbench, and Visio.

55 Is the data available in an industry standard native format and what is that format? See Q55.

Are ESG’s suppliers/subcontractors providing OPC equipment/systems available to other contractors or encumbered by teaming/exclusivity agreements with ESG? USCG does not have access to contracts between ESG and its sub-contractors.

As of 2016, the OPC contained substantial C4ISR Scope of Work that was contractor furnished and included establishment of a Test and Integration Facility (TIF) and

Production Facility (PF). The Scope of Work and schedule required these facilities to be designed, constructed and operated during detail design to produce tested systems to support lead ship construction. Does the existing design include an integrated C5ISR solution that has been successfully developed and tested with all required approvals and certifications?

No.

Is this (C5I) solution, including the integration and test facilities, available to the selected re-compete contractor? Or, is the contractor required to develop its own C5ISR solution and test/integration facilities?

The complete C5I solution will not be available during IS. The 2D C5I Functional Design and the C5I requirements will be provided in IS. Revised requirements, including those for test/integration facilities, for the C5I solution will be described in the DD&C RFP.

Question Answer

The MCS Scope of Work was to be contractor furnished and included establishment of a Land Based Test Facility (LBTF). The SOW and schedule required these facilities to be designed, constructed, and operated during detail design to produce tested systems to support lead ship construction. Does the existing design include an integrated MCS solution that has been successfully designed and tested with all required approvals and certifications?

No.

Is this solution, including the integration and test facilities, available to the selected re-compete contractor? Or is the contractor required to develop its own MCS solution and test/integration facilities?

The complete MCS solution will not be available during IS, however, the 2D MCS Functional Design and the MCS requirements will be provided in IS. Revised requirements, including those for test/integration facilities, for the MCS solution will be described in the DD&C RFP.

During the course of the FFG(X) Conceptual Design contract, the Navy required all data previously released under approved export licenses to be returned/destroyed and then required all future exports of technical data to be explicitly reviewed and approved by

NAVSEA. This change was not specific to any particular country or company, but rather any release of US Navy technical data to a foreign party. Has the USCG confirmed that ABS NVR and all applicable US Navy controlled distribution C and D technical data associated with OPC that had been releasable under export licenses prior to 2016 is still releasable today?

ABS NVR is typically releasable by the USCG. However, the process and extent to what is releasable is determined by need based on each contract and the parties involved.

The SOW implies that the ESG OPC design products will be provided during the IS and will later be included as formal guidance (this term isn’t defined), for information only, or excluded from the DD&C RFP. To what degree is industry free to deviate from the provided ESG products? Has the USCG assessed the ESG design to ensure the cost of fixing the current design doesn’t outweigh the cost of using an alternative design without the associated rework?

Contractors are provided full flexibility to recommend changes to the ESG design. The USCG has not re-assessed alternative designs. The assessment of design alternatives is a part of this IS.

The published displacement of the NSC and OPC appear to be converging. A significant portion of a ships cost is proportional to displacement. The original OPC Affordability Target was approximately 50% of an NSC. With features and requirements escalating the displacement of the OPC, has the Affordability Target been revised?

The Affordability Target of the OPC has not been revised. IS SOW 2.2.2.3 requires a risk assessment of meeting this target.

The SOW indicates that a list of C5I Production Facility (PF) equipment will be provided. Does this mean the incumbent has developed a PF? Will this be provided as

GFE?

The incumbent is developing a PF for C5I equipment installation and testing. USCG has removed Reference 9 from the IS RFP.

Wouldn't an Industry Studies award to the incumbent further disadvantage other potential DD&C bidders?

Offeror participation with IS is not a requirement to propose on the OPC DD&C RFP effort. All information received during the IS phase will inform the USCG's DD&C RFP acquisition strategy.

ESG’s OPC design is described as being 4500LT. Is this a light ship, full load delivery or full load end-of-service life displacement? 4500LT is the approximate full load displacement at delivery.

The Part 2 task appears to offer significant value by providing a funded activity to continue the teams’ activities through DD&C award, but it appears that the tasking (and presumably the funding level) is not sufficient to substantially complete and de-risk the

Detail Design effort if only a 1 year design period prior to start of construction is included following DD&C award. Can the Coast Guard further describe the intent of the

Part 2 tasks?

Part 2 provides time and funding for each Contractor to develop and test its internal processes and procedures for transitioning selected existing 2D Functional Design products related to the Galley and the Operations Center (OPCEN) into a 3D Product Model and production artifacts.

Question Answer

Does the Coast Guard intend to fund the Part 1 Industry Studies at a P&CD escalated level?

No, Industry Studies Part 1 does not replicate the original OPC Preliminary and Contract Design (P&CD) effort in scope or in schedule.

The Part 2 Industry Studies scope is less clear from the SOW, as the tasking is limited compared to Part 1 and the duration is doubled. Assuming the intent is to maintain the team(s) at a level of effort equivalent to that of the Part 1 Studies to enable continued advancement of the design effort, a similar level of funding would need to be maintained. Does the Coast Guard intend to fund the Part 2 Industry Studies to this this

[P&CD escalated] level?

No, Industry Studies Part 1 does not replicate the original OPC Preliminary and Contract Design (P&CD) effort in scope or in schedule.

Will the USCG provide the system specification, a contract design package or both, with the industry studies RFP?

The USCG is providing the system specification and all submit CDRLs related to the 2D functional design. The 3D model will not be provided for the IS RFP.

Will the USCG clarify that integrated design activities are not called for under the Industry Studies contract and/or state the level of design detail expected in these deliverables.

Section 2.2.1.6 requires the Contractor to assess the combined impacts and effects of the Contractor’s recommended substantive changes to the 2D Functional Design, recommended changes to the Equipment Configuration List, and to provide sufficient engineering data to illustrate design balance is maintained after recommended substantive changes are incorporated in the current design.

Will the Contractor be required to develop a System Specification, and Contract Design

Package or both under the IS contract? No.

Will the USCG revise its data rights request to refer to perpetual Government Purpose

Rights rather than Unlimited Rights? See Q28.

Would the Government please confirm that by the use of “Accepted” it intends the IS

CDRLS to be acceptance-type, as opposed to approval-type CDRLs? USCG intends for IS CDRLS to be acceptance-type.

Please confirm that the IS Contractors are not expected to review the functional design for contract compliance or to bring them into compliance.

IS Contractors are not required to review the functional design for compliance or bring the functional design into compliance.

Request clarification of those subsections by changing “identify any required revisions” to “identify any proposed revisions.” The requirement to :identify any required revisions" has been deleted from the SOW.

What is meant by the reference to “hull form licenses” being provided to future shipbuilders?

USCG currently anticipates standardizing the basic OPC hull form. IS Contractors are to assume USCG will provide the hull form licenses in DD&C.

What risk does the FAR 52.246 provision for inspection and acceptance/rejection of services pose in light of the limited information being provided to offerors prior to submitting proposals?

USCG will review all CDRLs for compliance with the stated requirements, as with normal contract administration for acceptance-type submittals.

79 Will each of the four evaluation factors in Section M be weighted equally? Evaluation factors are not separately weighted. Section M of the RFP will establish the evaluation criteria.

Will the USCG consider OPC re-competition award to a single industry team comprised of multiple qualified shipyards constructing a common design to provide a higher delivery rate? That approach would require adapting the design for construction at multiple facilities within a Contractor’s team.

IS Contractors may recommend that approach and USCG will assess any provided justification.

Would USCG consider expanding Industry Studies to incorporate design reviews of alternative designs, including alternative hull designs? No.

Would USCG allow contractors to provide cost estimates for DD&C in terms of labor hours instead of dollars? The IS RFP SOW will delineate the requirements for the cost estimate CDRL submittals.