Attachment_5_-_Sample_TORFP_PWS_2_-_Port_Capacity_Analysis.pdf

Attachment 5: Sample Task Order Request for Proposal (TORFP) #2

Evaluation of Port Capacity at U.S. Container Ports Evaluation of Potential Impacts of Panama Canal Capacity

Throughput Expansion

Introduction \ Background

U.S. container port capacity is one of the most critical factors in the nation’s ability to participate in containerized trade which is a primary means of transport for value-added or finished goods. Within the operational environment and framework that governs port operation and development as an on-going economic concern, the Corps, other Federal agencies, and regional or local port administrations share operational and fiscal responsibility in maintaining the nation’s deep-draft waterway systems. Associated assets include channels, berths, and other waterway or waterborne navigation features that allow for provision of economically viable deep-draft container vessel service to various ports and terminals situated along coastal areas of the United States.

With the recent completion of the Panama Canal expansion, it is foreseeable and anticipated that vessel operators and shippers will deploy larger vessels in support of liner services conveying trade between the West, East and Gulf coasts of the United States and Asia. Many ports are initiating efforts for enhanced development of landside port infrastructure in anticipation of more frequent vessel service as well as increased reliance on Neo-Panamax vessels. Presently, many are not fully equipped to accommodate sudden changes in fleet service regime attributable to the new capabilities made possible by the new locks of the Panama Canal coming into service.

Planners and analysts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) must be able to formulate reasonable assumptions about future vessel and waterborne trade services and other aspects of port development to credibly evaluate improvements for the nation’s deep-draft waterways. Correspondingly, agency analysts have been seeking information and guidance as to what the potential is for the nature or frequency of service by larger vessels that will serve U.S. ports via transit of the Panama Canal.

In 2010, before recent improvements to the Panama Canal were complete, the Corps undertook work on a port capacity study which was intended to assist the Corps in identifying those ports most likely to realize significant or measurable changes in fully cellular container vessel service from the Canal’s expansion as well as the timing of the potential economic benefits. In addition, it was advocated that such a study could reveal or help determine the factors which drive vessel operators and shippers to serve various ports which in turn helps USACE analysts to better evaluate and define critical assumptions for formulation of cargo and fleet service forecasts for containership ports.

The study was structured to address the following questions in consideration of individual ports in addition to consideration of the nation’s deep-draft coastal port system as a whole:

What are the near-term and long-term capacities of the major West, East, and Gulf Coast container ports?

What factors constrain or impact the throughput capacities of those ports?

How well is capacity currently utilized?

How well are the major ports prepared to handle larger vessels?

How do smaller container ports or terminals fit into the overall port network?

What alternatives exist for expansion or operational improvement to accommodate increased throughput?

Present Needs for Evaluation

The primary scope of the project to expand capacity of the Panama Canal was considered complete in 2016 with initiation of commercial service that same calendar year. With improvements to the canal now complete, vessel operators are more actively structuring fleet service capacity, itineraries and service schedules to take advantage of hull size and cargo capacity specifications accommodated by the new enlarged lock system now in place and operating. It is expected that service provided by the new lock system will facilitate movement of vessels with notably increased capacity to the East, Gulf and West coasts. Of these regions or areas, the East and Gulf Coasts are likely to experience the greatest impact due to associated trade from Asia while the West Coast has already experienced notable impact of such vessels due to geographical location relative to the Pacific Rim with little or no constraint associated with the canal such as often exists for the Gulf and East Coast ports of the United States. It has been determined that a study of the impact of canal improvements now that they have been completed would be of benefit to USACE analysts as both port facility and vessel operators begin to actively move forward to employ advantages allowed by the new lock system in terms of cargo carrying capacity via employment of larger deep-draft self-propelled hulls.

The capacity of a port is not simply measured by evaluating only the landside facilities within the harbor in isolation, but efforts for capacity evaluation must also address constraints or limitations related to the port’s hinterland in addition to capabilities or capacity of the waterway that allows for vessel service to and from cargo transfer facilities of the subject port. Accordingly, investigations and evaluations will address both the waterborne and landside structure of harbor assets for throughput capacity and related capabilities such as working throughput per unit of time at peak (or surge) and off-peak periods of cargo handling activity. Capacity for distribution to and from a given port’s affiliated hinterland are also typically a function of the most limiting of constraints across the intermodal chain (i.e., sometimes based on the interaction of transfer between modes of transport) as opposed to only a particular mode or segment of transport within the chain. However, due to the limiting of scope of the PWS herein the emphasis of investigative efforts will be the evaluation of within-harbor port cargo handling and transfer facilities themselves and capabilities of the supporting waterway for conveyance of waterborne vessel traffic. When combined, these facets of modal transport comprise a system for intermodal movement for which the interactions or linkages between landside facilities and waterborne operations must also be collectively evaluated to reasonably assess capacity whether for dispatch via the waterway or via forwarding into or from the port’s hinterland or market area.

While the new or enhanced Panama Canal lock system can (and will) facilitate movement of a variety of vessel types, it is anticipated the primary vessel type that will tend to be prioritized for movement will be fully-cellular containerships. However, because deep-draft waterways also support the movement and services of a variety of vessel types, the contractor will be required to conduct investigations for each assigned port relative to all vessel types (including but not necessarily limited to containerships, bulk carriers, tankers, etc.). The array of vessel types serving a given harbor will be evaluated to the extent applicable to evaluate traffic patterns and where significant to evaluation of port waterway system traffic management and associated throughput or carrying capacity of the waterway system.

Evaluation of Waterway Systems and Vessel Service or Service Regime

The contractor will be required to undertake a review of physical specifications for each of the U.S. coastal deep-draft ports as specified by the scope or PWS herein and evaluate specifications for:

Existing waterways specifications in both the horizontal (width or breadth and reach) and vertical (depth) plane of waterway system design to include:

- Existing waterway breadth or bottom width and extent of reach

- Existing waterway system reference depths and engineering margins by extent of reach for approach, transitional, and protected transit channel reaches with consideration of extent of reach to maneuvering areas (turning basins, etc.) and port docking or transfer facilities.

- Tidal influence; to include evaluation of tidal characteristics for variability in elevation and the usable range of variability in elevation applicable to management of vessel movement and vessel traffic.

Known and foreseeable vessel specifications for existing and future fleet construction to include:

- Type of vessel hull (fully cellular containerized carrier; bulk carrier) and respective cargo typically handled

- Hull Length Overall and Between Particulars (LOA and LBP)

- Hull Breadth

- Hull maximum summer loadline draft (MXSLLD)

- Capabilities for speed

- Cargo carrying capacity by weight and volumetric capacity

- Displacement and block coefficient

- Immersion factors

- Capabilities for speed relative to transit time at sea and with typical operations within a protected harbor.

To credibly and efficiently undertake related evaluations, the contractor should have strong technical and working knowledge in civil engineering and economic analysis related to both the design and operation & maintenance (O&M) of deep-draft waterways. Respective to the credible evaluation of fleet characteristics for existing and future vessel design, fleet structure or stratification, and economic analyses where applicable the contractor should have a working knowledge of basic deep-draft vessel naval architecture, maritime logistics, and maritime economics. Specific to naval architecture, the contractor should have a strong practical working or analytical knowledge of the parameters as listed for characteristics of construction (i.e., length, breadth, etc.) which provide indications of potential capacity of vessel and shipping services. The contractor should be able to develop or assemble voyage cost analyses and through application of load factor analysis (LFA) determine the costs and economies of cargo movement by volume and weight of trade from which associated throughput of both cargo and fleet service regime can be estimated or derived in terms of loading\unloading and vessel turn-around time which provides critical inputs to viable port capacity analysis. The contractor should also have a familiarity with the concepts of NED (National Economic Development) analysis and how it is applied for evaluation of waterway improvements by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Evaluation of Port Landside Cargo Transfer and Handling Facilities

To evaluate landside facilitates and infrastructure the contractor will be required to investigate and compile data, information and performance specifications to include (but necessarily be limited to) the following typical four general work areas of physical port operations:

- Extent or Inventory and capability of berthing and dockage available including depth alongside docks or in berths in addition to dedicated equipment for transfer or handling of cargo with measurements of performance based on applicable industry standards including measures of throughput based on twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs; with evaluation of empty and loaded TEU shares of throughput) and cargo tonnage per TEU or in gross bulk units depending on whether the interrelationships of usage for berthing, quay or facility equipment usage requires the evaluation of bulk or other forms of cargo movements.

- The extent of landside areas for handling and processing of containerized cargo to include contiguous and non-contiguous marshalling areas and designated free trade zones.

- Inventory and capability of transfer, conveyance or handling equipment with an emphasis on cellular container operations including container gantry cranes or multi-purpose general cargo cranes, marshalling area equipment for yard management including transport and manipulation or stacking.

Where containerized operations share multipurpose berths or other facilities with other cargo modes of handling (such as bulk carriers and tankers) the contractor will also be required to commensurately evaluate such facilities and operations to include bulk conveyors, liquid bulk pipelines and umbilicals, and other applicable and affiliated facilities to determine any interoperability limitations or impact on throughput for both containerized and non-containerized cargo flows.

- Landside or hinterland access to include distribution road networks, connections to rail, and clearance or entrance gate facilities which operate for landside inbound and outbound movement of containers.

The fourth area, the evaluation landside connections or connections to the hinterland is, as stated previously within the PWS herein, not intended to be an area of emphasis for evaluation but as described, the contractor will be required to review this area of port operations to determine whether this aspect cargo handling or management presents a limitation or constraint that significantly impacts throughput.

For all of the other general work areas of a container cargo port as described, the contractor will compile information on the extent or number and specifications of facilities and equipment and will evaluate capabilities for productivity and throughput under typical working conditions. With reference to marshalling or container stacking areas the contractor will apply additional emphasis to evaluate measurement of aggregate handling and throughput relative to capabilities for container stacking height.

With regard to such areas throughput is in large part a function of static storage capacity combined with turn-over or dwell time either of which can vary considerably from port to port. Often the claims for stated capacity are based on specification of a given level of stacking which may be below the real capabilities for capacity when viewed relative to the standards of the industry. While the contractor will be required to review capacity as reported by the port, the contractor will also be required to research domestic and worldwide industry standards for stacking height, processing and dwell time management relative to throughput and formulate a normalized estimate of throughput capacity based on approximated standards or averages.

With regard to timeframe(s) or planning horizon for evaluation of container port capacities, the contractor will be required conduct evaluations with respect to existing operations as well as foreseeable or planned improvements or measures for expansion (number of container gantry cranes or hectares of marshalling area presently existing versus under construction or planned, etc.). Much of the information for planned improvements should be available from short, interim and long-term port master plans which most ports are required to prepare and periodically update in compliance with state planning, zoning and coastal land use requirements. The typical horizon for port master planning ranges from five years (short-term) to as much as twenty to twenty-five years (long-term). The contractor will be responsible for evaluation of the short to long-term horizons as generally described for mater planning. Prior capacity studies have employed literature searches for data and information publicly available, review of technical industry publications related to port system operation and management and interviews with port users and operators. In particular it is recommended that the contractor review available master plan documentation and apply to evaluations as required by the PWS herein to the maximum extent practical and where assumptions or information on planning appears reasonably consistent with industry practices and benchmarks for progression of growth and development for container ports both domestically and abroad. Some data may also be provided to the contractor as made available to the public by the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center (WCSC) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) respective to general statistics of cargo flows for a given port.

General Geographical Scope of Work Efforts for Port Coverage

Due to priorities for funding and with regard for which ports are presently considered the most critical for evaluation, the coverage of ports will be divided into four groups comprised of primary ports, secondary ports, third tier ports, and foreign proximity ports.

The evaluation of primary ports will be considered a base requirement of the PWS with the evaluation of other port groupings as described comprising optional tasks of the PWS based on priorities, available funding and allowances for time as set forth by the Government.

Secondary and third tier ports are not often “dedicated container ports” in that they typically handle a mix of containerized, bulk and break-bulk shipments at the same location. This sometimes makes it more difficult to estimate their container handling capabilities with precision and may require additional research to for evaluations to be comparable in context with larger or dedicated container ports. The listing of foreign proximity ports are ports that are situated geographically close to the United States and which support containerized cargo operations which impact U.S. ports in their respective regions and hold the potential to further impact U.S. container ports with changing conditions and therefore are of interest due to the potentially competitive element that they represent. Respective port group lists and the associated priority as either a primary or base analytical requirement or whether optional work are provided as follows:

Base Tasking

Listing of Primary U.S. East & Gulf Coastal Deep-Draft Container Ports (2010 Capacity Study)

Boston, MA Charleston, SC Mobile, AL New York / New Jersey, NY/NJ Savannah, GA New Orleans, LA Philadelphia, PA Jacksonville, FL Houston, TX Port Everglades, FL Baltimore, MD Miami, FL Norfolk, VA

Optional Tasking I

Listing of Secondary U.S. East & Gulf Coastal Deep-Draft Container Ports

Wilmington, NC Palm Beach, FL Tampa, FL Gulfport, MS Freeport, TX Beaumont, TX Port Arthur, TX Texas City, TX Galveston, TX Corpus Christi, TX

Optional Tasking II Listing of Primary U.S. West Coast Deep-Draft Container Ports

Los Angeles, CA Long Beach, CA Oakland, CA Stockton, CA West Sacramento, CA Portland, OR Seattle, WA Tacoma, WA Anchorage, AK

Optional Tasking III

Listing of Foreign Proximity Deep-Draft Container Ports

Prince Rupert, British Columbia Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico Freeport, Bahamas Kingston, Jamaica Altamira, Mexico

Deliverables & Timetable/Schedule(s)

Under the requirements for work efforts and analytical products as set forth by the PWS herein, the basic product or deliverables are described below in addition to calendar day time allowances referenced from the date of contract assignment or award. Depending on when and if optional requirements are exercised they are to be conducted concurrently with the base tasking. To allow completion of optional taskings concurrently or within the same time allowances of the base task (referenced to date of contract assignment or award) determination of whether to exercise one or more options will be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of contract award. If options are exercised subsequent to this period then allowances for time will be negotiated upon assignment of optional work efforts. Unless otherwise notified or informed by the Contracting Officer, the date for the award of contract shall also constitute the date for the notice to proceed (NTP) for the contract. While the PWS statement herein sets forth the general requirements for analytical evaluations with regard to port capacity any work or specifications considered essential or necessary for comparable professional analytical work should nonetheless be considered a firm requirement and considered or included in the contractors scoping and proposal.

Base Task(ing) –

Specific to the subject ports in this grouping, BT-a.) compile and document all necessary data and information to develop a viable port capacity throughput analysis;

BT-b.) analyze operational throughput statistics and relationships for existing and foreseeable operations;

BT-c.) review and evaluate foreseeable and proposed improvements (employing short-term, interim, and long-term port master plans, industry information, etc.) for expansion and growth and

BT-d.) estimate or quantify probable impacts to capabilities and capacity for throughput respective to existing conditions and future conditions relative to projected or anticipated growth in trade and probable changes in deep-draft vessel fleet cargo capacity and service regime.

Deliverable items and schedules for base tasking;

Items as described above:

BT-a - Completion within 60 to 80 calendar days from the notice to proceed from initial contract award (NTPIA)

BT-b - Completion within 70 to 90 calendar days from NTPIA.

BT- c - Completion within 100 to 120 calendar days from NTPIA.

BT- d - Completion within 130 to 170 calendar days from NTPIA.

Issue Resolution & Progress Reports - Progress reports will be provided to the USACE technical point of contact (TPOC) for the contract every 40 to 45 calendar days from NTPIA until all required work efforts for the subject task are complete and will be provided via written email and telephonically. Written progress reports will sufficiently document the progress of work efforts so as to allow the TPOC to reasonably determine if work efforts are within compliance with contract requirements. Should the contractor require discussion for resolution of issues while work is in progress, he may initiate contact via email or the telephone number of the TPOC as deemed required. Contact information for the TPOC will be provided by the contracting officer upon contract award.

Report of Analysis - The contractor will produce a written report documenting data and information compiled, critical issues impacting evaluations, applied analytical approach and methods, and analytical findings, conclusions, or recommendations. The report will be sufficiently detailed to allow reasonable verification of efforts and to logically substantiate findings and conclusions. The contractor will provide three (3) submittals for the written report to be identified as an initial report, draft report, and final report respectively. The initial report will be when all associated work is approximately 70 to 75 percent complete (100 to 110 calendar days from NTPIA), again at 90 to 95 percent complete (140 to 150 calendar days from NTPIA) with the final written report to be submitted at 177 calendar days from NTPIA when all analytical work is complete.

Closeout of the contract will be 190 calendar days at the notice to proceed from initial contract award. After submission and acceptance of the final written report the contractor will have ten (10) calendar days to forward all materials and documentation assembled under this contract. Such submission(s) shall include all computerized files, databases, spreadsheets, mathematical or numerical models and any other applicable form of computer information or input developed for evaluation via compensation under this contract by the Government and as such will constitute materials and products which will become property of the U.S. Government and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Optional Tasks I, II, and III –

If one or more respective work options are exercised, for each option (and respective port group listing) exercised the contractor shall perform or undertake the same efforts as described for the base tasking port group as described in elements Bt-a through Bt-d, preceding. As with the base tasking, the contractor is to employ existing data and information to the extent applicable. Deliverables will be the same in specification and timeframe for provision or submission requirements including update of progress or process for analytical issue resolution and the development of a written report of analysis as described under requirements for the base tasking (with allowances for delivery of options to be negotiated if exercised in a time period exceeding fifteen (15) calendar days after contract award). In the interest of review and cost comparison, the contractor is will be required to provide time and cost estimates via the following summary tabular format supported by the applicable detailed format by technical\managerial labor grade under the subject contract:

Task Costs

Base Tasking: Primary East & Gulf Coast Deep-Draft Container Ports

Optional tasking I: Secondary East & Gulf Coast Deep-Draft Container Ports

Optional Tasking II: Primary U.S. West Coast Deep-Draft Container Ports

Optional Tasking III: Foreign Proximity Deep-Draft Container Ports