Request for Information for Multi-Application Shipboard Energy Magazine Requirements Development

Synopsis:  

The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) intends to procure, through full and open competition, the development, qualification, and delivery of the Shipboard Energy Magazine for use in power systems applicable to naval warships, and the associated production shipsets required. The Energy Magazine consists of power electronics, energy storage media, and controls combined together into one or multiple cabinets to enable directed energy weapons, electronic warfare, and sensors to meet shipboard distribution system requirements (such as MIL-STD-1399) while allowing multifunctional use of the energy storage assets.  The Energy Magazine is a common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations.  The Energy Magazine is a ship power "reloadable" magazine for multiple directed energy engagements that eliminates unique energy storage and power conditioning requirements for individual directed energy systems.  The Energy Magazine provides stable backup power functionality and leads to reduction of uninterruptable power supplies (UPS).

This announcement is a follow-on to the Request for Information (RFI) posted under this solicitation number on January 2, 2019.  Previous market research was conducted via a Sources Sought notice (N00024-19-R-4112) and the small business office concurred with the decision to not set aside the subject procurement. Based on the fidelity of the responses received, the Navy has determined sufficient information has been presented in the RFI responses to proceed with acquisition planning and no industry one-on-ones are necessary.  To facilitate additional early offeror involvement, there may be a draft RFP released in advance of the formal RFP.

Please refer to FedBizOpps for any further announcements in this regard.  A competitive solicitation is planned to be issued shortly thereafter.  All inquiries should be emailed to Mckenzie Smith at mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III at john.anderson6@navy.mil

NAVSEA intends to solicit this requirement as a full and open competition with two awards following Best Value source selection procedures.  The performance period will span eight (8) years.

It is anticipated that the solicitation will be available on the FedBizOpps website at www.fbo.gov during the second/third quarter of Government Fiscal Year 2020.

This synopsis is being posted to both the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) site at http://www.fbo.gov and the Navy Electronic Commerce Online (NECO) site at http://www.neco.navy.mil. While it is understood that FBO is the single point of entry for posting of synopses and solicitations to the internet, NECO is the alternative in case FBO is unavailable. Offerors may utilize either site to access information posted by NAVSEA.

No telephone or email inquiries will be accepted regarding this notice and attachments, and requests for solicitation packages will not be granted, as a solicitation has not been prepared at this time. This notice is not to be construed as a commitment by the Government of any kind.

Point of Contact(s):

All inquiries should be emailed to McKenzie Smith at mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III at john.anderson6@navy.mil

07 Feb 2019

Based on the responses received, the Navy has determined not to conduct one on one sessions with our Industry partners at this current moment. Any and all additional information regarding this potential procurement will be released to FBO. Any and all questions shall be submitted to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil

The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is conducting market research through the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) on behalf of PMS 320 (the Electric Ships Office) seeking information from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, academia, and other interested parties to support the development of an electrical Energy Magazine for use in power systems applicable to naval warships.  A key contributing technology for high powered directed energy weapons is stored energy.  The stored energy of the Energy Magazine is required to supplement typical ship service power so as to not put stochastic, large pulsed loads directly on the generator, which potentially damages the shipboard power system.  The Energy Magazine consists of power electronics, energy storage media, and controls combined together into one or multiple cabinets to enable directed energy weapons, electronic warfare, and sensors to meet shipboard distribution system requirements (such as MIL-STD-1399) while allowing multifunctional use of the energy storage assets.  The Energy Magazine is a common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations.  The Energy Magazine is a ship power "reloadable" magazine for multiple directed energy engagements that eliminates unique energy storage and power conditioning requirements for individual directed energy systems.  The Energy Magazine provides stable backup power functionality and leads to reduction of uninterruptable power supplies (UPS).

This announcement is a follow-on to the RFI posted under announcement N00024-17-R-4129 of April 19, 2017 and the feedback the Navy received from that RFI was considered in the development of the documents associated with this announcement.  Also, since this equipment could be applied to future shipboard architectures, new versions of MIL-STD-1399 distribution interfaces are referenced.  A separate RFI was issued to solicit industry comment on these interface standards (see announcement N00024-17-R-4202 of November 8, 2016).

The Navy has developed draft performance requirements and desires industry review, feedback and recommendations addressing specific issues within the draft, as appropriate.  The Energy Magazine is functionally allocated into two, physically separated cabinets; the Power Conversion Cabinet (PCC) and the Energy Storage Cabinet (ESC).   A boundary has been defined between the PCC and ESC and that interface is defined by an Interface Control Document (ICD).  This boundary will likely feature an unregulated 680 VDC to 1000 VDC bus.  The functionality allocated to the PCC includes power input and output to the loads and shipboard power distribution system, with an active front end enabling combined energy storage with a base load.  The functionality allocated to the ESC includes the storage media and any associated control (such as a battery management system); and cooling and ventilation.  Each cabinet is expected to have multiple sections internal to each cabinet to achieve all functionality allocated to each.

The draft requirements are captured in a spreadsheet format of the Functional Requirements Document (FRD), which contains all performance requirements included in the specification; maps specified, derived, and verification requirements from source documents to the specification; and provides verification traceability at applicable test locations.  The FRD contains the generic Energy Magazine set of requirements that would eventually manifest as a performance specification; the specific set of requirements for the particular incarnation of an Energy Magazine thought to be of most value in an initial production, which would manifest as a set of ordering data (or slant sheet) to the generic Energy Magazine performance specification; and the particulars of the interface between the PCC and the ESC that would manifest as the ICD noted above.  The FRD contains controlled unclassified information and is therefore marked Distribution Statement D (Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD contractors only).  Therefore, the FRD can be provided upon request via email to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil upon verification that the requestor is a bona fide U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) contractor familiar with the procedures to handle technical data packages that may include limited distribution information.  Evidence in the form of a fully executed DD Form 2345 (MILITARILY CRITICAL TECHNICAL DATA AGREEMENT), signed by both the US and Canadian representative, will be required prior to receipt.

The structure of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that may be associated with the Energy Magazine development and production could include a one-year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one-year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units.  Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.  The design and initial unit(s) build and factory test items may be cost-type and the production options may be cost or fixed price type.  A technical data package may be required that includes hardware drawings, software source code, firmware, interface drawings, modelling and simulation data of a particular software type, and all other technical and programmatic support documents to go from preliminary design through qualification testing, including test procedures and test reports.

Responses:

It is with the above understanding that PMS 320 is interested in having vendors of power electronics, energy storage, and power distribution system integration comment on the provided document.  The FRD has included in it a column for direct industry feedback.  Of immediate interest would be comments on the rationale for the requirements being correct or in need of adjustment; where requirements are too prescriptive or restrictive for the stated objective of the Energy Magazine (Note: some requirements cannot be changed as they relate to such things as shipboard integration factors); and where a requirement should be levied that has not been in order to have a successful Energy Magazine implementation (such as more specifications to define parsing of controls at the cabinet level).  Any comments provided to the FRD shall also include associated rationale.  Additionally, PMS 320 is interested in answers to the questions below, gathered in a separate document from the FRD spreadsheet.

A. Technical Scope and Functional Questions:

A1. Do the technical parameters defined in the FRD clearly define the end product, or is more definition required?

A2. (a) How would the interfaces between the power electronics and the energy storage change if a rotating storage device was selected instead of traditional battery / capacitive components?  (b) This includes how a rotating storage device would change the topology, controls, dynamic operations, etc. of the power electronics, as well as the overall system sizing and requirements, to support bearings, vacuum, thermal, and safety?  (c) What is the impact of a hybrid of multiple energy storage media types?  (d) Would hybrids require additional or separate regulating power converters to provide safe inclusion on a DC bus with dissimilar storage media?

A3. (a) Are there technologies or approaches that facilitate the paralleling of energy storage components (e.g. multiple battery and/or capacitor strings at a common interface voltage), and ensure consistent energy flow under dynamic and fault conditions?  (b) If parallel cells are employed in a design, how is it assured that they share current evenly at high rates?  (c) How tightly matched are the cells for internal and pack impedance?  (d) How are they protected in case of an internal short circuit? 

A4. (a) What additional hardware would be required with the energy storage (the ESC) separate from the power electronics cabinet (the PSC) and please identify any pros and cons for these choices?  (b) What design attributes for fire suppression and gas management would be necessary for an ESC as compared to a PSC?  (c) What cooling attributes differ for the ESC and PSC?

A5. (a) If a tap for a load was required on the unregulated bus between the PCC and the ESC, would a high speed breaker be required at both the PCC and the ESC ends?  (b) Would this breaker be enclosed within the PCC or ESC cabinet? (c) Does the requirement for a controllable contactor and fuse on the energy storage system change this requirement?

A6. The Navy is interested in the applications for higher voltage Silicon-Carbide (SiC) wide band-gap devices and how they improve power electronics performance.  How would the application of SiC devices impact the design performance for the Energy Magazine and what would be negative factors which would lead to not applying this technology?

A7. What are your recommended tailoring for Military Standards MIL-STD-461 (Electromagnetic Interface Characteristics Requirements for Equipment) and the electric power related sections of MIL-STD-1399 (Interface Standards for Shipboard Systems)?

A8. Please identify how the overall Energy Magazine would scale up (cabinet size and weight, cooling load, etc.) from the identified power and energy ratings in the FRD to a higher rating with your preferred architecture, and describe the components/technologies that drive the electrical power versus size trade space.

A9. Please identify the requirements that inhibit the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products or existing Non-Developmental Item (NDI) components.

A10. Any Lithium-ion battery based energy storage system that may be proposed will be required to either have completed characterization testing in accordance with S9310-AQ-SAF-010 or the proposal would need to include the characterization testing in accordance with S9310-AG-SAF-010.  (a) What additional clarifications, information, or direction is needed, if any, to incorporate this into a proposal and design?  (b)  If S9310-AQ-SAF-9310 has been completed for high energy batteries, are any of the draft FRD requirements driving you to change the design and thereby have to do additional Navy safety assessment testing?  (c) Is the ICD provided in this RFI, combined with the Technical Specification, sufficient to define the interface between the PCC and ESC cabinets? (d) What additional information/signals would be required to accurately define the PCC to ESC interface and support safe operation and control of the stored energy media?  (e) Would separate stand-alone Interface Design Description (IDD) be helpful to define the exact signals being sent between the PCC and the ESC?  (f) Would a communications protocol, signal list, interface definition, etc. that differs from what is currently built or offered be a driver in cost or assurance of software or monitoring hardware?  (g) Should the ESC have its own interface to the ship's machinery control system, other shipboard systems, etc., including sending all alarms?  (h) Has a fire suppression media been selected for specific battery solutions under consideration in response to this RFI?  (i) Has their utilization been validated under real abusive testing?

A11. The Energy Magazine may require capability to receive power from a number of potential sources depending on the chosen platform (such as 450VAC, 4160VAC, 13.8kVAC, 1kVDC, 6kVDC, and 12kVDC) and provide power to loads at multiple voltage levels (such as 450VAC, 4160VAC, 13.8kVAC, 375VDC, 650VDC, and 1kVDC).  Additionally, the Navy expects that evolution of ship power systems will incorporate ever-greater integration of Energy Magazine, from a locally-shared resource to a globally-shared resource, and that such integrations will generally (but not necessarily) be associated with sourcing from/supplying to higher voltage levels.  For example, a notional evolution path might be from a compartmental or zonally shared resource feeding a small set of selected loads, to an inter-zonal resource well-integrated with the low-voltage secondary distribution system, to a global resource that is well-integrated with the primary distribution system, acting essentially as a fast-response slack generator - or even possibly all three use-cases within the same power system.  (a) What are the design choices up front that enable minimal hardware change(s) to accommodate applications in the input and output ranges noted above, and that would enable affordable transitions between the succession of integration use cases notionally identified above?  (b) To the extent that some of these design choices may not be identifiable with current knowledge, what critical studies should be investigated to identify preferred options?  (c) Does the requirement to operate as an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) affect the design complexity, efficiency, cost or other variables, as compared to a design that does not require such capability?  (d) Are there any specific voltage levels or types that might be mutually exclusive for any reason?  (e) How does the definition of an energy storage interface at 680-1000VDC affect the system's ability to consume or provide power at the various voltage levels defined in this section and is there any other energy storage DC voltage that would be prudent to be explored, to facilitate higher or lower voltage interfaces?

A12.  Are any draft requirements of the Energy Magazine expected to drive high costs for a perceived limited performance benefit to the Navy?

A13. Are there any requirements which could be eliminated by substituting a suitable commercial alternative (including non-US specifications)?

A14. It is envisioned that the interface between the power electronics and the energy storage, as described by the Interface Control Document, would apply principles of Open Architecture, allowing energy storage using different technologies or from different vendors to be interchangeable with little to no reconfiguration needed.  (a) Please describe key areas of concern or critical considerations in implementing an Open Architecture in the Energy Magazine design.  (b) What is the lowest proprietary element that would form these interface boundaries?  (c) Is there a common structure, control, and electrical interfaces that would enhance the interfaces?

A15. There are reliability requirements in the FRD expressed as Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) hours with allowance for redundancy within the EM.  (a) If time between repairs and space constraints for maintenance and equipment are defined; and reliability/availability can be addressed through redundancy within the EM, are there any requirements that would be better expressed in terms of Availability (Ao)?  (b) Please identify concerns with meeting MTBF reliability requirements and provide justification to support Ao as the basis for reliability requirements and identify which FRD requirements should be evaluated against that justification.  (c) What is the feasibility of employing battery management systems to provide state of health assessments, to provide sufficient situational awareness related to storage media degradation and casualty?

A16. If the EM specification included a requirement to co-locate the filtering and external connections associated with an output or an input converter in the same cabinet section as that output or input converter, respectively, would there be issues in meeting the dimensional requirements specified?

A17. (a) Are there any specific attributes associated with stochastic, dynamic loads, which would be necessary to be known in advance, in order to appropriately size or rate components in the PCC or ESC?  (b) Does this change if load is desired to be partially or fully supported by power generation (e.g. the EM employed as a power buffer versus prime power)?

A18. (a) Are there any specific limitations or concerns for the inclusion of loads that are highly sensitive to power quality, with other loads that may be less sensitive, or perhaps affect power quality due to the nature of their operation?  (b) Are there scenarios where multiple dynamic loads on the same DC bus may be less desirable?  (c) Does the employment of isolating DC/DC converters mitigate these challenges/issues?

A19. The selection of cooling media is a challenge and concern, due to limited chiller and distribution capability, as well as the energy cost of requiring chilled media.  (a) If cooling water is employed per the FRD, what does the effect of media selection, specifically chilled versus ambient water have on performance of the PCC and ESC?  (b) Does the inclusion of corrosion inhibitors/metal deactivators help or cause concern in PCC and ESC designs? (c) Does a temperature rise limit of 6.9C affect the design and operation, as compared to a wider spread?  (d) Are there specific circumstances where the use of chilled or ambient water might help or hinder the operation of power conversion or energy storage media?  

B. Statement of Work and Schedule Related Questions:

B1. What is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the constituent technologies that would be necessary to meet the intent of the specification document, particularly in energy density and power density, and what are the development steps necessary to result in a shipboard ready system (including associated timelines)?

B2. Generally speaking, increasing the duration of the design phase may allow the design to mature for more advanced (smaller) designs, whereas designs that can meet stringent schedule requirements may be less advanced, larger and heavier.  With this assumption, should the design phase of the Energy Magazine effort be one year in duration, would that inhibit application of relevant technology?

B3. What level of Modeling and Simulation should be required (what is necessary for you to adequately satisfy the design process)?

B4. If there are numbers of years of production with "step ladder" pricing for between one to ten units per year, can that be accomplished with present production line capacity or would there be a number of units per year that would require you to establish new production lines for this effort?

B5. (a) What are the specific items of longest lead time materials that would preclude you from being able to provide the initial unit(s) and the production units of Energy Magazine within one year from the time of ordering the units?  (b) If there are materials whose lead times necessitate more than one year from order to delivery, does having a long lead materials pool where these materials are bought early and placed on a virtual shelf for use in fabrication (ordering the replacement for the shelf to be used on subsequent buys) help in meeting a one-year schedule?

B6. If battery management software was considered safety critical, and subject to added scrutiny, what is the level of uncertainty and cost that would be the result?

B7. (a) How would the requirement for full, unencrypted simulations of the system design, controls, etc. affect the pricing of the effort?  (b) What aspects of a system simulation would be considered trade secrets and not deliverable in a modeling and simulation deliverable?

C. Business Processes and Approach Questions:

C1. (a) How would a US domestic sources of supply requirement impact how you approach this procurement?  (b) What visibility do you have in your supply chains on the sources of supply and whether they are foreign or domestic in nature?

C2. (a) Are there any requirements included that drive cost and, if so, what are they and how could the requirement be relaxed to result in a more affordable and yet equally capable Energy Magazine? (b) What three requirements are expected to most drive non-recurring design costs and recurring production costs?

C3. Experience on prior procurements indicates 30 days to develop a proposal is too short since it requires about 3 weeks to get management approvals on the proposal (which means only 1 week to develop a concept and price (high risk)).  Extending the proposal period 2-3 weeks after RFP release therefore does not help make a better proposal either as it would occur during a company's management review time.  Does a 45 to 60-day proposal development period at the time of RFP release and no allowed extensions enable a more technically complete proposal, with a more refined price and the needed approvals?

C4. If cost type contracting is applied to the design and build of an Energy Magazine, are there any issues that would preclude pricing on a fixed price basis for the production options?

C5. What incentives are meaningful and reasonable for the development and production of the Energy Magazine (including CPIF cost sharing, award fee, and special incentives for technical performance and schedule acceleration)?

C6. Would application of disincentives which mirror any chosen incentives adversely impact your decision on participation in the potential procurement of an Energy Magazine?

C7. If a multiple award contracting approach is contemplated, where more than one contractor is awarded the design of the Energy Magazine and potentially would be more than one carried through initial unit(s) fabrication and testing, what criteria would be appropriate to apply to any down-select decision?

C9. Changes to the material, design, or structure of an energy storage device, can trigger costly recertification efforts to ensure that safety is fully characterized relative to energy storage failure modes.  Long-term configuration and process control is important to prevent such recertification costs.  What effect in terms of cost, availability, or viability of solutions occur if a configuration-controlled design (including cells) was required?

Small Business Interest:

D1. No socio-economic set-aside decisions have been made at this time since the Government is still performing market research and any pursuant determinations will be based on the written capabilities received in response to this RFI who have clearly demonstrated an ability to successfully perform the work requirements.  If a small business believes that they can provide the Energy Magazine as defined herein, those respondents should submit a brief two (2) page capability statement describing your company's capabilities for performing the required work.  This capability statement should also include a synopsis of corporate experience/management capabilities, staff experience and availability, and any pertinent training/certifications relevant to the tasks described herein.  In addition to the capability statement, respondents should also complete the market research questionnaire that can be provided upon request via email to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.

Administrative Information:

Responses and comments are requested by 4:00 pm (EST), on January 21, 2019.  Information shall be e-mailed to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.  Questions can be submitted electronically to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.  A Microsoft Word format version of this RFI is available upon request to the points of contact noted above.

Responses are requested to be provided electronically and acceptable formats include Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerPoint files.  The information provided will assist NAVSEA in future developments, procurements and acquisitions.  The comments provided to the FRD should not contain proprietary information.  However, if some of the background on the comments provided is considered proprietary to the respondent, that portion shall be segregated and labeled as such and will be treated as Business Sensitive and will not be shared outside of Government activities and agencies without the permission of the provider.  It is noted that membership of the extended Navy team includes Government support contractors and no information will be shared with non-Government employees without express permission from the source of the information with proof in the form of Non-Disclosure Agreements.  All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

This RFI in no way binds the Government to offer contracts to responding companies.  Defense and commercial contractors, including small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned business, HUBZone small businesses, and women-owned businesses are encouraged to participate.  Academia and other research organizations are also encouraged to participate.  This RFI is the initiation of market research under Part 10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and is not a Request for Proposals (RFP).  All information shall be provided free of charge to the Government.  NAVSEA may request further information regarding the capabilities of respondents to meet the requirements and may request a presentation and/or a site visit as deemed necessary.  Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future Request for Proposal (RFP) or other solicitation, if any is issued.  Classified material will not be accepted.  Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI.  

Follow-up questions may be asked of responders for clarification, but this will not indicate a selection or preference.  FAR 15.201 encourages interaction and exchanges from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals.  The objective is to have a more robust and candid dialog with the potential offerors before the Navy releases a formal RFP.  In the event the Navy discusses any specific information that is necessary for the preparation of proposals and NOT related to a potential offeror's business strategy/capability, that information will be made available to all offerors through an amendment/modification posting on NECO and FedBizOpps. The opportunity for providing direct feedback may be discussed during one-on-one meetings described herein, only if and after the formal RFI submittal has been provided by a respondent, in order to gain more clarity in the RFI responses provided.  The one-on-one sessions will have Contracting Officer participation and are intended to resolve concerns regarding strategy, contract type, terms and conditions, and acquisition planning schedules; and the feasibility of the requirement; the suitability of the proposal instructions. If these sessions are scheduled to occur, a date will be released to FBO at a later period. Arrangement for a time slot will be made by contacting Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil. A final determination of one-on-one sessions will be held at a later date to be announced on FBO. The location for the one-on-ones may be outside of the Washington Navy Yard at a Government support contractor location for ease of access.

The Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) is conducting market research through the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) on behalf of PMS 320 (the Electric Ships Office) seeking information from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, academia, and other interested parties to support the development of an electrical Energy Magazine for use in power systems applicable to naval warships.  A key contributing technology for high powered directed energy weapons is stored energy.  The stored energy of the Energy Magazine is required to supplement typical ship service power so as to not put stochastic, large pulsed loads directly on the generator, which potentially damages the shipboard power system.  The Energy Magazine consists of power electronics, energy storage media, and controls combined together into one or multiple cabinets to enable directed energy weapons, electronic warfare, and sensors to meet shipboard distribution system requirements (such as MIL-STD-1399) while allowing multifunctional use of the energy storage assets.  The Energy Magazine is a common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations.  The Energy Magazine is a ship power "reloadable" magazine for multiple directed energy engagements that eliminates unique energy storage and power conditioning requirements for individual directed energy systems.  The Energy Magazine provides stable backup power functionality and leads to reduction of uninterruptable power supplies (UPS).

This announcement is a follow-on to the RFI posted under announcement N00024-17-R-4129 of April 19, 2017 and the feedback the Navy received from that RFI was considered in the development of the documents associated with this announcement.  Also, since this equipment could be applied to future shipboard architectures, new versions of MIL-STD-1399 distribution interfaces are referenced.  A separate RFI was issued to solicit industry comment on these interface standards (see announcement N00024-17-R-4202 of November 8, 2016).

The Navy has developed draft performance requirements and desires industry review, feedback and recommendations addressing specific issues within the draft, as appropriate.  The Energy Magazine is functionally allocated into two, physically separated cabinets; the Power Conversion Cabinet (PCC) and the Energy Storage Cabinet (ESC).   A boundary has been defined between the PCC and ESC and that interface is defined by an Interface Control Document (ICD).  This boundary will likely feature an unregulated 680 VDC to 1000 VDC bus.  The functionality allocated to the PCC includes power input and output to the loads and shipboard power distribution system, with an active front end enabling combined energy storage with a base load.  The functionality allocated to the ESC includes the storage media and any associated control (such as a battery management system); and cooling and ventilation.  Each cabinet is expected to have multiple sections internal to each cabinet to achieve all functionality allocated to each.

The draft requirements are captured in a spreadsheet format of the Functional Requirements Document (FRD), which contains all performance requirements included in the specification; maps specified, derived, and verification requirements from source documents to the specification; and provides verification traceability at applicable test locations.  The FRD contains the generic Energy Magazine set of requirements that would eventually manifest as a performance specification; the specific set of requirements for the particular incarnation of an Energy Magazine thought to be of most value in an initial production, which would manifest as a set of ordering data (or slant sheet) to the generic Energy Magazine performance specification; and the particulars of the interface between the PCC and the ESC that would manifest as the ICD noted above.  The FRD contains controlled unclassified information and is therefore marked Distribution Statement D (Distribution authorized to Department of Defense (DoD) and DoD contractors only).  Therefore, the FRD can be provided upon request via email to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil upon verification that the requestor is a bona fide U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) contractor familiar with the procedures to handle technical data packages that may include limited distribution information.  Evidence in the form of a fully executed DD Form 2345 (MILITARILY CRITICAL TECHNICAL DATA AGREEMENT), signed by both the US and Canadian representative, will be required prior to receipt.

The structure of a Request for Proposals (RFP) that may be associated with the Energy Magazine development and production could include a one-year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one-year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units.  Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.  The design and initial unit(s) build and factory test items may be cost-type and the production options may be cost or fixed price type.  A technical data package may be required that includes hardware drawings, software source code, firmware, interface drawings, modelling and simulation data of a particular software type, and all other technical and programmatic support documents to go from preliminary design through qualification testing, including test procedures and test reports.

Responses:

It is with the above understanding that PMS 320 is interested in having vendors of power electronics, energy storage, and power distribution system integration comment on the provided document.  The FRD has included in it a column for direct industry feedback.  Of immediate interest would be comments on the rationale for the requirements being correct or in need of adjustment; where requirements are too prescriptive or restrictive for the stated objective of the Energy Magazine (Note: some requirements cannot be changed as they relate to such things as shipboard integration factors); and where a requirement should be levied that has not been in order to have a successful Energy Magazine implementation (such as more specifications to define parsing of controls at the cabinet level).  Any comments provided to the FRD shall also include associated rationale.  Additionally, PMS 320 is interested in answers to the questions below, gathered in a separate document from the FRD spreadsheet.

A. Technical Scope and Functional Questions:

A1. Do the technical parameters defined in the FRD clearly define the end product, or is more definition required?

A2. (a) How would the interfaces between the power electronics and the energy storage change if a rotating storage device was selected instead of traditional battery / capacitive components?  (b) This includes how a rotating storage device would change the topology, controls, dynamic operations, etc. of the power electronics, as well as the overall system sizing and requirements, to support bearings, vacuum, thermal, and safety?  (c) What is the impact of a hybrid of multiple energy storage media types?  (d) Would hybrids require additional or separate regulating power converters to provide safe inclusion on a DC bus with dissimilar storage media?

A3. (a) Are there technologies or approaches that facilitate the paralleling of energy storage components (e.g. multiple battery and/or capacitor strings at a common interface voltage), and ensure consistent energy flow under dynamic and fault conditions?  (b) If parallel cells are employed in a design, how is it assured that they share current evenly at high rates?  (c) How tightly matched are the cells for internal and pack impedance?  (d) How are they protected in case of an internal short circuit? 

A4. (a) What additional hardware would be required with the energy storage (the ESC) separate from the power electronics cabinet (the PSC) and please identify any pros and cons for these choices?  (b) What design attributes for fire suppression and gas management would be necessary for an ESC as compared to a PSC?  (c) What cooling attributes differ for the ESC and PSC?

A5. (a) If a tap for a load was required on the unregulated bus between the PCC and the ESC, would a high speed breaker be required at both the PCC and the ESC ends?  (b) Would this breaker be enclosed within the PCC or ESC cabinet? (c) Does the requirement for a controllable contactor and fuse on the energy storage system change this requirement?

A6. The Navy is interested in the applications for higher voltage Silicon-Carbide (SiC) wide band-gap devices and how they improve power electronics performance.  How would the application of SiC devices impact the design performance for the Energy Magazine and what would be negative factors which would lead to not applying this technology?

A7. What are your recommended tailoring for Military Standards MIL-STD-461 (Electromagnetic Interface Characteristics Requirements for Equipment) and the electric power related sections of MIL-STD-1399 (Interface Standards for Shipboard Systems)?

A8. Please identify how the overall Energy Magazine would scale up (cabinet size and weight, cooling load, etc.) from the identified power and energy ratings in the FRD to a higher rating with your preferred architecture, and describe the components/technologies that drive the electrical power versus size trade space.

A9. Please identify the requirements that inhibit the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) products or existing Non-Developmental Item (NDI) components.

A10. Any Lithium-ion battery based energy storage system that may be proposed will be required to either have completed characterization testing in accordance with S9310-AQ-SAF-010 or the proposal would need to include the characterization testing in accordance with S9310-AG-SAF-010.  (a) What additional clarifications, information, or direction is needed, if any, to incorporate this into a proposal and design?  (b)  If S9310-AQ-SAF-9310 has been completed for high energy batteries, are any of the draft FRD requirements driving you to change the design and thereby have to do additional Navy safety assessment testing?  (c) Is the ICD provided in this RFI, combined with the Technical Specification, sufficient to define the interface between the PCC and ESC cabinets? (d) What additional information/signals would be required to accurately define the PCC to ESC interface and support safe operation and control of the stored energy media?  (e) Would separate stand-alone Interface Design Description (IDD) be helpful to define the exact signals being sent between the PCC and the ESC?  (f) Would a communications protocol, signal list, interface definition, etc. that differs from what is currently built or offered be a driver in cost or assurance of software or monitoring hardware?  (g) Should the ESC have its own interface to the ship's machinery control system, other shipboard systems, etc., including sending all alarms?  (h) Has a fire suppression media been selected for specific battery solutions under consideration in response to this RFI?  (i) Has their utilization been validated under real abusive testing?

A11. The Energy Magazine may require capability to receive power from a number of potential sources depending on the chosen platform (such as 450VAC, 4160VAC, 13.8kVAC, 1kVDC, 6kVDC, and 12kVDC) and provide power to loads at multiple voltage levels (such as 450VAC, 4160VAC, 13.8kVAC, 375VDC, 650VDC, and 1kVDC).  Additionally, the Navy expects that evolution of ship power systems will incorporate ever-greater integration of Energy Magazine, from a locally-shared resource to a globally-shared resource, and that such integrations will generally (but not necessarily) be associated with sourcing from/supplying to higher voltage levels.  For example, a notional evolution path might be from a compartmental or zonally shared resource feeding a small set of selected loads, to an inter-zonal resource well-integrated with the low-voltage secondary distribution system, to a global resource that is well-integrated with the primary distribution system, acting essentially as a fast-response slack generator - or even possibly all three use-cases within the same power system.  (a) What are the design choices up front that enable minimal hardware change(s) to accommodate applications in the input and output ranges noted above, and that would enable affordable transitions between the succession of integration use cases notionally identified above?  (b) To the extent that some of these design choices may not be identifiable with current knowledge, what critical studies should be investigated to identify preferred options?  (c) Does the requirement to operate as an Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) affect the design complexity, efficiency, cost or other variables, as compared to a design that does not require such capability?  (d) Are there any specific voltage levels or types that might be mutually exclusive for any reason?  (e) How does the definition of an energy storage interface at 680-1000VDC affect the system's ability to consume or provide power at the various voltage levels defined in this section and is there any other energy storage DC voltage that would be prudent to be explored, to facilitate higher or lower voltage interfaces?

A12.  Are any draft requirements of the Energy Magazine expected to drive high costs for a perceived limited performance benefit to the Navy?

A13. Are there any requirements which could be eliminated by substituting a suitable commercial alternative (including non-US specifications)?

A14. It is envisioned that the interface between the power electronics and the energy storage, as described by the Interface Control Document, would apply principles of Open Architecture, allowing energy storage using different technologies or from different vendors to be interchangeable with little to no reconfiguration needed.  (a) Please describe key areas of concern or critical considerations in implementing an Open Architecture in the Energy Magazine design.  (b) What is the lowest proprietary element that would form these interface boundaries?  (c) Is there a common structure, control, and electrical interfaces that would enhance the interfaces?

A15. There are reliability requirements in the FRD expressed as Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) hours with allowance for redundancy within the EM.  (a) If time between repairs and space constraints for maintenance and equipment are defined; and reliability/availability can be addressed through redundancy within the EM, are there any requirements that would be better expressed in terms of Availability (Ao)?  (b) Please identify concerns with meeting MTBF reliability requirements and provide justification to support Ao as the basis for reliability requirements and identify which FRD requirements should be evaluated against that justification.  (c) What is the feasibility of employing battery management systems to provide state of health assessments, to provide sufficient situational awareness related to storage media degradation and casualty?

A16. If the EM specification included a requirement to co-locate the filtering and external connections associated with an output or an input converter in the same cabinet section as that output or input converter, respectively, would there be issues in meeting the dimensional requirements specified?

A17. (a) Are there any specific attributes associated with stochastic, dynamic loads, which would be necessary to be known in advance, in order to appropriately size or rate components in the PCC or ESC?  (b) Does this change if load is desired to be partially or fully supported by power generation (e.g. the EM employed as a power buffer versus prime power)?

A18. (a) Are there any specific limitations or concerns for the inclusion of loads that are highly sensitive to power quality, with other loads that may be less sensitive, or perhaps affect power quality due to the nature of their operation?  (b) Are there scenarios where multiple dynamic loads on the same DC bus may be less desirable?  (c) Does the employment of isolating DC/DC converters mitigate these challenges/issues?

A19. The selection of cooling media is a challenge and concern, due to limited chiller and distribution capability, as well as the energy cost of requiring chilled media.  (a) If cooling water is employed per the FRD, what does the effect of media selection, specifically chilled versus ambient water have on performance of the PCC and ESC?  (b) Does the inclusion of corrosion inhibitors/metal deactivators help or cause concern in PCC and ESC designs? (c) Does a temperature rise limit of 6.9C affect the design and operation, as compared to a wider spread?  (d) Are there specific circumstances where the use of chilled or ambient water might help or hinder the operation of power conversion or energy storage media?  

B. Statement of Work and Schedule Related Questions:

B1. What is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the constituent technologies that would be necessary to meet the intent of the specification document, particularly in energy density and power density, and what are the development steps necessary to result in a shipboard ready system (including associated timelines)?

B2. Generally speaking, increasing the duration of the design phase may allow the design to mature for more advanced (smaller) designs, whereas designs that can meet stringent schedule requirements may be less advanced, larger and heavier.  With this assumption, should the design phase of the Energy Magazine effort be one year in duration, would that inhibit application of relevant technology?

B3. What level of Modeling and Simulation should be required (what is necessary for you to adequately satisfy the design process)?

B4. If there are numbers of years of production with "step ladder" pricing for between one to ten units per year, can that be accomplished with present production line capacity or would there be a number of units per year that would require you to establish new production lines for this effort?

B5. (a) What are the specific items of longest lead time materials that would preclude you from being able to provide the initial unit(s) and the production units of Energy Magazine within one year from the time of ordering the units?  (b) If there are materials whose lead times necessitate more than one year from order to delivery, does having a long lead materials pool where these materials are bought early and placed on a virtual shelf for use in fabrication (ordering the replacement for the shelf to be used on subsequent buys) help in meeting a one-year schedule?

B6. If battery management software was considered safety critical, and subject to added scrutiny, what is the level of uncertainty and cost that would be the result?

B7. (a) How would the requirement for full, unencrypted simulations of the system design, controls, etc. affect the pricing of the effort?  (b) What aspects of a system simulation would be considered trade secrets and not deliverable in a modeling and simulation deliverable?

C. Business Processes and Approach Questions:

C1. (a) How would a US domestic sources of supply requirement impact how you approach this procurement?  (b) What visibility do you have in your supply chains on the sources of supply and whether they are foreign or domestic in nature?

C2. (a) Are there any requirements included that drive cost and, if so, what are they and how could the requirement be relaxed to result in a more affordable and yet equally capable Energy Magazine? (b) What three requirements are expected to most drive non-recurring design costs and recurring production costs?

C3. Experience on prior procurements indicates 30 days to develop a proposal is too short since it requires about 3 weeks to get management approvals on the proposal (which means only 1 week to develop a concept and price (high risk)).  Extending the proposal period 2-3 weeks after RFP release therefore does not help make a better proposal either as it would occur during a company's management review time.  Does a 45 to 60-day proposal development period at the time of RFP release and no allowed extensions enable a more technically complete proposal, with a more refined price and the needed approvals?

C4. If cost type contracting is applied to the design and build of an Energy Magazine, are there any issues that would preclude pricing on a fixed price basis for the production options?

C5. What incentives are meaningful and reasonable for the development and production of the Energy Magazine (including CPIF cost sharing, award fee, and special incentives for technical performance and schedule acceleration)?

C6. Would application of disincentives which mirror any chosen incentives adversely impact your decision on participation in the potential procurement of an Energy Magazine?

C7. If a multiple award contracting approach is contemplated, where more than one contractor is awarded the design of the Energy Magazine and potentially would be more than one carried through initial unit(s) fabrication and testing, what criteria would be appropriate to apply to any down-select decision?

C9. Changes to the material, design, or structure of an energy storage device, can trigger costly recertification efforts to ensure that safety is fully characterized relative to energy storage failure modes.  Long-term configuration and process control is important to prevent such recertification costs.  What effect in terms of cost, availability, or viability of solutions occur if a configuration-controlled design (including cells) was required?

Small Business Interest:

D1. No socio-economic set-aside decisions have been made at this time since the Government is still performing market research and any pursuant determinations will be based on the written capabilities received in response to this RFI who have clearly demonstrated an ability to successfully perform the work requirements.  If a small business believes that they can provide the Energy Magazine as defined herein, those respondents should submit a brief two (2) page capability statement describing your company's capabilities for performing the required work.  This capability statement should also include a synopsis of corporate experience/management capabilities, staff experience and availability, and any pertinent training/certifications relevant to the tasks described herein.  In addition to the capability statement, respondents should also complete the market research questionnaire that can be provided upon request via email to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.

Administrative Information:

Responses and comments are requested by 4:00 pm (EST), on January 17, 2019.  Information shall be e-mailed to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.  Questions can be submitted electronically to Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil.  A Microsoft Word format version of this RFI is available upon request to the points of contact noted above.

Responses are requested to be provided electronically and acceptable formats include Adobe PDF, Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel and Microsoft PowerPoint files.  The information provided will assist NAVSEA in future developments, procurements and acquisitions.  The comments provided to the FRD should not contain proprietary information.  However, if some of the background on the comments provided is considered proprietary to the respondent, that portion shall be segregated and labeled as such and will be treated as Business Sensitive and will not be shared outside of Government activities and agencies without the permission of the provider.  It is noted that membership of the extended Navy team includes Government support contractors and no information will be shared with non-Government employees without express permission from the source of the information with proof in the form of Non-Disclosure Agreements.  All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

This RFI in no way binds the Government to offer contracts to responding companies.  Defense and commercial contractors, including small businesses, veteran-owned businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned business, HUBZone small businesses, and women-owned businesses are encouraged to participate.  Academia and other research organizations are also encouraged to participate.  This RFI is the initiation of market research under Part 10 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and is not a Request for Proposals (RFP).  All information shall be provided free of charge to the Government.  NAVSEA may request further information regarding the capabilities of respondents to meet the requirements and may request a presentation and/or a site visit as deemed necessary.  Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future Request for Proposal (RFP) or other solicitation, if any is issued.  Classified material will not be accepted.  Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI.  

Follow-up questions may be asked of responders for clarification, but this will not indicate a selection or preference.  FAR 15.201 encourages interaction and exchanges from the earliest identification of a requirement through receipt of proposals.  The objective is to have a more robust and candid dialog with the potential offerors before the Navy releases a formal RFP.  In the event the Navy discusses any specific information that is necessary for the preparation of proposals and NOT related to a potential offeror's business strategy/capability, that information will be made available to all offerors through an amendment/modification posting on NECO and FedBizOpps. The opportunity for providing direct feedback may be discussed during one-on-one meetings described herein, only if and after the formal RFI submittal has been provided by a respondent, in order to gain more clarity in the RFI responses provided.  The one-on-one sessions will have Contracting Officer participation and are intended to resolve concerns regarding strategy, contract type, terms and conditions, and acquisition planning schedules; and the feasibility of the requirement; the suitability of the proposal instructions. If these sessions are scheduled to occur, a date will be released to FBO at a later period. Arrangement for a time slot will be made by contacting Mckenzie Smith; mckenzie.smith@navy.mil and John Anderson III; john.anderson6@navy.mil. A final determination of one-on-one sessions will be held at a later date to be announced on FBO. The location for the one-on-ones may be outside of the Washington Navy Yard at a Government support contractor location for ease of access.