SOURCES SOUGHT
19 -- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)/MARKET SURVEY Design and Construction Best Practices, Analysis and Recommendations for future submarine launched, diver lockout long duration combat submersibles.
- Notice Date
- 12/30/2008
- Notice Type
- Sources Sought
- Contracting Office
- N00024 NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND, DC 1333 Isaac Hull Avenue S.E. Washington Navy Yard, DC
- ZIP Code
- 00000
- Solicitation Number
- N0002409N6213
- Response Due
- 2/20/2009
- Archive Date
- 3/7/2009
- Point of Contact
- CAPT Gard Clark(202)781-1509<br />
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- This is not a solicitation, this is a request for information. This RFI is being conducted to determine if there is industry interest to produce combat submersible vehicles as described should the Government decide to procure such vehicles. The decision to procure said vehicles has not yet been made, but this RFI would help inform programmatic questions inherent in that decision. This RFI is for fact finding only and does not constitute a commitment or obligation by the Government to issue an RFP, contract or order. The Government will not pay for any effort expended or any material provided in response to this announcement, nor would the Government return any data provided. A future combat submersible should provide theater Special Operation Forces (SOF) commanders the operational capability to conduct insertion and extraction of SOF personnel and/or payloads into and from denied areas from strategic distances. These submersibles would mate to a host submarine using the same interface as that of ASDS-1. The submersibles should be able to conduct clandestine surveillance during extended loiter times at close-in distances. A modular capability and capacity to hold varying payload would enhance its utility for a broad range of missions including intelligence collection, surveillance, and reconnaissance in support of SOF objectives. An Initial Operating Capability (IOC) of FY 2016 is desired for the first of three potential submersible units. BACKGROUND: The Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS), a first generation submarine launched, diver lockout, long duration combat submersible for SOF, was developed and completed final acceptance by the Government in CY 2003. However, in CY 2006, the Department of Defense (DoD) cancelled the ASDS program due to operational reliability and cost issues. A comprehensive and combined Government and Industry series of Critical System Reviews was undertaken, leading to development of design changes to improve reliability. The fabrication, installation, and testing of these modifications are in progress. In CY 2008, a DoD directed analysis of alternate material solutions to the ASDS program was conducted and concluded that a dry submersible launched from a host support submarine was the preferred alternative to fulfill the required mission. Should the Navy go forward with a program, it would require an expeditious and low technological risk approach to filling this mission need!. It is anticipated that if the Government decides to enter into a procurement that up to 3 systems may be initially procured. APPROACH: In order to minimize technical risk and expeditiously deliver the capability to the fleet in a cost effective manner, the designer would be expected to leverage appropriate portions of the ASDS-1 design in developing the detailed design. The effort should take into account ASDS-1 lessons learned including operational history, investigations and results of the Critical Systems Reviews, and other available information on the ASDS program specifically to include Government Furnished Information. One criterion for risk evaluation of potential designs would be the designer's approach to re-use of successful design elements and details from ASDS-1 as well as recommendation of appropriate and necessary changes to achieve specified reliability requirements including material availability, mean time between failure and mean time to repair. The design is also expected to accommodate appropriate changes to facilitate cost-effective manufacture at the construction facility! and would be expected to include changes for producibility (including potential weight reduction) and changes to account for obsolescence and/or diminished manufacturing sources. It would be the responsibility of the designer to propose the balance of reuse and new development in the vehicle. However, new design elements must be shown to have high technical readiness levels and minimum risk in integration with the remaining vehicle systems. A total design effort of less than 2 years would be anticipated. The Government expects the design drawings necessary to build the combat submersible vehicle can be completed in approximately 9 months and that a full Critical Design Review would be conducted by the Government prior to authorizing commencement of first unit construction. The Government expects that the following potential items would be GFE:a)Propulsorb)Forward Looking Sonarc)Hatches (unless bidder's proposal shows that CFE would be more economical)d)External communications equipment and cryptographic equipment (excluding antenna system) The Government is evaluating the following acquisition strategy, timeline, and schedule: A full and open competition would result in award of a fixed priced multi-phased Preliminary Design-Detailed Design-Build Contract to multiple offerors. These contracts would establish a firm fixed price preliminary design period followed by options to conduct detailed design and further individual options for the purchase of long lead time material and then actual construction for each vehicle. Contract award would be based on consideration of the proposal for the entire design-build effort, not only the preliminary design period. Contracts would be awarded to capable and experienced designers and builders whose proposals offer best value and demonstrates low risk solutions that can comply with the required technical requirements. The design and construction specification would work to minimize program risk by encouraging reuse of reliable portions of the ASDS design including previous improvements and by making other appropriate reliability upgrades, producibility, aco! ustic, diminished manufacturing supply and obsolescence modifications. The offerors would propose the balance between reuse of ASDS design including its current improvements and new design. Exceptions to proposed new design elements are no changes will be allowed from the ASDS-1 Host Interface and the proposed hull design must not warrant the conduct of a new hull confirmation model or strain-gaging of the lead hull. Additionally, the following GFE items would have essentially the same interface and performance capabilities as those currently installed in ASDS-1: SOF Communications Gear, the propulsor, and Forward Look Sonar. The vehicle hatches shall be consistent with the 25 and 30 inch hatches used in ASDS-1 although updated design versions such as the Virginia Class bridge access trunk hatch may be proposed and the source is negotiable. Following review of the preliminary design information, it is intended to award options to only one of the initial contractors th! at produced preliminary designs. The detailed design, long lead time material and construction options on the contract would be established as fixed price options with incentives possible for cost and or schedule as appropriate to the individual option. In the first contract year, award of multi-phased contracts would begin with a 3-Month preliminary design effort followed by approximately 2 months of evaluation at a not to exceed price. The output of the preliminary design phase would also include preliminary design approaches to the contractor's perceived highest risk areas. At the conclusion of the preliminary design phase, offerors would provide a Best and Final Offer (BAFO) including performance, technical features, cost, and schedule compared to the original bid and negotiated values and conditions. Increased costs would not be accepted and a down-selection to a single designer and builder would be made based on the BAFO using the same source selection criteria used to award the contract but would also include analysis of products delivered as part of the preliminary design phase. The option for the design effort starting in the second contract year would then be exercised using the BAFO pricing and the detailed d! esign effort would commence. The contract priced options would also be adjusted based on the BAFO. The option for the purchase of Long Lead Time Material (LLTM) in the third contract year may be exercised upon Government approval of the design drawings and details. The fixed priced option for construction of System #1 may be exercised in the fourth contract year. Similarly the fixed priced options for LLTM and Construction for System #2 may be exercised approximately one year later. System delivery would be required NLT 36 months after contract. Options might also exist for a third system. A performance based specification for designing and building the system is being prepared to require adherence to appropriate specified design and construction standards where applicable, established quality control program, submission of design drawings and design data for government submission as well as the conduct of factory floor, and at sea testing culminating in a combined acceptance trials. The specification for designing and building is under development and if the Government decides to enter into a procurement, it is expected to be released for review and comment as part of a draft RFP that may be issued as early as CY 2009. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: These unclassified system key performance parameter areas are applicable: A) Combat Range, B) Endurance, C) Passengers, D) Lock-In/Out Operations, E) Cruise Speed, F) Vehicle Signature, G) Interoperability/Net Ready Capability, H) Operational/Material Availability, I) Force Protection, and J) Survivability. Additionally, other applicable performance parameters are: A) Operational Temperature, B) Transport Speed, C) Transportability D) External Payload, E) Crew, F) Transport Depth, G) Vibration, H) Storage Temperature, I) Lock-In/Out Depth, J) Operational Depth, K) # of Cycles at Maximum Lock-In/Out Depth, L) Mission Reliability, Sea State/Speed Towed, M) Information System, and N) Mission Profile. DATA LIBRARY: The Government will provide a classified electronic library (e.g. CDs) for responder accessibility to the data/documents identified below for those responders cleared to receive the level of classified data. In addition the documents will be made available at or near the Program Office in the Washington Navy Yard. The Government does not warrant the content and performance of the design data contained therein:.ASDS-1 drawings -.pdf files (electronically editable drawings may be available in Early 2009).ASDS-1 Engineering analysis reports used to substantiate ASDS Critical Design Review and subsequent design reviews and certifications.ASDS-1 Field Changes.Results of ASDS-1 Critical System Reviews.Interim design data on reliability system modifications.USSOCOM Initial Capability Document for the Undersea Clandestine Maritime Mobility Gap dated July 1, 2007.Draft Capabilities Development Document.Summary of systems/vehicle areas Government expects that ASDS-1 design would be re-used, areas that changes would be made and areas that substantive change may be appropriate..ASDS OPEVAL test report Respondents may submit a request for classified information up to the Secret level to: Naval Sea Systems Command Attn: CAPT Gard Clark, Code PMS399, 614 Sicard Street SE, Stop 8840, Washington Navy Yard DC 20376-8840, phone 202-781-1509, e-mail gard.clark@navy.mil. Requests shall specifically include Respondents Name, Address and Zip Code, Cage Code and Cognizant Security Office (Name Address and Zip Code ) as well as the actual performance location including: Address and Zip Code, Cage Code and Cognizant Security Office, Address and Zip Code. Classified documents will be forwarded only after Government approval of a DD 254. Access to classified information shall only be for the duration of the RFI including Government evaluation of the RFI responses. RESPONSES: Respondents must have the capability to handle classified material up to the level of SECRET. Respondents should submit responses in hard copy and electronic format (.pdf, word, excel, project, powerpoint). Responses must include the name, position, telephone number, and e-mail address of the Industry Point of Contact (POC) for technical and contractual issues. Information is desired in the following areas: A)What level of effort would be expected to be conducted during a 3 month preliminary design period in order to support a BAFO and the cost associated with that effort. The responses should identify and address the highest risk areas that warrant more effort in the preliminary design period than others.B)Approach/Extent that Respondent Would Leverage ASDS-1 technical information and how that should be measured and evaluated with respect to a determination of technical risk for the system.C)What changes would the respondent make from the ASDS-1 design based on the Critical Systems Reviews and other deficiencies noted in the Operational Test and Evaluation Report. Acoustic performance is of specific interest. Responses should include a list, collated by system, of how a proposed system design would accomplish resolution for each of the CSR recommendations.D)Identification of a suitable Main Power Source and effort necessary to demonstrate reliability, performance and safety.E)Areas that would use new/different technologies and maturity (TRL) of those technologies.F)Expected level of effort required to redesign/reformat Government provided ASDS-1 technical information for production use at the respondent' plant.G)Intended Approach to Manage Obsolescence including Diminished Material Sources and Electronic systems.H)What additional changes are needed to the design to meet material availability/reliability requirements? How would the respondent propose to measure material availability/reliability? How could this be incentivized in a Fixed Price Incentive Fee contract?I)Discussion of the implications of delivering in accordance with the notional Program Schedule above. Recommendations regarding alternate schedules for detailed design, construction, trials, and final delivery of production systems that optimize for technical risk and cost.J)Evaluation of what specific extent/content of design work must be complete to order LLTM and to begin construction. Evaluation of how this metric would be tracked and reported to ensure on time performance of the required design review prior to authorization of purchase of LLTM and construction.K)Evaluation of duration required to conduct the Detailed Design.L)Identification of items that should be procured/built under LLTM and the duration of that effort.M)Assessment of top 10 technical and top 10 programmatic risks and mitigation strategies.N)Recommended Approach to Address Logistics and Life Cycle Support including expected commonality with ASDS-1 including proposed/recommended maintenance philosophy.O)Ability to Execute Effort under a Fixed Price Contract with individual options for each unit's LLTM and Construction. What incentives would be appropriate for the LLTM and Construction options of the contract? What Earned Value Management parameters would be appropriate to support this type of contract?P)Method of compliance with the Berry Amendment and the Byrnes-Tollefson Amendment.Q)Items or design areas which should have specific wording in the Ship Design Specification to ensure understanding between the Government and the builder. Examples of potential wording for those areas.R)Method of ensuring Government and builder agreement on method of implementation of Deep Submergence Systems Scope of Certification requirements.S)Cost estimates: Specifically, estimated costs for conducting Preliminary Design. Estimated cost of conducting Detailed Design. Estimated types, cost and lead time for procuring long-lead material. Estimated construction cost of the production systems. SUMMARY: Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) will manage this survey. Respondents may respond to this RFI within 50 days of this notice to: Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command Attn: CAPT Gard Clark, Code PMS399, 614 Sicard Street SE, Stop 8840, Washington Navy Yard DC 20376-8840. Electronic responses may be sent to gard.clark@navy.mil (unclassified) or gard.clark@navsea.navy.smil.mil (classified). As a means to further define future program plans and requirements, an exchange of information between industry and the program manager, contracting officer, and other participants may be achieved by one-on-one meetings with respondents to clarify and resolve concerns regarding the acquisition strategy. These exchanges may include, but are not limited to proposed contract type, terms and conditions, and acquisition planning schedules; the feasibility of the requirement, including performance requirements, statements of work, and data requirements; the suitability of the proposal instructions and evaluation criteria, including the approach for assessing past performance information; the availability of reference documents; and any other industry concerns or questions. All interested sources are encouraged to respond. All responses submitted will be reviewed. All submissions shall be considered proprietary/potential source selection sensitive and treated accordingly. The Government does not commit to providing a response to any comment or questions. The Government may use the information provided in response to this RFI to support urgent, on-going, initiatives within DoD to analyze emerging requirements for systems that can improve the overall effectiveness of SOF. Any revision to this RFI based on comments received remains solely at the Government's discretion. These initiatives may ultimately result in the Government developing and issuing an RFP. NAVSEA provides the above information for information only. This is not a Request for Proposal or announcement of a solicitation. This Request for Information does not constitute a commitment by the Government to issue an RFP, contract or order. Under FAR Part 15.202(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. The Government will not pay for any effort expended or any material provided in response to this announcement,! nor will the Government return any data provided.
- Web Link
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a84e7fac37ebca1bd1884e7f10788b8a&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01725268-W 20090101/081230214641-db028118fced437535c4aef3a42fe9db (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |