Auxiliary Dry Cargo Carrier (ADC(X))


Performance Specification Feedback

1. The T-ADC(X) Point Design Water Mist System schematic indicates a high pressure system. Is this your intention? Low pressure systems, such as those manufactured by Grinnell, could offer significant cost advantages based on storage tanks, pumps, piping and valve materials and installation costs. Would a properly designed low pressure system be acceptable for the Category A machinery spaces, spaces containing flammable and combustible liquids and pumping systems?

Response: The point design is only intended to be one possible feasible solution to the Performance Specification requirements. Other solutions are acceptable provided they meet the specification requirements. The chosen water mist system will need to be acceptable to the USCG. We are aware that currently there are not any USCG approved water mist systems but anticipate that there will be by RFP release.

2. Note 2 on this schematic says the system concept and configuration is based on the LPD 17 water mist system. Is the specification for this system available? We are particularly interested in the performance requirements for the system, pressure and flow rates.

Response: The LPD17 RFP and Ship Specifications are on the NAVSEA contracts World Wide Web Site (

3. What is the JP-5 capacity for helicopter refueling operations and where are these tanks to be located?

Response. The capacity requirement for the JP-5 tanks for helicopter refueling is described in the system specification section 3.5.9. However, the present capacity requirement may be revised in the near future. The tank location(s) are to be determined by the offeror during the system design.

4. The ADC(X) list of equipment indicates a total of four chill water pumps, one per unit rated at 128 m3/hr at 4.1 bar. The sketch prepared by JJMA shows a total of nine chill water pumps (two per unit plus one in standby) but no pump ratings. Which is correct? If the latter is correct, are the pumps to be rated at 128 m3/hr or 64 m3/hr?

Response. The current point design has nine chilled water pumps (eight plus one standby), each rated at 1150 gpm, as described in the Freshwater and Chilled Water System Report dated 10 April 1998. In the original T-ADC(X) MEL, the Chilled Water pumps were sized based on the smaller AC plants specified at the time. As the point design was developed further, the A/C plants size has increased significantly. Please note that the Performance Specification does not specify the capacity of this system.

5. The ADC(X) Equipment List dated 11 June 1998, Item 110, shows four 150-ton air-conditioning plants. The Fresh Water and Chilled Water System Design Report dated 10 April 1998 indicates four 450 ton air-conditioning plants. Please advise which is correct. The answer has a significant impact on pump sizes, heat exchangers, piping, etc.

Response. The Fresh Water and Chilled Water System Design Report dated 10 April 1998 contains the most recent estimate of chilled water capacity for the NAVSEA point design. The Equipment List was published on 10 February. The electronic file for the equipment list displays the current date at the top when the file is opened, which in this case was 11 June 1998. Please note that the Performance Specification does not specify the capacity of this system.

6. Is it your intention that the helicopter deck comply with the requirements in Air Capable Ship Aviation Facilities Bulletin 1H for a Recovery Assist, Securing and Traversing (RAST) System for Level 1, Class 1 certification? If not, are there any other requirements in this bulletin which also need not be complied with?

Response. As stated in Specification section 3.5.9a, RAST will not be required for T-ADC(X). At this time we have not identified any other requirements in the Air Capable Ship Facilities Bulletin that need not be complied with.

7. In general, the specified service history rating and testing requirements are clear and not unusual, except for the statement . . . "Each propulsion engine shall be capable of continuous operation at rated power in all ahead propulsion modes." This is an unfamiliar requirement; therefore, some clarification of its origin or need or exact meaning is necessary before an informed comment can be offered.

Response. This requirement insures that the ship will be able to make use of all available power in all ahead propulsion modes. It avoids situations in multi-engine per shaft configurations where power is limited to something less than rated engine power due to single engine per shaft limitations.

8. We are not familiar with the term "OC-12". Is this a standard or vendor specific term?

Response. OC is short for Optical Carrier, used to specify the speed of fiber optic networks conforming to the SONET standard. The OC-12 standard is for 622 Mbps. SONET is short for Synchronous Optical Network, a standard for connecting fiber-optic transmission systems. SONET was proposed by Bellcore in the middle 1980s and is now an ANSI standard.


9. Further clarification and definition is required from the Government to determine. "Reliability with, and without Repair". Is this with or without normal maintenance?

Response. We concur that further clarification is required in the system specification and consequently definitions will be added. The following should provide clarity to the requirements:

"Reliability without repair" is a run to failure condition. Replacement or repair or failed components, even in repairable redundant sections of the system, is forbidden.

"Reliability with repair" allows repair or replacement of redundant equipment in the system provided that minimum acceptable system performance can be maintained until the repairs are completed.

System failure is defined as degradation of performance below the minimum acceptable level. This can occur either through total loss of the system through failure of a system serial component or degradation below the acceptable performance level of a redundant section. For example, in a system containing a redundant section comprised of three pumps with two pumps required for minimum acceptable performance, degradation to one operational pump would be system failure.

No maintenance, even "normal" maintenance, is to be performed in the "without repair" case. In the "with repair" case, it is expected that equipment in redundant sections will be repaired or replaced, provided that such repair/replacement does not cause degradation below the minimum acceptable performance level during the mission phase under consideration. Some items (e.g. bearings) reveal degradation some time before they actually fail. Replacement/repair of such items is permitted without reliability penalty during a mission phase when the system in which they are located is not required to be operational.

For the purpose of the reliability study, assume that the system is "full up" at the start of the mission phase that is under consideration.

10. What is the intensity level of the shock load to be applied?

Response. Impact loads that shock grade A equipment must withstand are defined by the impact test requirements that specified equipment must be subjected to per MIL-S-901D. Some equipment may be shock grade A qualified by analysis rather than tests, subject to Navy approval, using the processes described in NAVSEA 0908-LP-000-3010 and Design Data Sheet 072-1 (referenced therein) which describes the characteristics of the impact to be modeled. Currently it is planned that the Contractor will be responsible for identifying the appropriate shock grades for the systems and equipment and documenting the reasons for selection.

11. Since MIL-S-901 and NAVSEA 0908-LP-000-3010 are invoked, is it

the intention that the USN will retain approval authority for all system design requiring shock?

Response. The Navy will be the approval authority for qualifying designated equipment as acceptable for use in a shock grade A environment. Currently it is planned the Contractor will be responsible for identifying the appropriate shock grades for the systems and equipment and documenting the reasons for selection.

12. Damage Control. The high degree of specificity in this section will preclude incorporation of any new Damage Control technologies currently under investigation for the LPD-17, DD-21 or CVX programs. (e.g. DC charts are now considered obsolete and will be computerized on these new ships). Recommend latitude be allowed to permit shipyards to provide systems that are equivalent or better than those specified.

Response. The Government will retain the requirement for laminated paper DC diagrams at this time. Industry will have opportunities to propose cost effective changes throughout the design development.

13. Charts - Electronic charting is already required, therefore the requirement for stowage of a world portfolio of paper navigational charts appear to be superfluous.

Response. The regulatory body (USCG) still requires that paper charts be used as the primary means of navigation, with electronic charting used as an aid. Until the USCG changes this requirement, paper chart stowage is necessary.

14. Military Radio Communications. A Government furnished arrangement drawing of this space is required to show the shipbuilder where foundations, etc. are to be located.

Response. The Government will provide a detail arrangement of the space during the shipbuilder’s design process.

15. It is clear that the delivery of a commercial vessel, classed and certified by the regulatory bodies is intended. Recent commercial ships have been classed by ABS using the Alternate Compliance Program (ACP). Will NAVSEA accept this commercial equivalent?

Response. MSC is still reviewing the ACP program and has not to date accepted it for new shipbuilding programs. Therefore, it should not be assumed that this program will be utilized. When and if this changes, we will advise.

16. Is the "cargo handling weather deck" the "transfer deck"? Please clarify.

Response. Yes, the "cargo handling weather deck" the "transfer deck" are the same. The system specification will be modified to clarify this situation.


17. Ref 3.4.10.c/pg.28

a. Electric Power. Service Life Reserves. The 20% growth margin on worst ship operation condition is very excessive, particularly if diesel electric propulsion is used. What is the actual past electrical growth on existing AE’s or AFS’s? This is a major cost driver and should be looked at closely as a trade off.

b. In calculating the required 20% electric power margin, functional loads associated with CONREP, propulsion and steering are to be excluded. This exclusion is presumed to include all functional equipment and systems directly in support of these three systems (i.e cargo fuel pumps, steering repeaters, elevators, winches, etc.); please confirm.


a. The 20% ship service electric power margin is consistent with other MSC ship acquisition programs, including those with integrated electric propulsion plants. The growth margin is applied only to the ship service system worst case functional load after subtracting all loads in the propulsion, steering and CONREP groups. Consequently, the possible application of diesel electric propulsion has no bearing on the ship service system growth requirements.

b. The presumption is correct. All loads in the propulsion, steering and CONREP categories are excluded from the service life growth margin calculations.

18. Appendix F - Engine Approval Test. Why are the requirements of Appendix F invoked since ISO 3046-1 is already invoked.

Response. The testing requirements given in Appendix F are based on ISO 3046-1 and are invoked only for engines requiring a rating upgrade or those with limited service experience. ISO 3046-1, however, does not specify the length of time for endurance testing, the endurance test cycle, or the specifics of post-test inspections. Appendix F provides these requirements.

19. Ref 3.5.7/pg.36 Interior communications. Wireless communications are required. Why is an outdated sound powered system also required?

Response. Regulatory body (USCG ) regulations and (ABS) rules require sound powered telephone systems for essential ship control, engineering and damage control circuits since they are the only systems that function correctly in the total absence of electric power.

20. Ref 4.3.2b/pg. 51 Magnetic Signature. Will the USN arrange for and fund the magnetic signature trial? Please explain.

Response. The statement of work does not require the Contractor to perform the magnetic signature trials. The government will fund, arrange for and perform these trials. However, the Contractor is still responsible for meeting the magnetic signature requirements of the system specification during these trials.

21. Ref 4.3.1.a/pg. 49 Operational Mobility. Is model testing required?

Response. Yes, model testing is required. Specific model testing requirements are addressed in the statement of work.

22. Ref 5.1/pg. 59. This paragraph is confusing. What is the requirement being addressed? To what material specifically does this relate?

Response. It is standard language required by MIL-STD-961D in all DOD specifications. It states that any packaging requirements will delineated elsewhere in the contract and that if any packaging is to be done by DOD personnel, those personnel shall……..

23. Ref 6.1.11/pg. 60. It appears that the Performance Specification was prepared assuming USN ownership of the vessels. In a Charter arrangement where the USN is not the owner, is this definition of trials considered appropriate? Would INSURV still apply?

Response. The system specification requirements are independent of the ownership of the vessel. The specific trials requirements are included in the statement of work. Builders and acceptance trials are required. An acceptance trial conducted by INSURV is planned.

24. Ref 6/pg. 59. The parenthetical statement is considered confusing and we recommend it be clarified.

Response. The statement: "This section contains information of a general or explanatory nature that may be helpful but is not mandatory" is standard language required by MIL-STD-961D in all DOD specifications. There are no requirements included in this section. This section contains only information such as definitions and acronyms which have been used in other specification sections.

25. 3.3.1.a/pg..15 Operational Mobility. Define "bumpless acceleration and


Response: The propulsion plant and propulsion control system must be designed in a manner that ensures the vessel accelerates and decelerates in a smooth, consistent and predictable manner. Sudden excursions in vessel acceleration or deceleration complicate ship handling and pose significant risk during UNREP operations.

26. 3.3.3.c/pg.. 21 MCCS. These requirements are extensive. ABS ACCU is

already specified, therefore this paragraph appears to be superfluous.

Response: Regulatory body requirements regarding automation focus primarily on monitoring and control of propulsion, electrical and firefighting systems, with minimal if any attention given to monitoring and control of the major hotel, mission and auxiliary systems. Consequently, many vessel owners as well as MSC invoke additional automation requirements to fully implement centralized machinery control and monitoring concept for the machinery plant. The MCCS requirements listed in the subject paragraph identify requirements that are in excess of ACCU or identify a specific requirement where multiple options are permitted by regulatory bodies in order to achieve consistency with other MSC vessels.

27. 3.5.4/pg. 34 Machinery system requirements. ABS and ISO requirements are

already called out. This section appears superfluous.

Response: The requirements identified in the subject paragraph are in excess of ABS and ISO requirements and are consistent with practices employed by many commercial vessel owners and the Government for auxiliary ships, specifically:

  1. ABS and ISO do not specify the type of fuel to be burned by ship’s machinery as this is typically left to the vessel owner. Based on the operating environment of T-ADC(X), the types of fuel which the vessel must be capable of burning have been specified.
  2. ABS includes requirements for steam, diesel and gas turbine propelling machinery. The subject paragraph prohibits the use of steam for propulsion.
  3. ABS and ISO do not specify a maximum limit on engine rpm for diesel generator sets. The subject paragraph limits the maximum engine rpm to 900 rpm for ship service diesel generators and 1,800 rpm for emergency diesel generator sets in order to achieve benefits in maintenance and airborne noise.
  4. ABS permits auxiliary systems to be arranged to serve multiple prime movers. The subject paragraph stipulates that engines are to be furnished with independent auxiliary systems so as to prevent a single point failure in distributive piping from disabling multiple prime movers.
  5. The engine certification requirements are in excess of ABS requirements and ensure that the engines proposed have a proven service record and./or have undergone ample testing at the rating proposed so as to minimize future problems in service.

28. 3.5.9/4.5.9/pg. 38 In view of the commercial nature of this program will NAVSEA consider substitution of ABS certification of Helo facilities for DDS 130-2 and NAVAIR certification? It is understood that a study was conducted on LPD 17 to determine equivalent certification processes.

Response: NAVAIR certification will be required. All ships that utilize Navy helicopters on a regular basis require certification by NAVAIR. The Military Sealift Command participates with NAVAIR in their certification program. There are no commercial certification programs that are equivalent to the Navy certification.

29. 3.4.11/pg. 28 Why is it required that painting systems be compatible with existing MSC systems? This eliminates any chance of taking advantage of new paint technologies. Recommend latitude be given to permit equal or better systems.

Response: Painting systems provided shall be compatible with the existing MSC painting systems. The MSC painting instruction is being revised and currently in Draft Form. It includes several alternative paint systems allowed for use. Since MSC maintains a large number of ships worldwide, use of an approved or compatible paint system precludes compatibility problems and additional expense to the government after delivery. After the document is finalized and approved, COMSCINST 4750.2D Preservation Instructions For MSC Ships will be available at the T-ADCX library. This instruction will include procedures for adding new paint systems to the approved list.

30. We agree with the approach to the requirements specified in section 3.2.3.C.1. We also agree with the approach of specifying clearances. This will assure that clearances provided by the shipyard’s design are acceptable to the Government and that all shipyards are designing on a common basis. We recommend that the specified clearances be "scrubbed" for consistency, however, for example, the clearance to the overhead in item 1 at the top of page 8 is 300mm whereas at the bottom of page 7 it is 150mm.

Response: Careful review of cargo clearance requirements in the system specification will be conducted. The not less than 150mm overhead clearance on page 7 is for stowed cargo. The not less than 300mm overhead clearance on page 8 is for cargo movement in cargo routes. We will modify the system specification to make these requirements clearer.

31. 3.2.2.g.9/pg. 10 Are the spare parts referred to for ship’s own use or cargo?

Response: The spare parts referred to in section 3.2.2.g.9 are cargo. Please note that the title of section 3.2.2 is "cargo stowage and handling requirements" and thus only contains cargo requirements.

  1. 3.2.3c.3/pg. 13 In regard to residual fuel in the hose, recommend change "prevent
  2. pollution of the sea" to "minimize", since it is virtually impossible to totally prevent.

    Response: We concur with the intent of this comment. The system specification will be changed to read: "The ship shall be equipped to minimize residual fuel in hoses prior to disconnecting the fuel hose from the customer ship."

  3. 3.5.8.a/pg. 37 Solid Waste. Does this section only refer to ship’s own waste or does

it also include retrograde from ships serviced by ADC(X)?

Response: This section only contains requirements for the T-ADC(X) ship’s own solid waste, and does not include retrograde from ships serviced by the T-ADC(X) ship. The system specification will be modified to make this clear.

34. Ref. 3.4.10.e/pg. 28 Accommodations. This is a major cost driver, we therefore question the advisability of a growth margin. Also, MSC or other Government agency manning regulations and doctrine that must be complied with are needed by the shipyard in determining crew size. These should be provided by the government along with the Performance Specification.

Response: MSC ships have a mixed gender crew of Government civilian mariners from the MSC plus a mixed gender Navy MILDET. These ships often carry additional personnel for training, inspections, crew turnover, etc. Additional personnel may also be required if additional equipment is later installed. With these factors considered, a 5% accommodation growth margin has proved successful on past ship designs and seems prudent for T-ADCX.

There is no single document of regulations or doctrine which the offerors can use to determine manning requirements. However, the documents referenced in the performance specification such as NWP 4.01.4, etc. do address individual areas. We are presently assessing the availability of detailed manning regulations/doctrine, their usefulness to the offerors, and the Government’s ability to provide further assistance/guidance to the offerors with determination of crew size. The results of this assessment will be reflected in the performance specification and statement of work.

  1. Ref. 3.3.1.b.3/pg.16 Stopping. From what speed of advance must this requirement
  2. be met?

    Response: Specification section 3.3.1.b states that "Maneuverability requirements shall be met at initial speeds of 5, 14, and 20 knots, unless otherwise specified."

  3. Ref. 3.3.1.b.4/pg.16 Lateral Control. In several places in the specs thrusters are
  4. implied to be optional. However, this paragraph requires the ship shall be capable of rotating 180 degrees within 15 minutes without the use of main propulsion. How does NAVSEA anticipate this being done without thrusters? Please clarify.

    Response: The performance specification does not require specific solutions to the performance requirements, hence the specification wording such as "thruster(s), if applicable". In this case, thruster(s) are one possible solution to the performance requirement for the ship to be capable of rotating 180 degrees within 15 minutes. However, the requirement to do this "without the use of the main propulsion system" is flawed, since we do not intend to limit the solutions to only thruster(s). The specification requirement will be modified such that it does not eliminate main propulsion systems with directional thrusting capability.

  5. Ref. Table II/pg. 17 Performance Requirements: These seem very excessive. Are
  6. these ships really going to transfer in Sea State 5, and strike down/up in Sea State 6? If not, then why have the requirement which drives up material costs?

    Response: These ships will transfer cargo in Sea State 5 just as some of the existing CLF ships do. The ability to strike down/up in Sea State 6 is required because if the sea state increases beyond Sea State 5 during UNREP operations, the ship must have the ability to safely move pre-staged cargo back into the holds in preparations for even further worsening of the seas.

  7. Automated cargo handling industry response: ……Therefore, we recommend
  8. NAVSEA define the statement "acceptable for shipboard use" in terms of what is required to demonstrate acceptability through such things as engineering analyses, prototyping, at-sea testing, etc. Otherwise, a proposer could provide a design that promises performance that does not materialize.

    Response: The term "acceptable for shipboard use", as it relates to a potential use of an automated cargo handling system, is intended to preclude the use of automated systems that are not engineered with the shipboard at-sea environment in mind. The manner in which "acceptability" is demonstrated; by analysis, prototyping, at-sea testing, etc.; will be left to the offeror. The degree of risk associated with the approach presented will be assessed by the Government, and weighted against perceived benefits.

  9. Ref. 3.2.d/pg. 7

1. Section 3.2.3.a on page 12 defines the cargo loading and unloading

rates, therefore, the meaning of "rapid loading and unloading" in 3.2.d is not clear. Recommend this phrase be clarified or defined or that 3.2.3 be confirmed as the governing requirement.

2. We find no definitions of the phrase "ready service capability". Is this the same as the pre-staging requirements in 3.2.2.i on page 10? Recommend clarification.

3. We find no definition of the phrase "cargo accessibility". We believe this may apply to the degree of selectivity required in gaining access to cargo for breakout, but find no specific requirements other than to be able to meet the transfer rate requirements in the Appendices. Recommend clarification.

Note: Perhaps the 3.2.d requirements are intended to be just general in nature, with specific requirements in the sections following 3.2.d. Recommend clarification.

Response: Section 3.2.d is intended to be general requirements with specific requirements provided in following sections. However, we agree it is unclear and thus will be modified to read: "Stowage arrangements that permit loading and unloading at the specified rates, using only ship’s crew and ship’s equipment to move cargo from the pier or barge."

40. Ref. 3.2.2.f/pg. 9 The volume required for flammable liquid stowage should be specified in terms of cubic requirements. Alternatively, the Appendix Cargo Load

Lists should clearly indicate those items which are defined as flammable liquids, not covered by the Haz Cat designation.

Response: In Appendix B, cargo load lists, the flammable liquid cargo is identified as type "FL".

  1. Ref. 3.2.3.a/pg. 8. We find no definition of "Outsized Cargo". This cargo must be
  2. defined in order to determine the volume, stowage and handling requirements for the special stowage area required near the aft dry cargo stations. This material needs to be defined as to nomenclature, dimensions, weights and C.G. s, or the Cargo Load Lists (Appendix B) should designate which items are considered to be "Outsize Cargo".

    Response: Concur that "outsized cargo" must be defined, therefore Appendix B cargo lists have been modified to include the outsize cargo identified as type "OC".

  3. Ref. 3.2.2.g/pg. 9. Please provide the definition of "standard plywood sheets".
  4. Response: "Standard plywood sheets" are 1220 mm by 2440 mm (4 foot by 8 foot) sheets of varying thickness. The specification will be modified to include this definition.

  5. Ref. 3.2.2.g.10. A dedicated space is required for "fleet hazardous material and solid

waste". We have the following questions:

  1. What is the definition of "fleet hazardous material and solid waste"?
  2. We assume this is retrograde material that is received by ADC(X) from ships that ADC(X) has replenished. Please clarify.
  3. If it is retrograde material (and therefore would not be included in the Cargo Load Lists in Appendix B), then the following information is required: type of material; type of load (pallets, barrels, bags, etc.); dimensions and weights; volume of stowage required; any special stowage (e.g. tie-downs) or handling requirements.
  4. Can the hazardous material and solid waste be stowed together in the same space or must they be stowed separately?
  5. Do the ventilation requirements apply to both "hazardous material" and to "solid waste"?
  6. Are there any special HVAC or fire protection requirements for this material?
  7. Other retrograde material would be inert and be neither "hazardous" or "waste" , such as empty aircraft engine containers, empty missile containers, pallets, etc. Does this material, which is being returned to port by the ADC(X), also have to be stowed in this same type of "dedicated space" or may it be stowed in empty space in the cargo holds?
  8. The Intership Transfer Rates (Appendix D), the Operational Tempos (Appendix A) and the UNREP Lists (Appendix C) do not appear to cover material being returned to ADC(X) from the receiving ships. Recommend this material be defined similar to the Appendices definitions of cargo being transferred to the receiving ships. This information is needed to design the cargo systems to accommodate this returned material.

Response: "Fleet hazardous material and solid waste" is retrograde material and should read "fleet hazardous material and hazardous solid waste". This category is not intended to cover the stowage of non-hazardous solid waste. There are no unique stowage or handling requirements for non-hazardous solid waste. The Government is revisiting the stowage requirements for the fleet hazardous material and hazardous solid waste and when the requirements are finalized, the specification will be modified accordingly. However, at the present, the Government is considering requiring two, forklift truck accessible, deck loaded, 19.2 m (40 foot) ISO containers to meet this requirement. These containers would require ships electrical power but would have self-contained ventilation and would be loaded and unloaded by pierside cranes.

  1. Ref. 3.2.2.i/pg. 10. The requirement to locate pre-staging areas on the transfer deck
  2. dictates the ship arrangement to some degree.

    Will NAVSEA accept alternative arrangements as long as the basic requirements are met

    (i.e. Freeze Cargo shall be pre-staged in freeze areas, etc.) and as long as the required

    transfer rates and alongside times in the Appendices are met?

    Response: The Government intends "pre-staging areas" to mean cargo staging areas outside of cargo stowage holds. Cargo that remains in a cargo stowage hold on the same deck level is not considered to be pre-staged even if it has been "staged" within the stowage hold to improve the cargo flow rate during transfer operations. The specification leaves the extent of pre-staging areas necessary to meet the transfer rates to the offeror.

    To the extent that pre-staging areas are used, however, they shall meet the specified features.

  3. Ref. 3.2.2.j.3/pg. 11. The cargo and ordinance handling system design requirements
  4. appear to be in conflict with Table VII, which has a sea state 6 requirement for staging and strike down. Recommend clarification.

    Response: Table VII is correct. The specification section 3.2.2.j.3 will be modified to be consistent with Table VII.

  5. Ref. 3.2.3.a&b/pg.12. For both pierside and anchorage loading/unloading, will the
  6. "ship’s own cargo handling crew" remain on the ship while pierside or lighter operations (e.g. hooking or unhooking loads, handling material, etc.) are performed by others? Please explain and clarify. This will have an important effect on determining manning requirements and loading/unloading times.

    Response: The "ship’s own cargo handling crew" will be required to handle both the shipboard and pierside (or on board barge) cargo handling except for operation of cargo delivery vehicles such as trains, trucks and barges. The specification will be modified to clarify this requirement.

  7. Ref. 3.2.2.i 3/pg. 10. Pre staging ammunition (explosive cargo) in a secure area with

an intrusion alarm appears to be a rather excessive requirement for short-term stowage. Recommend this be reconsidered.

High value cargo - how is this defined and how much cubic requirements should be allotted for this? It appears that this is an excessive requirement, as it would require an enclosed storeroom as a pre-staging area.

Response: Presently in the fleet, pre-staging of cargo is done well in advance of transfer operations, sometimes many days in advance. During the time that the ammunition is left unattended in the pre-staging area, it must be protected from intrusion. Therefore the requirement to protect ammunition will be retained. "High value cargo" is intended to mean cargo which would likely be subject to pillage. The Government is reconsidering this protection requirement for high value cargo and the specification may be modified.

48. Ref. 4.3.1.b.4/pg.49. Maneuverability. This requirement appears to contradict thrusters as an option. Recommend clarify.

Response: See the response to item 36 above.

  1. Ref. 3.5.6/pg. 36. Recommend provide maximum and minimum pier heights. Note
  2. some piers are being modified for dual-level loading areas.

    Response: Pier heights are specified in specification section 3.5.11. However, the Government is presently reconsidering these requirements and anticipates the specification will be modified in this area.

  3. Ref. 3.5.11/pg. 38. See comment on 3.5.6.

Response: See the response to item 49 above.

51. Ref. 3.3.2a/pg. 18. What is the extent of the Grade A shock requirements? Does it apply to the firemain only or does it apply to the cargo hold sprinkler system and the machinery space water mist system as well. If it applies to the firemain only, does it apply to:

a. all fire pumps or only those outside the main machinery space

b. the switchboard supplying power to the fire pump c. the generator supplying power to the switchboard

d. firemain piping

e. firemain valves

f. wiring

Response: The shock requirement covers all equipment required to maintain firefighting capability after shock exposure. If shock damage to a particular piece of equipment would render any of the ships firefighting capability ineffective then that equipment would be Grade A.

52. Ref. 3.3.2a/pg. 18. What are the limits to the extent of Grade B shock requirements. Given the requirement as written in the specification, it could be interpreted that virtually all machinery in the main machinery space would have to meet Grade B shock requirements.

Response: Grade B items are defined as those items not essential to ship safety but could become a hazard to personnel or Grade A items during shock.

Assuming that machinery spaces are unmanned, only items in machinery spaces which may potentially damage Grade A equipment (Firefighting, Damage Control and Communication equipment) are Grade B. One solution that does not make "all machinery in the main machinery space" Grade B is to segregate the few pieces of Grade A equipment outside the main machinery space. An alternative solution to Grade B shock is to protect the Grade A equipment from damage from other non shock qualified equipment.

  1. Ref. 3.6.3/pg. 45. Facilities. There may be some very good life cycle advantages to
  2. require standardized cargo and cargo containers. This may very well have an impact on shore side infrastructure. This area should be left open for trade studies involving various material handling systems for shore side to ship loading.

    Response: Standardization of cargo and cargo containers may very well be advantageous and decrease life cycle costs for T-ADC(X). However, the total impact of such standardization on cargo material procurement, shore side storage and handling, and receiving ship storage and handling must be considered. This total system impact is outside the scope of the T-ADC(X) program. The Government will investigate the potential impact of cargo and cargo container standardization on the total system and the resulting changes will be incorporated into the T-ADC(X) performance specification.

  3. Ref. 3.4.9/pg. 27

  1. It is assumed that the "TBDs" (and all other TBDs) will be provided by the USN. Please confirm.
  2. Will unique requirements/restrictions for antennae be included herein?
  3. Will a brass model study and report be required?
  4. Will antenna pattern reports be required?

Response: The Government intends to replace TBDs in the performance specification with values except for the RMA TBDs in Table IX which are to be determined by the contractor during the engineering design phase. The Government is presently reconsidering the navy communications system responsibilities and associated requirements, work tasks, and deliverables. The T-ADC(X) performance specification, statement of work, and data requirements list will be modified accordingly.

55. Ref. 3.5.3/pg. 33 Structural requirements. These requirements appear superfluous since the regulatory bodies apply.

Response: The structural requirements in the performance specification are intended to supplement the regulatory body requirements. The specification provides requirements in areas such as the design of masts, foundations, etc., where the regulatory body has no specific requirements. The regulatory body also typically assumes a 20 year service life in developing their structural requirements. Since T-ADC(X) has a 40 year service life requirement, the structural requirements must be modified to account for the longer life of the structure. These modified requirements include fatigue life design, higher grade material in highly stressed areas, disallowing normal regulatory body scantling reductions for special protective coatings, etc. The performance specification also includes special mission related structural requirements such as the tapering of deck thickness transitions for forklift operations and the design of structure for the operational loads imposed during cargo stowage and handling.

  1. Will the four load lists currently provided take the place of those listed in Table I of
  2. the Performance Specification? I note there is no "Ammunition" list currently provided.

    Response: Yes, the four load lists posted on 24 September 1998 are intended to replace the load lists described in the Draft T-ADC(X) System Specification dated 18 March 1998. Proposed modifications to the System Specification, posted on the NAVSEA 02 web site on 24 September 1998, provide draft specification changes including Table I. The "Ammunition" load list has been eliminated.

  3. Where can I find definitions of hazard category?

Response: Hazard categories are in accordance with the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO), International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.

58. Is there an estimated release date for Appendices A (OPTEMPO), C (UNREP Lists), and D (Transfer Rates)?

Response: The Government intends to have the Draft Appendices A, C, and D available for industry comment by 1 February 1999. However, appendices may selectively be available before that date.

59. Is there any funding this FY for simulation in the program? If so, will the shipyards be involved?

Response: Response: Continued development of the T-ADC(X) Cargo Flow Model is planned for FY99. Industry will receive copies of the beta version to use and provide comments to the Government. A Commerce Business Daily announcement was posted on August 26, 1998, inviting industry to provide comments on the software to the Government..

60. Can you provide me with your points of contact for ADC-X in the shipyards? We want to begin to introduce our integrated design, material flow and ship construction tools to them? The surface shipyards have our tools but at times the programs are segregated.

Response: We cannot supply points of contact at Shipyards.

61. What is the maximum allowable beam for Panama Canal passage?

Response: Reference is Panama Canal Commission, Marine director’s Notice to Shipping No. N-1-95 dated Jan 1, 1995, Subj: Vessel Requirements. Section 2b Maximum beam: "The maximum beam for commercial or non-commercial vessels and the integrated tug-barge combination acceptable for regular transit is 32.31 meters (106 ft)."

62. The Performance Specification (PS) and the Statement of Work (SOW) are presenting three things: (1) performance criteria, which solicits industry innovation; (2) configuration requirements, thus advising industry on specific needs; and (3) work needed to be done, by whom, and when. The combination of these three elements is effectively a Statement of Requirements (SOR). Keeping these three elements segregated within a SOR certainly aids the reader.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

63. Survivability and vulnerability criteria for shock, magnetic signature, electromagnetic pulse, firefighting, etc. in accordance with Mil standards and NAVSEA instructions are costly. We recommend stating performance requirements rather than involving MIL-SPECs wherever possible to maximize design flexibility.

Capt. Hamilton's Lessons Learned Study of the Phase I and II Arsenal Ship Efforts underscores this point:

" Design commercialization requires new systems architecture not only for information systems, but also for mechanical systems, to permit use of COTS systems and equipment. One of the best examples of this innovative thinking involved methods of shock mitigation for selected equipment. It was obvious that militarizing all equipment would have eliminated the opportunity to use commercial-off-the-shelf items. By focusing on shock isolation schemes a more cost-effective approach was achieved. Commercial building practices may be readily applied to naval ship combatant construction. Despite the shock, whipping, signature, weapons effects, and other military features built into Arsenal Ship, the Industry Teams demonstrated that it is entirely possible to take advantage of commercial practices... The approach that seems to maximize the commercial benefits is to start with a 100% commercial criteria and then add military criteria only when required."

Response: Comments considered.

64. What (if any) contractual bearing will the Operational Requirements Document have? Or will it be used for information purposes?

Response: The Operational Requirements Document (ORD) will, if provided, be for information only.

65. Request industry comment on the use of Navy Standard CONREP equipment/systems vs. utilizing performance specifications to acquire these systems (section 3.2.5).

References to multiple Government documents for UNREP and cargo handling capabilities limit design flexibility and possibly reduce opportunities to lower cost. However, it could be more expensive for industry to reinvent the wheel. Certainly T-ADC(X) must interface with existing CONREP equipment in the fleet, but there may be opportunities for less expensive installation of CONREP equipment on board T-ADC(X) that do not impact ability to connect with other ships. We recommend providing the NAVSEA drawing as guidance and permitting bidders to conduct their own trade-offs. We also recommend allowing Navy experts (i.e., NSWC-PHD, NSWC-CD, & NSWC-ERLE) to work with industry teams in developing cargo handling approaches & arrangements.

Response: Comments have been considered. The Government intends to make UNREP equipment drawings contractual. Internal cargo handling solutions are open to opportunities for cost reductions and innovations.

66. Request industry comment on the practicality of the Government providing a cargo flow modeling and simulation tool for shipbuilder use in the preparation of proposals in accordance with section 4.2.3. The government plans to conduct shipbuilder briefs and initiate a testing period by industry before release of the RFP.

Specific comments regarding the M&S tool include:

We would be interested in beta testing the software and ultimately using it for T-ADC(X) design.

Response: The Beta Version of the software was sent out to those who requested it on 17 February 1999. Improvements to the model along the lines of those suggested are under consideration.

67. Request that industry provide feedback on the main engine service history and testing requirements in section 3.5.4 with respect to how this may limit alternatives.

Recommend that NAVSEA identify performance and life cycle cost criteria, and then let the builders conduct trade-off studies. This specification section clearly hints that the preference is for diesel engines. If that is what the Government wants, bidders will certainly provide it. However, it may be more prudent from a life cycle cost, environmental, and provisioning perspective to permit bidders to conduct trade-off analysis on propulsion alternatives.

Response: The Government anticipates propulsion plant trade-off studies to select the best alternative plant. There is no intention of showing a preference towards diesel engines in the Performance Specification.

68. Please comment on industry’s ability to define the reliability values to be completed in Table IX.

The form and content of Table IX is not familiar. Questions concerning TABLE IX:

1. What is the meaning of the third column (Time (Hrs)); does it correlate to something else in the specification? Apparently the transit time is assumed to be 430 hours at various speeds and loading and unloading time is assumed to be 8 hours which is not consistent with Para. 3.2.3.

2. Why are there two reliability factors, one with and one without repairs. Reliability is defined in terms of Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF). If a failure occurs that affects performance, repair is required.

3. Why is there no column for maintainability; i.e., Mean Time To Repair (MTTR)?

4. What is the meaning of "(Hrs)" in the Availability column. Both inherent availability (Ai) and operational availability (Ao) are measured in percentages.

(Also, see comments offered on section 4.4.7)



1: This column represents the operational period for each identified system during a 26-day continuous wartime employment. In this operating profile, the ship spends 18 days at sea, during which the steering gear is always required, hence the time period is the full voyage. However, the ship operates at various speeds possibly requiring different propulsions systems depending on selected propulsion plant arrangements. Para. 3.2.3 requires loading by working only eight hours each day. Following this eight hours, the system is shut down and routine maintenance may be performed.

2: Definitions have been added to the specification for clarification.

3: The definitions that have been added to the specification should clarify this issue. Since time to effect repairs relies on the spares carried and the logistics system of the operator, we did not feel that contractors could be held accountable for a logistics system that they are not providing. Reliability with and without repairs will provide us with the MTBF of the lowest individual component of each system, and with the level of redundancy within the system.

4: Hours has been removed from this column and it has been clarified to be Ai.

69. Request that industry comment on the practicality of meeting the air emission requirements of Table XII.

Table XII is superfluous to rules and regulations. Recommend that air emissions be treated as evaluation criteria in the trade-off studies; state air emission goals.

In our experience, the best propulsion systems for meeting stringent air emissions standards are diesel-electric and gas turbine. In light of the Government’s apparent preference for diesel plants (see Focus Item No. 8), the propulsion alternatives are few.

Response: The air emissions requirements of the specification reflect the requirements of MARPOL Annex VI which is currently in the ratification process. The Government anticipates that propulsion plant trade-off studies be conducted and the best alternative plant be selected. There was no intention of showing a preference towards diesel engines in the Performance specification.

70. Use of auxiliary steam vs. electric heating.

Bidders should be given the freedom to conduct trade-off analysis.

Response: Bidders will be given the freedom to conduct trade-off analysis.

71. Identification of safety features which could be provided in excess of regulatory bodies that have been furnished for commercial cargo ships and double hull tankers.

Through its recent work with commercial customers, we have experience with evaluating many of the items listed. They are technically possible, but they are expensive. Rrecommend that NAVSEA develop criteria for selection, which will incite innovation. (Basic trade-off is initial cost of automation versus life cycle cost of people & maintenance)

Response: The performance specification states: "The general design philosophy shall be to meet system performance requirements while minimizing total ownership cost."

72. Regulations & Publications: We recommend that the "version in effect at contract award, or as required by the Regulatory Body" be cited.

Response: The Government is considering how to cite versions.

73. Non-Government publications: Recommend the consideration of other standards, such as IEC or NEMA. (Inclusion of these opens the field of materials choice)

Response: Industry will be allowed to propose alternative standards to those cited in the performance specification.

74. Recommends that clearance criteria be presented so as to maximize opportunity and to clarify "hard" requirements, per the following:

Response: These comments will be considered.

75. Please clarify: "Cargo spaces shall be clear of distributive systems except for those portions of systems which serve that specific cargo space." Is this to minimize the number of "targets" for collisions with cargo handling gear, or is it to minimize the chances of taking out systems due to fire and/or explosions in the holds? If the reason is the former, then we recommend that the arrangements shall protect all systems from damage during cargo operations. If the latter, this requirement constrains the system routing, and the specification is not clear why. We suggest that the specification clarify vulnerability/survivability requirements and goals.

Response: The purpose of the requirement is to keep cargo holds as clear as possible for better efficiency in cargo stowage and handling. In current ships, systems running through cargo holds, even though protected, have proven to be problems during cargo loading and movement. These obstructions create inefficient stowage arrangements and are difficult to access while the ship is loaded.

76. The dedicated specialty cargo volume requirements are very specific and limit design flexibility. We recommend that these requirements instead be a range of figures.

Response: These are requirements. It is anticipated that the ship will need to accommodate the items listed.

77. Non-conventional MHE: We recommend that the Government clarify when the approval of non-conventional MHE is expected. (i.e., prior to proposal submittal? As a part of the concept development? Etc.)

Response: Formal approval will occur during the detail design and construction. However, details of non-conventional MHE will need to be provided during the Ship/Cargo Systems Integration design phase so that the risk can be evaluated.

78. "…the barred speed range shall be permitted between [TBD] knots and [TBD] knots." Have these [TBDs] been resolved?

Response: The barred speed range has been removed from the specification. Requests from industry to permit a barred range will be considered on a case basis.

79. Shock: We recommend that COTS systems and equipment that can be protected from shock through isolation mounting/rafting be considered as a cost-effective alternative to certified systems/equipment.

Response: This comment is being considered.

80. Separation of redundant, distributive systems: We recommend that the requirement, "…shall be separated athwartships…and vertically…" instead is presented as guidance, and that objective vulnerability assessment instead be made. We recommend that NSWC-CD be permitted to work with contractors to conduct such assessments, using their System Vulnerability Model (for example).

Response: The Government has already done vulnerability assessments and determined that this requirement is necessary.

81. The statement "MCCS software shall be in an industry standard, high level, non-proprietary language" is unrealistic and too limiting in today's environment. For example, this statement rules out GEMS. Recommend that clarification be made, such as permitting commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software in lieu of "…non-proprietary."

Response: This comment is being considered. The government has had significant problems with sole source support for software and hardware in these type applications and the goal is to produce a system which does not lock the government into a single MCCS support provider for 40 years. Requests from industry for exemption to use specific systems will be considered on a case basis.

82. Space and weight reservations (see Table X) are insufficient. We recommend that the other ship integration requirements be defined up front so that design can proceed. For example - the antenna space, weight, location requirements and all interconnecting cabling would be needed.

Response: The details of the reservations will be provided.

83. "In case of conflict between regulatory body, classification and international regulations and requirements, and this specification, the more stringent requirement shall take precedence." This approach is expensive. We recommend classification under the USCG's Alternative Compliance Program (ACP) with ABS, which alleviates most order of precedence problems; ABS would handle the exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Response: The Government does not intend to use ACP for this program.

84. "The ship shall be in accordance with IEEE P45/D2.0 dated June 1997." This document conflicts with ABS/USCG requirements, so it should be classified as a guidance document only.

Response: This reference has been replaced by IEEE 45 – 1998. (Low smoke cable has been included in this version of IEEE 45.

85. Recommend that the 40-year service life be presented as a goal, and let the total ownership cost studies determine the final figure. Further, we recommend that the fatigue life (see 4.5.3) be addressed in a similar manner.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

86. The requirement to use the metric system for all elements of the ship is too restrictive - especially for U.S. manufactured equipment. We suggest a "soft metric" requirement that permits flexibility for certain equipment or spares that are not available in metric units.

Response: The Omnibus trade and Competitiveness Act mandates that all Federal Agencies shall use the metric system in procurements. DoD Instruction 5000.2 also requires the use of the metric system. The specification allows existing off the shelf equipment, hardware, etc. to be inch pound and only requires the metric system be used when new equipment specifically designed for T-ADCX is developed.

87. Why is the ship length constrained? Hypothetically, would a longer ship that achieves better life cycle cost performance not be acceptable? We recommend that the length not be constrained, but not to exceed panamax values.

Response: The ship length is constrained so that access to critical supply ports and associated piers is maintained.

88. Speed-Time Operating Profile: Please clarify - is this table applicable to both peacetime & wartime tempos?

Response: The table is applicable to both peacetime & wartime tempos. This has been clarified in the specification.

89. Wartime Operating Profile: Please clarify - no timeline is presented, similar to the peacetime profile above (i.e., day-phase).

Response: The peacetime timeline has been removed from the specification.

90. Access & Egress: (5th Para) "Stairs and inclined ladders shall be oriented in the fore and aft direction" is limiting. We recommend that fore/aft orientation be maximized, thus permitting prudent/justified use of athwartship orientation.

Response: The requirement is "fore and aft." Specific waiver requests will be considered on a case basis.

91. (last Para., last sent.) "Propulsion shafting shall be removable w/out unshipping any rudder." We suggest that a life cycle cost study determine whether the rudder(s) is arranged such that unshipping isn't required.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

92. Fatigue requirements are addressed in 4.5.3 (section 4 details design verification methods). We recommend that the fatigue criteria be moved to 3.5.3. Further, we recommend that all structural design requirements (service life - 3.4.2, fatigue life - 4.5.3, induced load considerations - 3.5.3, etc.) be collated into one section.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

93. Knife-edge crossings: We recommend that an operational definition of "knife-edge crossing" is inserted (maybe in the form of a graphic), including text such as "…knife-edge crossings that may negatively impact structural performance are to be avoided." The acceptability of such structural arrangements is a function of the supported load and the deck plate thickness.

Response: This will be clarified in the final version of the specification.

94. Transfer Deck: this is arrangement detail, whereas the section is addressing structural strength, material, and profiles. We recommend that this arrangement detail be separated from 3.5.3.

Response: Concur with the recommendation.

95. "…continuous operation using…ASTM D975, (DFM); and…JP-5" limits prime mover options, i.e. - most diesel engines should not operate on JP-5; exceptions could be made for emergency situations, but we're uncertain whether any diesel manufacturer would sign-up to this. We recommend that the sentence be revised to, "The ship's machinery shall be capable of continuous operation using distillate fuel in accordance with either ASTM D975, Grade 2-D, or ISO 8217, F-DMA DFM (NATO Code F-76), for a range of at least 10,000 nautical miles at 20 knots. If the main machinery is either gas turbine or boiler/steam turbine, then this machinery shall be capable of emergency operation using JP-5 (NATO Code F-44), for a range necessary to reach safe haven at reduced speed."

Response: The requirement has been changed to 1000NM at 20kts on JP-5.

96. Again, IEEE P45/D2.0 dated June 1997 is invoked. This document conflicts with ABS/USCG requirements. We recommend that it be classified as a guidance document.

Response: This reference has been replaced by IEEE 45 – 1998 (low smoke cable is included in this version of IEEE-45).

97. Please clarify - Is an "Automated configuration management capability…" synonymous with a typical computerized inventory management system? Also, section 3.6 addresses the own-ship logistics; shouldn't intership cargo logistic requirements be addressed elsewhere? Lastly, "Ship equipment and software shall interface with corresponding systems resident in customer ships and…ashore" is unclear. What kind of interface is expected? (electronic or manual, hard-wired or radio; how much variation is already in the fleet?)

Response: This comment is under consideration.

98. This section repeats much of the information already presented. Verification requirements should be relocated into the appropriate section earlier in the specification to avoid duplication and to avoid potentially conflicting requirements within the specification. (see General Comment No. 1)

Response: This comment is under consideration.

99. (6th Para) "…the ship shall operate vibration free" needs better definition, e.g. - shall operate within these limits: (a) below the upper limit of "adverse comments not probable" zone in ISO 6954-1984(E), Guidelines for the Evaluation of Vertical and Horizontal Vibration in Merchant Ships (Peak Values), for living quarters, including Wheelhouse, and (b) will not exceed the upper curve of ISO 6954-1984(E) where values below this curve are recognized not to cause detriment to equipment.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

100. Instead of specifying SMP 95 as the analysis method to verify seakeeping performance, we recommend that the model basin's in-house program (or equivalent) be permitted. Criteria - such as permitted deck wetness (frequency, coverage, volume) - should be provided.

Response: SMP shall be used because the SEAKEEPING criteria and requirements were developed using SMP. The deck wetness criteria is a function of SMP.

101. In addition to the need to consolidate this information with Section 3.4.7, the requirement to integrate formally R&M analysis into the engineering process will increase the expense and schedule duration of the design effort. Despite R&M program requirements on recent Navy programs, the supplier community is still not ready to support extensive R&M analysis at early design stages, which could result in the exclusion of some of the suppliers who can not provide this data in a timely manner. With a narrowed competitive field, equipment prices will rise, driving the program price up.

On the Arsenal ship program, a similar RMA requirement did not drive system design because the system included sufficient redundancy. If we believe at this stage that T-ADC(X) will also include sufficient redundancy to eliminate R&M as a design driver, perhaps a less stringent and less costly RMA approach could be warranted.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

102. "The oily water separator shall…prevent accumulation of oily waste in holding tanks & bilge" is unspecific regarding which holding tank (e.g., oily waste tank, or wastewater tank) and typically, the OWS doesn't take suction from the bilge. We recommend that the "…prevent accumulation of oily waste in holding tanks & bilge…"be removed from the text.

Response: The words "in holding tanks & bilge" have been deleted from the specification.

103. Verification of Supply Support: "Suitability…shall be verified by demonstration…" is unusual. Is the requirement meant to demonstrate the ease of loading/disbursing consumable/spare/repair parts? The adequacy/accuracy of the Inventory Management System? The adequacy of the inventory itself (i.e., quantity, kind, etc)? Please clarify.

Response: This comment is under consideration.

104. Required trials include Builder's Trials, Acceptance Trials with INSURV, and Final Contract Trials with INSURV, which is the standard Navy approach. We recommend one nominal trial, which is the cost-saving commercial approach. As noted in Capt. Hamilton's Lessons Learned Study of the Phase I and II Arsenal Ship Efforts, an "alternative to the traditional T&E and Acceptance process is possible as part of ship acquisition and that process can result in less cost and time without compromising safety, reliability, or performance."

Response: Combining trials may be considered at a later date. The current requirement stands.