Large Surface Combatant RFI - Systems Providers

NOTE: This Sources Sought/Request for Information is also posted under NAICS Codes (336611 and 541330) in order to reach all interested parties. Only one response is necessary for this announcement. Synopsis: THIS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) IS FOR INFORMATIONAL AND PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, REQUEST FOR QUOTE, OR AS AN OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT SEEKING OR ACCEPTING UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS. THERE WILL NOT BE A SOLICITATION, SPECIFICATIONS, OR DRAWINGS AVAILABLE. THERE IS NO FUNDING ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. Background: A requirements analysis process for a Future Surface Combatant Force (FSCF) is being conducted by the U.S. Navy. The Future Surface Combatant Force is envisioned to include Large Surface Combatants (LSC), Small Surface Combatants (SSC), Optionally Manned or Unmanned Surface Vehicles (O/USV) and a common Integrated Combat System (ICS). The Navy is currently developing requirements for a LSC as part of the FSCF vision. The Navy's LSC Program will be a new acquisition program that will leverage the DDG 51 Flight III combat system while identifying and evaluating the integration of non-developmental mechanical and electrical systems into a new or modified hull design, incorporating platform flexibility and growth opportunities to meet future Fleet requirements. The Navy intends to evaluate the following capability areas for possible integration into the initial LSC baseline: - Ability to integrate Warfare System elements including the DDG 51 Fight III and the weapon systems listed below - Increased flexibility/adaptability features such as expanded Space, Weight, Power and Cooling Service Life Allowances to allow for more rapid and affordable upgrades in capabilities and maintenance over the ships' service life, and allow for fielding of future high demand electric weapons and sensors, and computing resources. - The ability of the ship's Vertical Launch System to accommodate longer and larger diameter missiles for increased speed and range of weapons. - Additional capacity for an embarked warfare commander and staff. - Support for 360-degree coverage with Directed Energy weapons. - Improved signatures with support for additional improvements over time. Potential ship designs will look to accommodate the above capability increases, with a consideration towards additional growth capacity for projected future systems requirements. Designs will also look to incorporate flexibility features to enable timely and affordable back-fit and forward-fit of future systems to pace known threats, and meet future emergent needs through evolutionary block upgrades and modernization. The Navy is seeking industry insight as part of market research to support the requirements development and design effort for the LSC. The Navy is particularly interested in innovative methods to meet the requirements of an LSC including the capability intent described above This is one of two RFIs on this subject. This RFI is focused on system and equipment providers. While the system and equipment provider industry is the primary target of this RFI, the Navy is also interested in input from academia, professional organizations, and/or other non-traditional defense contracting entities to include OTA consortiums and those with skill and experience in the design and production of equipment and systems for large surface combatants or other similarly complex manufacturing or production processes. Partial responses to this RFI are encouraged. A respondent need not respond to all questions for their responses to be considered. The Navy may conduct an Industry Day as a follow up to the release of this RFI to allow for further discussion between industry and the government. If it occurs, the event will be classified and require attendees to have active security clearances and be U.S. citizens. Space will be limited and a company / organization may send no more than two representatives. Organizations wishing to participate in an Industry Day should contact Ms. Lauren C. Ayers (lauren.ayers@navy.mil) to provide contact information for the potential participants. Should an industry day be held, participants must be cleared in advance in order to attend. Request for Information: The Navy is interested in obtaining market information pertinent to a new ship class of Large Surface Combatants. A requirements analysis process has been conducted to determine initial draft requirements. Once requirements are sufficiently mature the Navy would likely conduct a government led Preliminary Design (PD) and Contract Design (CD) followed by competitively awarded Detail Design and Construction contract(s). The level of Industry involvement in the PD and CD phases has not yet been determined but will likely be either focused, funded studies or as members of an integrated design team. Material and information submitted in response to this RFI may be reviewed by multiple program offices within the Naval Sea Systems Command, PEO Ships, PEO Unmanned and Small Combatants and PEO Integrated Warfare Systems. All support contractor reviewers (including but not limited to Gibbs & Cox, CACI, Alion, Delta Resources) will have signed an NDA regarding non-disclosure of information pertaining to this effort. The purpose of this RFI is to seek innovative methods from industry partners to design the proposed LSC. Specific questions the Navy seeks responses to are as follows: 1. In order to achieve the Navy's intended characteristics for LSC, what are innovative ideas to accomplish this on either a modified or new design, employing non-developmental systems? How can these systems improve operational availability, reliability? Specifically: a. Manned and unmanned systems (to include their inherent launching systems) b. Power and thermal management systems (to include their inherent launching systems) c. Propulsion (mechanical, electric, and hybrid) d. Heating and Cooling e. Auxiliary systems 2. How do those aforementioned systems support a large surface combatant in terms of flexibility to support future warfare system installations? How can those systems be architected/integrated into the initial LSC design to support future incorporation of new technologies? 3. What engineering plant design features should be considered to enable upgrading the engineering plant in a cost effective manner during the ship's lifecycle to support increased demand for power, cooling, etc. In industry's view is it more cost effective to design in an engineering plant that supports future SWAP-C needs of the life of the ship OR design in flexibility in the engineering plant to allow for cost effective upgrade when and if required? 4. What technology maturation is being performed on typical surface combatant systems that should be considered for potential installation in future LSC Blocks when that technology is matured? 5. What studies related to systems, equipment and technologies are recommended to better inform rapid design and subsequent construction? 6. What are considered capabilities that drive the cost and schedule of power system design solutions? 7. Are there "standard" or "typical" requirements perceived to be low value-added to the ship or system and its end users but which drive significant cost into component or system development and acquisition, and/or drive solutions away from commercial-off-the-shelf or existing non-developmental items? 8. How does industry define the capabilities of Power, Thermal, and Propulsion technologies? What are the dimensions that define power systems and the levels that provide break points from which implementations are derived? 9. What attributes, technologies or systems are considered to provide ship flexibility for reconfiguration, upgrade, forward-fit, and back-fit? 10. How much do system qualities like availability, reliability, signatures, vulnerability and recoverability drive Power, Thermal, and Propulsion technologies? What capabilities are inherent in a standard implementation? 11. Identify how both an Integrated Power System (IPS) and mechanical drive system perform with respect to survivability (signatures, recoverability, vulnerability). a. Is the difference significant between IPS and mechanical drive, and if so, in what areas? b. Are the differences quantifiable, and if so, what are your estimates on the differences? c. What features are key to enabling benefits to survivability? 12. What are the limitations of a mechanical drive system compared to a 13.8 kVAC IPS with respect to supporting higher power mission systems? 13. To achieve potential for future growth, what would be the best approach for the Navy to affordably buy the maximum amount of shipboard electrical power? 14. What technological/architectural options exist for interface and conversion from high voltage distribution to lower voltage zonal distribution? 15. Presuming a transition path from MVAC to MVDC, what opportunities for future growth remain available and which become unfeasible based on architecture approach? 16. What launch and recovery systems exist that the Navy should consider given a desire for flexible, common launch and recovery systems for manned and unmanned surface and underwater systems? Consider vehicle size and weights similar to standard 7 and 11 meter RHIB. 17. What additional thermal load analysis, in comparison to current techniques, should be performed to fully ascertain distributed thermal management system limitations, and determine appropriate service life allowance and margins for a flexible/adaptable ship? 18. What design/production practices are currently utilized or recommended to accommodate flexibly and adaptability in thermal management systems? 19. What new technologies and system designs should the Navy be investing in to achieve more Space, Weight, and Power (SWAP)-dense cooling options. 20. What manufacturing or domain-specific roadblocks exist for alignment of shipboard electrical zones, thermal zones, and construction build blocks? 21. What low signature sensors and mission systems exist in the marketplace that the Navy should consider? What signature control approaches for mission systems should the Navy consider? 22. What technologies or systems should the Navy consider to support increased flexibility and adaptability to support reconfigurability and rapid, affordable upgrades of capabilities? 23. Are there any supply chain or foreign supplier impacts that should be evaluated that impact system performance and/or delivery schedules? Responding to the RFI: Respondents to this RFI should provide the following information in the described formats. Submitter Information: Organization name, address, POC info, and OTA Consortium affiliation, if applicable. Format: Cover sheet, one-page executive summary, 50 page max main body (responding to the questions above). Text must be NLT 10 point font and be submitted in a searchable format (Plain text, MS Word or PDF). Submittals include one hardcopy and 2 CDs/DVDs of all responses and associated supporting information. All information must be appropriately marked (business sensitive, proprietary, etc.) and include authorization for Government use. Questions regarding this RFI may be submitted to Ms. Lauren C. Ayers (lauren.ayers@navy.mil). Responses to questions will be posted on FedBizOps. There is no provision for individual, proprietary or private responses to questions regarding this RFI. No reimbursement will be made for any costs associated with providing information in response to this announcement and any follow up information requests. Responses to this RFI may be considered in the future determination of an appropriate acquisition strategy for the program. The Government is not obligated to respond to any or all questions or comments submitted in response to this RFI or information provided as a result of this request. Any information submitted by respondents as a result of this notice is strictly voluntary, and shall not be returned.