Large Surface Combatant RFI – Shipbuilders Issued

Solicitation Number: N00024-FY19-LSC-005
Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Naval Sea Systems Command
Location: NAVSEA HQ

Solicitation Number:
Notice Type:
Sources Sought
Added: Feb 19, 2019 1:14 pm Modified: Feb 19, 2019 1:43 pmTrack Changes
NOTE: This Sources Sought/Request for Information is also posted under multiple NAICS Codes (336611, 334511, 541715 and 611310) in order to reach all interested parties. Only one response is necessary for 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 shipbuilders, ship designers, and ship and combat system integrators. While the shipbuilding and design 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 large surface combatants or 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 ( 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 industry-led 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 and/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 LSC characteristics described above, what are innovative ideas to accomplish this on either a modified or new design, employing non-developmental systems? What methods would industry incorporate in a design to improve the ability to cost effectively evolve the ship’s combat capability during its life cycle?

2. What are the design sensitivities in an LSC with respect to integrating the Navy’s desired objectives for warfare systems and capabilities, as well as the future growth flexibility and adaptability including margins?

3. Discuss how preliminary design and detail design for the LSC can be conducted most affordably, and what in industry’s view are the major cost drivers for new design lead ship costs that could potentially be mitigated.

4. The Navy is interested in reducing life cycle cost of the LSC. What design features should the Navy focus on to improve Operational Availability and MTBF and reduce the need for duration/frequency of maintenance availabilities, ideally with maximum lengths of 90-120 day CNO availabilities?

5. What design features should the Navy focus on to facilitate rapid upgrades of systems and technologies and reduce the length of maintenance and upgrade activities that take ships out of service? How do these features impact ship producibility and production timelines?

6. 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?

7. What approaches and technologies for increasing ship flexibility/adaptability and affordability of upgrade are recommended? What approaches to modularity and open systems architecture are recommended? How could these approaches be applied to modified ship designs as well?

8. In order to support the goal of improved signatures on LSC: What impacts should be considered to ship producibility, hull design, ship size and cost of reduced signature features? What approaches and technologies for reducing ships signatures are recommended and why? What impacts to ship acquisition and maintenance should the Navy consider with regard to utilization of planar array apertures?

9. The Navy is interested in reducing the cost of acquisition of the LSC. What design features should the Navy focus on to control material and labor cost drivers? (e.g. density, reduced number of piece parts, welds, complex shapes, common arrangements, use of symmetrical spaces, use of commonality shelf, use of Flexible Infrastructure to reduce hot work, considerations for pulling cable, etc.). How do the general attributes desired for LSC drive costs in non-recurring engineering, recurring engineering, design, and production?

10. What new technology and methods are being considered that will support more efficient design for production and test and to reduce rework? What further investments are needed to capitalize or improve on these opportunities?

11. What is the impact on cost and producibility to designing less dense ships with less tightly packed arrangements?

12. The Navy is interested in ideas to improve the Preliminary and Contract design process to enable an efficient and effective transition to Detail Design and Construction (DD&C). What design activities could be executed in PD/CD to reduce the Detail Design Timeline? What design features should be explored in PD/CD to minimize ship acquisition cost and construction timeline to delivery?

13. What content would shipyards recommend be included in a contract design data package to minimize DD&C schedule, risk, and cost?

14. How should Navy design efforts be structured to support make or buy decisions?

15. What strategies are proposed for developing a design potentially intended for construction with multiple shipbuilders?

16. What are the benefits/impacts and feasibility of use of a common ship production model (CAE/CAD/CAM)? How might a common design impact yard-specific design requirements?

17. How can industry digital engineering efforts improve Detail Design and Construction efforts? What efforts are necessary in PD/CD to support digital shipbuilding models?

18. The Navy is interested in approaches to accelerate the ship design process including preliminary design, contract design, and detail design. What approaches are recommended to achieve the goal of Detail Design and Construction contract award on an accelerated timeline?

19. What typical activities executed in a detail design and construction contract award could be executed prior to the DD&C award and included with a contract design data package to expedite schedule to ship delivery? How could these activities be tailored to approaches of a new ship or of a modified LSC design?

20. What are the benefits/impacts of government down selecting vendors for major equipment prior to Detail Design and Construction award to speed up the design process?

21. The Navy is interested in achieving an efficient transition of shipbuilding programs in the large surface combatant category. What risks/obstacles would be challenging to transitioning from steady DDG Flight III production to production of a different hull. What suggestions do you have to overcome those obstacles? What studies need to be performed to support transition from DDG Flight III to support construction of a new, non-developmental design provided by the Navy?

22. What other general comments or suggestions not covered by the above does industry have to improve the cost, schedule and performance of the design process and the resulting ships?

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

Cover sheet, one-page executive summary, 50 page max main body (responding to the questions above).

Text must be no less than 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 ( Submitted questions and all Navy responses 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.

Hardcopy submittals shall be delivered to the following address:

NAVSEA HQ is located at the Washington Navy Yard (WNY) where access is strictly limited in accordance with Naval District Washington (NDW) security regulations. It is recommended that submittals be mailed. In the event you prefer to hand carry your submittal, ensure adequate time has been allowed by your representative to accommodate the additional security procedures.

Hand carried submittals shall be arranged at least 48 hours prior to arriving at the WNY. Respondents with proper credentials (CAC) can enter the WNY via the Isaac Hull Gate off M Street SE; other respondents must go to the O Street Gate, WNY Pass Office, where they will need to be sponsored onto the installation by a Government representative of the contracting officer. Vehicles entering NDW are subject to random searches. Packages should not be sealed as they are subject to inspection.

Contracting Office Address:
SEA 02
1333 Isaac Hull Avenue SE
Washington Navy Yard, District of Columbia 20376
United States

Primary Point of Contact.:
Lauren C. Ayers,
Contracting Officer
Phone: 2027814390

Secondary Point of Contact:
Brendan J. O’Mara,
Contracting Officer
Phone: 2027813512