Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Procurement Operations Branch, MS2500, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170-4817

B -- AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF DOUBLE WALL VERSUS SINGLE WALL DESIGNS FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES IN AN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT SOL 1435-01-RP-99-31004 DUE 050199 POC J. Callas, Contracting Officer and L. Donley, Procurement Assistant both can be reached at (703) 787-1354 WEB: See Above, http://www.mms.gov (MMS Homepage) and http://www.mms.gov/tarp/home.htm (Technology Assessment and Research Branch area on the homepage). PROPOSALS SOUGHT FOR A PROPOSED TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS) TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH (TA&R) PROGRAM. This notice is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional information included with this notice. This announcement constitutes the ONLY solicitation; offers are being requested and a written solicitation SHALL NOT BE ISSUED. Solicitation 1435-01-99-RP-31004 is a Request for Proposal (RFP). Offerors should reference RFP 1435-01-RP-31004, AN ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF DOUBLE WALL VERSUS SINGLE WALL DESIGNS FOR OFFSHORE PIPELINES IN AN ARCTIC ENVIRONMENT. Statement of objective: The MMS, through the TA&R Program, intends to competitively award a contract to conduct an extensive, non bias engineering and environmental assessment, considering both pro's and con's, of single versus double walled designs for offshore pipelines in an Arctic environment. The principal rationale for conducting this study is to assess if a double walled design provides the same or a greater degree of engineering integrity and environmental robustness as compared to a thicker walled single pipe design for an Arctic offshore applications and to appraise the economics of one selection over the other relative to the potential risks (real and/or perceived) associated with either application. Contract period is 6 months from date of reward. The project is anticipated to require from a three-quarters to one man year level of effort to satisfactorily complete the assessment. Please read this ENTIRE NOTICE CAREFULLY as it constitutes the ONLY notice that will be issued. FURTHER INFORMATION: The assessment should provide an extensive general review of all engineering and environmental pro's and con's for using either single wall or double wall pipeline designs for offshore oil and gas pipelines located in an Arctic environment. In this synopsis/solicitation, a double walled pipeline is defined as an oil or gas carrier pipe inside of an external pipe. The configuration may be designated as pipe-in-pipe, cased pipe, or pull tube depending on the actual pipeline design. All single pipe designs considered should be robust pipeline designs that are currently being considered for Arctic applications. In conducting the assessment, reviews may vary from industry specific to project specific applications. Offers are encouraged to consider specific existing and/or planned pipelines projects of either design methodology located in the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea and/or other international locations. For double wall pipelines, the assessment shall document, with references, the technical and non-technical reasons as to why that type of design was selected for the project as opposed to an alternative single wall design relative to construction, operations, and maintenance issues. All results stated need to be specific as to how the conclusions were determined and if they are, in fact, based on thorough and defendable engineering or environmental assessments and/or analyzes of critical issues. The assessment shall be presented in a format so that engineers, biologists, scientists and the public can comprehend the results and resulting conclusions. Also the results and conclusions must be presented in a way so that they are useful, concise, and defendable to all concerned in making decisions relative to long term integrity and environmental issues typical for an offshore Arctic pipeline. The intent of the desired study IS NOT to assess the alternatives for a single, specific ongoing Arctic pipeline project. It is understood that to assess the actual benefits versus costs and risks associated with either a single walled or double walled design would require project specific analyzes. The purpose of the assessment IS to accurately document the advantages and disadvantages (technical and non-technical) of either a robust single thick walled design to a pipe-in-pipe design considering the constraints associated with an offshore Arctic pipeline project, i.e. ice cover, permafrost, scouring of the seafloor by ice, etc. and based on supporting quantitative information. The assessment shall provide the MMS with a comprehensive technical reference on double walled pipeline concepts relative to single walled designs considering long term structural integrity and environmental issues. The assessment shall consider aspects of both alternatives such as, but not limited to designed performance versus actual performance, potential for construction and installation problems, inspection, risks associated with more complex design and construction requirements, quality assurance and quality control, corrosion, leak detection, costs versus perceived risk mitigation, long term operations and maintenance, structural integrity, secondary containment in the event of a leak occurring. A primary purpose of the study is to see if it is feasible to design a double wall pipe for Arctic conditions andto assess advantages/disadvantages, risks/challenges and what resources would be required to meet or mitigate those challenges. The following is a list of issues and projects that have been identified as pertinent to the assessment and offers are encouraged to consider and/or address them in their proposals: (a.) State-of-the-art review of double walled pipelines; (b.) Review engineering and environmental rationale for using a double walled pipe design for the Alaska Alpine Oil Pipeline Project's Colville River Crossing; (c.) Assess past history and criteria for cased pipe under road and railroad beds to include GRI funded research; (d.) Assess rationale for using and the operational performance of double walled pipe in other offshore applications, both national and international; (e.) Review use of double walled pipe in onshore application, especially related to the petrochemical industry; (f.) Review the proposed Alaska Liberty Island pull-tube concept; (g.) Review the U.S. Department of Transportation position on the use of double walled pipe; (h.) Assess technical basis for failure of pipelines due to buckling in reference to the diameter and wall thickness relative to it's influence on selecting either a single or double walled concept; (i.) Assess technical basis for pipe leaks or ruptures due to either corrosion and construction flaws relative to both a single and double walled pipe concepts; (j.) Assess technical basis for potential rupture for both a single and double walled pipe design pipeline from external trauma; (k.) Assess relative concerns for using non-destructive methods to test pipe welds during construction; (l.) Assess hydrostatic testing of both pipe concepts; (m.) Review rationale and performance of the Canadian Panarctic Drake F-36 subsea flowline project; (n.) Review rationale and performance of BPX's Troika towed bundle flowline project; (o.) Assess risks and reliability in terms of designing for leak containment versus designing for physical protection; (p.) Assess general trade offs between selecting either a single or double walled design concept; (q.) Assess life cycle costs associated with between designing, constructing, operating, maintaining, inspections both pipeline concepts versus integrity and environmental risks as well as other mitigating measures: (r) Assess external loads on pipelines in the Arctic offshore versus other locations such as river beds, road and railroad beds as well as offshore in the Gulf of Mexico; (s) Assess the use of plastic utiliduct pipe as the outer pipe of a dual pipeline system to detect or contain leaks; and (t.) Assess use of pipeline risk management systems to mitigate potential leaks and resulting discharge. HOW TO RESPOND: In order to compete for this contract, interested parties must demonstrate that their organization is qualified to perform the work by providing separate Technical and Cost Proposals. The Technical Proposal shall detail the following: (1) the scope of how you would conduct the assessment; (2) your key personnel (those who wouldhave the primary responsibility for performing and/or managing the project) with their qualifications and specific experience; (3) your organization's experience with this type of work and a description of your facilities; and (4) specific references (including project identifier/ contract number and description, period of performance, dollar amount, client name and current telephone number) for work of this nature that your personnel or organization is currently performing or has completed within the last two years. It is especially important that offers disclose instances in which their past performance may be considered by previous customers or their representatives to have been less than fully satisfactory and provide rebuttal explaining your side of the story. ALL REFERENCES WILL BE CHECKED. The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on it scope and the technical detail of the tasks the skills, and past performance of your organization. More specifically, technical proposals shall be evaluated on the following specific criteria in order of importance: (1) Past Performance -- This is a shall be evaluated on a pass/fail basis. Should pass performance be less than fully satisfactory, the offeror will not proceed to the next set of criteria listed herein. Therefore, past performance is the most importance criteria. Past performance includes adherence to schedules and budgets, effectiveness of cost control, the acceptability of previous products delivered, effectiveness of program management, and the offeror's willingness to cooperate with the customer in both routine matters and when confronted by unexpected difficulties. Technical Proposals that were found to be satisfactory will then be evaluated on the following specific criteria in order of importance: (2) Appropriateness of tasks cited to complete the assessment; (3) The quality and availability of the personnel with the requisite expertise (skills, abilities, education, professional credentials and experience) to accomplish the assessment as proposed; (4) Innovative or creative approaches used to conduct the assessment; (5) Feasibility of the approach or solution; (6) The offerors understanding of the technical issues being presented for consideration; and (7) The offerors ability to implement the proposed approach as determined by adequate detailed analysis and supported by specific accomplishments in the technical field to be assessed. The Cost Proposal shall be submitted SEPARATELY and detail the costs associated with each proposed task to include man hours, travel and required equipment and/or services. The written cost and business proposal detailing how the work will be performed and at what price should be no more than 20 pages. Each offeror shall submit a labor hour rate scheduled for each category or labor that might be assigned to the project for future work. Following review of all Technical Proposals submitted, those offerors judged most qualified to successfully perform the effort will be evaluated as to the appropriateness of their CostProposals. The most qualified offerors selected based on an evaluation of both the Technical and Cost Proposals will be expected to provide a separate oral presentation of their technical proposal to the selection review panel. The oral presentation will be given by the offeror's key personnel and the emphasis will be on the appropriateness of tasks designated in the proposed assessment and now well the work could be accomplished. Following the oral presentation there will be a one-hour question and answer session where the government will query the presenters on their proposal. ORAL PRESENTATIONS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE MMS ALASKA OCS REGIONAL OFFICE located at 949 East 36th Avenue, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA approximately mid June 1999. The oral presentation and question and answer session will not constitute part of the offer or contract. Neither the oral presentation nor the question and answer session will obligate the government to conduct discussions or to solicit or entertain any proposal revisions. Only the offeror's key project personnel will be allowed to participate in the oral presentation. Key project personnel include only those persons who will be assigned to work on the contract. Corporate officers not directly working on the project should not be presenters. An outline of the oral presentation in bullet form should be provided to the government evaluation team (10 copies) at the start of the presentation. The government reserves the right to award contracts to other than the lowest priced offer if, in its judgement, the offer is superior to other offers and out weighs the cost difference. VERY IMPORTANT: The following provision/clauses are incorporated by reference: 52.212-1, Instructions to Offer's -- Commercial Items (JUN 97); 52.212-2, Evaluation of Commercial Items (OCT 97); 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications -- Commercial Items (JAN 97) 52.212-4, Contract Terms and Conditions -- Commercial Items (MAY 97); 52.212-5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders -- Commercial Items (AUG 96). These documents are current to FAC 90-46 (MAR 97) Offerors should go to the Internet GSA FAR website at http://www.gsa.gov/far/ or http://www.arnet.gov/far/ to view these clauses. It is strongly recommended to use the Internet to obtain copies of these provisions and clauses. The government reserves the right to award contracts to other than the lowest priced offer if, in its judgement, the offer is superior to other offers and out weighs the cost difference. This synopsis constitutes an RFP but does not constitute commitment by the Government to award nor does it restrict the Government as to the ultimate acquisition approach. Questions may be faxed to the attention of BOTH the Contracting Officer, Ms. J. Callas AND the Procurement Assistant, Ms. L. Donley at (703) 787-1387. Questions may also be E-mailed to Jaci.Callas@mms.gov AND Lane.Donley@mms.gov (the RFP number MUST be in the subject line of the Email). (Please include both addresses in any correspondence). TELEPHONIC REQUESTS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. An original plus FIVE (5) copies of the RFP are due BY 3:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time (EST)) MAY 1, 1999. ELECTRONIC COPIES WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED (e.g. via e-mail attachments, etc.). The delivery address for receipt of RFPs is: Minerals Management Service; 381 Elden Street; ATTN: J. S. Callas, MS 2500; Herndon, VA 20170. If offerors desire to hand deliver their RFPs then they are informed that this is a secure office complex and MUST NOT enter the building beyond the lobby. There is a courtesy telephone near the elevators to which you must call extension 1354 for a procurement official to pick-up your response. Posted 03/29/99 (W-SN313630). (0088)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0012 19990331\B-0004.SOL)