UNOLS FLEET IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

October 5, 2005
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 320
Arlington, VA 22230

Meeting Minutes

A pdf version of these minutes can be downloaded at <200510ficmi.pdf>.

Executive Summary:

The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) met on October 5, 2005 at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA. The first part of the meeting was spent reviewing Fleet renewal activities. An update on the Regional Class acquisition status, operator selection, and timeline was provided. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for design/build teams is expected in the first quarter of FY06. NSF has indicated that operator selection for the Regional Class ships might have to wait until there is official authorization to construct the ship. Authorization for construction would be requested after the Phase I design process has been completed and the construction cost is known. John Freitag reported on the Ocean Class acquisition status. ONR was directed to include $25M in their FY07 budget and that it should be SCN funds. There is also $4M in their budget to begin the design process. The status of these items is currently unclear. The Navy FY06 budget has not been passed and they are operating on a continuing resolution.

Bob Houtman provided that status of the Federal Oceanographic Facilities Committee (FOFC) Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan. The Plan groups the ships into two categories, Research and Survey, and three classes, Global, Ocean, and Regional. Based on agency budget projections, the overall fleet size will decrease from 48 ships to 47 by 2015; 18 ships will be retired and 17 new advanced ships are planned during this period. By 2025 an additional 14 ships will be retired while only 2 new ships are planned, decreasing the fleet size to 35 ships, provided that the funds are available to build the ships identified in the plan. They hope to have a revised draft to FOFC in November.

A good part of the meeting was devoted to a detailed the review of the draft UNOLS 2006 Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP). There was consensus that the report’s introduction and executive summary should emphasize the need for the Fleet. Also, the science sections need to clearly state why ships are needed. The draft will be revised.

The need to establish research vessel guidelines for the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) was discussed. NSF has indicated the need for new ship construction and ship conversion efforts to address ADA requirements. A UNOLS ad hoc committee will be formed to develop ADA guidelines.

Reports on various ship design, construction, conversion and transfers were provided. These included the Marcus Langseth conversion status, Alaska Region Replacement Vessel, Hugh R. Sharp delivery and outfitting update, and

• Seward Johnson II transfer to BBSR status.

In other business, Ron Benner’s first FIC term will end in January 2006 and he will not to seek a second term on FIC. Clare Reimers’ first term is also ending and has agreed to stay on for a second term. Nominations to replace Ron Benner will be solicited.

Action Items:

Task Description	Action
Regional Class Actions:
· Stay engaged in acquisition process § Provide feedback to NSF § Insure community input	FIC, RCAC
KILO MOANA Actions:
· Continue Select Debrief Interviews with more focused set of questions.	FIC
· Compile Debriefs for posting on the UNOLS website	Office -Ongoing
· Draft EOS or other appropriate article	Dave and Brian Taylor
FOFC Fleet Plan Update - · Provide the Working Group information when requested. · Provide Statements of Science Imperative for Research Vessels	FIC
Design and Constructions Efforts - Stay engaged in ongoing design and construction efforts (ARRV, Langseth Conversion, etc.)	FIC - Ongoing
Ocean Class Planning – Provided input as requested	FIC and OCSC
Global Class: Update SMRs	Global Class SMR Committee – ongoing
2005 Fleet Improvement Plan: · Revise outline and plan organization. · Provide standard format for Science sections and clearly state the need for ships. · Complete draft text for all sections · Review Draft should be available for March Council Meeting	FIC – ongoing
Ocean Observatories – Stay in contact with ORION Office.	Dave Hebert – ongoing
FIC Membership – A replacement is needed for Ron Benner. Announce a call for nominations.	Office
ADA Guidelines: · Form a subcommittee to draft guidelines for new construction or ship conversions. Establish procedural guidelines for at-sea operations. · Convene a 2-day workshop as needed · Provide preliminary recommendations to NSF for Regional Class Construction effort · Provide draft recommendations in Spring 05	Peter Wiebe will task and form committee.

Appendices:

I. Agenda

II. Attendees

III. FIC Chair and Office Meeting Slides

IV. FOFC Fleet Renewal Plan Update

V. Marcus Langseth Conversion Update

VI. Alaska Region Research Vessel Design Update

VII. Letter from Matt Hawkins to FIC regarding R/V Hugh R. Sharp status

Meeting Summary Report:

Call the Meeting: The UNOLS Fleet Improvement Committee (FIC) met on October 5, 2005 at the National Science Foundation (NSF) in Arlington, VA. Dave Hebert, FIC Chair, called the meeting to order at 0830 and provided an opportunity for introductions. The meeting agenda was followed in the order as recording in these minutes. The meeting agenda is included as Appendix I and the meeting participants are listed in Appendix II.

A motion was made to accept the minutes of the March 2005 FIC Meeting. One correction was pointed out. On page 9 it should read “single streamer,” not “single screw.” The minutes were approved upon the correction of page 9.

Dave reviewed the status of the FIC Action/Task List from the October meeting (included in Appendix III). He reported that he and Peter Wiebe have attended FOFC meetings to represent UNOLS and keep abreast of their plans to update the long-range fleet plan. UNOLS and FIC will be tasked to establish ADA guidelines for research vessels. David Chapman of the University of Delaware has been funded by NSF to study how research vessels currently accommodate disabilities. UNOLS should keep abreast of his findings. Dave reported that he has been keeping in contact with the ORION Office and Bob Detrick. There is an ORION meeting in March 2006 to review the proposed ideas for the observatory. Dave will attend the meeting.

Fleet Renewal Activities:

Regional Class Acquisition Status, Operator Selection, and Timeline - Pete Kilroy provided a brief status on the Regional Class acquisition effort. First there was a discussion on the open meeting policy. UNOLS meetings are open. Pete expressed concern over having a contractor present at the meeting. The representative from Titan left the meeting. Mike Reeve indicated that this issue would require further discussion. Pete Kilroy presented slides, but they will not be included with the meeting minutes or posted on the web.

NSF has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with PEOShips to manage the Regional Class acquisition effort. PEOShips expects to release the RFP for design/build teams in the first quarter of FY06. Pete presented the project timeline.

Mike Reeve discussed the operator selection process for the Regional Class ships. He explained that in order to get permission to spend funds for the ship construction, they would need to make the request before the NSF Board. They cannot go before the Board until they have designed the ship and know its cost. In turn, they cannot go out for operator selection until they have permission for construction. This translates to operator selection in early calendar year 2007. Margaret Leinen may ask for guidance on this topic at the spring Board meeting. Mike Reeve explained that this is a default stance and hopefully they will be successful in moving the operator selection earlier.

The group discussed the Regional Class performance specifications. FIC had expressed concern with including science equipment details in the RFP. Pete Kilroy explained that there are three options: government furnished equipment (GFE), shipyard furnished, or purchase after delivery. If the decision is to provide equipment as GFE, they would need to provide the space reservations - footprint, weight, etc. If equipment were shifted from contractor provided to GFE, the money would be shifted accordingly. Pete explained that there is flexibility and funds for change orders.

Terry Whitledge asked if ADA modifications would be considered and the budget available to implement them. Pete replied that if the ADA guidelines are defined now and built into the designs, it would save cost. Peter Wiebe asked if ADA requirements are defined and included in the bid package? Pete Kilroy replied, “no” because the ADA requirements are not defined. Dave Hebert commented that Dave Chapman has identified some items in his proposal. ADA will be discussed later in the meeting.

There was concern over the science outfitting specifications. A better set of specs for mission equipment is needed.

Al Suchy commented that UNOLS provided many comments on the Regional Class performance specifications, yet they did not get feedback on what was incorporated by PEO Ships. Pete Kilroy indicated that they probably would not be allowed to circulate a final draft of the SOR before its release. Dan Rolland indicated that they tried to incorporate as many comments as possible; about 80% were included.

Ocean Class Acquisition Process Status and Timeline - John Freitag (ONR) reported that once the Navy begins the acquisition process, they plan to select the operator early. ONR was directed to include $25M in their FY07 budget and that it should be Ship Construction Navy (SCN) funds. This would be included annually, so that there would be funds available to construct a ship every three years. With the ship construction funds included in the SCN account, it is competing against all other Navy gray ships. There is also $4M in their budget to begin the design process. The status of these items is currently unclear. The Navy FY06 budget has not been passed and they are operating on a continuing resolution.

Peter Wiebe questioned how the Navy would get community input into the Ocean Class process.

Status of FOFC Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan - Bob Houtman reviewed the status of the FOFC Long-Range Fleet Renewal Plan. His slides are included as Appendix IV. The FOFC Working Group developed an initial draft. A Technical Writer/Editor/Designer was brought on board to assist. NORLC was briefed on the status of the Plan development at their July meeting. The Plan’s basic message is that the ships are invaluable national capital assets critical to the future success of the broad ocean community. To accomplish federal agency missions, at a minimum it is necessary to maintain current fleet capabilities and regardless of the budget environment, ships age and need to be replaced.

The Plan groups the ships into two categories, Research and Survey, and three classes, Global, Ocean, and Regional. Based on agency budget projections, the overall fleet size will decrease from 48 ships to 47 by 2015; 18 ships will be retired and 17 new advanced ships are planned during this period. By 2025 an additional 14 ships will be retired while only 2 new ships are planned, decreasing the fleet size to 35 ships, provided that the funds are available to build the ships identified in the plan.

Bob reviewed the Plan’s conclusions:

• At a minimum, there is a need to maintain fleet capabilities

• The fleet should be sized to balance current and projected requirements with federal agency budgets.

• There is the potential for rapid reductions in the fleet if appropriations for planned and authorized vessels do not materialize, or if ships now being funded are not allowed to continue through to completion.

• Planning suggests that renewal is keeping up with aging fleets.

The plan has been challenging to put together. The number of ships is much greater and the issues are more complicated. They hope to have a revised draft to FOFC in November.

Discussion followed:

• Terry Whitledge asked if the observatory facility needs had been addressed. Bob replied that since the ocean observatories are not budgeted and funded, it is not reflected in the plan. However, the text of the report makes mention of them. They have not been ignored, observatories are addressed to the level that they feel that they can address it.

• Al Suchy asked if the topic of SLEPs was addressed in the report. How are the costs being factored? Older ships are having a difficult time finding maintenance parts.

• Peter Wiebe asked who would approve this the Plan. Bob explained that the National Oceanographic Leadership Council (NORLC) is trying to work with the Ocean Action group. They are moving towards resolution.

• Clare Reimers asked how could we make sure that the FOFC and FIP reports are consistent. Bob indicated that Peter and Dave have attended FOFC meetings.

• Terry Whitledge asked what should FIC provide as input if they don’t know what the FOFC report includes. Bob replied that they are looking for statements on why the fleet is needed. The Ocean Action Plan very clearly states that the Fleet renewal plan is required. This report will have tremendous visibility. The report will be carefully reviewed and scrutinized by OMB and others.

Break

Review status of Fleet Improvement Plan (FIP) Update- Dave Hebert reviewed the FIP outline. The next few hours were spent reviewing and commenting on the FIP working draft. Below is a listing of many of the comments and suggestions that were made.

• Move the SLEP section into the section on future needs.

• The introduction and executive summary should emphasize the need for the Fleet.

• The Executive Summary should be able to serve as a stand-alone glossy brochure.

• In the Future Fleet section – Use the FOFC plan as a starting point. Can the FOFC plan meet current demands?

• Explain that SLEPs are needed if construction timelines shift.

• There should be an important introduction to the science section that ties it all together.

• The group felt that there should be a common format to the sections.

• The science sections need to clearly state why ships are needed.

• Put ship needs into science introduction.

• What is the compelling need for ships now?

• Outreach and Education - Discuss the attributes for both the real experience vs. virtual experience. Explain any special needs, communications requirements, and space.

• Page 36 – Retirements chart. Either separate or color code. Only show current fleet.

• Page 38 - Explain what Alvin is.

• Page 40 - remove highlight

• Add a section on Polar vessel capability

• Page 41 – delete nuclear sub section.

• Remove observatories from this section.

• Page 42 – Move retirement dates and SLEP

• Page 42 – add why the SLEP is considered. “In order, to meet current demand, SLEPs can be conducted; however…”

• Page 46 – Explain why was Fleet underutilized? Explain how the ships were used.

• Page 46 – Explain what the FOY is and why they differ by ship.

• Keep all ship classes in document.

• Page 51 – Science berths represent non-crew bunks

• Page 52 – Show days. Add days.

• Page 54 – We should explain the change from solid to dotted line is budget reductions.

• Page 55 – what would have been needed in dollars to accommodate the deferred work?

• Fleet Costs – pie chart, show Kilo Moana as Ocean Class. Indicate the number of ships per class.

• Peter – add a chart that shows the cost per bunk.

• Cost of operating, fully utilized ship, by class for bunk cost.