T--Purchase of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data for evaluation - See description below.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers intends to award a sole source fixed price type contract to Lloyds Register - Fairplay to obtain Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data for Evaluation of Deep-Draft Containerized Cargo Carrier\Vessel Movements. The particular data will contain maximized coverage of as many of the worlds containerized carrier ports as possible. By nature of this critical requirement only one company presently offers such (or the most comprehensive) coverage by a significant margin in the approximate number of ports or geographic locations covered, completeness of data for covered locations over time, data fields available, and extent history for the years of concern as defined by the scope of work or services. Statement of Work is below. This is a special notice prepared in accordance with the format in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. However, any firm that believes it can meet this requirement may give written notification to the Contracting Officer within 5 days from the date of publication of this announcement. Supporting evidence must be in sufficient detail to demonstrate the ability to comply with the requirement. Responses received will be evaluated; however, a determination by the Government to compete the proposed procurement based on the responses to this notice is solely within the discretion of the Government. If no responses are received, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will proceed with awarding a fixed price type contract to Fairplay Publications, Incorporated dba Lloyds Register for the data. Point of Contact for this requirement is Lisa Kurtz at [email protected] 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315. Scope of Work or Services (SOW) for Acquisition of Maritime Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data for Evaluation of Deep-Draft Containerized Cargo Carrier\Vessel Movements The Institute for Water Resources (IWR) of The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is currently engaged in the evaluation and formulation of numerical models to evaluate containership operations relative to varying needs for project evaluation related to construction or placement of waterway improvements. The scope of waterway improvements under study for any given project may involve deepening or extension\enlargement of a waterway system or general navigation feature (GNF). A critical input to project evaluation is the assessment of fleet service regime and deployment which requires input as to the factors that govern or influence demand for ship service both in terms of vessel size and service frequency over time. With bulk operations the issues are somewhat simplified due to a comparatively higher level of dedicated service for individual shipments or limited itineraries and delivery points for shipments that often comprise most or all of vessel capacity for a given trip or deployment. With containerships, a variety of cargo originating from various vessel service users is or can be consolidated for movement via regularly scheduled services (i.e., liner service) where vessels often both discharge and onload cargo at a given port with little or no occurrence of ballasted-condition or dead-run operations. Due to the issues of evaluation of benefits for containership operations versus bulk and similar forms of cargo vessel operations, a critical input to transportation cost assessment is the evaluation of cargo handling throughput or capability of the vessel not only at a specific port (or the port of concern for proposed waterway improvements) but throughout the service routing or itinerary of the vessel. To ideally estimate vessel capacity and intensity of employment from a perspective of cargo capacity utilization requires data accessed directly from vessel manifests and other trade reporting documentation associated with regulation of maritime trade that currently (and foreseeably) are not readily (or cost-effectively) available and that individual vessel operators are sensitive in disclosing. Alternatively, vessel capacity utilization can be reasonably imputed and evaluated based on measurements for various parameters of vessel operations, most notably transit draft relative to vessel type, rated cargo carrying capacity, and physical dimensions for size. In addition to transit draft some of the primary inputs needed are timing of transit or travel. With the advent of vessel tracking via AIS-supported data compilation much of the critical information needed for reasonable vessel capacity utilization across the itinerary and over time can be obtained. Due to the international scope of trade however, a primary requirement is to obtain the data from a source that has sufficient geographical coverage both domestically and internationally for the major ports of concern. A general review of containership trade patterns indicates that coverage of approximately 70 to 90 percent of all world-wide movements for deep-draft self-propelled containerships is warranted with further review indicating pass-through ship listing compilation of the following ports or harbors: Listing of Container Ports for Transit Draft Data Evaluation. Based Generally on Consistency of Statistics Exceeding One Million or More TEUs for 2005 - 2007 Northern European Ports Country\Nation 1 Rotterdam Netherlands 2 Hamburg Germany 3 Bremen & Bremerhaven Germany 4 Antwerp Belgium 5 Felixstowe United kingdom 6 LeHavre France 7 Zeebrugge Belgium 8 Southhampton United kingdom Mediterranean\Middle East Ports 1 Algeciras Spain 2 Gioia Tauro Italy 3 Port Said Egypt 4 Valencia Spain 5 Barcelona Spain 6 Genoa Italy 7 Marsaxlokk Malta 8 Anbarli Turkey 9 Piraeus Greece 10 La Spezia Italy 11 Haifa Israel 12 Dubai UAE 13 Jeddah Saudi Arabia 14 Khor Fakkan UAE Asian Ports 1 Singapore Singapore 2 Hong Kong China 3 Shenzen China 4 Shanghai China 5 Kaoshiung Taiwan 6 Busan Korea 7 Qingdao China 8 Ningbo China 9 Guangzhou China 10 Port Klang Malaysia 11 Tianjin China 12 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 13 Xiamen China 14 Tokyo Japan 15 Keelung Taiwan 16 Tanjung Priok Malaysia 17 Yokohama Japan 18 Colombo Sri Lanka 19 Laem Chabang Thailand 20 Dalian China 21 Jawaharial Nehru India 22 Ho Chi Minh Vietnam North American Ports 1 Los Angeles (CA,US West Coast) United States 2 Long Beach (CA, US West Coast) United States 3 New York - New Jersey (NY-NJ, US East Coast) United States 4 Oakland - San Francisco (CA, US West Coast) United States 5 Vancouver, BC (Canada, West Coast) Canada 6 Savannah (GA, US East Coast) United States 7 Tacoma (WA, US West Coast) United States 8 Norfolk (VA, US East Coast) United States 9 Seattle (WA, US West Coast) United States 10 Charleston (SC, US East Coast) United States 11 Houston (TX, US Gulf Coast) United States 12 Miami (FL, US East Coast) United States 13 Halifax (Canada, East Coast) Canada 14 Jacksonville (FL, US East Coast) United States 15 Wilmington (NC, US East Coast) United States 16 Boston (MA, US East Coast) United States 17 Port Everglades (FL, US East Coast) United States 18 Baltimore (MD, US East Coast) United States 19 New Orleans (LA, US Gulf Coast ) United States 20 San Diego (CA, US West Coast) United States African Ports 1 Durban South Africa Australasian-Pacific Ports 1 Melbourne Australia 2 Sydney Australia Central & South America (Including Caribbean) 1 Kingston Jamaica 2 Freeport Bahamas 3 Santos Brazil 4 Puerto Manzanillo Panama 5 Manzanillo Argentina 6 San Juan Puerto Rico 7 Bueno Aires Argentina 8 Balboa Panama AIS data is needed for a period of at least three complete calendar years (i.e., the three most recent calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008). In the contexts of pass-through ship movements this is simply defined as: For the list of primary container ports as listed, developing for each calendar year a master list of individual or unique vessels which have visited any of the listed ports (at least one call or more during a given year) . Once the master list is compiled, comprehensively querying the overall AIS database to extract records for each vessel on the list for each port location called during the course of vessel operations for a given year to the extent that coverage of the vendors\contractors databases provide or allow. The detail of the database as provided will not be shared or distributed outside the immediate control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and will not be used or applied for any purposes other than for Corps research and Corps-sponsored studies. Under such provisions, distribution or release of data to secondary parties employed by the Corps (such as vendors of professional and analytical services) shall be only with permission of the vendor with the exception of research work performed directly for and under direct supervision of the Institute for water Resources (USACE-IWR). Based on general research and discussions with users of AIS databases, the following general approach and framework is suggested: Suggested methodology: It is presently understood that for many AIS databases, port callings and positions data is a composite of many movements within each port domain and that each realm of information may be archived in separate database environments. Due to the level of analysis desired by the Corps and requirements for tracking and audit ability the most direct and cost-efficient solution may be to extract or download parallel extracts for port callings and vessel characteristics versus vessel tracking data related to geographic positions\locations. Where data and information respective to port callings and vessel characteristics is matched to positions within file structure, the vendor may provide required data and information within one comprehensive file if so available. Where data is stored in separable databases, the vendor shall supply a port callings extract based on the listed and required ports over the time period specified (Part A; below) as available. This data is to include dates and supporting data (locational coordinates, tec.) for reference to geographical positions at the greatest frequency and lowest level of resolution possible. The vendor shall also provide a complete extract of all reported AIS positions relative to dates and times (or time of day) transit draft for the required size(s) of containership over the period (Part B; below). Where separate extracts are provided for callings\characteristics versus positions data, each data structure shall be provided with a common fields (i.e., notably date and IMO number) so that dates in the port callings data Part A can be readily matched or reference the positions data in Part B. As many of the port callings are made up of a number of positions in that port domain (at anchorage, at the berth, while in transit, etc), individual latitude and longitude coordinates to derive the various positions within the port relative to times and dates will be provided so that the level of detail will be sufficient for GIS mapping for\by USACE. USACE also requires that for a given latitude and longitude that a data filed be provided identifying the general port name and location. The two extracts in detail: PART A Port Callings The first effort would be to search\query on the featured ports for service by any and all cellular containerships that have been in the live world merchant fleet during the last three years (2008, 2007, 2006) where the maximum summer load line draught is greater than or equal to 36 ft (10.97 metres). These vessel listings in turn can be employed to search for associated service to all ports as contained in the AIS database(s) and output all reported port callings for all listed or reported ports during the course of the three (3) specified calendar years. This will enable a tracking or mapping of vessel itinerary through the course of time for the list of subject vessels to the extent data is available. Correspondingly, the output would be made up of the following: 1) Ship characteristics file IMO Number Current Name Current Name Date Vessel Type Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) Year/month of build TEU Rating(s) Length Overall (LOA) Length Between Perpendiculars (LBP) Max Summer Loadline \ Design Draught Breadth Extreme Breadth Moulded Depth Port of Registry Flag Max\Service speed Operator Company Code Operator Name Group Beneficial Owner Group Beneficial Owner Code Ship Manager Ship Manager Code History Files Operator History IMO Number Operator Operator Code Operator Date Sequence Number Group Owner History IMO Number Group Owner Group Owner Code Group Owner Date Sequence Number Manager History IMO Number Manager Manager Code Manager Date Sequence Number Flag History IMO Number Flag Flag Code Flag Date Sequence Number Name History IMO Number Name Name Date Sequence Number 2) Ship Movements IMO Number Arrival Date Arrival Date Full Country Destination ETA Hours in Port Movement type Port Port ID (unique id links to ports data) Sail Date Sail Date Full 3) Ports File Port ID (unique id links to ship movements) Country Code Maximum Beam or Breadth (Maximum) Deadweight Tonnage (DWT) Maximum Length Overall (LOA) Maximum Offshore Draught Maximum Draught Alternative Name Full Port Style Master POID Old ID Port ID Port Name Status Time Zone UNLOCODE WS Port Country Latitude Decimal Latitude Degrees Latitude Indicator Latitude Minutes Longitude Decimal Longitude Degrees Longitude Indicator Longitude Minutes Please note the following regarding this data; a) The measurement(s) of dimensions or dry volumes (as\if appropriate) are to be provided metres; measurements of weights provided in metric tonnes. b) The history files covering ship name, operator, group owner, manager, flag, are supplied to ensure that the correct value is referenced at the time of the recorded movement. As the movements are supplied over a three year period the values such as operator can change, therefore reference to the sequential history files which have dates and sequence numbers in them are essential. c) The port callings will be supplied over a three year period 2006-2008. It is understood that the earliest year was when LRF began recording port callings; therefore will not be so comprehensive as the later years or last year. d) The transit draughts are not recorded in the ports callings data as it a composite of many positions therefore it would be difficult to take a singular draught as the transit draught e) The extract will feature approximately, 2,600 vessels PART B Positions We would select all reported daily positions for containerships (of the required size) over the specified three-year period. We would output the following fields: Positions fields: LR IMO Ship No General Movement ID General Movement Date Time General Latitude Location Longitude Location Destination (Tidied) Location Ship Name General Ship Type General Length Dimensions Draught (reported) Dimensions Speed General Heading General MMSI General Destination Location ETA Location Additional Info General Call Sign General Beam Dimensions The draught would be the reported sailing draught for that position and associated heading (East, West etc.). Preliminary estimates are that 5.5 to approximately 7 to 7.5 million positions are reported and will be available per year Data will be supplied in tab or pipe separated text files at the preference of the Government. An initial limited test dump of data is to be provided in order that you can check if the data meets the requirement. The final comprehensive download of data is to be provided after review of the test download and the contractor\vendor is notified the test download is in compliance with requirements or after appropriate specifications for adjustments have been forwarded to the contractor. Deliverables: 1.) Upon notice to proceed form the authorized contracting representative of the Government, the contractor will compile a limited test download and provide to the Government within four (4) business days. 2.) The Government shall have up to eight (8) calendar days to review test output and formulate and adjustments for forwarding to the contractor (where or if required). 3.) Upon notification and forwarding of any adjustments (where or if required), the contractor will have seven (8) to fifteen (15) calendar days to provide in its entirety the complete and finalized database as specified herein. 4.) Upon receipt of the final product, due to the estimated volume of data the Government shall have up to thirty-six (36) calendar days to review and assess provided products for compliance with contract requirements. Once review is complete the contracting officers technical representative will submit notification of compliance with contract requirements within eight (8) calendar days for authorization of payment. 5.) As a separate cost item it is requested that the contractor provide an estimate for technical labour time and cost to support to assist or support in the evaluation and processing of data by USACE.