47QFCA23S0001_BAA_ICAM Maritime Workforce and Industrial Base_.pdf

FEDSIM BAA Announcement # 47QFCA-23-S-0001

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)

Maritime Workforce and Industrial Base Project in support of:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition &

Sustainment (OUSD A&S)

Innovation Capability & Modernization (ICAM) Office

General Information:

Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) Number: 47QFCA23S0001

BAA Type: Initial Announcement

FEDSIM Project ID: 47QFCA23Z0006

Posted Date: TBD

White Papers Due: TBD

NAICS code for this BAA: 541715 Research and Development, in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology).

Anticipated Awards: Multiple awards are anticipated; FEDSIM reserves the right to select for award zero, some, or all the proposals received in response to this announcement.

Contracting Office Address:

The Federal Systems Integration and Management Center (FEDSIM)

1800 F Street, NW (QF0B)

Washington, D.C. 20405

Points of Contacts (POCs):

All communications and questions associated with this BAA shall be submitted in writing to the

POCs listed below.

Contracting Officer (CO):

Justin Zerbato

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QF0B)

1800 F Street, NW

Telephone: (202) 417-0732

Email: justin.zerbato@gsa.gov

Contract Specialist (CS):

Cynthia Weaver

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov

Matthew Healey

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: matthew.healey@gsa.gov mailto:justin.zerbato@gsa.gov mailto:cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov mailto:matthew.healey@gsa.gov

Table of Contents 1 Funding Opportunity Description 5

1.1 Agency Mission 5

1.2 Background 5

1.3 Current Environment 7

1.4 Purpose 8

1.5 Scope 8

1.6 BAA Lines of Effort (LOE) 9

1.6.1 LOE #1: Workforce Development 9

1.6.2 LOE #2: Supplier Development 10

1.6.3 LOE #3: Shipyard Infrastructure 10

1.6.4 LOE #4: Strategic Outsourcing 10

1.6.5 LOE #5: Improve Government Shipbuilding Construction Workforce and

Processes 11

1.6.6 LOE #6: Technology Opportunities 11

1.6.7 Quarterly Planning Reviews 12

2 Two-phase (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Proposal Selection Approach 12

2.1 Phase 1: White Papers 12

2.2 Phase 2: Full Proposals 12

3 Notional Timeline 13

4 Award and Funding Information 13

5 Eligibility Information/Sources 13

6 Cost Sharing/Funds Matching 14

7 Submissions – General Information and Instructions 14

7.1 General Information 14

7.2 Submission Instructions 17

8. Evaluation and Selection Information (See FAR 2.101 and 3.104) 27

8.1 BAA Peer Technical Review 27

8.2 White Paper Evaluation Factors 28

8.3 Proposal Evaluation Factors 28

8.4 Evaluation and Selection 29

9 Data Rights & Proprietary Data 30

9.1 Unlimited or Government Purpose Rights 30

9.2 Government Rights Prior to Contract Award 30

10 Attachments 30

1 Funding Opportunity Description

1.1 Agency Mission

The ICAM office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)) provides the DoD with resources and capabilities to help achieve the strategic goal of a robust, secure, and resilient US industrial base. The ICAM office directly supports the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Resilience (DASD(IBR)) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy (ASD(IBP)), who are aligned toward the strategic aim of industrial base health and resilience. The ICAM office oversees and manages the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) program through which this project is funded and implemented.

The IBAS program derives its authorities and mission from 10 USC. § 4817, Industrial Base

Fund, which outlines four statutory objectives:

1. Support the monitoring and assessment of the industrial base.

2. Address critical issues in the industrial base relating to urgent operational needs.

3. Support efforts to expand the industrial base; and

4. Address supply chain vulnerabilities.

As a defense-wide investment line managed in OUSD (A&S), the IBAS program addresses broad, cross-cutting issues that are often beyond the oversight or capability of a single military department or agency to address alone. Therefore, many IBAS investments, including those made through this solicitation, require close teaming with one or more military departments. In the case of this BAA, the ICAM Office is working closely with the Department of the Navy

(DON).

1.2 Background

The Department of Defense (DoD) is on a generational journey to recapitalize its sea-based deterrent and warfighting capabilities in times of both peace and conflict. The nation’s strategic competitors are out-pacing US capabilities or have closed the technology and information gap, making the maritime components of the US defense industrial base (DIB)—and the ability of those components to innovate, implement, and execute faster and better than our adversaries—a fundamental differentiator in the competitive landscape. A particularly formidable challenge for the US Navy is the requirement to rapidly reach and sustain a programmed production rate of one Columbia Class (CLB) submarine and two Virginia Class submarines (VCS) per year, henceforth referred to as “1+2.” At the same time, the Navy must also sustain existing submarine platforms and fulfill its ambitious surface fleet modernization and sustainment schedules. To accomplish these things, the nation needs a domestic manufacturing base that enables it to regain and sustain its maritime edge, including the ability to surge in a dynamic threat environment.

Several key risks and hurdles threaten these statutory objectives. One of the most significant is the current and projected shortage of highly skilled workers needed to produce and repair the

Navy’s submarines and ships—tens of thousands of workers across multiple industrial skillsets are needed. Industry lacks the capacity to solely solve the workforce shortfalls caused by the combination of retirements from the workforce, fewer workforce entrants, low unemployment, and intense competition for workers. To achieve the required levels of productivity, the DoD must improve workforce availability and skills, and industry must quickly develop and adopt new, impactful technologies (e.g., additive manufacturing, digital design and engineering tools, new casting and forging methods, more rapid deployment of Industry 4.0 technologies, etc.) to modernize its maritime production supply chains. These risks and hurdles collectively represent a major national security challenge, requiring a “whole of government, whole of industry” approach to meet it. Working in close partnership with the DON, the IBAS program has issued this BAA as a primary, multi-year effort to address this strategic DoD challenge.

This BAA’s programmatic genesis traces to July 2021 when, in response to these challenges, and with a specific focus on the Navy’s ballistic missile submarine fleet modernization plan, the

Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Cost

Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) organization to collaborate with the Navy to assess current capacity of the “submarine industrial base” (SIB) and identify specific investments necessary for successful execution of Navy plans for nuclear submarine fleet acquisition. As a result of that study, IBAS was funded to invest in workforce pipelines and SIB priorities. The

Navy, in partnership with OSD’s ICAM Office, are focused on six key Lines of Effort (LOEs):

1. Workforce Development: Build and recruit adequate hiring pools for vendors and shipbuilders; train current and future trades; improve wrap-around support to increase student and worker retention.

2. Supplier Development: Add capability and/or capacity to existing suppliers, develop new suppliers to reduce single/sole-source risks for resiliency and robustness, improve first article quality.

3. Shipyard Infrastructure: Accelerate investments in shipbuilder facilities, footprint, machines/fixtures.

4. Strategic Outsourcing: Shift non-core workload away from two major shipbuilders to free up footprint, resources, and focus for shipbuilder-only work.

5. Improve Government Shipbuilding Construction Workforce and Processes: The

Government seeks assistance in identifying and providing additional resources such as training and development as well as advanced information technology, tools, and process improvement.

6. Technology Opportunities: implement additive manufacturing, non-destructive test imaging technology and other technology advancements to improve productivity and remove known production risk areas and bottlenecks.

Congress appropriated the FY23 IBAS and DON funding levels sought in the FY23 President’s

Budget (PB) request, after which OSD and DON’s Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) began leveraging ongoing and emerging industrial workforce and SIB supply chain investment programs to address the above LOEs. Since then, the DoD has requested similar funding levels in the recently submitted FY24 PB, further sustaining the DoD commitment across its Future

Years Defense Program (FYDP). This BAA represents a strategic consolidation of much (but not all) of these ongoing ICAM and NAVSEA investment activities focused on the above LOEs, enabling a more integrated DoD approach.

1.3 Current Environment

Today’s naval shipbuilding industry is a complex, multi-tiered network of commodity, component, system, and services suppliers spread across every state in the United States. It contains companies of all sizes, each playing a significant role in local economies. Due to the unique characteristics of Navy shipbuilding programs, constantly advancing technology, and various economic factors, the number and type of suppliers supporting shipbuilding is highly dynamic. Globalization (especially loss of domestic commercial manufacturing base), cultural shifts emphasizing higher education institutions over trade schools, and an increasingly services and information technology-based economy have left the supply chain with minimal ability to surge and sustain to meet a dynamic demand. The United States does not have the manufacturing capacity it once had, and the shipbuilding industrial base cannot recover from the decades of

“scaling back” without dramatic, focused action.

On the industrial workforce front, quantifying the gaps in trades and expertise across thousands of suppliers spread throughout dozens of market spaces and industrial tiers is challenging and requires informed modeling to account for multiple factors, including: 1) known workforce and hiring demand at the shipbuilders, 2) industrial base spending in adjacent markets competing for similar skills, 3) historical and projected attrition, and 4) a demand signal of varying complexity and skillsets. Based on preliminary modeling, the submarine industrial base alone can anticipate an increased hiring demand of ~80,000 – 100,000 trade workers over the next 10 years to meet production needs. To keep pace with the existential threat of shrinking manufacturing base expertise and experience, the nation must view the generational increase in requirements for submarine shipbuilding and maintenance as an opportunity—if not a mandate—to reimagine traditional approaches to skilled labor resource shortages, bridge disconnects between school-based education and domestic defense manufacturing skillsets and reinvigorate community connection with the importance of the DoD and Navy mission. This BAA seeks offerors who understand these maritime industrial workforce development imperatives well and can deliver the necessary analytical and risk management support to address them in innovative and impactful ways.

In addition to expanding the size and capability of the workforce, a strong need exists to speed the development and adoption of improved manufacturing technologies and processes in key portions of our maritime supply chains. For example, the Navy now recognizes that additive and hybrid (additive plus subtractive) manufacturing and advanced joining technologies offer the potential to improve the cost, schedule, and performance of shipbuilding and ship maintenance/repair operations in home ports and contested environments. These technologies can only deliver on this potential if they evolve quickly to meet Navy needs and if shipbuilders and maintainers have ready access to certified materials and qualified production processes;

flexible, agile, rapidly deployable manufacturing and automation equipment; and advanced digital sensors (especially for use in situ monitoring during the manufacturing process) feeding decision support systems and processes that enable real-time decisions. A workforce with the know-how to properly apply these technologies will be critical to success. As with the workforce development challenge, this BAA seeks offerors who deeply understand the challenges of advanced manufacturing technology development/adoption and broad, industrial supply chain risk management, including the analytical and risk management frameworks needed to address them.

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of this BAA is twofold. IBAS is looking to both:

● Establish a national and/or regional integrator/s—hereafter referred to as “the enterprise integrator/s”—that, on behalf of, and in close partnership with, the ICAM Office and the

Navy, shall:

⮚ award necessary subcontracts and oversee the administration and execution of subcontracts, purchase orders, and inter-organizational agreements as required for subcontractors to perform defined task subsets of the overall effort; and

⮚ facilitate and coordinate relevant, collaborative, and supporting non-funded activities of other stakeholder organizations and programs across government, industry, and academia.

● Make additional awards, as necessary, to proposals whose tailored tasks will focus on one or more of the LOEs detailed below in section 1.6.

1.5 Scope

The enterprise integrator functional scope of work shall remain consistent with the purpose described in section 1.4 above resulting in unified actions to accomplish the following “Big 3”

BAA objectives:

● Right-size and strengthen the US defense maritime industrial base workforce by building or strengthening regional DIB workforce development ecosystems and closing industrial workforce skills gaps. [maps to LOEs 1 and 4 described in sections 1.2, 11.6.1, and 1.6.4]

● Increase the manufacturing capacity and technology adoption of US defense maritime industrial base suppliers. [maps to LOEs 1 and 6 described in sections 1.2, 1.6.1, and 1.6.6]

● Diversify, strengthen, and modernize the supply chains providing critical US defense shipbuilding components and systems through supply chain risk management and supplier development. [maps to LOEs 1, 2 and 3 described in sections 1.2, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 1.6.3]

As part of the above functional scope of work, the enterprise integrator shall facilitate the development of associated strategic roadmaps and investment plans, and it shall oversee associated program execution actions.

The geographic scope/footprint of this BAA and its activities is global, reflecting the same reach as the Navy’s maritime industrial base supply chains themselves, but with regionally developed / tailored / focused strategies and execution plans. Known maritime regional focus areas include

New England, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the Great Lakes, Southern California, the Gulf Coast

States, Texas, and U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM). However, it is permissible and expected for the integrator to define other regions and regional configurations through analysis performed under this BAA.

Programmatically, work under this effort will focus first on the needs of the Columbia-class program, which formed the basis for the 2021 CAPE study and subsequent Navy funding requests. This guidance does not preclude the inclusion of work in support of other subsurface and surface maritime defense programs at the discretion of the Government, in close coordination with the enterprise integrator/s.

Additionally, the Government may decide to make additional award(s) to supplement fulfillment of the “Big 3” BAA objectives or specifically target an aspect of the scope defined herein.

1.6 BAA Lines of Effort (LOE)

The primary focus of the enterprise integrator/s is to meet the BAA’s Big 3 objectives in support of the Navy rapidly reaching and sustaining a programmed production rate of one Columbia and two Virginia Class (“1+2”) submarines per year. The enterprise integrator/s must demonstrate proposed approaches and prioritize them across all of the LOEs that will aid the Navy in achieving their goal of producing “1+2” submarines per year. The desire is that the enterprise integrator will have the ability to do this across all the maritime regions. The counterpart focus of this BAA is to strengthen and expand critical maritime segments of the DIB to meet the

Navy’s overall submarine and surface ship production and sustainment requirements.

The Government may award to a single national focused enterprise integrator or to multiple integrators if a proposal is regionally focused. The Government may make additional awards, as necessary, whose focus is not on being an integrator but on completing one or more as a subset of the LOEs detailed below.

1.6.1 LOE #1: Workforce Development

The Government seeks a national integrator to implement a partnership strategy with IBAS, industry, regional trade associations, and state/local government that uses data analytics to create an innovative solution to develop, maintain and sustain, integrate, or market a proven outreach and engagement program that drives interaction with the maritime industrial base ecosystems and facilitates IBAS integration at regional levels including investments in training pipelines to improve workforce skills and availability. This program must address attraction, recruitment, training, and retention of 80K-100K manufacturing trades workers over the next 10 years while also making up the current 2K personnel deficit at current shipbuilders. The integrator needs to show how to creatively build the bench strength, partnerships, and training models required to support a submarine hiring demand of nearly 10K people per year. This area is a risk and gating function to shipbuilding success. The program should strive to train current and future trades at sufficient rates, build an adequate hiring pool for vendors and shipbuilders, and strengthen student/worker retention.

To keep pace with the existential threat of shrinking manufacturing base experience, the

Government seeks to build and sustain healthy and thriving maritime industrial base ecosystems and communities by investing in existing or new trade schools, curriculum, or equipment/training platforms. The immediate need focuses on building up the submarine shipbuilding and maintenance workforce; therefore, the Government seeks to identify comprehensive programs, approaches, frameworks, and content to attract, recruit, train, and/or retain skilled laborers.

Near term efforts should address state-level pipelines in PA, MA, VA, NY, and CA (which are known Navy supply chain concentration areas) that focus on reconstituting industry and academic partnerships around a known demand signal and customized skillsets. The Government is also interested in continued scale-up of the Accelerated Training in Defense Manufacturing, a national training program in Danville, VA and continued maturation of Regional Training

Systems – or a network for concentrated and distributed training pipelines with a different scale and speed, tailored to each region’s unique needs and constraints. Efforts should include dedicated and deployed efforts in New England and Virginia, and pilot efforts in the Great Lakes region. The integrator may define other regions and regional configurations through analysis performed under this BAA.

1.6.2 LOE #2: Supplier Development

The Government seeks solutions to expand its maritime industrial supplier base. Many opportunities exist to fulfill this LOE, including but not limited to, adding capabilities and capacity, or creating new providers for critical categories such as mechanical, electrical, valves

& fittings, castings & forgings, Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), workforce, technology, or raw materials/sub fabrication. The pursuit to grow the supplier base to meet current and future demands requires insight into critical defense supply chain threats, mitigations, and solution pathways by evaluating, collecting, and organizing information relevant to the development or use of analytic workflows.

In service of this LOE, the Government seeks offerors who will create and apply appropriate innovative, leading edge analytic methodologies (on data across government and in commercially available databases), including but not limited to: the use of qualitative and quantitative risk analysis methods, engineering and statistical methods (that employ deterministic and probabilistic approaches), and high-end machine learning approaches to create processes or methods for scalability of one or more of the critical categories to reduce the risk of single/sole-source suppliers or having to seek offshore sources of supply.

1.6.3 LOE #3: Shipyard Infrastructure

Submarine production is critical to the Navy and Nation; schedules call for greater production

(by tonnage) than at any point since World War II. To meet this demand, the Navy is working with the shipbuilders to support capital investments required to provide the fixtures, footprint, and industrial equipment to meet this surging demand. The Government has invested and continues to invest in facilities at shipbuilder locations to expand and modernize shipyard infrastructure to support submarine production requirements.

The Government is interested in innovative strategies to streamline facility builds or accelerate its investments in existing shipbuilding facilities, footprint, and machines/fixtures to achieve the

1+2 submarine production rate while sustaining the existing Fleet.

1.6.4 LOE #4: Strategic Outsourcing

Even with a concentrated effort to invest in shipbuilder infrastructure, existing prime submarine builders do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 1+2 rate without strategically outsourcing various core workloads ranging from smaller-scale shop work to sheet metal fabrication, to the assembly of entire decks and outfitting of modules. Specifically, the shipbuilders’ updated plan requires the outsourcing of 5 million labor-hours every year in support of 1+2. There are also efforts to strategically source non-core work and “make to buy” items to alleviate capacity and footprint constraints at the shipyards thus allowing the contractor to focus on shipbuilder-only work.

The Government seeks ideas for strategic investment processes, approaches, and tools to support analyses of alternatives assessments and conduct better-informed maritime industrial base planning and decision making. The Government is interested in identifying any emerging investment related products, capabilities, technologies, or workforce development efforts that have potential to free up much needed footprint, resources, and focus for work that must be done at the submarine shipbuilders’ facilities.

1.6.5 LOE #5: Improve Government Shipbuilding Construction Workforce and Processes

At major shipyards, the Navy has an onsite organization, the Supervisors of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair (SUPSHIP), that’s responsible for overseeing construction and managing shipbuilding contracts. SUPSHIPs serve as the Navy's government on-site technical, contractual, and business authority for the construction of Navy vessels at major private shipyards. With increasing demand in shipbuilding, the Government needs to attract/retain personnel and elevate the skills of the SUPSHIPs workforce and program offices. Increasing SUPSHIP oversight responsibilities of the vendor base is required because of strategic outsourcing of traditional shipbuilder work to subcontractors, lessons learned from historical quality concerns, and schedule adherence challenges.

The Government seeks assistance in identifying and providing additional resources such as training and development as well as advanced information technology, tools, and process improvement for SUPSHIPs to ramp up Navy capacity for oversight of their supplier’s capability and quality.

1.6.6 LOE #6: Technology Opportunities

Manufacturing technology that supports production and workforce efficiency/effectiveness (e.g., automated welding, robotics, and additive manufacturing (AM)) is not effectively deployed across the SIB. The Navy is striving to make strategic and appropriately aggressive decisions to incentivize industry adoption, improve productivity, and appropriately balance risks and opportunities.

Advanced manufacturing such as additive and hybrid manufacturing serves as a “force multiplier” to give the submarine enterprise a dedicated, agile, and responsive capability to improve material availability and cost and schedule performance, and to limit reliance on sole sources of supply. Current efforts focus on building and executing a consortium of industry and academic experts to select high-impact materials and processes and to activate a maritime industrial base that can support the required volume, automated inspection of advanced materials, and adoption of robotic welding. In early FY23, the Navy/Industry team stood-up an

AM Center of Excellence (CoE) in Danville, VA focused on scalability and technical rigor with velocity. The CoE is focused on activating the industrial base for more mature metallic AM alloys, while a Navy / Industry / Academia consortium is working to aggressively mature several additional high impact alloys. Government investments will further these areas and bring AM

COE additional capability in machines / manning.

While rapid maturation and infusion of advanced and additive manufacturing is a key target of

SIB investment dollars and resources, there are other advanced technologies on which to focus near term efforts, including but not limited to, Non-destructive testing (NDT), Artificial

Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML), and digital design and engineering tools. The

Government is interested in targeting development, scaling, rapid maturation, and infusion of

AM and AI / ML into various maritime industrial base production efforts and workforce efficiency / effectiveness programs.

The Government also seeks to advance current advanced manufacturing processes and identify other processes, materials, or opportunities to give the submarine enterprise a dedicated, agile, and responsive capability to improve material availability and cost and schedule performance, and to limit reliance on sole sources of supply.

1.6.7 Quarterly Planning Reviews

The enterprise integrator(s) or other organization(s) as instructed shall hold quarterly planning reviews throughout the period of performance (POP) where the organization and government collaborate on near term funding efforts. The organization(s) need flexibility and agility to quickly pivot to handle new or emerging DoD issues and initiatives as directed by the

Government.

2 Two-phase (Phase 1 and Phase 2) Proposal Selection Approach

The submission of a white paper is required before submitting a proposal note that this BAA utilizes a two-phase process.

2.1 Phase 1: White Papers

Phase 1 of the selection process consists of this announcement and a call for submission of white papers. An offeror may submit a white paper 1) to become an enterprise integrator that will fulfill efforts targeting all 6 LOEs or 2) may choose to submit a white paper to address one or more of the 6 LOEs without plans to be an enterprise integrator. Please be aware that firms that submit a white paper to become an enterprise integrator may be considered for an award as an integrator or for award to specific LOEs. A separate white paper submission is not required in this case to be considered for other, non-integrator awards. The offeror must make their intent to be considered as an integrator known in the cover page text of their white paper submittal.

The Government requests white papers to preclude offerors from expending more effort than is warranted prior to receiving the Government’s initial assessment of a proposed effort’s technical and/or operational feasibility. Offerors submitting white papers may be invited to submit a full technical and cost proposal of their white paper submission. However, any such invitation is in no way an obligation on the part of the Government to award a contract. Decisions regarding the invitation to submit a full proposal will be based on Government evaluation as described in section 8. Furthermore, white papers may not be selected for any of the following three reasons

(not inclusive): 1) Proposed solution is not responsive to Government needs; 2) Proposed solution has high schedule and/or cost risk or is unaffordable; or 3) Proposed solution is insufficiently mature for project development.

2.2 Phase 2: Full Proposals

Phase 2 of the selection process consists of a request from the CO to the Offeror(s) for full technical and cost proposals. An Offeror can be considered for contract award only upon preparation and submission of a fully compliant Phase 2 proposal based on the Government’s request for proposal submission. All proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in section 8.3.

The Government reserves the right to accept proposals for funding consideration in their entirety, or to select only portions of proposals for funding consideration. The Government may also reshape and/or re-scope the effort into phases or blocks, including shorter periods of performance with the potential for options, if appropriate, to quickly substantiate proof-of-concept or assess the validity or feasibility of the effort for greater potential use. If only portions of a proposal are considered for possible funding, the Government anticipates that discussions may be held between the parties.

It is the policy of FEDSIM to treat all proposals submitted under this BAA as sensitive competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation.

3 Notional Timeline

Event Days from BAA Release

BAA Released 0

White Papers Due +15

Request for Proposals +30

Proposal Due Date +60

Proposal Evaluation/Negotiations Completed +100

Contract(s) Awarded +120

4 Award and Funding Information

The Government anticipates multiple awards for this announcement. However, the Government reserves the right to award zero, one, or more awards for all, partial, or none of the solicited effort at the discretion of the Government and subject to the availability of funds. The

Government may terminate work at any time if it no longer meets the needs of the Government.

Ceiling value of all awards made under this BAA is estimated to be $2,500,000,000.00.

The POP for projects, inclusive of options, may be up to 5 years.

5 Eligibility Information/Sources

This is an unrestricted solicitation. All responsible sources, as defined at FAR 9.104-1, capable of satisfying the Government’s objectives of this solicitation may submit a white paper under this announcement. Small businesses, large businesses, nonprofit, and academic institutions are encouraged to submit white papers and/or participate in teaming arrangements in submitting white papers. No portion of this announcement will be set aside for small businesses or other socio-economic participation.

All Offerors submitting proposals must:

a. Be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submission.

b. Provide a valid unique entity identifier in its proposal; and

c. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by any agency; and

SAM may be accessed at https://www.sam.gov/content/home

Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs), University Affiliated Research

Centers (UARCs), and Department of Energy National Laboratories, are not eligible to receive awards under this BAA. However, teaming arrangements with principal Offerors are allowed so long as such arrangements are permitted under the sponsoring agreement between the

Government and the specific FFRDC/UARC/DoE Lab.

Department of Defense and civilian agency laboratories, and military universities are also not eligible to receive awards under this BAA and should not directly submit either white papers or full proposals in response to this BAA. If any such organization is interested in one or more of the programs described herein, the organization should contact ICAM directly to discuss its area of interest.

6 Cost Sharing/Funds Matching

Cost sharing is not expected under contracts or agreements awarded from this BAA and will not be used as a factor during the merit review of any proposal hereunder; however, the Government may consider voluntary cost sharing if proposed. Additional guidance can be found at 2 CFR

200.306 and FAR 35.003.

7 Submissions – General Information and Instructions

7.1 General Information

Proposals shall be valid for a period of not less than 120 calendar days from the date of delivery.

7.1.1 General Instructions

a. The Offeror is expected to examine this entire solicitation document. Failure to do so will be at the Offeror’s own risk.

b. The Government may make award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. Proposals shall set forth full, accurate, and complete information as required by this solicitation package (including Attachments listed in Section 10). The penalty for making false statements in proposals is prescribed in 18 U.S.C. 1001.

https://www.sam.gov/content/home

c. An Offeror submitting restricted data shall mark it as follows in accordance with the FAR

52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors - Competitive Acquisition, which is incorporated by reference. FAR Clause 52.215-1(e) states: “Restriction on disclosure and use of data.

Offerors that include in their proposals data that they do not want disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes, shall –

1. Mark the cover page with the following legend:

This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed-in whole or in part-for any purpose other than to evaluate this proposal. If, however, a contract is awarded to this Offeror as a result of-or in connection with-the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract. This restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets

[insert numbers or other identification of sheets]; and

2. Mark each sheet of data it wishes to restrict with the following legend:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the cover page of this proposal.”

d. The Government assumes no liability for disclosure or use of unmarked data and may use or disclose the data for any purpose. Unless restricted, information submitted in response to this request may become subject to disclosure to the public pursuant to the provisions of the

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)

e. This procurement is conducted under the procedures of FAR Subpart 15 and 35. The policies and procedures of FAR Subpart 15.3 do not apply.

f. The cost of preparing submissions in response to this solicitation is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting or any other contract; however, it may be an allowable expense to a normal Bid and Proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR 31.205-18.

Do not lock any files submitted as part of the proposal submission. Proposal prices and terms and conditions shall remain valid for 120 days from the submission date.

7.1.2 Availability of Equipment and Software

All commercial hardware and software proposed in response to this solicitation document shall have been formally announced for general release on or before the closing date of the solicitation. Failure to have equipment or software announced prior to submission of proposal may render the Offeror’s proposal NOT ACCEPTABLE.

All commercial and non-commercial hardware and software proposed in response to this solicitation document shall not have been formally announced as at its end of life or end of technical support by its publisher or licensor. Proposal of commercial or non-commercial hardware and software that is at its end of life may render the Offeror’s proposal NOT

ACCEPTABLE.

7.1.3 Security Classification of Submissions

White paper and Proposal documentation submitted under this BAA are expected to be

Unclassified.

7.1.4 Contract Type

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and/or Time and Material/Labor Hours (T&M) type contracts, are planned to be awarded under this BAA. Offerors with adequate accounting systems (as identified in FAR 16.301-3) shall propose CPFF contracts. Contract periods of performance will be for a

12-month base, with up to four 12-month options.

If Offerors are enhancing work performed under other DoD projects, they must clearly identify the point of departure, what existing work will be brought forward, and what new work will be performed under this BAA.

A model contract is provided as Attachment B.

7.1.5 General Award Information

The Government intends to make multiple awards resulting from this announcement and reserves the right to select for award any, all or none of the proposals received. Award will be made based on the quality of the proposals and availability of funding. . Award may not necessarily be the proposal offering the lowest cost/price or receiving the highest evaluated rating. The Government reserves the right to make awards without discussions, conduct discussions if determined to be necessary, and remove Offeror from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on award terms within reasonable time or the Offeror fails to provide requested additional information in a timely manner.

7.1.6 Facility Clearance

Offerors must be able to certify that they have an appropriate facility clearance or have application in process to meet the security requirements of work proposed, and key personnel must be certified as holding an appropriate security clearance. The security clearance level required for these efforts is up to the Secret level. Facility Clearance Level will be documented in the DD254 (see draft at Attachment C).

7.1.7 Notifications

a. White Papers

All Offerors submitting a white paper in response to this BAA will receive an email message acknowledging Government receipt. If you do not receive a receipt email, your white paper may not have been received. Submittal of white papers before the due date will be accepted, but late responses may not be accepted, see section 7.2.2. Upon completion of the Government evaluation of white papers, an e-mail will inform the Offeror that 1) its white paper was selected for invitation to submit a full proposal or 2) that its white paper was not selected and the reason(s) for the non-selection.

b. Full Proposals

Offerors invited to submit full proposals will receive an email that includes the request for proposal instruction letter from the Contracting Officer (CO).

7.1.8 Debriefings

White paper evaluation will not entitle the Offeror to a debriefing as no award can result from a white paper. However, for full proposals, the procedures in FAR 35.008(d) will be followed. Per

FAR 15.505, Offerors may request a pre-award debriefing by submitting a written request to the

CO within 3 days after receipt of the notice of exclusion from the competition. See FAR 15.505 for more details.

7.1.9 Use of Non-Government Advisors

The Government intends to use Government personnel for the evaluation of proposals. The

Government reserves the right to use contractors who support FEDSIM and ICAM to provide technical and acquisition advisory support for evaluations of proposals. The current list of potential advisory organizations includes:

Hive Group

Delta Technical & Engineering Services

Analytic Services Inc (ANSER)

If those contractors change over the life of the BAA, the Government will advise in writing. The evaluators and support personnel will be bound by appropriate Non-Disclosure Agreements to protect proprietary and source-selection information. Additionally, the support organizations described above are prohibited from submitting proposals in response to this BAA. While any one of these companies may not have an actual conflict with regard to this BAA activity, it is burdensome to the Government to ensure that support contractors interested in competing for this effort are adequately firewalled from any information they might receive or inadvertently overhear during performance of their support contracts that might advantage them in the process.

Further, additional conflicts of interest may arise in the future if the Government decides to transition some of the capabilities developed under the BAA activities into operations.

Should the Offeror have any objections to personnel from these organizations participating in the evaluation of proposals, written notification shall be provided to the Contracting Officer within ten (10) calendar days prior to your submission of proposals. If there is an objection, the specific reason(s) for the objection(s) shall be stated in the written notification, and the specific support contractor of concern shall be identified.

7.2 Submission Instructions

7.2.1 Delivery

Offerors shall submit their white papers and, if requested, proposals electronically to the CO and

CS. Only the CO is legally authorized to bind the Government. Offerors are to ensure white papers and/or proposals are received by the Government before the stated submission date to be included in the evaluation. All contractual and technical questions regarding this announcement must be directed to the following points of contact:

Contracting Officer:

Justin Zerbato

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QF0B)

Telephone: (202) 417-0732

Email: justin.zerbato@gsa.gov mailto:justin.zerbato@gsa.gov

Contract Specialist:

Cynthia Weaver

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov

Matthew Healey

GSA FAS AAS FEDSIM (QFOB)

1800 F Street, NW

Email: matthew.healey@gsa.gov

7.2.2 Late Submissions

Offerors are responsible for submitting white papers and proposals to be received no later than the date and time specified. Offerors are encouraged to submit early to avoid potential delays encountered in the course of the submission. All submissions shall be fully submitted before the due date and time to be considered. Late proposals will only be accepted if they comply with

FAR 52.215-1(c)(3).

7.2.3 Commitment to Small Business

FEDSIM is strongly committed to providing meaningful subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, small-disadvantaged businesses, woman-owned small businesses, HUBZone small businesses, veteran-owned small businesses, service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses, historically black colleges and universities, and minority institutions through its awards. For proposed awards that exceed $750,000 to other than small businesses, the Offeror is required to submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9. Subcontracting Plans shall be compliant with FAR Subpart 19.7.

7.2.4 White Paper Instructions

The white paper shall include a discussion of the nature and scope of the research and the

Offeror’s proposed technical approach. The Government will review the white papers in accordance with the white paper technical evaluation criteria, set forth in Section 8.3.3 below.

Those Offerors submitting white papers evaluated as having technical merit and for which funding is available will be asked to submit a technical and cost proposal. Those Offerors not requested to submit a technical and cost proposal will be notified. If the white paper was not selected due to a lack of funds, a request for proposal submission may be issued at a later date if funding becomes available. An Offeror submitting a proposal without first submitting a white paper will NOT be eligible for an award. The cost of preparing white papers in response to this solicitation is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting or any other award;

however, it may be an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost as specified in FAR 31.205-18.

a. White Paper Structure

A complete white paper shall consist of two sections: 1) Cover Page (1 page) and 2) White

Paper Text (up to 10 pages).

i. Section 1 – Cover Page mailto:cynthia.weaver@gsa.gov mailto:matthew.healey@gsa.gov

The Cover Page shall be PDF format and include: (1) the white paper title with BAA number; (2) company name, website, Federal Tax ID, CAGE Code, UEI and mailing address; (3) business size (e.g., large business, small business) (NAICS Code: 541 – Professional, Scientific, and

Technical Services / 541715 – Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life

Sciences (except Biotechnology)); (4) technical and contracts points of contact (including email address, telephone number, and facsimile number); (5) Date; and (6) Duration of Effort and estimated cost of the BAA effort.

ii. Section 2 – White Paper Text

The white paper text shall be in PDF format. Text shall be single-spaced (with double-space between paragraphs), on 8½ x 11-inch paper, with one-inch margins all around. Font size shall be of minimum 12-point font.

Technical Portion:

The technical portion of the white paper shall include a description of the proposed project objective, identify if offeror is proposing to perform as enterprise integrator, technical approach, technical risks, basic management approach, and a notional schedule.

Identify (as applicable) the entities that will be working on the proposed project and their respective relationships. Identify the principal investigator/program manager and any additional key personnel. It may also include any proposed deliverables.

Cost Portion:

The cost portion of the white paper shall include a ROM cost estimate. Offerors should assume funding starts in FY23. No detailed price or cost support information should be forwarded; only a time-phased bottom line figure (ROM) should be provided.

● Provide cost estimate by Line of Effort (LOE) as detailed in section 1.6.

● Time-phased estimate of costs to be spread by government FY.

● Discuss any cost drivers, assumptions, and unknown factors.

● GFE needs must be identified but not priced.

Corporate Experience:

Utilize Attachment D to provide up to 3 examples as an appendix to the white paper of corporate experience in the proposed research area with similar size, scope, and complexity to the focus areas found in Section 4 of this BAA. The appendix does not count against the overall white paper page count. No more than 3 examples shall be submitted.

b. Number of Pages

White Papers are limited to 10 pages. The cover page and corporate experience examples are not counted in the page limitation.

7.2.5 Proposal Instructions

Each offer shall be provided to the Government in three parts. The Offeror shall submit each Part separately. The submission shall contain the following:

a. Part I: Contract Administrative Proposal

b. Part II: Contract Cost/Price Proposal

c. Part III: Written Technical Proposal

Unless otherwise specified, a single electronic page in 8.5” x 11” format will be counted as one page where page limitations apply. All electronic files shall be in MS Word, PowerPoint, PDF, or Excel formats.

Any documents provided in Section 10 of this BAA, shall be submitted using the same file format, font size, and margins as the document provided (e.g., Project Staffing Plan shall be submitted in Excel file format using the Excel template provided).

Electronic proposal pages (except for Excel and PowerPoint) must maintain one-inch margins.

Excel files must maintain margins of no less than 0.7”, and PowerPoint files must be in Standard

(4:3) format and maintain margins of no less than 0.5”. Electronic proposal pages must maintain

12-point Times New Roman font and be single spaced, except for charts/graphics/tables.

Charts/Graphics/Tables must maintain a minimum of ten-point Times New Roman font, including in the Part II slides. Charts/Graphics/Tables embedded in the proposal will count toward page limitations. Headers and footers may be of a font larger than 12 point but shall not be smaller than ten-point font. Electronic ledger size (11” x 17”) format may be used in the

Project Staffing Plan. A single electronic page in 11” x 17” format will be counted as two pages where page limitations apply.

Items such as a Cover Page, Table of Contents, Cover Letter, List of Figures, and Acronym Lists are excluded from the page counts below, unless they are included in a document (e.g., a Table of Contents within the Transition-In Plan), in which case it would count toward the stated page limitations. PDF files will be allowed for executed documents such as Letters of Commitment.

Any pages submitted beyond the page limitations will be removed and not evaluated.

Proposal Contents

Part Section Page

Limit

I Contract Administrative Proposal

Transmittal/Cover Letter/Registration 3

OCI Statement (Attachment A) No Limit

Certifications and Representations including Section 889 – Part B, Certification, and Other Statements of Offeror or Respondent (Attachment

H)

No Limit

II Contract Cost/Price Proposal

Cost/Price Sheet – Supplies or Services and Cost/Prices (Section B) and

Cost/Price Workbook (Attachment E)

No Limit

Price Supporting Documentation No Limit

Subcontractor Supporting Documentation No Limit

Price Assumptions (if applicable) No Limit

III Technical Proposal

Technical Approach 20

Technical Assumptions (if applicable) No Limit

Project Staffing Plan and Key Personnel (Attachment G) No Limit

Management Approach 8

● Part I - Contract Administrative

Part I contains the following:

● Cover…