70RWMD23R00000004 Amendment003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a)By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE

DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment your desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

SAMANTHA.LEAP

Inserted Text

Attachment A

1 | P a g e

Attachment A. Topic Solicitation Information

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) COUNTERING WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION OPEN BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (CWMD OBAA) TOPIC

SOLICITATION NO. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

1. Topic Solicitation Number: Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

2. SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RWMD23R00000004 for Topic Solicitation No. 14 and SAM.gov Solicitation Number: 70RDND19R00000003 for the OBAA

3. Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004 Event Dates/Time (Local Eastern Time)

• Notification to Submit Pitch Papers – April 17, 2023

• Deadline for Submission of Pitch Paper Questions – April 24, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Pitch Paper Submission Deadline – May 16, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Pitch Paper Notifications – on or about May 30, 2023

• Notification to Submit Proposals – on or about May 30, 2023

• Deadline for Submission of Proposal Questions – June 6, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Proposal Due Date – June 26, 2023, 3:00 p.m.

• Notification of Selection/Non-selection of Proposals – on or about July 24, 2023

• Award date (estimated) – on or about September 26, 2023.

Any proposal submissions received by the Government after the submission deadline will not be accepted unless receipt of the proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition and it was the only proposal received.

Note: This topic solicitation will be conducted in accordance with the two phased evaluation process as described under Section 1.6 of the OBAA. This topic solicitation is being issued in accordance with the notice and solicitation requirements set forth in FAR 5.201 and FAR 5.203 for the FAR 35 Research and Development solicitation. The OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 was posted on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO.gov) on April 17, 2019. Effective November 12, 2019, FBO.gov is retired, and the OBAA Solicitation 70RDND19R00000003 can now be found on https://sam.gov

This evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of the pitch papers and proposals. Under this evaluation, the first stage of the evaluation process will consist of the solicitation, receipt, and evaluation of the pitch papers from potential performers. Entries in the various sections of the pitch papers should be concise and conform to the specified formatting and word count limitations as indicated in this topic solicitation. Repetition of presentation materials should be avoided or minimized as much as possible. No formal transmittal letter is required for pitch paper responses. Once the pitch paper peer/scientific review process has been completed, potential offerors will be notified in writing, typically via email, whether the potential offeror is “encouraged” or “not encouraged” to submit a full proposal.

A down-selection process will then be conducted by Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Offerors will be given the opportunity to participate in the second stage of the evaluation. Stage 2 will consist of the receipt and evaluation of the Volume I proposal limited to 16 pages, excluding the cover sheet, Volume II, and Volume III. (More information on the Volumes can be found in Section 10.) Once the proposal peer/scientific review process has been completed, offerors will be notified in writing, typically https://sam.gov/

2 | P a g e via email, that their proposal has either been selected, selected but not funded, or not selected for the award.

Potential offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal.

Offerors not selected for the award may request feedback regarding the peer/scientific review findings of the submitted proposal. Within 3 calendar days of the date the non-selection notification was sent to the offeror, the contracting officer (CO) must receive a written request.

4. Topic Solicitation Research and Development Focus Areas

CWMD.05 – Nuclear Sensing: Technologies that provide cross-cutting improvements to nuclear threat detection through dramatically improved performance and/or reduced costs when compared to commercial off-the-shelf systems.

5. Research Opportunity Description

Title: Thallium Bromide Human Portable Radiation Detection Systems Objective Resolution (THOR)

Objective: The goal of the THOR Program is to increase the technology readiness level (TRL) for thallium bromide (TlBr) as a semiconductor gamma ray detection material for radioisotope identification devices (RIID). While not a procurement program, this research opportunity (if successful) could provide the technological basis for future CWMD procurements.

Technology Readiness Level at Project Beginning: TRL 5 Technology Readiness Level Desired at Project Conclusion: TRL 7 (Note: TRL definitions can be found in Attachment B-1.)

Background

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is committed to using cutting-edge technologies and scientific talent in their mission to make America safer. In December 2018, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act authorized the creation of the DHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD). The mission of CWMD is to lead DHS efforts and coordinate with domestic and international partners to safeguard the United States against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) and health security threats. The DHS CWMD Research and Development (R&D) appropriation provides resources necessary to identify, explore, and demonstrate new technologies and capabilities that will help enable DHS and stakeholders to prevent, protect against, respond to, and mitigate nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological threats and incidents.

Priority needs of DHS’s Operational Components drive CWMD’s R&D investments. CWMD looks for the following types of solutions within the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear mission space:

• Over the horizon, future innovations that will transform the way homeland security operators accomplish their missions.

• Near-term capabilities that will solve current operational challenges and meet DHS’s R&D needs.

• New applications of technologies to respond to emerging threats to the homeland.

3 | P a g e

As the threat of terrorism evolves, DHS intends to assess a wide spectrum of potential technologies that can enhance their capabilities. This topic solicitation directly addresses a need for higher performing, lower cost RIID devices that are more ruggedized for operational conditions.

Description of Opportunity

CWMD is striving to work with industry in a joint R&D effort for the THOR Program, which has the objective to increase the TRL for TIBr as a promising material that could support RIID enhancement.

While the THOR Program is not an acquisition program, the effort does support CWMD’s overarching objectives to:

• acquire higher performing detection and identification devices at a lower cost.

• increase operational efficiency by increasing detection and identification capability and reducing operational size, weight and power.

• decrease lifecycle costs of existing RIIDs.

• increase reliability by acquiring devices that are more ruggedized for operational conditions.

It is anticipated that TlBr has the potential to significantly increase the detection and identification performance of RIIDs at a significantly reduced cost. As a result, CWMD seeks to maximize the speed of TlBr transition into the commercial marketplace. A future acquisition program for next-generation RIIDs would benefit from inclusion of this technology in the competition for this (and future) procurement contracts. The THOR Program’s approach is to work with industry partners to integrate the detector material technology into handheld RIID prototype form factors suitable for testing in a laboratory environment and limited demonstration in an operational environment.

CWMD has been pursuing the development of TlBr as a detector material for many years. Currently, ongoing transformational R&D is pursuing two different development approaches, one using a Pixelated detector and the other using a Position Sensitive Capacitive Frisch Grid (PS CFG) detector. Each of these detector development approaches will culminate in the packaging and integration of these detector stacks with associated electronics into Core Detector Modules (CDMs) that can be used as a basis for developing prototype RIIDs. A detailed description of the CDMs is provided in the following information.

The objective of THOR phase I is to develop one breadboard (per contract) and conduct in-house testing that demonstrate key performance advantages of TlBr and a detailed plan for Phase II prototypes. A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the Phase 1 to review the test results and assess performance against a subset of the THOR CTM criteria as indicated in Attachment B- 2a.

The objective for Phase II is to deliver three (3) TlBr RIID prototypes that are provided to CWMD for government testing to demonstrate compliance with the CTM criteria specified in Attachment B-2 and inform a TRL assessment.

The T1Br prototypes (per prospective contract award) integrated into a field usable RIID form factor informing important attibutes of the planned commercialized versions. The prototypes will demonstrate the capability of the TlBr technology through vendor testing followed by CWMD-sponsored testing and

4 | P a g e operational demonstration supporting the subsequent TRL assessment.

The TIBr technology developed as part of the CWMD R&D Division program will be made available to the offerors directly from the technology providers. The Government encourages the potential offerors to determine if they will require CDMs, or CDM components, and technical support through individual vendor-to-vendor agreements with the CDM developers. If this is determined to be advantageous to their proposal then the cost estimate should reflect these costs. This is not to preclude a third-party vendor (proposal offeror) from developing their own TlBr solutions.

Schematic Descriptions of the Two CDM Types

The CWMD R&D Division led the development of two types of TIBr CDMs. The two types of detectors are as follows:

Description of Pixelated CDM (as of January 2023) The Pixelated CDM consists of the semiconductor detector with readout components needed to generate a calibrated and depth corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Figure 1. Block Diagram of the Pixelated Full-up Version of the CDM

Figure 1 shows the following basic components of the Pixelated full-up version of the CDM:

1. Pixelated TlBr Array with interconnect board.

2. Application-specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).

3. Readout Electronics: Analog-to-digital Converter (ADC), Field-programmable Gate Array (FPGA), MicroProcessor.

4. Single-board computer (SBC).

The TlBr array represents a semiconductor crystal with an array of electrodes to generate electrical signals

1 2 3 4

5 | P a g e from the interaction of gamma rays with the dense, high-Z TlBr material. The front-end electronics uses an ASIC and is designed to generate waveforms for implementing advanced signal processing techniques.

The micro-processor block contains ADCs and serves as an interface between the signals from the front-end electronics and the SBC, which processes the signals and provides a standard network interface to access the calibrated and depth-corrected gamma ray spectrum.

Description of CFG CDM (as of January 2023)

The Position-Sensitive Capacitive Frisch-Grid (PS-CFG) CDM is based on an array of 16 PS-CFG TlBr crystals. Each PS-CFG is based on a TlBr crystal with dimensions of 5 × 5 × 12 mm3. For the CFG CDM, the signals from the TlBr devices are read out using front-end electronics including the AVG3Dev ASIC, and an analog device that includes a 32-channel bank of charge-sensitive amplifiers. The amplified signals are digitized on a motherboard, then sent to an SBC. The SBC runs 3D correction software, which corrects non-uniformities in the detector response by virtually dividing each crystal into 3D voxels, then normalizing the response from each of the voxels. The output of the CDM is a data stream which includes the corrected energy spectrum. The prototype CDM is provided in a simple mechanical enclosure that includes connectors for AC power and data transfer using Ethernet and/or Universal Serial Bus (USB). A block diagram of the system is provided in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Block Diagram of the PS-CFG TlBr CDM

Availability of CDMs

The Government does not plan to make CDMs available as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).

Offerors are free to arange how they will acquire previously developed CDMs, or their various components as needed.

Alternatively, offerors have the opportunity to obtain a so-called “primitive” CDM, limited to the crystal(s) packaged with interconnect boards. The offeror would provide their own front-end electronics.

6 | P a g e

The Offeror’s request, if needed for their proposal, should be stated in the pitch papers and/or full proposal. Offerors should specify what assemblies they will purchase and from whom.

As another option, the Offeror can consider initially acquiring only the current version of the full-up CDM shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. This version CDMs would not have optimized size, weight, and power (SWaP) but would provide enough of the functionality so the technology could be evaluated and integrated into a breadboard Phase 1 prototype. The Offeror would then work with the CDM suppliers to decide how they would want to proceed regarding more optimized solution for Phase 2. The integrator may elect to develop an optimized solution, either procuring components from the CDM suppliers or developing their own solutions all together to achieve SWaP goals. The desired approach should be stated in the pitch papers and/or full proposal.

Additional Information Available via White Papers

There are several “White Papers” (WP) posted with this topic solicitation that were created to address numerous areas/questions brought up by vendors during Industry Day in April 2020 and follow-on Industry Days in October 2021 and February 2023. These short (1-3 page) papers cover the following topics:

1. WP1: Long-term Stability of TlBr

2. WP3: Temperature Stability: Dependence of spectra, energy resolution, gain, dark current vs

Temperature

3. WP4(A and B): Intellectual Property Rights claimed by CDM suppliers and Commercialization (two white papers covering the two different CDM versions)

4. WP5: Production (Supply Chain Capability to Support Future Procurements)

5. WP6: Further References (published journal articles covering various aspects of this technology)

Performance Metrics

Examples of high-level performance metrics (criteria) for the envisioned prototype(s) are included below.

These are provided to help guide the design of the prototype(s). The complete list of criteria is provided in the THOR Criteria Traceability Matrix (CTM) Attachment B-2 included with the topic solicitation.

Offerors are requested to indicate in their pitch paper submissions and proposals if their proposed approach will result in a prototype RIID and/or design that can meet or exceed thresholds/objectives listed in the CTM Specifically, the pitch papers and/or proposal should specify which criteria will be met at which phase (Breadboard Phase 1, Prototype RIID Phase 2, or Post THOR)

Descriptor Criteria Threshold Objective Gamma Detection

The device during scanning operations shall alarm/provide an indication when the radiation field changes from ambient background to that with a non-background source of radiation present.

Probability of detection (PD) ≥80% at a relative speed of 0.3 m/s and distance of closest approach of 0.61 m of 0.66 µR/hr of Co-57 and separately 7.53 µR/hr of Ba-133.

PD ≥80% at a relative speed of 0.61 m/s and distance of closest approach of 1.22 m of 0.66 µR/hr of Co-57 and separately 7.53 µR/hr of Ba-133.

7 | P a g e e

Descriptor Criteria Threshold Objective Probability of Identification Unshielded

The device shall correctly identify with a probability of identification (PID) ≥ 80% the present radionuclides that are Unshielded and produce 50 μR/hr above background at the reference point of the gamma detector, with the exception of NORM (Ra-226. Th-232, K-40) that are to be 20 μR/hr above background.

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1, 2, and 3.*

Radionuclides/reactions listed as Priority 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Transmit Method

The device shall be able to transmit data using all of the listed interfaces.

1) USB 2.0 or higher

2) WiFi 5 (802.11ac)

3) Bluetooth security mode

4) Removable media

5) Cellular

6) Bluetooth security mode

Size Device shall have small physical dimensions.

≤ 33 cm x 23 cm x 16 cm ≤ 16 cm x 10 cm x 8 cm

*The radionuclides/reactions prioritized list is included in the attached CTM.

Timeline

The following timeline is provided for planning purposes. The version 1 Pixelated CDMs and CFG CDMs will be complete by the end of March 2023.

Figure 3. Tentative Schedule

Phase Structure and Objectives

8 | P a g e

Each offeror will specify their preferred version of the TlBr design (Pixelated or CFG) they would like to pursue and clearly identify their chosen approach in the pitch paper and the proposal.

Research to be conducted under this topic solicitation will be a phased applied development activity. A nominal phase structure and objectives are described below:

• Phase 1 - “Breadboard” Integration (14 months): Upon the award of the THOR contracts to selected

RIID integration vendors, the necessary components will be integrated into breadboard gamma radiation design by THOR partners. The intent of the breadboard is to allow for initial research, design, and evaluation of the major components and functions of a RIID (i.e, CDM, processor, algorithm, display, power supply, etc). The first articles produced as a result of the Breadboard Integration phase will be tested/evaluated by the vendors against a subset of the THOR criteria to demonstrate progress and potential for meeting the THOR prototype criteria set. The main deliverables of Phase 1 are results of the testing/evaluation of the breadboard and a preliminary design of a TlBr RIID prototype for Phase 2. A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the Phase 1 to review the Phase 1 deliverables and the prototype assessment against a subset of the THOR CTM criteria as indicated in Attachment B-2a. The results of the Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will support a decision on exercising the option to continue into Phase 2.

• Phase 2/ - Initial RIID (prototype) Integration (12 months): Vendors will continue RIID integration, prepare a final RIID design for a Phase 2 Final Prototype Review to be held prior to the conclusion of Phase 2, and deliver three prototype RIIDs/detectors. After the Phase 2 Final Prototype Review, during the last three months of the PoP, the Government will conduct prototype criteria testing of the 3 prototype RIIDs at a Government selected test facility to demonstrate a TRL 6. The basis for the testing will be the Government approved criteria developed by the THOR Program (See Attachment B-2). An operational demonstration of the prototypes will also be conducted, to demonstrate a TRL 7.

6. Deliverables: The following minimum deliverables will be required under traditional procurement contracts awarded to those offerors whose proposals are selected for the award. Performers should define additional program-specific deliverables as appropriate for their proposed approach.

Progress Reviews (PR) – The PRs will be held monthly unless otherwise directed by the CWMD PM and the briefing slides are due 1 week prior to the PR. A PR briefing will be comprehensive in nature and must include, where appropriate:

Executive Summary

1. Conceptual Overview

2. Capabilities, Performance targets, and Goals

3. Development Approach (technical tasks, teams, schedule)

4. Key Challenges/Issues to Address

5. Risks and Mitigation

6. Accomplishments and Highlights

7. Milestones (MS): List all and progress towards each

8. Remaining Issues

9. Schedule: Gantt chart with MSs and deliverables indicated

10. Cost (planned, actual, actual plus commitments)

11. Effort for next reporting period (month/phase) as appropriate

9 | P a g e

Detailed technical and programmatic discussion (as long as required)

12. Accomplishments: Plan vs Actual, per Task activities

13. Prototype RIID Design Description

14. Performance Prediction relative to THOR prototype requirements

15. Schedule: Gantt chart by major task with WBS-tracked list of milestones and deliverables included

16. Cost: Expenditure burn over period of performance – monthly plan, actuals, actuals plus commitments (to date) in tabular and graphical form

17. Proof of Concept (Breadboard/Brassboard RIID)

18. Proposed Follow-on Effort

19. Key Objectives

20. Technical issues: Risks and mitigation strategy

21. Plans to complete phase

22. Technical Plans for next reporting period/to complete phase, as appropriate

23. Cost and Schedule to include variance

24. Questions (as needed)

25. Any additional information required by the CWMD program manager (PM)

Meeting minutes shall be generated within 1 week after the PR. The PR does not replace the monthly progress report.

Prototype Reviews –A Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review will be held near the conclusion of the Phase 1. The outcome of the Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review and review of provided test and evaluation results of the breadboard prototype will be the basis for determining continued funding for the follow-on phase. Phase 2 Final Prototype Review is to be held prior to the conclusion of Phase 2.

The Phase 2 Final Prototype Review is also intended to include elements of a test readiness review in preparation for the CWMD-led testing.

Project Schedule Updates – schedule file submissions once every other week:

• Updated schedule (MS Project file with file name indicating version number)

• Schedule compliance check (DCMA 14-point assessment)

Monthly Progress Report – Written report (see Attachment H) due 2 weeks after the last day of each calendar month, including at minimum:

• Accomplishment and Highlights since last review

• 90-day look-ahead of scheduled activities

• Schedule critical path (within the 90 days reported)

• Schedule watch items (within the 90 days reported)

• Schedule Variance Report (regarding major milestones)

• Comprehensive accounting of all funds expended

• Cost Variance Report

• Risk Status

• Key Challenges

• Technical Highlights

10 | P a g e

• Status of monitoring Government-provided sensitive data and compliance with data retention requirement

• Questions (as needed)

• Any additional information required by the CWMD program manager

• Management Plan - Within 2 weeks after the contract award, the vendor shall provide a management plan, updated from the proposal, and laying out the approach for accomplishing the project. A kickoff meeting shall be held within the first 3 weeks after the contract award to discuss the management plan.

Vendor In-house Test and Evaluation Plans – Internal test and evaluation plan for Phase 1 provided to CWMD 1 month after the Phase 1 kickoff to be reviewed and approved by CWMD T&E. Internal test and evaluation plan for Phase 2 provided to CWMD 1 month after the Phase 2 kickoff to be reviewed and approved by CWMD T&E.

Vendor In-house Test and Evaluation Reports – Internal test and evaluation results and data due 2 weeks prior to Phase 1 Preliminary Prototype Review. Internal test and evaluation results and data due 2 weeks prior to Phase 2 Final Prototype Review.

Preliminary and Final RIID Designs – Preliminary and Final RIID Design documentation shall be provided 2 weeks prior to the Phase I Preliminary Prototype Review and Phase II Final Prototype Review, respectively.

Additional Phase I Deliverables

• Any additional information as requested by the CWMD PM.

Additional Phase II Deliverables

• Three copies of final THOR Prototype RIIDs due 2 weeks prior to Phase 2 Final Prototype

Review. The Prototype RIIDs are to be shipped directly to address to be specified by the PM.

• THOR Prototype RIID operator manual.

• Example data files from the instrument.

• Providing CWMD test team support, including training the CWMD test team on the prototype

RIID instrument and answering questions from the test team via email exchanges or short meetings and instrument trouble shooting support during test integration and execution as needed.

• Algorithm Replay Tool compliant with the CWMD Replay Tool specifications (Attachment B3).

• THOR RIID Commercialization Plan, steps needed to get from TRL7 to a COTS product and notional timeline.

• Final Technical Report including Lessons Learned.

• Any additional information as requested by the CWMD PM.

7. Number of Selections: CWMD anticipates up to three awards under this OBAA topic solicitation.

8. Anticipated Ceiling: Although subject to appropriations and funds availability, it is anticipated that no more than $2,551,000 funds will be available for an individual resultant award for this OBAA topic solicitation for Phase I and Phase II combined. This amount includes up to $1,651,000 estimated for the Phase I Base Period and up to $900,000 estimated for Phase II Option. The aforementioned estimate assumes three awards granted.

11 | P a g e

Note: The Government will reserve the right to incrementally fund any resultant contract line-item numbers awarded from this OBAA topic solicitation as provided by the FAR 52.232-22, “Limitation of Funds.”

9. Anticipated Award Type: The Government intends to award cost plus fixed fee contracts. See

Section 1.6 of the overarching OBAA #70RDND19R00000003 for a list of contract vehicles that are possibilities for award under this topic solicitation.

10. Anticipated Award Dates: Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2023 (Q4FY23) is when the Government anticipates making a resultant award for this topic solicitation. However, the award date may vary based on the quality of the proposals received and the availability of funds.

11. Pitch Papers: Pitch papers are being requested for this topic solicitation. Potential offerors are strongly encouraged to take advantage of the pitch paper process, but they are not required to submit a pitch paper in advance of a proposal. Pitch paper submission instructions and formatting guidance can be found in Sections 11.1 and of this topic solicitation.

11.1 Pitch Paper Submission Instructions

Pitch papers must be submitted on or before the deadline listed in the topic solicitation (no later than 30 calendar days from the topic solicitation posting), in electronic format and emailed to inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. See page 1 Section 3 for the specific date pitch papers in which pitch papers need to be received. Pitch paper submissions consist of one attachment in the email submission.

Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and pitch paper file name format.

In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 70RWMD(FY)R00000014”

Each pitch paper file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-PP-0#-XXXX,” where “0#” = number of pitch paper submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one pitch paper comprised of one file in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA Pitch Paper Submission for Company A, Inc.

The email submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No.: 70RWMD(FY)R00000014

• Attached file for submission:

1) Pitch paper: CWMDOBAA-PP-01-COMA.pdf

• Request for receipt confirmation? (YES or NO)

Hard copy, facsimile, or hand delivered pitch papers will not be accepted.

Pitch papers should be submitted in advance of the deadline for submission, to ensure completion of the electronic submission process by the date and time of the deadline, as stated in this topic mailto:CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov

12 | P a g e solicitation. Any pitch paper submissions received by the Government after the deadline for submission will not be accepted. It is highly encouraged that offerors do not wait until the last minute to submit their pitch paper(s). Receipt of pitch papers will be handled in accordance with FAR

15.208 and FAR 52.215-1.

11.2 Format and Content of Pitch Paper

Pitch papers should capture the essence of a complete proposal and are designed to permit potential offerors an opportunity to obtain feedback from CWMD on their proposed project without having to go to the expense and effort of writing a full proposal. Such exchanges are to improve the understanding of Government requirements and industry capabilities, thereby allowing the potential offerors to judge if they can satisfy the Government’s requirements and to enhance the Government’s ability to obtain quality supplies and services, at reasonable prices, and increase efficiency in proposal preparation, proposal evaluation, and contract award. A pitch paper shall consist of a maximum of three pages, including all pictures, figures, tables, and charts in legible size. The quad chart described below is included in the three-page limit. The cover sheet will not be included in the three-page limit.

A pitch paper is a single electronic file in PDF format, viewable by Microsoft Windows-7 compatible machines. The individual pitch paper file size must be no more than 5 MB. Pitch papers shall not exceed three pages (standard size: 8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins and 12-point fonts or larger for text and 9-point fonts or larger for pictures, figures, tables and charts. The pitch paper should contain the following information in this order:

• Cover Sheet (see Attachment C for format, not included in page limit).

• Quad Chart (see Attachment E for format, included in page limit).

• One-page summary capturing information not included in the quad chart or cover sheet abstract to include:

o Technical Approach and Critical Path: Describe the main research goals, and main tasks and methodologies to be employed to achieve these goals. Point out the critical research path to the proposed investigation, to include what will specifically be accomplished during the initial phase(s) of the effort to achieve research objectives.

o Team Capability and Experience: List and describe the extent of your team’s experience and current capabilities to successfully execute the proposed research project.

o Management Approach: Provide a summary description of the management structure and approach for the effort.

o Cost: Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude cost to accomplish the technical approach.

If the pitch paper is found to be responsive to the topic, CWMD will schedule a brief (no more than 20 minutes) scientific engagement discussion with the offeror. The primary purpose of the scientific engagement discussion is for the Government to learn more about the proposed prototype, the potential offeror, and its capabilities. The Government will not be obligated by these discussions and nothing discussed will authorize the potential offeror to work, start work, or bill for work. During these scientific discussion engagement sessions, CWMD:

• Will ask clarifying questions about the information provided in the pitch paper. This includes questions to obtain a better understanding of the advantages and issues associated with a technical approach.

13 | P a g e

• Will not attempt to replace the potential offeror’s original ideas with their own.

• Will not provide information concerning the objectives/criteria of the topic to one potential offeror without providing the information to all potential offerors.

• May note that a particular proposed feature or capability is not required by the Government to meet topic objectives or criteria and will provide that information regarding such functions or capabilities to all potential offerors.

• Will not share ideas of technical solutions that were provided by another potential source.

After this review, CWMD will notify potential offerors, either encouraging or not encouraging submission of a proposal. It is anticipated that responses will be provided no later than 10 days after the pitch paper deadline. If a proposal submission is not encouraged, the general basis for the opinion to not encourage further participation will be provided. If a proposal submission is encouraged, comments and questions regarding the pitch paper submission will be provided, which may include comments regarding the potential offeror’s apparent capability and experience and management approach.

Pitch papers will be reviewed against 2 criteria, in descending order of importance:

Strategic Impact and Technical Approach. If a proposal submission is encouraged, comments and questions regarding the pitch paper submission will be provided, which may include comments regarding the potential Offeror’s apparent Capability and Experience and Management Approach. A description of these criteria can be found in Section 13.

12. Proposal Format and Submission Process:

CWMD will not reimburse offerors for any proposal preparation costs. Proposals shall remain valid from the date of submission for at least six (6) months.

Offerors shall submit proposals no later than the deadline set forth in the topic solicitation and the notification letters encouraging proposal submission. Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic format and email their proposals to inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. An offeror may choose to alter their ideas, concepts, technical approaches, etc. or expand on their original ideas reflected in the offeror’s pitch paper (if submitted) at any time after the submission of the offeror’s pitch paper and prior to the offeror’s submission of their proposal. Exchanges between the Government and a potential offeror regarding the potential offeror’s pitch paper are not binding.

Proposals consist of three separate documents described in detail below:

• Volume I: Technical and Management proposal (Not to exceed 16 pages. The cover sheet (Attachment D) will not be included in the 16-page limit).

• Volume II: Supplemental Data (Not to exceed 30 pages).

• Volume III: Cost proposal (No page limit).

Volume I is the primary document to be evaluated by the technical reviewers, with Volumes II and III providing supporting information. Note that Volume I should be a standalone document describing, consistent with the sections below, the material aspects of the proposed effort. The supplemental material in Volumes II and III are intended to support Volume I’s statements and ensure compliance with non-

14 | P a g e technical aspects of the solicitation. All volumes will be evaluated by the Contracting Officer to ensure compliance with the requirements of the OBAA. For instance, Volume III will serve as the formal cost submission for future contracting discussions should the proposal be recommended for the award from a technical aspect.

Specific guidance is provided below regarding the email and proposal file name format.

Offerors shall submit proposals in electronic format and email their proposals to the inbox – CWMDOBAA@hq.dhs.gov. In the email subject line, please use “CWMD OBAA Proposal Submission for <organization>, Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004”.

Each proposal file name will include the following: “CWMDOBAA-VOL#-FP-0#-XXXX,” where “VOL#” = volume number, “0#” = number of proposal submission, and “XXXX” = four letter character shortcut for organization name.

Example: Company A, Inc.’s submission for one proposal comprised of the three separate files in the attached email:

Subject: CWMD OBAA proposal Submission for Company A:

• Volume I file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume II file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA (.pdf file)

• Volume III file name: CWMDOBAA-VOL3-FP-01-COMA (.xls or .xlsx file)

The email for the proposal submission should at least include the following information:

• Organization: Company A, Inc.

• Submitted by: <first last name>, <project title>, <email of submitter>

• Topic Solicitation No: Topic Solicitation No. 14: 70RWMD23R00000004

• Attached Files for Submissions:

1. Volume I – CWMDOBAA-VOL1-FP-01-COMA.pdf

2. Volume II – CWMDOBAA-VOL2-FP-01-COMA.pdf

3. Volume III – CWMDOBAA-VOL3-FP-01-COMA.xls (or .xlsx)

• Request for receipt confirmation? (YES or NO)

Hard copy, facsimile, or hand delivered proposals are not accepted.

Offerors shall submit their proposals well in advance of the proposal submission deadline, in order to ensure completion of the electronic submission process no later than the date and time of the deadline, as set forth in the particular topic solicitation. Any proposal submissions received by the Government after the submission deadline will not be accepted unless receipt of the proposal would not unduly delay the acquisition and it was the only proposal received. It is highly encouraged that offerors do not wait until the last minute to submit their proposal(s).

The three volumes consist of three separate electronic files, which may need to be delivered to the Government in separate emails but may be transmitted in a single email if size limitations permit.

Volumes I and II will only be accepted in PDF format. Volume III will only be accepted in Microsoft Excel format (only .xls and .xlsx files are acceptable). The maximum file size for each volume is 10

15 | P a g e

MB. Memory sizes of graphic images should be minimized before insertion into any of the files and should support clear display and document printing. Non-conforming proposals may be rejected without review.

Volume I: Technical and Management Proposal (16 pages)

Volume I shall provide the primary technical and management description of the proposal. Volume I is the primary document to be evaluated by the technical reviewers, with Volumes II and III used as supplementary material. Volume I shall not exceed sixteen (16) pages of standard size (8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins in 12-point fonts or larger for text and 9-point fonts or larger for pictures, figures, tables and charts for all Topic Solicitations. Volume I shall include the sections described below. The section headings below are mandatory, the page limits for each section are suggestions, and only the overall limit of 16 pages will be considered during compliance checks. Proposals for which Volume I exceeds the 16 page limit will have any pages above the 16 page limit removed and those pages will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Quad Chart (1 page) The general quad chart can be found in Appendix C. The proposal quad chart content does not have to be the same as the pitch paper quad chart, but it should be in a similar format.

Strategic Impact (1.5 pages) Describe how the intended research will provide strategic impact to the CWMD mission to counter attempts by terrorists or other threat actors to carry out an attack against the United States or its interests using a weapon of mass destruction.

• What is the expected performance of the technology or system with respect to the research topic solicitation objectives and/or current-state-of-art? What are the quantitative performance improvements expected?

• How will this performance dramatically reduce the technical, performance, or cost risks in achieving CWMD mission objectives?

• What are the envisioned transition activities for the resulting technology?

Technical Approach (4 pages) This narrative section should describe in detail what is intended to be accomplished and the premise or theory justifying the approach taken. It should describe the fundamental principle, premise, or theory that the work will explore, the scientific approach being pursued to explore this premise, and how the results or data from the effort will be analyzed and/or evaluated. This section should also provide some detail as to why this approach was taken, and an estimate of the risk in achieving research goals. In developing the technical approach, the following should be considered:

• Is there a clear understanding of the research objectives and driving goals?

• Are the objectives/goals clearly supported by appropriate performance modeling, analysis, or existing literature, and are quantitative performance metrics defined, as appropriate?

• What technological choices were made and why, including trade studies which were made and alternate technologies/approaches which were considered?

• Assess the likelihood the THOR goals are achievable per the proposed design?

Technical Implementation (4.5 pages) This section should provide a detailed outline of the plans and rationale for technical implementation

16 | P a g e including a summary of proposed tasks (work breakdown structure) for each phase of the effort. The discussion of Phase I tasks is expected to be more comprehensive than those of the follow-on phases. The narrative should answer the following questions:

• What key tasks are needed to execute the effort?

• Is the technical plan clear, detailed, and complete to fully explain how THOR objectives will be met?

• Have likely risks in the proposed technical approach been identified and is there a risk mitigation strategy?

• What is the critical path and MSs for the effort? Have methods been proposed for assessing technical progress?

Capability and Experience (1.5 pages) This section should provide an overview of the offeror’s experience relative to RIID integration and design. This section should address the following:

• Team’s understanding of past scientific and technical accomplishments and the current state-of-the art knowledge or technology.

• Prior experience and performance of the team (to include history of subcontractor performance, if applicable) in related efforts demonstrating an ability to perform innovative research and deliver results/products within proposed budgets/schedules.

• Completeness of proposed team to complete all required tasks.

Management Approach (2 pages) This section should provide an overview of the proposed management approach, tools, and management processes to be used to execute the project. This section must provide:

• Delineation of schedule, phasing and MSs via integrated master plan and schedule (including all hardware deliverables and reviews). The schedule shall be presented in a Gantt chart.

• Delineation of roles, responsibilities and coordination among all team members and organizations, to include description of how subcontractors (if applicable) will be managed.

• If necessary, a brief summary of required information, facilities, equipment, materials and data which must be provided by the Government to support the proposed work.

• If necessary, a security plan that describes the rationale for what aspects of the work need to be protected, at what level, and proposed strategy for doing so.

Cost/Price (1.5 pages) This section should provide an overview of the total cost of the proposed work. This section must provide:

• The type of award vehicle proposed.

• A narrative description of the cost and cost-estimation approach.

• Cost allocation over all phases.

• A listing of costs per task for Phase I, itemized as shown in the table below.

Task Labor ($k) Materials and

Supplies ($k)

Capital Equipment ($k)

Travel ($k) Subcontracts ($k) Total ($K)

N Total

17 | P a g e

• A listing of costs per phase, over the entire project, itemized as shown in the table below.

Phase Labor ($k) Materials and

Supplies ($k)

Capital Equipment ($k) Travel ($k) Subcontracts ($k)

Total ($k)

I V Total

*Note: For each subcontractor and consultant cost, the prime offeror must submit a detailed breakdown by labor, materials, equipment, travel and other costs.

Volume II - Supplemental Data Proposal (30 pages)

Volume II, the Supplemental Data proposal, will be used to ensure the proposal guidelines have been met.

Volume II may not exceed 30 pages of standard size (8.5” by 11”) using 1” margins in 12-point fonts or larger. The first two sections are mandatory (Resumes and Statement of Work (SOW)); the other sections (Technical Approach, Management Approach, Small Business Considerations, Employee Eligibility Verification, and Assertion of Data Rights) are optional.

Resumes Provide a resume for each key personnel listed in Volume I. A list of relevant publications (if any) must also be included. Each resume shall be no more than two (2) pages.

Statement of Work Provide a detailed SOW, by task, for all phases of the proposed work using the template provided. Tasks and sub-tasks up to three levels are recommended for efforts of high complexity. Quantitative performance or time MSs must be defined. Describe all deliverables proposed under this effort, including data, software, and reports, material, or systems consistent with objectives of the work involved.

Technical Approach Provide additional or supplemental technical information and data not included in Volume I.

Management Approach Provide additional or supplemental information describing how the overall effort will be managed.

Small Business Considerations Proposals that exceed $750,000, except for those submitted by small business concerns, must include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in accordance with FAR Subpart 19.7 and FAR 52.219-9. The plan is included in the 30-page limit. Although the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required to be included in the proposal, the plan is not an evaluated factor. Proposals that do not include a required plan will receive no further consideration.

Regardless of the proposed dollar value, all offerors shall indicate their business size status and list all subcontractors and their business size statuses. All offerors are encouraged to offer subcontracting opportunities to small businesses to the maximum extent practicable.

18 | P a g e

Employment Eligibility Verification Include a statement specifying compliance with FAR Clause 52.222-54.

Assertion of Data Rights Include a summary of any assertions to any technical data or computer software (as each term is defined in FAR 52.227-14(a) Alt IV) that will be developed or delivered under any resultant award. This includes any assertions to pre-existing results, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, and/or prototype. Any rights asserted in other parts of the proposal that would impact the rights in this section must be cross-referenced. If less than unlimited rights (as defined in FAR 52.227- 14(a) Alt IV) in any data delivered under the resultant award are asserted, the offeror must explain how these rights in the technical data or computer software will affect their ability to deliver research data, subsystems, and toolkits for integration as set forth below. Additionally, the offeror must explain how the program goals are achievable considering these proprietary and/or restrictive limitations in the technical data or computer software. If there are no claims of proprietary rights in pre-existing data, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.

Proposals submitted in response to any topic issued…