A20 Publicizing for Solutions_IBP Consortium.pdf

WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

INDUSTRIAL BASE POLICY CONSORTIUM

HQ0034239IBPC

THIS IS A DRAFT DOCUMENT. PLEASE PROVIDE ANY FEEDBACK, QUESTIONS

AND/OR RECOMMENDATIONS NO LATER THAN 10:00AM ET ON JANUARY 10,

2022, TO BOTH THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY POINTS OF CONTACT LISTED

IN THE PRESOLICITATION NOTICE.

AREA OF INTEREST (AOI):

The Manufacturing, Capability Expansion, and Investment Prioritization Directorate (MCEIP) falls under the Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Industrial Base Resilience (IBR) and the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) Industrial Base Policy (IBP) within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)). Following a reorganization within IBP in November 2022, MCEIP includes the Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III Program, now known as DPA Investments (DPAI); Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS), now known as Innovation Capability and Modernization (ICAM); and Global Investment and Economic Security.

As the global pandemic exposed the vulnerability of the weakened United States (U.S.) domestic supply chains and highlighted the need to onshore or bolster the production of items deemed critical for national security, the core funding being executed by DPAI and ICAM has recently increased dramatically, and the MCEIP budget in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 is anticipated to exceed $2.5B. DPAI and the ICAM Program Offices have developed five-year roadmaps (i.e., spend plans) to address critical shortfalls in the following critical sub-sectors of the Defense Industrial Base (DIB): hypersonics; microelectronics; critical chemicals; small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS); batteries & energy storage; space industrial base; castings & forgings; submarine industrial base; Rare Earth Elements (REE); and critical materials. A roadmap for “other projects” was also developed for investments that would address urgent DIB requirements but would fall outside of those critical sub-sectors. The roadmaps provide a visual depiction of the current and planned MCEIP investments through FY 2027. MCEIP, however, does not currently have sufficient acquisition pathways standing ready to execute the anticipated funding and is seeking an expansion of acquisition capability.

MCEIP is pursuing the award of a consortium managed OT Agreement under 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §4021 (Research projects), and 10 USC §4022 (Prototype projects), to include the ability to pursue follow-on production transactions when appropriate per the statute. Led by the efforts of the Consortium Manager, this OT Agreement will accelerate Department of Defense (DoD) access to technologies typically reserved for commercial development. The consortium managed OT Agreement will enhance MCEIP’s mission of addressing defense supply chain issues, developing the industrial workforce, sustaining critical production, commercializing Research and Development (R&D) efforts, and rapidly scaling emerging technologies to build a robust, resilient DIB.

Ultimately, the proposed solution will establish a consortium that will achieve the following.

Keep Pace with Technology - Participation and leverage of innovative and State of the Art (SOTA) technologies available from nontraditional defense contractors (NTDC) and/or nonprofit research institutions (NPRI) participating to a significant extent in research and rapid prototyping.

Speed of Acquisition – Decreased acquisition time to award projects as business-to-business transactions from the Consortium Manager to NTDCs and/or NPRIs.

Diversification of Sources - Increased competition and entrance of NTDCs and/or NPRIs, not typically considered in FAR based contracts, expansion of the DIB.

Improved Engagement - Improved engagement with NTDCs and/or NPRIs, and increased innovation and the adoption of new technology.

Innovative Approaches – Allows for tailoring to occur on a per project basis and reduces taxpayer costs with innovative approaches.

MCEIP is focused on addressing defense supply chain issues, developing the industrial workforce, sustaining critical production, commercializing R&D efforts, and rapidly scaling emerging technologies to build a robust, resilient DIB.

To enable this dynamic mission, the Consortium Manager shall establish a proven and agile approach to managing a consortium that allows the award of projects to move at the pace of innovation. Key components of the model include:

project pathways that allow each individual project to be tailored to enhance to lower risk to all stakeholders, Industrial Based Policy Consortium: HQ0034239IBPC diversification of sources that expand the DIB, procurement actions that keep pace with emerging commercial technology, engagement with NTDCs and/or NPRI, and enablement of innovative approaches that reduce taxpayer cost.

In order to strengthen the national industrial base during times of disruption, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14017, America’s Supply Chains, on February 24, 2021. The E.O. calls for a comprehensive review of supply chains in critical sectors, including the DIB. The DoD one-year report, submitted in response to the E.O., Securing Defense-Critical Supply Chains, outlined the DoD’s commitment “to strengthen the industrial base and establish a network of domestic and allied supply chains to meet national security needs.” Given the breadth and scale of defense supply chains, the report focused on the following four sectors in which critical vulnerabilities pose the most pressing threat to national security: (1) kinetic capabilities (i.e., hypersonics); (2) energy storage and batteries;

(3) castings and forgings; and (4) microelectronics. The Consortium Manager shall provide a consortium that has the appropriate expertise to address those four critical sub-sectors, and the following DIB sectors , which are also considered to be critical within MCEIP: (5) critical chemicals and minerals; (6) sUAS; (7) REEs; (8) critical materials;

(9) submarine industrial base; (10) space industrial base; and (11) biomanufacturing. The specific sectors deemed critical within the DIB today may change and expand over the life of the Industrial Base Policy Consortium.

The Consortium Manager shall also be able to support other programs within IBP as requested by the Government.

The mission of IBP is to ensure robust, secure, resilient, and innovative industrial capabilities upon which the DoD can rely in an era of great power competition to fulfill current and future Warfighter capabilities. IBP is the principal advisor to the OUSD(A&S) for: developing DoD policies for the maintenance of the U.S. DIB; executing small business programs and policy; conducting geo-economic analysis and assessments; providing recommendations on budget matters related to the DIB; anticipating and closing gaps in manufacturing capabilities for defense systems;

assessing impacts related to mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures; monitoring and assessing impact of foreign investments in the U.S.; and executing authorities under Sections 4811 and 4816 U.S.C. Title 10.

ACQUISITION PROCESS:

This process will be a structured competitive approach to identifying solutions to meet the Area of Interest (AOI) as described above. The proposal/evaluation process may include up to three different phases. The Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) Acquisition Directorate (AD) may decide to use all three phases, only two phases or may combine phases two and three into a single phase if decided. The process will be defined and determined before the final consortium management request for white papers (RWP) is posted.

Phase I encourages interested companies to submit a concise solution brief (white paper) that describes its proposed solution. All Phase I white papers will be evaluated against the following criteria, as provided in the AOI call:

(1) Relevancy of the proposed solution;

(2) Merit and feasibility of the proposed solution;

(3) Approach and/or technology’s uniqueness, underutilization and/or innovation; and

(4) Approach and/or technology’s compelling solution to the AOI.

After evaluation, the Government will invite selected companies to participate in either Phase IIa or Phase IIb.

For Phase IIa, selected companies will then “pitch” their solution to the Government (in-person or virtual), providing additional details about their solution and their company. The Government has the opportunity to dialogue with those companies about their solutions, during the pitch, in order to better understand those solutions and to resolve any other pertinent issues. The pitches are further evaluated against the following criteria:

(1) Relevancy of the proposed solution;

(2) Merit and feasibility of the proposed solution;

(3) Approach and/or technology’s uniqueness, underutilization and/or innovation;

(4) Approach and/or technology’s compelling solution to the AOI;

(5) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed price;

(6) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed performance schedule; and

(7) The impact of the proposed data rights assertions on the proposed solution.

After evaluation, the Government will invite selected companies to participate to receive a request for prototype proposal (RPP) or their solution is declined for further consideration.

For Phase IIb, Phase IIa will be combined with Phase III, where Phase IIa will take place as described above and it will also request the full prototype proposal submission as described in Phase III below. If this combination approach is taken, companies will receive the Request for Pitch and RPP at the same time, and the evaluation process will be completed as described for Phase III.

Phase III1 will begin by sending a RPP to the selected company or companies. Companies will receive the RPP with several related documents, including: a performance work statement (PWS) template, the model terms and conditions (T&Cs), a business status certification template, an end user license agreement (EULA) template, and a data assertions template. Upon receipt of the proposal, to include a detailed cost breakout, the Government will evaluate the proposal based on the following criteria, which will be included in the RPP, centering on the proposed approach and price reasonableness:

(1) Relevancy of the proposed solution;

(2) Merit and feasibility of the proposed solution;

(3) Approach and/or technology’s uniqueness, underutilization and/or innovation;

(4) Approach and/or technology’s compelling solution to the AOI;

(5) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed price;

(6) Feasibility and/or adequacy of the proposed performance schedule; and

(7) The impact of the proposed data rights assertions on the proposed solution.

Based on the evaluation, the Government may enter into negotiations with the selected company(ies), negotiating the finalized version of the PWS, T&Cs, and other documents (e.g. EULA, data assertions, etc.) that will all become part of the resulting OT Agreement.

WHITE PAPER INSTRUCTIONS AND TEMPLATE:

White Papers shall be submitted in accordance with the instructions described in this document. All submissions shall be in English. The following formatting guidelines shall be followed by respondents:

A page is defined as one 8.5” x 11” (letter size) electronic page with 1” margins.

The font shall be Times New Roman single-spaced and no smaller than 11-point font size.

o Note: A smaller font size may be used in figures and tables but must be legible.

Pages shall be in portrait orientation, except for figures, graphs, images, and pictures.

Figures and tables shall be numbered and, when referenced in the text, shall be referenced by that number.

Figures and tables shall be of a size that is easily readable and may be in landscape orientation.

Pages shall be numbered sequentially and all major sections shall begin on a new page.

All White Paper documents (other than a proposed budget spreadsheet) shall be submitted as one PDF file.

The proposed budget spreadsheet shall be submitted as an excel document with formulas left available for evaluation purposes and shall follow the following formatting:

o A page is defined as one 11” x 17” (tabloid size) electronic page with narrow margins (0.75” margins at the top and bottom and 0.25” margins on the left and right sides).

o The font shall be Times New Roman single-spaced and no smaller than 10-point font size.

o Pages shall be in landscape orientation o Shall be scaled to fit all columns on one page.

No classified information shall be submitted with the proposal. All information that is considered a trade secret or proprietary information shall be marked as such.

NOTE: Government support contractors may have access to this information for the purposes of administrative support and/or evaluation(s). Each evaluator will be required to complete a nondisclosure agreement and certify they have no conflicts of interest (COI) that might affect the review process.

In Phase III (prototype proposal) of the evaluation process, the Government reserves the right to add/remove/revise evaluation criteria including relative importance. The Government also reserves the right to reject a submission and deem it ineligible for consideration if the response is incomplete and/or does not clearly provide the requested information. Acceptable responses not selected for the immediate award will be retained by the Government for possible future execution and funding. The non-selected proposals will be considered as viable alternatives for up to 12 months. If a proposal (that was not previously selected) is determined to be a suitable alternative, the selectee will be contacted to discuss any proposal updates and details of a subsequent project award.

INDUSTRIAL BASE POLICY CONSORTIUM

CONSORTIUM MANAGEMENT REQUEST FOR WHITE PAPERS

HQ0034239IBPC

Entity/Consortium Name:

Type of Organization2:

Address:

Unique Entity ID:

CAGE Code:

Primary POC Name:

Telephone Number:

E-Mail Address:

Date of Submission (DD/MMM/YYYY):

2 Type of Organization is identified as a nontraditional defense contractor, nonprofit research institute, small business, large business, etc.

PART I: TABLE OF CONTENTS (LIMIT: NO PAGE LIMIT)

PART II: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (LIMIT: 2 PAGES)

Proposers are encouraged, but not required, to submit an executive summary of their White Paper. Proposers should clearly address their vision for the Consortium, structure, and management.

Part A: Formation of the Consortium/Progress Toward Creation of the Consortium

Examples:

o Consortium mission and vision o Outreach to potential members, to include listing committed founding members (if available) o Plan for an interim formation board o Development of business practices

Note: A list of committed founding members may be referenced in this section and submitted as an attachment to the White Paper. Such a list will not count against the maximum page count.

Part B: Consortium Structure and Functions

Examples:

o Proposed responsibilities as Consortium Manager o Description of facilities necessary for execution of proposed effort o Proposed Consortium structure, processes for providing administrative and financial oversight, plans to develop and implement Consortium by-laws, plans for ensuring consistent and impactful interaction between the Government and Consortium o Plan for webpage and electronic communications o Plan for prototyping/research project awards processes and execution o Plan for administration of prototyping/research projects o Intended level of interaction/oversight with Consortium members o Plan/ability to assist new and nontraditional defense contractors in understanding the DoD customer, mission, and processes o Plan to enhance workforce development o Plan to share information across the membership o Plan to foster teaming among the membership o Plan to provide logistical and information support to membership and member-customer functions such as Industry Day events o Plan to execute administrative and financial oversight

Part C: Membership

Examples:

o Process for identifying/adding new members to the consortium after award o Plan for incorporating industry into consortium o Demonstrated current capability, as well as future plans for member retention and growth.

Part D: Metrics and Reporting o Proposed metrics and reporting to validate that the Government’s intent for the Consortium is being met

Part E: Security Plan o Overall technical capabilities and facility clearance level o Capability and capacity to implement security procedures and handle, transmit and store controlled unclassified, confidential, and secret information o Capability and capacity to manage Consortium member’s security clearance requirements o Plan to ensure Operational Security, ensure compliance with ITAR and other regulatory and statutory obligations

Part F: Other o Other issues not addressed above that may be relevant to the selection of a Consortium Manager

PART III: SCHEDULE (LIMIT: 1 PAGE)

Respondents should provide a schedule indicating key milestones for establishing the Consortium.

PART IV: COST ESTIMATE (LIMIT: NO PAGE LIMIT)

Respondent shall provide an overview of the cost estimate associated with the Consortium. Expenses may include, but are not limited to the following:

Consortium Management Administrative Finance/Accounting Contracting Special Security Officer (SSO) Indirect Rates (Overhead/Fringe/G&A/etc.) and any other direct charges for the consortium

Note: Companies may propose their recommended management fee structure and approach to support the proposed consortium management model. A detailed explanation shall be provided, explaining how and why you proposed the specific consortium management fee structure.