AIDP - CfS Draft 2 20260706.docx

This DRAFT Call for Solutions (CFS) is issued for informational and planning purposes only.

Capability Program Executive Intelligence and Spectrum Warfare DRAFT 2 Call for Solutions for: Next Iteration of Army Intelligence Data Platform Under the Army Open Solicitation (AOS) Commercial Solutions Opening

Intelligence and Spectrum Warfare (ISW) Project Manager Intelligence Systems and Analytics (PM IS&A) Army Open

1. AUTHORITY

This Call for Solutions (CfS) solicitation will be awarded in accordance with the Army Open Solicitation (AOS) procedures detailed within Solicitation W9128Z-25-S-A002, posted on SAM.gov. This CfS is a Call under the AOS’s Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) authority. Use of a CSO in accordance with DFARS subpart 212.70 is considered to be a competitive procedure for the purposes of 10 U.S.C. chapter 221 and Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) subpart 6.101.

Through this CfS, PM IS&A seeks the next iteration of the Army Intelligence Data Platform (AIDP), to include capabilities to support echelon-based solutions that include services, processing, and data management capabilities.

The Government may award a RFO 12 (Commercial), Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) type contract(s) or an Other Transaction(s) (OT) for Prototype Project(s) pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 4022.

Vendors that have an Enterprise Contract (EC) or will have one established by the time of award will be required to use their EC in the proposed solution. See Section 6 for additional information.

See the following AOS W9128Z-25-S-A002 sections for further authority and terms that may be applicable to this CfS:

Section F – Iterative Prototyping Section G – Successful Completion of Prototype Section H – Follow-On Production of a Prototype

2. BACKGROUND

The Army Intelligence Data Platform (AIDP) is vital to the Army Intelligence Modernization Strategy and will provide modular, adaptable software suite of essential capabilities across the Intelligence Warfighting Function (IWfF). The IWfF must provide intelligence support and analysis at echelon as part of a Command and Control (C2) architecture and capability. This capability provides services, tools, and visualizations to support the associated intelligence infrastructure (including people) supporting intelligence production that are 1) globally accessible across a variety of networks and with contested, degraded, or absent connectivity, 2) able to rapidly adapt to changing analysis styles, workflow needs, and available data, with additional tools and user-driven visualizations, and 3) able to deliver data and services to customers and systems as required.

The next iteration of Army Intelligence Data Platform will consist of a single foundation with one coherent SW continuum at all echelons, in the cloud and on edge devices, that will provide modular and adaptable software suite of essential capabilities across the IWfF.

· Serve as a scalable, flexible and resilient intelligence platform, capable of supporting dynamic operational needs while maintaining robust accessibility and adaptability, and a future-proof intelligence framework that enhances operational effectiveness at all echelons

· Provide a comprehensive suite of intelligence tools and services to support Army intelligence analysis, decision-making, and operational effectiveness

· Delivery post prototyping: Rapid iteration and delivery of a Minimal Viable Capability Release (MVCR) of a modular foundation for the next Army Intelligence Data Platform.

Mission Context

· All Intelligence missions and tasks

· Mission planning, execution, and assessment

· Training and Operational

· All echelons: Strategic, Operational and Tactical

· Fixed facility to mobile Command Post

· At the halt and on-the-move

· Cloud and Edge(Uncontested and in DDIL environment)

· Home-station to Deployed (CONUS and OCONUS)

· Competition, Crisis, and Conflict

· Contested Cyber and EMS environment

3. PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Program Manager for Intelligence Systems & Analytics (PM IS&A) is seeking a comprehensive solution to provide a flexible and adaptable intelligence analysis capability across multiple security domains, echelons, and partner environments. The objective is to deliver an innovative solution that provides a seamless user experience from Top Secret (TS) to Secret, with globally accessible data and common analytic tools, all built upon a modern cloud architecture.

The IWfF requires an AIDP capability enabling interoperability between intelligence and other warfighting functions. AIDP must deliver data and services, tools, and visualizations to enable the IWfF to meet operational requirements. These operational requirements center on the ability to enable timely multidomain situational understanding supporting the ability to create and exploit positions of relative advantage while maximizing combat power; the ability to process and integrate relevant multi-discipline intelligence and operational data supporting efficient communication and interpretation of threat actions, intent, and the ability to forecast threat courses of action (COA) supporting all of the Army and Joint Intelligence warfighting functional tasks. This capability must support the Army of the Future, supporting the Army’s strategic, operational, and tactical objectives using an agile process for software capability needs development with capabilities available for hosting on cloud and/or provisioned from the cloud and edge devices, and support evolving Mission Command and Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control architecture.

The proposed solution has several specific challenges to address to meet this objective, including:

· Provide a seamless multi-domain user experience for analysts operating across Top Secret (TS) and Secret domains with globally accessible and integrated data from multiple sources.

· Design a modern data interface to allow programs supporting Joint operations and Coalition Partners to easily consume intelligence data and services.

· Implement a flexible software architecture that allows for the rapid adaptation of software, on ramping of new applications, and tailoring of workflows to support all intelligence disciplines across various platforms like Next Generation Command and Control (NGC2).

· Develop and configure Tactical Edge Node (TEN) configurations to support intelligence analysis requirements in Denied, Degraded, Intermittent, and Low bandwidth (DDIL) environments.

· Ensure the solution is easy to use, from initial user training to operational employment, requiring minimal sustainment support to lower the total cost of ownership.

· Integrate intelligence data from numerous sources into a common suite of analytic tools, including capabilities for data integration, workflow management, and advanced visualizations.

· AIDP is a critical component of a larger, mission-driven technology ecosystem. It is the Government’s intent that AIDP will operate within and contribute to a modular, open-architecture framework consistent with the principles of the NGC2 program for the SIPR and JWICS domains. The resulting solution must be capable of seamless integration with a variety of current and future third-party data sources, applications, and network infrastructures managed by different vendors and government entities.

· Bi-directional, cross-platform data exchange with the Maven Smart System (MSS) to eliminate potential for swivel-chairing of data. This connection should allow for the timely exchange of data and services between the two systems without requiring them to be merged into a single platform. Comment by Fisher, Christopher M CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Check font

The Government also has the following challenges from a user perspective:

· Interoperability with supported / supporting systems (“swivel chair”)

· Cloud dependence

· Unintuitive

· Non-doctrinal workflows

4. DESIRED SOLUTION OBJECTIVE

Proposed Solution as Independent and/or Modular Capabilities Comment by Fisher, Christopher M CIV USARMY ACC (USA): DM Comment- use a different word than severable. Comment by Moresi, Rachel L CIV USARMY ACC (USA): RM - Detachable? Standalone? Let me know your thoughts. Comment by Butterfield, Scott D CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Spoke with Shaun to update language.

PM IS&A is seeking a comprehensive, full-continuum solution that integrates both enterprise cloud and tactical edge operations. To be considered technically acceptable, proposals must address the capability requirements and the intelligence analysis and data-sharing challenges described in Section 2 and 3. Solutions offering only a cloud-hosted or only a tactical-edge solution will not be evaluated.

Vendors shall submit a Enterprise Cloud and Tactical Edge Continuum Solution (Mandatory): A unified software continuum across all echelons, in the cloud and on edge devices, providing a modular, adaptable software suite across the Intelligence Warfighting Function (IWfF). Comment by Butterfield, Scott D CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Moved up from bullets below to clearly communicate that the “Continuum Solution” is not a separate component like the Cloud and Edge are.

To provide the Government with maximum acquisition flexibility, the proposed full-continuum solution must also be architected and priced as two independent and/or modular components. Vendors must provide distinct, itemized pricing for each of the following:

· Enterprise Cloud Component: The enterprise-hosted portion of the proposed continuum solution, itemized as a discrete, modular software suite for cloud-only deployment.

· In addition, discuss how your solution could integrate into MSS as the cloud hosting component of the AIDP solution.

· Tactical Edge Component: The tactical portion of the proposed continuum solution, itemized as a discrete suite capable of operating on small form-factor hardware in DDIL environments (supporting 72-hour autonomous operations) and synchronizing upon network restoration.

A comprehensive solution is desired to address the overarching objectives outlined in a document labeled “Section 4: Desired Solution Objective,” which must be requested due to CUI nature.

The high-level solution objectives include:

1. Architecture & Scalability: Submissions shall describe the architectural approach, including:

a) MOSA

b) Scalability

c) Common Data Layer

d) Interoperability

2. Security: Submissions shall detail the security posture, including:

a) Zero Trust:

b) Data Security:

c) Cybersecurity Process:

3. Development: The Government is interested in understanding the solution's software development and integration capabilities. Submissions shall describe:

a) DevSecOps Pipeline

b) Software Development Kit (SDK)

c) API Strategy

4. Configuration Management: Submissions shall describe process and tools (e.g., PLM/ALM) used for automated configuration management of all system baselines

a) Automated CM

5. Usability & Performance: Submissions shall address how the solution is optimized for the end-user. Submissions should describe:

a) Foundation & Core Services

b) UI/UX and Human System Integration (HSI) Comment by Fisher, Christopher M CIV USARMY ACC (USA): CF- HSI or HIS?

6. Core Services: Submissions shall describe:

a) Data Onboarding and Normalization

b) Object Database

c) Credential Authority

d) Data Logging/Alerting

e) MIL-STD 2525 Renderer

f) Retrieval & Display

g) Object Creation

h) Inbox

i) Graph/Dashboard

j) Correlation and Combination

k) Collaboration Framework

7. Mission Dependent Services: Submissions shall describe:

a) Geo Services

b) Library Services

c) Terrain Analysis

d) Intelligence Support to Targeting

e) Collection Management

f) Pattern Matching

g) Weather Effects

5. CALL FOR SOLUTIONS PROCESS

Vendors responding to this CfS shall begin by submitting a White Paper for evaluations. The Government is interested in unique and innovative agile software development approaches, including techniques to shorten delivery schedules, improve efficiency, enhance performance, and reduce costs. The Government will use the following steps to evaluate solutions and, if applicable, issue an award(s):

Step 1 – White Papers Step 2 – Product Demonstrations Step 3 – Request for Solution Proposals Step 4 – Award

5.1 STEP 1 – WHITE PAPER (WP) SUBMISSION:

5.1.1 General Instructions

WPs shall be submitted via the designated government portal no later than the date and time specified. The designated government portal is https://vulcan-sof.com/. NOTE: a full link will be provided in the final Call for Solution. Offerors will follow the instructions in Vulcan, to include answering questions listed in the Custom Requirements section.

Partial Solutions will not be considered. Offerors are responsible for teaming with qualified partners as necessary to deliver a complete, compliant solution. The degree of alignment with evaluation criteria will be assessed in the context of overall solution maturity and performance across other evaluation factors.

The Government will accept only one (1) solution submission per vendor. Multiple solution submissions from a single vendor will not be accepted or evaluated. Vendors are requested to submit their one solution that most effectively addresses the Government's problem statement and fulfills the stated objectives.

WP submission shall be received by the Government no later than (NLT) XX Eastern Time (ET) DD MON YEAR. If a complete WP submission is not submitted by submission time, the vendor’s WP will not be considered or evaluated.

Upon receipt of a WP submitted in response to this CfS, the Government will evaluate the WP. Exchanges among the parties, whether verbally or in writing, may occur. Upon completion of WP evaluations, vendor will either:

· Receive a non-selection letter, or

· Be invited to Product Demonstrations under Step 2

WPs shall be submitted as UNCLASSIFIED or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Government team will handle this material as CUI category “Proprietary Business Information” (PBI). WPs containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall follow the instructions detailed earlier in the CfS.

Proposals, brochures, or other descriptions of general organizational or individual capabilities will not be accepted as a WP. WP submissions shall include sufficient detail or otherwise will not be considered.

Vendor name, CAGE code, and Unique Entity ID (UEI) shall be clearly stated in the WP.

Submissions shall be submitted in a legible font size.

5.1.2 White Paper Content

The vendor shall propose a feasible and innovative approach demonstrating how the vendor’s prototype and potential production solution will be implemented in alignment with mission requirements. All proposed approaches shall also consider all applicable schedule, performance, and cost risks. The Government reserves the right to request additional information/details for any WP submission.

Each vendor shall provide the following volumes:

1. Technical Volume: The Technical Volume shall describe a feasible and innovative approach to the AIDP requirement. This Volume shall not exceed 10 pages. Any pages in excess of 10 will not be evaluated. It must address:

Comment by Thompson, Katherine C (Katie) CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Too long Comment by Lowry, Abigail G CIV USARMY ACC (USA): reduced

· Solution Overview: Describe the proposed solution and how it meets the Government’s objectives and needs. In what ways is the solution innovative? Please provide sufficient details to support a thorough evaluation in a technical manner.

· Development Approach: Describe the proposed agile software development approach and how it supports the rapid development and delivery of software capabilities based on soldier feedback. Provide a recommended agile software development governance approach, to include backing management, incremental capability delivery planning and execution, and performance measurement. Provide your approach to managing software development team capacity/sprint planning, to include use of story points and/or similar planning tools.

· Agile Management Plan: The extent to which the vendor’s Agile Management Plan defines and implements software productivity metrics, specifically work completed per iteration, and delivery progress/ frequency, to demonstrate measurable performance and predictable delivery.

· Third-Party Integration: Describe the architecture's openness for integrating third-party capabilities, including the use of standards, interfaces, and protocols. Detail the approach to preserving the intellectual property of different vendors.

· Tactical Edge Approach: Describe how the platform extends from enterprise to tactical edge nodes. Detail the approach to connecting with military communications hardware, managing edge nodes (e.g., tablets, local servers), and operating in DDIL environments.

2. Price and Schedule Volume: In response to this volume, the vendor shall provide a Not-to-Exceed Pricing Structure and Price Catalog, a prototype Rough Order of Magnitude, and a prototype notional schedule.

Comment by Thompson, Katherine C (Katie) CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Typically only ask for ROM with WP, then pricing with proposal later Comment by Lowry, Abigail G CIV USARMY ACC (USA): The ROM and price catalog go together in informing the PM what is affordable. i.e. Can the Government afford 2 or 3 prototypes?

a. Not-to-Exceed Pricing Structure and Price Catalog (Catalog) Submissions must include a comprehensive not-to-exceed (NTE) pricing structure and price catalog. Vendors are encouraged to propose a pricing methodology that aligns with their customary commercial practices for the proposed solution; however, this catalog must also incorporate and explicitly price specific Government-mandated elements as predefined Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). See Attachment 00XX.

While this initial pricing submission does not constitute a formal price proposal, all costs, unit prices, and rates provided will establish a binding maximum ceiling for each item for the duration of the CSO process. Should an offeror advance to Step 3 (Proposals and SOW/PWS), its final formal price proposal may offer discounts or lower rates, but final proposed pricing may NOT exceed the ceiling prices established in the Catalog.

Note: The offeror is advised that only Firm Fixed Price (FFP) may be awarded while executing this effort.

Submissions should also provide insight into the solution’s prototype vs. lifecycle cost approach to include:

Comment by Butterfield, Scott D CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Revised WP submission volume to require pricing when there is the highest level of competition while also giving us room to negotiate during Step 3, proposals.

· Licensing Structure

· Cloud Hosted

· Edge/on Premises

· Estimated Cloud Costs to host solution

· Scalability (e.g., consumption/usage/customer satisfaction models rather than per-unit pricing)

· Training and support costs of users

· Recommended cost model(s) to support the government’s ability to effectively manage cloud usage and compute costs over time, to include control mechanisms and real-time cost visibility.

b. Prototype Proposal Using the Catalog, vendors shall submit a proposal for the solution’s prototype. The proposal shall demonstrate how the prices in the Catalog are applied to a given solution requirement. The proposal shall be detailed sufficiently as to inform the Government on how the Catalog is to be applied to future requirements and/or the production portion of AIDP.

c. Prototype Notional Schedule Vendors shall provide a notional schedule on how the proposed solution will meet the Government’s objectives listed in Section 4 within 12 months. The Government may find solutions that are able to be prototyped in a shorter period to be of greater interest.

3. Data Rights Assertions Volume: Solutions shall acknowledge that the Government retains all rights, title, and interest in and to any data and content the Government provides for transmission, storage, integration, import, display, distribution, or use in or through the proposed solution, as well as any applications the Government or third-party vendors create that may utilize the solution.

5.1.3 White Paper Evaluation

Criteria (Factors) for selecting submissions for Product Demonstrations:

· Relevance and Technical Merit: The degree to which the proposed solution addresses the Government’s objectives and the ability of the solution to meet the Government’s needs.

· Innovation and Feasibility: The extent to which the vendor's approach and underlying technology are innovative and feasible for a DoW environment.

· Catalog and ROM: pricing consistent with approach and affordability against objectives in section 4.

· Schedule: The notional schedule meets the Government’s objectives in section 4 within no more than 12 months. The Government may find solutions that are able to be prototyped in a shorter period to be of greater interest.

· Data Rights: The potential impact of data rights assertions.

Relative Importance: Factors are listed in order of importance.

Method of Evaluation: Scientific, Technological, or other subject-matter expert peer review.

**Note- The remaining Steps 2 through 4 instructions are provisional and the Government reserves the right to make additional changes. Final instructions will be provided to offerors whose solutions are chosen to proceed to subsequent steps.

5.2 STEP 2 – PRODUCT DEMONSTRATIONS: Comment by Thompson, Katherine C (Katie) CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Include caveat that instructions for remaining Steps are draft and govt reserves right to make changes Comment by Lowry, Abigail G CIV USARMY ACC (USA): Added

5.2.1 Demonstration Participation

Submissions that provide the most compelling white papers, as determined by the Step 1 evaluations, may be invited to a subsequent technology demonstration and assessment session. The Government reserves the right, and has the intent, to limit the number of vendors invited to participate in product demonstrations. As such, a vendor’s solution may be evaluated to be of merit but not invited to Step 2 - Product Demonstrations. Vendors to participate in product demonstrations will receive an invitation from the Government.

The Government reserves the right to invite vendors not previously selected for invitation to Step 2 – Product Demonstrations at a later date, if determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

Product demonstrations will be hands-on, collaborative, and designed to validate the claims made in the white papers. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following principles:

· Evidence-Based Verification: Demonstrations will serve as the primary means of verifying the solution’s capabilities. Offerors should be prepared to conduct live demonstrations of cloud-hosted and edge-hosted capabilities.

· Hands-On Scenarios: The Government will provide sample data sets, operational scenarios, or specific tasks to be performed during the demonstration. This may include, but is not limited to, ingesting government-furnished data or having government personnel interact directly with the system.

See Section 6 below for information regarding Government Furnished Information as it relates to Step 2.

Due to the diverse and innovative nature of solutions anticipated under this CfS, the Government reserves the right to specifically tailor the format, scope, and use-case scenarios of each product demonstration based on evaluation and knowledge gained during the CfS process and/or to align with the unique technical characteristics of the vendor’s proposed solution. Furthermore, the Government maintains the unilateral right to dynamically adapt demonstration procedures, evaluation methods, and lines of inquiry in real-time during the event. This inherent flexibility ensures the evaluation team can pivot based on new information gathered as the demonstration unfolds, allowing for a thorough review and evaluation of the solution's operational utility, functionality, and overall merit. Additional details, information, and guidance regarding demonstrations will be included in the Government’s product demonstration invitation. Comment by Butterfield, Scott D CIV USARMY ACC (USA): I want to include this so we have ultimate flexibility during product demonstrations.

5.2.2 Product Demonstration Evaluation

The Government will provide a Product Demonstration Plan as an attachment to this CfS that will detail expectations and data sources for product demo evaluation.

Criteria (Factors) for Selecting solutions for Step 3: Vendor solutions selected for a product demonstration will be evaluated on their ability to address a series of Foundation and Core Services that establish the baseline for the next iteration of AIDP, as described in Section 4 above. Vendors that demonstrate additional capabilities aligned with the Mission Dependent Services may be of greater interest to the Government.

Relative Importance: All Factors are of equal importance.

Method of Evaluation: Scientific, Technological, or other subject-matter expert peer review.

5.3 STEP 3 – REQUEST FOR SOLUTION PROPOSALS (RSP)

After Step 2 Product Demonstrations, those solutions determined to be of interest will be advised to submit a solution proposal to the Government. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of vendors invited to submit a solution proposal. As such, a vendor’s solution may be evaluated to be of interest during Step 2 but not invited to participate in Step 3. Additional information, instructions, and guidance will be included in the RSP. Information below is subject to change based on evaluations and knowledge gained during the CfS process.

5.3.1 Solution Proposal Submission

Solution proposals shall be submitted via the designated government portal no later than the date and time specified. The designated government portal is https://vulcan-sof.com/. NOTE: a full link will be provided in the RSP.

The RSP will provide additional details and specific instructions for the full proposal submission. Only those vendors who receive an RSP from the Government will be eligible to submit a proposal. The Government reserves the right to hold Oral Presentations in addition to or in place of a written submission. If used, instructions regarding Oral Presentations will be included in the RSP.

5.3.2 Proposal Content

Each proposal shall consist of two (2) volumes: Volume 1 – Technical and Volume 2 – Price. Vendors may propose their own internal terms and conditions (e.g., Service License Agreements (SLA) and/or End User License Agreements (EULAs)) to be considered during negotiations with the Government. Vendors should note that there are certain terms and conditions the Government is unable to accept.

5.3.2.1 Volume 1 – Technical

This volume shall not exceed 20 pages. Any pages in excess of 20 will not be evaluated. The Technical Volume shall be a further expansion of the WP submission and shall include, at a minimum:

b. Proposed Statement of Work - The SOW shall be aligned to the objectives, identifying the work to be performed and the deliverables. The development of a final, agreed upon SOW will be a collaborative effort between the vendor and the Government. The SOW shall provide a detailed project schedule that outlines the various phases of work to be accomplished.

The SOW shall also identify government support required, if any, the vendor requests of the Government such as facilities, equipment, data, and information or materials. Vendors will also include its quality assurance plan and required/proposed Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs).

c. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) - Vendors shall submit a signed certification from an authorized representative confirming a comprehensive review of their organization, subcontractors, and partners for actual or potential OCI. This submission shall either disclose all identified conflicts along with a detailed Mitigation Plan to avoid, manage, or neutralize them, or include an explicit statement affirming that no such conflicts exist.

5.3.2.2 Volume 2 – Price

The Vendor shall submit a price proposal and provide any data or supporting information necessary for the determination of a fair and reasonable price. This can include, but is not limited to, commercial price list or other proprietary information to help the Government assess the reasonableness of the project price. Proposed prices may not exceed the ceilings listed in the vendor’s NTE Price Catalog submitted during Step 1 – White Papers. Additional information and instructions will be included in the RSP.

Identification of any costs absorbed by the vendor during the prototype phase that will become the Government’s responsibility in full production.

5.3.3 Proposal Evaluation

Criteria (Factors) for Selecting Proposals for Award:

5.3.3.1 Volume 1 – Technical Proposal

a. The extent to which the proposed solution enhances and/or accelerates innovative development contributes toward objectives and mission accomplishment.

b. Technical merit of the proposal with an emphasis on innovative solutions.

c. Technical maturity, feasibility, and achievability.

d. The adequacy of the proposal performance schedule.

5.3.3.2 Volume 2 – Price Proposal

a. Price is fair and reasonable.

Relative Importance: All Factors are of equal importance.

Method of Evaluation: Scientific, Technological, or other subject-matter expert peer review.

5.4 STEP 4 – AWARD

Upon favorable review and available funds, the Government may choose to make multiple awards to the vendors whose proposals are determined to:

· Meet the statutory requirements,

· Provide a Technical Proposal that is technically sufficient given the criteria in Volume 1 Technical Proposal.

· The proposed price is fair and reasonable.

· Before award, the Government will review and evaluate the vendor’s OCI submission. If the vendor submitted a Mitigation Plan, it must be approved by the Contract/Agreements Officer. Before withholding an award due to OCI(s) that cannot be adequately mitigated or avoided, the Contract/Agreements Officer may notify the vendor and allow the vendor a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The Government reserves the right to limit the number of awards. As such, a vendor’s solution may be evaluated to be of interest during Step 2 but may not receive an award.

The Government intends for the first order after award to be the Prototype order, and subsequent orders will be for the solution and FFP tasks as needed.

6. GENERAL INFORMATION

a. Awards depend upon the availability of funds and fulfillment of requirements and priorities determined to exist at the time of award. In some cases, funding priorities may change as emerging technologies arise. Award(s) may also be dependent upon demonstration by the vendor that they have adequately addressed the requirements. Only a warranted Contracting Officer and/or Agreements Officer may obligate the U.S. Government to the expenditure of funds for awards under this Announcement.

b. The U.S. Government does not fund preparation of proposals or support work efforts or tasks that are inferred from discussions with technical project officers. The vendor will not be reimbursed for any costs incurred prior to the effective date of the award, including costs associated with preparing, developing, submitting, and/or negotiations related to White Papers (WPs) and/or Prototype Proposals.

c. There are certain post-employment restrictions on former Federal officers and employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 207 and FAR 3.104-3(d). If a vendor believes a post-employment restriction or conflict of interest exists, the vendor shall notify the Contracting Officer.

d. The Government is prohibited from awarding actions to awardees that have engaged in or are suspected of having engaged in criminal, fraudulent, or seriously improper conduct.

e. The vendor shall be determined to be responsible by the Government and must not be suspended or debarred from award by the Federal Government nor be prohibited by Presidential Executive Order and/or law from receiving an award.

f. To receive an award, vendors must register in the System for Award Management (SAM) and have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI). Vendors are advised to commence SAM registration upon receipt of a Request for Solution Proposal (RSP) and must maintain registration in SAM throughout the CSO process. Vendors are required to maintain registration in SAM throughout the period of performance any resultant award. Comment by Fisher, Christopher M CIV USARMY ACC (USA): CF- This may OBE as currently written, since you are requesting WPs and solution proposals at same time.

g. Vendors must also register in the prescribed Government invoicing system. Wide Area Work Flow: https://wawf.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/registration/notice.xhtml

h. All WPs and Proposals shall be submitted as Unclassified or Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). The Government team will handle this materiel as CUI category “Proprietary Business Information” (PBI). WPs and Proposals containing data that is not to be disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes shall include the following paragraph on the cover page:

“This [select one: White Paper or Proposal] includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non-Government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed -- in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an award is made to this Company 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 agreed upon by both parties in the resulting award. This restriction does not limit the Government's right to use the 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].”

Each restricted data sheet shall be marked as follows:

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

i. Identification of Intellectual Property (IP) and restrictions - Submissions shall identify (1) any patent involved in the effort and any royalty associated with the patent; and (2) any restrictions on the Government’s rights (e.g., data rights) in using/disclosing/reproducing/ modifying technical data, computer software, and non-technical data (e.g., business/ financial/administrative data and AI/Machine Learning training data) involved in the effort.

j. All rights, title, and interest in Government Customer Data will remain the property of the Government. The Contractor/Licensor has no intellectual property rights or other claims to Customer Data that is hosted, stored, or transferred to and from the Products or the cloud services platform provided by the Contractor/Licensor, or to Customer’s Confidential Information and personally identifiable information.

k. Non-Government Advisors - Vendors are advised that data included in solution-briefs, and technical/cost proposals submitted to the Government in response to this Call may be released to Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors and support contractors for review and analysis. These contracting companies include: QED Systems, LLC, Decision Engineering Corporation (DecENG), and ManTech. Any such personnel shall serve in an advisory capacity only to the Government evaluators and will provide the CPE ISW with independent review and analysis on the next iteration of AIDP technical matters and on accomplishment of objectives, tasks, and deliverables as proposed or required. All government and non-government participants in the review process are required to execute government nondisclosure agreements (NDA) and personal/organizational statements of financial interest, as appropriate. By submission, vendors agree that their material may be reviewed by support contractors.

See AOS Section I – Non-Government Advisors for additional information.

l. Notice: The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools may be used during evaluations. Any AI tools utilized by the Government will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-Government systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

m. Government Furnished Information/Property:

For purposes of the demonstration evaluation phase, the Government may provide designated Government furnished datasets to all eligible participants in advance of the product demonstrations. These datasets are intended solely for use in preparing and executing the demonstration and shall be handled in accordance with all applicable data protection and handling requirements. Participants are responsible for ensuring their solutions are compatible with the provided data and for safeguarding all Government-furnished information throughout the evaluation period.

Technical data, computer software, or non-technical data (including but not limited to business data, administrative data, management data, financial data and AI/Machine Learning training data) provided to the Contractor/Vendor as GFI under this prototype shall be subject to restrictions on use, modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or further disclosure. All GFI will be accessed and used for the purpose stated in the prototype only and shall not be used to compete for any Government or non-Government contract/OTA, or commercial purposes. The Contractor/Vendor shall take all reasonable steps to protect the GFI against any unauthorized release or disclosure. The Contractor/Vendor may be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

For the purpose of the demonstration evaluation phase, the Offeror shall provide an edge device to host their proposed edge (on-prem) solution.

n. Vendor Accountability:

During performance, each prime vendor will be held accountable for the successful performance as defined in the individual Contract/OTA. The Government anticipates the need for collaborative communication between itself, the AIDP-Next awardees, external contracts and or Agreement holders related to AIDP or its ecosystem, and sub-vendors despite not having direct privity of contract/agreement to ensure Government requirements are being met. Associate Vendor Agreements (AVA) or other similar agreements may be required to foster the collaborative participation necessary for the success in meeting the Government’s requirements. The intent of the AVAs is to share information, data, and/or technical expertise between public and private stakeholders to ensure cooperation and success to the greatest degree to meet the terms of an order. Vendors will not be relieved of any agreement terms and/or conditions as a result of a disagreement under an AVA, nor is the Government liable for improper disclosure of any proprietary information as a result of an AVA or similar agreements. The Government reserves the right to specify subcontracts, service providers and/or license agreements in awards.

The Government encourages competent vendors (and any sub-vendors) to be on multiple teams to achieve the best solutions.

o. If the Army selects an Enterprise Contract (EC) holder as prime or sub-awardee to fulfill this requirement, the Army will make award through an order against the EC. Offerors shall indicate whether they or any of their sub-offerors hold an EC, and shall propose line-Item structures that support the use of the existing EC. If a portion of the requirement is fulfilled by a sub-offeror under an EC, the Army will provide that which is ordered under the EC to the prime awardee as Government Furnished Property / Information. Pricing for portions fulfilled under an EC shall be broken out of the overall pricing and shall be in accordance with the established EC pricing.

p. The Government reserves the right to award to all, some, or none of the companies who submit proposals.

image1.jpeg