AppFac Program Solicitation DRAFT.pdf

SDA-PS-23-01 DRAFT

National Defense Space Architecture

BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator Program Solicitation 8 November 2022

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

1 Introduction

The Space Development Agency (SDA) is issuing this Other Transaction Authority (OT) solicitation for a prototyping effort to establish the Battle Management Command, Control, and Communications (BMC3) software development and hosting environment for the National Defense Space Architecture (NDSA). This acquisition establishes software development capabilities to securely and rapidly field mission applications developed by BMC3 ecosystem participants in support of Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) objectives. This solicitation is for development and implementation of the BMC3 Application Factory;

development and sustainment of the Secure Interoperable-middleware layer (SIL); integration, testing, and operational support for BMC3 applications; and serving as BMC3 ecosystem lead.

1.1 Motivation

SDA is releasing the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator solicitation to provide the NDSA space edge processing capability in support of JADC2 objectives.

1.2 Program Approach

This solicitation seeks OT proposals under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 4022 for an industry partner to develop, implement, and sustain BMC3 software development, integration, testing and deployment capabilities as part of the NDSA. The Government is purchasing a: DevSecOps continuous integration/continuous delivery pipeline tailored for the BMC3 ecosystem; SIL development, integration, testing, and sustainment; and BMC3 ecosystem management. The Government reserves the right to purchase supporting products and services under this OT in the future, in response to changing mission needs.

Note that for SDA to make an OT award to the Offeror, at least one of the following conditions must be met:

(A) There is at least one nontraditional defense contractor or nonprofit research institution participating to a significant extent in the prototype project.

(B) All significant participants in the transaction other than the Federal Government are small businesses (including small businesses participating in a program described under Section 9 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 638)) or nontraditional defense contractors.

(C) At least one-third of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by sources other than the Federal Government.

For more information on Other Transactions please see:

https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/contracting-cone/ot/

1.3 Program Plan and Schedule

The BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator program schedule is driven to ensure that the SIL is ready for operational testing and deployment during the T1 Transport Layer (T1TL) CRAWL phase. The Application Factory and SIL tasks are delineated to ensure BMC3 mission applications https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1875391109-791309680&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-2032561260-548934770&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-308593337-791309681&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-308593337-791309681&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-308593337-791309681&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/small_business_act https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/638 https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1875391109-791309680&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-2032561260-548934770&term_occur=999&term_src=title:10:subtitle:A:part:IV:chapter:139:section:2371b https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/contracting-cone/ot/ may be developed to support this operational timeline, as such, the Offeror is expected to plan their program in accordance with the program event dates depicted below, and deliverables specified in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document of this solicitation.

Figure 1 – BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator Milestone Chart

1.4 BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator Overview

SDA endeavors to strengthen deterrence and warfighting capabilities in space by delivering a robust, responsive, and resilient NDSA. The BMC3 module is a space edge processing capability located on the NDSA’s Transport layer and is designed to conduct mission processing on-orbit.

The BMC3 Application Factory is a DevSecOps continuous integration/continuous development pipeline that provides governance and infrastructure to enable BMC3 software applications to develop, integrate, test, and deploy into the NDSA. A key enabler to the Application Factory is the SIL. The SIL will provide BMC3 application developers a secure middleware capability, enabling the applications to integrate and run on the BMC3 hardware. Finally, the Offeror will perform integration functions as the BMC3 Ecosystem Lead, with the responsibility for leading and coordinating development activities within the BMC3 ecosystem.

The system description and requirements can be found in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work (SOW) and Technical Requirements Document of this solicitation. The Offeror shall propose a solution that meets the requirements as laid out in that attachment.

2 Selection Process

Within this solicitation, the following definitions are used:

• Prime: The Offeror

• Major Subsystems: N/A

• Major Teammate: A member of the Prime's development team with a different CAGE code from the prime Offeror, that either accounts for no less than ten (10) percent of the proposed cost and/or develops one or more of the following capabilities:

o Application Factory Operation o Secure Interoperable middleware Layer (SIL) o Application Factory o BMC3 Ecosystem Lead

• O&I: The Operations and Integration contractor responsible to SDA for providing the ground support for the National Defense Space Architecture

• SVV: A Space Vehicle Vendor responsible to SDA for providing space vehicles for the National Defense Space Architecture

2.1 Proposal Preparation Instructions

The Offeror shall submit their BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator proposal via seven (7) volumes. Specific volume contents and associated page limits are detailed below.

• Volume I – Executive Summary shall contain an overview of the governance and program management approaches, the technical solution with an emphasis on achieving schedule, and the Offeror’s past performance.

• Volume II – Governance shall contain a detailed description of the Offeror’s proposed program management, systems engineering and engineering approaches, processes, and tools for executing the program on schedule and within the price proposed. This volume shall also contain résumés for key personnel that will perform the BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator program and a complete listing of data rights asserted by the Offeror and all of its subcontractors.

• Volume III – Technical shall contain a detailed description of the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to accomplish the requirements defined in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document

• Volume IV – Schedule shall contain a full Integrated Master Schedule. This volume shall also provide: an analysis of schedule risks; identification of key milestones; entrance criteria, key accomplishments and exit criteria for significant reviews and activities; and a clear presentation and analysis of the critical path from contract award through SV delivery. Offeror shall propose contingency plans to reduce scope to mitigate negative schedule variance. Any dependencies anticipated by the Offeror based on the T1TL program shall be clearly identified and risk mitigation activities – if required – clearly explained.

• Volume V – Price and Rationale shall contain the Offeror’s Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and associated detail. Any cost savings anticipated based on prior work shall be identified.

• Volume VI – Experience and Past Performance should contain at least one (1) and may contain up to four (4) recent (within the last three (3) years), relevant examples of on-time, on-cost/price delivery of complex systems, subsystems, or components, preferably space-related software development, integration, and deployment. Offerors shall also include at least one (1) and up to two (2) past performance examples for each major teammate.

• Volume VII – Draft Other Transaction (OT) Agreement

The font in normal text for all volumes shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 12 pt., while text in figures and tables shall be no smaller than Times New Roman 10 pt. Line spacing shall not be less than 1.5. A table shall consist of at least two columns in every row. Tables that are deemed attempts to circumvent these text formatting restrictions will be removed from the proposal and not evaluated. All margins (top, bottom, left, and right) shall be no smaller than one

(1) inch. Single-line spacing shall be used for all text in paragraphs, bulleted lists, and tables. All pdf pages, in all volumes, formatted larger than 8.5 inches X 11 inches will be counted as two (2) pages. Line numbers shall be applied to all text sections in all volumes and shall be set within the left margin of the page so as not to reduce the usable size of the page. Title pages and tables of contents, tables of figures, and tables of tables will not count against the page counts of the respective volumes and will not be evaluated for content. Note: Nonconforming proposals may be rejected without review.

Offerors may submit a single proposal. The proposal shall not include UNSOLICITED “options” for multiple solutions and/or additional work not specifically requested elsewhere in this solicitation. Any such options proposed will not be evaluated and the proposal may be deemed nonconforming. The Government expects to make a single award but reserves the right to make no awards, a partial award, or multiple awards.

2.1.1 Volume I – Executive Summary

Volume I shall not exceed two (2) pages of content exclusive of title pages and tables of contents, figures, and/or tables. Any pages in excess of the first two (2) pages of content, other than those noted below as specifically excluded from the overall page limit, will be removed from the Offeror’s proposal and not evaluated.

2.1.1.1 Executive Summary

The Executive Summary shall contain an overview of the governance and program management approaches, the technical solution, and the Offeror’s past performance. The Offeror shall identify their program team, including contributions of each major teammate, and shall provide a summary of the past performance of themselves and each major teammate. The Offeror shall include an organization chart depicting their key personnel and major teammates. The Offeror shall include a schedule of key program milestones. The Offeror shall include an overview of their system architecture including an Operational Viewpoint (OV)-1 level diagram of the architecture.

2.1.2 Volume II – Governance

Volume II shall not exceed ten (10) pages of content exclusive of title pages and tables of contents, figures, and/or tables. Any pages in excess of the first ten (10) pages of content, other than those noted below as specifically excluded from the overall page limit, will be removed from the Offeror’s proposal and not evaluated.

2.1.2.1 Program Management

The Offeror shall detail the people, processes and tools planned to manage and conduct the program to a successful completion on time and within the agreed upon price. The Offeror shall discuss their program, personnel, cost, and risk management approaches, including any processes and tools. The Offeror shall include a list of the primary risks on the project, the planned mitigations, and the approach for managing risks throughout the system life cycle. Schedule management shall be discussed in Volume III; however, the Offeror is free to cross-reference Volumes I and III if doing so will be of benefit in explaining the value and quality of their approach. The Offeror should describe its processes to staff the program with qualified personnel, identify and manage critical vendors and subcontractors, and control costs within an FFP environment. The Offeror shall document planned communications with the Government, detailing the purpose, entrance criteria, key accomplishments anticipated, exit criteria, and documentation methodologies for each meeting, review, or key management milestone within the program.

The Offeror shall plan the program using the program reviews identified in Section 2 of Attachment 1 - Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document and in accordance with other dates specified throughout Attachment 1. If the Offeror believes that an alternate review structure (e.g., combining certain reviews) is more appropriate and meets the needs of the Government for insight into the design and understanding of challenges and risks at appropriate stages of the development, the Offeror is free to propose it and the rationale behind their belief.

For each review combined, omitted, or added, the Offeror shall clearly delineate during what remaining review(s) the information traditionally provided shall be discussed. Attachment 2 – Application Factory FP Milestone Table provides the government’s milestone payment events. If the Offeror omits these events, then they shall clearly identify an equivalent event that will be used in lieu of the mandatory review for milestone payments as specified.

The Offeror shall clearly and explicitly state the need for, justification for, and mission impact of any anticipated waivers to requirements, Government standards, and compliance documents identified in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document.

2.1.2.2 First 100 Days

The Offeror’s proposal shall specifically identify key activities they intend to perform in the first 100 days to ensure the greatest possible chance of program success. The Offeror shall describe the importance of their selected activities, their approach for execution, and the direct impacts those activities will have in successful initiation and execution of their program scope of work.

These activities shall be included in their program plan and shall include the following:

• Addressing technical and schedule risks with proactive burn down plans

• Staffing, by name and by labor category, against critical work packages

• Subcontracting actions to be executed with whom, by when, and priority rationale

• Identification of long lead procurement items and their supply chain procurement schedules

• Travel, including personnel, destination, and purpose

• Program tailored security processes

• Integrated architecture and operational concepts definition

• Establishment of interface working groups and applicable teaming arrangements

• Any other specific activities the Offeror deems necessary upon initiation to assure program success

This section should be at least two (2) pages of the total page limit, and additional details for this topic must be linked in the IMS.

2.1.2.3 Product Development Roadmap

The Offeror shall propose an Agile product development roadmap which correlates how the stated objectives in Attachment 1 align with the timeframe for implementation and the Offeror’s proposed Agile methodology. The product development roadmap shall demonstrate where testing, training, security, privacy, and cut over planning, will be included. The roadmap shall include strawman Sprint 0 planning artifacts.

2.1.2.4 Subcontractor Management

The Offeror shall describe its management approach for managing and maintaining a team of subcontractors in support of this requirement, to include:

• Capability to manage the team,

• Ability to monitor and maximize quality,

• Approach to guarantee responsiveness and cooperation to customers,

• Approach to problem resolution, and

• Capability to retain key personnel.

The Offeror shall describe, to the extent applicable, foreign participation as subcontractors, hardware/software/firmware supplies, foreign person participation, etc.

2.1.2.4.1 Subcontractor Workload

Where applicable, the Offeror shall present a strategy for managing delivery performance of major subcontractors who will be supporting multiple SDA contracts concurrently in addition to BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator.

2.1.2.4.2 Nontraditional Defense Contractors (NDC) / Nonprofit Research Institution If applicable, the Offeror shall identify which of their subcontractors constitutes an NDC or a nonprofit research institution in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 3014. The Offeror shall identify the extent of participation of NDC(s) and/or nonprofit research institution(s) to the Offeror’s BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program.

2.1.2.5 Systems Engineering

The Offeror shall detail the Systems Engineering processes and methods that will be used to execute the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program. The Offeror shall clearly identify their approach to systems engineering and detail the use of any processes and tools that will be used on the program. The Government expects that the Offeror will utilize Systems Engineering best practices.

2.1.2.6 Mission Assurance

The Offeror shall describe the mission assurance approach and Offeror’s quality systems. The Offeror should include a discussion of relevant standards and certifications. In particular, the Government is interested in how the Offeror plans to tailor – if applicable – existing mission assurance processes and tools to meet the requirements of the BMC3 requirements listed in Attachment 1.

2.1.2.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest

The Offeror shall clearly identify any real or perceived organizational conflicts of interest (OCI) for themselves or any of their teammates that would arise from their participation in the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program. If the Offeror believes that they and their teammates have no organizational conflicts of interest, then they should explicitly state this position.

If the Offeror believes that an OCI exists or may exist upon award, then the Offeror shall include an OCI mitigation plan as an appendix to this volume. The OCI mitigation plan will not be included in the Volume II-page limit.

2.1.2.8 Personnel Résumés

Personnel résumés shall not exceed one (1) page each. The personnel résumés shall be included as attachments to this volume and will not be included in the Volume I page limit.

The Offeror shall identify the key personnel planned to be assigned to this program from the Offeror and major teammates as appropriate. Résumés should be in bullet format and include:

• Summary statement highlighting experience and expertise

• Current role with the Offeror or teammate to include current assignments and programs

• Planned role within the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program

• Evidence of applicable mission experience or understanding

• Education (academic and military, if applicable)

• Military, Government, or Commercial space-related experience (if any)

• Anticipated percentage of time to be assigned to this program

• Active clearance or eligibility for up to Top Secret

• Signed statement agreeing to support the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program if awarded Proposed staff members not currently employed by the Offeror may be included as appropriate. In those cases, the Offeror shall include signed contingent offer letters. These letters should be signed by both the Offeror and the proposed staff member and should state the willingness of the proposed staff member to join the Offeror in support of the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator program if awarded.

Key personnel shall include:

From Offeror:

• Program Manager

• BMC3 Ecosystem Lead

• Chief Engineer

• Chief Software Engineer

• Information System Security Manager (ISSM)

• Field Service Engineer (2)

• If Offeror is developing any of the major capabilities, the capability lead(s)

From each major teammate:

• Program Manager

• Chief Engineer

• If Major Teammate is developing any of the major capabilities, the capability lead(s)

2.1.2.9 Personnel Matrix

The personnel matrix shall be submitted as an attachment to this volume and will not be included in the Volume I page limit.

The Offeror shall compare and contrast their submitted personnel résumés against the BMC3 Application Factory and Integrator requirements to validate corporate and individual experience and expertise thereby giving the Government confidence in the Offeror’s probability of success.

Format for this comparison is entirely up to the Offeror but this section of the proposal should stand alone for evaluation.

2.1.2.10 Technical Data and Computer Software Rights Assertions The Offeror shall clearly delineate all limitations on data, hardware, and computer software rights for technical data, hardware, or computer software provided by the Offeror and all its teammates, using the format shown in Table 1. It is the Government’s assumption that no hardware, technical data, or computer software will be provided with less than Government Purpose Rights and that the vast majority of information generated will be provided with Unlimited Rights to the Government. The Offeror shall clearly identify those elements to be provided with less than Unlimited Rights and identify the rationale for their assertion(s) using the format shown in Table

2. Any item related to the performance of this effort and not contained in Table 2, shall be delivered upon request to the Government, with no less than Government Purpose Rights. The terms “Unlimited Rights”, “Government Purpose Rights”, “Limited Rights”, and “Restricted Rights” are defined in Volume VII Draft Other Transaction (OT) Agreement.

The Government intends to sustain and improve the Application Factory and the Secure Interoperable-middleware Layer software and technical data over multiple NDSA Tranches. The Government intends to competitively award future sustainment of BMC3 capabilities after the period of performance in this agreement has been completed. The Offeror shall describe how their proposed rights in data and non-commercial software will support the Government’s objectives and long-term goals.

Table 1 - Technical and Data Rights Assertion Template

Hardware/Technical Data/Computer Software to be Furnished with Restrictions

Summary of Intended Use in the Conduct of the Effort

Basis for Assertion

Asserted Rights Category

Name of Person/Company Asserting Restrictions

(LIST) (NARRATIVE) (LIST) (LIST) (LIST)

Table 2 shall be included as an attachment to Volume I and will not be included in the page count.

2.1.3 Volume III - Technical

Volume III shall not exceed thirty (30) pages of content exclusive of title pages and tables of contents, figures, and/or tables. Any pages in excess of the first thirty (30) pages of content, other than those noted below as specifically excluded from the overall page limit, will be removed from the Offeror’s proposal, and not evaluated. The Government anticipates that Volume III will be classified no higher than CUI.

2.1.3.1 Application Factory Solution Architecture

The Offeror shall present the solution architecture of the Application Factory, in compliance with the requirements as presented in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The Offeror shall identify required interfaces and interface mechanisms, both internal to SDA and to external customers, and internal and external services. The Offeror shall provide a description of the cybersecurity services solutions.

2.1.3.2 Application Factory

The Offeror shall describe the personnel, techniques, procedures, and heritage (substantiated by past performance) that will be used for meeting the Application Factory requirements. The Offeror shall include up to two (2) page detailed architecture diagram for the entire Application Factory and up to three (3) page day-in-the-life (DITL) narrative of development, integration, testing, deployment, and sustainment of BMC3 mission applications. The diagram shall clearly delineate the major system components and their functions. The diagram should indicate and specify all interfaces between the system components and/or personnel. The diagram should indicate key system requirements, how they are allocated to system components and how they correspond to DevSecOps activities. The diagram should indicate which of these system components are assumed as Government-Furnished Equipment, open-source software, Commercial-Off-The-Shelf products acquired by the Offeror, Offeror in-house tools or products adapted for use in the Application Factory, or new development items. For any of the non-GFE, the diagram should indicate the level of data rights asserted. For any Offeror in-house tools or new development items, the Offeror should indicate if it is provided or developed by the Offeror or by a teammate and, if so, which teammate. The accompanying narrative shall describe an operational DITL after the Application Factory Minimum Viable Capability Release (MVCR) milestone, from the acceptance of a BMC3 Mission Application requirement to the sustainment of that application. The narrative shall describe all tasks or activities required to successfully execute:

• Application Factory Development

• Application Factory DevSecOps

• Application Factory Operations

• Application Factory Deployment Operations

• Application Factory Security Requirements

2.1.3.3 Application Factory Deployment Operations

The Offeror should describe their complete hardware, software test and integration approaches, methodologies, platform performance requirements, verification coverage, documentation, and staffing. The Offeror shall present their approach/method for implementing DevSecOps, providing an environment to allow for continuous development, integration, testing, and deployment of capabilities. The Offeror should discuss their methods, software suite, and tools for integrating / interfacing with O&I for access to the BMC3 Sandbox, Hardware In The Loop/Software In The Loop (HITL/SITL) and to deploy applications to the O&I repository. The Offeror shall provide a test and integration design including Computer Software Configuration Item (CSCI) allocation, interface definitions and interconnections, maturity of existing solutions and new/reuse percentages of the chosen software solutions. The Offeror should define the verification and interoperability tests and tools that they plan to perform and use and the benefit that those tests and tools will bring to SDA. Of particular interest to SDA is the Offeror’s approach to conducting tests and demonstrations in concert with the SVVs prior to launch and during early orbit operations and checkout. Throughout the discussion of their test activities, Offerors should clearly identify manual, automated, live, virtual, and constructive tests and demonstrations, if applicable, and any elements expected to be provided by the Government to facilitate completion of their verification program.

2.1.3.4 Contractor-unique vs. OSA-based vs. Other DoD affiliated Factory Trade Analysis The Offeror shall provide the Government with their trade-analyses for a contractor-unique vs.

OSA-based vs. Other DoD affiliated application factory, listing key advantages and disadvantages for their proposed system configuration including cost, schedule, and technical factors. This analysis should describe the considerations and conclusions for the proposed design and meeting the stated requirements. While the Government is not dictating an existing factory-based vs.

contractor-grown approach, it is requiring this trade-analysis in order to gain the necessary insight into the Offeror’s approach and rationale for their proposed design. Further, the Offeror should be aware that SDA expects the Factory to begin operations (software development activities) NLT 100-day post award. The Offeror shall provide an assessment of the technical, schedule and acquisition, operations and maintenance cost impacts associated with the design over the PoP. This analysis is limited to three (3) pages, shall be included as an attachment to this volume, and will not be counted in the Volume III page limit. Any pages beyond the 3-page attachment limit will be removed from the volume and will not be evaluated.

2.1.3.5 SIL Solution Architecture

The Offeror shall present the solution architecture of the SIL, in compliance with the requirements as presented in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The Offeror shall identify required interfaces and interface mechanisms, both internal to SDA and to external customers, and internal and external services. The Offeror shall provide a description of the cybersecurity services solutions. The Offeror should identify how the SIL architectural solution enhances the proposed Application Factory solution.

2.1.3.6 SIL

The Offeror shall describe the personnel, techniques, procedures, and heritage (substantiated by past performance) that will be used for meeting the SIL requirements. The Offeror should clearly identify how the proposed SIL implementation ensures BMC3 performance while enabling BMC3 mission application developers to leverage BMC3-accessible capabilities. The Offeror shall describe their use of Commercial off-the shelf (COTS) software, tools, and licensing.

2.1.3.7 Commercial Data Sheets

The Offeror may submit commercial data sheets as a list of hyperlinks to publicly available downloadable .pdf data sheets on the Offeror’s website, their subcontractor’s websites, or the originating commercial website. Each downloadable .pdf file shall be no more than two (2) pages.

Any broken links or pages beyond the two (2) page limit will be discarded.

2.1.4 Volume IV – Schedule and Schedule Agility

Volume IV shall not exceed ten (10) pages of content exclusive of title pages and tables of contents, figures, and/or tables. Any pages in excess of the first ten (10) pages of content, other than those noted below as specifically excluded from the overall page limit, will be removed from the Offeror’s proposal and not evaluated.

2.1.4.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The Offeror shall present a milestone-driven IMS designed to meet the Government’s notional milestones provided in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document.

The Offeror shall identify major reviews and program milestones separated between baseline and options, including milestones, significant reviews, and integration and test activities. At least two of the pages should be a separable, standalone detailed Gantt chart (or similar illustration) clearly presenting the Offeror’s milestone-driven integrated master schedule. This chart should include external dependencies, integration specific tasks, assumed Government or subcontractor hardware, software, or information deliveries and/or approvals, interoperability tests, demonstrations, reviews, milestones, and/or any other key activities in the Offeror’s proposed program.

The Offeror shall clearly delineate the primary and secondary critical path within their schedule, from contract award through operations and sustainment, and any additional critical paths deemed appropriate to justify their ability to deliver the proposed Application Factory, SIL, and Integration capabilities on time and on cost. The Offeror should discuss the critical path analysis used to determine the primary and secondary critical paths. The Offeror should discuss their approach to managing progress against the baseline schedule.

The Offeror shall also identify the top schedule risks in executing the BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator program and outline their mitigation approaches to ensure on time delivery. The Offeror shall include their plans to minimize the risk associated with working with multiple contractors to ensure the BMC3 Application Factory and SIL are ready at their respective MVCRs). The Offeror shall include a schedule risk assessment and margin evaluation.

The Offeror shall deliver their complete IMS in Microsoft Project native format as well as .pdf format in conjunction with this volume. The complete IMS shall include schedule details down to at least Level 3 of the contract work breakdown structure (CWBS). The delivered IMS files (Microsoft Project and .pdf format) will not count against the Volume III page limit, however, the Gantt chart is included in the page limit.

2.1.5 Volume V - Price and Rationale

Volume V has no page limit. This volume consists of relevant information describing the Offeror’s proposed cost/price for meeting solicitation requirements.

2.1.5.1 Executive Summary and Pricing Rationale

The Offeror shall detail their pricing assumptions and rationale that guided their FFP submission.

The Government needs to understand the Offeror’s assumptions in building their final price such that any discussions deemed of value can be conducted. The Offeror should discuss any constraints on the Government such as time to review and/or approve contractual documentation, constraints on mission partners such as time to receive needed data or information, etc. Where appropriate, the Offeror should discuss their use of learning in driving down subsequent BMC3 mission application integration costs and where such learning has led to cost savings on previous programs.

2.1.5.2 Price Proposal Structure

The Offeror’s price proposal shall comply with the guidance in the following sections. The Offeror may assume an Authorization to Proceed (ATP) of 1 April 2023 and twenty-four (24) month base period of performance. The Government’s Not-to-Exceed Price is $25,000,000 for the base period of performance (milestones 1-16 in Table 4 below).

The Offeror's proposal shall contain sufficient factual information to establish the realism, reasonableness, and completeness of the proposed cost, see section 2.3. The Offeror shall detail their assumptions, basis of estimates, and rationale supporting their proposed cost and pricing.

This information will be used to evaluate the risks associated with the proposed technical solution, schedule, and price.

2.1.5.2.1 Milestone Payments

The Government intends to fund this FFP effort via event-based Milestone Payments. The Offeror shall propose a Milestone Payment Plan compliant with the milestones in Attachment 1. The government has provided Attachment 2 as a draft plan for the Offeror’s reference.

The Offeror shall propose a milestone payment structure partitioned by clearly identified program events with supporting rationale for their selection. For each milestone payment, the Offeror shall specify the payment amount, terms, conditions, Government acceptance criteria, and percentage of the total. The Offeror’s payment plan shall adhere to mandatory milestones from Figure 1, but may otherwise add, delete, or modify in areas where not specified.

Table 2 – Base Payment Schedule

Government Fiscal Year

Cumulative % of Total Price

FY23 23%

FY24 72%

FY25 100%

Milestone Payments (Options) The Offeror shall propose a milestone payment structure for Sustainment Options as listed in Attachment 2. Additionally, the Offeror shall propose a payment structure for the integration, testing, deployment, and support of additional BMC3 mission applications.

Proposal Pricing Details

The Offeror shall provide the total price and elements of price broken down by WBS, milestone payment schedule, and by Government Fiscal Year. For the purposes of pricing, the Offeror shall assume that the SDA OCs are located at Grand Forks, North Dakota and Huntsville, Alabama.

1. Price by WBS task and Government Fiscal Year (GFY) using the template in Table 3. The price shall be provided for items down to Level 3 of the WBS for each GFY.

Table 3 - Template for Pricing of Tasks by WBS and Government Fiscal Year

W B

S

W B

S El em en t

G

FY

G

To ta l

2. A summary of projected funding requirements by quarter for GFY to enable fiscal and milestone payment planning

3. Price and percentage of price by the prime and major teammates.

4. Identification of pricing assumptions that may be incorporated into the resulting award instrument (e.g., use of Government Furnished Property/Facilities/Information, access to Government Subject Matter Experts, etc.) for all members of the team.

2.1.5.2.2 Pricing Data by Payable Milestone

The Offeror shall provide a summary of pricing by payable milestone in accordance with the template in Table 4 below. The value specified as the Total Price in the last of Table 4 shall represent the total price of the proposal and will be evaluated by the Government for price reasonableness during source selection.

Table 4 – Payable Milestone Pricing Table Milestone Item Price

1 Program Kickoff & Long-Lead items

2 System Requirements Review

3 AppFac Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

4 SIL Minimum Viable Product (MVP)

5 BMC3 Ecosystem Integration Ready

6 AppFac_SIL IDRs 1-3

7 AppFac Minimum Viable Capability Release (MVCR)

8 SIL Minimum Viable Capability Release (MVCR)

9 AppFac_Sustainment (Q1)

10 AppFac_Sustainment (Q2)

11 SIL Capability Upgrade 1

12 AppFac_Sustainment (Q3)

Milestone Item Price

13 AppFac_SIL IDRs 4-7

14 AppFac_Sustainment (Q4)

15 SIL Capability Upgrade 2

16 BMC3 Mission Application Integration-Threshold Applications

17 AppFac_SIL Year 3 Q1 (Option)

18 AppFac_SIL Year 3 Q2 (Option)

19 AppFac_SIL Year 3 Q3 (Option)

20 AppFac_SIL Year 3 Q4 (Option)

21 AppFac_SIL Year 4 Q1 (Option)

22 AppFac_SIL Year 4 Q2 (Option)

23 AppFac_SIL Year 4 Q3 (Option)

24 AppFac_SIL Year 4 Q4 (Option)

25 AppFac_SIL Year 5 Q1 (Option)

26 AppFac_SIL Year 5 Q2 (Option)

27 AppFac_SIL Year 5 Q3 (Option)

28 AppFac_SIL Year 5 Q4 (Option)

29 BMC3 Mission Application Integration-Objective Application (Option) Total Price Total Price: Sum of CLINs 1-29

2.1.5.2.3 Government Furnished Equipment, Information, and Property The Offeror shall compile a consolidated list of ALL Government Furnished Equipment, Information, or Property being requested by themselves and ALL team members for ease of Government evaluation. This list shall clearly delineate the item, need by date and the risk associated with non or late delivery on overall program schedule, cost, or technical performance.

The Offeror may use the list provided by the Government in Attachment 3 – Government Furnished Information (GFI) – Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) List as the starting point for their proposed list of GFx.

2.1.5.3 Major Teammate Proposals

The Offeror is responsible for compiling and providing all major teammate proposals for the primary agreements officer (PAO), where a major teammate is defined in the introduction to this volume. Teammate proposals should include all Intercompany Work Transfer Agreements (IWTAs) or similar arrangements. All proprietary teammate proposal documentation shall be prepared at the same level of detail as that required of the prime. Any such documentation that cannot be provided with the proposed prime contractor’s proposal, shall be provided to the

Government either by the prime contractor or by the teammate organization via DoD SAFE, following the instructions in Section 3.2.1.

Teammate proposals will only be used to determine the price reasonableness of the Offeror's proposal. No information included in any teammate proposal will be evaluated for the purpose of satisfying the requirements as stated in Attachment 1 - Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document or meeting the instructions associated with Volumes I, II, III, and V of this solicitation.

2.1.6 Volume VI - Experience and Past Performance

The page limits for Volume VI depends on the number of past performance citations as stated below. Any pages in excess of this limit, other than those noted below as specifically excluded from the overall page limit, will be removed from the Offeror’s proposal and not evaluated.

2.1.6.1 Executive Summary

The Offeror should introduce the current and past performance citations, clearly stating why they have chosen the efforts and how they best prove their ability to perform the proposed work scope.

Each citation should provide specific, measurable validation of the Offeror’s rationale and document successful current and past performance directly relevant to the current solicitation. The Government expects direct correlation between the current and past performance citations and the résumés submitted in Volume II - Governance. The executive summary shall not exceed two (2) pages.

2.1.6.2 Recent and Relevant Past Performance

The Offeror should submit at least (1) and may submit up to four (4) separate efforts by the prime and at least one (1) and up to two (2) separate efforts for each major teammate. These submissions should clearly demonstrate the ability of the Offeror and its teammates to satisfy the totality of the BMC3 Application Factory & Integrator requirements. All submissions shall have a period of performance within three (3) years from the proposal due date.

For each submitted citation, the Offeror should identify:

• Customer (Name, phone, email, affiliation)

• Scope to include number of SVs/payloads/systems/subsystems/components previously delivered or to be delivered

• Place of performance, period of performance, contract/agreement type

• Bid cost/price, currently invoiced cost/price, Final price/Estimate at Completion

• Specific rationale for effort selection and detailed justification of relevance

The Offeror is highly encouraged to use key graphics to convey important elements of their current and past performance. High level graphical descriptions of the operational concept (e.g., DoDAF’s OV-1) depicting numbers and locations of SVs, Gantt charts showing key program milestones planned and achieved, Earned Value charts (if applicable) showing estimates and status, etc. are all substantially more valuable to the Government for relevance evaluation purposes than detailed written explanations. These artifacts should be taken directly from the efforts cited and be suitable for use by the Government in conjunction with interviews which may be conducted with the customers named in each citation. Project citations shall not exceed four (4) pages each and should stand alone by project.

Current and Past Performance citations shall only include work that has been completed or is ongoing. If a citation indicates expected capability, such as a program that has yet to be launched, only the work completed to date will be evaluated.

2.1.6.2.1 Contractor Performance Assessment Reports

Offerors are hereby notified that SDA intends to survey Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) and to conduct interviews with customers identified in Volume V. Information obtained via either of these methods will be included in Offeror evaluations per the criteria in Section 2.3.

2.1.7 Volume VII – Draft Other Transaction (OT) Agreement

The Offeror shall provide a proposed Other Transaction (OT) agreement using the attached draft OT template included with this solicitation in MS Word format. Any proposed changes to the draft OT template by the Offeror shall be indicated with the Track Changes function and rationale provided for the proposed change. Volume VII has no page limit.

2.2 Proposal Submission Instructions

SDA requests that Offerors submit only electronic proposals. All Volumes along with any appendices and/or attachments shall be submitted only in .pdf format and must be submitted independently by file as SDA will not accept .zip files. Offerors shall submit their responses via DoD Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE): https://safe.apps.mil. Offerors shall submit one (1) original copy of each Volume and appendices and/or attachments NO LATER THAN 1200 EST TBD. Offerors shall submit their proposal(s) via DoD SAFE and all files should be included in a single DoD SAFE submission. Each file submitted must be clearly labeled with the SDA RFP number, prime contractor organization name, prime contractor proposal title (short title recommended), and Volume number and appendix or attachment number (as appropriate). The size limit for each SAFE file transmission is 8192 MB.

Offerors shall request a SAFE Drop-off Request, via an email to osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-ps-23-01@mail.mil NO LATER THAN 1200 EST TBD. The Offeror shall request a SAFE Drop-off Request regardless of whether or not they have access to DoD SAFE already. The subject line shall be: T1DES Submission SAFE Request (m of n) and the Offeror’s organization name, where m is the request number and n is the total number of requests that will be made by the Offeror. If the Offeror’s submission will exceed the DoD size limit, then they shall make the required number of requests to complete their submission. Within the body of the email, the Offeror shall clearly state the email address to which the Drop-off Request will be sent. The Offeror is free to request read receipts for each Drop-off request email sent. The Offeror will receive an email with their SAFE Drop-Off Request NLT 1200 EST TBD. Note that this email will not come from the email address listed above.

Within the DoD SAFE submission form, the Offeror shall check both the “Encrypt every file” check box and the “Send me an email when each recipient picks up the files” check box. The password shall be sent under separate email to the email address above with the subject line:

https://safe.apps.mil/ mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-ps-23-01@mail.mil mailto:osd.pentagon.ousd-r-e.mbx.sda-ps-23-01@mail.mil

T1DES PS Submission SAFE Request (m of n) Password and the Offeror’s organization name.

The “Short note to the Recipients” field shall clearly identify the Offeror’s organization name, the proposal name, and the number of the submission.

Proposals received after 1200 EST TBD, will be considered late and not evaluated. Offerors whose proposals which are considered late will be so informed by the Agreements Officer and their proposals will be deleted without any files being opened or read. Should a Classified Volume be required, the Offeror must contact SDA via the email address above for submission instructions.

2.2.1 Submission of Major Teammate Proposals

Major teammate proposal documentation that cannot be submitted directly by the Offeror shall be submitted by the teammate via DoD SAFE in accordance with the instructions in Section 3.2. In addition to the details specified in that section, the email request for a SAFE Drop-off request shall include the teammate organization name in the subject line of each email. Each file submitted must be clearly labeled with the SDA Solicitation number, prime contractor organization name, prime contractor proposal title (short title recommended), teammate organization name, and Volume number and appendix or attachment number (as appropriate). Teammates submitting separate documentation via DoD SAFE must send an email to the address in the Submission Instructions notifying SDA of this submission method NO LATER THAN 1200 EST TBD.

2.3 Proposal Evaluations

The Government will evaluate offers using a competitive best value trade-off process among price and the non-price Factors listed herein. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror. The Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms regarding price and technical capability.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation Factors described in the following sections. The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. Proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

While the Government strives for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.3.1 Evaluation Methodology

The following Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The basis for evaluation for all Factors will be the Offeror’s full proposal. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. When combined, Factors 1- 4 are approximately equal to Factor 5, Price. Factor 1 is more important than Factors 2 through 4, and Factors 2 through 4 are approximately equal in importance. Anticipated waivers submitted by the Offeror of requirements, Government standards, and compliance documents specified in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and

Technical Requirements Document and its classified appendix will be evaluated based on technical merits and mission utility.

The Government will evaluate information that the Offeror provides in response to Section 2.1 Proposal Preparation Instructions. Proposals must conform to this solicitation. Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this solicitation may be eliminated from the competition and become ineligible for award.

Offeror(s) are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror(s) being ineligible for award.