MAST_CALL_2_Final_PA_15286_June_2015_Amendment_1.pdf

Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Public Affairs Clearance Number 15286

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR THE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

ROCKET PROPULSION DIVISION

AEROSPACE SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

BAA-RQR-2014-0002

9 June 2015

Issuing Office: Air Force Test Center, Directorate of Contracting

Edwards AFB, CA

June 2015

NAICS CODE: 541712

FEDERAL AGENCY NAME: Air Force Research Laboratory, Aerospace Systems Directorate (AFRL/RQ-West)

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT TITLE: Motor Aging and Surveillance Technology (MAST) Development and Demonstration

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE: This is a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) with multiple calls

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) NUMBER: BAA-RQR-2014-0002, Call 2

BRIEF SUMMARY OF MAST BAA: This BAA describes the development of the Motor Aging and Surveillance Technology (MAST) Development and Demonstration that are of interest to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The Government anticipates making one initial call with additional calls in the future. The Government anticipates awarding independent Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for technical efforts with a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) final report for most efforts awarded under this BAA It is anticipated that the second call will occur in FY15, a third call should occur in FY16, and a fourth call may occur in FY17. Calls 1 and 2 are anticipated to utilize closed one-step process where Calls 3 and 4 are anticipated to utilize closed two-step process. The closed one-step and two-step processes will be described in section IV of the BAA.

ESTIMATED PROGRAM COST: Anticipated funding is provided in Table 2, Paragraph II-1.3. This funding profile is an estimate only and not a contractual obligation for funding. All funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability.

Potential offerors should be aware that, due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice.

BAA ORDERING PERIOD: 60 months after initial release

GENERAL INFORMATION: This acquisition is unrestricted. Small businesses are encouraged to propose on all or any part of this solicitation. The NAICS Code for this acquisition is 541712, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology), and the small business size standard is 500 employees (1000 employees for Space Vehicles and Guided Missiles, their propulsion units, propulsion unit parts, and auxiliary equipment and parts). This BAA Call is issued under the provisions of FAR 6.102(d)(2) that provides for the competitive selection of research proposals. Proposals submitted in response to this BAA Call that are selected for award are considered to be the results of full and open competition and in full compliance with the provisions of Public Law 98-369, the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. There will be no other announcement issued for this requirement.

Offerors should be alert for any BAA Call amendments that may permit extensions to the proposal submission date or make other changes to the announcement.

PROPOSALS DUE DATE AND TIME: Proposals are due no later than 4:00 p.m. PDT, 27 July 2015, delivered to 5 South Wolfe Street, Edwards, CA 93523. Proposals received after the due date and time shall be governed by the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c) (3). Specific information will be located in each call. It should be noted that this Edwards Air Force Base observes strict security procedures to enter the facility. These security procedures are NOT considered an interruption of normal Government processes, and proposals received after the above stated date and time because of security delays will be considered “late”. Furthermore, if offerors utilize commercial carriers to deliver proposals, they may not honor time-of-day delivery guarantees on military installations.

TYPE OF CONTRACTS/INSTRUMENTS: The Air Force reserves the right to award the instrument best suited to the nature of research proposed. Accordingly, the Government may award any appropriate contract type under the FAR or Other Transaction (OT) for Prototype, grant, cooperative agreement, or OT for Research. The Air Force may also consider award of an appropriate technology transfer mechanism if applicable. It is anticipated that awards under this BAA will generally be Cost Reimbursement contracts. Cost reimbursement contracts require successful offerors to have an accounting system considered adequate for tracking costs applicable to the contract.

Central Contractor Registration (CCR): Unless exempted by 2 CFR 25.110 all offerors must (1) Be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (SAM) prior to submitting an application (for an assistance award) or proposal; (2) Maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application or proposal under consideration by an agency; and (3) Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it submits to the agency. Completed Representations and Certifications are due with the proposal. Representations and Certifications can be found at https://www.sam.gov.

ON-LINE REPRESENATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (OCRA): Potential offerors are notified to be eligible for an award, they must submit annual Electronic Representations and Certifications, otherwise known as ORCA via the Business Partner Network (BPN) at http://www.bpn.gov/orca. These FAR and DFARS level representations and certifications are https://www.sam.gov/ required in addition to the representations and certifications specific to this acquisition. Before submitting the Electronic Representations and Certifications, contractors must be registered in the SAM Database.

ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF AWARDS: The Air Force anticipates awarding a minimum of two contract or assistance instruments. However, the Air Force reserves the right to make more than one award or no awards pursuant to this BAA Call.

TECHNICAL POINT OF CONTACT: The technical point of contact for this BAA Call is:

Name: Dr Erik Weber Address: AFRL/RQRM 4 Draco Drive, Bldg 8351 Edwards AFB, CA 93524 Telephone: 661-275-5004 Email: erik.weber@us.af.mil

CONTRACTING POINT OF CONTACT: The contracting point of contact for this BAA Call is:

Name: Ms. Kathrin Day Address: AFTC/PZRA 5 South Wolfe Avenue, Bldg 2800 Edwards AFB, CA 93524 Telephone: 661-277-1097 Fax: 661-277-0470 E-mail: kathrin.day@us.af.mil

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT CALL 2

I. CALL 2 DESCRIPTION

I-1. Aging and Surveillance (A&S) Technology Development:

I-2. Deliverable Items:

I-3. Schedule:

I-4. Other Information:

II. AWARD INFORMATION:

II-1. Anticipated Funding:

II-2. Type of Contracts/Instruments:

II-3. Discussions:

II-4. Anticipated Award Date:

III. PROPOSAL APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION:

III-1. Content and Form of Submission for Proposals:

IV. PROPOSAL CONTENT SUMMARY:

IV-1. Ineligibility:

IV-2. Submission Dates and Times:

IV-3. Incorrect Submittal:

IV-4. Funding Restrictions:

V. PROPOSAL REVIEW INFORMATION:

V-1. Evaluation Criteria:

V-2. Review and Selection Process:

VI. PROPOSAL CONTENT CHECKLIST:

MAST Call 2

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

CALL 2

I. CALL 2 DESCRIPTION

I-1. Aging and Surveillance (A&S) Technology Development:

I-1.1. Technology Development Objective: This effort focuses on demonstrating and validating RP21 A&S 2017 goal attainment in an approximately five (5) year program. This RP21 goal specifically applies to large-scale solid rocket motors (SRM) used for ballistic missile systems.

I-1.2. RP21 current Government baseline and goals for A&S are defined in a supplemental package for Call 2. See BAA III-5 about how to request the Call 2 supplemental package.

I-1.3. Problem Statement: The demonstration of the RP21 A&S goal would ideally be done through a program with a complete fleet of full scale motors used in strategic assets, aged and monitored individually in an operationally representative manner over their entire service life (40+ years). The government does not have the funds or time for a study of such scope. The challenge of this program is to demonstrate the RP21 A&S goal in a much shorter timescale (5 years), with cheaper, less numerous, but still representative motors with full interrogation in sample environments.

I-1.4. Technology and Methodology Description: AFRL is interested in A&S studies that systematically collect aging data on solid rocket motor (SRM) assets in support of the MAST Technology Development Objective (I-1.1). The program would focus on a statistically significant number of non-proprietary SRMs with motor features and propellants representative of those found in strategic motors in order to deliver the best value to the government. Aging in multiple environment types is highly desired; different storage conditions should be developed to support goal validation and expand understanding of the underlying predictive uncertainty. The program may include hardware development and/or computer modeling, but these items shall be done in direct support of data collection and methodology application in support of demonstration and validation of RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment; standalone development that does not focus on this validation through experimental data would not be considered appropriate for this call. Emphasis in this program should be placed in three main parts: 1) methodology definition and review by government-led IPT over the initial stage of the program, 2) data collection over extended time with continuous risk evaluation, and 3) continued analysis in support of demonstration and validation of RP21 A&S 2017 goal attainment and in support of application of this technology to operational system(s).

MAST Call 2

I-1.5. Technology Demonstration Requirements: Proposed programs shall meet all of the following requirements and the proposal shall contain a description of HOW each requirement will be accomplished. The Call 2 requirements are as follows:

I-1.5.1. Program shall define RP21 2017 contractor A&S technology baseline including individual technology and their uncertainties and how these uncertainties aggregate into the overall contractor A&S predictive uncertainty baseline.

I-1.5.2. Program shall define RP21 2017 contractor A&S technology suite and their uncertainties that will demonstrate and validate the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment.

I-1.5.3. Program shall define a scientific methodology to validate the contractor A&S baseline.

I-1.5.4. The proposed methodology shall also be applied to the demonstration and validation of the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment.

I-1.5.5. The program’s methodologies and technologies shall rigorously verify the contractor A&S baseline.

I-1.5.6. The program’s methodology shall utilize a statistically significant number of non-proprietary SRMs with motor features and propellant(s) traceable to those found in current or future strategic motors in direct support of A&S goal demonstration.

I-1.5.7. The program’s methodology shall utilize multiple defined environments that are traceable to operationally relevant environments in direct support of A&S goal demonstration.

I-1.5.8. Risk management processes shall be used at all stages of the methodology to maintain focus on proper RP21 2017 A&S goal demonstration.

I-1.5.9. Community forums such as JANNAF meetings and broad integrated product teams shall be used to disseminate program progress and results.

I-1.5.10. All methodologies, technologies, risk analyses and results shall be reported throughout the program in Distribution C sources.

I-1.5.11. The program’s structure and approach shall be focused on achieving a significant advancement in the demonstration and validation of the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment at the end of the program.

I-1.5.12. Technology Readiness Level – Uncertainties of all the technologies shall be rolled up into the final predictive uncertainty assessment, with the TRL accounted for in this roll up. It is expected that technologies and methodologies used for goal demonstration will be at least of TRL 5 at the end of the technical effort. DoD TRLs are defined in chapter 10, section 5 of the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (https://dag.dau.mil/).

https://dag.dau.mil/

MAST Call 2

I-1.5.13. The program shall include involvement of the MAST Integrated Product Team (IPT) for evaluation of the methodology plan (CDRL A007) and for dissemination of results from each A&S assessment report. See BAA section I-2.2 for details and intentions of the MAST IPT.

I-1.6. Proposal Requirements: All proposals for this effort shall define and describe a contractor A&S baseline; technology for A&S goal attainment; methodologies to validate contractor A&S baseline and goal attainment; and all of the work necessary to carry out those methodologies. The document cannot simply propose to establish this baseline and/or methodologies; the proposal shall define these items in sufficient detail with justified relevancy to give the Government evaluation team insight into all processes and technologies. These proposal requirements shall be defined in individual sections of the proposal (see III-1.4 of this BAA Call):

I-1.6.1. The proposal shall describe how a comprehensive program will establish a contractor A&S baseline and demonstrate RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment. The proposal shall define and justify the quantified predictive uncertainty of the baseline and of the final demonstrated technologies.

I-1.6.2. The proposal shall describe a detailed contractor A&S baseline by defining the individual technologies that make up this baseline and their anticipated individual uncertainties, as well as an aggregate uncertainty including the method used to calculate the aggregated uncertainty.

I-1.6.3. The proposal shall describe, in detail, the methodology to be used to validate contractor A&S baseline and discuss the appropriateness of that methodology in regards to assessment of the aging study.

I-1.6.4. The proposal shall describe the technologies proposed to demonstrate RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment. The proposal shall describe the detailed individual technologies that will be utilized to demonstrate RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment and their anticipated individual uncertainties, as well as an aggregate uncertainty including the method used to calculate the aggregate uncertainty.

I-1.6.5. The proposal shall describe a complete program plan including a specified methodology to demonstrate RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment and detailing all of the work, cost, schedule, and resources needed to carry out that methodology.

I-1.6.6. The proposal shall describe the program management organization and why that proposed organization is required to accomplish a successful program.

I-1.6.7. The proposal shall describe a detailed risk management and systems engineering process and specify how that process will be applied to the entire program.

I-1.7. Program Structure: The overall program shall be structured with major milestones to support initial program layout, routine assessments and long-term surveillance of representative assets.

MAST Call 2

I-1.7.1. The methodology to experimentally verify contractor A&S baseline and RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment shall be documented and reviewed by the Government-led A&S IPT; and accepted by the Government before starting the procurement for the aging study described in the following sections. This methodology report is defined as CDRL A007. This report will be published on DTIC approximately six months after award.

I-1.7.2. The program shall define routine surveillance of representative motors in CDRL A007 and then carry out those inspections for the life of the contract. The surveillance schedule should be integrated with the schedule for CDRLs (quarterly and annual reports) and IPT meetings for the most efficient use of contract funding and best timely dissemination of research.

I-1.7.3. The program shall have a semiannual (twice a year) assessment of the contractor A&S baseline motors’ service life estimate and their uncertainty. Assessment periods should be scheduled to allow timely reporting to the Government-led IPT.

I-1.7.4. The program shall have a semiannual assessment of the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment demonstration motors’ service life estimate and their uncertainty. This assessment shall include an analysis of the degree that the demonstration has addressed the RP21 goal to that point and an analysis of the project’s potential to demonstrate RP21 goal attainment over the course of the project. Assessment periods should be scheduled to allow timely reporting to the Government-led IPT.

I-1.8. Technology Verification and Validation: This effort requires both validation of the RP21 2017 A&S goal described above and verification that the program technology scientifically and accurately represents the measured or modeled qualities.

Every aspect of a proposed plan shall address both verification and validation (V&V) of techniques and products of the program. For clarification, definitions of verification and validation used for this effort are described below:

I-1.8.1. Verification is the process of determining that a computational model accurately represents the underlying mathematical model and its solution from the perspective of the intended uses of M&S. "Did you build the system correctly?" Verification provides evidence that the system or system element performs its intended functions and meets all performance requirements listed in the system performance specification and functional and allocated baselines.

I-1.8.2. Validation is the process of determining the degree to which a prediction is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended use of the prediction. "Is it the right solution to the problem?" Validation provides objective evidence that the capability provided by the system complies with stakeholder performance requirements, achieving its use in its intended operational environment.

I-1.8.2.1. See references at para 2 and 4 in the Bibliography Section VII of the original BAA to discuss relevant aspects of experiment validation

MAST Call 2

I-2. Deliverable Items:

Any contract award resulting from this Call shall be required to deliver appropriate data items and possibly software and hardware.

I-2.1. Data Requirements:

I-2.1.1. ALL program technical and financial progress shall be reported. The Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) list is provided in Table 1. The items below shall be incorporated into each proposed effort, except Software User Manual only include if software is to be developed and delivered. The Data Item Descriptions (DID) are given as references only. If less than unlimited data is included in any reports it shall be provided in a separate section.

Details of each CDRL are provided in the model contract in a DD Form 1423-1.

I-2.1.2. Alternate or additional data items that would streamline or enhance the effectiveness of the effort are solicited.

Proposals shall show a list of CDRL items included in the price of the proposal. Electronic submission of data items shall be required on all efforts. The model contract will contain Exhibits A and B for complete requirements.

Table 1: Sample Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) CDRL Authority Description Frequency A001 DI-ADMN-81373 Presentation Material As Required A002 DI-MGMT-81468 Contract Funds Status Report (CFSR) Quarterly A003 DI-FNCL-80331A Funds and Man-Hour Report (FMHR) Quarterly A004 DI-MGMT-80227/T Contractor’s Progress, Status & Management Report Quarterly

A005 DI-SESS-81785/T Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) Once & Revisions

A006 DI-MISC-80711A/T Scientific and Technical Reports, Subtitle Interim Report Annually

A007 DI-MISC-80711A/T Scientific and Technical Reports, Subtitle A&S Methodology

Once & Revision

A008 DI-ADMN-81373/T JANNAF Papers and Presentations As Required

A009 DI-NDTI-80566A/T Test Plan Once & Revisions

B001 DI-MISC-80711A/T Scientific and Technical Reports, Subtitle Final Report Once & Revision

B002 DI-IPSC-81443A/T Software User Manual If necessary

B003 DI-SESS-81002E/T Developmental Design Drawings/Models and Associated Lists As Required

MAST Call 2

I-2.1.3. Interim Report: Interim Reports will be submitted annually, due every 12 months to the day from the beginning of the technical effort. An interim report is not required for the last portion of the technical period of performance if less than one year since the previous interim report. Interim reports shall be of a quality that can be published by DTIC.

Interim Report shall be cumulative and culminating in the final report.

I-2.1.4. A&S Methodology: This technical report will be submitted once for Governmental approval and published by DTIC.

This report shall provide the overall methodology and mathematical basis for the overall goal attainment experiments, calculations, and predictions. The methodology shall be of a quality that can be published by DTIC.

I-2.1.5. Test Plan: This technical report will be submitted once for Governmental approval and updated as needed throughout the program. This plan is the detailed implementation of the A&S Methodology for the contractor A&S baseline validation and the RP21 A&S 2017 goal attainment.

I-2.1.6. Developmental Design Drawings/Models and Associated Lists: Each necessary item (drawing, models, and associated list) shall be submitted once with necessary revisions. Necessary items are what are needed to analyze and/or replicate the test plan and A&S methodology on future or concurrent efforts.

I-2.2. Contractor-Acquired Property: Property acquired or fabricated under this contract and with contract funds shall be considered government property. Delivery of residual contractor-acquired property may be required; AFRL is particularly interested in continuing any aging studies of energetic material at government facilities after the end of proposed programs. Delivery is due thirty days after end of technical effort of each contract if residual hardware is developed. If residual contractor-acquired property in the form of aged energetic materials is proposed for the end of the program, the proposal should include the cost of packaging and shipping of assets to Edwards AFB.

I-2.3. All proposals shall ensure of proper disposal of energetic material, including accounting for cost of disposal if proposed.

I-2.4. Software: All contracts that stipulate computer code as a deliverable shall deliver the source and compiled code thirty days after end of technical effort. All efforts that contain deliverable software shall meet the following requirements:

I-2.4.1. Develop a sustainable code following modern software development practices such as version control; modular code; source code documentation; theory, developer, and user manuals; administrator guide; graphical user interfaces (as required); regression suites; verification; and validation.

I-2.4.2. Be capable of satisfactorily completing functional user testing by AFRL to include installation and operation on current DoD standard desktop configuration client or DoD server core configuration connected to AFRL’s SATURN enclave.

I-2.4.3. Be developed and tested on separate Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) compliant and documented computers (http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/) http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/

MAST Call 2

I-2.4.4. Have no CAT I or II finding of applicable STIG

I-2.4.5. Minimize CAT III finding of applicable STIGs. Recommendation for risk acceptance of any open items and the reasoning shall be documented

I-2.4.6. When developing individual technology requirements (Call 1 Section I-1.2.6) take into account information assurance controls from NIST SP 800-53 and SP 800-37 (http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html)

I-3. Schedule:

The anticipated period of performance for contracts resulting from this call is sixty (60) months technical effort, plus 90 days for the Final Scientific and Technical Reporting Cycle.

I-4. Other Information:

I-4.1. Joint Army Navy NASA Air Force (JANNAF): Offerors shall plan for participation in the JANNAF conferences, subcommittee meetings, and periodic workshops in order to present current results. This participation will serve as a mechanism to report current progress to the community. The presentations and papers will be submitted as part of

CDRL A008.

I-4.2. Government Furnished Property or Information (GFP or GFI): It is possible that GFP or GFI may be involved or used in this effort; however, if it is required, it shall be identified in the proposal for each effort in Appendix C5 (III-1.4.10.15). If proposing GFP or GFI, appendix C5 shall identify the source and location of the item or information; who owns it (include point of contact with phone number); the value of the property; approval from the property owner and how, when, and for how long it will be made available under the proposed effort. Address commonality with other programs. If contributions from other efforts are proposed, identify the specific efforts, the planned start and end dates, and the applicability to the current call and RP21. AFRL does not intend to provide GFP or GFI for this effort.

I-4.3. Base support: None anticipated.

II. AWARD INFORMATION:

II-1. Anticipated Funding:

II-1.1. This funding profile is an estimate only and will not be a contractual obligation for funding. All funding is subject to change due to Government discretion and availability. All potential offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in all areas may change with no notice.

II-1.2. Funding Profile: The anticipated funding profile for this call is provided in Table 2. The values provided are for all efforts and not per award.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html

MAST Call 2

II-1.3. Funding Per Effort: It is anticipated that all efforts resulting from this call will be between $3,000,000 and $3,830,000.

Efforts that are less than or greater than this range should provide significant additional justification.

Table 2: Anticipated Total Call 2 Funding Profile (all values in $1000s) A&S Topic Title FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 Total

1 Call 2Tech Developments 1,100 880 2,110 2,870 700 $7,660

II-2. Type of Contracts/Instruments:

The Government anticipates awarding Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type contract(s) from proposals resulting from this call.

If another type of contract is desired, please contact Contracting POC before submittal of proposal.

II-3. Discussions:

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award, part, some, all, or none of the proposals received without negotiations/discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to negotiate with offeror(s) whose proposal is potentially eligible for funding.

II-4. Anticipated Award Date:

The first contract is anticipated to be awarded by 1 Dec 2015.

III. PROPOSAL APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION:

III-1. Content and Form of Submission for Proposals:

This announcement constitutes the only solicitation for Call 2. Offerors shall submit one original with five additional hard copies, and two electronic (optical disks) copies of their proposal to the contracting office. The Government will check the proposal for conformation to the stated requirements and deviation from stated requirements will be dealt with in the manner stated in each of the following sections.

III-1.1. Proposal Contents: All proposals will consist of a single volume with sections, appendices and tables described below.

III-1.2. Required Format: Proposals are to be on 8.5 inch x 11 inch pages with one (1) inch margins on all sides. Headers, footers, and page number can be in the margins, but the margins shall contain no technical information. Any technical information in the margins will not be considered. A template will be utilized to see if text extends into the margins, and if it does the specific text will be blacked out and the remaining text will be read as is.

MAST Call 2

III-1.2.1. The text shall be 11-point Arial single space with 10pt spacing between paragraphs, with no text or line compression, for all text body, figures, tables or attachments, unless otherwise directly specified in the proposal structure below or BAA templates. If another font, font size, or paragraph spacing is utilized, the incorrectly formatted sections will be reformatted in the electronic version and any overflow beyond limits will be removed. The remaining document would then be evaluated as is.

III-1.2.2. Pages shall be numbered continuously throughout the proposal. The cover page and table of contents are not numbered pages. The body of the proposal (sections III-1.4.3 through III-1.4.9) shall start with page #1. Page number on the bottom of each page shall include “Page X of Y” to stipulate the current page (X) and the total number of pages in the body (Y). Appendices shall be numbered by the section, a dash, and then the page, as in A1-1 for the first page of appendix A1.

III-1.2.3. Sections shall be numbered (i.e. Section 1, Section 2, etc.), with individual sections starting on a new page.

Subsections may be numbered within each section based on the offeror’s organization, but subsections should not start on their own individual page.

III-1.2.4. SOW, WBS, schedule items, and basis of estimates (BOE) shall use a consistent and complementary numbering system throughout the proposal. For example, SOW task 1.1 shall be related in task and scope to WBS 1.1, schedule task 1.1, and BOE item 1.1. If method is not followed proposal will be returned unevaluated.

III-1.2.5. Any figure and table shall be discussed in the text; otherwise, it will not be evaluated. Figures and tables shall have titles and shall be numbered.

III-1.2.6. If any item is illegible (due to font size or print blur) at 100% magnification to the evaluation team, it will not be considered.

III-1.2.7. The hardcopy of each proposal shall be mechanically bound to itself either with staples, straps, or in a ring binder so that the proposal stays physically connected through handling. Paperclips, binder clips, and/or paper clams are not sufficient.

III-1.2.8. Optical disks with the Microsoft Word version of the proposal shall be submitted with the hard copies of the proposal and exactly match the hard copy; if they do not match, the proposal will be returned unevaluated.

III-1.2.9. Appendices shall follow these format requirements and are subject to the same controls as stated above, unless stated.

III-1.2.10. All cost spreadsheets provided shall be in Microsoft Excel 2003 format or later. Within the workbook, all spreadsheets, cells and formulas shall be visible with no hidden fields.

MAST Call 2

III-1.3. Number of proposals: One proposal can be submitted for this call per prime offeror; if more than that is provided the extras will be removed at random. For other calls of the BAA, the number of proposals will be determined at the release of the individual call. Submissions for this call do not affect or influence submissions for other calls on the BAA.

III-1.4. Proposal Structure: The proposal shall be comprised of a single volume with sections and appendices formatted per III-

1.2 and the limitations below.

III-1.4.1. A cover sheet shall be included at the front of the proposal with the following information:

III-1.4.1.1. Title of proposal

III-1.4.1.2. Full company name and address

III-1.4.1.3. BAA number submitting proposal against

III-1.4.1.4. Call number proposing to

III-1.4.1.5. Point of contact, name, title, phone, fax number, and email

III-1.4.1.6. CAGE code

III-1.4.1.7. DUNS number

III-1.4.1.8. Type of contract proposed (e.g. CPFF, FFP)

III-1.4.1.9. Name, address, and phone number of administration (DCMA) office

III-1.4.1.10. Name, address, and phone number of audit (DCAA) office

III-1.4.1.11. Validity period in accordance with BAA section III-2

III-1.4.1.12. Appropriate markings (ITAR, destruction, competition sensitive)

III-1.4.2. Table of Contents [unlimited] sections, appendices, tables, and figures

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.3. Section 1: Proposal Overview: [Maximum Page Limit 4 pages] This section provides an introduction to all pieces of the proposed program and how these pieces interconnect to serve as a program summary and overview. An overview of program plan and methodologies to establish the contractor A&S baseline and to verify program goals is discussed. The anticipated predictive uncertainty at the end of the program is proposed as a specific number.

The program structure is outlined and explained in reference to the SOW (appendix A1), V&V plan (appendix A3), the program schedule (appendix B2), and the CDRL list (Table 1). This section explains the integration of methodologies, technologies, risk management, scheduled surveillance, analyses, and community involvement in the program; why this program is specifically designed to provide the most rigorous validation; AND best insight to A&S concerns.

III-1.4.4. Section 2: Contractor baseline definition and baseline technologies: [Maximum Page Limit 12 pages] The technologies that make up the contractor A&S baseline are defined and scientifically justified. All uncertainties and sources of error in the technologies are discussed in sufficient detail to justify their role in the program as the best application to define this baseline. This justification will include a comparative discussion of related technologies and their uncertainties. An aggregate uncertainty is defined and the method used to determine this aggregate uncertainty is supported.

III-1.4.5. Section 3: Methodology to validate RP21 A&S baseline and goal demonstration: [Maximum Page Limit 15 pages] The methodologies to be used to experimentally validate the RP21 A&S baseline and RP21 2017 A&S goal demonstration are explained, irrespective of the proposed technologies and baseline technologies. Methodologies are to be discussed in terms of scientific veracity and statistical strength. The specific ability of the proposed program to demonstrate the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment is explained; and a quantified predictive uncertainty at the end of the program is clearly stated and supported. Experimental parameters such as different environments;

sampling rates or techniques; sensor types; chemical analyses; configurations, etc. are explained with sufficient detail to justify relevance and uncertainty. All sources of error are to be described and quantified. If computational resources are to be used as part of the program, the development and applicability of these techniques to the experimental validation are to be explained. In this section, the proposal shall outline the program’s intention to rigorously verify and document the methodology in a DTIC report six months after start of the program.

III-1.4.6. Section 4: Technologies to demonstrate goal and their estimated uncertainties: [Maximum Page Limit 15 pages] The technologies proposed to demonstrate goal attainment are discussed. Technologies are explained in sufficient detail to understand the underlying physics of the technology and its role in the A&S program. All uncertainties and sources of error in the technologies are discussed in sufficient detail to scientifically support their rationale and to justify their role in the program as the best application to validate goal attainment. This justification will include a comparative discussion of related technologies and their uncertainties. Technology development activities within the program shall be rationalized in terms of impact to the RP21 goal attainment.

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.7. Section 5: Program Plan: [Maximum Page Limit 15 pages] The overarching processes and procedures to be executed are discussed. Each step of the program plan is explained in terms of its role in validating the demonstration of the RP21 2017 A&S goal attainment. Methodologies and technologies discussed in previous sections are connected to each step of the program. Sources of error and contribution from uncertainties (from methodologies and technologies) are discussed relative to the objective of a validated A&S goal demonstration.

Baseline definition and configuration management of A&S experiments are discussed in detail. The program plan shall include a description of the SRM to be used in the A&S study and a rationale for the SRM size, configuration, number, arrangement, etc. in regards to 1) goal attainment, 2) interpretation of that goal attainment finding to current and future strategic missile programs, and 3) best value to the government. Program aspects meant to protect experiment integrity over the course of the long A&S studies are discussed with risk analysis and mitigation strategies. Resource management and control are defined, particularly in consideration of extended A&S studies;

details of required resources should be referenced from appendices, but the resource requirements shall be sufficiently explained to support a comprehensive program.

III-1.4.8. Section 6: Program management organization: [Maximum Page Limit 5 pages] This section describes the organizational structure of the research team and how the program will manage personnel over the extended A&S effort. The proposal will explain why the proposed personnel structure and proposed personnel are the best possible resources for the objective of A&S goal attainment. The proposal shall describe how the personal management approach enables or supports an aging study of this length. The roles of key personnel are defined and the responsibilities for specific program areas are assigned to specific personnel. Sufficient detail will be provided to identify specific tasks in the SOW to specific roles/responsibilities in the organizational structure.

Subcontractor and consultant roles are discussed in detail with particular regard to their justification on the project and their importance to the objective of A&S goal attainment. External interfacing of the research team with both the subcontractor/consultants and with the government shall be clearly defined. Details in appendices B and C should be referenced as much as possible; repetition of details from these appendices is not necessary as long as the connection to the program role is clear.

III-1.4.9. Section 7: Risk management and systems engineer method: [Maximum Page Limit 3 pages] The proposal will define how the program will apply risk and systems engineering processes throughout the research effort. An overview of major risks and how these risks drove the program plan are discussed. The research team’s risk management approach is explained in conjecture with examples from the defined risk analyses in Appendix A4.

III-1.4.10. Proposal Appendices

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.1. Appendix A1: Statement of Work (SOW): [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] The SOW shall contain a summary description of the technical methodology as well as detailed task descriptions. Offerors are cautioned to include only the information that is essential to a clear, logical, binding, and reasonable SOW. This document will be made part of any resulting contract. Do not include any proprietary information in the SOW. The SOW section structure below is based on the SOW description in the BAA Guide for Industry in Part III of the BAA; offerors should refer to that document for more information. All subsections of the SOW are to be numbered in outline form according to the number of the main section (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2, etc.)

1.0 BACKGROUND

The background information should identify the requirement in very general terms; describe why the project is being pursued, and how it relates to other projects. Summarize any statutory authority or regulations affecting the overall requirement.

2.0 SCOPE

This section should provide a brief statement of what the offeror expects to accomplish under the contract — the breadth and limitations of the contract effort. It should not include specific work tasks or a description of deliverable products since this will be included in the “Tasks” section.

3.0 OBJECTIVES

This section should provide a concise overview of the contract effort goals and objectives; and how the results or end products will be used.

4.0 TASKS/TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

This section defines the tasks that the contractor shall complete during contract performance and would have a task description for each step of the WBS. The description of task requirements will depend on the approach that is selected to describe the required effort. The tasks shall be defined by “shall” statements that are contractually binding rather than “will” or “may” statements.

5.0 DELIVERABLES

This section should clearly state all deliverables including CDRLs and material.

6.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

MAST Call 2

The period of performance shall be clearly stated using in units of months after contract award.

Milestones shall be stated as a number of months after contract award. These milestones shall include the end of technical effort and end of contract period of performance.

III-1.4.10.2. Appendix A2: Compliance Matrix: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] The specific proposal section and specific proposal page is listed for each requirement to cite where the proposal defines compliance with the BAA Call 2 requirements (see I-1.5) and CDRL requirements (see I-2.1.2)

Table 3: Appendix A2: Compliance Matrix

Requirement # Proposal Section(s) Proposal Page(s) # I-1.5.1 I-1.5.2 I-1.5.3 I-1.5.4 I-1.5.5 I-1.5.6 I-1.5.7 I-1.5.8 I-1.5.9 I-1.5.10 I-1.5.11 I-1.5.12 I-1.5.13 A001 A002 A003 A004 A005 A006 A007 A008 A009 B001 B002

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.3. Appendix A3: Verification and Validations Plan (V&V): [Five (5) pages]

The structure of the offeror’s V&V plan is described in regards to specific tasks. Reference to company procedures may be used as long as the intent or application of those procedures is clear to the government reviewers. A systematic approach shall be stressed. A method of documenting and tracing these validations shall also be described.

III-1.4.10.4. Appendix A4: Risks and Mitigations: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] The risks are defined using the template provided as Table 4. Major technical, management, schedule, and cost risks are listed based on the offeror’s evaluation. This appendix can only contain the risk chart defined in Table 4 with cells formatted to wrap the text. The risk chart is designed to record an assessment of the initial risk and then an assessment of the risk AFTER applying a single mitigation approach. Multiple mitigation approaches shall be defined until the offeror reaches a risk factor that it is willing to accept for the program. The following details are included in the risk chart:

III-1.4.10.4.1. Risk ID: A unique number, starting at #1, for each initial risk.

III-1.4.10.4.2. Stage: A risk is defined as “Initial” or “I” on the risk chart or “Mitigated” or “M” on the risk chart.

For risks marked as “I”, the mitigation approach is left blank. Each risk shall have one “I” entry but can have multiple mitigation entries.

III-1.4.10.4.3. Risk Statement: The risk is defined in this section as a clear statement of the cause and effect of the risk. Risks should be stated in an if-then structure.

III-1.4.10.4.4. Mitigation Approach: Definition of the tasks or steps taken to reduce the risk. For initial risk assessment, this position is left blank.

III-1.4.10.4.5. Likelihood: A number between 1 and 5 (inclusive) that defines the likelihood of the risk occurring based on Table 5. For initial risks, this likelihood is evaluated without any mitigation; for mitigation assessment, this likelihood is evaluated considering the application of the defined mitigation approach for this row.

III-1.4.10.4.6. Likelihood Rationale: A justification or basis for this likelihood is cited.

III-1.4.10.4.7. Consequence: A number between 1 and 5 (inclusive) that defines the consequence of the risk occurring based on Table 6. For initial risks, this consequence is evaluated without any mitigation; for mitigation assessment, this consequence is evaluated considering the application of the defined mitigation approach for this row.

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.4.8. Risk factor: The risk factor is determined using the likelihood number and the consequence number in Table 7. Risk factors below 12 are considered low and assumed to not need to be mitigated. Risk factors above 19 are considered high risk and should be mitigated to a lower risk factor. Risk factors between 12 and 19 (inclusive) may be accepted or further mitigation.

Table 4: Appendix A4: Risks and Mitigations

Risk ID Stage Risk Statement Mitigation Approach

Likeli hood

Likelihood Rationale

Conseq uence

Consequence Rationale

Risk factor

Table 5: Risk Likelihood Table

Level Likelihood PROBABILITY of Occurrence

5 Near Certainty ~ 90%

4 Highly Likely ~ 70%

3 Likely ~ 50%

2 Low Likelihood ~ 30%

1 Not Likely ~ 10%

MAST Call 2

Table 6: Risk Consequence Table

Level Tech Performance Cost Schedule

5 Severe gradation in technical performance; cannot meet KPP or key technical/supportability threshold; will jeopardize program success.

> 10% total program budget

Cannot meet key program milestones

4 Significant degradation in technical performance or major shortfall in supportability; may jeopardize program success.

Budget threatens a SOW task, < 10% total budget

Program critical path affected

3 Moderate reduction in technical performance or supportability with limited impact on program objectives

Significant budget increase or unit production cost increase, < 5% total budget

Minor schedule slip;

able to meet key milestones with minor schedule slip

2 Minor reduction in technical performance or supportability;

can be tolerated with little or no impact on program

Budget shifts within program

Able to meet key dates

1 Minimal or no consequence to technical performance

Minimal or no impact Minimal or no impact

Table 7: Risk Factors Table

Li ke lih oo d 1 1 3 5 8 12 2 2 7 11 14 17 3 4 10 15 19 21 4 6 13 18 22 24 5 9 16 20 23 25

1 2 3 4 5

Consequence

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.5. Appendix A5: References: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA call] – References only listed in a standard and consistent manner thorough out bibliographic format. Only include references cited elsewhere in the proposal.

III-1.4.10.6. Appendix B1: Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and WBS Dictionary:

[no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] WBS shall be broken out to at least to level three detail to consist of a single work package, which represent the efforts and objectives of a small team of individuals who are working on a very specific outcome.

Table 8: Appendix B1: Work Breakdown Structure Table

WBS Number WBS Title and Description 1 .0 MAST A&S RP21 Demonstration 1.1

1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.2

1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.3

1.3.1 1.3.2 1.4

1.4.1 1.4.2

1.5 etc.

III-1.4.10.7. Appendix B2: Program Schedule: [no maximum page limit] This section is limited to a single schedule chart of unrestrained size (i.e. this chart may cover a number of pages or even use 11x17 paper). Ensure that the words and dates can be read on the chart.

III-1.4.10.8. Appendix B3: Resumes of All Key Personnel: [Maximum Page Limit 1 page per person] The section includes key personnel, including proposed technical consultants.

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.9. Appendix B4: Company’s Physical Capability Table: [Maximum Page Limit 4 pages] This section specifically details the offeror’s physical capabilities to accomplish the program plan proposed.

III-1.4.10.10. Appendix B5: Related Past Performance: [Maximum Page Limit 1 page per program, maximum 8 programs] This section describes related programs that support or illustrate the offeror’s technical and management capabilities to accomplish the program plan proposed.

Examples of related programs should demonstrate ability to cover all aspects of the program proposed and be explicit with relevancy. Details shall include contract number, government agency, government point-of-contact, contract value, contract award and end dates, and DTIC tracking number of the final report if available.

III-1.4.10.11. Appendix C1: Proposal Cost Summary: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] The offeror shall provide a cost summary in a modular fashion by severable tasks. All proposed tasks shall be included. The Government reserves the right to fund none, some, parts of, or all of the proposed tasks. Present the modular cost summary in the format below. Each task (level 3 and above) shall have subtotals. Each level 3 task shall be broken out for labor, material, and Other Direct Costs (ODC). The tasks and costs in the template are hypothetical, non-predictive, and for the purpose of example only.

Table 9: Appendix C1: Modular Cost Summary Table WBS Number Task Title Cost

1.0 $3,000,000

1.1 $400,000

1.1.1 $100,000

1.1.1 Labor $70,000

1.1.1 Material $20,000

1.1.1 ODC $10,000

1.1.2 $250,000

1.1.2 Labor $200,000

1.1.2 Material $20,000

1.1.2 ODC $30,000

1.1.3 $50,000

1.1.3 Labor $50,000

1.1.3 Material $0

1.1.3 ODC $0

1.2 $350,000

1.2.1 etc.

MAST Call 2

III-1.4.10.12. Appendix C2: Cost Summary by Government Fiscal Year: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic and in format defined by this BAA Call] The offeror shall provide a cost summary broken out with subtotals for each government fiscal year (GFY) and ending with the total cost for that task. The government fiscal year is any cost occurred between October 1st and September 30th. GFY 2016 starts on October 1st, 2015. The tasks and costs in the template are hypothetical, non-predictive, and for the purpose of example only.

Table 10: Appendix C2: Cost Summary by GFY

WBS Number Task Title GFY 2016 GFY 2017 GFY 2018 etc. Total

1.0 $600,00 $400,000 $1,300,000 etc. $3,000,000

1.1 $72,393 $47,885 etc. etc. $250,000

1.1.1 $35,600 $22,650…