MAST_CALL_3_Preliminary_April_2017_PA17208.pdf

PRELIMINARY Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Public Affairs Clearance Number 17208

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR THE AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

ROCKET PROPULSION DIVISION

AEROSPACE SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

CALL 3 of BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

BAA-RQR-2014-0002

4 May 2017

Issuing Office: Air Force Test Center, Directorate of Contracting

Edwards AFB, CA

PRELIMINARY Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Public Affairs Clearance Number 17208

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT CALL 3

I. CALL 3 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. Awards:

II-4. Anticipated Award Date:

III. PROPOSAL APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION:

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

III-2. Two-step Process:

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. White Paper Evaluation:

V-3. Proposal Evaluation:

V-4. Review and Selection Process:

VI. PROPOSAL CONTENT CHECKLIST:

PRELIMINARY

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

CALL 3

BAA-RQR-2014-0002

I. CALL 3 DESCRIPTION

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

I-1.1. Technology Development Objectives: This effort focuses on developing technologies including physics-based models, nondestructive evaluation (NDE) material property investigations, enhanced NDE evaluation systems, and solid rocket motor (SRM) sensor technologies to meet the Rocket Propulsion of the 21st Century (RP21) A&S goals. These technologies will appreciably increase the Air Force’s detection, prediction, and/or understanding of aging in SRMs and their safe operation.

I-1.2. RP21 current Government baseline and goals for A&S are defined in a supplemental package for Call 3. See MAST BAA section III-5 about how to request the Call 3 supplemental package.

I-1.3. All technology development efforts proposed for each subtopic shall meet these general BAA Call 3 requirements:

I-1.3.1. Contribute to the reduction in predictive uncertainty of service life estimates (SLE) for strategic SRM and confirm the proposed quantifiable improvement over the current state of the art (Definitions for RP21 A&S goals are included in supplemental information package refer to BAA section III-5)

I-1.3.2. Illustrate reduction of reliance on dissection of motors and depot operations to determine asset viability, and logically lead to the ability to predict the lifetime of an individual solid rocket motor with greater fidelity

I-1.3.3. Primarily apply to large scale monolithic and segmented SRMs (for use in strategic, space launch, and ballistic missile systems) but also ideally to tactical missile systems with minimal alterations to the large scale design

I-1.3.4. Designed for use in environments for strategic and tactical missile systems including, but not limited to, manufacturing, operational (for example: cyclic temperatures, vibrational loads, wind shear), motor handling, storage, and transport

I-1.3.5. Be designed taking into account other factors including, but not limited to, size constraints, data transfer and control, lifetime survivability, logistics support and other operational constraints

I-1.3.6. Surpass accuracy of previously funded efforts (for example: Integrated Motor Life Management Data Acquisition and Analysis System (IMLM DAAS), Service Life Prediction Technology [SLPT], Critical Defect Assessment [CDA], Sensors and Applications Modeling [SAM], Non-Destructive Evaluation Data Processing [NDE-DP], and various Advance Missile Propulsion Technology [AMPT] and Missile Component Advanced Technology [MCAT] Task Orders) in the area of SRM health modeling including, but not limited to, AFRL funded efforts

I-1.3.7. Develop individual technology derived requirements from program requirements and methods to verify them (inspection, demonstration, test, analysis). The requirements and methods are subject to approval by the integrated product team (IPT)

I-1.3.8. Exit the Call 3 technology development effort at a minimum of technology readiness level (TRL) 4

I-1.3.9. Use open, well documented, and industry accepted standards

I-1.3.10. Develop a proposed concept of operation (CONOPs) for the technology as well as the method that will be used to integrate the technology into the operational system – not just the missile but the overall weapon system

I-1.3.11. Design technology that is operable, sustainable, supportable, interoperable, modular, and reliable over the expected life time of the system for the operational users

I-1.3.12. Provide technology development reports, risk analyses and results throughout the program in Distribution C sources

I-1.3.13. Disseminate the results at community forums such as JANNAF and/or other relevant technology meetings

I-1.3.14. Participate in and report technology reports to the MAST Integrated Product Team (IPT); see MAST BAA section I-2.2 for details and intentions of the

MAST IPT

I-1.3.15. Utilize risk management processes in all stages of development planning

I-1.3.16. Estimate the payoffs to an operational system in terms of the technology’s impact on SLE

I-1.3.17. Develop a plan to validate and verify technology for a future RP21 demonstration effort

I-1.4. All technology development efforts proposed for each subtopic that contain computer code/software shall address these requirements:

I-1.4.1. 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-1.4.2. Be capable of satisfactorily completing functional user testing by AFRL of a runtest toolkit that can be provided to contractor(s)

I-1.4.3. Be developed and tested on separate Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) compliant and documented computers (http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/)

I-1.4.4. Have no CAT I or II finding of applicable STIG

I-1.4.5. Minimize CAT III finding of applicable STIGs. Recommendation for risk acceptance of any open items and the reasoning shall be documented

I-1.5. Subtopic 1 Requirements: Physics-based modeling with validation and verification.

All the modeling efforts for this subtopic shall meet these requirements as well as the general requirements above:

I-1.5.1. Model chemical and/or physical evolution of the propellant-liner-insulation (PLI) portion of a SRM to improve aging characterization in SLE

I-1.5.2. Clearly define sources of error

I-1.5.3. Perform a detailed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the model

I-1.5.4. Develop a usable and highly automated code for distribution to the Government and their contractors

I-1.5.5. Develop a code usable on a high power workstation as either a standalone program or in a potential A&S workflow – either Linux or Windows based

I-1.5.6. Develop and document the necessary inputs for models throughout the life of the system including test methods for all modeling efforts

I-1.5.7. Document all outputs from the codes

I-1.5.8. Validate and verify codes (Call 3 sections I-1.10.1 and I-1.10.2), including development of experimental techniques as necessary

I-1.6. Subtopic 2 Requirements: Embedded sensors for flaw detection analysis. No proposals are being requested for this topic in Call 3.

I-1.7. Subtopic 3 Requirements: NDE flaw detection and material property determination.

All these efforts for this subtopic shall meet these requirements as well as the general requirements above:

I-1.7.1. Apply instrumentation to detect internal flaws and/or characterize material properties within PLI without dissection of any portion or damaging any component of the weapon system

I-1.7.2. Clearly identify improvements in flaw detection and/or material property determination over current SOTA and define all sources of error in the processes

I-1.7.3. Perform a detailed uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the proposed system

I-1.7.4. Illustrate the impact on predictive uncertainty of SLE with direct comparison to current processes

I-1.7.5. Define advancements over current flaw detection, particularly current computed tomography (CT) processes used by AFNWC, and logistical advantages over current NDE processes http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/

I-1.8. Subtopic 4 Requirements: Enhanced automated NDE data and evaluation system.

All the analysis efforts for this subtopic shall meet these requirements as well as the general requirements above:

I-1.8.1. Provide improvements in automated diagnostic and prognostic capabilities using data inputs from current CT processes

I-1.8.2. Minimize reprogramming for each motor configuration or other motor-dependent variables

I-1.8.3. Clearly define advancements of new system over current ANDES/2 processes

I-1.8.4. Enable analysis comparisons between initial NDE analysis and later NDE testing throughout the life of the weapon system

I-1.9. Subtopic 5 Requirements: Sensor technology development for solid rocket motors (SRM). All the instrument development for this subtopic efforts shall meet these requirements as well as the general requirements above:

I-1.9.1. Develop sensor technology to reduce errors in material property measurements with a meaningful impact on the predicted uncertainty of SLE

I-1.9.2. Demonstrate link between the sensor measurement and current and/or future state of material in the PLI

I-1.9.3. Develop and test a sensor that is stable over the anticipated typical service life of a strategic asset

I-1.9.4. Develop a sensor that can meet a missile system design life of at least 30 years

I-1.9.5. Demonstrate survivability of system in environments common to strategic weapon systems or mitigation methodologies for the sensor in these environments

I-1.9.6. Develop a sensor with minimum overall on-board mass and volume including any support hardware such as instrumentation lines to reduce impact on other RP21 goals

I-1.9.7. Develop a sensor whose power source has a minimal increase in consumption of logistic resources

I-1.9.8. Develop and demonstrate a sensor that fails in a safe, predictable, and detectable manner

I-1.10. Subtopic 6 Requirements: Other Technologies. All the efforts for this subtopic shall meet these requirements as well as the general requirements above:

I-1.10.1. Develop technology, outside of the other topics of this acquisition program, that clearly and significantly reduces the predictive uncertainty of the SLE of strategic SRM

I-1.10.2. Clearly define sources of error and contribution to reduction in predictive uncertainty of SLE

I-1.10.3. Describe direct relevancy to SLE of SRM and to current logistic processes used for strategic or tactical weapon systems

I-1.10.4. Minimize effect on other RP21 goals

I-1.11. Technology Verification and Validation: This effort requires both validation of the technology development effort 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. MAST BAA reference section VII items #2 and #4 discuss relevant aspects of experiment validation. For clarification, definitions of verification and validation used for this effort are described below:

I-1.11.1. 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-1.11.2. 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-2. Deliverable Items:

Any contract awards 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 which is only included 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 Monthly

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-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

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 effort 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. 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 V&V for technology development effort.

I-2.1.5. 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 a 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 requirements defined in section I-1.4 of this BAA Call. Alpha-version testing early in the program with AFRL is encouraged.

I-3. Schedule:

The anticipated period of performance for contracts resulting from this call is up to 36 months technical effort for an individual effort, plus 90 days for the Final Scientific and Technical Reporting Cycle. Proposed schedules shall be supported by the proposal.

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.

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.

II-1.3. Funding Per Effort: It is anticipated that all efforts resulting from this Call will be between $500,000 and $1,200,000 each. Proposed efforts that are less than or greater than this range should provide significant additional justification. Priced options for technology development stages are acceptable.

Table 2: Anticipated Total Call 3 Funding Profile (all values in $1000s) Call Topic Title FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Total

3 Call 3 Tech Developments 1,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 6,000

II-2. Type of Contracts/Instruments:

The Government anticipates awarding Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) type contract(s) from proposals resulting from this call with a Fixed-Fee Portion (FFP) for the final report. If another type of contract is desired, please contact Contracting POC before submittal of proposal. Cost proposals must separate the CPFF costing details from the FFP costing details to explicitly indicate which costs are covered under each type.

II-3. Awards:

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

II-4. Small Business Set-Aside: Market research has demonstrated that at least two Small Businesses are anticipated to submit reasonable and complete proposals for subtopic 5 (sensor technology development for solid rocket motors) of this Call. Subtopic 5, and only subtopic 5, shall be solicited as a Small Business Set-Aside. Only white papers from Small Businesses shall be considered for this subtopic. As with the other subtopics, the government reserves the right to award all, part or none of the proposals received in this area.

II-5. Anticipated Award Date:

The first contract is anticipated to be awarded by TBD.

III. PROPOSAL APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION:

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

White papers are submitted electronically to AFTC Contracting via AMRDEC SAFE (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/) to both the Contracting Officer and the Contracting Specialist (kathrin.day-davis@us.af.mil and charles.dodson@us.af.mil). Submissions are a single file in a Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat file format. Submissions must comply with stipulations for format and page lengths.

Selected white papers will be invited to submit a full proposal. Full proposals are mailed to the AFTC Contracting address defined in MAST Call 3 section IV-2.

Submissions shall include one original hard copy of the proposal with two 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-2. Two-step Process:

This BAA Call is a two-step process. Offerors shall submit a white paper (by the deadline defined in Call 3 section IV-2) that describes the technology and how it meets the requirements described in this BAA Call. The Government will review the white papers and invite selected offerors to submit a full proposal for a specific white paper’s topic. Only submissions meeting the white paper criteria will be reviewed in the first step, and only invited submissions meeting the full proposal criteria will be reviewed in the second step.

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/ mailto:kathrin.day-davis@us.af.mil mailto:charles.dodson@us.af.mil

III-2.1. Required Format: White Papers and 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 evaluated as is.

III-2.1.1. The text will be 12-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-2.1.2. Pages shall be numbered continuously throughout the proposal across all sections. The cover page and table of contents are not numbered pages.

The body of the proposal 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-2.1.3. 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-2.1.4. 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 the proposal will be returned unevaluated.

III-2.1.5. 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-2.1.6. 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-2.1.7. 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-2.1.8. Optical disks with the Microsoft Word version of the full 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-2.1.9. Appendices shall follow these format requirements and are subject to the same controls as stated above, unless stated otherwise in the appendix description.

III-2.1.10. 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.

III-2.2. Number of proposals: One white paper can be submitted for this Call per subtopic per offeror; if more than one is provided by a company for a subtopic, one white paper will be retained at random to be evaluated, and the rest will be returned to the offeror and will not be considered.

NOTE: Submissions for this or previous calls do not affect or limit submissions for other calls on this BAA. A company may serve as a subcontractor on as many proposals as desired and does not count against the one-proposal-per-subtopic limit.

III-2.3. White Paper Structure: All white papers shall be comprised of a single volume with sections and appendices formatted per III-2.1 and the limitations below.

III-2.3.1. A cover sheet shall be included at the front of the white paper with the following information:

III-2.3.1.1. Title of proposal

III-2.3.1.2. Full company name and address

III-2.3.1.3. BAA number submitting proposal against

III-2.3.1.4. Call number and topic number proposing to

III-2.3.1.5. Point of contact, name, title, phone, fax number, and email

III-2.3.1.6. CAGE code

III-2.3.1.7. DUNS number

III-2.3.1.8. Type of contract proposed (e.g. CPFF, FFP)

III-2.3.1.9. Name, address, and phone number of administration (DCMA) office

III-2.3.1.10. Name, address, and phone number of audit (DCAA) office

III-2.3.1.11. Validity period in accordance with original BAA section III-2

III-2.3.1.12. Appropriate markings (ITAR, destruction, competition sensitive)

III-2.3.2. Table of Contents [unlimited] a listing of sections, appendices, tables, and figures

III-2.3.3. Section 1: White Paper Overview: [Maximum Page Limit two (2) pages] This section provides an introduction to all pieces of the proposed technology development and how these pieces interconnect to serve as a program summary and overview. The program structure is outlined in terms of schedule and major tasks (that would become WBS sections in an anticipated proposal). This section is a summary of the technology area to be developed, development process with verification, analyses, community involvement in the program and role that this technology plays in SLE.

III-2.3.4. Section 2: Technology Development: [Maximum Page Limit six (6) pages] This section is a detailed description of the technology and how it will be developed. The technology is explained in sufficient detail to understand the underlying physics of the technology and its role in an A&S program. All uncertainties and sources of error in the technologies are discussed to justify their need for development. 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.

III-2.3.5. Section 3: Relevancy to MAST Call 3 Requirements: [Maximum Page Limit four (4) pages] The explicit connection between the proposed technology development and the technical requirements defined in this Call are discussed. This discussion includes both general requirements (I-1.3) and subtopic specific requirements for that subtopic, as well as software requirements (I-1.4) if relevant.

III-2.3.6. Section 4: Price Estimation: [Maximum Page Limit one (1) page] A rough price estimate shall be provided to indicate the size and scope of the development effort. A simple WBS-like chart is suggested to indicate size and scope of portions of the proposed development effort. This price estimate is for planning purposes only and to assist in clarifying the description of the technology development effort; full proposals will not be restricted by this price estimate.

III-2.3.7. Appendix D: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Identify any and all abbreviations and acronyms that are used in the proposal. Items shall be listed in descending alphabetical order and include the full terminology that the abbreviation or acronym stands for. Please limit the use of abbreviations and acronyms to ones in common scientific/engineering/finance/management use.

III-2.4. Full Proposal Structure: The proposal shall be comprised of a single volume with sections and appendices formatted per III-2.1 and the limitations below.

III-2.4.1. A cover sheet shall be included at the front of the proposal with the following information:

III-2.4.1.1. Title of proposal

III-2.4.1.2. Full company name and address

III-2.4.1.3. BAA number submitting proposal against

III-2.4.1.4. Call number and topic number proposing to

III-2.4.1.5. Point of contact, name, title, phone, fax number, and email

III-2.4.1.6. CAGE code

III-2.4.1.7. DUNS number

III-2.4.1.8. Type of contract proposed (e.g. CPFF, FFP)

III-2.4.1.9. Name, address, and phone number of administration (DCMA) office

III-2.4.1.10. Name, address, and phone number of audit (DCAA) office

III-2.4.1.11. Validity period in accordance with original BAA section III-2

III-2.4.1.12. Appropriate markings (ITAR, destruction, competition sensitive)

III-2.4.2. Table of Contents [unlimited] list of sections, appendices, tables, and figures

III-2.4.3. Section 1: Proposal Overview: [Maximum Page Limit 4 pages] This section provides an introduction to all pieces of the proposed technology development and how these pieces interconnect to serve as a program summary and overview. The program structure is outlined in terms of schedule and major tasks (that would become WBS sections in an anticipated proposal). This section is a summary of the technology area to be developed, development process with verification, risk management, analyses, community involvement in the program and role that this technology plays in SLE. The anticipated impact on predictive uncertainty at the end of the program is proposed as a specific number.

III-2.4.4. Section 2: Technology Development: [Maximum Page Limit 10 pages] This section is a detailed description of the technology and how it will be developed. The technology is explained in great detail to understand the underlying physics of the technology and its role in an A&S program, including past developments and current comparative roles in SLE. All uncertainties and sources of error in the technologies are discussed in sufficient detail to scientifically support their rationale and to justify their need for development.

Technology development activities within the program shall be rationalized in terms of impact to the RP21 goal attainment.

III-2.4.5. Section 3: Role of Proposed Technology in Service Life Estimation: [Maximum Page Limit 6 pages] The rationale for development of the proposed technology is discussed in terms if relevancy to the MAST program requirements (general and subtopic requirements). The application of this technology is justified in terms of the benefit to the SLE process, the logistics of technology use throughout the lifecyle of a weapon system, and discussion on the breadth of application to other forms of propulsion or weapon systems.

This justification will include a comparative discussion of related technologies, their uncertainties and comparative impact on SLE.

III-2.4.6. Section 4: Program Plan: [Maximum Page Limit 10 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 developing the technology, verifying the application, and assessing the impact of the development on SLE. The program plan is discussed in terms of defined WBS descriptions, an integrated schedule, and supporting analyses of technology on SLE processes and uncertainty. Program aspects meant to protect experiment integrity over the course of the development are discussed with risk analysis and mitigation strategies. This section describes the organizational structure of the research team and how the program will manage personnel over the proposed effort. The proposal shall describe how the personal management approach enables efficient and effective technology development. The roles of key personnel are defined and the responsibilities for specific program areas are assigned to specific personnel. Resource management and control are defined, particularly in consideration of verification of technological advancements; details of required resources should be referenced from appendices, but the resource requirements shall be sufficiently explained to support a comprehensive program.

III-2.4.7. Section 5: Risk Management and Systems Engineer Method: [Maximum Page Limit 4 pages] The proposal will define how the program will apply risk and systems engineering processes as an integral part of the technology development approach. An overview of major risks and how these risks drove the program plan are discussed. This section links the practice of risk management with development; the proposal must illustrate how development steps are driven by risk mitigation steps for individual risks to maximize development success. The research team’s risk management approach is explained in conjecture with examples from the defined risk analyses in Appendix A4.

III-2.4.8. Proposal Appendices

III-2.4.8.1. 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 development 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 original 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. Tasks include management-focused activities including program management, reporting, etc. 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

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-2.4.8.2. 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 (general requirements, software requirement if applicable, subtopic requirement, and CDRL deliverable) to cite where the proposal defines compliance with the BAA Call 3 requirements.

Table 3: Appendix A2: Compliance Matrix

Requirement # Proposal Section(s) Proposal Page(s) # I-1.3.1 I-1.3.2 I-1.3.3 I-1.3.4 I-1.3.5 I-1.3.6

I-1.5.1 I-1.5.2 I-1.5.3 I-1.5.4 I-1.5.5

A001 A002 A003 A004 A005 A006 A007 B001 B002 B003

III-2.4.8.3. Appendix A3: Verification and Validations Plan (V&V): [Three (3) 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-2.4.8.4. 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 risk process is based on the latest DoD risk guidance: Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs (2017-RIO), dated January 2017. The following details are included in the risk chart:

III-2.4.8.4.1. Risk ID: A unique number, starting at #1, for each initial risk.

III-2.4.8.4.2. 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-2.4.8.4.3. 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-2.4.8.4.4. Mitigation Approach: Definition of the tasks or steps taken to reduce the risk. For initial risk assessment, this position is left blank.

III-2.4.8.4.5. 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-2.4.8.4.6. Likelihood Rationale: A justification or basis for this likelihood is cited.

III-2.4.8.4.7. Consequence: A number between 1 and 5 (inclusive) that defines the consequence of the risk occurring based on Table 7. 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.

III-2.4.8.4.8. Risk factor: The risk factor is determined using the likelihood number and the consequence number in Table

6. Risk factors less than 12 are considered low and assumed to not need to be mitigated. Risk factors larger than 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 >80% to ≤ 99%

4 Highly Likely >60% to ≤ 80%

3 Likely >40% to ≤60%

2 Low Likelihood >20% to ≤ 40%

1 Not Likely >1% to ≤ 20%

Table 6: Risk Factors Table

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

1 2 3 4 5

Consequence

Table 7: 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;

precludes program from meeting threshold dates

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

Budget threatens a SOW task, 5% to < 10% total budget

Program critical path affected, schedule slip by months

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

Significant budget increase or unit production cost increase, 1% to < 5% total budget

Minor schedule slip;

able to meet key milestones with minor schedule slip of weeks

2 Minor reduction in technical performance or supportability;

can be tolerated with little or no impact on program

Budget shifts within program, less than 1% total budget

Able to meet key dates

1 Minimal or no consequence to technical performance

Minimal or no impact Minimal or no impact

III-2.4.8.5. 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-2.4.8.6. 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 Call 3 Subtopic X

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-2.4.8.7. 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-2.4.8.8. Appendix B3: Resumes of All Key Personnel: [Maximum Page Limit 1 page per person] The section includes professional information and technical experiences of key personnel, including proposed technical consultants.

III-2.4.8.9. Appendix C: Costing Spreadsheet: [no maximum page limit but must be in Microsoft Excel with all cells visible and unlocked] The offeror shall include a costing spreadsheet defining labor rates, labor per month per labor pool for each WBS task, summation of costs per government fiscal year including overhead rates, fee rates, etc. As this shall be an electronic spreadsheet, no physical copy needs to be included in the proposal’s hardcopy, but costs must match other appendices. All computational cells must be unlocked and visible. Standard accounting spreadsheets are encouraged.

III-2.4.8.10. 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, 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.

III-2.4.8.11. Appendix C2: Data Rights and Exceptions (if any): [Maximum Page Limit one (1) page] The government expects unlimited data rights for methodologies and technologies developed in this program; if a different level of data rights is proposed for all or part of this program, exceptions shall be detailed and justified.

III-2.4.8.12. Appendix C3: Government Furnished Equipment or Data: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Description of any GFE required for the proposed program, including written confirmation from the government representative responsible for that material that the hardware/data is available. Each specific item (hardware or data) shall be justified to relevancy, suitability and importance to the specific role.

III-2.4.8.13. Appendix C4: Contract Exceptions [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Exceptions to the sample Model Contract Terms and Conditions are described and justified. This section shall state why the exception is necessary and what technical and management impact it will have on the program.

III-2.4.8.14. Appendix C5: Subcontractor Plan [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] In accordance with FAR 19.702, a subcontracting plan shall be submitted along with the cost proposals [reference FAR 19.704, DFARS 219.704, and AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1) for subcontracting plan requirements]. Small businesses are exempt from this requirement.

III-2.4.8.15. Appendix C6: Basis of Estimates (BOE) for Manpower: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Offerors shall submit a BOE supporting the proposed manpower hours by WBS/Major Task, Subtask (level 3). The BOE shall convey a clear understanding of how the labor was estimated for each task in the SOW. The BOE for labor shall include sufficient detail to identify: what work is being performed, the offeror justification that the proposed person-loading is sufficient, and that the labor mix is appropriate for each task of the SOW. Where it is applicable, historical data for similar tasks shall be identified; if a government contract the Government contract number shall be used, along with any judgment factors that were applied. The applicability of the historical data shall be explained, and all factors shall be defined and justified. Do not reflect dollar amounts in the BOE.

III-2.4.8.16. Appendix C7: Basis of Estimates (BOE) for Material: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Offerors shall submit a BOE supporting costs of the proposed materials organized by WBS/Major Task, Subtask (level 3). The BOE shall convey a clear understanding of how the materials were estimated for each task in the SOW. The BOE for materials shall include foundation for the types, quantities, and costs of items used. Where it is applicable, historical data for similar tasks shall be identified; if a government contract the Government contract number shall be used, along with any judgment factors that were applied. The applicability of the historical data shall be explained, and all factors shall be defined and justified.

III-2.4.8.17. Appendix C8: Basis of Estimates (BOE) for Other Direct Costs (ODC):

[no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Offerors shall submit a BOE supporting the proposed hours in subcontracts, costs for travel and other direct costs by WBS/Major Task, Subtask (level 3).

The BOE for subcontracts shall include sufficient detail to identify: what work is being performed, why the offeror believes the proposed person-loading is sufficient, and that the labor mix is appropriate for each task of the SOW for each subcontractor. Where it is applicable historical data for similar tasks shall be identified; if a government contract the Government contract number shall be used, along with any judgment factors that were applied. The applicability of the historical data shall be explained, and all factors shall be defined and justified. Travel shall be broken out in all cost types, with a basis of estimate for each type. The number of travelers, purpose related to WBS, location and duration of each trip shall be clearly defined.

III-2.4.8.18. Appendix D: Abbreviations and Acronyms: [no maximum page limit but material shall be on appendix topic] Identify any and all abbreviations and acronyms that are used in the proposal. Items shall be listed in descending alphabetical order and include the full terminology that the abbreviation or acronym stands for. Please limit the use of abbreviations and acronyms to ones in common scientific/engineering/finance/management use.

III-2.4.9. Guidelines for Submission of Other than Cost or Pricing Data: The Contracting Officer has anticipated that Adequate Price Competition does exist.

III-2.4.10. Changes to Business/Price Information: Changes to a previously submitted business/price submission shall…