CALL 001 Final 16Apr10.docx

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

BAA RV-10-02

Air Force Research Laboratory/Space Vehicles Directorate

PROPOSAL CALL ANNOUNCEMENT (CALL) 001

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT TITLE: Space Situational Awareness Environmental Monitoring (SSAEM) Closed 2 Year Broad Agency Announcement

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT NUMBER: BAA RV-10-02

PROPOSAL CALL ANNOUNCEMENT (CALL) TITLE: Space Situational Awareness Environmental Monitoring (SSAEM) Sensor Risk Reduction

PROPOSAL CALL ANNOUNCEMENT (CALL) NUMBER: 001

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

Dr. Thomas Caudill, AFRL/RVBX, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone: 505-846-2978, Fax: 505-846-0959, Email: thomas.caudill@kirtland.af.mil

CONTRACTING POINTS OF CONTACT: The contracting points of contact for this CALL are:

Contracting Specialist:

Ellen Foster, Det 8 AFRL/RVKB, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone: 505-846-0938, Fax: 505-846-0945, Email: ellen.foster@kirtland.af.mil

Contracting Officer:

Jean A. Barnes, Det 8 AFRL/RVKB, Kirtland AFB, NM, Phone 505-846-4695, Fax: 505-846-0945, Email: jean.a.barnes@kirtland.af.mil

REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION:

The Air Force Research Laboratory is soliciting proposals for Space Situational Awareness Environmental Monitoring (SSAEM) Sensor Risk Reduction under the Broad Agency Announcement RV-10-02 posted on 25 February 2010. This is a sensor technology risk reduction effort aimed at advancing the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of relevant instruments. The primary goal is to develop cost effective technology refresh solutions that replace the 10 yr-old obsolete C/NOFS sensors; achieve significantly higher reliability; extend on-orbit design life from 1 to 5 years; and develop hardware that can be easily and affordably manufactured. The specific capability needed is for collecting ionospheric and thermospheric data in order to monitor and forecast electron density profiles and ionospheric scintillation.

1. Background: The earth’s ionosphere is a layer of charged particles (ions and electrons) that lies in near-earth space at altitudes of approximately 90 – 1,500 km. Radio waves from geosynchronous communication satellites, from the Global Positioning System (GPS) and from other space assets must pass through the ionosphere to reach ground receivers. At times, the ionosphere becomes unstable and highly structured. These structures, which are variously known as equatorial plasma bubbles, Equatorial Spread F (ESF), plumes or ionospheric irregularities, interfere with the radio waves. Fluctuations in the radio signal’s amplitude and phase can be severe enough to cause message dropouts on communication links or loss of navigation lock for a GPS receiver. The fluctuations are called scintillation because they are analogous to the twinkling of stars as the star light passes through the atmosphere. Of equal importance in assessing the effect of the ionosphere on space assets is the electron density profile (EDP). The distribution of electrons in the ionosphere impacts the range and position accuracy of space-track radars and affects the accuracy of navigational fixes with GPS. Plasma drifts (from which the vector electric fields can be inferred) and vector neutral wind are important physical drivers to the models that are used to calculate the electron density profiles and ionospheric scintillation.

2. Program Goals: The Air Force is interested in reducing risk for relatively small and light sensors that can operate at 100% duty cycle on a three-axis-stabilized platform flying in a low inclination, circular, low earth orbit (300 – 500 km). The primary focus is to develop capabilities to design and manufacture highly reliable environment monitoring instruments that can operate for a minimum of 5 years, in both solar minimum and maximum conditions.

Offerors should specifically characterize the proposed sensor reliability as it presently exists and indicate the level of effort necessary to raise sensor reliability to the level specified for each objective listed below in a manner which is cost-effective and within the period of performance of this solicitation. The performance and physical parameter goals shown below are for guidance and are considered part of the design trade space. The proposal should discuss the choices made and the impact on performance and physical parameters.

The sections that follow use the term accuracy for proximity of measurement results to the true value, and sensitivity (i.e. precision) to the repeatability or reproducibility of the measurement. The numbers listed on the following four tables for range, accuracy sensitivity or frequency are the expected values.

3. Objectives: Offerors may submit proposals that address one or more of the below listed program objectives. Offerors shall submit separate technical and cost proposals per objective or per instrument when the instrument concept encompasses multiple objectives. Page limits for technical proposals will be 30 pages per objective/instrument. Page limits for the Business and Cost Proposal will remain unchanged (20 pages and 75 pages, respectively).

Objective 1: Line of sight (LOS) total electron content (TEC) and ionospheric scintillation Radio wave propagation methods can be used to measure the TEC along the propagation ray path from a transmitter to a receiver. Known methods use space-to-space (for example, GPS Occultation Sensors), space-to-ground (for example, radio beacons on satellites), or ground-to-space (e.g., radio frequency receivers on satellites) transmission paths. TEC data can be ingested in global assimilative models of the ionosphere to specify the distribution of electrons in the ionosphere, the electron density profile (EDP). The same techniques used for LOS TEC can also provide information on regions of the ionosphere currently causing scintillation. These measurements provide information on the geo-location of the scintillating regions and on the severity of the scintillation. Such information is used for nowcasting the current state of the ionosphere and for modeling the development of the ionosphere for near term forecasting.

Traditionally the GPS Radio Occultation (RO) technique has been applied to derive TEC and subsequently, EDPs for ionospheric specification. A GPS solution should include dual-frequency capability to measure the TEC between the spacecraft and the GPS satellite. Scintillation observations require both carrier phase and amplitude measurements on at least the L1 frequency, or preferably, both the L1 and L2 frequencies. Maximizing coverage suggests that both rising and setting occultations should be monitored. Solutions that exploit additional GPS or other Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) signals available within the 2013-2020 timeframe, such as L2C and Galileo, may be included as an enhancement to the basic functionality.

Multi-frequency radio beacons in low Earth orbit (LEO) provide another option for direct measurement of ionospheric structures along a one-way propagation channel. Assimilation of scintillation and integrated TEC from receivers monitoring radio beacon overflights contribute toward improved ionospheric specification models. A radio beacon should provide, at a minimum, coherent VHF, UHF, and L-BAND signals. Particular care should be taken in the instrument design to mitigate possible interference issues with other potential instruments including, but not limited to, GPS occultation and in situ plasma density sensors. Additionally, proposals to employ radio beacons should consider the implications of proposed waveforms on the complexity of the ground-based receiver systems required to exploit the transmitted signals. Ground Beacon receivers are not directly addressed in this announcement. However, if the proposed Beacon transmitter necessitates special Beacon receivers or specific changes to receivers, these should be addressed in the proposal.

This objective seeks to obtain a sensor(s) that will maximize both the coverage and the resolution of the observations with a reliability goal of 95% probability of success (Ps) for the 5-year mission life. Respondents to this request should provide complete information on their proposed measurement technique, its history, flight heritage, data reduction software and calibration techniques. Measurement goals in terms of scintillation from VHF through L-Band are given in Table 1.

3 absolute TEC Units (GPS RO)

0.1 Hz - 1.0 Hz (times # of tracks); All viewable GPS satellites must be tracked (including non-occulting satellites)

Electron Density Profiles (EDP)

0 to 5x106 cm-3

Principal Scintillation Indices S4: 0-1.5 sigma-phi: 0-1 radians

(times # of tracks)

High Rate Scintillation Products S4: 0-1.5 sigma-phi: 0-1 radians Relative amplitude: 0.1 dB Relative phase: 0.1 radian 50 Hz for occulting satellites

Table 1. TEC and Scintillation sensor measurement goals

For space-based receiver solutions, such as GPS RO, telemetry considerations may constrain the ability to download high-rate data (i.e., 50 Hz) and on-board near real-time processing may be required to deliver the desired scintillation products. Parameters of interest include S4, sigma-phi, decorrelation time and spectral characteristics (e.g., slope, intercept and correlation coefficient) of the observed signals.

For a Radio Occultation sensor our goal is to minimize the size, weight and power (SWaP) envelope relative to the CORISS sensor on C/NOFS which was:

· 6.3 kg, 15 W

· Dimensions: 18×17×11 cm (GPS receiver only)

For a Radio Beacon sensor our goal is to minimize the SWaP envelope relative to the CERTO beacon on C/NOFS which was:

· 3.3 kg, 11.5 W

· Dimensions: Transmitter - 16×8×6 cm; Antenna - 59.6 length x 6.35 diameter (stowed) If a higher power beacon is proposed, include discussion on SWaP tradespace

The government is also interested in alternative sensor concepts that can contribute data to ionospheric density profile specification through assimilation into an ionospheric model.

Objective 2: Ion velocity vector or electric field Knowledge of the low-latitude electric field is critical for determining the development of equatorial plasma irregularities. Vector measurements of the ion velocity or the ionospheric electric field are complementary to each other because the ion velocity vector can be used to derive the electric field (using the expression: E = -V×B) and vice versa. Either one of these complementary measurements is critical to physics-based models of the ionosphere which propagate the current state of the ionosphere into the future. Accurate ion velocity or electric field measurements are essential to forecast accurately the motions and variations of the ionosphere. Our inability to predict the day-to-day variability of the low latitude ionosphere coupled with our need to determine when ESF is likely to occur, dictates the need to monitor routinely the plasma drifts in this region.

Three fundamental techniques have been used in the past for measuring space plasma electric fields: the double probe, ion drift, and the electron drift techniques. Only the first two are appropriate for measuring electric fields in the high density plasma of the ionosphere. C/NOFS is currently flying both a double-probe electric field instrument and an ion velocity meter in a 3-axis stabilized bus in a low inclination orbit. For the last 30+ years the polar orbiting DMSP satellites have carried ion drift instruments.

This objective seeks to obtain a sensor(s) that will maximize both the accuracy and the sensitivity of the observations with a reliability goal of 70% probability of success (Ps) for the 5-year mission life. Respondents to this request should provide complete information on their proposed measurement technique, its history, flight heritage, data reduction software and calibration techniques. Measurement goals for Ion Velocity sensors are given in Table 2a. Goals for Electric Field sensors are given in Table 2b.

Table 2a. Ion Velocity sensor measurement goals

Table 2b. Electric Field sensor measurement goals

For an Ion Velocity sensor our goal is to reduce the SWaP envelope of the IVM sensor on C/NOFS which was:

· 3 kg, 3 W

· Dimensions: 13×25×12 cm

For an Electric Field sensor our goal for SWaP is:

· No more than 25 kg, 8 W

· Electronics dimensions: no more than 20×20×10 cm

· Boom/probe dimensions: greater or equal to 8m

Objective 3: Plasma density, density fluctuations & temperature Measurements of the electron/ion density and electron temperature at a slow cadence will be used as input to assimilation models of the ionosphere and as validation data for specifications of the EDP. Faster measurements of electron/ion density will be used to identify structured regions of the ionosphere that could cause scintillation and as inputs to models that calculate the impact of the structured regions on radio wave transmission.

One technique for measuring these parameters is a Planar Langmuir Probe (PLP) similar to the one currently flying on the C/NOFS satellite, which was designed and built in-house by AFRL/RV. However, proposals for instruments that are conceptually different from PLP will be considered in addition to those that are similar. AFRL is looking for collaborative efforts in which the offeror proposes to team with AFRL in-house scientists and engineers but also welcomes proposals for self-contained efforts (in which the offeror provides all aspects of design, fabrication, and test). The AFRL PLP technical data is available for interested offerors. Contact either the Technical POC or the Contracting POC to request access to this information.

This objective seeks to obtain a sensor that will maximize both the accuracy and the sensitivity of the observations with a reliability goal of 70% probability of success (Ps) for the 5-year mission life. Respondents to this request should provide complete information on their proposed measurement technique, its history, flight heritage, data reduction software and calibration techniques. Measurement goals are given in Table 3.

The sensor must deliver a 1-second average density value that is within 5% of the geophysical plasma density throughout the dynamic range in Table 3. The sensor must also be sensitive to relative fluctuations of 0.5% of that density value over the entire dynamic range. Measurements at 1 kHz must have an absolute accuracy within 10% of the geophysical plasma density and must be sensitive to relative fluctuations of 0.5% of the measurement. The 1 kHz measurement must be free of noise (electronic, digitization, etc.) at the same 0.5% level of the mean 1-second density.

Table 3. Ion Density sensor measurement goals

For an ion density sensor our goal is to also reduce the SWaP envelope of the PLP sensor on C/NOFS which was:

· 3.4 kg, 9 W

· Dimensions: 21×23×13 cm

Objective 4: Neutral wind velocity vector Neutral wind velocity observations are used to predict the growth rates of instabilities associated with ionospheric scintillation. Neutral winds are a critical ionospheric state variable, but have proven difficult to measure absolutely and with great accuracy. The Air Force is interested in acquiring the capability to provide an in situ measurement of the 3D neutral wind field in a low inclination orbit within the F region ionosphere. A variety of techniques have been tried with some success, but none have allowed for rapid, accurate, in situ sampling of the 3-D wind vector. Some techniques that have been used are:

· Accelerometers which can be used to measure winds in three directions, but they are limited to low altitudes, depend on several related environmental parameters and have very poor time resolution.

· Neutral mass spectrometers have been used in a variety of configurations in order to determine ram and cross-track wind velocity but they have had poor time resolution.

· The Neutral Wind Meter (NWM) on C/NOFS was designed to measure the 3D wind vector but has encountered extremely low neutral densities in this unusual solar minimum.

This objective seeks to obtain a sensor that will maximize both the accuracy and the sensitivity of the observations with a reliability goal of 70% probability of success (Ps) for the 5-year mission life. Respondents to this request should provide complete information on their proposed measurement technique, its history, flight heritage, data reduction software and calibration techniques. Measurement goals are given in Table 4.

±5 m/s or ±5%

±5 m/s or ±5%

Table 4. Measurement objectives for the Neutral Wind sensor

Our goal is to reduce the SWaP envelope of the Neutral Wind Meter on C/NOFS which was:

· 8 kg, 15 W

· Dimensions: 12×14×22 cm (electronics); 19×18×11 cm (sensor head #1); 21×18(d) cm (sensor head #2)

ANTICIPATED FUNDING: Anticipated funding for this CALL (not per contract or award) is: FY10: $5M dollars; FY11: $15M dollars; FY12: $10M dollars. 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.

PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE: The anticipated period of performance for individual awards resulting from this CALL is between 18-36 months in duration, including all options, depending on the proposals selected. The period of performance is to be proposed in the format “includes 36 months for the technical effort and 3 months for Final Report preparation”.

PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND TIME: The due date for proposals submitted in response to this CALL is no later than 4:30 p.m. MDT on 19 May 2010. Proposals for any other technology area identified in the baseline BAA will not be accepted at this time unless a CALL for proposals in that specific area is open. Proposals received after the due date and time shall be governed by the provisions of FAR 52.215-1(c)(3).

CALL AMENDMENTS: Offerors should monitor FedBizOpps/EPS http://www.fbo.gov for any additional notices to this CALL that may permit extensions to the proposal submission date or otherwise modify this announcement.

ANTICIPATED TYPE OF CONTRACTS/INSTRUMENTS: The Air Force anticipates awarding Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts, basic with options, as a result of this CALL but reserves the right to award the instrument best suited to the nature of research proposed.

ANTICIPATED NUMBER OF AWARDS: The Air Force anticipates possibly awarding one or more contracts. However, the Air Force reserves the right to make multiple awards or no awards pursuant to this CALL.

ANTICIPATED AWARD DATE: 24 Aug 2010

INTENT TO PROPOSE: Potential offerors are requested to advise the contracting point of contact (by e-mail) if they intend to submit a proposal in response to this CALL. Such notification is merely a courtesy and is not a commitment by the offeror to submit a proposal.

DELIVERABLE ITEMS:

Data Items: Offerors should propose data deliverables consistent with tracking progress, verifying performance, and otherwise establishing the objectives of the project. Monthly technical and financial Status Reports and a Final Technical Report in accordance with PRS Pamphlet 61-201, Preparation of Final Report, are required data items. Other suggested data items are as follows:

Hardware: Responders to this call should propose to deliver two instruments. The first is a design qualification unit that will be used to show functionality and performance of the instrument’s design. The design qualification unit must be built to demonstrate functionality and performance of the final flight instrument with clear delineation of changes to form & fit for the final flight unit (mass, volume, footprint, interfaces, etc.) It should be built with parts and materials that, at a minimum, are functionally equivalent to flight-quality. Any non-flight parts used in the qualification unit must have known and available flight quality equivalent parts. Flight quality parts and materials may be used if it is economical and practical to do so. The design qualification unit should be subjected to a full series of qualification tests using Minotaur IV launch environment levels and applying best practices (such as those outlined in MIL-STD-1540C).

The second deliverable unit is a flight demonstration unit that will be used to demonstrate the production of flight hardware and software. All aspects of a flight hardware fabrication effort are of interest in the demonstration, including but not limited to: requirements verification; parts and materials availability; parts and materials certification and testing; storage, handling and shipping; fabrication; functional testing; calibration; environmental testing; engineering change request and waiver documentation; test plans and test reports; design reviews, test readiness reviews, and pre-ship reviews; reliability; quality assurance; etc. Sufficient calibrations should be completed to demonstrate the utility of the calibration procedure and to permit estimation of the final calibration accuracy and sensitivity. Calibrations must be of sufficient quality to demonstrate that environmental testing does not alter the calibration or to reveal design, functionality and performance attributes changed by those tests. Environmental testing on the flight demonstration unit will be performed by the government with contractor support using proto-qualification testing levels. At the conclusion of testing, the government will explore various flight opportunities. Proposals shall also include an estimate of per unit costs to purchase additional high reliability sensors beyond the completion of the proposed effort.

Software: Software deliverables include all flight software necessary to operate the instrument, receive and execute commands, format telemetry, and transfer data to the spacecraft. This includes not only software that is resident within the instrument, but also any unique software which is resident within the ground support equipment and is needed to analyze instrument performance and calibration during testing. Also required is a data reduction capability for converting raw instrument data files into calibrated engineering units. Instrument designs should be capable of receiving & accepting new flight software code in both the ground or spaceflight environments and return information through telemetry showing successful acceptance and operation of that new flight code.

Other deliverables: Other deliverables include ground support equipment as required to support the instrument; documentation including but not limited to design reviews, software development plans, hardware and software interface control documents, test plans, test results, acceptance data package, etc.; detailed design specifications for the instrument hardware and software adequate for acquiring additional units of the same sensor (government purpose data rights); and, other contractual CDRLs as specified elsewhere.

Standards: Hardware and software should be constructed using spacecraft instrumentation best practices and adhere to the highest standards of functionality, reliability, and quality, consistent with cost and schedule constraints.

Standard spacecraft interfaces are key to this effort. The Space Test Program Standard Interface Vehicle (STP-SIV) Payload User’s Guide, 15 June 2008, provides an excellent example of typical interface requirements (Chapter 6, Payload Interface Requirements, Chapter 7, General Design Requirements, Chapter 8, Payload Environment Design Guidelines, and Chapter 9, Payload Environmental Design and Test Guidelines).

The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Instrument Development Requirements and Guidelines (IDRG) gives requirements that are typical of the level of effort envisioned for the current BAA and may be used as a point of reference for preparation of proposals and cost estimates.

The STP-SIV Payload User’s Guide and AFRL IDRG documents are included as attachments to this solicitation.

Additional Reference Documents: The AFRL Planar Langmuir Probe technical data is available for interested offerors. Contact the Technical POC to request access to this information

Two AFRL Technology Fact Sheets are also being included as attachments to this solicitation to highlight new technologies that may be relevant and useful to potential offerors. The first fact sheet highlights the Lab’s 1st-gen Plug and Play Satellite. The second fact sheet provides a thumbnail overview of the Single Event Immune FPGA (SIRF), a recent break-through in space electronics design hardening.

AFRL has also been working with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics to codify a set of standards for Space Plug and Play. While still in draft form, the guidebook along with the avionics, satellite data model, and xTEDS standards provide excellent guidance for developing plug and play compatible interfaces. These documents are currently under ITAR/Export Control and are, consequently, not publically releasable. To obtain copies, please contact the Technical Point of Contact identified earlier in this solicitation.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:

1. Program security classification for this call is UNCLASSIFIED; however classified processing may be required.

2. ITAR/Export Control: Research areas may involve technology that is subject to U.S. Export Control Laws. Therefore, only offerors who are certified by the Defense Logistics Information Service (DLIS) may submit proposals. For questions, contact DLIS on-line at http://www.dlis.dla.mil/jcp or at DLIS, US/Canada Joint Certification Center, Federal Center, 74 North Washington, Battle Creek MI 49017-4312, (800) 352-3572. It is envisioned that the developed item may trigger ITAR and Export Control restrictions. Offerors should explain how ITAR and Export Control restrictions will be met in the context of their development, manufacturing, and marketing strategy. Status Reports and the Final Technical Report are assumed to be under ITAR restrictions (DD Form 2345 required).

3. Government furnished property, equipment, or facilities. None anticipated.

4. Aerospace Corporation, Tecolote Research Incorporated, Quantech Services Incorporated, Galorath Incorporated, Booz Allen Hamilton Incorporated, and Canyon Consulting, LLC are prohibited from submitting a proposal.

5. Other: Specialized information or requirements which are believed to be pertinent to the requirement shall be provided by the offeror in written form and incorporated into the proposal.

APPLICABILITY OF BASELINE BAA: All requirements of BAA RV-10-02 apply unless specifically amended and addressed in this CALL. For complete information regarding BAA RV-10-02, refer to the initial closed BAA as amended. It contains information applicable to all CALLs issued under the BAA and provides information on the overall program, proposal preparation and submission requirements, proposal review and evaluation criteria, award administration, agency contacts, etc. Direct questions to the points of contact identified above.

PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors may submit proposals that address one or more of the objectives outlined in the “Requirements Description” section above. Offerors shall submit separate technical and cost proposals per objective or per instrument when instrument concept encompasses multiple objectives. Page limits for these proposals will be 30 pages per objective/instrument. Page limits for the Business and Cost Proposal will remain unchanged (20 pages and 75 pages, respectively).

Proposal shall further be structured to include:

Basic Year: Develop design to Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Option 1: Mature design from PDR to Critical Design Review (CDR) Option 2: Build/test/deliver hardware/software approved at CDR, and provide engineering support during government testing

Offerors shall:

1. Submit the following documents:

a. Provide these Cost Proposal Instructions to all subcontractors. Proprietary subcontractor data may be submitted directly to the Government in accordance with Proposal Preparation Instructions in this announcement.

b. Furnish Tables 1 and 2 (shown below) for the entire performance period (supported by rationale required by subsection 2) in hard copy and on CD as IBM PC compatible, Microsoft Excel, to include all cell formulas. Include a separate Cost Element Summary by Offeror Fiscal Year (OFY) for the basic and each option or task order as proposed. Identify when the offeror’s fiscal year (OFY) begins and ends.

c. Ensure that all rate data and estimating factors used in the proposal have been submitted for review to the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) prior to cost proposal submission.

d. Provide the following information as the first page of the proposal for the Prime and Each Subcontractor.

2. Rationale: Submit a cost element summary by major cost element by OFY for the basic period of performance and each option (if applicable) or Task Order using Table 1 format. The detail required for each major cost element is described below. Address all cost elements applicable to the proposed effort and provide a narrative to support the basis of estimate of proposed costs included in Table 1.

b. Indirect Cost Rates and/or Factors. Identify all indirect cost rates (such as fringe benefits, labor overhead, material overhead, G&A, Cost of Money (COM), etc.) and applicable allocation bases by OFY. If separate indirect rates are proposed (i.e. several G&A rates) identify each base and provide calculation as to how calculated amounts were derived. If composite rates are used, provide the calculations used in deriving the composite rates. Identify the basis of proposed rates (e.g., Forward Pricing Rate Agreement and date of agreement, bidding rates and submission date, actual rates and effective date, billing rates and approval date, etc.).

c. Subcontracts/Interorganizational Transfers (IOTs). Obtain cost proposals from each subcontractor and IOT (those actually performing labor hours) using the same cost element breakout required for Table 1 for the basic, each option (if applicable) and each Task Order. Provide a list of anticipated subcontractors/IOTs using Table 2. Perform and provide evaluation results of cost/price analysis of subcontract/IOT proposals. If decrement factors are used, explain their development and application. If the proposed subcontractor’s/IOT’s fee rate is higher than the Prime’s fee, provide rationale as to why the subcontractor’s risk is greater than the Prime’s. NOTE: Subcontractor/IOT proposals are due by the closing date identified in this announcement.

In accordance with FAR 52.215-22, Excessive Pass-Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort; to comply with this provision, the contractor shall provide the following information:

(1) The offeror shall identify in its proposal the percent of effort it intends to perform, and the percent expected to be performed by each subcontractor, under the contract, task order, or delivery order.

(2) If the offeror intends to subcontract more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under the contract, task order, or delivery order, the offeror shall identify in its proposal—

(i) The amount of the offeror’s indirect costs and profit applicable to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s); and

(ii) A description of the added value provided by the offeror as related to the work to be performed by the subcontractor(s).

(3) If any subcontractor proposed under the contract, task order, or delivery order intends to subcontract to a lower-tier subcontractor more than 70 percent of the total cost of work to be performed under its subcontract, the offeror shall identify in its proposal—

(i) The amount of the subcontractor’s indirect costs and profit applicable to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s); and

(ii) A description of the added value provided by the subcontractor as related to the work to be performed by the lower-tier subcontractor(s).

d. Travel. Separately identify costs for travel for the basic and each option or task order as applicable using Table 3. Provide a breakout of travel costs for each OFY including the purpose and number of trips, origin and destination(s), duration, and travelers per trip.

e. Material. Separately identify costs for material for the basic and each option or task order as applicable using Table 4. Provide an itemized, priced list of all proposed equipment, materials and supplies for each OFY. Provide information regarding the basis of estimates (i.e. vendor quotes, purchase orders, engineering estimates, website URL etc). Provide a breakout and explanation of all other proposed ODCs by OFY.

f. Other Direct Costs (ODCs). Separately identify other direct costs to include consultants for the basic and each option or task order as applicable. If proposing consultants, provide consultant agreements to validate proposed rates and a determination by the offeror that the rate proposed is comparable to other consultant rates for work of similar nature. Substantiate the need for proposed consultant services.

g. Cost of Money (COM). Refer to FAR 52.215-16, Facilities Capital Cost of Money. Provide a schedule which contains proposed cost of money (COM) factors, if applicable, to include a display of all individual bases for the COM amounts. A DD Form 1861 for each OFY must be submitted if proposing COM.

h. Fee. Identify proposed fee base and rate.

COST ELEMENT SUMMARY

NOTE: THIS IS A SAMPLE TABLE - ALL OFFERORS SHOULD PROPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR APPROVED ACCOUNTING PRACTICES.

Beginning OFY* Ending OFY*

COST ELEMENT

BASE

RATE

AMT

BASE

RATE

AMT

TOTAL

PROPOSEDAMOUNT

DIRECT LABOR

(List each direct labor category separately.)

XXXX

XXXX

SUBCONTRACTS, IOTS, CONSULTANTS (List Separately)

XXXX

MATERIAL

XXXX

TRAVEL

XXXX

ODCs

XXXX

SUBTOTAL COSTS

XXXX

TOTAL COST & FEE

XXXX

TOTAL PRICE

XXXX

*Submit a cost element summary by OFY for the basic, options for each year of performance.

TABLE 2

SUBCONTRACT/INTERORGANIZATIONAL TRANSFERS & CONSULTANTS

PRICE SUMMARY

TOTALS

**Identify Statement of Work or Work Breakdown Structure or provide a narrative explanation as an addendum.

TABLE 3

TRAVEL SUMMARY

TABLE 4

BILL OF MATERIALS

OFY or

Vendor/Source

ATTACH THIS PAGE TO THE FIRST PAGE OF YOUR PROPOSAL

COST PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

Place a check by the appropriate items. Write “n/a” next to the item if not applicable.

In accordance with the Cost Proposal Instructions, the following is provided with our proposal:

__ EXCEL spreadsheets of all applicable tables, on CD ROM WITH FORMULAS.

Spreadsheets merely representing hard number inputs are not acceptable.

__ Cost/price analyses of all subcontract and IOT proposals

__ Fully-disclosed subcontracts and IOT proposals which includes Table 1 for each subcontracts and IOT

__ Subcontract information in accordance with DFARS 252.215-7003, Excessive Pass-Through Charges – Identification of Subcontract Effort

__ Fully completed Table 1(s), by basic and each option by OFY

__ Fully completed Table 2(s), listing all proposed subcontractors and IOTs by basic and each option

__ Fully completed Table 3(s), listing all proposed travel by basic, each option by OFY

__ Fully completed Table 4(s), listing all proposed material by basic, each option by OFY

_ Support for any proposed ODCs to include consultant agreements on all proposed consultants

__ Computations of any composite indirect rates or team labor rates

__ Fully Completed DD1861’s (if proposing COM) by basic and each option by OFY image1.gif