Concept Definition for SBT Future Interceptor.pdf

Special Topic Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

Sea-Based Weapon Systems (AB) Program Executive Office

MDA Special Topic BAA Announcement HQ0851-20-S-0001

Concept Definition for Sea-Based Terminal Future Interceptor

Sea-Based Weapon Systems Missile Defense Agency

17211 Avenue D Suite 160 Dahlgren, VA 22448

This Special Topic Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is intended to fulfill requirements for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing state-of-the-art technologies and/or increasing knowledge and understanding as a means to identify and develop robust innovative concepts, stimulate technology innovation, and exploit breakthroughs in science. This BAA identifies MDA research/exploratory development areas of interest and provides prospective offerors information on the preparation of white papers along with evaluation factors. THIS BAA

DOES NOT FOCUS ON SPECIFIC SYSTEMS OR HARDWARE SOLUTIONS.

THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS NOT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING, OR

OTHER TYPES OF SUPPORT SERVICES.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Approved for Public Release 20-MDA-10585 (23 Sep 20)

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

Table of Contents

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION:………………………………………………………………… 4

SECTION II: SUMMARY INFORMATION:…………………………………………………... 5

A. Agency Name:

B. Program Name:

C. Broad Agency Announcement Title:

D. Broad Agency Announcement Number:

E. North American Industry Classification System Code/Title:

F. Response Date:

G. Anticipated Awards:

H. Total Funding Availability for Award(s):

I. Types of Instruments that may be Awarded:

J. Agency Points of Contact (POC):

K. Other Information:

SECTION III: RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION………………………………… 6

A. Background:

B. Synopsis:

SECTION IV: AWARD INFORMATION: 7

SECTION V: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION: 7

SECTION VI: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (OCI)……………………. 8

SECTION VII: WHITE PAPER SUBMISSION AND REQUIREMENTS…………………… 10

A. White Paper Submission: …………………………………………………………….…..10 B. Marking and Handling: ……..………………..…………………………………………...10 C. Government Furnished Information (GFI): .........………………………………………...11 D. White Paper Requirements: ..…….…………………………..…………………………...11

SECTION VIII: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: 13

SECTION IX: EVALUATION INFORMATION……………………………………………... 15

A. Evaluation Panel:

B. Evaluation Process:

C. Evalution Criteria:

SECTION X: AWARD SELECTION…………………………………………………………. 19

ANNEX 1: OCI ANALYSIS/DISCLOSURE FORM…………………………………………. 20

ANNEX 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Jun 2012)…………………. 25

ANNEX 3: DOCUMENT ACCESS AGREEMENT/REQUEST FORM……………………… 27

Concept Definition for Sea-Based Terminal Future Interceptor

SECTION I: INTRODUCTION:

This publication constitutes a “SPECIAL TOPIC” Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) issued under the provisions of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.102(d) (2), providing for the competitive selection of basic and applied research and that part of development not related to the development of a specific system or hardware procurement. This posting fulfills the requirement for full and open competition. Any contracts awarded from this BAA must comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulation (EAR).

“In the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, the Missile Defense Agency was assigned the responsibility of Executive Agent for the development of capabilities to counter Hypersonic Glide Vehicles and conventional prompt strikes…Accordingly, the MDA mission is evolving to address other missile threats, including hypersonic glide vehicles. The missile defense architecture must evolve to give the Warfighter the ability to counter these threats… As the threat evolves and includes new offensive systems such as hypersonic glide vehicles, the Nation will need to increase investments in cutting-edge missile defense technologies. If we are to support the Warfighter in a highly uncertain strategic environment, we must meet technology maturation, systems development, and manufacturing challenges head-on and continue to demonstrate missile defense capabilities…The stakes are high and the price of failure is beyond measure” (Missile Defense Agency Director’s Vision and Intent, Vice Admiral, USN, Jon A. Hill, Director, Missile Defense Agency, August 2019).

This Broad Agency Announcement seeks Missile Defense System (MDS) concepts to maintain a robust layered defense strategy with a multi-mission, terminal phase interceptor that complements all other midcourse weapons and defeats future hypersonic threats.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) will not issue paper copies of this announcement.

The MDA reserves the right to select for award some, or none of the white papers in response to this announcement. The cost of responding to this BAA is not an allocable and allowable cost as set forth in accordance with Part 31 of the FAR, such costs shall be excluded from any billing, claim, or proposal applicable to a Government contract. It is the policy of MDA to handle all white papers and proposals submitted under this BAA, as sensitive, competitive information and to disclose their contents only for the purposes of evaluation. The issuance of this BAA does not commit the Government to any contractual agreement or arrangements. Furthermore, this BAA shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government for any procurement of supplies or services nor does it constitute a solicitation or a promise of a solicitation in the future.

SECTION II: SUMMARY INFORMATION:

A. Agency Name:

Missile Defense Agency, Sea-Based Weapon Systems, Program Executive Office

B. Program Name:

Sea-Based Terminal

C. Broad Agency Announcement Title:

Concept Definition for Sea-Based Terminal Future Interceptor

D. Broad Agency Announcement Number:

HQ0851-20-S-0001

E. North American Industry Classification System Code/Title:

541715 - Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

F. Response Date:

This announcement shall remain open until November 13, 2020. White papers maybe submitted at any time during the BAA open period (September 28, 2020 through November 13, 2020).

The MDA may issue Request for Proposals (RFP) up to six months (May 13, 2021) following the closing date for this BAA announcement only for white papers submitted during the BAA open period.

G. Anticipated Awards:

The MDA envisions multiple contract awards under this BAA. However, the MDA is under no obligation to make any awards. The number of awards made under this BAA will depend on the quality of the white papers received.

The anticipated timeline for this BAA is:

September 28, 2020 – Publish BAA September 28, 2020 through November 13, 2020 – Submit White Papers December 08, 2020 – Award Decision 2nd Quarter Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 – Contract Award for Concept Definition Phase

H. Total Funding Availability for Award(s):

Award(s) as a result of this announcement, will not exceed $5,000,000.

I. Types of Instruments that may be Awarded:

Award(s) as a result of this BAA will take the form of a contract, although the Government reserves the right to use other types of contractual instruments if deemed more appropriate for the proposed work. Any contract award(s) resulting from this BAA will incorporate the appropriate FAR, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and local MDA clauses.

J. Agency Points of Contact (POC):

POC Name UNCLASSIFIED Email CLASSIFIED Email

BAA

Manager

Mr. Tony Padgett tony.padgett@mda.mil tony.padgett@mda.smil.mil

Technical Mr. Shane Rose shane.rose@mda.mil shane.rose@mda.smil.mil Technical Mr. Joshua Brown joshua.brown@mda.mil joshua.brown@mda.smil.mil Contracting Officer

Ms. Jennifer Elkins jennifer.elkins@mda.mil jennifer.elkins@mda.smil.mil

Contract Specialist

Ms. Majesta Hartley majesta.hartley@mda.mil majesta.hartley@mda.smil.mil

Security Mr. Frederick Dildine frederick.dildine@mda.mil frederick.dildine@mda.smil.mil

K. Other Information:

Any research resulting from contract(s) awarded under this BAA must comply with United

States Laws and regulations on “Export Control,” including the ITAR and the EAR. MDA approval is required prior to any non-United States (U.S.) citizen performing on a BAA contract, including classified work.

All models, algorithms, simulations, and/or software modified or developed for this contract (if selected) will be delivered with no less than Government purpose rights as defined in the DFARS 227-7103-5. Exceptions are expected for commercial-off-the-shelf software (e.g., MATLAB).

SECTION III: RESEARCH OPPORTUNITY DESCRIPTION:

A. Background:

The MDA is responsible for developing and deploying a MDS, to defend the U.S., its deployed forces, allies, and friends from missile attack in all phases of flight. The MDA is also responsible for development and integration of systems to defeat future threat types.

B. Synopsis:

While this announcement is limited to the special topic area of MDS concepts to maintain a robust layered defense strategy with a multi-mission, terminal phase interceptor that complements all other midcourse weapons, the MDA seeks investigation of a broad trade space mailto:tony.padgett@mda.smil.mil mailto:shane.rose@mda.smil.mil mailto:jennifer.elkins@mda.mil mailto:jennifer.elkins@mda.smil.mil mailto:majesta.hartley@mda.mil mailto:majesta.hartley@mda.smil.mil mailto:frederick.dildine@mda.mil mailto:frederick.dildine@mda.smil.mil for innovative concepts that can provide affordable, reliable, high capacity, robust capability versus future threats.

The MDA requests white papers from U.S. industry, accredited colleges and university, and nonprofit organizations. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) or University Advanced Research Centers (UARC) are eligible as a subcontractor as long as they are permitted under the sponsoring agreement or charter between the Government and specific FFRDC or UARC. In accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) 5220.22-M, “National Industry Security Program Operating Manual,” dated May 18, 2016, offerors shall be required to have access to classified information and thus companies under foreign ownership, control or influence will be excluded from contract award.

Offerors will fully describe weapon system concepts, component maturity, MDS integration approach, estimated achievable performance, and technologies requiring risk reduction.

The offerors will provide schedule and costs for technology risk reduction and product development.

SECTION IV: AWARD INFORMATION:

The funded amount and period of performance of each white paper selected for award may vary depending on the research area and the technical approach to be pursued by the offer selected. The period of performance for the concept definition phase is not expected to exceed 12 months in duration.

Award(s) may occur six months after the BAA closing date. Anticipate award(s) starting in 2nd Quarter of FY2021. The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the white papers received in response to this announcement. The Government intends to evaluate and recommend award(s) without discussions based upon its evaluation of white papers; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary.

Discussions with the points of contact shall not constitute a commitment by the Government to subsequently fund or award any proposed effort. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

This Special Topic BAA covers export-controlled technologies. Research in these areas is limited to “U.S. persons” as defined in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations-22 CFR §

120.1 et seq.

Cost sharing is not expected and will not be used as a factor during the merit review of any white paper here under. However, the Government may consider voluntary cost sharing if proposed.

SECTION V: ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION:

Eligible organizations for contract award for research in those areas covered in this

Special Topic BAA are private industry, large, and small business concerns. No portion of this BAA will be set-aside due to the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable items of this research.

Teaming partnerships are encouraged and teams may submit white papers in response to this announcement. However, the Contractors are responsible for negotiating appropriate Associate Contractor Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements with other contractors as necessary to implement the exchanges of technical data and other information required, ensure total system End-to-End performance, and also to protect technical data and other information from unauthorized disclosure or use. These agreements must not restrict any of the Government’s rights established pursuant to this or any other contract. The offerors must be willing to cooperate and exchange software, data, and other information in an integrated program with other contractors, as well as with system integrators, selected by MDA.

Each Prime and Subcontractor will be required to meet National Institute of Standards and

Technology SP 800-171 R1 requirements to develop a System Security Plan (SSP) and Plan of Action and Milestones (POAM) resulting in the implementation of cybersecurity controls on their contractor owned and operated network. The overall responsibility for protecting controlled unclassified information (CUI) and limiting its distribution within the supply chain remains with the prime contractor. Contractors are advised that should they be selected to proceed to the next phase of this process the government will request their SSP and POAM for evaluation and may require the development of an Information Management and Control Plan to further protect CUI throughout the supply chain. These and any additional cybersecurity requirements will be clearly defined in the follow on solicitation documents. Any vendor not meeting or is unable to meet the requirements for Cybersecurity “MAY” not be eligible for award.

SECTION VI: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST:

OCIs can deprive MDA of the independent, objective advice of its supporting contractors.

OCIs occur when a contractor may be unable to provide impartial advice or assistance, when its objectivity in performing a contract is impaired, or when it may obtain an unfair competitive advantage. A contractor can obtain an unfair competitive advantage by obtaining access to non-public information or when it is in a position to favor its own products or services.

MDA maintains a strict OCI policy adhering the FAR Subpart 9.5. As a matter of general policy, contractors which provide advisory and assistance services to MDA, particularly in the Systems Engineering, and Technical Assistance (SETA), acquisition support, management support and quality assurance functional areas, cannot develop or support the development of MDA's research and development (R&D) efforts. This separation of contractual responsibilities is critical to ensuring MDA obtains the independent, objective advice it requires, particularly in establishing requirements for our major research and development efforts and in evaluating the performance of contractors performing those requirements.

All offerors and proposed subcontractors must disclose in their white paper submittal, whether they are providing any of the above-mentioned advisory and assistance services or similar support to any MDA funded contracts or subcontracts; MDS-related contracts or subcontracts; and any non-MDS related business relationships with firms doing business with or in support of MDA. All facts relevant to the existence or potential existence of an OCI (FAR 9.5) must be disclosed. All disclosures must state which office(s) the offeror supports, identify the prime contract numbers, provide a description of the services being performed and a preliminary non-binding OCI assessment addressing if an actual and/or potential OCI exists.

White papers that fail to fully disclose existing and/or potential OCIs will be rejected without evaluation and withdrawn from further consideration for an award.

If a prospective offeror believes that an OCI exists and/or may exist, the offeror should promptly raise the issue with MDA by emailing their contact information and a summary of the potential conflict to the Contracting Officer in Section II.J above for a formal assessment, prior to expending time and effort preparing a white paper submittal.

a. MDA Technical, Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS/TEAMS

NEXT)

Potential OCIs between TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT and other MDA acquisitions are highlighted in the MDA TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT OCI Memorandum incorporated into each TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT solicitation/contract. Questions related to OCI issues or restrictions specific to a TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT solicitation/contract should be forwarded to the applicable TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT Contracting Officer by the prime contractor. Subcontractors supporting TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT are required to contact their applicable TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT prime contractor for any OCI issues or restrictions specific to a TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT subcontract.

DFARS clause 252.209-7009, Organizational Conflict of Interest—Major Defense

Acquisition Program, is included in all TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT systems engineering and technical assistance (SETA) solicitations/contracts. For the purposes of applying the prohibitions identified in DFARS 252.209-7009, efforts should be considered part of research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E).

The MDA TEAMS/TEAMS NEXT contracts require attention by the Contracting Officer in Section II.J above with respect to potential or actual OCIs. Each potential OCI must be examined individually on the basis of its particular facts, so please refer to the following paragraph for instructions regarding a preliminary, non-binding OCI assessment for white paper submittals under this BAA.

b. Preliminary, Non-Binding OCI Assessments:

Individual contractors and contractor teams are invited to submit a request for preliminary, non-binding OCI assessments from date of this notice through submission of a white paper under this BAA. Please complete and submit ANNEX 1 (OCI Analysis/Disclosure Form) of this notice to the Contracting Officer in Section II.J above. Annotate the BAA and applicable topic area in the subject line of the email. The OCI Disclosure Form once filled in/populated by the contractor will be treated as For Official Use Only (FOUO). Include a proposed Mitigation Plan, if applicable.

It is responsibility of the contractors and contractor teams to ensure OCI analysis and disclosure forms are current, accurate, and updated to reflect any changes or new contract awards that may result in an actual or potential OCI.

Submit all questions/comments related to requests for a preliminary, non-binding OCI assessment to the Contracting Officer in Section II.J above. OCI questions and comments must be received not later than the date the white papers are due November 13, 2020.

SECTION VII: WHITE PAPER SUBMISSION AND REQUIREMENTS:

A. White Paper Submission:

White paper submissions must comply with the instructions set forth in this document.

Offerors are reminded that this BAA is for the acquisition of advanced technology for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing “state-of-the-art” technologies, increasing knowledge or understanding rather than focusing on a specific system or hardware solution.

White papers related to the development of a specific system will not be accepted as they are non-conforming with (FAR) 6.102(d) (2).

MDA intends to use email for all correspondence concerning HQ0851-20-S-0001.

Questions concerning this announcement shall be sent to the attention of the points of contact in Section II.J. White papers shall be accepted the entire period the BAA is open (September 28, 2020 through November 13, 2020). All white paper submissions under this BAA shall be submitted at the collateral SECRET level to the Contracting Officer and the Contract Specialist in Section II.J. If offerors request to deliver white papers above collateral SECRET, contact the Security POC in Section II.J.

The subject line of the email shall read “HQ0851-20-S-0001 Special Topic BAA White Paper Submission.” The white paper must be a Microsoft Word compatible or PDF format attachment to the email. There is an email size limit of 10MB per email.

If interested in this opportunity, please respond to MDA in accordance with the instructions in Section VII.D below.

NOTE: DO NOT SEND THE FOLLOWING:

a. Hardcopies of white papers (including facsimiles). Only electronic submissions will be accepted and reviewed.

b. ZIP files.

c. Password protected files.

B. Marking and Handling:

Offerors are responsible for adequately marking information contained in their response.

The appropriate Security Classification Guidance (SCG) or derivative classified source document must be followed by those interested parties submitting white papers. Contact the Security POC in Section II.J for specific classification instructions for any situation where no clear SCG direction is available or known. Offerors must possess all required personnel security clearances, facility clearances, and other infrastructure requirements necessary to conduct or perform such classified work.

Offerors should have a SECRET facility clearance with minimum facility storage capability at the SECRET level at the time white papers are submitted. Offerors must have a valid

U.S. security clearance of collateral Secret or higher in order to respond to this Announcement, because the Announcement includes a classified annex at the Secret level which will be released only to offerors possessing the appropriate clearance. All classified material must be handled in accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) (DoD 5220-22-M) and Industrial Security Regulation (DoD5220.22-R).

All technical data, computer software and computer software documentation that is related in any way with a White Paper submission shall be marked in accordance with the applicable FAR and DFARS provisions. CLASSIFIED documents must be marked, protected, transmitted, and handled per applicable National Industry Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) requirements.

C. Government Furnished Information (GFI):

Any technical data, computer software and computer software documentation furnished by the Government in response to topic inquiries, is in an "as is" condition without warranty as to its accuracy, completeness, or adequacy.

The offerors shall use this GFI at their own risk. The Government assumes no responsibility for such furnished data/documentation, nor will the Government have any liability for a respondent's response should such data/documentation prove to be inaccurate, incomplete, or otherwise defective.

a. The following UNCLASSIFIED document is available for white paper preparation upon request:

• BMDS SCG (Note: see below for instructions to request the CLASSIFIED annex to this SCG)

b. The CLASSIFIED annex consists of nine files (approximately 200 pages of material) which will be released only to offerors possessing the appropriate clearance.

In order to receive the classified annex, the respondent requires a facility security clearance of no less than SECRET. All requests must be submitted to the Security POC and Contracting Officer in Section II.J using Annex 3: Document Access Agreement/Request Form. A DD Form-254 will be issued with classified information.

D. White Paper Requirements:

White papers shall address the entire suggested period of performance. White papers shall not exceed the 35-page limit and anything beyond that limit will not be evaluated. The document shall have one-inch margins on all sides and use Times New Roman 12 point font. White papers must be valid for a period of not less than 180 days after the submission date.

Offerors may mark their white papers with the restrictive language stated in FAR 52.215-

1(Alt. 1). It is the offeror’s responsibility to define clearly to the Government what is considered restrictive data in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7016.

a. Title Page (not included in page count):

1. Labeled with “Concept Definition for Sea-Based Terminal Future Interceptor” and include BAA Number HQ0851-20-S-0001.

2. Title.

3. Name, title, telephone, fax numbers, and email address of offerors technical point of contact.

4. Name, title, telephone number, email address, official mailing address, and signature of the authorized contracting representative.

5. Date offer is submitted.

6. Abstract paragraph not to exceed 250 words.

7. Responsible small businesses responding to this BAA must include their business size and socioeconomic category.

b. Program Description (18 Pages): Provide a description of the proposed interceptor concept following the guidance in Section VIII.

c. Program Plan and Milestone Chart (4 Pages): Describe in detail, the management plan, technical objectives, and how the plan will be executed. Provide a top-level schedule for implementing and executing the concept definition phase. Describe the offeror’s estimated schedule to implement and execute the concept definition phase. Milestones should indicate when specific objectives are expected to be met in the overall schedule of the program and should identify the specific accomplishments necessary to proceed on to the next task. Describe in detail the critical path of activities for the entire research project and define areas of risk with the risk mitigation plan.

d. Description of Relevant Prior Work/Past Performance Records (5 Pages): Include a list of both in-house efforts funded by internal research funds and contracts funded by others for the past 5 years. For each effort, provide a list that includes the title of effort, contract number, indicate if your role was a prime or subcontractor, funding organization (customer), Government points of contact (current telephone numbers and email addresses), contract value, a brief description of how the contract referenced relates to the approach outlined in the white paper, and a brief summary of results. The Principle Investigator (PI), Program Manager, and member’s résumés should be included as a part of the submission for this area.

e. Description of the offerors technical capabilities and facilities (3 Pages).

f. GFI (1 Page): Identify the GFI needed for contract performance during the concept definition phase, to include title, description, rationale, date required, and impact if not received.

g. Cybersecurity (1 Page): State whether your company is NIST 800-171 r1 compliant at the time of submission and/or when it will be compliant if awarded any follow on contracts from the white paper.

h. Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost (3 Pages): Provide Tables 1 and 2 below for the entire concept definition phase performance period. Describe the offeror’s ROM cost to implement and execute the concept definition phase. Additional information, such as breakout by task, is acceptable but not required.

TABLE 1: White Paper Cost Element Summary

Totals Total Direct Labor:

Total Direct Materials Costs:

Total Other Direct Costs:

Total Indirect Costs:

Fee or Profit

TOTAL ESTIMATED PRICE:

TABLE 2: Subcontract/inter-organizational Transfers and Consultants Price Summary

SUBCONTRACTOR NAME SUBCONTRACT TASKS ESTIMATED PRICE

TOTALS

The cost of preparing white papers in response to this BAA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract or to any other contract.

SECTION VIII: PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:

The program description should describe the offeror’s plan to define and assess multi-mission, terminal phase interceptor concepts to defeat future hypersonic threats defined in the classified annex. It shall also describe the offeror’s capability to execute this plan and produce results including demonstrated capability to design, develop, test, and produce related weapon systems. Describe initial interceptor concepts and the concept trade space that will be explored with supporting technology maturation plan. Technology Readiness Level assessment guidance is provided in the classified annex. Where applicable, describe the role of concepts previously submitted to the Government.

Recommended outline and guidance for program description content:

A. Interceptor Concept Overview

The contractor shall describe the interceptor concept design, to include details regarding

All-Up Round (AUR) hardware configuration, kinematic performance, rocket motor staging and inter-pulse delays, firing doctrine, fire control methodology, guidance phases and methodologies, homing sensor operation and modalities, and communications.

B. Trade Studies

The contractor shall describe all trade studies (for major and minor subsystems) used to define the interceptor concept in sufficient detail to communicate rationale for downselection, and provide trade study results / conclusions to support the concept assessment.

C. Technology Maturity

The contractor shall describe all critical/key component technology maturity levels per the

Contractor Performance Analysis Plan (CPAP) guidelines, estimate the technology maturity levels per the CPAP guidelines, identify technology maturation plans for the key enabling technologies, and identify any associated risks to key component technology development or fielding.

D. Defended Area Performance Assessment

The contractor shall provide a defended area performance assessment in accordance with the CPAP AND demonstrate adherence to Top-Level Requirements provided in the classified annex.

E. Interceptor Concept Support from Weapon System

The contractor shall describe the weapon system concept support required from the interceptor, to specifically include the fire control and communications needed to support the overall mission.

F. Additional Considerations

Provided the concept meets the proposed threshold requirements, additional consideration will be provided if the following items are also addressed within the design space:

• Robust terminal homing performance via multi-mode seeker

• Missile sizing that accommodates multiple pack in the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System

(VLS)

• Flexible warhead design that considers sub-munition concepts

• Use of certified components where applicable or possible

• Missile-to-missile communications ability

• Substantial structural margin that accommodates additional maneuverability

G. Aegis Weapon System Integration Requirements

The contractor shall describe all key Aegis Weapon System (AWS) integration requirements or needs.

H. Logistical Requirements

The contractor shall consider the top level logistical requirements inherent in the proposed concept, and aim to minimize the number and complexity of any necessary modifications to the current or planned Military logistical capabilities (facilities, manpower, etc.)

SECTION IX: EVALUATION INFORMATION:

A. Evaluation Panel:

White papers submitted under this BAA will be protected from unauthorized disclosure.

The cognizant Program Manager and other Government scientific, engineering and technical experts will perform the evaluations and selections of the white papers under this BAA.

Restrictive notices notwithstanding, one or more support contractors may be utilized as subject-matter-expert technical consultants.

The Government may use selected FFRDCs, UARCs, non-Government contracted support, and other non-Governmental personnel to assist in the evaluation and administrative handling of white papers and proposals submitted in response to this announcement. These persons are bound by appropriate non-disclosure agreements and organizational conflict of interest statements to protect proprietary and source selection information.

Submission of white papers under this BAA constitutes the offeror’s acknowledgment and consent to the use of non-Government support contractors during the evaluation process.

B. Evaluation Process:

White papers submitted will be evaluated as they are received. Using the White Paper

Evaluation Matrix (see Table 3) and the Evaluation Criteria detailed in Section IX.C, the evaluation team will independently evaluate each white paper submitted in its entirety, assess the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses, and provide written recommendations for award or non-award to the BAA Selection Official (BSO) based on a peer or scientific review process in accordance with FAR 35.016(d) and (e). Individual white paper evaluations will be based on acceptability or unacceptability without regard to other white papers and proposals submitted under this BAA.

C. Evaluation Criteria:

Evaluation factors of the white paper include Technical Merit, Capabilities, and Program Management. These three factors are significantly more important than cost or price. Technical Merit is equally as important as Capabilities and Program Management combined. Capabilities are slightly more important than Program Management.

1. Technical Merit. Does the proposed research exhibit scientific and technical excellence with relevance and importance to MDA goals and programs? Does the proposed research offer revolutionary concepts, stimulating technology innovation, or exploit breakthroughs in science to offer robust technology improvements to an element of the MDS? Does the white paper succinctly illustrate and clearly identify the proposed technology as well as, its rationale, objectives, methodology, expected results, and potential contribution to MDA? Technical merit will be assessed further based on how well the proposal addresses the following eight factors:

a. Interceptor Concept Overview

b. Trade Studies

c. Technology Maturity

d. Defended Area Performance Assessment

e. Interceptor Concept Support from Weapon System

f. Additional Considerations

g. Aegis Weapon System Integration Requirements

h. Logistical Requirements

2. Capabilities. Does the offeror’s key Principal Investigator and primary team members have previous experience working with the proposed technology or similar technology?

Does the white paper demonstrate the availability of adequate facilities and instrumentation to perform the proposed task successfully? Are adequate security measures indicated (e.g., controlled facilities, classified storage, personnel clearances, U.S. citizenship, and U.S. persons)?

3. Program Management. Does the proposed management plan and schedule appear reasonable given the level of proposed work? Does the white paper show the critical path of activities for the entire program and define areas of risk with the risk mitigation plan? Are cost projections reasonable as associated to proposal tasks?

TABLE 3: White Paper Evaluation Matrix

Rating Score Evaluation Criteria Description

Highly Recommend

High Capabilities

Research team has extensive experience with the technology proposed and has exceptional research facilities and key personnel. Has been granted a secret or above facility (security) clearance (FCL) and holdings at the secret or above level.

Strengths far outweigh weaknesses.

High Program Management

Proposal clearly shows an in-depth knowledge of resources necessary to complete research (cost and schedule). Strengths far outweigh weaknesses. The contractor has fully described the ROM costs AND ROM cost is considered low risk. The contractor has fully described the schedule AND schedule is considered low risk.

High Technical:

Logistical

Requirements

Requires minimal, non-complex modifications to current or planned Military logistical support capabilities (reuse existing facilities with no additional manpower to support deployment and operation).

High

Technical:

Aegis Weapon

System Integration

Requirements

The proposed weapon concept and/or weapon concept requirements for proper AWS integration with the planned AWS architecture are feasible with routine AWS updates.

High Technical:

Additional

Considerations

Concept incorporates all of the additional considerations listed in the CPAP.

High

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Support from

Weapon System

Interceptor concept support is described in detail AND the weapon system support needed by the interceptor is deemed to be attainable with little to no AEGIS modifications.

High

Technical:

Defended Area Performance Assessment

The proposed weapon concept analysis demonstrates feasibility of meeting the threshold requirements AND feasibility of meeting the objective requirements for desired intercept region and defended area.

High Technical:

Technology Maturity

The contractor has fully described all key component technology maturity levels for all key components AND has followed the CPAP guidelines for key component technology maturity level assessment AND the technology maturation plans indicate low technical, schedule and cost risk so as to achieve a TRL6+ by the end of FY22.

High Technical:

Trade Studies

All (major and minor) trade studies identified AND significant information is available to determine if the concept design can be balanced / is feasible.

High

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Overview

All key aspects of the interceptor concept are adequately described AND the interceptor concept is deemed likely to deliver Multi-Mission capability AND the interceptor concept is compatible with the overall BMD system.

Recommend Medium Capabilities

Research team has demonstrated the ability to develop the proposed technology and has acceptable research facilities and key personnel. Has been granted a secret or above FCL.

Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Medium Program Management

Proposal shows adequate understanding of resources necessary to complete the research (cost and schedule). Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. The contractor has adequately described the ROM costs AND ROM cost is considered medium risk. The contractor has adequately described the schedule AND schedule is considered medium risk.

Medium Technical:

Logistical

Requirements

Requires substantial but non-complex modifications to current or planned Military logistical support capabilities (modify existing facilities or limited additional manpower to support deployment and operation).

Medium

Technical:

Aegis Weapon

System Integration

Requirements

The proposed weapon concept and/or weapon concept requirements for proper AWS integration with the planned AWS architecture are feasible with low-risk and low-cost modifications.

Medium Technical:

Additional

Considerations

Concept incorporates at least four of the additional considerations listed in the CPAP.

Medium

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Support from

Weapon System

Interceptor concept support is adequately described AND the weapon system support needed by the interceptor is deemed to be attainable with some moderate AEGIS modifications.

Medium

Technical:

Defended Area Performance Assessment

The proposed weapon concept analysis demonstrates feasibility of meeting the threshold requirements for desired intercept region and defended area.

Medium Technical:

Technology Maturity

The contractor has adequately described all key component technology maturity levels for all key components AND has followed the CPAP guidelines for key component technology maturity level assessment AND the technology maturation plans indicate moderate but acceptable technical, schedule and cost risk so as to achieve a TRL6+ by the end of FY22.

Medium Technical:

Trade Studies

Major subsystem trade studies identified AND adequate information is provided to determine if the concept design can be balanced / is feasible.

Medium

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Overview

The major / primary aspects of the interceptor concept are adequately described AND the interceptor concept is deemed likely to deliver MDS Mission capability AND the interceptor concept appears to be compatible with the overall MDS.

Not Recommend

Low Capabilities

Research team has not shown adequate ability to develop the proposed technology. Has not been granted a secret or above FCL. The proposal is not awardable without necessary clarification or modification.

Low Program Management

Proposal shows limited or no understanding of resources necessary to complete the research (cost and schedule). The proposal is not awardable without necessary clarification or modification. The contractor has inadequately or incompletely described the ROM costs OR ROM cost is considered high risk.

The contractor has inadequately or incompletely described the schedule OR schedule is considered high risk.

Low Technical:

Logistical

Requirements

Requires significant and highly complex modifications to current/planned Military logistical capabilities (extensive new facilities or manpower to support deployment and operation).

Low

Technical:

Aegis Weapon

System Integration

Requirements

The proposed weapon concept and/or weapon concept requirements for proper AWS integration are incompatible with the planned AWS architecture without significant, high-risk and high-cost modifications.

Low Technical:

Additional

Considerations

Concept incorporates at least two of the additional considerations listed in the CPAP.

Low

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Support from

Weapon System

Interceptor concept support inadequately or incompletely described OR the weapon system support needed by the interceptor is deemed to be unattainable without substantial AEGIS modifications OR the concept is deemed to be incompatible with the overall BMD system.

Low

Technical:

Defended Area Performance Assessment

The defended area performance assessment does not adhere to the CPAP guidance AND/OR the proposed weapon concept analysis does not demonstrate feasibility of meeting threshold requirements for desired intercept region and defended area.

Low Technical:

Technology Maturity

The contractor has inadequately or incompletely described the key component technology maturity levels for all key components OR has not followed the CPAP guidelines for key component technology maturity level assessment OR the technology maturation plans indicate very high technical, schedule and cost risk so as to achieve a TRL6+ by the end of

FY22.

Low Technical:

Trade Studies

Major subsystem trade studies are not identified OR insufficient information is available to determine if the concept design can be balanced / is feasible.

Low

Technical:

Interceptor

Concept Overview

Concept inadequately or incompletely described OR the interceptor concept is deemed to be incapable of accomplishing the MDS mission OR the concept is deemed to be incompatible with the overall MDS.

SECTION X: AWARD SELECTION:

The BSO will make selections for awards or non-awards based on the evaluation criteria noted above. The BSO will forward a list of award or non-award selections to the MDA Contracts office for further action. The MDA Contracts office will then notify selected and non-selected offerors of the evaluation decision and request formal proposals from the selected offerors.

However, any notification received from MDA that indicates that the offeror’s white paper has been recommended for award does not ultimately guarantee that the offeror will be awarded a subsequent contract.

Evaluations may take up to 6 months from receipt of white paper to notice of selection or non-selection for award. If selected for award, the MDA Contracts office will request a full technical volume and detailed cost proposal in a formal RFP. Specific proposal instructions will be included in the RFP package. DO NOT SUBMIT THE TECHNICAL AND COST

PROPOSALS UNTIL YOU RECEIVE A REQUEST FROM THE CONTRACTING

OFFICER FOR THIS INFORMATION.

ANNEX 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ANALYSIS/DISCLOSURE

FORM (Feb 2020)

OCI Disclosure Form

Offeror (Prime Contractor or Proposed Subcontractor)

Name of Company

Address Point of Contact (POC)

POC Telephone POC Email

For the current solicitation, are you planning on bidding as a

Prime Subcontractor Affiliate

List Affiliates

(See definition at FAR 9.403.)

SUBMIT ONE COMPLETED ATTACHMENT TO THIS OCI DISCLOSURE FORM PER CONTRACT

This form and its attachments are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any written guidance I receive from Missile Defense Agency (MDA) concerning Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) with regard to is dependent upon the information provided in this form and its attachments, and therefore may change if the Government receives further or different information.

Name and Title of Company Official Signature and Date

Page of

Attachment to OCI Disclosure Form

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING

NOTE: One Attachment to the OCI Disclosure Form shall be submitted for each MDA, Missile Defense System (MDS) related, or MDA funded contract that has already been awarded and is either currently being performed or was previously performed. Fill in the number and the short official title by which the contract or subcontract requiring analysis and determination is formally known. Place an "X" inside the appropriate box to indicate your responses.

1. Identify below the contract or subcontract held by your firm or affiliate related to MDA BMD work in any way.

Contract or Program Title

Your Company is the Prime Subcontractor Affiliate

Contracting Agency or Customer Government Contracting Officer

POC (Name, Phone, Email)

Government Technical POC (Name, Phone, Email)

Contract Number

Task Order Number (if applicable)

Subcontract Number (if applicable)

BAA Number (if applicable)

SBIR/STTR Number (if applicable)

Period of Performance

2. What is the magnitude of this work compared to your company’s overall business base?

Percentage (%) Dollar Value ($)

Number of FTEs

3. If you are the subcontractor for the effort identified above, what is your magnitude of work compared to overall contract value (if known)?

Percentage (%)

Dollar Value ($)

Number of FTEs

4. If you performed as a Subcontractor, provide Prime Contractor’s Information.

Contractor Name

Address

Telephone

5. Check the boxes below that would apply to the scope of the contract or subcontract as it relates to.

Providing Systems Engineering and Technical Direction (FAR 9.505-1)

Preparing Specifications or Work Statements (FAR 9.505-2)

Providing Technical Evaluation of Offers for Products or Services (FAR 9.505-3)

Obtaining Access to non-public information (e.g. source-selection or proprietary information) (FAR 9.505-4)

Providing products, hardware or software to MDA or another contractor to use within the MDS. If providing products, explain whether the products are vendor-type or developed products below.

Does your company have any significant business relationship with any MDA development contractors?

Please describe the relationship, the nature of the contract, and the percentage of your business comprised by this contract or business relationship.

6. Describe below the scope of your effort on the contract or subcontract in sufficient detail to understand the breadth of the work. Or provide a copy of your statement of work/performance work statement and highlight the scope that you as the Prime or Subcontractor perform.

8. Does the scope of work for this contract or subcontract create an actual or potential conflict of interest with the work you wish to perform under this solicitation? If so, describe the actual or potential conflict.

7. Does your company have access to any Government systems containing non-public (e.g. source selection or proprietary) information?

Yes No

If the answer is yes, please explain

9. Do you have a current mitigation plan with MDA or another agency involving this contract or subcontract?

If the answer is yes, describe how the organizational conflict of interest was/is mitigated.

If the answer is yes, please identify the date the employee left DoD, the position they held when they had Access to information regarding this solicitation, and the specific information they had access to.

10. Have any former DoD employees who had access to information regarding this solicitation during their Former DoD employment assisted your company on this acquisition?

ANNEX 2: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (Jun 2012)

A. Purpose: The primary purpose of this clause is to aid in ensuring that:

1) The Contractor's objectivity and judgment are not biased because of its present or planned interests which relate to work under this contract;

2) The Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to non-public information regarding the Government's program plans and actual or anticipated resources; and

3) The Contractor does not obtain unfair competitive advantage by virtue of its access to proprietary information belonging to others.

B. Scope: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) rules, procedures and responsibilities as described in FAR Subpart 9.5 shall be applicable to this contract and any resulting subcontracts.

1) The general rules in FAR 9.505-1 through 9.505-4 and the restrictions described herein shall apply to performance or participation by the Contractor and any of its affiliates or their successors-in-interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Contractor") in the activities covered by this contract as prime Contractor, subcontractor, co-sponsor, joint ventures, consultant or in any similar capacity.

2) The Missile Defense Agency’s OCI policy is in ANNEX 2 of this announcement.

C. Access to and Use of Nonpublic Information: If the Contractor, in performance of this contract, obtains access to nonpublic information such as plans, policies, reports, studies, financial plans, or data which has not been released or otherwise made available to the public, the Contractor agrees that without prior written approval of the Contracting Officer, it shall not:

1) Use such information for any private purpose.

2) Release such information.

D. Access to and Protection of Proprietary Information: The Contractor agrees to exercise diligent effort to protect proprietary information from misuse or unauthorized disclosure in accordance with the provisions of FAR 9.505-4. The Contractor may be required to enter into a written non-disclosure agreement with the third party asserting proprietary restrictions.

E. Subcontracts: The Contractor shall include this clause in consulting agreements, teaming agreements,…