DRAFT NVD-N RPP (29Feb24).pdf

CUI

Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) for Night Vision Device – Next (NVD-N)

Prototyping Phase

Issued by:

Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG)

APG, MD 21005

In support of:

Product Manager Soldier Maneuver Sensors (PdM SMS) Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060

Controlled by: PEO Soldier Controlled by: PdM SMS CUI Categories: PROCURE, SSEL Distribution Statement: D POC: Ron Boisvert, 703-704-0133

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT D: Distribution authorization to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (Critical Technology). Other requests shall be referred to Product Manager Soldier Maneuver Sensors, FT. Belvoir, VA

DRAFT

NVD-N Request for Prototype Proposal ii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) Submission Instructions

3. Technical and Management Approach (Volume 1 / Factor 1)

4. Performance and Technical Maturation Plan (Volume 2 / Factor 2)

5. Schedule (Volume 3 / Factor 3)

6. Cost and Price (Volume 4 / Factor 4)

7. Evaluation Factors for Award

8. Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach Evaluation

9. Factor 2: Performance and Technical Maturation Approach Evaluation

10. Factor 3: Schedule Evaluation

11. Factor 4: Cost and Price Evaluation

12. Acronyms

1. Introduction This Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) describes the top-level goals for the prototype development of the Night Vision Device – Next (NVD-N). The purpose is to provide a framework and focus for the key requirements that will lead to the most cost-effective NVD-N system that minimizes the soldier burden, operates and endures in the most demanding warfighter environments and use conditions, and meets or exceeds the threshold visual performance requirements. For purposes of this RPP, the Government asserts that the technical maturity for current products consistent with the primary use and performance intent for the NVD-N system or the constituent components needed in the production of a fully compliant NVD-N system are currently Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 or greater. Based on this assertion, all Offerors must be capable of submitting a functioning goggle as the baseline upon which this developmental effort will create the NVD-N goggle system. The primary goals of this prototyping effort, are 1) to close the durability and performance requirement gap between the Offeror’s existing NVD-N-like products and 2) to identify and employ cost and weight saving opportunities in system architecture, components, manufacturing processes and test methods. Therefore, no offer will be considered complete without an accompanying functional baseline hardware submission.

At the conclusion of the evaluations for this RPP, the Government may select one or two Offerors for a prototyping Other Transaction (OT) agreement. The Government also recognizes that Offerors may have more than one product line that could serve as their NVD-N developmental baseline. Therefore, Offerors are permitted to submit more than one variant of their products as the baseline hardware; however, each variant baseline hardware submission by any one Offeror shall be accompanied by a full, complete, and separate proposal submission compliant with the RPP submission instructions herein. Additionally, no Offeror will receive more than one award.

The Offeror is expected to use the NVD-N Statement of Work (SOW) and the NVD-N Performance Specification (PS) to develop a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) detailing how the program objectives will be met. This approach provides potential Offerors the flexibility to develop cost effective solutions and the opportunity to propose innovative alternatives meeting the PS. The SOW must be used in conjunction with the PS to develop a proposal which will allow the Government an opportunity to assess the Offeror’s understanding of all aspects of the effort to be performed.

1.1. Background

NVD-N provides Close Combat Force Direct Support (CCF-DS) Soldiers increased capability through significantly improved situational awareness and mobility. CCF-DS formations consist of Chemical Corps, Field Artillery, Military Intelligence, Signal, and Forward Support Companies (Brigade [BDE] and below) from Active, National Guard, and Reserve components.

These Soldiers operate within proximity to the CCF and have a primary task to provide direct support to the CCF in the close area, but not in close combat. NVD-N will replace CCF-DS Soldiers’ legacy monocular AN/PVS-14s and bi-ocular AN/PVS-7s. This will enable the CCF- DS to operate vehicles at night with adequate speed and mobility to support increased operational tempo of a modernized CCF. CCF-DS will identify and react to threats at increased ranges at night and execute individual and collective tasks at night with increased speed to reduce time of support to CCF.

1.2. Prototype Phase Overview

The NVD-N prototype development will be executed through the use of a competitive OT agreement, under 10 USC § 4022 - Authority of the Department of Defense to carry out certain prototype projects, to design NVD-N systems, develop NVD-N manufacturing processes, fabricate prototype systems according to the design and processes, and test those prototype systems in order to validate the design and processes with respect to the NVD-N PS and in accordance with (IAW) the SOW.

The prototype phase OT agreement will be awarded as a combination Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) type contract with a period of performance of 30 months.

Performance validation will be accomplished through contractor and Government laboratory testing, respectively, and will also include end-user operational assessments. To ensure testing and operational assessments can be conducted and completed within the period of performance, the Government estimates that 65 NVD-N systems for CLIN 0001 per contractor will be required. However, offerors may propose a different quantity of systems with detailed explanation to justify their approach.

At the completion of the prototype phase OT agreement, the Government may, at its own discretion, select one or both contractors for a low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract award.

The LRIP contract may either be a Production OT agreement awarded without further competition or a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract.

1.3. Decision Point Milestones of the Prototype Phase

The Government will conduct a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), a Critical Design Review (CDR), and applicable Test Readiness Reviews (TRR) with the Selectee IAW the timelines in the SOW. All technical design reviews will have exit criteria that must be achieved with acceptable risk to proceed to the next technical design review.

The Selectee will be required to conduct Production Prove-out Testing , Engineering Development Testing, a Technical Manual (TM) Verification, and to support Government-conducted Soldier Touch Points (STPs) and Limited User Tests (LUTs) IAW the SOW to verify the NVD-N systems can meet the technical and environmental requirements required in the

PS.

Each evaluation event identified above will be a decision point to continue or halt prototyping with any Selectee based on schedule, technical, and cost considerations.

1.4. Prototype Exit Criteria and Success Determination

In order to be considered for the LRIP contract award, each prototype phase Selectee must meet all of the following exit criteria to be determined to have successfully completed the OT agreement:

1. Demonstrate 100% compliance with one of two acceptable specified system architectures IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.1.2) and demonstrate compliance or ability in production to comply with the NVD-N Binocular Bridge/Monocular Assembly Interface Control Document. This second document will be developed early during the prototyping phase through a Government/Contractor working group.

2. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all specified mass properties IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.5.1.2 through 3.5.1.8).

3. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all Interoperability requirements IAW the NVD- N PS (Par. 3.5.2).

4. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all Serviceability requirements IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.5.3).

5. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all User Interface and Controls requirements IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.5.4) and/or user evaluation rating of the user interface as “acceptable” or higher for all system user controls and adjustments.

6. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all Night Vision Performance requirements IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.5.5) and/or achieve a validated risk rating assessment for non-compliance for un-verified sub-paragraph attributes in production as “low risk” with a likelihood of occurrence below 30%.

7. Demonstrate 100% compliance with all Security requirements IAW the NVD-N PS (Par. 3.5.6) and/or achieve a validated risk rating assessment for non-compliance for un-verified sub-paragraph attributes in production as “low risk” with a likelihood of occurrence below 30%.

8. Demonstrate 100% compliance with the NVD-N PS Durability and Workmanship attribute “Radiated Electromagnetic Energy Susceptibility” IAW NVD-N PS (Par.

3.5.7.16).

9. Demonstrate compliance at no less than 65% of each of the threshold requirements for the NVD-N PS Durability and Workmanship attributes of mean time between failure (MTBF), mean time between essential mission function failure (MTBEFF), and mean time between system abort (MTBSA) (Par. 3.5.7.47, 3.5.7.48, and 3.5.7.49).

2. Request for Prototype Proposal (RPP) Submission Instructions

2.1. General Instructions

Each Offeror shall submit a single, complete proposal that contains the Offeror’s best terms for each variant of baseline hardware goggle the Offeror submits. Failure to adhere to these instructions may result in rejection of the offer without evaluation or consideration for award.

Offerors are cautioned that “parroting” of the technical requirements or the SOW with a statement of intent to perform does not reflect an understanding of the requirement or capability to perform. Offerors are responsible for including sufficient details to permit a complete and accurate evaluation of each proposal.

1. The proposal shall be submitted via email to both the Agreements Officer (AO), Gerald Simmons, gerald.a.simmons2.civ@army.mil and the Agreements Specialist (AS), Michael James, michael.c.james78.civ@army.mil no later than (NLT) 12:00 PM Eastern Time on __________ 2024.

2. If necessary, Offerors may submit multiple emails, or request to use DoD SAFE. The maximum email size with attachments is 30MB. If a complete proposal is not submitted by this closing time, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award. If the Offeror does not receive confirmation of receipt, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to contact the AO and the AS identified above to confirm their proposal has been received.

3. Offerors shall not submit classified information with the proposal. If the Offeror deems it necessary to include classified information in the proposal, the Offeror will be required to submit a special request to the AO to justify and coordinate this information

DRAFT

mailto:gerald.a.simmons2.civ@army.mil mailto:michael.c.james78.civ@army.mil transmittal.

4. Offerors shall not submit any assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats, or exceptions with proposals. All questions shall be submitted using the Q&A Template (Attachment

7) via email to both the AO and the AS NLT 10:00 AM Eastern Time on ______ 2024.

No assumptions, terms, conditions, caveats or exceptions submitted with proposals will be accepted or incorporated into the awarded. The Government’s responses will be posted on SAM.gov for all to review.

5. All communications shall be conducted in writing only and directly to the AO and AS.

6. Any Offeror with active exclusion records in System for Award Management (SAM) will not be evaluated and will not be considered for award.

7. Cost information shall not appear anywhere but Volume 4 “Cost and Price”. Proposals that fail to separate cost information from Volumes 1 through 3 may not be considered for award.

8. The entire proposal shall remain valid for a minimum of 180 days from receipt by the Government. Proposals offering a shorter period of time validity may not be considered for award.

2.2. General Appearance

Offerors shall adhere to the specific formatting parameters listed below (for all submitted documents which shall be developed via Microsoft Office products). The intent is to facilitate a streamlined Government evaluation by having a uniform, easy to read, easy to display, and uncluttered proposal.

Font: Arial or Calibri (All Text) Minimum Size (Narrative) 12pt Minimum Size (Spreadsheet) 10pt Minimum Size (Figures & Tables) 8pt Font Color Black (Body Text & Headings) Line Spacing (minimum) Single (1.0) Page Size (Narrative) 8.5” x 11” Page Size (Figures/Tables/Graphic) 8.5” x 11” or 11” x 17” Page Margin (Word) 1” Left, fight, top, bottom Page Number Location Bottom Center e.g. 1 of 20 Page Background Backgrounds/Themes not allowed Table Heading Shading None/ No Fill Table Cell/Row Shading None/ No Fill Table Line color Automatic Table Line Size 1 (minimum)

All four (4) volumes shall have a cover page, table of contents, and an optional acronym list which will not be included in the page count. All proprietary information shall be clearly marked.

mailto:ail%20to

2.3. File Format

Below are the acceptable file formats. Only the file formats specified shall be used. Proposals with any other file type will be rejected.

Narrative: Microsoft Word (.docx) (preferred) or Adobe PDF (.pdf) Spreadsheets Microsoft Excel (.xlsx) Presentations Microsoft Power Point (.pptx) Project Schedule Adobe PDF (.pdf) Pictures JPEG

(File Naming Convention) The Offeror shall name each file for Volumes 1-4 as follows:

NVD-N_Tech_Vol_1_XYZCo.

NVD-N_Tech_Vol_2_XYZCo.

NVD-N_Schd_Vol_3_XYZCo.

NVD-N_Cost_Vol_4_XYZCo.

For all other file submittals, the naming convention shall follow the convention provided in the example: NVD-N_DataRights_ XYZCo.docx Include a clear, simple description of the file contents within the file name (e.g., Data Rights).

Include a short abbreviation of your company name preceded by an underscore (_).

Note: Any company that will be submitting two proposals shall add _prop1 and _prop2 to the file names. Example: NVD-N_DataRights_XYZCo_prop1.docx. This also applies to the files for Volumes 1-4.

Note: No scanned or printed documents will be accepted.

2.4. Proposal Deliverables List

A complete proposal package shall consist of the following items. Failure to provide all deliverables and the associated documents required for each volume shall make the proposal ineligible for an award.

1. Volume 1 / Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach (45 pages max)

2. Volume 2 / Factor 2: Performance and Technical Maturation Plan (no page limit)

3. Volume 3 / Factor 3: Schedule (10 pages max)

4. Volume 4 / Factor 4: Cost and Price (no page limit)

5. Data Rights Assertion (see paragraph 2.7.3) (no page limit)

6. Non-Traditional Defense Contractor Participation Certification (see paragraph 2.7.4) (no page limit)

7. Offeror Assertion and Other Applicable Clauses (see paragraph 2.7.6) (no page limit)

8. Teaming Arrangement (see paragraph 2.7.8) (no page limit)

9. Delivered Hardware Sample of Baseline Goggle

2.5. Baseline Goggle Submission Instructions

All baseline goggle hardware submissions shall be received no later than ________. If an acceptable baseline goggle sample is not submitted by the specified closing time, the Offeror’s proposal will not be considered for award. An acceptable baseline goggle submission shall meet the elements as specified in the RPP Section 4.1 “Baseline Hardware Requirements”.

The baseline goggle hardware submissions shall be shipped to:

PdM Soldier Maneuver Sensors (SMS)-NVD-N UIC: W6DSH2 DODAAC: W51AMZ 5855 21st St, Bldg 215 (Rear) Ft Belvoir, VA 22060 POC: Terry Klassen, (571) 474-6443 Email: terry.a.klassen.ctr@army.mil

If the Offeror does not receive confirmation of receipt, it is the responsibility of the Offeror to contact the AO and AS identified above to confirm their proposal has been received.

Return shipping instructions and cost for the baseline goggle shall be provided by the Offeror.

Returns will be coordinated through the AO and AS after evaluations are completed.

2.6. Compliance with Instructions

The Government will consider how well the Offeror complied with these instructions when evaluating the Offeror's capability to perform the prospective contract. The Government will consider an Offeror's noncompliance with these instructions or any attempt to take advantage of loopholes in these instructions to be indicative of the type of conduct that it may expect from the Offeror during contract performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's capability accordingly. Offerors are advised to ask the AO for clarification or explanation of any part of these instructions that they do not understand.

The Government reserves the right to make an award without conducting discussions.

Accordingly, initial proposals should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

2.7. Other Applicable Information and Considerations

2.7.1 Security Considerations

The NVD-N prototyping development effort requires a level of safeguarding and facility clearance of SECRET which includes the generation and handling of classified material and Communications Security Information. The Offeror will be required to follow National Industrial Security Program procedures and regulations. A Security Classification Guide has been published and a DD Form 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, will be utilized to formally track and monitor security considerations.

2.7.2 Cybersecurity

The NVD-N prototyping development effort is not expected to include software security requirements. If an Offeror intends to utilize software that would be covered under cybersecurity, that Offeror shall submit an Operational Security Plan and a Software Development Plan to eliminate or minimize the potential for breaches of system security.

Breaches of system security include introduction of malicious software, deliberate alteration of valid software code with the intent of disrupting NVD-N operations and accessing crypto-logical data embedded in the system.

2.7.3 Data Rights Assertion

In accordance with DFARS 252.227-7013/7015, the Government will seek from the Offeror, unlimited rights to form, fit, and function (F3) data; data necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or training (other than detailed manufacturing data).

This sufficiency of data rights will be re-evaluated at the conclusion of/during the currently planned OT agreement prototype phase/acquisition of NVD-N in preparations for a follow-on LRIP effort.

The Government will negotiate the Intellectual Property (IP) clauses to determine the appropriate level of IP rights required to support any follow-on development or acquisition. The Government envisions obtaining Government Purpose Rights, at a minimum, for all hardware and spare part drawings and specifications delivered to the Government under this Agreement.

The Offeror shall complete the table below to identify all hardware and software requiring restrictions and include it in the Data Rights Assertion submission:

Technical Data or Computer Software to be Furnished with Restrictions*

Basis for Assertion**

Asserted Rights Category***

Entity Asserting****

The Offeror asserts for itself, or the entities identified in the table above, that the Government’s rights to use, release, or disclose the following technical data or computer software should be restricted.

*For technical data (other than computer software documentation) pertaining to items, components, or processes developed at private expense, identify both the deliverable technical data and each such item, component, or process. For computer software or computer software documentation, specifically identify the software or documentation.

**Generally, development at private expense, either exclusively or partially, is the only basis for asserting restrictions. For technical data, other than computer software documentation, development refers to development of the item, component, or process to which the data pertain. The Government's rights in computer software documentation generally may not be restricted. For computer software, development refers to the software. Indicate whether development was accomplished exclusively or partially at private expense. If development was not accomplished at private expense, or for computer software documentation, enter the specific basis for asserting restrictions. Note that funding provided by the Government during the development of an item is the basis for Government Purpose Rights.

***Enter asserted rights category (e.g., Government purpose license rights from a prior contract, rights in Small Business Investment Research (SBIR) data generated under another contract, limited, restricted, or Government Purpose Rights under this or a prior contract, or specially negotiated licenses).

****Corporation, individual, or other person, as appropriate.

2.7.4 Non-Traditional Defense Contractor Participation Certification Offeror shall return a signed certification/affirmation of size status for itself and all of its team members/partners for the project on a separate document with the proposal.

Conditions Yes No

1. At least one (1) non-traditional defense contractor (NTDC) is participating to a significant extent in this Prototype project.

2. All significant participants in the transaction other than Federal Government are small businesses or NTDCs.

3. At least 1/3 of the total cost of the prototype project is to be paid out of funds provided by parties to the transaction other than the Federal Government.

If you answered “Yes” to Condition 1, then the Offeror’s submission shall provide a description of how the significant participant meets the requirements for a NTDC, how they will be participating to a significant extent, and the percentage and dollar amount of the significant participation and certify:

“[Significant Participant Offeror Name] is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.”

If you answered “Yes” to Condition 2, then Offeror’s submission shall provide a description of how all significant participants are small businesses or how the significant participants meet the requirements for an NTDC and certify:

“[Significant Participant Offeror Name] is not currently performing and has not performed, for at least the one-year period preceding the solicitation of sources by the Department of Defense for the procurement or transaction, any contract or subcontract for the Department of Defense that is subject to full coverage under the cost accounting standards prescribed pursuant to section 1502 of title 41 and the regulations implementing such section.”

If you answered “Yes” to Condition 3, then Offeror’s submission shall state the amount that is being proposed and the cost sharing cash contribution. If the offer contains multiple team members, this information shall be provided for each individual team member providing cost share.

2.7.5 Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The following items will be provided to selected Offeror(s) as GFP.

No. Name NSN QTY

001 PVS-14 Objective Lens Assy 6650-01-444-1212 UNK

002 PVS-14 Eyepiece Lens Assy 5855-01-380-5102 UNK

003 3895 TMDE 6625-01-301-6894 2 each per Offeror

Reporting and tracking of all existing Government Furnished Property (Laptops, Equipment, Special Tooling (ST) and Special Test Equipment (STE)) in your and/or your subcontractor’s possession under the specified contract(s)/order(s) in the Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE). See Attachment 8 for other applicable clauses for administration of Government Furnished Property.

2.7.6 Offeror Assertions and Other Applicable Clauses

Offeror shall complete and return Attachment 8 with the proposal.

2.7.7 Attachments Provided in the RPP

1. Night Vision Device-Next (NVD-N) Statement of Work (XXXXX)

2. Night Vision Device-Next (NVD-N) Performance Specification (XXXXX)

3. ADRLs A001 – D009 (15 total)

4. DD254 (15 Oct 2023)

5. Draft OT Terms and Conditions

6. Pricing Template / CLIN Structure

7. Question and Answer Template

8. Offeror Assertions and Other Applicable Clauses

9. Technical Evaluations Tables

10. GFP Template (Blank)

2.7.8 Teaming Arrangement / Partners

Offeror shall Identify all planned teammate companies., the rational for arrangement, and the item(s) / services that to be procured from them.

2.7.9 Point of Contact Information

Gerald A. Simmons, Agreements Officer, ACC-APG – gerald.a.simmons2.civ@army.mil

Michael C. James, Agreements Specialist, ACC-APG – michael.c.james78.civ@army.mil

Ron A. Boisvert, Agreements Officer Representative, PEO Soldier – ronald.a.boisvert.civ@army.mil

Be advised, only the Agreements Officer for this action has the authority to enter into a binding agreement and the authority to change the terms of the agreement on behalf of the Government.

3. Technical and Management Approach (Volume 1 / Factor 1) The Statement of Work (SOW) provides the Government’s overall objectives for the solicitation.

Offerors shall use the SOW, the NVD-N Performance Specification (PS), and all other applicable portions of the RPP as the basis for preparing their proposals. Offerors shall ensure all requirements in these documents are addressed; failure to do so may result in an Offeror’s removal from the competitive range.

In the Technical and Management Approach, Offerors shall describe in detail, how the NVD-N developmental effort will be managed to ensure the requirements of the SOW will be met. The technical proposal shall also describe the end-state proposed NVD-N system as well as the design and development approaches to achieve the final product and how the proposed approach addresses the requirements of the NVD-N PS and SOW. Of critical importance is to present a plan to complete all required testing to demonstrate system performance requirements and to identify technical trades that could potentially mitigate schedule and cost risks, and identify the highest risks related to technology and integration and plans to mitigate those risks.

3.1. Program Risk Management (Volume 1 / Factor 1 / Sub-Factor A) In the Technical and Management Approach, development strategies should be analyzed and addressed with regards to the risks associated to these three areas: 1) technical, 2) schedule and 3) funding/cost.

The Offeror’s risk analysis shall address the risks as clearly defined and identifiable statements of specific events with estimable probability of occurrence and the consequence(s) with regards to the project goals if the stated event should be realized. Risk assertions must include an estimate of the probability (or likelihood) of the event occurring in one of 5 categories: 0- 19%, 20-39%, 40-59%, 60-79%, and 80-100%. The risk assertions must also include a numerical rating from 1 to 5 for the estimated severity of the expected consequence with 5 being the most severe and 1 being the least severe. Risk assertions must also correctly identify the risk area to which the risk belongs. The Offeror may also include narrative in the risk analysis which provides rationale for the risk statement elements and/or the ratings of those elements in likelihood or consequence. The risk analysis may present an approach with risks of moderate to high probability of occurrence and/or moderate to severe consequences (“Red” risks). In those cases, the Offeror may elect to include a description of the risk mitigation strategy for those risks and include a new or revised risk assessment with the implementation of the proposed risk mitigation.

The risk analysis shall include a summary of the risks and risk ratings in the matrix form of the Offeror’s chosen format. A sample risk rating summary matrix is provided as an attachment to this RPP. (Exhibit 1: Sample Risk Matrix). A sample Risk Statement Analysis is also provided as an attachment to this RPP. (Exhibit 2: Sample Risk Statement Analysis.)

3.2. Cost Reduction Design Approach (Volume 1 / Factor 1 / Sub-Factor B) The Technical and Management Approach shall contain a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve a cost reduced/optimized production system as the final goal of this prototyping and development effort. The Offeror shall, at a minimum, address their strategies and approach for cost optimization/reduction in the following topic areas: 1) component costs,

2) manufacturing costs, 3) quality assurance/test costs, and 4) logistics and operational costs.

For the narrative concerning component costs, the Offeror shall present a production system cost analysis and design and development strategy for reducing material costs with respect to the anticipated components for a production system that make up at least 80% of the total material costs.

For the narrative concerning manufacturing costs, the Offeror shall present a production system cost analysis and design and development strategy for reducing manufacturing labor, manufacturing tooling and other consumable materials part of the manufacturing process. The manufacturing costs analyzed in the design strategy shall make up at least 80% of the total manufacturing costs.

For the narrative concerning quality assurance and test costs, the Offeror shall present a production system cost analysis and design and development strategy for reducing the cost of production quality validation and test for quality assurance and validation testing that is at least 80% of the labor and tooling required for quality assurance.

For the narrative concerning logistics and operational costs, the Offeror shall present a production system cost analysis and design development strategy that explains how the Offeror will include in the design process an approach to minimize the system cost to operate and maintain in the field. The analysis shall demonstrate the Offeror has addressed at least 80% of the operation and maintenance costs.

3.3. Human Factors Design Approach (Volume 1 / Factor 1 / Sub-Factor C) The Technical and Management Approach shall contain a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve a human-factors-optimized production system as the final goal of this prototyping and development effort. The Offeror shall, at a minimum, address their strategies and approach for human factors in the following topic areas: 1) physical workload, and 2) mental workload.

For the narrative concerning physical workload, the Offeror shall present a production system analysis and design and development strategy for at least controlling and managing the system total headborne mass, moment of inertia and center of gravity as part of the design process.

For the narrative concerning mental workload, the Offeror shall present a production system analysis and design and development strategy for at least controlling and managing the user’s mental workload in operating and maintaining the system.

3.4. Product Growth and Longevity Design (Volume 1 / Factor 1 / Sub-Factor D) The Technical and Management Approach shall contain a narrative describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve and maximize long-term producibility. The analysis concerning the long-term product viability and utility shall address these areas at a minimum: 1) component obsolescence, 2) continued interoperability with upgraded and improved interoperable systems, and 3) capability improvements and performance enhancements within the production system baseline architecture.

4. Performance and Technical Maturation Plan (Volume 2 / Factor 2) The Performance and Technical Maturation Plan shall contain at least one (1) functioning baseline hardware submission, and a completed NVD-N Performance Compliance Growth Matrix.

4.1. Baseline Hardware Requirements (Volume 2 / Factor 2 / Sub-Factor A) The Performance and Technical Maturation Plan shall reference at least one (1) functioning goggle system in which the Offeror intends to use in the development program as the baseline from which to refine as the final production system ready for qualification, and which will be submitted as part of the comprehensive proposal. The minimum satisfactory hardware baseline submission characteristics are as follows:

1) Binocular architecture with IPD adjustment from 55 to 70 mm

2) Monocular channel FOV of at least 38° at an eye relief of 24 mm with no less than 5mm pupil offset from center.

3) Hight-light visual acuity =>20/25 for a 100% contrast target illuminated by a 2856K source spectrum at no more than 3.4e-3 nt.

4) Low-light visual acuity =>20/60 for a 100% contrast target illuminated by a 2856K source spectrum at no more than 3.4e-5 nt.

5) Battery life > 8 hours on no more than 2 AA Li batteries

6) Helmet shroud mount interface with at least one of the following: vertical/fore/aft adjustment, binocular stow/deploy auto off/on, and/or emergency helmet breakaway

7) Written operating instructions.

4.2. NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix (Volume 2 / Factor 2 / Sub-Factor B)

The Performance and Technical Maturation Plan shall include the Offeror’s completed NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix. This matrix is supplied as an attachment to this RPP (Exhibit 3: NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix). The PS Compliance Growth Matrix shall provide the compliance status of the supplied baseline hardware for every NVD-N performance specification listed in the matrix, the specific values expected for each parameter whether compliance is achieved or not and the method by which the expected value provided was validated. This matrix shall also include the compliance growth plan for the proposed progression from non-compliance through the developmental effort to compliance for every parameter listed and the anticipated schedule for achievement of compliance. An Offeror may insert as many iterations for compliance achievement as required by the developmental effort they are proposing. Finally, the PS Compliance Growth Matrix shall also be completed with the Offeror’s confidence level on a scale of 0-10 (10 being “Compliance is certain”, 0 being “No chance of compliance”) for compliance of the system developed under the proposed effort for each parameter and a statement regarding the Offeror’s rationale for the stated compliance and confidence level. Parameters with a compliance confidence of 0, shall be accompanied with a justification or rationale explaining the potential benefit to the Government for non-compliance in that parameter.

5. Schedule (Volume 3 / Factor 3) The objective of the Schedule is to provide complete and sufficient information for the Government to verify compliance with the project schedule outlined in the SOW, to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the critical paths, the reasonableness of the Offeror’s project management, and internal/external consistency of the Offerors estimates of task durations, dependencies with anticipated task resource loading.

Offerors shall provide a master schedule in Gantt Chart format. The master schedule shall contain 1) proposed project duration with assumed start date and projected end date, 2) major milestones including all SOW-required project milestones and Offeror’s proposed milestones and proposed decision points clearly indicated, 3) deliverable ship dates including the SOW-required deliverables and additional Offeror-proposed deliverables clearly indicated, 4) test and demonstration events and tasks as required in the SOW and Offeror-proposed test events and tasks with start and end dates indicated, 5) next level predecessor tasks leading up to the milestones, deliverables and test events with event dependencies and proposed resource loading associated with the listed tasks clearly indicated, 6) proposed frequency of intermediate program status updates and technical interchange meetings and 7) task and decision point critical path(s) identified to achieve the proposed delivery dates, test events and project milestones.

The Schedule volume shall include a narrative description in paragraph or tabular format for each milestone, decision point, deliverable, test/demonstration event, and next level supporting task listed in the Gantt Chart. The narrative descriptions shall include: the purpose, objective, inputs, outputs, and the metric or criteria for measuring progress and confirming completion.

6. Cost and Price (Volume 4 / Factor 4) The objective of the Cost and Price volume is to provide complete and sufficient information so the Government can evaluate and substantiate that the overall proposed price is sound and realistic.

During negotiations, additional information may be requested from the Offeror in order to accomplish this.

This requirement is for a Firm Fixed Price, and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee agreement. The Offeror shall complete Attachment 6 – Pricing Template / CLIN Structure, in its entirety.

Only the prices for CLINs 0001, 0002, 0004, 0005, 0007-0010, 0015, and 0016 will be evaluated to determine the lowest price offer. These CLINS are also referred to as the Total Evaluate Price (TEP).

A nominal Not-To-Exceed (NTE) price is set for CLINs 0001, 0003, 0006, 0011, 0012, 0013, and 0014.

The Offeror shall provide the pricing information as requested in Attachment 6 – Pricing Template / CLIN Structure.

Note: CLIN 0001 appears twice in Attachment 6. Once for the maximum quantity and unit price at the maximum price of $439,000.00. The second time CLIN 0001 appears is to capture the unit price in the TEP specifically for the purpose of determining the lowest priced offer.

Note: In CLIN 0004, the quantity ordered may be from 1 to 60. If desired step-ladder pricing may be proposed. For the purpose of determining the lowest priced Offeror, a quantity of 60 will be used.

The Cost and Price volume shall include a narrative that provides substantiation and written explanation of all proposed prices on the cost reimbursable CLINs. The Cost and Price volume shall also include a price analysis of all subcontractors that would receive a sub-contract award from the prime contractor greater than $250,000.

Breakdowns shall be accurate and specific. The price narrative shall include the following details for each category, broken out by CLIN:

1. Direct Labor

2. Fringe Rate, Overhead Rate(s), M&H and G&A Rate (Please advise if your company breaks down its indirect rates in another manor.)

3. Profit

4. Any Cost and Price assumptions

5. Describe the accounting system, and general accounting practices used by the Offeror.

7. Evaluation Factors for Award

7.1. Basis for Award

Award(s) may not necessarily be made solely for the best technical, or the lowest cost proposal. The Technical Factors 1 and 2 along with their Sub-Factors will receive adjectival ratings from Exceptional, Above Average, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory (E,A,S,U).

The Government may award more than one contract on a best value trade-off basis considering Factors 1, 2 and 4. Factor 3 will be evaluated as Acceptable or Un-acceptable.

To receive consideration for award, proposals must achieve Satisfactory or better evaluations in all non-cost factors (Factors 1, 2 & 3), and the Cost and Price factor (Factor 4) must be judged to be fair and reasonable. An evaluation of Unsatisfactory at the Sub-Factor level will cause the entire factor to be rated as unacceptable. An evaluation rating of Unsatisfactory at the factor level will cause the entire proposal to be evaluated as Unsatisfactory.

Factor 1: Technical Management Approach (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor A: Program Risk Management (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor B: Cost Reduction Design Approach (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor C: Human Factors Design Approach (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor D: Product Growth and Longevity Design Approach (E,A,S,U) Factor 2: Performance and Technical Maturation Plan (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor A: Baseline Hardware Requirements (E,A,S,U) Sub-Factor B: NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix (E,A,S,U) Factor 3: Schedule (Acceptable or Un-acceptable) Factor 4: Cost and Price (Fair and Reasonable)

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, and both of these factors when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4.

For Factor 1 - Technical Management Approach: Sub-Factors A and B are significantly more important than Sub-Factors C and D. Sub-Factor B is more important than Sub- Factor A. Sub-Factors C and D are equal importance.

For Factor 2 - Performance and Technical Maturation Plan: Both Sub-Factors A and B are of equal importance.

No award will be given to any offering found with an unsatisfactory rating in any Factor or Sub- Factor regardless of the rating in any other factor.

Note: Exhibit 1-3 and Tables 1-6 are located in Attachment 9.

7.2. Proposal Evaluation Approach

Proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government and support contractor personnel. Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of four (4) factors to determine whether the Offeror’s response to this RPP has satisfactorily considered, defined and satisfied the requirements specified by this RPP and

SOW.

The team will evaluate the proposals to determine whether the technical requirements specified in the RPP have been adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied by the Offeror.

The evaluators will consider the following criteria when evaluating each Technical Sub-Factor:

• Understanding of the Problem: The team will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all technical features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements. The team will also evaluate the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed.

• Feasibility of Approach: The team will evaluate the extent to which the proposed system approach is feasible to achieve the proposed performance. The team will also evaluate the extent to which the proposed quality, logistics, and program management approaches can successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

• Completeness: The team will evaluate the extent to which the proposal is complete and addresses all aspects of the SOW and technical performance requirements. The team will also evaluate the extent to which Offeror's performance claims are substantiated and the extent to which the Offeror's plan articulates the proposed effort.

• Compliance with Instructions: The team will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's proposal complies with the instructions contained herein.

The ratings for the Factors 1 and 2 and Sub-Factors will be a combined technical/risk rating that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings per the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Table below. The Sub-Factor ratings will then be rolled up to determine the overall ratings for Factors 1 and 2.

Factors 1 and 2 - Adjectival Rating Key Rating Definition

Exceptional Factor indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Above Average Factor indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Satisfactory Factor meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unsatisfactory Factor has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptably high, or proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation with unresolved deficiencies.

8. Factor 1: Technical and Management Approach Evaluation The Technical Management Approach will receive a roll-up evaluation with an adjectival rating at the factor level of Exceptional, Above Average, Satisfactory, or Unsatisfactory based on the Sub-Factor adjectival ratings.

8.1. Factor 1 / Sub-Factor A: Program Risk Management Evaluation

The Program Risk Management evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has demonstrated an understanding of the principles of risk management and the application of those principles to the risk management of the proposed effort specifically with regards to the elements of technical risk, schedule risk and funding risk. The Offeror’s approach to risk management as provided in the narrative, will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-Factor A element rubric shown in Table 1.

(See Attachment 9)

8.2. Factor 1 / Sub-Factor B: Cost Reduction Design Approach Evaluation The Cost Reduction Design Approach evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has demonstrated a clear approach in addressing, managing and reducing cost of the production system based on the prototype design and test strategy presented in the offering narrative. The cost reduction design approach will be evaluated on the Offeror’s treatment of the following elements: component costs, manufacturing costs, qualification/test costs, and operational/sustainment costs. These elements are weighted equally in the roll-up to this Sub-Factor. The Offeror’s approach to cost reduction as provided in the narrative will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-Factor B element rubric shown in Table 2. (See Attachment 9)

8.3. Factor 1 / Sub-Factor C: Human Factors Design Approach Evaluation The Human Factors Design Approach evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has demonstrated a clear approach in addressing, managing and reducing soldier burden of the production system based on the prototype design and test strategy presented in the offering narrative. The human factors design approach will be evaluated on the Offeror’s treatment of the following elements: physical load reduction and mental load reduction. These elements are weighted equally in the roll-up to this Sub-Factor. The Offeror’s approach to human factors as provided in the narrative will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-factor 3 element rubric shown in Table 3. (See Attachment 9)

8.4. Factor 1 / Sub-Factor D: Product Growth and Longevity Evaluation The Product Growth Design Approach evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has demonstrated a clear approach in addressing, managing, and ensuring product longevity for the production system based on the prototype design and test strategy presented in the offering narrative. The product growth design approach will be evaluated on the Offeror’s treatment of the following elements: component obsolescence plan, future system interoperability, and capability/performance improvement. These elements are weighted equally in the roll-up to this Sub-Factor. The Offeror’s approach to product growth as provided in the narrative will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-Factor D element rubric shown in Table 4. (See Attachment 9)

9. Factor 2: Performance and Technical Maturation Approach Evaluation The Performance and Technical Maturation Approach will receive a roll-up evaluation with an adjectival rating at the factor level of Exceptional, Above Average, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory based on the Sub-Factor adjectival ratings.

9.1. Factor 2 / Sub-Factor A: Baseline Hardware Evaluation

The Baseline Hardware evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has provided baseline hardware that meets or exceeds the minimal set of baseline hardware elements. The baseline hardware submission will be evaluated on the following elements: Binocular architecture, Monocular channel field of view, High-light Visual Acuity, Low-light Visual Acuity, Battery Life, Helmet Shroud Interface, and Operating Instructions. The Offeror’s Baseline Hardware submission will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-Factor A element rubric shown in Table 5. (See Attachment 9)

9.2. Factor 2 / Sub-Factor B: NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix Evaluation The NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix evaluation will be based on the degree to which the Offeror has completed and verified the NVD-N compliance growth from the baseline through the prototype development to the production system. The NVD-N compliance growth matrix will be evaluated on the following elements: NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Crosswalk for the baseline goggle submission, NVD-N Performance Specification Compliance Plan for the Developmental Goggle System, and the NVD-N Performance Specification Proposed non-compliance of Benefit to the Government. The Offeror’s Performance Specification Compliance Growth Matrix submission will be evaluated on the basis of the Sub-Factor B element rubric shown in Table 6. (See Attachment 9)

10. Factor 3: Schedule Evaluation The Schedule will be evaluated and determined to be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. To be given a satisfactory rating for the schedule factor, Volume 3 must be deemed satisfactory for all the following criteria:

A. Meets the Government’s schedule objectives as stated in paragraph 5.

B. Both the Gantt Chart and Gantt Chart element narrative descriptions in the required format included in the volume.

B. Gantt Chart complete and accurate including all the required Gantt Chart elements of project duration, major Government -required and Offeror-proposed milestones, deliverable ship/delivery dates for all Government -required and Offeror -proposed deliverables, test and demonstration events/tasks as required by the Government per the SOW and those proposed by the Offeror, next level…