Upated FY12 ILRP BAA posted 28 September 11.docx

FY12 ILRP Studies Broad Agency Announcement # FA8219-11-R-BAA1 16 August 2011Updated 28 Sept 2011

AIR FORCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CENTER

ICBM SYSTEMS DIVISION

ICBM FUTURE SYSTEMS BRANCH

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

FOR

ICBM LONG RANGE PLANNING

STUDIES

FY 2012

ISSUED BY:

U.S. Air Force Contracting Office

AFNWC/PKMA

Hill AFB, UT 84056

Update 16 August 201128 September 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/CALL FOR STUDIES

OVERVIEW

Agency Name: Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center

Issuing Acquisition Office: ICBM Systems Division, Hill AFB, UT 84056

Opportunity Title: Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Long Range Planning (ILRP) Fiscal Year (FY) 12 Studies

Announcement Type and Date: Initial Ammendment of aAnnouncement originally posted – 16 Aug 2011

Broad Agency Announcement Number: FA8219-11-R-BAA1

Information to Eligible Applicants: This is a call for proposals. Proposals (cost and technical) shall be submitted for studies listed in attachments A thru C of this BAA not later than the closing date specified in the announcement. There will be no other call for proposals or announcements to this BAA.

I. Studies Process The Government intends to use a 1 Step Process for studies listed in this Broad Agency Announcement. Under this process, potential offerors are invited to submit full cost and technical proposals by the date specified in the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps) notice. Total program budget for accomplishment of FY 12 studies is $1.7M. The Air Force Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate offerors submittals within 45 days of the closure date. All proposals will be evaluated solely on the criteria published in this announcement and the proposal must stand on its own merit as presented/submitted. Offerors can submit a proposal(s) on any/all studies depending on their system knowledge and areas of expertise. Proposal will be accepted between the date this notices is issued and 5:00 PM MST 3 11 Oct 2011.

II. History Although funding requirements are never secure, the Government is reasonably assured that funding will be available at the projected date of award. The ICBM Systems Division, Future Systems Branch, has an annual budget for conducting approved studies. In the past, this budget has been sufficient to fund 3 studies per year.

III. Contractor/Government Personnel Interface Questions concerning studies listed in this BAA shall be directed via email to the Contracting Officer listed in Section B. The offeror is encouraged to initiate inquiries in order to have a full understanding of Study requirements.

IV. Proposal Call: The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, ICBM Systems Division, Hill AFB, Utah is soliciting full proposals (cost and technical) for studies described in Attachments A thru C of this announcement. Proposals should be addressed to the Contracting POC with the appropriate markings. Except as stated in paragraph II below this is an unrestricted acquisition. The North American Industry Classification (NAICS) applicable to this acquisition is 541712 with 500 employees being the threshold between small business and large business classification. Small businesses are encouraged to propose on this solicitation. Proposals shall be submitted in accordance with this announcement. There will be no other solicitation issued in regard to this requirement. Offerors should be alert for any BAA amendments that may permit extensions to the proposal submission date.

V. Foreign Participation & Disclosure Restrictions: This acquisition involves technology that has a military or space application. The foreign disclosure office has determined that limitation of foreign participation is appropriate. Foreign owned or influenced firms; foreign governments or foreign nationals are prohibited from participation as a prime contractor in this acquisition. In addition, the Export – Controlled Data Restrictions clause AFMC FAR 5352.227-9000 and Visit Request by Foreign-Owned or Controlled Firms clause AFMC FAR 5352-227-9002, shall be included in any resulting contract and flowed down to subcontractors at all tiers.

VI. Access to Restricted Technical Information: This acquisition involves technology that is subject to U.S. Export Control Laws. Only U.S. Contractors who are registered and certified with the Defense Logistics Services Center (DLSC), Federal Center, Battle Creek, MI 49017-3084 (1-800-352-3572) and have a legitimate business purpose may have access to restricted technical information. If you are registered with the DLSC, you must submit a copy of the approved DD Form 2345, Military Critical Technical Data Agreement, with your request for the data.

VII. Central Contractor Registration: To be eligible for award an offeror must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 4.1102. Federal guidance and registration information is available at http://www.ccr.gov.

VIII. Non-Government Personnel: All proprietary material shall be clearly marked and held in strict confidence. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purpose by Government contractors. Also input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by the Government from non-Government consultants and experts who are bound by the appropriate non-disclosure requirements. Non-Government personnel from Ki Ho Military Acquisition Consultants (KIHOMAC), Booz Allen Hamilton, and Tecolote may have access to proposals for the purposes specified above.

IX. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Large businesses responding to this announcement whose proposals exceed $650,000 where subcontracting possibilities exist are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9. This plan shall be submitted with the proposal in accordance with Alternate II of FAR clause 52.219-9. The requirement for a Small Business Subcontracting Plan does not apply to small businesses.

A. Introduction The objective of ILRP program is to identify potential modifications to meet user objectives relative to long term sustainment, technology insertion, employment and force structure. This is done by identifying emerging technologies for current and future weapon systems, guiding technology investment to achieve future capabilities, and translating those requirements into programs to meet war-fighter needs. One aspect of this process is to conduct studies on various systems of the Minuteman III and report findings or offer suggestions for improvement on the system while remaining within the limitations of the current laws and requirements.

The ILRP team is chartered to identify emerging technologies for current and future weapon systems; guide technology investment to achieve future capabilities; and provide a forum for ICBM organizations to enhanced communications. These responsibilities are accomplished, in part, through the execution of the ILRP Study Process. To assist with reaching these objectives, the ILRP team is interested in receiving proposals for study of topics related to the ICBM weapon system and its subsystems.

These subsystems include but are not limited to the following:

- Guidance systems and components to include advanced autonomous platforms, inertial instrument technologies, and strategic radiation hardened parts

- Propulsion systems to include advanced/improved motor technologies, boosters, post-boost components, and ordnance components

- Reentry systems to include the operational and advanced reentry vehicles, materials, fuzing, and components

- Ground systems to include launch facilities, launch control equipment, support buildings, operational ground equipment, and test equipment

- Security and related systems/processes to include all types of security (e.g. physical security, computer security, etc)

- Command, Control and Communications (C3) to include managing processes and organizing, directing, transmitting, and receiving information related to the overall system Each year funds are allocated to ILRP to solicit studies addressing current or future warfighter needs and/or the availability of critical skills/infrastructure. These studies must provide benefits toward an identified technology need. ILRP studies have been conducted approximately every year since 1993. These studies analyze different solutions to address ICBM weapon system challenges or modification concepts. These studies also address new and emerging technologies for the weapon system.

B. Points of Contact:

1. Contracting Point of Contact is:

Mr. Jed Noorda 6014 Dogwood Ave, Rm 25 Hill AFB, UT 84056-5816

(801) 777-2694 Jed.Noorda@hill.af.mil

2. Program Management Point of Contact:

Ms. Colleen Walker 6014 Dogwood Ave, Rm 15 Hill AFB, UT 84015-5816

(801) 777-1736 Colleen.Walker@hill.af.mil

3. Engineering Point of Contact:

Capt Dae Bok Cho 6014 Dogwood Ave, Rm 15 Hill AFB, UT 84015-5816

(801) 586-5376 DaeBok.Cho@hill.af.mil

4. Technical Point of Contact: Technical POC is identified in each applicable study call.

C. CUSTOMER INTERFACE:

It is extremely important to have proactive involvement by the government in the studies process to ensure the Air Force receives productive and effective results from these studies, as well as to reduce any schedule delays in the studies. Communication is crucial throughout the study process. Future Capabilities Section LRP unit (AFNWC/NWICB) will lead and conduct in-process reviews periodically to follow up on the progress of the studies and to verify that the studies are following the original objectives of the PWS/SOO. The Capabilities IPTs and other interested parties will be also have access to and be part of these periodic reviews. At a minimum, quarterly teleconferences are required to be held with all parties of interest to discuss any periodic reports, concerns, etc. Additional teleconferences can be initiated by either government or studies contractor as needed. Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) or other “face-to-face” meetings will be utilized as needed. Contractors and government parties will ensure that these meetings are effectively used for the benefit of all and for the success of the study.

D. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM:

Technical discussion, study topics and study requirements are detailed in the call for study attachments A through C of this document.

E. FINAL DELIVERY OF STUDY:

At the end of the study contract, study results are evaluated to ensure ICBM community concerns and issues have been addressed. The results will be out briefed to the Capabilities IPT/ICBM Planning Conference and a collaborative decision will be made on any follow-up activities (e.g. continue as a Dem/Val program, conduct a follow-on study) for the studies. An out brief to the interested stakeholders from the studies contractor will always be required at the end of the study. All other deliverables (e.g. written reports, technical data) will need to be clearly stated in the contract and must be delivered as negotiated in the contract.

F. AWARD INFORMATION:

The Government anticipates awarding a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract(s). The Government reserves the right to make no award, a single award or more than one award. In the event the Government is unable to conclude negotiations with the apparent successful offeror, the Government reserves the right to conduct negotiations with another offeror. All potential offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding may change or be eliminated.

G. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL AWARDS:

NOTE: All offerors must comply with all provisions of FAR 52.215-1 (Jan 2004) “Instructions to Offerors - - Competitive Acquisitions.” A copy of this provision may be obtained from http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Offerors may review information contained in the AFRL PRDA/BAA Guide for Industry which can be accessed on line at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080623-060.doc.

This guide was specifically designed to assist offerors in understanding the BAA proposal process. If there is a contradiction between the instructions in the AFRL PRDA/BAA Guide for Industry and the instructions contained in this announcement and calls, then instructions in the announcement calls shall take precedence. The proposal consists of two parts; the Technical Proposal, and the Cost/Business Proposal which shall include the Model Contract Section B Schedule of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), representations and certifications, a signed offer sheet, any exceptions to the Government’s terms and conditions, and price information. The Technical Proposal and Cost/Business Proposal submitted by an offeror are the only vehicles available to the offeror for receiving consideration for award. Proposals must stand on their own merits; only information provided through the proposal can be used in the evaluation process leading to an award. The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise delineation of capabilities necessary to perform the work proposed. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or presentations beyond sufficiently presenting a complete and effective proposal is not desired. The requested Cost/Business volume must accompany the Technical information, because Cost/Business and Technical considerations are reviewed simultaneously.

Proposing teams may submit one proposal per call. These proposals shall have the following characteristics:

a. All narrative text, figures, schematics, drawings, diagrams and tables may be single-spaced.

b. Each page shall be standard 8.5 x 11 inches with 1 inch margins all around.

c. Narrative text shall be no smaller than 10 point font size except for the reproduced sections of the model contract. Figures, schematics, drawings, diagrams and tables shall be no smaller than 8 point font size.

d. Technical proposals shall be limited to a maximum of ten (10) pages including foldouts. Foldouts shall be counted as their appropriate single page equivalent (i.e. 11 x 17 inches = 2 pages). The page limitation includes all information i.e., indices, photographs, foldouts, appendices, attachments, etc. Blank pages, title pages, table of contents, list of figures, lists of tables, tabs, cover sheets, the cover page, cover letter, or blank dividers are not counted toward the technical proposal page count.

e. Cost/Business volumes shall be separate from the technical proposal. There is no page limit on Cost/Business proposals.

f. Pages over the page limitation shall be removed prior to evaluation. Removed pages shall not be evaluated.

g. A cover page shall be included with each proposal, which clearly identifies the offeror with name, address, and telephone/fax number. The cover page shall not be counted toward the page limits.

h. Offerors shall submit two (2) CD-ROMs, each containing the complete proposal, to the primary contracting POC as identified in Section B of this BAA. Do not send proposals to any other address or they may not be considered for award. Proposals submitted by fax or e-mail shall not be considered for award. Proposals shall be valid during the timeframe specified in the call. Proposals must reference the BAA number and include a contractor unique proposal identification number, and identify the applicable Call Number. Each volume shall be in a separate directory on each CD-ROM. Use separate files to permit rapid location of all portions, including exhibits, annexes, and attachments, if any. The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2003, MS Excel 2003, MS-Project 2003, and MS-PowerPoint 2003, as applicable. Cells in MS Excel files shall include all formulas. All data files and electronic media delivered to the Government must be reviewed to ensure that they are virus-free. The cost of preparing proposals in response to this BAA is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract or to any other contract. However, it may be an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect costs as specified in FAR 31.205-18.

The full proposal shall consist of:

1. Cover Letter

In addition to a Cover Page, a cover letter and a list of acronyms shall accompany each proposal. The cover letter and acronym list shall not be counted toward the page limits. The cover letter should identify the technical topic under which the proposal is submitted, a statement of proposal validity consistent with the BAA call, provide technical and contracting points of contact, CAGE code, and include statement indicating if the firm is a Small Business, a Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business, an 8(a) Certified Business, a HUBZone certified business, or a service-disabled veteran-owned small business. The proposal must be signed and dated by an authorized official of the organization.

2. Technical Proposal

The technical proposal shall contain the following sections: (a) Description of Concept, (b) Explanation of Concept, (c) Analysis and (d) Description of Relevant Prior Work. The following information describes items that should be addressed in the technical proposal.

Section (a) Description of Concept: Describe the proposed study, objectives, and approach. Provide a description of the innovation and benefits of the contractors proposed approach.

Section (b) Explanation of Concept: Describe the techniques, methods, materials, or ideas that shall be addressed in this proposal, their innovation, and how they shall meet the call objectives.

Section (c) Analysis: Describe in detail the approach for the study and how the plan shall be executed. This section should include all technical aspects and how the approach shall be executed.

Section (d) Description of Relevant Prior Work: Provide a list, covering the past five years, of both in-house efforts funded by internal research funds, and contract efforts funded by others. Each effort should include a list of the principal investigator, title of effort, contract number, brief summary of results, and a technical and contracting point of contact, including phone numbers, with the funding organizations.

3. Cost/Business Proposal

a. Cost Section. The cost proposal containing other than cost or pricing data shall be submitted in the format provided in this BAA (Addendum 1) and is necessary for the Government to perform a cost realism and analysis. Adequate price competition is anticipated, but if not obtained, the Government reserves the right to obtain certified cost or pricing data from the offeror.

b. Business Section: The business section should contain all business aspects of the proposed contractual or instrument arrangement, such as type of contract, any unique terms and conditions, any exceptions to terms and conditions of the announcement, any information not technically related, etc. Provide rationale for exceptions. Failure to provide a complete proposal may result in a determination that the proposal is non-responsive and may result in elimination from consideration for award.

H. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS:

1. Proposal Categories

a. Proposals received will be evaluated and categorized as Category I, II, or III which are defined as follows: Category I proposals are well conceived, scientifically and technically sound proposals pertinent to program goals and objectives, and offered by a responsible contractor with the competent scientific and technical staff and supporting resources needed to ensure satisfactory program results. Proposals in Category I are recommended for acceptance and normally are displaced only by other Category I proposals. Category II proposals are scientifically or technically sound proposals requiring further development and are recommended for acceptance, but are at a lower priority than Category I. Category III proposals are not technically sound or do not meet agency needs.

b. The Government reserves the right to select for contract award all, part or none of each proposal received in response to this announcement. Multiple awards are possible. The selection of the sources for contract award shall be based upon an integrated best value assessment considering technical merit and price. A scientific and engineering evaluation will be conducted on all proposals received. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the relative merit of the technical approach proposed in response to the study call. This evaluation shall consider technical aspects and price as related to technical effort. The technical evaluation area will be ranked as first priority in the evaluation. The price area, while considered substantial, will be second in priority. Organization and clarity of information are critical to all of the evaluation criteria.

c. Sequence of Awards: Awards are usually made to Category I proposals prior to awards being made to any Category II proposals. Only proposals receiving a rating of Category I or II will be eligible for selection for award. If there are no Category I proposals, a Category II proposal may be selected for award. It may be the case that while your overall proposal may be ranked in Category II (or even Category III) a certain part of the proposal may be ranked Category I or II. In this case the flexibility of the Broad Agency Announcement process will allow the Government to make an award for that portion of your proposal that is of high interest to the Government. It may also be the case that another agency may be interested in your proposed approach (or a portion of the proposal) and provide funds to make an award for your effort. Once again, the flexibility of this process allows us to make awards in these instances. Category III proposals, with the exception of certain parts of the proposal (as described above) essentially have no chance for award.

2. Proposal Evaluation Criteria

a. Proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with FAR 35.016. Evaluation of proposals will be accomplished through a peer or scientific/technical review of each proposal using the following criteria, (1) Scientific and Technical Merit; (2) Value to the ICBM System; (3) Proposer's Capabilities and/or Related Experience; and (4) Affordability.

b. No further evaluation criteria shall be used in selecting proposals. The selection of one or more sources for award shall be based on an evaluation of each offerors technical and cost proposal to determine the overall merit of the proposals. Criterion 1, 2, and 3 are of equal importance and are significantly more important than Criterion 4. However, cost/price is a substantial consideration in selection of proposals for award. The Air Force reserves the right to select for award any, all, part or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement, subject to the availability of funds.

The following are descriptions of the above listed criteria:

Criterion 1: Scientific and Technical Merit The proposer must demonstrate that their proposal is innovative, that the technical approach is comprehensive, systematic and sound, that they have an understanding of critical technical issues and risks, that they have a plan for mitigation of those risks, and that the technical elements are well integrated into a cohesive program. Task descriptions and associated technical elements provided are complete and in a logical sequence with all proposed deliverables clearly defined such that the final product can be expected to achieve the program goals. The proposal clearly describes the technical details including simulations, analysis, experimental measurements, characterization, testing and/or other proposed methods, justifies why the approach is preferred and feasible, clearly and quantitatively describes the measurable criteria that will support program objectives and how they will enable the program goals and milestones to be met. The proposer's abilities to aggressively pursue performance metrics in as short a timeframe as technically feasible and to accurately account for that timeframe will be evaluated, as well as proposer's ability to understand, identify, and mitigate any potential risk in schedule.

Criterion 2: Value to the ICBM System The long-term potential of successful research to improve the ICBM System will be evaluated. Clear statement of the program goals is provided and a comparison with existing technology, as appropriate. Equally important is the capability to transition the technology to the research, industrial, and operational military communities in such a way as to enhance U.S. defense. Intellectual property rights restrictions, if any, will be a consideration factor.

Criterion 3: Capabilities and related experience, techniques and past performance.

The qualifications of the principal investigator, task leaders, and key personnel are an appropriate mix of expertise and adequate in both range and depth to address all technical and programmatic aspects of the proposal as evidenced by descriptions of education, experience, and publications included in the curricula vitae. The proposed facilities and equipment are appropriate and adequate to accomplish the research objectives and tasks described in the technical part of the proposal, and are well supported by the proposer and partnering institutions. The organization, effectiveness, and reliability of the management structure are appropriate to the diversity of tasks, technologies and partnering strategy, and are evidenced by prior experience and accomplishments in management of similarly complex technology development programs. Each team member's prior experience in similar efforts clearly demonstrates an ability to deliver products that meet the proposed technical performance within the proposed budget and schedule. The proposed team has the expertise to successfully manage the cost and schedule. Similar efforts completed/ongoing by the proposer in this area are fully described including identification of other Government sponsors.

Criterion 4: Affordability The proposed costs are realistic for the technical and management approach offered, and demonstrates the proposer's practical understanding of the effort as evidenced by cost per labor hour and number of labor-hours proposed. Evaluators are cautioned that undue emphasis on cost may motivate proposers to scale back innovation, minimize uncertainty and/or to staff the effort with junior personnel in order to be in a more competitive posture. The Air Force discourages such cost strategies. Additionally, costing will be evaluated for the ability to maximize direct funding for technology development and demonstration. Award(s) will be made to proposers whose proposals are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered, including the potential contributions of the proposed work to the overall research program and the availability of funding for the effort. Award(s) may be made to any proposer(s) whose proposal is determined selectable regardless of its overall rating.

c. If requested, a debriefing shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.505 and 15.506.

I. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

1. CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LISTS (CDRLS): Individual “Call for Studies” may have its own unique contract data delivery requirements. These data requirements are listed in each study description and attached Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). Any additional data needed to accomplish the study may be recommended by the contractor and included in the contractor’s proposal.

2. Offerors are encouraged to propose alternate data items that are standard in-house reports. Other data items that may streamline and/or enhance the effectiveness of the program may also be proposed. If an alternate or other data item is proposed, a description of the item, including how it is generated and the frequency, is required. This description for an alternate data item must show that the alternate can meet the documentation requirements of the listed CDRL. A sample document may be included. Proposals must show a list of CDRL items that were priced in the offeror's proposal. CDRLs may be subject to change upon contract negotiation. Offerors shall indicate the appropriate CDRLs for the effort in the technical proposals.

3. REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS: Prospective offerors are to submit annual representations and certifications via Online Representations and Certifications Applications (ORCA). Offerors can complete electronic annual representations and certifications at http://orca.bpn.gov in conjunction with the required registration in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. Offerors shall also complete DFARS Representations and Certifications. Offerors may be required to provide proposal specific representations and certifications identified and requested by the cognizant contracting officer.

4. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Organizational Conflict of Interest clauses may apply to this action and cannot be determined prior to proposal submission. The issue and the need for applicable clauses shall be resolved prior to the award of any instrument resulting from an offeror’s proposal.

5. RIGHTS IN DATA: In accordance with DFARS 227.7103, the Government anticipates receiving “Unlimited” data rights to technical data developed under contracts awarded based on proposals received in response to this solicitation. Data rights offered other than “Unlimited” should be addressed in the business section of the cost proposal.

6. OMBUDSMAN: In accordance with AFFARS 5352.201-9101 an Ombudsman has been appointed to mediate concerns from offerors or potential offerors during the pre-proposal phase of competitive negotiated acquisitions. The Ombudsman does not participate in the proposal evaluation or the contractor selection. The Ombudsman can work with responsible acquisition officials or respond to concerns, but shall not detract from the authorities of the Program Manager or Contracting Officer. When requested, the Ombudsman is Jeanine Kinder, AFNWC/PKC, Kirtland AFB, NM. Her commercial telephone number is 505-846-1924, Fax 505-846-0122 and the e-mail address is Jeanine.Kinder@kirtland.af.mil

7. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION: Firms responding should indicate if they are a Small Business, a Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Business, an 8 (a) Certified Business, a Woman-Owned Business, or a Hub-zone certified concern. This is an unrestricted solicitation. The NAICS for this acquisition is 541712, with a size standard of 500 employees.

8. TEAMING: Teaming is encouraged. Teaming with a prime contractor should be considered since primes often work in areas of large system design and can provide an easier path to commercialization. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Institutions (MIs) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals; however, no portion of this BAA shall be set aside for HBCU and MI participation because of the impracticality of reserving discrete or severable areas of research in innovative ICBM technologies.

9. NON-GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL: All proprietary material shall be clearly marked and held in strict confidence. Restrictive notices notwithstanding, proposals may be handled for administrative purpose by Government contractors. Also input on technical aspects of the proposals may be solicited by the Government from non-Government consultants and experts who are bound by the appropriate non-disclosure requirements.

10. ADMINISTRATION: The Government shall reply to questions relating to this BAA and shall make replies to questions of general interest available to prospective bidders. All correspondence including questions and requests for access to question responses regarding this solicitation should be directed to the contracting point of contact listed in Section B. The Government prefers to use electronic mail for correspondence regarding this BAA. Please submit questions in email format to the Contracting Officer listed in Section B.

11. WIDE AREA WORK FLOW (WAWF): NOTICE: Any contract award resulting from any current Hill Air Force Base solicitation shall contain the clause at DFARS 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests, which requires electronic submission of all payment requests. The clause cites three possible electronic formats through which to submit electronic payment requests. Pursuant to that clause, the Department of Defense is adopting Wide Area Workflow-Receipt and Acceptance (WAWF-RA). Contractors are encouraged to take advantage of the available training (both web-based and through your local DCMA office), and to register in the WAWF-RA system. Information regarding WAWF-RA, including web-based training and registration, can be found at <https://wawf.eb.mil/>.

12. CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL DOD CONTRACTOR SERVICES DURING CRISIS IAW DoDI 3020.37

IAW AFI 63-124, paragraph 2.7.1, and DODI3020.37 this requirement is not considered mission essential.

ADDENDUM 1

GUIDELINES FOR INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST AND PRICING DATA

1. Offerors are requested to submit an abbreviated business/price volume containing information other than cost or pricing data as described in FAR 15.403-5. This information will be used to support price reasonableness and cost realism. Below is a description of the required cost information.

2. Cost Summary by Cost Elements: Using the format below, provide a cost summary by major cost elements to include labor categories by Government Fiscal Year (GFY). Include a definition of the dates of the GFY. Ensure the totals for any cost elements, which require further breakdown as specified below, agree with the totals reflected on this table. For cost realism purposes, identify in an electronic spreadsheet labor rates by category, GFY rates, and all other direct and indirect rates by GFY. A separate cost summary by major cost elements must be provided for each proposed call.

Direct Labor Hours

Direct Labor Dollars

Engineering Hours

Engineering Dollars

Overhead

Material

Subcontractors

Other Direct Costs

Subtotal

General and Administrative (G&A)

Total Estimated Costs

Facility Capital Cost of Money

Fee

Total

Sample Cost Summary by Cost Elements

3. Subcontractors: Submit a list of all subcontracts. Include the total price and total hours for each subcontractor.

4. Materials: Provide the number of vendors proposed and cost per vendor.

5. Offerors shall submit cost information in support of their proposed price. Electronic cost information shall comply with the format requirements as outlined in Section G of the BAA. Any cost information submitted must be consistent with the offeror’s approved estimating system. Mathematical formulas should be accessible (not locked) and able to be edited by the Government.

6. Changes to Business/Price Volumes: Changes to previously submitted business/price volumes will include documentation indicating how a previously submitted volume is impacted or affected.

a. If changes to the original business/price volume are relatively insignificant and involve only minor changes to elements such as labor rates, overhead and General and Administrative (G&A) rates, bill of material changes, travel costs, and other direct costs, then minor changes can be accomplished by new cost summaries.

b. A fully revised business/price volume should rarely be necessary. However, if changes to the original business/price volume are encountered which require significant changes to the proposed technical approach and there is little or no correspondence between the original and revised proposal, a new business/price volume would be required.

ATTACHMENT “A”

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/CALL FOR STUDY

Study Title: Unauthorized Access Denial to Minuteman Launch Facilities (LFs)

Technical POC: Mr. Randy Simpson, HQ AFGSC/A7

Study Objective: Determine feasibility of integrating unauthorized access denial options/concepts into the Minuteman III weapon system

Background:

· DoD 5210.41M “Nuclear Weapon Security Manual” requires “interior denial” or “incapacitation at a minimum” for all environments where nuclear resources are stored, transported or operationally deployed

· Increasing delay access time through interior denial options/concepts is the optimal way to ensure overall security effectiveness

· Unauthorized Access Denial is needed to support efficiency-based missile field security planning and improved security procedures

Study Requirement:

· Identify realistic solutions for LF interior denial

· Research and recommend interior denial options for the Minuteman LF to ensure Minuteman III is compliant with requirements contained in DoD 5210.41M

· Determine advantages/disadvantages of Sandia National Lab developed effects and leverage plausible solutions

· Balance the proposed recommendations/options with personnel/weapon system impact and overall security effectiveness

· Determine C2 requirements and recommend technical options to control denial effects

· Determine integration requirements and Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimates for recommended options

Customer Interface: Customer interface requirements are detailed in Section “C” of this BAA

Final Delivery of Study: Study delivery requirements are detailed in Section “E” of this BAA

Contract Data Requirements:

A001 DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials A002 DI-ADMN-81505, Report, Record of Meeting Minutes A003 DI-MGMT-80368A/T, Status Report A004 DI-MGMT-81468, Contract Funds Status Report A005 DI-MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report – Study/Services

DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials A006 DI-ILSS-81021MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report Study/Services ( System Design Trade Study Report) DI-ADMN-81250A, Conference Minutes

ATTACHMENT “B”

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/CALL FOR STUDY

Study Title: Alternative Breathing Air Technologies for Minuteman III Launch Control Centers (LCCs)

Technical POC: Mr. Lynn Hill, AFNWC/NWI

Study Objective: Investigate and evaluate feasibility of alternative technologies to provide breathing air to missile crews during emergency or wartime conditions

Study Background:

· Current oxygen regeneration system used for crew survivability is near end of service life Potassium Superoxide, the chemical used in the current system to generate oxygen, is a strong oxidizer and a hazardous material

· Availability of Potassium Superoxide is extremely limited

Study Requirements:

· Explore alternate technologies that can provide breathing air to missile crews during wartime or emergency situations

· Provide recommendations/options and ROM cost estimates of alternative technologies capable of meeting mission requirements

· Study should provide recommendations to eliminate concerns over obsolescence of existing canister and expired shelf life

· Explore new methods or products that provide continued capability of the weapon system and are maintainable within the future industrial base

Customer Interface: Customer interface requirements are detailed in Section “C” of this BAA

Final Delivery of Study: Study delivery requirements are detailed in Section “E” of this BAA

Contract Data Requirements:

A001 DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials A002 DI-ADMN-81505, Report, Record of Meeting Minutes A003 DI-MGMT-80368A/T, Status Report A004 DI-MGMT-81468, Contract Funds Status Report A005 DI-MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report – Study/Services A006 DI-MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report Study/Services (System Design Trade Study Report)

DI-MGMT-80368A, Status Report DI-MGMT-81468, Contract Funds Status Report DI-MISC-80508B, Technical Report – Study DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials DI-ILSS-81021, System Design Trade Study Report DI-ADMN-81250A, Conference Minutes

ATTACHMENT “C”

STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES/CALL FOR STUDY

Study Title: Minuteman III Guidance Test and Evaluation (T&E)

Study POC: Bruce Arnold, AFNWC/NWIC

Study Objective: Determine feasibility of utilizing Navy aircraft test pod for ICBM guidance system T&E

Study Background:

1. Current System-Level T&E process for ICBM Guidance is costly, consumes assets and occurs in an environment (missile test flight) where errors are difficult to analyze and differentiate

1. Navy utilizes Aircraft test pod system and other test equipment (e.g. shaker table, centrifuge) for T&E of Trident SLBM guidance set

1. 78 test flights have been conducted as part of SLBM guidance T&E

1. F-15E out of Eglin AFB loaded with a test pod flies a flight profile to simulate the various accelerations of missile flight

1. T&E data used to review reliability of guidance system/components and for aging and surveillance of fielded systems

1. T&E is and will be critical for the upcoming new ICBM guidance instruments and system upgrades or replacement

Study Requirements:

1. Determine feasibility and ROM cost benefit analysis for utilizing aircraft test pod and additional infrastructure for ICBM guidance T&E purposes

1. Provide program plan including schedule and cost estimates to bring pod test capability to the Air Force

1. Determine feasibility of joint test capability with the Navy for current and future ICBM guidance systems

1. Provide more cost-effective and efficient T&E concept by reducing amount of consumed assets/test units

1. Increase in-flight reliability of aging components through surveillance of fielded guidance sets

Customer Interface: Customer interface requirements are detailed in Section “C” of this BAA

Final Delivery of Study: Study delivery requirements are detailed in Section “E” of this BAA

Contract Data Requirements:

A001 DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials A002 DI-ADMN-81505, Report, Record of Meeting Minutes A003 DI-MGMT-80368A/T, Status Report A004 DI-MGMT-81468, Contract Funds Status Report A005 DI-MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report – Study/Services A006 DI-MISC-80508B/T, Technical Report Study/Services (System Design Trade Study Report)

DI-MGMT-80368A, Status Report DI-MGMT-81468, Contract Funds Status Report DI-MISC-80508B, Technical Report – Study DI-MGMT-81605, Briefing Materials DI-ILSS-81021, System Design Trade Study Report DI-ADMN-81250A, Conference Minutes image1.jpeg