Project Sabre – Call 001

OVERVIEW

The Government issues this Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) Call solicitation in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3458 and DoD Class Deviation 2022-O0007 “Defense Commercial Solutions Opening”

NAICS Code and associated description: 518210

Federal Agency Name and Contracting Officer: Department of Air Force (DAF) Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Joseph Mizzi, joseph.mizzi@us.af.mil

Commercial Solutions Opening Title: This is a combined synopsis/solicitation: Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) – AFLCMC Project Sabre CSO, Closed, Two-Step, titled “Project Sabre – Call 001”

Commercial Solutions Opening Number: FA8694-26-S-C001

Commercial Solutions Opening Type: This is the initial announcement for Call 001. This will be a Two-Step Call solicitation. The Government intends to award either FAR Part 12, Firm Fixed Price contracts or Other Transaction for Prototype Projects pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 4022. The Government reserves the right to award all, part, or none of the proposals received. The Government is limited to awarding fixed-price instruments, regardless of whether a FAR-based contract or Other Transaction for Prototype.

First Step: SOLUTION BRIEF DUE DATE AND TIME: The Government will accept Solution Briefs until 6 March 2026. Offerors may submit Solution Briefs at any time during this period. The Government will consider Solution Briefs received after the specified date and time as late in accordance with FAR 52.212-1(f). Interested Vendors can submit clarifying questions to AFLCMC until two (2) weeks after the call is posted. AFLCMC will publish all received questions and AFLCMC’s responses (anticipated sixteen (16) days after call is posted) prior to the Solution Brief submission date. All submissions (questions and Solution Briefs) shall be made to the Project Sabre Org Box below.

Second Step: TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION DUE DATE AND TIME: Following the Step 1 evaluation, the Government may invite offerors whose Solution Briefs meet or exceed the evaluation criteria to participate in a Step 2 oral presentation and live demonstration of the commercially available product that is being considered and to submit a full price proposal of the iterated product at the end of the stated time frame below in selected focus areas and a Statement of Work. The Contracting Officer will issue the official request for this proposal and mailto:joseph.mizzi@us.af.mil will specify the definitive due date, time, and detailed submission instructions. Offerors must submit Solution Briefs via email to the Project Sabre Org Box:

aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil mailto:aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil

Project Sabre Call 001– Commercial Solutions Opening (CSO) Solicitation

Solicitation Method This is a procurement action using the commercial solutions opening (CSO) procedures in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3458, DFARS 212.2 “Special Requirements for the Acquisition of Commercial Items” and OUSW/A&S “Class Deviation- Defense Commercial Solutions Opening.”

We seek to competitively procure capabilities with the CSO procedures for innovative commercial items, technologies, and services currently in the production/commercialization phase as well as new adaptations of existing commercial products.

Project Description The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) is maturing, prototyping, and developing tooling to support Open Architectures (OAs) for various weapon systems and platforms. AFLCMC’s OAs decouple warfighting capabilities from specific vendors to ensure we get the needed effect on the right weapon system, on the right platform, at the right time.

The Government seeks multiple solutions for supporting the maturation of AFLCMC OAs through driving Change Packages, Model Based System Engineering (MBSE), prototyping, and Conformance. Potential offerors must be able to deliver modern hardware and software solutions to meet warfighter needs by the end of the CSO period. This CSO is seeking innovative solutions across five distinct technical Focus Areas.

Offerors may submit a Solution Brief for any Focus Area where they have relevant expertise.

Offerors may submit as many Solution Briefs as desired, but each Solution Brief may only address one Focus Area. The Focus Areas are as follows:

• Focus Area 1 – Sensor Open System Architecture® (SOSA) Consortium Nano Hardware:

Demonstrate a modular, reconfigurable nano-sized Radio Frequency (RF) payload for Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) and tube-launched systems. This effort will include a down-select after an initial three (3) month technical sprint.

• Focus Area 2 - SOSA 3U Hardware Conformance Tool: Deliver a reconfigurable test tool to verify that 3U Plug-In Cards conform to the SOSA hardware standard, including system management and automated report generation.

• Focus Area 3 –MBSE Automated Documentation, Code Generation, and Analysis: Apply

MBSE commercial best practices to develop and manage MBSE artifacts (SysML, FACE UDDL) and provide changes within the SOSA Consortium, Agile Mission Suite (AMS) Government Reference Architecture (GRA), and Universal Command and Control Interface (UCI) consortia.

• Focus Area 4 - Big Iron (BI) and AMS GRA Transition Guide Maturation and Training Material: Migrate BI software components to the AMS GRA, including the development of corresponding integration guides and training materials.

• Focus Area 5 - AMS GRA Software Conformance Tool: Deliver a scalable software tool to automatically verify that service components (MPUs) conform to the AMS GRA software interface and behavior standards.

1. SOSA Nano Hardware

Diagram 1: SOSA Nano Example Use Cases

This Focus Area will be executed using a multi-phase down-select approach. The Government intends to make multiple awards to multiple companies for an initial three (3) month 'technical sprint.' During this phase, performers will be evaluated on their ability to deliver an initial design and demonstrate a clear path toward a proof-of-concept. At the conclusion of the sprint, the Government will assess each performer's progress, technical maturity, and risk management. The most promising performer(s) will then be selected for a nine (9) month follow-on award (option) to complete the full scope of the project and deliver the final prototype.

AFLCMC requires a versatile, modular solution to implement passive and active Radio Frequency (RF) tube-mounted payloads for Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), for example, UAS Groups 1 through 2 utilizing 1"-2" tube-mounted enclosures deployed via high-G launch mechanisms from ground or airborne platforms. Due to a lack of an applicable nano form-factor standard, existing solutions for these platforms often come custom with no simple software upgrade path. This results in unsustainable procurement, lifecycle prices, and causes delivered hardware to become obsolete as new threats emerge. To close this gap, this CSO requires potential offerors to demonstrate and deliver a quickly reprogrammable and reconfigurable, multifunction RF payload in a nano (2.5cm x 2.5cm x 10cm) form factor that uses innovative and scalable MOSA solutions. Offerors should complete an initial design and a path to a proof-of-concept flight demonstration within three (3) months of the award, with the final proof-of-concept to be delivered by the end of nine (9) months (twelve (12) months total) with the possibility of an additional 3 years for further refinement.

This initiative should address and overcome the following critical pain points associated with developing advanced RF payloads for nano-scale systems:

a. Thermal Dissipation: Managing the significant heat generated by high-performance electronics within the extreme size, weight, power, and price (SWaP-C) constraints of a nano form factor. Offerors must design payloads to effectively dissipate thermal loads while operating in confined, tube-like containers, where airflow may be minimal.

b. Ruggedized: Offerors must design the system to be sufficiently rugged to survive the severe mechanical stresses of high-G launches and subsequent flight operations, ensuring the payload remains fully functional throughout its mission.

c. Secure Boot/Reprogramming: The system's reconfigurable nature introduces a major security consideration. A fundamental goal of this effort is to establish a robust and secure method for verifying and loading software and firmware updates in the field. This process must provide high confidence that any new software load is valid, trusted, and has not been tampered. This ensures the operational integrity and security of the system are maintained even as its capabilities are updated to counter emerging threats.

As depicted in Diagram 1, this effort will demonstrate at least two use cases, such as communication jamming (UHF/VHF) and counter-UAS with C2 coordination, to serve as an example of a successful nano demonstration. The primary output is a prototype capability implemented on a reconfigurable SOSA nano hardware solution that can be hosted and flown on a Group 1-2 UAS with various software capabilities. This prototype should incorporate heterogeneous processing elements like Single Board Computers (SBCs), Graphical Processing Units (GPUs), Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGAs), and System on Chips (SoCs). The prototype should be scalable, allowing for tailoring of capability based on platform SWaP-C. An example of scaling would allow the addition of RF channels or frequency bands as more resources become available.

The flyable prototype should implement various Open Architectures (OAs)—including the AMS GRA, UCI, and SOSA hardware—to identify and report limitations and necessary Change Packages to support Low SWaP-C applications. The objectives of the nano SOSA solution are aggressive and solutions that demonstrate current capability with a clear path to meet attributes will be heavily favored over a paper-only design or non-functional prototype. For instance, a functional prototype that slightly exceeds the nano form factor size is more desirable than a non-functioning prototype that meets hardware attributes. A proposed prototype does not need to meet every “desired” criterion, but generally the more that are met, the more valuable the solution is for the USG—especially in the final product.

Desired end-state hardware attributes for the flyable prototype demonstration:

a. Scalable Total Payload Volume: e.g., scalable from 63 (preferred) – 250 cubic cm

b. Scalable Operating Frequency: e.g., scalable across multiple frequency bands from 0.01

– 40 GHz

c. Configurable Instantaneous Bandwidth (IBW): e.g., configurable based on the function up to 2 GHz wide as the threshold with goal of 4 GHz or more; with potential for spectral stitching to achieve multiples of channel IBW

d. Scalable Number of full-duplex phase-coherent TX/RX channels: e.g., scalable from 1 up to 4 as the threshold with 16 as a goal

e. Radar and Electronic Attack (EA) Digital RF Memory (DRFM): RF front-end performance considerations (e.g., coherency, latency, sensitivity, flatness, receive/transmit gain, RF/digital tuning, spur-free dynamic range, etc.)

f. Scalable Power Amplifier Interface: e.g., amplifiers that are scalable from 1 W–100W, depending on application and frequency band; solutions should be focused on standard connectors to amplifiers

g. Various Heterogeneous Processing Elements: e.g., combinations of SBCs, GPPs, GPUs, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Accelerator, FPGAs, SoCs, Microprocessors, and other advanced processors

h. Secure reprogrammable and reconfigurable Heterogeneous Processing Elements:

combinations of SBC, GPP, GPU, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Accelerator, FPGA, SoC, Microprocessors, and other advanced processors

i. Design for rugged operating environments including high-G launch/dispense mechanisms and subsonic/supersonic flight

j. The design must include the capability of dissipating the internal heat load to the surrounding environment, ensuring stable operations within the designated volume across various mission durations, including, for example, high-power bursts (up to 10 minutes), standard missions (up to 1 hour), and continuous, long-endurance modes.

Desired end-state software attributes for the flyable prototype demonstration:

a. Software relevant to Communications, Radar, and Electronic Attack (EA) with RF front-end performance considerations (e.g., coherency, latency, sensitivity, flatness, receive/transmit gain, RF/digital tuning, etc.)

b. Utilization of AMS GRA Minimum Procurable Units (MPUs) as much as possible, leveraging industry-standard DevSecOps processes using automated tools.

Desired Deliverables:

a. SOSA and OA Change Packages: Based on the offeror’s lessons learned from executing this effort, deliver Change Packages to the SOSA, BI, and AMS GRA standards, enabling the standardization of the nano form factor and its use cases.

b. Hardware Interface Control Document (ICD): ICD that defines the payload's physical and logical interfaces. This ensures the hardware is modular and vendor interoperable.

c. Secure Reprogramming Protocol: Specification document that defines the protocol and data formats for securely reprogramming the payload.

d. Nano Hardware Prototype and Demonstration: The offeror will deliver a flight-ready hardware prototype and conduct a UAS demonstration.

e. Thermal/Performance Analysis and Simulations: The offeror will deliver all mathematical calculations, simulation, or empirical results regarding the payload's performance.

f. Implementation Models, Compliance Artifacts, and Source Code.

g. Mathematical calculations, model, simulations, or empirical data regarding thermal and performance limitations as a function of SWaP-C and enclosed volume.

h. A pricing model (e.g., Excel spreadsheet) that calculates the scalable procurement unit/license prices for Nano hardware and any required Board Support Package (BSP), software, or other components from this Focus Area.

i. A final report describing the body of work executed throughout this effort.

Desired Exit Criteria:

a. The SOSA Consortium receives Change Packages relating to standardizing the nano form factor and AMS GRA to support Low SWaP-C use cases relevant to the nano form factor.

b. Receipt of implementation models, compliance artifacts, and source code for delivery to United States Government (USG) pipeline.

c. The flyable prototype achieves the desired end-state attributes as much as possible with a roadmap to resolve deviations.

d. UAS demonstration of hardware and reprogrammable software solution with Heterogenous Processing Elements meeting two or more representative operational use cases.

Data Rights:

The USG requires sufficient data rights in the deliverables to scale the solution (e.g., Change Packages, secure reprogramming protocol, ICD, etc.) across SOSA ecosystem.

Progress Reports:

Progress shall be shown via standard monthly remote demos, with in-person demos and Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) available by request or for hardware specific reviews as agreed upon by the Performer and the Government.

2. SOSA 3U Hardware Conformance Tool The Government needs a SOSA 3U Plug-In Card (PIC) Conformance Tool to ensure 3U PICs are portable, allowing PICs to be procured and replaced by any vendor with confidence of performance and maintaining system integrity. Without strict testing, the Government cannot guarantee PICs are vendor agnostic, jeopardizing system integrity and resulting in unsustainable procurement and lifecycle prices with significant integration testing required for updates.

Potential offerors must demonstrate and deliver a reprogrammable and scalable hardware conformance tool that can be replicated by SOSA Verification Authorities (VAs) for conformance testing of 3U PICs. Offerors will complete the initial design and path to proof-of-concept within three (3) months of award. Offerors will complete the conformance tool by the end of a twelve

(12) month sprint.

Desired Deliverables:

a. SOSA Technical Standard Change Packages that address gaps in 3U PIC conformance

b. 3U PIC Test Tool

c. Out-of-Band System Management (as defined by the SOSA Technical Standard) test harness

d. In-Band System Management (as defined by the SOSA Technical Standard) test harness

e. Application Programming Interface (API) generated standardized machine-readable results and reports

f. A scalable pricing model for future use of the proposed solution

g. A final report describing the body of work executed throughout this effort

a. Submitted SOSA Technical Standard Change Packages relating to 3U PIC conformance and approach

b. Collaborate with other vendors to conduct a robust SOSA hardware conformance demonstration using 3U PIC test tool 3U PIC test tool demonstrated with a test harness for Out-of-Band and In-Band System Management

c. Automated API and software framework-based conformance report generation delivered to USG pipeline/marketplace

d. All Performers collaborate to meet the required deliverables by attending weekly meetings and necessary Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs)

The USG requires sufficient data rights to independently verify any vendor's hardware against the SOSA standard. The USG strongly prefers the ability to modify and distribute the conformance test suite across Government and industry test organizations.

Progress Reports:

Progress shall be shown via standard monthly remote demos, with in-person demos and

3. MBSE Automated Documentation, Code Generation, and Analysis The USG needs to efficiently represent an authoritative model of our technical standards and rapidly (automatically) generate technical documentation, scripts, schema, and code. Currently this is a manual, one-off, and error-prone process. Additionally, the USG seeks to fully integrate the technical standards wherever possible with combined MBSE artifacts—e.g., SOSA Technical Standard with AMS GRA.

The USG seeks innovative commercial products that can efficiently generate documentation from an MBSE single source of truth (i.e., Open Universal Domain Description Language (UDDL) data model and SysML architecture model). Outputs of this effort should be complete in coverage of the standards and of sufficient maturity to allow migration to these products as the authoritative source of truth of the standards. For example, there is the lack of consistent and stable tooling to generate AsciiDoc or LaTeX from MBSE sources (i.e., data model in UDDL and architecture model in SysML). The Government desires PDF artifacts to be fully generated from an MBSE single source of truth that are independent on the underlying vendor specific modeling tools (e.g., Cameo). As another example, UCI is currently defined as a single XML schema file with no clearly defined normative behavior (sequence diagrams for messages), nor does it provide a straightforward method to convert to alternative formats (e.g., Protobuf). The Government desires many data formats (i.e., Proto, OMG IDL, etc.) to be generated from MBSE single source of truth along with documentation describing the expected behavior (i.e., sequence diagrams, state machines, etc.).

Additionally, as standards evolve, merging and integrating these standards to fill capability gaps versus reinventing the wheel is desirable (i.e., AMS GRA integration with the SOSA Technical Standard). The USG seeks innovative commercial products that can efficiently analyze and integrate MBSE single source of truth, such that there are not redundant capabilities within the Air Force Open Architecture standards. The Government expects the base period to run for approximately two (2) months with multiple option periods lasting approximately two (2) months each. The total period of performance will run approximately twelve (12) months.

Desired Deliverables:

a. MBSE single source of truth architecture model in SysML

b. MBSE single source of truth data model in Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) implementation of Open Universal Domain Description Language (UDDL)

c. Code / tools to automatically generate documents, code, and schemas from the MBSE single source of truth

d. Code / tools to analyze MBSE single source of truth of multiple standards for path to alignment

e. Relevant software and/or hardware prototypes proving MBSE integration activities

Desired Exit Criteria:

a. Updated MBSE single source of truth is adoptable by the appropriate standards body (i.e., SOSA Consortium, AMS GRA Consortium, and UCI Consortium)

b. All standard documentation can be generated from the MBSE single source of truth that is independent on underlying SysML or UDDL modeling tool

c. Analysis and integration of two standards (i.e., AMS GRA and SOSA Technical Standard) is actionable

d. Relevant integration prototypes of MBSE integration activities meet the desired intent of the corresponding target standards (i.e., AMS GRA and SOSA Technical Standard)

The USG requires sufficient data rights to establish and maintain an authoritative, vendor-neutral set of MBSE single source of truth and corresponding generated documentation, ensuring the Government can use, modify, and distribute the architecture across Government and industry stakeholders.

Progress Reports:

Progress shall be shown via standard monthly remote demos, with in-person demos and

Note: The Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) MBSE artifacts of AMS GRA and output PDF as well as the Distro A SOSA Data Model and output ICD and Interface Definition Language (IDL) are available for interested offerors. Offerors must send a request to the Project Sabre Org Box at aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil along with their CMMC Level 2 Self-Attestation Form or equivalent documentation showing the ability to handle CUI material. The Government team will then coordinate the secure delivery of the requested standards via DoD SAFE.

4. Big Iron (BI) and AMS GRA Transition Guide Maturation and Training Material Maturation of the BI 4.0 to AMS 14.0+ Transition Guide enables BI adopters to successfully transition existing COTS/GOTS BI capabilities to the newest version of the AMS GRA standard.

The current Transition Guide includes instructions for BI MPU / Apps to be migrated to AMS GRA MPU skills without the use of adapters.

To ensure the guide is practical and effective, the offeror will migrate and demonstrate exemplar BI MPUs to AMS MPUs using their existing product lines. The offeror will use the lessons learned from this hands-on process to continuously refine the Transition Guide and establish a proven, repeatable transition path for the wider community of BI adopters. Beyond the direct deliverables to the USG, a key objective is for the offeror to leverage the developed expertise and materials to establish a commercially viable solution providing migration services and training to the broader BI adopter community. Offerors will complete the initial design and path to proof-of-concept within three (3) months of award. Offerors will deliver the Transition Guide, training material, and MPUs to the USG by the end of a nine (9) month effort.

Desired Deliverables:

a. Updated Transition Guide including Solicited BI Adopter Feedback

b. Offerors deliver software skills to the USG pipeline with software compliance artifacts

c. Training material to inform other vendors migrating capabilities from BI to AMS GRA

d. Integration analysis, gaps report, and recommended AMS GRA Change Packages

e. For broad BI stakeholder consumption, provide exemplar BI 4.0 MPUs to AMS 14.0+ MPUs that provide relevant IR or RF demonstration with performance analysis on integration impact and effort to migrate

a. Transition Guide has sufficient detail for BI 4.0 adopters to follow with minimal need to reach back to the originating authors

b. Offeror provides a demonstration that sufficiently shows the usage of the Transition Guide to convert BI 4.0 MPUs to AMS 14.0+ MPUs

The USG requires sufficient data rights to freely distribute, modify, and use the Transition Guide and training materials to enable a community of Government and industry partners to independently integrate software into the AMS GRA ecosystem.

Progress Reports:

Progress shall be shown via standard monthly remote demos, with in-person demos and Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) available on request or for hardware specific reviews as agreed upon by the Performer and the Government as well as ad hoc check in ability by the Government to track progress.

Note: The Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) documents for the AMS GRA, Open Mission Systems (OMS), and BI standards are available upon request. To receive these materials, interested offerors must send a request to the Project Sabre Org Box at aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil along with their CMMC Level 2 Self- Attestation Form or Equivalent documentation showing the ability to handle CUI material. The Government team will then coordinate the secure delivery of the requested standards via DoD SAFE.

5. AMS GRA Software Conformance Tool The USG needs assurance that procured AMS GRA 14.0+ software can be modular/swapable with confidence in performance and maintaining system integrity. To that end, the USG seeks a conformance tool to maximally automate AMS GRA conformance verification. The performer should identify any AMS GRA compliance requirements not verifiable through automated methods and create AMS GRA change packages to enable automated verification in alignment with commercial best practices.

Potential offerors must demonstrate and deliver a reprogrammable and scalable software conformance tool that can be replicated by Verification Authorities (VAs) for AMS GRA 14.0+ AMS Service MPUs. Offerors will complete the initial design and path to proof-of-concept within three (3) months of award. Offerors will deliver the completed tool/prototype to the USG by the end of nine (9) months.

Desired Deliverables:

a. AMS GRA Change Packages for updates to AMS GRA MPU compliance requirements to support automated verification

b. AMS GRA 14.0+ MPU software conformance tool for interfaces and behavior

c. Exemplar AMS 14.0+ MPUs delivered to USG pipeline

d. A scalable pricing model for future use of the proposed solution

e. A final report describing the body of work executed throughout this effort

Desired Exit Criteria:

a. AMS GRA 14.0+ Change Packages provide requirement updates for automated compliance verification

b. Exemplar AMS GRA 14.0+ MPUs pass/fail automated compliance checks as expected

Data Rights:

The USG requires sufficient data rights to independently verify any vendor's software against the AMS GRA standard. The USG strongly prefers the ability to modify and distribute the conformance test suite across Government and industry test organizations.

Step 1: Solution Brief Submission Attributes Submission Guidelines

• Focus: Offerors may submit proposals for multiple Focus Areas, but each Solution Brief submission must address only one Focus Area.

• Format: Submissions are limited to either five (5) single-sided pages (12-point font) or ten (10) presentation slides.

• Deadline: The Government must receive all materials by 6 March 2026. Early submissions are strongly encouraged.

• Submission Email: aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil

Required Content The Solution Brief must contain the following sections:

1. Contact Information

• Provide the Offeror Name, Title, Date, Point of Contact (Name, Email, Phone), and Company Address.

2. Technical Approach

• Describe the proposed technology and its relevance to the project description for the chosen Focus Area.

• Commercial Item Compliance: Clarify how the proposed solution and services meet the CSO-required definitions of “commercial item” and/or “commercial services.”

• Data Rights Strategy: Specify the proposed data rights framework for both the core commercial capabilities and any modifications. Describe the rights associated with Government-imported, Government-generated, or Government-derived data. Explain how the proposed approach meets the stated Government data-rights intent for that Focus Area.

3. Execution Plan & Budgetary Estimate

• Provide a project schedule or management framework (e.g., Agile) that outlines the phases of work. The Government prefers an initial effort of approximately three (3) months that delivers a clear “minimum viable product” before pursuing longer-term activities.

• Budgetary Estimate: Provide a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) price for the proposed approach.

• Milestone Schedule: Include a high-level milestone schedule that aligns with the proposed tasks and deliverables.

4. Company Profile & Qualifications

• CUI Environment Capability (Mandatory): Confirm and describe the company's capability and experience in performing work and handling data within a Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) environment. Failure to affirm this capability will cause the Government to deem the submission non-selectable.

• Contract Vehicle Eligibility: State if your company is seeking an Other Transaction (OT) agreement and, if so, the basis for such an award (e.g., Non-Traditional Defense contractor status).

• Management Team: Identify the key personnel who will execute the effort, including their backgrounds and relevant experience.

5. Data Rights Assertions, if applicable

• Include assertions for the underlying commercial item(s) and new development, as applicable.

The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred by offerors in the preparation of their Solution Briefs. These costs are not recoverable.

Solution Brief Evaluation Solution brief evaluation criteria are listed in descending order of importance. The Government will evaluate individual solution briefs against the evaluation criteria described below.

Individual solution briefs will be evaluated without regard to other offeror submissions received under this announcement:

1. Is the vendor able to work in a CUI environment AND do they highlight a novel application of a commercial product.

2. The technical approach and merit of the proposed solution, including the extent to which the proposed solution is unique, or innovative to Government application.

3. Data rights presented adequately meet the Government’s objectives.

4. The scope of work is commensurate with the proposed price.

The Government intends to invite only the most highly rated offerors to proceed to Step 2. The Government may assess a submission as having merit but may not be selected for an invitation if it is not among the top-rated proposals. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of demonstrations to the most promising solutions. Following the evaluation, The Government will notify all offerors in writing of their status. The Government will evaluate Solution Briefs in accordance with the criteria established in this announcement. Based on the evaluation, the Government will categorize Solution Briefs as “Selectable Plus,” “Selectable,” or “Not Selectable.”

• Selectable Plus: Vendor has adequate approach regarding their solution to solve the objectives of this Call and is best suited to meet the needs of the Government requirement.

• Selectable: Vendor has adequate approach regarding their solution to solve the objectives of this Call.

• Not Selectable: Vendor does not have adequate approach regarding their solution to solve the objectives of this Call.

The Government will notify unsuccessful offerors, either via email or letter, to inform them that the proposed effort is not of interest to the Government at this time.

STEP 2 INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors whose Solution Briefs are determined to be “Selectable Plus” or “Selectable” from Step 1 may be invited to Step 2: an in-person oral presentation/technology demonstration, full price proposal, and a Task Order Statement of Work. The Government anticipates scheduling these demonstrations in Dayton, Ohio within 30 days of the Solution Brief selection notification. Step 2 consists of the following components:

Step 2A – Demonstration The Contracting Officer will issue an official invitation letter for the demonstration. Offerors shall submit all presentation materials (e.g., slide decks) to be used by the offeror during the technology demonstration in advance to Mr. Joseph Mizzi at aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil. Acceptable file formats include PDF, Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. The invitation letter will specify the submission deadline for these materials. The Offeror should also submit a pre-recorded video of the demonstration as a backup to the live demonstration, but the Offeror will use their own hardware to run the live technical demonstration.

Step 2B – Price Proposal: When invited to an in-person oral presentation/technology demonstration, offerors will (in parallel) submit a price proposal that includes the following pricing information:

a. Overall price summary: a price summary by task, expected monthly price summary, direct, and indirect rates;

b. Labor and Rate breakouts: For example, labor shall include total hours for each labor category for each task. The format shall be Rates x Hours = Total amount for each Labor Category and shall be presented in a Live, Editable Excel file (not in PDF);

c. A consolidated bill of materials (CBOM), if the proposal includes material prices;

d. Any additional pricing information to benefit the Government in evaluating price reasonableness.

e. Certification that the pricing data remains binding if an agreement or contract is awarded within 120 days.

Step 2C – Task Order Statement of Work (SOW): When invited to an in-person oral presentation/technology demonstration, offerors will (in parallel) also submit a SOW that includes the following information:

1. A SOW/Work Plan must be included with the full proposal. The SOW/Work Plan shall not exceed 10 pages in length and must be a separate and distinct document suitable for incorporation into the procurement instrument. Do not include proprietary data or markings in the SOW. Offerors should number pages and the initial page should have a date (document date) shown under the title.

2. The proposed SOW/Work Plan shall accurately describe the work to be performed. The proposed SOW/Work Plan shall also contain a summary description of the technical methodology as well as the task description, but not in so much detail as to make the SOW/Work Plan inflexible. The SOW/Work Plan template shall include the following sections and specifically respond to all technical requirements as detailed in Attachment 1, “Technical Requirements” in the Call:

a. OBJECTIVE. This section is intended to give a brief overview of the project and shall describe why the work is being pursued and what the Offeror intends to accomplish.

b. SCOPE. This section includes a statement of what the SOW/Work Plan covers.

This section shall describe technical requirements to be met, goals, and milestones for the effort.

c. BACKGROUND. The Offeror shall identify appropriate documents that are applicable to the effort to be performed. This section includes any information, explanations, or constraints that are necessary to understand the project tasks and requirements. This section shall describe the effort’s relationship to previous and ongoing efforts.

d. TASKS AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. This section contains the detailed description of all the tasks that are necessary to perform the proposed work.

These tasks shall represent the work to be performed in any potential contract/agreement award, and, thus, shall be considered contractually/legally binding when the SOW/Work Plan is attached to the contract/agreement award.

This section should be developed in an orderly progression and presented in sufficient detail to establish the feasibility of accomplishing the overall program goals. This section should clearly distinguish base period tasks from option tasks (if applicable). The SOW/Work Plan must contain every task to be accomplished.

Note that the Government reserves the right to negotiate the language in the SOW/Work Plan prior to any potential contract/agreement award.

3. Task descriptions shall be definite, realistic, and clearly stated. Use the phrase “the performer shall” whenever the work statement expresses a provision that is binding.

Use “should” or “may” whenever it is necessary to express a declaration of purpose. Use “will” in cases where no Offeror requirement is involved (e.g., power will be supplied by the Government). Use active voice in describing work to be performed.

4. Do not use acronyms or abbreviations without first defining them. Place abbreviations and acronyms in parentheses following the first usage of the spelled-out phrase.

5. If presentations and meetings are identified in the Offeror’s schedule, the Offeror must include the following statement in the SOW/Work Plan: “Conduct presentations and meetings at times and places specified in the contract schedule.”

6. The desired project structure consists of base period tasks, focused on demonstrating the feasibility of the technology, and option tasks (if applicable), which cover design, fabrication, testing, and evaluation of the final product. Option task execution will depend upon and determined by the contractor/performer’s performance during, and the results produced after, the base period tasks.

STEP 2 Evaluation Offerors invited to Step 2 will be evaluated through technical evaluation and price. No other criteria will be used. Technical evaluation is more important than price.

Technical The Government will evaluate the offeror’s solution proposed during its demonstration, including presentation material, against the evaluation criteria described below. The Government will use a Pass/Fail system for the first two evaluation criteria. If the Government renders the first two factors for the proposed solution as “Pass,” the proposal will be evaluated against criteria three through five below, which are in descending order of importance. Each demonstration and supporting material shall be evaluated on its individual merits rather than on a comparative basis with other offerors.

Technical Factors:

• The proposed solution is relevant and directly addresses the problem statement, objectives, and requirements outlined in the selected Focus Area. (Pass/Fail)

• The offeror's proposed data rights assertions adequately meet the Government’s stated Focus Area data-rights intent. (Pass/Fail)

• The extent to which the proposed solution possesses strong technical merit, is feasible, and is supported by a clear and credible plan for identifying, managing, and mitigating technical and programmatic risks.

• The extent to which the offeror demonstrates company viability, possesses a qualified management team, and has provided a sound and acceptable notional schedule for project execution.

• The extent to which the solution presents a unique, underutilized, or innovative application of commercial technology, products, or practices that provides a compelling advantage over traditional approaches.

Technical Ratings:

The Government will rate each proposal as “Exceeds,” “Meets,” or “Does Not Meet.”

• Exceeds: The proposal receives a “Pass” rating in criteria one and two, and is best situated to successfully satisfy program requirements. Proposal is highly recommended and prioritized for award, subject to available funding.

• Meets: The proposal receives a “Pass” rating in criteria one and two, and satisfies the program requirements of the remaining evaluation criteria. Proposal is awardable, subject to available funding but is not of the highest award priority.

• Does Not Meet: The proposal receives a “Fail” rating in criteria one or two, or otherwise fails to meet the program requirements of the remaining evaluation criteria or requirements of Step 2. Proposal is not awardable regardless of fund availability.

Price The Government shall use the following price proposal evaluation factors:

• Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate the price proposal utilizing various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of a competitive business.

• Unbalanced Pricing: The price of one or more contract line items or phase is significantly over or understated. The Contracting Officer may reject an offer if they determine that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Each Step 2 proposal shall be evaluated on its individual merits rather than on a comparative basis with other offerors. The Government will select offeror(s) for award that best satisfy the Government’s requirements based on the above evaluation criteria. The selection of one or more sources for award will be based on the Government’s funding availability.

Once the Government determines the offeror(s) that are most advantageous to the Government based on the above evaluation of initial responses, the Government may communicate with only that best suited offeror(s) to address any remaining issues. These issues may include Technical, price, or contract/OTA terms. If the parties cannot successfully negotiate any remaining issues, as determined relevant by the Government, the Government reserves the right to communicate with the next best suited offeror.

For each offeror selected for one or more Task Order award(s), the Government will award the offeror an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) instrument covering the scope for the Focus Area(s) for which they scored a “Meets” technical rating or above. While scoring a “Meets” or “Exceeds” in a Focus Area creates scope at the IDIQ level, it does not necessarily result in a Task Order award at this time, which is based on the aforementioned methodology.

It does, however, preserve the ability to obtain future Task Order awards for the associated Focus Area(s).

The Government is not responsible for any costs incurred by offerors in preparation of their proposal submissions and, if invited, any costs associated with attending and providing a technical demonstration. These costs are not recoverable.

Contracts/OTA Award Details The Government intends to award several single-award IDIQ vehicles (either OTA or FAR contracts) wherein there will NOT be competition at the Order level. This is in best interest of Government to preserve speed and flexibility. However, the Government reserves the right to compete at the Order level, based on Government discretion. Further, the Government reserves the right to use Fair Opportunity competition for FAR-based IDIQs.

The Government reserves the right to award any follow-on task order for any topic to allow for scaling to meet the Government’s needs provided that such follow-on task order could reasonably be foreseeable and is within scope of the overall effort.

The Government may competitively award OTs for prototype projects that provide for the award of a follow-on production contract or OT for production to participants in the OT for prototype projects without the use of further competitive procedures, if the participant in the OT for prototype projects successfully completes the prototype project, as permitted by 10 U.S.C. 4022(f).

Proprietary Markings Offerors must mark any pages of any proposal documentation that contain business plans, technical information, pricing or other business sensitive information as proprietary information, which the Government agrees to safeguard. Where applicable, use the following language on the cover page:

“This document includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government, except to non- Government personnel for evaluation purposes, and shall not be duplicated, used, or disclosed --in whole or in part -- for any purpose other than to evaluate this submission. If, however, an agreement is awarded to this Company as a result of -- or in connection with -- the submission of this data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or disclose the data to the extent agreed upon by both parties in the resulting agreement. The data subject to this restriction are contained in sheets [insert numbers or other identification of sheets].”

Offerors must mark each restricted data sheet as follows:

“Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of this document.”

Data Rights All Step 1 submissions shall include Data Rights Assertions, if applicable. The Government reserves the right to negotiate data rights as part of the Contracting/Agreement process, if vendors are selected to proceed to Step 2. The Government also reserves the right to tailor the data management approach for each individual effort based on the needs for each situation.

For this Call, it is important the vendor identify all data rights limitations relating to the underlying commercial item(s), and the new development component, as applicable.

Notification to Offeror Upon completion of all evaluation phases, the Government will notify each offeror that submitted a Full price Proposal whether their proposal has been:

- selected for award

- selected pending further discussions or negotiations prior to award

- not selected for award

Points of Contact

Contracting/Agreements Officers: Joseph Mizzi, joseph.mizzi@us.af.mil Program Manager: 1st Lt Jared Wright, Jared.wright.9@us.af.mil Engineering: Garrett Sargent, garrett.sargent.ctr@us.af.mil Project Sabre Org Box: aflcmc.wa.projectsabrecso@us.af.mil

Other Terms and Conditions Refer to the Overarching CSO for other terms and conditions.